HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996/05/22 - Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
May 22, 1996
Chairman Barker called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning
Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chamber at Rancho
Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman
Barker then led in the pledge of allegiance.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker, Heinz Lumpp (arrived 7:20 p.m.), Larry McNiel,
John Melcher (arrived 8:07 p.m.), Peter Tolstoy
ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Miki Bratt, Associate Planner; Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman,
Principal Planner; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Dan James, Senior
Civil Engineer; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner; Gall Sanchez, Planning
Commission Secretary
ANNOUNCEMENTS
There were Ro announcements.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion: Moved by McNiel, se~nded by Melcher, ca~ed 3-~2 (Lumpp, Melcher absent), to approve
the minutes of April 24, 1996.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-33 - FOOTHILL
MARKETPLACE PARTNERS: A request to establish a lube facility within an existing
commercial retail center in the Regional Related Commercial designation (Subarea 4) of the
Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard, east of
Interstate 15 - APN: 229-031-37. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
environmental impacts for consideration.
Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Brad Buller, City Planner, indicated that the applicant had submitted two layouts (one with two bays
and the other with three bays) this evening and a copy was in front of each Commissioner.
Chairman Barker opened the public hearing.
Greg Wattson, Vice President, Foothill Marketplace Partners, 3500 Birch Street, Suite 250, Newport
Beach, stated that Commissioners Lumpp and McNiel had reviewed the proposed layout at Design
Review Committee and he thought the Committee had been quite happy with the traffic flow of the
three-bay design with the ddveway coming off the main ddve aisle, which he felt would eliminate any
conflict with In-N-Out. He reported one of the Commissioners had indicated it would be nice if the
building were smaller. He agreed it would be nice to have a smaller building, but pointed out that
the three-bay building is only 1,890 square feet and the entitlement is for a 2,600 square foot
building. He acknowledged that a two-bay building would be smaller, but stated such a building
would negatively affect his client's ability to service more cars during peak times. He thought that
having only two-bays could cause stacking problems. He thought the City Council had approved the
use with three bays and commented that he would not have a tenant for a two-bay facility. He stated
that the City Council indicated this is an appropriate use.
Commissioner McNiel asked if Oil Max was stating a two-bay facility will not work.
Hal Tucker, General Manager, Oil Max 10 Minute Lube, 9862 Adams Avenue, Huntington Beach,
remarked that all of the new Jiffy Lube facilities have six bays and stated that three-bay locations are
not as common as they used to be. He commented that Oil Max has no plans for any future two-bay
facilities. He noted that the City Council had recommended that they try to resolve the traffic
congestion issue and said he was very pleased with the three-bay alternative discussed at the
Design Review Committee and presented tonight because it will accommodate 12 automobiles on
site. He stated that the two-bay altemative would cut their stacking ability by 47 percent. He stated
that if a bay were to be out of service because of a plugged drain, a two-bay facility would not allow
them to honor the 10-minute oil change during peak times.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that his concern is with the traffic situation. He asked if a traffic
template was used by the applicant's engineer in the layout.
Mr. Tucker responded affirmatively. He said the normal vehicle turning radius is 18 feet.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the two cars on the south would be able to get in with the three-bay
layout. He said the layout does not appear realistic.
Mr. Tucker acknowledged that Commissioner Tolstoy's comment was accurate. He recalled that a
comment had been made at the last meeting regarding ddving ability of patrons. He stated that they
would normally have someone to direct traffic at peak hours to avoid problems. He indicated he has
10 years of experience and said he felt the layout is good.
As there was no further testimony, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing.
Commissioner McNiel stated he was on the Design Review Committee. He commented the
Planning Commission has been directed by the City Council to make a use work on this particular
site and he felt the majority of the Commissioners feel the site is not adequate because of its size
and its relationship to the traffic routes throughout the center and the adjacent fast food restaurant.
He felt the Design Review Committee had attempted to make it the best site plan with the least
amount of conflict. He thought the two-bay scheme is better because it is less intrusive in the
center. He acknowledged a two-bay facility may not be the best situation for Oil-Max, but said it was
the one he could support. He was troubled the Commission was being asked by the City Council
to approve the use when he felt it is not appropriate for the location.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that because of the direction of the City Council that Oil-Max be placed
in this location, he would reluctantly support it. He felt the traffic conflict between Oil-Max and
Planning Commission Minutes -2- May 22, 1996
In-N-Out is a disaster waiting to happen. He expressed surprise that the shopping center owner
supports such a traffic conflict within the center.
