HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 10/24/19952
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
to
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
City Of Petaluma
Planning. Commission Minutes
REGULAKMEETING OCTOBER 24, 1995
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL PETALUMA, CA
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
ROLL CALL: Feibusch, Rahman*, Barlas (left at 9PM), Thompson, Torliatt,
vonRaesfeld, Wick
STAFF: Pamela Tuft,, Planning Director
James McCann, Principal.Planner
Jennifer Barrett, ,Senior Planner
Teryl Phillips, Associate Planner
Jane Thomson, Senior Planning Technician
* Chairman
NIINUTES of October 1`0;,and Special Meeting of October 11, 1995 were approved with
corrections.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Sonoma State Planning Commissioner's Seminar; pending
project regarding Blue Mountain. Mediation Center.
COMMISSIONER'S REPORT: Commissioner Wick will abstain from Blue Mountain
Mediation Center project - lives within 1,200 feet, has dealt with center in his business;
Conunissioner Barlas attended Blue Mountain open house; Commissioner Rahman
requested an open agenda to discuss issues, process, role, expediting certain issues, goals
and objectives.
CORRESPONDENCE: Letter from Sultana Harvey of the Blue Mountain Center of
Meditation; letter from DeLongis family regarding Blue Mountain, Center of Meditation;
Letters from.Paul Gallagher and Patrick and Ellen Sweeney regarding Cross Creek; Memo
from Planning staff regarding George's Taxi. Yellow Cab.
APPEAL STATEMENT: Was read.
LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was noted on the agenda.
1 CONSENT_ AGENDA
2
3 I. GEORGE'S YELLOW TAXI CAB, INC.; 588' ROSELAND AVENUE,
4 SANTA ROSA, FILE NO. CONO210:
5
6 Recommendation to the City Council on a .determination .of exemption from the
7 requirements of CEQA and approval of a. Certificate of Public Convenience and
8 Necessity for George's Taxi, Yellow Cab, Inc. to operate inside -City Limits:
9
10 The public hearing was opened.
11
12 Irving KenU, - 588 Roseland Avenue, Santa'Rosa- owner of George's Yellow Taxi Cab -
13 Acknowledged concern regarding color of cabs; will use only yellow vehicle&in.Petalu:ma.
14
15 A motion was made by Commissioner Barlas and seconded by Commissioner 'Tbrliatt to
16 recommend to the City Council that they find the proposal to: be exempt from CEQA and
17 to 'approve a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for George's Taxi Yellow
18 Cab, Inc. based on the findings and subject to the amended conditions listed below:
19
20 Commissioner B'arlas: Yes
21 Commissioner Feibusch: Yes
22 Commissioner Thompson: Yes
23 Commissioner Wick: Yes
24 Commissioner Torliatt: Yes
25 Commissioner vonRaesfeld° Yes
26 Chairman Rahman: Yes
27
28 Findin s:
29
30 1. The proposed taxi company; as conditioned,, will conform to the requirements and
31 intent of the Petaluma Municipal. Code.
32
33 2. The proposed taxi company, as conditioned, will conform to the requirements and
34 intent, goals, and policies of the Petaluma General Plan.
35
36 3. The proposed taxi company, .as conditioned, will not constitute a nuisance o r be
37 detrimental to the public welfare of the. community.
38
39 Conditions
40
41 1. This Certificate of Public Convenience may ybe ,suspended or revoked for violation
42 of an of the terms of C
y hapter14 of the�Petaluma Municipal Code, or for violation
43 of -any of the terms of the certificate, ,or for misuse or abuse: of the privilege hereby
44 granted, pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Petaluma Municipal Code.
45
46 2. George's Taxi Yellow Cab Inc. shall comply with all applicable provisions of
47 Petaluma Municipal. Code Chapter 14.
48
49 3. The fare rates as proposed by the applicant are hereby fixed, and, may only be
50 changed'by City Council action.
51
2
1
4.
Before operations may commence, all vehicles owned and operated by George's
2
Taxi Yellow Cab Inc. shall be inspected by °the Police Department. Vehicles to be
3
operated inside City Limits shall be yellow. Any defects uncovered during the
4
inspection shall be corrected and the vehicles reinspected by the Police
5
Department.
6
7
5.
