Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 06/26/2001Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2001 p L U City of Petaluma, California City Council Chambers City Ball, 11 English Street IN Petaluma, CA 94952 Telephone 707/778 -4301 / Fax 707/778 -4498 E -Mail planning a ei.petaluma.ca.us Web Page http: / /www.ci.t)etaluma.ca.us Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2001 - 7 :00 PINT Commissioners: Present: Barrett, Broad *, Glass, Monteschio, Vieler, Vouri Absent: O'Brien * Chair Staff: Mike Moore, Community Development Director Tiffany Robbe, Assistant Planner Anne Windsor, Secretary ROLL CALL: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of June 12, 2001 were approved as amended. PUBLIC COMMENT: DIRECTOR'S REPORT: None. COMMISSIONER'S REPORT: Commissioner Glass: Commented on Council Member Moynihan's suggestion of spending $8 million for streets at City Council PCDC Meeting of 6/25— Commissioner Glass thinks redevelopment best reinvested — maintenance not wise and prudent. Commissioner Vouri: Complemented staff on monthly report. Misunderstanding regarding discussions about updating Zoning Ordinance and contacts with developers about volunteering to assist City with this process — wanted to save city money — not intended to bypass Council or Planning Commission. Clarified position regarding comments on gravel mining in the Russian River and impacts to drinking water. Challenge'to fellow Commissioners and citizens to a beautiful brown lawn contest. CORRESPONDENCE: Resolution from City of Rohnert Park. E -mail from David Keller re: Agenda items III and IV. APPEAL STATEMENT: Was read. LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was noted on the agenda. Planning Commission Minutes NEW BUSINESS: PUBLIC HEARING: June 26, 2001 I. REDWOOD OIL, 421 Petaluma Boulevard South. Proposed demolition of an existing carwash facility and construction of a new 2,879 square foot convenience mart and restaurant. Planner: Irene Borba The applicant has requested a continuance of this item to the July 24, 2001 Meeting (see attached letter). A motion was made by Committee Member Barrett and seconded by Committee Member Monteschio to continue Redwood Oil to the July 24, 2001 meeting. All in favor: Commissioner Monteschio: Yes Commissioner Glass: Yes Commissioner Broad: Yes Commissioner Barrett: Yes Commissioner Vieler: Yes Commissioner Vouri: Yes II. G &G CENTER - SPRINT ANTENNA/FLAG POLE, 730 Sonoma Mountain Parkway. The applicant proposes to install a PCS facility atop the G &G Market. The facility would consist of three antennas disguised inside a 6 -inch diameter, 12 -foot tall flagpole atop the pyramid above the entrance to G &G Market. The flagpole /antenna on the roof would reach 56 feet 8 inches above grade. The proposed equipment area would be located on the southeast side of the market building. The equipment area would be uncovered and consist of three stucco- covered walls and a gate. The equipment area would be approximately 16 feet 8 inches wide by 17 feet 4 inches long. Planner: Tiffany Robbe Tiffany Robbe presented the staff report. David Hardy, Whalen & Co., representing Sprint. Thought staff report was solid and the conditions acceptable. Mr. Hammet's report supports that there is no public health issue. Commission questions: Commissioner's questions addressed: 1. Health and safety issues of shoppers and nearby residents. 2. Power of waves where they overlap 2 Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2001 3. What happens when technology is more advanced and Sprint doesn't need. Is it sold? Are Sprint antennas still in use? 4. Does Sprint have plans to add other antennas in other areas to improve service? 5. What goes in box on ground pad — does that put out anything? 6. How is flag maintained? 7. Approved flag pole antenna on Petaluma Hotel in August, 1997, however, still have no flag pole 4 years later — what will you do to bring into compliance? Responses from David Hardy and Engineer Bill Hammett: 1. Exposure is 50,000 times less than federal standard — not familiar with Press Democrat article regarding brain tumors. Exposure levels for this project are far lower than Federal standards and far lower than levels applied in scientific studies. 2. Where waves overlap power is less than 800 watts. Signals emanate outward, not down, and diminishes as you get further from antenna — roof of market would block waves. 