Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 05/06/1975,MARGARET, ZIEGLER, THE , -SHOP1­ USE • RMIT & SITE DESIGN REVIEW,: " - Public;.Heaiing to consider a Use Permit to allow the conversion 11 b of',a portion ex nonconforming 5-unit residential , f an : exis s tructure _4 in 4 C-H" District to an interior decorating business ;by changing :two oi.thd downstairs units in the front, and site design review.for the proposed conversion. A, E N D -A �-JUTALUMA, "PLANNING..COMMISSI@N MAY 6, 1975 GULAR - MUtIrk 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL 'CHAMBERS; CITY HALL PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO ' _THE FLAG ROLL CALL: Comm: Bdlshaw 'Bond �Horciza Matter 'POPP -twatetsd Hilligbs' STAFF; G Frank B. iGray b!_ q c`tbr, of Qonimunity j Tarr, Associate Plinne'r APPROVAL OF' MINUTES -CORRESPONDENCE CONSENT CALENDAR:' 1) Dn' David, N61'es Site design review consideration f or .chiropractic office and proposed. chi rental area to be located at 7091711 Petaluma-•Blvd. North., • 2) Kenneth-Johnsoh - Site de review consideration for a proposed trip•ex'to be located at 100/104/108 High Street.. 3) James' Hopkins.., - Site '.design: 'review consideration for a • proposed duplex to be locAted,at 718 "H" Street. SONOMA COUNTY REFERRAL: R:e_v iew,l of pri to Corona Road from Petaluma Boulevard, North. to, ' U.S. Highway 101. WASHINGTON PROFESSIONAL -Considerationof phasingscheciule;for the proposed Washington PARK -'PHASING;, Profession�al Park to be located at the southeast corner of S CHEDULE ;; s ga.' � t Vaj. hfn34td,fi Stteret and Ely Blvd. South. "D" STREET PLAZA Continuation of EIQ consideration of app" lication by ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT o,al for the "D" Street Plaza' Robier-t. F. Carmody f 11 or 4 r6 s' p ,, p QUESTIONNAIRE consisting, of a 7-Eleven Fbodstot&`and *space for additional EVALUATION: f retail stores to be at 1:22 Petaluma Blvd. South. GREENBRIAKUNIT 2, 'Consideration of the amended Final Map for Greenbriar. PHASE III AMENDED - ' -ion Unit 2, ,Phase III submitted by Qantas Development. FINAL MAP: Corporation_- ,MARGARET, ZIEGLER, THE , -SHOP1­ USE • RMIT & SITE DESIGN REVIEW,: " - Public;.Heaiing to consider a Use Permit to allow the conversion 11 b of',a portion ex nonconforming 5-unit residential , f an : exis s tructure _4 in 4 C-H" District to an interior decorating business ;by changing :two oi.thd downstairs units in the front, and site design review.for the proposed conversion. Petaluma City Planning Commission Agenda, May 6, 1975 MCDOWELL PARK' - U.SE Public. Hearing. to consider, a Use Permit; to a11owth u`se PERMIT & S'.I °TE 'DES:I'.GN City -owned land for park and:; recreat'ional,pu - .rpos - 'including FOR PROPOSED STORAGE a.L ,t 1e, League baseball'feld and., appurtenant structures,,, UNIT: v �.4 arid' site design review f.or the.,prop6se:d Little League storage unit. CITY OF P- ETALUMA - Hearing d_er a Use Permit for; ,the Gity Hall / Public Hearin to cons, PERMTT & SITE, DESIGN. County facilities to allow an addition to ,the existang Police ,USE REVIEW FOR:PROPQSED Station building at 22 Bassett Street -and 'site design •rev POLICE DEPARTMENT G for the proposed addition.-, ADDITION,: NORM NIELS>EN�, ET AL - Public Hearing to consider -the rezoning application .submitted REZONING: by Norm Nielsen,, et al to rezone approximately one "acre located at .61 Magnolia Avenue from.a C -H District to a R -M -G District. ELY ROAD - STREET Public Hearing to recommending to the City :Council to NAME CHANGE: rename the po;r.tions of Ely Road within. the City',liinias to El' Boulevard-North and'.Ely;Boulevard South, respectively; and`als;o to consider recommending to he; City Counc, %1 that= they request ' the Sonoma County - Planning, Commis's'ion and 'B. oard., of Supervis',ors to take the appropriate.action'to•rename the portions of Ely Road in .the County to Ely Boulevard South and Ely Boulevard North, resp.ectively.. .ZONING '09DI -NANCE Public ,Hearing to consider the annual amendments to ,Zoning AMENDMENTS' Ordinance No'. 