Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 12/16/1975A G E N D A PETALUMA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 16, 1975 REGULAR MEETING 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL'CHAMBERS, CITY HALL PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL: Comm. Bond Head Hilligoss Horciza Popp Waters Wright APPROVAL OF +MINUTES ' CORRESPONDENCE " CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. M & Mrs:. John'Kerr -i g an Site design review for a pr. duplex n the same lot with an o 714 exist -ing single-family , home e at "I'" Street. g g 2., Pete Mar, olous Site design review for an addition to the existing Henn Penny Restaurant building and parking area located at. 4.9,9,5 Petaluma Blvd. North. MARGARET L.TLUD & Consideration of an applica:tion.by Margaret L. Flud and WILLIAM D. FLUD - William D. FTud a certificate of" public convenience CERTIFICATE -OF PUBLIC and necessity to authorize them to engage in the CONVENIENCE: business' of operating'a taxicab in the City of Petaluma. JERRY & MARLENE STEWART Variance request to allow a 6 -foot high fence to be - VARIANCE, V7 -75: constructed on the side property Line of a corner lot adjacent to 7th Street on a lot 'located at 644 "E" Street. ''D" STREET PLAZA - Site design review for the proposed "D" Street Plaza SITE DESIGN REVIEW: consisting of a 7- Eleven Food.Market and,retail store area to be located'' at 122 Petaluma Blvd. South., PROPOSED RELOCATION OF Request for further continuance untilJanuary.20:, 1976., HILLCREST'HOSPITAL - EIR of the Public Hearing to consider'the' "adequacy of the EIR EVALUATION CONTINUANCE: "' submitted by Elgar Hill. & Associates,-insofar as its completion in compliance with State guidelines. ADJOURNMENT 4 M I, N. U IT. E - S , - , . `FETALURA *'CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AkULAR, MEETING, CO Y EkS CITY HALL UNCIL: PRESENT: Comm. Bond, Head, Hilligoss i Hb,rci2a*,. Waters, Wright *Aryjived ..at p.m. ABSENT: comm. ' Popp., STAFF: Dennis Boehl g Director j.e, P - 1 ainn in )APPROVAL OF BUSINESS k1h lik I V` 1 Il DECEMBER 16, 1975- 7:30 P.M. PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA The minutes cf December, 2, 1975, were,approved as submitted. Mr. "'B'oeh'13e i- :L,n the, -Commission that ithe. policy of not con- siderin'l A'pplicul�ib nsk,,unles's - th,e�::!'app'l-:ic' is present could cause l ' problems:, vand`�discussions with the City At torney and City Manager had' indicated that ,the', policy would e, difficult to enforce. He g es ted'that the-dpplications',be dealt, with ind1V'i_ , dually, .andAlthe­ take actlion application they could uhle`s5, questions needed to be answered in person by-the iscussi.on -f ollowed, with' divided opinions as to requiring_zb,'e. applitanits to be=-,preisent_f or all matters or - t'd . ap "I . �ca 0 s ..�,thei-r considerI p i n on T Mr Bbehij e asked "how procedural matters of this nature were to be handled. bj� the Commission. Ho that a policy de term i� ' - i ' - - - '- I I 1 a'tioh cou.14, be ,mdde - at , any . but a :modification to -the Rules -of the Commission should be a specific agend , ka:-iue Mr: 3P -a .PhIdeIso stated .%that. the City had advised this proce be, established as a,part of the Rules - and -Regulat,ions of =the Com but he did not think it was appropriate Comm.-7 Wright, -stated ..he-, felt the applications should,b.e considered on their vi -mertt T I d dual, i Comm.; Hi ll stated' agreed, and state jur,ther that,- she felt. ;the app li cant s,,'should be; informed% that if they are not -pre.s.ent..,andqu'f-s arise. that need answering,; the item would .be' tabbed.. Mr.. B'o.ehlje: was'�dlirected to'draft up the proposel change to. the i Rules, and- Regulations 0 . f Planning. II Comids,sion, I -la �tol)e considered :at- a.ruture�meeting. !i ^C I" I 4 , Co formed 'that the League..;of California' ' .._ mmi8 s on was in - i,.1 ities w conductirig - -,�t, , he 1976 planning Commissioners' - iii , San,,FrAnci and funds: , an�§titu:t'bl.' , ! , ,FE�b'ruary� _4 6 1976 L w aVaii budget :Tor, thosei wishing re I - �ibtle,i, I n the 6 , l ii . .... . �I Mr BoehlljIg';-gtat:ed, that it would be particularly "ssidners,;_ kusefu11or new. Comm , -i h I �and,�., anyqT �e ,wis in g 'to attend 111 .l 14 , I 1 1 . 