Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 07/28/1992REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY HALL COMMISSIONERS: Present: Bf Absent: Read G COMMISSION MINUTES July 28, 1992 7:00 P.M. PETALUMA, CA Libarle *, Parkerson, Rahman, Tarr, Thompson STAFF: Pamela Tuft, Planning Director James McCann, Princ'i Planner Kurt Yeiter, Principal Planner Jane Thomson, Senior Planning Technician Darcy Henry, Planning Technician * Chairman MINUTES OF July 14, 1992 were a�proved as printed. PUBLIC COMMENT:, None DIRECTOR'S REPORT: New (July 1992) Residential. Development Map; River Oak /Petaluma Outlet Village Update. COMMISSIONER'S REPORT:, CORRESPONDENCE: Letter regarding Luellen (Park Place III). APPEAL: STATEMENT: Was read. LEGAL RECOURSE STATEME Was noted on the agenda. I. BEEBE, 458 PIPESTONE C 1. Continued considerat 2. Continue&- considera structure W encroach The continued public hearing was o SPEAKERS: Jane Thomson - Presented the.staff Don Bennett - Applicant and staff c ;LE, ARNO: 149 - 360 =44, FILE NO. VAR92006(jkt). of an Environmental. Exemption:.. of a. Variance to .'.authoni ,e° an existing illegal i required side and rear yard setbacks.. not reach an agreement, is that right? 1 2 06 Planning Commission Minutes July 28, 1992 Jane Thomson - Although it was possible to bring the gazebo into compliance with the sideyard setback, the zoning ordinance is very clear that 5 feet is required for the rear yard setback. Greg Beebe - Applicant can meet sideyard setback; no one lives behind property - City right -of -way; would like to pursue variance on rear yard setback; would not like to relocate posts. Commissioner Libarle - Cannot find for variance - would set a precedent. Planning Director Tuft - If Planning Commission fees there is justification, staff could. consider a revision to Zoning Ordinance to amend required rear yard setbacks with a property abuts a main ,street. Commissioner Parkerson Supports staff, would set precedence, variance cannot be justified. Commissioner Rahman - Agrees with staff hoped a compromise could be reached with applicant. Commissioner Parkerson - Reasonable alternative would be to make small °adjustment to gazebo to meet rear yard setback. The public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Commissioner Tarr and seconded by Commissioner Parkerson to deny the variance based on the findings listed below: COMMISSIONER READ: Absent COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes CHAIRMAN LIBARLE: Yes COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Abstain COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes Findings 1.. There are no peculiar and unusual conditions inherent in the property in question sufficient to cause a hardship. 2. No hardship peculiar to the property exists. 3. ,Such variance Is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same. zoning district and in the vicinity, and that a variance if granted, would constitute a special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors. Applicant requirements 1. Require- the owner to obtain a. building permit. to .legalize the gazebo and spa per the: - Uniform. Building Codes,. the. Petaluma Municipal Code and ` the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance; and 2. Direct staff to proceed with abatement action should steps not be taken by the owner to legalize the gazebo. 2 Planning. Commission Minutes July 28, 1992 207 NEW BUSINESS PUBLIC_VEARINGS II. ENHANCEMENT PLAN 12,41,42; 017-170-01,02; 1. Consideration of a i 150 acres of marsh Marina and wastewa The public hearing was opened. CD SPEAKERS: CO Kurt Yeiter presented the staff rep( Commissioner Parkerson - Will pec Kurt Yeiter - Yes, they will be enco Commissioner Parkerson - will son on these proposed uses in the future Kurt Yeiter - Possibly; laws ar( uninhabitable /undevelopable prop success. Commissioner Tarr - Questions rc specific recommendations be consti Lam Wasem - Baywood Partners, route through Royal Tallow - woul( nearby; described Royal Tallow p change; would like to apply for a lc transfer of peninsula area to City;1 in the Zoning.Ordinance; Marina p; Commissioner Tarr - (to Mr. Waser Kurt Yeiter - No, Mr. Wasem "' discussed with property owners; de setbacks could be left flexible until 1 Commissioner Tarr - (to Mr. Waser. Larry Wasem - No idea yet. Commissioner Bennett - Many errs clarification /correction; sloppy pi( corrections be made. Planning Director Tuft - Will resear Kurt Yeiter - Should history section Commissioner Bennett Just make Commissioner Parkerson - Excited Commissioner Rahman - Parking < parkin should be determined. now. Commissioner Libarle - What woul( Kurt Yeiter - The site is elevated; n The public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Commissi recommend to the City Council findings contained in the draft Res ;t_. z . THE PETALUMA MARSH, APN NO.'s 005 - 060 -11, 10 -23, 24, 25, 26 (ky). gative declaration and master plan for approximately._':' 7.