Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 08/02/19779 C MM-13 - sion PETALUMA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST.2, 1977 REGULAR MEETING T.3 "0 P'. M. " CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA The Planning Commission encourages applicants or their representative to be available at the meetings to answer questions, so that no agenda: items need be deferred to a later date due to a 'lack of :pertinept information. PLEDG)E ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG .ROLL CALL: Comm. Balshaw, Head Horcza Lavin Shearer Waite Wright STAFF: ! Fred E. Tarr and Wayne Rasmussen Planning Staff APPROVAL OF MINUTES: CORRESPONDENCE: • CONSENT CALENDAR: GOLDEN LAND REALTY E. I.. Q. Evaluation and ';Site Design Review for a 'p'roposed off ice expansion to be located at 501 East i Washington Street. SKIP SOMMER-- E.I.Q. 1 <. Hearing to evaluate the Environmental Impact EVALUATION /SITE DESIGN Questionnaire fora .proposal to move the residence REVIEW: located at 108 Petaluma Blvd South to 1 C Street _ i for the purpose of a. retail sl-iop conversion. 2: Site Design Review.of the project. STREET NAME CHANGE'- Public Hearing to consider ,a request to change the FRATES ROAD TO CADER name of Frates Road southwest of Lakeville'H-ighway LANE: to Cadet Lane LA FRANCHI,BETTINELLI, 1. Public Hearing to consider variance requests for MICKELSEN &-HIRSHFIELD/ a.reduced front yard setback and an excessive lot VARIANCE, /(SITE DESIGN: coverage. 2. Site Design Review for a proposed law office to be located at 205 Keller Street. Ll 4 PETALUMA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, AGENDA. "AUGUST 2,­1977" ,MIKE OSTRWER 1... Publ-ic Hearing ,'to 4 4" lu t e the" Q. Impact 'Questionnaire - for, a proposed '.recreation USE PERMIT /.SITE dev6l to 'be 16cated at 87 Corona ona - I Road ' S DE I-ON''.1EVIEW.: between, Petaluma: Blvd.N and the Freeway. 2. Public Hearing to consider a Use Permit application. for the proposed project. .3. SitelDesign Review consideration of the project. CONVENIENCE -MARKETS AND 1. FAST FOOD: RESTAURANTS- E.T.Q. EVAL"U'A'T'-I,O,N/Z,ON.1N ORDTNANCE;AMENDMENT: 2. 80NOMA-MARIN. F,-AIRGROUNVS'_ 1 E-.L.Q. EVALUATION/ USE - PERMIT: Public Hearing to evaluate the Environmental. Impact' Questionnaire 7,for a proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment designed to reduce the he enviro' nmental impacts created by convenience markets and fast-food restaurants. Public 'Hearing to consider the proposed -Ordinance Amendments. Public: 'Hdaring to evaluate the'Environmental Impact Questionnaire for a proposed Use Permit to allow va.-rious uses at the Sonoma-Marin Fairgrounds. Public Hearing to consider 'a request for a Use Permit forEon:oma.-Marin Fairgrounds. DR. GLENN'KOBY-E_I, 1. Hearing to evaluate the Environmental Impact EVALUATION/SITE DESIGN Questionnaire` for a proposed medic of "'ce to be REVIEW: lopla•ted' at 124 Howard. Street. 1 2. Site Design Review of the project. COMMITTEE REPRESENTATIVES: ADJOURNMENT: Historic & Cultural : Preservation Committee,: Subdivision Committee; W F ,y. ' M I U'T' -E S PETALUMA CITY .PLANNING COMMI'SSI.ON AUGUST` - 2,. 