Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 09/27/19940 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 (03 NED 20 21 22 23 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING September 27, 1994 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL PETALUMA, CA PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. ROLL CALL: All Present: Parkerson, Rahman, Stompe, Thompson *, Torliatt (arrived at 7:20 PM), vonRaesfeld, Wick. STAFF: Pamela Tuft, Planning Director Jim McCann, Principal Planner Chairman APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of September 13, 1994 were approved with corrections (pages 9 and 10). 24 25 PUBLIC COMMENT: Wayne Vieler - Owner, Kodiak Jack's - After last 26 meeting, lawyers and he did research regarding Zoning Ordinance and Municipal 27 Code pertaining to Kodiak Jack's use; City of Petaluma contends having live 28 entertainment is commercial recreation and requires a CUP under 13 -404 of 29 Article - 13, CH - Highway Commercial District and the definition of commercial 30 recreation specifies use by public for a fee - emphasized designation "for a fee" 31 addressed this question to Pamela Tuft - per articles, nothing that prevents 32 offering live entertainment without a fee - our contention is that live 33 entertainment is a permitted use under Section 13 -206 there is no designation 34 anywhere that precludes live entertainment with a Use Permit - only if a fee is 35 charged; Pamela Tuft determined that with her discretionary powers as Planning 36 Director and as previously established by herself and her predecessors, that live 37 entertainment is an expansion of use and requires a CUP; let the record show that 38 arbitrary law has long been established in courts as stating it is unlawful to make 39 discretionary determinations that are not established in the form of written 40 articles ordinances or charters conforming to the Constitution of the State of 41 California; Does the Planning Commission an oath of office? (answer no) Is 42 the Planning Commission paid or reimbursed for service on Planning 43 Commission? (answer no); I, Wayne Vieler, declare that I object to this procedure 44 for lack of authority - you have no jurisdiction over the subject matter - no law or 45 ordinance and no amendment in the charter granting authority to grant or deny 46 live entertainment in the form of a band in my establishment per Article 11, 47 Section 6, and Article 20, Section 3 of the California Constitution of which 48 Petaluma received its Charter - find this Commission to be acting unlawfully, 49 immorally, and unethically. 50 51 DIRECTOR'S REPORT: None. 52 1 U 6 01 1 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 COMMISSIONER'S REPORT: J.T. Wick will be absent from a few future meetings; article in newspaper regarding Mayoral candidate stating that Planning Department budget could be diverted to other departments should he become Mayor —this would be unlawful, couldn't be done, if department was reduced, income form fees would be reduced. CORRESPONDENCE: Letter from Caroline Williams regarding Petaluma Queen; Letter from California Regional Water Quality Control Board regarding Petaluma Queen; Petition from :operators of Petaluma Queen. in support of calliope -; Letter from Carolyn Holmberg regarding Holmberg Roofing CUP; Letter from Larry Dahl regarding Chevron Oil Stop. APPEAL STATEMENT: Was read. LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was noted on the agenda. CONSENT AGENDA: Items recommended for consideration under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine in nature by staff' and are recommended to be acted upon by a single motion by the Planning Commission at the, beginning of the meeting with no further discussion. The item may, however, be removed from. the Consent Calendar for discussion in its normal order on, the agenda by the applicant, a Commissioner, or an interested member of the public by a simple request. 25 26 OLD BUSINESS 27 28 I. WAYNE VIELER; KODIAK JACK'S HONKY TONK AND SALOON, 29 256 PETALUMA BLVD. NORTH; AP NO. 006 - 284 -036; FILE. 30 CUP9401'8(jcm /jkt). 31 32 Findings for denial for Conditional Use Permit - Continued from 33 September 13, 1994 meeting. 34 35 Principal Planner McCann presented the staff report. 36 37 DISCUSSION 38 39 None. 40 41 A motion was made. by Commissioner Parkerson and seconded by. Commissioner 42 vonRaesfeld to deny the Conditional Use Permit. based on the findings fisted 43 below. 