Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/19/96MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Held September 19, 1996, 5:30 p.m., City Council Chamber, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California. COMMISSIONERS: Present: KENNETH HERSH, Chairperson DOUG DELGADO, Vice-Chairperson STEPHEN BOYLE MATHEW BRADY ROBERT ORTIZ WADE TAVORN JEFFREY TKAC MICHAEL DHANENS ADVISORY MEMBERS: Present: LAURA MARINO, Assistant City Attorney JACK LaROCHELLE, Engineer IV DENNIS FIDLER, Building Director STAFF: Present: STANLEY GRADY, Planning Director JIM MOVIUS, Principal Planner MARC GAUTHIER, Principal Planner MIKE LEE, Associate Planner LAURIE DAVIS, Recording Secretary 2. P_U~NTS Carol Verasci spoke concerning GPNZC Case No. P96-0543, Agenda Item #la through c. She stated her concerns about the possibility of school overcrowding in this area. She felt the developer needed to take on the social responsibilities of these issues. She also stated her concern that they checked into the zoning before purchasing property in this area and did not want it to change. She stated her concern was not with apartment dwellers but with density. The chairman read the notice of right to appeal as set forth on the agenda. Commissioner Brady stated he was unable to attend Monday's pre-meeting, however had reviewed the tape and would participate at this meeting. Commissioner Hersh stated he was unable to attend Monday's pre-meeting, however had reviewed the tape and would participate at this meeting. None Minutes, PC, 9/19/96 Page 2 4. APP ROA/ALO F MIN UTF_.S. Regarding the August 15, 1996 minutes Commissioner Brady requested the following changes be made: Bage2., IteJ:Q~:AaC~~th~g_at_an appJ:opriate po Jut: Attorney Byrum acknowledged that the Planning Commission was required to make a finding whether there had been a violation of the Map Act and he had no further evidence to present. And it should be further noted Attorney Olcott acknowledged that he was aware that the Planning Commission was required to make a finding whether there had been a violation of the Map Act and he had no further evidence to present at the hearing. Motion was made Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Dhanens to approve the minutes of the regular meetings held July 18, August 1, August 12, and August 15, 1996. Motion carried. 5: ~~G~LF'~N - CSP P~9_6-0704 - 90_00 MING AVENUE *Commissioner Boyle was seated. Staff report recommending approval was given. Commissioner Delgado asked if there was any opposition to this application. Mr. Grady stated there was not. Motion was made by Commissioner' Brady, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz to adopt the resolution, approving Comprehensive Sign Plan No. P96-0704, making all findings presented and subject to the conditions in Exhibit "A." Motion carried. P_UB/JCJCEABI~ - SECZLQ[qS I Z.0~_AJ~:)_1ZZ)_8_~~JZLON OF CI::IAP_ZEB 17.~F THE ~_S F~EL[~ ~~C~ RTAI N I NG TOJ_EGA~_J~IO~I -_C Q NEOR ~ STRUC_T_~S AND_LC)ZS~~_~OR T~b!~UATIO~LO_F NOI~- COI~IFORMING S T R U C T UBE,SLA N D_LO ~S~AI~ID~_STAB LI_S~OC_,EBU~ E~_OB ALLOJA/IEIG_CJfl A N GES_T_O_ ~~ F NO_i~I-- C¢1q F O BlVll N GJJSES~ Staff report recommending approval was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition or in favor. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Brady stated he sat on the committee that reviewed this issue. He felt this ordinance resolves most of the conflicts he has and stated his support of it. Minutes, PC, 9/19/96 Page 3 Motion was made by Commissioner Delgado, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz to adopt the resolution with all findings approving the proposed text amendments as set forth in the project description, and recommend same to the City Council. MotiOn carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Ortiz, Tavorn, Tkac, Delgado, Hersh NOES: · None PRESENTATION ON THE OVERALLAI31_NEXATION PROGRAM FOR THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD INCLUDING AREAS_OF INT_EREST: PHASING, THE INFORMATION PROGRAM AND COMMUNITY INV~.ENT Dolores Teubner, City Manager's Office gave a presentation and provided a handout of this presentation to the Commission. Commissioner Hersh asked if some of the areas which are currently in the county are already receiving city services. Ms. Teubner said they are not receiving garbage collection, po!ice service, road maintenance and code enforcement. Ms. Teubner cited the many concerns of county residents, stating the city is trying to address the issues and to make them aware of the possibility of improved services. 