Loading...
01/18/1988GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 18, 1988 The regular meeting of the Grand Terrace Planningg Commission was called to order at the Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California on January 18, 1988, at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Norman Caouette, Chairman Fran Van Gelder, Vice -Chairwoman Jerry Hawkinson, Commissioner Gerald Cole, Commissioner Stanley Hargrave, Commissioner Ray Munson, Commimssioner Jim Sims, Commissioner David Sawyer, Planning .Director Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney Joe Kicak, City Engineer Staff ABSENT: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Stanley Hargrave ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP CONVENED AT 6:30 P.M. lQ1101IY115y Discussion and corrections noted on the November 2nd and November 16th, 1987 minutes. PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP ADJOURNED AT 7:00 P.M. ----------------------------------------------------------------- PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING CONVENED AT 7:00 P.M. ITEM #1 & 2 MINUTES MOTION PCM-88-1 11/2/87 MINUTES P . C . MEETING Chairman Caouette opened discussion on the minutes. COMMISSIONER HARGRAVE MADE THE MOTION TO APPROVE MOTION VOTE PCM-88-1 THE MINUTES FROM THE NOVEMBER 2, 1987 MEETING. COMMISSIONER HAWKINSON SECONDED. MOTION CARRIED. 0-1-0. MOTION PCM-88-2 11/16/87 MINUTES P.C. MEETING MOTION VOTE PCM-88-2 CHAIRMAN CAOUETTE ABSTAINED. 6- COMMISSIONER HAWKINSON MADE THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE NOVEMBER 16, 1987 MEETING WITH CORRECTIONS AS NOTED IN THE PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION. VICE -CHAIRWOMAN VAN GELDER SECOND. MOTION CARRIED. 4-0-2-0, COMMISSIONERS MUNSON AND HARGRAVE ABSTAINED. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:05 P.M. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD CONVENED AT 7:05 P.M ITEM #3 SA-87-11 MS PARTNERSHIP 22488 BARTON ROAD COMMERCIAL ST1�2UCTURE The Planning Director explained that this item was first presented at the December 7th, 1988 Planning Commission Meeting. At that time the Commission was concerned with the proposed location of the structure and the landscaping area which was located west of the building. The applicant is MS Development, and the location of the development is at 22488 Barton Road. Since that meeting staff 2 has met with MS Partnership and has reiterated the Commission's concerns expressed at that meeting. In an effort to address those concerns the applicant has revised the project by replacing the green landscaped area wil.h an enclosed paved access area utility panels only. This area will not have a solid roof and would not be counted as square footage. The applicant feels that this will work well with any additional future development. (The applicant had provided staff with a rendering of how the two buildings would be developed in the future). The applicant had indicated that they wished to keep the structure in its originally proposed location in recognition of the Planning Commission's previous concerns regarding the (now proposed) enclosed area to the west of the structure and the applicant's desire to be as close to Mt. Vernon Avenue as possible. Staff felt that the conditions listed in the staff report would be an appropriate compromise to both parties. The Planning Director presented the staff report with the recommendations from the City Engineer and Reviewing Agencies. The Planning Department recommended that the Planning Commission approve SA-87-11 subject to the eleven (11) conditions mentioned in the staff report presented at the December 7, 1988 Planning Commission meeting and the additional four (4) conditions listed in the current staff report. Chairman Caouette asked if there were any questions from staff. Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder asked what size lattice work was being considered for the utility area. The Planning Director stated that the size, as indicated in the applicant's presentation, would have openings large enough for someone to crawl in. He suggested that the concern be addressed to the applicant. Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder expressed concern with children getting in there with electrical equipment. The Planning Director clarified that all of the utilities are located within panels and that there would be no physical access without a key. The height of the fence would be the same as the 3 0 walls. He mentioned that the outside appearance would look as if the building extended into that area. The Planning Commission looked at the plans and the renderings. Commissioner Hargrave asked what the advantages and disadvantages were in regards to this type of concept. The Planning Director stated that the applicant had concerns over that area being dead space. This was a way that they could go in and use that area. From staff's point of view it had the advantage of not being an opened cluttered area and it would be out of site. The alternative to having this space being open and landscaped was what we had talked about before. With the possibility of a second building coming in there is a potential of that being a trapped area and it could collect debris and be a safety problem. Without the second building there it would simply be a landscaped area that would be adjacent to the building and parking area. Also, there would be no reason to have this area walled off. Commissioner Hargrave asked if the Planning Director could come up with some other designs that could be implemented on this property. The Planning