Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1994/05/11 (2) MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Council Chambers 7:05 p.m. Public Services Building Wednesday, May 11, 1994 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Martin, Commissioners Fuller, Martin, Moot, Ray, Salas, and Tarantino COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Tuchscher STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director Lee, Principal Planner Griffin, Associate Planner Martin, Assistant City Attorney Rudolf MOTIONS TO EXCUSE MSC (Ray/Fuller) 6-0 to excuse Commissioner Tnchscher, who was out of town on business. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER Chair Martin led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag and a moment of silence. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chair Martin reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSC (Fuller/Salas) 6-0 (Commissioner Tuchscher excused) to approve the minutes of April 27, 1994, as submitted. (Commissioner Ray noted he had read the minutes and believed them to be correct.) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None PC Minutes -2- May 11, 1994 ITEM 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-94-20/PCA-94-02; CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY LANDSCAPE MANUAL AND ASSOCIATED AMENDMENTS TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE - City Initiated Assistant Planning Director Lee asked for further continuation of this item to the meeting of June 8, 1994. Them had been a request from the development community to review the portion of the landscape manual which deals with public property. MSC (Ray/Fuller) 6-0 (Commissioner Tuchscher excused) to continue PCM-94-20/ PCA-94-02. ITEM 2. PUBLIC HEARING: DRC-94-23; APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE'S DECISION TO DENY PROPOSED FENCE DESIGN MODIFICATION AT 915 PASEO RANCHERO - First United Methodist Church of Chula Vista Principal Planner Griffin noted the location of the property and the surrounding land uses. The basic church complex had been approved by the Design Review Committee in 1992. In January 1994, the Church proposed a modification to the plan which would have changed the masonry wall to a wood fence. The Design Review Committee unanimously denied the modification, believing the masonry wall would be more durable, aesthetically pleasing, and architecturally compatible for the location. The Church appealed the Design Review Committee decision, citing the community purpose facility standards allowed for landscaping, a fence, or a wall and that they had proposed a wooden fence in combination with landscaping. The Church believed the grade would provide some additional separation and buffer, and that the wooden fence was more compatible with the residential area. Staff supported the Design Review Committee recommendation and recommended that the appeal be denied. Mr. Griff'm noted that the adjoining property owner, McMillin Communities, had also submitted a letter in support of the Design Review Committee's decision. Commissioner Ray questioned the fencing, walls, and landscaping in the area. Mr. Griffin noted that fencing, walls, and landscaping had been used in the area at the preference of the property owners. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Lou Dominy, Dominy & Associates, amhitects of the property, representing the Church, noted the area of the fence under discussion; there would be 75 trees between the fence and the Church, a sloped bank, and a landscaped buffer; they did not want to wall themselves off from their neighbors; the ordinance asked them to do one of three things--they were doing two--the fence and the landscaping. They proposed that the fence be stained green to be a non-visual barrier. It could be easily painted if tagged, and would blend in with the landscaping. The PC Minutes -3- May 11, 1994 fence would relate more to the houses than the Church, and would have more visual and aesthetic appeal than a block wall. Mr. Dominy stated the vertical offset itself would create a buffer between the two properties. It was not a noise issue. He believed the letter from McMillin was self-serving. Commissioner Fuller asked Mr. Dominy to point out the actual fence line, and asked where the trees would be. Mr. Dominy noted the different areas of the trees, part of them being on the cul-de-sac side, and visible above the fence line. Commissioner Salas questioned the color of the fence, whether the outside of the wall which would be exposed to the neighbor would also be green. Mr. Dominy replied that it would be the neighbor's choice as to the paint color on their side. Their initial proposal would be to paint in and protect it with the green stain. They would leave it the natural color on the neighbor's side, if the City preferred. Commissioner Salas asked about maintenance responsibility. Mr. Dominy stated that the Church would maintain the fence, on both sides. He noted that the lots the Church bought on the cul- de-sac would have a four-foot plant strip on the street side of the fence which would be planted with shrubs, in addition to the trees. Commissioner Moot questioned the