10,72• N.C,.S. • CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL ,Consideration of ,LAF City- Council Planning Policy Committee.' recommendations for the proposed new standards for"'_the evaluation, of spheres of influence. REPORT REGARDING 'Progress report to the- Commission regarding the',Troudy Lane HOSPITAL SIITE,; hospital site study. ADJOURNMENT MI.N.UTES,, P.ETALUMA CITY, PLANNING , COMMISS;ION May. 6., 1975 REGULAR MEETING 7:,30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS,. CITY HALL PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA PRESENT: Comm. Bals Bond, Hilligoss, Mattei,:Pop.p,,.Waters ABSENT,;. Horca{ ^ za STAFF: "Frank B. Gray, Director of Community Development; Fred E,. ,Tarr, Associate Planner r APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The of April 15,, 1975, were 'approved as submitted. CORRESPONDENCE: 1) Mr,. Gray advised that.'the'City Council had tentatively ap proved funding for Commissioners Bond, Balshaw, and Horciza, to attend. the Short Course for Planning Commissioners. '..2), A. letter addressed to the City Manager from the North.Marin Water''Dist-'Di was -read which related to land use planning concerns.in the open space corridor separating Petaluma and N.ovato,. Mr'. Gray advised that he had contact LAFCO, who wished to set up a meeting of City Councils and Planning Commis'si'ons from Novato,, Petaluma, Marin County, and Sonoma County herein the Council Chambers. He advised that more information and a date will be Turn_ shed later. Councilman.,�Mattei advised .of a 'meeting on May 24th, in Santa Rosa, . , here all the. cities - in. the County and .the County were going to discuss tle.S'onoma County General Plan and its.' effect on, the, cities. He encouraged all Planning, Commis- sioners: to.' attend if possible Mr.. Gray advised that he-was uncertain as to the.p,'lace and time, but more information would, be ; forwarded °to the .Commission. CONSENT CALE.NDAk: 1 ) Dr. David Noles = Site design review consideration for pro - posed, chiropractic office and "rental.area to. be located at i 70.9/711 Petaluma Blvd'•, North,,. 2) Kenneth Jobnson Site design review consideration for a proposed triplex to be located at 100 /104 /108. 'High Street. 3) James, Hopkins - Site design, review consideration for a pro- posed duplex to be located at 718 " H " Street 'It- was no;red that the Architectural and Site Design Review, Com- mittee had met and considered the above projects,.. Their recom- mendation' was f'or approval with conditions as "stated in the staff Petaluma City Planning Corrimis,sion Minutes,, May 6, 1975 report.. Comm,. Balshaw made a motion.'f,or'app.r.oval of the Consent Calendar items. The motion was seconded "by Comm. 'Popp., AYES 6 NOES t ABSENT 1 SONOMA COUNTY 1'). Corona Road Improvement's: -.,Mr. G "ray, advised that the County REFERRALS': wished to know if the City has comments regarding the' proposed alignment. of Corona-Road :from Petaluma Boulevard N6rth to U.S. Highway 101. The proposed plans were displayed for the Commissioners . Mr. Gray briefly explained the plans and stated that the. - alignment appeared "be lo,gical., The Commission had no adverse comments, +, o ..'fifer 2,) 'Louis,Anthony Magliulo - Use Permit :application to:allow a g g g P� Redwood Highway-!Q'1 snack bar, etc. at 54`:95. .. . Mr. Gray explained the proposal and briefly reviewed the staff report. It was noted that .the, City's General Plan designated this area. for :rural /agricultural /open space type development. D.iscuss.on followed,. during which the Commis- sioners voiced their opposition 'to commercial development.in this' corridor 'between Novato and Petaluma ;, They also. felt *� that since this was the first recent' proposed commercial development in this corridor it . might : tend to` set a prece- dent. It was sugges't'ed that the people living in this area be contacted .for. their opinion on `the matter... The general consensus of the Commission was that; they would like to have the corridor area between Petaluma and Novato, remain -in. agricultural uses. Comm. Balshaw made, a: motion to ;foxward a- letter to the Sonoma County Board of. 'Zoning Adfus,tments opposing the Use Permit= application for the above reasons. The motion was. second'ed'- by Comma :Popp. AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT 1 The question arose as whether. the City. would have the right to appeal to the Board of Supervisors if the project was approved. Mr. Gray said 'he believed that the City would have the ,right to appeal,, °since they are an interested : party. WASHINGTON PROFESSIONAL PARK - `PHASING S'CHEDUIE' : The Commgsion was advised that the .required phasing schedule for the proposed- Washington Pxofessi.onal Park had not :been submitted for review. Comm. Waters therefore made the motion t& continue -2- Petaluma City' Planning, Commission Minutes,' May 6;, 1975 ;this,matt -er until the,next regular scheduled.,meeting.. The motion was seconded, by Comml ; . Popp. t AYES 6 NOES O ABSENT -.1 "D" STREET The revised staff - report was•briefly reviewed and the concerns of. ENVIRONMENTAL the reviewing agencies and the environmental aspects. of the IMPACT QUESTIONNAIRE proj ect 'noted.. The Commission was informed that action 'to be EVALUATION: taken would -be to either recommend that a Negati=ve Declaration be -p p aced ;or determ that an EIR was considered to be necessary. re The question was raised as, to. how. the sale of alcoholic beverages t and security problems would enter into the.EIQ,cons'iderations. 