HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 07/13/1999City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes - July 13, 1999
2
� 3
Ig50
4
5
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
45
CITE' OF PETALUMA, CA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
July 13, 1999, 7:00 PM
CI'T'Y COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CITY HALL, 11 ENGLISH STREET
PETALUMA, CA 94952
Telephone 707/778 -4301 / Fax 707/778 -4498
E -Mail planning @ci.petaluma ca us
Web Page http: / /www.ci.petaluma.ca.us
Commissioners: Present: Bennett* Broad, Feibusch, Glass, Healy, Vieler (arrived at
7:35PM)
Absent: Barrett
* Chairperson
Staff: Vincent C. Smith Aicp, Interim Planning Director
Hans Grunt, Associate Planner
*Chairperson
ROLL CALL:
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of June 22, 1999 were approved with
clarification to pages 6 and 10.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Ridgeview Heights Tentative Subdivision Map - The
appropriateness of reopening this item as a Director's Report was discussed. Vincent
Smith indicated that this item was noticed to the applicant, appropriate to discuss.
Commissioner Healy would like feedback from Bicycle Committee; agrees with staff
recommendation of Option 3. Commissioner Broad - why would Bicycle Committee be
allowed to comment again? Would take this to Council without comments from Bicycle
Committee — let Council decide. Commissioner Feibusch agreed with Commissioner
Broad. Commissioner Glass agreed with Option C. Chair Bennett - Consensus to
take to Council recommending Option C contained in staff memo dated July 13, 1999.
COMMISSIONERS' REPORT:
CORRESPONDENCE: Letter from William Rhoads and Scott Eberle regarding
Kemmerly Accessory Dwelling; letter from Patricia Tuttle Brown regarding Maxwell
Subdivison; petition in opposition of Kemmerly project.
APPEAL STATEMENT: Was read.
46 LEGAL, RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was noted on the agenda.
1
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes - July 13, 1999
1
2
3
4 CONTINUED BUSINESS:
5 PUBLIC HEARING:
6
7 I. CELLULAR ONE; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE; 1
8 CASA GRANDE ROAD; AP NO. 005 -050 -028; FILE NO. CUP98032,
9 VAR990026kt).
10
11 Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit to authorize construction of a 100 foot
12 monopole with 12 antennae and a 135 sq.ft. equipment building
13
14 (Continued from the June 22, 1999 Planning Commission meeting.)
15
16 Vincent Smith presented the staff report.
17
18 The public hearing was opened.
19
20 SPEAKERS:
21
22 Commissioner Feibusch — Do you know height of existing poles along Highway 101.
23 Vincent Smith — No, guessing they are taller than 100 feet.
24 Commissioner Broad — Question regarding Article 24 — is this referencing section of
25 Zoning Ordinance?
26 Vincent Smith — Article 24 of ZO (under Exceptions) — 24 -100 discusses height
27 limitation exception.
28 Commissioner Broad — Can we make the findings necessary to allow this Exception
29 based on the Petaluma Municipal Code?
30 Vincent Smith — I believe the findings can be made based on color, landscaping, and
31 existing buildings.
32 Commissioner Broad — Has this applicant looked at the Caltrans site?
33 Commissioner Glass — The area is not an attractive area, applicant stated that 75 feet
34 would suffice; would it? Concern is with the supporting wires, etc. What is the
35 construction? Difficult to visualize 100'.
36 Vincent Smith — As comparison, highest pole at driving range is 100 feet.
37 Joanne Gundermann — Cellular One - Applicant — Can do a 75 foot height without guy -
38 wires (100 foot would not need guy -wires either). Maximum width is 2 '/2 feet (except at
39 antennas, wider). This area chosen in order to stay away from the downtown area.
40 Commissioner Feibusch — Better coverage with 100 foot? (Answer, yes).
41 Roger Sharp — Cellular One — The cross -arm is 10 ft. at the top with 3 antennas that are
42 each a 2 inch diamter and 4 ft. tall. The cross pipe has a 3 inch diameter. — Only 3
43 antennas would be needed if the cross arm is reduced to 7 feet.
