Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 05/10/1977A- G ;E N .D A: PETALUMA CITY. PLANNING.COMM.ISS19N SPECIAL MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY.HALL 19 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL: Comm. Bond Daly Harberson -Head Horciza Popp Wright STAFF: Ronald F. Hall, Planning Director MAY 10, 1977 7:30 P.M. PETALUMA, CALIF. The Planning Commission encourages•applicants their representatives to be available at the meetings..to answer quest- ionsj_so.that no agenda items need be deferred to a later date � due to a . lack; of pertinent information. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: i f CORRESPONDENCE: GERALD HUTCHINSON- 1. Public Hearing to evaluate environmental Impact E.I.Q. EVALUATION / Questionnaire to allow for sign design, graphic USE PERMIT (U5 -77'): design construction of small displays and signs, pinstriping antique automobiles, design studio, located at 15 Kent Street. 2. 'Public Hearing to consider a Use Permit application for the proposed project. THOMAS P. MASTERS FOR 1. Hearing to evaluate the Environmental Impact Ques- DEVCON;GONSTRUCTION- tionnaire for a proposed Optical Lens Manufacturing E.I Facility to be located at the intersection of SITE DESIGN REVIEW: Frates Road and Lakeville Highway. 2. Site Design Review consideration for proposed project. ZONING VIOLATIONS: 1. Steve James - Illegal storage and equipment sales yard located.at 2084 Lakeville Highway (Old Stone- burner Cattle Auction Yard). 2. Petaluma Gardens Homeowners Association - Illegal storage area for boats trailers and equipment lo- cated on .Parkland Way adjacent to the Petaluma Gardens Swimming .Pool, 2238 Parkland Way, in a R- 1- 6,500 zone. WASHINGTON Consideration of extension of time for C-0 Zoning of PROFESSIONAL 'PARK: the Washington Professional Park project located at the northeast coiner o East Washington. 'Street and nd ; E,I:y Blvd.. South. SIGN ORDINANCE.: Public Hearing to.consider p for. directional sign, for churches, pub lic . , bui ld-ings 1 and institution I etc.,, in proposed sign,ordinance-,-. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL Public Hearing concern ning' desigiYdtfori of Sign PRE . located on Mutual, Relief Building ,( western Avenue) CQCA-COLA SIGN ON THE as an historic landmark. MUTUAL RELIEF' BUILDING: AMENDMENT TO CITY OF Amend said ordinance to eliminate the�need for Planning PETALUMA SUBDIVISION: Commission review of -final subdivi- 'ORDINANCE 410'4:6'gCS sion maps. ADJOURNMENT ff'I: N IU Y-L'' S_ I PETALUMA 'CITY PLANNING COMMISIS'TON" MAY - 1 , SPECIAL kEETING''` f; 7 3& ` P.M. , 'C 'PETALUMA,,'CALIFORNIA 'CITY CHAMB j'�CITY HAL L!` PRE - SENT z C I onmi. �Hea�d,'Harberson, Daly, ftorciza and Wright ABSENT' Gomm. Borfd Popp d a STAFF Ronal Y.- H ill 'Planning :Dir.ector CORRESPONDENCE'.: - Mdna Powell regarding Petaluma, Ho'spit-41. C omm:. - Harbe'ison a'sked Mr. Hall ' :adyise Powell- that her letter has been...referred to 'the Petalum& Hospi Board of D'itecrors." t Marion Hodge D' i e&&t . `dd- ­. 6 "the City ,Council' 2�gard,ing. Iet e�t . From Mrs.', t In 'Park 'Development for I the 'South ;County _'FMr. .HaIl'.sqggpsted this might b an item that 'should be�- schedifled. f 6 id16cu* ss'ion at a . future meetin& 'so that the- Petaluma Planning; Cpmmiss,ion-may send 'a recommendation to Count y,. GE . T . CH 1 4 NSON I Mr. Hall reviewed the staf 'f� report. No ',commeht,�L had.'been RAL D H U EIQ EVALUATIW/ tecjEd-ved - f-rom. - the_.