Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 07/15/1975A G~E N, D,,,-A T­ALUMA CITY I LANNING COMMISSION GULAR MEETING, TY COUNCIL "CHAMBERS9.- CITY' RkU J PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE"- TO TftE"- FLkG7 '116-i-c-iza" !Hi1:lig6 ss,. Popp ROLL CALL: 'C6mm'. BAl'sfiaw' `-Bondi STAFF-: Fral nk-.B. Gra . y Diredtor-of,. Community_ 1�ey�lopr6ent Dennis Boehlje,. Senior, Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES: CORRESPONDENCE SONOMA COUNTY REFERRAL: I I JOSEPH LOVATO­ USE, PERMIT b4 75 &.' SITE DESIGN REVIEW,-`� PAUL'ROBINSONf" USE PERMIT U7-75 & SITE DESIGN REVIEW*.' TA M.AR'SUBDI,VI.S1,ON 'ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT QUESTIONNAIRE`& TENTATIVE'. MAPII HENRY PACCIORINI ;ENVIRONMENTALtIMPACT , - QPESTIONNAIRE�EVALUA-. TI.ON & REZONING Z3-75::, JULY 15,.1975 7 ': 30, P,X. PETALUMA-,,CALIFORNIA- Waters Revi ' e;w� of. appli - cat - ion ',for minor subdivision into four lots by Ace T. Marcellus, for prop erty'- located.,at .986 Bodega Avenue, located in -,County A-B5 and C42P 'Dis'ttricts. 1).. Public Hearing to co ' nsider the request of Joseph Lovato for a Use Permit to,allow,a 67elling group consisting of a building to Ve-coriverted to a 2-bedroom unit and an - existing dwelling'loca'ted at 825 Bodega Avenue, on a lot consisting of approximately 46,903 square.feet. 2), Site design review for the above proposal. 'l): Public . Hea -ring to consider the request of Paul Robinson r fora Permit to allbw the --use of the existing non- conforming Parkway drive-in th,eiater.located in an M-L District at 5155'Petaluma Blvd. North for a flea market ,during, -the daytime pn,Sundays only. 2) Site design review, fort -he above. proposal. Environmental Impac:t Qu&s',t'1oiffd_ir6 evaluation and considera- tion of,the,;Tentative' Map for the `proposed Tamar Subdivision tibnsisting'of,14 single family units to be located on Tamar court and the exterision.of'.Park Lane. P-Ublic' Hearing for evaluation of the Ehvironmenta1 Impact ,Questionnaire and cbrisid6rat-ion of -a rezoning request sub- mitted by Henry Pacciorini forappr.oximately 1.2 acres located at 7,01 Petaluma Blvd., North from an M-L District to a C-H District. Petaluma City Planning Commiss"ion Agenda, July;'15',, 1.975 r BODEGA,AVENUE/PAULA._LANE EIQ Evaluation and consideration of,_tezoning for;approxi- , - EIQ EVALUATION,, mately 15 acres•from R-1-6,;500 to R-1-20,000, and approxi- REZONING, AND PREZONING: mately 49.acres.from R-1-6,500 to'R-1-40,,,0.00; and�,prezoning -, for approximately 21 acres. from County"% arid''County UP to R-1-4'0;.000,, in .the area bounded 'by_:Bodega.,Avente, PaizT'a• Lane and West Street. MODIFICATIONS TO PROCEDURES Consideration of modifications to Resolution No.6533 N,:C.S.,, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH resolution of the City of Petaluma establishing:procedures REQUIREMENTS, OF CEQA�: for compliance with the requirements of the California Envi.--.: ronmental 'Qual'ity' Act of 1970. ADJOURNMENT -2- ..•P:ETALUMA C �'-_REGULAR;-ME ' CITY COUNC PRESENT: M I N U T E S I,TY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 15, 1975 ETING r. 7:3.0 P.M: IL. CHAMBERS,,, CITY .HALL PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA }Comm. Balshaw, Bond, Hillig'oss, Horcza,, Popp, Waters, ABSENT:„ None -STAFF:.•„ _t.',.'trank'B. Gray, Director of.Communi'ty Development Dennis; •Boehlj,e, Senio.r•:P.lanner ELECTION .OF CHAR RMAN: r Mn.Mr„ Gray advised the 'on;that 'an electron would have to be held. to fill, the position of•Chairman until October, 1975, necessitat`ed .by the •fa,cr, that Comm.. Hilligoss had been elected f� to serve' on .the City Couiicil., Mr. Gray further informed the Cornm 'ss ro the .City..Attorney had advised .that Comm. Hilligoss could- be, the -Chairman, of the Commission i:f they so desired, !' but wouldhave.. to be reelected due to her absence of two weeks from: the'Commission. Comm. Popp made, .a motion that the . former- Chairman,. Comm. Hilligoss':; be. reelected to office for.the remarrider•;of her original term .until October, 1975.. The motion was seconded by Comm'. Balshaw: Comm.. Waters. sta-ted tYiat he felt there might possibly be a conflict in;Comm. Hilligoss serving as Chairman of the. Commis- s;ion and also serving as, an-elected'official on the City { Council.. A, brief discussion, j 'ollowed. AYES, 4 NOES 1 ABSENT. 