Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 12/17/1974A G E N D A PETALUMA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR 'MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS,, CITY HALL PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL :` Comm. Balshaw Bond Horciza Graters Hi ligoss DECEMBER 17, 1974 7:30 P.M. PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA Mattei Popp STAFF: Frank B. Gray, Director of Community Development APPROVAL OF MINUTES 'CORRESPONDENCE CONSENT CALENDAR: 1) Davis Realty - Site design review for the conversion of an.existing residential structure for commercial office use at 700 E. Washington Street. 2) Connolly Development, Inc. - Request for change in exterior wall materia s for the previously approved restaurant and offices at 337 McDowell Blvd. South. C USE PERMIT „REVIEW - Continuation of.Public Hearing to review Use Permit AL STACK AUTO U26 -60 and - Sonoma County ,Re- solution No. 260 for WRECKERS: compliance to their conditions of approval and-to consider their po.ssib,le revocation for the auto wrecking operation presently located at 850 Lakeville Street. ADJOURNMENT M I N U T E S AL PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 1.7, 1974 T GULAR MEETING 7:30 P.M. .CITY "COUNCIL.CHAMBERS, CITY HALL PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA `; Comm. Balshaw`, 'Bond, '.Hill,goss, Horciza, Mattei, Popp W4 AB'S'ENT None STAFF: F'r�ank B. Gray,; Director of Community Development , ' .APPROVAL - OF - MINUTES: The ,minutes of December 3.,,19'74 were approved as submitted. CORRESPONDENCE: A letter directed to the State Highway Mainte nance 'Yard�by the Department of Public Works was read, which stated that the Planning Commission had called to their attention that no provisions had'been made for the installation of wheel- chair ramps on the East Washington Street over crossing project. The Public Works Department therefore asked for any information that could be furnished relative to the matter. A letter directed to the City Manager by the Sonoma County ,Planning Department Advanced Plan - ning Division dated December 13, 1974 was read. The 'letter stated the County "s wish to establish a schedule for a presentation to Planning Commissioners, and Council members if they wished, regarding the County -wid& General Plan activity. The presentation would'be focused on the sketch plan alternatives devel,op.ed,so far and on future p.lanhirig efforts anticipated. Discussion fol- lowed after which the Commission agreed.to a point study session between the commission, Council and County on January 14, 1975 at 7:30 p.m. .0 . DRVI-S REALTY - SITE !DESITGN REVIEW: _The Director of Community Development requested that, the two items on the Consent, Calendar be withdrawn for discussion by the entire Commission. Comm., -Bond made a motion to withdraw the two items as.re g uested and Comm. Balshaw seconded the motion.. AYES 7 NOES A ABSENT 0 Mr. Gray informed the Commission that, upon re- viewing the actual plans and the Site Design Review Committee recommendations, he had noted Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes December- 17, 1974 Page 2 that two freestanding signs 14 6"' had been proposed wh- in ciShfilict with. the Zoning Ordinance. The architect for the - ptoject had therefore been contacted and submitted a revised sign plan for one freestanding sign 14' 6"° and two. low profile directional signs. Mr. Gray stated he recommended appe6Vdl of +-.he. site design -with the revised sign plans and.' ' the conditions of approval a determined by the Site Design, Review Committee. Comm. Waters: informed the Commission that the neighbor adjacent to the rear of.the site had attended the Site Design Review Committee meeting and had�objected to *a 6 high fence. She stated it Would block light and view from her kitchen windows and she preferred see the parking area. it was clarified that a low fence presently exists next to the hedge,a:t the rear property line. -Comm. Popp made ,a motion to approve, the site design as recommended. by the _Site , Design. Review Committee and including the revised :sign -plans,. The motion was seconded by Comm. H6rciza.. AYES 7 NOES 0, ABSENT 0 It was noted that the requested variance would be handled administratively. CONNOL LY DEVELOPMENT' The dommiss advised that the applicant INC. - MOQIFICATION had: requ'ested a change of material from - slump IN EXTERIOR WALL block . walls. to wood s and ,a wood f rame MATERIALS:* construction for reasons of economy. A coldred rendering of the proposed change and samples of materials were shown to' the Commis's*,on for their consideration. - Comm,. Waters iffformed the ,Com- mission that, since the Commission had.been concerned about the building conforming to the s rest �of