Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/15/94MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Held Thursday, September 15, 1994, 5:30 p.m., City Council Chamber, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California. I. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: Present: STEVE MESSNER, Chairperson JEFF ANDREW, Vice Chairperson STEPHEN BOYLE MATHEW BRADY DOUG DELGADO KENNETH HERSH JIM MARINO DARREN POWERS, Alternate ADVISORY MEMBERS: Present: LAURA MARINO, Assistant City Attorney ~ FRED KLOEPPER, Assistant Public Works Director DENNIS FIDLER, Building Director STAFF: Present: JACK HARDISTY, Planning Director JIM MOVIUS, Principal Planner MARC GAUTHIER, Principal Planner JIM EGGERT, Principal Planner MIKE LEE, Associate Planner LAURIE DAVIS, Recording Secretary 2. PUBLIC STATEMENTS No one made any public statements at this time. Chairman read the notice of right to appeal as set forth on the agenda. 3.1 CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Agenda Item #5. - Determination of Adequate Access for Parcel map Waiver 19- 94. Commissioner Hersh stated he had listened to the tape from the Monday meeting of which he was absent. Motion was made by Commissioner Marino, seconded by Commissioner Andrew to approve consent agenda. Motion carried. Minutes, PC, 9/15/94 Page 2 4.1 a,b GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 3-94, SEGMENT I AND ZONE CHANGE #5581 Staff report recommending approval was updated from the Monday meeting. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in favor or opposition. Richard Meyer, Martin-Mclntosh represented the property owner. He stated his client intends to submit a revised tentative map with a lesser density than the original map. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Andrew, seconded by Commissioner Hersh to adopt resolution making findings, as set forth in staff report, approving the Negative Declaration and approving the requested general plan amendment from HMR (High Medium Density Residential-greater than 7.26 and less than or equal to 17.42 dwelling units per net acre) to LMR (Low Medium Density Residential- greater than 4 and less than or equal to 10 dwelling units per net acre) on 14.17 +/- acres, as shown on Exhibit "B," with conditions attached in Exhibit "A," and recommend same to City Council, with inclusion of the memo from the Planning Director dated September 7, 1994. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Andrew, Boyle, Brady, Delgado, Hersh, Marino, Messner NOES: None Motion was made by Commissioner Andrew, seconded by Commissioner Hersh to adopt resolution making findings, as set forth in staff report, approving the Negative Declaration and approving the requested zone change from an R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling-2,500 sq. ft. per dwelling unit) to an R-1 (One Family Dwelling) zone, as shown on Exhibit "C," with conditions as attached in Exhibit "A" and recommend same to City Council with inclusion of the memo from the Planning Director dated September 7, 1994. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Andrew, Boyle, Brady, Delgado, Hersh, Marino, Messner NOES: None Minutes, PC, 9/15/94 Page 3 4.2 a,b GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 3-94, SEGMENT II AND ZONE CHANGE #5564 Staff report recommending approval was updated from the Monday meeting. Public portion of the hearing was opened. Eugene Lane, 128 Glen Oaks Drive, stated his property is directly across the street from the project. He felt this change would not bring about improvement. He was concerned about worsening of the present traffic situation. Regarding access to subject property, he felt it should be open at the beginning. He was concerned that there were no pedestrian crossings between Rio Bravo and New Stine. David Moore, 108 Hewlett Street spoke stating his property directly adjoins subject property. He stated he had submitted a letter to the Commission. He felt this proposal would lower property values for residents in the area and that it would cause a noise, traffic and sight issue and a less desirable visual situation. He was concerned about security and the possibility of people coming over the fence through the retail area. He asked that the Commission reqUire the developer to increase the height of the fences separating this development from residences and that the fence be erected prior to the start of construction. He also asked that it be constructed so that it cannot be scaled. He asked that the developer hire real estate appraisers to determine amount of reduction in property values and that he compensate those homeowners for this. Responding to question by Commissioner Brady, Mr. Moore said if the addition of a tree line were thick enough to block vision and noise it could help and that there also needed to be some sort of extension on top of the fence to prevent people from coming over it. Steve Thorson stated he was a tenant in subject building and was very concerned about being moved out of the building because their company is of a nature that they provide information around the country. It would be difficult if they were forced to change their