lineal distance the fence would cover. Mr. Griffin stated it was approximately 450 total feet. Mr. Moot asked if 75 trees in 450 sq. ft. was typical. Mr. Griffin was not aware of a typical number. Mr. Moot asked, assuming that the Design Review Committee decision was upheld, what affect that would have on their plans for the trees and landscaping. Mr. Dominy said it would have to be downsized. That area was for excess parking beyond the amount required by the City. Commissioner Ray asked Mr. Dominy to point out the end of the masonry wall to the east of the project site. Mr. Dominy presented pictures to the Commission which showed a wood fence which adjoined the masonry wall at the west end. Commissioner Ray questioned the height of the shrubs and the time taken to grow, and noted the shrub would be the height of the fence within an 18-month to two-year period. Principal Planner Griffin concurred that at some period of time the shrub would soften and buffer a good portion of the fence or wall. Mr. Griffin clarified that staff's concern was to not create a high, solid edge, and had proposed a four-foot high wall with two feet of wrought iron to provide security, but still provide views at the end of the wall. Chair Martin asked about the timeframe to complete the fence--if there could be some intermediate fencing. Mr. Dominy stated they would be happy if there were some sunset on the approval--if the Commission was not happy with the way it was maintained, the Church could come back at a particular time. PC Minutes -4- May 11, 1994 Principal Planner Griffin said the Church and staff would like to see some separation there at the time of completion rather than leaving it open for a period of years. Commissioner Salas questioned the durability of a block wall versus a wood fence. A wooden fence would last 20 years or more; the Church could replace it with something different in the future. She would rather see something in natural wood than masonry--more cement. She did not see the aesthetic objection nor the durability objection. Commissioner Ray asked if there had been any discussion regarding mixing the two, with a masonry wall along the eastern edge and a wood fence around the cul-de-sac. Mr. Griffin stated that staff had from the beginning favored a significant fencing solution for noise reasons, as well as aesthetics and durability. Commissioner Fuller asked if a wall was required, did development standards require landscaping. Mr. Griffin clarified that the plan which was being appealed had been approved by the Design Review Committee, including a combination of landscaping and wall. If there was a desire to eliminate the landscaping, it would need to go back to the Design Review Committee with another modification to the plan. Commissioner Fuller asked staff if the fence would be on the property line of the adjacent pads, and if future residents would put in another fence. Staff replied that the fence would be on the property line; future residents would not install an additional fence. Commissioner Tarantino asked if the original plan had both the landscaping and the wall. Mr. Dominy replied positively, and stated that if the Church were denied the appeal, they would have to lessen the landscaping because of the cost. Ms. Pat Michaels, 303 Via Bissolotti, Chula Vista, representing the Board of Trustees for the First United Methodist Church, said that the Board's responsibility is to maintain all property which belongs to the Church; maintaining the fence would be better than trying to maintain a block wall in light of tagging, etc. She noted that the boundary on the south was landscaping and would have fencing in front. The other two properties on the east with a block wall would not blend with the south wall. She understood they were not required to install a sound wall, and the Church wanted to have something that would be easy to maintain; they would maintain it; they wanted to be friendly neighbors. Craig Fukuyama, 2727 Hoover Ave., National City, representing the owners of the abutting properties to the east and the Rancho del Rey (RdR) Architectural Review Committee, stated that he regretted having to oppose the request of the Church. He clarified that the RdR Architectural Review Committee had reviewed the project prior to its original submittal to the DRC of the City. The requirement for a solid masonry wall was imposed and approved by that Committee because they felt there needed to be a permanent and substantial separation between the Church and the residential units to the east. Upon submittal to the Design Review Committee, it was PC Minutes -5- May 11, 1994 approved. The use of the area abutting the wall would be a major entrance to the Church; they would have activities occurring on weekdays as well as weekends, and the RdR Amhitectural Review Committee felt there needed to be a permanent separation between what they considered potentially incompatible land uses. Mr. Fukuyama requested that the Commission continue to require a solid masonry wall and deny the appeal to the Church. Answering Commissioner Ray, Mr. Fukuyama said the RdR Architectural Review Committee was composed of himself, a representative from McMillin's in-house