Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 10/18/1977CORRESPONDENCE: None. CONSENT CALENDAR Comm: Lavin requested that 'the E_I.Q. Evaluation and i Site Design Review for Jock. A: Finley be removed from the Consent Calendar. Christensen & Foster This item was xemoved from- the Consent Calendar and . continued to-the meeting of November 1,.,1977. The motion was made by Comm.. Head, seconded by Comm. Shearer to approve Items 1 through 3. Motion was fI Agenda Item #1 M I N U T E S and Use, :Permit Res. U19'..77 approving -an auto glass • and upho =lstery shop to be located at 315 Petaluma . Blvd. South. . PETALU11 CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 18,. 1977 REGULAR MEETING 7,:30 P.M. CITY. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL „ PETALUMA.,. CALIFORNIA PRESENT Co mm . taisa H ead, Horciza '� . , Lavin *, Shearer, Waite, Wright t 9:45 . ABSENT': ;'None STAFF Ronald F'. Hall Planning Director APPROVAL OF MINUTES': The minutes of the meeting of October 4, 1977 were approved as submitted. CORRESPONDENCE: None. CONSENT CALENDAR Comm: Lavin requested that 'the E_I.Q. Evaluation and i Site Design Review for Jock. A: Finley be removed from the Consent Calendar. Christensen & Foster This item was xemoved from- the Consent Calendar and . continued to-the meeting of November 1,.,1977. The motion was made by Comm.. Head, seconded by Comm. Shearer to approve Items 1 through 3. Motion was carried unanimously. Agenda Item #1 Norma A. Doty Kozy Auto Glass,; Negative Declaration and Use, :Permit Res. U19'..77 approving -an auto glass and upho =lstery shop to be located at 315 Petaluma . Blvd. South. Agenda Item #2 Bundesen Rea'lty,, Negative Declaration and Site'Design -Res. 5.491 approving a proposed 850 square foot addi- tion to' existing real - estate office to be located at. 6 Petaluma Blvd. South. Agenda "I.tem #3 Four Apples Development, Site Design Res... 5.4'97 approv- ing modif icetion for a proposed -:11, resid "ential. unit PUD for property located at 83I Madison S`treet.. JOCK A. FINLEY Comm .Lavin stated his reason for * �d`eleting this item E,.I.Q. EVALUATION/ from the Consent Calendar was that the- entire project SITE DESIGN REVIEW: had not teen scoped as to what the construction and layout would consist of and asked -that there be more input on the project. PETALUMA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, OCTOBER 18, 1977 JOCK A 1INLEY- Mr. Hall explained the request of Jock Finley a pro- E,.IiQ. , EVALUATIQN/ posed lumber yard .for the sale, storage finish of S'ZTL DESIGN - REVIEW: lumber.: The parcel coverts 5.75,aCres and is- located on (Continued) Stony Point -Road and abuts t_he Coastal Rental Center. The- main bui 'ding is 27- f in ,height and covers 3,600' square feet. A 1,500 square' foot. open remanufacturing shred is also proposed. The front of the lot is to be improved with a 25-foot +, wide strip of landscaping and a.`row of Pistachio trees are to be planted in this area ie stated a letter'had' been received from William Wood, of K.O.A,., requesting that better screening, be provided. for the lumber, yard along Stony Point Road. He also' at redwood slated :fence for security purposes and that the requirement of Pistachio trees,be.changed to evergreen trees as they reiiain green 'throughout the year. The Public Hearing to consider the Environmental Impact Oue "stonnaire was opened:. Jock Finley requested that the recommendation by the.Sonoma-County ,Water Agency, that fill to be-the _amount , ; recommended or approved by the Sonoma Country Water Agency upon completion of ._a topographic study by the applcan "t, be :made a part of'Item.8 of' the Site Design condiGio.ns'. The Public Hearing was closed. Comm. Horciza moved to direct : the Pla nning Director to prepare, and post .a Nega tive Declaration for the p.`roject. The motion was seconded by Comm. Head. AYE'S 7' NOES 0 ABSENT 0 Comm Wright „moved! to approve the site design for the proposed lumber yard with conditions of approval as the staff and concurred with by the • Architectural '& .Site .Design Review ',Committee with the following changes. The. motion i second.ed by, Comm.; Shearer. Condit -ion I6'8.