3. Antenna couldn't be sold unless all of Sprint is sold together. Applicant does not know of any antennas not in use. 4. Will continue process to include other sites in order to improve service 5. Sophisticated radio equipment in box on ground pad 6. Flag will stay up all the time due to slope of roof — no hardware noise because flagpole is fiberglass — is 250' from nearest home. 7. Flagpole on Petaluma hotel will be in compliance August, 2001. Public Hearing was opened: Sheila Weisberg, 2 Sheffield Place: Directly opposite proposed site — house fronts on Riesling. Went to meeting at the college, raised complaints and sent letters to Ms. Robbe. If too controversial at Junior College, why not too controversial here. Need another site to be considered. Many factors to consider: Noise — already have noise from air conditioning, employees, blowers, etc. from shopping center. Did research in Marin, it is clear that they are not approving antennas in residential areas. Possibly locate on top of PG &E towers. Read a plea to Commissioners. Sally Noble, 5 Stratford Place: Do not want antenna — understand it may not be a health hazard, however, don't think it can be good for children. Not possible to have a long term study since we haven't been using cell phones that long. Proposed flag will be in wind tunnel. Asked Planning Commission to deny. Kevin Ancic, 744 Riesling: Already have a lot to deal with regarding traffic and noise. Don't know enough about this yet — Sprint will be ok without the antenna here. Meg DeLapp, 13 Stratford Place: Sprint says there is no gap in service — why do we need this? Know government has been wrong before — why take the risk? Look into getting antenna further away from residential areas. 3 Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2001 Steven DeLapp, 13 Stratford: Referred to letter in packet - incomplete staff report — don't have to make a decision until November. Many problems with shopping center and developer. Went over points from letter. April Ansberg, 5 Sheffield Place: Want to go on record that I oppose the Sprint antenna. Public hearing closed. Commissioner Glass: Not comfortable to interpret City Ordinance. Hope Sprint can meet the v August l deadline of hotel. If there is a better location, let's do that. Not ready to move forward. Accept the mathematics on wattage. City council needs to clarify their ordinance. Earthquake safety is also a concern. Commissioner Monteschio: Agree with Commissioner Glass. People who live there and have Sprint say they have good service. Do not want to rush into this. Want clear direction from City Council. Commissioner Barrett: Have a couple problems. Hotel Petaluma should have been in Sprint's mind — have existing flagpole that is not used. Have an issue with noise from flags. Do not have confidence in Sprint regarding follow through. Commissioner Vieler: Don't have a problem with most of project. Don't feel comfortable voting in favor of right now because of health concerns. Commissioner Vouri: Regarding the Ordinance - do not find the proposal to be in violation of the Ordinance. Would be a disservice to send this to council. Alternative that has not been fully explored is the Gatti property. Mike Moore: If Gatti is willing — Sprint needs to work with Gatti. Tiffany Robbe: Land has agricultural zoning — would have to be rezoned — property owner has not expressed an interest in rezoning. Commissioner Vouri: Agree with public to work with Gatti and try this alternative location. Commissioner Broad: This proposal is for a minor telecommunication facility? Tiffany Robbe: Because of the wattage issue, staff is treating this project as a major facility. Commissioner Broad: Agree with Commissioner Vouri — amending ordinance to allow in agricultural land as long as telecommunication use is secondary to agricultural -use.. Want to be cautious — locate as far away from residences as possible. Stipulation that overall use would not compromise the land use. Want Sprint to look for another location, in particular Gatti site, even if it means staff bringing forth an amendment to the ordinance. rd Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2001 Mike Moore: Am not sure we can amend the ordinance in time limit of permit streamlining. Reopen public hearing: David Hardy: Client would probably prefer a decision. Closed public hearing. A motion was made by Commissioner Vouri and seconded by Commissioner Barrett to deny an application for a Conditional Use Permit based on the inability to make findings and that there are alternative locations that would be superior to the proposed site because it would result in less impact to surrounding land uses. Commissioner Monteschio: Yes Commissioner Glass: Yes Commissioner Broad: Yes Commissioner Barrett: Yes Commissioner Vieler: Yes Commissioner Vouri: Yes COMMISSION BUSINESS III. Discussion of suggested modifications and adoption of transcript information and memos from January 1999 Central Petaluma Specific Plan Meetings into the draft Central Petaluma Specific Plan. Mike Moore: Referred to his memo of June 18, 2001 and turned meeting over to Commissioner Vieler. Commissioner Vieler: Asked who was in attendance at May 15, 2001 meeting — what was process in eliminating items from Plan? Mike Moore: Addressed question regarding who was noticed. Had to piece information together — mailing list has gone through revisions. Think we now have current list. Was not aware of David Keller's memo until e -mail today. Was directed by council to reconvene Citizens Committee to look at scope of work; review with Citizen and Planning Commission and SPARC. Got very few responses to first memo. May 15, 2001 meeting held here in Law Library, 11 people attended. Information in Agenda Item IV — to focus on implementation; flexibility in design guidelines; how buildings related to one another. Most of changes in June 19 memo are based on recommendations. Commissioner Vieler: Asked for list of Citizens Advisory Committee to compare to his list. Did committee receive my notes? 