HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 7.A-Attch06 09/13/20045 ATTACHMENT M:ENT 6
1 CITY OF.PE,TALUVIA, CALIFORNIA
2 MEMORANDUM
3
4 Community Development De arthrent, Planning Divisioii, 11 English &eet, Petaluma, CA 94952
5 (707) -4301 Fax (70,7).778-4498 E- Mail' Cdd(&ci.petaluma.ca.us
6
7 DATE: April 27, 2004 . AGENDA ITEM NO. II
8
9 TO: Planning'Commission
10 .
11 FROM: Kim Gordon, Assistant Planner
12
13 SUBJECT: SWEED SCHOOL ADAPTIVE REUSE & NEW.CARRIAGE UNITS
14 REZONE TO PLANNED UNIT DISTRICT (03 -REZ -0067)
15 14 -LOT TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
16 331 KELLER STREET, AP 006- 213 =004, OAKI-IILL- BREWSTER HISTORIC
17 DISTRICT
18
0 9
9n RECOMMEBV®A.1003
.21 1
22 Staff recommends that'the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to City Council to:
23
24 1. Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proj;pct.,
25
26 2. Rezone the project site to the Sweed School Townhouse Planned Unit District.
27
28 3. Adopt the Uriit Deyelopment Plan for the Sweed School Townhouse Planned Unit
29 District.
30
31 4. `Adopt: the Development Standards forAhe Sweed School Townhouse Planned
32 Unit,District.
33
34 5. Approve the Tentative Subdivision Map.
35
36 :' 9t0 ECT` $U M9A1tY
37
3.8 Project: Name: Sweed School Planned Unit District
39 Address: 331 Keller- Street
0 .0. APN: 006 -213 -004
41 Project Vile No.: 03 -REZ -0067
Sweed School Planned Unit District April 27, 2004
03 -REZ -0067 Page 1
y; T i
I Project Planner: Kim Gordon. Assistant Planner
2 Project •±
of _ Applicant: Mama Poncel, West.Bay Builders
3 Property'Owner: P & K Properties
4 Property Size: 311,906 square feet (0.73 acres)'
5 Site Characteristics- The subject parcel is located at 331 Keller Street -in the;0akhi'll- Brewster
6 Historic District.. The parcel has frontage on Keller Street and Liberty Street. The. site is
7 developed with the historic.. Phillip Sweed School building. There are two large pine trees,, three
8 small trees, and lawn on the Keller Street side of the site and the majority of the ofthe
9 site is paved.
10 Existing Use: The existing building on `the site is vacant.
i 1 Proposed Uses: The project proposes to adaptively reuse and convert the existing historic
1 building into 11 `.townhouse units on 11 individual parcels, to construct 3 . residential units; on 3
13 individual arcels an
p , d to create one common area parcel for parking,7 access, and common-yard
14 areas.
15' Current'Z'oning: Garden Apartment Residential (RMG). and Oakhill- Brewster Historic District
1.6 Proposed 'Zon ling: Planned Unit.District (PUD) '
17 Current General Plan Land Use Designations: Urban High
18 Proposed :General Plan, Land Use Designation: No change
19 Subsequent Actions if Project is Approved:
20 City Council Review and Approval
21 o Historic: - and Cultural Preservation Committee Review and Approval
22 e
Improvement Plans/Final Map
23 9 Grading and Building Permits
24
?s PROJECT''DES.CRWTI'Olel
26 -
27 The applicant, is seeking approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map and a Rezoning to Planned
28 Unit District (PUD) for a 14 -lot residential subdivision with a common area ; parcel on a 31,9Q6
29 square .foot site. The site is located on Keller 'Street between Oak and Prospect Streets; in the
30 Oakhill- -Brewster Historic District, and has frontage on both.. Keller Street ;and Liberty Street (See
31 Attachment G; Context Map). A Unit Development: Plan and PUD Guidelines for the project are
32 also proposed.
33
34 The Sweed. School building would be adaptively reused and converted to 11 townhouses on dots
35 ranging 'in size from 909 square feet to.
o 1,3''51 square feet. The Sweed School building
36 townhouses would range in size from 1,230 square feet to 1,916 square feet. Three new units
37 with covered parking underneath would 'be constructed in two buildings on the Liberty Street:
38 side of the site.. The three new units on Liberty Street would be located on lots ranging in size
39 from 1,584 square feet to 3,732 square feet. The umts would, range in size from 1,292 square feet
40 to 2,226 square feet. The project includes '13 two bedroorim units, and 1 three bedroom, `un t. The
41 project will be accessed from a 'single driveway on Liberty Street. The project includes 29
Sweed School Planned Unit District April 27, 2004
03 -REZ -0067 Page:2
i .,1
1 parking spaces; which is one parking space per, bedroom. Of these, 15 are covered' and 14 are
2 uncovered.
3
4 REQUESTED APPROUAL$
5 The applicant has applied, , to. ffict City for a tentative subdivision map rezoning , Lof the subject
6 property from the Garden Apartment Residential (RMG) to Planned Unit District (PUD), and the
7 adoption of a Unit Development - , Plan ,(See Attachment M) 'and PUD Guidelines for the Sweed
8 School Townhouse'Paanned Unit District (See Attachment L).
9 Following _Planning Commission action, the application will be reviewed -,by the City Council.
10 After City Council action, the Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee. will review the site,
11 architectural, lighting and ,landscaping plans and Unit Development Plan and PUD Guidelines
12 for the project.
13 BACKGROUND
14 Prior Uses of Site
15 The project site is occupied by .the historic Phillip Sweed School `building that was designed by
16 architect Brainerd Jones and., constructed , in 1,927. For the past several years, the building has
17 been vacant. Since .the building has been vacant, it has been sprayed with graffiti and vandalized,
18 including the destruction iof several of the existing windows and damage to the interior of the
AW building..Previous uses. of the site include a charter school, the University of Advanced Studies,
and a union administration and meeting hall.
21 Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee Preliminary Review
22 The Historic and, Cultural Preservation Committee conducted two preliminary architectural and
23 site plan reviews of the proposed project,, - the first on April 11 2002 (See, Attachment K). After
.24 making modifica'tions.to the' project based on the comments received from the Committee, the
25 applicant submitted a formal appbcation.to the City ,for rezoning and, tentative, subdivision map.
26 While the project was ,being formally reviewed by City staff, a second Historic and Cultural
27 Preservation Committee preliminary review of 'the project was conducted at the 'December 11,
28 2003 meeting (See, Attachment, K) At both preliminary reviews of the project, the Committee
29 was generally supportive of the' adaptive reuse of the Sweed ;School building. The Committee
30 provided-suggestions for the design. of the carriage House units.
31 In response to the. Committee's comments, the following-. changes have been made to the
32 project's design:
33 ® Removal of the garages from the rear of the Sweed School ,building
34 ® Use of wood' windows and doors, rather than aluminum
35 ® 'Use of the' mai entry to the Sweed School building as the main entry to the Sweed
36 School townhouse units
b
Sweed School Planned Unit District April 27, 2004
03 -REZ -0067 Page 3
1 P NALYSIS
2 General Plan Consistency:
3 The General Plan land use designation for the subject property is Urban High. This land use
4 designation is intended for. multi family dwellings and allows 10.0 to 15.0 units to the, acre. This
5 land use designation allows an increase in density of up to 20 units to, the, acre for projects; that
6 meet :the following, requirements 1) they project provides a measurable community benefit 2)
7' infrastructure, services, and' facilities are available to serve the increase i'n density and 3) where
8 the effects of the project density is compatible with major General Plan .goals'.
.9 Without the increase In density, amaximum of 1.0 units would be allowed for the project. With a
10 . density increase to 20 units to the acre, the.maximum number of units for -the project is 14. The
11 project is consistent with the requirements for an increase in density in that. 1,)' the. project
12 proposes to adaptively reuse and upgrade the historic Sweed School building that has' been
13 vacant for- several -years 2) services, infrastructure and facilities are available, to serve the '4
14 �additi'onal units.3 the project will provide` 14 new housing units that are consistent with General
15 Plan goals` to.provide'..housing for people of all income levels and to provide a range; of housing
16 types and 4) ahe project is consistent with General Plan goals to preserve: the `architectural
17 heritage of Petaluma, to encourage: the , adaptive, reuse of vacant or underutiiized.structures, -and
18 to upgrade the quality o'f development throughout the City -.
19
20
The project is consistent with the following_ GerieralPlanpolices and objectives; -
2l
Community. Character Element.
22
Objective (i):
Upgrade the quality of residential development throughout the City:
23
Objective (j):
Preserve Petaluma's,architectural heritage.
24
Objective k :
J ()
$etain the uniq utilities and architectural. flavor iof .doivntown ar:d Westside
9 9
25
neighborhoods.
26
Objective -(o):
Encourage the adaptive, reuse ,of vacant or underutilized structures:
27
Policy 16:.-
The City encourages the restoration and reuse of historic buildings..
28
Policy 17:
All' development and redevelopment' shall add to„ not detract from existing
29
significant, City- identif ed'architectural landmarks, buildi gs and areas
30 Housing Element
31
32 Policy 1.1: Promote residential development within: the Urban Growth Boundary.
33
34 Policy 1.2 Encourage the development of housing.on underutilized land.
35 Goal 2: Promote a range of housing types to' meet ;the . housing needs of al[Petalumans.
36 Policy 2.1: Encourage a mix of housing design types.
37
.38 Zoning Ordinance Consistency_
39 The subject project is currently :zoned Garden Apartment Residential (RMG); with a zoning
40 overlay of the Oakhill- Brewster Historic District.. As part. of the project, the app_Iicant is
.Sweed School Planned Unit District April 27, 2904
03 -REZ -0067 Page 4
1 proposing to rezone the property to Planned Unit District (PUD). The Oakhill- Brewster Historic
2 District overlay zoning would remain with a rezoning of the property . to PUD. The .application
3 for rezoning includes PUD..'Guidel`ines and a,. Unit •Development Plan (See 'Attachments L and
4 M). The final draft of the.PUD Guidelines will be subjea.to Historic. and Cultural Preservation
5 Committee review and approval.
6
7. The project is consistent with the following requirements of the RMG zoning district:
8
9 s Providing 1,900 squarefeet of site area for each t.wo 'bedrooni unit and 2,400 square feet
10 of site area for each 3 bedroom unit, for a total site area of 27,1'00 square feet. The total
1 l area of the project site is 31 square feet.
1.2
13 ® Maximum lot coverage of 40, excluding uncovered, steps, patios and terraces. The lot
1.4 coverage of the project site is 40. %.
