Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008/03/26 - Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES I Regular Meeting March 26, 2008 Chairman Stewart called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:20 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chambers at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Richard Fletcher, Lou Munoz, Pam Stewart ABSENT: Frances Howdyshell, Ray Wimberly STAFF PRESENT: Candyce Burnett, Senior Planner; Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Rina Leung, Senior Planner; Mayuko Nakajima,Assistant Planner; Corkran Nicholson,Assistant Planning Director; Lois Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS None 111 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Munoz, seconded by Fletcher, carried 3-0-2 (Howdyshell,Wimberly absent),to approve the regular meeting minutes of March 12, 2008 with a minor correction noted regarding the Trails Report. Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by Munoz, carried 3-0-2(Howdyshell,Wimberly absent),to approve the workshop meeting minutes of March 12, 2008 CONSENT CALENDAR A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONSIDERATION OF INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE DRC2008-00074 - A request To add Chapter 17.42 to the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code pertaining to Inclusionary Housing requirements for certain residential projects. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. This item will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. Rina Leung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report and a powerpoint presentation. She noted that a letter from the Building Industry Association (BIA) had been received opposing the ordinance. I She concluded her report by noting that staff is recommending a continuance to a date non-specific to allow for a full Commission review. • Chairman Stewart clarified that the Commission is missing two members this evening and therefore, there is not a full Commission to review the ordinance. Vice Chairman Fletcher added that there is a great deal of information included in the staff report that required more time to review than what was given. He also mentioned that data was received from Frank Williams of the BIA for which he did not see a response and he would like to see that. He said he was not convinced of the need for the ordinance and the effects of it as well. He suggested a joint workshop with the City Council prior to the next full Commission review of the Ordinance. He said it is quite complicated. Ms. Leung said that if the Commission pleases staff will prepare a written response to the comments provided by Mr. Williams as well,as hold a workshop. Commissioner Munoz asked how much input was received from the development community. Ms. Leung read who was to be included in the noticing list for the public hearing (provided by the RDA), including: Link Housing Corp, National Core Renaissance, Building Industry Association of Southern California (BIA), Workforce Housing Builders, Northtown Housing Development, Lewis Companies, and the City of Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce, a total of 7 entities. Commissioner Munoz remarked for the audience that anyone that wants to speak about this will be allowed to do so following the Commission's questions. He asked if we have been in workshop on this issue since last year. Ms. Leung responded that one workshop was held in December of 2007. She said if the Commission prefers, they could take it back to a workshop. Kevin Ennis,Assistant City Attorney, asked if the noticing list for the workshop held in December by the RDA differed from the noticing for this Commission meeting. Ms. Leung reported that the list she read refers to this public hearing. She did not have that data available because the workshop was held by the RDA but that we could get it. Commissioner Munoz clarified that he was referring to any input/comment from the building industry and if they were fully aware of the item being in process; if they were involved or were they only aware of the meeting this evening. He said he was just trying to determine their level of input thus far. Ms. Leung commented that since her involvement and her tenure of one year, the building industry was informed of this hearing and, although it would have to be confirmed by the RDA, it was her understanding that they had also met with the RDA staff about this issue. She said that she would have to get the answers from the RDA. Vice Chairman Fletcher commented that their response letter was not dated until March 14, 2008 and therefore he assumed they had not received prior notice to that (to the notice for tonight's meeting). Ms. Leung said that if the Commission pleases they could go back for a workshop and invite any interested entities. Chairman Stewart said that after public comment the Commission would formulate its direction so that they can proceed. Planning Commission Minutes -2- March 26, 2008 • Vice Chairman Fletcher asked if the Ordinance would affect the land in our Sphere of Influence, now zoned as Open Space, and then is subsequently annexed and changed to Residential. Corkran Nicholson, Assistant Planning Director said that it would. Vice Chairman Fletcther asked even if the Development Agreement is hammered out prior to the annexation process, would it fall under the requirements of the ordinance. Ms. Leung clarified that not all the parameters were covered in her presentation because of the request for a continuance, but that if there is a Development Agreement,then it would not be subject to the