Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-05-08 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Meeting – June 5, 2008 - 5:30 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue 1. ROLL CALL: Present: , Commissioners Johnson, McGinnisStanley, Blockley, Andrews, Tragish, Tkac 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS: Blane Franzen stated he does not see “Life as it should be” being fulfilled, but rather sees the City’s motto as, “We’ll screw up your neighborhood.” He further commented that the Golden Rule, “Treat Others as you’d like to be treated” should be changed to a new rule, from dealing with you all and the council “Those who have the gold make the rules”. Chair Johnson requested that Mr. Franzen provide all handout items to the clerk. Mr. Franzen stated that if he bought property and asked if he could have chickens, goats or a cow, the city would say that he bought in the wrong neighborhood. He said the city believes in builder’s property rights not homeowners. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Non-Public Hearing Items 4.1a Approval of minutes for Planning Commission meeting of April 17, 2008 and May 1, 2008. 4.1b Approval of Capital Improvement Program for FY 2008-09 determination by the Planning Commission of consistency with the general plan. (City of Bakersfield – Public Works Department) (City Wide) 4.1c Acceptance of Planning Director’s Report on Administrative Review 08-0617 (Stantec Consulting Inc.) Commissioner Tragish requested removal of item 4.1b off the consent calendar. Staff indicated that it can be heard as the first item after the consent calendar. Commissioner Tkac inquired if they were voting on 6.3. Chair Johnson responded that they are only on 4.1 non-public hearing items. Commissioner Tkac moved, seconded by Commissioner Blockley, to approve items 4.1a and 4.1c Motion carried by group vote. Minutes of Planning Commission – June 5, 2008 Page 2 4.2 Public Hearing Items 4.2a Approval of Extension of Time of Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 11246 (McIntosh & Associates) 4.2b Approval of Extension of Time of Tentative Tract Map 6183 (Nelms Surveying, Inc.) 4.2c Approval of Continuance of Zone Change 08-0224 to July 17, 2008 (Kimley-Horn Associates Inc.) 4.2d Approval of Planned Development Review 08-0481 (Regal Development) 4.2e Approval of Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 11755 (M.S. Walker & Associates) 4.2f Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7142 (SmithTech/USA) 4.2g Approval of Comprehensive Sign Plan 08-0600 (A-Plus Signs, Inc.) Public hearing opened, except for item 4.2c. No one from the audience requested removal of any consent public hearing agenda item. Commissioner Blockley commented that he has the appearance of a conflict on item 4.2a and will not vote on that item. Commissioner Tkac stated that he has a conflict of interest on agenda item 4.2f (regular agenda item 6.3) and he will not vote on that item. The public hearing is closed, except for item 4.2c. Staff commented that item 4.2c was already opened and it is actually being closed now. The public hearing is closed on all items. Commissioner Tkac moved, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to approve consent calendar public hearing items. Motion carried by roll call vote: , AYES: Commissioners Johnson, McGinnisStanley, Blockley, Andrews, Tragish, Tkac. 4.1b Approval of Capital Improvement Program for FY 2008-09 determination by the Planning Commission of consistency with the general plan. (City of Bakersfield – Public Works Department) (City Wise) Staff report given and it was pointed out that this is not open to public comments. Commissioner Tragish inquired as to page 232 regarding the Rabobank theatre and area improvements involving conversion of a concession stand into an arena suite and with expansion of a concession stand to serve both the arena and the theatre. He inquired if the source of these funds would come from redevelopment funds. to which Arnold Ramming, with the Public Works Department, responded that the funding for the arena improvements project is from the downtown project area, which are funds administered through the Economic Community Development Dept. Mr. Ramming stated he does not know the specific source of the funds. Commissioner Tragish inquired where the source of the redevelopment funds comes from. Mr. Ramming responded that he does not know the source of those funds. Commissioner Tragish inquired what the parameters are of what redevelopment money can be used for. Mr. Ramming responded that he does not know. Commissioner Tragish commented that he thought it was odd that they are spending redevelopment money, which in his mind is associated with improvements downtown to improve the ambiance and encourage businesses to come there, as well as the Minutes of Planning Commission – June 5, 2008 Page 3 improvement of parks and so forth. He further stated that he is taken aback that they using money to move a concession stand in the Rabobank Theatre and why it would be part of the capital improvement budget or project. Commissioner Johnson commented that he received a letter from a resident in north east Bakersfield regarding Mesa Marin sports fields getting reconstructed and he was glad to see on the capital improvement project that it was referenced that it would be completed