*.- nd riparian corridors located between the Petaluma'" r treatment ponds. °strians and bicycles be allowed on these pathways? traged. e of these property owners want to change their mind ? changing very rapidly; enhancement plan reflects rty under existing laws; public funding is necessary for ;arding migratory corridor - parking area; could such ied as taking of property? lc. has options on Darling /Delaware property; access like access route to go through public -owned property :)perty - not a marsh habitat; requests boundary line line adjustment when Tallow site is acquired to allow affer zones should. be eliminated and rely on setbacks rking concerns. ) were you on the Technical Committee? isn't on the Committee, but, these items were also cribed establishment of boundary areas, buffer areas; ie of private property is determined. ) Do you have any plans yet? in facts in history section of report - these facts need of work regarding the history of site; requests this section and have corrections/ changes made.. made less specific? facts correct. ut access that will be opened up. cerns - on- street parking would not be acceptable; be problem with access via. City property? it as convenient, more engineering involved. -Ir Tarr and seconded by Commissioner Parkerson to adoption of a Negative Declaration based on the ition as follows: 3 2 08 Planning Commission Minutes July 28, 1992 COMMISSIONER READ: Absent COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes CHAIRMAN LIBARLE: Yes COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes A motion was made by Commissioner Parkerson and seconded by Commissioner Thompson to recommend to the City Council the acceptance of the Enhancement Plan for the Petaluma. Marsh (with emphasis placed on parking alternatives, alternative river access near the Royal Tallow site, revised /corrected History Section, and expanded, less succinct wording regarding buffer areas), subject to the Draft Resolution as follows: COMMISSIONER READ: Absent COMMISSIONER .BENNETT: Yes COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes COMMISSIONER RARKERSON: Yes CHAIRMAN LIBARLE: Yes COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes RESOLUTION APPROVING NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE ENHANCEMENT PLAN FOR THE PETALUMA MARSH WHEREAS, the California State Coastal Conservancy funded a study of the Petaluma Marsh; and WHEREAS; the enhancement plan was prepared, in large part, by representatives of all pertinent regulatory agencies; and WHEREAS, this plan allows enough flexibility to allow some variation so long as the general objectives are-met; and WHEREAS, the resultant plan successfully combines enhancement opportunities with passive recreational uses by eliminating those options from the plan that would have a detrimental impact to the environment; and WHEREAS, while individual components of the access or enhancement plan may have very localized impacts, the plan's comprehensive approach results in net beneficial effects.. overall; and° WHEREAS; it is the City's intent to implement -the access and:. biotic - components of this plan in: equal measure and WHEREAS, the more sensitive components of this plan are subject to separate permit requirements during. which any unforeseen impacts will be mitigated to the satisfaction of the responsible. agency; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the, City Council hereby adopts a Negative Declaration as allowed by the. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Enhancement Plan for the. by, based on the following findings: 4 [1 1 Planning Commission Minutes 1. Planning staff finds on the b there is no substantial evide effect on the environment. RESOLUTION �CCEPTING THE ENHANCEMENT PLAN FOR THE PETALUMA MARSH I ji 1 WHEREAS, the City of Petaluma was requested by Petaluma People Services Center to participate in a study of approximately 150 acres of marsh, riparian corridors, and riverfront areas to identify opportunities for habitat protection and restoration, increased public access, and logical boundariqis between sensitive habitat and developable lands; and WHEREAS, such a study would t geographic area and developing before any development proposals WHEREAS, the California Stz $67,500.00 to the City for such.a st July 28, 1992 of the Initial Study and any comments received that that the Enhancement Plan will have a significant prudent planning by scientifically reviewing a succinct pro- active multi- objective, mutually supporting plan *e