Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 09/16/1975• ,� ql� n ��. I ti M .I, 1,N i'U T E' .S':. �TALUMA CITY, PLANNING COMMISS:IPN SEPTEMBER 16, 1975 GULAR MEETING' 7:30' P.M'..''. I'CITY: ,COUN'C'IL •CHAMBERS,,, 'CI'T'Y HALL' PETALUMA, C9LIFORN,IA „ PRESENT: Comm.B'ond, Head, Hilligoss, Horciza., Popp, 'Wright Comm. „Walters I " STAFF: " 'I 'Dennis' B'oeh'lj:'e'; Planning' Director' APPROVAL OF,MINUTES 'The mminutes of Septlembe'r 3^, 1;975., were, approve 'd as submitted. ENCE': CORRESPOND„ for - tosb'e�heldSOctoberal7`thaandol. oud' miss oners th,uf•o'r- wliic'ti1fundsg� otil- be'inaide "available j,dr those_ , Commissioners who wished to ",,attend,.., „ 4 _ � follow r -e ort with regard to Use Permit Boera •haread, a folio 2 Mr, . g _ s ) � p P n " I N where'lett_e' d been forwarded' re nesting compliance with the q " 1 1oyUse Permits per,tnent,,were,those sorigfinal conditions of aPPral, granted to Barta Hide Company, San Antonio Continuation High School; Morris Sh&I-1 and Dredging; Company, Texaco Inc., M & M' Ice Vending " l ali'.i0 ' u.,-""' '� ,' ' '', : "! •, Machine C'ompanyl� ;,and"- D.6.1iglas�,bi`1 Company.,,,, It was noted "tha,t, 're- had been received all the corrective, acaion takenane UsenPermits with the evedpor,of the.& M Ice Vending' Machif Company'. Comm. 'Head askedtwha:t' tame 'frame the Morris , Shell !and' �,'° D. g, ° ..__P . Y P P'.. rl. 'Boehlj.e advised that the $15,,000,.. r edp6j Co gollutionacontro;l M., es would bs�aa��em 1" hed' first. He i control facilities p is a r� „ u , ro a d'the clean-up cess y P P and�wasVmak nthan'honestneffoit torcomply with the conditions°of 4 g ,y L.• d. approval of:.th& Use Permit. 1CONSENT:'°',CALENDAR: ,, The Commission -was advised' that, the first item on he Consent. I'I ,,Calendar should. also include the property of Mr. Don Vinnedge at 1214 San Rafael: Drive. Comm: Wright stated - that" 'lie wish'e'd to° ' a'''N " abstain ft6p.'vo''ting on'the.Consent 'Calendar items, since Mr,."Quin- f°', tan^a 'wast one of,,,, his„ clients., Roger `Qui'ntana,' 1210 S'an Rlafa'el "Drive, and""I)on Vnnedge,,', for an 8. -foot `hi he eT', Drive Si screen. San Rafa to des' n^revi g Jew akeville , er,t 1•ne ad o L Highway. fence on the rear pro adjacent t, P y „ 2))r'Youn'g�'Ameri'ca. Homes - Mod fication's o`f P.U."DIII sitel design .for T. the medical and rofessional,buildng,portion of ,the Greenbrar' P y Drive. Planned Communit. District located on; Maria ' „ •',,Comm..'P`op ma'_ ..'. _- pp. ', . lendar,l..items with _ p made, a motion to a prove Gons.ent Ca as xeco.,ended b,y the staff, and the A rchi- conapprovaln mm I,I r• " second' Th mono was c`ond�ed by tecturaln&. Site esi g Review, e n se Comm,. ""Hor-c_iza:''I ; ;.Commit:tee.. AYES. 5, NOES 0 ABSENT' 1 ABSTAINED 1 Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, September,:16,, 1975 THE GREAT.PETAL tJMA, MILL -18:76, - SITE DESIGN REVIEW'- I '.' U 'The staff, report. for, the 3-phaseplan.submi-t­t,ed, VY Sommer a , nd Ryan 'Enterprises to remodel, and- revItalize. a number of. b--1!d-er­bdiiIdiiigs consisting of nearly, two blo_cks• of Pet-41tima's downtown core area was, briefly reviewed_l Discussion followedwith regqrd: t'o- construction, of a, 20"foot Ade ped'6st,rian walkway' acToss theend. of !!B:"' Street- - Mr-. "Sommer stated that it would" not .be necessary to -abandon. this 2'0,-,f oat V7.id,e, strip, as hehad originally: requeste&,;`s,incean,-.' easement could'', be" obtained. for construct on 0,f the walkway'.. Chairmari Hilligoss,, questioned' 1:f, ithe• requirement for construction above, 13 feet, 'm..s_l would- pose- a .,problem.. Mr.: ;S'o.ftffner . stated it would not,, since the building pr -ps'entlY was approx . imately 16, feet m.-s.,l.. .Comm: lrorcizd.