15
16 The RMG 'zoning regulations require' 500 square feet of usable open" space per 2 bedroom unit
17 and 600 square feet of u
sable open, space per 3 bedroom unit. The `townhouse portion of the
1.8 project provides approximately 2,400 square feet of'useable.ppen space in I the form of interior
19 decks (Units T -1, T -2,: and TA I.)' and exterior decks and patios. The carriage house portion of
20 the project provides more than 2,00.0 square feet of usable open space in, the fon:n of yards and
2 porches. The common areas of the, project provide more than 2 square feet of; usable open
2 , space in the front setback. area on 'Keller Street and ;the Trellis area in the center of the site
3 adjacent to the north property L line. InJotal, the project-includes more than 6 square feet of
24 usable open space or 486 square feet of usable open space per unit. This calculation does not
25 include side yards areas or project areas used for circulation.
26
27 The RMG zoning district requires a20:.foot front setback,. 25 foot rear' setback, and a minimum
28 side yard setback of 6 feet. with an aggregate side' yard setback, of 15 feet.. The . RMG
29 requirements. limit building,height to :30 feet measured `from average finished .grade to the
30 midpoint of the roof, and require garages and carports to a minimum of 25 feet from the front
31 property line. The existing Sweed School,. building is consistent with all of these requirements,
32 except that the height of the.building,is 36:feet. Since the proposed carriage units are inconsistent
33 with several of these requirements, the proposed PUD Guidelines include the following (See
34 Attachment L):
35
36 ® Building Setback from Project Property Line: 5 feet .Minimum
37 ® AccessoiyB'uild_ing Setback from Any PropertyLine: 3 feet Minimum
38 ® Height Limit Camage "H Building: 35 feet Maximum
39 m Height Limit Accessory Building: 15 feet Maximum
40
41 Since the project proposes, to subdivide the ° property in order to develop the townhouses and
42 carriage units, the projiect is inconsistent with the following 'RMG zoning district requirements
43 related to lot size„ and dimensions; 6,000 square foot minimum lot area, 45 .foot minimum lot
width, and 70 foot minimum lot depth. The project proposes the following, as part of the
proposed PUD Guidelines:
46
Sweed School Planned Unit.District:
03 -REZ -0067
Page 5
April 27, 2004
I • Minimum Lot,Area 900 square feet: •
2 i ' Maximum Lot., Area; 3,500 square . feet
3 ® Lot Coverage .for.Individual Lots: 100% Maximum.
4
5 The! final version of the PUD Guidelines will' be reviewed by the Historic and Cultural
6 Preservation Committee.
7
8 Thei historic. evaluation of the project evaluated ;the project with the above - mentioned
9 development standards incorporated into the project. The ,evaluation `indicated that the project
10 would nothave,anegative impact on the Oakhill- Brewster Historic.
11
12 Zoning Ordinance Section 19A -3'00 requires that .the Planning Commission/City Council make
din
13 the following findings to approve a Unit Development Plan. The suggested asi's for making
14 each finding follows.
15 1. (The/ PUD .Districrisproposed which has a suitable relationship to one or more
16 thoroughfares, and that said thoroughfares are adequate to carry any additional traff c
17 generated by the development:.
18 The access° to the, project site 'is from. Liberty Street.. The project would generate a total of 82
19 daily trips, 6, a.m. peak, hour trips and 7 p.m. peak hour trips. The capacity of Liberty Street is,
20 adequate to accommodate,-these additional trips. The level of service, does not change for any-
21 of the study intersections as a result oftho'project;
22 2. The plan for the proposed development presents a unified and 'or anized arran' ement o.
g $ :�
23 buildings and service facilities which,. are appropriate in relation to .adjacent or nearby
24 properties and that adequate landscaping and /o_ r screening is included if necessaq to insure
25 compatibility.
26 As part of the historic evaluation, the: project was evaluated for consistency `with °the Gakhill
27 Brewster- 'Historic District Guidelines and Secretary of the Interior's ,Standards for
2'8 Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilit'atin'g Historic Buildings. The:eval"uation.inclu des a.
29 determination that, the height . is, compatible with the height of immediately adjacent buildings,
30 comparison of building setbacks from the street; and a comparison of side yard setbacks. The
31 evaluation indicates that 'the project is .generally consistent with these provisions. In addition;
32 the proposed PUD development standards do not; significantly deviate frorn the existing. RMG
33 _requirements related to setbacks and height. The landscaping on -thet Keller. Street ; side of the
3'4 site that was identified as' significant -in the historic ev aluation will remain, unchanged as part of
35 the project. New landscaping including street trees on Keller Street and; Liberty Street; is
36 required to'be installed as part of the project and is subject to Historic and Cultural Preservation
37 Comrnittee`review and•approval.
38 3. The nat ral and sce is qualities•ofth`e`site a,protected, with adequate available,public and
39 rivate,spaces designated on the Unit Develop ment Plan.
ualit of the site is d
40 The scenic
quality efined by the historically si:gnficant.Sweed School building.
41 The historical. evaluation, for the project °indicates that the project is generally consistent with'
42 the Oaklill- Brewster Historic District Guidelines and Secretary of the;Interior's Standards for
43 Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings; therefoie,, the .scenic
Sweed Schoot Planned Unit "District Apri127, 2004
03 -REZ -0067 Page 6
q ualrt of site
y is protected. The Unit Development Plan includes, private and common open
�1
2 space that is adequate to serve the project .and consistent with the Zoning Ordinance
3 irequirements for the provision of usable open space per unit. 'The. project is not requ to
4 provide public open space. and .hope has been included in the project.
5 4. The development of the subject' property, in the manner proposed by the applicant, will not
6 be detrimental to the,public ,welfare,. will be in the best interests of the City, and will be in
7' keeping with' the general °intent and spirit of the. zoning regulations. of the City of Petaluma,
8 with the Petaluma General Plan, and with any applicable plans adopted by the City.
.9 An Initial Study that evaluated pciential environmental - impacts associated with the project
10 determined that Ino siginificant ,.erivironmeiital effects would :result from this proposal. The
,1 L project is consistent wit K. several General Plan policies and, objectives related to preserving
12 and reusing historic buildings and providing a range of Housing types.
13
14 The following findings are also required'to approve an amendment to'the Zoning Ordinance:
15 1. The proposed amendment is in - general conformity with the. Petaluma General Plan and any
16 applicable plans.
17 The project is consistent with the intent of the Urban High land use designation and will help
18 the City achieve its goals, :of providing a range of housing types, to adaptively reuse historic
19 buildings and to preserve the City's architectural' heritage.
2. The public necessity, convenience and general welfare require or clearly permit the adoption.
21 of the proposed amendment.
22 The project will be' compatible with surrounding uses; it will have a negligible impact on
23 traffic and the street network, and 'the City's Historic and Cultural Preservation review
24 process will ensure a. superior project design.
.25 Oakhill- Brewster: Historic; IDistrict
26 The subject property is located in the Oakhi 11 -Brewster Historic District and; therefore is subject
27 to the Oakhill= Brewster:.Historic`District Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards
28 for Rehabilitation 'and Guidelines for 'Rehabilitating 'Historic - Buildings. The Phillip Sweed School
29.. building,.,which is located on the subject property, has been determined to, be individually, eligible
30 for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. As such,, the` Phillip Sweed School is
31 automatically eligible for listing on` the: Califomia Register ofHistofic Resources:
32
33 Working under contract with the City of Petaluma, Carey & Company prepared a Historical
34 evaluation of they project, idated November 2003. The report evaluated the project for consistency
35 with the Oakhill- Brewster Historic District Guidelines and the Secretary of hiterior's Standards
36 for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabi itating Historic Buildings: The evaluation found that
37. in most cases the project was generally consistent with the Oakhill= Brewster Historic District
38 Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior's 'Standards for Rehabilitation, and 'Guidelines for
39 Rehabilitating Historic Buildings., Where the project was not consistent, the .evaluation provided
recommendations that mould;make the project consistent with the guideline&`and standards. These
recommendations have been included. 'as mitigation measures and conditions of approval for the
42 project and include the use of true divided light wood window and door replacements, review of
Sweed School Planned Unit District April 27, 2004
03 -REZ -0067 Page 7
I the color palette for the. project to ensure that the colors are harmonious with surrounding structures •.
2 and consistent •with the.architectural time period of the buildings. ,Since the Carey and Company
3 historical" evaluation was completed, some modifications have been made, to the project and staff
4 has included a ,condition of approval that requires these items to return to Carey :and Comp_ any for
5 review'prior to review of the project bythe Historic and Cultural Preservation Coma _ttee.
6
7 There ',are two existirig'._pine trees on the Kehler Street side o`f the site, one adjacent t "o the north
8 property, line and the second adjacent to the south property line. The his "toric evaluation indicates
9 that these pine trees and the' lawn area on Keller Street 'are site features, that contribute to the
10 historic importance of the. Phillip Sweed" School As such, staff has included a, condition of
1 1 approval that prior to Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee review of the ;proj'ect, the
12 condition of the trees be evaluated by a certified arborst. Since the trees were not proposed to be
13 removed eas part of'the project, staff did not require that the trees be evaluated prior to review of
14 the project by Planning Commission and City Council. Staff has also included the standard
15 condition, of approval "requiring the installation of protective: tree fencing
16
17 The project was also, reviewed. by Heritage Homes., ,Heritage Homes was concerned that the
18 project proposed to replace;all' of the existing wood windows and doors with aluminum windows
19 and doors: ,R &itaLel Homes indicated that the Guidelines and Standards did" not , allow aluminum
20 as a material and that repair rather than replacement ;is" required. The project has been revised and .
2.1 proposes to repair existing windows and doors and to replace them as indicated above when it is
22 not feasible to repair them (See Attachment M).
23
24 Traffic; and Circulation:
25 As part of the project submittal the applicant"provided a focused traffic impact study prepared by
26 Wilson' Engineering and Transportation Consultants dated March 10, 2004 (See Attachment H);
27
28 The traffic study evaluated .the level of service at the following .intersections:. 1;) Petaluma Blvd._
29 North/Oak Street 2) Petaluma Blvd. North/Washington Street 3) Washington Street/Keller Street
.30. and 4) Washington Street /Liberty Street. The project is expected to generate 82 tnps,.of these 6
31 would be a_ .m.. peak hour trips and 7 would be p.m. peak hour trips.. The trip generation is based'
32 on the project and does' not "include any .credits or.discounts for the previous use of the site as a
33 school.. Due to the small number of trips generated by the project, the existing plus, project, level.
