Loading...
PC MINS 19950808APPROVED • 9/12/95 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING August 8, 1995 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman Mowlds at the Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. The Pledge of Allegiance followed, led by Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement/Planning Commission Secretary Bret Bernard. PRESENT: Commissioners Alberio, Ferraro, Vannorsdall, Wang, Whiteneck, Vice Chair Hayes, and Chairman Mowlds. ABSENT: None Also present were Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement/Planning Commission Secretary Bernard, Planning Administrator Petru, Associate Planner Silverman, Assistant Planner de Freitas, and Recording Secretary Drasco. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Commission approved the agenda, as presented, (7-0). COMMUNICATIONS Staff Planning Administrator Petru advised that there were several late letters: one for Agenda Item No. 3, one for Item No. 4, two for Item No. 5, and eight for Item No. 6. All had been placed before the Commission. Commission• None APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR 1. MINUTES OF JULY 11, 1995 Commissioner Vannorsdall pointed out that, on Page 1 in the second paragraph, he should be removed from the list of those Commissioners who were present, as he was absent from the meeting. Chairman Mowlds stated that, on Page 4 in the 2nd paragraph, the vote of (6-0) should be changed to (5-0) and that, on Page 8 in the 9th paragraph, spelling of the word "methods" should be corrected. Commissioner Alberio moved to adopt the Minutes of July 11, 1995, as amended, seconded by commissioner Wang. Approved, (5-0-2), with Commissioner Vannorsdall and Chairman Mowids abstaining as they were not present at the July 11, 1995 meeting. 2. MINUTES OF JULY 25, 1995 Vice Chair Hayes stated that on Page 5, a statement she made was omitted and asked that it be included, as follows: "Vice Chair Hayes stated that she felt that requiring a hold harmless statement would be punitive to the applicant because the property was not in the Landslide Moratorium Area." Commissioner Ferraro suggested that, on Page 5 in the 11th paragraph, the vote of (1-6) should be changed to (6-1) and stated that, on Page 8, in the 3rd paragraph, the word "NOTES" should be changed to "NOES". Commissioner Alberio moved to adopt the Minutes of July 25, 1995, as amended, seconded by Commissioner Wang. Approved, (7-0). CONTINUED BUSINESS 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 185, VARIANCE NO. 388, GRADING PERMIT NO. 1793, AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 676; Wayfarer's Chapel, 5755 Palos Verdes Drive South. (TS) Chairman Mowlds explained that this was a continued public hearing and that there had been an adjourned meeting at the site on August 2, 1995 with Staff, the applicant, geologists representing the applicant and the City, and the public to discuss the geotechnical aspects of this project. The Chairman then asked Vice Chair Hayes to conduct this portion of the hearing as he had not been able to attend the August 2, 1995 meeting. Mr. Dean Andrews (architect for the project), 1064 Upland Avenue, San Pedro, CA 90732. Mr. Andrews stated that the proposed improvements were very important to the Chapel for development of the site and its ability to conduct business. Ms. Joan Wright, 1 Fruit Tree, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Wright stated that she had lived in her home for 38 years. She was representing a group of property owners from the upper Portuguese Bend area who were opposed to the proposed building because they felt this construction would be in violation of the Moratorium. She added that if this project were approved, the City should be indemnified from liability. Ms. Wright expressed her alarm that statements were made by the experts at the site visit that the ground is not moving and she listed several specific personal PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 8, 1995 PAGE 2 observations which she believed proved otherwise, including cracks in an area behind Wayfarer's Chapel. She urged the Commission to deny the project as she felt that allowing this building could potentially cause a future lawsuit. Ms. Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Larue stated that she had lived in her home for 32 years. She said that she was present at the August 2, 1995 meeting at the Wayfarers Chapel site and that she disagreed with the City's geologist's statement made at that meeting that the land had not moved in over 100,000 years. Ms. Larue explained that, at the August 2, 1995 meeting at Wayfarers Chapel, she had expressed concern about cracks in the Chapel's parking lot and was told by Chuck Batell, the groundskeeper at the Chapel, that they were caused by large nearby trees. She then described that she had actually seen the ground under the parking lot moving in waves over time and stated that this movement, rather than the trees, had caused the parking lot to crack. Ms. Larue stated that she realized that Wayfarers