architectural department, a representative of McMillin's engineering department, and their marketing department. He said the Church was correct in saying the RdR Amhitectural Review Committee was made up of typically McMillin employees, but they represented different departments and they reviewed all design review applications--residential, all uses in the power center, any non-residential uses-- and it was a requirement that their architectural review committee first pass judgment on an application before it proceeds to City application process. Commissioner Ray asked if the southerly boundary of the property was a fence rather than a wall. Mr. Fukuyama said it was a variety of types of fencing or separation. Many of the residents had constructed their fences years before and did not want them disturbed because of landscaping, etc. There was some dialog and negotiations between members of the Church and the homeowners, and in an attempt to maintain good neighbor relationships, a compromise had been fostered in the solution rendered. Commissioner Moot concluded there was some concern about the noise and activity at the parking lot and the effectiveness of a wood fence protecting against that. With the entrance in its particular location, was the concern that the residential pads adjacent to the driveway would be adversely impacted because of the noise problems? Mr. Fukuyama replied positively. Commissioner Moot asked how much more effective a masonry wall rather than a wooden fence with trees would be in protecting against noise. Mr. Fukuyama felt the density of the masonry wall would provide a greater level of noise attenuation than wood and landscaping. The density of the landscaping would not attenuate noise; it refracts the noise, but the absorption and reflection of the wall is what really deadens the noise. The vegetation had a nicer appeal, however. In reply to Chair Martin, Mr. Fukuyama explained that the cul-de-sac jutted into the Church's property, because the Church had bought the three residential lots at the end of the cul-de-sac. The purpose of the indentations was to soften the wall on both sides so there would be some relief. The wall was property of the Church; it was not an open space wall. Commissioner Ray asked what kinds of fences the residences would have between the houses themselves once the residences were built. Mr. Fukuyama said they would probably have wooden fences. PC Minutes -6- May 11, 1994 Commissioner Ray concluded that those homes which had the abutting parcels would have wood fences on one side and a solid wall on the other. Mr. Fukuyama concurred. With Chair Martin's approval, Mr. Dominy returned the podium and stated that Mr. Fukuyama was correct in that the masonry wall would be a better sound buffer. At the entrance, however, the vertical offset would be at its maximum and the offset, plus the density, would block sound. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Chair Martin noted that there were two groups who liked each other but had different viewpoints. One was motivated by financial constraints, and the other also had financial concerns. The Commission had to decide whether to support the Design Review Committee and deny the appeal, or approve it. MS (Ray for discussion/Tarantino) to approve the appeal. Commissioner Salas asked for a clarification of the motion--to affirm the decision of the Design Review Committee and deny the appeal. Commissioner Ray confirmed the motion was to reverse the decision. Commissioner Tarantino noted that the second stood. Commissioner Ray noted that the entire neighborhood was a series of wooden fences in the area. Within a couple of years, the landscaping would hide the fence. He did not see a problem. Commissioner Tarantino, regarding tagging, said that the paint never matched when graffiti was covered. Even if the paint on the fence did not match, he felt them would be enough of a blending with the trees and the landscaping and it really would not be an eyesore. Sometimes the painting out looks worse than the tagging. It would make more sense to have the fence with the tree color and landscaping. Chair Martin asked Principal Planner Griffin about the alternatives according to Code. Mr. Dominy had felt the Church had met two of the alternatives and was required to meet only one. Mr. Griffin said it was a subjective Design Review-type of judgment; not an absolute. In staff's opinion, the options are up to the Design Review process as to what would be appropriate. Commissioner Salas observed that masonry walls seemed to invite graffiti. Commissioner Fuller questioned whether the property development standards as written were subject only to the interpretation by the Design Review Committee, but not the applicant? Mr. Griffin replied that it was the applicant's decision as to which option was chosen. The Design Guidelines that the Committee used to make this decision were very general and broad, and a new, more specific Design Manual was being prepared; however, it was the Design Review Committee's responsibility to make those kinds of judgments on design. It could then be appealed to the Commission and Council. PC Minutes -7- May 11, 1994 Commissioner Moot asked