34 of service; fora the intersections" evaluated would',b , the same as the existing level of service for
35 the intersections. The future .conditions also show no - change in the expected levels of service
.36 with, or without the project. Staff has identified no impacts related to traffic that would occur as a
3.7 result of the project.,
38
39 Pa" rkin
40 The ;zoning ordinance requires one parking space per bedroom for multifamily dwellings or one
41 covered parking space and two additional parking spaces that may be covered or uncovered' for
42 townhouses; and condominiums. The project provides a total ,of 29 onsite- parking spaces or one
p ,tgp p p gp� P P_p
43 arkin s ace per bedroom. Fifteen arkin s aces, are covered spaces located below the ro os ed
44 carria e "house umt_s. Fourteen spaces'are uncovered and located in the center of the site - lie, traff c
45' study - indicates that based on more than 30 studies 'of similar developments, the peak weekday
, Sweed'School,Planned Unit'District April 27, 2004
03 REZ =0067 Page 8
0 1 parking demand is 1.11 spaces per unit or 16 parking spaces., The peak weekend demand -is .95
2 spaces per unit' or 14 spaces. Based 'on the project's to downtown, other commercial
3 development, Hill Plaza ?drk, the parking demand information contained in the traffic study, and
4 the Zoning Ordinance standard' of one,space per bedroom, the parking provided for the. project is
5 expected to be adequate. The proposed PUD Guidelines include a parking requirement for the
6 project of one parking space per bedroom.
7 Site Access and Circulation
8 In response to a request from the Fire Marshal's office, the traffic study evaluated the adequacy of
9 site access and circulation for an ambulance: The traffic engineer provided an ambulance
10 circulation plan for Fie Marshal review and approval, which was determined by the Fire Marshal's
11 office to be adequate.
12 The traffic study also evaluated 'the adequacy of site distance at the Liberty Street driveway,
13 which would be located in approximately the center of the Liberty Street project frontage. The
14 study indicates that the driveway location provides more than the minimum 150 feet of site
15 distance required for the 25 mph. speed limit on Liberty Street.
16 Pedestrian and Bicycle - Advisory Committee Recommenaations:
17 In March of 2000, the City Council adopted the City of Petaluma Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan
18 and Map as an amendment to, the City's General Plan Circulation Element. The Plan states that
19 the City shall route development plans to the Petaluma. Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory
20 Committee (PBAC), allowing consideration of bicycle /pedestrian issues. The PBAC reviewed
the proposed project and, had specific recommendations.. The full text of the PBAC
recommendations is included as Attachment I.
23
24 PPBAC recommended that bike parking far visitors be provided and. located near the trellis area
25 located in the center of the site adjacent tol the:north property line. The project includes covered
26 bike parking in the carport area between ;parking stall #26 and the. recycling and storage area.
27 The PPBAC also recommended that interior secure bike parking be provided for residents of the
28 project. The project does include two storage areas, one in the center of the site adjacent to the
29 south property line and, one under carriage unit C1, which may be.-laige enough for bike storage.
30 Staff has. included 'a condition that- plans submitted for Historic and Cultural Preservation
31 Committee review indicate where interior secure bike parking for:residents could be located and
32'' to indicate how many bikes may be parked in the carport area.
33
34 The standard PPBAC conditions related herbicide /pesticide use and downcast lighting have been
35 included as conditions of approval.
36
37 PPBAC Recommendations riot included as Conditions of Approval:
38 The PPBAC recommended a .speed bump at the Liberty Street entrance to the project. The
39 project was reviewed by the City Engineer and no speed bump is required to be ,provided or
40 recommended for the'proje t.
41
42 The PPBAC recommended that the garages located at the rear of the existing 'Sweed School
404 building be removed from the project. The project has been revised and no longer includes the
garages.
es. g
45
Sweed School Planned Unit District April 27, 2004
03 -REZ -0067 Page 9
I The PPBAC recommended that bike ramps be installed alongside the steps.. On the Liberty •
2 Street side of the site there is approximately five feet .between the north : and southproperty lines
3 and the building. .In the center of the: site, there, is approximately 2. feet between the parking
4 overhang property line: On the Keller Street side of the site there is an.exist`ing:'retaining
5 wall that would make installation of a ramp unfeasible. In addition, the historic evaluation for
6 project indicates that the lawn retaining wall, and steps, on the Keller Street side of the site
7 contribute to. the historic significance of the :building and site. For these, reasons; staff has not
8 included'a condition`that a ramp be installed.
9
10 The PPBAC recommended that .gates. be ;located• mid - parcel on the .north fence and ;northeast
11 corner of the property near the existing informal path. The reason for. the° gates was not
12'` indicated; however, it appears ,that the intention . is to provide access from the apartment building
13 located to the north. of the subject property into the project site. No informal path 'appears to exist
14 on the subject property and no other properties in. the -area public access "cut through 13 paths
15 through private property; 'therefore, "staff has not included this as a condition of approval Staff
16 has:included a condition of approval that, the';location of all project fencing be included on plans
17 submitted for Historic and Cultural Preservation. Committee review.
18
19 . The PPBAC recommended that the project provide 2`benches along Liberty, St"reet'and 2 Benches
20: along Keller Street in an area referred to as a "public, easement." On the Liberty _Street side of the
21 site, the yard, areas fronting Liberty Street are private yards for the use ofthe individual "units.'On
22 the Keller Street side "of the site, two benches could be provided in the fawn area on Keller
23 Street; however, this area is a common` area easement. for the use of the residents of .the project
24 and i's not intended forpublic use.
25
26 The PPBAC recommended that' the owner pro
rovide a shared electric 'cart"and charging, station for
27 use by the resid'erits oftheproject in order`.to reduce downtown traffic. Since there is no.apparent
28 connection betweenthe project and the need to provide this`wehicle, staff has not incuded this as
29 'a condition;of approval.
30
31 PUBLIC COMMENTS
p �
32 On April 7.2004, a notice: of public hearing was published in the Argus. Courier and, notices were
33 mailed to residents and property owners within 500 feet ofthe subject property. As, of the . writing
34 of this report,. six letters had been received regarding the project (See Attachment J).
35 The letter from Katherine Rinehart dated 121.5%2003 asks for clarification as to whether Carey
36 and Company is the hi "storic consultant for the applicant or for the City aril states that the project
37 is mot consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and,,'Guidelnes
38 for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. Carey and Company prepared the historic evaluation .under
39 contract with the City and is not the historic consultant for the applicant. Ms. Rinehart indicates
,,
40 that the project is inconsistent with the Standards that recommend ;against introducing new -
41 construction on the site of a historic' building which is visibly incompatible in 'terms of the size
42 scale, design, materials, color and texture or which destroys the historic :relationships on the site,
43 The Carey and Company evaluation indicates that the new construction would not damage or
44 . destroy any of the materials that characterize the. historic:property and that the .architectural style of
45 the new construction is an intentional departure from the arch'itccture of the Sweed School building
Sweed'School Planned Unit District April 2Z, 2004
03 -REZ -0067 Page 10 -
i
�.i
1 would reflect the design of the residences on
that;vwould differentiate the old from the new and.
2 Liberty Street (See Attachment H, Careyond 'Company Evaluation, Page 22).
3 The letter from Zack Matleydated December 11; 2003 asks that, providing diagonal parking along
4 the project frontages on Keller,Street and Liberty Street be considered as:a way to reduce the traffic
5 that "cuts through" the neighborhood and to reduce the. speed of vehicles on these streets. The
6 traffic study evaluated this request and indicates that as pad of a neighborhood wide program this
7 approach can be quite effective. However, when located as suggested. in Mr. Matley's letter, the
8 parking can present a safety hazard, especially if not well signed and lighted at night (See
9 Attachment, H, Traffic Study, Page 12). The existing traffic ;pattein and use of these streets is an
10 existing condition in the neighborhood. As such, this project is. not obligated to correct' this
11 condition.
12 The letters from Bob & Mary Lou Mayes dated. August l 8 and 24, :2003 include concerns related
13 to the location of the driveway access, recommends: that only three units be constructed on the
14 Liberty Street 'side of 'the site, and suggests using the asphalt area of the site as a place for
15 neighborhood kids to play and that "the City purchase the building for use'by artists and create one
16 residence in the existing building, The traffic study evaluated the proposed location of the site
17 access in the middle of the Liberty 'Street project frontage and indicates that this location provides
18 adequate site distance (See Attachment H, Traffic Study, Pages 1`2 -13). The project has been
19 revised and proposes to construct three units on the Liberty Street .side of the site rather than the
20 four originally proposed. Since the property is privately owned, the other items included in the
21 letter cannot be addressed as part of the project.
�2
23 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
24 Pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, an Initial Study of
25 potential environmental impacts was prepared (Attachment F). The potential for the following
26 significant impacts were identified : nose and, historical resources. Mitigation measures have
27 been proposed and agreed to by the applicant that will reduce potential impacts to less than
28 significant. .In addition, there is no substantial evidence that, supports a fair argument that the
29 project, as mitigated, would have a significant effect on 'the environment. It is therefore
30 recommended that -a Mitigated Negative Declaration be adopted. A Mitigation Monitoring
31 Report has also been prepared (Attachment F Initial Study and Mitigation Monitoring Report).
32
33
34 ATTACHMENTS:
35 Attachment A: Draft Findings for Approval — Mitigated Negative Declaration
36 Attachment B Draft Findings for Approval — Rezoning to Planned Unit District
37 Attachment C: Draft Findings for Approval — Adoption of 'Planned Unit `District Map and
38 Planned Unit District Development Standards
39 Attachment D: Draft Findings for Approval — Tentative Subdivision Map
40 Attachment-'E: Draft. Recommended Conditions of Approval
•1 Attachment F: Initial Study and Mitigation Monitoring Plan,
Sweed School Planned Unit:District April 27, 2004 .
03 -REZ -0067 Page 11
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Attachrrtent G;;
Context Map, General Plan Map,, Zoning Map . •
Attachment H:
Studies' Noise by Illingworth and ,Rodkin Historic Evaluation by Carey and
Company; Traffic by Wilson.Engineering
Attachment I
Memorandums received from City departments and committees! Engineering
Division, Fire Marshal, Pedestrian &Bike Committee, Heritage Homes
Attachment)
Neighborhood. Correspondence Received
Attachment :K
Historic '& Cultural `Preservation Committee Preliminary Review. Minutes
Excerpt 4/11 /2002 & & 12/11/2.003
Attachment'L:
PUD Guidelines dated February:11,;2004
Attachnient•M:
Full Size and Reduced Tentative Subdivision Map, Development Plan;
Architectural Plans, and Landscape Plan,'colored, site plan and elevations date
stamped 4/19/2004
Due to the complexity of the project, staff requested. that the applicant submit full :size and
reduced size plans.
•
•
Sweed School Planned unit District
03 -REZ -0067 Page 1.2
April 27" 2004'
• 1 ATTACHMENT A
2
3
FINDINGS'
4
5
Sweed'School Townhouse Planned-Unit District
6
331 Keller Street
7
APN 006 -213 -004
8
Project File No. 03 -REZ -00.67
9
10
11
Findings for Approval :of:a Mitigated NeEative Declaration
12
13
1.
