Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 01/14/199255 City Of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes REGULAR MEETING January 14, 1992 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS PET P.M. A, CA C� CITY HALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Bennett, Libarle *, Nelson, Parkerson, Rahman, Tarr, Thompson ABSENT: None STAFF: Pamela Tuft, Planning Director Jane Thomson, Sr. Planning Technician Robert LaRose, Building Inspector Chairman MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 10, 1991 were approved as printed. PUBLIC: COMMENT: None. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: South Petaluma Boulevard Specific Plan update and tentative meeting schedule; Rainier Avenue update packet; 1991 -92 budget status. After discussion, it was decided to commence consideration of the South Petaluma Boulevard Specific Plan Phase I Report at the regular meeting of January 28th, with continuance, if needed, to a special meeting on February 4th. COMMISSIONER'S REPORT: Commissioner Rahman indicated that she had viewed tapes of the last two meetings. Commissioner Bennett - during Twin Creeks discussion there was talk of which School District the subdivision would be located in - Old Adobe is not the correct School District. Commissioner Nelson stated there would be further discussion regarding Twin Creeks at Council level. Commissioner Rahman asked if Rainier information would be forthcoming? Pamela Tuft responded that it could be placed on a future agenda for discussion. Chairman Libarle wished committee members and staff a happy and prosperous new year. CORRESPONDENCE: None. APPEAL STATEMENT: Was read. LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was noted on agenda. 56 City of Petaluma NEW BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING Planning Commission Minutes 1/14/92 I. CAGAL CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS, HAYES AVENUE, AP NO. 008- 490 -04 AND 06, FILE NO. CUP91040(d'd). Consideration of Conditional Use Permit to allow the installation of a cellular communications facility in a Residential PUD District. The public hearing was opened. SPEAKERS: Pamela Tuft presented the staff report. It was noted that the applicant had requested construction to be allowed on Saturday - this would require approximately two Saturdays to complete. Staff has no problems with this request. Commissioner Tarr - Will this antenna location cause problems with adding another water tank in the future, if needed? Greg Guerrazzi - applicant - Answered questions regarding length of lease, etc. Commission Discussion - Commissioner Parkerson - would prefer no Saturday hours be allowed for construction - however, a limit of two Saturdays would be acceptable. The public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Commissioner Thompson and seconded by Commissioner Rahman to grant a conditional use permit based on the findings and subject to the amended conditions listed below: COMMISSIONER NELSON: Yes COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes COlVIMISSIOI�TER RAHMAN: Yes COMMISSIONER.PARKERSON: Yes CHAIRMAN LIBARLE: Yes COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes Findings: 1. Because the proposed cellular communications facility, as conditioned, will conform to the purpose of the Planned Unit District to integrate uses within their built and natural environment, the project will comply with the requirements and intent of the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance. 2. The proposed cellular communications facility is a permitted use within the Public Institutional land use category and the facility, as conditioned to require landscape screening, will conform to the requirements and intent, goals, and policies of the Petaluma General Plan Community Character Chapter to preserve views of the rural landscape. 2 City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes 1/14/92 3. The proposed cellular communications facility will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community, because it would be located in an existing facility and impacts due to an increase in traffic and noise at the facility will be limited. 4. This project is Categorically Exempt under CEQA Section 15301, small additions to existing facilities. Conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with the following requirements of the City Fire Marshal: a. , Gate at Hayes Lane cul -de -sac shall be widened to accommodate all fire CY) apparatus. b. Roadway shall be a minimum twelve feet wide with all- weather surface to support twenty -ton loading at all times. C. Gate and driveway around water tank shall be .widened to permit all fire apparatus to enter compound and circle tank and exit compound, or an alternate turn - around shall be provided. d. Permit required from the Fire Marshal's Office for fixed fire extinguishing systems. e. Provide KNOX Box. for key control located on building as required by the Fire Marshal. f. Provide one 2 -A rated Halon fire extinguisher in building. 2. The project shall be subject to review by SPARC prior to the issuance of a building permit, with emphasis on the following: a. ' Review of landscape plan for: use of low maintenance, drought resistant plantings; Success in screening proposed facilities to the greatest extent possible; success in integrating landscape with natural environment throughout the site. b. Review of fences and gate for compatibility with existing structures and site. C. Use of color. d. Proposed lighting. 