Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/19/99 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Council Chamber, City Hall Thursday, August 19, 1999 5:30 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL JEFFREY TKAC, Chairman MICHAEL DHANENS, Vice-Chairman STEPHEN BOYLE MA THEW BRAD Y MARTI MUNIS-KEMPER TOM MCGINNIS RON SPRAGUE NOTE: Agendas may be amended up to 72 hours prior to the Planning Commission meeting. final agenda may be obtained from the Planning Department 72 hours prio? to the meeting. A PUBLIC STATEMENTS ANY PERSON WHOSE NAME APPEARS ON THE AGENDA OR WISHES TO SPEAK REGARDING A PUBLIC HEARING NEED NOT FILL OUT A SPEAKER'S CARD. ALL OTHERS WISHING TO SPEAK BEFORE THE COMMISSION MAY FILL OUT A SPEAKER'S CARD AND PRESENT IT TO THE SECRETARY PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE MEETING. NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL Planning Commission decisions on Zone Changes, Parcel Maps and Tentative Subdivision maps are subject to appeal by any person aggrieved. No permit shall be issued for any use involved in an application until after the final acceptance date of appeal. Such appeal must be filed in writing within 10 days from date of hearing, addressed to the City Council, cio Office of the City Clerk, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93301. A $334 non-refundable filing fee must be included with'filing of the initial appeal for those appeals filed by the applicant or any person outside the notice area. All appeals filed on land divisions will require a $334 non-refundable filing fee. If all appeals are withdrawn prior to the City Council hearing, it will not be conducted and the decision of the Planning Commission will stand. If no appeal is received within the specified time period or if all appeals filed are withdrawn, the action of the Planning Commission shall become final. Agenda, PC, Thursday- August 19, 1999 Page 2 (Ward 5) (Ward 4) CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS - (marked by asterisk (*) These items will be acted on as a group without individual staff presentations if no member of the Planning Commission or audience wishes to comment or ask queStions on a case. The items are recommended for approval by staff. The applicant has been informed of any special conditions and has signed an agreement to conditions of approval and requested to be placed on the consent agenda. If anyone wishes to discuss or testify on any of the consent items the item(s) will be taken off consent and will be considered in the order on the agenda. If not, the public hearing will be opened and the items acted on as a group. 3.1 Agenda Item 3.2 Agenda Item 3.3 Agenda Item 3.4 Agenda Item 3.5 Agenda Item 3.6 Agenda Item 3.7 Agenda Item 3.8 Agenda Item 6.1 Extension of Time for TT 5441 (Porter-Robertson) 6.2 Extension of Time for VTT 5658 (SmithTech/USA) 6.3 Extension of Time for TT 5596 (Porter-Robertson) 7.1 Revised Vesting TT 5529 (Simpson-Lusich-VanCuren) 7.2 Vesting TT 5954 (Martin-Mclntosh) 7.3 Vesting TT 5955 (Martin-Mclntosh) 7.4 Continuance of Vesting TT 5957 (SmithTech/USA) 7.5 Continuance of Vesting TT Map 5951 (SmithTech/USA) APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of minutes of the regular meetings held June 28, 1999 and July 1, 1999. PUBLIC HEARING - Revocation of a waiver of direct access to Truxtun Avenue for Parcel Map 9299 (Dewalt Corp.) located south of Truxtun Avenue at the easterly end of Commerce Drive. (Exempt from CEQA) Recommendation: Approve Group vote PUBLIC HEARINGS - EXTENSIONS OF TIME 6.1) Tentative Tract 5441 Revised (Porter-Robertson Engineering) An Extension of Time for Revised Tentative Tract 5441 consisting of 362 single family residential lots and one church lot on 107 acres, zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling) and R-1 CH (One Family Dwelling-Church overlay) located on the northeast corner of Hageman Road and Jewetta Avenue. (Negative Declaration on file) Recommendation: Approve Group vote Agenda, PC, Thursday- August 19, 1999 Page 3 (Ward 4) 6.2) Vested Tentative Tract 5658 (SmithTech/USA, Inc.) An Extension of Time for Vested Tentative Tract 5658 consisting of 274 single family residential lots on 80.72 acres, zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling), located between Verdugo Lane and Calloway Drive; and between Noriega Road and Hageman Road. (Negative Declaration on file) (Ward 4) (Ward 6) (Ward 4) Recommendation: Approve Group vote 6.3) Tentative Tract 5596 (Porter-Robertson Engineering) An Extension of Time for Tentative Tract 5596 consisting of 133 single family residential lots on 40.4 