'Mr Gray advised these aspec=ts would.have to be considered,, since the Commis "son was requir_ed to look at the effect of the project .'on the community. He further ,advised that the. Commission would have to determine if, sufficient information was available for them,to make a_-decision on the :site design review. Comm.•Mat.tei informed the Commission that he :felt the project should be considered favorably, since it was a permtted.use in the C -C District. He added that if pr0 ject were not approved, it should be clarified what would be for this site. A great deal of dis followed with regard to the possible ses.. of the :rental areas and a det ermination of heir effect on u the traffic -pat The accuracy of the figures indicated in r the 'traffic analysis tel to-the- tojected traffic from the site- was also ques.tioned.. Mr, Gray advised that the applicant 'had stated possible tenants could be .a barber shop and dry cleaners. Comm, Bond did 'ndt feel it would be pos,srble to evaluate the total impact zon the community H. the future tenants were not known. Comm. `Balshaw stated he felt, the City Engineer should` fur -i7 a more concise evaluation of the projected 88 cars during the ;peak, sttreet hour-, and advise if the traffic could or could not actually be handled,., *He also suggested°.recommending to.the City Council that an aldoholic,license` not be granted for the proposed 7- Eleven Food S'tor,e.in this location. Mr. Gray advised that', We understood that the: A. B. C:�did not have any regulation against sale of alcoholic beverages next to 'a park, but that the concern of "the City would be taken into consideration. by that, Commission. The.. Planning Commission was also advised that a corrected and o mre detailed' traf f ic analysis could be required; an analysis could be made consderiing the. highest use of the site; or an interpretation could be requested from the City Engineer as to . what- amount'of traffic could actually be handled. -3- Petaluma City Planning;Gommission Minutes, May 6, 1975 Lt. 'Wagner of the .Police Department addressed the Commission in„ opposition. to the •pr :oposed project. He', stated that the sale of alcoholic beverages adjacent to the park would cause additional patrolling by police and clean -up by other staff,_ plus addit- tional surveillance because of the 24- hour -a -day, operation. . Wagner also advised that. t'Was critical to keep, this' nter.sec tion ,open. because of the Fire Department,.ambulance located a.. block away. He was . questioned- regarding problems with 'the eX -. isting 7= Eleven Food Stores and advised that the new store, recently had at armed robbery, Lt. Wagner added that.,. although it was pols obtain off -sale liquor elsewhere in. the vicinity, the close proximity to the park was his concern... Chairman Hi:lligoss asked for comments from thel audience. A member of the audience residing in the area spoke in op.po.stion to the proj.ec,t,, basing.her opposition on the sale of alcoholic . beverages so close to.a park, which was: also a children's play- g:r,ound. She also felt that" the .park would, have to be, patrolled at night,,.and thus draw policemen from-other duties. She c- lari fie.d that she would not object "to the :project if alcohol was not, sold, and advised that a petition. was being circulated: in oppo- siton to the project. The applicant,••Mr. Carmody, addressed the Commission with regard • to the traffic analysis and, stated, his willingness 'to have an additional analysis'prepare'd_' when rental area tenants were known:. He suggested that perhaps the Southland Corporation should coor- diria:te with the 'Police Department regarding stricter security. measures. Mr.; Carmody. also stated, that, he did not feel the .sale of beer and wine °would.,lead to delinquency in the adjacent