Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 07/15/1975A G' E'. N D' -A PETALUMA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ` GULAR MEETING TY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CTITY HALL - PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE- FLAG ' ROLL CALL.: Comm BA`Tshaw " ` 116ici'za : '�Hilligoss Popp STAFF: Fria "no y Community_ pmentp •B. �.Gra. Director...of. Communit Develo e _ n. ni.Q Rnahl,P_ Samar Planner JULY 15' , .19 75 7'• 30. P .M. PETALUMA- Waters APPROVAL OF MINUTES' CORRESPONDENCE' S.ONOMA COUNTY �' Review of• application for minor- subdivision into four lots by REFERRAL': I Ace T. Marcellus• for property-located-at 986 Bodega Avenue,, located in- .County A -B5 and C2P'Disaricts. JOSEPH LOVATO•- USE 1), Public Hearing to.consider the request of Joseph Lovato PERMIT U4 - &i SITE for a Use Permit to allow a dwelling group consisting of DESIGN REVIEW,, a building to be- coriverted 'to a 2- bedroom unit and an { existing dwe`lling.located at 825 Bodega Avenue, on a lot consisting of approximately 46,903 square .feet. 2) Site design review, for the above proposal. PAUL ROBINSON'- USE 1) Public Hearing to consider the request of Paul Robinson PERMIT U7-75 SITE f'or. a 'Use Permit to allow the- of the existing non - DESIGN REVIEW;' conforming Parkway drive -in theater.located in an M -L District at '5155 Petaluma Blvd. North for a flea market during, - the daytime on.sundays only. 2) Site design review for t-he above. proposal. "TAMAR•SUBDIVISION - Environmental Impact Questi onnaire evaluation and considera- 'ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Lion of •the Tentative Map for the `proposed Tamar Subdivision QUESTIONNAIRE ; ^& eonsisting;of. 14 single-family units to be located on Tamar TENTATIVE':MAP:• .. Court and. the extension, of'.Park.Lane. i HENRY PACCIORINI - - Public. Hearing f -or evaluation of the Environmental,Impac•t. PACT Questionnaire and consideration of a rezoning request sub E UEST O IONNAIRE�I IMPACT QUESTIONNAIRE fied by Henry Paccior ni for apptoximately 1.2 acres located : tt & REZONING Z3 --75: at 7,0,7 Petaluma Blvd., North from an M =L :Distric to a C -H District. MINUTES PETALUMA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 15, 1975 REGULAR ING r. .: 7c30 P.M ;. CITY COUNCIL. CHAMBERS, CITY HALL P.ETALUMA, CALIFORNIA PRESENT. Comm. Balshaw, Bond, Hilligoss, Hor,cza, Popp', Waters, ABSENT; ! .1ikrank B Gray' Di..rec!tor of .Community Development . ' Dennis Bo'ehlje Senior ELECTION OF ;; thors_ would have to _ ray advised the Commis's.on at ` an elect Mr,, G a CHA•RMAN; be held to fill the position of. Chairman until October, 1975 , necesstat "ed.by the fact that Comm.. Hilligoss had been elected f to serve' on the City Council. Mr. Gray further informed the Commission the, City .Attorney had advised that Comm. Hilligoss co:uld: be, the' Chairman, of' the Commission if they so desired, !' but would' have� to be ; reelected due to her absence of two weeks ,. '- i °' from the'Commiasion. - Comm Popp - made; .a motion that the former Chairman, Comm. Hilligoss be reelected to office for the remainder • of - her original term .until October, 1975::. The motion was seconded by Comm. Balshaw: Comm.., Wafer's: stated that- he felt ,there might ,possibly be a conflict in ;Comm. Hilligoss serving as Chairman of the. Comms- s on and a_Lso serving as an- elected' official on the City Council,; A, brief di scussion: - followed. IF - - AYES, '4 NOES 1 ABSENT; . 