Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 01/07/1975PETA.LUMA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 1975 REGULAR MEETING 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA PLEDGE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL:I Comm Balshaw Bond Horciza Mattel. Popp Waters Hilligoss i STAFF: .Frank B. Gray, Director of Community Development APPROVAL OF' MINUTES CORRESPONDENCE CONSENT CALENDAR: 1) Roy & Cleo.S.ton.e Site design review for pro- posed sale of antiques at 608 Petaluma Blvd. South in a C -H District. 2) Jim Oberg - Site design review for an addition... to an office building located at 5000 Petaluma Blvd. North. USE PERMIT, REVIEW - .AL STACK AUTO WRECKERS r .ADJOURNMENT f f . I , Report to Planning Commission regarding Use Permit U26 -6 and Sonoma County Resolution No.. 260 for the existing auto dismantling operation at 850 Lakeville Street. A G E N D A PETA.LUMA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 1975 REGULAR MEETING 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA PLEDGE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL:I Comm Balshaw Bond Horciza Mattel. Popp Waters Hilligoss i STAFF: .Frank B. Gray, Director of Community Development APPROVAL OF' MINUTES CORRESPONDENCE CONSENT CALENDAR: 1) Roy & Cleo.S.ton.e Site design review for pro- posed sale of antiques at 608 Petaluma Blvd. South in a C -H District. 2) Jim Oberg - Site design review for an addition... to an office building located at 5000 Petaluma Blvd. North. USE PERMIT, REVIEW - .AL STACK AUTO WRECKERS r .ADJOURNMENT f f . I , Report to Planning Commission regarding Use Permit U26 -6 and Sonoma County Resolution No.. 260 for the existing auto dismantling operation at 850 Lakeville Street. M I N U 'T E S f - PETALUMA CITY�PLANNING COMMISSION. .EGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS-, CITY -HALL i PRESENT: Comm..`Balshaw, Bond, Hilligoss, Horci'za., Mattei, Waters ABSENT: Comm. Popp STAFF: 'Frank B. Gray, Director of Community Development JANUARY. 7, .1975 700 P.M. PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of December 17, 1974 were approved with the _following change. The date in the last line. of -the second paragraph under i "Correspondence" was changed-to "January 14, 1975." CORRESPONDENCE: The Commission was advised that the next short course for Plan - ning,Commssioners presented. 'by the.University of California would be held in San Francisco, in June, 1975. J �. CONSENT CALENDAR: The Commission was advised that they would receive a copy of the City Council resolution regarding.tle library site design review appeal. Mr. Gray informed the Commission that the City Council had .reaffirmed Conditions #1 -thru ; #7 and Condition #8 to read that the parking.would be provided in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, and would be phased on a demand basis as determined by the City Mr. Graywas,asked b.y the Commission to review library parking requirements to determine if the Zoning Ordinance requirements were in line. Since neither -`Roy & Cleo Stone or Jim Ober;g had appeared before the Site Design-Review Committee. on January 6, 1975, Comm. `'Waters made a motion to remove those items from the Consent Calendar for'consideration to be made 'by the entire Commission.. The motion was seconded by-Comm. Balshaw. AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT' 1 ROY & S • g SITE DESIGN of antiques at 608 Petaluma Blvd. South. The sale Gra. briefly reviewed the G V was shoran a. copy of the sign plan and the staff's recommended cond tions of -approval were read. Comm.'Bond made a motion to'approve the site design subject to Exhibit "A" and the recommended conditions. o.f "` Comm.' Horciza seconded the motion. AYES 6• NOES 0 ABSENT 1-` PETALUMA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES.-JANUARY 7,.1975, JIM OBERG ° SITE Due to the•absence of the appifcant,at both the Site .Design { DESIGN REVIEW: Review Committee meeting and this Planning Commission ne'eting, Comm. Bond moved that the site design review be continued and referred back to both the. Committee and the Commission at their next regularly scheduled meetings. Comm. Waters seconded the mot -ion. AYES 6 . NOES .0 ABSENT 1 - USE - PERMIT REVIEW - Mr. Gray advised the Commission-that, cleanup work on•the lot AL STACK`AUTO adjacent to Al Stack Auto Wreckers -had been completed, and, he WRECKERS: felt Mr. .Stack had made an ef'f'ort to comply the conditions of Use Permits, Mr.. Gray info'rmed.the.Commission that some vehicles were, still stored higher than the fence,, but, he under- stood that problem would be remedied in the near future. The only concern remaining was t.he.aspha_1-t strip that remained in front 'of the dismantling yard'. Mr,. Stack informed the Commission that the ' a - sphd1t had been put in at a cost to him of $1,500, and five monts later the City had widened Lakeville. Highway giving him only the standard renumerat_on for the property. Comm. Wa:ters asked if the letter had been to Mr. Stack offering him apiece of City property for use in his dismantling. operation. Mr. Gray advised that legal technicalities would have to be reviewed by the City A.t.torney and it would be followed through. Mr. Ross Smith, from the audience, informed the .Commis,sion that he 'had read, about the Comimission's considera ;tion of Mr. :Stack's operation,in the paper and wanted to know why this particular case had been singled out,, since there were many other-'places in town that ooked a lot worse Mr. Gray explained the proce- dure of annual review of all current.Use Permits, and that Mr. Stack had been found to be in violation - of his conditions of approval. -He also explained that there were some businesses that were established. before the City`had a Zoning Ordinance, and those,- could .only be policed.on a comply nt•basis, simply because•of'lack of staff. Mr.mith.responde.d that he wished to make a complaint against the Hein Bros. Basalt: Rock Company, the Clover Brand Dairy Products, Bar Ale;,Peta.luma Junk Company, Maselli.