All drivers of George's Taxi Yellow Cab Inc. vehicles shall obtain a (taxi) driver's
8
license issued through the Central Permit Bureau (Finance Department of the City
9
of Petaluma) before commencement of operations.
10
11
6.
All vehicles owned and operated by George's Taxi Yellow Cab Inc. shall obtain
12
annual' vehicle permits issued through the Central Permit Bureau (Finance
13
Department 'of the City of Petaluma) before commencement of operations. All
14
permits for taxicabs shall expire annually the thirtieth day of June.
15
16
7.
Before a vehicle permit may be issued, and prior to the operation of any of such
17
vehicles, there shall be filed with the City Clerk a policy of public liability insurance
18
executed and delivered by. a company authorized to carry out any insurance
19
business in the state, the financial' responsibility of which company has been
20
approved by the City Manager.
21
22
8.
Any -proposal for increase in. the number of taxicabs shall be reviewed and
23
approved by the City. Council before expansion of service is made.
24
25 - 9. Taxis shall' not be garaged inside City limits without prior authorization by the City
26 Council.
27
28 10. The applicants /developers shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City or
29 any of its boards, commission agents; officers and employees from any claim,
30 action or proceeding against the City, its boards, commission, agents, officers, or
31 employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, the approval of the project when
32 such claim or action is brought within the time period provided for in applicable
33 State and /or local statutes. The City shall promptly notify the
34 applicants /developers of any such claim, action, or proceeding. The City shall
35 coordinate in the defense. Nothing contained in this condition shall prohibit the
36 City .from participating in a defense of any claim, action, or proceeding if the City
37 bears its own attorney's fees and costs, and the City defends the action in good
38 faith.
39
40
41 CONTINUED BUSINESS
42
43 H. WASTEWATER. FACILITIES PROJECT AND LONG-RANGE
44 MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.
45
46 Review and concurrence of language regarding additional Planning Commission
47 recommendations made at October 11 th, 1995 meeting..
48
49 Senior Planner Barrett presented staff report/answered questions.
50
51 Discussion:
1 '
2 Commissioner Thompson - Questions :regarding,procedure in Final EIR..
3 Commissioner Torliatt This; project-may require more staff than one (full- time) ... change
4 wor..ding to "an appropriate number of staff`fully dedicated to this project "; questions
5 regarding baving two lists of recommendations - if entire Patocchi property does not need
6 to be purchased more wording to spell out affects on Patocchi property; I wanted to have
7 1JI control to reduce the;size of the reservoir.
8 Senior Planner Barrett -- Infiltration and inflow control. will have no effect -on the size. of
9 the reservoir; the,most significant factor on the size. of the reservoir is'the. discharge to the
to river; I/I only affects storage if we phase -out the discharge and re ry small
presents a ve
11 percentage' of the total flow , with continued 'discharge, as the Commission. has
12 recommended; the I/I is not stored, but discharged during winter .storms; Patocchi
13 property is owned by five separate pro_ perty owne rs,:. some have ;indicated they would
14 prefer acquisition of entire property.
15 Commissioner Thompson - All properties, not just Patocchi property should be included 'in
16 statement of property acquisition.
17 Commissioner T.orliatt - doesn'.t :want: land to be taken if it is not' needed; any of the
18 property owners to be left out in clarification of affects of any property acquisition; EIR
19 recommendations - #3 - would like to ,see more' storage sites evaluated on marsh
20 component level (too general as written).
21 Senior Planner 'Barrett - Clarified marsh storage problems - marsh is feasible as an
22 a- lternative to irri should not�be used for storage because of management conflicts.
23 Commissioner Torliatt - recommends looking at mafsh issue more,: thoroughly; 12 acre
24: marsh site is not sufficient:_
25 Senior Planner Barrett- 1'2 acre marsh site is recommended as -a pilot project; marsh
26 component is a programmed element later.
27 Chairman Rahman - Understood that other sites could be, evaluated, for marsh ?
28 Senior Planner. Barrett - Will add recommendation to evaluate other :sites as part of
29 program.
30 Commissioner Torliatt - Concerns with .effects, on groundwater; questions regarding
31 condemnation - more clarification needed.
32 Commiss "toner vorkaesfeld Requested that wording.be added to indicate Commission
33 found some of the items beyond CEQA rule.