- stated he- was impressed with-- the, aesthetics' of the pro'j'ect,, but "thought that the, 6=foot, fence and barb wire would d:etract .from- it. ' Mr.,; Sonirier- rept ed' that, the barb wire had been -eliminated. He ad*ded, that the presence: of bums, and tramps along the waferfron:t had. be&n','the 'reason:.for., `therequest for this additional security- fineasure!,, dn`a, aWr 'e' d eliminate this problem addressed - the nee& -to . and- to insure security for the projiedt'!aA& the parking area. Mr.. Sommer' advised' that Mr.. Sanderson J' s. ad =acent_proger ,property- already had a 6 -foot' fen'c& along part of. -the, par -king, Idt,. and, he intended to continue this. fence,,.- 'Re -also zd:vised' that screening to 3• feet would beprovided-, ,so that Headlights, 'would be shielded, from I the: street., 'Comm., Horciza. asked - Mr:. Sommer,' if he intended to rebuild any of, the 9 paist-ing piers... Mr..., Sommer.replied- that`hd 'had hoped the riverfront would,- : proj,ec be -a recfevellopAent t'and' spoke' the .redevelopment 1 11 , possibilities of this area;, recommending the constructip,ti of a foot bridge between his and ,the Golden Eagle Shopping Center and the rehabilitation of, the. docks. Mr.. :Sojfhmeet indicated the location of the proposed restaurant,. live arts,,thea,tgr, and also the large ,patio area. The height and possibility of -a 'foot bridge -was briefly discussed,.- Mr..'Sommei presented to t ke'. G b'I M-11 ss 160 -'r 6 n &i UP n s of similar pro- Ject''s and rend-itions of his, p-r6po,sal.,' He- advised `that, landscaping plans would' be furni=shed later if " keqdired',P and' that- hearty,, mature trees and shrubs would be pla'nted. Mr. Roehlj�e interjected that detail P landsca'ing -11ans would, bb- r 'required prior- to the issuance of p permits:: Comm.. Bond stated he .felt the project would,, be an asset to the coimu I t y, land, therefore made,'d,'motion' to direct I the Planning Direc- tor . to, prepare: a:n-d:, po*st'a'Negg.t'ive^'Dec,,l-a-ra-t-.i-on for the project. The motion was' seconded' by, -Comm. 'Popp.. I AYES 6 AB S ENT - I - The- recbimnended conditions approvdl !for, the site design were read. `Mr. -Sommer ,furnished a sample �of- a'proposed signs and stated that all •signs.would. be flush=mount ed. and. lighted with goose -neck Light's,, paint' -to-'blend,'with the building. He also stated,that he was willing to conf,orm.to :all of the site design requirements men- tioned: ;+j ,, e.t alluma �^C_i.".ty Planning Commission `Minutes,'September 16, 1925 • _ Comm. Bond', asked for a definition ^of ""View-:,obs'curing material" as , indicated in Condition No.- .4;, 'sinc'e theapplicant had stated at;, the- ' time of ;the.Architectural, &' Site-Desgn Review Committee meeting that`'h_eiiri'tend''ed to use nylon. Mr.. 'Boe'hlje .replied that screening was,. to , 4 or 5':t'ems. of -a durable' and permanent nature and , nylon��was.note:ncluded as one.o'f,those:materials. Mr. Sommer stated . _•. . he ,woul'd'• bei"'a r',eeable to; the pl"acdment hof slats in the fence to provide .+'tlie necessary scre'enin'g. The waterfront'area was briefly d scussed,.,'and Mr. Sommer stated he hoped,th'e`boat'harbor would be part`of the redevelopment plans. He st`at'ed" h'is intention of docking ' some •'schooners in. the harbor for decor. ,. ,„„,,„ „, , Comm:. B and made to approve 'the 'site design according to the rec'ommendation's '” of 'approval • of” . the staff and the Architectural &, ,I ,Site Design Review Committee. Comm-. Popp seconded the motion. AYES 6.