HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 10/07/1975AGENDA;
4
"'''� ,PETALUMA"':CITi'
- PLANNING" NG
COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 , 1975
r REGULAR'MEETING!
ICITY`
T:30 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS;
CITY, HALL' PETALUMA CALIFORNIA
I
II PL'EDGE'. ALLEGIANCE TO THE'_ IFLAG
7.
ROLL CALL: Comm. Bond'.Head. Hilligoss Horciza Popp
Waters
Wright
STAFF: Dennisl
Boehlje, Planning, Director,
u', . L, • APPROVAL OF,"MINUTES
ELECTION' OF`' OFFICERS°""I
•r'. ply: I
CORRESPONDENCE'
• I I
I - •
ro I I
CONSENT CALENDAR
Naron - Develo merit Co,; a ,Slte ,design review
I. , I
consideration for apropose,p robing and heating `
'd 1u
�, II n .•I �i •JP III ��p.��� ,
ti
., .; _ ...
supply (building to be 1'ocated�at 1016 Lakeville St.
I'I
2) Hunt '&. Behrens ,,'.Inc., Site design review consider„-
ations`fo'r an addition of a-`lfeed storage building
�o. ''the,, existing Geed 'I'm illl operation located at.
I' L;
3.0 Lakeville Street.
HARMANr MANAGEMENT CO,.
wonsidaons,,esig
EIQ evaluation a'ndsite�.'d.
-IEIQ. EVALUATION &
the proposed revised parking for Colonel Sanders Kentucky
SITE DESIGN"REVIEW:
Fried` Chicken'.;located at 701 E. Wa ling`toh Street.
--setback-, - FISK •N
TE ITE CONTROL '
i consideration from'exis'tn „
1 Variance ance eo s g
)
VARIANCEMV375 & SITE''
requirements for-'an-M--L zone.
• ", DESIGN REVIEW:
2)` Si'te Ides'ig'n '(rev 'ew for` .an Cexisting; 'single" --family
W.
residential 'structure to 'be, doiiVert,ed to,,, an, M-L'
office ,use located' at 587 Lakeville' St„
. ,.
... °.� ..:...'; rest. -
REDEVELOPMENT -
gotiside,ra,t on Hof' preliminary, plans for the",specific
IPRELIMINARY'PROJECT'
Pro ect Area'"fqr redevel o,pment purposes designated
AREA PLANS?.''e
witthin 'thd ldeifn at'e'd" Redevelopment'! Survey
....._16._-,�.. n -.a. li:', . Ih, - L. .. l li
__yuw 1- o- .,... _. a �„�I. - d I:•I .I,4 " d - . _ - , . ,'u '
GENERAL° PLAN &'
Co ntin"uation of 'Public' Hear`in'g. 'to consider modifications
ENVIRONMENTALli"DESI,GN ,
,to 'the', G'en"'Ieral `Plane and'., Env'ironmen al, Design Plan
,;,I,II, 11PLAN MODIFICATIONS:
effect• conformity. betweenl,the General'?lan, Environmen-
e I. "
tal Design Plan, and the'Zoning Ordinance.
a
„'LI
.I,ADJOURNMENT,,I
f'. ;i• ;;I I I I� II II'III I "III,
I � „ '
'�,.� :t-r t� iw"-i:t r :+ !' '•
a ab 1 8 .,. ". -t' t . 0v :i.. 0 1 u [. F r'�•' : , ! i'
�t,_i 'fTCj r� � �.._
I•'. -' 1 +•'1 7 Ks 2 C L"
11t�, � , ' % 7 •.. t! I
-•--W ... -a
�
:,t":l t'sd
��r•.