-general, 'public and no adverses_ comments PERMIT (V5" fr -77)': had been receive -om reviewin agencies. The Planning -a Department recommends piepare(t" and 'posting af' Nega- tive D'ecla for the. , proj;ec.t!. requirements . at.- possible if Umes� Comm:' Head - if we-had an Regz�Crdihg y present to designate , whi't is cons -ideted. ad'd uate ventilation.. Mt.' Hall stated that ' d1tion. # of the. `use 'permit evaluAt-ionr states 'Pro p �ventilation must- be p-k6. to assure f - �ha t no emp'loyees adjoining, propeiT.ies are' subjected to heal hazards b'eca'use • p th haz aint odors fumes." 'This`condition' • e g ulated by the � building l c•ode., If the use permit co b&, re-�rAb d "Mr Hall also asked. that a, req'uirrequirement ;f or the use !, p6riniCbe a' ded"neq:u-1 two off-- street - o parking spdcbs to 'be pro',v"i within the structure4 'The - Public Hearing to consider the environmental impact" q_ue.s't'±o The applicant 'Gerald .Jfut`d,hihsdn: 'st he will ' not be spray painting.-elitire smal p -used ; for._ strip= cars o r trucks. Only i'l �.quant­iti p will bd issidin -,if - t "He asked th a - neigh or" Mr Larry -tell the Comm - , h aims as been a pto* with, :j)ai%ht ume s at his present location. `Mr'.'Gizzi stated-thdt - - he lives 'right ne:kt - door, and has 'riever smelled paint f ume's. Comm. Daly, moved to direct 'the Planning 'Director to.,pr'epdre and-post a.Negative Decldta!tion: 'f or 'the profect The motion. was secbn.de_d. by C-bmm. Harberson.' NOtSr 0:' -NT' 2 �5 ABSENT' AYES, 4 PETAUMA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES,-. 'MAY 10 1911 GERALD HUTCHINSON.- The Public Hearing to dorisidet' u* 't s opened,. use p.ermi . .,w a EIQ EVALUATIONJUSE Comm.. Wri' ht Mr' Hutchinson if there was sufff6iemt . PERMIT' .(tJ5-77). .1 xdont f or the two off,=,s tr e t - pA k ing Mr,. Hutchinson (CoAt,1*1n#e& replied.,yes, The 'Public Hearing was closed.-. ,Comm. Eb'd'move * to grant 'the .use perm The motion was seconded by Comm. HarbpVson., AYES 5. 'NOES 0 AB THOMAS ;P. MASTERS Mr,. Hal' -1 reviewed _the staff; tepqr &.and"commented that Soia FOR DEVCON CONST-4 should be commended f or providing a building desi which EIQ -EVAEVATIONY Petaluma will b ptoud of'. having. in the comm SITE DESIGN REVIEW:, Mr. 'Hall d9ntinu - his review''6f the staff report. In 4tem j ;of the r§ite design evaluation and requirements, the terms, ''''trash enclosure" will "be deleted On item''#5' developer - belibve-'d th:is to be an ext-rEt �cbhdftion..'- Thd 5ite Design leview Committee modified' the­:setond of item - ,#8 - to read "The revised s±te. plan" - (Job No- in 76.53,1 Sheet No. AS-2, Revi,lion -l)­ acces.s * to Fta)tes a pp D roxi=: ma`t,U-­,y 25,0 fee't south of :I,Ake�i1.16 `Hl 'h 'shill ; re p l ace g, --way PXace 0,figin4l' site plan (City_ lqngineer),; The Site Design'Rei7lew Cbmmittee modified item _Yt "Two (2) 'hydrants .,s be installed as indicated on Ekhib,lt A with double: 2 7 b- .f nt, ,,y si ngle 4-'-Y',ogtlets And -A �minlhum I fl ow of 2,500 GPM' fro each hydrant),. 