0 Comm.. ° Waters .voted negatively for :reasons as stated above; APPROVAL-OFI MINUTES c, The m niut'es of June 17 1975, were approved with the following changes :. Page' 2 -., first line;, change the word "Department" to = I 'Education,�� COUNTY SONOMA�' COUN 1`)` Ace T. Mar.cellus 1.caton for minor subdivision into - .APp REFERRALS:;, four lots `for property °.aocated at 9$'6:Bodega Avenue, located: in -; County' ,A� -B'5 and C2P Ds'tricts;: Mr. Gray brief reviewed -the 1,subj'ect- request fo,r: a: minor subdivision.,. Comm.. Waters, ,questioned I f, Bantam Way would _ be - 'extended,,, to which Mr. Gray replied that 'if, the Comm-is- sion follows :the re :coim endat on �of the staff with regard to the, .,Bodega Avenue /Pauld A arie study area on-the .. this evening,, the Ge L nera•Plan would be modified' to . elimindt e the extension of : Bantam Way. A li i Comm Bond .suggested, tab ng,act' on ; on .,the application until -after consideration o'f "the prezoning'Tor that area, and the ;Commission agreed to do' `so. Pet''61uma, City 'Planning 'Commission Minutes, July 15>, 1975 i 2 John William _luck' Use. Permit application to allow the construction and ap.eration of a retail nursery on= : . r property -. located at 40 Bodega .Ayenue,,, in :a- County U -B5•, zone: Mr. Gray- briefly reviewed the ,Use Permit ap oin..� short discussion followed, during whi.ch�it was stated:_" that 't e proposed 'use, appeared to 'b with' tfie= General- Pian s rur'a'l %agricultural 'designat on,. Comm. Popp "made a motion to, forward a letter to the Sonoma. Co.'uinty 'Board. 'of Zoning Ad�ustmen.ts •recommen.ding °approval of th Use Permi t, including" the -recommendations ;of th'e.• staff': regarding .6e site d'es gn:. Comm,. Waters seconded, the motion, •AY°ES 6. ... NOES,_ :0 . ABSENT 0' JOSEPH •LOUATO ~USE;. The Commission was informed that-although they 1 a&. considbr.ed PERMIT U4 ' 75_ &- SITE "the Use Permit.: for Jo: n' June eeph 'Lovato- -1,7th ;and taken DESIGN REVhEW ',; action `'it`.would have to 'be recona d'er.ed., .since either tt e staff " the hid inadverteritly failed to nonce the Public 'Hearing held—oft June:.17;, 1975, 'The Public Hearing was opened 'No comments. were offered- from• the aiid ence .. and" the Public .Hearing was closed., Comm. 'Horciza made a 'mot - ion Ito approve. the "Us'e .-Permit sub'j'ect 'to conditions of`, site. design review. The motion was seconded> by Comm. 'Bond. AYES, 6 NOES °0 ABSENT- Q ?' Comm. Waters made -.a motion - to app rove the, site design. with the• five conditions of approval.;as tecommen'de& in. they- staff. " report. - Comm. :Horciia :s'econd'ed:' "the' mot ion. Mr. Gray verified. that Condition &L-41ncluded• the clean• -,up oUth6 -'site AYES .• 6 NOES. 0 ABSENT 0; PAUL. ROBINSON­ - -The" Use Pe''rmit applieation.of Pawl. Robinson to allow the -day USE .,PERMIT' °U:7-75 & time use of the Parkway drive in_..theater for a, •flea market SITE `DESIGN .REVIEW. : on Sundays only was briefly "reviewed'. Thee question -of periodic review• was raised, an`d `Mr. Gray,- advised 'it iaould be accom- plished, and the - Planning Commission could request a review, at' = any,' t ime. Comm Bond.,'questioned the.'location of parking and Mr. Robins'on� clarified 'that the parking area ".:would' include the backtopped', - P° rtion in, front, of the screen .,and -that the broken barricades ..� would be' removed,: ' �ty.Plannin Commission Minutes Jul y. 15, 1975;. g y ,. Comm. the _:Commission that the ..dr.ive -in theater € is in .serious need of renovation:,' e; ; g. , the broken barricades, no�.names on.- the .reatroom doors.,, the . in need of repair, and .the .deplo,rable .condition of the interior of the, = . �.. . buildin He,quastioned what could- be done, at this -stage 'to gs V . eliminate; the p.roblem. Mr.- Robsnson - stated he ;would take: care 10 t e par k i ng area - improv.ements but , ;did not oum the: concession `stand and there- fore could: not do 'anytfiying? ,a'bout its 'condition. Mr -.:, Robinson advised he be a reeable -to marking the re9troom- doors. " g ; . The` parking, turnover =,was ,discussed ::and it; =:was - clarified that the maximum, total < parking- -for the day would' be '2,230 with a -turnover. every two hours.