received for the area; and Coastal Conservancy provided grant funding of and WHEREAS, the plan was prepared for the City by Questa Engineering in close coordination with pertinent regulatory agencies; and WHEREAS, the draft plan was 'reviewed by the affected property owners and their comments received responses by City staff; and WHEREAS, the consensus nature of the final plan should expedite future approvals for implementing components of this plan and future development on the non - sensitive portions of the properties; and WHEREAS, acceptance of this Ordinance; and WHEREAS, acceptance of this implement the plan; and WHEREAS, acceptance of this and regulatory agencies to allow and does not amend the General Plan or Zoning does not obligate the City or property owners to still allows flexibility for the City, future developers, late designs so long as the general objectives are met; WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City to balance implementation. of the biotic enhancement -and access components so that there will. be no adverse effect to the natural environment; and WHEREAS, a negative declaration was adopted for this plan; and WHEREAS, the plan was revi the Planning Commission, who by the Recreation, `Music and Parks Commission and recommended Council acceptance of this plan; M 5 210 Planning Commission Minutes NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT 'RESOLVED tt Enhancement Plan for the Petaluma Marsh (dated D July 28, 1992 the City Council accepts the aber 1991 plus the addenda .dated III. LUELLEN, PARK PLACE III SUBDIVISION, 1. Consideration of an amendment to Development (PUD) to permit garage The public hearing was opened. SPEAKERS: Dar y Hen:y presented the staff report - submitted picti Commissioner Bennett - Are garage conversions allowe Darcy Henry - Yes, in most areas except some PUD's. Planning_ Director Tuft - Clarified parking requirements Commissioner Parkerson - Some lots cannot, meet recoi Commissioner Libarle - Opposed to garage conversion now; who typically prohibits garage conversions in PUD Pamela Tuft - Most, garage conversion prohibitions are 1 Arthur Luellen .Applicant - extended family lives in h add an addition upstairs; many of neighbors (per petil should be allowed. Commissioner Tarr - Have you seen the staff report? Arthur Luellen - Yes, no problems. Stan Epstein - Close friend of applicant - Hope these they are trying to do this legally; they do have an econi not everyone in Park Place III will want to make a garaE Steve Nash 521 Kings Canyon Court - garage cone parking is not a problem in neighborhood now. Bob Parr - 276 Baranof Way - Would like for garage co problem now. Commissioner Tarr - These conditions should also be F Zoning Ordinance amendment. Commissioner Parkerson - These conditions are very i should be identified and notified. Commissioner Tarr - Maybe a Conditional Use Permi garage. conversions in the future? Commissioner Rahman - Are there design standards fo: Planning Director Tuft - No. The public hearing was closed. NO. REZ92009(dh). Park Place III Planned Unit - sions in single - family dwellings. es of the area. in other areas of Petaluma. for Park Place III. upended conditions, is that fair? - not enough parking in the area eing requested by developers. s home - cannot afford to move or on) agree that garage conversions people are not penalized because mic need to make this conversion; conversion. sions should be allowed to occur; to be allowed; no parking on R -1 6,500 areas through a portant - lots not able to convert process should be established for garage conversions? A motion. was made by Commissioner Thompson and seconded by Commissioner Bennett to recommend to the City Council approval of a PUD Amendment to permit garage conversions within Park Place III subject to the conditions listed below: COMMISSIONER. READ: Absent COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes COMMISSIONER. PARKERSON: Yes CHAIRMAN LIBARLE: No - Problems with garage ons in concept. Planning Commission Minutes COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes Conditions: I i 1. Three off - street parking sp, approval shall be provided. landscape strip between the 2. Landscaping, subject to staf there is -not sufficient area t space, alternative paving rr used, subject to staff approv, 3. Landscaping, including a ful maintained, per the original July 28, 1992 211 Yes .ces, conforming to City Standards and subject to staff Where feasible, a parking space may be created in the driveway and the side property line. approval, shall be retained along the property line. If provide landscaping after the creation of the parking terials, such as pavers or ribbon driveways, shall be front lawn, one street tree and six (6) shrubs shall be IV. THE CHATEAU, 333 N. FILE NO. REZ92007(dd). BOULEVARD, AP NO. 007 - 350 -04, 05, 1. ; Consideration of a negative declaration. 