park,, and did not- ,feel the City sbcould deny the project- on the basis of the sale of alcoholic beverages, since the liquor.license would have to be obtained from the A.B.C. Mr. Carmody stat'e'd' that if citizens :had. a complaint, it should „be made: to `that agenc =y ; rather than to the City.. Mr...Larry Bernauer. addressed the Commission and informed tlem was the owner of the existing 7= Eleven Store:.at Howard'and Washington Street's, and hoped to be the owner of ,the propo.sgd store,. He asked for a c'larif'ication of' the traffic analysis:, and,Mr. Gray read the apglicable, portion for him Mr. Ber:nauer stated that from past experience he :felt the-actual traffic was far less than the analysis indicated. He also advised that he had • not had robbery at the existing 7- Eleven Store for '3- 1 /2'. ,years, and did not feel that the•p.roposed store would cause a further problem regarding the,. since other off -sale facilities were within, determi ro-'ected traffic from= the site. had been the walkin d=istance of the ark. Mr.. Ca nation, of rmod ex lain. p � en calculated Discu i followed regarding continuing•the:matt:er until furthe analysis could be prepared,, taking into consideration the -4.- • MARGARET ZIEGLER, THE' 'TREILLAGE SHOP USE PERMIT: & SITE DESIGN REVIEW: -The proposal to allow th& convers- on of a portion of an'exis;ting nonconforming 5 -unit residential structure located a 416 Petaluma Boulevard'.South to an interior decorating business by changing, two of the downstairs units in the front was briefly reviewed. ' It was noted that the Architectural and Site Design. Review Com- mittee had reviewed the project and concurred with the staff's recommendations for approval. -5- 'Petaluma City Planning Comms'sion.Mihutes, May 6, 1975 highest possible use of the site, and requesting the applicant's traffic engineer._.and the City's. traffic engineer to appear before the Commission. A determination to prepare a Negative.Declaration or•re;quir,e an.EIR.was also discussed. Mr. Gray apprised the Commission .regarding appurtenant '!significant.effects" as defined i by CEQA. He also advised that a project would be termed as having a "substantially adverse impact" on the environment where i the adverse environmental effects ,of the project outweigh the ! social and economic benefits of the project to the public health, ! safety, and welfare. i Comm. Bond stated he felt-it would be irresponsible not to con- sider the in relation. any commercial activity, and especially 'that of alcoholic sales. He therefore made a motion to require a limited EIR with emphasis on traffic and the rela- tion of the sale of alcoholic beverages to the adjacent park. The motion. was seconded by Comm. Popp. AYES 4 NOES 2 ABSENT l (Comm. Mattei and Comm. Waters votes were .negative.) Mr. Gray advised.the. applicant and the audience that any. notice . of intent to appeal should be made in wri -zing to the Department of Community Development within 10,days of the decision by the Planning Commission. GREENBRIAR UNIT 2, Mr: Gray advised that -an amended Final Map had been submitted for `PHASE 111-AME the Greenbrier Subdivision Unit .2,. .Phase III, to take care of FINAL MAP::., minor lot line adjustments resulting from matters in court:, and also to allow the 10-foot bicycle path as previously considered by the Commiss:ion.. It was noted that the appropriate letters from the .City Engineer and the Director of Community Development had been submitted. Comm. Popp.made a motion to recommend approval of the amended Final Map to the 'C'ity Council. The motion was seconded by Comm. Waters. AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT l • MARGARET ZIEGLER, THE' 'TREILLAGE SHOP USE PERMIT: & SITE DESIGN REVIEW: -The proposal to allow th& convers- on of a portion of an'exis;ting nonconforming 5 -unit residential structure located a 416 Petaluma Boulevard'.South to an interior decorating business by changing, two of the downstairs units in the front was briefly reviewed. ' It was noted that the Architectural and Site Design. Review Com- mittee had reviewed the project and concurred with the staff's recommendations for approval. -5- Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, May 6., 1975 . The public hearing was opened. No comments were - offered and, the public hearing was closed... Comm. Bond made ,a motion to'appr.ove- the Use Permit with conditions as stated in the staff report. The motion was,seconded'by Comm. Balshaw. AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT 1 Comm. Balshaw made a motion to approve the proposed site design With conditions of approval as atated in: the staff report: The motion was seconded by Comm. Bond. AYES 6 • NOES. 1 0 ABSENT 1 MCDOWELL PARK'- USE The Commission was advised that a Use Permit was necessary for PERMIT .