` " NOES' 0 ABSENT 1' S HO SON �) LOI T MP _ - "" •, r� for .the .'r The p p�rdentalcuseelnlan of a portion of an RE ''.MAIN RESTAURANT) existing" g' C -H District to a res- t ngfnonconformin rest .I taurant at, `610'x. Petaluma North was briefly reviewed. WK,PERMIT,,U`9--�75 S•Boulevard ITE DESIGN'REVIEW• The 'publ`i'c,"hearing was opened'. No comments. or questions were offered from the''aud ence and the public hearing was closed. questi• ed ifBoerb ng'would have to be provided around Comm. Bo oned cu the p r,-' g areas "'hlje replied -it would not be required to e' a kin his knowledge.I The 'recommended conditions of approval relating to the Use Permit were.read,. Comiri.'Horc za;moved to approve the Use Permit subject to the con- - ditions 'of „rapproval as ,stated'. The motion -was seconded by Comm. Wright. , '"!„ I• ;i I' ' .m,�• ' ,, , a ,,. .' .AYES' 6 • NOES 0 ABSENT 1 u' e recomrAended- condi ons:' o,, approval for'.the' site design were Th ti read'.. Comm:" '''H'orciza moved+,, for ,appr.oval of°, the site design in ,accordance with, the recommendations of the staff and the Architec- • 'ral &� sign Rev='eia� Commit'tee'. Comm. Head seconded the tuSite De" 'motion. . AYES. 6 NOES' 0 ABSENT I' „L,.A recess ias, called at °8::30.,p,.m.. and the meeting resumed at 8:40 p.m. ; , ;,r -3- Pbtaluma,City Planning Commission Minutes, September 16, 19715 ODEGA AVENUE/PAULA Mr. 8-odhlj;e explained that the ptWos°ed compromise* rezoning/pre- ,B . LANE KQEVALuATION zoning had' come back to the Commission as a resuit of the, last REZONING:/PREZONINO Planning.,"Commiss-.ionfn.eleting.. He,also advised that, a new Ehviron- Z11-7. 5, Z1-2_75' iiiental Impa:ct Questionnaire had: been_ prepa-red °fbr this proposal, -9 M Boehlj'e 'advised 'the Z13--�75, & Z14-�,51:i: which, wa s,i*mi`la_,r,to. the original EIQ',. t d� Commission that,the:-prbper procesis- would be:,"t:o vote on the coMpro- mise- rezoning, if there, was a.motion, t,6 that 'effect,, and, should that - fail, the 'Commission should.eithe-i reaffirm, the brig' i - Adl rezoning/'" -p.rezoning,�recommendation made to the CityGoun`cil; or an 'indication should, be made to. the staff tha,t`ano,ther._,'p an. should be. drawn up. Comm. Head questioned, if the streets. were in a firm loca.Viori. Mr. -Boehlje repliedthat, they were not—,, lint prbbab�ly would be within 10 to ­20-,f,eet from -the line i4dicated,i He also. in&icated. the need for lines drawing up of specific plan li in the future, for the circulation system. The public, hearing relating to the E:. I. Q. i4a§ opened. Mt.Paula referred to the.ptoposed street. opposite North, Webster Street, stating he did' .not feel there, was enough room for a street .and sidewalk between, 'the two existing houses. Boehlje advised that it was not planned. 1-anned. togo through any'houses,and the specific loca- tion of the street et would be determined later; A short discussion followed regdrdi g,the,possi.bIlities of variances and setback requirements:. Mr. Ace Marcellus questioned the'location of the road "in the. pre�, replied-- that a. sp. 16 s�treet:s zoning area.., Mr. Boehlje .replied- specific if.' ' stem, for Y that . property,would b - &��poftsid ' e ' red at the ,timeof submittal, of- de- velopment plans, and would be discussed e, in.detail with the '9_i enneek- at, -thattdme.. Mr. Marcellus informed the Commission he. was - in favor of the p roposed - prezon Mrs. -Bbrre advised' -that she owned, three 'parcels at the end of Joelle Heights -i" to Which water and sewer were a'lread'y available, and it, was her intention further,. ion to split tha.,propety Sh&therefore was in oppos ..to, the-propos.ed--�140,00,Q r6zonin�g. Chairman Hilligoss.'.R, questioned why these lols were included the R-1-40, 000 zoning proposal., Mr. Boehlje replied that. these, 10',ts were included origi- nally because, of the possibility that this,: area might be needed' to serve the interior port-ions� of the -study area. He 'further stated it might n'Qt_be necessary, at this time and the 'Coamis,sion could delete, these .three parcels ftom'the prqposed rezoning,,if they so determined.. Mrs. Jetx-y,TQFl6r spok6tin,opp9sition to e"proposed rezoning, stating she was in favor of R -1--20j,000 zoning for the top of the pr,ppefty, and R-1-10,000 for the area facingIodega.Avenue,. Mr. Jae Lovato al's6 stated his 'obj'ections, and -that. of his neighbors, to*the proposed R-1-20,,000 icin-ing for the area across Bodega, Avenue. He advisQ' that his pro'perty was, currently zoned -R -1-6,1-5M. and he Wished the op pq:i�--t-qpity,,, o develop it further- Comm. Hill-igo'ss questioned what the reasoning Was.,T.or rezoning this: side of Bodega. 