'Mr. Hall -mentioned that, the staff has ' suggestions- in regard to, secu- rity but: these suggestions. are not: • included .as mandatory conditiqns;: T he P ublic A s e impact. qu'estA-onhdir6 wag,_ opened. ­ -ic. _ Hearing dring - tp co nsider i I- der - --' ­ - ­ . t, - private citizen .spoke. ;from theo,audience a stated -that the City of Petaluma should encourage this type of'-d'evelopmentAin the area. Bey,then asked whether r, the chemical IPP could be considered dan erou�§., Mr. Herbert' Funk aske , , Va-hAou§eh from PP'0 to answer the . Mr., V. explain . ea: that` test-s establiO by :the Manufac.turing,,Chemists- Association indicate that .,'the, chemical- IPP is classified_ as an :irritant gas but is not toxic. The` storage ',temperature that the chemical is' maintained at is zero: degrees Fahrenheit. - The basi6 nature of, , ,t - he , chemicdl is to decompo s . _e at 'h tenqeratur,es. Ou-r�, company has 'been manuf'act'uring ' ; ,:a selling the p.roduc't for m.o:r.e than 2',0 years and have no reports f- o.seri oc fait n pus - occurr, �'e no fat'alitie's and , no, persona, in an the ind nesp6s . t he'� m' about . the us.,ry recqgn-ize 0 1� 1 P, ty - to the customer - to t�,gdch. material,;. Chairman Wright asked if this. c'h'emical go'es to gas_. - :_.M I r. 'VdnHbusen stated, it will, melt at..50 d e r ree:sr - FAr6rihe it g, 114ii1d. form and at its final, stage. it would be gaseous ,." CoTrm,.= „ W.r,�ig.'htq , asked r temperature would the chemical .become l RAsebus% M VanHpu I sEA stated : th4t�the' lmat-­e =-�al. would have ­ to , ,be in 'the neighborhood ,Qf . d ee e gT, s. dift for a Ipng pe od. - time before it b Gbmm R6 - a - ci - ua - l:' - acu . ring, proc e :wpp . there , is a chemicall combination” a any,;' fumes,? , whe A representative from So'ia came forward to answer the question'., He stated that r PETALUMA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 'MINUTES,.MAY,10, 1977 THOMAS P. MASTERS , they�,have beeiy working with the material in, Sunnyvale FOR 'DEVCON CONST . = " for ,14 .inoriths' ' `They `,ha `e had, t'o deal with very strict EIQ EVALUATION/ environmental. control`s, in that ,area and they Have had SITE DESIGN REVIEW no fumes "and no': problem with'th'e, material during- the (Continued); :tune they have used,lt; The material is kept'f,rozen until i:t is used with the-liquid p'la'stic for the: lenses at -which tame`it - is harmless. Comm `Horciza asked if the standby power will be an automatic system or, wil'T there be an at- tendant present at all times:. `The Sold representative 'explained that'_ the:.Su.nny- vale "fa;c,ility has refrigeration units w ;th enough capacity :for cooling ,that if there was a power failure.'• 't W'oul'd take- in excess of 1Q, hours, on a warm days to' create a problem. In the event of 'a power f'ailure, backup generator will be activated" to power the compressors. Each unit has a temperature sensor which will h ;,connected to an alarm sy:stemm which 1s, operated on an 'independen-t s,y stem.'! A• S_ola reptdsenta "tine added that - the 'c'ompany. exercised extreme caution in use of IPP,;'hbt only f:'or safety reasons but for rea'soris .of- economics. A - si`gnif=icant loss of, jproduc.ti`on would - occur if the ` chemical were ­ subs ected to: - change '° Comm Head asked if' the developmena will employ local p'eop;le or -f S`gla °will: be bringing 'employees from ,the. - Sunnyvale' fac The S'ola 'representat ive; .said. that 18'managemerit per „sonnet will come to Petaluma, from the - ,Sunnyvale plant but the test of the .staff will. be hired from the local available, sources' The. Public Hearing was,clo:s'ed,: Comma Head moved, to direct. the Planning Director to pr,epar,e,.and „post a Negative Declaration for the proj'.ect- subject to- the staff' :r:ecbmmendation's. The' motion was seconded by 6mm. Horciza, AYES 5 NOES' ­0 ABSENT` 2 men "t