11 thie, laftning-'- Department I ' I I �should inf brm P letter had been V,: ­M.r�­­-Bbeh1­kj - tha _ Commission. qt a , ece i . v (It, bii PG &E, con c. erri h " 'r e& 4g the! Jk 4 odat'ion of -transmission � xin"', a the m1n aft �ranismission � route within the j n,mus y"t cl.-f limo i t" i s , I "'Comm, Head objected t o considering the matter a.0 ty Planning Minutesi December since it ,was not • on - the­ agenda -and h6, did not f-eell that PG&E­ sfi6u!d afTorded - speckal, ion - but ! should - be ��placp:d on'. e the agenda•for the -next �meeting;, Mr.; Boehlj s ­ Je� ex plaine d that this type of item is 'norma lly handled,. ­,under � • :ccirrespondehti��, since it � is - -dot --a .� ne r-m-1t application, Comm Head 'then questioned'. if 4n, Environmental Impact Report 1iad been prepared, and voiced his opinion that the, Commission: sh6uld� - sed,any - such, �docume,nt.. Mr. .Boeh1je replied that the County -is the .lead I -agency 'and. the' proi-,ect is categorically exempt:• The Commission determined 'to: consider the-matter at the end - of - the'-eventrig"s agenda items; 1. Mr. & Mrsa John.Kerrigah Site.design•review proposed. - duplex -to be locate& on , :the._ same- ldt -with, --an , existing , single- f amily home at", 714, "1" Stredt. Z. Pete Margoulas Site design - review fot. to­the existing r Henry Penny Restaurant building and - parking Larea: -located at-40 < Petaluma Blvd North. 9r. 3oe"hlle ddvvisdd. the & - Site Design., •�Committt�- had' r,evievied t d ere in Jqc �s an agreement with of a­recomme.n-ded .change. regarding the -separation distance •between main ::buildings - proposed. duplex. Comm.'Band moved that the Consent- Calendar, -items,be •adopted with the..modification recommended -by:. the­ Architiottural. �'& Site: Design Review 'The motion wasseconded,by-Commi Wateis'., AYES 5' NOES' 0.- ABSENT' '2 MARGARETr 1. FLUD & Mr.• Boehlj e, brief r,e-, r , tid, , and , the, equest. by. Margaret -L. Fl WILLIAM D FLUD­ .-William D. Flud . �an,-appiication A c 6 public CERTIFICATE OF-PUBLIC' convenience: f or­taxicab :o eration. in .of' Petaluma. He. 'CONVENIENCE then read f rom Section .14:i 16­030 of the, City 'G ode which stated: - -application and -recom-. that the Commi:ssioif must, review the make! mendations- to . the - City� Council. as to--�'the -iotatilon of • any requested -taxicab . stands the location of kd:ispatdh points, . and the of iect' on , traffic in, inigeneral:- Comm. -Hilligoss -stated she would like, to, hear the ideas f or operation and ques t ioned •1f 'they. were • aware - ,,there would,, be a.!Ci.ty bus 'Ikr.-, F lud tointly addressed -the: Commission; 'stating that. :they we"re. +of the proposed , bus sy'stem, but felt that the, population - of' .''the 'City of',Petaluma -warrants -f;tirthet-.traiispoitat 24:-h6ur nature. The C6mmiss ' ion,, was-. advised .,that cthe service -would-,be mainly for , the East-side-of -tow-n stand locations already established with-!- the , owners`• of the ;Safeway and Albert 1 SuDermarkets. 'The 4 applicants'JUrther explaifte•, that the dispatch.,oklifte w6uld�be -Iocate(l at *their home. at- 351 Petersen - tane arid - the,intent was to Purchas.e - and operate •'two - taxicabs r. --2-. I �Mi � I U p , i � n • it '' � - I I�i �Ni I I, �� I I I I I ; II II 119 'aq I p lI IPet alu �C y " ° 'gIP'Commission Minutes; 'December';; :16, 1,9,75, u; III el Itll�lii u�Vl � iL I;Fi I �I ma , i t Ppl annin' II17 IIr 4 hc-les used. n.the operation Karl lof the p P,olice;:Depar:tment clarified that any ve- • � � I � hl of this service would •be checked out ��I t o d I the ��Police' Dep,artmerit�- prior to,.i•a , permit be'ing issued. He also I advised - „that!''Ibackground•chddks we're, mad om individuals:. and s eci•f p i cally:thei'r drivingl, records.. Mr_ Boehlje stated that - ,r these matters were•str ctly._concerns: „ of ' the,RoTice Department, not the Commission. Comm. Head moved to' recommend to •the•Cty Council that the cer- tificate:of p.ubli.c convenience :be granted. The motion was sec_onded,•by Comm.. Bond. , '• AYES 5 NOES' 0: ABSENT 2 . Z. JERRY &.MA ENE Mr. Boehlj° e brief ly reviewed the variance . . , ,-request of Mr: & Mrs. STEWART r VARI.ANCE Jerry Stewaft-to z1low.a -foot ;high fence-to--be constructed on V p p y : 75 .; the � .I P r.o ert a 'lines ; of • a :cornea lost adjacent . to Seventh Street on a .lot located'. at 644 "E” Street.. ;.. rement , and Mr. . Boehlj e that' it ,is omm rig t,.quest,ioned•the • setba_ck requi adv':ised normally, 25 feet from they front property line L � � � I.