Ordinance. Vice Chairman Fletcher said the agreement would be hammered out as part of the annexation process; he still had a question as to whether it would be affected by the ordinance. He said he had many other questions that he would not go into tonight. Mr. Ennis commented that if the land in the Sphere of Influence is designated by the General Plan as Open Space and then proposed to change to Residential, (increasing the intensity)then it would trigger one of the thresholds for the Ordinance, however if the annexation is approved concurrently with the Development Agreement then the development could fall under one of the exceptions and not be affected by the Ordinance. Commissioner Munoz asked if that holds if it is approved prior to the effective date of the Ordinance. Mr. Ennis said that is a separate exception. He said the Development Agreement could be entered into after the effective date of the Ordinance and still be exempt from the provisions of the ordinance. Chairman Stewart opened the public hearing and reminded the public that the item is recommended for continuance. Frank Williams, Chief Executive Officer of the BIA said when he was informed of the ordinance on March 14th,and he immediately wrote a letter with over 600 pages of attachments/studies and that it is his contention that inclusionary zoning is a failed public policy. He said he is glad it is being continued and that there will be some workshops and dialogue. He remarked that this also occurred in Chino Hills where a task force was organized and they were able to work out an ordinance that is fair. He said the builders are being asked to set aside these units and then spread the cost over the project, thereby making the builder subsidize the 'mortgage' of others. He said it adds costs to homes and then even fewer low to moderate cost homes are built. He said with set aside fees, the monies collected are then often not used for the purpose of affordable housing. He said the BIA wants to partner with us, but that when you increase the cost of a home 20-40 thousand dollars, many will be left out. He commented that if they had been noticed, they would have been on top of this and that they would have had input and worked with staff on this. He said they have not had any input. He said on March 14th he hand carried his letter and attachments to the Planning Director and was promised an e-mailed copy of the staff report and the ordinance and he did not get either one. He said one of his staff forwarded it to him just today. He said he felt they could come up with a program by working with the City that will benefit the City and the Building industry. Commissioner Munoz commented that some work needs to be done and to include the Building industry and the BIA's input in that. He said he would like to get a workshop going with the building industry's input and he is certain they can craft a policy that will work for everyone. Vice Chairman Fletcher commented that this application came to Planning as a result of the studies of the two member Council subcommittee. He said he assumes that the workshop will be with the Planning Commission Minutes -3- March 26, 2008 full Commission and Council so that everyone has the data and information. He said it is a complex report and a short amount of time to make a decision on something so important. He said when government gets involved in regulating private industry often has a negative effect. He said he believes it is a good idea to continue this until after sufficient workshop discussion has occurred. Chairman Stewart commented that this report is over 100 pages and the data is very complex to read and understand. She said she read the letter from the BIA and they have raised some questions that she would like to see answers to. She said that in the current economy and the possible length of time before an economic recovery, she believes that some concessions could be made. She said she needs more education and a workshop. She said she would like a full list of who this information was circulated to including how the first workshop was conducted. She said they need to go further than just a workshop and include the interested parties. She said that she believes this issue is far greater than a two person housing subcommittee. She remarked that she does not see herself as a Council member and that she recognizes the Council as the leaders of the City, but that she believes for this issue, it should be a full task force. She added that she is saying this with the knowledge that when you call for a task force, and you invite a bunch of people, the focus could be lost and she does not want to see that happen either; we need to get the job done. She said they need the people who ran these studies to come, get in front of them and then the task force can challenge them and get answers to their questions. She said at this point she feels ill- prepared to move or act on the item and that it will require multiple task force meetings to address it. She said that she believes it will not take place quickly and that she hopes they will not be asked to move on this in the next month or two because it will take more time than that. Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by Munoz, to continue DRC2008-00074 to an unspecified date with the Commission request for a full taskforce with multiple meetings prior to the item being brought back to the Commission so that the issues brought forward by the building industry and the questions of the Commission be addressed. (3-0-2 Howdyshell and Wimberly absent). Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MUNOZ, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: HOWDYSHELL, WIMBERLY - carried B. RESOLUTION OF DENIAL FOR USE DETERMINATION DRC2008-00179—LEGG MASON REAL ESTATE INVESTORS, INC.—Per the direction of the Planning Commission (March 12, 2008 meeting), the adoption of a resolution of denial for a Use Determination for a "Fresh & Easy" market to be categorized under the "Specialty Food Store" land use category within the Specialty Commercial District of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan (Subarea 2).Mayuko Nakajima, Assistant Planner presented the staff report. Chairman Stewart commented that this is not a public hearing but that members of the audience may come forward to speak. She said that the item before the Commission is a resolution of denial. Jerry Ogburn, from the Planning Center, stated he represents Legg Mason Real Estate Investors, Inc. He said they have many people in the audience representing the owners, and Fresh & Easy that would like to speak. He asked for a reconsideration of the Commission decision to deny the Use Determination. He said that because at the last meeting there were many questions about design, vacancies, etc. that they were not specifically able to address, and that the discussion went beyond the Use Determination. He said they have worked on a tenant relocation plan and a site plan and because the Commission is missing two members, and the Planning Director is not in attendance, they would either like to make a presentation this evening or if the item is continued, they could wait until there is a full Commission in two weeks. He said they are all prepared to speak to many aspects of the issue. He said they are working with the tenants and there is much interest Planning Commission Minutes -4- March 26, 2008 in pushing this forward if possible. He said it is an opportunity to revitalize a fallow center that needs a stimulus and Fresh & Easy is a component of that. He said they would like to make a full presentation and that they sought the Commission's guidance on that but that they could also wait until there was a full Commission and the Director is present. Chairman Stewart confirmed that their testimony/discussion would be related to the Use Determination and not the master planning of the center because that is entirely a different issue. Mr. Ogburn said they could focus their discussion on the Use as a specialty market. He said there were concerns about design, vacancies and those kinds of issues. He said they thought they were prepared to discuss the Use Determination. Commissioner Munoz and Vice Chairman Fletcher agreed with Chairman Stewart to hear his presentation. Mr. Ogburn said they believe they are a specialty market in that they have the special healthy line of foods and it is a small niche market and that something like Fresh&Easy is needed to revitalize the fallow center. He said it is a small market size. He said he would limit his remarks because he is involved in the overall revitalization of the project. He said they really need something like Fresh& Easy for the bigger picture. Brian Corbell of Legg Mason Real Estate Inc., said they focus on opportunities to add value to underutilized centers. He said the center is well located in a historically significant center and that there are many vacancies with below market rents and their focus for the plan is to draw more traffic so that the tenants can benefit and that they are in this for profit along with their investors. He said they have made great efforts in outreach to the tenants in that the future includes them. He said they went to conventions and scoured the market to find the right tenant and a number could work but Fresh & Easy has the ability and desire to join them in this project. He said this is the only opportunity that they see in the near future and there is an investment of about 5 million dollars in addition to cosmetic improvements to the center. He said without Fresh & Easy, their planned improvements would be hard to justify. He said this would not be their(Fresh& Easy) cookie-cutter approach, new from the ground up with river rock and towers in the design that will help them blend better, i.e.the right tenant at the right time and an answer to the new developments on the east side of town. Russell Perkins of Evergreen Development, representing Fresh & Easy, said he believes it is a specialty market because the size of the market is small, unique and convenient using natural light, wider aisles with great food that is trustworthy-their own line is free of artificial colors,flavorings and trans-fats with limited use of preservatives, and the company has a pilot membership in Leadership in Energy Environmental Design (LEED). He said no tobacco products would be sold and they have an extensive wine selection (one wine was awarded 90 Parker points from the Wine Advocate). (He presented a number of products to the audience/wine, cheese, Spanish chorizo,vodka cream pasta sauce, dark chocolate with ginger, etc.). He mentioned some of the specialty products he did not believe were available elsewhere. He said he thinks it is quite special. Sandie Smith, a resident of Rancho Cucamonga, stated she also is a leasing agent. She said from a retail marketing perspective, a specialty market could be defined as one that does not compete with a traditional neighborhood market. She said as a single parent, it is an alternative to fast food, it is healthy, fresh and convenient, and that she would still go to her regular market or the club store for her bulk shopping items. She said it does not compete because she will still go there(the larger markets). Shari Megaw, said she is a