2. Consideration of an amendment to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) conditions of approval. The public hearing was opened. SPEAKERS: Jim McCann presented the staff rep Planningr Director Tuft - ans patios /balconies. Commissioner Parkerson - Are mor Planning: Director Tuft - No -.300 ui Steve Harriman - 47 Quail Court with staff report. Commissioner Tan - Questions reg, The public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Coi to recommend to the City findings listed below: COMMISSIONER READ: Absent COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Ye COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Ye COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: CHAIRMAN LIBARLE: Yes COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: ' COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes d questions regarding redesign of outdoor units being proposed? is are being proposed as originally approved. 3099, Walnut Creek project architect no problems parking adequacy. r Parkerson and seconded by Commissioner Rahman adoption of the Negative Declaration based on the Yes 7 2 Planning Commission Minutes Findings July 28, 1992 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the proposed changes to the project will have a significant effect on the environment. . 2. An initial study has been conducted by this lead agency, which has evaluated the potential for this project to cause an adverse effect -- either individually or cumulatively -- on wildlife resources. For this purpose, wildlife is defined as "all wild animals, birds, plants, fish, amphibians, and related ecological communities, including the, habitat upon which the wildlife depends for its continued viability." (Section 711.2, Fish and Game Code): 3. There is no evidence that the proposed changes to the project would have any potential for adverse effect on wildlife resources. A motion was made by Commissioner Parkerson and seconded by Commissioner Rahman to recommend to the City Council approval of the rezoning to allow amendments to the approved PUD Development Plan based on the findings listed below: COMMISSIONER READ: Absent COMMISSIONER,BENNETT: Yes COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes, COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes CHAIRMAN LIBARLE: Yes COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes Findings 1. The changes to the development plan results in a more desirable use of the land and a better physical environment by allowing retention of the balconies as originally designed and eliminating the need for a large-unattractive sound wall. 2. The changes to the development plan will not be detrimental to the5 public welfare, will be in the best interest of the City, and will be in keeping with the general intent and spirit of the zoning regulations and noise standards established by the General Plan of the City of Petaluma. 3. The traffic impacts prepared for the original project adequately addressed the additional traffic which may result units with full size kitchens. Proposed Development Plan Changes (as listed in Council Resolution No. 88 -371): Condition No: 5. The mix - residential units may be amended provided that no more than 85 two bedroom units are provided, nor more than -1-33270 independent- lung' units - (with full size kitchens�nnd f ego- mores- tl}an- 90- hecl= ass�stets -aye provided- within-- the - total- pFoj.ec4. Any such amendments must be reviewed . and approved by the Planning Director. Amendments beyond the parameters of this condition require approval by the Planning Commission : M R t..4... - .`,..$ . k'.i.;<.. .. �...:....�. .' c..s..,! __... r _':(..-4..... ....,,n t c.i.....��....., .L ± -'a.:3 � , _.s . t Y s�t:.:�.h :_,a c:, ._ _ i BETE F tc Planning Commission Minutes I July 28, 1992 213 and City Council as anal 21. The recommendatic into the project desi; Building Official exc &- - - - -- -Place , V. SPARROW, 5 WALLACE 1. Consideration of The public hearing was opened. SPEAKERS: Darcy Henry - 6 Wallace Court concrete driveways (3 side -by- side); Pamela Tuft - SPARC review can a Dalton Dillingham - 3 Wallace Coui Randy Sparrow - Applicant = than dwellings on the street; tree to be r+ problems /questions with some of thl Eric Swift - 330 Bodega - Believes 1 much as possible; glad property wol should be° taken care of. Planning Director Tuft Would app, Commissioner Parkerson - required mass of concrete; existing house ha the front ' ard. The public hearing was closed. PUD amendment and may require additional traffic for the Sound Solutions noise shall be