in the 08-09 fiscal year. He inquired since it was suppose to be completed in the last fiscal year if staff could explain why it will take through this next fiscal year to complete with the budgeted $100,000. He also inquired if Mr. Ramming could respond in writing to the questions he does not have answers to this evening. Mr. Ramming stated that his staff is working with Recreation and Parks to get the project designed and into construction. He stated they did budget funds in the current fiscal year 2007-08 for the project and that these additional funds for the next fiscal year combines with the previous budget to get the design finished and into construction. Mr. Ramming stated that he does not have an estimated completion date, but could find this out and reply back to the Commission. Commissioner Andrews commented, in response to Commissioner Tragish’s questions, that the money from the redevelopment agency is typically money that is part of the tax increment that is set aside when the redevelopment area is developed. Therefore, before doing additional development in the area that may be on a project that already exists, specific portions of that money are also set aside for low income housing development. Commissioner McGinnis inquired what concession stand specifically is being referred to. Mr. Ramming responded that it is near the Grape Room in the arena just off of the lobby towards the auditorium. The concession stand would be a little bit back towards the main entrance. As you come in the main entrance this is the concession stand that is to the left. Commissioner McGinnis stated that he can see how that could be created into another suite, but inquired how it would effect the theatre aspect because there is an aisle way separating it. Mr. Ramming responded that the suite will be just for the benefit of the arena, and the Grape Room is where the new concession area will be. He pointed out that the Grape Room will be renovated and have access doors directly from the lobby of the theatre with access doors directly from the concourse and the arena. Mr. Ramming further stated it would be similar to the Flasco suite, but Flasco has limited access. The specific redesign they are talking about will be open to anybody. Commissioner McGinnis moved, seconded by Commissioner Blockley to approve 4.1b. Motion carried by group vote. Commissioner Tragish voted no against 4.1b because he has a problem with using redevelopment funds as clarified by Commissioner Andrews, he stated that he thinks the money should be used for redevelopment and not moving a concession stand so that somebody can buy a suite. 5. PUBLIC HEARING – Approval of Amendment to the text of the Bakersfield Municipal Code, relating to parking requirements. (Exempt from CEQA) The public hearing is opened, staff report given. Staff stated that the main issue addressed in the parking ordinance has to do with: 1) Moving the definitions into the definitions chapter, so they are a lot easier to find. 2) Including new provisions for motorcycle parking by using the odd spaces more efficiently. 3) Providing 10% credit if a project is within five minutes or ¼ mile walking distance of a transit facility. Staff referenced a 6-5-2008 memo that notes on page 9 a recommendation to further define a transit facility.. 4) Encouraging and more clearly identifying the model the city uses for shared parking, wherein the model recognizes that you have different peak demands of parking which results in more efficient use of a parking lot. 5) Allow credits along local streets, which would mostly apply to infill and smaller projects where there is already on-street parking. The ordinance willalso allow use of tandem parking for single- family homes and small multi-family projects of four units or less. 6) Provide low-income projects the Minutes of Planning Commission – June 5, 2008 Page 4 ability to reduce parking by 25%. 7) A maximum parking requirement, which would be 150% of the minimum requirement. 8) The downtown central district, which is mapped by ordinance, would be allowed a 50% reduction across the board for all uses. 9) Lastly, staff did a comprehensive review of the parking ratios, and the biggest issue was with the medical parking requirements. They are looking at bringing that ratio down from 8 per 1,000 to 5 per 1,000. There is some tweaking of requirements for redevelopment and provisions for the CB & CC zones. Blane Franzen spoke in opposition to the proposal stating that when it comes to parking the city needs the parking, but people also need to walk. He stated that the low-income areas need more money to make the rent, so there seems to be more tenants and more vehicles in the low-income areas. He stated he would like to see the shopping centers more walker-friendly. No one spoke in favor of Staff’s recommendations. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Blockley stated he is glad to see this as it represents an evolution in the city’s thinking, and it’s a positive direction. He inquired if the unapproved but accepted method for reducing the width of parking aisles will be codified. Staff responded that they are not aware of this method. Commissioner Andrews inquired if there will be anything related to charging stations or other facilities that might encourage alternative fuel vehicles. Staff responded that charging stations were not looked at specifically, although there is not anything that would prohibit a charging station to be at a parking stall. Commissioner Tragish inquired if the substantial amount of credits, meaning reduced parking spaces, is going to create a parking nightmare where they are trying to assist people to develop in certain areas that in turn creates a situation there is a shortage of parking because it has not been provided. Staff responded that they did look at this, and concluded that when you look at the percentages, 10% is not a lot when you consider 100 stalls. Staff referenced the Northwest Promenade which has 600-700 stalls and includes a transit facility. If the 10% credit is applied in that situation it would result in 60-70 fewer stalls, which probably reflects the number of people using the transit system during the day. Staff further clarified that in the low-income areas there is more of a 20-30% break. Staff stated that based on their research, this will not create a parking shortage. Commissioner Tragish also asked how just being by a bus stop entitles someone to a credit for parking when most people do not use transit systems. Staff responded that depending on the size of the project, the transit offset will to work a number of different ways, including 1) By defining the transit facility as proposed in the memorandum, which makes it a more comfortable location with benches and weather protection that someone would be willing to wait for a bus; 2) Businesses have an incentive to buy bus passes for employees, which businesses are using for carbon credits or can improve a bus stop with amenities. Commissioner Tragish stated that he is not sure that he agrees with Staff’s logic, but he does support the ordinance as revised. Commissioner Johnson inquired about the language, “granting parking credit along local street frontages where such parking is allowed. Parking on collector streets will be at the discretion of the Traffic Engineer.” Staff clarified that the section referred to is page 13, under 17.58.100, item b, and the credit for on-street residential parking would just be for the guest parking. For example, a 25-unit apartment complex that would require 50 stalls also requires an additional 10% parking for guests which would add 5 more for a total of 55 stalls on site. Therefore, only those five stalls, would qualify for credit on the street. Commissioner Johnson stated that his concern is with there not being sufficient parking, and if this 25- unit complex is all two-bedroom, with two-cars per unit, what happens when there are four people in the unit that all drive. He inquired if there is a way to put a limitation on the guest parking that no more than half of the guest parking can go onto the street. Staff responded that if the language was to be included, they would add, “…for residential uses only, 50% of the guest parking required under code will qualify for on-street parking credit.” Minutes of Planning Commission – June 5, 2008 Page 5 Commissioner Tragish was concerned with balancing all the numbers out, because for every complex that has 4 drivers per unit, another will have only 1 driver per unit. He inquired if there is some safeguard so the streets are not getting jammed up. Staff responded that the street parking is already being used, whether the credit is being given or not. Commissioner Tragish inquired what they are trying to achieve. Staff responded that they are trying to promote walkability, development, allowing mixed use and taking notice of the fact that there may be retail downstairs and residential upstairs, and therefore the parking requirements are the same. Staff further pointed out that street parking slows traffic down on local streets, but does not effect the functionality of the street. Commissioner Tragish inquired if what Chairman Johnson wants to modify will in any way impact what the City is trying to achieve. Staff responded that it will not impact the ordinance significantly. Commissioner Tragish state that he support Chairman Johnson’s proposed revision. Commissioner Stanley stated he does not have an issue with allowing for the credits, and believes there will be ample parking. He further stated that he would be in support of Chairman Johnson’s amendment. Commissioner Johnson thanked Mr. Eggert for his work. Commissioner Blockley moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt the attached Resolution with all findings and approving the proposed ordinance amendments, incorporating the 6-5-08 memorandum from Jim Movius, as well as the amendment proposed by Chairman Johnson, and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: , AYES: Commissioners Johnson, McGinnisStanley, Blockley, Andrews, Tragish, Tkac. 6 PUBLIC HEARING – VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAPS / VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS / ZONE CHANGES 6.1 Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 11755 (M.S. Walker & Associates) Heard on Consent Calendar. 6.2 Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 11783 (DeWalt Corporation) Staff report given. No one spoke in opposition to Staff’s recommendation. Jeff Gutierrez with DeWalt Corporation, representing the developer, stated they agree with the conditions of approval and addendum thereto, except Condition 2.3, under the Public Works Section, for improving the SW corner of Gosford Road and Panama Lane, which is approximately ¼ mile away from the subject site. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Tragish stated that he met with DeWalt. He inquired if on the vesting tentative parcel map 11783, and the map on the screen, if the project to the east of this one has been approved. Staff responded that there is no map, however the Planning Commission recently approved a PD plan for a shopping center, but it has not yet been subdivided. Staff confirmed that the General Plan and Zoning has been approved. Commissioner Tragish inquired at what point does this applicant have to put in the SW corner. Staff responded that it would be required prior to recordation of this tentative tract map. Commissioner Tragish inquired if normally the corner would need the curb, street, and gutter in by the owner of the property to the east. Staff responded in the affirmative, because it is the frontage for their project. Staff explained that at the time the Planning Commission attached this condition to the general plan and zoning, they were dealing with one large property owner, and this goes back to the gaps that sometimes occur with street improvements along projects. Staff stated that the properties have been sold off to different owners and there is a tendency for people to not really read the conditions. Minutes of Planning Commission – June 5, 2008 Page 6 Commissioner Tragish inquired if it would be appropriate to modify the condition to the extent that upon recordation of the first subdivision map, or issuance of a building permit, for the real property located adjacent to the corner of Gosford and Panama be responsible for putting in the improvement so that it more reflects the realities of today, rather than what it was two years ago. Staff responded that the Planning Commission does have the ability to interpret the original condition from the mitigation measure, and make it more relative to the circumstances presented now. Staff indicated that it would be more appropriate to look at it in a more proportionate share rather than just the owner at the corner. Commissioner Tragish inquired if there is any language that would achieve some type of fairness regarding the corner, along the lines of what Staff indicated. Staff presented the language, and it was reviewed by the applicant. Commissioner McGinnis read into the record the language proposed by staff. “They have a proportionate share by acreage within GPA/ZC 04-0057 for the full cost of construction of curb, gutter and street for the commercial corner at the SW corner of Gosford and Panama Lane.” Commissioner Tragish asked the applicant if they had any further comments. The applicant stated that are in favor of the language as written. Commissioner Tragish stated that he is in agreement with the proposed language. Commissioner McGinnis reiterated his understanding of the proposal to be that there will be a proportionate share to each individual developing in that area. He inquired how this would work if there are five shares. Staff responded that it is proportional based on acreage. Staff further pointed out that this condition is written strictly for this project, so when the commercial project comes in with a map to the east of this, typically Public Works would require that they install the entire improvement. Commissioner McGinnis inquired what would happen in the event there 75% of the people in this area are developed and the other 25% is not. Staff responded that the other properties could be limited to moving forwarding until the improvements are put in. Staff stated that if the PC decides later that the improvements need to be put in, they can condition it accordingly. Commissioner Stanley commented that he did meet with the applicant. He agrees with the solution proposed. Commissioner Blockley commented that he also met with the applicant. Commissioner Johnson commented that he met with DeWalt representative Jeff Gutierrez. He inquired given the scenario, how much frontage is effected by this proposal. Staff responded that the original condition on the GPA referred to the commercial corner that has about 3,300 linear feet of street frontage, which is a little over ½ mile. Commissioner Johnson inquired if that is an extreme amount for this applicant. Staff responded that it is extreme in terms of paying the full amount. Commissioner Johnson stated he does not feel they should exempt the applicant entirely, given the scenario that when you obtain a piece of property you know what conditions are on it. However, he stated that it does make sense that the applicant pay at least a portion of what it would be and move forward to consultant the center. Commissioner Johnson inquired if a site plan is still pending on the south side. Staff responded that the site plan has been approved, but there has been no further correspondence with that applicant, and therefore Staff does not have a timeline as to when that applicant will come forward. Jeff Gutierrez stated Jim Holiday mentioned the “corner,” meaning the return, the light, the pavement, not the entire frontage in front of the commercial center. Mr. Gutierrez stated that they are a little bit confused on that issue. Staff stated they would have to defer to the Planning Commission on what the intent is, pointing out that the General Plan condition says, “Construct Minutes of Planning