Chapel was business and a source of income for the City. She suggested that possibly, as an option to building a new Visitors Center, the Chapel could rent or buy the building on the corner of Seacove Drive and Palos Verdes Drive South which belonged to a Mr. Haas. She felt that this was a more suitable site since it was outside the Moratorium Area and could be accessed by making a left hand turn at Seacove, rather than making a U-turn at Abalone Cove Park for westbound traffic. Mr. Art Keene (City Geologist), 2601 East Victoria, #308, Rancho Dominguez, CA 90220. Mr. Keene stated that he realized that the property was in the Landslide Moratorium Area but added that the new building would be located in an area of the site that had not moved for 100,000 years. He added that the slide was very slow moving and that ground water extraction improved the situation. He stated that there would be no safety hazard even if movement started in this area of the site because the building would not suddenly collapse, rather the doors would begin to jam as a sign that the building was shifting. Commissioner Alberio asked Mr. Keene if he was in favor of the proposing building to be located on the rear of the property. Mr. Keene replied that the particular site was on a portion of the ancient landslide that hasn't moved for some time. He added that placing the building on caissons and continuing to extract the ground water would also provide further assurance that the building site was acceptable. Commissioner Whiteneck asked the location of the closest water extraction well to the proposed site. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 8, 1995 PAGE 3 Mr. Keene replied that Perry Ehling knew the location of all the wells but he believed it was just off Narcissa Drive, behind the property, possibly running directly under the Chapel. He added that he believed the land had not moved under the Chapel since the extraction well had been in place although there may have been movement in the street, adjacent to the property. Chairman Mowlds stated that the extraction from wells, other than the one nearest the site, were improving the situation on the subject property as well. Mr. Keene agreed and added that Perry Ehling was monitoring and adding wells on an ongoing basis. Commissioner Alberio was concerned that the existing extraction wells were inadequate. Mr. Keene said that more wells were needed and were planned to be installed. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked about the soil near the Chapel. Mr. Keene said that several layers of bedrock can be located by boring down about 401, and that above the bedrock is clay, which is on expansive soil. Commissioner Vannorsdall speculated that expansive soil would be almost impossible to stabilize. Mr. Keene responded that deep caissons should take care of the problem. Mr. Dean Andrews, (architect for the project - rebuttal). Mr. Andrews reported to the Commission that his research indicated that the proposed site was the best location of the property to re -build the structure. He stated that even though portions of the site might be moving, he had consulted a geologist, as well as the City's geologist, and was willing to make any structural changes necessary to ensure that the building would be as stable as possible. He believed too that the proposed wood structure would be more flexible and safer than masonry if the area under the building started to move in the future. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked if Mr. Andrews had drilled to find bedrock under the proposed building. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 9l 1995 PAGE 4 Mr. Andrews said they had and that the bedrock was about 8' below the ground level. He added that it would probably be necessary to remove about 400 cubic yards of dirt and then back fill for a total earth work of about 800 to 900 cubic yards to create a compacted building pad for the new structure. Chairman Mowlds noted that the Director could approve that quantity of remedial grading. Vice Chair Hayes commented that the building would not be inhabited, like a single family residence. Commissioner Alberio asked about the agreement with Jim York, the owner of the adjacent property, in reference to a potential Lot Line Adjustment to provide an adequate building setback for the new Visitors Center. Mr. Andrews stated that there was currently only a verbal agreement. Chairman Mowlds moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Alberio. Approved, (7-0). Commissioner Vannorsdall stated that, although it was not the Commission's job to design the building, he believed the applicant should be required to build on caissons into the bedrock. Commissioner Ferraro asked about the hold harmless agreement. Planning Administrator replied that such an agreement was required for any structure built in the Landslide Moratorium Area, but that the City Attorney would be consulted regarding the final language. Commissioner Alberio wanted to make sure the City was protected and suggested that personal injury, as