34 Commissioner Wick Commission noted that consensus of Commission was to consider a
35 joint venturefor reservoir with City of Santa Rosa.
36 Chairman Rahman - Expand on all, points.
37 Commissioner Thompson Recommend City explore options regarding reservoir
38 ex ansion
p with City of Santa Rosa.
39 Commissioner Barlas - Would, like to change. Recommendation No. 7 - joint venture
40 should be explored with Santa Rosa.
41 Commissioner Wick Recommend City consider modification of CEQA Guidelines to
42 allow stand -alone EIR.
43 Senior Planner Barrett - That discussion can be brought back for Commission discussion
44 . at a later date.
45
46 A motion: was made by Commissioner Wick and seconded by Comm_ issioner Thompson to
47 recommend to the City Council the, amended recommendations listed below.
48
49 Recommend_ ations to City Council
50
51 1. It is recommended that the City Council hold. a public hearing to consider the
52 contract documents prior to certifying the Final EIR.
53
�. I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
2. It is recommended that the City develop a procedure and strategy for acquisition
of land that is, sensitive to the needs of affected property owners, and does not take
land - unnecessarily..
3. It is recommended that the City retain an additional (one or more persons) staff
with appropriate qualifications and experience that will be fully dedicated to
oversee this project through; design, construction, permitting and operation.
4. Ii is recommended that the City develop a more detailed reclamation program to
ensure adequate lands for irrigation in the future (e.g. secure easements or
agreements from.land owners)':
5. It is recommend that the City evaluate the sewer mitigation fees in light of recent
court decisions.and ensure that new development pays their fair share.
6. It is recommended that the City focus on the source control program to prevent
harmful pollutants from entering the management system.
7. It is recommended that the City continue a dialogue and consider possible joint
venture with Santa'Rosa.
8. It is ,recommended that the City develop and implement a more proactive water
conservation program before completion of the new treatment facility.
9. It is recommended that the City develop and implement a more proactive
infiltration/inflow control' program with a timeline in conjunction with the
Wastewater .Treatment Plant development project.
Commissioner Barlas: Abstain
Commissioner Feibusch: Yes
Commissioner ThonpsonYes`
Commissioner Wick: Yes
Commissioner Torliatt: Yes .
Commissioner vonRaesfeld: Yes
Chairman Rahman: Yes
III. MAGNOLIA TERRACE SUBDIVISION PUD AMENDMENT; FRANK
RIORDAN; 431 MAGNOLIA AVENUE AND 860 CHERRY STREET; AP
NO'S 006 -012 -015, 020 AND 006 -402 -008 (tp).
Continued consideration of a request to amend the PUD Development Plan and
Zoning Standards for the Magnolia Terrace Subdivision, to change the design
intent -from custom home lot development to production housing.
Continued from the Planning Commission meeting of September 12, 1995.
Hearing was continued to the December 12, 1995 Planning Commission meeting.
NEW BUSINESS
5
i �
1 PUBLIC HEARINGS
2
3 IV. CROSS CREEK SUBDIVISION, MARDEL LLC, NORTHEAST CORNER
4 OF ELY BLVD. SOUTH AND CASA GRANDE ROAD; AP NO.. 0.17 -050-
5 001; FELE 0068 (07 -95) (tp).
6
7 Introduction to a proposal for a 225 unit detached single- family subdivision on 96
8 acres; and, request for comments on .the draft Initial Study.. The project includes
9 applications for: 1) annexation of 96 acres 2) General Plan Amendment t& expand
to 'the Urban Limit Line eastward, to incorporate 46 additional acres; 3) General Plan
11 Amendment to designate 46 acres of annexed property .as. Urban ;Separator. and.
12 redesignate 11.4 acres from. Urban Separator to Urban Standard; 4;) Prezoning of
13 50 acres to :PUD and 48.5 acres to. Urban Separator; 5) approval of a Pretentative
14 Subdivision Map to create 225 detached single -:family, lots on 47.5 acres. and one
15 Urban Separator parcel comprising 48.5 acres.
16
17 Commissioner Feibusch - For the record was shown set, of plans on this project prior, to
18 this meeting;, has read Mr. Weisenfluh's presentation.
19
20 ' Principal Planner `McCann - presented the staff report.