44 Commissioner Healy — Has two sets of computer generated photos — confused about
45 which set of plans is proposed, the antennas or the wheel, 75 feet or 100 ft..
46 Joanne Gundermann — supplied computer generated photos of proposal (100 foot
2
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes - July 13, 1999
1 height); would need 3 to 4 sites if antenna were shorter than 75 feet.
2
3 Public hearing was closed.
4
5 Commissioner Feibusch — Could maybe live with 100 foot antenna, this latest drawing
6 is significantly different than drawings previously supplied; does not want to increase
7 need for several other antennas; could settle for 75 foot antenna; would not impact
8 neighbors views. Area is industrial, some view is possible from Hwy. 101; didn't even
9 see the 200 ft. tower when he drove out to this site.
10 Vincent Smith — Staff recommendation was based on proposal which was more compact
11 than current simulation supplied tonight. The full size set of plans attached to the staff
12 report show the cross bar and not the wheel.
13 Commissioner Broad — Concerns about this application, not willing to vote for this
14 tonight; does not want to have to say he was unaware of this height after antenna is up;
15 pleased that this is proposed in an industrial area and not on the Petaluma Hotel. It looks
16 like a reduced scale space needle. Hard to visualize 100 ft. or 75 ft. Applicant needs to
17 supply a technical document explaining why it is not technicially feasible to place the
18 tower elsewhere and /or co- locate (with other existing antennas /towers), or a letter from
19 other property owner(s) as to why they will not allow a multi -use of their site. Applicant
20 needs to also supply something better illustrating height.
21 Commissioner Glass — Would like to have more information indicating "clustering" of
22 antennas to minimize number of antennas. Would like to see a city policy written
23 regarding clustering.
24 Commissioner Healy — I agree with Commissioner Broad; do not have technicial
25 information needed to allow 75 or 100 foot pole in this area; the Ordinance (Section
26 14.44.1.90). indicates that antennas should not be visible from Hwy. 101 — this is visible
27 from Hwy. 101; not prepared to approve either a 75 ft. or 100 ft. antenna at this location
28 tonight.
29 Chair Bennett — Commission concerns with Findings and height. The findings must be
30 documented. Is less concerned with height, it is better to do a 100 ft. tower that several
31 40 ft. towers around town.
32 Steve LeDoux — Cellular One Attorney - There has been no public opposition; Cellular
33 One looked specifically searched out an industrial area, this fits into this industrial area;
34 looked at view from Hwy. 101, and this a mile away; doesn't want to see this application
35 fall; there is an existing AM/FM antenna; understands that height is an issue; this would
36 supply communications for emergency services; fit into this industrial zone — no other
37 technically feasible area; urges approval.
38 Chair Bennett — Does Commission wish this item to be reopened in order to speak with
39 Cellular Ones engineer regarding technical feasibility ??
40 Commissioners Broad, Glass; Healy — Would like more information in writing,
41 specifically discuss why this could not be clustered — obligated to get a technical opinion
42 on information from engineers.
43 Commissioner Broad — Would like to see in writing why it cannot be clustered on an
44 existing antenna; would like a technical person to review data and speak to Planning
45 Commission).
46 Commissioner Feibusch — Would like more information on design of antenna.
3
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes - July 13, 1999
1 Chair Bennett — Provide better documentation, better presentation; provide this in
2 writing to staff.
3 This item was continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of Tuesday, August 10,
4 1999.
5
6
7 NEW BUSINESS:
8 PUBLIC HEARING:
9
10 16. KEMMERLY ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT; 614 N. FAIR STREET; AP
11 NO. 006 - 383 -000; FILE CUP99006(ib).
12
13 Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit to authorize construction of a detached
14 garage with 640 square foot accessory dwelling unit above.