address and phone number in such a short period of time. Their business relies heavily on the phone and mail and would need to retain the same address and number until their lease is up. He said they are listed in a great number of publications and they would lose clientele. He requested that the zone change be denied and that the building be restored to its former status. Chairman Messner stated he understood concerns of Mr. Thorson, asking if the phone number would have to be changed. Mr. Thorson said it would depend on where they relocated to. Minutes, PC, 9/15/94 Page 4 David Milazzo represented the applicant. He submitted a booklet which he based his presentation on. He commented on a principal of the general plan regarding recycling and intensification of areas which are physically or economically' depressed. He stated as a result of a fire this property has become depressed. The market for office use has diminished, however it has not for retail buildings, bringing about this request. The relationship between commercial and residential will have to be mitigated. Regarding off-site costs from this development he stated their acceptance. He felt it would be a benefit if there was an internal link between this project and the shopping center to the west. Responding to question by Commissioner Hersh, Mr. Milazzo said their direction is not for a complete expansion of this project and the shopping center to the east. Regarding aesthetics he said the design of the project is identical to the shopping center to the east as well as similar signage. Regarding light and glare he said direct light would be precluded from going over the fence. Regarding the noise issue he said it may be necessary to increase the height of the wall on the west boundary and possibly ensuring that the grout is smooth to avoid its being climbed. He said landscaping does not have a great effect on noise. Regarding traffic he said the quality of flow would increase with the additional lane being added on Stockdale Highway with exception of New Stine between Stockdale and Belle Terrace which is remaining the same. He said traffic in the morning during the peak period decreases from that of the office use, however peak evening period increases. He said regarding Mr. Thorson's comments that if his lease were to be terminated tenant and landlord would negotiate the impact of costs of moving prior to termination. The landlord would be responsible for bearing these costs. Mr. Barbeau indicated to him that they would work with the tenants in this regard. Mr. Hardisty suggested a rounded cap on top of the wall. Kristin Thorson was concerned about being forced to move prematurely and its effect on their business. Clyde Barbeau stated he is the applicant. He felt Mr. and Mrs. Thorson's lease would allow them to stay on the site. He said their landlord would have to terminate the lease in a satisfactory manner. He also stated he would be agreeable to raising the block wall. He said he would be agreeable to compensating the adjoining property owners if the property is appraised prior to application and a year after the project is open if it has been reasonably affected by the project. He said he was only aware of 2-3 homes which may be affected. He assured Mr. and Mrs. Thorson that due to the status of other projects in the area such as Smith's and Vons this project has been delayed and it would be close to 2 years before construction could begin. Minutes, PC, 9/15/94 Page 5 PUblic portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Brady stated he did not feel the Thorson's complaints were a planning issue. Responding to a question by him, Mr. Milazzo said the wall would provide mitigation to residential properties and it would be appropriate to continue it across the width of the west property line. He asked that the frontage road continue onto their property to provide free access. Responding to question by Commissioner Brady, Mr. Milazzo gave information concerning increase in traffic per the traffic study. He also said 24-inch box trees would be placed on the site. He was in agreement with placing larger trees in strategic locations to block bedroom windows of the apartment complex. Responding to discussion concerning traffic issues, Mr. Walker, Traffic Engineer, said a condition of mitigation is to extend the left turn lane to the west to provide more storage. Discussion continued regarding traffic issues. Per request by Commissioner Brady, Mr. Milazzo gave information concerning increases in traffic at various intersections. Commissioner Brady felt at some point additions to the problem need to stop. He stated his opposition to allowing commercial traffic onto the residential street. Mr. Hardisty referred to a table submitted by the Traffic Division which shows the traffic improving to level of service D with mitigation. Mr. Walker said the traffic study indicates the levels of service would be C or better at all intersections with the exception of California, Stockdale and New Stine which would be increased to a level of service D. Responding to questions by Commissioner Marino, Mr. Milazzo said cars from the Vons shopping center cannot take a short cut