Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-28-04_CCv0001.pdf MINUTES of the Planning Commission Meeting of the City of Redlands held Tuesday, September 28, 2004, at 2:00 p.m. are as follows: PRESENT: James Macdonald, Vice-Chairman (Absent evening session) Ruth Cook, Commissioner Caroline Laymon, Commissioner(Absent afternoon session) Gary Miller, Commissioner(Absent evening session) Thomas Osborne, Commissioner Paul Thompson, Commissioner(Absent afternoon session) ABSENT: George Webber, Chair ADVISORY STAFF PRESENT: Jeffrey L. Shaw, Director John Jaquess, Assistant Director Leslie E. Murad II, Assistant City Attorney Manuel Baeza, Associate Planner I. CALL TO ORDER AND PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD - 3 MINUTES The meeting was called to order at 2:00 p.m. by Acting Chair Jim Macdonald. All commissioners were present except Commissioners Laymon, Thompson, and Webber. Chair Macdonald advised members of the audience that parking permits are available from the secretary for those who are parked in the 30 minutes parking zone. II. CONSENT ITEMS - NONE III. OLD BUSINESS B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 801 - Planning Commission consideration of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a PUBLIC HEARING for a Conditional Use Permit to install a ninety (90) foot tall monolyptus cellular tower for a wireless telecommunication facility located at 1402 Cajon Street (Prospect Park) in the O, Open Land District. Request submitted by SPRINT PCS. (Project Planner: Alicia Heideman) Assistant Director John Jaquess stated the City Council is in the process of hearing an appeal on an Environmental Review Committee decision for the proposed project. Mr. Jaquess stated the proposed project is scheduled to go before the City Council on October 19th, therefore, staff is requesting the proposed project be continued to October 26, 2004. Acting Chair Macdonald opened the public hearing. Seeing no comments forthcoming, Chairman Macdonald closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes of September 28, 2004 Pagel MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Osborne, seconded by Commissioner Cook, and carried on a 4-0 vote to continue Conditional Use Permit No. 801 to October 26, 2004. IV. NEW BUSINESS E. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15757 - Planning Commission to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration, a PUBLIC HEARING for a Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study, and a PUBLIC HEARING for a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide approximately 4.73 gross acres into five (5)residential lots located on the southeast corner of Carob Street and Kincaid Street in the R-E, Residential Estate District. Request submitted by NFC DIGITAL, INC. (Project Planner: Manuel Baeza) Mr. Jaquess stated the applicant is evaluating the site based upon questions regarding a slope analysis that was conducted on the property. Mr. Jaquess stated staff recommends the proposed project be continued to October 26, 2004. Chairman Macdonald opened the public hearing. Ms. Beth Bobbit, stated she received notification of the meeting one business day prior to the meeting itself and several of the residents who abut the property did not receive notification of the meeting. Ms. Bobbit stated she felt there is a need for an environmental impact study. Ms. Bobbit expressed concern relative to the traffic and speed of the vehicles using Carob Street to access Alessandro Road. Ms. Bobbit stated that noise and crime have increased. Ms. Bobbit requested future hearing notification be mailed out earlier. Mr. Jaquess stated that there would not normally be another hearing notification sent out because the project is being continued to a specific date. Mr. Jaquess advised Ms. Bobbit that hearing notification was mailed out to property owners who live within 300' of the proposed project. Mr. Jaquess suggested the residents meet with the project planner, Mr. Baeza and Ms. Vicky Valenzuela (Thatcher Engineering), the applicant's representative, to discuss the project. Ms. Bobbit asked if there is someone who can advise her of her rights as a citizen of Redlands. Mr. Jaquess stated that staff can provide her with information but it will not be legal information. Commissioner Osborne suggested Ms. Bobbit contact the Traffic Commission,which falls under the jurisdiction of the Public Works Department, relative to her traffic concerns. Ms. Margaret Paul, 1350 La Loma Drive, stated she did receive notification of the meeting as she lives within 300'of the proposed project. Ms. Paul stated the quality of life in Redlands has changed significantly due to development. Ms. Paul stated traffic is a significant problem as more and more people use Carob Street and do not pay attention to the traffic signs. Ms. Paul stated there is a halogen light that shines into her bedroom window every night and she asked what kind of lighting would be installed with the project. Ms. Paul stated her plumbing was affected by recent development and she