- Add Required fill to be the amount recommended or approved by the Sonoma County `Wa'ter Agency upon completion of a topographic study by-the applicant. Condition ,4613' The aisles and access drives shall be 'paved so as to provide a durable, dustless surface such as compacted gravel and oil.. GEORGE GOULART- E.'I..Q. Mr. Hall explained the .,request ',by George Goulart. to EVALUATION/REZONING' rezone approximately 1.3 acres from R - 6,500 to FROM R- 1- 6,500 - Planned Unit, Development and -to. consider the site TO PUD /SITE ,DESIGN' design review, of five duplexes proposed for - the. north- west side of Caulfield Lane'b.etween. South 1 1�1cDowell Blvd. _(Continued) and Park Lane. The site is presently developed with two small dilapidated single - family 'homes and an old trailer which are to `be.removed. The proposed development con - sists of five, two 'bedroom single story duplexes. The height of the structures would, be 16 -feet with a Spanish facade,. The, repetition of. °the one duplex design, structure would create a monotonou's visual- effect.. He ind ca ;ted a letter had been received .from E. E,. Almcrants, dated,September 8, 1977 in opposition to the project, and 'that a petition had: been received on September 20,'1977'with ' -2- PETALU`IA..'CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES', OCTOBER. 18, 1977 GEORCE;GOULART- E. I.Q :. 8 signatures from the general neighborhood protesting E`VALUATION/REZONING the zoning :change from single - family residential to. FROM R- 1- 6.,500 Planned Unit Development for the five duplex units. i 0 /SIZE DESIGN The Public Hearing to 'consider the Environmtntal Impact (Continue( ' "). Questionnaire was opened. Barry Parkinson stated a meet- iiag had been held' with the community members who expressed !t their viewpoints and made the following sugges -tions to make the project more acceptable.. 1) A one -way private stree .be provided.from McDowell to Park Lane"; 2) More variety be provided in the facade of, the buildings; ngjI continuous fence should be provided along.Cau'lfield Lane for the safety of children. Nancy 'Bullock,, 1431 Meadowlark Lane, stated the people want the property to remain residenti'a�l. The Planning Department is aware this area is zoned for single- family.' homes, and duplexes should be p aced in a residential area. Condition #3 of the Site Design should be reevaluated revelant to the color scheme and structural design. Park Lane does not need more traffic. Ms. Bullock: suggested, that circular driveways would be helpful and would allow cars 'to turnaround. in their driveway and would be Mess hazardous than cars accessing onto Caulfield Lane. She stated that density is a key word. Future owners would not" live in the duplexes so the property and landscaping would not be properly maintained. The Public Hearing was closed. � Comm. Wright questioned the feasibility of placing single- family homes on this prop- erty. The applicant had considered single- family dwellings and knows the constraints. Comm. Horciza asked if. the Zoning* Ordinance permits the placing. of 9-1- 6,500 lots at •' this site! He stated it would not be possible to put in a development without install- ing private driveways. Comm. Balshaw stated that it is City Council policy that cars cannot access or ingress onto Caulfield Lane. Comm. Shearer stated that the present fencing along Caulfield.Lane is not properly maintained. Comm. Wright stated this site cannot be developed with single- family homes as access. onto Caulfield.Lane can - not be provided. Comm. Horciza indicated that Multi- family homes would provide for a better transition from Caulfield Lane. Mr. Hall added it would be a secondary land use but because of.the traffic flow on Caulfield the site did not seem appro- priate for single - family homes duplexes "would be better suited for the property as far asi;'compatibility is, concerned. Comm. Wright stated that a traffic expert should evaluate the traffic flows •f'or,acce_s`s to the duplexes. Comm.. Balshaw. stated that 15 to 20 vehicles exiting from °one driveway of the pro the peak hour could' not be considered crucial. Comm. Horciza stated that with the property being in close proximity to Caulfield Lane and McDowell Blvd., there would be con - siderabletraffic at this ' intersection. Private driveways located.close to the corner could create traffic problems. Co rr._. T�rigtit -ioved to direct ,the Planning Director to prepare and post a Negative Declaration for "the project. The motion was seconded by Comm. Head. AYES" 7' NOES 0 ABSENT 0. The Public. Hearing was opened to consider the proposed Planned Unit District