1977 REGULAR. MEETING 7 30 CITY .COUNCIL• CHAMBERS, 'CITY :HALL PETALUMA, .CAL-IFORNIA PRESENT: Comm. B'alshaw; Horciza'' Lavin' *, Stiear'er Waite, Wright I ( *Arrived at 7."37 p.m. ABSENT:j Comm. Head STAFF:; Fred. E. Tarr, Associate Planner Wayne P. Rasmussen,'Assi.stant Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of the meetin.gs July 19 and July 26, 1977., were approved - as submitted. CORRESPONDENCE: None. Comm. Wright stated' that 'Item 2 Skip Sommer,`would be placed on the Consent ,Ca'lendar as all s te' design conditions had been resolved by staff and the Architectural and Site Design Committee. ,Comm. Wright indicated that,a request had been received from W. R. Hilligoss . a odificat.ion to Site-Design which was approved by the Planning Commis- sionon,March 15, 1977, It was t_he genera conc'ensus that this item be -con- sidered; and placed at the- efid of . the agenda. CONSENT CALENDAR The motion was made,'b)T Comm. H0tc1za,. seconded by Comm. Shearer to approve Items:l and 2. Motion was carried unanimously. Agenda Item #1 Agenda Item #2 STREET'.NAME CHANGE - FRATES :ROAD TO:. CADER LANE: i .r Golden Land Realty, Negative Declaration and Site De sign'Res.. 5..479 approving an office expansion at 501 East Washington.Street Skip Sommer,• Negative Declaration and. Site Design Res. 5.'57'8. approving the proposal to move the residence lo- cated,at�1'08 Petaluma Blvd. 'South. to 1. "C" Street for tb.e.purpose of •a retail shop conversion. Mr. .Tarr explained the request to change the name of. that portion of Frat'es Road located southwest of Lake ville Highway, to Cader Lane. The Publi.,c; Hearing to consider the name change was opened,e Edna Cader Budde stated-that for some time this portion oaf. road was, designated as Cader Road. or Lane and,sh.e would .like it officially changed to Cader Lane. -The Public Hearing was closed. P'iF_ 61,ty, PlannihR Commission. Minutes Aug:�st -.2,, 1977 Mr-,. Tarr stated: that, the: -,street_ name­ varies i on - -some , 6f... the-.. maps, and,, t1fe : i reqliesv for a- -change -` to CAder • Lane k is. mostly for clarity purposes,". C bmm: _ Sheare' stated. is less confusing when, an.-extended. street, lases the. -aame.- name gave as an example- the downt 'where the- street- on the southerly. side - Western ,Avenue as, known as Fburth_ Street ands on the northerly sidiEie"KentL , i , cky..., Street., Mt. Tarr ex plaited that the- P.Ort-ibn of Fr at-8s-. Road requested ~, tov 15et changed, to Cader Lane deadends -at p•i'vat and, there- Lsz ve -- littl-' e: Y. . � p.p1t­e#_t.iA,l that. i will be extended,, and. the street names ­changet el.iininatet• the problem of. looking f . or addresses,, Comm;.. Hb-rciza st-a-ted chdracter,1 of Fr Road east -and west are. quite 1dif ferent as they are, separated " by a: ma yor 1 , highway- and. F•rates• Road probably, some day be!, develop,ed,.. Comm., '11o.ri: moved �e6ommend.. to the City C I 6unci1 - that Fratesz Road, isouthwest- of Lakevid Highway be. renamed - within: the city: limits- to Cader. Eane- The . motion _was l seconded by' Comm. Waite- AYE 6 NOES- 0 ABSENT' I-" LAFRANCHI.,, ZETT.INE Mr. Rasmussen explained the request o.f.. La1-- M & fnRSHFa'ELD:/ Mickels'en and Hirshfield. to, allow- for. two additional.- VARIANCE /SITE.. DESIGN.*+ variances and, .consideration_ for-. as. si design. rev iew of (CONTINUED) a. proposed- professional.-officei buAd­ ng-.- to ;,be. lozated at 205; K'e1 Street., The •covered- front- , entrance;; -o" the-'bu,ildin&- projects:- several feet into the 28 -, -­ f eet. -and e� .. �th structur,& covers 557.+ of the rectangu•ar; shapedjot., The site .design. conditions­ were discuss�dd. Xtz. Rasmussen- indl Cbn-7-' d•it-16n. #3•'wot11d lie deleted: -Commsi. Ba:.rshaw- commented orr, th& approved:- street trees•. they are more ' 10-e�!shr ubs and. trees should. ber required that g]:9V to 25. or feet.-.. Mr.. Rasmussen. stated- that the fl. owerih t e�w had..'beew.. e su ggeste d for . thus protect: as'.. it, is common to the.• area- and. 'would have- some visi. ef-f ect. , Comm. lforc-fza, sai the• flowering, pt1.um tree - does= not: get too�. big, about` N' or 30' f:eet_ Mr. -Rasmussen stated. there;. is. only a certain; tree, that .