the Attorney if they reversed the decision of the DRC, would the Commission have the ability to include stipulations on the remaining conditions? Assistant City Attorney Rudolf answered affirmatively. He interpreted the appeal to just be for the wall, and if the appeal were approved, it would only pertain to the wooden wail, as specified, without affecting any of the rest of the approved project. If the applicant had problems with anything else, they would have to process another application for modification of the DRC approval. Mr. Rudolf also believed a condition could be added to bring the item back before the Commission in a certain time period to ascertain whether the fence had been maintained. Commissioner Ray stated he had had the same concern; however, his motion only reflected the reversal of the decision for a masonry wall. Commissioner Moot wanted to be certain the package presented would be built, with no less trees and landscaping, etc. Mr. Rudolf stated he believed that was the intent of the motion, and pointed out that implied in that was that the Commission by granting the appeal finds that the wood treatment instead of the other type of fencing is a material and finish selected for architectural harmony, aesthetic quality, durability, and ease of maintenance, and that the wooden fence meets those requirements just as well or better than the masonry wall. RESTATEMENT OF MOTION To grant the appeal and approve the replacement of the masonry wall with a wooden fence as requested by the applicant in the appeal, and that all other terms and conditions from the approval of the Design Review Committee remain in place. The second concurred. Principal Planner Griffin noted that the landscaping had been reviewed by the Landscape Architect and was found to be more than adequate, and whether a wall or fence was installed, the landscaping would be appropriate as approved. He felt there should be no concern regarding the number of trees. VOTE: MSC 6-0 (Commissioner Tuchscher excused). ITEM 3. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS FILED BY CHARLES TIBBETT FOR 0.67 UNINCORPORATED ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BONITA ROAD AND LYNWOOD DRIVE a. GPA-94-02: AMEND GENERAL PLAN FROM OFFICE COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY TO COMMERCIAL VISITOR PC Minutes -8- May 11, 1994 b. PCZ-94-B: PREZONE TO C-V-P, COMMERCIAL VISITOR c. PCC-94-23: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A FULL SERVICE CARWASH Associate Planner Hernandez presented the staff report, noting that the applicant had requested a conditional use permit. The City Attorney had determined that the Planning Commission could not act on the conditional use permit until the property is annexed to the City, and the City has jurisdiction over the land use. He also noted corrections in the report on page 3-2 under "Discussion"--should read .50 instead of .25, and .42 should read . 17; and on page 3-5, third paragraph, 2 decibels should be .2 decibels. Mr. Hernandez stated that the 1989 Update of the Chula Vista General Plan adopted the Sweetwater Community Plan for all incorporated parcels in this area. The Sweetwater Community Plan designation showed the site as Office Professional Commercial and Residential for the portion being detached from the existing single- family lot. The zoning was C-30 (Professional Office and Rural Residential - 1 unit per acre). Mr. Hernandez explained the applicant's concept of the future use as a carwash, noting the circulation system and architecture. The architecture had been approved by the Design Review Committee contingent upon approval of the General Plan Amendment, Prezoning, Conditional Use Permit, and annexation of the property to the City. A public forum had been held to inform the residents and community group of the applicant's intent to change the General Plan designation and construct a full-service carwash. The issues raised were primarily the additional traffic and signal delays and Bonita Road and Lynwood Drive, and the traffic generated by the recently approved church and school facility constructed by the County in the neighborhood. To address the traffic issues and traffic signal delays, a traffic report was prepared which included the traffic the church facility generated and data provided by the County for the intersection. The City Traffic Engineer, based on the traffic report, had concluded that the traffic generated by the carwash was spread evenly throughout the day and was not expected to create any significant changes in the level of service or the intersection signal phasing. A noise study was conducted to determine the potential impacts from traffic, as well as from operational aspects of the proposed land use. The study concluded that the project would increase the existing noise level by .2 decibels which was considered to be negligible. Mr. Hernandez noted that redesignation from Commercial Office and Residential Low Density to Visitor Commercial follows the pattern of other parcels in that particular Bonita Road segment. In staff's opinion, the property could be redesignated Commercial Visitor or left Office Commercial. Staff recommended approval of the General Planning Amendment and Prezoning request in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained in the PC Minutes -9- May 11, 1994 resolution and ordinance; and that Conditional Use Permit 94-23 be continued indefinitely, as recommended by the City Attorney. Commissioner Ray asked how many feet, in terms of a single lane, were there from Bonita Road to the vacuum hoses. He was concerned about stacking of cars, and the inability to exit. Staff deferred the questioned to the applicant. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Ron Lane, 3907Massachusetts Avenue, La Mesa, representing the applicant, noted 12 cars could be stacked, if necessary, and approximately I0 cars additionally on the access road from Bonita Road. Discussion ensued regarding traffic circulation and difficulty of access and egress. Traffic would be encouraged to enter from Bonita Road and egress on Lynwood. Commissioner Ray asked staff if there were any plans to connect Lynwood Drive to "H" Street. Assistant Planning Director Lee replied negatively, noting that Lynwood was very narrow and the ability to widen it in the future would be extremely limited. The City was opposed to construction of the church which had been constructed at the southwest end of Lynwood which would potentially cause more problems than the proposed carwash. Chair Martin asked how many feet existed from the entrance of the proposed carwash back to the off-ramp. Mr. Lee stated it was approximately 200 feet. Chair Martin stated he had a problem with only two lanes going east; if there was any obstruction, there would be delays. Mr. Lane said their engineers were working on a smooth transition into their entrance without significant stopping. On the Pier I side, there would be another lane added on the north side. Chair Martin was concerned about tying up one lane with traffic going into the carwash. Mr. Lane felt it might potentially slow down traffic, but traffic would not have to stop when entering. Commissioner Tarantino was concerned about safety, with drivers looking to the left for oncoming traffic when turning right from the freeway ramp. If there was stacking of cars, he had a question about safety. Mr. Lane did not believe that with the driveway there would be stacking in that direction; it would have to be a very overcrowded situation. Chair Martin was concerned with any stopping just beyond the intersection. Mr. Lane stated that with any land use, there would be some delay when someone turned in. PC Minutes -10- May 11, 1994 In answer to Commissioner Ray, Mr. Lane said there would be no machinery or ducting exposed on the roof. From the freeway, only a portion of the roof would be visible. From "H" Street exiting north, there would be buffering and landscaping which would screen the building heavily. Associate Planner Hernandez noted that, to his knowledge, no roof-mounted equipment would be installed. Erina Fornataro, 3249 Holly Way, Chula Vista, clarified there were some people in favor of the carwash, but not in the Lynwood Hills area. She was concerned with the safety issue and traffic. Lynwood Drive is a two-lane road, and she did not feel they had seen the full impact of the traffic from the chumh and from Bonita Road going west. Roland Fornataro, 3249 Holly Way, Chula Vista, owned property on Lynwood and Holly, and on Lynwood. There was no room for stacking even two cars on Lynwood going to Bonita Road. He noted traffic from Presidio Tree Farm and the church. There were not enough lights at the intersection to stack it up. Bill Darnell, Darnell & Associates, 1202 Kettner Blvd., Suite B, San Diego 92101, traffic consultant for the applicant, noted the traffic study used the SANDAG rates, and stated that the access could be moved if there was a concern about slowing down. Mr. Darnell agreed with Mr. Lane in that whatever was put on the site, there would be slow-down. The CalTrans signals are tied together, and drivers pass through rather fast. The signal at Lynwood is a separate phase from the Plaza Bonita side, so that traffic is not opposing traffic from the other side. There was a possible conflict with drivers turning right out of Plaza Bonita with drivers turning left from Lynwood. It was an enforcement issue. Mr. Darnell felt with the level of stacking-- 20-25 cars at a peak time--a problem would not be experienced. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Ray asked what was the possibility of expanding Lynwood 10-15 feet past the entrance/exit of the carwash down to Bonita Road to four lanes. Assistant Planning Director Lee stated there was an existing commercial development on the east side. Topographically, he felt it would be extremely difficult and would have to be done as a joint effort with the County. It had not been considered. Commissioner Ray asked what assurances there were that the drainage from the carwash would not go into the flood channel. At the request of staff, Mr. Lane, speaking for the applicant, said there was a full reclaim system. Five percent would end up in the sewer. Commissioner Ray was concerned with the runoff from the parking lot, and what would end up in the flood channel. Mr. Lane felt it would be similar to what drains from the