rezoning. Barry Parkinson stated that the former property owner, Norman Bawlins,, felt he should have been entitled to compensation for loss of access to Caulfield Lane. -3- 4 PETALUMA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, OCTOBER 18, 1977 GEORGE GOULART -E I.Q. The present owner - :is not trying to push, maximum density. EVALUATION /REZONING A small two bedroom dwelling would resul : in less pop- • FROM R- 1- 6.,500 ulation The actual population density equivalent of TO PU /SITE DESIGN single- family homes against the .proposed multi homes REVIEW: plan would be greater. In.'reality, once this project (Continued) is develop.ed�, the local property owners would, find it to. be beneficial to their property. Comm Head asked, . how much land was taken from the applicant when Caul - field Larie was widened, Mr.. Parkinson explained .that C'aulf ield Lane was not in existence at the time the property reverted to`Mr. Goulart Comm;. Wa explained that the City had taken up to 20,-feet of the property, and that Mr.. Goulart would' install curb, gutter and sidewalks, but s._s not required to in stall the one half street. section.. The only limitation on the 'property, is there is no access: to Caulfield Lane: Richard Lieb, architect, explained that the proposal was for one story rambling units and there would be 'fenced play areas for children. A resident on Daniel Drive said the surrounding area was designated for sinle- family homes and' Mr. Goulart purchased the property with the intent of making monetary gains from the,property. The property was purchased 1i year's ago as R -1 -6,500 property. He,asked why the applicant- would rezone the property for monetary purposes The ,petition with 82 signatures in opposition to -the pr.o.- posal,should be .cons-idered. These people would like the .property to: remain in the current R- 1- 6,500 designation. .. Comm. Wright questioned, what .the! people were afraid of as he could not see any detriment from.the development to the area... The resident stated that "renters would not maintain the property or the landscap- •, ing whereas private property.ownera would take better care of the =ir property. Carol Wright, 1423,'Meadowlark Lane,,.. expressed concern -about the traffic. on. Caulfield Lane'. Reri ,could not,. be concerned about the maintenance• of a duplex, whereas :in comparison an owner, after paying,a good price for the prop- erty, would maintain their own property. Mr-:s. Christine Nelson, 721 ,Park Lane., . stated the proposed lots are deeper than those on Park Lane._ With.a private driveway, traffic problems would be created - on McDowell and Caulf eld,.on Sarkesian and Park Lane„ and, on approximately' five other streets_. 'The design of the duplexes does not blend in with.the existing area;. Mrs..Nelson was informed one buyer would purchase -all the duplexes for a total price of $450,000. She :felt that a person that buys property for this amount of money would no`t be living on the property,. .The design shows a reverse plan', and she would have to view,a tunnel of asphalt driveway from her window. Dick Kerran, 1522 Tamar; Drive, indicated that another proposal - should be considered. Dice: Hodge, 13 Haven Drive, stated this particular property - had, .been considered for 7 sing1e- f.ami.ly homes and duplexes. The developer possibly found it was_do -t financially feasible,for single- family 'homes. As the City grows we need to fill in with multi - family homes. „ Sharolyn Wright, 1423 Meadowlark Lane, stated 'that possibly seven single- family homes could 'be, built. and there still could be a private driveway. There would not be on- street parking problems if the property had mot been cut up. The Public Hearing -.was closed. -4- PtTALMP CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, OCTOBER 18, 1977 • GEORGE GO.ULART- E..I.Q. Comm. Ba,lshaw stated that a change in zoning from single - EVALUATION /REZONING family to multi -use should not be done without the,consent FROM R -1- 6,5',00 of the peop'le,in the area. There are potentials for de- T0-PUD-/SITE; DESIGN velop this prcip,erty as single- family. There is a con- REVIEf7: ;} tern that - renters will not put the care into the ro ert P P Y (Cohtinued) ;! as homeowners would. Comm. Head asked if single-family dwellings could be situated on the R 1- 6,500 lots. Mr.. Hall explained that there can be no encroachment onto Caulfield and becauae,of the private driveway, it is more difficult to place single - family homes. Comm",. :Head agreed that the people- should have some say on : the zoning.