•can. bet , p1ante:d -in, the!- 4-f6ot, planter. st-rip and- certain tree:s� that can: 15e plaiited: f ut: :tfi&r back on., the -property Comm-. Balshaw• commented th-ks- isz, a 39- foot, high building, an& small. trees would, not- be. suitable. He su•geste& changing the City. tree list to 'permit- .only street trees: that grow. 20' or 3.0 Eeet. com'm!-. 'Shearer qpestiohed , if` the alley roadway would. be- repa-ift,e&. under - 0 d c it P_ F ion.. A!. 'Mr.. Tarr stated the - alley actually bad.. been improved... up to° the driv ex4av, and,- the. applicant is -:not: required to improve the-- 411ey- up. to the property,. Matt Hudson. stated, the­ alley. will be- improved -to the---property a with the driveway to the • property which wi Il- b& brought- Lip g-_raA:6. - the: alley,. The. PUt11& Hearing, was reopeneTd.to consider the. variance.:. requests: Mr.. Hudson,, attorney with the; firm of t,af rAnchil Mibkelsen & Hirshf ield-. referred' to the' f ront yard which would normally be 20 f eet. Average = setback. require-- ments are taken,a-IOng the street, in this case 18 fe which acbouot-s; for- the. ;187'fbOt setb He 'then re'ferred to ihe­.statement: that the 'land- waa being - &eve1oped, - beyond. its' capacity. Froze the beginning_ of, the =_ projfqct the- architect and owners- -have; alttempted_to comply with their own, and- they city - staf des-ires- to'. have ' a-. building, that is. pleasing sing,. ia, the.•eye: and, fits- into, the. -2" Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, August 2, 1977 neighborhood, The front yard setback pertains to the 14 feet along the front •which is -the •porch making the 'setback 15 feet .f-rom 'the 1o,t line, instead of '18 feet; the balancei of the building is,appr.oxima'tely 2.0 feet:. There are decks across, the western side above the retaining wall and a deck over the covered parking area.. There is about: 6'75" :square feet of area for the decks, most of which; landscaping underneath, The oth6rl as "pect,:Mr'.. Hudson continued, i:s. that 325 square feet of the.covered area-is-landscaped. provides parking underneath for..the - building... Mr-. Leb.:stated this is a - unique design but• the;, applicants are being penalized by.some interpretations of 'shaded areas of the•, Zonin&,Ord1nance. Mr. Hudson stated that the total of� the areas outside the walls of the structure are 675 square that for under decks,. 325 -square fe'e for under the building, but° land - scape, and 250 square feet for the area under the p.'enthouse for a total of 1- ,250 feet;,. When this its deducted from the total area -the total lot. coverage is under 55/ ,The code sti.pulates that the :Planning "Director -, by 'Sofatheemaximum,.lot ca n co•vera e. allowed which shows limi five (5) percent in excess g 'th.e .degree of latitude permitted. The project was°first revi,ewed'by the City in 1976 for rezoning of the.parcel and at that time, the plan was presented to the staff and was met i with. acceptance. Mr.. Hudson further explained 'tha;t. 'the property is surrounded on one side by the modern Sierra Bank and' on the'other - .by a neighborhood.'Victor.ian house. At the ' time of rezoning, the primary design concern was to blend with the Sierra Bank on one1,side and the Victorian residence on`the` other'side and this accounts for the proi°ect-des and lot coverage, 'Mr. Hudson ind-icated that the structure is located within the, parking; assessment .district' so :no,' parking spaces-are. required, 'The owners and architect have attempted to; provide parking. suffi- cient to assist both the 'applicants. of the building and the clients, plus the fact the.parki.ng assessment .district has f'afl:ed to provide