site currently. PC Minutes -11- May 11, 1994 Chair Martin had a concern with the Commercial Visitor designation. He believed it would cause traffic safety problems. He did not feel he could vote for the project; if it was just the carwash, it would be possible. Redesignating it Commercial Visitor would add more traffic. This would be the next area of concern in the next few years, and a strong message should be sent to staff. There was no question that a carwash was a viable business opportunity, but that was not the place to have Commercial Visitor. MS (Tarantino/Ray) to reject the resolution amending the land use designation of the General Plan from Office Commemial to Visitor Commercial. Commissioner Fuller clarified that if that action were approved, there would be no need for the remaining actions recommended by staff. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf stated that he understood the motion was to deny the request which would have to be appealed to the Council. If it was approved, it would move on to the Council. Assistant Planning Director Lee advised, if it was the Commission's desire to recommend denial of the General Plan, that the rezoning also be included so both decisions could be appealed to the Council. Commissioner Ray commented that the Commission was acutely aware of traffic problems in the area--this being one of the major ones. If he could have had references to other carwashes and real numbers, with visual presentations or renderings showing how many cars, it may have been easier for him to vote for it, but he was very sensitive to what the Fornataros had said regarding Lynwood. Specifically, the entrance on Bonita Road frightened him, and the potential for some kind of traffic problem there. Assistant Planning Director Lee reminded the Commission that the property was zoned in the County for Commercial Office. The plan approved years ago also had right turns in and out towards the west end of the property. Regardless of whether it is developed at some point as Office or Retail, there would likely be a driveway toward the west end. Commissioner Salas commented that while it may be zoned Commercial, she believed designating it Commercial Visitor would create more trips. Assistant Planning Director Lee noted that it was not a large area, and this was just part of several projects that might be built. The carwash fits the exact site, and there was no proposal that would change or add anything to it. He wanted to clarify that if the carwash went out of business in the future, there might be another proposal back in front of the Commission in terms of a particular project. Commissioner Fuller stated the Commissioners felt that the business opportunities in a Visitor Commercial create more traffic, more in and out trips, more frequently than Office Commercial. PC Minutes -12- May 11, 1994 RESTATEMENT OF MOTION: To deny GPA-94-02. Commissioner Moot asked if the maker of the motion would expand the motion to also deny PCZ-94-B, the prezone, which would allow the applicant to appeal both issues. The maker and second concurred. RESTATEMENT OF MOTION: TO DENY GPA-94-02 AND PCZ-94-B. VOTE ON MOTION: 6-0 to DENY (Commissioner Tuchscher excused) Assistant City Attorney Rudolf asked that the Commission continue PCC-94-23 indefinitely. MSC (Fuller/Salas) 6-0 (Commissioner Tuchscher excused) to continue indefinitely PCC-94-23, the conditional use permit to operate a full carwash. Commissioner Fuller commented that she was impressed with the format of the environmental checklist form used with this item. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Assistant Planning Director Lee, referred to an information item which had been forwarded to the Commission regarding a previous action taken on a conditional use permit involving property on Broadway. The applicant came forward after their action and wanted to clarify that the probation officers operating this facility were there from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. and they were open until 8 p.m. For two hours there would not be a probation officer present. There was also a condition that anyone with a problem would be removed by the probation officer. The probation officer would not necessarily accompany the person being removed off-site. Mr. Lee stated that staff felt their modifications to the conditions were reasonable, and it was being sent on to the City Council, but wanted to make the Commissioners aware of it. If the Commission had any concerns, they could be transmitted to the Council. Mr. Lee also noted a traffic workshop which would be held in June. The Commissioners had received a registration form, and there was a registration fee of $40. Mr. Lee reminded the Commissioners that there would be a workshop the following Wednesday at 5:30 regarding the small lot product. Them were no items scheduled for the regular meeting of May 25, 1994; therefore, that meeting would most likely be canceled. PC Minutes -13- May 11, 1994 COMMISSION COMMENTS - None ADJOURNMENT at 9:17 p.m. to the Dinner Workshop Meeting of May 18, 1994, at 5:30 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2 and 3. Nan~y Riple2~, Secr4~ary Planning Commission (5-11-94.min)