�'' ” or 1s .' arl.ba' as, t'he"•existing -house • >if it•'"- closer -than 25 I V ',It ., �f feet , 1 Mr � ll hl , r; I St � eW ar�$addre'sed the Cgmmiss_on, informing them that there I� p:1 were three or,f our ,lexistingl,, „fences +exactly 'like'the -one -he -was-- + req'uestingf; only. they..,have !driveways next to:: diem: He ; then fur_.nished with pictures %of other fences in =the l , 61�d,II V Ili � area . �4 °1i 1N II II� r1r ;Stewart ex la:: Comm I flu ;Iw u,' ' „g. �P inedl,'to the I the, intee usf h where neighboring. build- I „ " � l • that °he` " ndd e Ho • fssio k . ard: He 'advised � s bac y N � sted and 6 run, the ence•.down'the existing line_ of i n s exi p. the hous,ld noe t.;.woul" ' sh to ;:: ..• �. , e „sin d, cut 13 .,feet aoff o an :already - small .back ,yard,. , ';Mr. _Stewart;,ilso -iadv sed_ that he . ono;*:'intention of'' . re'constrictng the .garage he had torn`.:downc Mr. .Boe •••. • � ' hlj!e clarif ied2 that the applicant : sould' -not automatically : rebuild. •the•'fence:even:at,the.time:he had:temoved it;-since this fs �, act ion, .would - 'require :a if ence ;,.p.ermit, .,and would < not . have ,met the setback •.requirements; - therefore, : although -he could Piave . repaired it; he•could-not•replace it:; The ;lot ,size -was questioned. The map = was - examined -which indicated .•a =-v A& y : of 'lot 'sizes, Mr.. SStewart's•o,property. Vein g' one of the smaller lots. Comm Head- moved . to ,grant ".the .:yar -lance ;ao :allow the 6 -foot high ;- fence-to be'const•--ucted lion •.the . side, prop „erty line.. Comm. Bond II II' �„ • �F� °�' ' reminded him: t -hat ;certain fin'di�ngs:.must' be 'mad'e • grant a .var- iance and should be made. as ;part � of :the' motion:'. Comm: Head �h�I I u' „ ”' � I I �� '•` I x,� � rep,Aed; that; ithe :re'ason�, °for rant n -the 'variance was to replace Ir n g g. p - � - , �b II I "� ` ",�„ a smilarfencre ��that had!; gabeeri torn down. :'Coinmi' Hlligoss in- � `� �� �. • o I �! �,fo.rmed (Comm h �aHea'dlh that four •specific :findings must be found to 9 I ;l y h it r ,IVII. I Gf� � 'Nti `` ro Il�ill ' ill i 1 It p �� IIL4.ri�l' iM I ��� " • L. ru Mlti� I . I . i Petalidma City Planning Commission ,.kiiiutes: ;-'I)etembor. 16, Sh& th6fi read the four fldd4 igs and -stated,. th at b� she. felt' they couldl,be j�ugtified.'- y-the the-lot was,: small - -in sl-ze.,- other fences 't in- the neighborhuou were Ok LLI.LS t ype „ OT .the lindividual, the traf 'it -ou he, p -jvacy. O e , .w Id. add�- tb in - ,: area Js , not ;- great and 1510 feet__of - the proposed f'e4ce-.- :Comm. Hilligoss therefore setonded . the motion. AYES 6 NOES 0! - ABSERT I "D" STREET PLAZA The.staff.report for th6 "D" Street Plaza to include a SITE DESIGN RE_V 7-Eie,ven,,Fqoa Matk8b;.aftd retall'stores '122.'?et Blvd- South.•wa brief . Mr . Boehlje Odvised that, the Ar'chi- tactural ­& -Site Design Review-, Committee - had -teviewO-d I the . and Althodgh, numerous comp-gom ses were made- during - the -cotirs6 , _.the,meetifig, thr.e.e. areas - had ,, e86 1he C6nmi t - tee- ;.therefore ha:d.:asked.- that the full`C6mmission%c_onsider the. � - desi 1-t "J" ZS z design.. ­;f, , _Lf"Ist"Al 'bfo-i ' MnMBoe , 1I he. sta-fedsthAt two. m4jor'�,4-items' of ;cbncern - were of :t He - ddvIse&f that- ,alth6ugh . the City- Attorney had-originally felt fhes,e,,it conditions of ..Approva-1 and they had therefore breeA, i in i e-d' on �3 cbn s' d r, tI later: I'si 6 -f! -'s , tbeuist�Lf f rep ' .br-ti..,f.or-lith6,,i-C'olmmlissi,,on, 35y r g � meetings-, withe-theaCigy.�-At.to,rne)rr,,'3 Police, Chief. , ! - � not fall under .fao�had pled xt,& thet, d.. x 55 the qprbv &r 'A-h r efo islons:�Of e ' e re un'eh- forceable. Mr. Boehlje further - advised - that��the,,Cotti8sion:was , only•to consider the physical location of•6bjac,ts,•on theL•site Hilligos S rc a up-st ioned ! i;ffiyi, thebEIRahad ldcliAdedli'MitiOatin 'easutes - re�ra-rdinq . q.jM 4.) uj i. - operation. if -that 1. the -i saileb o fyal 6ohcilici-ib everig&s and h6iirsdof-,� ri ;ifha-t zt1h6 EIR had to consider - .