0 Comm. Wate-rs.vdted negatively for reasons as stated above. - APPROVAL -.OF MINUTESc, The minutes of ,June,17., 1975, were approved with the following changes:. Page' 2-, first- line_, change the word "Department" to Education.". . � SONOMA'COUNTY - „-. Application for minor subdivision into 1} Ace T. Mar.cellus REFERRALS.;, four lots'for•property,.1-ocated at 986.Bodega Avenue, located in.-County,A�B'S:and C2P'Districts: -; Mr::. Gray ,br;ie,fay. reviewed ,the ,subject ;request fo,r= a: minor subdrvis:ron.,. Comm.., Waters .questioned, if, Bantam Way would _ be 'extended', to which Mr. Gray replied tif, hat , the Commis- sion follows :the -recommendation �of the staff with -regard, to the-Bodega Avenue%Paula Larie.s.tudy area on- the agenda this :evening,, the General., Plan would be modified' to el,imnate:..,the exten'sron. of :Bantam Way. Comm. Bondr.su ested, tablin =ction on the a lication gg gr...app until after consideration of the prezoning"for that area, and -the Commission agreed to •do' `so. Petaluma, City 'Planning 'Commission Minutes-, July 15, 1975: ._f ... . `f, • ♦ v::i: 1. ! __ 2:) � John- ;W11''aiir;Mack' _ Use. k?ermit,, ap,p,lication. '�to' alloii ' ;tWe construction 'an'd' .op.eration bf a' retail iii rsery on'- pro,perty_ loc.ate.d at.A005 Bodega .Avenue,,, in, -:a County._ U-B5•, :.r zone?: , .. ,. Mr. Gray briefly- reviewed the, Use Permit -:application:` A` short , d•iscuss on followed;;_ during which It, -was-,, stated` _ ... that `tfie proposed, use, appeared to; `be•-.compat-ible- with: ttie= General.- Plan s r:iira'1�agr'icultural 'de'signat on,. Comma, To.pp"made a motion, to, forward, a-, letter to, the,,Sonoma. :. ' County 'Board, 'Board. • of 'Zoning Ad'j.us.tn4iks ro-comm6nd-itg approval . of -the- Us'e Peermit,;, including tfie •recommendat'ions ,of- the. _ staff: regarding :the. site design: Comm,. Waters seconded the motion. AYES 6. NOES.. ' 0 . ABSENT 0' JOSEPH-LOVATO.: - ~USE;. The Commission was informed that -although .they; ha& cons d'er.ed PERMIT U4=75 '&- SITE' "the Us-e Permit. .,for Joseph 'Lovato`on• June-1,7th and 'taken DES3GN REVIEWc''.`;,; action, `'it'.wodld 'have- to;`be • recon's d'er.ed�, .since either the staff. or� the'newspaper had inadvertently failed to notice, ' the Public Hearing Held on June:.17';, ' 1975•. The 'Pub11'c' Hearang'was opened:. , ,No- 'commentswere offered- from, ' ;= the audience and: the Piitilc Hearing was closed., Comm:.'Horciza made'.a motion'to'approve. the Us;e-Permit s.'ubj;ect 'to Conditions o-f",,site. design review. The Motion was seconded' by 'Comm; 'Bond. - 9 AYES, 6• NOES'' fa ABSENT- 01'-• Comm.. 'Waters made.a motion -to approve the, site design -with the: -five cond'it ons� 'of approval. ,,as recommended. in . they'6,taiff " r`eport. ., Comm,.-:Horc-iia .s'econd'ed,"thee'mo.tion. - Mr. Gray verified - that Condition #1.•in.cluded• the clean• -.up of, th&'site. AYES' .. 6 NOES. 0 .-.ABSENT 0, PAUL. ROBINSON­ The, he Use Permit application .'of -Paul. Robinson .to. allow the -d-ay- USE..,PERMIT' 'U7-:75: &, t-ime use. of the Parkway drive-in_..thea:ter for, a. -f.' ea market SITE: DESIGN .REVIEW: on Sundays. only was -briefTy'reviewed'.