5 Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2001 Mike Moore: Yes. Commissioner Vieler: Any points of contention from notes? Mike Moore: Patricia Tuttle Brown — changes from Bike Committee and Mary Dooley. Commissioner Vieler: Asked for this to be on tonight's agenda to clarify notes to use in deliberation as you go forward. Commissioner Vouri: Do you want draft to reflect what you are going over tonight? Commissioner Vieler: Yes Commissioner Vouri: Who should be making these changes to Draft Specific Plan — Planning Commission or Citizens Advisory Committee? Commissioner Broad: Are you saying draft plan should incorporate all these changes? What would the reason be to hear them as opposed to accepting them and asking what is included in making this happen? Commissioner Vieler: There is a gap in knowledge — my concern is that things will fall through the cracks. Commissioner Broad: Asked John Fitzgerald, Citizens Committee, what process would be best used. John Fitzgerald: Want Committee to have the final product of the Citizens Advisory Committee. Possibly Mr. Moore and Commissioner Vieler could get together. Commissioner Vieler: September 1998 Draft and December 1999 Draft — only 1 of 3 items were incorporated. Commissioner Broad: Distribute the marked up draft to the Commissioners. Commissioner Barrett: If we get a copy of something with all the changes — should go to Citizens Committee, Council, and Planning staff also. Commissioner Vieler: By reviewing notes, this will give Commissioners background, knowledge and context you will need when reviewing on your own. Commissioner Vouri: Appreciate Mr. Vieler's effort. Would like to see final draft made with changes incorporated. Do we still have the draft in electronic form? Mike Moore: Yes A Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2001 Commissioner Vouri: Memos from Bill Lee that are important. Can they be attachments to the CPSP? Mike Moore: Can include the memos. Confusion about 9/98 draft and 12/99 draft. Proceed with Commissioner's Vieler's comments and other information collected — produce a draft for review by Planning Commission, Citizen's Advisory Committee and City Council. That document would be ready in September of this year. Commissioner Vouri: Agree because it will save labor. Finance amendment. Memo from Vin Smith — fairly broad directives which will require interpretation and labor. Mike Moore: Will not attempt to reconstruct — once we produce a final draft there will be opportunities for everyone to review the draft and make changes. Commissioner Vouri: Regarding tonight — work better with a draft before me. Commissioner Vieler: Put in context what has already happened to this point — wanted to present tonight. Mike Moore: Up to Commission — concern was to not have a variety of drafts out in the public when we go forward. Commissioner Vieler: Recommend that I sit down with Mike Moore and insert the information I have into what Mr. Moore already has. John Fitzgerald: Advisory Committee comments as of this date — was working from the 9/98 draft and only that draft. Commissioner Vieler: I combined 9/98 draft and 12/99 draft. Would like a copy of the combined drafts. If I could get the CD I can do this by August 15, 2001. Commissioner Vouri: Propose to reestablish a baseline. Mike Moore: August deadline is fine. A motion was made by Commissioner Glass and seconded by Commissioner Barrett to incorporate language from Wayne Vieler's transcript notes and Vin Smith's memo into 12/99 CPSP draft. All in favor. Commissioner Barrett: Yes Commissioner Monteschio: Yes Commissioner Glass: Yes Commissioner Broad: Yes Commissioner Vieler: Yes 7 Planning Commission Minutes Commissioner Vouri: Yes Commissioner O'Brien: Absent June 26, 2001 IV. Discussion and possible recommendation on the Draft Scope of Work for the Completion of the Central Petaluma Specific Plan. (Continued from April 24, 2001.) Public hearing Geoff Cartwright: Talking about interim ordinance to maintain integrity of Central Petaluma Specific Plan. Suggested a purpose clause. Provided a proposed resolution from Rohnert Park — went over that resolution and hoped it would be helpful. Commissioner Vieler: Concerns about being forced to eliminate parking study. I assume it's money and using students because it's cheaper. Mike Moore: Did not look at other consultants. Commissioner