44 45 COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes 46 COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: No 47 CHAIRPERSON THOMPSON: Yes 48 COMMISSIONER WICK: No 49 COMMISSIONER STOMPE: Yes 50 COMMISSIONER TORLIATT: Yes 51 COMMISSIONER vonRAESFELD: Yes 52 53 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N " 1 2 1. The proposed commercial recreation use (live music, dance lessons and 3` entry cover charge) will not conform to the requirements and /or intent of 4 the Petaluma General Plan in that the proposal would: 5 6 a. Result in an intensification of the current use which would 7 create additional noise impacts at a location that is near 8 demonstrated sensitive residential receptors; 9 10 b. Would not improve traffic congestion/ conditions along a 11 critical arterial street. 12 CD 2. The proposed commercial recreation use (live music, dance lessons and entry cover charge) will not conform to the requirements and intent of the (o Petaluma Zoning Ordinance inasmuch as evidence has been presented during public hearings that the special nature of the use (commercial recreation in addition to a large bar) makes it unsuitable at this location. This evidence indicates that the proposed use at this site raises significant concern regarding compliance with the provisions of Section 21 -300 of the Zoning Ordinance, General Standards and Considerations Governing 21 Conditional Uses, specifically: 22 23 a. The site is inadequate to accommodate the proposed 24 intensification of use given the site's proximity to sensitive 25 noise receptors and frontage on a busy arterial street; 26 7 b. The history of the current use and previous similar use of the 8 property have demonstrated that significant noise from music 9 and patrons will occur and that the proximity of the proposed 30 intensification of use to residences in the area will create 31 adverse impacts on the peace and quiet of these residential 32 areas; 33 34 C. The proposed use would intensify the existing use and would 35 intensify traffic impacts to Petaluma Blvd, an important 36 arterial street. 37 38 d. The off -site parking available for the existing use is inadequate 39 because it is: inconvenient, poorly illuminated, poorly 40 identified, has poor driveway access and offers poor security 41 and surveillance and is consequently uninviting to patrons. 42 The inadequate parking facilities will, with the proposed 43 intensification of use, create the potential for additional 44 congestion on Petaluma Blvd. as patrons load and unload on 45 the street. Additionally, the inadequate parking facilities will 46 cause, with the proposed intensification of use, potential 47 patrons to park elsewhere including within nearby residential 48 areas, thereby impacting these residential areas by introducing 49 patron conversation and vehicle noise during late night /early 50 morning hours. 1 2 e. The proposed intensification of use would be incompatible 3 with its environment inasmuch as the number of customers and 4 the anticipated activity level and noise generation from 3 292 patrons and live music during .late night /early morning hours would be incompatible with the sensitiveness of the nearby residential uses; f. The: proposed intensification of use and the history of other similar uses indicate that the intensification of use will, create ,demands for police services during late night /early morning hours when police staffing is particularly low and already strained. Provisions proposed for on -site security and for policing activities caused by the presence of the commercial recreation use in the project area would be inadequate to fully address the anticipated impact created by the use. 3. The proposed project (the intensification of an existing use) will be detrimental 10 the public welfare of the" community due to its, potential to generate significant noise impacts and demands for police services during sensitive late night /early morning hours. 4. The proposed intensification of use will constitute a nuisance due to a. The unacceptable noise levels that would continue to be created during late night /'early morning hours; b. The inadequate parking facilities available to patrons due to the facilities': poor proximity to the use; poor illumination; poor security provisions; poor identification; and poor access; c. The undefined manner in which patron .noise and loitering outside of. the facility continues to be addressed by the applicant. d. The inadequate provisions for security proposed by the applicant. 