PC Minutes-2010-08-244;
493-1171
305
www.sanjuancapistrano.org
CALL TO ORDER
MINUTES OF THE MEETING
OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
SAM ALL.EVATO
LAURA FREEST
THOMAS W. HRIBAR
MARK NIELSEN
UR. LONDRES USO
The meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Cohen at 6:30 p.m.,
followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ROLL CALL:
Commissioners Present
Commissioners Absent:
Sheldon Cohen, Chairman
Gene Ratcliffe, Vice -Chair
Ginny Kerr
Jim Mocalis
Tim Neely
Rob Williams
Bruce Tatarian
Staff Present: William Ramsey, AICP, Principal Planner
Grant Taylor, Development Services Director
David Contreras, Senior Planner
Justin Kirk, Associate Planner
City consultants: Keeton Kreitzer, Keeton Kreitzer Consulting
Rich Barretto, Associate Principal, Linscott, Law and Greenspan
Tin Cheung, The Planning Center
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Minutes of July 10, 2010: The Commission approved the subject minutes with a revision to
pg. 4, par. 4, line 2 to read "58'-3" by a 6-0 vote.
San Juan Capistrano: Preserving the Past to Enhance the Future
Printed on 100% recycled paper
PC Meeting Minutes 2 August 24, 2010
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 09-015, Armstrong Nursery (T -Mobile); a request to
develop and maintain a wireless telecommunications facility located at 32382 Del
Obispo. (Applicant: T -Mobile, Amiee Weeks, Representative)(Project Manager: Justin
Kirk. Associate Planner)
Staff presentation & recommendation
Justin Kirk, Associate Planner made the staff presentation advising the Commission that the
proposed project consists of the installation (new construction) of a 45'-0" tall, 154,
diameter faux water tower, which will house twelve paddle antennas and is located
approximately 160 feet from Del Obispo. In addition the applicant has proposed a 28'-1"
by 22'-0" area for ground mounted equipment to be enclosed by a T-0" wood fence, to
match the existing wood fence. Mr. Kirk reviewed the changes made by the applicant to
the design in response to prior Design Review Committee review. Staff recommended
the Commission adopt the draft resolution conditionally approving the proposed project.
Commission Questions
Commissioner Williams stated that the view simulations appear to more "accurately"
represent the final appearance of the proposed faux water tower and requested clarification
of the project proposal. Mr. Kirk responded that the project design plans constituted the
proposal and the view simulation depicted how the tank, if constructed to those plans, would
appear.
Commissioner Kerr asked whether the faux water tower would provide for collocation and
Mr. Kirk responded that the facility had the capacity to accommodate one additional cell
service carrier.
Commissioner Ratcliffe asked whether the DRC -recommended horizontal metal bands
would be used in the design and Mr. Kirk replied they would be to convey a more authentic
appearance to the tank.
Commissioner Ratcliffe asked whether the City could require changes to the design of the
project in the event future technology would change and provide new alternatives not
presently available. Mr. Kirkresponded yes and that draft condition of approval #10 would
address such circumstances as provides as follows:
10. In the event that future technology renders the approved antenna or the screening
structure obsolete due to performance or aesthetic considerations, the antenna may
be replaced or removed at the expense of the applicant, subject to review by the
Planning Commission.
Chairman Cohen asked if the subject project should be treated in the same manner by the
Planning Commission as the proposed cell site at the City's tree farm along Camino
Capistrano. Mr. Kirk responded that would not be appropriate since the City owns and has
lease control over the "tree farm" parcel, while the subject property is privatelyowned,
PC Meeting Minutes 3 Auqust 24, 2010
Aaolicant Presentation
Amy Weeks, representing T -Mobile Wireless, advised the Commission she had reviewed
the conditions of approval and that T Mobile was amenable to all conditions.
Public Hearing
Chairman Cohen open the public hearing and the following persons provided public
testimony.
Jim Maag advised the Commission that he opposed the project as presently proposed due
to potential environmental health impacts, especially those related to the close proximity of
the cell site facility to Marco Forster Middle School and Kinoshita Elementary School and
potential exposure of children to non -ionizing, electromagnetic radiation (NIER). Mr. Maag
submitted information provided by Los Angeles City Councilwoman Janice Hahn's office on
EMF (electromagnetic field radiation).
