MINUTES

PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING

SEPTEMBER 18, 2007





1.0 CALL TO ORDER

The Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Highland was called to order at 6:04 p.m. by Chairman Haller at the Donahue Council Chambers, 27215 Base Line, Highland, California.



Present: Commissioners John Gamboa and Michael Willhite, Vice Chairman Randall Hamerly and Chairman Richard Haller



Absent: Commissioner Bob Moore



Staff Present:John Jaquess, Community Development Director

Ernie Wong, City Engineer

Lawrence A. Mainez, City Planner

Bruce Meikle, Senior Planner

Sean Kelleher, Assistant Planner

Linda McKeough, Administrative Assistant III



The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Chairman Haller.



2.0 COMMUNITY INPUT

There was none.



3.0 CONSENT CALENDAR

There were no items.





4.0 PUBLIC HEARINGS

4.1 An Application submitted by JLM-TREH VII HWY 30, LLC, requesting approval of Conditional Use Permit 007-003 for a Multi-tenant Commercial Project with a Home Improvement Center as the Major Anchor Tenant. At their September 4, 2007, Meeting, the Planning Commission continued this Public Hearing Item to their September 18, 2007, Meeting. The 15.38 gross acre Site is located on the southeast corner of Greenspot Road and State Route 30 / 210 Freeway (Assessor Parcel Numbers: 1201-331-03 & -04 and 1201-341-16 & -17). Representative: Edward Horovitz, Vice President

Chairman Haller introduced the item and called for Staff's presentation.

Senior Planner Meikle gave the presentation from the Staff Report. He gave the historical background and explained the proposed Planning and Engineering Revised Conditions of Approval (COAs) with the redlined / strikeout format, subsequent to when the Staff Report was written, the Greenspot Road Master Plan was submitted to the City Council for consideration and explained what had transpired at that City Council Meeting in that the City Council added an additional traffic signal. He further noted the Engineering COA numbering is incorrect. Staff had met with the Applicant and went through the proposed Revised COAs.

Then City Engineer Wong explained the various additions / revisions of the proposed Engineering COAs to the Commission. He further explained how Engineering COA No. 35 was an oversight of Staff and the Project needs some Right-of-Way from the Mission Development project.

Both City Engineer Wong and Senior Planner Meikle concluded their presentation.

Chairman Haller asked if the Commission had questions of Staff. Hearing none, he then asked if the Applicant would like to make a presentation.

Mr. Tom Robinson, 4590 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 500, Newport Beach, California, who is the Applicant's partner, addressed the Commission. He requested clarification on Planning COA Nos. 43, 44 and 45. On COA No. 43, with regards to the proposed Sign Program. He said that he doesn't want to return to the Commission, or DRB if Staff can approve the Sign Program.

A question was asked about the Sign(s) square footage for the Sign Program. Staff responded how the Sign Program allows the Applicant to do that and that the Tenants receive a Sign Program packet, once the Sign Program is considered and approved by the Commission / DRB, then Staff can review the individual Tenant Sign Permit Applications.

Mr. Robinson asked about COA No. 44 regarding the last sentence on pending the final height of the Freeway-oriented Pylon Sign, and the Project will be going to the DRB on October 2, 2007. Staff responded the height of the Freeway Sign is an Airport issue and the DRB is aesthetics. A comment was made by a Commissioner the Commission needs to approve, contingent to Federal Aviation Regulations and an example was given with the height of 77' 6" and may be need to be revised. A question was asked if the City or FAA is responsible for the height of the Freeway-oriented Sign. Staff responded the City is responsible. Mr. Robinson stated the Sign is within the height guidelines of the Airport and, if needed to lower by six feet (6'), the Applicant would need to return to the Commission.

Discussion ensued between the Commission, Mr. Robinson and Staff regarding word smithing, and if the Sign is unable to reduce the height, the Applicant would lose Sign panels and the Applicant understood this. Mr. Robinson stated again he does not want to return to the PC / DRB every time for an Individual Sign for approval. A Commissioner responded when criteria is created by a Sign Program, then Staff can review / approve the (individual) signs. Staff added the Freeway-oriented Sign serves the south side of Greenspot Road and can be handled through the Sign Program and go through the DRB for consideration. Mr. Robinson gave an example how the Applicant is building a Freeway-oriented Sign and a Tenant has a right to be on the Sign. But the Applicant does not want to allow Home Depot in if there is going to be a Lowe's.

