Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 03/04/1975A G E N D A PETALUMA CITY PLAN C,0MM:ISS1ON I&GULAR MEETING TY C,OUNCJL-CHAMBERS, CITY HALL RLEDGE'ALLEGIfANCE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL :: Cbmm. Balshaw Bond 'Ho rc,i za -i Matt e W&t e r s H i fl'i go&s, MARCH, 4,, 1975 7:30 P.M. PE CALIFORN[A M. STAFF:. Frank ,B. Gray,, Qfrectbrof Commun,i,ty.Deve1opme'nt Denn'i s Boeh I j e, Sen4 (or'P I anney APPROVAL'OF MINUTES CORRESRONDEKE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 'E c6ns of appl,ication 'by Coastal Rental Center QUESTIORN&IR EVALUATION for a proposed equipment ren ta I -yardr a t 100. Stony Point c - oA.S - TAL! RENTAL CENTER: Road.. ( SONOMA-MR I N FAIRGROUNDS: Report: on estab.1 i of commerc',ia uses -without City revi CC(MAISS NER S REPORTS ADJOURNMENT` • �i MINU�T:E S PETA;LUMA,'; CITY, PLANNING COMMIS,S,ION, MARCH 4., 1975 - REGULAR MEETING �7 : 30 P.M. - REGULAR COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL. PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA P.RES °ENT': C Bond, ,Balshaw, Hil'ligoss., H'orci +za;; ,Matte , :Popp, Waters ABSENT " - None STAFF:, Frank B. Gray, y, hector of Community Development Dennis Boehlje, 'Senior `Planner a APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes o,f tebruary. 191, 197 -were approved as .submitted.- ENV.IRONMENTAL•..IMPACT Mr. Gray informed. the..Commiss ion ,that the :applicant. had encountered QUESTIONNAIRE' diff.i"culty-in. ;bbtainin;g the lot, .-splia..,necessary. for the : .entir,e EVALUATION - . COASTAL project,-and'. therefore _tnt.ended < :to: eonstruct.- the, project, in two the former Laura Scudder , RE NTAL•CENTER phases- He furth I er_explained that Phase is :already developed 'Potato Chip Com pang warehouse),, and that the.,staff report had. been _ :rev used accordingly. Mr. Gray advised that the .EIQ would.:_take in both _phases ..of; development, and that when the proper pa r,ce_"l provided,the City, Phase II could ae developed. The project was briefly explained and it was noted that the Architectural & Site :Design Review Committee had reviewed the• project and. - considered. it to be adequate. Chairman Hilli,goss questioned °why the Sonoma County Water_ Agency would not,:allow ;additional. fill on the site.. Mr. Gray replied that additional fill: eoul flooding of other properties,: and that_ the theory was to allow,'the site, to `f;lood and not make conditions ;upstr-:eam w.or-.se_. He also clarified that the project 'would be. fenced.: The audience wars - comment's„ however, none were offered- Comm.. Popp made, ,a potion :a'o direct the. Director of 'Community Develo,pment., to .prepar.e and post a- 'Negative Declaration for the (, proj'ec;t.. . 'Comm�i Balshaw s.e'conded the motion. AYES ,:7`., NOES 0 ABSENT' 0 SONOMA /MARINA ,Mr Gray advised the Commission that the Fair 'Board had been FAI+RGR'OUNDS contacted regarding.the establishment of a commercial activity on .their site- without.. the -approval of the -City. After discussion with City.staf`f . and the members of. - the Fair Board, their President ­ ad forwarded go letter stating that they .did- not intend to discontinue.. the_11edse':f;or H '& R Block or to seek City approval, in the future ,..: Chairman. Hilligoss 'also -stated she had talked to Mr Henry.`Tomasini, the Pr 'dent had been informed that Crty to rent out any of the land and felt they iaere' with the: he e Fair Board did not feel the: shou ld have to check with in their Petaluma City Planning Commission minutes, March 4, 1975 rights in doing' so. She added that Mr.. Tomasini, had not been .aware of the large neon sign; however, And did feel that it should, come down. Mr-s., Hilligoss stated that •she had been advised that the Fair 'B'oard did not feel there was anything in their lease that s'tat'ed they could. °not rent to anyone they wished., and that their. State lawyers had confirmed that aspect. Mrs. 