Commission Discussion
Commissioner Ratcliffe asked whether the cell site was justified due to a lack of coverage or
capacity. Mr. Kirk responded that staff evaluated coverage analysis by the applicant cell
carriers to verify any coverage issue, and with respect tothe subject application, T -Mobile
had met the Federal FCC standard in demonstrating a lack of cell coverage in the immediate
vicinity of the project.
Commissioner Kerr stated that she thought the proposed design of the project was
appropriate and compatible with the project setting but would like additional information
about EMF and potential adverse health effects. Commission Attorney Eggart advised the
Planning Commission that that the City and all local agencies were effectively pre-empted
from considering EMF which was under sole authority of the Federal government.
Commissioner Williams stated that while he was not a "big fan" of the proposed project and
design approach, he concurred with the need for service. He stated that the City needs to
assure that the conditions are written to guarantee that what is constructed will be the same
as the design displayed in the view simulation. Condition of approval #10 is a good idea and
he expressed support for the condition.
Commissioner Mocalis stated that he concurred with Commissioner Kerr's concerns
especially assuring that the water tank design accurately reflects the appearance of a "rural
water tower/tank." He acknowledged Mr. Eggart's comments on FCC limits to local
discretionary authority.
Commissioner Neely stated that the design appears substantially consistent with theprior
DRC and Commission design direction. He agreed with Commissioner Williams that the
plans need to provide additional specificity and noted that the view simulations and the
project plans were inconsistent in several significant ways. He stated that the DRC should
confirm the adequacy of the final design for the project. Mr. Kirk responded that staff
conditions with some refinement would provide assurances to the Commission on the
project design.
PC Meetinq Minutes 4 Auqust 24, 2010
Chairman Cohen asked if any siting alternative had been considered and Mr. Kirk replied
that the City and T -Mobile has considered the Sports Park field lighting towers as a potential
location. However, they did not provide sufficient coverage of the Del Obispo Street corridor
to meet the main service objective of the project. Mr. Cohen stated his support for condition
of approval #10 and the City's ability to revisit the project design in the future as technology
improves.
Adoption of Resolution
PC RESOLUTION NO. 10-8-24-1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 09-015 A RESOLUTION
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO
APPROVING THE PLANS FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A WIRELESS
TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY THAT INCLUDES TWELVE PADDLE ANTENNAS
AND SIX PIECES OF GROUND MOUNTED EQUIPMENT LOCATED AT 32382 DEL
OBISPO GENERALLY LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 1500 FEET NORTH EAST OF
CAMINO DEL AVION AND MORE SPECIFICALLY REFERRED TO AS APN 121-182-53.
Commissioner Mocalis made a motion for staff recommendation, seconded by
Commissioner Kerr to adopt a resolution conditionally approving the proposed project
subject to an additional condition requiring Design Review Committee (DRC) review and
approval of final design plans. The motion passed by a 6-0 vote.
AYES: Chairman Sheldon Cohen, Commissioners Gene Ratcliffe, Ginny
Kerr, Jim Mocalis, Tim Neely, and Rob Williams
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
2. Consideration of a General Plan Amendment (GPA) 10-001, Rezone (RZ) 10-001,
Architectural Control (AC)10-002, Grading Plan Modification (GPM)10-001, Tree Removal
Permit (TRP)10-003, Floodplain Land Use Permit (FP)10-001, Tentative Parcel Map (TPM)
10-001, Plaza Banderas Hotel; a proposed mixed-use development that encompasses a
74,973 square foot, 124 -room hotel, approximately 14,500 square feet of commercial land
uses, including 6,509 square feet of retail commercial floor area, a 5,747 square foot
restaurant, and a 1,971 square foot private office on an existing 3.18 acre property located
at 26871 & 26891 Ortega Highway and generally located at the northeast corner of Ortega
Highway and EI Camino Real (APN124 -170 -12,14,15,16) (Applicant: Stroscher G3,
Gretchen Stroscher Thomson)(Proiect Manager: David Contreras, Senior Planner)
Staff presentation & recommendation
David Contreras, Senior Planner made the staff presentation and described the project as a
proposed mixed use development that encompasses a 74,973 square foot, 124 -room hotel,
approximately 14,500 square feet of commercial land uses, including 6,509 square feet of
retail commercial floor area, a 5,747 square foot restaurant, and a 1,971 square foot private
office. Primary access to the site is from Ortega Highway along the property's southern
boundary. Also, a proposed driveway on EI Camino Real and two driveways on Spring
Street would provide secondary site access. A total of 185 parking spaces are proposed to
accommodate guests of the hotel as well as the retail, office, and restaurant uses. Curb side
parking is available on the south side of Spring Street adjacent to the subject property.