..!'G '3i r.!_:e<,it." •� Ct,it,,.�. �� "!; ,'%: r. a t''. z•,.._•� "'
: :G1 Gd �1.-+', •i -.rtt C+:! ..o:..I,ra_l.,t: y.i.fli;.ec
r.•,l:i,-':i�il� ;<; :.Cff.��,"' ;cam
LL�
_.,i, �if-;.ud ��3?i:,.,�i",��; :; 'iW F n ,.h[J 14 A:a^W �'.i~•�'i`•ii p'3.J_3j.:-r;
..G Y; CSL; d:'w aJ's: .i: '•�5�.i `J LV ra -r-. :4 is"'� f"�-,.h `, 'y t _ f�lr, it:�vr 75]
a,;
; .. ajA
,.�,e iL
\i;seF ?s5' ,.. e'. ,`,v t�Y% WOW `[�'l un�.__.zar h —i"T, h ^:�j
. :.''�. .^.d' .r :7 '� �, ;«,���`�•:;j Ca
0 f� fT�.• r`',t(s •i-
V:!3 -. q.L.•._ I- Oil
. f.,`L:; i..i, lY-e r�? ei:. I:'-.3 1°-`'"da 11%l �. �i �f E1 J„ t�.i L`t'.t ;r, lt:. :.t.'1 r�!
_
,;i.`:;;U -.. Nf�'•_•.! MA
���':',•;•� e.1 ..,.:'.1 J+-r 1' i a
_ � :=1t..f V+j rl...,.,'}J'fSa �..
A r "A KNOW gullG.r..x !: i J. E: •. w_, ':. 1 VIAS
r'C+: �:%S '''t; ;sii ».i;.E s;i�t".'£C'•�a':.
�A� ! i `_�7.':i Ce Ct':5..3 .. .._ •r,�„r't 1�. :i �ti •�♦y rf �.,ttt i. Y Gl etc .11:!, i_1 >':. �": °��' ' ..
.a1�1� �, 1: 1, .�5
1:: .�,N ""•L _i.K �;l1u s:•;n'�t«�J •'T'Y.t t"t l.t'i C'iL�'~.•. ti.'l''_-3'._i �'� �iJ. .';�.1. •!x :_5'1 �.'��a"�
�%7, e._f ��{r �w1�i.'F'�•;M "1 ,�: .P
i # 119111 b ,.1 „•a: 1' i NY e4? MalTa.
•-73�i 'ft 1",'."ilk t
"_ ..� .. - .r: L+`":.lf, -5.r�1i i.":t3t,;. G:'s �;:n..f.'C.t�::i{.: �.'. i:lt+`I � a".c•.s. r•ti'1,,;t•i? _tl
•C
� •!` _,..1 :.ki � .�.�.<
t f t.(•(t - .�, f , IT `Li�1; ��N. ti i• nv tt�� ^jiy <"ii" fl
.: ..,�..a f ., astt•: �f q at.11_ it.ts !. •_t' .�_.4� .i!'.'„n .. �
e
^t' , e �3 C' •k 1
a... �2i�Gt' ..ii1..'+�.iif,.:. L `�r' i
,.tT't t' `_ ' "a, r•t� ',.�_ ,�
r;.-- � � h ., •� „y � c 1''.
. e`::J [..: y i,'l . o 'r «: d., ps sa,", rno.: x a n C r.: F -p+'.
•�
. ....-��
_ .. -
P �1LUMA n CI. TY PLANNING.COMMI'SSION OCTOBER 7", 1975;
r . 0 P.M.
,
LAR"'MEETING 7.3
CY COUCIL�CHAMB ERS. CITY HALL " , ,. " .. '•°4' ' a,PETALUMA,CALIFORN
IAL.
Comm Bond, Hea.
P,R'ESENT" d, Hit-lgoss, Horciz,a, Pb' pp,l, Wright*
" Arrived at'., 7:5'S � p.m.' "
ABSENT: Comm. Waters
I' I �i,Irli,_,ry60,., u,, ,..
Z3 STAFF': ' Denn•' Boe ,jj',e, Planning, Direc.t'or
, �o
APPRO_VA_ L 'OF MINUTES The minutes of S,ept.ember i6, 14,75, were approved as submitted.
19, r,. ilql, al °—I „I
ELECTION, OF OFFIICERS:
motion of officerto s
A11avo"testwerelection
_g- e in the affirmative',.
•ENCE �
C 0 RRESPOND
oehl e advs' ed that it ad been observed that the Al Stack
r Mr.. BW'reckiri
J '''at 850 Lakeville Street was not
Auto Com an located
g P Y�
II
"cin compliance•with the conditions of`the'existing U'se Permit..
