HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02/07/1978REGULAR,.MEETING FEBRUARY 7, 1978
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS'- 7::30.. P; M.
CITY, HALL. PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
The Plann,_ing_Commiss• ion - encourages applicants- or..their representative to be
available,,- at _ the: meetings_ to _ answer- . quest 'ions,' so :.that .'no -agEnda items need
be deferr,ed..:to .a- later . date.. %%due.. to 'a lack. of pertinent information.
PLEDGE.,ALLEG IAN CE'TO THE' "FLAG
ROLL CALL: . Comm•s.:. Balshaw Head ::' ' Horciza Lavin
Shearer Waite, Wright
STAFF: Rbnald..F; Hall, P anning..Direc.tor.
APPROVAL; OF MINU:TES::
CORRESPONDENCE:.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Items. appearing:, on:._ theFConsent; Caleridaz .. - will. :b,e.consadered_to: be: ~routine by the
Planning..:Comm s:slon,. and.:.wil
enacted- -, ,.by..`. one -;mot on,.. °be no separate
discussion °' 'of ' these - items'.. I- f:._di scuss ion -- is :'desire'd,,-:that ;1tem (or items) will
_
be- .remov(4..f -rom': the. Consent Calendar.
Angus - MacDonald
Evalu -a:t on;:and -sS .te cDes1gn Review of a
_
proposed_'°Yarnaha�Dealershp to' be located at
2605 Petaluma Blvd. "North.
Martha Dougherty
-
EI, Q, -Eva lua•tlon::;and'}Ste°�Des'gn Review of a
propos'edk duplex-:develop nent'> t'o be located. at
355 Edith Str- ,eet�,
NOTE;:'. The following items will be items-if no_ public: testimony is given.
Robert - .Gilbert
Public ;Hearing .to cr:ezone _approxma ely- 3- acres,
located between the= end` of Larch: 'Drive and - Bodega
`
F Avenue f --t •R, 1 i 6,. , :500 to R- 1- 20,000.
Homeowners,.. Lumber:: Co.;.-. l
;: ,_. Public Hear in evaluates the.. Environmental Impact
Questionnaire.- for�:-,a. proposed - - , addition to the
lumber yard..
2.
P.ublic:.HearI g.to..consider, a Use mPermit ,appl cation
for .the. exist - ng= 'lumber yard -located . at 4.09 , Petaluma
,Blvd. South„
3,.-
Site. Design JR&view oD.- the, proposed project.
PETALUMA PLANNING CO MM ISEION
AGENDA FEB
RUARX 7 -T-19
C O NSENT CALENDAR. CONV ; D
�P4
Loya:l 'Ord of Mb'ose, 1. Public 'Hear". I ing o evaluate-' t ' - ihe grivir-onment6l
,Impact Questionnaire for a -- d
proppse - room
addition to the existing -,structure'.1ocated at
300 `English Street.
.2. 'Public Hearing p' consider a Use application
for the exi§ting for the proposed project.
- 3'
Site Design. ReVi or.'the'propo project,.
•
Dick Lieb for All Together
Design, Inc.
-1. Public. -Hearing - to! evaluate - the ,Environmental,
Imp act - Qu 0st f or, a,. prbpos,ed hair
_
shop. to be located %at - 12.9.5- -Petaluma Blvd North..-
2. Public h,g to c a. .,Use 'Permit app'l
f or the-:
proposed p,ro.j ec, t
1. Site, Desigfi_Review. -the prq* -_e
QANTAS DEVELOPMEN COR.P;
E.. EVALUATION, AND
RE-ZONING, 1 FROM,'COUNTY
TO CITY Ptl) (PLANNED
COMMUNITY DISTRICT)`:
2.
SCENIC LAND. P96PERTIE-8 1.
"E. L.Q. EVALUATION- AND
REZONING FROM STUDY
,ZONE 70 R-.1-6,500•
2.
KIPCO-E. I.Q. . EVALUATION,/
USE--PERMIT /SITE DESIGN.
REVIEW:
M AX' BLUMENFELD-
E .1, Q. EVALUATION/- -
USE PERMIT:
ADJOURNMENT
2.
3..
Pirb eva-l'u'ate ' the 'Environmental
Impa:ct4.QqasEionn proposed - -rezoning qf,
a I p I prox-i - atdly: 60 , .acres. - located,':on -Ely' Road Nb'rth
fr,om- ""A" to. City TCD ` (.Planned oo : mm I u - n - i ty
District).
Public Hearing. consider the.
rezoning
request,.
Public -, ing-.� t a evaluate- t1-e, Environmental -
Impact Ques ti:onnaire 'for a*,prQpqs'ed rezoning of
a.pp --1 located .°at 1051•.-Petd;luma
Blvd' South -f -ko -\-!Study Zoriel to • - 1,
Pub Hearing- consider - the, propo's'ed, rezoning'
request..
Public', Hearing evaluate^�'the Env ironmental-
tvac t Quest ionnair I e • :-'Ifor,.-�c , ommerc b�tii:lding, •-_..o
be- located: at ith , :tl
- g-nor. heast corAer N. McDowell.
Blvd,. and - {. ( Oldl ,, Redwood Highway..
consider - a Use .:Permit application
fo the projec
�S'ite, Dies-ign -. the- proj ect.
u ng.-to-evaluate-the Environmental
Impac"t 6 nnAre Tbk: Health Spa
`6fo
C oin
p16;t b 'Tocated --at 6 Petaluma, Blvd North.
-2. Public -He consider a Use- Permit appli,cdtibn' _�
for the. project. i K
2
M I N -U- T, ,E. S'.
1 �
PETALUMA CITY `PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY - 1978 11
REGU A IMEETING - 7:30 P.M:
CITY-C 'CHAMBERS,, !CITY' 1411 PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA,,
PRESENT,* Comm Balshaw * Head., Lavin * *,, Shearer., Waite;, Wri- ght * **
* *Arxved 8 3`5 p m -:'; *Exeused 10:,35 p_.'m;.; '* *?Excused 9:30 p.m.
ABSENT: Comm. Horciza
STAFF-:.' Ronald -F: Hall, Planning Director
ARPROVAL�OF MINUTES:
�'
The minutes of the meeting of Janua,r -y 17; ,1978 -, were -
approved as corrected.
CORRESPONDENCE`:
None '
1 . 1
ht
CONSENT1,CALENDAR:
was the.consensus that the following items be re-
moved, from 'the Consent Calendar: Angus MacDonald and
f
Loyal Order of Moose..