requested an environmental impact study be done for the proposed project. Ms. Paul stated you can always have a Walmart or big development, but the integrity of a community is based upon its history, trees, and landscaping. Planning Commission Minutes of September 28, 2004 Page 2 Chairman Macdonald suggested Ms. Paul meet with Mr. Baeza and Ms. Valenzuela to discuss the project. Ms. Terri Bush, 1338 La Loma Drive, asked if an environmental study would be conducted on the proposed project. Mr. Jaquess stated the project was reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee, which recommended a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Mr. Jaquess stated the information is available for review in the Planning Division office. Ms. Vicky Valenzuela thanked the neighbors for attending the meeting and stated she would be available to schedule a time to meet and answer any questions they may have regarding the proposed project. Chairman Macdonald closed the public hearing. Commissioner Miller stated he can appreciate the overwhelmed sense one has when trying to understand the process involved to develop a subdivision. Commissioner Miller stated there is an environmental review mandated by law whenever staff addresses issues of traffic, noise, grading, etc. Commissioner Miller stated an Environmental Impact Report is recommended when an environmental issue cannot be mitigated in a satisfactory matter. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Cook,and carried on a 4-0 vote to continue Tentative Tract No. 15757 to October 26, 2004. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES B. August 10, 2004 MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Osborne, seconded by Commissioner Cook, and carried on a 4-0 vote to approve the Planning Commission minutes of August 10, 2004. VI. CORRESPONDENCE/COMMUNICATIONS A. City Council Report Mr. Shaw gave a brief summary on City Council actions. B. Status of Major Projects Mr. Shaw stated a revised Status of Major Projects list was included in the Planning Commission packet. VII. ADJOURN TO EVENING SESSION Planning Commission Minutes of September 28, 2004 Page 3 Chair Macdonald adjourned the meeting to the evening session at 2:23 p.m. 7:00 P. M. VIII. RECONVENE EVENING SESSION Commissioner Osborne stated he would be acting Chair for the evening meeting because Chairman Webber and Co-Chair Macdonald could not be in attendance.Commissioner Miller was absent from the meeting, Commissioners Laymon, Cook, and Thompson were present. A. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 16742 - Public Hearing for Planning Commission consideration of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, a Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study, and a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide approximately 9.86 gross acres into fifteen (15) residential lots and two (2)common area lots for property located on the south side of Center Street east of Burke Street in the R-E, Residential Estate District. Request submitted by MO BEHZAD. (Project Planner: Manuel Baeza) Project Planner Manuel Baeza stated the site has an average cross slope of over 15% and is located within the Hillside Development District. Mr. Baeza stated Measure N,which was passed by voter initiative, requires that implementing guidelines be approved by a 4/5 vote of the City Council. Mr. Baeza noted that the ordinance was approved by a 3-1-1 vote,and the City Attorney is currently evaluating this matter. Mr. Baeza gave a brief presentation on the proposed project. Mr. Baeza stated Measure N had specific provisions pertaining to hillside development and implementing measures that are pertinent to the proposed project. Mr. Baeza reviewed pertinent provisions with the Commission. Mr. Baeza stated since the ordinance did not obtain the necessary votes, it is not an implementing guideline of Measure U. Mr. Baeza stated the word "property", taken in its literal sense, means a specific area of property where a development is limited. Mr. Baeza stated another interpretation would necessarily submit a different word for the use of property in Measure N. Mr. Baeza stated, under different interpretations, property could mean a parcel or a project site with many lots. Mr. Baeza stated in 1988 staff provided alternatives on implementing the measure. Mr. Baeza summarized the three alternatives: I. Alternative I required the average of the slope over the entire parcel to be used to determine the density, but allowed for the exclusion of the calculation of land permanently dedicated to natural area. The net area was allowed to be subdivided according to the development standards of the applicable zone. This was the least restrictive alternative and in sample cases, it yielded the most lots. 2. Alternative 2 allowed for the creation of slope categories of property: (A) Areas having less than 15% sloping could be subdivided according to the development standards of the applicable zone (B) 15-30% sloping were allowed to have a maximum density of one dwelling unit Planning Commission