Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02/25/1992le u; City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY HALL February 25, 1992 7:00 P.M. PETALUMA, CA COMMISSIONERS: Bennett, Libarle *, Nelson, Parkerson, Rahman, Tarr, Thompson STAFF: Pamela Tuft, Planning Director Jim McCann, Principal Planner Bonne Gaebler, Associate Planner Dede Dolan, Assistant Planner Hans Grunt, Planning Technician Chairman MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 11, 1992 MEETING were approved as submitted. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: None. COMMISSIONER'S REPORT: Commissioner Parkerson reported that Tree Advisory Committee had its first meeting; Commissioner Tarr thanked staff for report on accessory dwellings in McNear neighborhood. CORRESPONDENCE: Revised plan and letter from Dick Lieb regarding PEP project, and "Liveable Places Update" brochure distributed by the Local Government Commission. APPEAL STATEMENT: Was read. LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Persons commenting orally or in writing are advised to raise all pertinent issues at this stage of review so that possible solutions may be implemented or adopted at the earliest opportunity. If you challenge the action taken by the City of Petaluma in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised during the. public review process, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at or prior to the conclusion of the public review process. l J City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes of February 25, 1992 NEW BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING I. PETALUMA ECUMENICAL PROJECT, PAYRAN /JEFFERSON/VALLEJO STREETS; AP NO.'s 007 - 104 -01, 03, AND 04, FILE TSM91009(hg). 1. Consideration of environmental finding. 2.: Consideration of rezoning from R -C (Compact Residential) to PUD (Planned Unit District). 3. Consideration of a PUD Unit Development Plan for 19 single - family units and 5 duplexes. 4. Consideration of 26 lot Tentative Subdivision Map in conjunction with PUD. SPEAKERS: Bonne Gaebler and Hans Grunt presented staff report. The public hearing was opened. Dick Lieb One Bodega Avenue: Was surprised when he received staff report regarding meandering sidewalks; concerned with meandering sidewalks in relation to parking availability, pedestrian safety, and landscaping maintenance; does not want landscaping strips as !front yards are only 16 -20' deep; proposes a mix of tree varieties and canopies; this project will serve a great need for the community; will be far superior than the Gardner Project in Santa Rosa; is happy to underground utilities on Payran and Vallejo but Jefferson: is another can of worms; would like. some latitude on redoing Jefferson undergrounding; really wants to thank staff for cooperation as it has been greatly appreciated. Commissioner Tarr Whose idea was it to not have a sidewalk around the cul -de -sac - does it cut into: yard sizes? Dick Lieb We left it off our plans but decided to put it back in; does make front yards have less space. Commissioner Bennett Who is going to live in these houses? PEP clients? Dick Lieb PEP will sell off the lots of parcel one, keep the second parcel and hopefully the hospital or Hospice will take part of it; we have developers waiting to develop these lots and put in the improvements; these lots will be market -rate and the money raised will allow PEP to finance adjacent elder rentals. Commissioner Bennett What is the overriding reason why you don't want the meandering sidewalk ?' Dick Lieb General upkeep and inconvenience of people getting in and out of cars. Commissioner Libarle What is the definition of low- income; what range will these sell for? Dick Lieb We have no idea; suspect whoever develops it will sell houses for approximately $150 - 190,000, but it depends on the developer; PEP is depending on sale proceeds from these units to help defray cost of PEP project; these are market -rate, not low /moderate income units. Commissioner Tarr Regarding detached garages, what happens if a developer comes in and wants to change design? Do we need amendment of PUD? Dick Lieb PEP has a reputation on the line; we're not going to be selling this to the highest bidder; we expect the future developer to accept what we're proposing; if the future developer, starts to change this, they are in for a year -long approval process; we want to have a developer the City is happy with. 2 R ._... 