resident and a patron of this center and her opinion is the businesses she frequents there are thriving. She mentioned concern about the one of a kind businesses that Planning Commission Minutes -5- March 26, 2008 are already in the center that may be displaced. She commented the Vodka pasta cream sauce can be purchased at Vons,the cheese can be ordered, the wine can be purchased at the Wine Tailor or the winery. She supported the adoption of the resolution of denial. Norm MacKenzie, President and CEO of the Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce, expressed concern regarding the displacement of eight businesses and their 50 employees. He said the owner and the planner met with the Chamber on the previous Friday. He said the applicants wanted to address the areas of concern. He said they talked with the tenants and he said he agreed with the issues they addressed but there is still nothing in writing,they are concerned they may not keep their promises, and that there was a lot of lip service. He said the property has been neglected for about 9 years but they have made good progress in upgrading it last year. He said stores of this sort have failed in the past and that it is all very speculative as to whether this will increase the traffic to the other tenants. He said the tenants basically signed an agreement that they like the project because they will see more foot traffic. He remarked that in today's economy, its not likely. He read a portion of an article indicating that Tesco plans on opening 48 stores in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties but the company is 70 million dollars behind in their US sales expectations. He supported the adoption of the resolution of denial. Jim Peugh stated he is a resident within walking distance of the center. He said it appears vibrant to him. He remarked the west end of town is impacted by the economy and the development on the east end of town. He said this center is more vibrant than others nearby. He said there are other centers that are experiencing the loss of tenants with vacancies that all have good locations that would not require the destruction of existing businesses. He said that if this company (Fresh & Easy) is intent on being "green,"why would they not consider the recycling buildings and that they will be destroying buildings and businesses to bring in their store. He supported adopting the resolution of denial. Angie Nett, CB Richard Ellis, commented that she is a leasing agent. She said the plan does not displace or destroy businesses and that they can show the Commission this plan. She added that she has signed letters from the tenants that can be presented to the Commission that the tenants signed saying that they agree to the specialty market and that they believe it would revitalize the center and that those are available for the Commissioner's review. Andy Megaw, a nearby resident, commented that the products mentioned at the meeting tonight can be found at many other stores,that there is nothing special about this store and that there are plenty of other locations for them to go into as a tenant. Bill Shea, owner of Windsor Cottage (a tenant of the Thomas Winery Plaza), commented that although their store is doing well,the adjoining tenant spaces in their building are becoming vacant. He said their plan to move in Fresh & Easy there would increase traffic. He said he is fortunate that he is located next to Soup Plantation and people often come to his store after eating, but the same is not true for the suites further north such as the Tea Garden that is planning to leave. He said the current owner is doing a tremendous job of making the plaza look more respectable. He said the applicants came and met with him and his wife and presented the plan to them and that it was good to see how it might make the plaza more vibrant than it is currently. Chairman Stewart, seeing and hearing no further comment, closed the comment period. Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney, commented that the Chairman previously stated that the Commission's action tonight is to consider a resolution of denial for the Use Determination. He said the focus of their inquiry was to see if staff really captured the Commission's direction accurately and articulated the rationale for their potential denial in the resolution and that it is at their discretion to adopt the resolution of denial but that if they do not want to adopt the resolution, they have the option to take other action as well. He said the item could be continued to another meeting or they Planning Commission Minutes -6- March 26, 2008 could also direct staff to bring back a resolution of approval. He said that if they are comfortable with the information they have and the resolution that has been prepared, they could adopt that tonight. Chairman Stewart directed the discussion back to the Commission. Commissioner Munoz said that he is one that has a problem with the designation of "specialty" because generally when the Commission makes a finding, data is needed to make that finding. He said that they really need to understand what"specialty" means and that he believes we are putting the cart before the horse. He said he is confused by the fact that they are talking about alternatives and they are talking about a plan for the plaza that the Commission has never seen. He said he believes it is a matter of procedure and that'specialty" means different things to different people and that when he compares notes with other people, their idea is quite different from his. He said he would like to direct staff to go back and figure that out. He said