As ,specified in the Zoning Ordi:n.ance, , ai had therefore
`letter
'been forwarded notifying the pd, :fttee that he has 20 days from-
u „
the rece" 'of the notf'irat., .'on' "t'o";'comply with the conditions
p nce is noenanotifyd•thetpermihese ,
of t it. If com l a „
Us'e Perm'
20 dhe
baAa` the Planning Director
„t'tee
t hi's Use, P.e'rmitis' suspended' andtthe Use Permit 'sh'a1'l. be
�I
revoked if: 'l'"- e° violati'ori',' has,- riot been remedied within 20 ,;doays
from the notice of suspension. This suspension, o f the Use
P
�,y .pp. .IF.
Permit ma be a eale"d to 'the Plannin Commission, within 10
g
t'he suspens"
days of the .-i 'suaiic`e "of "' ion, , and the .Commission
shall ,;hold 'a 'Ihear'ing on the 'matter,, within 301 days.
2,)'', Mr'.„ 'Boehje ri_formed''the` Commission that D' '& D Country, Customs
"
were" also '.in %Lbla'tion of; their; 'Use Permit 'with'' regard to, the
r e
thecoa.',t-, to the vehicles elsewhere
condNiooP,PlYing he base
than onthesite in an type of spray bh e
.'I,
foe,tif ing teprmittee that he had' 20 r, i_"fetterroY •.I. "I. '
day- from receipt of thei hotif' cation to„ co:�ply'wiah „,,t,he.,,,con-
di`t' ions lof the Use Permit had -been forwarded Mr,.- Boehlj e
1a'ints from the'owner of the Br.00ks'i
advised that'severa1 comp de
-. ,' ived.
_, . _in, which' this use is' " Industria'1 . Park located had been.•`rec�e_
'
) ' oehlje'°sta'te'd t'h'at� d they be '
3 Mr. 'B '' °' the Commission had requested
made aware of Fang furthet' adtions., with regard to the Sante. Fe
Pomeroy, Ihc•. ,bat,cli j' p.l'ant yf;ac lities ,, located in the County
areas He re read
therefore
a letter from -Mr. Richard Mogel;
Pro'lect Engineer o Fe"Pomeroy; Inc., to which copies of
J
letters' 'from the "Ca`hifornla' Regional Water 'Quality Control
d Ba Area Air, Pollution Control District were
Boat, and t y''
the
ched, indicating batch plant facility had been
that thin
ins " ....
ed. by l 7 tlies,e ag-encies for operation:' The
peated and aatrov
PP
„
letter also ;Lindica't',ed,, tha,tI final, n'rs,p"ection by the, County of
�'
Sonoma will ,.now, be reques;ted..
Petaluma City Planning 'Commission. Minutes., October..7,...197,5,
CONSENT CALENDAR,:
HARMANMANAGEMENT-CO.
--;.E,IQ EVALUATION &.
.iSITE DESIGN. REVIEW::,
4). Mt. Boehlj"e advised. the, Commission.tAat, as of- this 'date site
plans: and drawings had not been submitted for 'the, Walter' Kidc�kr--
he'ker C, H rezoning,locateld at Lakeville and East 'Washington
Street"s' 'He adv'ised that the 18-moph
speriod allowed for
submittal' of p1• anwould ex ire onda6iary1916 and th
ere -
'fore questioned the Commission. if: they wlsl.i,ed''hi�m 'to- �ditect a
l6tt6r to. the applicant -reminding him. of this limiting date.
i letter - p
Mr. Boehlje advised that, the Commission could gtanht a" time
extension for 'a period not to exceeA, 12 months! if the applicant
requested, or could recommend to 'the, City dovn_11' that- suf-
flcien.tprogress has not been made and reve,rsi6n.back.to the..
original zoning, should -be undertaken, A short- discussion.
fblloTied and -the Commission directed. the Pla'hn--ing 'Director to
forward A letter to the applicant -.reminding
5)' The Commission wa.s informed that -the 'Short Course: for Plann-ing
Commissioners— held., this, Fall would. be at UIX. Davis, and since a
similar course.would be held in San Francisco in the Spring, it
was f e:lt best, to wailt'until that time..