Chairman Barker felt the issue is not whether the facility has two or three bays. He observed the
Commission had previously stated their concerns but that was a moot point because the City Council
had decided that the location is appropriate and directed the Planning Commission to make it work.
He felt the Design Review Committee had done its best in an attempt to mitigate the problems that
exist. He stated the Commission had done what it had been directed to do, but he thought there will
be accidents. He said he would vote for the three-bay layout.
Commissioner Lumpp arrived at the meeting.
Commissioner McNiel commented that his opposition was not directed toward Oil-Max or the
Wattson Company, but that he felt this particular site is too small for the use. He stated it is an
out-parcel which was created as a result of the fast-food restaurant and he felt they are t~ing to
shoe-horn in a use that is too intense for the site.
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Barker, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the
resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 95-33 with a modification to reference the three-bay
layout presented at the meeting. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: BARKER, TOLSTOY
NOES: MCNIEL
ABSENT: MELCHER
ABSTAIN: LUMPP - carried
B. MODIFICATION TO ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT 89-01 - MARl CORPORATION - A request to
expand the live entedainment to include dancing and small bands (3-5 members) in conjunction
with a restaurant ("Shelley's"), located at 8038 Haven Avenue, Suite E - APN: 1077-661-03.
Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Commissioner Lumpp asked where the dancing will occur.
Mr. Murphy replied that it will be within the bar area.
Brad Buller, City Planner, observed that a wood floor is currently located on the south wall but noted
that staff had not designated that it would have to remain there.
Commissioner McNiel commented that there have been times when bands played on the patio.
Mr. Murphy responded that requires a Temporary Use Permit which requires notification of the other
tenants to be sure there are no conflicts.
Chairman Barker opened the public hearing.
Adam Chaloeicheep, Shelley's Restaurant, 8038 Haven Avenue, #E, Rancho Cucamonga, stated
he has had the business for nine years and has never had any problems. He thanked the
Commission for the oppodunity to increase his sales.
Commissioner McNiel thanked Mr. Chaloeicheep for bringing his restaurant to the City.
Planning Commission Minutes -3- May 22. 1996
Hearing no further comments, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Tolstoy thought the expansion of entertainment at Shelley's is a good opportunity for
the City because it is in an excellent location and does not present a nuisance to nearby residents.
He supported the application.
Commissioner McNiel agreed that the business is well run.
Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the resolution approving a Modification
to Entedainment Permit 89-01. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: MELCHER - carried
C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 96-01 - NORTHTOWN
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION - A request to exceed the maximum density in
exchange for providing affordable housing units within a 14.-unit apartment project on 1.38 acres
of land in the Low-Medium Residential designation (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located on the
south side of Main Street, between Archibald Avenue and Reid Avenue - APN: 209-262-02.
Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Related
File: Development Review 95-21.
D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 95-21 - NORTHTOWN
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION- A request to construct a 14-unit apartment project on 1.38
acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential designation (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located
on the south side of Main Street, between Archibald Avenue and Reid Avenue -
APN: 209-262-02. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for
consideration. Related File: Development Agreement 96-01.
Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff repod.
Commissioner Lumpp referenced Engineering Condition No. 5 regarding a proposed private storm
drain line connection and said he was not aware that the City allows private drainage systems.
Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, stated that the on-site drainage will flow from the southwest
corner north to an existing catch basin to connect to the public system. He said the property
naturally drains to the south but there is no outlet because of the railroad tracks and it is necessary
to head north in order to get into a public drainage system.
Chairman Barker opened the public hearing.
Pete Pitassi, Peter Pitassi Architects, 8439 White Oak Avenue, Suite 105, Rancho Cucamonga,
stated he is the architect for the project. He indicated that Nacho Gracia, president of Northtown
Housing Development Corporation, and Nora Lake-Brown from David Rosen and Associates, a
consultant to the Northtown Board, were also present. He gave a brief background of the project.
He clarified that they have provided five guest parking spaces instead of the four mentioned in the
staff report. He did not recall discussing decorative paving at the Design Review Committee meeting
but noted that is called for in Planning Condition No. 4. He said they were willing to accommodate
the condition within reason.
Planning Commission Minutes -4- May 22, 1996
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, indicated that the condition is standard Planning Commission
policy, He noted that the language was the same as what was used in the Villa Del Norte project.