­ The question of periodic" review• was,'rai'sed, and'Mr.' Gray- advised 'it -would be accom- pIished and the-Planning'C' ission' could request a review, at any,' time. :. -Comm. .Bond.,'questioned the: -locat on of parking ands Mr.. Robinson, clar_"i f ied `tha't - the ',parking, area ..would include the, biacktopped, - portion in, front, of the .screen .,and -that the broken barricades- would' be' removed,. ' 'Pe'taluina City-. Planning.. Commission Minutes,, ,July. 115, .19.75. .. . Comm. - Bond •informed .the :C'ommission that the .,dr.ive-in .theater s is in.serious need: of �renovation.;,',,.e;. g., the broken barricades, • nop.names ,on the re troom .doors,, the.,playground in need of :repair; ,and' .the..deplo,raliTe -,condition-of the interior of the, bu-1_d'iigs".. He,:qu tioriedwh_at could, be done, at this stage 'to " el_imina.te;-.the •:p.roblem.- Mr. -,'Robinson stated -he_ :would:_take:•.care o.f the parking .area improv.ements;; -'but did ,not .own the, concession stand and there- fore- could. not. do 'anything,, ,about iits'-condition. Mr,.., Robinson advised he -,would be agreeable. -to marking the re9troom-doors. " The` ,parking, turnover. =,was ,:discussed .and it::was -clarified .that the '_maximum total ,parkin'g. or. .the -day would be 2,230 with a ' •turnover every two Hours The ,Public Hearing .was opened,. Nq, comments were ,offered from the audience and the, Public Hearing was :closed. The., adequacy .of. -the access int'o_he drive-in theater and the condition of the road were:briefly.,.discus'sed. Comm. Bond ::mentioned .the inferior repair` ,o6,rk that .had .been accomplished when the-r-ailroad,.tracks. had -been taken out, and Mr. Gray. replied that the •railroad could be.contacted on the matter. { !. Mr.; Gray ,:sugge:sted•:adding-two,,..add'itional conditions-, .to -,:the Use f, Permit.: 1); .That•"-the-restrooms be clearly .marked and inspected period'idally',by .the, Sonoma. County' Health Department- for, • cleanliness, arid.2).:'That the, concession stand be inspected by !' ,the. - Sonoma County;. Hepa.lth-Department`i,as 'to- its adequacy for= pertinent,�heal.th standards. He',stated` that ..these, conditions �ao,uid, .ail©w. atie...Ci.ty, to request. 'a report from the + County regarding - its: condition at the -.time„'of. Use. Permit review. !: Comm. B'alshaw :made a -.motion -to :ap.prove the Use Permit with the four conditions.o=f.ap:proval:as stated. The motion was seconded by • Comm•. Popp_- AYES 6, NOES', 0 .ABS..ENT 0 . Comm..''Balshaw,.made,.a .mot ori..to,,.approve:-the =site design with con`d eions as..stated -in ;the staff report. The motion was seconded by..Comm. Popp. ,.•..AYES-. 6. NOES: 0 :ABSENT .0 TAMAR, 'SUBDIVIISION Mr. Boehlj e .explained. ,the proposal for division of a, '3.3 acre ENVIRONMENTAL_ IMPACT puarcel', .into. fourteen s ngle�family .dwelling: dots on 'Tamar ,,QUESTIONNAIRE.- , Cort. It 'wa•s.:.noted that reyieiwing °agencies ;had no adverse EVALUATION , x ,comments, with. regard-.ao'..the. environmental .aspects: of he TENTATIVE kT: pro3 ec:t,: The; .ele en conditilons ;of approval recommended by, the staff `for _approval of-. ;the: °Tentative Map were read'. -3- Petaluma City- Planning Commission Minute's', July" l5; {'1975'' Comm.- Balshaw.,.g4es,tio'ned,'.if' fences .wereto, be. provided- 'adjacent. to 5arke'sian DriV&.. Mr: Boeh-lj`e.�lreplied.:that fences. -,would: only _ have .to ,beprovded".aloiig 'the rear:"lot lines, if they were. not already ther;e::: '.lt' was .also :clay -f, ed. that although 16.400t driveway wid'this"`:had°beenv.�constr-aic'ted'-'.in;..the •past,, :future - driveways wouldbe required :to be .2'O ':£eet i"n,width., It' was also= clarif'ie'd that• Park Lane! `would`,'be improved .to. a;,:2/3' - width', ,but..cur-..b;..-gutter..:and' .sidewalk -.would not 'be required on. - the oppos_ to side`* Comm. Horciza made .a ..motion to direct the 'Director. 'of. Communi'ty-, _ Development- to._,prepar.e and�;•post .a 'Negative :'Declaration for the Tamar --Subdivision.