Agenda Item . #2
Ma riha Dougherty, Negative Declaration, and Site Design,
Res 5 515'. approving a duplex d'eveio:pment to be located
at 355 Edith Street
Agenda Item #3;
Robert Gilbert, approving rezoning, Res Z5 -78, of•
p roximatel y 3 acres located .'between, the .end of Larch..
a'rive. and Bo -dega -Avenue from R-1=6,500 to R =1 =20, ^000.
Agenda'. Item #4
Homeowners Lumber Co Negative Declaration, Use.Permit
Res. U1 -78, and` Site' Design Res 5 .517 approvng..addi =,:
tion 'to ,exist ing lumber yard located at 409 Petaluma
Blvd,. South,.
Agenda Item. ' #6
All,`T.ogether Hair'Design,,,Inc., Negative Declaration,
; Use Permit 'Res. U5- 78'., and. Site Design Res. 5.526,
; approtiing hair s,tylii g shop to , be located 'at 1295
„ Tetaluma Blvd.. North.:
The motion was made by Comm. Lavin, seconded by Comm.
Balshaw to. .approve I'tems'2, 3, 4 and 6 on the Consent
Calendar-. - Motion was: carried unanimously.
ANG.US MACDONALD:- Mr. Hall explained ,the ;req;ues.t by Angus MacDonald for , a
E.I' ; Q EVALUATION/ new.and used Yamaha -sales and assembly shop to be lo-
SITE DESIGN'; ca,ted.at ;260 Petaluma Blvd,. North: The sate. is com-
pletely developed with'the building and .parking lot and
is :composed of one rectangular shaped 'parcel that covers 16,;.000 square feet of
area -T-he 'building-front :Us character -istic of early -Pe dluma. The ,right wall
of the. build .w.il1_require either. painting or sandblasting. to expose the
brick siding T.en adequate sized parking spaces are available to the of
the site.
Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes,, February 7, 1978
Comm. Wright stated he had. -attended a •seminar on, historical and cultural. build
Ings and, it,'was stressed that sandblasting'6f: buildings t ends to deteriorate
the brick.
'The P.,ublic to consider
th ' Impact Questionnaire was
o,oened., Fted.S,chram, adjacent prbpert , -of - the stated' there' 'is'
y. owner .;,prQ,P.erty
a deeded right -of '-way for 'trucks dowh -, the , alley and"'ifil back .0 of the building.
He did not want%-- mo torcycles; any , impeding on the right -of -way. �T A e #4 parking • space prbtrudes into the adjacent right-of-way�, and he suggested . parallel par'k'- •
ing in.lIeu of diagonal•parkIng- He'. furthe,r-.stated this. I wa>s private property,,.
and 'he did not iwant, any moto*rty'cle on' bis pt Angus MacDonald stat
the motorcycles would be serviced and maintained in the basement of the shop
and then Pushed up the alley to.the front of the store. Mr. Sc - hram.stat(E�4 the
16-foot alley is used Intiahs y ivel and there is n.o,northerly ekit -ftom the
alley. Thomas - Hargis, Assistant City Eng'ine'er,' stated he was certalfi this was
�a public alley an'd that there was a lQad.ing zone existing in front of the
Dairyman's FCed &�Supply Co. the Public Hearin I g . was closed:
Comm. -.Wrl*�ght 'moved to direct the Planning Director to prepare arid, -post a NEga-
ti7,e Declaration for the pro j"ect., The motion Was seconded by Comm. Shearer.
AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT I
Wayne.,.Ra:pmussen, Project Coordinator, stated that if the parking,,.. not located
in th,e the parking should remain,, but if the parking is locate
in the right`of=way the parkin g should be removed.. .
Comm. Wright moved to approve the site de'sigrt for the proposed Yamaha motor--
c-y e an assembly shop� with conditions of app:rqval as recommended"by the.
, cW sale d ' I cdn 1 ..." - . . 1 � — f
staf =and_ 'concurred with by the Architectural & S ite Design Review , Committee,
with the Iowing changes. The motion was,.secdnd6d 'by Comm. Shearer,.
Condition #ig chan The warehouse buildings in the rear of th&
'- Xoper I ty,
if o 4 ccupied . by the applicant,, shall be' used for the storage of non- combdstible
lmaterials " only; and the deteriorated roofing shall be repaired to.prevent
leaking,.
Condition X8 changed The applicant 1. comp'l
plicant shd - y' with all applicable Stat6
Build-ing, - and Codes.,
Condition.'#10. added - The second floor rear door. of. 'the primary building
shall -be permanently secured (shut) to prevent an accidental exit., No merchan
dire or goo -
a s s - hall' be stored or displayed in'"front of the primary building's
_
fro'tit wall.
Condition #11 = added - Customers test driving motorcycles shal-I enter and exit.
PetalumaAlvd. North only by way of the abutting alley _to the right, unless
otherwise specified by. -the traffic Committee;,.
Condition 412 added Test d riving ' of motorcycles on abutting private proper-'
e I
ty shall b proh
AYES` .6: NOES ABSENT T 1
-2-
•
Petaluma, City 'Planning Commission Minutes, February 7., 19.78
LOYAL ORDER OF MOOSE , Mr Hall explained tt�e request by the Loyal Or - o 1
r
E L' Q 2 `UATION /� Moose for ; a proposed building addition to +the:existing:ri
USE FERMIT REQUEST / r• ;Moose Lodge located•at 30.0 English_St Tlie site 'is.