he did not believe he could approve a resolution giving a"specialty"designation to something when he does not know what"specialty"is. He said that is why there is a resolution to deny and it in no way precludes someone from coming back with a project with an amendment to a code or plan. He said clearly they do not understand what the City considers"specialty." He said the Commission was to decide if it is a specialty market or not, and not to consider a plan or a project, displaced businesses or a center, but to consider whether this is a specialty market. He said there is not enough data to determine that and so he would direct staff to get together and figure out what "specialty" means to this City. Vice Chairman Fletcher said he takes a slightly different view although he did mention that at the last meeting staff was asked to bring back a definition of specialty food stores so that property owners and developers know and have a sense of an appropriate use there. He said the Commission had personal opinions that this is not a specialty food store for various reasons. He said Legg Mason is very fortunate to own this property, it is a great location and that what they have done is a good start. He said the vacancies have nothing to do with the Use Determination before them or the mix of tenants, or the location, but that he believes they are more attributable to the way the plaza has been managed in the past and the many years of neglect in the maintenance of the center. He reported that the Code says this use is intended to promote a special landmark quality or special ambiance. He said he has not seen or heard what the special ambiance is with Fresh & Easy and even after visiting two of their stores he is confused with what the business concept is. He said that staff said that it may fall under the supermarket land use category which is not permitted at this location. He said he got the feel of a mini-supermarket; it has self check out lanes and the flooring has been torn out and polished with the old markings from the floor remaining. He said there is bright lighting, wider aisles and a nice display of pre-packaged foods but it is an odd combination and it takes away from what ambiance or specialty there was supposed to be. He said that Trader Joes and Henry's Market or David and Harry's have a more distinctive character/an old country store style and what he might consider a specialty food store. He said that having items that might not be found in a regular supermarket can also be found at a 99cent store and that many of those items come from Mexico or South America but that does not make them a specialty food store. He added that he does not find the Fresh&Easy Store and concept fits the category but that they had asked staff to go back and develop a definition so that there is not a concern or misunderstanding with property owners and developers. He remarked that the "grab and go" concept does not sound special to him but is more indicative of a convenience store. He said it is something between a convenience store and a small supermarket that is not an approved use. He said he personally believes it does not fit the use and therefore he agrees to the resolution of denial. He said he is confused about what their business plan and what their target market is and that he continues to see negative publications about their chain. He said the publications are generally • negative about the operations of the chain and that it stems from the confusion about what market they serve and what it is (referred to an article found in The Business Press). Planning Commission Minutes -7- March 26, 2008 Commissioner Munoz commented that in spite of some of the discouraging things that have been said, he would welcome Fresh& Easy with a project or a future project to the City and that he would encourage them. He said the Commission is trying to figure out where this niche fits and once they do that and that if they(the applicants) have a plan, they would love to see it, but he has not seen it yet. He said it feels like they are working in reverse. Vice Chairman Fletcher echoed the comment and said that he is not opposed to Fresh & Easy in Rancho Cucamonga and there are plenty of locations for them to go, but this is a Use Determination, and that this is a special property and that he hopes that Legg Mason will see that the use is to promote and enhance the special winery that is there. He added that there is a lot they can do to make this a very desirable property. He recalled that the development of the Henry's Market was very controversial and that they even formed a task force because of the historical area that was being developed and much work had to be done before that could happen. He said although a different situation because they were dealing with raw land, it was the same idea, it required the same type of appeal and attraction and that the businesses had to fit the use. Chairman Stewart said she does not disagree with the other Commissioners but she asked staff if they could tell her what a'specialty store' is because they do not have a definition to work with. She said this was her problem at the last meeting and the work needs to be done. She said they are putting the cart before the horse. She said she read the literature, she visited the store, she agrees that some of the products would have to be special ordered, but other items can be purchased anywhere. She said that Fresh& Easy believes they are special because they are a neighborhood market, its friendly, has wide aisles, is environmentally friendly, has affordable pricing, and has a signature brand of products, but she