4- Dr. Gilbert questioned'how .,'it would be �d'Otermin_ed_ who would pay for the st'rE'�ets'%' Mr. , Boehl1je replied that it would, 1 depend upon the d6velopm6n't prid'posals'." Comm. Head questloried what would happen -if the property owners did nqt,have sufficient finances to pay for the, road. Mr.-,Boehlje,replied,that he did.no't think the property owners would -devel6- �k ..they did riot .1 have sufficient funds. He also ad - p vised thatin no case would the property owners be required to pay "0" for a st.reet'if'the y did not ,-wish to develop their property; how- eve,r'. if "their were need.6d, to complete a link, the City "the pro P6 d str,uc the street. Mr. Boehlje co could condemn erty' and`'' con t asked that the audience �'kebp in -7m *_nd%,tfia't the reason the study of . 3 -5- TIL City Planning,qommiss,ion Minutes, September 16, 1975 Avenue: "'Mr. Bo'ehij'e:repliea 'that the"`same conditions existed as on t oppopitia-si since: the topography' was quite steep and, the • ­zo-n -g*x�6ul&- nd, sort of circulation system. He existing require soi explained'"i the."ailteni"tIve would be.:to end"up with a group of private a. I . drives;.. Comm.0"Head, a's ed'why priv9te:"r.oads were objectionable since they, would be, b,uilt-. Vy, ,the.' individual'- ,and therefore would not be at theta,x" payersexpense. Mr. Bo%efil i , areplied that the City would not , PAy for the improvement of, the roads if they were public or private, 6 t s­�7ould be sibIe; He spoke to the per y owner- 'respon sIhc&"tIfe . property many'ptoblems related. with private drives and stated that the City , - I i -� , .. - - aih drives un'lesslabsolute'ly necessary. A icy,, is -ag st private , dls'cus"si_6n. f ollowed, regarding -priva,te, streets and current. develop- ffentg'.; Mr., Ben Dorenf'eld .stated that'a''citculafton system should be con- structed from Ldrch'Drive to Joelle Heights to provide access to the an: voiced ,his willingness to dedicate. his property top *: the, ;hill, d: ,of for that p, rpose.' Mr..' Bbehlj,e advised that such a circulation system'least three properties. A long discus'sIon, " would involveat followed.' Mt. Boehlj e. advised 'the Commission that Mr. Dorenfeld haL&, been into,, to, his office and 'discuss.ed all'-poss-ible methods of providing access, to "'his property; Doren'feld stated that he was in favor of R-1-20 000 z -top OfL''the 'property and R-1-10,000 bfting 'at the the Bo,dega,'A 6 area: zoning in venue Mrs. Lois Kanaroads',-cost of the, improvement of the road, %Pesti since she:,fel't. it would, be a�deterrentc'to­,most people. She was advised that thesecost,,estimates.had been provided at the last meeting of th'e P,lann_in-,iz Commission. Mr. -Tom Hargis, Assistant City Engineer,, a vised' that16: cost of $100 per running foot of frontage ha&'been estimated,, wlfkch�would include water, sewer, storm drains, road improvements,, and grading. He advised that these figures were based on .. a minimum width- of "36 'feet between.the two curbs, and that a"'20 -Toot street without on -street parking would cost approximately $70;per'*run.ning foot of -frontage.' kr.'Hargis, also stated that these costsvere-basedon the type of topography present in this area. Mrb�% �addor spoke, Iii fayor"of-larger lot zoning,, and advised that she hadobtainedover IOG'signatuies-of,people supporting the larger lo zoning,. Dr. Gilbert questioned'how .,'it would be �d'Otermin_ed_ who would pay for the st'rE'�ets'%' Mr. , Boehl1je replied that it would, 1 depend upon the d6velopm6n't prid'posals'." Comm. Head questloried what would happen -if the property owners did nqt,have sufficient finances to pay for the, road. Mr.