parking in the area, Mr.; Hud's'on - quoted Section 26 -303 of the Zoning Ordinance Conditions necessary for a 'Variance: He stated :the. Commission is empowered. and directed to take these things into consideration and add -a human touch to the strict interpreta- tiron of the law. He quoted !Secton of the-ordinance which provides that (l) peculiar and unusual conditions inherent the -property must be suf f "ic ent to - .cause a hardship. Mr. Hudson explained that this property is bounded on one side by an alley and therefore pre'sent's a.unique design pr oblem in itself,, probably because of the issues .of egress and ingress:. .'There s no 'parking for commercial use even though it is in an assessment district and is then believed to be an unusual circumstance. The slope of :the' lot is substantial ,The alley itself is higher than the.lot. Ther,e•is a,'distinct slope which contributed to the design prob- lems. Mr. Hudson indicated that another peculiar and unusual condition is the fact that this is a transition piece b etween a fairly modern commercial area, and very old and, stately residential area.. This presented one of the principle problems both from the ;staf *f' and, the archi.tect's point 'of view. It wa`s the intent ! 'to. design a build - ng; that made the transition in a good looking .fashion and also provided .a usable,•commercial area. Comm. .Wright- explained that. the commi,s's'io,n had to make these four findings. He questioned what the.slope of the lot had to do with. front yard setback? -3- Petaluma.-City Planning Commission Minutes, August 2 1977 Mr. Hudson stated the principle thing is the:bui_lditg its .elf'; 11 p the need for lot - coverage and the. slope to the rear of the -,.property -col'WelIed -.its • location. The- size of the building was ,bas'ically' handled*Aby . asking ; l '.�.the . rear yard, setback,. He added that If the porch ,was not covered - it. , wodipd. - .mot be .a.-violation of•the Z , Mr., Hudson rzferred to f indin g that the 'har -must.. - .pe'cullar 't'o ..p-erty '. and nok created by an act :of , the owner. Mt. "Hudson, exiikaIned that­th'e alley 'has been there for a& long- as anyone, can remember. -The slope is r,pr:e existing and makes difficult to .develop for commercial purposes., Mr. Hudson refeXred to finding (3) -that variance, is necessary " the.,pr­eser- vat-ion, and enj oyment - of substantial property rights' possessed "by other 1properties in the same 'zoning, district and :in the, vicinity and that.. the - var - ianc'e �.wauld mot constitute .a., special privilege, of the rec&pieh. t not enjoyed - by°li.1 - s- - ne - i."ghbo�r�s. Mt,. Hudson, explained - that one of the substantial. property rights A . the��ef ft .- dent, use of land for off­iqe And, commercial use without - being ,penalized ?for buyiqg,,parking.underneath It., There is not sufficient park-ing in - the neiah- b and, I'm, order.: to- provide" parking, for users :and clients 6f '..the building solution, was-• to provide, parking under a substantial -portion of, the!'building. Comm. Wright. questioned what criteria was us,ed to determine the, set ments? Mr. Rasmussen stated the -criteria used was to take 'an average_o.'f°.the front! setbacks of: properties ;on either side of the subs ec_it - lot ..which.. IncIuded ;t he Victorian House-which has a setback of 16 feet and.., the 'STEer-ra_ vihlch has a setback of 20 .f eet., • 'Mn.-"Hud son :quoted- finding (4) that - the. variance shall create * 1 no, sub.stantial. detriment- to' Adjacent property - nor will it..materially Ampair_ t-he purpose o the ordinance. ox the -publ-ic interest Mr'. Hudson explained . the - applicant .,dis, with the staff in that - the. 