86 City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes of February 25, 1992 Commissioner Rahman When changing zoning from RC to PUD, is an increase in potential density created? Director Tuft There would be no density change; the proposed lot layout would not be possible under RC without variances. Commissioner Rahman Parking ratio consistent with RC or PUD? Director Tuft PUD doesn't have parking standards, however, the parking for this PUD will be compatible with the RC regulations. Dick Lieb Had a problem in change of RC to PUD, but its the same plan, same density; gives developers more.guidelines early on, but gives the City more control. John Fitzgerald Civil Engineer, Fitzgerald & Associates: Wanted to thank staff for work and cooperation in helping to clarify many issues; had a few points that he needed clarification on (40' R -O -W, 5' PUE, storm drainage system, street lights); as far as undergrounding, it be quite an expense to underground the existing homes facing Jefferson. Street; regarding the meandering sidewalk, this is a high - activity area with the fairgrounds and on -going classes at the fairgrounds - landscaping strips become totally trashed. Commissioner Rahman Who maintains landscaping? Director Tuft Landscape Assessment District (LAD) would cover public areas; homeowners would be responsible for own yards; area outside soundwall would be covered under LAD. Commissioner Rahman If we have to do work on storm drains and 1/2 street frontage improvements, isn't it logical to do undergrounding at the same time? John Fitzgerald With this undergrounding, individual homeowners would have to pay for these improvements and many may not be able to; we'll put in conduit now with undergrounding done at a later date. Commissioner Rahman When you go ahead and put conduit in place now for undergrounding later, the individual homeowners won't incur any cost now? John Fitz eg rald No. Public hearing was closed. DISCUSSION: Director Tuft Wanted to commend Mr. Lieb for his work with the neighbors in establishing communication; in reference to Mr. Lieb's reference to a "nuisance strip ", General Plan does require planter strips and street trees in new developments, construction of new arterials to improve aesthetic ' standards, etc.; even though Payran is not new, staff feels this is an opportunity to implement these General Plan policies; would recommend elimination of Condition #lc that would require landscaping easement; agrees that cul -de- sac. sidewalks should be monolithic; the .state law that allows us to create: LAD's doesn't allow us to cover or incorporate private landscaping; there is no way other than through deed restrictions to maintain street trees; concerned:we'd lose street tree concept and also surety of maintaining any canopy between sidewalk and street;, must apologize as just heard about 20' requirement from traffic engineer around the cul -de -sac bulb, and this is not reflected in the conditions - will get clarification between now and the Council meeting; in defense of Petaluma, proud that we are not Santa Rosa - our General Plan has different standards and programs and we would gladly match any of our projects that we've done for low- income housing with anything Santa Rosa has done; if the new buyer from PEP does production housing, he would still be required to go through SPARC for PUD plan. Commissioner Tarr Regarding detached garages, are there any elevations available or will that be handled through SPARC? Director Tuft There are a. few examples in your packet; the specifics would come from developer and be subject to SPARC review. Commissioner Tarr Would only ask that a review of building height also apply to garages. 3 � L7 r 87 City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes of February 25, 1992 Director Tuft To clarify, staff has not asked for meandering sidewalks except along Payran, in an attempt to comply with General Plan policies and to protect the wall; feel meander :can be designed to allow easy access and exiting from cars at the curbside; we'd also like to discourage people from parking along Payran and then darting across the street to the fairgrounds; we're hoping to encourage them to use the sidewalks; on the other streets, Jefferson, Vallejo and Vallejo Court, we were asking for the standard street tree parking strip, not a meander. Chairman Libarle When negotiations were on -going about this project, did the meandering sidewalks come up or was this an afterthought? Director Tuft It was not an afterthought; when project went from RC to PUD zoning, it would have been talked about through the map process; these street tree planting strips are the norm , (Y) Commissioner Parkerson Wants to thank staff for recommending PUD zone for this Co project; overall, it is a good project; homes reflect scale of neighborhood; his concern is the transfer of design from single - family units to duplexes; feels lotting pattern should be changed to be more compatible with lifestyles and traffic flow; supports Planning Director regarding landscaping strips; concept is to create some reduction in hard surfaces from street to 'sidewalk and to create an opportunity to plant trees; should be no exceptions simply because it may be low -cost housing. Commissioner Thompson On the duplex lots, could there be 8 single - family homes there instead of 4 homes? This is also tightest area for parking and congestion. Director Tuft Given the layout, I don't think it would be easy to design, but density could be put there. Commissioner Rahman Has a problem understanding where people are going to park in _ the cul -de -sac; where will guests park? Chairman