-was t ," - ' lrepliOd hecase M Boehli l the City Attorneyr.f elt that l6calsordindnces -,:-book!4 ' ptec'eden-c , l e in this case and-considered-the�.findings the limit -the. j•tDnAb short dis cd-§;sion,e:f 0 llbwed tf He6fidgh6 to s n D IIBT .:af IT ,b6lnoi-tas'rrl F, qxu• 10,J _ ...U. a -Izicp�' - -voil , 4,;WN115 -e i; XM - 2 , (, , Kr - c , Boeh 6the Archi ec t - - - whi: ' ',ompromises 'that S ite Design ..Re'vi&w Committed chtstat6d.­_ e­e had 4een-treache-d. He then advised that. the only , Item. st-1 at _ f 4 o 5 , 1­ 1 s 9 u e - wa s r3 the . It e q u item ent,.-., oth 6 C ity Mngln e�e r � Cf dt the e c ur b s j fft c;: - ,v jr r.qundin,g ,and j, -he, rdIo,catioq_ ,:_Comm. Head, asked, : or been told that he_6wquld!)nQtAb- iFresp.Qnslblei f or Itheu'cuft and utilities o7 - - 1 , R , as 'a mitigation ba6 d 11.1,k 11 measure. h,. t .- !]& a_ e i-_.bh4 iproj-e� ,Roehl J� - a vd$ d th(2�v- was reviewe -City jEnginee�b- lidd�l�no.ti--�i � _q ping�thew , any recommendations 4 Clty of 'Petaluma Planning'.Commission;Minutes; December, 16, 1975 , .' f or, the .,curb a5ta f overs� �ht� which 'had later "4,been : hat t was Jilt r th ho , he �rlsed weer had' ad t �t y g Po J inted out n ad, l e EIpt� e l him' „thathre ec�ul d t requlre thes u' N vlsed Mr. ” 1 j! rEqulrem�nts, and•Greloeat on of uti iti.es In .accordance:w th an I 'fit " ,i p a _ n existing City Cour'c solution th plicant•comes�in for il7Re whenr,e ap. . � uild ng permit",, for l this site. u I ' Co =14 Head Y stated rha, tr:_ dacisi:'ory I &Z CU E) 'rounding , had been. - mad a chi fact, a-,) d the adm nis'trat erro "r had cost.the develop e ;:5,00.0 for -t - he preparation of an He also stated bha.r i`f: - the applfc'ar L ,-hid knowd -I this requirement. in advance,. he - probably, Would . =have proceeded with ehei project. Comm. Head obj eczed to the • anioun.t, - of time that had elapsed • sin:ce the project had been. submitted fortxdview;, and to. the: €:act'that the developer l been .p ovidzd with wrong information from the staff at the begann ng of; the .process. He'.also•.severely criticized the-staff . .indivi du al ; w , ho had provided: information, stating M that tl`e �taXes paid' by the public' were" paid; to ' that individual• to. ., g P de�relo 'e ubl a more mono Conan Waters give,, th stated' that If t g of to cause the e 0 P y F y. th Ic the rI ht nformatlon� and n par had "looked "at the three,ro = ers he should` " p eY " have. that would al o have to round Ing �. r he , remain '. corn 0 ',not "Haeh1de:Ane had'I stmt r' the EIR had only cost H, formed Mr: Head the h $ $5 " 000 lash ed Chalrm`aii HoaGiza .q uest it' ed if ithere was an City, coo eratiori In f the utilitesn for the � p, Y P r,ovis i o curb i lln(�1T1g s . m 51'1 e ; ri2 f �`it l i t • d, f or a and the t'it 5 the r�locat'IOn o aoul be unfair' `' an de 'i" ng chat particu'1.'ar lot � 3 have to incur thes'e' costs. Mr. Boehlje•rep.lied .that', although tlere.were . no•funds specifically availab`le,. the City Council >co ald -decide •`it_ was too much of a burden•`for the appl can`t • s.nd could•remove :or amend • the• require = ' meats of the Planning Comm ssion.if the applicant•appealed.to the, "ity• Couriciha Comm. Wr also stated ,that he .'felt the financial burden Vas .'too great for any developer: Co; m. '`Head stated would; like to make 4 a .,motion; however,, it was b. r' determined that further "discussi was-,necessary - before a motion could be „made Mr Boehl� e then read `�fromResolution'No 54"30 �u i7 Ew N C S of the City Council' whichi' delineated the Ci- y x authority` in . requiring ".public Improvements of ,this nature. Comm. y, Head asked if there was'any way that 'thei'Cty ac`ou `� a trativl °',oversi hp was �no�su� p oy 'admixis= reimburse the a licart - for costsN� that, Incurred b ," p„ p ire " th:e bus ness ;�" Mr 'Je`n he' •felt a. that eq le d replied that be over'sI htsp y r , , u t at th aid: to do the best': ob the can7and th re wi] i s . ',. ome Instances e , He 'further cetera ed. e g applicant , was aware a L it this case; of . the ^possxibility that public'. 