An Initial Study was prepared and demonstrated that there is no substantial
14
evidence that supports a fair argument that the project, as conditioned, would have
15
a significant effect on the environment.
16
17
2.
The project does not have the potential to affect wildlife resources as defined in
18:
the State Fish and: Game Code, either individually or cumulatively, and is exempt
19
from Fish and Game filing fees because it 'is proposed on an small site surrounded
20
by development with none of the resources as defined in the Code.
21
• 22
3.
The project is: not located on a 'site listed ;on any .Hazardous Waste Site List
23
compiled by the State pursuant to Section 65962:5 of the California Government
24
Code.
25
26
4.
The Planning Commission, reviewed the Initial. Study and considered public
27
comments before making a recommendation on the project.
28
29
5.
A Mitigation, Monitoring Program has been prepared "to ensure compliance with
30
the adopted mitigation measures.
31
32
6.
The record of proceedings of the decision on the project is available for public
33
review at the City of Petaluma Planning Division, City Hall, 1 l English Street,
34
Petaluma,, California.
.35
36
Mitigation Measures
37
38
All mitigation measures, as identified in the Initial Study for the Sweed School
39
subdivision; and rezoning proposal, are herein incorporated (Attachment F, Initial
40
Study).
41
42
C,
• ATTACHMENT.B
2
3 FINDINGS
4
5 Sweed School Townhouse Planned "U'n'it District
6 331 Keller Street
7 APN 006 -213 =004
8 Project File No.'03 -REZ -0067
9
1.0 Findines for.Approval.of,a,'Rezonine from Garden Apartment Residential (RMG) to
I 1 Planned. Unit District (PUD) :'
12
13 1. The proposed Amendment to,Zoning Ordinance No. 1072 N.C.S., to classify and
14 rezone the subject parcel from Garden Apartment Residential (RMG) to Planned
.
15 Unit District (PUD), will result in a more desirable use of land and a better
16 physical environment than would be possible under any"' single zoning district or
17 combination of zoning districts.
18
19 The proposed uses . comply with the Planned Unit 'District designation, which
20 allows inclusion within its `boundaries of 'a mixture of uses, or unusual density,
21 building intensity, or, design characteristics, which would not normally be
22 permitted in a single, use district, and to govern the development of residential
23 projects. Additionally, this proposal incorporates the policies and guidelines of
24 the PUD- Planned. Unit District of Article ,19A of the Zoning, Ordinance.
25
26 2. The • public necessity, convenience and welfare clearly permit and will be
27 furthered b.y'the proposed Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, reclassifying and
28 rezoning the Sweed School site to Planned Unit District.
29
30 The Planned Unit District Development Guidel describe permitted,
31 conditional and - accessory uses as well as + those which would .not be allowed to be
32 established at this location. This specific list of uses prevents the creation of any
33 nuisance to the existing surrounding uses.
34
35 3. The requirements,of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have been
36 satisfied through. the preparation of an Initial 'Study and "the drafling of a Mitigated
37 Negative .Declaration to avoid or reduce to a level of insignificance, potential
38 impacts generated,, by the. proposed Sweed 'School Planned Unit District.
39
40 In compliance with_the requirements of the California Environmental.Quality Act,
4.1 an initial Study was prepared for the rezoning of the site from Garden Apartment
42 Residential (RMG) to Planned Unit District (PUD). Based upon the Initial Study,
43 a determination was made that no significant environmental impacts would result.
0 44 A copy of this notice was published in the Angus Courier and provided to
45 residents .and occupants within 500 feet of the site, in compliance with CEQA
46 requirements.
•
1 ATTACHMENT C
2
3 FINDINGS
4
5 Sweed School Townhouse Planned Unit District
6 331 Keller Street
7 APN 006-213-004
8 Project File No.'03 -REZ -0067
9
10 Findings for Approval ,of the 'Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment (Planned. Unit
11 District Development .Guidelines)
12
13 1. The proposed text amendment, the adoption of the PLO Development Guidelines,
14 as conditioned, is in general conformity with the Petaluma General Plan and
15 zoning regulations of;the City of Petaluma as described in the project staff report.
16 Additionally, the Fire Marshal and Engineering Division have prepared conditions
17 of approval to address safety issues and design criteria for the construction of the
18 buildings and designof'the site.
19
20 2. The public necessity, convenience, and 'general 'welfare clearly permit the
21 adoption of the proposed amendment in that the amendment will result in
22 residential uses that are more appropriate and compatible with the existing
23 surroundings uses. The density standard under the proposed Development
24 Guidelines will be 20.0 units per acre, which is compatible with the surrounding
25 neighborhood and the General' Plan. Thee .guidelines for. °the proposed development
26 present a unified and organized arrangement of buildings and facilities, which are
27 appropriate in relation to adjacent and nearby properties, and adequate
28 landscaping is :included to ensure compatibility. The proposal also requires
29 review and approval by the Historic.and Cultural Preservation Committee.
30
31
0
1 ATTACHMENT D
2 _
.3 FINDING
4 -
_5 Sweed School Townhouse Planned Unit District
6 331 Keller Street
7 APN 006- 2'13 -004
8 Project. File No. 03 -Z -0067
9
10 Findings of Approval for the "Tentative Subdivision lV1ap
11 .
12 1. The proposed Tentative Subdivision Map, as conditioned, is consistent with the
13 provisions of Title 20 Subdivisions of the 'Municipal Code (Subdivision
14 Ordinance) and the State Subdivision Map Act.
15
16 2. The proposed subdivision, together with provisions for its design and
17 improvements, is consistent ,with the General Plan, and will not be detrimental to
18 the public health, ;safety, or welfare in that adequate public facilities exist or will
19 be. installed, including, sidewalks, water, sewer, storm drains, and other
20 infrastructure.
21
22 3. That the site is physically suitable for the density and the type of development
'23 proposed.
24
25 4. That the design .of the subdivision and the proposed improvements will not cause
26 substantial environmental damage, and that.no substantial or avoidable injury will
27 occur to fish or�wildlife or their.habitat. An Initial Study was prepared indicating
28 that there would be no'significant, unmitigatable environmental impacts.
•
5�
•
ATTACHMENT E
2
3
CONDITIONS OF APP VA -L
4
.5
Sweed School Townhouse Planned 'Uni't District
6
331 Keller Street
7
AP.N 00.6 -2 -004
8
Project File No: 03:: -REZ -0067
9
10
From the Planning Division (778 -4301
11
12
1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant; shall revise the site plan or
13
other first sheet of the office and job site copies of the Building Permit plans to
14
list these Conditions of Approval as notes.
15
16
2. The plans submitted, for Historic and Cultural. Preservation Committee review
17
shall be in substantial conformance with the Development Plan date stamped
18
April 19, 2004 and the Tentative Map date stamped April 19, 2004.
19
20
3. All mitigation measures adopted in conjunction with 'the Mitigated Negative
21
Declaration for Sweed School projeetare herein incorporated by reference as
22
conditions of project approval.
23
24
4. Upon approval by the City Council„ the applicant shall,,pay the $35.00 Notice of
25
Determination fee to'the Planning. Division. The check shall be made payable to
26
the County Clerk. Planning staff will file. the Notice of Determination with the
27
County Clerks, office within five (5) days after receiving Council approval.
28
29
5. .Prior to issuance of a, building the Historic andCultural Preservation
30
Committee 'shal'l. review the site plan design, building and accessory structure
31
design, the final POD Guidelines, colors -and materials, landscaping, and lighting..
32
In addition plans submitted 'for Historic - and Cultural Preservation Committee
33
review shall be revised to include the following:
34 .
35
a. Street trees along the project frontage on Keller Street and-Li berty Street.
36
The street tree planting.plan shall comply with the City's Approved Street
37
Trees List iand City standards for street tree planting:.
38
39
b. Relocation,bf the trellis adjacent to the south property line on the.Liberty
40
Street side of°the site so that it does not extend over property lines.
41
42
c. Driveway facing elevations of the carriage house units.
43
• 44 d. Downcast - lighting to prevent direct glare into the eyes of pedestrians and
45 bicyclists.
46
P
e. Detail /elevations of the stora
J p p ge unit located in the center of the site
1
2 ad to the.south ro ert y fine and the trellises.
3
4 f. All fencing proposed `for the projec ,' including private yard 'fencing and
5 project boundary fencing.
6
7 g. A. location for interior secure bike parking for residents, the number of
8 covered bike parking spaces 'that can be accommodated in the b* ke parking
9 area located in the .carport area,, !and whether or not bikes can be
10 accommodated in the storage areas shown on the site plan.
11
12 h: Proposed colors for the carriage- units.
13
6. l for the-pro ect ommittee shall review and approve the
15 proposed PUD Guidelines
,
J
16
17 7. Prior to. Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee review; the": applicant shall
18 submit an evaluation prepared by la certified arborist of the two exist` 2 p ine trees.
19 on the site that are identified as "to remain." The evaluation will be reviewed by
20 the City arborist and is subject to staffreview and approval.
21
22 8. Plans submitted for building permit . shall include .the location of protective - tree
23 fencing for. the two existing pine trees on the site that are to remain. -The
24 , protective'tree fencing .shall be located 'a minimum of $:feet outside of the dripline
25 of the trees; cyclone secured with in,ground posts, and shall be a minimum of 5'
26 in'height. The location of the protective tree fencing is subject to staff review sand
27' approval.
28
29 9. Construction hours are limited to Monday through Friday from 7:00 'a.m. to
30 6mp.m. and Saturday from - '9;00 a.- m. to 5 Noise generating construction.
31 shall be prohibited.on Sundays and al holidays recognized by the City of Petaluma.
. g
32 Construction activities that erierate little or , no, exterior noise, such as painting;
33 electrical work plumbing, ei may be exemp
q pp ted from these more restrictive
34 requirements, if Approved in writin g Y b ' the Community bevelopment Department.
35 These 'const hours shall be included on improvement plans and building 1.
36 permit plans submitted for review by the City.
37
38 1 .,
0. There shall be no start up of'internal combustion engines 'on : construction, related
39 machinery or equipment priorto 8 :00 a.m. Monday thro igh.Friday.
40
��
11 • Delivery holiday.') bet een 7 30 a.m
� . lP nt i limited o Monday through Friday (non -
Y) and 6:00 p.m.
43
44 12. Machinery shall not be cleaned, past 6 :00 p.m. or serviced past 6:45 p:m. Monday
45 through "Friday. •
46
1
13. All construction equipment powered by internal combustion engine shall be
2
properly mufflered and maintained.
3
4
14. Equipment shall be turned off when not in use: Unnecessary idling of internal
5
combustion is prohibited.
6
7
15. All stationary .noise generating construction equipment shall be located as far as
8
practical 'from existing nearby residences and, other noise sensitive land uses. All
9
such equipment shall be acoustically shielded.'