Discussion ensued between the Commission, Mr. Robinson and Staff regarding Planning COA No. 45 and the Applicant meeting the City's criteria, as written, or if there is going to be an issue, the possibility of the Sign being approved by the Commission. Staff responded the Commission has the authority to review issues on the south side of Greenspot Road. Mr. Robinson said the same with Walmart comes and asks the Applicant about being on the Freeway-oriented Sign. He said he is working with Walmart and Regency Centers and the Applicant does not want to spend $750,000 for a pylon sign for the others' benefits.

A question was asked about the schedule of values. Mr. Robinson responded he cannot go there with the Pylon Sign. The Applicant doesn't want the City to go and negotiate against Lowe's and it is critical for Greenspot Road that the Tenants be placed on the Sign. Mr. Robinson further stated this is market driven and added how Walmart will not be open for another four (4) years, and with the market condition, the Applicant wants to recoup his costs for the Freeway-oriented Sign. A Commissioner responded if there is an issue, you could go through the Public Hearing process and with not wanting someone down the street have another pylon sign, expects a professional basis. Mr. Robinson said he understands that one (pylon sign) will be located on the north side (of Greenspot Road). The Commissioner said that is correct. Mr. Robinson stated the Applicant wants to be the authority and if Tenants go onto the Regency site and no signage and reiterated he doesn't want Fresh / Easy (TESCO) or Walmart to be on the (proposed) Sign and that the Applicant owns the Site to be on the Freeway and is critical. The Regency Centers' building adjacent will help with Lowe's and Mission Development and further down Greenspot Road. There needs to be a successful Tenant next door. A Commissioner stated that is not up to the Applicant and that a Freeway sign is up to the Planning Commission. Another Commissioner stated only if there is a dispute and someone wants a third Freeway sign. Another Commissioner stated the Sign Program can spell out the signage for the Tenants, the need to delete the last sentence (in COA No. 45) and the Applicant needs to utilize the Sign Program.

Further discussion ensued between the Commission, Mr. Robinson and Staff regarding Major Tenants versus the other Tenants using the Freeway-oriented Pylon Sign. Staff stated the number of Tenants and what may look like and Staff is suggesting the criteria would be part of the proposed Sign Program, and if there is an issue, the Sign Program would return to the Commission for review. A comment was made by a Commissioner he would be unable to approve this when there are still outstanding issues that need to be resolved. Mr. Robinson responded there is a very detailed sign program for a project located in Chino Hills and reiterated that he does not want to return to the Planning Commission and commented the proposed Sign Package is "nice", but if he placed a "crappy" Tenant in with "crappy" signage and will devalue the (Lowe's) Center. Gets into the same area, and if he had his druthers, he would not have signage, but the Tenants want the signage. Mr. Robinson further stated he is unable to obtain commitment from potential Tenants and reiterated he would like the Commission to approve the number of Tenants. Staff responded the Commission would rely on Planning COA No. 43, and if the Commission desires, the last sentence in COA No. 45 can be deleted. Comments were made by the Commissioners who stated the best way to resolve this issue since the Applicant can modify the Sign Program criteria, and the Commission concurred to delete the last sentence in Planning COA No. 45.

Mr. Ed Horovitz, 4482 Barranca Parkway, Suite 234, Irvine, California, who is the Vice President of JLM-TREH VII HWY 30, LLC, and is the Applicant, addressed the Commission regarding Engineering COA No. 17. He stated he is unsupportive of the COA because the second median to the south of Access "A" and said it is a private road. Staff responded the design of Access "A" was part of the Planning Commission recommendations during the previous Commission meeting to reduce the lane width which is now revised to be six feet (6') narrower. The Developer now is requesting to delete the median. Staff noted the medians would help delineate the left turn lane. The left turn lane would have only two (2) choices. The number one left turn lane would have to cross two (2) lanes and use the median lane to guide the driver. The median on the north end is not symmetrical with the south end and does not line up. In addition, the medians provide a positive aesthetic feature and the Applicant has the room to construct it. The Developer believes it is a visual obstacle. The DRB will review (the Plans for Access "A") in detail and gave an example of the Base Line corridor had a line-of-sight issue which has been resolved and reiterated Staff and DRB will provide input on the median.