3.mprovement 4ould be, required. Mr.' Boeb1j'e reminded Mr. Head. that. this requirement for public imp rovements was an established p'oai _ which = need - .not'be applLed-�at the -time. of site design . review but could be applied' at the building permit stage; -5- City of Petaluma Planning Commission. Minutes 1 December 1.6, 19751 r hoWeveri the City prefe to - the Applicaht .as soon as, poss•ble and Vas therefore making it «a condition of: the site design rvw; Comm. Head stated he :f elt , the City was merely s I poi leading ,'- the applicant on by thi which poin Comm. Wright and Comm. Bond both stated, they felt- Comm. 'Head, was ,out • of;-ordei% Comm. Bond, stated that the correction of: adminis- trative oversights is done the, office, of' the Planning. Department -and the action of -the Commission,, and he did' -not •feel. it was the p.erogative of " the CommiSsion to take "potshots" at a oversights. Comm Bond refenred, to the conditions te-g&rditig • the - sale of, alcoholic.beverages and-the ,h0urs I Hof operation and ,asked what had prompted the -meebing - of' , the City Attorney, City Manager, . Police.'Chief And Mr. -Bdehlje,, ljr. Boehlje replied, that it :had been an -ongoing -,proce'ss that had,'been,-4iscussed. -!during the past few weeks; and after all due•consideration the.-Police Chief and' the-City Attorney had felt these items were. une4force- : able, since alcoholic beverages are­-presently being - consumed in the park And other businesses are alloVe&tQ. sell alcoholic; beverages, in-this =area. He advised that, the , City could appeal. to - Bever4ge-Cqntrol, but It. is along pro� cedure. Mr. Boehli e stated. tha:t ther& is no prece'dentcin.the. 'City concerning, the - hours' , of' operation. and therefore, this' item had also m been thought to - be, unenforceable. At -'thi,a. pCki-4t-,!.CoUi%.. Head interrupted, the . conversation to indd:cat'e: that- he •had - saved the ,,.City a ldt of embarrasstent,by contacting the City Attorney .to -see if the conditions were legal and Chairman Rorciza ruled him to be.out - of - order. Mr:. Boehlje clarified that Comm. Head, had;•contacted theiiCity Attorney to-determine•if•thes.e conditions' Were enforce however, by this time been made that the conditions were- in f act. unenf orceabl.e , He stated; that.- if' Comm. Head had tcont,dct.e the -Planning -Department- prior to contacting the ' CitY Attokney, he , would have possibly saved, himself and the • City staf -, some - trouble. Comm-., Bond questioned, • if -the provision. of , additional police . service- and, -the , preser� , .vat -ion of,­thev present .thak-Acter of -the city paik were matters for site design where may they be considered? Mr. Boehlj e replied that .although - there were mitigating measures indicated, in,! the, EIR, they were - felt to.be ' unenforceable.in relation to, , and:codes.- Re -further. stated'•tha t, the i -review-process "allows the site: d&-sign Commission .to: consider the, location of the: structure on - the site, the style of the structure, dnd­ building almost all physic:dl, things. Mr. B.oehlie,advised other permit ,procedures , such as a Use.Permi-t could•be specifically conditioned,, but when the -use itself` is, a'•permi-tted principle use in-a z.oning•distridti-it.• site design review- 'which--deals with the site. alone:. With,,r-.eRatd to the* need for se rvices, Mt_ BoehIje advised that basically It would, additional er y ' be, the , City 's - tesponsibilitv -, tb,pi:ovide-certain'-services for uses ..permitted in:this district,, it was responsible for. -it Petaluma City Planning Commission 'Miniif es 'December.lb; 1975 d ben z "oned �thid's wa .�' Comm„ fond ° ue�stioned "if t City would e n 'hav e o "allow a Y q " t- gh robbery r,i, th n in the g y section of the city an also; 'tiaVe tosallowl ess main core lu tln '''servi eAt2r.' next t ° o S a rk': Mr •� poa�entiahy pol- at gt' c' t since e B e ehlje replied ations an that " ' n,tha t t be turned,-down-on- are valid site . � et co' ns ider ' d„ - the � ro ;e " that x t a ,. ore om e ,P J , ��, basis "' `He informed Comm. 'Bond than '`he appreciated his concerns; but-" it- :was his job to ''a'dmini�ster: the ordinance' -and he could therefore only state what the ordinance provides for and let the Commission make`.•their own decision.