3. The maximum height of the facility shall not exceed 25' as measured from the finished grade or the actual elevation of the tallest water tank, whichever is less. 4. Construction shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 am to 6:00 pm Monday through Friday (non holiday) and a maximum of two Saturdays. 5. Construction truck traffic is prohibited before 7:00 am and after 6:00 pm. 6. All. construction equipment powered by internal combustion engines shall be properly muffled and maintained to minimize noise. Unused equipment shall be turned off when not in use. 3 57 ....... _.., 58 City of Petaluma PLANNING 1VIATTERS Planning Commission Minutes 1/14/92 II. STENABAUGH, 314 7TH STREET, AP NO. 008-291-09, FILE NO. WRK910380kt). 1. Consideration of appeal of administrative determination that sound and pressure vibration emissions emanating from a hot tub are not in violation of local ordinances. SPEAKERS: Commission Discussion: Jane Thomson presented the staff report. Commissioner Bennett - What is a definition of noise levels in the Zoning Ordinance? Is this applied to commercial, residential or what? Pamela Tuft Zoning Ordinance doesn't differentiate between land uses. Commissioner Libarle - Have any other complaints of this nature been received? Commissioner Thompson - Does the pump run all day? Jane Thomson No, generally one hour from 1 -2 PM. Commissioner Thompson - Did you measure the sound inside the house? Jane Thomson - No, since Ordinance clearly states that measurements are to be taken at the lot line. Pamela Tuft - One pool pump several years ago, that was too close to the property line and was required to be moved. Commissioner Thompson - When would a permit be required? When not? Robert LaRose (City of Petaluma Building Inspector) - When a spa is a permanent installation - like this one - gas piping and permanent electrical wiring was done which required.a building permit. Commissioner Tarr - What type of pump is this? A jacuzzi type pump? Robert URose - Yes, for water circulation and to use the jets. Commissioner Parkerson - Are the noises /vibrations, being generated when the tub is being used? Robert LaRoSe - Yes, when the pump is running for filtering purposes and when it is being used to operate the juts. Mr. Stenabaugh - Appellant - Read a statement clarifying the reason for appeal; felt that Planning Department has misconceptions/errors in their measuring equipment; only a certain band of frequency (125 Hertz) is above the noise levels allowed. Steve Neal - Frank Hubaich Associates - Appellant's Noise Consultant - during investigations in the Stenabaugh's home,, "vibration" is really pure tone component (a low frequency hum) which can be confused at low frequency ranges with vibration; can analyze tape made during investigation for more detailed information; normal household noises could not muffle this pure tone component - it would have to be very loud. Commissioner Thom - How did you measure the sound? Steve Neal - I did not measure it, I have recorded data on tape. If it is desired, I can analyze the tape. Pamela Tuft In your opinion, should a pure tone component regulation be included as a performance standard to the Zoning Ordinance? Do other communities address pure tone component? Mr. Neal - Yes other municipalities include these standards. Commissioner Libarle - Does the hot tub meet the standards in the Zoning Ordinance as it is written now? 0 City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes 1/14/92 5:9 Pamela .Tuft - With present City sound measuring equipment, there have been no measurements taken which exceed our standards; if pump is smooth and continuous, correction table would not apply. Commissioner Tarr - Many years ago there were many complaints regarding a "whining" noise in an area in town (Kentucky north of Washington) - the University of California was asked to come and make measurements because the City does not have the sophisticated equipment; this should be done again - this should be continued until more accurate measurements can be-made. Pamela Tuft - Staff does not have the Octave Band Analyzer measure these noises - we have spent much time and used the equipment that is owned by the City to analyze this situation to the best of our ability. Commissioner Libarle - The City should not be expected to pay for a noise consultant to determine the accurate noise levels for every hot tub or pool. (V) Commissioner Rahman - Agrees with Commissioner Tarr - the City cannot comply due to Co lack of proper equipment. Rod Moore - Attorney and friend of Mastrup family - a meeting was held last year between Stenabaugh's, Mastrup's, and attorneys for both parties - there was no discernable excess sound in `the Stenabaugh household; the Stenabaugh's generated many complaints about California Cooperative Creamery when they lived near that facility - they may be overly sensitive to sounds; we are wasting time of all involved. Mr. Stenabaugh - Mr. Neal's evaluation does indicate that performance standards are being exceeded; the equipment that the Mastrup's are using could be surrounded. Commissioner Rahman (requested of Mr. Stenabaugh) Are you holding a "grudge" even though the noises have been lessened? Mr. Stenabaugh - There is still more that Mr. Mastrup could do to lessen the noise. Commissioner Libarle - Would you be willing to foot the cost for an impartial engineer to make findings? Mr. Stenabaugh - What's wrong with Steve Neal's findings? I'd rather use him.. Commissioner Libarle We need someone impartial. Commissioner Thompson - What more would you suggest that Mr. Mastrup could