- The ,,Public .Hearing was opened No- comments were offered from the -audience and 'the, Public, 'Hearin.g , was closed. They adequacy .of. the access into ..the, drive -in theater and the condition of the road were , Comm. Bond :mentioned .the .inferior reparw,ork that .had been accomplished when the railroad, :tracks..had -been taken out;,. and Mr. Gray, replied that the - railroad could be contacted on the matter. suggested adding -two ,­additional conditions :to-, Use f, Permit.: l); �Thait•. -the r,,estrooms be_ clearly ;; marked and. inspected periodically "by .the Sonoma. County' Heal'th .Department- for `by„ cleanliness , -and. 2) That the concession.s.tand be inspected !' tlie.- Sonoma !`Cotmty; Health Depar;tment`i,as to- its - adequacy for= : per-tinert health standards. He ,.stated` that .these, conditions I would ail©w. the city to request- 'a: report from the i County regarding its: condition at the .time'of. Use. Permit review. lshaw made a .motion _to :arove the Use Permit with the Comm. .B'a p.p : ; . four conditions.o =f approval :as stated. The motion was seconded. by Comm. Pope: ..: AYES 6, NOES' 0 ABSENT 0 Comm.. " Bal shaw,:made..:a : mo t i b.n to ,.approve .the site .design with conditions as. stated -.in 'the staff report. The motion was .� seconded by. Comm. Popp. AYES : 6. NOES 0 ABSENT' :0 TAMAR% 'S VISION. Mr. Boehll e explained, the pro osal for division of a 3.3 acre ENVIRONMENTAL ,IMPACT parcel', Into, fourteen fsingle7family :dwelling..° .lots - on 'Tamar . QUESTIONNAIRE:. , Court. It 'wa'`s. :.noted that "reviewing ;agencies ,had no adverse EVALUATION ,& :.- ; . :comments with regard .to'..the. environmental :aspects of 'the _. TENTATIVE MAP: prg3ect,. The ele en cdndLaons ;of approval recommended by- t -he sta_f'.f 16 , approval of ,the.'. en'tative Map were read'. -3- Petaluma City. Planning Commission Minute's, July 15 {1975 - Comm: BAlIshaw_q es,ttoried if! fences .were to, be. provided` 'adjacent: - -- to 'Sarke'sian. Drive. Mr: BoehlJe rep1" d..that fences.-,woiuld: only have to 'be provided :along the rear- lot lines; if they were, not already- ther;ec. It,* VAS :al o: ;clay -fYed. that although 16- -foo.t driveway wid'ths beenv.,constr- aic'ted'-.in . the •past„ :future• driveways would. ; be required :to be .2'O "feet in..widtA., It was "' als.o clarif'ie'd that• Park Lane! would. " " be improved to a /3' ` width; ,but: ,curb . aid'ewalk- .would not 'be required. on,- the opposite sides Comm. Horciza`made.a:.moti`on to direct the'Director.of, Community" Development- to._,prepare and ..a 'Negative :'Dedla:ratIon for the Tamar Subdiy 'sion:; The motion 'was 'seconded by Comm. ;Bond: AYES' 6 NOES 0 ABSENT 0 :> 'Comm: 36n&1 ade 'a: motion to recommend to the City .Council that the 'Tentakti've Map for the Tamar StIbdivzszon 'be approved. faith tfiel. conditions of approval.'_ :as stated. Comm'. Horciza ',seconded tbd motion, - A_ YES ' °6' " :NOES; 0. ABSENT`: 6 HENRY`TACCIORINI =' •Mr: the - 'staff' reP.ort for the requested'. ENVIRONMENTAL - IMPACT '•` ` -rezoning c'on"sisting of app r.oxima ely 1. 2` acres' located;,. at ­: 'QUESTIONNAIRErr 707 Petaluma .Blvd,., North from M -L 'to - C.-H District I•t was EVALUATION; '& noted. that the applicant had'.bben- requested by the City of REZONING 23 75. -' P,eaal`uma to• apply for. the rezoning as a condition oE,a parcel `maps •approval ,to` bring 'the zoning into .conformance with the :EDP and the; - General " aria 'to, provide the ,new` parcel being. created with one °zoning district:: Mr: Gray •advised: that the ,n reviewing. agencies' hadot':voiced any negative comments ' regarding • pro: ec or ,with g g the • env aspects o 'the j regard to the rezoning. Comm. Balshaw..questioned -whys. the adjacent parcel was, not -also being r- ezon'ed C. -H,: and •Mr. -Gray' replied .that _.the :_.parcel as' shown on `the .EDP as M -L :and ,.on the General- Plan as w • central urban ` use,, wh ch could.