1) NAROM Devd-lopment Company, Ind.. Site design review. -considera-
tion for d.pro.posed, plumbing and'heating supply building to, be,
located at. 1016 Lakeville Street,'
2) Hunt & Behrens, Inc., = 'Site de.s.igti review considerations Ior an
.addition. of a fbed storage building to the exist-ing feed m-i-11
operation located at 310: Lakeville Stteet.
Mr.*Boehlje advised the, Commission that--.;. since the Hunt &
_Behrens, Inc. site . desigq7wds'minor, he -had -,,reviewed it admin'-is-
tratively and his 'recommendations were as stated in the staff
report.
C 6mm. Bond ni6v6d for adoption of the Consent? Calendar items..
The motion was seconded by" Co*mm. Popp.
AYES 5 NOES 0 "SENT 2
Mr: Bo&hlje briefly -reviewed the staff report relating: to EIQ eval=
nation - and sit&'design review cbnsiderati6h for the -proposed ex-
,pansion.,of parking spaces. from 11 to 15 for the,Colonel.Sanders
Kentucky Firied. Chicken, -;located a:t'701 East 'WashinRton Street. It
was noted that access, curb,,;gutter, and :sidewalk improvements would
aiso be -made.
'Comm. Bond a'dvise*a that"':'the Architedtilral. &-'Site, Design Review
Committee had' re'commended'a change to Condition #5 relat Ing to the
free-standing 'sign,, .and had 'also :recommended
erided that. Condition 47 be
changed to the- words, li,City Standard Monolithic-,." Mr..
Boehlje' advised that*at the time odthe �*Architectural & Site Design
Review. Commit -tee meeting there wassome� confusion as to whether the
72-
g
etaluma,C,ty Plannin Commission Minutes, October:,?
i g' rd
„fir,, • „ , '4 sign, was `in vfolat'on of the „Zon�n 0 finance, or not. He informed
4 than height g ' , whichever is less, but
the ission'" the. 'uses, would -allow, a free -: -standing sin no
hev h th`e bull d> n or 20 f'e'et tiicheve a
'P°'.check of the site` indicated ;°that ", the 'rsign was, approxi.ma',te1yi'30, .to .35. ,
b. q and, it.,
should be moved „ and „lowered Comm. Head „
fuest__one'dawhy removal should be f°equested when the sign had been
app.roved'' at the time o,f original' construction. Mr: `Boehlje'' replied
that the Zoning O11 rdinance adopted. in 1973 dealing with:,`signs allowed
„ NIp a ;three-year amortization period for all nonconforming "signs, and..,
the 'sign'.would therefore Piave to'' be removed ''by January .17 , .197:6% He
h6never an' a l'icant homes, ,,in for site design
+, ovisrt w pP``
them nce.a plying to that site
„ rev'' advised thaons p,p y g
„ fur,
iew, all pr of the Zonng.;Ordina
may be b.rougYit into colnformance regardless of the change requested.
Comm ""PoppN"advised that" ttie applicant," had beeii",'present at the "
tural &,,,Site Design',Review Committee meeting and had agreed
to moving sign ccordan n He o
I. 'If I' III Architectural the, � g in aM„ ce with the Zoning, �Ordi fances, also
advised that this Committee had recommended that the ree Landing
g th'e',W ;East Washington Street widening.
sign, be moved' at 'th'e' time ,,of;'
Hil'ligoss
Chairman lue,st , .�"
r'.. :Boehl''1e"advi's'ed it wa`snno
� quested.
M' j q tWonly fornnoiseCattenuation,ebut also
for con,Comm. -Head questioned, if
condition g., opP
of emissions of a„ C , ,ol utomo Iles ., ' ��h
the co n could be amended to give the a. licant a choice of.
stone or wood,.a's'had been recently done in a mobilehome park'site
des;i'gn. 'review,.I Chairman Hilli'goss' r:ep.lied'•'that the stone fence
would be necessary„,.,because,. of 'automobile emissions.
'',The ",arra_n'geemnt'- of the ne'w''pa IW rkng'° spaces'' was questioned and the
scaeinlaofWthebrarkin space that
Head' ob''ectea Ito the land- .