a sked. if the approvalT ''that�atethe Review:Committee`meeting l& "items were "discussed with'Mr: Hall, Mr. Rasmussen of the Planning staff= and with Comm. Harberson. On I,tem.13 the words "trash. enclosure" will b_& dele:ted;. On Item #5 he objected, to ;the sidewalk requirement. The side- : walk eliminates landscaping and °the y believe people will not use.the: sidewalk. People will g'et out' of their • cars and' krill ,make their own. way through 'the parking lost. Comm._ Head, agreed; with, the Ap.pli'cant;;: Cha z°man' Wright'- asked what :would be there if the sidewa=lk was - there? "Mr '=Masters said that landscaping - would, be put in. Comm. Horc :za :. asked if tl ! staff con °sider:ed the sidewalk as a' safety feature,. Mr. Hall' answered' yes.' Comm:` Head asked, what author - it.y, we `arer.u requiring the ; sidewalk -as a 'safety measure,. Mr.. Hall said the. sidewalk is;:a recommendation. Comm Head 6mmen'ted - th'e°'s dewal'k is not necessary as" long as you.-have something on- the 'walking. surface ­. --. line. ,of;f . a pedestrian walkway on the pavement;. Comm. Horciz'a stated that 'with :the potential; of.. up to 250. �emplo yees there will not be a heavy volume- of 16 - L t traffic mfr - "the parking lot.'to' ;the building. Comm. "Harberson 'stated `the' of the sidewalk is s`a =fety"'for' the p u s al F' lg ' g p a speeding car where:a �= raised cufboffers somerotec,tion. W Headaaln stated'that.h'e believed.the solution was to el'imina'te the sidewalk arid- use: paint to indicate pedestrian walk- ng, areas . -3- PETALUMA 'CITY, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, MAY 10,,, 1 THOMAS P':� MASTERS Chairman Wright: asked Mr. Mas't;ers . 'f th'er.e t4s'_ a real' FOR DEVCON OONST' _ conflict- iii regard; 'to the •15= gallon size plants . Mr. , EIQ EVALUATION'/ Masters'.answered. that. oh htem #15 they believe they_ SITE DESIGN REVIEW: - had offered a more than adequate, landsca -1 plan which ("Continued) : included plants of� various s'izese .: were - i5- gallon, 5- gallon and - :so m e, .l`- gallon sized plants. None of the 1- gallon sz'ed `•plants„ w.'ere of a `slow growing nature: Chairman 'Wright indicated that the" City'doe'sn.oIt. like to! se'e 1-gallon sized plants going in because it takes' so long 'for the plants to develop and: look. attractive. Comma Head stated that the size „ of the trees going, in should, depend on the deg "reee:of growth'.' Comm';:'Horci:za commented -_that we- prob'ably fshouldn''t make ;an ;exception, ,in tli�s 'ca's_e'. If there is suff landscaping in the opinion '`of the st ff'and .the app,'licant,desires to add more that, will be fine, but 'I would ,say there should be".sufficient amount of lan(iscaping: that, it would be, at least - enough developed' where Y't Would make - an ;efficient screen,. Mr. Masters' added : that most, of- the tre'e's' are" 15= gallon size. Chairman'- stated' that - everyone should be`complimented:'`bec'ause it looks like a very well planned arrangement, Mr. Masters :commented.' that ' another developer might have submitted a plan =with less. -plantings larger tr.ees"`and have ha:d7'the_ staff ;accept it_. He asked- .that, perhaps= 'thee.plan, be sent: back. to t he Planning Department for another ;hook at the planting material ,a_nd • see if they. are adequate,. Comm. :Harber;son said ,that he really wants: "this ,building to' be attractive' "and _.that he is 'wiling,.to have the .Plannn'g' - staff .t'ake another. ook' at it,. He'just- wanted to be sur..e, that ewe do not see, a lost .of . ,small' trees put• in; At that time,'Mr... 