acres, zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling), located east of Verdugo Lane between Noriega Road and Hageman Road. (Negative Declaration on file) Recommendation: Approve Group vote PUBLIC HEARINGS - TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS 7.1) Revised Vesting Tentative Tract 5529 (Simpson-Lusich-VanCuren) - Revised Vesting Tentative Tract 5529 to create 112 buildable single family residential lots and one sump lot on 26.7 acres to be zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling). Application includes request to deviate from lot frontage standards on six lots and street tangent design requirements on one street within the subdivision, generally located at the northeast corner of Berkshire Road and Akers Road. (Negative Declaration on file) Recommendation: Approve Group vo~ 7.2) Vesting Tentative Tract 5954 (Martin-Mclntosh) Vesting Tentative Tract 5954 containing 31 lots on 19.5 acres for single family residential purposes, zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling) requesting private gated streets, modification of street improvement standards, block lengths to exceed 1,000 feet, and reverse corner lots; and waiver of mineral rights signatures pursuant to BMC 16.20.060 B. 1, generally located approximately 500 feet west of Buena Vista Road, approximately 1,000 feet south of Ming Avenue (extended). (Negative Declaration on file) Agenda, PC, Thursday- August 19, 1999 Page 4 (Wa~W (Ward 4) (Wad 7.3) 7.4) 7.5) Recommendation: Approve Group vote Vesting Tentative Tract 5955 (Martin-Mclntosh) Vesting Tentative Tract 5955 containing 38 lots on 21.92 acres for single family residential purposes, zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling) and R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling), requesting private gated streets, modification of street improvement standards, block lengths to exceed 1,000 feet, and reverse corner lots; and waiver of mineral rights signatures pursuant to BMC 16.20.060 B.1; located approximately 1,500 feet west of Buena Vista Road, approximately 1,800 feet south of Ming Avenue (extended). (Negative Declaration on file) ' Recommendation: Approve Group vote Vesting Tentative Tract 5957 (SmithTech USA, Inc.) Vesting Tentative Tract Map 5957 containing 104 lots for single family residential purposes, and one lot for a linear park on 42.43 acres zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling), to allow private streets which deviate from city standards, located south of the Kern River, approximately 1/3 mile west of Buena Vista Road. (Negative Declaration on file) Recommendation: Continue to August 30 and September 2, 1999 at the request of the applicant Group vote Vesting Tentative Tract Map 5951 (SmithTech USA Inc) Vesting Tentative Tract Map 5951containing 125 lots for single family residential purposes, one lot for a linear park and one lot for a sump on 38.67 acres, and one proposed commercial lot on 13.65 acres, zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling) (total acreage is 52.32 acres) and request a modification to allow median entries on local streets and double frontage lots on local streets, located on the southwest corner of Stockdale Highway and Buena Vista Road. (Negative Declaration on file) (Continued from July 15, 1999) Recommendation: Continue to August 30 and September 2, 1999 at the request of the applicant Group vote Agenda, PC, Thursday - August 19, 1999 Page 5 (All wards) 10. 11. 12. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Amendments to the text of Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 17.52 and 17.54 to allow use of the P.U.D. (Planned Unit Department) and P.C.D. (Planned Commercial Department) as combined zones, located city-wide. (Exempt from CEQA) Recommendation: Approve Roll Call vote COMMUNICATIONS A) Written B) Verbal COMMISSION COMMENTS A) Committees DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE-MEETING. ADJOURNMENT Planning Director August 16, 1999 Held Thursday, August 19, 1999 5:30 p.m. City Council Chamber, City Hall 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: Present: MICHAEL DHANENS, Vice Chairperson MATHEW BRADY MARTI MUNIS-KEMPER TOM MCGINNIS RON SPRAGUE Absent: JEFFREY TKAC, Chairperson STEPHEN BOYLE ADVISORY MEMBERS: Present: CARL HERNANDEZ, Deputy City Attorney DENNIS FIDLER, Building Director MARIAN SHAW, Engineer IV Staff: Present: STANLEY GRADY, Planning Director JIM MOVIUS, Principal Planner JENNIE ENG, Associate Planner PAM TOWNSEND, RecOrding Secretary Commissioner Kemper stated that she Was absent for the Monday pre-meeting but that she listened to a tape of the meeting and would be participating tonight, 2, PUBLIC STATEMENTS None Vice-Chairman Dhanens read the Notice of the Right to Appeal Minutes, PC, Thursday, August 19, 1999 Page 2 3. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 3.1 Agenda Item 6.1 3.2 Agenda Item 6.2 3.3 Agenda Item 6.3 3.4 Agenda Item 7.1 3.5 Agenda Item 7.2 3.6 Agenda Item 7.3 3.7 Agenda Item 7.4 3.8 Agenda Item 7.5 Extension of Time for TT 5441 (Porter-Robertson) Extension of Time for VTT 5658 (SmithTech/USA) Extension of Time for TT 5596 (Porter-Robertson) Revised Vesting TT 5529 (Simpson-Lusich-VanCuren) Vesting TT 5954 (Martin-Mclntosh) Vesting TT 5955 (Martin-Mclntosh). Continuance of Vesting TT 5957 (SmithTech/USA) Continuance of Vesting TT Map 5951 (SmithTech/USA) Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Sprague, to approve the Consent Agenda. Motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES -June 28, 1999 and July 1, 1999 Commissioner Sprague had a correction on the minutes of July 1, 1999, Page 6, 4th Paragraph - It read Tentative Map 595 and should read 5950. Commissioner Kemper made a motion, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to accept the minutes as amended. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING - Revocation of a waiver of direct access to Truxtun Avenue for Parcel Map 9299 (DeWalt Corp.) There was no new information from the Monday pre-meeting, but staff has added graphic information to the presentation regarding the freeway information that the Commission had requested and it will be shown as a response to questions. Public portion of the hearing was opened. No one spoke in opposition. Jeff Gutierrez, representing Commerce Drive Partners, spoke in favor. He presented photographs of the site so that the Commission could see the site clearly. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Sprague asked Steve Walker, Traffic Engineer, for the traffic counts he had requested on Monday. Mr. Walker said the traffic counts on Truxtun Avenue in the eastbound direction are 14,200 cars in a typical 24 hour day and 14,900 vehicles in a westbound direction on a typical 24 hour day. The volume is a little less past Mohawk. Commissioner Sprague asked Mr. Walker if, in his opinion, this would be a safe intersection for a left hand turn going west and a right hand turn in and right hand turn out going east without a stop light? Mr. Walker responded by saying that if the Traffic Department did not consider it a safe intersection, they would be recommending against it. Mr. Walker also stated that a typical intersection around town has 28 potential conflicting moves. A regular T intersection has six conflicting moves but this restricted left turn intersection is the least conflicting with three conflicting moves which does promote safety. Commissioner Sprague mentioned to Mr. Walker to the left of this intersection appears to be a blind corner with weeds growing on it and to the east, it Minutes, PC, Thursday, August 19, 1999 Page 3 starts down the incline underneath the railroad underpass. To him, coming westbound and making a left hand turn, even with a median island, across the traffic and into this, or if you are coming eastbound and making a right hand turn without a decel lane, this will be a dangerous situation with a lot of rear end accidents. CommiSsioner Sprague said that in his opinion this will be a dangerous, intersection on an expressway without a stop light and he can't support staffs recommendation to approve this. Commissioner McGinnis concurred with Commissioner Sprague's opinion. The intersection at Westwind Drive and Truxtun is similar to the one proposed and there have been a number of accidents at that location. Commissioner McGinnis said that at this point he cannot support the waiver either. Ms. Fritz, from DeWalt Corporation, stated that they have looked at a right turn deceleration lane and there is adequate right-of-way without encroaching on the adjacent property. Also, they have viewed the geometrics for the Caltrans standard on- site distances for a 55 mile per hour street and it does comply. Commissioner Brady asked Mr. Grady to show him on the computer where the intersection is going to be. Commissioner Brady asked what the distance is from the proposed intersection to the underpass? Ms. Shaw said that it looked to be about 800 feet. Commissioner Brady asked if there will be a turn lane for people making a left turn onto the property. Ms. Shaw said yes there would have to be. Commissioner Brady 'wanted to know what the distan~:e would be for that turn lane? Mr. Walker responded by saying the typical turn lane for a left turn lane is a 200 foot storage lane plus a 90 foot lane change taper so the total length