�p y reviewed j
p g parking p had been remov , and,asked whyIt
I -
had been °required': C'omm.' B'ond':repled, that'the'°""appli''can't had been.
t arkiii s ace'
ha "p g� p '. ��''1'i•'was�o a hazard :i:n,,.,backn'g up and he had'
,�znformed, t,
therefore recommended that this parking space b'eiremoved and re-
lacedabl'g n'Hilligoss added that this
P Ydl
land p'n awo'uld.Tandsca in C , p g hairma
also"'prevent people 'f°rom attempting to park in
this space,.
Comm. 'Head, requested' tl'at''�Cond'ition' �i�3-d: 'be changed to read that 'an
irrigation. system st &Il be." pr'ovid'e'd!^'which •would;,';eomply' with, nth'e
sung C t codes 'rela'tin hl`e advised that 'there presently are no
existing City, code Mr. Boe d „t
existing y g"''to irrigation systems. Comm. Head
stated' he, felt the, landsca in could be'ti7ater'ed, dst as adequately
� � p• .g J
with, a faucet and -hose, and,, was a 'matter; 'of, economics. He then
that the,a licant be al
'he applicant a'dvPs°ed' that' all' `of �,,'thetcondit onsA representativeud"in'e ' requested lowed
°of t `� � � �, nclud"ing .the
ti modfi'caLon'' of','�5'., and' "�67p;;,'we'r.e" accep.table;^ acid the applicant was .
a r eeable to p,utting,iri the irrigation Y
stem.• p Comm". '"Horc'I`L2 imoved" to dir,ect''. the ,P1'ann''ing Director to 'prep''are aril „
ohdedaby `Comm: Head i p la Negative Dec.ration� for the project : The motion °was se
c -
AYES 6 NOES, 0 ABSENT1 „
`Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes.,.October.. T, 1975-
FISK TERMITE CONTROL
- VARIANCE;'V.375-- &
SITE DESIGN REVIEW:,
Comm. Horclza, made.. a: mot -ion to .approve the sitedesign in, accordance
'with xecommendat-ions - df,,,th-e ;staff. and, the 'A rch AecturAl 6 Site .'
Design Review Commit I tee. The motion :was seconded . I by Comm. Bond.
AYES. 6 !NOES ABSENT 1
Mr. Boehlje briefly, reviewedthe:ate design review application for
.,an.:e)tisting.siriglp�-family ]cesideritial .structure 'to be .converted to
an M=L. office use, located at 587 Lakeville $tree,t,., He also advised
that. a .variance.wouldbe, peces-sary- to allow 4 .front yard setback of
7 feet instead of 25 feet. as required in an M-t zone. The Com-
mission.. was .informed that the Arthitectqraj,,& Site Do -sign Review
Committee-had.re.quested thatadditionallandscaping be'provided :,
-Comm,., He -ad made. a,mot.ion to grant the iance.. "Themotion was
seconded: by Comm. Horciza.
Comm. Bond stated that, although the ArchitecLifral & Site Design
Review' Committee had: gone along
with the varianceandsite design
,review conditions ofapproval, he, had later felt the need to specify
that, some of ghe-blacktop be- eliminated, to prDVA.de something more
permanent than. n planter boxes,.
AYES 6 NOES, 0 ABSENT 1
Comm. Head moved to approve the site design with conditions of
approval as, recommended by the staff and k Design
Architectural &.Site
ReX7ie1W Committee. The,botion,was seconded by Comm. Horciza. 'Comm.
. — . I - P
Bond,again.stated the Peed for a specific condition that additional
.planter beds be...provided along the :street, -frontage to replace. some
of the, asphalt, and- asked,Mr,. Boehlje to suggest the wording. Mr.
Boeh1je replied that a condition stating .'Additional planter beds�
containing,,trees and bushes",,.to be, approved by, the Planning Depart-
ment,, with the, removal of the bla,ckt-op along -t-he street frontage,
shall be provided." Comm. Horciza questi.oned,hpw wide the planter
strip should be,: to which'Comm. B ond stated he would ;suggest plant-
ing along the fxont� and corner- area .of the lo,,t. to the -front of the.
office. He further stated that th& matter had been discussed at the
time of the ArichiteC7 and
Itural & Site,.Design,,Review Qommi
,the applicant -:seemed to, be in agreement..