15
16 Vincent Smith presented the staff report.
17
18 The public hearing was opened.
19
20 SPEAKERS:
21
22 Steve Kemmerly — Applicant — The property is not vacant, there is a 2 -story victorian
23 style house, more than adequate packing, there are 8 spaces, only need 4, only four
24 neighbors responded to notice.
25 Sarah Cummins - 615 N. Fair Street — Neighborhood has been the same for many years;
26 homes Mr. Kemmerly has built do not have adequate backyards, much more concrete
27 than other one -unit homes; these are built for one reason — to generate extra income for
28 the owners; old neighborhood will be changed forever; deny this application.
29 Katie Cooper — 618 N. Fair — Homeowner since 1995; great changes . brought by
30 Kemmerly SFD; lack of integrity of this project; off - street parking achieved by massive
31 amount of concrete; traffic concerns; accessory dwelling will create a rental unit, will
32 alter neighborhood; no more traffic capacity; look at this neigborhood; deny this project.
33 William Rhodes — 611 N. Fair — Concerns with additional traffic; concerns with rental
34 property; N. Fair Street area very much a community, contributed much of "selves" to
35 make this established neighborhood work; neighborhood should have been more involved
36 in Planning process — sorely lacking; continue to see inappropriate projects.
37 Lewis Olker 620 N. Fair — The single - family dwelling already built is very much larger
38 than existing homes on N. Fair; petition in opposition signed by 100% of homeowners.
39 John Cummins - 615 N. Fair — Mr. Kemmerly has not made an effort to get to know the
40 neighbors or neighborhood; concerns on impact of this project; drawn to neighborhood
41 because of stability, has feeling of established, old neighborhood; traffic concerns.
42 Steve Kemmerly — Clarified - has not built in Petaluma before, is not a developer, ony
43 builds one house per year; other similar projects built by others.
44
45 Public hearing closed.
46
4
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes - July 13, 1999
1 Vincent Smith — Explained City policies regarding encouraging accessory dwelling
2 units. Cited General Plan Housing program 923.
3 Chair Bennett — Any adopted development standards which would preclude this type of
4 development?
5 Vincent Smith — No, this meets all standards.
6 Commissioner Healy — Supports accessory dwelling units; some of these projects have
7 been well designed; this site could more readily accommodate a single -story unit, less
8 intrusion to existing adjacent properties; does not like the design; redesign — more
9 thoughtful, respectful to neighborhood.
10 Commissioner Glass — This project has been designed to comply with all of the "rules"
11 and would fit into the neighborhood.
12 Commissioner Broad — While General Plan encourages second units; advocate of in -fill
13 development; this project does not show sensitivity to surrounding neighborhood;
14 windows show no respect for surrounding neighbors' privacy — second two -story unit
15 does not blend into this neighborhood; this is not a well - designed project, insulting
16 design; does not retain unique flavor of this neighborhood; require sensitive designs for
17 in -felt development; short- coming in some of City policies; many other cities require
18 primary unit to be owner - occupied; wants to see alternative design for this project.
19 Commissioner Vieler — Agrees with other statements of Commission; should be single -
20 story; redesign, poorly planned, too much impervious surface; revise landscape plan,
21 limit parking to a total of 4 spaces; for future, planning should look at requiring main unit
22 to be owner - occupied; make as attractive as possible.
23 Commissioner Feibusch — This should be redesigned, there is enough room on this lot;
24 one -story unit would be more sensitive, new SFD fits into neighborhood; cannot design
25 project for applicant, too much paved surface; other alternatives, be more creative, supply
26 more .privacy; will this receive full SPARC review?
27 Vincent Smith — No SPARC review as standard procedure.
28 Commissioner Bennett — These type of projects should go through SPARC as a policy;
29 two separate issues — accessory dwelling unit in this neighborhood issue, and design
30 issue; these types of units absorb some of the demand for rental property; this does not
31 interface with neighborhood, not good design; this type of project should be reviewed by
32 SPARC.
33
34 Consensus that this use is acceptable, but the plans should be sent to SPARC for design
35 approval, then return to Planning Commission for Use Permit review.