-be M =L .zoning:: The Public Hearing was 'rop'ened. .."No 'comments were offered and the Public Hearing .was closed. Mr. Paccior_>ni ndicated,to- the Comm s oa.; the-' p'arcels'' he 'owned, which .al "lowed .fiim access. to: Petaluma Blvd,, NIorth,,..and also indicated the additional access'whch, be : provided from Bridge .Street. He also advised the 'Commis'sion,' ,that 'the `strip; of l'and''he •was' pur- chasing. to add to his :existing parcel was zoned• 64i. Com .. m, .Water s: made;a,.moton` to dr',',eat the Director of Community Dev'elo,pnient 'to-..,pr I epares and, post 'a, Negative 'Declaration for '•_' the' .. project. The motion- was seconded by Comm. Horciza. AYES 6 NOES 0' ABSENT 0 Petaluma City,Planning•Comm i ssion=Minutes, July 15,'1975 > Comm-;-'. Waters,, made , &'mot ion. to recommend to l Council that the :subject .pr;operty ,b'e•'rezoned .t'o a C H' District. The motion - Maas +••second - ed by ',Comm,; 446r.cza:.. 9YES: :. 6 := NOES: 0. =; ABSENT 0 BODEGA- AVENUE /PAULA.' Mi 'Gray advised the'Commisaion and .•audience that a petition LANE -: EIQ :•EVALUATION.; -, signed 'by 11 ",nesiderits in the, Bodega .Avenue area had been t REZONING & PREZONING: received' He :read'-the;'•petition which• -requested that the- area - 'retn'a •n, in` 6' or = 10 +fo Mr BoehlDe apprised tho'be pr,.esent 'of past procedures in which in 'attempt fia.d;•been - made to provide ja ,specific plan for the area with a circulation, pattern;,. This action had .met with unfavorable :commen +ts from the . pr®:p6rty' 'owners who were opposed 'to the circulation system, and the and 10,0.0 square foot f.! j lot's proposed - at, first meeting,. ;and to the circulation system ,and the-:11& and 2-0,MO : square foot lots proposed at the second. The general. consensus -of the property owners- had been 'that larger. lots one iacre in size were desired and the circulation system was: ; not wanted. j, Mr.: Boehije clarifed'that the `proposed :4.0., square-foot zoning would not-4- f-fe,'ct the - bperty owners who had lots existing that. did not, meet those.'standards; but would only affect those.;that. had the potential•for subdivision. He added that the _proposed served, the purpose of guiding future development in an.area that some day might become part . .,of the �'c -t. Mr. Gray explained: that :it' :was ,'difficult . to lay out a :street system which would , provid'e -for smaller.lots because.of the steep topography' 'of' • the 'land,, . and without a preplanned .cir.- culation, system the -lots would have 'to be large .,enough ..so as .- a not; to r'equir;e an _internal circulation system.. Mr. Boehlj;e 'added that.- it.. =had; been found -t'o be .:generally •impossible to continue 'to deal with ,lot ,splits ins this-. since they created haphazard.deveIopment•and'd d not -have any general re- ationship•. to .the remainder of-the area, and that is why c- the spe fic,p an d ha originally -beef suggested. ' �• n'are . :Mr - -: Gray brief ly_ reviewed.. the. Environmental Impa.c Questionnaire • • ... ' . and the'' 'environmen assessment comments. It - was the rec'om- i menda -tio'n of tte staff, "that ,a `Negative Declaration be prepared for the proposed rezonings, 'arid pre - zoning. The Publ c� ng•was. opened',.. Mr. Ace Marcellus 'addressed the.. 