8.1 a,b,c) PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL~Dj_AN AMENDMENT, ASSOCIA~ED~EZOJ~G AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMFI~IDMENT GPA/ZC CASE NO. P9_6-0543 Staff report recommending approval of the general plan amendment and zone change and denial of the circulation element amendment was given. Public hearing was opened. David Duket stated he had submitted a letter in opposition. He stated he and his wife purchased their property relying on the existing zoning. He felt this gives rise to a legal inference that subject property must remain R-1 zoning. Colon Bywater, North Bakersfield Recreation and Parks District stated their opposition to this item is that the mitigation measures required by the 2010 Plan are not being adhered to for the north part of the city. It would not be appropriate to impose any residential development within their district until the mitigation measures spelled out in the 2010 Plan are applied. JOhn Mihalijo stated they feel the R-2 zoning is incompatible with the existing residential land use and would not compliment the existing development. They also felt this rezoning would set a precedent. Minutes, PC, 9/19/96 Page 4 Tony Lomas felt proximity to apartments is detrimental to values of surrounding property. He stated they checked on the proximity of apartment zoning when purchasing and do not feel it is fair that this should change at this time. He requested this change not be approved. Steve Hartsell, Kern County Superintendent of Schools, represented both the Rosedale Union and Kern High School Districts. He cited a letter he submitted dated September 19th. He summarized it saying the district contends ample evidence has been provided to the city in the past regarding development projects of this type constituting substantial evidence that this project would have a significant impact on the school district's facilities. Mitigation measures have been identified and if they were included as a condition of approval they would mitigate these impacts. If the applicant does not consent to inclusion of these mitigation measures the district believes it would be legally inappropriate to take action for approval without requiring the preparation of an environmental impact report. He requested if the applicant does not agree to this mitigation measure that the commission not approve this project as proposed. Sally Cutner stated her concurrence with previous concerns. She was concerned about the density continuing to become higher with each new development stating she felt this is setting a precedent. Steve Bushby, Tierra Blanca stated his concern about decreased property values and traffic on Stockdale Highway. Barbara Lomas stated she is a Realtor and homeowner in the area. She cited an example where property values have decreased and property has been difficult to sell because of the construction of apartments abutting it. She asked that the property remain R-1 zoning. Augie Giliberto was concerned about the degeneration apartments bring to an area over a period of time. Leigh Ann Hinson stated they had done their homework before purchasing property and did not feel it was fair for this property to be rezoned. Robert Fenwick cited an example of a situation in which apartments have brought neighborhoods down. He stated they had checked the zoning before having their home constructed and wanted an R-1 buffer around their home. Rick Hurst stated he is a property owner on Reed Street. He stated he bought in this area to raise his children and did not want the Ro2 zoning abutting his property. Kent Stevenson asked if a study had been prepared to determine how many local apartments are vacant. Lynn Mihalijo submitted additional signatures to add to the over 600 signatures they previously submitted. Minutes, PC, 9/19/96 Page 5 Melody Palmer cited her previous history with apartment dwelling and the crime they endured. She stated her concern for their neighborhood should this property be rezoned to allow apartments. John Sarad represented the application. He submitted a handout to the Commission. He stated he had met with the homeowners and was sympathetic to the residents concerns. He stated they do not intend to construct Iow income apartments. He stated he would like to work with the neighborhood and withdraw consideration of this item until this can be done. Laura Marino, City Attorney, stated Mr. Sarad could not withdraw this project. gave the Commission their options with respect to approving, disapproving or continuing. She Discussion continued regarding Mr. Sarad's request for withdrawal and the possibilities of continuance. Mr. Grady suggested the Commission make a decision on the current request. Ms. Marino concurred. Mr. Sarad stated he no longer wished to withdraw his application. He gave a history of the property and request. He felt the collector street seemed to be out of place. Future prospects for increasing traffic even with this being a designated arterial in the 2010 Plan are very slim. They feel given the proposed direction of the Kern River Freeway Plan to allow this collector to be downgraded to a surface street is not an unreasonable request. They are in the process of designing a tentative map which would design the surface streets in such a way that it would negate the need for a collector street. Because there will be no traffic coming up Renfro Road in the foreseeable future there will be no collection from the south thereby making the collector unnecessary. They feel this circulation element amendment will cut down on maintenance and simplify the design of the subdivision. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Brady stated his concern about the school issue. He felt Renfro Road is wide enough and separates this property from the existing housing. He stated his concerns about prejudice of apartment dwellers stating downgrading of neighborhoods can occur with single family homes also. Commissioner Brady asked for an estimate in student population increase. Ms. Marino stated the staff report indicated it would be 59 students based on CEQA's standpoint of generation of students from this project as it is developed from bare land. Minutes, PC, 9/19/96 Page 6 Mr. Hartsell said 59 students is based on 120 apartments. He felt this was not an accurate amount of buildable apartments. The number 59 is lower than what the school district would generate based on their standards. Regarding mitigation he cited the previously approved zoning saying mitigation was included in this approval which required compliance with two memorandums of understanding with the previous owner and the school districts. There is disagreement with the applicant of this project as to the enforceability of those contracts. Mr. Sarad cited a letter submitted by his attorney regarding the school mitigation issue. He stated they have a disagreement as to what is the correct mitigation and after speaking with his attorney they would like to look into the possibilities. Ms. Marino cited CEQA's requirement that the city ensure that all significant adverse impacts which are placed on the record are mitigated. Evidence has been placed on the record indicating there will be impacts. The city cannot impose the fees which the school has come up with onto the developer. The only choice left for the Commission in the event the developer refuses to accept the school's mitigation is to require an EIR. Commissioner Brady asked Mr. Sarad if he would agree to the school's mitigation. Mr. Sarad stated they were unsure if the required fees are legal and they would like to research this. He felt the proper requirement would be that of complying with the school's required fees or prepare an EIR. Ms. Marino said pursuant to CEQA this project cannot be approved unless a negative declaration is approved or an EIR certified. A negative declaration cannot be adopted if unidentified impacts exist. Commissioner Brady asked Mr. Bywater what they are requiring. Mr. Bywater said they want mitigation to be the same as it would be in any other part of the city. Commissioner Brady asked where they receive their funding. Mr. Bywater said they collect fees from participants in programs. Commissioner Brady asked why in-lieu fees exist for other parts of the city. Mr. Grady explained when the fee program was adopted the city accepted the tax structure that this district has as a revenue source as a replacement for the parks development fee. Since that time this district has presented information to the city council and board of supervisors indicating these fees do not cover costs of constructing parks. They have requested that both jurisdictions allow them to collect park development fees. The city council agreed to amend the ordinance provided the board of supervisors adopts the same ordinance. Mr. Bywater is simply placing this testimony on the record. Regarding the Circulation Element Amendment, Commissioner Brady stated his opposition to the elimination of the collector. Unless there is agreement to the school mitigation he felt an EIR would have to be prepared. Discussion continued regarding the requirement of school mitigation. Commissioner Boyle said it was very clear that the project would have to be denied based upon the unwillingness to accept mitigation. The alternative would be to continue this item to the next general plan cycle 90 days from this hearing. He asked if Mr. Sarad Minutes, PC, 9/19/96 Page 7 would like to have this continuance. Mr. Sarad requested that it be continued in order that it may stay within this cycle. Mr. Grady stated it could be continued for one meeting. At that time it would have to be acted upon or dropped to the next cycle. Mr. Sarad stated his preference that it be continued to the next meeting. Motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz to continue this item to the next meeting of October 3, 1996. Commissioner Brady stated he is not satisfied that the education and parks issues