'structure does not materidlly.Imp-dir the 6rdi-na:ftce. The .f rorit-yard.: setback has th along, the, frontage, exc or a. more than, been :complied wi 'EiXC - •14-foot pqrc `The Porch would - .have been -permitted except that it :-is _covered,. . ' I I Dick. Li:eb,, Atchiteot,, stat-ed. the lan"d'scqp. in g . • gLve.Ihe Il'lusion' -.61.i,open-: .space. Landscaping is p,rovi&ed -.under,, the buil the..' arking, are'a, - is landscaped. The - subj-ect porch-is :a .minor thing as. the• pr-6j-ect- has lot-Hof%.- ope�n-- going•for it. Some of , the minor situations have. been "zeroed in on .by staff W4yne,. Rasmussen, stated the Planning Director. -indicated there 'are no; . for granting these varian.ce.8, and it is not .;a, simple .. that can be t ' o -him,6 . .The building cove : approxim�Ytely' 55%, Hof the lot-and, - the' cantilevered � deck _ ;a bout 1/3 of the area.which is in 'Mr.,-.Rasmug added that .the, applicant of -the Eront• wall back., 3 fleet -And- there would .,.be no variances necessary-. Mr.. Hudson ;stated that, a variance creates fto - to anyone.; The. app'11- daht .is ;asking for their rights and not-any special considerations -.under thel 'Zoning-Orditance. Max kickdlsen •ttorney; stated -the, design on this' lot has ipres'etitedl p rbblems f rom the, time Ithe• project was f irst considered. -4- Petaluma City , Planning, Commission Minutes-, August 2., ;1977 ,• Comm. Wright questioned why the building was designed - that the applicant�-had to apply for so many variances? Mr. Hudson explained they wanted a building that is pleasing to the• eye,. ' The lot has some problems such' as the slope± of the land; the steep-alley-,and the parking area being lower than the alleyway. Mr. Lieb explained one main blending, feature in the,-project is the landscaping. The deck is: not protruding ..out as far as the Zoning Ordinance would permit. The building have . been drawn smaller. We have.a peculiar situation and perhaps the. Commission can.. make, the findings that would p.ermit'these variances. Each variance has its' own leg to stand on. Comm Balshaw indicated he could n.ot make the four findings. Mr. Miikelsen then stated that the exact same building and lot - coverage was vieweF]by staff and the- Commission for rezoning a year ago. The architect did not know about the inside layout until the outside dimensions had been viewed. We have been led down.the primrose path,. We were led to believe that last year when the Planning Commission. and City Council' had seen the they had approved the conc;eptoal The Heritage Homes "and the neighbors are in favor ;of the proposed building. Comm. Vaite,questioned•if the 3 feet is important and if the interior would. have to be redesigned'? Mr. Hudson explained the 3 -foot ,setback is important as there '. °s a 14 -foot porch -arid there would have. to be a. ete re- design of the interior building. Comm. HOrciza suggested taking; off the first 3 feet of the building, thereby reducing the building down to 'S0 % -. The:front yard setback would be met at the same time„ and the rooms could adjusted to coin - cide. Mr. Hudson took some 'exce p t on on what it would entail to-:redesign the build - ing. :In his opinion, these were minor.' variances in .comparison with the rear yard variance granted at the last Commission meeting Fred S, representing Committee,, commented that chram re resentin the Historic and Cultural someone had the insight to do, something nice for the community. The project could' be chopped down- if the 3 -foot: variance is not 'granted. He behooved the si Commison. to view new' design that would .'b6 an, asset to the down- town area. :Comm. Shearer questioned if the decking