Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 04/25/19951 2 3 5 6 7 9 10 (a co co aft 20 21 22 23 24 25 6 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY HALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. April 25, 1995 7 :00 P.M. PETALUMA, CA ROLL CALL: Present: Feibusch, Stompe, Thompson *, Torliatt, vonRaesfeld (arrived at 7:10), Wick; Absent: Rahman STAFF: Pamela Tuft, Planning Director James McCann, Principal Planner * Chairman APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of April 11, 1995 were approved. PUBLIC COMMENT: David Mayer - 34 Vallejo St. - Raised concerns with violation of the Taco Bell CUP; primary issues: security provisions /requirements and litter removal. Staff will investigate and provide an update at the next meeting. Commissioner Stompe - Requested staff describe procedure for CUP compliance and revocation. Planning Director Tuft - Process outlined in Zoning Ordinance - threat of suspension of Use Permit; revocation hearing before Planning Commission, staff is working on citation process (daily basis citation); staff. contacts Taco Bell when violations are seen - by phone or letter; issue of security has been handled by Police Department to date; believes security guard problem is a miscommunication. Commissioner Thompson - Has City notified Taco Bell in writing that they are not in compliance? Planning Director Tuft - Yes, in March - they indicated that they would apply for a modification to allow reduction of security staff on weekdays. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: None. COMMISSIONER'S REPORT: None. CORRESPONDENCE: Four letters regarding Park Place PUD Amendment request. APPEAL STATEMENT: Was read. LEGAL RECOURSE .STATEMENT: Was noted on the agenda. .= IV ,? , I NEW BUSINESS /PUBLIC HEARING I. ALLISON MANGON; PUD AMENDMENT FOR PARK .PLACE I; NORTH MCDOWELL BLVD. AT RAINIER AVENUE (100 LOTS), REZ0137(dh). Consideration of an amendment to the Park Place Phase 1 Planned Unit Development Standards to permit accessory structures. Principal Planner Jim McCann presented the staff report. The public hearing was opened. SPEAKERS: Commissioner Stombe - there appear to be several lamer buildings in. the neighborhood (over 120 sq.ft.) what would happen to those buildings if the PUD Amendment is approved. Planning Director Tuft - the buildings would have to be legalized by reducing their size or further amending the PUD Standards. Commissioner Thompson - where did recommendation for not more than 40% lot coverage come from? Principal Planner McCann - Currently in PUD Standards. Commissioner vonRaesfeld if this structure was attached (not detached), and met all other criteria, would an addition be allowed? Principal Planner McCann - Yes, but it could not be a garage (limits in PUD to one 2 -car garage). Allison Mangon - applicant - would like to build a 20 x 40 utility shed; distributed information and pictures of detached buildings already in existence Jn subdivision; not asking for setback or Building Code variance; this building would be at least 30 feet from any other home; met with neighborhood to let them know use planned for this building; recommendation to allow a 200 sq.ft. structure. would not be big enough for her purposes; garage conversions are allowed 37 names on petition in support, of this amendment; no driveway or in and out use of this structure planned; wants to keep neighborhood clean and safe; roofing material will be tile to match existing homes; please approve. Madeline Ashe - 421 Yosemite Ct. - agrees with staff recommendation to allow 200 sq.ft. accessory structure; objection to location proposed for structure; atrium area between homes is one of selling points; Park Place unique; with this feature; if structures are allowed in atrium area, it will impact value of home for resale; restrict to backyard areas and a maximum 200 sq.ft. Gary Summers - 716 'Carlsbad Court - does not support amendment to PUD; purchased home in 1984 with existing CC &R's still supports these conditions; 800 sq:ft. building is excessive (4 times what staff is proposing); even. with setbacks, such a large building would block sunlight, etc.; structure would run from his front door along side of house, to his rear yard; if an amendment passed, revised guidelines should reflect staff recommendations if any amendment allowed; a physical inspection should also be required since these lots have zero lot lines. David.-Rank - 712 Carlsbad - another, neighbor was told that they were going to be painting motorcycles in this building; Ms. Mangon now says a car and /or boat will be stored in building; appearance of this building would adversely affect resale value of other homes;. 