10
11
16. Quiet construction equipment, in, particular air compressors, shall be used whenever
12
possible.
13
14
17. The project applic ant ,shalI designate a "noise, disturbance coordinator'', such as the
15
contractor or contractor's representative,. who 'is responsible for responding to any
16
local complaints about construction, noise. The disturbance coordinator shall
17
determine the cause of the noise complaint. (_e.& starting too early, bad muffler, etc.)
18
- and take measures to correct the problem.
19
20
18. The name and' phone number ofthe�disturbance coordinator shall be conspicuously
21
posted at. the construction site and shall be included on the plans submitted for
22
building permit.
23
24
19. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a mailing sha11 be sent, to all property owner
25
and occupants that includes the construction schedule for the project, City approved
26
construction hours for the project; and the name 'and contact information for the
27
designated " noise disturbance coordinator."
28
29
20. Windows and doors shall 'be. repaired where feasible. Prior to the project being
30
scheduled for review by the Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee, the
31
windows and doors, that will lie replaced and the windows and doors that will be
32
repaired will be °identified, on the plans. Which windows can be repaired and the
33
windows that require- replacement. due to the extent of damage shall be determined
34 '
by staff in conjunction with Carey arid Company review of the existing windows
35
and doors, ;and' information provided by the applicant per the recommendations
36
containedin the Carey and Company evaluation dated November 200j.
37
38
21. Windows and doors that are damaged beyond repair as determined' in compliance
39
with condition #20 'above may be replaced. The, replacement windows and doors
40
shall be wood and. true or simulated true divided light per the. recommendations
41
contained ''in the; Carey and Company evaluation dated - November 2003.
42
Manufacturer's brochures and cutsheets of the approved, windows shall be
43
submitted as part of the application materials for Historic and Cultural Preservation
44
• 45
Committee review.of the project.
1 22. The windows and doors for the new carriage house units shall be, wood frame and
2 true or simulated true divided light. •
3
4 23'., Prior to the •project being scheduled for review by the HIistoric and Cultural
5 Preservation Committee, the 'following items shall be reviewed. by Carey and
6 Company to evaluate consistency. with the Oakhill- Brewster Guidelines and the
7 Secretary of "the Interior's :Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for
8 Rehabilitating Historic Buildings:
9
10 a. Window and door cutsheets for replacement windows and doors;
11 b. .New cuts for the additional skylights;
12 c. New cuts and modified cuts to the north, south and. west elevations of the
13 Sweed'School building;
14 d.. Height of the revised carriage house units; and
15 e. Redesign and materials lof the care ge house units.
16
1.7 The applicant is responsible for all costs associated with the review of the_ project
18 by Carey and Company.
19
`20 24:: The applicant ,shall be required to utilize .Best Management ; Practices regarding
21 pesticide/herbicide use and fully commit to :Integrated Pest, .Management
22 techniques for the protection of pedestrian/bicyclists. The applicant shall be
23 required to post signs when.pesticide /herbicide use occurs to warn pedestrians and
24 bicyclists.
25
26 25. Construction. and demolition debris, shall be, recycled to. maximum extent
27 feasible in order to minimize impacts on the landfill.
28
29 26. Iii accordance: with the provisions of the Petaluma.'s Municipal Code, 'the applicant '
30 shall pay applicable City Special Development Fees at the time of,building permit
31 application, including but not limited to sewer connection, water connection;
32 community facilities development, storm drainage impact : school facilities and
33 traffic mitigation fees.
34 2'5. The applicant shall defend indemnify, and. hold harmless the City or any of its
35 boards, commissions, agents, officers, and- employees from any claim action, or
.36 proceeding against the City, its ' boards . commissions, agents officers, or
37 employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul any of the approvals. the project
38 when such claim or action is brought within the time period provided •for in
39 applicable> State and7or local statutes. The City shall promptly notify the;
40 applicants /developers of any such claim, action or 'proceeding: The City shall.
41 coordinate in the defense. Nothing'coniained, in this condition shall, prohibit •the
42 City from participating in a. defense of any claim, action, or proceeding and if the
43 City7choosesi to do so appellant sha11.reimburse City for attorneys fees b the .City.
44
45 •
46
•
I
From the Engineering Division (707) 778=430:1
2
3
Prior to improvement plan and. final reap approval, the following Engineering conditions
4
shall be met`
5
6
26. Along the entire frontage of Liberty Street and Keller Street, any broken or
7
displaced sidewalk, curb and gutter shall be removed and replaced, cobblestone
8
curb shall be retained and repaired as necessary and existing 'driveways shall be
9
removed and replaced P'rovi'de streetlights as necessary. Twelve feet of "red curb
10
shall be painted on. Liberty Street on both sides'of the proposed driveway.
11
'
12
27. Evaluate all existing retaining walls along the street. frontages and adjacent
13
properties. Retaining walls that are cracked, displaced, leaning or are evaluated as
14
unsound, shall be replaced or repaired.
15
16
28. Provide positive surface drainage and storm drains as necessary for the parking
17
area, the open courtyard in the existing building and in the; private exterior areas.
18
The proposed drainage improvement shall not affect the existing adjacent
19
properties.
20
21
29. Individual water ;meters `for all lots shall be .required. Water services shall be at
22
least 1.5- inches in diameter with 1 -inch water meters. Abandon any unused water
23
and sewer connections to the satisfaction 'of the Water Resources and
24
Conservations Department.
25
26
30. All overhead utilities =from the existing power poles to the site and all new utilities
27
shall be placed' underground.
28
29
31. Prepare site improvement plans for building and encroachment permit approval.
30
The improvement plans shall include but; not be limited to grading, paving, storm
31
drains, water and sewer.
32
33
32. Property lines at adjacent lots shall bisect the proposed walls equally.
34
35
33. The property line between lot- 7 and 8 shall be either a straight line or the upper
36
'story W. a - ' lls7 adjusted to match the property line as indicated on the tentative map.
37
38
34. The , "common area 'easements' as shown on the tentative map shal'1 be added to
39
the definition of common area in the covenants, conditions and restrictions
40
(CC &R's) The common area shall allow for all utility installation and
41
maintenance.
42
43
35.A 10 -foot wide; public utility easement (PUE) shall be dedicated along the
44
frontage of Liberty and Keller Street unless waived by the utility companies.
45
Above ground electrical transformers shall not be allowed for this project.
46
i I
1 From the Fire Marshal (707) 778 -4389
2
3 36. Plans submitted for building, permit shall include an address locator board. with
4 unit designators at the entrance to Liberty Street. The designator board ,and the
5 location are subject to staff review and approval..The applicant shall coordinate
6 with the Fire ,Marshals' office the details ;for sign installation for. the parking_ lot
7 off.of Liberty Street.
8
9 37. Unit addresses shall be clearly visible from `Keller Street,
10
11 38. Each unit is required to be provided with an approved fire sprinkler system (13-
12 - D). All areas shall be protected, including: attics, closets and 'bathrooms: over 55
13 square feet. Back,flow prevention devices shall be installed on the riser as per
14 Ordinance 2084, July 1, 2000.
15
16
17
18
0
I
Planning Commission Mi l nute5 . - April 27, 2004 . 1
L City of Petaluffla, California
City Council Chambers
City Hall, I'I'E'ng fish Street
Petaluma, CA 94952-
Telephone 707 /778-4301./ Fax 707/778-4498
E-mail Dlaniiitfi!(d.,-ci:oefaiuma.ca.us
W6b Page littg , . Ci:petittinia.ca.Lis
2
Planning Commission 'Minutes
3
April 27, '2004 — 7:00 PM
.4
5
Commissioners: Present: Assolmeier, Barrett, Ddrg McAllister, Rose, von
6
Raesfold
7
8
Chair
9
10
Staff. George White, Assistant Director, Community Development
11
Jane Thomson , Code'Enforcement Officer
12
Kim Gordon, Assistant Planner
• 13
Anne Windsor, Administrative Secretary
14
15
16
ROLL CALL:
17
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE-.,
18
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of April 1:3, 2004 were approved. as amended.
19
Barrett/vonRaesfeld 6m0 -Darszie abstained.
20
PUBLIC COMMENT:, None.
21
DIRECTOR'S REPORT: t Trying to,plan I or more General Plan Workshops.
22
COMMISSIONER'S REPORT: Fundraiser at Girl& Fig. for Petaluma. High School
23.
, Saturday. 5/15 376 p. Library, Chair Dargie, ir 1 —:want to discussion Commission's role in
'
24
General Plan at the -end of ,the meeting
25
CORRESYONDEN CE'. None
26
APPEAL STATEMENT:. Was noted on the; agenda.
27
LEGAL REC6VRSK, Was noted On the agenda.
28
29
30
Public hearing began @ 715
31
32
PUBLIC HEARING:
33
NEW BUSINESS
34
35
11. SWEED SCHOOL, 331 Keller Street
36
AP No.: 006-`213-004
Planning Commission Minutes - April 27, 2004
1 File: 03 =�Z -0067
2 Planner Kim Gordon
3 ."
4 Applicant is requesting a recommendation to the .City Council of a proposal for 1)
5 rezoning of the 31,906 square foot parcel from Garden Apartment .Residential (RMG) to
6 Planned Unit District (PUD) 2) a tentative subdivision map for a, 14 -lot residential
7 subdivision with , a common area parcel. The site i°s located at 331 Keller Street in the
8 Oakhi.11- Brewster Historic District. The proposal requires adoption, of a mitigated
9 negative declaration, rezoning to .'a. planned unit district, adoption of the unit development
10 plan and, development standards, and approval of a tentative subdivision.map.
1.1 -
12. Kim Gordon presented. the,staff report.
13
14 Maria Poncell, West Bay Builders: Gave History and background ofthe project.
15
16 Public hearing ,opened:
17 -
18 Katherine Rinehart Expressed support for the adaptive reuse; Based on the staff report
19 staff and the developer have worked to address the issues I had regarding
20
21 Zack, - Matley,, 324 Keller Street: Support the project Prepared a report .for the, packet;
22 regarding diagonal parking on the west lside of Keller. And striping white edge line. on
23 Liberty Street. Will. help to lower speeds, parking supply will be increased'. Sweed
a etrian les adequate for residents
24 Schoo a , however s : ould,
, not for visitor _ W al so like,
•
25 landsc p g , Improvements would be a benefit to the neighborhood sand add value
26 to the project. Nexus for the improvements is the small increase in raffic and .need for
27 guest parking.
28
29 Paul' _Demil, 329 :Liberty Street: Pleased with the'architectural design arid landscaping.
30 One entrance: and egress from Liberty Street side, parking on Liberty and ingress into. the
31 project can block. sight for traffic on. Liberty Street: Suggest a stop sign ai Prospect fdr`
32 mitigation,. ;s peed °dete is welcome. Issues' are enlergency access and sufficient
33 clearance into .the Liberty Street side.