PC Meeting Minutes 5 Auqust 24, 2010
Based on the information submitted with the application the following information pertains to
the project. The total project site consists of 3.18 acres(138,520.8 sf).
Mr. Contreras advised the Commission that the DRC had reviewed the project at their
August 19 and staff had crafted additional conditions of approval (#60-62) to address the
need for further DRC review to resolve outstanding design issues related to design details,
colors, finishes, etc. Those conditions are also contained in the Commission's draft
resolution.
Staff recommended that the Planning Commission open the public hearing, accept public
comment, close the public hearing and following discussion and consideration; by
motion: adopt a resolution forwarding the proposed project to the City Council with a
favorable recommendation subject to the conditions of approval and mitigation measures
contained in the draft resolution.
Commission Questions
Commissioner Kerr asked about shared parking and Mr. Contreras replied that the applicant
had prepared and submitted a shared parking study that had been evaluated in the Draft
EIR and based on staff's analysis, the proposed parking would be sufficient to meet the
parking demands of the project.
Commissioner Mocalis noted a needed correction to the draft resolution (p. 6, item 5.) and
staff responded that the word "are" would be deleted so the finding read correctly. He asked
if a full tree survey had been completed and Mr. Contreras replied that the project landscape
architect, Land Concern, had completed a comprehensive survey of all trees onsite.
Commissioner Kerr stated that original landscape concept had included a small citrus
(orange) orchard near the east end of the hotel building and asked if that would be retained
in the preliminary design plans. Mr. Contreras responded that the follow-up review of the
landscape plans by the Design Review Committee would provide discretion to include that
feature in the project landscape palette.
Aoplicant Presentation
Tom Merrell, Civic Solutions, made the applicant presentation and reviewed the main design
attributes of the project including building heights and setbacks, architectural design, parking
and land uses. Chairman Cohen asked about finished grades in relation to the elevation of
State Route -74 (Ortega Highway) and Mr. Merrell replied that the project site would be about
5-6 feet below Ortega at the east end of the site and roughly at grade at the west end. He
noted that while the project proposes an 0.66 floor area ratio (FAR), after realignment of
State Route -74 (Ortega Highway) and the conveyance of right-of-way to the hotel site, the
project would have an 0.58 FAR. Mr. Merrell reviewed the draft conditions of approval and
indicated that conditions 49, 57, 65a, 80, 86, 111, 120, 121, and 122 were not acceptable as
presently written and the applicant requested revisions to be documented in writing to the
City.
Commission Questions
Chairman Cohen asked about the shared parking study and specifically, how would the
parking accommodate all the proposed uses, especially given the removal of the existing
PC Meeting Minutes 6 August 24, 2010
parking lot at the corner of State Route -74 (Ortega Highway) and EI Camino Real. Mr.
Merrell responded that the parking has not been designed to accommodate a worst-case
scenario, but would accommodate maximum typical peak parking demand. While 100%
hotel occupancy could occur during certain summer periods, that would be rare and a 78
80% occupancy rate would be typical during most of the year.
Public Hearing
Geoff Sumich stated that the design was not up to City standards; the Franciscan
Promenade project on Camino Capistrano was an excellent example of a well-designed,
exquisitely -detailed building which the hotel project should emulate in terms of design
quality; the hotel proposes too much stucco wall area and is not authentic in its design
approach; and the City needs to negotiate with the applicant to secure a substantially
improved architectural design for the site.
Lisa Wilhelm concurred with Mr. Sumich's testimony and stated that the project was built to
the maximum intensity; the elevations were dominated by windows; the elevations conveyed
a monotonous appearance; the project architect needs to do a better job; and public safety
is a concern.