well as property damage, be included in the hold harmless agreement. Commissioner Ferraro commented on one of the photographs received from a speaker, stating that there was a bump on Palos Verdes Drive South, not adjacent to the Chapel, but near the driveway. Vice Chair Hayes said that the geologist acknowledged that the bump was there during his testimony to the Commission. Chairman Mowlds noted that the applicant was aware of the landslide conditions on the site and accepted that the conditions were not perfect for building, but that they were willing to take the risk and design the building to minimize the effects. He PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 8, 1945 PAGE 5 • • felt also that the effects from the landslide were being mitigated by the dewatering wells and, therefore, would favor approval of the project. Chairman Mowlds moved to direct Staff to prepare a P.C. Resolution to approve the project, subject to conditions of approval, including adding personal injury liability to the hold harmless agreement, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. Commissioner Whiteneck commented that personal injury liability in a hold harmless agreement usually involved an insurance policy and wondered if this would be included. Director/Secretary Bernard replied that the City Attorney would be consulted. Planning Administrator suggested that the P.C. Resolution be brought back to the Commission meeting on September 12, 1995 to provide adequate time for preparation. The maker and seconder of the motion agreed to the date suggested by Staff. The motion passed, (7-0). Vice Chair Hayes returned the meeting to Chairman Mowlds. Chairman Mowlds stated that this item would come back on September 12, 1995 for more discussion and the consideration of the P.C. Resolution. Planning Administrator Petru noted that because the public hearing had been closed, the discussion would be limited to only the content of the P.C. Resolution. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. VARIANCE NO. 397; Jack and Dory Nance, 51 Rockinghorse Road. (TS) Vice Chair Hayes moved to waive reading of the Staff Report, seconded by Commissioner Whiteneck. Approved, (7-0). vice Chair Hayes moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Whiteneck. Approved, (7-0). Chairman Mowlds asked the applicant if he wished to speak and he did not. Chairman Mowlds then asked him if he agreed with the conditions of approval. The applicant indicated that he agreed with the proposed conditions. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 8, 1995 PAGE 6 0 Vice Chair Hayes moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Whiteneck. Approved, (7-0). Commissioner Ferraro moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 95-30, thereby approving Variance No. 397, with conditions of approval, seconded by Commissioner Wang. Approved, (7-0). Commissioner Mowlds noted that the P.C. Resolution would be signed that evening and that there would be a 15 -day appeal period. 5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 189 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 678; Unocal, 29741 S. Western Avenue. (FF) Assistant Planner de Freitas presented the Staff Report, stating that the applicant had requested a continuation to a date uncertain to allow time for the applicant and Staff to review alterations to the site plan. Chairman Mowlds declared the public hearing open. Ms. Priscilla Brisco, 29661 South Western Avenue, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Brisco stated that she lives at Rancho Palos Verdes Villa and that she had brought a document with 70 signatures from nearby residents indicating that they were opposed to the gas station. She listed the reasons for opposition as potential air quality problems and disrupted vehicular access to the property, in relation to an easement across the property which is currently fenced. Ms. Jeannine Etcheverry, 29641 South Western, Unit 313, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Etcheverry reported that her unit overlooks this site and, while she did not object to development on the property, she did not want a 24-hour operation. She also made reference to the easement and said that residents were told that it was fenced because of environmental concerns from the previous gas station. Ms. Etcheverry asked if the proposed gas station was intended to operate 24 hours per day. Assistant Planner de Freitas answered that the gas station was proposed to be open 24 hours per day, but the car wash and the snack shop would have shorter hours of operation. Ms. Etcheverry asked if liquor would be sold at the site and Assistant Planner de Freitas said that the applicant had not requested to sell liquor in conjunction with the gas station, which would require a Conditional Use Permit. Ms. Sura Halote, 29641 South Western Venue, Unit 116, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Halote stated that she lived next door to the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 8, 1995 PAGE 7 ;7 r: subject property and that she was in