through to their property and the traffic study reflects a maintenance of separation between the two projects. Total trips for this project are 3,333 a.m. peak hour and a p.m. peak hour increase of 276. Responding to question by Chairman Marino, Mr. Moore felt the wall height situation could be worked out with the property owner. Commissioner Marino stated his support for the recommendation by staff. Commissioner Hersh did not feel a left turn would interfere with the existing left turn going east. He felt the solution presented would work. He said he would like to see the wall reinforced and the height raised with some larger trees. He did not feel redesigning the traffic situation would alleviate the situation. He felt this proposed solution is adequate stating he would support the project. Minutes, PC, 9/15/94 Page 6 Commissioner Andrew suggested an attorney be consulted regarding the eXisting tenants and the condition of the building. He did not feel this project would create as many problems as those speaking have presented. He felt it is a quality project. Regarding traffic he felt with the Smith's project and mitigation fees from this project would allow for some alleviation of the problem. Responding to question by Chairman Messner, Mr. Milazzo said their intent was not to eliminate the u-turn. Mr. Walker, Traffic Engineer, said the worse case example after evaluation would be that the left turn into the project would not be allowed or an alternative of the left turn to get back to the post office would be eliminated completely with this capability being developed further down. Mr. Milazzo said controls are in place to remove the access from the neighborhood to the project if it proves infeasible. Chairman Messner felt it was fairly unlikely the market for office space would increase. He stated his support for this project in concept if the correct mitigation can be achieved. He said he was still concerned about the lights facing west casting light toward the single family residences. Regarding the link between the projects he was concerned that this was not being required. Commissioner Marino said this was not within the applicant's control, however Commissioner Messner said it was a condition that has been placed on other projects. Mr. Milazzo said they would prefer this not be a condition of approval because it could kill the project. Mr. Hardisty suggested a condition be added that would require pavement to be installed to match the adjacent shopping center for the possibility of a future link. Motion was made by Commissioner Marino, seconded by Commissioner Andrew to adopt resolution making findings, as set forth in the staff report approving the Negative Declaration, and approving the requested GC (General Commercial) land use designation, subject to conditions and mitigation as listed in Exhibit "A," including the Planning Director's memo dated September 7, 1994 regarding the change to the Habitat Conservation Plan condition, and recommend same to City Council, with the inclusion of the following additional conditions: Larger trees shall be strategically placed along the west property line adjacent to the apartments to mitigate visual exposure from the parking lot. The masonry wall shall be made smooth faced and be a minimum of 7 feet high with rounded cap. Where applicant is showing the access drive to the shopping center to the east, pavement shall be installed flush at grade to match the drive aisles of the Von's shopping center. Minutes, PC, 9/15/94 Page 7 Advisory notice: Plants shall be placed along the west wall to discourage people from climbing the walls. Responding to question by Commissioner Brady, Mr. Milazzo said the left-turn lane was a very important component of the project. Commissioner Brady was concerned that the traffic issue has not been resolved for this project. He felt it was inappropriate and a bad precedent to allow a project to send its commercial traffic to a residential, street where it did not exist in the past. Mr. Milazzo responded to question by Chairman Messner saying Mr. Barbeau stated for the record his willingness to work with the property owners regarding the possibility of compensation for loss of property value. He felt this was adequate and was an agreement between the applicant and the property owners. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Andrew, Boyle, Delgado, Hersh, Marino, Messner NOES: Brady Motion was made by Commissioner Marino, seconded by Commissioner Andrew to adopt resolution making findings, as set forth in the staff report approving the Negative Declaration, and approving the requested PCD (Planned Commercial Development) zoning district, as shown on Figure 2, entitled "Alternate #1, subject to conditions and mitigation listed in Exhibit "A," including the Planning Director's memo dated September 7, 1994, regarding the change to the Habitat Conservation Plan condition, and the applicant's exterior lighting proposal and tree list attached to the Planning Director's memo dated September 15, 1994, with the following additional conditions: Larger trees shall be strategically placed along the west property line adjacent to the apartments to mitigate visual exposure from the parking lot. o The masonry wall shall be made smooth faced and be a minimum of 7 feet high with rounded cap. ' o Where applicant is showing the access drive to the shopping center to the east, pavement shall be installed flush at grade to match the drive aisles of the Von's shopping center. Advisory notice: Plants shall be placed along the west wall to discourage people from climbing the walls. Minutes, PC, 9/15/94 Page 8 and recommend same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Andrew, Boyle, Delgado, Hersh, Marino, Messner NOES: Brady 4.3 * 10 minute break was taken at this time. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 3-94, SEGMENT III AND ZONE CHANGE 4.4 #5560 Request was received for continuance on this item. Staff report was updated from the Monday pre-meeting. Responding to question by Commissioner Hersh, Mr. Gauthier said the applicant indicated the R-2 zoning proposed for subject site would possibly be used for senior citizen housing. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in favor or opposition. Richard Meyer represented the applicant. He said the concept is a senior type develOpment. There are issues of the project requiring resolution, therefore they request continuance. Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Marino to continue this item to the next general plan amendment cycle held December 15, 1994. Motion carried. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 3-94, SEGMENT IV This item was withdrawn. Minutes, PC, 9/15/94 Page 9 4.5 a,b GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 3-94, SEGMENT V AND ZONE CHANGE #5580 Commissioner Marino abstained because of a conflict of interest; he is representing the property owner. Staff report was updated from the Monday pre-meeting. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition or in favor. Gary Olson represented the applicant. He stated agreement with all conditions including those of the September 15, 1994 memorandum. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Steven Hartsell represented the Kern High School District and Rosedale Union School District. Responding to question by Chairman Messner, Mn Hartsell clarified the change in school mitigation by saying that inflation has forced the increase along with the Mello-Roos districts for certain areas. He explained the Mello-Roos issue. Motion was made by Commissioner Powers, seconded by Commissioner Hersh to adopt resolution making findings, as set forth in the staff report, approving the Negative Declaration and approving the requested general plan amendment from R-IA (Resource-Intensive Agriculture) to LR (Low Density Residential-less than or equal to 7.26 dwelling units per net acre on 95.91 +/- acres as shown on. Exhibit "B," subject to conditions attached in Exhibit "A," and recommend the same to City Council, with inclusion of memos submitted as part of the staff report. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Andrew, Boyle, Brady, Delgado, Hersh, Powers, Messner NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Marino Minutes, PC, 9/15/94 Page 10 Motion was made by Commissioner Powers, seconded by Commissioner Hersh to adopt resolution making findings, as set forth in staff report, approving the Negative Declaration and approving the requested zone change from an A-20A (Agriculture-20 acre minimum) zone to an R-1 (One Family Dwelling) zone, as shown' on Exhibit "C'! and described in Exhibit "D", subject to conditions as attached in Exhibit "A" and recommend same to City Council, with inclusion of memos submitted as part of the staff report. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Andrew, Boyle, Brady, Delgado, Hersh, Powers, Messner NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Marino 4.6 4.7 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 3-94, SEGMENT VI AND ZONE CHANGE #5567 This item was withdrawn. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 3-94, SEGMENT VII AND ZONE CHANGE #5568 Request was received from the applicant for continuance on this item. Commissioner Andrew abstained because he was involved in the property sale to the current owner. No new information was added to the staff report. Penny Fulton, Kern Schools Federal Credit Union, stated they own a 13.5 acre parcel to the south of subject property. When purchasing the property they used the 2010 Plan as their guide saying they were aware there would only be 2 parcels of commercial property at the intersection which they feel is adequate. She said this proposal was not supported in the past. She urged the commission to deny this change. She also said they are currently working with engineers and architects to develop a commercial site at their location. David Milazzo said the direction of the project may change, therefore he would not speak regarding it at this time. He asked that it be continued to the next general plan amendment cycle. Minutes, PC, 9/i5/94 Page 11 Motion was made by Commissioner Hersh, seconded by Commissioner Powers to continUe this item to the next scheduled general plan amendment cycle of December 15, 1994. Motion carried. 