David Ewing stated that the project has a lot of potential and maintaining the "urban edge"
along the streetscape is a good feature of the project and is on the "right track"; parking will
be adequate; the architecture is the main concern and needs to embody a unique and
authentic approach; and the City will need to negotiate a better archibctural design.
Bill Lopez stated that the project needs to address potential impacts of the project to the
historic Stroschein house located at the southeast corner of EI Camino Real and Spring
Street.
Commission Discussion
Commissioner Ratcliffe stated that the architectural design was the main concern and that
the applicant needed to "raise the bar." Follow-up review of the design by the City will also
be needed to assure the project meets the City's guidelines. She stated the Commission will
need to assure that adequate parking is provided. The proposed grading concept forthe site
appears acceptable. Mr. Ramsey responded that staff -recommended condition of approval
#60 would address the need for follow-up review of the architectural plans by the Design
Review Committee.
Commissioner Kerr asked for clarification of the view simulations and discussed the issue
with Commissioner Ratcliffe who clarified the matter. She stated that parking was not a
concern for her until she read that the shared parking study assumed peak employee
parking demand would occur from 6 pm to 6 am. In response, Mr. Barretto explained the
shared parking study and the assumptions that validated the conclusion that the proposed
184 parking spaces would be sufficient. He noted that on -street parking and off-street public
parking in the vicinity of the project would address the occasional worst-case parking
scenario and provide a "safety net" with respect to adequate parking.
Commissioner Williams stated the project is an "exciting" addition to the historic downtown
and the project site is a "great" location." However, the proposed architectural design is a
major concern. He questioned whether the Commission could make findings for the
PC Meetinq Minutes 7 August 24, 2010
Architectural Control (AC) approval when the design required significant additional review
and attention. Ramsey stated that staff conditions #60 through 62 were intended to assure
that the final design would be fully consistent with the City's Architectural Design Guidelines.
Commissioner Ratcliffe stated that she agreed with Commissioner Kerr comments and
concern over the adequacy of parking.
Commissioner Mocalis advised Mr. Lopez that the Stroschein house has been protected
through the proposed site design which provides buffering and parking against the common
property line and provides a substantial setback for the hotel and other buildings. He stated
that he was impressed with the overall project, the efficiency of the City's process and stated
that the hotel was arguably the most important project in the downtown.
Commissioner Neely stated that he fully concurred with the prior commentsand concerns
expressed by Commissioner Williams and Mr. Sumich and that the building architecture and
parking remained as major unresolved issues that require atention.
Chairman Cohen stated the proposed hotel was one of the most important projects in the
City over the past twenty years and because of that, the fast-track processing has been a
disservice. The Planning Commission needs to be involved in the review and approval of the
final architectural plans to assure the project becomes an asset for the downtown. The
applicant needs to submit the view simulations previously requested. He reiterated that the
Planning Commission needs to be an integral and important part of the project review
process.
Commissioner Williams stated that he would like the Commission to be able to meet the
October 5 City Council action date, but the applicant needs to do a much better job in
providing the necessary design revisions and information to allow the Commission to
conclude review and forward a recommendation to City Council.
Chairman Cohen stated that the project and the new staff -recommended conditions (#60-62)
need to be presented to the Design Review Committee. Commissioner Williams concurred
that the conditions require revision and DRC review.
Commissioner Neely clarified the Design Review Committee's role and stated that it would
be disingenuous to make the Architectural Control (AC) findings when the project design
clearly does not meet the City's Architectural Design Guidelines. He stated that the findings
and conditions both needed to be substantially revised to reconcile this issue. If these
cannot be reconciled, then the project can't be supported.
Commissioner Ratcliffe stated that the Planning Commission should not allow itself to be
"boxed -in" to making a decision.
Commissioner Kerr stated that while she agreed that the project design need to be fine-
tuned, it did not need to be substantially redesigned.
Mr. Taylor briefed the Commission on its available options and stressed the point that the
Commission must make a recommendation to City Council no later than the next
Commission meeting on September 14. At that time, staff will present resolutions for both
conditional approval and denial and the commission will need to "pull the trigger." He agreed
PC Meeting Minutes 8 August 24, 2010
that the findings and conditions should be reviewed by DRC and staff would get that
completed prior to the September 14 Commission hearing.