34
35 Ron, Storry, 312 Liberty Street: `Support the project — want to see the plans move`.'forward
36 because it has been an eyesore: Want to be proud of project and addition to' community..
37
38 Elizabeth.McBridge 419 Walnut Street: Traffc and parking are concerns parking does,
39 not seem adequate, street parking is already' impacted:.
40
41 Kate O'Hare Palmer, 334 Keller Street: Have had neighborhood meetings, am pleased
42 to' see the project moving forward. Happy to, see changes to front entry' and carriage
43 units. 'Traffic hazard at. Prospect and Liberty — want to see a 4 -way stop, Also at Oak.
44 and Keller— safety °.issues need to be addressed as :a. City. Need moreparking for visitors.
45 Agree with diagonal parking suggested.
46 •,
Planning Commission Minutes - April 27, 2004
1 Tiffany Robbe, 324 Keller: Am in support of the project. Architectural issues need to
2' use' wood windows, 'reuse existing when possible. . Sounds resolved. Front yards on
3 . Keller Street - want them to remain at the existing grade. 'Railing that is proposed —
4 seems inappropriate for the building,— too many colors ;and- materials.. Carriage houses
5 still need revision roofline and window placement 7 does riot seem consistent with
6 Oakhill Brewster guidelines for new buildings;
7
8 Public hearing closed:
9
10 John Wilson, Traffic engineer:' Believe there is enough parking, for visitors and residents.
11- Used ITE parking generation.. standards. Regarding emergency vehicle access — fire
12 marshal required 'maneuvering plan for ambulance. Diagonal parking is an issue for the
13 City and Planning Commission — people back into traffic.- 'There is a "trade off' more
14 parking for backing into traffic.
15
16 Commissioner Asselmeier: Can there be improvement in "the ingress /egress on Liberty so
17 one side could be reserved for pedestrians or bicycles. Interested in how the circulation
18 on the site works, asked the larchitect to show the .circulation for pedestrians and bicyclist.
19 Is there an ADA requirement?
20
21
Chris Craiker, Architect; Explained the interior access from the courtyard. Could do
22
pavers, textured concrete to designate.; pedestrian path at driveway. No ADA requirement
•
23
24
since historc building and town homes.
25
Commissioner Barrett: Asked if the' hand Tails on the main stairs' will be saved.
26
27
Chris Craiker: May be with something compliant with Building' Code.
28
29
Commissioner Barrett: .Asked' what will be done with brick out front which may have
30
been a sign in the past. Believe that it -needs to be "addressed.
31
32
Commissioner von Raesfeld: Wald on Keller Street — will it remain — what. will be done.
33
34
Chris .Craiker: Is our intent to save it.
35
36
Commissioner.Asselmeier: Asked how the design on, the•carriage house fits in the design
37
of Sweed School.
38
39
Chris Craiker; They do not blend — SPARC suggested that the carriage houses not mimic
40
the school, however, would speak to the streetscape on Liberty Street. Attempted to
41
create a continuation of streetscape.
42
43
Commissioner Asselmeier: Needs to be some relationship since they are on the same lot.
44
How do they relate?
45
46
Chris Craiker: Think that they do complement one another. Perhaps the blue on the
47
wood windows on. front of the school could be a common link.
3
' 1
Planning Commission Minutes - April 27_2004
1
2 Commissioner Rose: Want to clarify that the adaptive reuse does not preclude the
3 building from contributing w a historic district,
4
5 Kim Gordon/George, White: Will still be a contributing factor to historic district.
6
7 Commissioner von Raesfeld: Trash.Teceptacles,do not seem to be adequate:
8
9 'Commissioner Asselineier: Storage area— do not know it is adequate fora bike and
10 other storage. How many bikes can be accommodated in. covered bike parking area?
12 'Chri's Craiker:. Will install "rack, probably room for 8 or 9 bikes. If bikes were put .in
13 storage would likely take up all-the space.
14
15 Commissioner Barrett:; :Referred to fiberglass doors on carriage house Arid duplex — not
16 in compliance with Oakhill. Brewster,
17
18 Kim Gordon; Materials for carriage units will be reviewed by Carey & Co.
19
20 Conimissioenr Asselmeier. Asked for clarification re!- hourson Saturday.
21
22 Commission, comments:
23
24 Issues- idei ified by Commission:
25 ® Traffic issues at Liberty and Prospect and Oak and Keller
26 m Diagonal parking on Keller
27 ® Timing review of inventory of materials
28 • Construction on Saturday
29 a Liberty Street striping
30 ® Site circulation or pedestrians and bicycles
31 s Placard on front of building,
32
33 Traffie /Keller Street Parking and.Liberty,Street striping
34
35 Commissioner McAllister: Live on Keller :Street and have concerns and.recogni2e the
36 problems Lwith speeding. Would like both Keller and Liberty be referred to the traffic
37 committee; for stop signs. Oak and Keller Street is a hazardous intersection., Regarding
38 dra onal.
g parking; esitant — believe it: may be a safety issue for people: backing out
� Arkin � I am' hesitant
39 and not being;able to see bicyclist. -Support striping on Liberty as was done on Keokuk
40
41 Commissioner Barrett: Agree with Commissioner .McAllister regarding: referral 'to. the
42 traffic committee for additional :stop signs at' Oak 'and, Keller and Liberty and Prospect.
43 Like striping on Liberty, support diagonal parking from ,corner to end of project : good
44. fix for slowing down . traffic and more parking. Regarding Liberty Street traffic
45 approaching the project - suggest sign regarding driveway entry ahead.
46 �.
4
Planning Commission Minutes - April 27, 2004
1 Commissioner von Raesfeld: Split on parking — if diagonal. parking is solving
2 neighborhood parking not required of applicant. Push required parking offsite, but
3 zoning ordinance does not allow.
.4
5 Commissioner Asselrneier 'Support, diagonal parking on Keller - for slowing cars down
6 and additional parking. Have concerns about parking 'in the project — too much
7 hardscape. Would like City engineer to weigh in on, diagonal parking.
8
9 Commissioner Rose: Concur with most of what is ; said. Look at merits of diagonal
io parking — would be the most beneficial if the City engineer reviewed proposal for
ii diagonal parking..
12
13 Commissioner McAllister: How ben'efi'cial is diagonal parking' from Oak to the end of
14 Sweed School? It could be confusing to drivers acid 'therefore'a safety concern. Do not
15 want diagonal, parking - on the entire block of`Keller.
16
17 Commissioner Barrett: Agree that4t would work well only,from Oak Street to the end of
18 Sweed School and not down toward Prospect. A section of Kentucky Street has diagonal
19 parking in a certain area and that works well.
20
21 George White: Can examine diagonal parking between Planning "Commission meetings
22 and Council and examine more thoroughly.
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
• 45
46
47
Commissioner von Raesfeld; Can suggest traffic :mitigation fees be used for additional
stop signs.
Chair Dargie: Comic i'ssion asked that additional stop signs on Liberty & Prospect and
Oak and Keller be forwarded to traffic committee.
Timing Review tot :Inventory .of Materials:
George White Can require .the applicant to return to SPARC with the assessment of
doors and windows that can be reused.
Commissioner Rose: in the contest, of window replacement — need to look at
sery iceability and ventilation — balance between saving what' merits .it and looking to the
residents who will .wan_ t operational windows. Need to be evaluated on overall use of
windows as well.
Construction on ;S'aturday:
Commissioner Asseline er:
construction on. Saturday.
Commissioner von Raesfeld:
particularly in the interior.
Is there a distinction ' between interior vs. exterior
Believe it is an unfair burden to not work on Saturday
61
Planning Commission Minutes - April 27, 2004
Commission agreed_ I interior work can take place on Saturday,
Site Circulation: •
5 Commissioner Assehneier,: Liberty Street.driveway needs to include special treatment to
6 provide an area for pedestrian and bicyclists that is not raised.
7
8 Planning Commission consensus that -SPARC should address placard in front.
9
10 Arcliitecture -Sweed S 'chool
U
12 Commissioner McAllister: Possible direction to SPARC. Front patios on Keller Street—
13 enclosure needs, to, look like °it is part of the original building — opposed to blue posts;
14 blue windows are not part of the original historic 'bui'lding — believe _it is up to SPARC,
15 detracts, from historic character. Support a more;substantial enclosed area.fgr each unit in
16 the front:. And support the integrity oftheorigi,nal design. Concerned: about:the retaining
1:7 wall in, front — St. Vincent's new retaining wall is'a good example. Do not; want it; to be a.
1.8, liability on the town homes — should fall into.. the project.' Individual water meters, do not
ig want it be visual clutter — considered to maintain integrity of building. Landscape plan
20 needs a lot; more work — needs to calm down. Landscape theme needs to .fit. the classic
21 school landscaping. Too many plant materials— needs to be quiet and classic and reflect
.22 the era. Resistplants at top of wall.
2:3
25 not ori final color —find out what the on final `color if ossible. Patios ne inflows was •'
24 Commissioner vonRaesfeld: Ein hasize,for direction to SPARC — blue on w
origin - . g . _ . p _ _ _ ed to screen
26 private areas; —.do not know what solution is — SPARC can. solve. If retaining wall stays,
27 how will it be kept free of graffiti. Deterniination of Wall should be made before; going to
28 SPARC'.
29
3o Commissioner Rose: Agree with other suggestions.that need to be resolved. by SPARC
31 a solid: element would take. away from the building with respect to .railing_ s. May be
32 possible to shield patios with landscaping. Need appropriate compromise — trust that
33 SPARC will recognize the challenge, to maintain the integrity and still. provide space:
34
35 Commissioner Asselrneier: Concur with what has been. said.
36
37 Commissioner Barrett: Concur — agree. with Commissioner. Rose — don't' think a solid
3.8 wall is as good. as 'formal hedges,, do not Want to see wood and copper top on the fencing,
39 — woul&prefer wrought iron — isa SPARC isse.,
40
41 ChairDargiec Agree that these are issues for SPARC.
42
43 Carriage House Architecture,:
44
45 Commissioner McAllister: Troubled by the houses and their relationship to the :street — .
46 they are bui t: over a carport. There is nothing on street .level except a blank wall. Would
47 prefer to have less parking on the site. Houses across the street are 1 -story structures.
6,
Planning Commission Minutes - April 27, 2004
1 Point earlier about how yards are accessed was a good one. Solution is not there yet for
2 the design of the Liberty Street town` homes. Would be better to design .to Liberty Street
3 elevation — side elevations are very troubling. Picket fence on top of wall is odd. Doing
4 "too much" with carriage units.