Comm. Head, questioned if .the,. building, needed paint. 'Mr. Boehlje
-replied that it was redwood,. and not intended to, be, Painted, Comm.
Horciza questioned where, the slupplies,,,would be located' if the garage
was removed. Mr. Boehlje replied that -the applicantm4y have to
construct,a%new shed which would have to,be.,considere-d later by the
Planning Commission. - Comm., Bond, stated
ated the.applicant had.mentioned
putting up a:steel or, -prefab, storage, container and was aware that
the matter would have. to come back for, further review..
AYES, 6 NOES 0 AB SENT 1
WE
0
_ ..Petaluma.City Planning
Commission Minutes,, October
1
Comm. 'Bond ;asked -if the I applicant .was present 't:o .,speak,;, no reply was
1„
'
matter to be
given. He then,, he would, have asked for the t
g .,." • . ,
I j;'„I,
„
taliled !and .continued if --he ha + the applicant' was_ not 'present,
d known
y,
sin'ce he--:i lt, the-.app,li'cant',should,°b'e.present in,fca.se any problems
arise with the,, conditions of, approval. Comm. 'Wright stated -that .i f
this olio was to ':be f�o'llowed; -.the ,;applicant's. should be so in-
policy
.I�, I I'
�II
I I I, � I �I I
formed ' He was•:advised'that'the.applicants are requested
II I ;
Commiss on,'meeting-� a;t •;th' time. o;f, their attendance atl;g
e.-Design Review Committee meeting.
.ahe Architectural , Silt, ,
„ I
REDE'UEL„ - '�uu� :
,.! OPMENT
Mr. Boehlje' advised th ,
•p, turtothe preliminary plans for
PRELIMINARY PROJECT
redevelopment purposes were ,general at this
the Project Area for r_r
AREA PL°ANS:
stage. He then read the° five.-tems needed for ' the sufficiency :of a•
,preliminary' plan. ,.I!' 1
Mr. 'B:oehlje briefly rev'iewe d the staff report.. He then indicated' "on
a, the, Pro
wall ma 'thei":,outline, i.of ject 'Area as adopted by the Plan=
I I I „ I'nlnl
ng Cmmis_sgion� ^and rlefferceed'o'toc5o second map on which the cash
ni � _ t a
I
value per s. uar'e foot w ,ded_.
7
Comm: Head madei•a.,,motion to adopt the preliminary plans fo,r"t'he. "
specific ,Pro,j.ect. Area ,for 'redevelopment purposes. Comm. Popp sec-„
onded w g on'ed when the'Commission
j"
souest
d'revewtthe•DbwritownaMer chantoAs ci.ation's.plan. Mr. Boe'hl'je
replied that the lan in q tion re specific and would
p P
-
into the.actual redevelopment plansd He
prob y be incorporated actual
abl
stated' he would a'ttemp t'.to ge't an'.i:nformation copy for the Com-
mis's''i'on .
dies of the.,redevelopment area
Comm a questioned oned if the studies
Horciz. i u
P y „I "
d be Accom lis �� b .the � or.' an outside cons Mr:
woul hed staff
1
Boehlje^'repliled', ;that the ;City, Council had,-f'qundedi a, Redeyel;opment,
_
I°
not as staffing.for
y ,,, to fo,r. it H
Agency, llbut ,had f f in
4, et obtained s1. euddi'esdcou
.
1
monies would be. used' • but the ,s't ` d''
was not known how. these ,
b'e'"' accoiuplish"ed" by 'a consultant"'.'o'r'Iah. add%tional'''sta'ff 'member.,
AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENTI 1'
Ir i;
^
GEN ERAL PLAN: &,
Continuatio of' Public Hearing to,clonsider.m_.difi a the
nand o cc.trconfto
ENVIRONMENTALneral
DESIGN,
General Plan Environmental Design Plan' efte ormity
•
,PLAN MODIFICATIONS.