'Commission,... st ping ..that.,.he owned. property j',ust outside -: o_f -th& city :lim-#,s in " prdzonin&;',area. ;He - advised that his- lot'split,`•_which was: also being reviewed by the Commission this evening', was--the initial..step .in•develo.pment of his • p.roperty;; and -. th'at he . eventually intended • to. further subdivide into half. acre - ,parcels and ,provid'e a 1,'200 foot 'cul' -de -sac and sewage system to serve th'e lots-: -5 -- Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, July.15, 19.75 Mr. ,,Harry Decheme, owner of the C =H zoned property adj'a'cent to Mr. Marcellus" property:, asked where the proposed road would' be_constructed', and--Mr. Marcell'u_s .repl-ied that it.would be..'' • through the center of his property: Mr.. Gray advised that the cul. -de -sac proposed by Mr- Marcellus -would not be possible':,' since..`the .City would nolt. allow a: ciil -,de -sac of 'more than 400 -feet. in length. He also .,aavised than the City would not provide sewer and waster `to parcels that were not properly subdivided` to City standards. Mr .Mar.ce'llus questioned if `he ''therefore could only subdivide into. four. lots, Mr., Gray rephied 'that he. could siibdivide into 1- ac- re,•lots, and provide a street with fire hydrants located -every 300­400,-feet. .He further advised that County standards would allow 'hit :to develop without the fire hydrants :;- .,but,.in' order to be, served by City sewer and water he would have to annex and ' °mee.t_City standards. Mr.,Gray advised the- that:the'whole purpose of 'studying the area arid, p :rovrid'ing an adequate circ ",elation pattern was so that orderly developmen`t.cou'ld.,take place. Since all of .the. ,plans proposed b.y the staff had been overwhelmingly rejec ed by the property °,bwn6ts in -.the' ai -6-a, the proposal to .zone for lots large enough: :nat to- a. circula'.tion. 'system had been: in ;t'iate'd as :-.an _aqu. title solution. 1-n weighing the rights of. 'the, property owners and that of .the general public welfare and safety. Mr, Gray reiterated that existing :-parcels that _did no't' meet the new lot sizes. would, not `b%e affected;,. A :recess was called at' 9:30 pm. and the meeting resumed. at 9:40 Dr..Padd'or. informed thdi Commission that he a parcel. in the center, of the proposed rezoning,, arid' was .in favor- of the 1 -acre ' par -cel' zoning,, .He stated that, in order-• to be fair to all•pr-operty ;awner. involved,, a poll should, be taken and also the citizens :of Petaluma not residing in the .should have' : the right to :say how' they- ;felt about development in the s,ubj ect Comm: :Bond questioned ,11, the circulation, system would' be required, kf. the whale area, was rezoned :to 'R- 1- 20,000. Mr.,: Gray replied, 'that. it.. would. be, since otherwise i.t'.would be necessary f to.construct,.long cul -de -sacs and have numerous streets opening out:., onto - Bodega Avenue, ;which was undesirable f -r,om a traffic safety s,tandpoint... area :. Mr. Gray-rep.-Lied that. the Commission had heard a good deal o'f'var-ying viewpoints,' . anal had :a greater responsibility than; that of the. owners -j since they had to look ouf f:orfuture 'residents .and also•o.ther residents of the City in terms. of the ..gprier-a'l public welfare and public safety. Chairman Hillgoss .questioned how •large the par-,ce'lsi .would "have 'to be in reIa.tion,to the grade.. Mr. Gray rep'li:e that. the Sutidnivisi'on, Ordinarice is very. nebulous with regard to hillsides, but, the.'lot. sizes. should _ be.,increased according to the slope of the '-land. He. .also .'advi's_'ed that the Planned Unit Development concept could be utilized in. the area with the ratio of one dwe11'ing urii t 'per ._mere .o of land. -6- Petaluma Cit _;�n C 'July 15 "1975 y Plann' C om m issi on g . ormi , `Rt. 'M A'k' d if it: would'.be more desirable to develop - 'access to his" Property f rom Paula Lah&, and how the City would then, look upon. 20 'squar'e foot lots. Mr. Gray replied that - alth6ugh. might be possible, to develop his property individually in that mdnher, - it would swill lea the rest of the area to deal with and haphazard development.