5. The proposed intensification of use will create significant environmental effects which have not been adequately mitigated. related to noise, parking, and public services(police), specifically: a. The intensification of use will create significant noise levels . during late night /early morning hours which will adversely affect sensitive residential uses an the area. Mitigation. of this impact has not been identified or agreed to by the applicant; b. The parking available for the proposed intensification of use is inadequate given its distance from the site, poor illumination, poor security, ,poor identification, and poor access. Mitigation of this impact has not been identified or agreed to by the applicant. C. The intensification of use as proposed will create significant demand for police services during late night /early morning hours when police services are limited and already strained. C! !zew 1 On -site security provisions proposed would be inadequate. 2 Mitigation of this impact has not been identified or agreed to 3 by the applicant. 4 5 6. The denial of the Conditional Use Permit to authorize commercial 6 recreation is exempt from the requirements of the California 7 Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15270(a) of CEQA 8 which exempts from review projects which are disapproved. 9 10 7. Pursuant to Section 26 -510 of the Zoning Ordinance, following the denial of 11 a Use Permit application, no application for the same or substantially the 12 same conditional use on the same site shall be filed within one (1) year from the date of denial of the Use Permit. H. CITY OF PETALUMA, STATUS REPORT - PETALUMA QUEEN; TURNING BASIN; FILE CUP93014(tp). 21 22 Progress report and request for direction on the status of outstanding issues 23 relating to Conditional Use Permit requirements and operational 24 characteristics of the Petaluma Queen cruise business (continued from the 25 9/13/94 meeting). 26 7 Principal Planner McCann presented the staff report; indicated items which have 8 been submitted by applicant as requested by staff and Planning Commission; re: 9 Fraywater discharge into river - Regional Water Quality Control Board has 30 indicated that discharge from dishwasher is unlawful; re: noise - calliope was not 31 considered under original use permit, excessive noise has become an issue 32 however; recent discussions with operator indicate that he will limit time of 33 calliope operation to 5 -10 minutes on departure and arrival; re: utilities - electric 34 meter and water /sewer have been connected and City is no longer paying for these 35 utilities; applicant should indicate his intentions to the Commission re: calliope. 36 37 DISCUSSION 38 39 Commissioner Rahman - has staff received indication from parties complaining 40 about calliope noise, whether they would be happy with playing less often? 4.1 Commissioner Parkerson - questions regarding parking arrangement and site 42 improvement. 43 Principal Planner McCann - explained event parking arrangement and the 44 compromises reached regarding site improvement and landscaping. 45 Commissioner vonRaesfeld - is more parking available off -site? 46 Principal Planner McCann - plan submitted today shows more parking on -site 47 than staff originally expected; the applicant is pursuing an additional amendment 48 to the CUP to allow off -site parking (E. Washington /Weller Street). 49 Planning Director Tuft - indicated that Fire Marshal's office reviewed parking 50 plans - with original CUP amendment, met minimum distance requirements. 1 Commissioner Wick - Were any public monies spent for frontage improvements to 2 benefit this use? 3 Principal Planner McCann - not to my knowledge. Wi 294 Dick Lieb - Lieb and Miller, AIA - representing Mr. Barker - 'willing to replumb to discharge graywater into holding tanks; " presented petition from people in support of calliope, has been playing music less and , farther away; will be adding landscaping at river and in front of deck, at office. Commissioner Thompson - you mentioned a lease supplying more parking for events. Lieb - there is a lease for the Kieckhefer property on Weller Street; answered questions regarding disposal of graywater. Commissioner Wick - how were names on petition _received? noted many were not from Petaluma; volume (of calliope) is very high - there must be volume control on this machine. Lieb - no volume control.. Commissioner Thompson - Will 60 days be enough to clean up site and install improvements, etc.? Lieb - Yes, everyone is working together to satisfy all problems. Commissioner Parkerson - Are we making any judgement on calliope? Will we be giving applicant 60 days to work