& SITE'DESIGN the, park facilities, and site design: review was required for the FOR;PROPQSED STORAGE, proposed Little League storage unit. It was also noted that UNIT: permission from the City to. place the container in ,the park was necessary, and that the City Council.had.not taken action at their meeting on.May 5th to approve the placement :of the container because the container had::not 'b.een physically available for examination. Mr. Gray advised that'he felt the Planning Commission could proceed with the Use Permit and site • design review action, since the ,physical_ appearance of the con- r tainer itself would be subject to approval by the'City'Couneil. The..s,taff report was briefly reviewed. .It was :noted that the Architectural and Site Design Review Committee had reviewed the,' proposal and concurred with the conditions of approval as in dicaaed in the staff report. A recommendation was made to add. Condition #5 as follows: "5. Subject to ob'tainin'g permission from the City Council to 'place the storage container in the park." Comm.. Mattei eXpressed concern about utilizing the storage unit for year -round storage of. the'equipment,, and suggested that possibly the Corporation.Yard could be utilized as ' a year -round storage site instead. The Public Hearing was opened. No comments were offered and -the' Public Hearing was closed. Comm. Waters made a.motion to approve the Use Per"mit•allowing: the use of City -owned land for park and recreational purposes.. The motion was seconded by Comm Balshaw.. AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT 1. Comm. Balshaw made�:a motion to approve the,site design with the five-conditions of approval as stated. The motion was seconded. by Comm. Bond:. AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT I -6- Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes;, May 6, 1975 CITY .OF PETALUMA USE PERMIT, &" ;SITE DESIGN, REVIEW FOR PROPOSED POLICE. DE- PARTMENT ADDITION: The Commission, was advised that a 'Use Permit was necessary at this time t:o allow an addition. to the existing Police building. The proposal to utilize the Exchange Bank modular building,f`or a temporary structure until future quarters could be provided,was briefly reviewed. Elevations were displayed and Commission was advised that the Council had purchased the building and 41so the landscaping from the: °Exchange Bank site, which would be moved to the Police Station site. The. and recommen dations of'the Architectural.and Site Design Review Committee were read. g p g ommeits' were offered, and the The Public Hearin was o ened. No c Public Hearin . was closed,. Popp madea motion "to approve the requested Use Permit. Comm. � . . The motion was seconded' by Comm.'Balshaw. AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT .1 Comm. Popp made a motion to approve the site design-review with conditions of as .read. The motion 'was seconded by Comm. Balshaw. AYES 6 'NOES 0 ABSENT .1 NORM N.IELSEN. AL Mr. Gray briefly reviewed the rezoning,lapplication.submitted by REZONING: Norm Nielsen., et al; to rezone approximately one acre locate& at 67 Mag of :a Avenue from a•C - ct to a R -M -G District.. He. : k also ; advised that no adverse coranents'had been received fro m reviewing agencies and he had also been informed that the Sonoma County .Water A'ency'would be responsible for the creek sunning through the property. The zoning of'the adjacent areas was, ex plained to the'Commssion.. 'It was also clarified that site design review would be required at a layer date for the R- M- G.and. C -H sites.. The Public Hearing was opened:. Mr. Parent asked the-Commission if this pr"oj'•ect had anything, 'to do with the further extension of Liberty S't'reet Mr.. Gray replied "that it would not be extended at the present; time; however, the actual development of the site could 'initiate the extension lof''Liberty Street: Mr;. .Gray also advised that the City had purchased ; one -half width of the future proposed Liberty Street. extension and that the other half was owned by thepresent owner's,of the Camille project. The Public. Hearing was closed., Comm.. Waters made a motion to recommend..approval of the proposed rezoning to , the City Council. The motion was seconded by Comm. Bond. AYES 6 NOES` 0 ABSENT; , 1 -7- Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, May 6, 1975 ELY ROAD STREET The proposal "to. rename the portions of Ely Road within the ,City NAME CHANGE. limits and.outside of the City limits to Ely Boulevard: North and Ely.