-Vould,occur as property owners wished "to f urther - sdd;Mr.. Marcellu 'devel'op. " H& -fhe�r". advi s that if he 'hb:d­a`uniq.ue . pian''tha't prove -t'o City sufficient access could-be Pro V'I'ded',. he. could present his plan' to the Planning Conmis,sion for' con's'ideration, . Mr. Joe Lovato..statedhi.s: des,ire.�.and. that of other individuals or he had talked 'to f _ — ' zo nin g to�'10 square foot lots. He fur- ,- 'zoning ihiE'r adv . ised'thAttfie pr'oposda7-rezo ft'i , ng would preclude him from constructing a.thitd house'ron.•:is'.'property, which was his intent wfie he purchased `th& property . en c '40 000 zoning would provide a street Mr.: Gray was ' 'asked if 7, 1_ --m - -circulation . plan.; 'He replied that .'from a planning standpoint- str-eet& wo uld, UA not be required, with 1-acre zoning, because of the small number of lots - involved.. Mrs.. 'Fbwl'dr'inf the Commission -She did, riot f eel the 'land use should be limited ... in the manner "Prbposedt, but should be kept open the 1,uture. 'Another' memVdr :of . the audience then stated tha 'the p open for th_e'future was unwise, since itwouldznof allow any controlling measures and the area could end u with multiple dwellings.' Mr. D6cheme'asked why speclal consideration regarding the length -o f_ the streets . could not be •given due, to . the long, Aarrow p.a_r.c.el...s of land,. Mr.,. Gray replied that it.was not•just A matter of City ' - but also tlfat_bf''me'eting - the International liir*e ., Rating policy, Ass6c`iation�stanaards' for fire protection. He added tha:t-Ttwas not possible � provide 'adequate - f ite.;and police protecti6 with ',numerous' long. cul-de- sac's ' And'therefore would not be in the best interests of the-general-publici safety and welfare. ' to -provWe roads for the Mr.- bedheme'questione'a why the Circulation system had. been -35%feet wide Mr Gray advised that a 60_ had been.x,equired tq becau;e of the slope of ..tae land:,, and that the- streets 'would actually only be 30 - 40 f,eet'wide,. - He , .a : lso advis-dd that private roads: I are up to the, discretion of 'the Plannin&COmmission and-City Council -and have t&:, when" over 400 f eet long. not �-be n,f avbrably con sidered ,.: In h The Ptblil c Hedrkng closed. d t � Comm.. "Balshawmade 'i• motion to .dine' the Di rect .- of.—Community. Develo'pment and post a Negative Declaration for the pr The. . motion was seco Comm, Popp. Mr. Gray explained` tb .'the audience - tfia1z. the''.Cbmmission was , ,considering ,considering, 'the e nv nv rbnmental the proposed. rezonings and prezbnlng and that a.motion-had.:been-made,to prepare a Negative Declaration -7- Petaluma City Planning Commission.Minutes,•July 15, 1975, under the,, CEQA,, stating ,that' the environmental impacts been considered and found to, not detrimental to the physical aspects of the area.. : AYES' 6 NOES , 0 ABSENT 0 Comm Balshaw made motion to recommend, to.:the, City Council that the rezon ng:.; and' prezoning.be approved as recommended by the :staff. Comm, Po p p seconded the mot AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT' 0 Comm,. Bond spoke relating to the .petition which .had .stated p p y � :not want .p' fanning for- the area at all, He - advised the • audien:ce the ro ert owner's, did that it was the respons of the Commission :do planning of this type and that the property could not Co ntinue `to be used at 'the Citizens' discretion: - Comm. Bond stated .;,that, the action had 'been. taken: _from a plan - n ng standpoint as being-best for the area.at this time. advised the-audience ' Mr. Gray - �'� that the .'City. Counc had tenta- tively set July 21st, f'or the time•at-which they would set a Public .Hearing date to ,consider .the .rezoningp and prezoning,, which would, p:r,obably b'e ?done .at ,.the . .following meeting: :He advised' the p.r.operty owners that they would be advised of the date of the.Publi.,Uear.ing. Mr. .B'oehlje. added