was not considered would .1he` project then be within 50 %? Mr. Rasmussen explained the .building coverage would then be about - 53 %, The Public Hearing was closed. t. Comm. Wright. stayed he f ound it d'if f iculr :to find the;. four .conditions required but that we are talking about ,a' diminuous situation that 'coul'd - fit into ario'the_r category. Comm. Horciza explained that the 5 -foot rear yard variance previously granted provided a tremendous advantage to the applicant:. Now the Commission is faced with the problem of excess .lot . coverage ,and a proj ec't:iori towards the front of . .the property.of 3 feet. It would be very difficult' to make the four - findings. It would make it difficult 'for the staff to enforce the Zoning Ordinance and for the. Commission to exiforce if these variances are'approved. -5 Petaluma C t Planniri Commission Minutes,, Au ust y g g 1 Comm. Lavin tat`ed it is difficult .to .rationalize tine ent'r :e icoVerage o`f 'the lot. If ,these. exceptions, are made we would be, setting a iprece, ence awl en io.tl er items ,com'e before the ..'Commission Comm :B'alshaw .moved to deny the = variance requests to : allow: for .:a .r : educ`ed' front. yard setback and an excessive 'lot, - coverage, _far the proj.ec:t .wi- th__'.the ;cond :tion , tfiat the percent 'of the total .',site area covered. by structures, :openi..or encl'o'sed•„ excluding uncovered steps, patio's,, .terraces and balzonieq shall not' : exceed All. The motion was seconded -by - Comm. AYES 4 NOES 2 ABSENT a Mr ; Raasmussen stated. the .applicant -had 10 days within which to .appeal .th'e denial.' Comm. _Horciz'a, .moved to approve .the. site. design for the proposed project - ..with. conditions .of approval as recommended 'by `the..st'af:f and modified ,by the .Arch- tectural, and' Site Design Review Committee with the - following - c • hanges:, 43 - this condition shay -1, be deleted.. change this condition to .;read,: ..Thr.ee (3), ,city ap- proved str -eet trees:. halA be planted .along the sidewalk as. indicated - in - Exhibit "A". The motion was,s'econd'ed.by Comm. Lavin. AYES 6 NOES 0_ ABSENT `1 MIKE' QSTRANDER Mr.. ;Tars exp :-laned the .,request of Mike Ostrander for a E. I-: Q,.- .EVALUATION /_ Quasi - Public :recreational - facility 'to be located at `&T Corona Road'., between the Petaluma : Ruer..and the E:r:ee.- DESIGN REVI_EW,: way-., 'The fact li�ty would 'consist of tennis - and` racquet 'ball court s, .a sci mm' pool, weight training facili ties„ saunas, s;teambaths, and. a self- serving snack bar,. The is4te covers' - acr`es and the 27 -foot. `high modi'f'ied Spanish. +style building •coven's approximately 10., 031 `square ,f ee;t �of` area,. The Public Hear,ig; was opened to .consider the Environmental Im_p,dct.`Question naive.. No comments-were o'ffere'd .from ;the. audience -and the Public Hearing ,was closed. Comm. ;Horciza moved-to direct t Planning : ' Director '.to' -,pr:epare and post a , :Negative.'Dec`lar:ation for the project. T :motion was : by- Comm:: Bat- shave. AYES, .6 NOES 0 ABSENT, a The Public Hearing was opened, to consider the Use Permit:. Comm . °Wr,ight ex- plained ,the °racq:uetbal' "1 courts would located . inside the building and there would' :be quite a of, lawn area around .the buildings,. 