Vieler: Parking critical to specific plan. How do we accomplish if we wait until October. Mike Moore: Through the public process you can look at ratios and requirements for parking — not required to have baseline information. More pressure to complete the plan without the benefit of the parking study. Still an opportunity to deal with parking as it goes through public process. Does commission want to delay process to wait for study. Commissioner Vieler: Question re: David Keller's letter — Wagstaff may not be best consultant. What is process? Why did City change consultants? Mike Moore: Next step was implementation. Chose CSW Stuber- Stroeh, development regulations — chose because they were available. Wagstaff did EIR for redevelopment area. Commissioner Vieler: Need reassurance regarding the work of consulting firm — will they be using visionary draft created using their skills in implementation sense of the word? Mike Moore: Intent is not to reinvent the plan. If we stray from the vision in the new draft I expect we will hear about it. Commissioner Barrett: If Sonoma State students were able to do when they return to school, how long would it take? Mike Moore: Approximately 45 days. N . Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2001 Commissioner Barrett: My recollection from City Council — want the whole job done (analysis for whole specific plan). If process slips another month to have a parking study, recommend that. Commissioner Vouri: Did you transcribe what Citizen's Advisory Committee came up with? Mike Moore: Yes, however, I put in a few words to make it flow. Commissioner Vouri: Referring to June 19, 2001, revision 3 — like the direction. How do we make sure to incorporate housing in the mixed -uses and not just commercial. Mike Moore: If a two -story building, top story to be housing or multi - purpose commercial, bottom retail, office and housing. Commissioner Vouri: Mixed use doesn't have to be mixed use in each project, but within a certain area. New design standards — like language and direction. Not sure it's an either or on some items deleted. Don't we need some guidelines? Mike Moore: By deleting some design standards, maintain flexibility around relationship guidelines rather than strict design standards. Will play out through the drafts — committee wanted as much flexibility as possible. Commissioner Vouri: Support the design guideline standards. Would like to see a minimum housing requirement under Planning Division responsibilities. Commissioner Monteschio: Don't see anything about streets — do not want to see cul de sacs. Mike Moore: Need to establish baseline and work off grid pattern. Easy to add a policy to reinforce grid street pattern. Commissioner Vieler: Looking on list — only 8 actual members. Three names I do not recognize: Allen Tacie, Paul Marangella, Don Campo. Need a quorum of original citizen's advisory committee. Am concerned because of the directions you are taking. Want to defend integrity of original guidelines. Mike Moore: Not suggesting we are moving away from anything in the plan. Council's direction was to reconvene Committee — nothing regarding quorum. Make attempts to get group together. Am not trying to negate what has been done thus far. Commissioner Vieler: Argue with only 8 people moving forward with direction of specific plan. Mike Moore: Not aware of legal requirements regarding quorum being met. Commissioner Vouri: Thank the Citizen's Advisory Committee and Director Moore — scope of work appears to be cutting edge. Housing included in Planning Dept. 9 Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2001 Commissioner Vieler: Chose a number of examples for design so people would have a visual component. Looks like it's moving forward in an appropriate manner. Relationship of citizens' advisory committee done in a legal manner. Request that parking study be done. Mike Moore: Will do the study in September and will bring back. Consensus that parking studies be incorporated in final draft. Commissioner Vouri: Not prepared to decide that tonight. Commissioner Monteschio: Would like to see parking study first. Commissioner Glass: Would like to see parking. This has never seemed complete. Want to see all laid out in one neat package. Commissioner Vieler: If ready in every aspect but parking, would like to see it move forward. Commissioner Vieler: Grateful for experience. V. Discussion and possible action regarding future agenda items. (Continued from May 15, 2001.) This item was not discussed. VI. Discussion and possible action relating to potential revisions and /or modifications to the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan. (Continued from April 24, 2001.) This item was not discussed. VII. ONGOING COMMISSION /STAFF DISCUSSION. This item was not discussed. VIII. LIAISON REPORTS: • City Council: None • SPARC : None • Petaluma Bicycle Advisory Committee: None • Tree Advisory Committee: None 10