SITE I DESIGN REVIEW. improved , �w,Iih ttie�ex sting- Lodge„ a.rlarge parking area:-
„and a small single family utes aence., jie building,
addition measures .15 feet in lZeigli't and. 557 square feet of areas Po.r
„ ,
bons of .the .parking lot are not',adequately,,paved .which tgs in •a; muddy
x surfaceduring the whiter and; dusty surtface during tte summer,:moriths.,,
�}
The Publc Hearing `to consider the Environmental Impact Quest ionnaire :aaa<
opened Harald. Fish, President of Ghd 'Moose Lodge, s "ta'ted the "Lodge would 611
e parking loa�with a ; sear rcoaa b' ,t..wou'1,d be ;impossible," ;to asphalt the.-
th
entire parking lot >, He indicated',there; are no_ muddy ,condit'ion§ .as the pa'r'king s
lot C has s a rock base, Comm .Shearer stated the driveways are vi.s ;hard,: «to
r ,
see; are., in poor condition and tha,t t�iere are a, lot of ; pot. holes,._in the parking:
lot a
She sked if, ; some :consideration could ; b _ given o t imp - roving the, driveways_
and an exit rt $e prodded onto Baker Street A 'resident, ;at - 432 ,Baker, Street
stated he lived across ,the s't,reet. from the .Moose ;Lodge ''and the "parking; lot, is:;a
dust b e Public Hearing was closed
Comm . Wr;ght moved to direct the P.lanring Director to p
.,r epar Negative:
e a, ,post • a;
D.eclara for the project,. The motion was: secorided"'li,y Comm. Shearer.
t AYESr 6; NOES 0 , ABSENT'• 1
. The, Public Hearing
to consider the Use .Permit was
opened No comments were ,
of- fered from the, audience and the ;' ,Hearing, was,'clo,se'd:.
Comm Wright ,to grant the i- t' for the Mobs e! Lod °ge. The
motion {was seconded'° by Comnir 'Shea'ier,.
-
�: 4,AYES 6- NOES 0 ABSENT .f ! ..
Comm Shearer, moved_ to 1 approve the s.i te• design for., the .pr4'ose - d' building ad"di.
i
t on, to 'the...Moose =Lodge with,,cbbd." tions o•f app,roval as- recommended by the s;ta_f'f.
arid,,,cori sng c curre,d, : ,with ;by, �''the•,Arehitectu'ral. &•� Spite Design : Revis_w, �Cgmnitte`e - w1th. trhe•
., -
follow hange:, : ( The; pot on .ways. seconded ` Comm _ Wry glit;: r
Condition changed, -' All parking area and driveways shall be surfaced_ :And.;. .
maintained with. y a ; dustless and durable,. _finish ln. accord'ain_c "e ; with :the.,spec •fica -.
tio'ns o£:..the ;Chief° Building ;Tns,pector (;Section• 20 -405:) :.;.
AYES,, . ,6 , • ,' NOES .0 ABSENT 'l.,"
QANTAS DEVELOPMENT, Mr. Hall explained the request.by Qantas Development
CORE E -t I Q EVALU ,. Corp.. to prezone app ,'roxlmately. 6Q acres located on ;the,-
ATION AND REZON3ING northwest side of Ely Road., fro* County "A," Agri.cul =tune
FROM COUNTY - A TO, _ to City -P'CD„ Planned Community - Di•s +trict.,'to, al•16w for _
CITY PCD. PLANNED apprg_xiinat;ely 245 'single - family residential units, a
COMMUNITY 'D-I'S.TRICT): street system and a .portion of: an- :elementary:,scho,ol.:', ,
�!. site. The appl -icarit proposed to develop the area in 3
-3-
m
Petalua.City Planning Commission M'
I <. inut February 7, 1978
,phases with a total of, 216 zero 'lot line homes rid 31 -4,u!drapl&,t lot,,,hgmes.
Ptimar y access t6 the 60 acres of resident-idl -d
evelopmeh wot d,be provi ed y
Ra-ifiiet,Avenue off d.,' Maria Drive. and -Ely, on Joslyn
% V_ Road J
*developeri had submitted a'letter. requesting.. .the Planning C ommiss1oq-'a�c.e,'-
on-.the prezohilig application t h
y making' e 'T fn i d" ng u h d t fic
there is. :s`Tgh-`ificdht:
environmental impact at' thi. it --
- s ime�, an d the right be -riserved. to kequire_addi.
tional•environment'eCl inf'6rmation prior to approval of -a. Tentative Map. Mr;'
Halal stated, the 'staff did : f eel that a finding of
no Sigff-i:f icarf-t
environmental impact could be made `4t`-:this time, under present law,* and,'tHa,t-.dr'
E.:I.,R. should be certified on the - project , prior to any action by the Planning
C ommi ssio n.
Mr- Hall f urther'' - explained tlia-t a Staged E.I.R. would provide som f
om OrMi o f
leniency for the app1idant. , He qdoted 15069.'5 of the S. tate Guidelines
for EnV1konmeqtal Impact Report's: '"Wh,eLre' 'a, large capital proj ect will . r6qu-ir'---
e
a number of d±scretionar-y• approvals f .go_ver'nm agencies ofte 6 the
apprioval• will occur I more than 2 years before construction will begin�- a• stage . 'd
E. I. R. may be: prepared coveting the entire project in a ge'
P . rm Th6
staged ,E.I.R 'sfiould'� evaluate the proposal,- in .'light of current, and cohtemijia_ted'
plans and produce dn-inf.prm6d estimate - of the�environmenta 1 1 _'con'
.s6q,deftc:es of the
ent ire .,pr(?,j ect. The aspect of the pro ject before the public agency fbr.approv-
al shall be discussed with a ,,greater'4eg-te6 .'of specificity.
•
Comm. Balshawi stated the I L14 environmental impacts derived from, the, en''vilronm
tal assessment ar.e handled , in -a general manner by the City in its - E.:,, - R.T. We •
,require -four members from.the school district, to on the housing allocation
board. and ithe 'City Engineer to indicate as�'to whether there is adequate water'
and sewer It is alread y knowr I i . what the impact's of the Park R
•
addition- ate, and the • E i
E. I.R. would not turn up any - new " formation H I e.,could
n
not say it would have a negative impact but a negative 4-nticipaIed impact.
Comm. Wright questioned what would involve an initial* s ta 9 'e'? Mt. 'Hal.1 explained
.
that a measures impacts to, various degrees:. The ';s. has
indicated that these are the 14 impacts - b t it is UP to the Commission to
determine if•. there are. potential- significaftt If the Commission feels
more,., hfbrma is needed, then ; .a 'limited, E. I. be ,required " . The
initial stage of - dt -E.IIj(. Would just cover the Etema designated and a g
djas ' ctiptibri of the environmental impact pxobltems. ' Comm. Balshdv stated he ha-d -
- reviewed all 14. environmental impacts and s gested� that to the f inal �map
_g
sta-ge-a 'recommendation be obtained 'f rom the Fix.-_e Chief for a 'fire station in
this area. All 14 6 Ar-6 not' goiftg to give. v.e. us any new ihfbhuatFio':
r n.as. . -
f a a t Balshaw :further ,stated u u
S -_'IMP4C Comm, ed that 'all mitigating meas w&"ld
not be -given in the proposed Master E. I.R.. It would asterisk th0s I e 1:t&ms'. th`dt'
need ' to be inve'stigate'd. One of the requirements should be the-traf impact
and what im p act this, development will have. on several signalized intersections..