- Mr. Boehlje further advised that.if the Commission; turned d`own`,the the City Council' would' be af fo;rde'd the opportunity to"make-a. decision on project if "the app'lican't appealed'. to them. .Comm.: Hilligoss siated she "did not feel 'the ''site and architec- tiiral.:design' was what she felt to be appropriate in the downtown core- °area, since the City was - going' into redevelopment was t?ryin'g to up'graae and' beau 'iii the core �Iarea. She felt the site - Set badkmatch;, the rest of the 1d area owritown ar6 regar ding building, . re r s and °not have'the parking in,.': . t ' at ing an "asphalt 011 " of.nview, th' e taffMwoulµ`dr a "pproprPatenset point for' the'''area back , which in ''this �case� they felt would be 20 feet', and 'appl' "leant" had' b'e'en° so ad�iis`ed. He' °also advised' that the staff, had f °e'l;t 'tfiat th'e' lot had too much'. square footage coverage and had recommended that- some 'or •all' of ''the 'retail stores, should be eliminated;- however the _dDplitant,had advised he needed all• of the= Tease area proposed: °'Mr' .Boehlj,.e.st'ated' that since there are no F or:dinanc'e - requi.rement�s 2 ifiA wou' d enfo `ce •these desires 'anddthe'applieant riot agreeable to any 'change, the appli- cation'fiad bee`n' rocessed as`'subm tted." Y Gomm' Head informed ° the R�omks'siori , that he tiad 'approached the City Attorney regarding the ~prohibitionIo'f'�' alcoholic -sales and r II W .AI f�} r a "+ h the limitation of hours>of operation because, as long as he was a - member of the Commission' and saw` something r irr' egular that �irifr�nges °the rights of -citizen' s �ofT'this� community that he 4' ` wo hawer�to ori�; he, would question "its ^' "legality. He i istated�',thAt � he "wished' toy avo� d ' any � embarrassmenC to � the � of f i- y c'als of. the'Cit and also prevent a l" "aw ° suit if possible. Comm. Head' stated `he f elt tte `normal procedYures , o£ contacting, th'e Alcoholic'Contiol Board, dui.ing t$e` appeal procedure was the `appropriate imefhod of obi ec.fing; to the 'granting' of an , alcoholic 'beverage , license,' 'and he , aid 'snot' 7f eel` •tfiese , items should be �- -,discussed any further. ' Comm Waters stated tie felt' the'responsibil .of rounding the b .' .,a .�h;! i G. 4 ° . cr, r any t'he relocation of Bond 'yoice:d his N ugd be resolved' by the utilities sho the ,Cit Council and Comm. a' 'cement. Comm.. Head then moved i,, to adopt - 'the' 'si�t'e.'des'ign' review ^with the excep- i! Lion that would petition the City Council for i to a on the,: relocation' & `the u but - tiiould be required relief �'Ip yl f Ini he 'C rovemen hairman Horciza or t curb and' utter im t's'r ' Petaluma City Planning,Commission M nut;esDecember.16 1975,.: stated. that, he •Aid - not,, feel the emotion was proper; since it is entirely. up to-the - app icant­ to'= determine -if he wish e to appeal P the City Council or .not:: , - ,A d`is`cussion followed regarding :which, conditions the .tCommiss:ion ,wished,, to apply to :the site design. Comm,. Head. moved, to adopt the sa'e design . with- the deletion : of , conditions #13 and #14 .• ; ana with the ehanges­as.• >determ ned during 'the Arch tec'ural Site Design. R'eview:Gommittee' meeting,. At this pc . nt. the applicant.: (Mr. Carmody) inter- rupted -, rating he • ;,Tished te.`ha hear -d:. He, informed the Commission that he - was not,... ren:resentirg the Southland Corporation but was a private-in- vesr-or,. Mr. ;Carmody informed that although Mr. Boehlj.e.had assumed .total.res- onsibility for the deletion of - conditions. #13 and #l4.,, ,he , had stated; at the time_ of � the Archi- tec & Site Design =Review. Committee meeting that his counsel had informed him these items were. zoning matters; and 'the.Zoning• .Ordinance.of the 'City of Petaluma did include anything that Would prohibit the °Commission" from.processing• the application without a, change in,the Zoning dinance�or a .-rezoning--of•the. pr , He. fur,t'her s -tated that the •p;roblem could,•be solved by instituting ome•type of ; regulation that might apply to the pbal k. Mr Beehlje stated that when,he• assumed ,the responsi- ity for , the chage.