Mr. Pitassi asked that the extent of paving be kept within reason based upon the scope of the project
and the fact that they are providing affordable housing units.
Chairman Barker stated that he had faith in Mr. Pitassi based upon his past work and the quality of
his past work. He asked if he was comfortable in working with staff on the matter.
Mr. Pitassi replied that he was. He questioned the number of trees they would need to provide per
gross acre and asked if it is 40 or 45.
Mr. Murphy confirmed that it is 40.
Mr. Pitassi stated they have received a lot of positive comments on the in-fill housing regarding the
type of architecture and materials and how well the houses fit into the neighborhood, He said they
are proposing the same type of architecture with similar details and indicated they would like to use
the same roofing material. He said that would save considerable money. He noted they would be
using the highest quality shingle in composition roofing that is on the market. Regarding the
drainage, Mr. Pitassi stated they could grade the property higher in order to get it to drain naturally
back to Main Street, but that would require a tremendous amount of fill and a much taller wall along
the south side of the property. He said they chose to follow the natural contours as much as
possible and install a catch basin and piping the water back to Main Street. He indicated the depth
is sufficient to accommodate the drain and it will be a private storm drain on the property until it
connects at the right-of-way line. He noted that Dan Guerra is their civil engineer and was also the
engineer for the Main Street storm drain and had worked with staff on that solution.
Commissioner Lumpp asked if it will be a gravity flow back to Main Street that will not require any
pumping.
Mr. Pitassi confirmed that was correct.
Commissioner Lumpp stated that he was planning to suggest that anti-graffiti paint be applied to the
back of the wall facing the railroad right of way because the railroad may potentially not grant
permission for clean-up crews onto their site.
Commissioner Tolstoy complimented Mr. Pitassi on his designs in Nodhtown and said he felt they
have enhanced the neighborhood. He expressed appreciation for the efforts to construct the
buildings for the least expense. He acknowledged that the shingle roof material compliments the
architecture, but said he opposed that type of material on apartments. He recalled there had been
a large, fast-moving apadment complex fire in Ontario a number of years ago caused when sparks
from a chimney set the roof on fire. He felt tile should be used for the roof material in order to protect
the project and the neighborhood.
Mr. Pitassi thought the apartment roof in Ontario had been wood shingle. He indicated that
composition shingle roofing is Class A roofing material and just as resistant to combustion as
concrete tile. He said they could provide documentation from testing agencies.
Commissioner Tolstoy agreed that new roofing is as combustion resistant when it is new, but he
feared that it loses its safety factor when it is 15 to 20 years old.
Planning Commission Minutes -5- May 22, 1996
Chairman Barker stated that the roofing material was also one of his major concerns. He thought
there must be some scientific data available. He recalled the City adopted its tile roof standard partly
in response to that fire.
Mr. Pitassi indicated the project will have fire sprinklers and there will be fire walls between units.
Chairman Barker requested that Mr. Gracia address the Commission.
Nacho Gracia, President, Northtown Housing Development Corporation, felt Mr. Pitassi had covered
the project. He stated he understood the concems raised by Commissioner Tolstoy. He thought the
decision regarding the roofing material should be made by someone who is more knowledgeable
than he. He noted that the in-fill housing blends in very well with the rest of the community and
thought that tile roofing on those houses may not have been appropriate.
Chairman Barker stated that the Commission would likely not even entertain a request for anything
other than concrete tile roofing anywhere else in the City. He asked Mr. Gracia's reaction to the
possibility of treating that area differently.
Mr. Gracia said he did not oppose either the proposed roofing material or tile roofing, but he thought
tile may not blend in with the neighborhood. He said he would prefer not to have a tile roof because
he feared that would be the first thing that would be noticed. However, he also said he would not
like his neighborhood to be treated differently from any others.
Chairman Barker observed that the City was being asked to lower the standards in this case. He
noted that tile is required throughout the entire City, but Mr. Pitassi has indicated the proposed
roofing would blend in better and be just as safe.
Mr. Gracia stated he would have to leave the technical questions regarding safety to someone else
but said he would not want the area to be treated differently. He recalled that when a 3/4 acre park
was proposed for the Northtown area, the Commission had indicated the normal requirement is for
a 3 to 5 acre park and it felt the area should not be treated differently from any other part of the City.
Mr. Pitassi felt the issue is not to treat Northtown differently from another part of the City but it is
more an issue of looking at the ability to provide affordable housing in any pad of the community.