is abOut 300 feet. Commissioner Brady said that there appears to be a gradual bend in that location on Truxtun and he wanted to know if the Traffic'Department had taken that intO account when making a determination that access to the property is appropriate? Mr. Walker said yes the engineer has confirmed and shown the calculations. It exceeds the Caltrans Traffic and HighwaY Design Manual for line of sight distance for stopping distance, passing distance and turning movement distance from an intersection. Commissioner Brady asked Mr. Walker what is the typical decel that would be applicable for eastbound traffic on Truxtun as it approached this proposed intersection. Mr. Walker said that it would be the same as the left turn lane because its the same speed of the street. When asked, Mr. Walker said that he feels it is appropriate and safe under the circumstances. Commissioner Brady wanted to know if before this intersection and before the decel lanes if there would be any kind of signage that would placed on Truxtun to advise motorists of this upcoming intersection? Mr. Walker said not normally unless it is a. hidden intersection. Commissioner Brady asked if there were problems being experienced, then staff could go put up signs saying "cross traffic ahead" or something like that? Mr. Walker said yes, it is their understanding that with the property being developed, there would be landscaping and the line of sight criteria would be met. Commissioner Brady stated that based on the representations of the traffic engineer, his review of the project, the aerial views and the recommendation of staff for approval, he would support staffs recommendation at this time. Minutes, PC, Thursday, August 19, 1999 Page 4 Commissioner Kemper stated that initially she had some concerns but what was just explained about the 300 foot length of the decel lanes for eastbound andwestbound makes her more comfortable. Commissioner Kemper said that since it does exceed Caltrans minimum standards that she would be o.k. with it and she has no reason to deny it. Commissioner Dhanens said that his feeling is that the conditions that have been placed on the project seem be the appropriate type of improvements that would be required of this project in order to make it a safe intersection. Commissioner Dhanens said that he is willing to support the project. It doesn't seem to him to be an unsafe situation. Commissioner McGinnis stated that one of his secondary concerns is there is a lot of undeveloped land along there and he is afraid of setting a precedent for waiving access and therefore negate Truxtun as an expressway. Commissioner Sprague asked the applicant what the intended use for this property is and have they done a traffic study in regards to the development? Ms. Fritz stated that at this time Commerce Drive Partners is just trying to market the property.' They don't know what the future use will be but that it is zoned for General Commercial. Commissioner Sprague said that he still feels this is dangerous and cannot support.the project. Commissioner Brady asked staff if they knew whether the property to the west and to the east of the project also has a waiver of direct access onto Truxtun? Mr. Grady said all the property along Truxtun has it. Commission Brady asked if with this zoning in place a fast food restaurant could be built? Mr. Grady said yes. Based on staff recommendation and testimony, Commissioner Brady said that he will still support the project. Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Kemper, to approve a revocation of a waiver of direct access to Truxtun Avenue for Parcel Map 9299 with findings and conditions as set forth in the attached resolution Exhibit "A". Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARINGS - EXTENSIONS OF TIME 6.1) Tentative Tract 5441 Revised (Porter-Robertson Engineering) (Ward 4) See Consent Agenda 6.2) Vested Tentative Tract 5658 (SmithTech USA, Inc.) (Ward 4) See Consent Agenda 6.3) Tentative Tract 5596 (Porter-Robertson Engineering) (Ward 4) See Consent Agenda Minutes, PC, Thursday, August 19, 1999 Page 5 PUBLIC HEARINGS - TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS 7.1) Revised Vesting Tentative Tract 5529 (Simpson-Lusich-VanCuren) (Ward 6) See Consent Agenda 7.2) Vesting Tentative Tract 5954 (Martin-Mclntosh) (Ward See Consent Agenda 7.3) Vesting Tentative Tract 5955 (Martin-Mclntosh) (Ward See Consent Agenda 7.4) Vesting Tentative Tract 5957 (SmithTech USA, Inc.) (Ward 4) See Consent Agenda 7.5) Vesting Tentative Tract Map 5951 (SmithTech USA Inc) (Ward 4) See Consent Agenda PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (All wards) Mr. Grady stated