��He stated there are "too many empty parcels in the City which will. have to b'e developed _somehow. In.order change the. the entire package would have to. be considered, the rezoning and design of the prope ty,. Comm. Horeiza asked that in the future if the-City could advise the purchaser of zoning and location opposition in tha.developmen:t of property. Perhaps this could have been avoided if the realtor had gotten together faith the buyer of the property;: Comm. Balshaw stated that the City paid the equivalent of $5'6 M O to the previous owner for damage to the land;. Comm. Shearer stated._ the site design maybe poor and the proposal may not be the best, but perhaps it could bed changed and made more agreeable. Comm'. Lavin stated a PUD desig- nation requires maintenance of the property so there would be less of a problem with renters under a PUD designation than-with single - family homes. Comm. Wright indicated he was not` impressed with the design of the buildings and from this standpoint was not: in favor of the proposal. - Mr: Parkinson stated that one alternative would be to divide the parcel; 1/2 "would be owner owned ® and the.other 1/2 would be occupied by tenants. Comm.. Lavin stated he was not against'PUD but.a.lot more a1- ternatives and specifics should be explored. Comm. Head moved to recommend denial of .the'requested'.PUD.rezoning without prejudice to the City Council. The motion was .seconded by Comm. Wright. AYES 6 NOES 1 ABSENT 0 Comm. Lavin was excused at 9:4..5 : p.m. HUF•FAKER ENGINEERING- Mr. Hall explained: the variance request of Huffaker E.I.Q. EVALUATION/ Engineering for an eight foot, high fence with barbed VARIANCE REQUEST: wire located at:12.90 Holm Road_. Plans for the Indus trial development had indicated the installation.of a six foot cyclone fence. Site design review 'approval required a six foot high.cyclone fence with redwood-- .sla:ts.along the rear and left Bice. Droperty lines. During •consaruc;tion of the project a seven foot high cyclone,_fe with redwood slats with an additional one foot of barbed wire was installed. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the fence to remain. The Public-Hearing relating. to the Variance request was opened. Charles. Kuhn of Hu Aker " °Engineer,ing,, stated the fence was erected higher than prescribed; it was an- oversight. The fence contractor wanted the same kind of fence as erected in Ma•rin County for - security purposes. A six foot fence does not serve the purpose in industrial areas. Huffaker has some ,material and equip- -5- L r PETAhUifA CITY PLANNING. COMMISSION MINUTES, OCTOBER 18;, 1977 'HUFFAKER ENGINEERING- ment that is susceptible to biir;g3ary and (`heft..' The • E I.Q. EVAUATIQN/ f;:ence ordinance'should.be changed. to differentiate VARIANCE REQUEST industrial sites from residential properties. Fred (Continued) Schram, Chamber of Commerce, requested there be a.., change in the - ordinance a-llowirig for barbed wire fences in, ;industrial areas.: The ordinance should allow for sevea foo.;t high fences with the possibility of angle barbed wire:. Comm. Head;`moved that the applicant be granted a- temporary variance pending - changing the ordinance' so that .the appliean_t would not have to tear, down- the existing f''ence if a modification is not made to the ordinance the appli cant shall _comply with the :existing ordinance. Mr. Hall'stated thafi the. fence would not have to b e not legally changed. reduced.to six this time,. unless the ordinance is . ' g y g . '_Comm Head withdrew his motion. Mr. 'Horciza.staaed: the'.Plannizg Department should make a study of what is allowable in other cities and which industries need high•security'mea'sures.. A study of other ordinances should be .made to determ- ine_if other cities have fence regulations over six feet. Mr. Schram volunteered to work with Mr. Hall on the proposed Zoning.` Ordinance change. Comm. Wright moved to recommend denial of, the. requested variance to the City. Council within which the applicant-would have 90 days + to comply with the ordinance and:,,furth6r•tha.t a study be made to ; modify the Zoning Ordinance relat- to industrial fence. height regulations. The motion was seconded by.Comm. Shearer. AYES 5 NOES 1 ABSENT 1 , GENERAL PLAN & EDP Mr. Hall ,explained that an evaluation was made of the MODIFI CAT IQN-BET[v'E�EN draft E.I.R, prepared by ECOSCAPE concerning 35 single MAGNOLIA AVENUE AND family units on approximately. 