C.6mm. LaVin•_,§tate.d that'the. scope 'of this., project is' such th it .warrants
.•documentation -of.s'ome of the impacts and mitigating measure&. One OfL the
advahtage an--'.'EIR is that..Iis helps delineate some of the problems Wand
I
outlines some"of, mitigating me�dsure's 'such a e s t ab .1 is h ihg bicycle paths*,
and school sites in a: qivantitaYft manner. Comm. - Bal-shaw 'asked if an EI.R:w Ad;.
OU
uncover any unanticipated impacts that they were not aware of
Comm. Wright, was excused at 9,%: 30 p. m..
The Public'Hearing, to, consider the 'Environmental IMpa. ct Questionnaire .-was;
opened.. - �Jon i0s.1 tepresefit Qantas Devjelbpment, requested the-Commission.
-4-
/t�,
Petaluma City Planning Commission Minute s 7'; 1978
to'act on the prezoning- application by ;making the find there is `no
significantb environmental impact at this time, but the right be reserved to
require. additiona , l , .env'ironmentaT.information prior to approval of the Tentative
map:; `Mt. Joslyn Asked,thit he be allowed•.to parallel •along with the proposed
master ;EIR. . If an .EIR is required, the project; cannot, be -annexed until. ter. -
tif: cat on - of' , the EIR. Comm: Shearer . s'tated- this is -an extension of is .previous
de..,elopment- where; 'an ;expensive -EIR had. :been ;prepared. She dial' not see any
reason.;not to.grant a. Declaration with the reservation that ladditiohal
information be requested, thro;ugh,the map stages., Comm. Waite stated the first..
X
mialigat ng'measure. would b:e he-'PCD.. 'Mr. Hall explained that the general
conditions apply to the PCD;, the site layout and the conceptual plan:; Larry
Jonas.�stated there is no reason .to ho ld up the rezoning, but there should -be
some consideration given to -the •extension of Ely Road with' this :project. The,
. Public 'Hearing was closed;:
Tom. Harris„ stated traffic will impact upon the adjacent arterial. s;tree't .sys(tem.
Mr,. Hall stated, that most of the impacts are minor. If there, is a potential ' .
p , f' l
. b Tr uld •be an initial study - before
amNegativeDeclaration - is postedeSeitheran nitial study or an EIR. The law
does. no,t allow any discretion.: The Master EIR.. is not now 'available: If a
Negativ',e Declaration :is- considered, it should be indicated that a traffic
analysi's be furnished at a later date, so that -the, law will be- complied with.
. -
Comm. Head stated we are losing, track of the - old: philosophy called common
sense :and..now .is the time to implement common sense=.. 'Mr: Hall explained, that
before a Negative Declaration can be'.posted,,. determinat on should be made.
that there are no sig' hificant, impacts, parti;cu1 rl.y when there is a traffic
problem p,otential:
Comm..Head moved t& direct the Planni=ng Director to prepare, and post a Negative
Declaration for the project with ,the following findings; '1) The Planning Com-
mission',is aware of the traffic problems, 2)- 'The applicant Qantas Development;
shall be responsible for all statements in their letter dated January 24, 1978;
3) The- Planning Commission res,erues the right to, requ�re an EIR, if necessary,
during subsequent phases of the proj.ect. ,,The motion was seconded by Comm.
Balshaw;
AYES 4 NOES 1 ABSENT 2
The, Public.Hearing was. opened to. consider the :proposed..PCD., Planned Community.
District;, prezoning.
Comm. -Head' moved' =that.no taken,on th'e prezoning application and the.
prezon ng b'e,consi'dered by the Planning ::Comm ssion Eebruar-y 22., 19 The
motion was seconded by -Comm.. Shearer.
AYES 5 NOES 0- ABSENT. 2
SCENIC LAND PROP- . Hall explained the , request of Scenic Land Prop -
ERTIES - E I:.Q perties to rezone 18_ acres located north of. Petaluma
EVALUATION AND of McNear Avenue-from "S %, Study District,
RE20NING;FROM,''STUDY to R =1- 6,500, Single - Family Residential.. The property
ZONE TO ;R- 1- 6,500, was rezoned fromw R M -G garden. apartment residential .
district, and C -H, highway commercial district, to "S' ",
7
Petal:uma'-City P Commission, Minutes, February T, 1978
Study District., in 197 3 , ,. with.the intent to allow the - property
r owner sufficient
time to propose -,.a. condominium - development _f or.-the ptbpefty-w `In 1974, the
,property owJh subm'itted,a request to rezon6 I the property- f "S" t PU
rog� 0 D,
Plahned,,Un bct- to, 'allow. for a 165�.unit con& - r6ect. An EIR had
;U_ con p J
been-p,rep4re for the project.. The Recrea.tibn. Director had requested that
revenue 'sharing funds be -set aside for the purchase - of 'the property "as' a C ity
park site- j-'Th,6 property was des-igneted'as ;a pa on the EOVA-konm
Design Plani The designation was also removed from the EDP'., The EDP was
amended change• the land use designation from 'ark'sit'a to u"rba
p n. td'.Oridedtial
In.1977., Scenic�.:Landi',Prbperties was granted an all' Reside -
I . I �. 4 a llotment by. the - I sl en tial'
. Development Control ard for 55 single=family units on the 1:8 acre site..
Co=...Sheare'r that at onel time the Tafts and Recreation Department
,wanted this property f o r a -pafks and ite.- s
si This, i an-unusual
site,. Sh questioned what 1 happened to the4propo'sal for using , this, land for
, general :c.ommunity;T Mr., Hall 'explained that this property had - tome . b ef Ore ' the
Commission-and Council as a park ftoposal, -but was rejected. Tfi& E desig-
nates the-pxoper-ty as urban density' residential.. Zoniff. Blshaw exlained, the
e
Planning Commission had strong l y recommended the property a would be p 'n ideal
a
park site, 'but the:, City Council did' not, believe it was-appropriat&. He would
like' the 'Council I to have another look wt-the property as a, park site ' He 'would
rather. the property` no "t be devdlop'ed - as R-1-6,500-, but_ in mixed up lot 'due. to`
thet of the site. He was riot -certain. if the earlier EfR would be
applicable for -this. `proposal. Mr., Hall. e �a` "�site_ . rally
, stated gpne -
benefits by a. FUR. -Comm. Lavin •cdmmented 'that since the EIR A
was. not written
for R-1-6,,500,-, -d new .:EIR may' bo-,re:quire`d. Jt.-is A beAutiful. of property-
,And - would b,e ideal, f or a park. Becaus&•oif. the property's unique 'character, he' •
would;...like to referr'ed back to the City Council to see if it can be•tYreserved
as a park site.