Commissioner Neely stated that the Design Review Committee should also review the
proposed findings for the Architectural Control (AC) application action. Neely made a motion
to continue the public hearing and consideration of the project to the Commission's
September 14 hearing, and refer the Architectural Control (AC) findings and revised
conditions of approval to the DRC for review and comment. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Ratcliffe and passed by a 6.0 vote.
3. Continued Consideration of General Plan Amendment (GPA)10-02; Code Amendment (CA
10-01; Establishing General Plan Policies in the Land Use and Community Design
Elements, Amending the Architectural Design Guidelines, and Amending Title 9, Land Use
Code Regulations for Hotels and Motels (Proiect Manager: Grant Taylor, Development
Services Director).
Staff presentation & recommendation
Grant Taylor, Development Services Director made the staff presentation and hoted that this
Code Amendment project had been initiated by City Council. He reviewed the Commission's
prior worksessions and recommendations on the draft ordinance amendments and
Architectural Design Guideline amendments. As a result of those worksessions, as well as
public testimony, Mr. Taylor advised that staff proposes changes to certain General Plan
policies on hotel land use, revisions to the Architectural Design Guidelines, amendments to
the City's hotel development standards as follows:
• Increase hotel building height to a maximum 45 feet for habitable areas from finished
grade with roof elements and architectural projections permitted to a maximum height of
55 feet.
• Increase hotel project floor area ratio (FAR) to maximum 0.65:1 for all buildings on the
subject property.
• First floor to second and third floor FAR ratio for hotels shall be determined by the
Planning Commission.
• Parking shall be provided: 1 space per guest room
Mr. Taylor stated that the Planning Commission may require additional spaces for accessory
uses to include restaurants and banquet/conference/meeting facilities. Parking standards
may be reduced with a parking study and/or shared parking agreement. Staff also
recommends revisions to the Architectural Design Guidelines to establish additional guiding
policies on the design and development of hotel and motel uses. Finally, staff proposes
changes that would foster hotel development whilemotels would continue to be regulated
under current standards. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission 1) adopt a
resolution recommending the City Council certify the Negative Declaration and approve
General Plan Amendment (GPA) 10-02; 2) adopt a resolution recommending the City
Council certify the Negative Declaration and introduce an ordinance approving Code
Amendment (CA) 10-01; and, 3) adopt a resolution recommending the City Council certify
the Negative Declaration and approve amending the Architectural Design Guidelines,
Chapter VI.
PC Meetinq Minutes 9 Auqust 24, 2010
Commission Questions
Commissioner Williams asked if the proposed amendments had been revised to differentiate
between hotels and motels and Mr. Taylor replied that they had been. He stated that the
proposed amendments would only address "hotel" uses, and the current standards for
"motels" would remain unchanged.
Chairman Cohen asked if the amendment proposes to allow "hotels" within all zoning
districts and Mr. Taylor responded that they would only be permitted in certain commercial
and industrial zoning districts. He stated that the parking standards should establish an
absolute minimum numerical requirement.
Commissioner Williams stated that basing parking on the proposed room count is a
reasonable approach to consider, and would help encourage higher -quality hotel
development by providing convenience and accommodating guest needs.
Commissioner Ratcliffe asked if the "PC" (Planned Community) Zone District has the ability
to provide greater flexibility in establishing parking standards and Mr. Taylor responded that
it does. He noted that while that flexibility exists, the city must still assure that any project in a
"PC" Zone district provides adequate parking.
James Eggart, Commission Attorney, stated that the parking ordinance provisions could
establish a minimum numerical parking requirement for hotel uses or the zone district
standards could include notations within the land use tables prescribing how parking
requirements are established.
Commissioner Neely stated he would not be supporting the proposed amendments because
the development standards (i.e. floor area ratio, building height, setbacks, etc.) undermine
the integrity of the City's design review process. The proposed amendment to the parking
standards which provide discretion makes sense. He concluded by stating the City should
ultimately rely on the design review process to determine the acceptability of project site
planning and architecture.
