Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1990/09/12 ., ( ( . Tape: 313 Side: 1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 7:00 p.m. Wednesday, September 12, 1990 Council Chambers Public Services Buildinq ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Grasser Horton, Commissioners Carson, Cartmill, Casillas, Decker, Fuller, and Tugenberg COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Leiter, Assistant Planning Di rector Lee, Pri nc i pa 1 Pl anner Pass, Seni or Planner Bazzel, Contract Planner Sullard, Senior Civil Engineer Ullrich, Assistant Attorney Fritsch PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chair Grasser Horton and was followed by a moment of silent prayer. .... INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chair Grasser Horton reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None ITEM 1: CONSIDERATION OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR-89-3, SALT CREEK RANCH (continued from 9-5-90) Contract Planner John Sullard stated this item had been continued from the meeting of September 5, 1990, to respond to the Fish & Wildlife Service letter regarding the environmental impact report and the general development plan on the project, and to respond to the County of San Diego letter on the -- environmental impact review. He then introduced Jeanne Munoz of ERCE. Jeanne Munoz stated they had responded to the County of San Diego letter, and many of the comments that were made by the County had been rectified by the modified Alternative A which had been previously given to the Commissioners. This would be incorporated into the EIR. The letter from Fish & Wildlife Service would not be incorporated into the EIR, but the responses to it would become part of this public record. She then introduced Steve Lacey of ERCE. . Mr. Lacey discussed the Fish & Wildlife letter the Commissioners had received at the previous meeting (dated August 28, 1990) regarding coastal sage scrub. ( ( MINUTES -2- September 12. 1990 He said the project met the City's General Plan guidelines and it was the City's position that their commitment to the General Plan and the regional multi-species planning process was the vehicle by which this would be mitigated throughout the eastern territories of Chula Vista. Mr. Lacey noted ERCE had addressed the open space configuration regarding the continuity of corridors; the protection of the gnatcatcher; the continuity of habitat; the connectivity of the project to the Upper Otay Lake and San Miguel Mountain and how the project would be conditioned to change and redesign if the regional plan and alternate regional corridor was not adopted prior to the grading in the eastern part of the project. Chair Grasser Horton clarified that the gnatcatcher was not on the Fish & Wildlife Services endangered species list at this time but was up for consideration for the list. Mr. Lacey answered in the affirmative, and said that the gnatcatcher was a sensitive species that was being considered for the endangered species listing. Chair Grasser Horton questioned the number of acres being requested for the gnatcatchers. Mr. Lacey answered they wanted to compensate for the reduction in wildlife value of the natural open space areas due to its adjacency to development. Jeanne Munoz then discussed the changes in the CEQA Findings, which were basically reorganizational. She noted that the finding at the end of Section 111.3. had been expanded to include the rationale for the infeasibility of additional mitigation of the project's impact to biological resources, citing the General Plan's objectives relating to accommodating a full diversity of housing types while still maintaining an orientation to the attached single-family housing: objectives 10, 11, 13, and 14 in the General Plan. Ms. Munoz said the conclusion was that those objectives would not be met if the developable acreage was decreased more than what it had already been decreased. Ms. Munoz stated the Mitigation Monitoring Program summarized the mitigation measures which had been set forth in the environmental impact report and as they had been refined through analysis of the modified Alternative A. MSUC (Carson/Decker) 7-0 to certify that the Final EIR has been prepared in compliance with CEQA, the state CEQA gUidelines and the environmental review procedures of the City of Chula Vista. ITEM 2: PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF SALT CREEK RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT (P-C) PRE-ZONING PCM-90-2 - The Baldwin Company (continued from 9-5-90) ITEM 3: CONSIDERATION OF CEQA FINDINGS EIR-89-3, SALT CREEK RANCH (continued from 9-5-90) ( ( MINUTES -3- September 12. 