charge of Neighborhood Watch for this area. She was opposed to an all night operation and asked if Arco was involved, or just Unocal. Assistant Planner de Freitas replied that Arco was not involved, only Unocal. Ms. Kim Halling, 29641 South Western Avenue, Unit 409, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Halling stated that she was the Secretary/ Treasurer of the Eastview Townhomes. She asked when the Townhomes would be allowed to use their easement across the subject property and explained that a hazardous traffic condition existed because the easement was fenced. Assistant Planner de Freitas advised that the property owners had to contact Unocal directly regarding the easement but that he was aware that Unocal was having the area surveyed, so that the fence could be re -located. Mr. Edward Reed, 29641 South Western Avenue, Unit 307, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Reed spoke regarding the easement also, stating that it seemed to him that it was illegal to keep the easement fenced and that it would be to the advantage to Unocal to use the easement to provide access to the station. Commissioner vannorsdall noted that there was no representative from Unocal at the meeting because they had asked for a continuance. Chairman Mowlds informed the audience that the speakers at tonight's meeting would be informed of the date of the continued hearing. He added that there would be additional information at that time and they would have another opportunity to speak. Director/Secretary Bernard announced that the City had received a letter from Unocal, which requested that the hearing be postponed for at least 30 days. Planning Administrator Petru assured the audience that all residents within a 3001 radius of the site would be informed of the date of continued public hearing via a written public notice. Vice Chair Hayes moved to continue the public hearing to a date uncertain, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. Approved, (7- 0). RECESS AND RECONVENE Recessed at 8:02 P.M. and reconvened at 8:12 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 8, 1995 PAGE 8 E • 6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 186, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 673; Taco Bell, 28798 S. Western. (FF) Assistant Planner de Freitas presented the Staff Report, stating that an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration had been prepared but that a traffic study had not been completed. He added that the City's Public Works Traffic Consultant had indicated that afternoon that the traffic report would be available at the next meeting. Commissioner Alberio asked if the traffic study for the car wash previously proposed at this site could be simply updated. Assistant Planner de Freitas replied that when the car wash was considered three years ago, the traffic analysis indicated that there would be no significant traffic impact. He added that Public Works Staff had said that afternoon that their recommendation regarding the current study would be the same, although the formal study was not yet complete. Commissioner Alberio asked if the gas tanks from the previous gas station were still buried on the site. Assistant Planner de Freitas said this was addressed in the Initial Study, which stated that there was no conclusive evidence that the gas tanks had been removed but, as a mitigation measure, prior to construction, verification of their removal and evidence of no contamination from hazardous material would be required. Chairman Mowlds stated that a new traffic study needed to be more complete than the previous traffic study for the car wash, which did not take into account the flow of traffic at several times of the day during a full seven-day period. Also, because he recalled that the Commission had not agreed with the Public Works assessment regarding the line of sight down Western Avenue from the access driveway, he believed a detailed analysis was needed, including the impact of the nearby school's pending expansion of their facility. He stressed that the commission would not be satisfied with merely a statement that there was no significant impact. Assistant Planner de Freitas assured the Commission that the potential expansion of the school at Christ Lutheran Church was being included in the review conducted by the City's traffic consultant. Chairman Mowlds pointed out that another reason the previous traffic study was inadequate was because the analysis of the number of cars which would have been washed to make a profit was considerably more than the estimated number of vehicular trips in PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 8, 1995 PAGE 9 and out of the car wash. He believed that the cost per meal at this fast food facility would have to be considered as part of the new traffic study. There was a consensus of agreement among the other members of the Commission regarding Chair Mowld's statements. Commissioner Ferraro asked about the risk of carcinogenic emissions and asked if it was true that the food was pre-cooked elsewhere. Assistant