there was no new information since Monday's pre-meeting but went over the highlights of the ordinance amendment and staff is recommending approval. Public portion of the hearing was opened. Those who were in opposition were invited to come forward to speak. Roger Mclntosh, representing the Building Industry Association, stated that they are somewhat confused about the intent or purpose of these changes. He stated that he had talked with staff about the purpose for this and as he understands it, it would allow for a little flexibility on PCDs and PUDs so. that when the developer has a specific design in mind, he can come back and get a site plan review which would still have to come back in front of the Planning Commission. But, Mr. Mclntosh stated, as he read through the ordinance, the changes seem to go against the intent of the PCD and PUD and specifically under "Intent and Purpose" the existing ordinance states "the Planned Unit Development zone" is intended to allow for innovative design and diversification in the relationship of various uses, buildings, structures, lot sizes and open space while insuring substantial compliance with the general plan and the intent of the municipal code." Mr. Mclntosh stated that if you use with a combining district and not show what your intentions are on the PUD plan, it seems that you can't really come up with a innovative design and diversification in relationship to your building and structures because you are not showing that as part of the combining zoning district. Mr. Mclntosh said he was told that the intent of this was to get away from repeated trips to the Planning Commission to present the Commission with changes. Mr. Mclntosh said that he was confused as to how this would make it better than what they have today. He has some questions about how it would all go together. In some cases, he can see where it Minutes, PC, Thursday, August 19, 1999 Page 6 might be beneficial on some smaller projects but on the larger projects it is really difficult to have all the information and write an EIR and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to provide that information for public review without even knowing what your PCD plan looks like. Mr. Mclntosh requested that this be deferred and sent to a committee where it might be discussed a little more to promote a better understanding for the building industry and for the developers. There were no more speakers speaking against staffs recommendation. The following speaker was in support. Mike Callagy, Cornerstone Engineering, said that he doesn't have the same opinion as Mr. Mclntosh, but that concerns him also. If, in fact, the rewrite of this ordinance provides for things that Roger was talking about, he would also support some time to actually hammer it out a little better. However, the language in the rewrite that talks about modifications to the approved plan, he is in complete agreement with. When the use of the building hasn't changed, its time consuming to have to come back time and time again and having to re-file the project to modify the plan. Mr. Callagy said that he believes the PUD and PCD processes are good for both the city and the developer. It allows for some creativity without going into all kinds of variances and modifications to obtain something that is a little bit creative. Allowing the Planning Director and Development Services Director to make decisions is a very good thing. He trusts them to make good decisions. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Sprague said that he was in support of streamlining the process. He believes that staff is trying to do this with this change. But, he feels that a committee should be formed to look at this ordinance change. Commissioner Kemper commented that this is a step in the right direction to streamline the process. Commissioner Kemper asked Mr. Grady if their was any input from the BI^ or any developers in the rewrite? Mr. Grady said they were supplied copies of it and staff had had some conversations with them but there was nothing formally in writing from them. Commissioner Kemper said that she was also in favor of forming a committee. Vice Chairman Dhanens asked if it was the City's intent to provide a similar process as the County in the way they handle this? Mr. Grady said that the way CEQA works is that you evaluate the project that is in front of you. At the time a site plan is submitted, if it is determined that additional environmental work is needed, then it would be done then. But if they are talking about a situation where you are asking for a zone change and general plan amendment, the environmental analysis would be based on