have been mitigated. Mr. Sarad stated they have spoken to Mr. Bywater and do not feel a problem still exists with the parks condition. Commissioner Boyle said his area of greatest concern was the circulation element amendment. He felt the commission has to look at whether or not Renfro Road is going to be an arterial to the south of Stockdale Highway. He felt it would be a mistake to give up a collector street under the present development circumstances. Alternatives exist as to how a collector may be designed. He stated he understood the concerns of the neighbors, however there is an obligation to provide all types of housing for the community and there is no R-2 zoning within a mile of subject property. Chairman Hersh stated he would support the comments by Commissioners Boyle and Brady concerning apartment dwellers. He stated he also understood the comments made by those living in the residential area. He felt because of the lack of knowledge of what is to be done with Renfro he was concerned about elimination of the collector. He asked about the criteria for placing collectors. Mr. LaRochelle said the city has its own axiom. Historically arterials have been placed on section lines of the grid or 1 mile apart with collectors being on the half section line or ~ mile apart. He explained the reasoning for this collector being on the 1/4 mile. The concern about the reduction of the collector is not a quantative analysis but a qualitative problem. Previous motion to continue this item carried by a group vote. *5-minute recess was taken at this time. 8.2 a&b) PUBLIC HEARING - GENF~N AMENDMENT AND ASSOCIATED REZONING - GPA/ZC CASE NO. P96-0544 Staff report recommending approval was updated. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in oppoSition or in favor of this application. Minutes, PC, 9/19/96 Page 8 Roger Mclntosh represented the applicant. He requested changes to condition numbers 5 and 7 and submitted this proposal to the Commission a copy of which is on file. He stated concurrence with the balance of the conditions. He gave background information on this area saying they will be submitting a tentative tract map requesting 4,500 square foot lots on the remaining half of this area. The reason being they are moving away from apartment construction because of the amount available. Their justification of this small lot subdivision will be based on the fact that park requirements have been met above and beyond the current ordinance standards and that each individual home will continue to pay park fees of $640 per home. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Brady asked for staff's response to proposed changes. Mr. LaRochelle stated agreement to proposed changes to condition #'s 5 and 7. Commissioner Delgado asked for a comment regarding Mr. Mclntosh's analysis concerning park requirements. Mr. Grady stated his analysis is correct with respect to park requirements being met. Mr. Mclntosh outlined the future parks to be installed. Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz to adopt resolution approving and adopting the Negative Declaration, and approving the proposed High Medium Density Residential designation, with findings and mitigation measures as presented in said resolution (See attached Exhibit "1"), and recommend same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Ortiz, Tavorn, Tkac, Delgado, Hersh NOES: None Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz to adopt resolution approving and adopting the Negative Declaration, and approving the proposed Limited Multiple Family Dwelling (R~2) zoning, with findings and conditions as presented in said resolution (see attached Exhibit "2"), and recommend same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Ortiz, Tavorn, Tkac, Delgado, Hersh NOES: None Minutes, PC, 9/19/96 Page 9 8.3 a&b) P~.JI~.[C HEAEI~G ~ ~ D~SSD~;JA~_ONING - ~O~ P9 -6~:)554 There was nothing to add to the staff report given at the Monday meeting recommending approval. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in favor or opposition. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Concerning the comment of the request which states "properties adjacent to or near solid waste facilities," Commissioner Delgado asked for a definition of "near." Mr. Grady clarified the intent of this statement. Motion was made by Commissioner Delgado, seconded by Commissioner Boyle to adopt resolution, approving General Plan Amendment Case P96-0544, by adding Policy 2 to the Solid Waste Goals and Policy Section of the Public Services and Facilities Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan, with findings as presented in said resolution (see attached Exhibit "1"), and recommend same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Ortiz, Tavorn, Tkac, Delgado, Hersh NOES: None 8.4 a&b) ~F_~O. P96-0627_ Staff report recommending