Comm.-Bal.'shaw was 'excused at 10:35 p.m.
The Public Hearing to consider the Envfroftfhtn Impact Questionnair,
opened,. Geo'kie.'.3hehn, repre.s.eliting - the. Sbenic Properties, state they are
proceeding with the same plan that had been before the Res
idential Allotment
Board_and at that 'time, there - was no problem with.'
the grading .and street reet layout.
The; proposed street system is the only - feasible I but f or the site to zerve 65
lots,. ,The market place is for single - family homes The EIR is a complete
document, and contains every element of speceifkcity. Fred S'hram,, Chamber of
c
Commerce stated that the surrounding pr'
pertias surrounding this p aricel are
commercial., He indicated that ,Santa Fe would,not -move out -of this area. Dan
Hleba:kos:, trucking and storage: depot, loca:ped, adjacent to the ptopo'sed site,
obj ected: tO a hods.-ing development in the'mfds of commercial-industrial area;
The Public Hearing -was -closed.
Comm. Lavirl.moved-that the property'b6 referred t
s ideration as - a park and, recreational - area And be
Commission on Febrtiary 22, 19'78., 'The -motion was
•AYES 3 NOES 1,
0 the City Gounci-1 for con-
rec"onsidered by
seconded by Com•.'Shearer.
ABSENT 3
KIPCO E", 1. Q, This item was removed froqthe agenda.*'
EVALUATION/USE,P,ERMiT/'
SITE DESIGN REVIEW
C Me
r
Petaluma City`Planning Commission Minutes February 7, 1978
MAX.BLUMENFELD -• Mr. Hall explained the reques,t•by Max Blumenfeld for a
E.I.'Q.'EVALUATION'/ health spa to be located-in the great Petaluma Mill, 6
USE PERMIT: Petaluma.Blvd. North': The building space had-pre-
viously been proposed for a 'theatre. The following
uses are proposed for the spa: dance therapy, exercise area, 15- individual
rooms containing saunas, hot tubs and showers;: Parking,is to be provided by
the Mill parking..lot.
The Public Hearing,to.consider the Environmental-Impact Questionnaire was
opened.. Skip Sommer,,landlo.r.d of the Petaluma Mill, stated the Mill has 110
off- street parking stalls.w is more than adequate. There is more than
enough parking: for the project. The Public Hearing was closed:
Comm. Shearer moved to direct the Planning Director to prepare and post a
Negative Declaration for the project. The motion was seconded by Comm. Lavin.
AYES 4 NOES 0 ABSENT 3
The Public Hearing was opened to consider Use Permit.
Comm. Shearer questioned. the hours of the.,spa. Max Blumenfeld, owner explained
the spa�.Would open no earlier, than 10:00 a.m.. and remain open-until midnight,
depending on the demand from the public. He 'plans to operate the spa on a
drop- in,s ign -up basis., ,rather thanmembe'rship. The health ,spa would include
bicycles, slant board's, exercise dance, weight lifting equipment, saunas and
hot tubs; but no massage will be 'conducted.
Comm. Head moved to grant t1 e''Use Permit to allow for a, health spa with the
following change: The motion was seconded by Comm. Shearer.
Condition #1 Changed: Any `a;ddlt dfial use of building space shall be
reported ,to the Planning'Director prior to commence -
'ment of the activity and modification to-the- -Use Permit
shall be. applied for prior' to commencement of the
activity.
AYES 4 NOES 0 ABSENT 3
ADJOURNMENT: There .being no further business, the meeting adjourned
at 11:30 p.m,.
Chairman
Attest:
7-
�
Corrections
to Planning
Commission Minutes of January 17, 1978
Page
2,
lst'para,
-
The one - story duplex:.is' designed with a blank wall.
Page
4,
1st
para,, -
_No,r.esponse had been received from the Old Adobe
School District.
Page
4.,
lst
Para,:-
The,area within the glide path area should be
designated agricultural use.
Page
6,
2nd
para, -
The - motion was by Comm. Horciza
RONALD F. HALL
P.Tanning Dissector
February
8,
1977
; t 'MIN'UT'ES
PETALUMA'PLANNING JANUARY 17, 1978
.REGULAR' MEETING " 7 1 :30: P.M
CITY COUNCIL..CHAMBERS','CITY HALL .PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
ERESENT 'Comm: Balshaw*; Head, Horciza,' Lavin,; Shearer, Waite;
*Excused at 10:30 p.,'m
ABSENT:. Comm. .Wright
STAFF':.? Ronald, FF.. Hall Planning Director
APPROVAL OF MINUTES,: The minutes of the meeting, of January 4; 1-978.,, were
Approved as submitted.
CORRESPONDENCE: None.
CONSENT` CALENDAR It, was the consensus that the following item be removed
from the Consent Cal'endat Gbltermann, Glazier and
Hansen.
Agenda Item #1 Sonoma Title Guaranty Co.., Negative Declaration and
Site Design Res. 5.5'20. approving. a light industrial
coctplex to be .located in Lots 1 and. 4 of the .Petaluma
Industrial Park on the corner - of North.McDowell Blvd.
and Scott Street;:'
The motion was made by°.Comm. Shearer, seconded by Comm:
Horciza to approve Item #1. Motion was carried unani =
mous y
GOLTERMANN,:GLAZIER & Mr. Hall explained the request by Golt.ermann, Glazier
HANSEN =SITE DESIGN and Hansen for the second of .a, two phase development. of
REVIEW*. a single - family unit; duplex and carport'to'be located
on the ,southeast corner of Eighth Street and, F Street.
_ Both buildings ;are to be situated to the rear of the
site with parking' to: be located. to'the „fr:ont.. The. duplex building and single-
-f amily unit are'rectangular shaped and -,have ,straight gable roofs.. The single-
family .home is designed with a blank fire wall which contains no windows or
other architectural features. Three covered,'and four uncovered parking :spaces '
are propcised....