•;, The motion 'was' seconded by Comm. ,Bond: AYES' 6 NOES 0 ABSENT 0 -'Comm=, B'on&,fiade'a' motion -to -recommend -to the :City .Council that: the'Tentative Map for the .Tamar Subd• Vision 'be approved. with thel .conditions of approval.' -.as stated. Comm. Horciza _ ''seconded the>mot';ion, AYES. '°6 :NOES-- 0 ABSENT` 6 HENRY`-PACCIORINI =" Mr: Gray.".briefly-�revewed1 the !staff`-rep.ort for the requested'. ENVIRONMENTAL -IMPACT '•` ` • rezoning .c'on"sisting• of ap.pr.oximatel-y 1.2 acres' located,,. at . 'QUESTIONNAIRE?r ° = ' 707 Petaluma .Blvd,, 'North from M-L to.-C-H Di -strict - Tt was -EVALUATION;'& noted• that the•,applicaiit had':been requested by the City of REZONING 23=:7S:- -' P,etal`uma to' apply for. the rezoning as a condition of',a parcel "ma.p� •approval ,to.; bring the zoning -'into conformance .:With - the EDP and :the. -General ";P^la`n aiid'tbL provide the -new parcel being. ` - created with one! zoning district-: .Mr: Gray advised that the reviewing. agencies had not voiced any negativecommen'.ts ' regarding the.'environmental aspects :gf'the project or,with regard to the rezoning. Comm. Balshaw.questioned -whys. the adjacent parcel was -not -also being rezori_ed'ao C-H, and `Mr. -Gray' replied .tha.t ..the;_ parcel. was shown' on -the .EDP as M-L .and ..on the General Plan as • central 'urbkiri use:, , which could -be -'K"L.zoning:.' The Public Hearing was 'op'en.ed,. _No comments were offered and the Public Hearing .Was closed.. Mr. Paccio_r;lnl indicated to - the Commission... the p'ar;cels' he 'owned, which allowed, him access to: Petaluma Blvd. North,,..and also indicated, the additional access 'which, would be :provided from Bridge ,St--reet. He also _ advised the Commission -'',that 'the 'strip- of land' he was' pur- chasing. to add to his .existing parcel was ',zo_ried• C-'H. Comm.. Waters:` made_,;a,.motion' to, direct the Dr_-ectot of Communit"y "Develo,pm'ent 'to prepare'and. post a. Negative 'Declaration.. the' 'project. The 'mbbion'=was seconded :by Comm. Horciza. AYES 6 NOES 0' ABSENT 0 -4- `s Petaluma City Plannirig•Commissiori-Minutes, i July 15,'1975 Comm -:-'.Waters., made :&'motion to recommend to l•the • City Council that the subjact .pr.o.perty b`e•'rezoned .to a. C�H` District. The motion -Na&second-ed by ',Comm.; Horc'iza.. AYES:,: • 6 = ?NOES: G ABSENT' 0 BODEGA-AVENU:s/PAULA ' Mr, Gray advised the Commission and`.�audience that a petition LANE =: EIQ E'lAhUATION;:... signed'by" 11 '.res:iderits, in :.the, 'Bodega Avenue area had been, REZONING �& P'tEZONING:- received;. ; He::read'-the••pet tion- which, requested that the -area.• 'rema •n, in, 6166 or-10•jON''square+foo.t. lots. Mr. Boe'hllje appt those present 'of past procedures in which an 'attempt. ha&L,been -made to provide ja ,specific plan for. the area with a. circulation pattern.,. This action had.met with unfavorable comments from the.'pr®p6rt4 owners who were opposed 'to the,crculation system and the,6,,500 and 10,000 square foot lots :proposed--.at.,the first meeting,.;arid to .the. circulation sys,tem-.and, the-:1l&-0.00 and 20;000: square foot lots proposed .at the second meeting.. , The, general, consensus •of the property owners- had been 'that Aarger. -lots one acre in size were desired and the circulation system wa's.,not wanted. j, Mr::: Boehlj,e •clay-:ified .thatt ,the `proposed :40.,000 square foot zoning would not­af-fe,ct the' 'p"roperty 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 th'e_proposed•prezoning_•.serVed the.purpose of guiding future development in an.area•that'some day might become part .of the "ci-t. Mr. 'Gray explained, that it .was 'difficult . to lay out a .street system which would :provide for.:smaller.lots because.of the steep topography -of -the 'land,,,.ana without_ a preplanned.cir- culation. system the ,lots would have 'to be large -enough .so as .- a not' to .r.equ r,e.:an _internal 'cir:culationr s.'ystem. Mr. Boehlj:e added that.