out remaining:problems? Principal Planner McCann - Any specific action re: calliope needs to be discussed at a later meeting with notice. Commissioner Parkerson /Wick /Torliatt -Calliope issue should be agendized. Commissioner Parkerson - Parking lot needs to be reviewed by Fire Marshal for circulation adequacy. Commissioner vonRaesfeld - Clarification to staff regarding music - what would cause music /noise to be agendized? Plannin,g Director Tuft Planning Commission can direct staff to bring forward to Planning Commission; would like to see issue before Planning. Commission for discussion as early as October. Commissioner vonRaesfeld - not an issue tonight? Commissioner.Rahman - loves calliope, a real plus for City of Petaluma; must be a way to lower volume,. or play farther away from downtown. Commissioner Parkerson - Would not like to lose calliope, but issue of noise does need to be discussed. Chairman Thompson - Applicant should get a definitive letter from manufacturer regarding inability to lower volume of calliope or Planning Commission needs to discuss other alternatives. III. PETALUMA RIVERBOAT COMPANY APPEAL; PETALUMA QUEEN FLOATING STORAGE FACILITY; PETALUMA TURNING BASIN; FILE CUP9401 1 (tp). Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Director's decision denying amendment to the Conditional Use Permit for operation of the Petaluma Queen. The amendment would permit location of a floating storage facility within the Turning Basin adjacent to the public docks (continued from the 9/13/94 meeting). Planning Director Tuft presented the staff report. DISCUSSION rt 295 1 2 3 5 6 7 9 10 11 co C 05 21 22 23 24 25 2� 8 9 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 1 2 3 Commissioner .vonRaesfeld - Have any approvals been sought from Fish and Game, State Lands, etc.? Planning Director Tuft - We have not requested review of the use by any regulatory agencies as staff has denied proposal? Should Planning Commission wish to approve, referral should be pursued; applicant claims this is a vessel rather than a structure. Commissioner Wick - Do any other turning basin users have such a floating storage vessel? Planning Director Tuft - No. Matt Hudson - Attorney for applicant - submitted signed lease agreement for additional parking (Kieckhefer); submitted signed lease agreement with Queen and City of Petaluma (includes diagram showing area Queen is allowed to dock); discussion of storage building - for definition of vessel, refers to Vehicle Code - qualifies as vessel, Zoning Ordinance cannot be referred to; this is not a planning question - it should be discussed as a lease issue maybe with City Manager or City Council;, more conciliatory point of view - supplies have been loaded up on dock since use began; a major question is design of this vessel /building - is it an eyesore? Mr. Lieb has been asked 'to create elevations to make building more appealing, more like vessel ,belongs with the Queen. Dick Li eb - Showed proposed elevation ( "Disneyland approach ") to make the storage building fit in better with the use; addition of matching windows, old fashioned door, wrought iron railing, etc. Matt Hudson - Proposal to make storage buildin /vessel.match use - requested an 18 month trial period after redesign of building /vessel to see if it can remain /be accepted; applicants will post a $2,400 bond to remove building should it be deemed necessary by City to be removed. Commissioner Torliatt - points out that lease with City states that any additional vessel needs approval from City; if this is .a vessel, the City has not given permission; what is procedure to have this vessel /building legally removed? Planning Director Tuft - described Order to Show Cause /Abatement process. Commissioner Stompe - Is there a space (on land) to rebuild this building? Matt Hudson - We are looking at this question, space needs to be as close to the boat as possible. Commissioner Stompe - During River Festival - dock was beginning to sink, concerns with water getting into building. Planning Director Tuft - staff has indicated support to relocate building to parking lot adjacent to Petaluma Queen's office - trucks could unload directly into building; expansion of use to allow building on ,dry land would be supported by staff; this use has been expanded without due process because of this building, /vessel. Commissioner Stompe - Where could this building be located in the parking lot? Planning Director Tuft - (overhead projection) - showed possible extension of dock, possible storage building locations in parking