1990 . ITEM 4: CONSIDERATION OF STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS EIR-89-3, SALT CREEK RANCH (continued from 9-5-90) Senior Planner Bazzel stated the public hearing had been continued from September 5 to discuss the biological issues on the project. He said all of the letters from the County had been responded to, and while the County did not necessarily agree with every response on those issues, they felt the City justified its response and they had no major concern with that. Mr. Bazzel said there was a change in one of the mitigation measures that was listed as condition of approval no. 18 in the staff report for the General Development Plan. The timing of the mitigation measure was now hinged on the grading plan of the three development areas in the northeastern portion of the project instead of on the tentative map. Staff recommended condition 18 be modified to be consistent with the CEQA Findings and mitigation measure therein. Staff also recommended that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the General Development Plan, subject to the conditions contained in the staff report of September 5, with the amendment to condition no. 18; also, that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations. . Commissioner Casillas asked at what point the Commission would be able to review the area of cluster housing. Planning Director Leiter answered that the issue of the specific development criteria for each individual development area in the project would be looked at in greater detail at the SPA plan level. Commissioner Carson, referring to the revised Statement of Overriding Considerations, noted pOints which appeared to be duplicated or restated. Planning Director Leiter clarified that the point regarding the church sites should have only been listed once, however, the other item was a different issue, but related. Commissioner Carson was concerned with density of a particular area. She wanted to make certain to keep the area at the same density or less. She asked that the Commission keep that in mind as they consider the project. . This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Laurie Price, representing the Pyramids, Inc., was concerned with the lack of access being provided to the property north of the Salt Creek property. Referring to a map she distributed to the Commissioners, Ms. Price indicated the area of concern. Their company had not been granted legal recorded easements for access through the property suggested, no one had actually looked to see if they could actually get through the suggested property to theirs, and they would have to wait until the property was developed before developing the Pyramid property. She asked that a condition be added to the General Development Plan that access be provided to those properties north of the Salt Creek Ranch project. They wanted to be assured that either they could physically get an access across the McCoy and Kelley property to their property, or that those rights be retained. ( ( MINUTES -4- SeDtember 12. 1990 Commissioner Tugenberg asked if that would be going over the mountain; Ms. Price said their property goes toward the mountain, but not over. She was not concerned with that area, but with the other access point. Chair Grasser Horton asked for a response from staff. Senior Planner Bazzel said they had worked with the Pyramids early in the process and had prepared a letter to them stating the City would make every effort to try to ensure access. He said that during the development of the project plan, staff was involved with dealing with sensitive habitat areas as well as development areas. The access pOints shown on the map were basically the two points of access that staff saw which could be provided on the project without further disturbance of significant habitat area. Chair Grasser Horton asked if staff was assuring they would have access to their property. Senior Planner Bazzel answered that the details for access have not been worked out with the other property owners involved. Commissioner Tugenberg, referring to through a low density neighborhood. be an estate low-density area. Planning Director Leiter noted that at the SPA Plan level staff would be getting into more detailed circulation planning for the area and at that time would be looking into proper street design that would provide access to future development that would be permitted. the map, noted the traffic would be going Senior Planner Bazzel concurred it would Rikki Alberson, 11995 El Camino Real, San Diego 92130, representing the Baldwin Company, summarized the points she felt were best about the project. She emphasized the variety of housing the project would provide including the estate lots. She asked that the Planning Commission support staff's recommendation, and that the Baldwin Company was in agreement with all the recommendations and the mitigation measures. She asked that June Collins be permitted to speak after all other speakers on this item, to address the wildlife issues and summarize Baldwin's position. Nancy Gilbert, 24000 Avila, Laguna Niguel 92656, who is a wildlife biologist with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, stated she was at the meeting as a result of two letters they wrote regarding the Draft EIR and a subsequent response to a letter from Baldwin. Ms. Gilbert stated she was here to "red flag" the coastal sage scrub and the species that inhabit it, particularly California Gnatcatchers and Cactus Wrens. She said coastal sage scrub is a declining habitat type and has a high number of sensitive species. Ms. Gilbert said it was not a question of the amount of coastal sage scrub being preserved versus the amount proposed to be destroyed in this project, but a