Director explained that the applicant was trying to maximize the use of the land. They are doing that with the two buildings. It should be noted that there is a problem with the existing building (in front) preventing them from going forward with the whole project at once. Assuming that there was not a problem he thought that the two buildings could be tied together into an "L" shaped building. The applicant indicated that there were leasing concerns regarding that. The Planning Director stated that he thought those concerns could be eliminated with larger units and not having to have an individual unit back in the corner. The corner unit could be an extension of a larger unit. Then it would have the frontage, window space and access that it would need. It just depended on how it was marketed and how it would be leased. The Planning Director stated that an "L" shaped building would be a viable project. 4 W-M Commissioner Sims reiterated his concerns over what the full project scenario would be. He stated that it still made him uncomfortable about the other items coming to light. Now the Planning Commission cannot know whether or not this was the best location or type of development for this piece of property. He further asked if there was any consideration given to a fully developed project. He asked if the traffic study gave consideration on the piece of the project or the overall fully -developed project coming in the near future. The City Engineer stated that the traffic study was restricted to the one particular parcel project. He stated that it has been looked at from potential development of the total parcel and it was difficult to predict which way that second parcel was going to develop. He stated that he would think that under the development of that particular parcel that the positioning of the driveway would certainly be changed from its present configuration. Traffic volumes would probably, just based on the size of the parcel, be an average daily traffic of approximately 321 vehicles on this one single parcel just coming out of one single driveway. Commissioner Sims asked the City Engineer it in his opinion when the other building went in what type of generation would that create. The City Engineer stated again that would depend on what type of commercial development would be there. He thought that it would probably be the same as predicted for that lower portion. Commissioner Sims looked back to the previous traffic studies and asked if they were compatible. The City Engineer stated that under the present driveway configuration it would not be. Additional volumes or development of that property and the driveway configuration would definitely have to change. However, there was a way to get that traffic volume in and out of those two parcels without creating an inconvenience. Commissioner Hargrave asked what year the traffic study was based on to make his decisions. The City Engineer stated that they were based on 5 C last year's study, 1987. Commissioner Hargrave asked if the study was just on certain streets or was it done in regards to the entire city. The City Engineer stated that it was primarily done at the intersection itself with specific emphasis on the intersection as well as in and out traffic at the signal. Commissioner Hargrave asked if the present signalization was based on the present signal or the proposed change that was done on that signalization. The City Engineer stated that it was done based on the present. He did not feel that the signal, present or future, would have a tremendous impact on this particular parcel but would have a greater impact on the other parcel. The proposed signal would provide additional protection for a turning radius in and out of that parcel. Commissioner Hargrave asked if there would be a left and right turning signal rather than a straight proposed signalization. He asked if the proposed closing at the bottom of Mt. Vernon and the access going in a northerly direction would change significantly the potential traffic impact at this corner. The City Engineer stated that he would suggest that the traffic volumes from Grand Terrace Road may decrease. Which means that it appears to be more cars utilizing Barton Road for on and off ramp to I-215 rather than what has been made available to us as the proposed plan occurred. Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder asked if there were any traffic studies done with the idea in mind to anticipate what the maximum bui.ldout of the City would be. The City Engineer stated that had been done in conjunction with the 1984 General Plan and they considered several alternatives. The traffic volume projections have been done in the General Plan for our collectors, arterials as well as the major highways for the General Plan circulation element. Again as Commissioner Hargrave pointed out with what is proposed at the base of Mt. R NWI Vernon he felt that they would have to reevaluate those figures. As is known they were very much in opposition as well as City of Colton to the proposals of Cal Trans. Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder asked what would be done if this project were approved and five years from now someone wants to build next to it and are told they cannot because the City does not have the facilities. The City Engineer stated that what he was suggesting was based on the traffic projections on Mt. Vernon, north of Barton Road, or based on the assumption of widening I-215 which is a tremendous traffic generator out of the area. The proposal for the on -ramp to I-215 northerly off of Mt. Vernon, is that the on -ramp would be eliminated and the on -ramp to I-215 from the Grand Terrace area going northerly from Mt. Vernon to where Fiesta Village is would remain. He would suggest that Barton Road is going to be the major artery towards I215 rather than Mt. Vernon and based on that he said that the 1984 circulation element of the traffic volumes that are projected for the year 2004 may be on the high side, just based on those facts. Chairman Caouette asked if there were any further questions from staff. He requested that applicant address the Commission. Bhal Kavthekar M.S. Partnership BSK Engineering Assoc. 14730 Beach Blvd. #207 La Mirada, CA. 90638 He stated that he represented M.S. Partnership, the developer for the site. Chairman Caouette asked if the material board was current. Mr. Kavthekar stated that was correct and it was the material board that was submitted to the staff. Chairman Caouette asked the applicant if he was familiar with the conditions that were proposed by 7 0 staff, to move the building to the west about 15'. Mr. Kavthekar stated that during the last hearing the landscaping and secluded area was considered to be a collector of junk and grime area. He stated that they have now enclosed that whole portion with walls the height of the building. The elevations will show that it looks like a continous building. At the present time they have the usable building at the legal setback limit on Mt. Vernon Avenue. He stated that they would like to keep it there from a financial business point of view. He stated that if they move the building 13' over, the corner slot would be very hard to lease. In addition to that they would have to take into account the second phase. When that happens it would cover the 13' portion and would not have any visibility. He suggested that they should look at Phase I and Phase II together as suggested in the last Public Hearing. He stated the Commission should be looking at two different renderings. One submitted at the last public hearing dealing with Phase I, and to the left of that an encore building with this additional wall area which they are showing. Chairman Caouette asked the applicant if they would be submitting a modification of their development. Mr. Kavthekar stated that in the last hearing the question was what the total project would be two years down the road and that shouldn't cause the Commission to approve something they don't like. He stated that was what they have attempted to do for this hearing. He stated that this hearing was for parcel 1 only, but also to have an overall look at parcel 1 and parcel 2. The rendering that was being passed around was what the modified project would look like with the walls extended into the garden area. The other rendering showed the two buildings tied together. Chairman Caouette asked about the fencing material which appeared to be a grape staking. Mr. Kavthekar asked if he was referring to the walls that they were extending around the area. He stated that would be regular block walls with stucco on it, wooden beams to tie them together structurally at the top. 0 r L� e 0 Chairman Caouette clarified that he was talking about the fencing along the property line, not the building walls. Mr. Kavthekar stated that at the present time there was a block wall with chain link on top, but they have the intention of finishing it completely with a block wall. Chairman Caouette asked if that was a conditional item, for a property wall along the west property line. The Planning Director stated that it was not because it went between the two commercial properties, but if it were adjacent to residential properties then it would be required. (Mr. Kavthekar then passed the second rendering.) Commissioner Sims asked that if they are to look at it as a total project could the Planning Director alert the Commission to some of the problems that are out there. He asked what some of the concerns were on the initial earlier. project. He stated that his interest was how the concerns would address the second phase. The Planning Director stated that the concerns with the individual lot included, as far as traffic went, did not provide any thoroughfare or access onto the second lot and there is no access onto Barton Road through there. Due to the current problems with traffic already there staff blocked that access to where there was only one entrance and exit onto Mt. Vernon. The other concern that the Planning Director had was just making sure that they included all of the parking that was required for the Code and landscaping. They originally had the trash facilities back behind the building and he did not fee]. that was an appropriate location. The location of the building itself was discussed and he felt that the way the building was oriented right now was the best if they were to have the surrounding properties do something in the future. With this particular lot they would have to turn their back on somebody but this would allow them in the future to be less of an impact on the surrounding developments. Commissioner Sims asked that if the liquor store 0 M c� were to go away then would the second Phase have any traffic problems created by having an entrance onto Barton Road. The Planning Director stated that they did not analyze this completely. The traffic study just looked at the one lot but he felt that it would not be a major problem. He stated that they would be giving it consideration in the future. He stated that they have to look at the future because the applicant is mentioning the feasibility of building another part of the project. It may be, however, that