Mr. Taylor noted that the proposed development standards which include a maximum height
of 55'-0" would result in all hotels being the highest buildings within the City.
Commissioner Kerr disagreed with Commissioner Neely and stated that while the design
process was extremely important, the City must have minimum and maximum development
standards because while the current DRC had excellent design review qualifications and
ability, future Committees may not.
Commissioner Williams stated that as a practicing architect, he would prefer not to have
standards and to have complete latitude in design. However, he thought standards were
ultimately necessary to constrain the unscrupulous.
Chairman Cohen stated he tends to agree with Commissioner Neely and asked if the city
really need to adopt the proposed amendments. He asked, "Are we concerned about the
future," in a way that creates the need for the proposed amendments.
Commissioner Neely stated that the General Plan should not contain development
standards. The General Plan should provide a broad policy framework and the City's Land
PC Meeting Minutes 10 August 24, 2010
Use Code should establish development standards. The City should eliminate the floor area
ratio (FAR) provisions of the General Plan Land Use Element. The city should put the
burden on the applicants for hotel projects to demonstrate their proposals are consistent with
the City's General Plan and Design Guidelines.
Public Hearing
Chairman Cohen opened the public hearing and seeing no one coming forward to provide
testimony, closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion
Commissioner Mocalis stated that he agreed with Commissioner Neely in concept and the
City's main concern needs to be focused on securing the highest quality of development
possible.
Commissioner Ratcliffe said she agreed in principle with Commissioner Neely's position and
that it was dangerous to give the development community the idea that they were entitled to
a certain level or intensity of development.
Commissioner Kerr stated that without standards, the resulting subjectivity would be
worrisome and could result in arbitrary and capricious decision-making. Development
standards are necessary in order to provide the public with certainty.
Commissioner Williams stated that some standards and restrictions are necessary. He
noted that historically, the development review process in the City has been rigorous and so,
the City needs to provide a process and development standards to encourage the type of
development the city desires to promote. He statedhe supports the amendments.
Chairman Cohen reiterated the he doesn't see a compelling need for the proposed
amendments.
Commissioner Kerr made a motion for staff recommendation, seconded by Commissioner
Williams. The motion failed by a 2-4 vote (Chairman Cohen, and Commissioners Ratcliffe,
Mocalis and Neely opposed).
Adoption of Resolution
PC RESOLUTION NO. 10-8-24-2, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA) 10-02; CODE
AMENDMENT (CA) 10-01; ESTABLISHING GENERAL PLAN POLICIES IN THE LAND
USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENTS, AMENDING THE ARCHITECTURAL
DESIGN GUIDELINES AND AMENDING TITLE 9 LAND USE CODE REGULATIONS FOR
HOTELS AND MOTELS.
Commissioner Neely made a motion to forward the proposed amendments to the City
Council with a recommendation of denial with a resolution and appropriate findings provided
to the Commission for review and acceptance at the September 14 meeting. Commissioner
Ratcliffe seconded the motion which passed by a 4-2 vote (Commissioners Williams and
Kerr opposed).
PC Meeting Minutes 11 August 24, 2010
AYES: Chairman Sheldon Cohen, Commissioners Gene Ratcliffe, Jim
Mocalis, and Tim Neely.
NOES: Commissioners Williams and Kerr.
ABSTAIN: None
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
NEW BUSINESS
None.
STAFF & COMMISSION COMMENTS
Commissioner Williams asked about the status of the Union Bank "bell" ornament on the
fencing and Mr. Taylor responded that the "bell" was indicated on the City -approved plans
and that staff had requested both the bank President and contractor to remove the "bell"
ornaments but they had declined to do so.
Commissioner Neely briefed the Commission on the status and recent activity involving the
City's work with Caltrans on the Interstate-5/State Route -74 (Ortega Highway) interchange
design plans, especially landscaping, signage, retaining walls, and bridge rail details.
Although Caltrans has made minors changes, several major design elements remain
unresolved.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:12 p.m.
The next regular meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, August 24, 2010, at 6:30 p.m. in the Council
Chambers.
Approved on September 14, 2010:
mjjzlq�& fi'G .
Wi m A. Ramsey, AICP, Principal Pla er
Planning Commission Secretary