36
37 Encourage applicant to talk to neighborhood.
38
39 A motion was made by Commissioner Healy and seconded by Commissioner Feibusch to
40 continue the item to an unspecified date for redesign and SPARC approval of this project;
41 re- notice and return to Planning Commission for Use Permit determination.
42
43 Commissioner Barrett: Absent
44 Commissioner Broad: Yes
45 Commissioner Feibusch: Yes
46 Commissioner Glass: Yes
47 Commissioner Healy: Yes
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes - July 13, 1999
1 Commissioner Vieler: Yes
2 Chairperson Bennett: Yes
3
4
5 III. SOUTHGATE; PRELIMINARY LAND USE PROPOSAL AT THE
6 INTERSECTION OF LAKEVILLE HIGHWAY AND FRATES ROAD; AP
7 NO'S 017 - 150 -019 AND 017- 030 -017; FILE NO. WRK99009(hg).
8
9 Consideration and recommendation to City Council on a preliminary proposal for
10 a Planned Community District to support a Special industrial Office Park on 39 +/-
11 acres; this application seeks input on a General Plan Land Use Amendment from
12 Specific Plan Area to Special industrial /Office Park and a rezoning from Study
13 Area to Planned Community District.
14
15 Hans Grunt presented the staff report.
16
17 The public hearing was opened.
18
19 SPEAKERS:
20
21 Bill White — Applicant - G &W Management — Proposing to weave Urban Separator
22 through project (instead of around edges) for maximum effect; development under one
23 ownership; this is one area to consider for business park expansion; Specific Plan for
24 single -owner property does not have any advantages over type of review requested; EIR
25 would consider alternate land uses; in Specific Plan, there are usually multiple land uses
26 proposed; input from public, staff, can be achieved through proposed procedure.
27 Geoff Cartright — This reminds me of other General Plan Amendments that have not
28 gone well (Cross Creek, etc.); does not know what flood issues in this area are.
29 Diane Kassabaum — Casa del Oro homeowner — Traffic, flooding issues; all City
30 services to east and north of this site; noise from airport/Shamrock/Lakeville Highway —
31 what will manufacturing uses entail ?; 60,000 cu. Yds. of dirt has been stored for over two
32 years on this site, much of this dirt is still there; will this lot be restored to elevation
33 before this dirt was stored on site, or will this remain — how will parcel drain, what will
34 elevation be?
35 Chair Bennett — In this discussion we will be deciding what type of process to use to
36 review this proposal.
37 Vincent Smith — This discussion is still at the preliminary stage — all design concerns,
38 etc. can be allowed to be discussed at later dates; community concerns will be allowed to
39 be raised and discussed following application for a formal development proposal.
4o Glen Phillips - Casa del Oro — Does not want to jump into an office park rezoning at this
41 time; open space /residential areas should be kept, don't box into industrial.
42 Vincent Smith - An EIR will be required with a development application.
43 Glen Phillips — Concerns with existing traffic, noise, widening of Frates; truck traffic has
44 increased; should not overbuild industrial areas and have empty buildings.
45
46 Public hearing was closed.
6
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes - July 13, 1999
1
2 Commissioner Healy — Gateway to City, particular attention to design excellence, no
3 matter what type of project goes in; primary concerns — surface water management,
4 traffic and circulation, economic issues — Economic Strategic Plan needs to be developed
5 by City; what type of businesses do we want attracted to the City ?; what will ultimate use
6 of this site be? Biggest question is economic issue; borders Urban Growth Boundary on
7 two sides — boundary for next 20 years; open to allow Urban Separator woven through
8 site; City -wide questions to be answered by new General Plan Economic Element.
9 Commissioner Glass — Preliminary design proposals are very attractive; this site should
to not have been a study area for this amount of time; in favor of a PCD/E1R; large parcel of
11 land can be developed with least amount of bureaucracy.
12 Commissioner Broad Agrees with MH and DG — Council could review this without
13 lengthy and costly Specific Plan preparation; the general concept of this proposal is far
14 superior to previously proposed projects; what land use category, if any, was this
15 property placed in during the recent Urban Growth Boundary actions?
16 Vincent Smith— This property was in general vacant land category.
17 Commissioner Broad — For Council review, look into UGB land use status; two biggest
18 issues — relationship to surrounding residential neighborhoods and (biggest concern)
19 concept of taking Urban Separator land and integrating into project itself, Urban
20 Separator property may be taken away from public use and reserved for use by business
21 park.
22 Commissioner Vieler — Agrees with GB — add one point — concerns with moving Urban
23 Separator into center of project, adds vehicular movement into project; G &W
24 Management has done many great projects in Petaluma; what types of businesses would
25 be anticipated here ?; concerns with economic aspects of General Plan; why is this project
26 now considered well conceived?
27 Vincent Smith — Amount of detail presented in proposal, one ownership, area not in need
28 of infrastructure improvements; substantially different proposal; many and less defined
29 types of uses. were proposed in previous proposal; Specific Plans are best applied to areas
30 where substantial infrastructure improvements are needed, this area has existing
31 infrastructure available to it.
32 Commissioner Vieler — Who are anticipated users? Supports concept of development
33 review plan, knowing applicants history, I'm sure they will meet all guidelines.
34 Chair Bennett — Specifics of this can change at any time; we are dealing with process,
35 do not.be sidetracked (i.e. proposed uses).
36 Commissioner Feibusch — In favor of proposed Option 2 in staff's July 13th report; EIR
37 will cover all concerns, this is very early in process; project will be design critical.
38 Chair Bennett — Specific Plan not needed on this site; complexities of land use not an
39 issue on this site; EIR process exhaustive, all interested people will be able to participate;
40 this has to be a gateway project, Economic Strategic Plan needs to be coordinated with
41 this project through General Plan update and review; does not want to hold this project up
42 for economic review:
43 Bill White — Specific Plan process seems to be overkill for a property of this type under
44 one ownership; anticipated businesses include high -tech as well as some long -time
45 Petaluma businesses; agrees that this will need to be a gateway project with high level of
46 design.
7
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes - July 13, 1999
1 Commissioner Vieler — Would this be anticipated to be daytime uses?
2 Bill White — Yes, some businesses, however may be early hour /later hour uses, but they
3 would be located in the back of site to minimize disruption to adjacent residential.
4 Commissioner Healy — What would be time -frame for developing site?
5 Bill White —Next summer.
6
7 The public hearing was closed.
8
9 A motion was made by Commissioner Feibusch and seconded by Commissioner Broad to
10 forward a recommendation to the City Council indicating the Commission's
11 recommendation that a General Plan Amendment, a corresponding Zoning Amendment,
12 and preparation of an EIR be considered emphasizing the following: that the subject
13 properties be developed under one ownership, that the proposed Development Plan
14 appropriately addresses Article 8, Section 65451 of the State's Planning, Zoning, and
15 Development Laws including supporting infrastructure, financing, implementation and
16 development standards, and that viable alternatives be examined through the EIR process.
17
18 Commissioner Barrett: Absent
19 Commissioner Broad: Yes
20 Commissioner Feibusch: Yes
21 Commissioner Glass: Yes
22 Commissioner Healy: Yes
23 Commissioner Vieler: Yes
24 Chairperson Bennett: Yes
25
26
27 IV. MAXWELL; TENTATIVE MAP SUBDIVISION EXTENSION; LOCATED
28 ON THE EAST SIDE OF "D" STREET AT WINDSOR DRIVE; AP NO.'S
29 019 -120 -045 AND 046; TSM0086(hg).