Libarle Parking would be a trade -off if lotting changed; if we're trying to create an affordable type housing project, I feel these changes add to the costs and make project less affordable; all suggestions are good ones, but feel there must be a trade -off somewhere so additional costs are not incurred. Commissioner Bennett Agrees with Chairman; these lower cost units are possible because of possible trade -offs; doesn't know if project could be reconfigured without having to start all over.. Commissioner Thompson Agrees with Commissioner Parkerson; this Tentative Map is the time to change it. - Director Tuft Staff did talk about possible different configurations for this site during analysis and report preparation. Dick Lieb What is the difference in lifestyle between a renter and homeowner? Density does not change for either one; project is geographically in the center of Petaluma. Commissioner Nelson Has no problem with staff's position on sidewalks or with the lots as they are proposed. Commissioner Rahman Really likes a sidewalk all around the cul -de -sac; many people live in duplexes before buying a home and there is no change in lifestyle. Commissioner Tarr Concern is additional traffic coming down to the cul -de -sac and going in front of additional homes and if you can prevent that, it makes sense. Commissioner Thompson Was this project originally intended for duplexes? Director Tuft This originally carne through as a large parcel zoned RC; sketch was conceptual; new design came about to comply with zoning regulations. Bonne Gaebler Issue here is getting murky; portion #1 is meant to be market rate housing - the market will determine the price; PEP needs to make money on those lots in order to do the middle half of the project; if we build fewer houses, PEP makes less money; cutting out 4 homes would not be to PEP's advantage and make the entire project less feasible. , Commissioner Bennett This is still lower cost housing because of size and density which brings costs down. 2 88 City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes of February 25, 1992 Director Tuft Requested straw vote to see if Commissioners wanted to proceed with project or allow applicant to redesign. Vote was 4 yes and 3 no to allow applicant to go forward. Sue Lackie Engineering Department: Regarding storm drainage, City wants inlets brought up to City Standards and system designed according to SCWA Master Plan; street light spacing is generally 250' 150' apart measuring from an intersection or as needed to comply with the City Standards for street lights; the Municipal Code requires 12KV and under be undergrounded; Council may modify if they wish; City Engineer has the leeway to make the judgement call. Director Tuft Final decision on undergrounding is made by City Council. Commissioner Parkerson Still concerned with design and scale of duplexes; would like to amend condition to ensure compatibility with single - family units in design and scale. The public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Commissioner Bennett and seconded by Commissioner Rahman to recommend to the City Council approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration with no significant adverse effects. COMMISSIONER NELSON: Yes COMMISSIONER BENNETI': Yes COMMISSIONER.RAHMAN: Yes COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: No, cannot make findings 1 and 3. CHAIRMAN LIBARLE: Yes COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes A motion was made by Commission Bennett and seconded by Commissioner Rahman to recommend to the City Council approval of the rezoning of a 3.3 acre portion of AP No. 007 - 104 -01, 03 and 04 (abutting Jefferson Street) from RC to PUD, based upon the following findings: COMMISSIONER NELSON: Yes COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes COMMISSIONER PARKER No, feels project should be redesigned to provide for CHAIRMAN LIBARLE: Yes relocation of duplex units. COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes Findings 1. This plan clearly results in a more desirable use of land and a better physical environment than would be possible under any single zoning district or combination of zoning districts. 2. The PUD plan is proposed on property which has received prior approval for similar development at similar densities after consideration of environmental studies addressing traffic issues which concluded that the site has a suitable relationship to one (1) or more thoroughfares (Jefferson and Payran Streets); and that the thoroughfares are adequate to carry any additional traffic generated by this and future development of the site. 5 Yt H+�'i•.!R• ^!T.•iP4 ... '� .n aF"i S. T.iI!Sn.iF�T N�IT14�ryA .. ._._. r ^7Std'fi'r City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes of February 25, 1992 89 3. The plan for the proposed development presents a unified and organized arrangement of buildings and service facilities which are appropriate in relation to adjacent or nearby properties and provisions for adequate landscaping and /or screening is included to insure compatibility. 