$oulevard South,, xespect'ively, was briefly reviewed.'. The Commission was adwised'tha.t all residents within.'the City. limits had.been. notified regarding 'the .proposed change. The,Public Hearing was opened,. Mr. Ernie Curtis asked what: the object was`n proposing the change. Mr., Gray advised that at :the 4 present 't me'only a short portion of the street extending -J r.om East Washington Street to Casa Grande Road is o,,fficially named Ely Boulevard South., and the remainder of the street is Ely Road.. „ Also,, the portion exten`d'ing north. of, East Washington Str•eet is like- wise known as Ely Road. He advised that this has caused con- fusion for the Post Office in duplicate addresses and 1 delivery The.Publc Hearing, was closed. Comm. Popp.made.a motion to forward a recommendation to the City Council to rename the portions of Ely Road within the City limits to Ely Boulevard North and�Ely Boulevard South, respectively, and also to. recommend to the City Council 'that ;they request the Sonoma County. Planning Commission and Board - of Supervisors to take the appropriate action to rename the portions of Ely Road in the County to'Ely Boulevard South and Ely Boulevard Not respec- tively. The motion was seconded by. Comm. Balsh'aw., AYES. . NOES 0 ABSENT 1 TjY e proposed amendments to Zoning Ordinance-41072 N.C,. S were briefly reviewed.. "A letter submitted by Arthur LaFranchi, at y, , was also read, which requested' that consideration, be : given g � ., v „en to. delet meat products” 'as a prohibited use in Section 14 =402 of the ordinance,.'. The.Public Hearing was opened. Mr.. Art LdF rdnch.i. addre the Commission, stating that he represented M.: C.. R., Inc.,, who was interested in establishing a. cold meat deboning operation on property presently. zoned M -L. He therefore urged the Commission to; allow the production of meat products as permitted use in an M- L'District.' He stated . that he was not in disagreement with the philosophy behind the current -restrictions, but felt that the red meat°deboning operation, could meet the same criteria and standard's as .the proposed addition of poultry pr,ocesssing, since there would' be no odors or otheradvers,e effects created, Comm. :Bond asked the opinion of the staff "'rega:rding this request. Mr. Gray replied that he saw no problem, since the City retained control through the Use..Permit p ro,ces,s . Mrs. Patricia Quintana of''1210 San Rafael Drive addressed the Commission to., :speak, in behalf of allowing an 8 -foot fence ad- jacent to an arterial street or major highway. She also advised• -8- Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, May, 4z­ .*W that she had obtained:s,ignatures on .a,pe.tition from 26 adjacent property owners who :also preferred 'this. 8 -foot' fence. Mr. Gray acknowledged that he.had received a letter from Mr. & Mrs. Quintana, and,also from Mr. & Mrs. Vinnedge. The Public Hearing was closed. . Chairman Hilligoss suggested that in Section 23- 305, the wordage should, bg changed to indicate that the 8 -f.00t fence. "shall be" subj;ect "t;o site design review. The Commission concurred with this change. " Comm, Bond made a'motion to recommend to the City Council ap- proval of, the Zoning amendments as discussed, to include the delet-io"n of meat products as a ; prohibited use in Section 14 -402 of the Zoning Ordinance. Comm. "Popp'seconded the motion. AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT. 1 CITY ,CQPCIL -REFERRAL: Considerat"ion, of LAF.CO's City- Counc; l : Planning Policy Committee + recommendations for the pro posed new atandards for the evaluation of spheres of influence: Due to lateness of the hour, the Commission decided to defer this t item until the next ;regular meeting,of:.May 20, 1975. REPORT REGARDING Mr. Gray advised the Commission that the City Manager had asked HOSPITAL SITE: - him. to exp,r,es,s' that, although a study of; the Petaluma Boulevard +;. North isewer systems had'been requested by °the City Planning, Commission, the City of Petaluma has not participated in the ad f, hoc meetings, such as those held at,Sonoma "- -Joe's and elsewhere, i regarding this matter. He also advised that the individuals who have been arranging these meetings and proceedings have no sanc- tion or approval °by the City of Petaluma. Mr. Gray read a letter addressed' 'to the Petaluma City Planning Commission by Mr.. Cowen; Administra -tor of Hi_llcrest Hospital, which, ref erred to, various sites that had been considered. The letter` concluded, by saying ,that- the Troudy Lane site is the only one known to them to he of!s:uff icient size and seismic safety, acid also to be 't "opograph_ically suitable for hospital construction it th6,entir,e Petaluma area,: The , P.etaluma 'Boulevard Ngr -th General ,Land Use Study,, prepared by the Department of Community Development, staff, was `briefly reviewed. Mr Gray also. referred to a letter from the Health `Service which documented health problems. . Comm. Bond questioned how the proposed moratorium as stated in the staff report would effect the new hospital. Mr. Gray replied -9- Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, May 6, 1975 that sewer was available for the site, but that water would have :. q y y that the to' be -re ue'sted from` the Cit Mr'. ' Gra. clarified th moratorium` would be- on further ,land. development', since. while' a city is planning a•.n , area,,•- there is usually a rash df proposed, lot splits and development while` the planning procedures are in... process. The area included•in the Sewer Study was indicated on a, map of the City's study area, and it was noted the- Sewer Study area was only a portion of the City's study area Mr,. Gray advised- that the'• area, already represents: large lot size urbani- nation and that where - is potential for a:lot more urbanization in the area. Mr. Gray advised that the City . Council was seekin& some indica- tion from.the Planning, Commission 'as to whether they concurred` e y. ' w -ith the re' made'b. the staff, and also wished. the` Commission to; recommend :to the. Council a proposed course of. action. Comm. Bond asked if the hospital's plans to build.wou.ld be effected. _ ,'Mr. Gray replied that the intent of the study was to determine what action I was necessary to - p"rotect :the City's "interest, assuming that - the hospital was going to be located -on the Troudy,Lane site. He.fur advised that the hospital could . proceed with their plans ; and that an E_.IR is presently being prepared and annexation ,procedures initiated. Mr. Gray clarified . that the staff's recommendation was to place a moratorium on lot splits and development located outside the Cty'lmits and not within the sewer district, A short discussion followed' regarding the commercial acreage: Mr. Tarr clarified that the total commercial zoning uses in 'the City was wel'1% over 300 acres, and -the 194 acres referred to .in; the ' , sta'f'f report was only Highway Commercial zoning. t. Mr: Gray advised the Commission that the magnitude of what the. staff .had ,:recommended was not a small task, and a consultant might be required. He added., - however, 't ±hat as a professional g. 4 planner„ he, felt that it was the way to 'proceed. Comm. Bond questioned i.f,,we could be forced into providing a sewer system for the Petaluma Boulevard North area because of .the health problems: Mr. Gray advised, that an assessment district would, have to'be for -med f.or e`onnection.to the sewer system. In order to do this LAFCQ would 'have to give their approval, and that body would probably, concur with mandatory annexation or phased! annexation of the area -to control, urban sprawl. Comm. Bond questioned if there was any indication of the feelings_ of the people regarding annexation. Mr. Gray replied that in- d'ications date- have , been that they pare not in favor of the annexation and were afraid how- would effect the tax struc- ture of`their•properties. Mr.. Gray advised the Commission that.because °of the hour they could. delay` taking the x'. recommendati :on to the City Council, or; -1:0- Petaluma.Cty Planning Commission Minutes, May 6, 19`75 if'they wished,, they could continue to consider the recommen- dations made by the staff. Comm.. Mattei suggested that it might be best ,to delay the - decision until further thought could be given; the.Commission concurred. The .letter -from Dr. Long of the Sonoma County Public Health Service regarding the septic-s,ystems was briefly discussed. ADJOURNMENT:�' There being no further-, business, the meeting adjourned at 11:35 p.m. =11-