Minutes of September 28, 2004 Page 4 per 2.5 acres (C) greater than 30% sloping were allowed to have a maximum density of one dwelling unit per 10 acres 3. Alternative 3 required the average of the slope over the entire parcel to be used to determine density but did not allow for the exclusion from the calculation of land dedicated to natural area. This alternative was considered the most restrictive and yielded the least number of lots. Mr. Baeza stated Alternative 2 was selected by the City Council and was incorporated into the Hillside Development Overlay Ordinance.Mr.Baeza stated Measure N has been implemented in this manner for the past 16 years. Mr. Baeza stated the General Plan allows for up to 15 dwelling units based on the land use designation and 15 dwelling units are being proposed. Mr.Baeza stated the project consists of 15 dwelling units and 3 common area lots. The lots range in size from 16,874 square feet to 32,750 square feet and all common areas including a private street and trails, will be maintained by a Homeowners Association. Mr. Baeza stated the map shows a rock wall that is to be preserved, however the Department of Public Works requires the street be widened, which will result in the relocation of the rock wall. Mr. Baeza stated the Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission requested that driveway cuts be consistent with the rock wall. Mr. Baeza stated a Condition of Approval could be added to address this matter. Commissioner Laymon asked how the rock wall would replaced. Mr. Jaquess stated the rock wall would be taken down and reassembled further back from its present location. Chairman Osborne opened the public hearing. Mr.Pat Meyer,representing the applicant,gave a brief PowerPoint presentation.Mr.Meyer stated he would not address the legality of the adoption of the Hillside Ordinance. Mr. Meyer stated the project follows the requirements of the ordinance, which has been utilized for the last 16 years. Mr.Meyer stated the property is zoned R-E,Residential Estate,which requires a minimum lot size of 14,000 square feet. Mr. Meyer stated a slope analysis was conducted of the property, which was terraced by farmers approximately 60-75 years ago. Mr. Meyer stated the elevation of the pads was lowered,and vehicular access to Ridge was closed off,as a result of discussion with the neighboring residents. Mr.Meyer stated the rock wall will be moved back approximately 15 feet,and then rebuilt to serve as a retaining wall. Mr. Meyer stated the rock wall may end up being a typical block retaining wall that is refaced with stone.Mr.Meyer stated the applicant concurs with the Conditions of Approval. Commissioner Cook asked if the trail is a private trail. Mr. Meyer stated the trail would be a public easement. Planning Commission Minutes of September 28, 2004 Page 5 Commissioner Thompson stated he spoke with neighbors who live on Ridge,who indicated that Mr. Meyer told them he would install an access road to the rear of their property. Mr. Meyer stated the applicant would provide access. Chairman Osborne advised the audience that their speaking is limited to three minutes. Mr. Neal Clifton, 1445 Pacific Street, stated he lives directly to the south of the development. Mr. Clifton requested the Planning Commission abstain from taking action and refer the project to the City Council for final action. Mr. Clifton stated if the project is approved by the Commission, he requests the$2,000 appeal fee be waived as they believe it is a lot of money for them to speak to the City Council. Mr. Clifton read from Measure N and expressed his concern on which entity has legal authority to interpret and implement Measure N. Mr. Clifton stated he believes the City Council should make the final determination, not the Commission. Mr. Clifton stated that staff is taking the actual open areas and negating the steep slopes and it is a poor interpretation of how the measure should be implemented. Mr. Clifton stated there are some areas that have up to a 28% slope. Mr. Clifton stated that staff's analysis negates and does not adhere to Measure N. Commissioner Laymon asked what the allowable density would be if the property was flat. Mr. Baeza stated 30 lots would be allowed. Commissioner Thompson commented on how slope densities are calculated,stating he works for an engineering firm. Commissioner Thompson stated it can be calculated as suggested by Mr. Clifton and you would arrive at a significantly steeper slope, or each of the benches could be counted to arrive at the real slope density. Mr. Ron Webster, 1459 Pacific Street, stated he is opposed to the project based on the density. Mr. Webster stated Measure N allows one residence per 2 acres if the slope density is greater than 15%, therefore there should not be more than 4 houses on the property. Mr. Webster stated it was Mr. Clifton who brought it to the City's attention,the fact that the enabling ordinance to adopt Measure N was never properly ratified; it is void. Mr. Webster requested the proposed project not be approved. Mr.Webster asked if there was