'Mr. Rasmussen s,t'ated the alone attractive uses would 'be viewed from the f.re.eway and, there .'would ..be a Petaluma City Planning Comm ssion.Minutes, August 2, 1977 scattered .landscaping as far''as' the picnic areas.. . `Joe Pisciotta, architect,, stated there is ..a parcel between the subject property, and the river. The. applicant had no-objec'tion.to "the conditions of' the Use -Permit or the Site Design Review; Comm.. ,H_orciza moved to grant the Use-Permit to-allow for a• Quasi- Public recrea- tional• facility.. The motion was seconded by Comm.,Balshaw. AYES 6 NOES 0 'ABSENT 1 Comm. ';Horciza moved to approve the site d`es gn`for t_le proposed project with conditions of approval. as recommended by the staaff and concurred with by the , Architectural & Site Design Review�Comm ttee"with the following changes: Condition, # - Delete The motion :was seconded by Comm. Balshaw. Ayes 6 NOES 0 ABSENT 1 W. "R. HILLIGOSS- Mr:. Tarr explained the Site Design,approved on March. MODIFIED SITE" .15, 19;77;, was for :a trailer sales and car sales lot DES'IGN`.REVIEW: located at-the corner of Petroleum Avenue and Lakeville ; Access to the' pro y at for the sale of trailers and modular homes. property ,,.y the time he original site design was sub - mitted;,was to be provided by two roads off tak:eville- Highway and one'at the corner'bf Petroleum Avenue.. I'f acces's to the site'was provided by way of Petroleum Avenue.' th& applicant was required to construct half - street improve- ments al.ong Petroleum Avenue.. A modifcation.is' being , requested to allow for entrance from the existing encroachment where there Is an existing driveway. Comm. Horc'iza i.ndicat -ed, that the landscaping could not across the entire.frontag of the property as the home is now occupied by Dan Riordan. Comm. Horciza moved to approve access to the property by way of the existing driveway, and a.10 -foot wide strip of landscaping along the Lakeville Highway frontage of the lot be . provided when an expansion. ,of, the sales lot takes place . where the house 1s now located. The motion was 'seconded by Comm. Waite. AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT 1 CONVENIENCE`MARktTS & FAST.FOOD RESTAURANTS - E.I.Q.. EVALUATION/ ZONING,ORDINANCE AMENDMENT: The Public Hearing was naive and the proposed Fast Food Restaur-antts. an adjourned meeting o Fred Schram,, Chambe' of Commerce, stated that the Chamber of Commerce is interested in items 'that effect the community, He indicated - that the Chamber of Com- merce committee would like more time to "study the report and asked for a continuance. opened to consider the Environmental Impact Question - Ordinance Amendments for the Convenience Markets and It was the concensus that this item be rescheduled to z August 23, 19 at 7 :30 p.m, -7- Petaluma Q11Y P 'Commission Minutes, August 19`77 'aI� SbN.OMA-MARIN' The- Public HearIA&V as opene to -consider th6 Efiviron, le, FAIRGROUNDS-E.I_ Q. mental Impact Ques.tibnnAf-e and tle re q_ u est - f or - a ,',Us e- EVALUATION/USE Perimit to allow for various uses. at the. =PERMIT: Fairgrou'Ads, This­ matter - will. be continued- at"t'he regular meeting of-August. 16, 1977., a-t. 7! p;. m. COMMITTEE Comm. Wright appointed'the ',f ollowing, as REPRESENTATIVES'!': coinmittee rep resentatives Historic .&Cultural Preservation Commit-tee Comm. Horciz:a znd 'Comm, Lavin, 'Subdivision Commfttiae;; Comm. Waite S+ to DesiRn 'Review Committee;: Comm, Shearer and Comm. Head. OTHER . BUSINESS: Comm. BaIshaw informed the CominI.asibner& of two, items that . had. come before the City Co.unc-U.. 1) Commissioner Balshaw. had_ind'.icated, to the City Councji that they would have: to make a policy decision very zhortly in regard to the Petaluma -Skypark Airpo.ic"t and the. proposed r'esidentlal developments:along Ely Blvd Sbut, :, The City Council, elett-ed - to set u 'a..citi com .'attee for* the housing allocation 'There would possibly be- a ,request for one commissioner, t on the board: ADJOURNMENT.• There being - no f urthet busines&, the. meeting- adliourned. at 10 :.20 P.: m: Chairman . Attest,: