HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 2020-195 N.C.S. 12/21/2020Resolution No. 2020-195 N.C.S. Page 1
Resolution No. 2020-195 N.C.S.
of the City of Petaluma, California
RESOLUTION DENYING THE APPEALS FILED BY MARGIE AND TODD TURREL, JASON
AND ELSA BEATTY, AND BONNIE SPINDLER AND UPHOLDING THE HISTORIC AND
CULTURAL PRESERVATION COMMITTEE’S APPROVAL OF HISTORIC SITE PLAN
AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR THE PROJECT LOCATED AT 26 SIXTH STREET
APN: 008-045-025; FILE NO’S. PLSR-20-0003; PLAP-20-0002, -0003, & -0004
WHEREAS, Bill Wolpert, on behalf of property owners Ginnie and Pete Haas, submitted an application
for Historic Site Plan and Architectural Review approval for exterior modifications at 26 Sixth Street (APN
008-045-025) (“Project”); and
WHEREAS, on July 14, 2020, the Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee considered a staff report
analyzing the application, including the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) determination
included therein; and
WHEREAS, on July 14, 2020 the Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee held a duly noticed public
hearing to consider the application, at which time all persons interested had the opportunity to be heard; and,
WHEREAS, the Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee considered the Project, the staff report,
and received and considered all written and oral public comments on the Project which were submitted up to
and at the time of the public hearings; and
WHEREAS, on July 14, 2020, the Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee approved Resolution
No. 2020-01 approving Historic Site Plan and Architectural Review for the Haas Family Residential Remodel;
and
WHEREAS, on July 28, 2020, timely and separate appeals of the Historic and Cultural Preservation
Committee’s approval of the project under Resolution No. 2020-01 were filed by Margie and Todd Turrel,
Jason and Elsa Beatty, and Bonnie Spindler; and
WHEREAS, public notice of the appeal hearing before the City Council was published in the Petaluma
Argus-Courier on September 24, 2020 and mailed to residents and occupants within 1,000 feet of the Project
site in compliance with state and local law; and
WHEREAS, the appeal hearing was continued by the City Council to a date certain of December 21, 2020;
and
WHEREAS, a staff report dated December 21, 2020 and incorporated herein by reference analyzed the
appeal; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on December 21, 2020, at which time
the City Council considered the appeal and all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Project, the staff report, the appeal letters, and received and
considered all written and oral public comments on the Project which were submitted up to and at the time of
the public hearings.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 365BC1BA-94A3-4312-821E-268367B848B7
Resolution No. 2020-195 N.C.S. Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Petaluma the following:
1. On December 21, 2020, the City Council fully considered all evidence presented before and at the
duly notice public hearing regarding this matter, and on the basis of the staff report, testimony, and
other evidence, and the record of proceedings herein, denies the appeals of Margie and Todd
Turrel, Jason and Elsa Beatty, and Bonnie Spindler filed with the City Clerk on July 28, 2020 and
upholds the Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee’s approval of approval of Resolution
2020-01, with modification and conditions, based on the findings contained in this resolution.
2. The City Council adopts the following findings for the denial of the appeal as supported by the
record of proceedings:
California Environmental Quality Act
a. The Project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Minor Alteration of Existing Facilities) and
15331 (Historical Resource/Rehabilitation).
General Plan
b. The Project is consistent with the site’s Land Use Map designation of Diverse Low Density
Residential since it would result in the site continuing to accommodate a residential land use.
c. General Plan Policy 1-P-3 states, “Preserve the overall scale and character of established
residential neighborhoods.” The project would preserve the existing scale and character of the
neighborhood. The overall scale and character of the neighborhood consists of single- family
dwellings at one or two stories on individual lots. The project would retain its use as a single-
family dwelling, thereby reinforcing the residential character of the neighborhood.
d. Policy 3-P-1, states “Protect historic and archaeological resources for the aesthetic, cultural,
educational, environmental, economic, and scientific contribution they make to maintaining
and enhancing Petaluma’s character, identity and quality of life.” The careful design of the
proposed project minimizes impact to the existing house and incorporates the construction
consistent with the A – Street neighborhood.
Implementing Zoning Ordinance
e. The Project is consistent with all R3 zoning district development standards, including but not
limited to, those concerning setbacks, building height, and lot coverage.
‘A’ Street Historic District Guidelines
f. Style. As discussed in the HRE, the architectural style of the changes to the subject building
are largely consistent with existing style of the house and there are no new character defining
elements that would convey a different style. While there are some elements of the proposed
addition that are not reflective of the Transitional style, such as the wooden floor length
windows at the rear of the addition, these elements depict a modern element to the building
and enable the distinction of the addition from the historic structure.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 365BC1BA-94A3-4312-821E-268367B848B7
Resolution No. 2020-195 N.C.S. Page 3
g. Design. The proposed expansions to the subject property are consistent with the structure’s
original design as they avoid eclectic assemblages of architectural motifs or artificial details to
convey a false sense of history and will retain defining elements of the building’s Transitional
style. Further, the project focuses the area of greatest changes at the rear of the building where
they are not highly visible from the public right-of-way.
h. Arrangement. Although the proposal includes a substantial increase to the square-footage of
the existing building, the essential form of the modified building maintains its proportionality
to the size of the subject property. Additionally, the proposal complies with all height and
setback requirements within the R3 Zoning District, as well as the ‘A’ Street Historic District’s
guidelines related to front and side yard setbacks, height, and the overall solid to void
proportions of the front façade.
i. Texture and Materials. The proposal includes textures and materials appropriate for the subject
property. The front and side porch alterations will return the original wood materials that have
historically been found on structure. Additionally, the proposed rear addition will apply wood
siding consistent with the existing structure but will provide siding at a different width to
facilitate a differentiation between the existing and new structures.
j. Colors. The project proposes re-painting the existing building and new additions in their
totality. The chosen color palate features white as the primary color and uses black, teal, dark
teal and gold for accent treatments. This palate is appropriate for the neighborhood and the
time period of the original structure.
k. Accessory Fixtures. The project does not include any accessory fixtures. Nor does the proposal
include removal of fixtures.
l. Landscape. The landscaping elements included in the proposal relate to the excavation of the
driveway and supporting retaining walls. The concrete retaining walls will include a parged
treatment. No other landscaping elements are proposed. Additionally, the hardscaping of area
within the front yard is less than 200 square-feet.
Secretary of Interior’s Standards and Guidelines
m. As conditioned, the Project is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for
Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings, as follows:
a. Standard #1: The historic use of the property as a residence is maintained.
b. Standard #2: The project retains much of the historic character of the subject property.
Although the project removes the rear dormer, an element believed to be part of the original
design, the addition enables modernization of the structure and complies with the
guidelines for the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation as they relate to new
exterior additions to historic buildings. The rear addition complies with the Standards as it
applies the same forms, materials, and colors of the historic building in a manner that does
not duplicate the existing resource; thereby effectively distinguishing the addition from the
original building. Additionally, the proposed addition is distinguished from the original
structure because it is set back from the wall planes of the historic building on both sides
by one-foot, providing a hyphen between the original and new massing.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 365BC1BA-94A3-4312-821E-268367B848B7
Resolution No. 2020-195 N.C.S. Page 4
c. Standard #3: The proposed project does not create a false sense of historical development.
The proposed addition is designed to be differentiated from the main house. Further the
restoration of the front and side entry stairs are based on the details found in the historic
record of the property.
d. Standard #4: Based on information in the record, there have been minor rear and side
additions to the house, most of which occurred outside of the period significance, 1865 to
1925, with the exception of the rear porch. While the HRE identifies the construction of
the rear porch as having occurred between 1910 and 1923, it also describes the porch as a
common minor feature that underwent subsequent alterations such that it does not retain
its original integrity. Therefore, its removal is not considered to be detrimental to the
overall integrity of the house.