21
22 The public hearing was ,opened.
23
24 SPEAKERS:
25
26 CoinnaissionervonRaesfeld -.Has FAA given their, input ?,; questions regarding density.
27 Chairman Rahman Questions ;regarding densities under "various ownership.
28 Commissioner °vonRaesfeld How is Urban' Separator typically owned?
29 Planning Director Tuft :- City owns Urban. Separator lands, in fee title;
30 Commissioner Wick - Questions regarding density potential and restrictions /constraints
31 through County designation and/or Airport, policies
32 Matt. Hudson - Attorney representing the applicant; Mardel LLC (D'oyle, Heaton);
33 presented proposed subdivision; last parcel of vacant land. around airport; requests.
34 prezoning of 47.5 acres of property to PU annexation nexation .of entire property to City;
35 described design, criteria considered; Garfield will be extended through 'to Casa Grande;
36 mix of housing types; feathered density; some homes designed as courtyard homes; very
37 schools in area; presented draft plan to neighborhood on, March,30- several suggestions
38 were made .including lowering density, reducing, courtyard homes; met with neighbors
39 again. - most concerns were met; Preliminary SPARC review resulted in small revisions;
40 traffic circle proposed; proposed to dedicate 48.5 acres of 'land as Urban Separator;
41 described history , of movement of Urban Limit Line, 'lots .bordering Urban Limit Line are
42 larger than others in vicinity possibility of second traffic circle discussed consistency with:
43 surrounding nei hborhood all sin le -famil detached homes; 16 units with detached
g g y
44 garage; described orientation of homes to Casa Grande; described berming/landscaping
45 buffering.
46 Chairman Rahman - You are not planning 'for soundwalls along Casa Grande? The
47 appearance of the project would be improved without sbundwalls.
48 Matt Hudson No, berming, and landscaping are intended along Casa Grande.
49 Al Burrell 'Dahlin Group - Project architect;- described architecture ;. courtyard layout;
50 street scale; described'' garage °placement - many garages oriented away from 'street, some
51 detached garages; 10 di fferent'homes, each with, 2 , elevations.
52 Commissioner - How do these compare with ,quad -lots at the Victoria Subdivision?
6
I Matt Hudson - These houses are smaller than those at the Victoria quad -lots; will return
2 with a comparison;of Victoria quad4ots to this project.
3 Chairman'Rahman Would like some more information on how homes will orient to Casa
4 Grande with no sound walls.
5 Matt Hudson - Requesting: prezone to PUD, amend GP to move Urban Limit Line,
6 Annexation of 96 acres, convey 48.5 acres to City of Petaluma, approve Pretentative Map;
7 well thought -out subdivision.
8 David • Keller - Petaluma River Council - Responding to environmental assessment -
9 building within 100 year floodplain - zero net fill is, a concern ; the effect that this project
to will have on the timing. of floodwaters should be addressed; problems with lack of
11 discussion regarding urban stormwater pollution; need to address pollutants leaving site
12 and going downstream - -'not adequately addressed; have not applied to Fish and Game and
13 Army Corps for permit - must. have permits in place for public review under CEQA;
14 permits required to be in place prior to issuance of grading permit by City (commented
15 that the grading permit for the Morehead project was issued prior to permits being
16 obtained from State and Federal' agencies); the project proposes a loss of wetlands; City of
17 Petaluma's River Enhancement Plan indicates policy of no loss of wetlands; no discussion
18 of why wetlands areas. cannot be avoided; (Fish. and Game does not accept vernal pool
19 replacement); proposed restoration plan on -Adobe Creek is unclear; vernal pool survival
s
20 rate' not indicated; acreage of replacement. wetlands is not indicated, more detailed plans
21 necessary; liability ,passed on to LAD for failure of (restoration) design - performance
22 bond: should be required for 10 -15 years - after that LAD can accept risk; waterfowl
23 habitat ignored in, staff report;. - no local recreational site proposed (Rohnert Park has
24 neighborhood parks why`' can't Petaluma figure it out ?); this project needs to have a
25 neighborhood park; electrical magnetic fields - City is requiring a warning (good) on lots
26 near /under high power lines but project should have larger setbacks from lines; abuse of