Dick Lieb, Lieb & Quaresma., displayed 'the site plans of one two -story dwelling
and'.two: one -story duplex units.. He explained the building's were located to the_
rear of the property for pr "ivacy. The parking- area is- screened with landsc_ap-
ing and ;a 3z-foot fence has`been added., The one -story structure has about 200
• square'feet more than the duplex unit.
Petaluma Planning, Commission'Minutes, January 17 , 1978
The 207foot, wide driveway - would be landscaped on each.' side to provide . screening
fo'r the ;cars.. The two -story structure is designed' with a blank 'wall. -conta ni`ng
no windows to provide privacy for the one -story duplex': Each: unit would have a
25- foot. rear, yard. 'Mr. Hall stated there is'no.t a.def ini, te need to have win- -
dows,, but they are, a good feature from a security standpoint, He indicated he
did' not like the, .layout of the single - story. ,duplex unit next to a two - story
structure but that good design is in the eyes of beholder.
The Comments '
on the design and, layout of the project are. the opinion of the, Depart-
men't.," Comma 'Head. stated: that basically, the Planning Commission is concerned'
With tthe architectural appearance, and that the project coforms,Fwith the City
Code and regulations. The applicant should have a. little voice. on the appear-
once of, their' proper, Mr... Lieb stated that reaction from. the .neighborhood
concerning the first two units that are being .built. is very goo :d: He explained
there, would ;be. a 10 - foot separation between.�the units which: seems! to' fit in ,.
with, .the 64 1 o06 side_ yards. There is' no code - requirement for he separation of-
units.. If the-units are placed 'too close;, there could be: a fire, prob'lem.,
Comm. Lavin 'stated, the development appears `to be highly congested !and ,asked 'if
there. is a reason to'` bring it all,. together in one solid area? Mr..Lieb ex-
p1ained they , had,•come; up with a typical solution of putti the. driveway all
the way 'to the back of': 'the ' ro ert- which rovides privacy
P- P, y P p. y and creates a mice
1'arge landscape area.' Not too much 'bla'cktop would be visible, b.ut: with three:.
stalls across, mostly the backs of the cars would be .seen. .Carports: give a
more spacious look.
Comm. Head `moved to the site design for the proposed project with` con-
ditions of approval as :recommend'ed, by the: staff and modified .by the. Architec-
tural. &. Situ Des n
g Review 'Committ'ee with, the following change:
Condition : 4. changed to :readr Addit l'S gallon trees Arid additional
3,- - foot high fencing 'shall be added
The motion was seconded ;by Comm. Shearer.
AYES. 5' NOES' 1 ABSENT 1
M.L.. S. DEVELOPMENT: Mr', Hall explained the request- by.- `M,- L:FS.. Development
CORP. -E'. 1. Q Corp.- to rezone' approximately. 7.4 a-c' s located between
EVALUATION/REZONING... L "indberg:Lane,, Stuart :Drive and. Highway 101 rom PUD,
Planned Unit District l',ti- family units. to R
FROM PUD TO ,R' =1 -6, 500 � • � , 50 mu
y l_.
6,500 single= :family residential. Plans show a develop
ment 6f' :single unit`s during the 1978 - construction year. The
density is approximately 3. . .
9- units per gross; acre Thesite•s aes
overall d'en cc .
sible via Stuart Drive, McGregor Avenue:, Kre`sky 'Way, Lindberg Lane and St.
Francis.Drive.
The Public Hearing was opened - 't'o consider the< Environmental Impact Question -
no re. No comments..were offered 'f rom the audience and! the ;Publ e Hearing was
cl'osed., Comm Horciza stated' that the mutt - - family 'housing .pro.osal would have
increased the., traf -fic where there could, `be' an impact on the street system,
whereas traffic genera ted`,from t he proposed' R- 1- 6500. rezoning would be con-
sid'erably less..
Comm. Horciza. ;moved to direct the Planning Director-to
:prepare aind post ,a
N'egat'ive 'Declaration - for the proj'eet The motion was 'secon'd'ed -by 'Comm. Head.
' W AY , S .; 6 %NOES ..�O- ABSENT, 1
=2-
iS
,t
Petaluma City Plannng:Commission January 17;''19.78
The Public Hearin. g was •,o to consider' 'the proposed R-1 -6, 500 "rezoning. No
- comments;. were offered• ffom the' audience and °the` Public Hearing was closed'.
F
Comm. ;Horc z.a: moved -..to • "ap"prov'a'l: o -f' the . "requested R -1 -6, 500 rezoning•
to the; ' City .-Council '-with - specific , findings ;•: The' - motion wds' seconded by Comm..'
Head.
AYES 6 NOES 6 .ABSENT l
MACKAY! & SOMPS F k Mr. Hall' explained' the reguestt by MacKay" &`. Somps for'
LANDS dF ATKINSON., the Lands "of Atkinson, Lands of:Petaluma Partners and
DUFF,EL�.FI.NANCIAL AND Duffel.Financial &;Construction.,'-add Lands of -Casa
CONSTRUCTION. COMPANY,, '. Grande •Company to consider an' to pre;zone
• AND CASA GRANDE CO -. approximately 240 acres from county A (Agri cult ure) to
PREZONING FROM,COUNTY, City PCD'( . Community District) of Land located
A TO CITY PCD: east-of Ely Blvd.'. South'iiear.Caulfield Lane. The :EIR
for the;p of 730 'residential units
on 233 +f' acres -was - cer;t'if ied by the City °' Coun'cil. However:; the prezonin.g ap -"
pl cation ind' cates ;a - total o'f'882+ residential units,;:' The- 152. residential
unit discrepancy between the - original, nformat on- and•that submitted for the
prezoning reflects-a change in the ,area indicated for greenbelt in the proposed
Tanglewood Subdivision. The applicants= p.ropo.se to"d'evelo'p� the 240- acre'.site
with a.mixture of uses„ including 16 duplex units; 10.0, condominium units, and'
76:6, single- family units' of the single - family units will have to be de-
leted) The development::will - also..,include ;a park elementary school, church
Iandscaped• channel and "greenbelt.