they may not be able to do that for whatever reason. The Planning Commission may request that they come in and develop that piece of property on its own or they may try to combine with the property to the west, or they may not develop anything at all (which would probably be the best thing for that corner) and fill it in with landscaping and parking thus not having to have the access that close to the intersection. Commissioner. Sims asked if there was any way they could get some viable commitment from the applicant on the future development. The Planning Director stated that he felt that there was no way they could. If the applicant were to withdraw and reenter a total development for both sites then they could do that and consider saying that the first building was Phase I and the second building was Phase II. Commissioner Sims asked if it were proper to ask that another traffic analysis be done as a condition on the first phase to satisfy staff that the second phase would be compatible. Also, this could be some assurance from an engineering standpoint that this would not create a monster if we approve this one portion of it. Commissioner Cole asked if they would not be exchanging the traffic from the corner building now to the future when they put the second phase in. The Planning Director stated that the new building would not be 0 to X, but would probably be X to X, because they would be replacing some of that. What it boils down to is whether the Commission can condition the existing application for. a 10 t� study on how a future development on the adjacent property would effect it. The City Attorney stated that the appli.cant has indicated they want the buildings located and situated with thought to both phases. He stated that he did not see any reason why they could not look at both Phases' traffi.c studi.es. Chairman Caouette asked for any further questions. Mr. Kavthekar stated that their project i.s only for the single development and they have met all of the Codes. The traffi.c study reflected little effect on the intersection itself and the design of Phase I and proposed future Phase II was from their standpoint a satisfying architectural project. Tony Fuller M.S. Partnership 1634 Adams Orange, CA. He referred to the condition of moving the building 13'. He stated that from the present drawing the Commission was looking at, the two buildings as proposed was going to take 7-9' of the frontage of that building. If the project is moved another 13' as the Commission was asking, then he would have another. 20' of unvisi.ble space for any tenant. He mentioned that the lot and space would be difficult to lease. PUBLIC HEARING ADJOURNED AT 7 :40 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION Commissioner Hargrave asked what the pictures were that were displayed on the bulletin board. Mr. Kavthekar explained the project from the buildings in relation to the property line by use of the photographs. Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder expressed her concern with the three shops and the small square footage. She suggested dividing them into two shops instead of three. 11 0 9 Mr. Kavthekar explained that at the present time the applicant had experienced the best square footage rental with a mom and pop entrepenaur along the line of 900-1000 sq. ft. However, at this time there was no leasing requirement on the square footage. Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder asked if there was any need to have the Commission condition the quantity of shops. The Planning Director stated that the Commission can certainly condition the minimum square footage or number of shops. Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder asked for clarification on the square footage of the one shop which she believed was 835 sq. feet. Mr. Kavthekar stated that they were divided into 3 equal parts. The Planning Director stated that the shop closest to Mt. Vernon would be 32' wide and the other two would be 25'wide. Chairman Caouette asked for any further questions from the applicant or staff. Commissioner. Hargrave asked the Planning Director if the applicant's response to the condition changed the recommendation from staff. The Planning Director stated that the condition would stay the same. He stated that they are moving the building over half the distance and this area could be a landscaped area adjacent to Mt. Vernon Avenue. That 13' would not be that much of a detriment to the project and in the future if the second building is built, particularly if the condition would require only two divisions in the building, it would have less of an impact. The main reason why his recommendation stays the same was because the future building may not come in and then the building could stand alone on a piece of property. It would sit better on that location because of the landscaping and would be centered better. Commissioner Hargrave stated that this area is very significant for the City and is the most central to the traffic problems now and in the 12 future. He felt that they are at a point with this project that if this should not be there on the small lot then the area needs to be looked at on a much broader scope than what is being done tonight because of its significant traffic and economic impact to this City. He would like to see outlets that would have a much broader commercial appeal to the City, a more medium type tenant base that would come in there. He stated that he did not feel that the City, with this project, was getting what it would want out of that property. MOTION PCM-88-3 Commissioner Munson recommended