27 General Plan' by proposing stretching ,of Urban Limit Line.
28 Don Weisenfluh - 1092 Wren - Read from his September 24, 1995 . letter to the Planning
29 Commission; per General ..Plan, Urban Limit Line helps regulate growth; Planned Unit
30 District is designed to allow higher densities; this parcel. is subject to gradual and
31 deliberate lessening of density; density is not lessened, just. redistributed - density stays the
32 same; Prezoning as PUD seems to be in conflict with current General Plan; courtyards are
33 alleys shared by several houses; showed pictures of courtyard units at Mountain Valley -
34 too close together, two -story; three feet is not enough for setbacks; the homes in this
35 project will have ' no access to neighborhood parks; lots are too small; no harmony with
36 surrounding area, no historic harmony; clustered units need to be interspersed throughout
37 the project - there are more than 10 % (31 % o) of total units that are courtyard units; PUD
38 has severe negative impact on neighboring properties; PUD Zoning must result in a more
39 desirable use of land and better physical environment than any single zoning district or
40 combination of zoning districts - this will not happen as proposed; Findings required for
41 PUD Zoning cannot be made with the project as proposed; no open space on this
42 development that has not already been established and retained ;'not in keeping with intent
43 of zoning, regulations of City of Petaluma; this is urban Urban Separator and Inner
44 Approach cannot be built upon now without Annexation; (will continue. at next.meeting).
45 Commissioner Torliatt - Would like some information regarding sewer generation from
46 this parcel.
47 Commissioner vonRaesfeld - Can maps be overlayed with existing parcel base map for
48 clarification?
49
50 The public hearing was continued to the Planning Commission meeting of November 28,
51 1995.
52
53
7
0-
k.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1'3
14
15
16
17.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24,
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
V. KOD:IAK JACK'S HONKY TONK AND SALOON ;;� WAY, NE VIELER; 256
PETALUMA BLVD. NORTH; AP' NO. '006- 284 -036;, FILE NO'. CUP0159.
Consideration of an appeal by Wayne Vieler. of the Planning Director's' Amendment
to the existing Conditional Use Permit to authorize an alternative parking standard
and an expansion of commercial recreation uses.
Planning Director Tuft - presented the staff report; relayed positive comments made by
Police Chief.DeWitt regarding. Mr. Vieler's current operation.
The public` hearing - was opened.
SPEAKERS
Warne- 'Vieler - Applicant - Regarding parking conducted a survey - City Traffic
Engineer Allan. Tilton indicated study was not :reflective of actual ,demand; three -week
survey indicated 'that; there were parking spaces ;available; contends there are 49 public
parking spaces .available • on streets. - Allan Tilton does not use this figure in - his
calculations; calendar mailed out to 2,500 patrons includes niaps of.leased parking spaces;
has not observed, parking in immediate neighborhood; regarding. noise ,- brought very` large.
speakers into meeting that had been used by Kicker's noted that these five speakers were
removed and replaced with 4 small, speakers they. were also movedr much lower and
relocated in a more downward position; another improvement is hutch built over speakers;
City Council' granted, Conditional Use Permit - requested Planning Director to :make ,an
administrative decision regarding expansion of use ( "morldihan I - less than 7" (nights per
week)) - just asking .for 3 nights per- week .(one weekday night); not; willing to, have right
to have live entertainment taken away on a weeknight..
;ROBERT KNEZ, H & K HOLDING, 329 WALNUT STREET; AP NO. 006-
201 -018.
33
34 VI.
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Consideration of an appeal by Robert Knez of the Planning Director's
determination that the previous legal non- conforming status of the use of the
structure at 329 Walnut Street has lapsed and is, now limited to a single family
.,dwelling.
Planning_ Director Tuft - presented the staff report.
The public hearing was opened.
SPEAKERS:
Robert_Knez - Property owner - Zoning Ordinance makes no mention of occupancy as a
condition of use; property has been a duplex since the 1940's; each unit is separately
metered for electricity; 'presented history of continuous use of this property as a duplex;
issue here is if use has 'been discontinued; should not, have to go through a process to
continue this use . as a duplex; indicated that he had stayed in the unit within the last six
months ;, also that he had permitted a painting contractor to also live in the unit.