the center, ' -he had asked that thi change be rcontldered by 'the - entire Conunis,sion - rathe± just the Site Design Review Committee. Discu-ssion'f gairdin the durability of the proposed material and if the change would be,downgrad to the center., Comm. Bond asked' 9y how much ec was ih.X question and Mr. Bob: Coates,, Conno.11y. -Development,. Inc. , stated, he did. not know in'dollars, but that the wood frame and the project back on an a� Petaluma Page '3 Planning Commission Minutes, December 17, 19'74 economical basis. He also felt it would be more.compatible. It noted that the proposed tenant "'Happy Steak" would have a 20 -year contract and therefore permanence and mainte- nance would be A sur,ed ; The Commission in general 'felt that the proposed material would liege a downgrading effect on the center and was n,ot in ,accord with what had been approved on other recent shopping centers. Comm. Bond moved deny the proposed change , in materials and .Comm. B`als'haw seconded the motion. AYES 7' NOES 0 ABSENT 0 The applicant was informed he could appeal the decision of- 'Commission to the City Council within 10, days. USE ,PERMI,T !REVIEW - The Comm ission was advised that this Use Permit AL .STACK AUTO had been brought ,before them,at their request WRECKERS: for review and possible,revocation. The fol- u lowing items.of - concern were noted for the Com- �' mission' -s consideration: 1) County and City res.olu,tions state no automobiles shall be stored out ,of the fenced area covered by the Us Permits, and 2) No parts shall•be stoned higher than the fence. The Commission was reminded that the Public Hearing had , been opened_ on December 3, 1,974 and continued until this date at Mr. Stack's request. A carbon copy of a letter forwarded to Mr. Stack by the Piotrkows fanily''s lawyer, John Lounibos, was then read. It stated that th,e Piotrkowski property was to be cleared of all materials connected in any way with the used car business by December 18, 1974., and suggested the possi bility of Mr. Stack applying for a Use Permit to allow -him to continue the use of the property. ~ Mr. Al Stack addressed the Commission, stating that although Petaluma was growing, the auto dismantling business was not, and to continue his present b.usiftes's he would have to find a larger site. He also advised the Commission that as n fear as the scrap materials showing over the fence, the California load line is 14 feet and therefore if a truck is parked inside the fence loaded it would be 8 feet over the height of the fence. Mr. Stack informed the,Commission that he had made an effort to clean up the .site, but the -time element and illness had prevented its completion. Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes, December .17 19 Page. 4 The prior. a.citioh.p-t-the Commission was questioned, and Mr. Gray.,,, jx;iofj- ..stummarized the events since 1969. , HI_e:-Ls'tated,:.that ;because of the lapse of time.. , since i the Cbitmission had a-sked for the revocation of the Use. Permit in .19 it was f el-E that another Public 'Hearng should be held_. Mr. Gray Informed, the Commission that he agreed Vith-'Mr.. Stack that -his site was crowded, d 'but that expansion Stack a- I I j - acent lot w- ould. require rezoning action, to M-G since the site was currently zoned, M-L. Co - mm. Balshaw quest what had been done to obtain a consolidated solidated dismantling,yard,, I and Mr. k Stac replied that it had'belen c.on sidered'.by him and other local members of the auto dis- mantling business, but had proved, to ,--- be econo mical,l,y infeasible. Mr. Stack further stated that-, he was looking for a dif,fer' ent, si.te,,but would continue to clean up his pres."ent.site and, go into a. limited operation of 4"wheel drive vehicles. 8o that he could - operate within 'the confines of his fenced area. Comm. Matte. informed Mr. Stack. that he had the .alternative of finding a larger sl or 'living ite within the confInes of -his present, yard. Speaking f-or thpi :both 'the Planning : CommLas,ion t And City Council, Comm. Mattei sated I he f . el it is. very important to clean up this entrance- way to the City since the future of the area and the .interests of the City are at stake, Mr. Stack advised the Commission that he would - .gladly fence in the Piotrkowsk, property to continue the Operation on that sItee. The Commission was informed by Mri Gray that an application for rezoning and Use Permit .f.or that site had never been made. Mr. Stack informod the Commission tha-t- he had dis the matter.. with the f r orme Planning Director - . many timQsr but had'been told he w'a wasting his time The Commission was informed by Mr. Gray that a theycould revoke ' t at he Use Permit this time and therefore - e Mr. Stack- to discon- tinue. his operation, since the State would a I lto .revoke. his dismantling lidens& if thi's action was taken. If the Commission wished to explore expansion and rezoning, the Use Permit could be continued for :a, -period of time during which' time me appropr ..te applicatIonsi could . be filed. Petaluma Planning Commis +sign 'Minutes;, December 17,.