Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001/11/14 - Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ' Regular Meeting November 14, 2001 Chairman McNiel called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:10 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chamber at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, Califomia. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Rich Macias, John Mannerino, Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart ABSENT: Peter Tolstoy STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Kirt Coury, Associate Planner, Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney; Douglas Fenn, Associate Planner, Rick Fisher, Contract Planner, Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, Donald Granger, Assistant Planner; Larry Henderson, Principal Planner, Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Warren Morelion, Assistant Planner; Maria Perez, Assistant Engineer; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary; Mike Smith, Planning Technician; Emily Wimer, Assistant Planner ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no announcements. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Macias, seconded by Mannerino, carried 4-0-1 (Tolstoy absent), to approve the minutes of October 24, 2001. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-23 — LAKEES (TWINS SPORTS BAR AND GRILL)-A request to allow service to patrons 18 years and older for an existing restaurant with sports bar and grill, including entertainment, dancing, amusement devices, and on site consumption of alcoholic beverages, in the Community Commercial District(Subarea 3),located at 10134 Foothill Boulevard -APN: 1077-601-07. Related File: Entertainment Permit 00-02. (Continued from October 10, 2001) B. ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT 00-02—LAKEES(TWINS SPORTS BAR AND GRILL)—A request to renew an entertainment permit to allow, disc jockey music, dancing, satellite television, and amusement devises(pool tables, dart boards), and allow service to patrons less than 21 years of age in conjunction with a bar and restaurant in the Community Commercial District(Subarea 3), located at 10134 Foothill Boulevard - APN: 1077-601-07. Related file: Conditional Use Permit 97-23. (Continued from October 10, 2001) Chairman McNiel stated that the applicant had requested a continuance and staff was recommending the items be continued to November 28,2991. He observed the public hearing was still open as the items had been continued from October 10, 2001. There were no public comments. Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by Macias, carried 3-0-0-1, to continue Conditional Use Permit 97-23 and Entertainment Permit 00-02 to November 28, 2001. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MCNIEL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: TOLSTOY ABSTAIN: MANNERINO - carried C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2001-00345-THE GARDENS, LLC-A request to construct a 20,318 square foot reception hall and banquet facility with on-site consumption of beer and wine (Type 47) in conjunction with an existing wedding chapel on 9.7 acres of land in the Mixed Use District of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located at 7576 Etiwanda Avenue-APN: 227-171-10 and 11. Related Files: Use Determination 00-01, Conditional Use Permit 00-35. Commissioner Mannerino indicated he must abstain from voting as he has performed legal services for one of the applicants. Kirt Coury, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and indicated staff was recommending a change to Engineering Condition 7 to specify$101,055 as the fair share calculation for storm drain facilities. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Richard Avent,The Gardens, LLC, 1335 Upland Hills Drive North, Upland, stated that staff had been very cooperative and processed the application in a timely manner. He observed that they had originally anticipated installing a softball field but they have decided not to have one. He pointed out that Planning Condition 10 requires a 6-foot wall along the project perimeter and said he was not sure they want to bring the wall all the way out because of potential conflicts with future development. Chairman McNiel recalled that there had been conversations regarding working with the adjacent property owner to be sure there is not a double wall along the project boundary. Brad Buller, City Planner, reported that American Beauty was conditioned to build an 8-foot wall along the project boundary with this project. He said previous noise problems have been encountered in other locations with a higher intensity of use adjacent to residential and the 8-foot wall was designed to mitigate any problems. He reported that staff had met with American Beauty and they indicated a willingness to meet with the project applicant to work out the wall issues. He suggested the condition be changed to require an 8-foot wall to be consistent with the requirement for American Beauty. He stated that staff would be willing to entertain a 2-foot berm with a 6-foot wall on top if that could be accomplished without harming the existing Eucalyptus trees along the north property line. He said staff would need to see the details and indicated grading requirements would have to be considered. Mr.Avent suggested considering bonding. He stated they had tried to contact the engineers for the Arbors with little success but he would try again to contact them regarding grading and drainage. He said he would hate to build a 6-foot wall and not have it be compatible with adjacent development. Planning Commission Minutes -2- November 14, 2001 He stated they have tried to incorporate into their planning what they thought are the future goals for the Arbors Development. He indicated a willingness to work with the American Beauty. Mr. Buller indicated he met with American Beauty as a result of a previous conversation with Mr. Avent. He reported that Associate Engineer Joe Stofa from the City staff felt there is a workable solution. He noted that American Beauty will be building a street at the southwest corner of this applicant's property and there is a condition regarding the Community Facilities District that addresses the drainage issue. He suggested that Planning Condition#10 be revised to require an 8- foot wall but that the minutes should reflect that staff would accept a 6-foot wall atop a 2-foot berm. Mr. Avent said he would like to confer with American Beauty. He said they want to work out the wall issue so that it will only have to be built once. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Mr. Buller noted there are existing Eucalyptus trees, which are to be protected, and alternative fencing may be required. Chairman McNiel felt staff would be fair and reasonable and he indicated the fencing must be compatible with both projects. Mr. Buller noted a housing project is to the north of the applicant's project. Commissioner Stewart felt the project will be a welcome addition to the City and it will be a good facility. Chairman McNiel agreed and said the facility should serve Rancho Cucamonga and the surrounding communities well. Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by Macias, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Conditional use Permit DRC2001-00345 with modifications to require an 8-foot wall and to specify the storm drain facilities calculation of$101,055. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MCNIEL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: TOLSTOY ABSTAIN: MANNERINO - carried D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT(DRC2001-00335)-ARTURO FLORES-A request to establish a retail liquor store within an existing 4,320 square foot building on .48 acre of land in the Community Commercial District (Subarea 2), located at 8939 Foothill Boulevard - APN: 208-192-07. Related files: Variance DRC2001-00612 and Public Convenience or Necessity DRC2001-00628. E. VARIANCE (DRC2001-00612) -ARTURO FLORES-A request to reduce the required parking setback along Foothill Boulevard from 50 feet to 40 feet for a retail liquor store in the Community Commercial District (Subarea 2), located at 8939 Foothill Boulevard - APN: 208-192-07. Related files: Conditional Use Permit DRC2001-00335 and Public Convenience or Necessity DRC2001-00628. Donald Granger, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report and indicated that staff was recommending the resolution be revised to indicate that the Commission finds and determines the Planning Commission Minutes -3- November 14, 2001 project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 under Section 15305 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Chairman McNiel asked if anything is happening with respect to the alleyway. ' Mr. Granger acknowledged the alley needs clean up. He said the parking area will be resurfaced and the building will be painted. Commissioner Stewart observed that Planning Condition 14 set out conditions for outdoor vending machines. She asked if the applicant has proposed having vending machines. Mr. Granger responded that the condition is typically included with this type of use to prevent future problems from occurring. He reported the applicant has not indicated a desire to install vending machines. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Guillermo Hernandez, architect, 15826 East Queenside, Covina, indicated he was speaking on behalf of the applicant. He showed color samples of the building and roof tile. He said they have been working with staff and Mr. Granger did a good job. He indicated there will be no vending machines and said the project will meet the required parking. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Mannerino said he was glad to see something will be done with the property. He asked if the alleyway is a public dedication. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing. Art Flores, 8919 Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, responded that it is a right of way required with the gas station approval. Brad Buller, City Planner asked who was responsible for maintaining the alley. Mr. Flores stated it had previously been maintained by Red Hill Liquor. He said they are trying to repaint the building to get rid of the graffiti. He noted they will be resurfacing the alleyway at the same time the parking area is resurfaced and the building will have a stucco coat applied. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing. Mr. Buller observed that Mr. Flores has done a good job in maintaining the service station. He stated that Planning condition 14 is a standard condition, which could be modified to prohibit outside vending machines. Commissioner Stewart indicated she would prefer there be no vending machines. Chairman McNiel and Commissioner Mannerino concurred. Commissioner Mannerino asked if the paving of the alley would include what is behind the gas station. Mr. Buller said it would not. Chairman McNiel expressed concern regarding the asphalt maintenance. He asked that the record show Mr. Flores indicated he will resurface it. He did not believe it was necessary to add a condition. Planning Commission Minutes -4- November 14, 2001 Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Stewart, to adopt the resolutions approving Conditional Use Permit DRC2001-00335 and Variance DRC2001-00612 with modifications to prohibit outdoor vending machines and to indicate the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: TOLSTOY - carried F. VARIANCE DRC2001-00494 — MILLIKEN POINT — A request to reduce the building and landscape setback along Milliken Avenue from 45 feet to 37 feet, in Area 8 of the Empire Lakes Subarea 18 Specific Plan, located on the northwest comer of 5th Street and Milliken Avenue— APN: 210-082-61. Related file: DRC2001-00493. Douglas Fenn, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and reported that staff was recommending the resolution be revised to indicate that the Commission finds and determines the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 under Section 15305 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Michael Caley, 200 East Del Mar Boulevard, #300, Pasadena, stated he is the architect. He complimented staff. He said the building setback was established by previous documentation for the Master Plan and the loss of 8 feet of setback was because of the right hand turn lane. ' Chairman McNiel asked if there will be heavy landscaping between the street and the building. Mr. Caley confirmed there will be. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Stewart indicated the Variance would be in keeping with the Master Plan. Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by Macias, to adopt the resolution approving Variance DRC2001-00494 with modification to indicate the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: TOLSTOY - carried G. VARIANCE DRC2001-00623 - FRENCH - A request to reduce the interior side yard setback from the required 10 feet to 5 feet 9 inches for a single family hillside home in the Very Low Residential District(up to 2 dwelling units per acre), that is currently under construction, located at 5198 Paddock Place-APN: 1074-561-21. Related file: DRC2001-00049. Emily Wimer, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report and indicated that staff had received numerous telephone calls from residents and Alta Loma Riding Club members asking that the Variance be denied. She noted that two letters recommending denial had been included with the agenda. She also showed photographs illustrating the setback issues and the property lines from the street. In addition, Ms. Wimer indicated that the project is categorically exempt under Section 15305 of the State Califomia Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. Planning Commission Minutes -5- November 14, 2001 Chairman McNiel asked how the problem occurred. Ms.Wimer responded that the plans were approved with the correct setback. She said Building and Safety was notified there was a problem with the setbacks and determined that an engineer needed to re-certify the setbacks to be sure they were correct and determined upon re-certification that they were at 5 feet 9 inches instead of the approved 10-foot setback. Chairman McNiel asked if there was sufficient property on the adjacent property to acquire to meet side yard setback requirements. Ms. Wimer responded that she had briefly spoken to the applicant regarding that possibility and he said he had contacted the adjacent homeowner and it would be feasible. She said it might not be a straight dean line because of the way the house sits, but it is workable. Chairman McNiel questioned if the altemative would be a partial demolition of what has already been constructed. Ms. Wimer confirmed that was correct. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Dwight French, 5004 Via Verde, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he hired a reputable engineer, Allard Engineering, who staked the property for him and he hired a cement contractor to do the foundation work. He said the City Inspector signed off that it was where it should be when the footings and underground plumbing portion was complete. He stated they then poured the slab and the building is now 95 percent complete and there is no way the building can be adjusted to meet the building setbacks without completely knocking it down. He said the adjacent property owner had made no indication that he was willing to sell any property so that he could meet the setback. He stated he had asked and the owner did not respond. He indicated there is a full 20 feet between the two buildings and he felt it would not cause a hardship on anyone. He acknowledged that he only has a 5 foot 9 inch setback and the balance of the 20-foot separation is on the neighbor's property. Chairman McNiel asked how it got plotted incorrectly. Mr. French responded it was just an accident. He said he is building more than one home and the cement contractor picked up the wrong set of plans and laid it out. He stated this house is approximately 3 feet wider than the other house. He indicated his framer caught the error and the cement contractor then picked up the other set of plans and didn't think about the setback and moved things around for a bigger house. He thought it was an honest mistake. He felt it will not hurt anyone's property values and will not block anyone's light because there is a full 20 feet between the buildings. He stated he had talked to a lot of people and has not heard any complaints from anyone and said the next-door neighbor had indicated he would not complain about it. Commissioner Stewart observed that there was a letter in the packet indicating the Haven View Homeowners' Association objects to the Variance request. Mr. French said he had not gotten that letter and had not heard from the Homeowners'Association. He stated it would cost around $600,000 to knock down the house. He said there is no way to re- engineer the house to cut 3 feet off the side because the bedrooms and bathroom would be too small. Commissioner Macias asked if Mr. French had any correspondence or any evidence that he had made formal attempts to contact the adjacent homeowner to purchase the additional property needed to meet the setback. Planning Commission Minutes -6- November 14, 2001 Mr. French responded negatively. Commissioner Macias questioned if the City missed the problem in any way during the inspection process. He asked the inspection process and asked if there was any indication the City was negligent in identifying the problem. Brad Buller, City Planner, suggested it may be best to hear from the neighbor who initially discovered the discrepancy and then staff could answer any further questions about the sequence of events. Mr. French said there have been at least ten City inspections and there had been no comments regarding the problem. Commissioner Macias said he wanted to make sure that any inspections that did occur were for a specific purpose and he felt that should be explained before the Commission takes action. Robert J. Spitz, attorney,204 North San Antonio Avenue, Ontario, stated he represents the adjacent property owner. He referenced his letter that was included with the packet. He agreed with the points made in the staff report and noted that his letter was prepared prior to seeing the staff report but that they coincided with a lot of the conclusions. He felt the property does not qualify under