8
f
I Brian.. Hake - 333 Walnut - Purchased their :residence two years ago; in November of
2 1993, previous property owner occupied entire home as a single- family dwelling; in fall of
3 1,994, home was sold as a single- family dwelling (listing was as a single - family dwelling);
4 : ,after,house , was sold, house was converted back to a duplex (interior stairway was
5 removed); have not observed second (lower) unit being .lived-in as a separate unit since
6 November, 1993.
7 Debra Ungaro - 325 Walnut Submitted letter from tenant stating that downstairs was not
8 occupied 'while she lived there; previous owners converted house to single- family before
9 they sold property; copy real estate listing states single- family dwelling; submitted letter
to signed. by , , 1-1 neighbors stating house has been asingle- family unit for several years; no
I l one has been coming going other than the one tenant (upstairs unit).
12 Tina Brava - 171 Grant previous tenant - there was never anyone in bottom floor of this
13 unit kitchen was not even installed in upper unit when she rented it.
14 Robert Knez - purchased property in December, 1994 - duplex at time of purchase; in
15 February. of 1995, Planning staff determined property. to be a legal non - conforming
16 duplex; when property was purchased had no knowledge of "magical stairway ".
17 Debra. Ung_aro - 325 Walnut There were interior stairs - I saw them and spoke to Mr.
18 Knez about them. -
19
20 The public hearing °'was closed.
21
22 A motion was made by Commissioner Thompson.and seconded by Commissioner Wick to
23 deny the appeal of the administrative, determination that the structure at 329 Walnut Street
24 is a single' family dwelling and may not be utilized as a two- dwelling unit structure without
25 appropriate City review and approval based on the findings listed below:
26
27 Commissioner Barlas: Absent
28 Commissioner Feibusch: Yes
29 Commissioner Thompson: Yes
30 Commissioner Wick: Yes
31 Commissioner Torliatt: Yes
32 Commissioner vonRaesfeld: Yes
33 Chairman Rahman: Yes
34
35 Findinms
36
37 1. The structure is located in an R -1, single family residence district, where a one -
38 family detached dwelling is a permitted use, and a second dwelling is a conditional
39 use requiring a Conditional Use Permit (CUP).
40
41 2. Two dwellings had existed on 329 Walnut Street without benefit of a CUP. The
42 second unit has been, in the past, recognized by the Planning Department as a legal
43 non- conforming use.
44
45 3. Oq or about January 5, 1995, the legal non - conforming second unit at 325 Walnut
46 Street was vacated and remained unoccupied for a period in excess of six months.
47
48 4. Upon cessation of the use of the legal non- conforming second unit for a period in
49 excess of six months, the legal rights afforded to the use by virtue of the non -
50 conforming provisions of the Zoning Ordinance lapsed and the second unit lost its
51 legal status.
52
u
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2`1
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30;
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
5. Pursuant to Section 25 -403 of the Zoning, Ordinance, a non - conforming use of a
structu re. shall not be re- established if such use has been discontinued' for `a period
_
of six (6) months or more.
6. Per Petaluma Zoning, 'Ordinance Section 25 -403, intent- to resume -a non-
conforming use of land shall not confer the right to do so.
7. The, detemunation .by the. Planning Director is appropriate given the facts regarding
the second unit.
& The upholding of the appeal would allow an illegal, non- cornfornung second, unit to-
remain where a Conditional Use Permit _ and Variance are required, and would
therefore constitute a grant of a special privilege. to the: owner. -
VII. CRITERIA FOR DETERMINATION OF "UNDUE CONCENTRATION"
CITY OF PETALUIVIA (acm).
Recommendation of criteria to be adopted for use in making determinations of
"Public convenie . ncei or necessity" in areas identified 'by the ABC as experiencing,an
undue concentration of.licensed. premises.
This public - hearing was opened and continued to November 28, 1995.
Discussion regarding: Sonoma -State University Planning Commissioner's Seminar - one
staff member will attend and share information with Commission.
Discussion regarding upcoming agendas - frustration because of large agendas; by
consensus of Commission, future meetings will begin at 6PM.
Discussion of placing time limits on speakers time.
Consensus not to have a Special meeting of November 7; Kodiak Jack's continued to
November 14 (instead of November 7).
Commis §ion,renuested information onLafferty/Moon item as soon as possible.
ADJOURNMENT 11 :45PM
min1024 / P1an63
1�`, : ,
10