Mr;. Hall. displayed a plot .,plan - showing the' proposed, = ,area, and _ the shaded- airport
clear zone,:, (glide path:),'. . He indicated•'that -the City' Council - ,. that' the
clear zone (glide path)' should - be super- imposed ^over the project.. The'- pre-
zoriing';request of the, property is' ';for Planned Community ,District; however,
approval.of °`!Planned Unit District - rezonings and §ubdivis on.'maps will be
necessary for development of;.the various portioils of, the 'pro'ject. Future "•PUD
consideration and •approv.,al will - be. required.-'for- •,each area. and • phase of de-
velopment and. will. require ,detailed , plans, ' -including final architectural de-
signs .!for -consideration :of all aspects,- of "the proposed -development.
Comm. Waite :questionedat'wla,t-point,in time the- street pattern is determined?
Mr: Hall 'explained. that the 'street sys,t?ein is. not °determined until_ the Tentative
:Map :is • submitted. - It , is important to 'line -up- the arterial streets as these 'are
the streets where , the '- maj'or- ,portion of _ t•he, 'traf.f 'c will "be circulated. There
are local ..,streets ,and collector, street - - - -s, which feed.in -'to :the arterial streets
such as Caulfield' Lane. . Mr. Hall stated that tYie` opposition f`r mri the Airport
Land U'se Commission.pertained to,the encroaching as,a whole. However, he felt
the Airport Commission.'would not.:-conde 'ri 1he. ;eftt .re .project. Comm: Balshaw '
asked .what the' requirements •were"' -for o'f =f site' tra'ffic;? Tom Hargis, Assistant
City .Engineer:, thei Engin'eer ng.D•epartment suggested CALTRANS' final
comments should obtained "in the rev ew ,the compd ted> document, and that
the widening.o'f'Lakevil'le;Highway (Sta -te Rodte 11'6)'ito four lanes between
Caulfield Lane .-arid. Casa Grande' Avenue -,: ;together ^with 'the' installation of '
traffic'signals•at Caulfield Lane,.Lakevila Highway'; Fr-e'eway South Ramp;
L.ak_ev.•ilhe 'Highway;J ieeway north ramp; . and ( Casa 'Grande ""Avenue, is a necessary
tra_ffficmpact mitigation measure::
-3-
7,
Petaluma City *Planning- Commission Minutes., January 17; 1978•
Comm B'alshaw - was .concerned - that no response,,'had.b;een r'eceived`from.the Peta-
luma School District =• Mr.: Hall explained: the School Board had been- hear&',from
but the. ,problem •was, site selection did, no.t.agree with.•F.A.A. comments on
the site... Comm. 'Balshaw •sugges =ed there be a dual•.designat:ion. of•.f this pro-
perty ,...It is'- not. Just 1 the area -within- :the ' -path .limits that would. be
designated temporarily as.agriculturdl ' use'by the developer; but the tired :r
within: the path area._should 'be zoned on y as .agricultural:. The City
"Council will be hiring' '. a consultant to, review the airport, to determine if we
want to','leave it where :it is, and do .nothing with. it, expand it,, or relocate it
somewhere else. "fihis4'uld:•be' a:hold ng ae'tion until a dec-is ion .is f made.. All
the? allocations 'are outside. the •clear zone. Mr.. Hall stated that wha;tever'.'s
designated goes with the •,map and that is- the, actual zoning. All tha`'t is
necessary is to .'label , the -land uses. If this area is designated agricultural
.land it . would,- b - e labeslled as •• such. - There are three development. plans and all,
-
the'initial phases are outside the clear zone area. Comm., Shearer= asked -if.
coristrugtion had started on various phases of the development c ould the`
school site 'b e. moved to another lgcation Mr Hall explained. that no consttuc
tion could bei- allowed •until -a. school site had been selected - If the number 0 f
homes`,-is' cut 'back ican't'ly perhaps "a school,. will,: ;not .b`e =needed. Comm..
Ba_l > stated ;that the school board should be given: -60 days to'accept or
reject the site...
The. Public Hearing, was opened to consider- the 'Planned ,.Commuhit.y Dis
tri:ct prezonng:.
Dick Hodge, :_representing the South 'County Voice noted the t; "s asse of °the Sky,
Ranch Airport to the community, and the probability of. closure of the: airport .
on the "basis •of safety factors, after completion of-the develo.pment.. Marion
g
Hod e 13 Haven Drive,: asked if the. airport study .became necessary because o:f'
tfiis .development •and if' fund's been, rallebcated, in th- s:'yedr budget • to move
the, airport ? Mr. � Hall :explained-- :reason: -for the' probable •.relocation o;f. the
airport- is not primarily. because :o , ,the, proposed ,1d'evelopment: Information had .
been furnished fr -om. an,;.,earlier E. I,.R. 'addressing, the merits . of: having A. new. .
Sonoma.,:Co•,unty `Public . Airport and ,.also indicating-- the best location would be _
directly east ,df- .the present.locatdon 'of the airport. •Comm: Head. the
airport' is designated in the EDP and why then -are' funds :being ':expended for -`the.
Present`_ or a ,future airport :that ,•is:cpntrary to the wishes of the public:, Stan
•:
Backman, :201'2 Vista Lane,, expressed concern that the traffic to be generated,
from the. developmeht would- only add to 'the•Ipresent eastjwest , t ra- ffic.: ` The
sehools;�� -are 4comple ely sat;urated, tho.ut :ddding'anotier 7.3:0 units4: "More
concern :"should be given to the•, than f.looding•-the ..community -with more
houses:,, Jim :Higgins,; 2'26 12th Street; stated•'this meeting was :premature and
the ,project .should' be shelved' for-- awhi`.le'. He asked "where the - airport : would-be'
located and .tioia- large it would be
Van - Logan:, Duffel Financial' - Construction=, explained`',they had taken•the.
all the - input and the most restrictive •cond tions•, particularly .deal ing' with
the airport .regarding the area effected, to. develop I ; the•philisophy of 'the plan.
The, airport has been accommodated in the plan.. The .school site .waa- relocated,
away from the condominium :areai The co,ndominiums" will•not'be constructed this
summer;.' the :'location of - the', school, will. -be -.determined; perhaps •at a later time.
The cost• of 'the traffic improvements , should be financed by ,peopl--e that cause
the •problems'. Lucy- Webb;-•- representing the ;Lands 'of - Atkinson-, .stated • the school
district:, would not, .like 'the school to be located adjacent t,o the .:creek` area as
-4-
Petaluma City. Planning, Commis on:;Minutes; January: 17; 1978`
it would be hazard "ous t;o the children. Mr:. Logan indicated the' schools were
asked to, make' a school , Msite .selection; but;;. at Y the• present time', did not' want
.to make a decision.