'Frank B .. Gra Communi Development •an_d` Srvi 'ec'es Coordinator, came )forward and:. suggested than the plan_ be approved as submitted” If it is` necessary to meet—landscaping requirements :of the .Plan staff °he', s. su:r;e that the Sola people -'would _.�al:so.. want thei plants to, be 15- gallon size, that the 'additionallandscaping?"be ;permitted to be 'put ; in the 1gallon size: I am sure °ever;yone would agree to put in the larger plants. °Gomm:, Head mowed to a;ccept, the site design for the project:'wi'th•'the: conditions as set forth, if the staff requirements f,or .#S And ;05 are deleted.' The motion was s'econd'ed, by Comm. Horc-''za,.. AYES 2 NOES -. 31 ABSENT `2 Comm;. Harberson' moved; to approve the �s�ite;°"d'esign for Sol the a Optics project with conditions 'of approval ,as r. ecommen the staff and, concurred; with- _by__the Architectural and $ te.:Des gn. Review "Committee, ,with, the following change-: ",I.tem #15 will be:referred'back to.the•"staff so, that,a solution may ;be. worked ou't:on the landscap'n;g.' plan " The, motiph was: seconded, by Gomm. Head." 0 AYES 5 NQES '0 ABSENT' 2 ZONING ; VIOLATIONS'.:: 46l STEu;'rJAMES Mr. ` Hall`` previewed .`the-,,s;taff Comm Head asked 'if this. use; was, .creating an,.eyesor:e•,and if. 'any complaints had;, been. xeceiv.ed. Comm. Hor•,ciz,a questioned Mr. 'Hall in • A- PETALUMA'CITY'PLANNING COMMIS • S'ION .MINUTES, MAY 10,,. 1977 . �. ZONING.VIOLATIONS °: #1 'STEVE JAMES regard, to the equipment, for. "`sale 'What type. of business (Continue0 are. we ,dealing with, and is the' storage. allowed'. in any. way ?; - Mr... Hall: 'remarked, the s't.orag'e, was varied. ,and is in direct: violation' of th'e:'Zonng Ordinance. Comiri. Horciza moved to recommend that the City Council d kec =t the City Attorney to commence p ce action or roceedg in s for _abatement and' remo.v,,dl of this use. The motion was seconded by Comm.'Head.;' „ „ AYES 5 'NOES,..... 0' ABSENT 2 #2 PETALUMA GARDENS' Before beginning discussion on this -- item, ' Mr'. 'Hall- men= HOMEOWNERS .AS'SOC'.. boned that` staff feels that i,i would be to have 'the- - Commission review matter of °"the S,igri Ord- nance' item" a,t ,later date when, Comm-. Bond is present This item involves a r;eques.t 'by a church for directional s,i'gns. Mr, •: Hall then reviewed the staff' report. regarding the : o f recreation: vehicles: by 'the Petaluma Gardens Homeowners Asso.ciation.. Mr.A all exp',lained that the staff has, no , -, with the. idea of providing offs- street parking fa= elite's for this type of vehicle. It' s ceraainay bet:.ter than having, on= street " parking. However -; we 'have note `been, able to accommodate this use:, Comm Head asked if the s;taf:f has. any, recommendations -on how We can' handle the .ssituation: Mr': Hall :commented that' = there is_' no available variance. proc'edure'; the' only- procedure that would be -open for. this'.type o;f 'use would 'be ;by' 1d ng the Zoning Ordinance.,;. The present zoning- district does "not allow changes " °or ons. • Mr: Hall mentioned that Fa suggestion had - been made to provide. .... varati'o g but some :of 'the homeowners .felt that, even by putting, in slats in:.'