Mr. Horovitz responded that he disagrees with Staff since the last e-mail regarding the Greenspot Road Master Plan and the median design is not part of the Planning Commission consideration. The left turn, right turn or northerly path of travel and does not see the value of it. The width is narrower on the south end and asked about having sixty-nine foot (69') lane width on both ends and would be a safety issue. Staff responded no variation. A question was asked by a Commissioner asking the Applicant what is the down side. Mr. Horovitz responded there is no added value and is costly. A question was asked by a Commissioner how costly. Mr. Horovitz responded is Staff looking at a palm tree lined street with up lighting? A Commissioner responded low level landscaping. Staff added that matter is for the DRB to consider and the line-of-sight is an issue plus there is a combination of things. A comment was made by a Commissioner suggesting that would be good for drought tolerant plants and defer to the DRB. Another comment was made by a Commissioner if the cost is an issue, have the Applicant find a palette with cost estimates for the (proposed) improvements.

Mr. Horovitz stated there are two issues with Engineering COA No. 35. If Mission Development does not go forward with its project, need to dedicate area for traffic and why does the Applicant have to go and acquire off-site property from another developer in order to get sections to place the improvements in. Staff responded there has been a traffic study prepared and the signal is a necessary improvement. When the Applicant builds / installs the signal, the Applicant needs to obtain the Right-of-Way at the proper location to install the signal. The cost and the traffic signal are both the responsibility of this Developer (Highland Crossings). A question was asked by a Commissioner if obtaining the Right-of-Way is by the Developer or by the City. Another Commissioner said then COA No. 36, will be implemented if the Developer fails the acquisition. Staff responded the Right-of-Way acquisition will be the Project's responsibility, but the City can utilize COA No. 36 if the Developer fails. Mr. Horovitz said this is not an easement and suggested to the Commission and Staff how Greenspot Road Master Plan is accumulative for all development / developers. Comments / responses were made by the Commissioners assuming if the Applicant is going first. If Mission Development was going first, then it would be on them. A question was asked by a Commissioner if this goes with this establishing the Right-of-Way all the way down (to Boulder Avenue). Staff responded yes and asked the Commission should the Developer donate the property or pay for it.

The following are comments made by the Commission: 1) that area is not a Right-of-Way right now and when the property is appraised for off-site property interests, it should be appraised at zero; 2) but it will be in the Right-of-Way in the future; 3) the City is the best to approach Mission Development / Vestar should the property not be acquired, and; 4) the City is then in the position of the Applicant's Schedule. Mr. Horovitz said he is not suggesting Right-of-Way for the signal. A Commissioner responded there is no mechanism to do it now. Mr. Horovitz stated maybe he can help with the COA and maybe additional discussion / cooperation with Staff, Mission Development / Vestar and have them donate the land for the traffic signal and he offered to contact Mission Development / Vestar. A Commissioner responded that is why Engineering COA No. 36 is there.

A question was asked by a Commissioner then if the Applicant is acceptable with the COA, as written. Mr. Horovitz responded affirmatively.

Chairman Haller then recapped the Commission's revisions with Planning COA Nos. 2.b. and 45. He then asked if anyone else would like to speak on the item. Seeing none, and there being no further questions of the Applicant or Staff, or further discussion amongst the Commissioners, Chairman Haller then closed the Public Hearing and called for the question.

A Motion was made by Vice Chairman Hamerly and seconded by Commissioner Gamboa the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution which:

1. Adopts a Mitigated Negative Declaration and directs the Secretary to file a Notice of Determination;

2. Approves Conditional Use Permit 007-003, subject to the Conditions of Approval, as modified by the Planning Commission at the September 4, and September 18, 2007, Public Hearings, as modified with the following:

Planning COAs

2.b. Attached herein as Exhibit "B" is the Freeway-oriented Pylon Sign (location, height and "number of panels" only).

The total height of the Pylon Sign shall be measured from the existing natural grade under the Sign.