incorporated to the satisfaction of the Planning Director and Chief n-t -off- the -- sold- w�l•1- shad-- Fespee� - the-- 13'-- inErea�ed along- 1;3:5-441; No barrier shall be required along the balconies adiacent to HiQ na General Plan net - in- ©r�rpliane� -- with -poise call- be- e�elosed- l��i�e� �o��e- style- gla.s��� dtl�e� t - �r��des "o�rt�o ©� " - 4i�xg- expe� Renee- with -�}e «trop �tr�jeet- to-�PA� -E �app�al; at a ratio of at least .65 spaces per independen4 chen - {4: &: -€u4 -- 46hen) and .4 spaces /unit for all shall be suitable for handicapped vehicles. URT, AP NO. 006-221-14, FILE NO. CUP92022(dh). tional Use Permit to allow an accessory dwelling. Concerns regarding parking: concerns with massive eery pretty street; lack of'landscaping at this site. dress landscaping concerns t - No problem with site plan proposed; for the project. :s Darcy for all time spent; already several accessory moved is not healthy and would be removed anyway - conditions; why should separate utilities be required? ack.house should architecturally match front house as A be rented out; many illegal units - in neighborhood - eciate information on. any illegal units.. driveway treatment (ribbon drives) should help visual been nicely remodeled; a tree should be required in A motion was made by Commissioner Parkerson and seconded by Commissioner Thompson to grant a Conditional Use Permit based on the findings and subject to the amended 'conditions listed below: 0 b) Exterio conside the Cit the Pe stalidar- method Heise -a1 31 Parking shall be proN living unit with a ful others. At least 10 sp V. SPARROW, 5 WALLACE 1. Consideration of The public hearing was opened. SPEAKERS: Darcy Henry - 6 Wallace Court concrete driveways (3 side -by- side); Pamela Tuft - SPARC review can a Dalton Dillingham - 3 Wallace Coui Randy Sparrow - Applicant = than dwellings on the street; tree to be r+ problems /questions with some of thl Eric Swift - 330 Bodega - Believes 1 much as possible; glad property wol should be° taken care of. Planning Director Tuft Would app, Commissioner Parkerson - required mass of concrete; existing house ha the front ' ard. The public hearing was closed. PUD amendment and may require additional traffic for the Sound Solutions noise shall be incorporated to the satisfaction of the Planning Director and Chief n-t -off- the -- sold- w�l•1- shad-- Fespee� - the-- 13'-- inErea�ed along- 1;3:5-441; No barrier shall be required along the balconies adiacent to HiQ na General Plan net - in- ©r�rpliane� -- with -poise call- be- e�elosed- l��i�e� �o��e- style- gla.s��� dtl�e� t - �r��des "o�rt�o ©� " - 4i�xg- expe� Renee- with -�}e «trop �tr�jeet- to-�PA� -E �app�al; at a ratio of at least .65 spaces per independen4 chen - {4: &: -€u4 -- 46hen) and .4 spaces /unit for all shall be suitable for handicapped vehicles. URT, AP NO. 006-221-14, FILE NO. CUP92022(dh). tional Use Permit to allow an accessory dwelling. Concerns regarding parking: concerns with massive eery pretty street; lack of'landscaping at this site. dress landscaping concerns t - No problem with site plan proposed; for the project. :s Darcy for all time spent; already several accessory moved is not healthy and would be removed anyway - conditions; why should separate utilities be required? ack.house should architecturally match front house as A be rented out; many illegal units - in neighborhood - eciate information on. any illegal units.. driveway treatment (ribbon drives) should help visual been nicely remodeled; a tree should be required in A motion was made by Commissioner Parkerson and seconded by Commissioner Thompson to grant a Conditional Use Permit based on the findings and subject to the amended 'conditions listed below: 0 214 Planning Commission Minutes July 28, 1992 COMMISSIONER READ: Absent COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes CHAIRMAN LIBARLE: Yes COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes Findings: 1. The proposed accessory unit, as conditioned, will conform to the requirements and intent of the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance. 2. The proposed accessory unit, as conditioned, will conform to the requirements and intent, goals and policies of the Petaluma General Plan. 3. The proposed accessory unit will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community. 4. This project is Categorically Exempt under CEQ:A Section 15303, New Construction of Small Structures. Conditions 1. All requirements of the Chief Building Official shall be met, including: a. Grading must be certified when completed to indicate compliance with approved plans and will be required for occupancy. b. Soils with expansion index greater than 20 requires special design foundation per Uniform Building Code 2904(b). C. Show site drainage and grading topography. d. Indicate all utilities on site plan. e. Responsible party to sign plans. L Submit soils report to verify foundation design or match foundation of existing house. 