.the screeni chain link fence they Would 'lase the:secur t they have; with an open fence. Chairman^ commented 'to the ,people - living on Parkland ,Way that his feeling is that 'this facility is a'very. ,good idea. He couldn'''t think of anything more - unsa'tis;faatory. than p`eop;le, ,parking: r.ecreatlon vehicles" in their driveways:. and l on. the. sidewalk. There, should `be some way:.to rezone this' area. Mrs 'Louise Allison addressed the Commission +outlining' her: - objec ions' to the facility. ht' is: unat- tractive directly across t'he, :s ,her 'home, and, at' blocks' her view. of the a sport :. She mentioned; that here ' ar - e :o`ther storage facilities available. "for • rec = reati.on `vehicles,. She also said that ; if the Petaluma, Gardens' Homeowners want the facility they, could move it to the t' side of- lot Chairman Wr' ght: :asked if she 'would object if- there, was shrubbery around, the= f aclty Mrs., .Allison answered` that,- she 'would not like the.:.faczlity - there at all. It. is offensive to hers. Mr. Al 'Salvero addressed `the`: Commission., He also lives across 'the from the facility,. He also ob�ec;ts to,- the facili y He mentoned' :,197'0 the,' property next to .t1i`e swmmsng °'pool. :.was -::a'' parking lot for the people of Petaluma Gardens`:. Nothing. was said about a recreation.. vehicle 'parking lot', He: asked that if the area is rezoned- will it b'e' resident 1 or - will' it b`e' commercial? - Mr;.-, Larry Giz'z P.;res'Iden y t of: the Petaluma' Gardens :Homeowners' Association,- ad- . dre's'sed the Commission. Mr. Gizzi referred 'to a letter dated :May 3, 19.68 ..from the Division of Real Estate: in regard' to the use of the area.. Mr. Hall advised -5 -, r. I P.ETAEUMA CITY PLANNING' COMMISSION, `MINUTES, 'MAY''10, 1977 ZONING VIOLATIONS #2 PETALUMA `GARDENS. him :that the 'le ter:was, not bindi.ng,.�aith the ,City o,:f HOMEOWNERS ASSOC. Peta does no't. const'i:tute approval "by.. -the City. (Continued) ;' Chairman Wr igh't l asked if• when, the tentative map was • submitted if the , tf . was on it,. Mr. Giz'zi presented ttre map to ":the° Commission fbr. thei.r_.re'vi ew;. Comm:. Wright .stated that the tentative" ma.p- `dbes sh'ow='the'fenc'e .structure,; only the swimming pool parking lot;: Mx�; 'Banks, a: "`Petaluma: G'ard'ens; 'homeowner;, stated. that he, was the first Vice`�`Presi " - dent o'f tlie, Homeowners Association. He.'mentioned that when the parking lot - was not used' pool users of was. de termined that the property would b;e used as-A storage°area`..for recreation `vehicles:: To his knowledge there: las 'never` been any problem with' security iii beautify age of . the ° se vehic�ies it the. area. Because 'the area . is available for stor serves' y the; area and is "also a° safeguard,: Mr. Giz =z -i stated that the Associa=tion i&a non profit organization but some- how they managed to raise $7 to put th fence up;. I.. Comm Wright again commented: that he considers this ac fility' less' of ;an eye- sore than having the recreation veh1d1e�s parked "throughout the area on the streets :and in the, driveways„ Comm _ -- Horciza'. mentioned, ',that `the `probiem ==we have liege i "s the wrong zoning. S'i ce' the pool and -the cabana will .be';ther;e for years; to come: And that. the proper'ty[.