do to lessen the noise? Mr. Stenabaugh - Acoustical insulation, a box constructed of wood, I don't know what would work; an expert should design the enclosure. Mr. Mastruy - The pump motor is a 60hz motor - it should fall under the chart in the Zoning Ordinance; the enclosure has been designed with sound - deadening insulation underneath and around the pump, and on the lid already. Commissioner Nelson (question directed to Jane Thomson) - when you were at the site, was the pump noise unreasonable? Jane Thomson - No, I did not feel anything, nor did I find the noise objectionable. Commissioner Nelson - I do not feel that we should continue with this any more. Commissioners Libarle Thompson : Agee with Commissioner Nelson. Commissioner Nelson Felt that noise is in conformance. Commissioner Bennett - Does not know if City can accurately measure noise level with existing equipment; supports alternative 3 listed in staff report. Pamela Tuft - Staff will be happy to seek an independent (and free, hopefully) noise consultant. Commissioner Libarle - Maybe the Ordinance needs to be rewritten; maybe the City should buy this equipment; there may be a flaw in the Ordinance; staff has interpreted the Ordinance as it is written; I feel hot tub complies with the existing ordinance. Commissioner Nelson - Does not feel that the Mastrup's should have to pay for any tests. Commissioner Parkerson - Given the time spent by staff and applicants, Alternative No. 3 makes the most sense; given the testimony - I cannot decide how to proceed, and an acoustical engineer should be contacted to do the study. Rod Moore - Mr. Mastrup is not interested in participating in or financing a study. 5 60 City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes 1/14/92 Commissioner Thompson - I suggest we deny it and have Pamela Tuft push the amendment of the performance standards as a. priority. Commissioner Libarle - If we bring in an Acoustical engineer to decide this issue, must any such dispute in the future require an acoustical engineer to decide? Pamela Tuft - Will pursue revising: ordinance to address pure tone components; a noise consultant did offer to make a spot check of this situation using more modern equipment (at no charge). Commissioner Bennett - Not convinced either way - wants an impartial study - someone who can test using the equipment required in the Zoning Ordinance. A motion was made by Commissioner Tarr and seconded by Commissioner Parkerson to continue this matter until such time as an independent, qualified acoustical engineer (selected by the City) has reviewed the matter, and is able. to present the results to the Planning Commission. Th�cest �€ such -a c- onsnitat -t ©die- berme - }e� posteih t�- Ei��o�sure�ymerft - �o-kintar- ��b ©t1rPa�ti�� COMMISSIONER NELSON: No COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes CHAIRMAN LIBARLE: No COMMISSIONER TT-IOMPSON: No COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes DISCUSSION ITEM III. INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 6 -500, HEIGHT REGULATIONS OF PRINCIPAL BUILDINGS IN THE R -1 ZONING DISTRICT. DISCUSSION: Pamela Tuft led discussion of determination of maximum height (staff is presently using 2 1/2 stories or 25' whichever is less and determination of half -story versus full -story as it relates to dormers. Pamela Tuft re input from Commission on staff's interpretation of height regulations within the R -1 Zoning District. Commissioner Rahman - On the issue of 2 1/2 stories or 25 feet (whichever is less) do many of the old homes in Petaluma exceed this requirement? Pamela Tuft - No - the method of measurement uses average point between eave and ridgetop. Commissioner Parkerson - On the issue of dormers - could we use a percentage method to determine when a story was being added? Pamela Tuft - The addition of diagrams to the Ordinance may be necessary and very helpful to this interpretation. Commissioner Parkerson - This interpretation by the Zoning Administrator should be put in writing and.if an appeal is filed, it will be brought back to this Commission. All agree with the above, but will listen to opinion by Jon Stong (architect). Jon Ston - Interpretation of one -half story in Zoning Ordinance is very difficult; believes it would be a mistake to write a percentage figure into the Zoning Ordinance - allowable dormer square footage should - not be based on the width of the house; a suggestion of a percentage of 50% would be appropriate; would like to request a finding tonight to enable specific project to go forward - would be willing to .redesign this specific project to fall under a 50% figure. 2 City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes 1/14/92 61 Pamela .Tuft - This is here tonight strictly for discussion; staff will be taking a closer look at percentages on dormers; does not want remodeling projects to degrade the quality of original. architecture of west side of Petaluma; this will only affect homes where there are already two stories. Commissioner Parkerson - Thank you for bringing this to our attention - feels that further development of Ordinance amendments is needed. Discussion of Planning Department budget (balance of Fiscal Year). � L Discussion centered around conference attendance; importance of refilling vacant Principal Planner! position as opposed to other budgeted expenditures. Sharing of Planning Department travel budget with Commission - if absolutely necessary - budget can be cut or more frugal ways of attending conferences may be pursued. ADJOURNMENT 9:30 PM. min0114 / pcmin -5 7