-,Boehlje,replied,that he did.no't think the property owners would -devel6- �k ..they did riot .1 have sufficient funds. He also ad - p vised thatin no case would the property owners be required to pay "0" for a st.reet'if'the y did not ,-wish to develop their property; how- eve,r'. if "their were need.6d, to complete a link, the City "the pro P6 d str,uc the street. Mr. Boehlje co could condemn erty' and`'' con t asked that the audience �'kebp in -7m *_nd%,tfia't the reason the study of . 3 -5- Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, September 16, 1975 e this area had begun was .because of- the prob:lems.o-f' leaving the ar� the way it -presently is. He stated the need for a„circulation system when development.occurred 'in smaller increments, and advised that the property owners''had not responded to the needs of the circulation system, and-therefore.the,laiger lot zoning had been recommended.l Mr..,Boehlje.,also clarified that the proposed circu- lat on, system could -not be utilized with'.R.1-10,000 and R-1-20,000 zoning,, since,that,,would,. requi,,re a more' detailed'. -circulation system.. Mr.' Boe_hlje advised that the problems of t_he area had come to light when a 4 -lot split -proposal had been submitted last November on Bodega.Avenue. He stated :the applicant had,objected-to furnishing a road., and it was also' ,difficult ta,determine where: to locate the road. to; pro"vide, adequate: circulation, for the future. A prospective buyer 'of land in this area .,stated she saw .the need for the proposed circulation and was in favor of the -rezoning,. The, public hearing was closed,.,. Comm. Head.made.a.mo.t-ion to d-irect.the Planning Director to prepare and p.os't,a.,Negative Declaration_,for the project: Comm: Bond ques- tioned the .need for a Negative t9eclaration in view of the number_ of objections raised. M' -.� ,Boehl'j;e 'rept- d'that-opposition to the project does not-necessdrily, not-necessarily,indicate significant environmental effects and the LCommission should be evaluating only negative environmental aspects; furthermore,. larger lot:zo,ning would have less of' an impact 'on, the area than .smaller, lot zoning:. The moti'o was seconded by Comm.. HorcIza. AYES 6,NOES 0 ABSENT 1 'The public hearing relating to,the rezoning/prezoning was opened.,, Mrs. Jerry Fowler, stated she, was still in, objection to the proposed - rezoning. Dr. and Mrs. Paddo.r both voiced their zpproval of the proposal. Mr. -Joe Billings 'stated he'felt the proposal was the best offered so .far-, '.butt .expressed concern,over the cost of ,public improvements ;and the location of the streets.. Dr. Gilbert spoke in favor ,of the;, original R-1-40,09.0 'zoning proposal. The public hearing. was closed,. Comm:.P,opp ,made..a motion to. adopt the ,pro.posed rezoning/ as.indicated in.the compromise p.1an. o' The mot n. was seconded by Comm. Wr-ight,, It was clarified that the emotion did -not include rezoning,of' ' the.three parcels owned .by Mrs. Borxe.:at the end of Jo"elle Heights:. Mr. Boehlj,e advised the audience that if the proposed rezoning and prezonings were approved, there was still the opportunity of the, individual property owners.to present a:rdevelopmen't proposal for some,o.iher zoning. AYES' 6 'NOES. 0 ABSENT. fl A 'recess was called' at :10'':15 p..m. and the meeting resumed at 10:`20. p.m.,a't which time a. determination was;made'tocontinue the meeti• past its -regular scheduled time-. Because of interested parties present, the Commission determined to take