27. (NS) To define the limits of the site a minimum six inch by six inch (6" X 6") concrete mow curb, or other delineation as approved by the Design Review Board, shall be installed to define the westerly Caltrans right-of-way and southerly San Bernardino County Flood Control District property line. This Condition applies in sections where no retaining walls or fencing is proposed.

a. To define the public versus private areas of responsibility for the maintenance of landscaping along the Greenspot Road frontage, a concrete mow curb shall also be installed along the landscape easement.

29.b. Per Engineering requirements, the landscaping along the site's Greenspot Road frontage and median shall be maintained by the City. Design and construct the street frontage and median systems separate from the on-site irrigation systems with separate water service lines, meters (water & electric) and controllers.

31. (NS) Provided they do not impede access, planter beds or large decorative pots for trees and shrubs shall be installed along the front of the Lowe's Building and along the north and west side of the M2 Building and along the west side of the P3 Building, or as approved by the Design Review Board.

38. Parking lot planter "diamonds" shall have a minimum dimension of twenty-five (25) square feet of interior area. Where "diamond" type planters are used within the interior of the parking lot, one (1) "diamond" planter shall be provided between every four (4) parking stalls, or as approved by the Design Review Board.

39. Landscape islands shall have a minimum interior dimension of five feet by sixteen feet (5' X 16') of interior area, exclusive of the curb and any twelve inch (12") wide "step out", or as approved by the Design Review Board.

45. (NS) The Freeway-oriented Pylon Sign may be designed to accommodate signage for the tenants along the south side of Greenspot Road between SR-30/210 Freeway on the west and Boulder Avenue on the east.

52. Security lighting shall be installed to adequately illuminate the Facility. All security lighting shall be shielded and directed away from surrounding uses, businesses, and public Right-of-Way. Location of security lighting shall be shown on the Photometric Plans for Design Review Board review and approval. Lighting intensity shall be reviewed by City Planner and Highland Police Chief after installation to determine adequate coverage and placement.

59. All roof top mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from public view, exclusive of SR-30 / 210 Freeway Right-of-Way.

Engineering COAs

C*13. Construct an 8-inch raised curb landscaped median on Greenspot Road across the project frontage, in accordance with the City's Greenspot Road Master Plan. Design the curb to extend 4 inches below the street structural section.

C*14. Widen the north found Freeway exist ramp and reconstruct the curb return at Greenspot Road to ultimate configuration in accordance with the City's Greenspot Road Master Plan. The length of east right turn lane on the exit ramp shall be as approved by the City Engineer and Caltrans. Modify the existing traffic signal and affected signal hardware and software, as necessary.

C*15. Construct a traffic signal utilizing a video detection system at the intersection of Greenspot Road and the easterly project entrance (Access "A"), as approved by the City Engineer. Install interconnect conduits between the new signal and the west property line. Pay the Project's commercially reasonable fair share of cost for future interconnect work from the Freeway ramps to Boulder Avenue, as determined by the City Engineer.

C*16. Install conduits necessary for the construction of a traffic signal at the intersection of Greenspot Road and the westerly Project entrance.

C*17. Construct Access "A" in accordance with the attached Exhibit entitled, "Access 'A'" including curb and gutter and a raised curb landscaped median. The curb-to-curb distance shall be 69 feet between Greenspot Road and the drive aisle northerly of Building M2. The west curb line of Access "A" shall be located 34.5 feet westerly of the east property line between Greenspot Road and the drive aisle northerly of Building M2, and 25 feet westerly of the east property line adjacent to Building M2.

C 20. Install and pay Southern California Edison to energize street lights on Greenspot Road at locations specified by the City Engineer. The property owner shall be responsible for payment of energy charges for 12 months following energizing of the street lights.

C*27. Apply to the City to annex the project into the City's Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) for maintenance of frontage and median landscaping along Greenspot Road. Submit a ballot to the City agreeing to the annexation and amount of assessment. Landscaping within the median, and frontage landscaping, will be maintained by the City utilizing LMD revenue.

E*35. Acquire and dedicate Right-of-Way from the owner of the property north of Greenspot Road necessary for the traffic signal at the Access "A" intersection.

E*36. Provide evidence of attempts to acquire any required off-site property interests. In the event the Developer fails to acquire the required off-site property interests, the Developer shall request the City to acquire the off-site property interests and shall enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code Section 66462 at such time as City acquires the property interests required for the improvements. Such agreement shall provide for payment by Developer of all costs incurred by City to acquire the off-site property interests required in connection with the Project. Security for a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained by Developer, at Developer's costs. The appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal.