- it.,=.had; been found to be .:generally •impossible to continue to deal faith r lot ,splits ins this•."area, since they created haphazard.development •a:h& did not -have -any general r-e-at onship..to .,the,.remaind'er of • the urea, and that is why the spec'flt,plan had originally been suggested. .. Mr.,Gray.briefly..reviewed'.the.Environmental Impact Questionnaire . and the environmental-.as`sessmerit comments. It•was, the recom- mendaty on of, thi6 staff, '.that ,a 'Negative Declaration be prepared for .the proposed rezoningssand pre -zoning. , _ p. _ . The Publ.c�,Hea;rng waso e.,ned',.. Mr. ..Ace Marcellus ,addressed the Commission,.., stating ..that, ,he owned. property just outside '-. - :..-of -the city.1imi.ts':,in "thd• prezoning:;',areao He advised that `his: lot, s.pl .t,`.wh ch was also being .rev iewed b.y the Commission thi�s';even ng', was -.she initial. s,,tep Indevel:opment of, his property, and -.that he.eventually intended.to.further subdivide into half acre-,parce'ls and. ,provide a 1; 2'00 foot 'cul=de-sac and sewage system to serve the•hots. -5 - Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, .7_uly. 15, 19.75 Mr. Harry .Decheme, owner of the C-H zoned property adjacent to !_ Mr. Marc dllus,t. prop erty:, asked wheret'.the proposed road would be.,.construc.ted, and --Mr. Marcellus .r'epl•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 pos'sible.,' since..'the ..City Would .not. allow a: cu,l-'de=_s'ac of more than, 400 feet. in length. He. Aso. •advis-ed that the City would not provide 'sewer and wa:ter 'to parcels that were not p;roperly -subdivided' to City standards. . Mr,-. -Marcel-lus questioned if :he ''therefore could onl subdivide into four lots Mr Gra re lied th t h ld subdivide, nto,..l-acrre"•lots, and providea street with fire hydrants located every 300-400..feet.. .He further advised_ that County standards. would allow, him to develop without the fire hydrant's„;.,but" .in' order to be served :by. City sewer and water he would have -to: annex and mee.t_City standards. Mt.,Gray advis.ed the.aiidience that the whole purpose of studying the area and; providing ;ari :adequate circula'tori pattern was so that :orderly development .could .,take place. Since all of the ,plans,, proposed .by the s;taf;f had been over=whelmirigly rejected by the ;property 1owners 'in -.the' area, the, proposal to .zone for lots large enough:.not to- require. a. circulation:system had been, inkt'iated as.-an':.equit4ble solution. -in weighing the rights of. 'the. •property. ,owners and that of.the general public welfare and safety. •Mr., Gray reiterated that existing .-parcels that .did not meet the new lot sizes, would, not `b-e affected. A recess was called at' 9:30 p.m. and the meeting resumed at 9 : 40 p .,m . Dr..Paddor-informed the Commission that he -owned a parcel in the center, of the proposed rezoning. and wa's in favor- of- the 1-acre:'par-cel' zoning., ...He stated that; in order.-• to be fair to all -property owners involved., a poll should, be taken .and also the ci-tizens of Petaluma not residing in,the.,area .should have' -the right to :say how' they -;felt about-, development in the subject ar.ea., Mr. Gray. replied; that. -the Commission had heard a good' deal of varying viewponts,'..and had.sa_ greater responsibility than;.that of the.propef•ty owners;, since they, had to look out for :future 'res-idents .and also.other residents, of the City in terms. of the., general public welfare and public safety. Chairman H lligoss .questioned how large the par-ce'ls would have to be. in relation,to the grade. Mr. Gray replied that..the Sub vision, Ord-inarice - is; .very. nebulous with regard to If lsides, :, butt the.'lsizes ;should _ be..incr.eased; according to the slope of ,the.'-1and. , He. -also advised that -the Planned Unit Development - concept could be utilized in.the area with'th6 ratio of one dwelling unit per :acre .of. land. Comm. Bond .questioned,',f the circulation system would be r:e.q:u,red' `f. the;.whole :area, was rezoned to R-1-20,000: Mr,. Gray replied, that. it.. would bye,,; since otherwise .it, would be necessary � ,toy construct. •long cul.