question of the long-term configuration of the topography. She said the coastal sage scrub on this project was easily accessible from almost all angles and the concern was that over time all of the gnatcatchers on the site would be lost in the long-term because of the configuration, the narrowness of the proposed open space, and because it was ( ( MINUTES -5- September 12, 1990 . surrounded by development on almost all sides. She stated the site should be reconfigured, or go to off-site mitigation for the species. Ms. Gilbert said that the project applicant would agree to participate in a regional multi-species coastal sage scrub preservation plan, but did not specify how they would participate. Commissioner Fuller noted there was not an actual regional plan for open space preservation at this time, and how the applicant could make a commitment for participation if there was no proposal. She asked if the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service was the moving force behind the actual establishment of the regional plan, and when we might see something actually established. Ms. Gilbert answered that their agency would provide technical assistance, but it would be dependent upon the willingness and local agencies to set up such a program. Commissioner Fuller asked if the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service would be responsible for participation by other regional and government agencies. Ms. Gilbert answered that her agency at this point in time could not require participation, but would provide technical assistance. . Commissioner Decker asked if the U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service had any empirical evidence that these species, given the configuration in the General Plan, would probably disappear in 10 to 20 years. Ms. Gilbert said there had been studies within canyons of San Diego that look at the degree of isolation over time and those that had recently been surrounded by development. It was found that very common bird species of shrub habitat would go locally extinct over time, with the gnatcatcher being one of the first to go. She emphasized that the issue on this project was not on corridor alone, but one of preserved configuration and long-term viability. . June Collins, JBF & Associates, 5893 Oberlin Drive, Suite 108, San Diego 92121, who noted she was an environmental planner and was a consultant to the applicant. Ms. Collins said that the project had less development area than the development area shown on the Chula Vista General Plan in response to biological concerns. She stated the project preserved more acreage of natural habitat, more coastal sage scrub habitat, and more open space than required in the General Plan. The City's EIR concludes that impacts to the on-site - wetland habitat, native grassland habitat, on-site cactus wrens, four of the five gnatcatchers observed on-site will be mitigated. Ms. Collins discussed the open space areas, the concern for the coastal sage scrub, and the width of the corridors. She noted the corridors were wider and more appropriately configured than those shown on the General Plan, and would not be isolated but would be connected to off-site habitat areas. Ms. Collins stated that if a regional open space plan is in place at the time development is proposed on that portion of the property, the applicant would either commit to participate, or the applicant would eliminate development in 30 to 35 acres in the eastern portion of the property to provide a corridor in that area. Adherence to this measure is a requirement of the EIR. ( ( MINUTES -6- September 12. 1990 No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MS (Tugenberg/Carson - seconded for discussion purposes) that the Planning Commission deny the Salt Creek Ranch General Development Plan and the Planned Community District (P-C) Pre-Zoning - PCM-90-2. Commissioner Tugenberg stated that he was not willing to wait until the SPA Plan to see how they would be able to better describe how a 7,000 sq. ft. lot on land with a designation of R-L could retain the predominant character of the R-L as described in the General Plan. He was also concerned about the conservation of water. Mr. Tugenberg commented that he didn't see the type of community benefits being offered to justify the target density of the Salt Creek Ranch that he would expect to see. He referenced the community benefits being offered by Sunbow as an example. Commissioner Casillas reiterated that the size of the lots should be discussed at the SPA level, and he felt this should not hold up the development. He would like to see more specifics as to how the clustering would be accomplished and still maintain the character of development for the area. He was concerned with the clustering and the size of the lots. Chair Grasser Horton was also concerned with the estate size lots. the General Development Plan was generally good, but would like to sizes of at least 20,000 sq. ft. instead of "lot" sizes. She felt see "pad" Commissioner Carson commended the applicant on their efforts, but she could not endorse going to the mid-point with density. She felt it was too high. Commissioner Cartmill asked if there would be an opportunity at