lot; has indicated support for this relocation to applicant. Commissioner Torliatt - Is there a reason why this cannot be relocated onto parking lot? Matt Hudson - Not as easily /quickly done by applicant as staff would like - that is why 18 month request is made; how can we deal with this problem best? offering bond to insure removal. Commissioner Rahman - Detailing will be on all four elevations of this building? Has staff seen /heard these proposals before tonight? Planning Director Tuft - Does not think granting of 18 -month grace period should be allowed; believes this structure was erected with no prior approval to avoid 7 296 proper procedures; believes it should be removed in the same time -frame it was constructed (2 days). David Mayer Vallejo Street resident - this whole matter has been a waste of City staff time; applicant will do as he pleases; this is not a vessel, it is a floating building; this 'building was "red- tagged ", why is this use still being allowed? How can this building be regulated? This is not Disneyland, why would we want it to be? City has been over - accommodating to the Petaluma Queen; 9 months have gone by, how much time is needed? Wants to see building removed. Charlotte Nurenburger - Owner, Old River Inn - Issues of safety, liability for City; boat (Petaluma Queen) needs to be moved adjacent to office, if this was done, there would be no need for this storage building, it could be delivered directly to office. John Barker - Petaluma Queen - Reason for difficulty of delivery from office to the boat is because delivery persons have to cross over sidewalk /parking for Old River Inn (which is at a slant); if boat was moved behind office, it would block river access coming under bridge into'Turning Basin. Gene Beatty - Director of Public Works' - two points" - 1) Commission needs to have applicant clarify need for vessel %building; 2) applicant approached him for permission to erect this structure - applicant was notified in writing that this would need permission from Planning Commission and Planning Department - structure was erected approximately 2 months after that notification; no -major problem with what is being done; but how they are going., about doing it. Bill Barker - Petaluma Queen - history of'how vessel /building. came about - during certification of vessel - refrige unit had to be removed to lighten up the stern (1,500 lbs.); refrigerator added behind office, but this was not enough cold storage,; people got sick on Mother's Day last year because of lack of cold storage; submitted plans for floating commissary to Health Department but they will not acted on =ding, until this is decided by the City; applied' for encroachment. permit to allow finally just built the structure because of need- City (Gene Beatty) indicated that they wouldn't allow, a storage container- in the parking lot. Commissioner Rahman - Have you considered` moving this building to parking lot? Have you considered extending your dock? Bill Barker - Permits take too long, how can we get on with it? Are parking, lighting, etc. plans approved? I don't know? I'm so confused! Public hearing closed. Commissioner Parkerson - Building. should be removed and it should be removed as fast as it was built. Commissioner Torliatt - Building needs to be removed within six months with a written agreement and a bond posted. Commissioner Rahman - Building.. should be removed within two months. Commissioner Torliatt - They might possibly be able to remove the building in six months, two months might not be enough time. Commissioner Wick - 60 days should be the outside. Commissioner Rahman - I don't know if 60 days would be enough time to obtain permits. Principal Planner McCann - described lack of due diligence on applicant's part (lighting, parking, fence). Consensus - most members feel building should be removed. A motion was made by Commissioner Wick and seconded by Commissioner' Parkerson to deny the appeal of the applicant, sustaining the Planning Director's I- 297 1 decision' denying amendment to the Conditional Use Permit allowing a floating 2 storage facility within the Turning Basin based on the findings listed below: 3 4 COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes 5 COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes 6 CHAIRPERSON THOMPSON: Yes 7 COMMISSIONER WICK: Yes 8 COMMISSIONER STOMPS: Yes 9 COMMISSIONER TORLIATT: Yes 10 COMMISSIONER vonRAESFELD:- Yes 11 12 Findings C0 1. Previously imposed conditions of approval pertaining to maximum occupancy for the vessel;. required site improvements; installation of utilities to serve the vessel; provisions for waste disposal; securing of a City business tax certificate, Dock Portange Insurance, and lease agreements for use of private and public properties, as ,adopted for the project under Use Permit files 1.614 (1989 approval) and CUP93014 (1993 amendment), were not met prior to commencement of the use, as provided under the City 21 approvals. 