4.8 a,b GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 3-94, SEGMENT VIII AND ZONE CHANGE #5561 Staff report was updated from the Monday pre-meeting. Public portion of the hearing was opened. Nelson Smith, 14105 Tierra Blanca, located directly south of the proposal, said he reviewed the 2010 Plan before purchasing his home. He said he does not want to live across the street from a commercial development and is therefore in opposition. Cherilyn Stancliffe, resident of San Jose Avenue, said this commercial development would be in her backyard. She said her husband collected 71 signatures. Everyone that he spoke with wholeheartedly supported leaving the zoning as it exists, with the exception of one person. Wallace Odell, 14105 Tierra Blanca, echoed the comments of Mr. Smith. Stephen Bushby, 14304 Tierra Blanca, said he did not feel this project was necessary and was concerned about the increase in traffic. Cindy Hluza, 14113 San Jose said this project is in her front yard. She said she had looked at the 2010 Plan before purchasing her property. She did not feel the developers were concerned about the effect on the neighborhood. She cited the recommendation of the 2010 Plan that there not be commercial zoning closer than 1/2 mile apart. She said this would be the fourth commercial zoned property in less than one mile. She did not feel this project was in the best interest of their neighborhood asking that the commission deny this project and follow the recommendations of the 2010 Plan. Bill Hluza outlined the problems that he saw with this project being the significant amount of commercial in close proximity, the bottleneck of traffic, the lack of regard by the developer for the best interest of the neighborhood. He said they had revieWed the 2010 Plan before purchasing in the area. He urged the Commission to vote against this change. Steve Hartsell represented the Rosedale School District and Kern High School District, saying he was neutral on this issue. He said regarding the Kern High School District the change does not create an impact on this district. Regarding the Rosedale School District he said the property zoned R-1 is within the RNR Mello-Roos assessment district. It is their position that if this is changed the Minutes, PC, 9/15/94 Page 12 district in which it is located would have to have the same commitment to reduce overcrowding. He said wording should be included in the existing proposed condition which covers the Rosedale School District so that payment be made to the Kern High School District of their statutory fee. Maurice Etchechury, .Cuesta Engineering, represented the applicant. He requested that this project be approved over the recommendation of staff. He gave history of project site. He felt in looking at the area as a whole it is deficient in neighborhood commercial areas to provide services for the proposed residential developments. He said it makes access and flow of traffic better for commercial sites to be placed at an arterial to arterial intersection. He felt by not placing the commercial project mid-block they were improving the situation of the neighborhood. He said the developer has a vested interest because they own approximately 200 acres in the immediate area and therefore will try to enhance the neighborhood because of the profit to them. He said regarding the 2010 Plan he'found at least 3 policies which would support the project. He showed a map of the area. He said they were able to turn an existing street into a culode-sac providing an approximately 300-foot buffer between the commercial and any existing home. New residents will be those who will abut the commercial project and will be aware of it before purchasing property. He said they met with 14 residents of the area. Responding to question by Commissioner Hersh, Mr. Etchechury said his client does not own the LMR designated property to the west. Mr. Etchechury said regarding the school district's requirement, he felt they would be able to work out the mitigation before this item goes before the City Council. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Mr. Hardisty responded to question by Commissioner Messner, saying at this time CalTrans has not settled on a final alignment of the freeway. Commissioner Boyle felt in looking at the property this was an appropriate place for a commercial area. He felt until the traffic situation regarding off ramps is settled it is not appropriate to reconfigure commercial sites. Commissioner Hersh agreed with Commissioner Boyle that there is not enough evidence available to make the change. He stated he would support staff's recommendation on this item. Commissioner Andrew stated he would not support staff's recommendation saying he felt this was planned well into the future. By the time tenants occupy space in the shopping center, 4 lanes for traffic will be available and the property currently' being used as agricultural will be built out. He felt this was the proper location- and the right size for this commercial project. Minutes, PC, 9/15/94 Page 13 Mr. Murphy, applicant said there will be no off-ramp at subject intersection nor will there be an increase in densities, use of the property is simply being swapped. Commissioner