-in conditions of approval he ..was referring only to the -le.gali'ty of: these r_ equir-'ements; mot • the - zoning, rpquir6aents•of the property, ^ir . Ca_ ?od inf craned the, Commission, that at , a prior meeting with the_ City Engineering staff they had been told, the ;,curb rounding - would not , fie required since ,the City could , ..not afford to do it, and although.he realized the -condition might be" changed, he had pr.oceeded•on that basis. He also- stated -that two ;statements in the EIR were :somewhat-inconsistent,,, since one s;tated..that the curb, sh_ali . be rounded, , and yet k the other stated - ghat the , traf fiic generated by the 7'-Eleven Food Market - and. any other use on the property would not.. change. the' street traffic volume to a point' where it, °would `fall into another category for traf'f i.c flow. Mr. Carmody Stated that; the corner in, question had. toaally unique,'to: that corner, such.as the,high' tension ,power pole, a,. storm drainage .sy,stem of, unknown quant y a .fir;e hydrant, .'th'e. central control,,box for 'the entire inters`ettdl on, underground telephone lines, and an, or °inactive fire ;alarm sys,tem;. It. * qs his contention that each, of these extra categories -'do not, ,have anything specific'a'lly to do with -the p-..0perty, but have -to do 'with t community as a, whole; theref,ore,, to :force <any applicant :to do such rounding -and, relocate all utilities would be.,Aiscriminatory`. Mr... ,Carmody -s tated -he <would­he wilding to do the • rounding - in t <he form of eur.b. cuts ar_d ;the relocation of the signals � -if the "City wou Ld take upon . the burden. of relocating all. the, underground utilities.. . Waters questioned'�when the , app.licant had been told the - rounding . cf .,the' curbi would.•no.t be required Mr,. .Carmody stated -a_ . . .a Petaluma .City Planning. Commission Minutes; December.16,_1975 • d � i ' III r - , ' fi it had come up 'during a' meeting with thel Asst City Engineer when f it _had been determined hat I,,;all� the utilities would fall in red Mrs Luc ,robin , bed the e be ;requicorner would by ded aed sh'eohadon would o street if' the nd re' I I I +w•,'�' r � ,� 7 a r' � th also een I" c present " etin d ha g P �,s _ an, lit Webb stat . I P erefordt t me" �° g'„ een br` �� a I � d b obi ht u because of ,• , not .- p p R h the City prior request de�elo meet on the ro e r ,ty ,for whlc' >_ • ; ., �. p ,. � `' � t Mr� e •Ca•rmo ' y a y , a 'd not r q eu ired the corner ds -of the con - ", erase involved. d st to ded b'e�ca lined he 0 ion of the _ Commissi'on to the. had` the ,'fight. 'to appeal the decis . City`Council. -, Comm. Waters seconded Gopun..He'ad's motion. AIES 3 NOES! 3 ABSENT 1, Comm Bidnd giial ed his "Nw, ,vote , advising that he was t'itwasa r roe ct for the °location - -in -terms - con Md that 7 " ,y v� race poo p J hm 1, , jr, ; of the "pare, jprimar,ily, and also in terms ; . of : , the building � on the o c :„ , pro Comm Hi11 'goss ' qu'ahf e her � 'No'K' �vo,te' by stating I, * petty agreed Comm.. Bond, •and " not -like the c she y specificallydid location of, the building I on the site: Comma ght qualified „ his "No" vote by, stating that he did.not•''feef the applicant should. Lequired to ,relocate the uiili.ties at that corner. The app'° hat the site design - had been denied li4ant was, ,in orme t u and he had the ri to, eal to the •City u.Council. Mr. Carmody '' appeal p " ht uESt�cined t ro e . he q -' "' pr dures W and .ca s" informed he had ten l "° days i.n: to '.ap.P.eal to the . u " M' , � 1 _0..r u . i •. V. , a M^ recess was called at, '9 3 p m S at s which time ( , ; Comm. Head de- parted. The meeting l resu,med'at 9::42 p.m, a,,;• PROPOSED ELGCA` ION' Mr. Boehlje informed the Commission that the revised EIR.had Or HILL,CRES:T been r:ecelv'ed wi past week and ••the. staff -was in. the :EIR d be it woul ved y.r EVALUATION for , continu continue the public_ - hea C ori, ` , 7l I Comm nd mo ance , con to" _ � A an. C ON, INUANCE: �Y I IN� � nt�l Comm. Hilligoss of.,, the pubhc�' hearing �u� J 20, � 197 _ = I. r a 6 sec o II, conded'r" th'e ' notio -... c :.. AYE. 5 NOES 0 2 S - s ANT_ • 2 OTHER BUSINESS '- _ Chairman; Horriza excused himself . from the -;_Commission,, since he PG &E TRANSMISSI@,Nll is an ,Employee of 'LPG &Ea " DINE ROUTE REVIEW F • l r - r I' e C� t Manager -had been -con= tl y to " tacted,a d haCed himr . e g �� bee ad m su� m P � t �ementrlt Me er h ggest to n ng an easeme � '. I " I ed . thagtabeforeoth he p • f �i "' was ' �, for matted of ' h was t . to .'the ."City C Y _ .