anyone in the audience who was opposed to the project.After a show of hands, Mr. Webster stated there were 15-20 people present who are opposed to the project. Chairman Osborne stated Mr. Webster said he was opposed to the project because he felt it would devalue his property. Commissioner Osborne asked Mr.Webster how homes in the range of$800K Planning Commission Minutes of September 28, 2004 Page 6 would devalue his property. Mr. Webster stated he would expect it was lower than the value of his property, and more importantly, by building 15 houses he won't have near the level of obstructed view. Commissioner Cook noted that the building pads are being lowered. Mr.Webster stated the building pads are being lowered 10-15 feet but the houses are going to beat least 30 feet tall. Mr. Webster stated his house which has unobstructed view of the valley and the City lights is just slightly above the level of the top of slope. Ms. Liz Beguelin, representing the Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission (HSPC), stated they would like the stone wall to be retained or rebuilt as they feel it has historic significance. Ms. Beguelin requested the stone be wrapped into the driveways, similar to Elizabeth Street. Mr. Shaw stated the Condition as currently written in the staff report provides for the reconstruction of the retaining wall; if the Commission should decide to incorporate the HSPC recommendation, Condition of Approval 26 will have to amended to add the returns on the driveway. Ms. Marisue Meza, 639 Center Crest Drive, stated she has an incredible view that looks out over a field but with the placement of 15 houses, she will be looking out over houses. Ms. Meza stated she is concerned about the traffic traveling on Center Crest, and the widening of the street will increase the speed of traffic. Ms. Meza stated the trail on the ridge has been used as a pedestrian access for over 30 years. Ms. Meza stated the Commission has an opportunity to preserve some of the open area and trail access in keeping with Measure N and the desires of public of Redlands. Ms.Trena Webster, 1459 Pacific Street,stated when she and her husband were looking for a home for their family, they looked at the City Plan and the ordinances and spoke with many people about the type of development that could happen. Ms. Webster stated she wants someone to look at the plan very carefully and they will go with it, because that is the kind of people they are. Mr. Mo Behzad, applicant,thanked the staff for doing an excellentjob in presenting the project to the Commission and doing a professional job processing the application. Mr. Behzad stated he has lived in Redlands for 30 years and he has always done quality jobs; he developed Sunset Hills Ranch, renovated the Santa Fe Railroad Station when no one else wanted to touch it, built La Farge Plaza, and built office buildings on State Street which are located west of the Redlands Mall. Mr. Behzad stated with every project he has developed, he has had great respect for the neighbor's valid concerns. Mr. Behzad stated some of the concerns he has heard tonight have not been valid. Mr. Behzad stated the Commission has heard, "Not in my backyard, I'm here but they cannot be here." Mr. Behzad asked how 15 homes on 9 acres can be considered high density. Mr. Behzad stated he complied with every requirement the City has imposed without objection. He provided three (3) common lots as a buffer because the residents wanted it; he blocked the private road crossing Ridge because the residents wanted it; and he lowered the pads because the residents wanted it. Mr. Behzad stated he has not heard one word from the neighbors that he has complied with their requests. Mr. Behzad stated he was sure that most of the residents saw the vacant lot when they purchased Planning Commission Minutes of September 28, 2004 Page 7 their homes and knew it would be developed some day. Mr. Behzad stated some residents are asking the Commission to change their normal procedure of approval and totally ignore what has been done for the last 16 years. He stated he complied with all the City's requirements and respectfully requested the project be approved without any further delays. Mr. James Di Aguilera, applicant's attorney, stated he did not believe the Commission should impose a De Facto moratorium on the City as the result of a technicality. Mr. Dennis Casino, 1502 S. Center Street,stated the ingress/egress into the new development is a concern. Mr. Casino stated 15 houses in the area is too many and there should be a three-way stop sign at Center/Ridge/S. Center. Ms. Rebecca McMoody, 1433 Pacific Street, stated they recently purchased their home and were naive in thinking nothing would happen on the proposed site. Ms. Mc Moody stated she is opposed to the project because she likes to look at her backyard and enjoy the beauty of nature. Chairman Osborne closed the public hearing. Commissioner Thompson requested clarification from Mr. Meyer on how he arrived at the density. Mr. Meyer stated the City has always implemented Measure