30
31 Consideration of a request for a one -year extension to May 20, 2000 of the
32 Maxwell Tentative Subdivision Map; a fourteen lot single- family residential
33 project on 19 acres.
34
35 Hans Grunt presented the staff report.
36
37 The public hearing was opened.
38
39 SPEAKERS:
40
41 Commissioner Broad — Clarification of 20 -foot easement?
42 Vincent Smith — Clear intention from City Council that an easement will be granted to
43 accommodate a trail — the word minimum is an appropriate addition to indicate
44 clarification of intent.
45 Chair Bennett — Ms. Brown's letter implies the opposite — intends that this change
46 would give the opportunity for a wider trail.
47 Vincent Smith — . Before City Council will approve this Final Map, assurances that this
8
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes - July 13, 1999 .
1 trail.can be built will be required i.e. appropriate easement location
2 Steve Buckley — applicant — Will work with staff to make this work; please extend this
3 Tentative Subdivision Map again, hopefully won't need another extension.
4 Commissioner Broad — Conveyed thanks to Mrs. Maxwell on accommodating walkway.
5 Commissioner Healy — Adding word minimum would add ambiguity.
6
7 The public hearing was closed.
8
9 A motion was made by Commissioner Healy and seconded by Commissioner Broad to
10 approve a one -year extension, to May 20, 2000, for the Maxwell Tentative Subdivision
11 Map subject to all original conditions and mitigation measures including the additional
12 conditions regarding public and private pedestrian and vehicle access contained in the
13 1998 Tentative Map Extension.
14
15 Commissioner Barrett: Absent
16 Commissioner Broad: Yes
17 Commissioner Feibusch: Yes
18 Commissioner Glass: Yes
19 Commissioner Healy: Yes
20 Commissioner Vieler: Yes
21 Chairperson Bennett: Yes
22
23
24 COMMISSION BUSINESS:
25
26 V. MEMO FROM STAFF REGARDING SPRINT ANTENNAS ON
27 PETALUMA HOTEL (STATUS).
28
29 Vincent Smith presented the discussion paper.
30
31 Commission discussion:
32
33 Commissioner Healy — Prepared to support this proposal, close enough to original
34 approval.
35
36 Consensus to support proposed design.
37
38
39 VI. ADOPT PLANNING COMMISSION RULES AND REGULATIONS.
40
41 Commission discussion:
42
43 A motion was made by Commissioner Vieler and seconded by Commissioner Broad to
44 adopt the revised Planning Commission Rules and Regulations.
45
46 Commissioner Barrett: Absent
47 Commissioner Broad: Yes
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes - July 13, 1999
1
2
3
4
5
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
Commissioner Feibusch: Yes
Commissioner Glass: Yes
Commissioner Healy: Yes
Commissioner Vieler: Yes
Chairperson Bennett: Yes
VII. ELECTION OF OFFICERS / APPOINTMENTS TO COMMITTEES.
. ELECTION OF:
Chair: Commissioner Bennett (nominated by Commissioner Feibusch, seconded
by Commissioner Vieler)
Vice Chair: Commissioner Broad (nominated by Commissioner Feibusch, seconded
by Commissioner Glass)
Second Vice Chair: Commissioner Vieler (nominated by Commissioner Broad,
seconded by Commissioner Feibusch)
APPOINTMENT TO:
SPARC: Commissioner Glass
Tree Advisory: Commissioner Barrett
Bicycle Committee: Commissioner Vieler
VIII. LIAISON REPORTS.
City Council (MH) Rainier Interchange - continued discussion on July
26; Initial Budget meeting July 15.
SPARC (MF) Hoffman building approved (Payran/Lindberg).
Petaluma Bicycle Advisory Committee (GB) Continuing Bicycle
Plan review.
ADJOURNMENT: 10:10 PM
s \pc- p1an\minutes \0713rtf
10