Planner de Freitas indicated that the applicant could answer those questions. Chairman Mowlds opened the public hearing and informed the audience that speakers present that night would be heard, but that further discussion of the project by the Commission would take place at the continued public hearing. Mr. William Fancher (applicant) , 1342 Bell Avenue, Tustin, CA 92680. Mr. Fancher felt confident that the traffic study would be comprehensive. He also assured the Commission that the previous gas station tanks had been removed and that soil borings had indicated that there was no significant contamination. Mr. Fancher expressed confusion as to the opposition to the proposed project because a restaurant was a permitted use based on the zoning for this property. He asked for direction from the Commission as to what needed to be changed because he felt that considerations had been made regarding the site layout such as the high walls, with landscaping along the property lines to block any noise from the restaurant from affecting the adjacent residents. In addition, he noted that there were no side streets from the restaurant exiting into the neighborhood. He noted that usually Taco Bell facilities were operated on a 24-hour basis and a concession had been made to reduce the hours because of neighborhood concerns and that twice the required parking would be provided on the site to reduce congestion. He felt that the letters opposing the project did not take these factors into account. Chairman Mowlds asked for comments from the Staff. A discussion ensued between Planning Administrator Petru and Mr. Fancher regarding the zoning on the property. Ms. Petru concluded that, although a restaurant was a permissible use, a new building required a Conditional Use Permit which was subject to the discretion of the Planning Commission to approve or deny the specific project based on its merits. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 8, 1995 PAGE 10 0 Ms. Julie Anderson, 28632 Friarstone Court, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Anderson stated that she had paid a premium to live in Rancho Palos Verdes (Strathmore Townhomes) but that she believed the price was justified because of the safe neighborhood. She was concerned about the fast food restaurant being proposed which would be bordered on three sides by Strathmore Townhomes and showed the Commission a map illustrating this. In addition to the close proximity to her home, she also objected to the type of clientele which would be attracted to this type of restaurant, the noise and the cooking odors. She was concerned that the wall surrounding the property would not be high enough to shield the bedrooms on the second floors of the Strathmore units adjacent to the restaurant. She believed that the project would be intrusive to the community and a risk to public safety, particularly because of the nearby school and gang activity on Western Avenue, stating that the Taco Bell would become a hangout. She was also concerned about increased traffic and reduction of property values of the surrounding homes. She stated that she understood the need for tax revenue but that also property owners rights should be respected and that there were other sites which would be more appropriate for the proposed project. Ms. Kathleen Dixon, 1413 North Cabrillo Avenue, San Pedro, CA 90731. Ms. Dixon announced that she had been asked to speak for others who were not present that evening and who objected to the fast food restaurant being "tucked into" the Strathmore Townhomes. She stated that the map posted on the wall was misleading in showing the relationship to the proposed restaurant to the surround homes. She said that a wall, no matter how tall, could not prevent intrusion into the community, particularly with the drive-through loud speaker facing toward Strathmore, as well as the loud stereos in teenagers' cars late at night. She cited a survey performed by the Daily Breeze newspaper stating that Taco Bell had the highest incidence of crime of any fast food restaurant. She was concerned about the proximity to local schools and the additional traffic which would be generated. Ms. Vicki Livingston, 1723 Hollifield Court, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275. Ms. Livingston, who lived at the Strathmore Townhomes, furnished a copy of the Daily Breeze crime survey to each of the Commissioners. She also had received approximately So signatures from residents at Strathmore who were opposed to the proposed restaurant. She agreed with concerns mentioned by previous speakers and said that possibly conditions of approval, such as an earlier closing time or requiring a security guard to be present on-site might make the site safer and asked how such conditions of approval would be monitored by the City. Director/Secretary Bernard responded that the applicant was responsible to comply with the conditions of approval and, if the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST So 1995 PAGE 11 City was advised that they were not, it became a Code Enforcement