120 sq.ft. building is adequate. Janice Cader- Thompson 732 Carlsbad Court - thanks Planning staff .for all work on this project; prefers 120 sq.ft. maximum, but 200 sq.ft. recommendation by staff would be reasonable for some of the larger lots; some of people signing petition were not aware that 2 L r�� 1 proposed building was to be 800 sq.ft. - not just a garden shed; supports staff 2 recommendation, this would require permits and setbacks; do not allow this requested 3 amendment. 4 Bob Green - 311 Olympic Court - glad to see that an amendment is being requested; 200 5 sq.ft. structure seems fine; concerns with height (15 feet very high), would block lots of 6 sunlight; should have a way to restrict use of buildings. 7 8 The public hearing was closed. 9 10 Commissioner Thompson - will all buildings in excess of what we decide tonight become (Z illegal? Planning Director Tuft - They are already illegal, some may, however, be in compliance with the; amended standards. Commissioner Thompson - will Planning Department enforce these violations? Planning Director Tuft - now that we have this knowledge, we will follow up with letter after Council action. Commissioner vonRaesfeld - If something is changed tonight, wouldn't the CC &R's still be there? ' 19 Principal Planner McCann - Yes, CC &R's would still be in effect - CC &'R's would need to 20 be amended also; the CC &R's are a private instrument affecting all of the private property. 21 Commissioner vonRaesfeld - I think that we've got the cart before horse - will abstain or 22 vote no because CC &R's are in effect; if we made..amendment which would allow a permit 23 to be issued that would make a situation not in compliance with CC &R's, that would be 1 24 causing a lot of extra problems. 25 Planning Director Tuft - entire subdivision was noticed of this because it is a PUD /Zoning 26 Amendment; there is no Homeowner's Association. 27 Commissioner Stompe - is it unusual not to have a Homeowner's Association with 28 CC &R's ?; if there is no action tonight, what will happen to other illegal structures in 29 subdivision? 30 Commissioner Thompson - are roofing materials a part of CC &R's or of PUD or both? 31 Planning Director Tuft - part of CC &R's (Architectural Review Committee must approve), 32 also part of PUD. 33 Commissioner Thompson - believes 120 sq.ft. accessory buildings should be legal; 34 Commission should not be garden shed police. 35 Commissioner vonRaesfeld - would like a sense. of entire neighborhood regarding 120 sq.ft. 36 structures - how do neighbors feel about 200 sq.ft. structures? (members of audience don't 37 object to 120 sq.ft.). 38 Commissioner Thompson - Would agree to amend PUD to allow up to 120 sq.ft. 39 Commissioner Stompe - can staff explain why they are recommending approval of 200 sq.ft. 40 building as opposed to 120 sq.ft.? 41 Principal Planner McCann - 200 sq.ft. reasonable size for common storage uses. 42 43 A motion was made by Commissioner Wick and seconded by Commissioner Stompe to find 44 this action exempt from CEQA and to recommend to the City Council approval of an 45 amendment to Condition 5 of PUD Resolution 84 -275 based on the amended conditions 46 listed below: 47 48 COMMISSIONER STOMPS: Yes 49 COMMISSIONER FEIBUSCH: No 50 COMMISSIONER_ RAHMAN: Absent 51 CHAIRPERSON THOMPSON: Yes 52 COMMISSIONER. WICK: Yes 53 COMMISSIONER TORLIATT: Yes 54 COMMISSIONER vonRAESFELD: No 3 !, , ' Conditions 1. Detached Accessory Structures shall be permitted, subject to Petaluma. Zoning Ordinance Section 21 -200 and the following regulations of the Park Place: Phase I Planned Unit Development Guidelines: a. Perrnitted area of detached accessory structures shall be limited to 200 sq.ft. or less in order to comply with a total lot coverage of all structures not to exceed 40 %. b. Detached accessory structures shall be compatible with the existing structure in architectural styling and exterior colors and materials. C. Detached accessory structures may be used for storage and workshop purposes. The structures shall not be utilized as a guest house, dwelling unit, garage or any commercial use. d. Detached accessory structures shall be allowed only in rear yard areas, not atrium areas or front yards. II. PROJECT STATUS: Adobe House - Conceptual, review to SPARC - many good comments made, revised plans, -- much better, received. Petaluma Queen - Temporary Restraining Order denied; approaching time limitations to remove floating storage building and conclude constniction on permanent storage structure. McNear Landing Significant design concerns; application withdrawn-, higher density; applicant reviewed staff report and Commission comments Staff now working with another developer on preliminary review of a project which meets the General' Plan density. Cross. Creek - another meeting tomorrow night; project was redesigned after last neighborhood meeting. 36 37 38 39 40 ADJOURNMENT 8:45 PM. min425 / plan60 4 .