C*42. Make a cash payment for one year of maintenance for landscaping within the median, and frontage landscaping, to be provided by the City through the assessment district after a six-month plant establishment period and the City's acceptance of the landscaping.

D*59. In the event that an agreement is reached with the City whereby the City will reimburse the cost of permanent off-site improvements, the Developer shall submit to the City verifiable cost records for improvements listed in Engineering Conditions 12, 15, 18, 19, 47 and 51.

and;

3. Adopt the Findings of Fact.

Motion carried on a 4 - 0 vote with Commissioner Moore absent.

Chairman Haller stated the DRB is looking forward in reviewing this Project.



4.2 Reconsideration of an Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Conditional Use Permit (CUP 006-004) adopting: 1) A Planned Development Document for the subject Project establishing Development Standards, and; 2) A Tentative Tract Map 18013 (TTM-006-002) for a proposed seventeen (17) lot residential Subdivision for the subject parcel of land.

The Appeal is as follows: Appeal 006-003; An Appeal filed by Hispano Investors Inc., requesting reconsideration of the Planning Commission's determination to deny Tentative Tract Map (TTM-006-002 / TTM18013) and Conditional Use Permit (CUP-006-004).



The Project is located Three hundred feet (300') east of the intersection of Victoria Avenue and Pacific Street. Assessor Parcel Numbers: 1191-351-04. (Applicant: Hispano Investors Inc).

Chairman Haller introduced the item and called for Staff's presentation.

Assistant Planner Kelleher gave the presentation from the Staff Report. Staff had distributed Attachment "F" to the Commission prior to the Meeting and apologized that Attachment "F" in the Staff Report had been copied / processed only every other page and what has been distributed before them as Attachment "F" is correct. He then gave the historical background of the Project. If the Commission approves this item with the proposed redesign, then the Applicant could withdraw his Appeal. He then explained what had transpired at the January 7, 2007, City Council Meeting regarding access and future connects with adjacent parcels and inclusion of amenities, as well as how Planning COA Nos. 29, 30 and 31 have been added. He further explained the Applicant's redesign and proposed Phasing to the Commission and that improvements will be done concurrently. The City Council had concerns with the larger lots and rear yards becoming cluttered with cars, litter, debris, etc. With regards to Engineering No. 33 should say Lot 12 and not Lot 17 and Engineering COA No. 26, should say Lots 10, 11 and 12, and not Lots 15, 16 and 17. Assistant Planner Kelleher then concluded his presentation and stated the Applicant is in the audience.

Chairman Haller asked if the Commission had questions of Staff. Hearing none, he then opened the Public Hearing and asked if the Applicant would like to make a presentation.

Mr. Henry Poquiz, of HP Engineering, 1465 Crestview Street, Redlands, California, who is the Applicant's Principal Engineer Representative, addressed the Commission. He explained how the proposed Project went from seventeen (17) Lots to a fifteen (15) Lot Subdivision. Lot "B" which is the drainage along Lots 11,12 and 13 can be easily accommodated. He further explained the proposed Project is pretty much the same, with the exception of the cul-de-sac area.

Chairman Haller asked if the Commission had questions of the Applicant.

There were none.

Chairman Haller asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak on the item.

Mr. John Romig, 7010 Alice Street, Highland, California, who resides at the dead end, addressed the Commission. He stated how the City had filled in the Wash for him and the homes are good. With the proposed homes, that will reduce the weeds, fires and is good for the neighborhood.

Chairman Haller asked if anyone else would like to speak on the item. Hearing none, he then closed the Public Hearing and opened the floor for discussion amongst the Commissioners.

Discussion ensued between the Commission and Staff regarding if the Fire Department was amenable to the proposed the cul-de-sac bulb configuration located at the dead end street and if there are three (3)-point turns. Staff responded he had spoken with Les Hewitt who is the Fire Marshall, previously was Debbie Chapman due to the relatively length of the stub out and Mr. Hewitt was comfortable for the Fire apparatus to back out.

A question was asked by a Commissioner what about the remnant pieces of property west and north of the proposed Project, if left unimproved. Staff responded they are to be landscaped by the Developer and placed in an LMD, temporarily.