issue and the Conditional Use Permit could be revoked. Mr. Bernard explained that, in particularly sensitive situations such as this, sometimes provisions were imposed that after three, six, or twelve months, the commission reviewed the applicant's adherence to the conditions. He added that, although this was a self -policing procedure, input was welcomed at any time from the neighborhood. Mr. Ramiro Garcia, 1835 Caddington Drive, #6B, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275. Mr. Garcia stated that he lived at Peninsula Pointe, which was across Western Avenue from the subject property, and that he was on the Board of Directors for their Homeowners Association. He stated that local residents were concerned about the project for the same reasons mentioned by previous speakers but also because of the potential increase in traffic accidents due to the blind curve and the slowing of traffic to enter the proposed fast food restaurant. He believed that the proximity to the theater at the Terraces Shopping center would also increase gang activity as young people would stop at the Taco Bell for a meal after a movie, causing an increase in young drivers to the neighborhood, racing down the steep hill on Caddington Drive. Ms. Maureen Grieder, 1931 Avenida Aprenda, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Grieder said that she was speaking on behalf of the San Pedro Peninsula Homeowners Coalition and that traffic concerns at this proposed restaurant were the subject of their last meeting, with ingress and egress being discussed, as well as U-turns. Chairman Mowlds declared that the public hearing would be continued to a date to be announced later. He recalled the applicant for further questions and rebuttal. Commissioner Ferraro asked where the food was pre-cooked. Mr. Fancher replied that Taco Bell was owned By Pepsi Food Service and that there were central batching plants where the food was prepared in order to eliminate cooking odors at the individual restaurant sites. He explained that the food was placed in sealed plastic bags which were then boiled in water. He added that, even though there was no on-site cooking, charcoal filers were still provided in the kitchens of each restaurant. Commissioner Alberio asked about the delivery hours. Mr. Fancher said that deliveries were usually in the morning because the peak hours for customers were between lunchtime and 7:00 P.M., and that there would be less impact by delivery trucks because of the large parking lot. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 8, 1995 PAGE 12 0 .0 Mr. Fancher rebutted the neighborhood concerns by saying that the owner of the subject property, Dr. Stanton, had rights also and that this was the second commercial development he proposed that had been opposed by the neighborhood. Mr. Fancher believed it was reasonable for Dr. Stanton to realize an income from his property and that he would be employing young people to keep them busy and off the streets for this permitted use. Planning Administrator Petru advised that the circulation period for the Negative Declaration would not be complete by the next Planning Commission meeting and, because the September 12, 1995 meeting agenda was already very long, she suggested that the public hearing be continued to September 26, 1995, when the traffic consultant and Public Works Staff would be available. Chairman Mowlds asked the applicant if this date was acceptable to the applicant and Mr. Fancher said it was. Commissioner Whiteneck moved to continue to public hearing to September 26, 1995, seconded by Commissioner Alberio. Approved, (7-0) . NEW BUSINESS: (NO ITEMS) ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS: Staf f 7. Pre -Agenda for the regular Planning Commission meeting of Tuesday, August 22, 1995. Commission• Chairman Mowlds requested that the August 22, 1995 agenda include a discussion regarding a possible revision in the Development Code to give the Director the authority to determine whether a portion of a flag lot would be considered a front or side yard. Mr. Mowlds hoped that this would avoid Variance requests as in one of the items on that evening's agenda. The other members of the Commission concurred. Chairman Mowlds raised another issue, regarding the timing of the Mitigated Negative Declaration 21 -day circulation period and providing adequate time for Staff and Commission review, and asked that Staff research this issue for the August 22, 1995 agenda. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 8, 1995 PAGE 13 COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE (regarding non -agenda items): Ms. Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Larue discussed de -watering wells, and the Altamira Canyon drainage project. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Alberio. The motion carried, (7-0), and the meeting was duly adjourned at 9:12 P.M. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission would be on August 22, 1995. (A.JDMIN#10 - MIN8.8) PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 8, 1995 PAGE 14