Comm. shaw' total Bontrol,overaaneareaa I -fPthe -glide p'athhiscr'emovedssthenareahA ve
ey ha
' would' be
accessible for -some type of development He sta�ted•_n'. evelopment should be
indicated in•:the ,glide path area, mainly because .,of the new state law. The new
law, Sjt "!ate A.B. 8$4•, .Chapte 12,00; Statutes 19;77;, states that if at the end of
one year action, has not been. taken'. on -'a. p,ro.pos'ed • development,, it might auto -
matically go.' into ,effect.- He d_id '•not 'know ,what the State Map Act permitted as
far as' 'schoo sk° e. dedication, but the: City Code implies the . City can require
dedication, riot just. reservation.
Comm Horciza' asked at the final map stage i would be possible to connect: - 11
some of,.the streets sa there, would••no't.•be�•any of'f =sets: Jon Anderson, MacKay
and 'S'omps,,.s;tated, that sometimes '':'T" intersections are .more desirable in
residential areas- rather than<4 -way `inters:ect ons.•- Thomas•Harg s stated that
cross •town arterial and. collector streets - are up ' legged inter-
sections to encourage.,peo;p'1'e.•to travel on -collector streets. - "T" intersections
are installed'. to encourage people to'st "ay.on the,,,ar:terial. and collector streets
and not ge't down.into the minor residential streets*."
1 1,
Roy Peterson, 636 Gossage:`•Avenue; stated there ar;e•oth'er areas that have to be
considered- outside the-clear glide path zone.; The problem of the airport has•
to be resolved. It is'wery difficult to relocate•an airport. We have the cart•
before;,the horse. Comm-., B'alshaw- explained the- airport =is being protected with
the proposed zoning,. He - w6uld , 'like Petaluma to.-continue' having an airport;
particularly •fore air, commuter • use. to 'San, Francisco. • ':The airport is vulnerable
to thetpropos.ed subdivision. If the rezoning is approved it will then be
referred to LAFCO.
Comm .;.Horciza . staged that., if . the' .Rl'ide path- area'. were zoned agriculture the
a port would remain .safe development: Mn. Peterson stated -his main
concern to an airport in Petaluma and he�was very reluctant to any
proposal that .woul`d close Lthe airport. The FAA is involved in-airport minimum
safety, „And is no an � authority • on airport-planning-and activities. Comm,.
Horc,izal� stated'-'that. unless. we `maintain.`.tliis : area: as a. field or dairy, the
developers ;have , a .righ't to develop' the .land. He • asked' if 'the clear zone (glide
pafh), was lsuf ficient or should it'be' wider. Comm. Balshaw stated this is not a
muncipa -1 arpart.: This is a,. reasonable .•compromise -in.whi.ch the developers can
develop 'their property -and the- airport will still be. retained. Comm. Head
statedothe airport is of, vital i'' ortance..;to the•commun.ty. The City ,is in no
position ,to decision. on•the•:devdlopment until.a determination has been
made • on the airport
Comm. •Wait'e.s'tated the, development shbuld�be' under the control of one entity.
The property' could be r, "ezoned to R -1; '.and if. it were.not under one ownership,
otybe zoned 4= -1 Mr Hall stated_'. ;this'.s a conceptual plan showing a
it.could n
park school, church and homes. It is th& necessary step of;a prezoning. Don
Sm th, Raymond Heights -, stated-if the present site is lost there is no other
site that.wou'ld be favorable for another airport. I:f proper zoning is not
designated, the. airport will•be .lost,. An airport can exist in.Petaluma. Comm.
Balshaw� commented -that all, references to residential development in the glide
path• zone `should be deleted.
-5-
Petaluma C ity, Planning -Commission Minutes,,, January 17 - 19,78 - -
Comm, Head moved -;to deny the 'P GeRv p
rezoh!ng,. 4qtd:-I- the saf mi
a1terna - t iv es in the Environmental Impact Report. ,, ,Nos. 4::; 5,'..and, are, compl'ie'd 1
-
with. The motion-di for the lack o second,
Comm, Shearer 'moved - to recommend approvalh, -of - the 'fequested' P .�-D (P lanned. %
Communit pre'z:oning lo the -City'. Council,- the - specific fi ndings ng a'
I s_ S
stated in Exhibit B!. The ; -, was seconded
by Comm. -
AYES S NQES T AB SENT
Comm., B a lshawwas exc-us ed,�,at,10:30.p.m.'
DUPLEX PARKING :RE Dick Lieb lieb 04dresma; explaine request to.
QUIREMENTS=E. 1.1Q.- modify the Zoning Drdlnan6e ,toallow fora a r'eductkonin•
EVALUATION /ZONING - the :number - .;o f, parking, sp4ce.s:requir. -from
ORD.AMENDMENTS: three.td two as-the existing requirementtof` - three
spaces' per - unit ox ,,six spaces •per duplex, Is !no,t
icommensurate with :the needs - qf� the '. occupant.:, iThe, requirement .of. the
. space i's,-costly -to developers .in terms i,6fL,paVing and-land'-do - ump t'I
ns 1 PTI and
it also . .reduces the - availability of - bpefit sp ace:
The Public Hearing to - consider the Erivironmenta JMpaCt_._Questi6ndaire was-
opened,.; No comment's .were offered fxom the, audience sand the Public- Hearin was
ciose:.&
Comm . Shearer moved , the Planning.bir ... top,repare,'aad -post a .-Mega-
tive :Declaration; - :f or., the prpjedt The ;motion :,was. seconded :•by Comm. Lavin:
AYES 6 NOES` 0 ABSENT 2,
The Public -Hear- , ing opened . cons ider the proposed -mb'dificatibn to the
Zoning - Ordina t. No :comments - -.were off'eredfxbm the .audience -sand- the -
Hearing was 'closed.
.Conw. Head moved .,to �. fapptoval--�of'-Ian amendment to Toning; Ordinance • No
1072 : Section ,20- 300,,, the •reduct_iori in -the' number, -(5f pd spaces
aces
required for Au lexes. The motion was' §eco H rc iz a
P ' 4y, Comm.,
AYES 5: NOES .G ABSENT '2
ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, - the ineeZ I ing . burned
at 11:00 P.m,
Y11,