22 23 2. The applicant was advised in writing on December 27, 1993 and on May 12, 24 1994, of outstanding issues, and of the specific actions required to bring the 25 project into compliance. 26 7 3. Conditions of approval pertaining to maximum occupancy restrictions and 8 required site improvements as imposed under Use Permit files 1.614 and 9 CUP93014 have not been met as of this date, and the business continues to 0 operate without full compliance. 31 32 4. The applicant was advised in writing on November 30, 1993 of the need to 33 apply for and obtain, an application for Conditional Use Permit in order to 34 construct a storage building within the Petaluma Turning Basin. 35 36 5. Subsequent to the November 1993 notification, a storage facility was 37 erected within the Petaluma Turning Basin without benefit of required City 38 approvals. 39 40 6. A lengthy history of difficulty in gaining compliance with City and outside 41 agency requirements for operation of the business is evidenced by 42 correspondence and other documentation on file with the City Planning 43 Department. 44 45 7. The proposed use permit amendment to allow legalization of an existing 46 floating storage building within the Turning Basin will not conform to the 47 requirements and intent of the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance, in that the 48 building is located within the Floodway and does not meet provisions 49 contained under Zoning Ordinance Sections 16 -502, 503 pertaining to 50 uses /structures permitted within the Floodway. District. 1 1 2 8. The proposed use permit amendment to allow legalization of an existing 3 floating storage building within the Turning Basin will not conform to the 4 requirements and intent of the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance, in that the 9 •, 0 building is located within the Floodway in close proximity to the D Street bridge, and. is not permanently secured to a fixed foundation, and as such, constitutes a flood hazard which may obstruct the designated floodway and /or restrict the carrying, capacity of the floodway. 9. The proposed use permit amendment to allow legalization of an existing floating storage building within the Turning Basin is not consistent with the requirements and intent, goals, and policies of the Petaluma General Plan, specifically, the provisions of Chapter 11 Community Health and Safety, pertaining to restriction of uses within flood prone areas and protection of the community from risk of flood damage. 10. The proposed use ;permit amendment to allow legalization of an existing floating storage building within the Turning Basin presents access and safety, hazards associated with staging of supplies on the public dock and obstruction of the walkway security,, maintenance and liability issues associated with exclusive use of public facilities, specifically the Turning Basin waters and public dock area, by a private commercial enterprise; and aesthetic concerns associated with the size, configuration, and architectural . features of ' the building, as well as obstruction of views across the 'Turning Basin. 11. The Turning Basin is recognized as public lands, and location: of the building within the Turning Basin, occupying a portion of the public dock, constitutes a grant of special privilege, and permits exclusive use of said public lands. 12. The project,. as proposed at this location constitutes a nuisance, and is, by the nature of its physical and operational characteristics, detrimental to the public welfare of the community. 13. Alternative sites exist which are not located within the Floodway, and which may be more suitable for the use. NEW BUSINESS IV. CITY OF PETALUMA, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS (ky). Consideration of street, circulation, water sewer, drainage, and parks CIP's for consistency General Plan. (CONSENT CALENDAR). A motion was made by Commissioner Parkerson and seconded by Commissioner Rahman to find that the 5 -year CIP's are consistent with the General Plan or, in the case of the Lawler water supply, current conditions render the General Plan directive inapplicable. COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes 10 299 1 COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes 2 CHAIRPERSON THOMPSON: Yes 3 COMMISSIONER WICK: Yes 4 COMMISSIONER. STOMPE: Yes 5 COMMISSIONER TORLIATT: Yes 6 COMMISSIONER vonRAESFELD: Yes 7 8 9 V. OILWELL, INC., dba, THE OIISTOP; 601 EAST WASHINGTON 10 STREET; AP NO.007- 057- 042(jkt). 