-de-sacs and have numerous streets opening out:, onto-Bodega Avenu& Iwhich wasIundes:irable from a traffic safety s,tandpoint... -6- Petaluma Citi. Planning- Commission- Minutes,`", July 15; "1'975' ' '= 'Mr. Marcellus,,aske'd f"it would be more desirable to develop • access�to his, property from Paula Lane., and how the.City would then, look upon. 20:,0'00'° 'square foot lots:. Mr. Gray replied that. althoughfit might b_e:possible.to develop hi.s.property individually in that,manner,.it would s:til'l leave the rest,of.the area to deal with and haphazard development:.would,.occur as property owners wished '"to develop. ' He. f'tirther, advised! Mr... Mar.cellus that if he 'had a' unique .plan 'that c6u1d' prove-to.",the ..City sufficient access could -be provided;,he.c`ould present his .plan to the Planning Commission for consi:.deration. Mr. Joe Lovato. stated his; desire.:and,.that of other individuals he had'talked 'to 'for- 'zoning to•'10,,000- square foot lots. He fur- the'r 'advised "that the prop.o'sed- rezorilhg would preclude him from r' const:ructin'g a . third .house' on.'•his'. property, which was his intent when he purchased ;the- prop'er,ty. Mr..Gray'was ''asked ` if"R'-1:-40,000 zoning would provide a street " cir:culation plan.: He replied that .'from a planning standpoint- r' str-eets would ,not be required.with 1-acre zoning, because of the small number of lots involved.. Mrs. 'Ebwtdr'-informed' the Commission .she did, riot feel the land use should be'.limited..in. the manner`proposed, but should be kept open -for the tutur.e. Another memVdr of. the audience then stated tha't'leav ng'the'property open for,'th_e`future was unwise, since t, it'would°not allow any controlling measures and the area could end up: with multiple 'dwellings.' Mr. Decheme'as'ked why special.cons-deration regarding the length 1 of-. the streets . could not be .given due: to .the,- long, narrow "parcels of land. Mr. Gray replied that it.was not,just a matter of City policy, -'-but also that bf `me'eting -the International liire Rating ' Association standards for fire,protection. He added that 1-t was not possible°to provide adequate fire.:and police protection with 'numerous' long.,cul-de-sacs and':ther.efore would not be in the best interests of the-general•public safety .and welfare. Mr'. Decheme 'questioned why•.the .a'ccess to -provide roads for the circulation system had_ . been -7.5-.feet .wide. Mr. Gray advised that a 60-foot,.,access had.been..required because of the slope of ` the land, and that the'-streets'would actually only be 30 - 40 feet wide.. He.also advised that private roads: are up to the discretion of 'the Planning•tommission and -City' Council -and have " not been,'fav:orably coisid,ered-„in the:. past when" over 400 feet long. The Public He"'ing-was closed. Comm.. "Bal.shaw made 'a. motion to ..dir.ect the Director of. -Co mmunity. Development to .'prepare 'an d'post.a Negative Declaration for the projeect.. The..motiori.A— seconde'd.by. Comm. "Popp. Mr. Gray explained"t"o .the audience that°. the''.Commission was.,considering 'the environmental•impact..of`the.pro,posed.rezonings and prezoning 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 -had been .' considered and found to.,,not`be.det-rimehtal to the physical aspects of .the area. _ AYES •. 6 NOES _ 0 ABSENT: 0 Comm., Balshaw made.. a motion to•,.recommend, to. ,the City. Council .. that the rezonings; .and` prezoning .be" "approved as; recommended by the.