12- acres located. between SCHUMAN LAND NEAR S,chuman.Lane.and Magnolia Avenue near'Elm,Drive. The ELM DRIVE- E.I.R. property owners requested a land use designation change EVALUATION: on the General Plan from low density to urban density residential and on the Environmental Design ,Plan from subur.ban.low' density to urban low density residential so that'35 single- family dwelling units could be constructed -on -the 12 The General Plan and E,D:,P amendments would be necessary to accommodate a M dwelling unit..per acre designation. The Public Hear -ing was opened to consider the adequacy of the E.I. David Van PPl't, .rich, the f irm of ECOSCAPE'., stated that comments from Sonoma, State. College were. ;it, error as to the location of 'archeological `remains on the_ ,property. . - These remains are lo cated southwest of the property about- 70 feet on the. adj':oining prop = erty. Comm. Shearer stated the report. does, not take into - consideration the con- figuration of the land., Mr. Van Pelt explained' that the property is divided -into two pieces, the lower piece would be considered the original d'evelopment,:wi.th a steep slope, up to the knoll dividing the ,property. It is the intent of the- E.I.R. to give balance to the facts. Comm. Shearer questioned 'the statement "that -the proposed plan amendments, and pos "sible related or consequent actions require sub- stan't al Planning Department commitment."' Mr. Van Pelt stated' a rather extensive evaluation.of,the proposed plan would have to be' taken to.change the - ,density -6 PETALUMA PITY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, OCTOBER 18, 1977 • CF;:ERAL PLAN &EDP classification: Mr. Hall explained that .f the General MODIFICATION- BETWEEN Plan,i's!'amended' to apply _to land that has certain topo- MAGNOLIA AVENUE AND graphic,characteristics, the terrain,may be such that SCHU [AN LANE NEAR it wil1. not a'ccommodafe 4 ti S unit's per acre. With ELM PRiVEE.I.R: mitigating measures, 4.5.'units per acre may be accept - EVALU -ATION able*. Mr . Van Pelt .stated that as it stands now, the (font ;nued) E.I - addresses both 2 and 4'.5 units per acre. The El. I.R. s not addressing' the.pro,ject per se. The im- pact of a proj,ect.would be addressed' when it is sub- mitted and is a zejuest for a set of-numbers. Comm:.,Horciza stated there have been drainage ; problems along Schuman Lane and Magnolia Avenue and not too many comments were.made on this problem. Mt. Van Pelt explained that drainage would be addressed at the time the report was presented !to the :City Council,. Comm - .' Bals'haw stated it is not the Planning Commission'.job to do the technical corrections on these reports.. Mr. Hall ex- plained that the final package can'be put together- b'efor'e.the Commission takes action. The Planning Department finds itself in the position where. they are trying to 'expedite a project for the applicant and. at the same 'time satisfying the legal requirements of CE%. .Comm: Horciza stated there are a lot of technical details that have been overlooked and the''Commis.sion should be able to review a more complete E.l,.R. Comm.. Head -asked if drainage were''not taken care of under the site design and not the. E-.I.R'<. 'Mr. Hall expi'ained that normally this..is triie,. but a potential impact evaluation could be obtained from the. Sonoma County Water Agency on the Manuel Pacheco, representing the Sousa Bros., stated the proposal is for 24 to a 'maximum of. 54 units on the 12: acres. Due to the topography of the prop - erty, the main issue is whether 24, 35' or 54 units ca'ri.-.be built on this site. Lt would not be f- inancially. feasible -to develop the property unless more than 24 dwellings can,be built. .Comm.. Balshaw stated there is a sknpwri' deficiency in the E'.I -.R ; , and it therefore should not - be passed on to the City Council.. Mr.. Hail. explained that it is the responsibility of the consultant to contact the Sonoma County Water Agency relevant to; the drainage problem Comm.