- 11974 Page 5 Mr. Stack was asked. what he'proposed to do, and . .he informed the Commission that he had deter- mined to cutback hi.s,operation to 4 -wheel drive vehicles,..'He added that all automobiles abandoned in the adjacent lot would be dumped in the street and that all his legally licensed trucks would,be parked on the,street. Mr. Gray explained that trucks :over 3/4 -ton were not permitted.to be parked,in residential areas. Mr. Stack-noted-that there were truck stops in town where vehi,c'les could be parked. Mr. read his letter to Mr. Stack dated November 22, 1974, notifying him of the Public. 'Hearirig to consider the possible revocation of ..his. Use Permit On December 3, 1974, and Mr. Stack's reply that he could not attend due to P rior commitments and asking for an extension until the 'next regular meeting. Mr. Stack also had stated he had every intention of.meeting the requirements of.the Use Permit and terminating 'th'e lease on the Piotrkowski property. ,Poo8ible penalties as outlined in Article 28 of the Zoning 0rdinance.were noted. Mr. Stack • informed the Commission that he had sent Mr. Piatrkowski a letter stating he would terminate his lease on hiz property January 1, 1975. Discussion followed regarding revoking the Use Permit allowing an - amortization period, or suspending action, The Commission was advised . that if the Use Permits were revoked they could not'be reissued because the use is presently an existing non - conforming use and would therefore require M -G rezoni f i-st. Comm. Balshaw made , a motion for revocation in 12`0 days.. Comm. Matte .stated . that if Mr.. Stack will terminate his lease and clear Mr. Piotrkowski's property, and also go into a different type of operation. to confine himself to his enclosed - ya'rd,, that would be essentially what the Commis- sion wanted. :'A short discussion followed and Comm. Balshaw withdrew - his motion. The Public!Hearing was closed. Comm. Popp made a'motion to extend the period, f.or action on: -the revocation until the end of 'December;-1974,, and to review the matter at the next meeting on January 7, 1975.. If Mr Stack .had not complied by that date, immediate action I ould be taken to revoke the Use Permits., Petaluma Planning Commission Kb utes, ,De.cember Page 6 ,.. Chairman : Hi lligcss. , asked �Mr , Stack f' that would .. = ..- be: :suff;lcientF tzme atp comply, and,, Mr. Stack :'t,3.:l�ke�to� exp;lore�':rezoning; of the �lotrkows�lci re 1 t it wound an d that he;would also phep on T.� ible. iComm. Balshaw. second °.� ro erty rif : poss,; seconded t!.AYES .,:,. .5 ' ; -N,OES R .._2? ., , :ABSENT 0 scuss` on:- followed _areg;arding u's'e: of the old City :?dump property as auto dismantling site.. Mr.. Gray informed the Commiss that was 4 . - •_' < . the I property: , Mr o '_Stack ::.referred :to as being infeas b.le •to.- ,dev:elo:p OTHER:-: BUSINESS::., Comm o:. Waters asked what' - could be done about the .conditiori,s f the..xa:ilroad tracks on East "'-D St. Mr. °•Gray :xepl'zed 'that. 'he would write a Iette'r to :rC Engineer .arid' :the railroad 'and furnish the ICornmiss:ion_ , -a; 'copy,, .. . A_ Comm Copp stated thatthe learned. that a building r. ` , permit , .had .,been granted.. for Santa Fe .Pomeroy to - constr .uct''_a...,concrete,..mix batch an n the County , off - Hopper•: "Street. _e�kten:sion, and had -, asked. the County why it had not been referred to the City of _ Petaluma . rHe was = to`l'd . that it was in the; proper �,..,zone._ only"�required - to have site design review. ;_'- )Mr .: -Gray informed the. Commission he .w would__g.e.t:. an. e) p ana.tion from - thee County. D.is.cuss on\ followed .regarding a representative. ot. the - :_;Comm ssF on .,be ng;.pr•esent a.t the appeal - F•_:: :.:t. ; ;i of the` cond 4tions the library site: design _. tor;,the City'Council on.'December 30, 1974,. i yl;t was hdete'rmi•ned .that =members of the Site De- ,Review Committee the Chairman would attend.. 1 ° Cha %rman .HI-1 the Commission that the Rythm C lub was still, not boarded up Mr. Gray -stated he would,-zwork with the City Attorney ands °Chief Building Inspector regarding it. • pct Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes, December 17, 1974 .Page 7 Chairman Hilligoss stated that the holes still existed in the'Town & Country Shopping Center. Mr. Gray'.r.eplied that he would write a letter regarding the matter. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9 :15 p.m. Chairman A 0