could not determine if those things make it special because we do not have a definition. She commented that a recent newspaper article indicated they would like people to shop more often but her problem with the location in the center, although not the issue before them, said that people will have to drive there and that this is supposed to be a neighborhood friendly market and this center is a destiny point and does not have a lot of close proximity residents. She remarked that Fresh & Easy is building in Rancho at another location next to a senior high rise development which she finds to be a very compatible location for this. She said when she visited a Fresh & Easy she got the feeling of a very small "Mom and Pop"store and that in her opinion it was almost a grocery store because she could find very common product there that could be found at a regular grocery store notwithstanding the private product line,wines and cheeses. She said there is affordable pricing. She said she has been asked to make an opinion on something that opens Pandora's box in this City and they can not do it because they do not have a definition. She said she has a concept of what a specialty store is but they(the applicants)are telling her it means these other things and that is her greatest difficulty with this. She said that if the City wants to adopt what is being presented as a definition then that is fine, and then it can be considered but we should have a definition. Vice Chairman Fletcher commented that we do not have a definition and staff has been instructed to draft one, but the Code does give wording that indicates what specialty commercial is supposed to be so you can get an idea of what it is. He said that he did not hear legal counsel say that you could not make a Use Determination without a definition. He asked counsel to comment. Mr. Ennis said that the Commission has the discretion to say to staff, "let's develop a definition of "Specialty Food Store" and when you have that, come back with this item," and if they (the Commission) likes the definition, the Commission could concurrently decide if this use meets that definition. He said if that is the preference of the Commission, it is an acceptable approach. He said on the other hand, if there is a use category in the Development Code that is not given a precise definition, then it is not uncommon for the Planning Staff to refer these questions to the Commission for direction and for them to make a preliminary determination that says it is or is not within that category. Once that is made then staff follows it up with a Code Amendment to codify that direction. He said either tact is acceptable but it sounds like the majority of the Commission Planning Commission Minutes -8- March 26, 2008 tonight is interested in getting guidance on a proposed definition and they want that before they are asked to make a determination on whether this particular retail operation would meet that definition. He said that would mean it would have to be put on a future agenda. Vice Chairman Fletcher said that from what he gathered at the last meeting, the full Commission voted to deny the determination and that from what he has heard, he believes the Commission believes Fresh & Easy is not what we would want staff to define as a specialty food store; that the definition is something other than what Fresh & Easy is. He said that if they did not make that decision tonight then it would be drawn out for the owner and developer and the tenants. He said that if they thought"specialty food store"could include a Fresh& Easy then they could continue this until staff can bring back a definition. He said he does not believe this is what the Code would want for that area nor did he believe that was the direction when he asked staff for a definition either. Chairman Stewart said that they have a project before them that is trying to drive the decision. She said that if it is supposed to be based upon specialty foods than that is what we should base it on; not affordability, or is environmentally friendly or all these other factors. She said it might be a specialty theme store, she really does not know. She said in her opinion, in this community,we do not allow businesses to drive the decision of this when we do not have a definition in writing. She said that in her tenure since 1998 on the Commission, she could not recall doing it this way, she does not want to start it now and she believes it is a bad way to do business because it takes away protections from the City. She said it is not just Fresh & Easy, it would also be with the next guy and the next guy and so on. She said they have to do the work first and then make the decision. She said she would vote for denial of the Use Determination because she has to do that in order to get where she wants to be on this matter. Vice Chairman made a motion to approve the resolution of denial. Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by Munoz, to deny the Use Determination DRC 2008- 00179 as presented by staff (3-0-2 Howdyshell and Wimberly absent). Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MUNOZ, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: HOWDYSHELL, WIMBERLY - carried • PUBLIC COMMENTS None ♦ 1 f! M 4 COMMISSION BUSINESS None * * * * * ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Munoz, seconded by Fletcher, carried 3-0-2 (Howdyshell, Wimberly absent),to adjourn. The Planning Commission adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes -9- March 26, 2008 p ctfully sub fitted, Corkran W. Nicholson Acting Secretary Approved: April 9, 2008 Planning Commission Minutes -10- March 26, 2008