`Balsh'aw stated that the hearing be continued and that the report indicate the maximum units proposed for the development Comm. Horciza moved to delay certification of is -made of the drainage.d problems, November lit'1977. Tte motion was seconded by ;j AYES 6 NOES 0 PLAN "41','D RE- S'IDENT SUBDIVISIONa -EAS.T OF ELY BLVD SOUTH= DRAFT, E..I.R,:EVALUATIQN': (Continued) the,E.I.R..until a further analysis and that the hearing be continued to Comm.. Shearer. ABSENT 1 Del Davis, Del, Davis & Associates, presented the traf- fic analysis report for the proposed residential pre -, zoning of 233 acres located east of Ely Blvd.. South. The City Engineer had requested the potential traffic impact from the. proposed development on six intersec= t to determine if traffic signals were requesite, at these intersections. One 'basic problem in review- NZ PETALUDIA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION .1`1INUTES, OCTOBER 18,, 1977 PLANNED RESIDENTIAL 'ing the project was that Caulfield Lane extending from SUBDIVISIONS -EAST "OF South McDowell to Crinella is 'under .construc Upon .: ELY BLVD. SOUTH DRAFT completion of~ that link .af Caul`fi led.. Lane `there. will be EVALUATION': modifications to the local t- raffic p-atterns,. .. As a. re= (Continued) sult of the. Caulfield' improvements, there- will be a redistribution ='.of traf;fic:, - The peak hour traffic was - distr buted to the,local - st- r:eet, system based on .the - most d'ir'ect traveled r.outel from Ely Road the Freeway 101 and the do�'town section.. The projected traffic from the development was added to ,the , local traffic system. It was assumed that approximately 1 -5 percent of: the traftic' would proceed north-:- erly to the shopping centers, :and f.ive:percerit would make southerly mscellaneou's trips from the McDowell - Caulfield intersection,;; - r:ema.in.ing trips were r.etaine_d. on Caulfield Lane.. 'The evening - peak hour was 'used as a basis f,or the afalyss.. ._ Two thirds of the traffic would be directed. towards home. and . away. from .home. Caulfield' -Ely The traf f ic'on'' Ely, Blvd, n -or'th o'f; -au field. Lane would double -, Lf °.Caulfield is made a four lane roa then Ely Road .should' be increased to- four lane. No - traffis - signalization would be required., Caulfield- Crinella, No traffic .s,ignalization is necessary;,. but stop signs . on Crinella at Caulfield is, advisable.: Caulfield -S. McDowell Traffic -volume .shouldi triple at, this • nters"e "ction. T Sig nals , are warranted. S 't. Francis - This intersection will be capable of accommodating the Caul €Meld proj4ected traffic. flows. Stop signsa_r,e advised on, St;... Francis: .Drive at Caulfield Lane. Lakeville H 4hway . significant. increases' in 'traffic volume would . require Caulfield four lanes on Cauhfield 'Lan'e'and Lakeville Highway. Traffic signaliza,tion should ,be.,,'consid'ered,.' Lakeville Highway Depending on the - °traf f ic. p:attern created by the - extension . Freeway South Ramer of• Caulfield'.Lane, it may, Ue. necessa -r - to signalize :this intersection. This signalization should - be worked in conjunction, pith other _lights along, Lakeville Highway. Lakeville Highway- 'There.would:'b.e abou -t a.3.© percent increase in.traf,fic on Freev North Ramp . all - legs entering the intersection. Lakeville Highway should tie .expanded to _four, lanes to facilitate traffic movements An the.,area and signaliza;tion would facilitate left turn movements. Casa Grande- Consideration should be given 'to the widening of Lakevi-lle Lakeville Highway Highway to four lanes; the installation of traffic i slands a nd traffic Si g n a' l s'. South McDowell- No, signalization_ is required at this intersect -ion. Casa Grande PETALUMA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, OCTOBER 18., 1977 PLAN•ZED 01 ;SIDENTIAL Mr. Davi''s indicated that the .Final E.I.R. should be SURF: ?1VISIONS -FAST OF ready in two weeks. ELY BLVD SOUTH -DRAFT ..I..E'. F�':LL�r�TIE7N: Mr. Pack, 2940 Scott Blvd'., Santa Clara, stated that an. (Continued) - independent safety and noise study had been made on the project, but this material was no`t' incorporated in the E. I'.R : C - omm, Wr,,;ght moved that the Public Hearing to consider the adequacy . of the Draft E.Z.R. be continued to the _meeting of November.l, 19 . The motion was seconded,.,by Comm. Horciza. AYES 6 NOES' 0 ABSENT 1 ANNUAL PLANNING The Annual Planning Commission Dinner was discussed CO. M1\1ISSi'0N DINNER: and the, date and place .is' pending. II ' AD7.OUR4MENT: There being no further business, the meeting was � Adjou_rned at 11:45 p.m. Chairman. Attest: e2 -9-