N the way it is done in Yucaipa, Calimesa, and most other cities. Mr. Meyer stated those guidelines are in our General Plan,zoning code, and Hillside Ordinance. Mr. Meyer stated there is a formula that all the cities have in common to determine first, if a property is subject to the Hillside Development ordinance. If itis subject to the Hillside Development ordinance, Mr. Meyer stated the property then has to be divided into three slope categories, 0-15%, 15-30%, and greater than 30%. Mr. Meyer stated the project is not in the Southeast General Plan, and does not fall under its density requirements. Mr. Meyer stated the over 30%slope area of the project is allowed 1 unit per 10 acres, but since the project does not have 10 acres, they are allowed zero units under this category. Mr. Meyer stated in the 15-30% category, they would be allowed zero units because they do not have 2.5 acres in that category. As a result, Mr. Meyer stated they are restricted to the requirements of the R-E zone, which allows up to 15 units. Mr. Shaw stated staff feels the words in Measure N need to be taken in a literal translation. Commissioner Cook asked Mr. Shaw if the interpretation of the Hillside Ordinance is the same as it has been for the past 16 years. Mr. Shaw stated it is. Mr. Shaw stated under its current zoning the project could have up to 17 units and under the General Plan the project could have up to 15 units. Commissioner Laymon stated it is less that she takes issue with the project itself, but having a good idea of how the vote is going to go, she does not want it to go forward with a unanimous vote. Commissioner Laymon stated she wants the City Council to take a long, hard look and it is her belief that if the vote is unanimous on the part of the Planning Commission, they(City Council) tend to not take a long, hard look. Commissioner Laymon stated she would not support the project but having this type of view in her own backyard, she understands the comments of the people who spoke at the podium this evening. Commissioner Laymon stated she does not take issue with the project itself; she is representing the people who are opposed to it. Commissioner Laymon reminded the audience that if this type of use sits in your back yard and it is not your property, it cannot betaken for granted. Commissioner stated she liked the project but she would cast her vote in opposition to represent the people who spoke against it this evening. Commissioner Thompson referred to Commissioner Laymon's comment that she wants the City Council to take hard look at the project; stating the very nature of the controversy over the Planning Commission Minutes of September 28, 2004 Page 8 implementation of Measure N is going to cause them take a look at the project,whether the vote is 7-0 or 4-0. Commissioner Laymon told Commissioner Thompson she is entitled to disagree with him. Commissioner Cook stated she appreciates the neighbor's concerns but if you look at the General Plan and zoning, the applicant is allowed the number of houses that are proposed. Commissioner Thompson stated he has lived in the City since 1975 and remembers when there weren't any houses on Center Street; there were a lot of people who were upset because those houses obstructed people's view. Commissioner Thompson stated he felt the project is a good project because it is an infill project and the design is unique because it takes a lot of the traffic off Ridge and funnels it down, away from the intersection.Commissioner Thompson stated he supports the project. Chairman Osborne stated he felt the applicant has done a fairly good job of listening to and doing what was desired by the residents. Chairman Osborne stated the pads have been lowered so as not to obstruct the views of the existing residents. Chairman Osborne stated there were no traffic issues noted by the Environmental Review Committee. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Cook seconded by Commissioner Thompson, and carried on a 3-1 vote (Commissioner Laymon voting no)that the Planning Commission approve the Socio-Economic Cost Benefit Study for Tentative Tract No. 16742 as it has been determined that this project will not create unmitigable physical blight or overburden public services in the community,and no additional information or evaluation is needed. Commissioner Thompson stated that Mr. Clifton requested the $2,000 appeal fee be waived, however he advised Mr. Clifton that the Planning Commission had no authority to waive the fee. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Thompson,and carried on a 3-1 vote (Commissioner Laymon voting no) that the Planning Commission approve Tentative Tract No.16742 subject to conditions of approval, and based upon the following findings: 1. The proposed map is consistent with the City's General Plan and Municipal Code. The project has a General Plan land use designation of Very-Low Density Residential, Measure N, and the zoning of R-E, Residential Estate and is consistent with both the General Plan and Municipal Code; 2. The site is physically suitable for the type of development. The site is large enough to subdivide into fifteen(15) lots; 3. The site is physically suitable for the density of development of a fifteen (15) unit subdivision. The General Plan Land Use Designation of Very-Low Density Residential, Measure N, and Zoning allow for up to fifteen (15) dwelling units; Planning Commission Minutes of September 28, 2004 Page 9 4. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The subject site is not identified as being within an area containing biological resources or within a wildlife corridor; 5. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. This is a residential project and is not likely to cause any serious public health problems, aside from temporary air quality and noise impacts during construction addressed in Mitigation Measures listed in the initial study ; 6. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision; 7. That pursuant to California Government Code Section 66474.4, of the Subdivision Map Act the land is not subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965. The property is not in an agricultural preserve,with a revision of Condition of Approval 26 to read: 8. The applicant shall construct the existing stone wall found on Center Street along the project's Center Street frontage. The wall shall be located outside of the public right of way and shall reuse the existing stone of the wall, curb, and gutter. Cuts made within the wall for driveway access shall include wrap around returns with the stone exterior matching the re-constructed wall. Chairman Osborne called a two minute recess to allow members of the audience to exit the City Council chambers. B. AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE REMOVAL NO. 106 - Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a PUBLIC HEARING for an Agricultural Preserve Removal on 41.22 gross acres located on the west side of Wabash Avenue (Assessors Parcel Number 168- 132-05), south of San Bernardino Avenue, and north of Capri Avenue in the A-1, Agricultural District. Request submitted by ARIEF NAFTALI. (Project Planner: Alicia Heideman) C. ZONE CHANGE NO.406-Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a PUBLIC HEARING for a Zone Change from A-1,Agricultural District to R-E, Residential Estate District on one parcel totaling 41.22 gross acres located on the west side of Wabash Avenue (Assessors Parcel Number 168-132-05), south of San Bernardino Avenue, and north of Capri Avenue in the A-1,Agricultural District. Request submitted by ARIEF NAFTALI. (Project Planner: Alicia Heideman) D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 834 - Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a PUBLIC HEARING for a Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study and a PUBLIC HEARING a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Residential Development(PRD) on 41.22 gross acres into 93 residential lots and six(6)common lots located on the Planning Commission Minutes of September 28, 2004 Page 10 west side of Wabash Avenue(Assessors Parcel Number 168-132-05),south of San Bernardino Avenue, and north of Capri Avenue in the A-1, Agricultural District (Proposed R-E Residential Estate District). Request submitted byARIEF NAFTALI. (Project Planner: Alicia Heideman) E. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 16878 - Planning Commission to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration, a PUBLIC HEARING for a Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study, and a PUBLIC HEARING for a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide approximately 41.22 gross acres into 93 residential lots and six (6) common lots located on the west side of Wabash Avenue(Assesors Parcel Number 168-132-05), south of San Bernardino Avenue, and north of Capri Avenue in the A-1,Agricultural District (Proposed R-E Residential Estate District). Request submitted by ARIEF NAFTALI. (Project Planner: Alicia Heideman) Assistant Director John Jaquess stated the applicant has been working with staff to address the concerns raised by the Planning Commission at a prior meeting. Mr.Jaquess stated the applicant is considering an alternative design and has asked for additional time. Mr. Jaquess stated staff is recommending the proposed project be continued to the afternoon session on October 12tH Commissioner Osborne opened the public hearing. Seeing no comments forthcoming, Chairman Osborne closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Thompson, seconded by Commissioner Laymon, and carried on a 4-0 vote to continue General Plan Amendment No. 2204-3-D, Agricultural Preserve Removal No. 106, Zone Change No. 406, Conditional Use Permit No. 834, and Tentative Tract No. 16878 to October 12, 2004. IX. ADJOURN TO OCTOBER 12, 2004 Chairman Osborne adjourned the meeting to October 12th at 8:22 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Patti Ortiz, Senior Administrative Assistant Jeffrey L. Shaw, Director Community Development Department Community Development Department Planning Commission Minutes of September 28, 2004 Page 11