5
6 Commissioner von Raesfeld: Have the same concerns as Commissioner McAllister
7 Agree with the applicant: that the carriage houses need to identify with the Liberty Street
8 frontage, possibly basement windows to the street, proportionately would be better to
9 have one set of stairs'. Is troubling that we will be approving vesting tentative map —
10 carriage houses, storage, trash enclosure - and parking fronts Liberty Street -all hardscape
11 and competing for the same space:— will- not work like the rest ofthe street. Do not know
12 how to make it a SPARC issue if we approve the lots.
13
14 Commissioner McAllister:- Is related to density. .
15
16 Commissioner von Raesfeld: Is related to density, particularly square footage of units
17 and possibly the number of units.
18
19 Commissioner Asselmeier: Do not believe these structures on Liberty relate to Liberty
20 Street.
21
22 Commissioner McAllister: •If SPARC could-take the comments from this evening and
• 23 then it would be a simple formality to come back to the Planning Commission.
24
25 Commissioner Rose: Is the most difficult part of the project. Should carriage houses
26 relate to. Sweed School or to Liberty Street. Agree with the applicant they need to relate
27 to Liberty Street, however, 3'- stories on Liberty Street is out of place. Need more
28 articulation on the street level. Homes are a level above yards. Do not see a simple
29 solution — may be born in compromise.
30
31 Commissioner McAllister: Take comments and redesign - and take to SPARC — if they
32 can sign off then Planning Commission could hopefully approve. Density needs to be
33 tweaked.
34
35 Commissioner Barrett: Only serious issue on the site. Problems with subdivision map
36
37 Commissioner von Raesfeld: Possibly approve lots 1 -11. Do not see a way of approving
38 12 -14 without SPARC looking the issues.
39
40 Commissioner Asselmeier: If SPARC works over the carriage house side of this and then
41 come back to Planning Commission.
42
43 George .White: Suggested a break to talk with the applicant to discuss what they are
.44 willing and can do.
is 45
46 Break ,@ 9:50
47 Meeting resumed at 10:05
Planning Commission Minutes - Aprij 27, 2004
1
2 Maria Poncel: Cannot lose density, will try to do some reconfiguring and requesting a
3 continuance for 1 month. •
4
5 MIS Barrett /Von Raesfeld to continue to May 25, 2004. 7 -0
6
8
•
8
0 1
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
• 42
43
44
CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
MEMORANDUM
Community Development :Departmeni, `Planning.Division, 11 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952
(707) 778 -4301 Fax (707) 778 -4498 E -mail: plan ning@ci:petaluma.ca.us
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT
May' 25, 2004
Planning Commission
Kim. Gordon, Assistant Planner ;
SWEED SCHOOL ADAPTIVE REUSE '& NEW CARRIAGE UNITS
REZONE TO PLANNED UNIT DISTRICT (03 -REZ =0067)
14 -LOT TENTATIVE -SUBDIVISIONMAP
331 KELLER STREET APN 006- 2137004 OAKHILL- BREWSTER
HISTORIC-DISTRICT Continued `from April 27, 2004
AGENDA .ITEM NO. I
At the April 27, 2004 hearing, the.Planning .Commission reviewed the proposed tentative
subdivision map PUD Plan,, and application for rezoning. The, Planning Commission
provided the following comments to, the,applicant (See Attachment G):
Carriage House Units
• Provide better relationship to the street
• Improve access to the yard areas.
• Provide more articulation at street level.
• Reconsider the fence: on top of the retaining wall
• Reconsider the blank wall at street level
• Relate unit's to Liberty Street architecture
• Improve the side elevations
Sweed School
• Provide screening ofKeller Street patios to prevent visual clutter.
• Investi'gate - original window color- existing blue windows are not original
• Investigate, the missing .plaque prior to review by 'the Historic and Cultural
Preservation Committee
Site Plan
e Consider reducing the amount of hardscape
I • Provide pedestrian circulation
2
3 General
4
5. • Modify construction hours to allow only interiorwork .on Saturday
6 • Refer the'neighborhood traffic issuesto the'Traffic Committee
7 • The landscaping plan needs to be,simplifi'ed
8
9 The applicant requested that the project be continued to the May 25, 20.04 .hearing to.
10 allow time to redesign the project and address `the comments provided by the
I I Commission. On May. 11, 2004, the app Iicant submitted .a revised architectural site plan
12, and revised front elevations of the carriage house units (See Attachments ; L and,M).
13
14 RESIDONSE 'TO PLANNING COMMISSION. COMMENTS
15
16 The revised plans submitted on May 111,, 2004 `include the following modif cations; in
17 response to the comments from the - Planning Commission (See Attachment H,
118 Applicant's Narratives):
19
20 Carriage House Units
2.1
22 • Units.] and 3 have single car garages which continues an existing pattemn on
23 Liberty Street.
24 • All units have a ground leyel entry_ with interior. stairs to living space to provide
25 better access to the yard' areas:
26' ® The architecture has been revised. to better relate to Liberty Street:
27 • The living area of Unit Cl has `been lowered in. order lower the elevation and
28 reduce the distance between the driveway and the deck above.
29 • Windows have been included in the LibertyStreet elevation of the , carport to
30 eliminate the blank wall
31 • The height of the retaining wall has been reduced to allow visibility of the yard
32 areas from the street.
33
34 Site Plan
35
36 The Sweed School part of the site ,plan has 'not been modified. The carriage house and
37 parking areas of the- site plan include the following modifications:
38
39 • The picket fence is located 2 feet behind the Liberty Street retaining wall.
40 e The trash area has been,rriodifed. A smaller trash area is located in the carport
41 area 5 feet from the south property line in the same location as originally
42 proposed. A second trash area is located in the carport area 4 feet from the north
43 property Tine. 'The narrative from the applicant indicates that the 'each trash area
44 will ,accomm''odate eight 80 gallon bins and ,that each bin will be used by two
45 households; This leaves room for 4 recycling bins in each trash area.
..
2
44 of the . Sweed School Townhouse PUD project. The City Engineer has reviewed the
45 proposal from .Zack Mately discussed at the April 27 hearing for edge line striping and
46 diagonal parking (See Attachment K). The edge line striping on Liberty Street is
3
1.
2
The angled. uncovered parking spaces have been aligned with the - adjacent
uncovered; parking spaces.
3
® Units 1 and 3 have driveways with Hollywood strips` in .order to reduce the
4.
amount, of hardscape,
5
6
Parking
7
8
® Unit C1 has one parking space in the driveway 'in front of a new one car garage
9
that is accessed, from Liberty Street.
10
® Unit C2 has a two car garage that is accessed from within the common parking
11
area.
12
® Unit C3 has one parking space in the driveway in front' of a new one car garage
13
that is accessed from Liberty'Street.
14
® Ten covered parking spaces are located in' the carport area under the carriage
15
house units.
16
® Twelve uncovered parking spaces are located in the common parking area.
17
® The project now provides 28 parking spaces '(2 parking spaces per unit).
1.8
19
Pedestrian Circulation
20
21
® A 4 -foot wide pedestrian path -has been.provided along the south side of the main
22
23
entry driveway on Liberty Street. This path continues, through the common
parking area and has a connection to the walkway at the rear of the Sweed'School
24
building.
25
® There are two paths that .allow access from Liberty Street to the rear of the site.
26
One path is located along the south property line and. , a ramp is located 'along the
27
north property line.
28
® The paths have been differentiated from the main access driveway and parking
29
area'by the use of a different pavement treatment.
30
31
Landscaping
32
33
m . The two'parallel parking spaces located at the rear of the Sweed. School building
. 34..
have been removed and replaced with landscaping.
35
• The angled uncovered parking spaces have been aligned `with th'e other uncovered
36
parking spates to allow the consolidation_of the landscaped are
37
38
Keller Street Diagonal Parking,and Liberty Street Striping
39
40
The revised plans - do not' include diagonal parking on Keller Street or the edge line
41
striping for Liberty Street -. However, the narrative submitted by the applicant states that if
42
the City findsthat the parking:on Keller Street and striping on Liberty Street would be
43
beneficial to the neighborhood, 'the applicant would consider including this work as part
44 of the . Sweed School Townhouse PUD project. The City Engineer has reviewed the
45 proposal from .Zack Mately discussed at the April 27 hearing for edge line striping and
46 diagonal parking (See Attachment K). The edge line striping on Liberty Street is
3
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1.8
19
20
21'
22
23
24
2'5
acceptable to the City Engineer,. The City Engineer has the following recommendations
related to ,diagonal parking on .Keller Street I) all improvements be evaluated by the
applicant's traffic engineer for safety and standard practice 2) the evaluation of the
diagonal parking include the adequacy` of backup distance 3) landscaping in ,the triangular
islands be allowed only if approved by the Parks Department and 4) if diagonal parking is
allowed on Keller Street that it begin, at the corner- of Oak Street as was shown in
Alternative 2. Although staff has requested that the applicant's traffic engineer provide
an evaluation of the diagonal parking and respond to the safety concerns -raised at the
April 27"'-Planning Commission meeting,.no evaluation has been provided at the writing
of this report. If the.Planning Commission chooses to pursue the diagonal °parking,, staff
recommends that the Planning Commission include a condition that pri or to: any City
Council action on the project .the work described above and recommended by the * City.
Engineer be done.
STAFF ANALYSIS
Parkin
The revised parking plan provides 2& parking spaces (2 parking spaces per unit). This.is
less than the 1 paring space. per bedroom- previously proposed by the applicant. The
traffic study indicated that the peak weekday ;parking demand for the project would be
1.1 1 parking spaces per - unit : or 16 parking. spaces. On the weekend, the7:peak demand' was
estimated to''be .95 spaces per unit or 14 parking spaces. 'The proposed number of on site
parking spaces exceeds the demand stated in the parking study._
26 The proposed size of thel garages may not be adequate. The single, car garages measure
27 11' wide by 19' deep and the two car garage measures 19' by 19'. Typically. staff
.'28 recommends that single car .garages .measure 10 `feet wide by 20 feet deep and two car
29 garages measure 2,0 feet wide by 20 feet deep from interior "wall to intenor,yall', which is
30 one foot wider and one foot deeper than the 'SPARC Guideline for an uncovered parking
31 space. The increase in the dimension. is intended to allow for the opening of car doors
32 and to provide adequate room, for larger vehicles. The garages as proposed are
33 inconsistent with these dimensions; however, these dimensions may, be considered as,part .
34 of the proposed. PUD Development =Plan and PUD Guidelines.