approval was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Thomas Cooley, 3510 "L" Street stated they had attended meetings with the city and would welcome entering the city in order to receive city services. Commissioner Ortiz asked if the JBA fields would become part of the city and would they now be owned by the city. Mr. Grady stated they would still be county-owned facilities, they would just be within the city limits. Minutes, PC, 9/19/96 Page 10 Motion was made by Commissioner Ortiz, seconded by Commissioner Brady to adopt resolution making findings, as set forth in staff report, approving and adopting the Negative Declaration and approving the requested general plan amendment as shown on said resolution attached as Exhibit "A" and recommend same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Ortiz, Tavorn, Tkac, Delgado, Hersh NOES: None Motion was made by Commissioner Ortiz, seconded by Commissioner Brady to adopt resolution making findings, as set forth in staff report, approving and adopting the Negative Declaration and approving the requested prezoning on 160 +/- acres, as shown on said resolution attached as Exhibit "B" and recommend same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Ortiz, Tavorn, Tkac, Delgado, Hersh NOES: None 8.5 P~JBLICLEIEARING - GENEP, A~~IT - GP~. P96-Q587 Commissioner Dhanens declared a conflict of interest because he is the applicant for this project. Staff report recommending approval was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened. Paul Kay, Fruitvale Properties, felt they have developed a good document with the intent being to make things more clear and consistent. Mr. Dhanens explained their proposed revisions. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Brady asked why this area would need a different sign program than the rest of the city. Mr. Dhanens said as of this date the city does not have a residential kiosk sign program. Every attempt has been made to match what the city and Planning Commission committee have come up with. Discussion continued regarding their request. Mr. Dhanens said they are' dealing with a specific plan area which by definition is governed differently than the rest of the city. Commissioner Brady asked if these kiosks would be given to the city for administration once the program is in place. Mr. Dhanens said this is a possibility. Commissioner Brady was concerned about giving MinUtes, PC, 9/19/96 Page 11 special treatment. He asked about Condition #21. Mr. Dhanens said it should include the word "be." Commissioner Brady asked for clarification of their requirement. Mr. Dhanens indicated they are requesting elimination of requirement for a second lake giving the option of putting in a park of a similar size which would be in the same location as the lake is now shown, same size and same general shape. Commissioner Delgado asked if the Riverlakes Specific Plan has a current signage requirement. Mr. Dhanens cited Page 10, Item #21. He gave a history of the signs for the Riverlakes area. He stated their proposal conforms in shape, size and color to existing signage. If the city changes their signage scheme in the future it would not be unreasonable to repaint panels. They are simply trying to establish an identity at this time because at this point the city does not have a signage program. Commissioner Brady asked what effect passage of a kiosk sign ordinance would have on existing kiosks. Ms. Marino said the proposed ordinance contains a requirement that off-site signs that are in conformance with the sign ordinance be taken down within a certain time of which these do not apply. They also will not be within the right-of-way. Mr. Fidler explained the differences between the city's kiosk sign program and this Proposal. Commissioner Boyle asked if a property is sold would the sign become an off-site sign. Mr. Dhanens said there is a clause referencing the city's sign ordinance which addresses this issue. Commissioner Boyle was concerned that if a property is sold to a residential owner the sign should at that time become an off-site sign. Commissioner Brady asked if this program is approved would the builders within Riverlakes be giving up their right to have signs off-site. Mr. Dhanens said this would replace the current off-site signage that each individual tract has within Riverlakes Ranch. Mr. Fidler suggested that wording be placed on approval that would indicate that in-lieu of this ordinance builders within Riverlakes Ranch would not be granted any other off-site signage. Commissioner Boyle felt developers in this area should not be told that they cannot be part of a future off-site sign ordinance. He asked if a condition could be placed such that this directional kiosk sign program is in-lieu of all other permissible off-site or on-site signage except any future off-site signage