any of the five requirements necessary in order to grant a variance. He noted the property owner admitted the house could have been built with the required 10-foot setback but a mistake was made in the construction. He said his client believes that whoever made the mistake should be responsible, and the other houses in the neighborhood should not be held responsible. He felt having the house so close to the property line will diminish the property value of his client's house as well as other homes in the area and create an exception that could be a loophole for other property owners in the Low Density areas and would create a bad precedent for other construction in the same area. He provided photographs and stated a long pole had been placed on the property to show how close the property line is and how close the house would be to a fence. He felt having a house only 5 feet 9 inches from the property line would impact the privacy of his client's property. He said the lots are %:acre and there is more than sufficient land to properly design a house on the lot. He thought a two-story 4,600 square foot home is a very imposing structure. He said there were no exceptional circumstances applicable to the property and the Variance was being requested merely as a way to bootstrap a mistake that was made by the construction people. He thought if the Variance were granted, it would result in a special privilege that has not been granted to any of the other property owners. Mr. Spitz stated his client has not received any proposal for purchase of the additional property to adjust the property line to provide the proper setback. He said his client is somewhat reluctant to change his own property, but would be willing to discuss any proposal submitted. He confirmed there is sufficient property available so that if an agreement were readied the property line and fence could be adjusted for the appropriate setback. He said his client believes that many of the other property owners are upset that the reduction may be allowed. He thought the actual cost to modify the structure would be less than the $600,000 figure quoted by the applicant. He thought it was not an honest mistake, but rather someone's negligence and the negligent party should be responsible for the cost. Carol Douglas, 6047 Indigo Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she was speaking on behalf of the Alta Loma Riding Club. She said they were concemed that an exception in this instance would set a precedent. She felt the Commission and members of the City work very hard to maintain the rules that have been set. She asked what would prevent the neighboring homeowner from adding on to his home or building which would reduce the space between the homes if the Variance were granted. She said that if the property line is adjusted by a purchase from the adjacent property, it would prevent such an occurrence in the future. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. He asked for a chronology of events from staffs perspective. Planning Commission Minutes -7- November 14, 2001 Mr. Buller stated that in the normal course of a home development, the applicant establishes the location of the foundation of the home once the permits have been issued. He observed that both parcels were vacant at the time so the property line location was not distinguishable. He stated Mr. French's engineer established a property line via stakes so that the inspector could inspect the setback based on the engineering stakes. He said the inspector apparently measured it and it was at the required 10-foot setback from the stakes in place. He reported that when the Patel's began to construct their home, they realized the stakes were in the wrong location based on their survey and that is what originally brought the issue to the City. He noted that on September 25, a Notice was issued to state there would be no further inspections until the property line was established. He said that was when Mr. French knew his options were to apply for a variance and go through the due process or work with his neighbor to acquire additional land. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing. Mr. French stated that when the Patels surveyed their lot, his stakes were gone because of the construction activity. He said the error was noted when the Patels had their lot surveyed and their engineer put the stakes in the correct location. Chairman McNiel stated that Mr. Buller had said that the original measurement from foundation to property line was based on the stakes that were placed by Mr. French's engineer. Mr. French said that was correct and the stakes are still in the ground and are correct. He stated the City Inspector made a mistake when he measured it. He said the Inspector was a part-time guy and he made a mistake. Commissioner Mannerino stated that was a different story from what had just been stated. Chairman McNiel agreed that was a different story. Kirit Patel, 11021 Appomattox Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he owns the property adjacent to the property. He said that when he started his construction, Mr. French did not like his house and told his grading contractor that he was doing something wrong. He said Mr. French called the City Inspector and his work was stopped for two weeks without any reason. Mr. Patel stated he then called the City and the Inspector approved his setbacks. He felt it is the owner's responsibility to check the setback. He said that when Mr. French was doing the block wall on the back side, he knew about the property line and he is right at his property line. Chairman McNiel asked if Mr. Patel would consider selling 4 feet 3 inches of his property to Mr. French in order to realign property lines. Mr. Patel replied he would at the right price. Chairman McNiel stated he did not expect him to give it away. Mr. Patel said it was not his mistake and he was delayed for two months because of Mr. French and he had to hire a surveyor to make sure he was right and he thought Mr. French knew all along that his house was in the wrong place. Mr. Buller stated that this was the first staff was hearing Mr. French's allegation that the Inspector who originally made the inspection saw that it was less than the required 10 feet and still accepted the plans. He asked if that was what Mr. French said. Mr. French stated he did not mean to indicate that. Mr. Buller asked if that was what the Commissioners heard. Planning Commission Minutes -8- November 14, 2001 Commissioner Mannerino stated he heard Mr. French say that it was a young City Inspector and he measured it wrong and now Mr. French was saying that it wasn't the City Inspector's mistake. Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing. Mr. Buller suggested that the Commission may wish to continue the matter for two weeks in order to have someone from Building and Safety at the meeting to confirm that the foundation measured 10 feet from the property line stakes that were present at the time of the first inspection if the Commission felt that evidence was important. Commissioner Mannerino stated that he thought Mr. Buller was saying it may be prudent to obtain documentation from the City that the survey done by Mr. French was in error and the Building Inspector properly measured 10 feet from the stake line; however, the line was in the wrong place. Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attomey, stated that even if the Inspector measured incorrectly, overlooked, or didn't catch the error; that failure would not mean that the City is precluded from enforcing its ordinance. He said it would not create liability for the City or the Inspector. He observed there are tort claim act immunities to protect the City from that error if it was a City error. Mr. Ennis said that even if there was an error by the Inspector, the City is still not precluded from requiring the applicant to go through the variance process unless the applicant can show that the Inspector knew he was granting approval for a 5 foot 9 inch setback, that the Inspector knew he had the authority to grant that kind of setback, that it was reasonable for the applicant to rely upon the Inspector's action, that in essence he knew the Inspector had the authority to grant that kind of a setback, and that he then detrimentally relied on that action and justice and the public interest would be served. He explained the threshold is very high. He said he raised this point to show that regardless of what is found out in terms of what the Inspector did or did not do, it does not obviate ' the fact that there is a Code that requires a 10-foot setback and the issue is subject to a variance and there is not a liability on the City. Chairman McNiel asked if Mr. Buller would still suggest a two-week continuance. Mr. Buller replied it was up to the Commission's comfort level. He said he thought they had heard from the attorney that it really isn't relevant to the need for the Commission to make the actual findings to grant a variance. Commissioner Mannerino appreciated the City Attorney's comments and felt they were very cogent. He felt that if it was a mistake made by a City employee, which he did not think it was, it may have some relevance on the issue of whether or not there was special privilege. He perceived that an error was committed and the applicant was attempting to use that error to create a special circumstance to obviate the creation of a privilege. He felt it is a very clear situation that Mr. French's agent made an error in surveying. He believed the City Inspector has the right to rely on a property line created by the developer's surveyor/engineer. He said it would be folly to assume that every City Inspector would go out and survey every property line. He stated the City employee relied on the stakes placed by the applicant's agent and measured 10 feet, but unfortunately they were wrongly placed stakes. He thought Mr. Patel's engineer discovered the error, and unfortunately a great deal of construction had already been done and the question is now who pays for the error. He did not see any possible way to make the five findings that are necessary to grant the Variance. He felt it would certainly create a special privilege and that could not be obviated because one of the applicant's agents made an error. He supported staffs recommendation to deny the application. Commissioner Macias stated his questioning of staff on the process was designed to identify what the City had done with respect to inspections on that property. He said he did not mean to intimate that the City was at fault and he felt it was inappropriate to suggest that the City was at fault. He said he asked what the process was and was told different stories. He said he saw no evidence that the City or any City Inspector was at fault and he also did not feel the adjacent property owner should Planning Commission Minutes -9- November 14, 2001 be implicated and felt the adjacent property owner was not obligated to do anything. He agreed with Commissioner Mannerino that there was no way to make the findings required to adopt a variance. He acknowledged that someone was at fault but said it was not the City or Mr. Patel, but rather the applicant and his agents. Commissioner Stewart agreed and could not find the findings to grant a variance. She saw no reason to continue the matter. Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by Macias, to adopt the resolution denying Variance DRC2001-00623. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: TOLSTOY - carried PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. The Commission recessed from 8:26 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. COMMISSION BUSINESS H. DESIGN AWARDS Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated that staff had previously given the nomination listing to the Commissioners and asked the Commissioners to visit the sites and provide feedback. The Commission discussed the award nominations and categories and determined the award recipients. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission adjourned at 8:45 p.m. to a workshop immediately following regarding Pre-Application Review DRC2001-00641. The workshop adjourned at 9:30 p.m. and those minutes appear separately. Respectfully submitted, �i srad B7.11; Secret-ry Planning Commission Minutes -10- November 14, 2001