_
I' 'nvironme'ntal D'esign••Plan', and the! Zoning,
betiaeen the .,General Plan E
d
Ordinance,,: „I
u.•I„,
n`ded General Pla' ^
Thereeo'mme' "' n^ modi'f-i'cations were' "briefly' reviewed.,.
Comm. " Head uestioned , if '„the, 'Board im,of ' Education had requested' 'the „
school aocaton changes,.,.rMr:. Boehlje•.replied,thatthe changes -were
ha,n,
ges-were�commended.as
a -result .'ol.discussions, with -the Superintendents of
the% -schools '-involwed,l, ..
Comm. Bond questioned the deletion of the location of a hospital'
site, nort'hwesf' of ''Lucchesi Park and asked) `how it would influence,
I I' �;G .,
I .. . ' •,II , .
„ �5-
t
'��� u 9 I c II
III
Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, Oc;tober'1"."1975
next•'Tuesday's meeting' regardirig the' consideration of the hospital
`E.I:R.` Mr'.- 'Boe'hljd`,replied that;, al`thou'gh the-:E:I..R. did contain
alternat'e 'proposals;"it. was' essentially for 'the� T•toudy Lane site.
He added'`that further'envi7ionment_al review could .be warranted., if a
'differ'ent site other than Troudy. Larie or' expansion, of the, existing.
site was accomplished-, ..r*r. Boehl'je-s..tated-that :-th s:'.deleaion_..of the
" hospital'"location had been :recommended':since1'it would conflict with
the proposed` Millme-ister. developmentb, and„' tlie� Hospital Board had
'determined ;it:-wa's• an,•unacceptable. site.` A sho.r•t .discussion re-
garding.hos:pital.cites -followed.,
A' recess was, -- called at 8:50 gp.m,. -, and the :meeting resumed at''9:.0.0
p.m.
Chairman Hilligos's, questioned if • anyone- was i. p.r•esent:.to speak, to the
modifications to the General Plan. No response was .given.
` The E.W.P. modifications -were briefly reviewed.
-Comm. Bond questioned the�s.tatus of"Area #37, and Mr. BoehTj,e
replied that there had been no'recent action,, although the applicant
did have ,an approved'site plan.
Chairman-Hilligoss-asked if anyone 'in the audience wished to speak
to the.E.,D..P:! changes. No comtnents%were offered and the Public
Hearing was closed.
Comm.'Head 'moved to'adopt the amendments to'the General -Plan as
recommended by the.staff. Comm. Popp seconded the.motion:
AYES ' ' 6 NOES 0., "ABSENT 1.
Comm. ;Head °moved- to adopt the modifications to the Environmental
Design'Plans - as, -recommende.d'by the, staff:, .Comma'-Po:pp ,seconded the
motion. � '
AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT 1
,OTHER BSINESS: Comm.,Bond•questioned if the City would. be represented at th U- e "Where
After -Petaluma" Conference. Mr.; Boehlje,advised that Attorney':`_
Robert An'd.erson would be' at this conference:. Chairman''Hihligos`s'="
'
added that the City Manager stated''lie did not --think 'it was, ec'es"sary
f,or ,a representative of the City to attend;- but:''had, ,informed the
Council they could -attend if they so wished.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS: Comm. Popp riominated'Comm.:Horciza for'Chairman and Anthony Wright
for Vice-,-Chairi dh The: motion. Maas 'seconded -'by Comm;. Head. Comm:
Head then moved.that the nominations be'c'los.ed and a unanimous
ballot be cast. Comm. B;ond,seconded.'the motion.
Mr. Boehlje informed the new .Chairman that .committee members should
be appointed at the next regular meeting of the Commission.
grm
Peta luma,,.I,G'ity;l P1a'nni", Commission, ,Minutes', October 7,, 1915
IV JOURNMENT•I There'being no further business the+ymeeting adjourned at 9:15,
I ,
P'•m•
„Illy' " � •
I.
qy Chairman v 1'
A_t-,tes_.t. /i /•�' a..—
IN
v
�i '' il' , ' '!I.. Ili', I,,' I, I ., °,! J , I ,• d I „ , , ,I
"th«
„ R .� I il, "9" ' � it •
-7-