'Hilligoss had also been informed that if the City wished t pursue the matter further the Fair Board; would pass, it on to the State lawyers. Comm.. Waters stated he.did not.feel that the Planning Commission "should. ge_t ;involved, inasmuch as the lease was between the City and the. Fair Board. Hozaever. he did feel 'It might be appropriate for the Planning Commission `to be involved with the regulation'of the signs, as they did not conform to the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Gray stated that the Fair Board did not feel they had to comply w> th. sign r;'egula'tions, since they were considered an independent State agency. He also advised that in add =ition to:non- conformance. with sign regulations the commercial act v t:,y was also located in, -a R -1- 6,,500 District, had not received site design review from the, City, and. the lease specifically stated the usage was to be for Tair.'and purposes. Mr. Cray' stated to his knowledge th -is was the first time that a long -term office commercial activity had moved into the Fairgrounds. The City Attorney was asked if the :Planning Commission had a right to question the.-usage of the Fa °irgrounds. He replied that the lease_ is between.:.:the City Council and the Fair Board ;, however, the ' Commisson..:could make a recommendation to the ;City Council to see . what could be.done;, since planning aspects were :also involved.. Mr. ,Hudson als advised - ;chat. a recent. court. decision had deemed that Fair. Boards.: were. a part of the State of .:California and therefore exempt .from land use requirements on land which, is under their ownersh. He ,added that it was, questionable,,howeyer, that they would have the right to 'set -tip a commercial zone. Mr. Gray.. that.H & R. Block held a 5 -year lease with a- 5 -year option.. He also noted_ that the Fair Board only paid $1 a year .rent for site Discussion..fol -lowed regarding this commerc a_l. usage; and the Commission in general felt that it was in fact -a-noricon =forming use that should be dealt with -in the same manner as other olat ons, and that no preference should be given. Mr. Bob Wells,. of .the. Press Democrat, stated some of the history of the Fair, concluded by saying that he did not think the Comm is'sion, should do -any thing to thwart the Fair. Mr. Gray replied the intentl'was not.to.harm the Fair in itself, but was a question of land use and the City being able-to retain some - jurisdiction over - their'::property. Comm.: Bond made a motion to forward a letter to the City Council advising them of the nonconforming si_gns� and commercial usa of " T -2- i •. �F Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes,, March 1975' the Fairgrounds, and ask .them to, clarify. if _this type of, commercial CA' activity was 'considered.appropriate when City leased this portion of Kenilworth Park -for fair and'` exhibition Purposes. Comm,._ Balshaw seconded the motion. AYES 7 - NOES, 0 .ABSENTS 0 Mr. Gray, advised that a letter would be drafted up for the. Chairman "s signature. COMMISSIONERS ". Comm,: advised the Commission that he felt the Architectural REPORTS :' & Site Des'ign,Rev,iew'Committee should be eliminated and the Director of Community Development given the right to make d iscretionary appro- val of° site designs, except ,for referral to the Planning Commission of those which he felt might be controversial. Discussion ;followed and it was the general opinion that, although routine site designs could be. handled, by the.;Director and be placed on the: Consdent' Calendar -, there were other- that could best be considered first by the Arch �tecti , ita & Site Design Review Committee 1 and later by the Commission. It- was,_agreed to follow that procedure, and the City Attorney was ,requested to 'determine if a change in the Zoning Ordinance would be'necessary. .Comm. Matte spoke `egard ng the 'D_evelop f nt Seminar he and other members of. the Council )and staff ' had 'attended at -the University. of California Extension 'in Irvine.. He also advised' the Commission that the City Council' had asked, for' a Authority and Red_evel- opment Agency to be'establ- ished:, and a resolution would be considered- for 'adopt ion at their next ;meeting. Comm.. Mattei s'tat'ed that the establishment of a new entity called the Community Development Commission had•.also been­consider-ed, but it had been determined to wain' until more information was auailabl_e.. ADJOURNMENT: 'There being no further business, the meeting 'adjourned at 8:55 p.m. zv oe IV Chairman