4.._ _ . The natural. and scenic qualities of the site are protected, with adequate available public and private spaces designated on the Unit Development Plan. 5. The development of the subject property, in the manner proposed by the applicant, will not be detrimental to the public welfare, will be in the best interest of the City and will be in keeping with the general intent and spirit of the zoning regulations of the City of Petaluma, with the Petaluma General Plan, and with any applicable � Plans adopted by the City. A motion was made by Commissioner Bennett and seconded by Commissioner Rahman to recommend to the City Council approval of the PEP Vallejo Court PUD with associated Design Guidelines and "Demonstration" Development Plan for 19 single family units and 5 duplexes upon 24 lots, subject to the following amended conditions: COMMISSIONER NELSON: Yes COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: No, same reasons as stated before. CHAIRMAN LIBARLE: Yes COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: No, doesn't believe there should be as many duplexes COMMISSIONER TARR: No, believes an adjustment should be made to lessen the impact of the cul -de -sac Conditions 1. Plans submitted to SPARC shall be subject to review for conformance with the following conditions and special considerations: a. The sidewalks along Vallejo Street, Jefferson Street, and the court shall be held 4' back from the back of curb allowing for a 4' planter strip. b. A public access easements (PAE) shall be included across the private parcels to accommodate the recommended sidewalk relocation per condition 1. a.. e. ------ �- 5'- landse�pe-�ase�} eat- �al�- be-} neo�po��ted- aFOa��- tlie- pe- r- i�e�e� �� tie eel -de -sae t�- €Iteerti- poia�o€ the - proposed- side�vall�s- atrcaelr -side C. As amended by applicant, sidewalk shall be provided around perimeter of cul- de -sac, subject to City staff review and approval d. The sidewalk along Payran Street shall be redesigned with a gradual meander that will allow for transitions in the landscaping between the sidewalk and the street and sound wall. If this configuration proves to significantly reduce planting opportunities, the wall walk should be held against the sound wall thus creating a 6' +/- planter strip between the pedestrian and vehicular travel ways. on 90 City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes of February 25, 1992 e. All revisions /additions to the proposed planting arrangements shall be indicated on a revised Landscape Master Plan. f. The visual appearance of the sound wall shall be upgraded through the incorporation of ornamental features such as columns and scroll elements. A typical detail(s) of the masonry sound wall shall be submitted for SPARC review and approval. g. Review of building height, window orientation and privacy issues between the units. Building design for the duplex units shall be compatible in scale, mass and appearance with the single-family dwellings. h. Review of the weight style and materials indicated for the front entries. 2. Sepias of the revised Planned Unit Development plan in conformance with the requirements of the Planning Commission and SPARC shall be provided to Planning staff within 60 days after SPARC approval. 3. Future development plans submitted for the "actual" development of the site shall be brought to SPARC for review and approval with the approved PUD "demonstration" development plan. 4. The project Design Guidelines shall be amended, subject to staff review and approval, as follows: Section A.. Minimum front yard setbacks for Lots 1 through 24 shall be 20'. Section C. Minimum rear yard setbacks for Lots 1 through 13 and 20 through 24 shall be 20'. Minimum rear yard set backs for Lots 14 through 19 shall be 15'. 5. The PUD development plan shall be revised to include all changes required by the conditions of approval of the tentative map, prior to map recordation. A motion was made by Commissioner Bennett and seconded by Commissioner Rahman to recommend to the City Council approval of the 27-lot tentative subdivision map for PEP Vallejo Court Planned Unit District, based on the findings and subject to the following amended conditions: COMMISSIONER NELSON: Yes COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: No, due to concern of relocation of duplex units CHAIRMAN LIBARLE: Yes COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: No COMMISSIONER TARR: No Findings 1. The proposed subdivision, together with provisions for its design and improvement is consistent with the General Plan. 7 1 .1 . � .. _ ., City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes of February 25, 1992 2. The proposed subdivision is compatible with the objectives, policies, land uses and programs specified in said General Plan. 3. The virtually flat vacant site is physically suitable for the type and pattern and density of development proposed. 4. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements therefore will not cause substantial environmental damage and no substantial or unavoidable injury will occur to fish or wildlife or their habitat. 5. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not cause serious public health problems. C co Conditions 1. All requirements of the City Engineer shall be met, including: z a.. Storm drainage improvements shall be designed and installed in accordance with SCWA master drainage plan and - the Director of Engineering. b. One -half street frontage improvements and any necessary right -of -way dedication shall be required to Payran, Vallejo and Jefferson. These improvements shall consist basically of sidewalk, curb, gutter, undergrounding utilities and one -half street section. If field conditions prove the existing pavement section to be satisfactory, the full pavement section will not be required. C. The Tentative Map does not show phasing, therefore, all frontage improvements shall be required with the first Final Map. d. Signing and striping shall conform to City Standards. e. The developer shall comply with the Petaluma municipal Code Section 10.36.010 and 20.36.020 which require the developer to pay storm drainage impact fees (as calculated in Chapter 17.30) on construction in all sections of the City of Petaluma. L This development shall comply with all recommendations as stated in the soils report for this project. g. All street lights within this development shall have standard metal fixtures dedicated to the City for ownership and maintenance. Prior to City acceptance, the developer shall verify all lights meet PG &E's LS2 rating system. h. Water pressure calculations shall be required for this development verifying the system adequacy for fire flows and domestic service. (This item shall be verified concurrent with improvement plan review.) L A 10' PUE shall be dedicated adjacent to the public right -of -way as required by the utility companies. J. This development shall be required to contribute to the City's Major Traffic Facilities Fee. 91 �-q 92 City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes of February 25, 1992 k. All overhead utilities fronting or traversing the site, ISK -V 12KV or less, shall be underground. Note: Commission recommends that conduit and financial contribution toward undergrounding be considered along Jefferson Street. 2. All requirements .of the Chief Building Inspector shall be met, including: a. Indicate, on the map, the location of water and sewer laterals to each lot. b. Building walls within 3' of a property line must be 1 hour rated with no openings (windows, doors etc.).. C. Site drainage must be shown for each lot. 3. All requirements of the Public Works Director shall be met, including: a. Install new catch - basins within the intersection of Jefferson and Payran and tie into the new 36" storm drain conduit. b. Remove the valley gutter crossing Payran St. at Jefferson St.. C. Extend the 24" storm drain to the northeast corner of Jefferson St. and Payran St.. Remove the grate and install a drop -inlet and tie into the storm drain extension. 4. All requirements of the Transit Coordinator shall be met, including: a. A bus stop /bench shall be incorporated into the sidewalk within the north half of the block fronting on Jefferson Street. 5. All requirements of the Sonoma County Water Agency shall be, met, including: a. All drainage designs shall conform with the Sonoma County Water Agency flood control design criteria. 4 6. All requirements of the Fire Marshal shall be met, including: a. Fire service lines to Lots 25 and 26 shall be a minimum of 8 ". 7. The masonry sound wall proposed on the PUD site plan shall be indicated as such on the tentative map in place of the proposed wood fence with a detail of a typical cross - section, subject to staff review and approval. 8. Public utility access and easement locations shall be subject to approval by PG &E, Pacific Bell, and other applicable utility and service companies and the City Engineer, and shall be shown on the Final Map as necessary. 9. The name of the proposed court (Vallejo Court) shall be subject to review and approval by the street naming committee prior to recordation of the final map. it I. 9 City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes of February 25, 1992 10. The tentative map shall be revised to include all the changes required by the conditions of approval for the PUD development plan, subject to staff review and approval, prior to Council approval of Final Map. ® 11. A revised sepia of the tentative map reflecting all applicable conditions of the tentative map and PUD Re- zoning shall be submitted to Planning staff within 60 days after approval of the tentative map. 12. This project shall be subject to imposition of all applicable special development fees, including water and sewer connect fees, community facilities development fees, storm drainage impact fees, park and recreation land improvements fee, school facilities fees, in -lieu contribution for provision of very low, low and moderate income housing, and traffic mitigation fee. co < II. CRANE GLEN, 1171 ELY ROAD, AP NO. 136 - 120 -24, FILE NO.'s REZ91016, CJP91042, TSM91012(dd). Z 1.. Consideration of an Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2. Consideration of rezoning from PCD to PUD. 3. Consideration of Unit Development Plan. 4. Consideration of Subdivision Ordinance Modification to allow three units to access off a single driveway. 