the SPA level to provide extra amenities. Planning Director Leiter answered that there would be an opportunity, but that the maximum density was set in the General Development Plan and the criteria of the General Plan asks the Commission to look at the amenities being provided at the General Development Plan level to set the maximum density. He then restated the criteria for going from baseline to midpoint, and for going above midpoint. Commissioner Fuller noted that there was confusion regarding the interpretation of the General Plan. She noted she was concerned that there -' is, in the immediate future, some kind of open space regional plan intact. She could not support the motion for denial. Commissioner Tugenberg noted he did not think the subject of water had been given enough consideration by the Planning Commission. Chair Grasser Horton commented favorably on the design pedestrian and bike trails and the country atmosphere. favor of the denial. guidelines, noting the She would not vote in VOTE ON MOTION ("yes" to deny) 2-5 (Commissioners Tugenberg and Carson voted in favor of denial) MOTION FAILED. . . . ( ~ ( MINUTES -]- September 12. 1990 MS (Fuller/Decker) to approve the Salt Creek Ranch General Development Plan and Planned Community District prezoning PCM-90-2, subject to the conditions as revised on September 5 and the conditions as modified. Chair Grasser Horton asked to amend the motion to state that the average pad size be at least 20,000 sq. ft. in one instance, and 15,000 sq. ft. in another. Discussion followed regarding pad size versus lot size, grading and slopes. Planning Director Leiter stated that gUidelines could be developed that would deal with the concern of having big houses on small lots. Chair Grasser Horton withdrew her amendment. VOTE: 5-2 AYES: NOES: Commissioners Grasser Horton, Cartmill, Casillas, Decker and Fuller Commissioners Carson and Tugenberg MSC (Fuller/Casillas) 5-2 (Commissioners Carson and Tugenberg voted against) to approve the CEQA Findings, EIR-89-3 on the Salt Creek Ranch, the Statement of Overriding Considerations on EIR-89-3, Salt Creek Ranch, as amended, and the Mitigation Monitoring Program, as presented. Chair Grasser Horton declared a break beginning at 8:35. The meeting resumed at 8:45. ITEM 5: PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-90-I-M: CITY-INITIATED PROPOSAL TO REZONE CERTAIN TERRITORY, GENERALLY BOUNDED BY WALNUT DRIVE, MAIN STREET, PALM DRIVE AND THE AUTUMN HILLS CONDOMINIUM PROJECT FROM ITS CITY-ADOPTED COUNTY ZONE CLASSIFICATIONS TO CITY CLASSIFICATIONS UTILIZED THROUGHOUT CHULA VISTA Planning Consultant Lettieri stated the proposal involved the rezoning of the Woodlawn Park and East Woodlawn Park subcommunity of the Montgomery Specific Plan. On February 7, 1990, the Montgomery Planning Committee and on March 14, the Planning Commission held public hearings and unanimously recommended that the property be reclassified as designated on Exhibit A. On May 15, 1990, the City Council voted to have the Montgomery Planning Committee review their recommendation specifically to consider the 6,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size. - On July 5, the Montgomery Planning Committee reconsidered their recommendation and reconfirmed that they wanted the zoning to be reclassified to the R-I-6-P zone (shown as R-I-P-] in the Zoning Ordinance). Commissioner Casillas asked what percentage of the total area was currently developed, and what percentage undeveloped. Consultant Lettieri answered that the area totaled approximately 60 acres with 9 acres, or 15%, being undeveloped. Commissioner Decker asked the average size of the single-family lots. Mr. Lettieri answered that they were between 6,000 and 7,000 sq. ft. ( ( MINUTES -8- Seotember 12. 1990 Upon Commissioner Tugenberg's query, Principal Planner Pass explained that the R-I-6 (R-I-P-7) allowed 7 dwelling units per acre with a minimum of 6,000 sq. ft. lot, and the County RS6 zone allows 6 dwelling units per acre, with a minimum of 7,000 sq. ft. lot. After explanation of the zoning to the Montgomery Planning Committee, it had been unanimously approved. This being the time and the place advertised, the public hearing was opened. Bud Wilson, representing Herbert Hirsch, 155 Walnut, Chula Vista 92011, read a presentation written by Mr. Hirsch supporting the staff recommendation to rezone. Paul L. Green, Sr., 141 Lotus Drive, CV 92011 spoke against the rezoning. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Casillas/Fuller) 7-0 that based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, find that this reclassification will have no significant environmental impacts and re-adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-88-4M and IS-88-65M for the Montgomery Specific Plan. MSUC (Casillas/Fuller) 7-0 to recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance changing the zones as reconsidered by the Montgomery Planning Committee and as descri bed on the attached Exhi bi t "A" and Attachment I, Supplemental Findings for Application of the "P" Modifier. ITEM 6: PUBLIC HEARING: (A) PCZ-90-G: REQUEST TO REZONE 2.52 ACRES LOCATED AT 647 EAST NAPLES STREET FROM R-I-IO TO R-I-7 - George Merziotis (B) PCS-90-04: REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 2.52 ACRES KNOWN AS ELKS RIDGE, CHULA VISTA TRACT NO. 90-4 LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF EAST NAPLES EAST OF FOXBORO AVENUE INTO 10 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED LOTS - George Merziotis Contract Planner Lettieri stated the project involved a rezone and tentative map known as Elks Ridge for a 2.52 acres located at 647 East Naples Street, bounded on the north by the Elks Lodge property, on the south by East Naples Street, on the east by the Sunbow development, and on the west by the -' northerly extension of Foxboro Avenue. Mr. Lettieri continued with the explanation of the surrounding zones and how they related to the area being considered for rezoning. Included in the subdivision was a condition for a 28' future street right-of-way being proposed to be located on the west side of the subdivision adjacent to an existing 20' easement, which would create access for 2-1/2 acres located to the north of the parcel. An existing house and large tree on lot no. 2 was to be preserved, along with an existing drainage easement. The areas of the proposed 10 lots ranged in size from 6400 sq. ft. to over 10,000 sq. ft. with the average lot size being 7800 sq. ft. Mr. Lettieri noted that a letter had been received from Woodcrest Development, developer of Sunbow Unit no. 4 adjacent to the Elks Ridge on the east, ( ( MINUTES -9- Seotember 12. 1990 . concerning architectural standards for the future homes and regarding walls and landscaping on the eastern boundary of the subdivision to screen and separate the two developments Mr. Lettieri stated that the proposal was consistent with the General Plan. He proceeded to highlight the rezoning, subdivision conditions and map revisions on the project. He clarified condition no. 18, noting the 42' provision was on the easterly portion; the westerly portion of the subdivision dedication was 40' from centerline. Staff recommended approval of the subdivision and rezone. . Commissioner Tugenberg questioned the logic of requiring a 28' easement west of lots I through 4. Mr. Lettieri answered that the need to have access to the north was important. There had been a concern over pad sizes, but felt all of the pads had adequate size to accommodate a building as well as a rear yard area. Commissioner Fuller questioned the use of trees as a buffer, as suggested in a letter from adjacent homeowners. Assistant Planning Director Lee answered that the developer had no objection to providing a fairly dense landscaping screen and also using a solid fence material at the top of the slope, but would rather not fence the property in. Upon Commissioner Fuller's query, Mr. Lee stated the project lots were approximately 5' below the adjacent area east. Commissioner Decker questioned the location of a house on lot 4, and the reduction of the square footage from 5,000 sq. ft. Discussion ensued regarding the sizes of the lots. Commissioner Casillas asked if the City would be a party to the CC&Rs. Mr. Lee answered the City was normally a party to certain parts of the CC&Rs. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. James Algert, 428 Broadway, Chula Vista 92010, representing the applicant, spoke in favor and agreed with the conditions presented. Harry Cromer, 1068 Pacific Hill Street, Chula Vista 92011, said he was generally in favor of the plan, but would like the letter from the adjacent homeowners considered. He questioned the retention of two mature trees next to the house to be retained; if there would be input from the nearby homeowners; the angle and slope of the sewer line; dirt blowing during grading and protection from the dirt. Upon Commissioner Decker's query, Mr. Cromer pointed out the mature trees he had referred to. Assistant Planner Lee noted that possibly all of the trees could be saved except the one at the extreme east end of the property. . ( ( MINUTES -10- SeDtember 12. 1990 Senior Civil Engineer Ullrich stated that at the time the improvement plans are brought in, the Engineering Department will review the flow contained in the sewer and adjust as necessary to get an adequate flow to cleanse it. Lawrence Crandall, 7858 Ivanhoe Avenue, La Jolla, one of the three partners applying for the rezone and tentative map, stated they were sensitive to the Sun bow homeowner and intend to build their homes in accordance with their design, setting and value. He said he would not agree to install a fence because he felt an open feeling was needed; he was willing to install landscaping as suggested by the City Landscape Architect. Mr. Crandall noted the existing homes and trees would not be disturbed; the difficulty of the road right-of-way and the effect to the corner lot. He urged the Commission to support the project. Upon Commissioner's Tugenberg's query, Mr. Crandall answered that the fence behind the Sunbow property was black wrought iron. Commissioner Decker questioned Mr. Crandall as to the square footage of the houses. Mr. Crandall answered that they would average around 2,000 to 2,200 square feet with two stories. Michael Katras, 3027 Plaza Bonita, Bonita, representing the Chula Vista Elks, the sellers, said they felt the development of the property would help the environment, stop dumping of waste matter onto the property, and stop trespassing. He felt the project would benefit the community. Bill Klaser, 617 E. Naples St., Chula Vista representing the homeowners immediately west of the proposed development, opposed anything smaller than a 10,000 sq. ft.' minimum lot size. Doyle Hipps, 605 E. Naples St., Chula Vista 92011, concurred with Mr. Klaser. He noted they were not opposed to the project, but wanted the density to stay the same. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Carson was concerned with the density of the project and felt ij could be reduced. Commissioner Decker noted it was a transition from larger lots to the east and smaller lots to the west and asked staff about the size of the lots which were adjacent to the project. Assistant Planning Director Lee answered that the lots varied from just under 7,000 sq. ft. to approximately 10,000 sq. ft. Commissioner Tugenberg concurred with Commissioner Carson that the project was too dense and that lot no. 4 was undersized. He felt eight or nine units on the 109,000 sq. ft. might be more suitable and really offer a transition. Commissioner Casillas agreed that lot no. 4 was too small, and stated he couldn't support ten lots. . . . ( , " MINUTES -11- September 12. 1990 MS (Tugenberg/Casillas) to deny PCZ-90-G the request to rezone 2.52 acres located at 647 E. Naples Street to R-I-0 to R-I-7. Assistant Planning Director Lee stated that the applicant may wish to continue the item to look at a revision to the map and come back, or appeal to the Council. George Merziotis, one of the owners, asked for a continuance of the item. MSUC (Tugenberg/Casillas) 7-0 to continue the item to the first meeting in October. ITEM 7: PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-91-B: REQUEST TO REZONE 0.15 ACRES LOCATED AT 245 "E" STREET TO c-o - David F. Wilson and Ronald D. Cox Commissioner Fuller asked to be excused because of a conflict of interest having done in excess of $250 worth of business with the applicant. Planning Consultant Lettieri stated this item involved a rezoning of a single lot with 6500 sq. ft. located at 245 "E" Street, just west of Twin Oaks Circle, from R-l to C-O Administrative and Office zone. Staff recommended disapproval because of the reasons listed in the staff report. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Bud Wilson, who owns an insurance agency at 249 "E" Street, adjacent to the property at 245 "E" Street, stated he wanted to utilize the property as part of his office. Mr. Wilson noted that they had been at that location since 1955 and did not wish to relocate because of the expense. He had talked with all except one of the neighbors who had no opposition to the rezoning. Commissioner Cartmill asked if it would be two separate buildings or one unit. Mr. Wilson said the only thing which would be torn down would be the garage, so handicap parking could be installed. The dwelling would stay as a separate building, except it would be cleaned up, re-roofed, etc. Commissioner Decker verified that the back yard would become a parking lot. Mr. Wilson said the back would be for parking, but the sides and the front - would be landscaped and would look like a dwelling from the front. Chair Grasser Horton verified that the access would be off the alley, with some exiting from the front of the house. Upon Commissioner Casillas' query, Mr. Wilson stated they were not contemplating connection of the buildings at this time, but possibly would later. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. ( ( MINUTES -12- September 12. 1990 Commissioner Casillas asked whether the approval of this request could be conditioned on it becoming one parcel. Mr. Lettieri stated it could, but if it was the Commission's desire to approve this item, that it be continued for two weeks so staff could bring back conditions and findings. One of the conditions would be a consolidation of lots. MSUC (Carson/Casillas) 6-0 (Fuller had left the dais) to continue this item until September 26, 1990. Chair Grasser Horton stated she felt 245 "E" Street was more compatible with the c-o zone than the residential zone, and has a problem with single-family houses on such a busy street. She felt the rezoning would enhance the area and would not be detrimental. The other Commissioners concurred. OTHER BUSINESS - None DIRECTOR'S REPORT Planning Director Leiter reminded the Commissioners of a workshop to be held Wednesday, September 19, at 4:00 at the Rancho del Rey Information Center for a tour of the Rancho del Rey SPA III property. Mr. Lettieri distributed copies of the agenda to the Commissioners. COMMISSION COMMENTS Chair Grasser Horton noted that a Baldwin representative had approached her regarding talking with the Commissioners regarding pad sizes and grading. She asked if that could be worked into one of their workshops. Commissioner Carson requested that maps be done to show square footage of homes around the project areas of projects coming before them. ADJOURNMENT AT 10:12 p.m. to the Study Session Field Trip on September 19, 1990. j]rf"), " ,t/~ {C'/,1{',_ Nancy Ri ply, Secretary j Planning Commission WPC B347P