�taff. Comm,,Popp seconded the motion. AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT 0 Comm. Bond spoke relating.to the .petition which had -stated the property .owners :did .not want -planning for the area at all, He .advised the•audien.ce, that it .was the .responsibility of the ;Commission .to .do planning .of .this type and that the property could not continue 'to be used ,at 'the citizens' discretion: - Comm. Bond stated the action :had been. °taken. _from a plan - .;,that, n ng ,standpoint as'bein'g.best for the area at this time. Mr.. Gray advised the-zudience,that.,the:City Council had 'tenta- tively set July ns.t f:o,r. the time at -which they, would set a ;P.ublic,Hearing date to .cons der .the xezonings and prezoning,, _which would p.r.obabl'y be 'done at -the following meeting: :He advisedthe property -owners'. -that- they would be advised of the date of the.Pub.li.,.Hearing. Mr. Boehlje added that the Com- mission was' only recommending that the rezonings;and prezonings be approved., and ,therefore anyone .in opposition .did not have ®; to appeal 'to. the .City. Council, but should attend the. Public Hearing and make their -feelings _known. SONOMA.COUN.T,Y Mr. -Gray recommended to .the Commission that a letter be -.REFERRAL -•ACE T, forwarded.to the,County stating that•the Commission'.had taken MARCELLUS;:". action this evening by, recommending'to the.Ci.ty Council that 1-acre.lot:zoning be approved for.the'area n.­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 Or:dinance.s-ince he: -was .planningito subdivide, further, .at a •later date. Mr. .G'r.ay explained'. to Mr-.. Marcellus that if - he ,wished to sell. the existing, house ,at -this 'time, the -proper method would be .to .par.cel it off. Different methods of ,devel= opmena of the ;parcel, .were d'iscussed•, and Mr. Gray expla-ine'd the. PUD'.concept.. ,He ,also, clarified that ,city sewer could,no;t be obtained unless "the entir.e,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 PTanning,Department advising them.of ;the Commission's recommendation to, th'e ::City.. Council :to `prezone this area for 40000 ,square :foot lots, and. also to include the recommendations of the staff. The motion was -seconded by Comm. Waters. AYES 6 NOES' 0 ABS.ENT . -0.: •. Petaluma City Planning, Commission Minutes, July 15.;;:1975 MODIFICATION TO The Commission was, .in.f:ormed.:that :the..:pr.m zedfir..es.`:far-:compliance PROCEDURES-FORwith the', -re qui,r-em-ents lo.f, CEQA•.were'being revised to bring them COMPLIANCE WITH into .conformity with the current guideliries,,and since the REQUIREMENTS OF Commission ,wor,,,ked with -.th'e, :env.ixonmental ,review process, it CEQA: was felt •they should approve the -guidelines:,' i OTHER BUSINEiS: l i f Mr, Boeh-lje advised of --changes on. page :15, with..regard to. Sections 6.-1 and 6-2, and' ,a:` brief '-discussion 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 0 - Chairman Hilligos's informed,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, informed' th'e Commission --that meetings had -been held with, regard to: the 'corridor' between Petaluma and Novato and' al-1 the :agencies involved had decided to pass a memo of understanding of coo,perative'planning and -cooperative policies on this corridor. He advised that if the .Commission wished to make a recommendation to the City Council to enter into this agreement a motion should be -made, Comm. .Bond made.a motion to recommend to the City Council that the City of Petaluma enter into a.memo;of-.understanding with 'the agencies involved to initiate cooperative -planning and policies on the..P=etaliiina=Novato` corridor. The motion -was seconded by Comm. Popp. AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT !0 Comm. Bondinformed the Commission:that-.the'Police.Department addition was not being constructed as -the Commission had approved it in.site design review,, and he felt that ,the City was under the.sime responsibility and obligation as any -devel- oper in complying -with conditions of approval. A short discuss -Lon -followed., and Chairman;Hilligoss was requested by the Commission to take, the matter -to 'the..City Council for their consideration. ADJOURNMENT.: There, being'no further bus-ness„ the`meett' jourried at-10: 3 .p •n►, , d Chairman / At to s't : ima1110. -9-