Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994/02/09 - Minutes - PC-HPCCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting February 9, 1994 Chairman Barker called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 8:06 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chamber at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker, Heinz Lumpp, Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer; Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Steve Hayes, Associate Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Beverly Luttrell, Associate Planner; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary , , , , , ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no announcements. , , , , PUBLIC HEARINGS Ae MODIFICATION TO A CONDITION OF APPROVAL FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 12877 - GOLDEN - A request to modify the condition of approval to underground the existing overhead utilities beyond the limits of the project site for a subdivision of 3.28 acres of land into 2 parcels in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of Hillside Road, east of Moonstone Avenue - APN: 1061-251-24. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, presented the staff report. Carl T. Kobbins, Jr., CTK, Inc., 9640 Center Avenue, #100, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he was a Civil Engineer. He stated that Dr. Golden had paid for bringing in the overhead utility line from Carnelian when he built his home 35 years ago and the other development which has taken place over the years have used the overhead power lines brought in by Dr. Golden. He showed drawings of the four parcels created by Dr. Golden in 1986 and stated a pole had to be moved from the roadway at that time and that pole served as a stub down to the other parcels to the south and east. He said when the two-parcel map was approved, it was thought that Dr. Golden would have to tear out existing shrubbery on his land in order to underground the utilities across his property but an alternate path had been identified so that the existing shrubbery would not have to be disturbed. Mr. Kobbins showed pictures of the existing end pole on the east side of Moonstone Avenue on Dr. Golden's property. He observed that the existing pole is hidden from view on the street because of the trees. He remarked that the Engineering Division had stated that Dr. Golden could move the pole from the east side of Moonstone Avenue to the southwest side and that would satisfy the requirements of Planning Commission Resolution No. 87-96. He said that would place a pole in front of an existing residence where no pole currently exists and that pole would then be an end pole and would thus need to be guyed. Mr. Kobbins felt that Dr. Golden's property is not at an intersection, but on a knuckle street, and therefore, he felt the pole as it exists conforms with Resolution No. 87-96. Commissioner Lumpp asked why the poles were not undergrounded at the time Dr. Golden created the parcels along Via E1 Dorado. Mr. James explained that the parcel map was recorded prior to the City's adopting the underground policy. Commissioner Lumpp observed that even if the pole on Dr. Golden's property and the pole to the west on Via E1 Dorado were undergrounded, there would still be poles to the west that would be above ground. Mr. James affirmed that was so. He stated that the current condition reads that the pole on Dr. Golden's property and the next pole to the west, which is 230 feet west would need to be undergrounded. He said Dr. Golden could also place a pole across the street on the southwest corner of Moonstone Avenue and Via E1 Dorado to meet the City's undergrounding policy, and thereby only have to underground the pole on the east side of Moonstone Avenue. Commissioner Lumpp asked if there was any potential for undergrounding the poles to the west along Via E1 Dorado. Mr. James felt it was unlikely. Commissioner Tolstoy acknowledged that the new end pole would have to be guyed, but he stated the utility company has developed a way to guy with the wires going down at a 90 degree angle from an arm attached to the pole instead of a 45 degree angle, and the result is not as unattractive. Mr. Kobbins stated that Southern California Edison had talked in terms of using 45 degree guy wires. Commissioner Melcher expressed surprise that staff had suggested the applicant could satisfy the undergrounding requirement by relocating the pole from the east side of Moonstone to the other side. He thought that would merely be moving a visual blight to another location where it does not currently exist. He did not support moving a pole to the west side of Moonstone. Planning Commission Minutes -2- February 9, 1994 Co~missioner Tolstoy agreed that a pole should not be placed on the southwest corner of Moonstone and Via E1 Dorado. He thought the original condition to underground to the pole 230 feet west on Via E1 Dorado should remain. Chairman Barker requested a brief history on the subdivisions of this property. Commissioner Melcher recalled that the Commission had discussed the matter thoroughly when the two-parcel map was approved. He said the Commission had noted that the two-parcel map was being created following a four-parcel map and if the land had originally been divided into the resulting five parcels, a subdivision would have been required. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. Commissioner McNiel stated he also was surprised by staff's recommendation to move the pole from the east to the west side of Moonstone Avenue. He thought staff was trying to appease the applicant but such a move would not serve the purpose of the undergrounding policy. He thought the process had been diluted because the applicant had first subdivided into four parcels and then taken one of those parcels and further subdivided it into two parcels. It was his opinion that the condition of undergrounding should be viewed in light of the five lots created, not just the two. Chairman Barker felt it would be wrong to merely move the pole from the east side of Moonstone to the west side and he thanked Commissioners Melcher and McNiel for their comments. Commissioner Melcher noted that one owner had created all five parcels, even though it had been done in two separate actions. Commissioner McNiel believed that utilities would eventually be undergrounded throughout the entire City. He said the goal of the undergrounding policy was to get rid of as many poles as possible. Mr. James stated that the City is able to get money to underground arterial streets from various funds and in-lieu fees are sometimes collected where it is impractical to underground at the time of development. However, he said such in-lieu fees can only be used for undergrounding in the location where the fee is collected. He felt general fund dollars would have to be used to underground along Via E1 Dorado unless someone were to purchase the existing houses and subdivide the area further and noted that further subdivision is very unlikely. Commissioner Lumpp stated he was having a difficult time with the undergrounding policy permitting the relocation of a pole from the eastern side of Moonstone to the western side or requiring that a pole 230 feet to the west be changed to an end pole requiring that guy wires be attached. He felt the undergrounding policy was established for aesthetic reasons and the relocation of a pole to an area where none exists or adding guy wires to an existing pole were not aesthetically pleasing alternatives. Planning Commission Minutes -3- February 9, 1994 Chairman McNiel felt that undergrounding should be obtained whenever and wherever possible. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed and stated that would be consistent with Planning Commission policy and previous decisions. Commissioner Melcher felt that in-lieu fees would not make any sense because the fees would have to be held for future use in this location. He did not favor any modification to the resolution. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the resolution denying the request to modify the condition of approval requiring undergrounding for Parcel Map 12877. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS= COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NONE NONE -carried , , , , , Be CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-01 - DEEB - A request to sell distilled spirits in addition to beer and wine within an existing convenience market of 2,124 square feet within the Community Commercial District (Subarea 3) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Ramona Avenue - APN: 1077-621-34. Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Lumpp asked for clarification on the action taken by the City Council with regard to the Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) license. Mr. Hayes replied that the ABC had forwarded paperwork to the City in relation to a renewal for the market's ABC license to sell beer and wine and the City Council had directed that a letter be sent to the ABC opposing the renewal because of allegations of sales to minors. He stated the ABC had subsequently renewed the license. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated that the ABC gives local agencies the opportunity to comment, but the ABC makes the final determination on whether or not to grant the license. He thought the City Council had expected ABC to approve the license when they directed staff to send the letter of opposition. Chairman Barker asked if the applicant had been connected with the store in November when the City Council had heard allegations about the sale of beer and wine to minors. Mr. Hayes replied that he understood that Mr. Deeb had taken over the operation in January 1994. Commissioner Melcher asked if the operation is to remain a market and they were simply adding a line of distilled spirits rather than converting to a liquor store. Planning Commission Minutes -4- February 9, 1994 Mr. Hayes replied that it is to be maintained as a market. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Deeb Deeb, 6587 Shawna Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he had taken over as the new owner on January 1, 1994. Chairman Barker asked if Mr. Deeb or any of his employees who will be managing had been employed by or are related to the previous owner. Mr. Deeb responded negatively. Chairman Barker asked if the major function will be as a store or as a liquor store. Mr. Deeb replied a liquor store. Chairman Barker asked if he was changing it from a grocery store to a liquor store. Mr. Deeb responded affirmatively. Commissioner Melcher asked if the name of the business would be changing. Mr. Deeb replied it would not. He said he had already removed most of the signs from the windows and had removed the wood paneling as well. Commissioner McNiel asked if the applicant understood why staff had requested that the signs and wood panel be removed from the windows. Mr. Deeb replied that he understood it was so the Police can look in easier. Commissioner McNiel commented that good lighting and good visibility are a big determent to crime. Mr. Deeb said they had placed the signs in the window to generate more business because it has been very slow. He stated storage is kept along the north wall and when he removed the wood panel, people can now see into the storage area from outside the store. Dick Ebbet, All Star Realty, said he felt there had been a misunderstanding regarding the business. He stated Mr. Deeb plans to keep selling groceries and other items and is adding liquor only to increase sales. Commissioner Barker again asked Mr. Deeb if he would be operating as a liquor store or a convenience store with other products along with the liquor. Mr. Deeb said he will keep the store as is and add the liquor sales. He said he had previously misunderstood the question. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -5- February 9, 1994 Commissioner Tolstoy commented that the view through the northern window on the west side of the building is blocked by a storage area. He suggested that the window might be treated with an opague film to block the view. He stated that the front two windows have display cases in front of them, blocking part of that view. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that in staff's training on crime prevention through environmental design it had been taught that blocking the view through a window below 4 feet is generally not a problem because people standing can still be seen. Commissioner McNiel thought perhaps a band of film across the bottom of the windows might be appropriate. Chairman Barker stated he was not convinced that the sale of hard liquor is an ancillary function. He asked if it would be enforceable to limit the sale of liquor to be peripheral to the business. Mr. Hanson stated that the same conditional use permit would be used for a full liquor store or ancillary use. He said it would be the same analysis and approval but the Commission could determine that a full liquor store would be inappropriate because of its location. He said the matter of enforceability may be difficult. Mr. Bullet suggested the Commission might wish to limit the percentage of space to be allocated toward distilled spirit sales as compared to the amount of space devoted to neighborhood convenience items. Chairman Barker questioned if it would also be possible to inhibit a potential change of names or signs to a liquor store. Mr. Bullet thought such a condition might be placed in the conditional use permit. Commissioner Melcher felt one of the reasons plywood panels and film is added to windows is that the Design Review Committee seems unwilling to deal with blank walls and requests windows. He thought developers building "spec" retail space end up putting in more windows than would normally be required in order to satisfy the DRC and to make the space flexible for leasing. He said if the City is interested in regulating what happens to the windows, then tenant improvement plans would need to be reviewed to determine the relationship with the use of the space to the windows. He did not favor a case-by-case approach of requiring glass areas to be blanked out when the windows are being used as display areas. He felt the person leasing the space should make such decisions. Chairman Barker agreed with Commissioner Melcher but he felt the view to the storage area should be blocked out. Commissioner Melcher agreed that the City should not be requiring the applicant to open up a window into a storage area. Planning Commission Minutes -6- February 9, 1994 chairman Barker felt Commissioner Tolstoy's. suggestion to use a film was good. Commissioner Melcher stated that if a merchant has the compressor side of an ice cream machine backed up to a window that would not be good merchandising, but he felt the store owner had every right to have display racks featuring various products visible through windows. Commissioner Lumpp asked staff's feelings about the use of the opaque film. Mr. Hayes said that staff's biggest concern had been aesthetics and safety. He thought the film over the storage area would resolve staff's concerns. Commissioner Tolstoy said he favored the application so long as the liquor sales are ancillary to the market. He hoped it would not turn into a liquor store. He said his concerns regarding the sale of liquor to minors had been addressed because of the new ownership and management. He indicated his second concern had been regarding window signs and the wood paneling and he felt those concerns had been addressed by the Commission. Chairman Barker asked if Commissioner Tolstoy was comfortable with specifying a maximum percentage of floor area to be devoted to sale of distilled spirits. Commissioner Tolstoy said he was, but he was not sure the Commission could determine what that percentage should be. Chairman Barker said he was uncomfortable with the application unless some sort of limitation is placed because he had observed community markets being replaced by liquor stores in Los Angeles. He did not feel it would be appropriate to put in a liquor store in an area which was originally presented as a neighborhood market. Mr. Buller suggested that the Commission might want to reopen the public hearing and see if the applicant would be willing to specify a percentage. He said in other issues, 20 percent is generally considered as ancillary use. Commissioner Melcher observed that the staff report indicated that distilled spirits would be displayed on the wall shelves adjacent to the cashier. He suggested adding a condition that would limit the display of distilled spirits to those shelves adjacent to the cashier as shown on the floor plan. Chairman Barker felt that would be acceptable. He reopened the public hearing and asked if the applicant would be agreeable to such a limitation. Mr. Deeb said that would be acceptable. Chairman Barker asked if Mr. Deeb understood his concern that the facility remain a community store and not turn into a liquor store. Mr. Deeb stated it would remain a convenience market. Chairman Barker asked if there would be signs changing the name to Ramona Liquor. Planning Commission Minutes -7- February 9, 1994 Mr. Deeb said there would not. Chairman Barker again closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 94-01 with limitations on the display space for distilled spirits as indicated in the staff report and to require a view- obscuring film on the window by the storage area. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NONE NONE -carried , , , , , The Planning Commission recessed from 9:19 p.m. to 9:24 p.m. McNiel left during the recess. Commissioner , , , , , C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 93-02B - MASI - A request to amend the land use designation from Industrial Park to General Commercial for 15 acres of land extending along Foothill Boulevard to a parallel line approximately 520 feet south, within the Masi Plaza development, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue - APN: 229-011-10, 19, 21, and 26 through 28. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Related File : Conditional Use Permit 91-24. Brad Buller, City Planner, presented the staff report and a revised sheet outlining alternative land uses prepared following discussions between staff and the applicant. He noted that the applicant had requested a new General Plan land use category of Recreational Commercial and several amendments to the Industrial Area Specific Plan to allow General Commercial on the entire 27-acre site because of the proximity to the Rancho Cucamonga Adult Sports Park and Stadium. He said that staff supported the request and had re- advertised the matter for the February 23, 1994, meeting. Commissioner Melcher asked if a staff report would be prepared with recommend changes to the text. Mr. Buller responded it was staff's intention to provide the recommended changes with the agenda packet distributed in advance of the meeting. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. William Claire, Claire Associates, 6 Via La Cima, Rancho Palos Vetdes, stated he had prepared the Trade Area and Land Use Analysis. Commissioner Melcher observed that the applicant was requesting that 85,000 square feet of general commercial be permitted. He noted that Mr. Claire's Planning Commission Minutes -8- February 9, 1994 Executive Summary indicated that all but 40,000 square feet of gross leasable area has been signed up by the developer. He asked if the 40,000 square foot figure refers to the project as presently permitted or with the proposed changes. Mr. Claire said it was his understanding that the remaining 40,000 square feet refers to what is already approved or before the City for consideration. Mr. Buller stated the applicant has requested that an additional 35 percent of the project's square footage be permitted to have General Commercial uses. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if that meant that more than 85,000 square feet could be commercial. Mr. Buller said the 85,000 square feet would be in addition to the commercial Mount already permitted or conditionally permitted under current zoning. Commissioner Melcher did not understand why there was a need to approve more commercial uses when only 40,000 square feet is left for leasing. Mr. Buller replied the applicant has indicated they need the additional uses. Commissioner Melcher noted that when the auto court use was approved, the applicant had assured the Commission that it was a viable use as approved but now the applicant was stating that the auto court would not work unless transmission repair and engine rebuilding could be added as uses. He observed that the Commissioners had specifically opposed transmission and engine repair and other repairs typically performed under Automotive/Truck Repair - Major. He felt such uses are heavier than appropriate for this location. Mr. Bullet stated he had provided copies of the previous staff report and minutes and Commissioner Melcher was correct that the applicant had indicated that use was not necessary at the time but the applicant has now stated they are losing potential tenants because of the restriction against such uses. He reported that was an amendment that would be advertised for February 23. He said staff had analyzed the auto service court built on Archibald Avenue which allows a full range of automotive repair services and staff felt that such uses would not necessarily create a negative impact with the range of land uses in the area if properly designed. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if that meant there would not be a gas station at the location. Mr. Bullet replied that one of the conditions of the auto court approval was that the gas station has to be constructed before the other uses and the applicant had not indicated a desire to delete the station. Commissioner Lumpp felt it would be helpful to have the applicant provide an analysis of the entire site in terms of uses which are already committed and how that relates to the additional 35 percent gross leasable area. Mr. Claire stated he would provide a full statue update for the February 23 meeting. Planning Commission Minutes -9- February 9, 1994 Commissioner Lumpp requested that the update be provided to staff as soon as possible for staff's analysis. Chairman Barker agreed it needs to be provided prior to February 23. He commented that the project seems to vacillate constantly and not get built. He thought that was unfortunate as the project has a fantastic location. Mr. Claire said he would try to have the information to staff by the middle of the week of February 14. Mr. Buller recommended that the matter be tabled and re-advertised as described. Commissioner Tolstoy asked why the Commission should not act on General Plan Amendment 93-02B. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated that the applicant has now amended their application so that the matter must be re-advertised. Chairman Barker asked if the applicant would prefer that the Commission vote to deny the present application. Mr. Claire requested that the matter be continued. Mr. Buller stated that staff would prefer that the matter be tabled and re-advertised as described tonight with the consent of the applicant. Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if that meant Recreational Commercial ~ould be recommended as a new land use category for all of Subarea 7 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. Mr. Buller explained that Recreational Commercial would be a new category in the General Plan and therefore other landowners may request that designation on their property. He said that it would not be restricted to just Subarea 7, however, the intent of this application is for this property only. Motion: Moved by Melcher that the Commission determine that the matter as advertised does not reflect the application and therefore consideration should be tabled and the matter be re-advertised for February 23, 1994, with the concurrence of the applicant. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he had concerns about diluting the already established retail community and designated areas. He said he could perhaps support Recreational Commercial as a new designation but he did not feel electronics, furniture, and appliances should be included in such a designation because he did not feel they are Recreational Commercial. He felt Recreational Commercial could include such things as a golf pro shop, sporting goods, theatre, etc. Planning Commission Minutes -10- February 9, 1994 Commissioner Lumpp seconded Commissioner Melcher's motion to table General Plan Amendment 93-02B and re-advertise it for the February 23, 1994, meeting at 5:00 p.m. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NONE NONE -carried Commissioner Melcher observed that in his 3-1/2 years of being on the Commission and in 16 years of dealing with the City he felt this was the most flagrant case of the tail (the applicant) wagging the dog (the Planning Commission) that he had ever seen and he was embarrassed by the process. , , · , CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 93-31- MASI - A request to permit a health club of 15,800 square feet in Building 15 of previously approved Conditional Use Permit 91-24, in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on 27 acres at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue - APN: 229-011-28. Beverly Luttrell, Associate Planner, noted that at the last Planning Commission hearing, the Commission had requested that three non-construction Conditional Use Permits for this same center be continued to 5:00 p.m. on February 23, so that staff could analyze new information submitted by the applicant including specific floor plans. She said that staff recommended Conditional Use Permit 93-31 also be continued to February 23, 1994, so that a floor plan and a thorough parking analysis could be submitted for staff review and the Commission could consider all four applications at that time. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Mr. Claire consented to the continuance. Motion: Moved by Melcher, Permit 93-31 to 5:00 p.m. following vote: seconded by Lumpp, to continue Conditional Use on February 23, 1994. Motion carried by the AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NONE NONE -carried , , , , , E. BROWN ACT UPDATE Brad Bullet, City Planner, indicated that the City Council had directed staff to discuss potential aspects of the revisions to the Brown Act with reference to Committees. He said staff would be researching the matter and responding back to the Council and would provide additional information to the Commission at that time. Planning Commission Minutes -11- February 9, 1994 Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, gave a brief overview of the changes to the Brown Act with reference to the Commission. He said he would be looking at Committees and determining which ones in addition to the Design Review and Trails would fall under the coverage of the act. He suggested that a definition of the goal of each committee would be helpful and he thought it would be best to call out time lines to accomplish the goals of the various committees. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. , , , , COMMISSION BUSINESS Brad Buller, City Planner, distributed a memorandum to the Commissioners from Community Development Director Rick Gomez regarding the Regional Comprehensive Plan recommending that the Planning Commission Chairman and Vice-Chairman meet with Councilmember Buquet, the City's delegate to SANBAG, regarding the Plan. Commissioner Melcher thought the Planning Commission as a whole should review the Plan and give input. Commissioner Lumpp stated that after he had requested information on the Regional Comprehensive Plan, he had been informed by staff that City Council is tracking the plan through its representative to SANBAG. He said he had simply desired an update to make sure it was being tracked by the City and he had no desire to intercede in City Council actions unless asked to do so by the Council. , , , , Commissioner Melcher requested that two matters be added to the agenda for the next Planning Commission Goals and Priorities Workshop. He requested that the Design Awards Program be discussed with an overview of what had been done in the past and what might be done in the future. He also requested information on the State's Red Team so far as how it relates to the Planning Commission; i.e., who the Commission might be dealing with and how the Commission might embrace the program to put the City's best foot forward. Commissioner Tolstoy asked for an update on the Metrolink station. Mr. Buller gave a brief overview of the status. Commissioner Melcher requested that the Planning Division work program be distributed to the Commissioners prior to the workshop. Mr. Buller said it should be distributed prior to the end of the month. Planning Commission Minutes -12- February 9, 1994 Commissioner Melcher announced that he would be unable to attend the February 23, 1994, Planning Co~unission meetings. He suggested that General Dynamics prepare an exhibit showing their block of land in relation to what is planned or exists around it, including land within Ontario. He thought it is important to consider how their land relates to land around it. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed. , , , , , ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Tolstoy, carried 4-0-1 with McNiel absent, to adjourn. 10:40 p.m. - The Planning Commission adjourned to 5:00 p.m. on February 23, 1994, for a meeting regarding General Plan Amendment 93-02B, Industrial Specific Plan Amendment 94-02, Conditional Use Permit 93-29, Conditional Use Permit 93-30, Conditional Use Permit 93-31, and Conditional Use Permit 93-32. Brad Buller Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -13- February 9, 1994