e. Standard #5: The HRE identifies the arched porch openings at the front and east side
facades as the most distinctive elements of the home. Additionally, the Department of Parks
and Recreation (DPR) form included in the HRE lists the character defining features of the
existing structure that are emblematic of the Transitional style. With the exception of the
rear dormer, these elements of the property will be preserved.
f. Standard #6: The proposal includes restoration of the front and side porch stairs and railings
to wood, which was the original material used for these features.
g. Standard #7: No chemical or inappropriate physical treatments on the house will be
undertaken.
h. Standard #8: As conditioned, appropriate measures to protect and preserve significant
archeological resources will be taken in the event that potentially significant prehistoric or
historic archeological resources are encountered during the course of ground disturbing
activities.
i. Standard #9: As noted above the new addition complies with the guidelines for the
Standards given that the proposed addition is distinct from and diminutive to the original
structure. Although the rear addition includes full-height fenestration elements, these
features are not visible from the public right-of-way, still maintain an appropriate solid to
void ratio, enhance the habitability of the existing residence, and further distinguish the
addition from the historic structure.
j. Standard #10: The proposed rear addition could be removed in the future and the essential
form and integrity of the property would remain unimpaired. Similarly, the exterior
alterations proposed to accommodate access to the excavated basement level could also be
removed, although the site would lose vehicular access to the basement level.
Site Plan and Architectural Review
n. As conditioned, the Project is consistent with the Site Plan and Architectural Review standards
stated in IZO §24.010, as follows:
a. The Project will use quality materials (e.g. horizontal V-groove siding, wood windows) to
ensure harmony and proportion of overall design that is consistent with the surrounding
neighborhood. The rear addition is also set in 1-foot from the side walls of the historic
structure to diminish any perceived presence from the public right-of-way.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 365BC1BA-94A3-4312-821E-268367B848B7
Resolution No. 2020-195 N.C.S. Page 5
b. For reasons stated above, the architectural style is compatible with the main residence and
is appropriate for the ‘A’ Street Historic District.
c. The Project would expand the rear massing of the structure into an area that is currently
open space but would otherwise not alter the existing footprint. Additionally, the Project is
consistent with all development standards as outlined for the R3 zoning district including
setbacks and height. The Project results in a siting that is compatible with other surrounding
residences in the District and proportionate to the size of the subject lot.
d. This finding is not applicable to the proposed project since it includes the remodel of an
existing residence with no existing signage.
e. The bulk, height, and color of the proposed project are in harmony with the existing
residence and other structures found within the immediate neighborhood. The bulk and
height and color are appropriate for the District and will be compatible with the immediate
neighborhood. Neighboring lots in the vicinity include one to two-story single-family
residences on single lots, many of which also include accessory structures. The proposed
colors include white for the body of the building with black, teal, dark teal and gold colors
for accents and trim. As stated above, these colors are appropriate for the neighborhood, as
well as the historic structure.
f. The Project does not include any landscaping changes beyond the excavation for the
proposed driveway and the construction of necessary retaining walls.
g. The Project would not alter existing ingress, egress, or internal circulation as it makes use
of the existing driveway location.
3. Based on its review of the entire record herein, including the July 14, 2020 Planning Commission
Staff Report and the December 21, 2020 City Council Staff Report, all supporting, referenced, and
incorporated documents, the appeal letter, and all comments received, the City Council hereby
denies the appeal of the Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee’s approval of the Project’s
Historic Site Plan and Architectural Review, with modification and conditions attached hereto as
Exhibit 1.
Under the power and authority conferred upon this Council by the Charter of said City.
REFERENCE: I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution was introduced and adopted by the
Council of the City of Petaluma at a Regular meeting on the 21st day of
December 2020, by the following vote:
Approved as to
form:
__________________________
City Attorney
AYES: Mayor Barrett; Vice Mayor Fischer Healy; Kearney; King; McDonnell; Miller
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST: ______________________________________________
City Clerk
______________________________________________
Mayor
DocuSign Envelope ID: 365BC1BA-94A3-4312-821E-268367B848B7