He stated he was not asking that architectural standards be lowered, but asking that the City be
open minded enough to look at other building materials in light of the architecture being proposed.
He said the Craftsman architecture was being proposed because of what is in the neighborhood.
Hearing no further comments, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Lumpp stated he was on the Design Review Committee when this project was
reviewed and there had been a long discussion relating to the roofing material. He observed that
Mr. Pitassi had indicated the project is to provide affordable housing and the additional cost of tile
roofing would cause financial concerns. He thought the Commission had already established a
precedent with the in-fill housing projects in Craftsman style architecture, noting that Craftsman style
architecture generally has asphalt roofing. He was concerned about the cost and said that he leaned
towards approving the asphalt material because of the architectural style and the cost. He
suggested that the resolution be modified to specify high-profile, thick butt, Class A type, 25-year
asphalt roofing material if the rest of the Commission agreed.
Commissioner McNiel recalled that the concrete tile roof policy was implemented not only for fire
protection, but also in an attempt to upgrade the community when the opportunity is available. He
noted that tile roofs were required in Northtown during the 1980s on some individual houses despite
Planning Commission Minutes -6- May 22, 1996
some opposition. He observed the Commission has previously required concrete tile roofs on other
subsidized housing in the community which was designed as low income. He felt the asphalt tile
was appropriate for the individual in-fill houses because that was consistent with the type of roofing
which would have been on Craftsman houses when they were built in the past. He acknowledged
that this project has Craftsman style architecture but he did not think there had been connected
Craftsman apartment complexes. He said he would like to approve the asphalt roofing, but he was
not sure that makes the best sense.
Commissioner Tolstoy agreed it was appropriate roofing material for the single family detached
houses. He thought true Craftsman style is a single, detached bungalow. Because this will be an
attached project with a lot of people living in close proximity, he thought concrete tile roofing should
be required in the interest of public safety.
Chairman Barker felt it should be emphasized that the Commissioners were talking about the roofing
matedal and that fiat tiles would be preferred over barrel tiles. He felt there would be a style that will
fit in and look appropriate.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt that single family detached homes in that kind of a neighborhood should
follow the Craftsman style as closely as possible. However, he felt this is a different project and it
would not be detrimental to use concrete tile roofing on this type of a project and architecture.
Chairman Barker agreed that he would be more comfortable with the tile roof. He was sure a visually
attractive tile can be found that will fit in with the neighborhood and would still provide fire safety
decades in the future.
Commissioner Lumpp suggested an anti-graffiti paint be applied to the south side of the 8-foot block
wall so that it will be easier to clean.
Chairman Barker recalled a lot of discussion on Villa Del Norte. He thought some plants were placed
so they would eventually cover the walls to inhibit graffiti.
Mr. Buller said the intent for this project is to develop a landscape plan with vines adjacent to the
wall.
Commissioner Lumpp said he would like the paint for the interim period prior to the maturing of the
vines.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the paint really works.
Commissioner McNiel said its effectiveness deteriorates over time. He asked if the decorative
paving would go back to staff to be worked out with the developer.
Chairman Barker felt that would be acceptable. He said there is a good staff and the architect has
shown he is trustworthy and reliable.
Motion: Moved by Lumpp, seconded by McNiel, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the
resolutions recommending approval of Density Bonus Agreement 96-01 and approving Development
Review 95-21 with modifications to specify flat concrete tile roofing and to require anti-graffiti paint
and vine pockets for the wall on the south property line to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Motion
carried by the following vote:
AYES: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY
Planning Commission Minutes -7- May 22, 1996
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: MELCHER - carried
Commissioner Melcher joined the meeting.
E. DEVEI~OPMENT REVIEW 96-04 - DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC HOMES - Review of the detailed site
plan and building elevations for a previously approved tract map (Tract 14072) consisting of 22
single family lots in the Low Residential designation (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at the
southwest corner of Highland Avenue and Jasper Street - APN: 201-212-17, 19, and 21.
Related File: Variance 96-07.
F. VARIANCE 96-07 - DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC HOMES - A request to reduce the required
perimeter boundary setback for one unit with a previously approved tract map (Tract 14072)in
the Low Residential designation (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at the southwest corner
of Highland Avenue and Jasper Street - APN: 201-212-17, 19, and 21. Related File:
Development Review 96-04.
Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff repod.
Chairman Barker opened the public hearing.