the general plan amendment and zone change. Vice Chairman Dhanens asked if it would be the case that if an applicant wanted to. propose a zone change on property they have, would it have to be submitted as a combining zone and advertised as such? Mr. Grady responded by saying that the intent of the PCD zone is suppose to be a developer initiated zone change where they have a unique design concept that they want to present that's going to require some mixing of Minutes, PC, Thursday, August 19, 1999 Parle 7 So 10. uses perhaps and mixing of standards. But,. however, the waY it is actually used is when there is a sensitive location, like next to some homes or some other associated or related use that is causing the Commission some concern, the applicant's pure zone change then becomes a PCD at the Commission's option. What staff is providing with this change, is an applicant who would just be looking at a zone change could receive his zone change and then get the site plan and approved at a future date. The applicant wouldn't be forced to submit a concept plan. Vice Chairman Dhanens asked if the applicant still would have the option to come right in with a PCD if they wanted? Mr. Grady said "that's correct." Commissioner MCGinnis asked if the Commission could retain some control such as over the Truxtun Avenue situation that was just talked about? As far as a fast food restaurant going i~n there? Mr. Grady said yes if a straight PCD is done. But if there is a' C-2 zone and a fast food is listed as permitted, the Commission's review would be limited to if it adequately fits the site and meets all the other criteria. Commissioner McGinnis asked Mr. Grady if because of the traffic issue if that type of project would qualify as being a, unique or sensitive type of situation? Mr. Grady said that if the applicant were coming in with this request for a waiver and request for a zone change and you determined you wanted to do a PCD, as part of that approval, you could restrict fast food restaurants as part of the PCD approval. Commissioner Brady stated that he thought the idea was good but the potential for abuse he thinks is significant. Commissioner Brady feels like there should be some specific findings that meet some level for the Commission to impose the ordinance. It should be the exception, not 'the rule, and he feels that the way it is proposed, it does that. As it is written, he is not in favor of the proposal. Commissioner Brady feels there is some merit to it if some adjustments could be made in a committee. Mr. Grady stated that there is no time pressure and this is truly something staff thought would be benefiCial to the industry and if they have some desire to spend some more time in a work shOp, there would be no problem doing so. Motion was made by Commissioner Kemper, seconded by Commissioner Sprague, to move this to a committee. Motion carried. Vice Chairman Dhanens deferred the appointments to the committee to Chairman Tkac at the Planning COmmission's next regular meeting. COMMUNICATIONS. There were no written or verbal communications. COMMISSION COMMENTS. Commissioner Sprague mentioned that he had some conversation with Jack Hardisty and Stanley Grady regarding applicants placing assessor parcel numbers on parcels that come beforeithe Planning Commission, Board of Zoning Adjustment and S~te Plan Committee so that the Commission or Board members could identify the exact parcel or Minutes, PC, Thursday, August 19, 1999 Parle 8 11. portions of parcels that come before them. Many times they are given an address but the address is not established until 'it is built. He wanted to require that applicants identify all their projects with assessor parcel numbers. Mr. Grady said that this is already being done and the information is on the staff reports as well. Commissioner Sprague said some things that he is receiving from the Board of Zoning Adjustment does not have that information. Mr. Grady said that he would check with staff about that. Commissioner Brady stated that the subdivision committee has completed its work and will report to the Planning Commission at its next meeting. Vice Chairman Dhanens asked Mr. Grady if he could put it on the agenda or make a note to remind Chairman Tkac to appoint committee at its next meeting? Mr. Grady said yes he would. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THF 12. September 1, 1999 NEXT PRE-MEETING. Since there were no comments or motions, It was decided there would be a pre-meeting on August 30, 1999. ADJOURNMENT .There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 6:42 p.m. Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary Planning Director