as may be approved by an ordinance pending before the City Council. Ms. Marino felt it would be in-lieu of off-site signs. She felt because they have added some language permitting signs to be taken over by the city as part of the kiosk sign program language could be added that should a kiosk sign program be adopted by the City these signs may be used in that program and Riverlakes Ranch shall adhere to those regulations. Commissioner Boyle suggested an addition which states except for any off-site signage which is administered by the City or its designee. Minutes, PC, 9/19/96 Page 12 Commissioner Dhanens clarified the use of the word on-site as being within the Riverlakes Ranch project boundaries. This program is intended to be an off-site, directional sign program for the benefit of the builders within the Riverlakes Ranch project 'area. Commissioner Boyle asked about the possibility of continuance. Mr. Dhanens suggested that the language be to the approval of the Planning Director. Staff indicated they would prefer this item be continued. Mr. Kay outlined their goals for requesting this ordinance amendment. Bonnie Godfrey stated she is Marketing and Sales Director for Fruitvale Properties. She referred to the sign committee's work on the kiosk sign ordinance stating they need to get signage up as quickly as possible. She was concerned that builders are allowed to place signs on their property without their permission stating she felt they need to put a stop to it as soon as possible. Ms. Marino said the kiosk sign program issue was under consideration at this time by the Urban. Development Committee. commissioner Brady felt this developer is not being asked to do anything different than any other developer. Ms. Godfrey stated their agreement with the requirements placed on them stating they have the right through the specific plan to have signage. She stated it is not their intention not to conform with the city's Kiosk sign ordinance this is why they adopted the format of this plan. Mr. Grady clarified off-site and on-site signage requirements for the Commission. Ms. Marino proposed language which would allow those developers on the sign at the time the city takes over the sign to remain. Motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz to adopt resolution, approving and adopting the Negative Declaration, and to approve Proposed Specific Plan Amendment P96-0587 with findings and conditions as presented in said resolution including the revised Exhibit "A," and inclusion of the memorandum of September 16, 1996 and including an additional provision that in the event the City of Bakersfield adopts an off-site residential kiosk sign program, said program shall supersede the regulations set forth in Paragraph 4 of Item #21 of Exhibit "C." If the existing signs are adopted into the city's program the existing builders on the signs shall be deemed to be the initial applicants. The addition of language that the kiosk sign program is applicable to builders within Riverlakes Ranch. Amendment to Item #21 to read as follows: "As a minimum, temporary and permanent signs shall conform to the City of Bakersfield Sign Ordinance standards as may be amended from time to time." Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Ortiz, Tavorn, Tkac, Delgado, Hersh NOES: None Minutes, PC, 9/19/96 Page 13 9.1 9.2 11. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FII~IDING - SALE_OF 113 ACRE P~ELJ.,OJ3A~ED O~HEEASISIDE OF SOUTH MT. VERNON AV~,NUE,J~OU~EEASTJ~_LLE IERRACE FOR INDUSTPJALD_F_~ELQE~;:~' Nothing was added to the staff report of Monday recommending approval. Motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz to make a finding pursuant to government Code Section 65402, that the proposed sale of the 113 acre parcel for compatible light industrial use and development is consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan. Motion carried. C~IE[~g_~CQ~ENCY FIJ~IDI~IG - ACQULSITIO~I_OF ~Q~ AT TH~]'J~I~/~O~R OF 14TH ST~..ET~tD "N" STREEt. Nothing was added to the staff report of Monday recommending approval. Motion was made by Commissioner Tkac, seconded by Commissioner BOyle to make a finding pursuant to Government Code Section 65402 that the proposed acquisition by the city is consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan. Motion carried. C_OMMUNICATIONS A) Written None B) Verbal None CDMMLSS I ON ~ A. Committees Commissioner Hersh asked for an update by committee chairmen at the next meeting. Minutes, PC, 9/19/96 12. 13. Page 14 DJ_SCUSSIO~~ON REGARDING PO~C~_LI_A~I_O_N OF THE NEXT .P -J~_~/IEETJ:N G. Mr. Grady gave a listing of items for the next meeting and the next pre-meeting was not canceled. There being no further business to come before the Commission, meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Laurie Davis Recording Secretary Planning Director