Pete Pitassi, Peter Pitassi Architects, 8439 White Oak Avenue, Suite 105, Rancho Cucamonga,
stated that Andrew Wright from Diversified Pacific Homes was available in the audience. He
commended staff for their willingness to look at the large picture. He observed that the tract was
approved in 1990 and subsequently Diversified purchased the property with approved lots in place.
He said they tded to design a product which would fit the narrowest lot. He felt granting the variance
would not impact the neighboring properties and would not set a precedent. He reported that they
held a neighborhood meeting on March 6 artended by approximately eight nearby residents. He
recalled that the residents living in the project immediately to the east supported the architecture and
size of the units. He stated that the Design Review Committee requested that the driveway for Lot 8
be moved away from the corner as far as possible and they had reoriented the house in order to
accomplish that. He asked that Engineering Division Condition No. 8 be changed from requiring the
driveway be located a minimum of 50 feet away because it is only possible to move it to
approximately 35 feet from the curb return, which he noted would be about the same as on Lots 7
and 1. Mr. Pitassi observed that Standard Condition No. C2 stipulates that elevations shall be
upgraded with architectural treatment, detailing, and increased delineation of surface treatments to
the satisfaction of the City Planner and he thought that the Design Review Committee had found
their designs acceptable. He asked that the condition be deleted.
Mr. Murphy responded that Standard Condition No. C2 was included to reinforce the point that the
final designs are to be consistent with the conceptual plans submitted. He said staff would approve
such plans. He suggested additional wording be included that the plans be consistent with the
conceptual plans.
Mr. Pitassi agreed that was acceptable.
Hearing no further comments, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing.
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, observed that the plans before the Commission showed that the
applicant had complied with the Design Review Committee's recommendation to use Plan 22R on
Planning Commission Minutes -8- May 22, 1996
Lot 22 and moved the ddve approach as far west as possible; therefore, Engineering Condition No. 3
is now moot.
Chairman Barker asked if staff was agreeable to modifying Engineering Condition No. 2.
Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, suggested deleting "a minimum of 50 feet" and inserting "away"
so that staff would have the leniency to review the project and accept what was before the
Commission this evening.
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by McNiel, to adopt the resolutions approving Development
Review 96-04 and Vadance 96-07 with modifications to modify Engineering Condition No. 2 to delete
the reference to a specific number of feet and Standard Condition No. C2 to indicate the plans
should be consistent with the conceptual plans. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE - carried
G. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-12 - PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SERVICES - A request to
construct a 40-foot high unmanned monopole within a 360 square foot leased site in the
Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan,
generally located west of the 1-15 Freeway and nodh of Base Line Road at 7179 East Avenue -
APN: 227-141-14.
Commissioner Lumpp stated he would be abstaining on this item because the firm he works for does
work for the applicant.
Miki Bratt, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. There were no comments, and Chairman Barker closed
the hearing.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use
Permit 96-12. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: BARKER, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: LUMPP - carried
H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 15726 - DIVERSIFIED
PACIFIC HOMES - A request for a 17 lot subdivision on 4.61 acres in the Low Residential
District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), generally located south of Lemon Avenue and west of
Hermosa Avenue - APN: 201-251-28. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of
environmental impacts for consideration. Related File: Development Review 96-07.
Planning Commission Minutes -9- May 22, 1996
I. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 96-07 - DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC HOMES - Review of the detailed site
plan and building elevations for Tentative Tract 15726 consisting of 17 single family lots in the
Low Residential Distdct (2-4 dwelling units per acre), generally located south of Lemon Avenue
and west of Hermosa Avenue - APN: 201-251-28. Related File: Tentative Tract Map 15726.
Chairman Barker observed that staff was recommending that the items be continued to June 12,
1996, as a drainage issue had not been resolved. He opened the public hearing.
There were no comments.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by McNiel, to continue Tentative Tract Map 15726 and
Development Review 96-07 to June 12, 1996. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: BARKER, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: LUMPP - carried
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments at this time.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
There was no additional Commission Business.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by McNiel, carried 5-0, to adjourn.
8:28 p.m. - The Planning Commission adjourned to 8:30 p.m. in the Rains Room for a workshop
regarding Pre-Application Review 96-03, and those minutes appear separately. That workshop
adjourned to 6:30 p.m. on May 29, 1996, in the Tri-Communities Room for a Joint Workshop with
the City Council.
Respectfully submitted,
Brad Buller
Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes -10- May 22, 1996