that SA-87-11 be approved subject to the 11 conditions listed in tle staff report and the above additional 4 conditions. Commissioner Hawkinson seconded the motion. Commissioner Hawkinson referred to the second project, which showed hypothetically the full development that looks like the roof is continous and has the presentation of the "L"-shaped building. Mr. Kavthekar explained that the two would be connnected with the service panel, with a narrow alley, which would be accessed to that area. Commissioner Hawkinson clarified that would still be open space as indicated in the blueprint. Mr. Kavthekar confirmed that was correct and it was not part of the building. Commissioner Hawkinson asked that if the second phase of building would be the same square footage as the first. Mr. Kavthekar stated that it would be slightly more, but pretty close to the same size. Commissioner Hawkinson asked if the area with the square panels was reconfigured to where a diagonal glass would be placed across the front so that it would be a usable space, would that hurt the project in regards to the parking spaces. 13 Mr. Kavthekar stated that the way it was laid out it would hurt the project. Commission Sims stated that after hearing the discussion again it brought up the second phase. He thought that this project was not ready yet. He felt that the Commission should be looking at a total project instead of approving a portion of something. He suggested backing off and waiting for the results of the traffic analysis and also address the commercial use questions that were brought up earlier. Commissioner Munson reiterated that the Planning Director stated this should be handled as an individual item, forgetting that there may or not be another building built. If there is only going to be the one building then he felt it would be a viable project and dial not find anything wrong with the proposed second building if it should come to pass. Commissioner Hargrave stated that he would ask the Commissioners as part of their work to project on a higher level and start the impetus for someone to consider developing out this particular area on a larger scale than what they are looking at tonight. In his opinion in the short run there were enough mom and pop operations but in the long run he did not think there was enough thought far enough out. Vice —Chairwoman Van Gelder recognized there was a motion on the floor but if this project was approved tonight could it be conditioned that the building be divided into two shops instead of three. She expressed a concern that the Commission should hold off until the update on the traffic survey is complete. Chairman Caouette asked the Planning Director if in his opinion, the building is moved back an additional 13'6", does that eliminate the possibility of the second phase altogether or can it be modified through the method of construction. The Planning Director stated from what the applicant has indicated, the exterior of the building would extend that far all the way to the western property line because of the enclosed area so he did not see how that would prohibit them 14 from going forward with the second building as they showed it in the plans. Chairman Caouette asked if it would be possible to acquire the additional traffic information in Phase I and Phase II as a total unit, if and when the Phase III application came in. The Planning Director stated they could certainly require that additional traffic be looked at that time and be analyzed. Chairman Caouette mentioned that the Commission would need that information if they did Phase II and the information they have now for. Phase I is adequate. The Planning Director said he felt the information was adequate for. Phase I. Chairman Caouette asked for any further discussion on the motion. There was none and the vote was taken. MOTION VOTE PCM-8$-3 Motion carried. Vice -Chairman Van Gelder, Commissioners Hargrave and Sims voted noe. 4-3-0- 0. MOTION PCM-88-4 Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder moved that a condition be added there be two shops instead of 3 in the division of the building. Commissioner Sims seconded. Chairman Caouette pointed out a clarification that the condition suggested divisions. The Planning Director stated that be left up to staff and the developer. For clarification he pointed out that 1 or 2 would be fine but 3 would not. Commissioner Hargrave questioned who would benefit by the condition. The tenant for 1 space would L t f 15 have a larger economic base than tenants for 2 or 3 spaces. Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder mentioned that she did not want to be that restrictive. Commissioner Munson stated that the developer has a reason for making the building adaptable for three tenants. Also, to keep in mind that none of the spaces had been leased as yet. He stated that with three businesses they could generate taxes. Commissioner Cole asked Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder to explain the advantage of putting the restriction of 2 over 3. Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder explained that there would be less traffic, less congestion and the spaces were just too small. Commissioner Hawkinson felt that it would be best to accomodate the developer because what they are actually talking about are internal partitions. The developer can shift walls for the tenants. Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder asked if it is possible to just pick up a wall and move it. Commmissioner Hawkinson explained that it is little, if any, effort to move the interior walls. The Planning Director explained that one thing that would be more than just popping out the walls would be entrances into the places. If it is designed from the very beginning to have 2 or 3 spaces it would be limiting the future of how it would be changing the frontage of the structures. The monitoring of such a condition can be done when staff goes through the initial building process to make sure that the condition is carried out as approved by the Planning Commission. The building permits and conditional use permits for the other tenants would have to come through the Planning Department. He mentioned that what was being considered was the size to prevent the real small unit to be developed and leased. Very often an incubator size space is leased by a business which is just getting started or temporary. The tenant in a larger space has a tendency to stay longer than the incubator space tenant. 16 0 MOTION VOTE PCM-88-4 NI Motion carried. Commissioners Hargrave, Hawkinson and Munson voting noe. 4-3-0-0. Chairman Caouette asked for any further questions on the project and hearing none proceeded to the next item on the agenda. Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder asked if the Planning Director had received any further communication from the Advocate School. The Planning Director stated that .just prior to the end of the year he had .received communication and they had indicated they had gone over budget with the architect. He stated that he has communicated in letter form to give them a three month extension for their trailers with the stipulation that they have to show the Planning Director that they are going forward with the building in order to have that extended beyond. that time. PUBLIC HEARING Gene Mc Means Riverside Highland Water Colton, Ca. Mr. Means stated they anticipate a need for additional reservoirs and would like help from the Planning Commission and City Council in alleviating a future water crisis and not 'being entangled with the General Plan Revision and residential moratorium deadlines. The Planning Director explained that they are caught in the residential development moratorium that Mr. Barney Karger wants to develop. He stated that he cannot take in an application in order to forward this project for the water company. Regarding the Planning Commission Hearings they will be looking at some zone changes in that area regarding lot sizes. The preliminary proposal of Mr. Karger's is approximately 10,000+ 17 0 lots. If he came in with acre lots then it would be alot easier to forecast a scenario. Vice —Chairwoman Van Gelder asked what the time table was presently for the General Plan. The Planning Director explained that it was being reviewed by staff and would be available for public comments by the 1st week of February. The public hearings would probably not be available until latter March. Commissioner Hargrave asked if the problem in taking new building permit applications was due to the moratorium. The Planning Director stated that was correct. Mr. Mc Means stated he understood the problem but felt the water issue needed to be addressed with new developments being completed. Commissioner Hargrave asked what gallonage would be needed. Mr. Mc Means clarified that they would go from 1 million to 3 million tanks with 1 million replacing a tank that required replacement. Of the other 2 million, 1 million would be needed with the build out on Mt. Vernon and Canal. Commissioner Hargrave asked if the 1 million was needed to approve the final check on both the Britton Project and the Mt. Vernon Villas project. If that extra 1 million is not available then they could not sign off the final check. Mr. Mc Means stated that they could sign off because they do have adequate fire flow but the turnover time in the reservoir required a real maximization of all of the wells. The Planning Director explained that as a body there was no legal action the Planning Commission could take. The moratorium is on residential development and what they are having to say is no to Mr. Karger as the developer of that residential tract. The water company has to work out a deal with him and the location of the water well. He explained that he cannot say yes to Mr. Karger's development that is preventing Mr. Karger from saying yes to the water company. 18 0 Mr. Tony Petta Commissioner Hargrave asked if the item could be put on the agenda for City Council. The Planning Director stated that it would be appropriate for Mr. Mc Means to contact the City Manager's Office for such a request. Commissioner Hargrave asked the Planning Director if he would informally contact the City Council to let them know that the Planning Commission was concerned with the issue. Mr. Petta asked if the Council felt the need to maintain the moratorium could they accept the properties for the moratorium. The City Attorney explained that they could accept the properties but he was not sure they would do that. He presumed Mr. Mc Means needs some indication that this lot size and configuration would be something they could go along with. Mr. Petta asked if the Council could still keep the moratorium but could give direction and size of the lots. The City Attorney pointed out that the public hearing process could not be lessened but if there could just be an informal agreement that would indicate the lot size then perhaps Mr. Karger and the water company could work out some type of project. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:30 P.M. Approved by, ivur pan C.auue���, Chairman Planning Commission 0 19 Respectfully Submitted, iP a.-jR.Sawyer,lanning Director