Commission – June 5, 2008 Page 7 to City of Bakersfield standards as approved by the Public Works Director, curb, gutter and street, at the corner of Panama Lane and Gosford Roads.” Staff suggested that perhaps the PC would consider just the expanded intersection area that would help a great deal towards solving the gap issue, and lessen the burden on this 20-acre parcel. Commissioner Tragish stated that Mr. Movius reflected the intent to the best of his recollection. He stated at that time they were concerned with leapfrogging and people putting in projects without the full street improvements. Commissioner Blockley stated he doesn’t have a good recollection of what occurred previously. Commissioner Johnson asked for clarification on the expanded intersection improvements. Staff pointed out where the expansion starts to add the right turn lane and move the curb to the ultimate location, and then segway back into the full right of way width for the arterial. Staff indicated that the distance back from the actual corner in both directions is roughly 600 feet. Commissioner Johnson confirmed that both Gosford and Panama would have 600 feet just the widening of the roadway, no curb, gutter and sidewalk. Staff responded that the expansion would include the curb, gutter and sidewalk. Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Gutierrez if that was what he was referring to. Mr. Gutierrez stated that since they are not the commercial developer, if there is any turn in and turn outs they would not be able to accommodate for those. He stated that he understands the curb, gutter and paving. Staff responded that they are just talking about this applicant’s proportionate share, and not the driveways. A five minute recess is taken. Commissioner Tragish moved to approve tentative parcel map 11783 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached Resolution, Exhibit A, with a revision of existing condition 2.3 so that it will be deleted, and in its place shall state, “Pay the proportionate share by acreage within GPA/ZC 04-0057 for the full cost of the construction of curb, gutter and street for the expanded intersection at the SW corner of Gosford Road and Panama Lane, and also include the memorandum dated 4-21-2008 from Mr. Movius to the Planning Commission. Chairman Johnson took chairman’s prerogative and conferred with other commissioners to see if they had any comments or discussion regarding the revised condition. Commissioner Blockley stated his only question is the distinction between the condition that requires dedication of the street and improvement of the street, because if they are going to improve the intersection, there previously was a concern that they would have gaps in the street improvements, and this particular proposal as a M-1 piece, which would require redoing the intersection is ¼ of a mile away, and dedication of the street frontage, which is zero. Therefore, they would conceivably have the gap between street improvements along Panama and Gosford. Staff responded the gap is not addressed by what is being approved this evening. It is the Planning Director’s opinion that in this area currently there really are no attractors for pedestrian movement along the commercial area, and this M-1 is not generating any students that need to go to any schools in the immediate area. In addition, the other projects in the area would allow the PC at a future time to get a connection. Commissioner Blockley stated that he would agree with the proposal being made. Commissioner Andrews asked for clarification regarding the proportionate amount based on acreage. Commissioner Tragish re-read the amendment stating, “pay the proportionate share by acreage within GPA/ZC 04-0057 for the full cost of the construction of curb, gutter and street for the expanded intersection at the SW corner of Gosford Road and Panama Lane.” Commissioner McGinnis seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: , AYES: Commissioners Johnson, McGinnisStanley, Blockley, Andrews, Tragish, Tkac. Minutes of Planning Commission – June 5, 2008 Page 8 6.2 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7142 (SmithTech/USA) Heard on Consent Calendar. 6.3 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7142 (SmithTech/USA) Heard on Consent Calendar. 7. PUBLIC HEARING – PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEWS / COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN 7.1 Planned Development Review 08-0541 (Evergreen DevCo Inc.) Public hearing is opened. Staff report given. No one spoke in opposition to Staff’s recommendation. Rick McCann with Evergreen DevCo stated he was available for any questions. Olivia Franzen stated that if it is Fresh and Easy, go with it. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner McGinnis stated that he thinks it is a good project. He stated that he would like to see a condition restricting deliveries between 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. in the interest of peace and quiet in the neighborhood. Commissioner Tragish inquired if the elevation to this particular grocery store subject to any of the elevation ordinances recently approved by City Council. Staff responded that it is not because it is below the size criteria of 50,000 sq. ft. Commissioner Tragish inquired if they have the power to make comment and suggest changes as to the elevation, to which Staff responded in the affirmative, commenting that an elevation change does not have to be for a defined specific reason. However, if it just based on a matter of taste, it may cause trouble. Therefore, it would be preferable that it be anchored to something that has happened in the area. Commissioner Tragish stated that he thinks it looks like a big block with some glazed glass, and he believes that one of the things that prompted the ordinances regarding 50,000 sq. ft. or more is they wanted to get away from the commercial buildings that just put up a block. He stated that he doesn’t like the block look and asked if the applicant could provide further details on what it is going to look like. Rick McCann stated that the front part of the site is what will be seen from Planz Road. He pointed out that the entrance is from where the Fresh and Easy signage is on the top elevation. Therefore, people at the intersection will see a lot of glass, which is typical in retail. The north elevation is the skinniest part of the building, and for ease of site or size it is smaller than the Wal- Greens to the immediate east as far as the frontage of the building, but the overall size is fairly similar. Mr. McCann pointed out that the majority of elevation that would be seen on the building is towards the canal to the south, which actually has a six foot wall that separates the property from the canal. Therefore, the with respect to the condition to provide a six foot wall when abutting residential, there is a number of feet separating the six foot wall from the residences. He stated that he is okay with the delivery/loading restrictions proposed, but as to elevations, it is typical for the area. Commissioner Tragish stated that he is okay with it. Commissioner Blockley stated that he liked the elevations that he saw and thinks it is a big improvement over the previous version. Commissioner McGinnis moved, seconded by Commissioner Andrews, to adopt the attached Resolution with all findings and conditions, approving planned development review 08-0541 as depicted in the project description, including restriction times for loading from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m.. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: , AYES: Commissioners Johnson, McGinnisStanley, Blockley, Andrews, Tragish, Tkac. Minutes of Planning Commission – June 5, 2008 Page 9 7.2 Planned Development Review 08-0625 (Cannon Associates) The public hearing is opened, staff report given. Maria Lourdes Niggel stated she lives catty- corner to the planned project. She stated no matter how much the plans have changed and how pretty they might look, the traffic is still going to be a big issue. She pointed out to say it will look like Riverwalk is puzzling because those plans keep changing. Tom Carosella the co-developer of Mustang Square, stated they believe Mustang Square is a better project because of neighbors, the Planning Commission and Castle & Cooke’s input. He explained the history of this project, pointing out the compromises they have made. Mr. Carosella asked the Commission to look at the condition regarding the two elevations of Fresh and Easy, one with a sail and one without a sail, and asked if they would consider the elevation with the sail as it adds visual interest. Blane Franzen stated that he thinks it is funny that Target is the highest end store that Seven Oaks is going to get. He also stated that he is disappointed that they get zone change in a nice quiet community to allow a car wash and all night drive thru restaurants. He further commented that he met with Mr. Carosella and there are a lot of stipulations that have been put on him, and he believes that this project is going to be an asset to the community. Mr. Franzen also stated that he thinks it is bad for the community to change the zone like they did. Olivia Franzen stated she is not opposed to the project, and likes that the car wash was moved. She inquired why the architecture has to match with Castle & Cooke. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Andrews congratulated the developer for the efforts that he has put into making the changes. Commissioner Tragish stated that with the preface that he wasn’t thrilled about this project at this site, it did get a zoning change, and the changes made have maximized the mitigation as much as possible. Commissioner Tragish inquired if they could have the sail instead of the squared roof. Staff responded that the elevations attached show the sails, so condition number 23 could be deleted. Commissioner Tragish moved, seconded by Commissioner Andrews, to adopt the attached Resolution with all findings and conditions and approving the planned development review 08- 0625 as depicted in the project description, with the exception of deleting condition number 23. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: , AYES: Commissioners Johnson, McGinnisStanley, Blockley, Andrews, Tragish, Tkac. 7.3 Comprehensive Sign Plan 08-0600 (A-Plus Signs, Inc.) Heard on Consent Calendar. 8. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commissioner Tragish stated that in reference to Mr. Franzen’s public comments, he will take them as proposed as humor. 9. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 7:47 p.m. Robin Gessner, Recording Secretary JAMES D. MOVIUS, Secretary Planning Director July 18, 2008