Discussion ensued between the Commission and Staff regarding the landscaping and the block wall and the landscaping between the wall and Right-of-Way. Staff then went up the Dais and explained the location and proposed improvements and LMD to the Commission. Staff added the Developer will be working concurrently on the block wall and LMD. A question was asked by a Commissioner if the wall will go across the road and will be gated for the adjacent property owner's use. Staff responded affirmatively in order for the adjacent property owner's utilization.

Chairman Haller asked if anyone else would like to speak on the item. Hearing none, he then closed the Public Hearing and opened the floor for discussion amongst the Commissioners.

Discussion ensued between the Commission and Staff regarding clarifying the City Council's comments, and that larger lot sizes were some of their concerns, amongst other items, the lot width and the existing neighborhood. Staff added the proposed Project went from 0.5 acre lots on Alice Street to parcels that are 7,200 square feet and appeared not be to be key item at the City Council Meeting.

The following are comments made by the Commissioners: 1) had issues with the internal circulation; 2) had issues with the future connectivity; 3) seemed the City Council based their action taken / recommendation on circulation; 4) meets the City's General Plan requirements; 5) comfortable with the circulation pattern even with the lots east of parcels Alternative "A"; 6) with Alternative "A", the seven (7) lots line up on the Tract boundary, while the six (6) lots are on the other side of the Tract boundary, and; 7) it appears the parcels are smaller located to the east and larger parcels on Goodman.

Discussion ensued between the Commission and Staff regarding the average lot size and density of the proposed Project. Staff added regarding the context of the lot size, two (2) people are supportive of the proposed Project and the issue of controversy was street circulation.

Further comments were made by the Commission: 1) in addition with the two members of the public being supportive of the Project, added plus the two (2) houses along with the street circulation; 2) appears the street circulation means more; 3) is an infill project and is challenging and is appropriate offset; 4) good point is difference than the immediate adjacent lots and improvements; 5) the future parcels could be served with a third street; 6) the highest and best use for this Tract is adequate; 7) other infill project similar to the Gardner project along Base Line is a nine (9) lot subdivision; 8) the Applicant has captured the spirit and the economy to market the Project, and; 9) the economy is now different than when the Commission first considered the Project.

Chairman Haller recapped the revised Conditions of Approval to the Commission and the consideration of utilizing Alternative "A". Staff responded affirmatively.

There being no further questions of the Applicant or Staff, or discussion amongst the Commissioners, Chairman Haller then called for the question.

A Motion was made by Commissioner Gamboa and seconded by Chairman Haller to:

1. Adopt the Applicant's Alternative "A" Map;

2. Direct Staff to File a Notice of Exemption;

3. Adopt Resolution 07-012 approving Conditional Use Permit 006-004 to approve a Planned Development Document and Tentative Tract Map 18013 (TTM 006-002), all subject to the Recommended Conditions of Approval, as modified with the following:

C*26. Construct a concrete v-ditch on the adjoining property northerly of Lots 10, 11 and 12 , and a drainage facility along the westerly property line of Lot 12, to intercept and convey off-site drainage to Street "B". Utilize an under sidewalk drain within the public Right-of-Way. If the Developer cannot obtain permission from the adjacent property owner after a verifiable good faith effort, an alternate design may be submitted for review by the City Engineer.

A*33. Reserve a private drainage easement across Lot 12 for the use and benefit of the upstream property owners.

4. Approve the Findings of Fact, and;

5. Rescind Planning Commission Resolution No. 06-021.

Motion carried on a 4 - 0 vote with Commissioner Moore absent.



5.0 LEGISLATIVE

There were no items.



6.0 ANNOUNCEMENTS

Staff distributed a memo to the Board and explained the anticipated items scheduled for October 2, and October 16, 2007.

The Commission thanked Staff regarding Lowe's Project and its conduct held in a professional manner with the Public Hearings and the issues that were raised. It will be challenging for the Applicant and now will be up to the DRB. The Commission further wanted to extend its appreciation. Staff responded will forward the Commission's comments to Senior Planner Meikle.



7.0 ADJOURN

There being no further business Chairman Haller declared the meeting adjourned at 7:36 p.m.



Submitted by:





Linda McKeough,

Administrative Assistant III





Approved by:





Richard Haller, Chairman

Planning Commission