the last item on the Agenda next. -6- Jill Y q,tailujila, City - Rla�p�qing Commission Minutes, September 16, 1975 ,'l The staff 4.r'epojrt­,was� briefly ,_-,rey,� q,6d I,with,;,Iemphas is! on tfib. ilive'l AREA,, FOR :REDEVELOP-., factors the' Commission,should consider in­seleqting a p,-rqjqq,,t,area�.,, MEN,T PU OSE&:. A map of the project area was la ed the C6-m-ils'-sion. was advis�,ed that before o & 'the m" within thin'', -th& �ftex, t. f 6w , a' project pla'n'wodld bev coming r I o"` weeksi,and that the intent had been to, warkwith, PommeT-,c.ial1.,,,,p,r drt�iei3.,rathE��r-,,�t-han,-,re:s�id�pA,tial,.* N;r,.,,,,.Bp�--h,lje,,I,explq.ined the qb�l taining :6ffunds from tax increment fjn.ancing. Mr: Larry Martin i d f bl im- add`6:&that:'the`mofieY obtained"' would onlyl." be use Or pu _1__ic pr dvemerits� for�the�liangth �of time necessary ita, 'deafer, the',debt. Comm:.Horciza stated he'.,feit­th6,.need lor" redevelopment inl'are,as outside of t'hi'sh1t'hi'sand area,, asked for a time frame to -teach the lerttlxe, i, survey are I la,'.', Mr, BoehljIe7 replied that another project may not -I 4,61, undertakei�., since it would be based on the lq�xperience of thisf irst 1 .1 1.. 1 a 'T I first ' I project., 'HiI advised " th' t ",this area, had'b�e'en 'recommended -'or � -irst s, h,idowntowb. core priorty,I since it-, ,dea 1, -,w,.i,t e area and. the river,., B' not" too large. to conside. r Comm. on�,` questionedthearea 'wa,, id. it s nec"I onsider an _j'� 11he, lt:l', -iry to c' Mr,.' Bo6h,.-ji�-rep -le( 'grate .,•area, 4qd!xhat according to the,pldtis drawnup,_redevelopmentt -mi ne�eded othe pro ect area. -Larry 'd ht nt be in Marin state itg�Iil imp" onsider''f the integrated circulaticin,oftthe dbwd - -ortant to c - town, core area and I also, -the 'fact that both sides of the river shoul& •' be developed.. Therefore,, Ithere was a, need to control,the ci-rqu,la H6 ex,1a' that ties those two s -ides of theLriver together. -laied ''tion to the' Cbir�hissidh!thdt there were two, kinds. of� development' Maned projects and,,projects, of opportunity., Comm., Bond quesitioned if there . would be sub-pro1jects within, the project ared,, to which Mr,. Ma'i t in res 'p'onded 'there "w'ou,ld but t lan was to open up the irs � PIL rivibrf ront and,work with tfie,,°-do:wntbT,�n core area. Comm. Head asked wher'e the pa,jrking� l6ts would-be'. Mr. Boehlje replied" that they'we re''A'ot''Indi cd ted as yeet-,, but "would, b e when a prqj:ec,t;, plan W;E�p , pT."ente d.1,:tq the,,,Commission. He, stated. -it -was necessary first.to determine, the area the project plan should include. 'The: resolution ,designating the ,project area ,was rpad-Ill .1;Propqsqd omm. B I on d malde a motion` to �adop`t the resolution and the proposed Comm. I project" Area., The, Jnotion (4als seconded by Comm. Horciza. AYES 5'NOES 1 ABSENT 1 T Comm. ,,Head, advised, he had Voted �'no" .'ince,,, whdm, he ''served on the s Community Development Advisory Board, redevelopment Of the downtownn x area had a low p�riority. Mr. Boehli,e e� lained. that' 'this was a __p different project and the Cit -y did not inteiid, to f undtsI4", prPj,pc A "it the redelvelopmentlarea.. Jill .r Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, September 16,.19.75 GENERAL PLAN &_. Comm. Horciza. made a motion .to continue this Itein to the next •' ENVIRONMENTAL,DESIGN regulat,meetin&-.of the.Commis_s;ion. The 'motion was seconded by ,Comm. PLAN MODLFICATI'ONSc 'Head.. ; AYES & _>'.NOES %'0 ABSENT 1 The. public hear°ing; ,was` tlier•'ef'ore opened ands continued to the next regular meeting-. Mt.. Boehlje advised that. item Na. 35 .on the E.D,.P.. " relating t'o•commercial holding zone'changes, should be deleted. ADJOURNMENT`: There being"'no'further business, the meet-in.g adjourned at 11:,00 p'. m . • .,Chairman Atte '=8- •