that the Com- mission was onl ,"recommending that .the rezonngs! and prezonngs Y be approved, and ,therefore anyone •,.in opposition .d'id not have. to appeal 'to. the :City. Council but should attend the Public Hearing and make their .f:eelings..known. SONOMA.,COUNTY Mr. -Gray recommended to the Commission that a letter be - ,REFERRAL AGE. T', forwarded.to the,,County stating that the Commission',had taken MARCELLUS,: ". ac,tion this evening by, recommending to the.Cty Council that 1 - acre ;lot. zoning be approved fo,r . the' area in - which Mr,, 4 . Marcellus' property. is ,located. ...He also informed Mr. .Marcellus that his "proposal was 'illegal under the provisions of the City s Subdivision. Gr:dinarice s'i_nc'e he was :planningi to subdivide, further„ • -a =t a ,later date. Mr. .Gray explained'. to Mr-., Marcellus that if he ,wished' to sell the. existing house at this't me,the- proper. method would be to .parcel. it off. _Different methods of ,devel= opment .of ;p the .arcel were discussed , and Mr:. Gray, explained' tie: PUD' .conce,pt.. . ,also, clarified be that ,city sewer could, no,t obtained unless the entire parcel was annexed to the City. Mr. Marcellus advised•that -he would be in to discuss annexation... Comm. Bond made a motion, to forward a•letter• to the Sonoma. County Planning Department advising them of ;the Commission's recommendation to ,the C1ty,Council .to ' p r6zone this area for 4.0,,0;00 square foo lots, and. also t'o include the recommendations of the staff.. .The: motion was- seconded by Gornt. Waters. AYES 6 NQES' 0 ABSENT . ,0....., -8= Petaluma City Planning,Commis,sioi Minutes,, July 15,:1975 MODIFICATION TO The Commission was, .inf:orm,ed, that ahe.::prr ednre °f. - compliance PROCEDURES ;'` with the'.- requirements of CEQA were being revised to bring them COMPLIANCE WITH; into conformit. ,,and since the ' y with'the'�current guidelines REQUIREMENTS OF Commission worked with t he .environmental r-e�iew process, it CEQA: was felt they should approve the guideline ;,' Mr.• Boeh -Ij e advised of- :changes on page ;15, with..r.egard to. Sections 6 -1 and 6 -2, and'. a`brief' followed. Comm. Waters made a motion to recommend -to the -City Council that they accept the guidelines as amended. The motion was seconded by Comm. Popp. AYES'' 6 NOES - 0 ABSENT -D - OTHER BUSINESS: , Chairman H111gos's an formed the - Commission that Councilman Mattei `had requested .her: to ;thank the . Commission for him and to advise that: he had, enjoyed; his term on the Commission.. Mr. Gray, inf orm6d' the Commission :that meetings had.. been held ( with regard to: the 'corridor between Petaluma and Novato and' all the :agencies involved: had decided' to pass a memo of understanding f ' of coo,perative,planning and policies on this corridor, He advised that if. he :Commission wished to make a recommendation _ _ _ to the City Council to enter-nto this agreement a motion should be - made.. i Comm. .Bond made..a, motion to recommend to the City Council that the ,City of Petaluma enter into a.memoof .understanding with 'the' agencies involved to initi cooper planning and policies on the-.P =etaluina= Novato, corridor. The motion-was seconded. by Comm. Popp. i' AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT !0 Comm. Bond = informed the .Commission :that ..:the 'Police .Department addition was not being con as the Commission had approved it in .site design review,, and he felt that the City was under the.same responsibility and obligation as any-devel- oper in complying-with condi.tion`s of approval. A short discussion f.ollowed., and Charman was requested. by the Commission to take the matter ° -to 'the Lity Council for their consideration. ADJOURNMENT:; There be ng'no further business„ the`me_etin.g, journed at 10: 3 P m; . Chairman Attest:` -9-