2. All requirements of the City Engineer shall be met, including: a. Provide a 12' wide driveway clear of overhangs, if possible. b. Provide positive lot drainage: to - street. C. Install city standard driveway approach. d. Patch broken sidewalks subject to approval of City Engineer. e. Provide a turnaround from rear unit. 3. All requirements of the Fire Marshal shall be met, including: 10 n��T k r1 1 # e� 13,_� .nj fE•s t'i - -'" 1 } �y.. f: . . .:.. ... ........ . . . .a..g«{ . _ ...a.� re >- .•..- .�fe.t o-a„ !. - .....?_,. r_ .$ �fot• = � t ..:�:... _ . �,•. � , u.a1..4.•�. 1 �k Planning Commission Minutes July 28, 1992 a. Provide fire suppression. system at normal sources of ignition. These areas are specifically at clothes dryers kitchen stoves, furnaces, water heaters, fireplaces, and in attic areas at vents and chimneys for these appliances and equipment. 4. Five off - street parking spaces (3 for the principal structure and 2 for the accessory structure) shall be provided and be accessible at all times, subject to staff review and approval. 5. Administrative Site Plan and Architectural Review shall be required prior to CD submittal for building permit. The following issues shall be addressed and resolved: c (o a. Exterior wall treatment on the accessory structure should be consistent with that of the principal structure. Horizontal shiplap siding is preferable but horizontal masonite or other hardboard siding is permitted. Corner and i window trim to match the principal structure should be provided. b: Window treatment should be more consistent with the principal structure in regards to window dimensions, divided panes and window trim. C. The color of the accessory structure's exterior wails, trim and roof should match those of the p incipal structure. d Roof pitches and overhang dimensions should match those of the principal structure. e. A 15 gallon tree, spe ies subject to staff approval, shall be planted in the front yard of existing residence. 6. Driveway shall be redesigned prior to SPARC approval to provide a ribbon driveway or pavers, subject to staff review and approval. 7. Separate gas and; electric meters shall be installed for the proposed accessory dwelling to the specifications of PG &E prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 8. Construction activities shall comply with applicable Zoning Ordinance and Municipal Code Performance Standards (noise, dust, odor, etc.). 9. This project shall be responsible for the payment of Special Development fees adopted by the Petaluma C }ty Council for sewer and water connection, Community Facilities Development, storm drainage impact,. dwelling construction, school facilities (Petaluma School ' istrict) and traffic mitigation fees. VI. MCBI.AIN, 613 "I STREET, AP N0.008- 231 -18, FILE' NO. VAR92007(hg). 1. Consideration of a variance to legalize a detached garage reconstructed in a manner that encroaches into current side and rear yard setbacks. This public hearing was opened and the item was continued to the August 11, 1992 P1anIung;Commission meeting to a low submission of additional information by applicant. 11 216 Planning Commission Minutes July 28, 1992 PLANNING MATTER VII. STENABAUGH, 314 7TH STREET, APN 008 - 29`1 -09, FILE NO. WRK91038(ikt). 1. Consideration to dismiss an appeal of administrative determination regarding possible violation of local performance standards. A motion was made by Commissioner 'Thompson and seconded by Commissioner Tarr to direct staff to close this file due to lack of response from complainants. COMMISSIONER READ: Absent COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes COMMISSIONER RAHMAN`. Yes COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes CHAIRMAN LIBARLE: Yes COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes VIII. ELECTION OF OFFICERS A motion was made by Commissioner Thompson and seconded by Commissioner Tarr to nominate Commissioner Parkerson for Planning Commission Chair, Commissioner Bennett for Planning Commission Vice Chair and Commissioner Parkerson for SPARC Representative. COMMISSIONER READ: Absent COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes CHAIRMAN LIBARLE: Yes COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes Commissioner Libarle thanked all Commissioners and staff for making his 8+ year tenure on Planning Commission enjoyable. Planning Director Tuft thanked Commissioner Libarle for his dedication and effort, stating staff has enjoyed working for him. ADJOURNMENT 10:10 PM minO728 / pcmin -7 12