3.5
36 The typical required length for -a driveway is 20 feet -and is provided on the -project site.
37 The proposed driveway parking spaces for Units 1 and 3 measure approximately l_5 feet
38. when 'measured from the property line to the ,.garage door. The applicant has proposed;
39 that the parking be allowed to overhang the public :right of way by approximately 3 feet,
40 creating a driveway` parking space that is L8 .feet deep. This has been reviewed by and is,
41 acceptable 'to: ,the City Engineer: Th & dimension, is also consistent with the minimum
42 parking stall dimension ..proposed as part of the PUD' Guidelines for the project. As part of
43. the PUD, the applicant is requesting, a reduction in 'the dimensions typically required for
44 the garage, carport, and uncovered parking.,
45
C7
•
•
4
}
I John Wilson, the app'licant's- traffic engineer, has reviewed the revised.parking plan and
• 2 has indicated that the previous : analysis of access to interior parking spaces and
3 ambulance access for the project remain in effect (See Attachment J). In the traffic
4 original traffic study, Mr. Wilson... indicated that the parking spaces were accessible for
5 arrival and departure with no more than two maneuvers:and that access was adequate for
6 an ambulance as reqpestedl by the Fire. Marshal'' office.
7
8 Useable Open Space
9
JO Due to the reconfiguration. of the carriage 'house yard .areas and the provision of
11 driveways for Units C I and. C3, the amount of usable open space for the project has been
12 reduced. The project now provides approximately 6,000 square feet of useable open
13 space in the form of private yards, patios, porches, and, common yard areas. The
14 modifications to the site plan have reduced the useable open space by approximately 700
15 square feet to 432 square feet;.per unit. However", the Commission:`had indicated at the
16 April 27 meeting that is was unlikely that the yard 'areas for the carriage house would be
17 used as originally configured: As part of the' PUD, the applicant is requesting the amount
18 of open space be approved as proposed.
19
20 Retaining Wall
21
22 The Planning Commission discussed the Keller Street 'ietairiing wall. and that the wall
23 should be structurally evaluated as part of the project. A condition of approval from the
24 Engineering Division requires the retaining wall "to. be evaluated as-.part of the project
25 (See Attachment E, Condition #27). If the retaining wail, needs to be 'replaced or
26 repaired, this would be: required t6 'be completed as part of the project. The historic
27 evaluation prepared by Carey and Company identifies.the retaining wall on Keller Street
28 as an exterior architectural ' feature that contributes to the property's historical
29 significance. Any work that may modify the exterior appearance of the retaining wall
30 would require an. evaluation to determine if the modification would have a negative
31 impact on the historic integrity of the wall and the building: '
32
33 Construction Hours
34: .
35 Based on the direction from ,Planning Commission, staff has- modified the conditions of
36 approval for noise to state that only interior- work is permitted on Saturdays (See
37 Attachment E, Condit'ion'# 9).
38
39 Emergency Vehicle. Access .
40
41 The plans have been reviewed. by the Fire Marshal's office. The Fire Marshal! has
42 indicated that in -the event of'a fire, the fire would, be fought from Liberty and Keller
43 Streets and he does, not!",expect to have a fire truck .enter the Interior common `parking
44 area. However, .at the ,request of the Fire Marshal's, office, the common parking area was
• 45 evaluated to ensure that an ambulance could access the site. The applicant provided an
I ambulance, circulation plan to the Fire Marshal's. office and the access for an ambulance
2 was determined to be adequate.'
3
4 Historic and Cultural. Preservation Committee Review
6 The conditions of approval include several items that are required to be reviewed by the
7 Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee. Based on the Commission''s discussion,
8 staff has added the following: items to the list: 1) -the design of the enctosure for the Keller
9 Streets patio areas 2) reuse of blue for the windows on the Sweed School building since:
10 the color is not original and 3) "thexelationship of'the Liberty Street retaining walls to, the
11 new Liberty$treet fencing (See•Attachment E, Condition #5).
1.2
13 ' Timing of Window'Replacement 1Vliti ati'on
14
15 Based on the discussion at the Planning Commission meeting, staff has modified the
16 timing, of the mitigation measure and condition related to determining which windows.are
17 required to be replaced and which, windows are required to be. repaired (S.ee Attachment
18 F, and Attachment E, Condition • #20). The applicant is now required to return to' the .
19 Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee for approval of the window replacement
20 and window repair: prior to building permit 'issuance.
21
22 Effect of Modifications on Tentative'SubdivisiomMap
23
to the site plan and elevations: do'not require any modifications
25 t ti the tentative o subdivision on map jhat,was presented to Planning Commission at the Apri l
26 27' hearing.
27
28 Modifications to Mitigation Measures and Conditions of Approval
29
30 The mod! "ficatidns to the original conditions of approval and mitigation measures are
31 indicated in'sirikethrough and italics (See-Attacliments E and F).
-32'
33 PUBLIC COMMENTS
34
35 Three new correspondences have been received since the last hearing: One was, emailed
3,6 from Mark Gerhard at 322: Liberty Street. to 'the Community: Development Department on
37 May 11 cn. ,A second ,email from David Mustart at 318 Liberty was sent: to the Community
38 Development Department on May 11 ` Both correspondences requested :a - reduction in-
39 the hours of construction, including limited or no construction on Saturdays and a
40 relocation of the trash areas to the north sides of the project (See Attachment .H'). Dr.
41 Mustart also expressed concerns regarding; the density of the project; the amount of "traff c
42 that would 'be generated by the project - and suggested that the Liberty Street :driveway
43 entrance :be; relocated to the north end of the property: A third correspondence was
44 received from Commissioner Pamela .Asseliileier vi
email on May 12, 2004..
45 Commissioner Asselmeer indicated that she had. reviewed draft revi'sions of the project
46 and had a favorable impression of the redesigned elements o'f .the project, including the
0
T i
1
garages on Liberty Street architecture, and the loss of interior parking spaces if it
2
allowed for additional
landscaping and more outdoor space.
3
4
5
AST TACHMEN TS
6
7
Attachment A:
Draft Findings for Approval — Mitigated Negative Declaration
8
Attachment B:
Draft Findings for Approval - - Rezoning to Planned Unit District
9
Attachment C:
Draft Findings for Approval — Adoption of Planned Unit District Map
10
and. Guidelines Development Standards
11
Attachment D:
Draft Findings for Approval — Tentative Subdivision Map
12 .
Attachment E:.
Revised Draft Recommended Conditions of Approval
13
Attachment F:
Revised Excerpt Initial ; Study ,
14
Attachment G:
Excerpt_ Planning Commission Minutes, April 27, 2004
15
- Attachment H: "
Applicant "s `Response to Planning Commission dated May 11 & 18,
16
2004
17
Attachment I:
Neighborhood .Correspondence
18
Attachment J:
Email from John Wilson, Traffic .Engineer dated May 17 2004
19
Attachment K:
Email "from Craig Spaulding, City Engineer dated May. 17, 2004
20
Attachment L:
Reduced "=Plans- Tentative Subdivision Map, PUD Development Plan,
21
,Architectural Plans
22
Attachment M:
Full Size Plans- Revised Site Plan and Carriage House Elevations
• 23
Only,(Planning Commissioners Only)
7
l �
t
Planning, Comiiiission 'Minutes - May 25, 2004
p, L U City of Petaluma, California
City Council " Chambers
C y
1t English,Street
Petaluma, CA
Telephone 707 /778 -4301 / Fax 707/778 -4498,
E -Mail planninp,(d;ci:petaluma.ca.us
Web Page http:A xW.c .heta9uma.ca.us
11
•
1
2 Planning Co mmis0lion" M imutes
3 May 25, 2004 - 7 :00 PM
4
5 Commissioners: ,Present. Barrett, Dargie *, Harris, McAllister, Rose
6 Absent: Asselmeier, von.Raesfeld
7 * Chair
8
9 Staff: George White, Assistant. Director, Community Development
10 Kim Gordon, Assistant, Planner
11
12
13 ROLL CALL:
14 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of May 1.1,, 2004 were approved as amended.
15 M/S Barrett /McAllister, 4- 0 -2 - -1; Asselmeier, von Raesfeld absent, Harris abstained.
16 PUBLIC COMMENT: None'..
17 DIRECTOR'S REPORT: None.
18 COMMISS'IONER'S REPORT: None.
19 CORRESPONDENCE: None
20 APPEAL STATEMENT: Wa¬ed on the agenda..
21 LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was noted on the agenda.
22
23"
24 Meeting began @ 7:00
25
26
27
28 PUBLIC HEARING:
29 NEW BUSINESS':
30
31 I. SWEED SCHOOL,1331. Keller Street
32 AP No.: 006 - 213 =004
33 File: 03 -REZ -0067
34 Planner: Kim Gordon
35
Planning Commission Minutes - May 25,2 004
1 Applicant is requesting a recommendation to the City Council of a proposal for 1)
2 rezoning of the 31,906' square foot parcel. from, Garden Apartment Residential •
3 (RMG) to Planned Unit: District (PUD) ,2) a. tentative subdivision map, lor a 14 -lot
4 residential' subdivision with, a +common area, parcel. The site is located at 331
5 Keller Street in - the Oakhill- Brewster Historic District. The proposal requires
6 adoption of a mitigated_ .negative declaration, rezoning to a planned unfit district,
7 adoption of the unit development plan and development - standards and approval
8 of a tentative subdivision map.
to Continued from April 27, 2004.
11
12
13 Chair Dargie noted that the public hearing on this item had been closed'.
14
15 Discussion began at 7;05 p.m.
16
17 Kim. Gordon introduced''the item and discussed the revisions that had occuired since the
18 last Manning. Commission meeting. Ms. Gordon noted that both Commissioner
19 Asselmeier and von Raesfeld who were not present were in favor of the revisions to the
20 Carnage. House Units.
21
22 Maria Ponsel of West Bay builders ,spoke briefly and indicated that, the project architect
23 and traffic engineer were available for questions.
24,
25 Commission discussion:
26
27 Carriage House units:
291 The,. Commission, consensus was, that the revised' design was a significant improvement
29 'and that their concerns regarding the. tentative map and constraints Ori future SPARC,
30 review of these units were addressed. The Commission accepted the reduced dimensions
31 of the new :garages and driveway :parking,As being adequate. The applicant was reminded
32 'that the units would be subject to the guidelines of 'the. Oakh'l1- Brewster Historic: district
33 which may not allow certain types of modern materials such as cement board siding.
34
35 Diagonat Varking on Keller St.:
36 The Commission' generally supported this concept but agreed with.. the staff
37 recomrnendafion that the plan be formally reviewed by the applicant's traffic engineer
38 and by the City Engineer to determine if this diagonal configuration was safe and if the
39 street adequate to support this improvement. This review would, take place prior .to:
40 the *item being heard by the City' Council: The .residential neighbor located at the:'corner
41 of Oak Street and Keller Street should also be contacted as part of this review.
42
43 M/S 'McAllister /Barrett to recommend to the City Council to adopt the Mitigated
44 Negative ;Declaration and approve the Rezoning Unit Development Plan, PUD
45 Guidelines and tentative map subject to the draft findings 'and conditions of approval. 5 -0.
4.6
47 Item was concluded at 7:30 P.M.