• r .. ss:(q G =I Y cons iderat ion - ; the Plann� n Comma n: sY'iauld review-..the,-route f t ,, of the t'ransmisslon i .- accordance:with the provisions of the' Zoni:ng� Ordinance, ­ .Mr.. Boehlj e , clarified that under the Z'oriing•Ordinance, "Exceptions and - Mod:fications,'He Limita- I t.iens," the route•of'the transmission.lines is-to be submitted ,t i d i 1 191 1 0 .Petaluma City Planning : Commission .Minutes;.•December'.16, 1975. to the Planning Commission i for, - review •,and •recommendation prior to•acqu sit oin.of rights of�way. Mr Marquardt ,-ex pla ned that PG &E wished to.locate a:115''KV 'transm ssion;.;line along . ,E.1 - y, Blvd''." South that would- essentially•fo1. ow' the 1 property- lines from the Lakeville substation; to •Santa *Rosa. Comm.; ,Waters questioned. why PG &E - Aid i ot( propose; to •go down: Old Adobe Road'. Mr Margudrdt:repled that.alth ©ugh they" had ` considered that route ,,. ;a 60 KT transmission Tine exists along; that road and' a ,second. power ,_ line would ,• have to -'be • extended which: would pass:. in . front 'of- the. `historic - 'f;ort °and would .also result. n a tunneling eff ect ; : He, added � that the - proposed plan- would follow. existing poles: Comm. Waters stated his. concern that a. d'eal `amperage - ,and• = volt s ,b age waeing;•brought ` down into- resdential•areas Mr Marquardt`rreplied that,the , City already has this type - in resid6'nt al He ;then. showed . pictures of Ely Blvd,. South .with;,:,the; existing 'lines and ;also with the:: proposed`transmiss ion lines superimposed Mr. Marquardt clarified that . - transmis -s ion : lines. of • this, woltage.. are not •: nor- mally'•'located : underground.: He 'further clarif eA that; t add -on . the existing poles ;• on • Old Affoba - Road` °would: -not , be,. the : best, method' the ;location of bo;th,• 60 KV :arid 115 , KV transmiss,ion . lines ion the same: �polesicould -r in, pole •top fires.. From.. th s,s"tandpoint Ely Blvd South,was,.more . acceptable,.since it did riot currently have .; 60 KV • transmisson..ln'es, Mr Boeh teminded the. Commission °that Comm 'Head,,. ',.had ques,- ti, tined' • the environmental review - and lie wished to advise thatl the:' project was categorically•, exempt uirideirthe- ,State guidelines -. Mr. "Marquardt added„ that',the 'Pub;lic.•. Utilities Commission,: has': _ _ review of inaj or, transmission .,li_nes arid they, :are °under ; their..'. j "u 13 Comm. Wright•ques;tioned if it would be.uneconomieal to, run: the transmission, lines in`the,County;,'. Mr Marquardt:rep'led hat the, Count y' wasp opposed to running, an , additional line ;along .Old Adobe ,Road or'. running it through the open country,. He -also•: advised. that ; such a ,,rout e would be too' close to.. the airport Comm. •Waters moved to Council that the Com -: mission -has reviewed ,.th transmission :route; -:'and - although .• it does seem plausible;,the. Commission, has ;some:teehnical . ms giving's that it -is 'hot:,qualif ied. to answer,. He therefore felt that- before the "City Council,. takes any final action, ,the City Eng•ineer "route;: Mr. Marquardt.-- tlarif-ied.. that the City;; Council ?would, only ,take .final •action ono easement portion', that'. cressesi City property,. Mr. Boehlj;e,�stated that the City Council• w,oul.d want - -the- Commis s 16n!. 9 1 input �Cbmm. Bond. suggested . adding the fact - that .the .Commi'son was •concerneda -. about -the'. route, go •through a population °center ;like Ely-Blvd;; South, 'although it'was`realized - that'ther•e are .technical or lo gistic aspects that controlled,. Comm. Waters- agreed- ty 11a.nni ag ," Commission Min ,. Petaluma C utes December 16, 1 975 to add factars to his recominendataon �rerefui� sec ond'ed.tthe' motion. Vice -.C} '1, and Gomm ° Bond w n � a- a�rnian Wright summarized Y g the .L ecomtner'dat ion 'b, seta tin that the Comiui'ssion , has revi'ewed ,:h e. I n ropcse:d route, and although it has reservations about the transmission.lines going - through a populated area, it has no expertise or- ability to , recommend alternate, and is not 0pprzse(I t � ob ainlmg • the easement TNICNT. _ T.. g c ' 'u -c ter 't�usiness P' meeting. adjourned z here b �.� � ? �� , the at 10'� 20 p.m.