11 Review of Conditional Use Permit compliance issues and request for direction to staff. Principal Planner McCann presented the staff report. DISCUSSION Planning Director Tuft - Spoke with operator of OilStop yesterday - indicated that 20 they would discontinue outside storage of barrels - that they no longer have a need 21 to store barrels outside. 22 Chairman Thompson - 6 -7 years ago, applicant indicated that barrels would no 23 longer be a problem. 24 Planning Director Tuft - To clarify - there is groundwater testing going on (by the 25 property owner, Mr. Silva) as well as outdoor storage of oil in barrels by OilStop. 6 David Mayer - Vallejo Street - Has not seen environmental waste barrels in two 7 years; wrote a letter on August 16, 1994 indicating that Use Permit Conditions 8 have not been enforced for OilStop; barrels have now been removed (as of 9 yesterday); facility is fairly attractive, but oil barrels may still be ,spilled; suggests 30 modifying CUP - fine of $100 every day there are barrels present; Planning should 31 issue a public information handout explaining time limits for. requiring legal 32 compliance. 33 Planning Director Tuft - Planning Commission and /or staff do not presently have 34 ability to impose fines. 35 36 Staff directed to take action (per recommendation 2) of staff report if barrels are 37 seen again at any time - violation of that condition would begin commencement of 38 abatement proceedings (per 3). 39 40 Commissioner Rahman - Are we dealing with the operator of OilStop, not the 41 property owner now? 42 Planning Director Tuft - Yes, OilStop. 43 44 A motion was made by Commissioner Torliatt and seconded by Commissioner 45 Parkerson to direct staff, upon a noted violation of the conditions of the Use 46 Permit for Oil Stop, to direct the operator of Oil Stop to apply for SPARC review 47 to authorize the construction of. an enclosure to screen the outdoor storage of 48 barrels;!, 'should Oil Stop fail to complete this request, staff shall commence 49 revocation proceedings of the Conditional Use Permit. 0 1 COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes - 2 COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes 3 CHAIRPERSON THOMPSON: Yes 11 300 1 COMMISSIONER WICK: Yes 2 COMMISSIONER STOMPE: Yes 3 COMMISSIONER TORLIATT: Yes 4 COMMISSIONER vonRAESFELD: Yes 5 6 7 DEPARTMENT REPORTS VI. HOLMBERG ROOFING; ALAN HOLMBERG; 16 CEDARGROVE PARK; AP NO. 006-051-067; FILE NO. CUP93012. Update regarding Planning Director's commencement of Conditional Use Permit revocation proceedings. 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 Planning Director Tuft presented the staff report. Holmberg's have reapplied for grading permit that expired. Abandoned truck body should be removed or relocated. DISCUSSION Alan Holmberg - Property owner; signed contract with Sonoma Engineering, to begin grading work within two weeks. John Chaney - 55 Rocca Drive - Holmberg definitely has taken his time! It has been a. year; City does not monitor building permits winter is coming on, drainage improvements need to be done as soon as possible; 60 days is reasonable to be implemented; Mr. Holmberg has delayed since October of 1992; please don't let Mr. Holmberg be slick - make him do his landscaping, etc., we (neighbors) are serious about the landscaping /grading /drainage, it is our backyard we're talking about. Evertt Sartori 5.9 Rocca Drive Rancho Hotel is sellin large trees for $50. each, .maybe Mr. Holmberg should buy some; Mr. Holmberg should get going on his grading, etc. Planning Director Tuft - Mr. Holmberg could supply a copy of contract with Sonoma Engineering regarding grading work. Chairman Thompson - (to Mr. Holmberg) Do we all understand each other? Will this work be done in a tirnely manner? Alan Holmberg - I understand, work will be done very soon. OTHER BUSINESS VII. PLANNING COMMISSION ASSIGNMENTS TO: SOUTH PETALUMA . BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN COMMITTEE - Rahman /Thompson appointees. SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE - Stompe /vonRaesfeld will split time (6 months.), effective immediately (vonkaesfeld will take second 6 months). ADJOURNMENT 9:55 PM. min927 / pcom26 12