- , is• - ;so •clo_se to the a rporFt that noth- ing- else, ,can .be: built there 'he feels that `the City` should consider rezoning . the area,. We must decide what is the . - proper- '�'us :e -for' the urea: Mr.. Jim :Holm ment" � Toned �t hat if thel' :.,was "ele 'a_ up, 'and something used to. ' . cover the fence that looks decent i.t wo�I'ldn t be such an eyesor=e. Mr, Gizz`i stated that they whave lstarted to elediv, -- the areas Comm. Harberson said ,he would _.like to see the ' rezoned. Mr,.'Halh mentioned that. under State law you can :use what ;ids. cal °led , "contract zoning " which allows placing conditions on the zoning.. The �prop'erty owners sign a contract -wrth- the to allow the uses as speozfzed the contract Chairman Wright..s.ug, ,gested there should be additional ' Gaping and,ma ntenance of the urea: It appears that the Commission feels ihzs a very important use and should be. main.tain'ed in spite fof, the fact that you do not' like, 'the looks of 'it The_: '. altetnafives are .worse. Mrs Salve.rb asked once again that the. storage ar=ea, be ' the Cha1iman`Wright "answered that financially moved .to other side of the lot it was Was impossible, 'do t b ack too Wright continued saying the. °matter. should be . eneed a ,definite staff rec­bmmeTr#,t on w1 Comme C Daly n mentioned r t - ,t staff We rs.. r � Allison that she will be able to go'to:.the:City Gounci a't.the time of ,the rezoning;: '. Chairman Wright explained that 'the matter will .come back to the •Com- mission and,at that time-the Comm s ion :Will decide whether; or not to -refer it to the Cityocouncil., 0 • l• PETALUMA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, MAY 10; 1977 - WASHINGTON Mr. Richard7Lieb� addressed the Commission stating that PROFESSIONAL, 'PARK: he wishesi a year° "exten_sion - for th'e7 C -O zoni=ng, of the project= Since Cherel - have been delays'.with the � planning,.:of the-•-new" hospital it has' 'held - this 'p r-tic ula'r development up,. Mr., I H411 ment= i.on,ed' that he had received-a­ letter.. R.C.,W. Development Corporation asking what the- °status'" of the property was`: They found out that eight acr,es'°of' ° property was' available for sale.,, Mr. Lieb mentioned that every week `they`have'•'inquir esabout the .property. .Comm. Head moved that the applicant be: granted the one year extension for the C -0 ;zoning,'o'f the Washington Prof'e'ssional Park project The motion was seconded by Comm. Daly. AYES -5° NOES 0 ABSENT 2 HISTORICAL AND Commi. 'Wright .commented that he believed that the sign CULTURAL; PRESERVATION should be - repa need- and preserved The Public_Hearing COMMITTEE COCA -COLA to• consider-' t•he .matter was opened., Chairman :Wr .ght SIGN ON THE MUTUAL mentioned :that Coca -Cola Company will do the-re- RELIEF BUILDING: painting and -- wi'l1 - maintain the sign. ^'Mr. Fred Schram, Petaluma Chamber of Commerce stated that Mr. Frank B. Gray had been in contact with the Coca -Cola Company. They will bring the ,sign back , to its original !s,ta "te and will continue to re- ain t it It is one of the last'.signs of its type on the west coast. The Public ' is .Hearing wa's closed, Comm,. 'Horc'iza moved t0', approve 'the , re'stbratlon and recommend to the City Council than. the Coca -Cola sign be r,epainted•and- designated as an historic landmark. The.motion was seconded by Comm. Daly... AYES 5 NOES 0 ABSENT 2 AMENDMENT TO Comm.. Da1y," , moved to' amend- said` ordinance: to eliminate the; CITY OF;PETALUMA need for Planning Commission Yeyiew and certification of SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE: final subdivision map' §. 'The motion was seconed by Comm. NO. 1046 1NCS Harb.erson,. AYES 5 NOES 0 ; ABSENT 2 ADJOURNMENT: There being no further „business, the meeting adj oui7 ed at 10:15 - Chairman - Attest: �-� �°•rC.