5. Consideration of a related Use Permit to allow reduced setbacks from Sonoma Mountain Parkway. 6. ' Consideration of a Tentative Map for 22 detached single - family dwellings. SPEAKERS: i Dede Dolan presented staff report. Commissioner Parkerson Concerned with reducing setbacks from Sonoma Mtn. Parkway. Dede Dolan This is being requested principally to preserve views; trees provide screen; Corona /Ely Specific Plan allows City to grant exceptions. Commissioner Bennett How many trees are being retained of the original grove? Feels larger trees should be retained as visual landmarks. Dede Dolan 16 of the original 154. Commissioner Bennett Are trees being chosen for visual effects - what criteria is being used? Dede Dolan It is based on the species and their high or low value. Commissioner Rahman Is this considered a low- income project? Dede Dolan No. Commissioner Rahman It was lack of parking and one -car garage plus carport that prompted my question. Commissioner Tarr Asked for visual clarification of location of roadway. The public hearing was opened. ToU Korman developer, 2777 Cleveland Avenue, #104, Santa Rosa: Initial concept was to provide a different type of project, similar to what the older neighborhoods in Petaluma, Santa Rosa and Vallejo offer; has certain constraints including a 246' wide parcel, a parkway, a street with limited access, tree issues; has tried different site plans and architecture; in the roadway, staff wants additional islands, but feels these would be awkward and create parking difficulties, and wants to leave street as proposed; landscape 10 W 94 City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes of February 25, 1992 plans try to replace the grove with plantings in backyards; if he has to go along with new street plan, it will increase the amount of paving; would like condition regarding 10' PUE to be changed to say "up to a 10' PUE ". Commissioner Rahman Two parking spaces you propose to put back - they were taken out because of drainage easements? Tony Korman I'd like to put them back. Sue Lackie Engineering Department: That would not be acceptable to the City as area is prone to flooding and must be kept clear of obstacles. Greg Hurd project engineer., 365 -A Tesconi Circle, Santa Rosa: Site slopes to Sonoma Mtn. Parkway to storm at. end of street; if drains become plugged, we proposed to have an opening in the soundwall for overflow to prevent cul -de -sac from flooding. Public hearing was closed. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Parkerson Likes project design, good scale and relationship of garages to units; grove is a substantial visual landmark and impact on landscaping; maybe we should step back:-and, reevaluate,; wants to retain grove; doesn't see need to reduce setback from Parkway; pull units back from Parkway and save as much of the grove as possible to retain landmark.in Sonoma Mtn. Parkway; possibly eliminate 6 lots? pull cul -de -sac back and save the grove.. Commissioner Tarr Agrees with Commissioner Parkerson; concerned with encroachment into Sonoma Mtn. Parkway; reduction of setbacks not appropriate; would like time to walk the site to understand which trees should be retained and to understand proposed island location; tough to allow modification to allow more units to access drive; maybe drop a lot instead. Commissioner Rahman Shouldn't grant exceptions in Specific Plan; struggling if this is the correct location for this area; concerned with single -car garage and carport and `if public will be willing to buy. Commissioner Libarle Agrees with Commissioner Rahman; also concerned with single - car garage; :asked for clarification regarding trees: property owner could clear land of trees if no development occurred, but couldn't remove trees if development did occur? Director Tuft Yes. Trees would have to be replaced per provisions of the Specific Plan, if the site had previously been noted as having trees on it. Chairman Libarle Not that comfortable with design; is it possible to redesign to retain trees and maintain density? Commissioner Bennett Agrees that we need more time to review and consider project; feels Commission should go out and look at site with staff there to answer questions. Commissioner Parkerson Commissioner Tarr had good idea about Kingsmill Subdivision - it was helpful to staff and Commission, and also feels it would be helpful for this project. Commissioner Tarr Can we continue discussion to March 10? It was the consensus of the Commission to continue this item to March 10, 1992, with direction given to applicant to flag those trees proposed to be saved prior to site visit by Commission and staff members. ADJOURNMENT 10:10 PM min0225/ pcmin -5 11