& Sons, and Henrs Supply. Comm. Bond asked if he was making an official complaint, and M, Smith replied that was. Mr.. Gray informed the Commission that Hein Bros. Basalt, Rock Company was outside* of the City limits, but a letter could be forwarded to the County. -He also stated he would furnish a report on the other companies mentioned. Chairman Hi.11igoss asked Mr. Stack if he was going to limit his operation. He replied that his operation would be limited to -2- , PETALUMA 'CITY FLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES. ,,JANUARY 7^ 1975" 4 -wheel drive vehicles and pickups, but that it-was a slow weedin g out.pro had almost stopped.buying cars.. cess.and he Discussion followed on ;a consolidated site for the..three auto dismantling companies...The:Commission.felt that a letter should be direc "ted.to Mr. Stack,offering.the alternate:,site. Mr. Gray replied that he could not offer the site to Mr. Stack since that was. up. to. the City Manager :and 'th'e . Ciity 'Council, but a fetter could be written indicating the availability of the site. Mr. Gray.informed the Commission that in the future; as outlined in the Zoning,Ordinance,, he would exercise the right to suspend any operation that was in violation of its conditions of approval. The.Commission would then.have sixty days within which to consider the revocation of the Use Permit... 'Mr.. :Stack informed the, Commission that. - he had terminated his lease on the adjacent property with Mr. Piotrkowsk. OTHER BUSINESS: The Commission was advised that because the County had granted site design approval for the :Santa Fe Pomeroy batch plant with no environmental assessment or referral to the City, the City Council had adopted a resolution requesting the County Board of 8upervisors.t6 adopt certain procedures in regards to review of planning matters within the Petaluma Planning-Area. The resolution y was'read b Mr. Gray. y. He - also stated that in drafting the resolu- tion he had consulted with the Executive Officer of LAFCO, Super- visor Kortum,, and the City Attorney. Discussion followed. regarding the undesirable aspects of the Santa Fe P..omeroy batch plant :and what could be done about` it at this point... Mr. Gray stated that he would talk to Mr.. Brown of Santa Fe Pomeroy and ,that the Commission could request Supervisor .Kortum to refer the matter to the County Board of Supervisors. He also informed the Commission that the County had informed.him the City had not been notified since site design review does not require a public bearing. The question of annexing this area was raised and a.short dis- cussion followed regarding the desirability of annexation,. It was determined to•make,a study to decide what sites would be logi- cal -for annexation and refer the matter to the City Manager and City, Council. Comm., Ma,ttei ; stated that the relationship with Santa :Fe Pomeroy had' always been very good., and that he felt the conflict was not with them but with the County. He also expressed, as did Comm.. Bond,. Tack of 'conf'idenc and trust in the joint meeting with the County on.January 1.4, 1975, since the County has not in the past taken into consideration the City of Petaluma's.EDP,or community layout and these plans were not reflected in the new : p'ropo'sed County General Plan,. Comm.,Mattei felt that thejoint meeting -.3- PETALUMA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, JANUARY 7, 1915 would be the proper time to discuss these matters with the Count and to .apprise Supervisor Kort.;um of the.situation. Discussion followed regarding the County',s prior commitment of forwarding referrals .to.the City of 'Petaluma. Comm. Bond made a motion to.d'.i.rect the Director of.Community Development to write a letter to Supervisor..Kortum •outlining the feelings..as_dscussed.b.y.the Commission_and.also to make p:ersona,l._phone contact. with ;him... Comm. Ba•lshaw seconded the motion. It was, also clarified that the intent of the' letter was to ask -for an explanation of the Santa..Fe Pomeroy site design approval before the Board. AYES 6. NOES 0 ABSENT 1 A resolution .requesting the County Board of Supervisors to . establish certain procedures for the issuance of' building permits on site to be served by City water and /or sewer services was read to -the Commission,. It was noted that this action had been taken because of .a recent request to connect sewer facilities to a house that been built in the County prior to receiving,appro- val.from, the City for the sewer connection,. A brief discussion followed regarding the funding categories for the Community ,Development Act application, including-greenbel,t purchase. Comm,. Balshaw suggested changi;ng.the Zoning Ordinance'to=indi- cate only four or five stores in 'height rather than the ten stories as now indicated in the R -M -H District. Mr., .Gray stated he would check the feasibility of changing the ordinance. The status of the bdicycle..route improvements and current bike safety standards were briefly discussed. Comm.. Waters asked what action had been taken regarding the rail- road tracks on East "D" Street. Mr. Gray replied tliat.the Public Works Department had been in contact with the railroad, but nothing had been done. He added that the City has no control over the railroad tracks from 1 foot outside the tracks on',both_ sides. - -4- .. PETALUMA CITY PLANNING COMM_ ISS'ION MINUTES : ,_ JANUARY 7:, 1975 The Commission asked Mr. Gray to investigate the establish. ment ­of the. H & R Block. off ice on the Fairgrounds property to determine if this commercial activity is proper under our lease vi-th the State of California. Mr. Gray s s tated . he would check with the City and the Fairgrounds Board Manager. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further `busirie'ss, the meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Chairman Attest,— u _5_