Brady felt this was an appropriate change to be made because they are only proposing commercial on one corner, there is no shopping in the area, this is a logical location for commercial. Commissioner Powers felt this corner is the best location given the future planning for the area. Commissioner Delgado did not feel the commission should only consider the commercial consequences and what is best for the developer. The property owners have taken the time to make the commission aware of their feelings. The developer has acknowledged the concern regarding the impact. West of the property there is commercial property designated with one-half mile and for these reasons he would support'staff's recommendation for denial. Mr. Etchechury said they requested LMR because it is consistent with the adjacent residential property. He said they would agree to the LMR being changed to LR if staff would initiate the change of Tract 5552 to LR. Cindy Hluza felt possibly the east side of Renfro Road may be a more appropriate site for this commercial designation. Their homes have already been constructed with the understanding that they are next to residential. She restated her opposition to this request. Bill Hluza said it may be felt that a 6-foot high block wall is appropriate mitigation what they are proposing contains a large sign and many bright lights. Responding to question by Chairman MeSSner, Mr. Hardisty said this item could be continued to October 6th without causing time constraint problems. Commissioner Messner stated his inclination to vote in favor of this project in concept, however was not sure if additional mitigation was necessary. Motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Hersh to continue this item to the next regularly scheduled meeting of October 6, 1994. Motion carried. Commissioner Powers voted no. Mr. Etchechury asked that in the future staff encourage residents to contact applicants on projects. Commissioner Andrew clarified a previous comment made, by saying in the past the Commission has concluded that the distance across the side street and wall could provide enough mitigation and that it is up to the commission to decide this on a case-by-case basis. Minutes, PC, 9/15/94 4.9 a,b Page 14 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 3-94, SEGMENT IX AND ZONE CHANGE #5585 Commissioner Powers abstained from voting on this item. Commissioner Andrew said he had not conflicted on this item on Monday, however now felt he had a perceived conflict of interest. Staff report recommending approval was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition or in favor. Dale Clark represented the property owner. He stated concurrence with conditions of approval. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Hersh, seconded by Commissioner Brady to adopt resolution making findings, as set forth in staff report, approving the Negative Declaration and approving the requested general plan amendment from LR (Low Density Residential-less than or equal to 7.26. dwelling units per net acre) to GC (General Commercial) on 6.27 +/- acres, as shown on Exhibit "B" subject to conditions attached in Exhibit "A," and recommend same to City Council, with the inclusion of the September 7, 1994 memo regarding habitat conservation plan. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Delgado, Hersh, Messner NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Andrew, Marino, Powers Motion was made by Commissioner Hersh, seconded by Commissioner Brady to adopt resolution making findings, as set forth in staff report, approving the Negative Declaration and approving the requested zone change from an R-1 (One Family Dwelling) to a C-1 (Limited Commercial) zone, as shown on Exhibit "C," subject to conditions as attached in Exhibit "A" and recommend same to City Council, with the inclusion of the September 7, 1994 memo regarding habitat conservation plan. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Delgado, Hersh, Messner NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Andrew, Marino, Powers Minutes, PC, 9/15/94 Page 15 6. COMMUNICATIONS A) Written B) Verbal Mr. Hardisty said the previous Monday, the Board of Supervisors had adopted the West Rosedale Specific Plan for an additional 43-45,000 residents in the area. He stated the City formally objected to this adoption on the basis that it was not felt this plan was specific enough to address the issues of water, traffic and sewer. It was felt that it did not address the strategy and financing to be in placed to accomplish the goals of the plan. Responses to comments were not complete, thereby making it an inadequate document. It was requested that they correct these deficiencies prior to proceeding with it. 7. COMMISSION COMMENTS A. Committees Chairman Messner commented on a notice received by the City Manager inviting the development community to a series of workshops regarding streamlining of processes. Commissioner Andrew reminded members of the Sign Committee to obtain a tape of the last meeting in order to prepare for the meeting on the following Tuesday. 8. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Laurie Davis Recording Secretary