Loading...
07/06/2006 I Community and Economic Development (AIIfORNIA Department 22795 Barton Road Grand Terrace California 92313-5295 (909) 824-6621 GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING July 6th,2006 The regular meetins of the Grand Terrace Planning Commission was called to order at the Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California, on Julv 06, 2006, at 7:00 P.m.,by Chair Wilson. PRESENT: Doug Wilson, Chairperson Matthew Addington, Vice Chairperson Tom Comstock, Commissioner Darcy McNaboe, Commissioner Brian Phelps, Commissioner Gary Koontz, Community Development Director John Lampe, Associate Planner Richard Garcia, Assistant Planner Laura Reinarz, Planning Secretary 7:00 P.M. CONVENE SITE AND ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD/ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING • Pledge of Allegiance led by Commissioner McNaboe • Roll Call PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None Chair Wilson introduced the project. 1 ITEMS: 1. E-06-10 Summary Vacation of a Portion of Pico Street, APPLICANT: City of Grand Terrace LOCATION: Pico Street between Pico Park and the Union Pacific Rail Line east of Taylor Street. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend that the City Council approve the summary vacation of Pico Street between Pico Park and the Union Pacific Rail Line east of Taylor Street. Staff Director Koontz presented his staff report as follows: Back in October of 2005, the City Council entered into an agreement with the Colton Joint Unified School District for the sale of approximately 23 acres of land to be part of the new Colton High School, high school number 3 as it's referred to. We bought the land from Edison back in 2000/2001. The school district has requested to purchase essentially an area, and Pico Street runs right through the middle of it. As part of the original sales agreement between the School District and the City Council, it was agreed that we would vacate a section of Pico Street essentially from right here in the middle of Pico Park over to the Union Pacific Railroad. It does not include the railroad crossing itself. As you can see, Pico here is about 1300 feet long and it's 66 foot of right-a-way. It's already an improved street,partially improved, no curb, gutter, two travel lanes, and you have agriculture on both sides, some industrial. This is the plat of the property that is being sold to the school district. As you can see Pico Street runs right through the middle of it. As part of the deal what we're doing is we're going to be "cul-de-sacing." This is the west half of Pico Park. The east half is over here. We're putting a center cul-de-sac at the end for turn around, and then this will continue to remain as a utility easement for underground/overhead utilities. We've already got water, sewer, power, whatnot in there, and we've agreed not to move any of that. We're also, as part of the agreement, there is going to be a storm drain to take care of some of the drainage issues that we've got right now. The way it's being designed, it will probably be a 48-inch storm drain that we'll assist the school district in putting in because it's taking care of our outside flows. They're designing it in the event of an overflow for the storm drain. This is the design of the school. There is another color exhibit over on the far side that depicts the same thing. As you can see, it basically stubs out tennis courts and basketball courts in this area, more parking, and this will remain as a utility corridor. As you can see, the area north where they got baseball diamonds, tennis courts, whatnot, there are a lot of sport activities. They really didn't want to have a public street running right through the middle and having kids 2 - crossing the street to get to the sports area. So the intent is to basically continue the utility easement and then the public access right-of-way. As you're aware, you've got a whole system back here (indicating) for fire and emergency access. You've got Pico that ties to Royal that ties to Tanager; so you've got two points of access for this neighborhood over on Michigan. The two issues of the deal are, one we are retaining this utility easement, and the other issue we're dealing with is that as part of the agreement, the street will not be blocked off until the school district is prepared to actually start construction in this area. Since their schedules change weekly, it was agreed that they would not block that off. We would still use it. Basically it's a conditional street vacation. They have to give us at least 30 days written notice that they are prepared to start construction, at which time we'll sign this and notify people when it's going to be closed. This isn't something that is going to happen tomorrow. They're still working through some issues. With that, the Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the vacation of this segment of Pico Street to the City Council. Commissioner Wilson: Thank you. Any questions for Staff? Commissioner Addington: Yes, I've got a question regarding the railroad. You said we're not vacating that portion of the railroad? i' Director Koontz: Eventually we're going to have to be putting in another crossing. I'm not going to try to vacate that railroad crossing until I know I've got a— because if you vacate this now, it's going to be more difficult moving it later on. Commissioner Addington: Will the rail lines continue to extend through and go southerly or where ever they go? Director Koontz: At this point there has been some discussion about possibly trying to vacate this segment, but vacating a rail segment that has a couple of active customers on it is very difficult so the rail line, at least for the time being, will remain there. If we can get rid of it, we'll definitely try that. Commissioner Addington: I would assume, although it's not part of this review tonight, the siding that goes into the railroad yard, is obviously going to be vacated to the school? Director Koontz: The school district is doing that. Commissioner Addington: Thank you. Chair Wilson: Any other questions of Staff before we open to the public? 3 Chair Wilson: No, then we'll invite the public participation, and we'll begin with our first request-to-speak form, Patricia Farley. Patricia Farley: Good evening, my name is Patricia Farley. I live at 12513 Michigan Street in Grand Terrace. My concern about the proposed closure of Pico is based on the City counting its chickens before they hatch. And there is a lot of expense that comes to this with challenges to the high school project and other projects that the City has that is also affected by this. So it seems to me those things should be worked through before you start closing streets. The high school EIR was extremely inadequate. It did not include many things it should have. One was the traffic plan which included this. It did not identify all of the hazardous material sites near the high school which is required by law. The EIR for the OAC and other projects are currently challenged in court, and I would advise you to look at the judge's ruling so far. The concerns that have been expressed have been supported, and this kind of stuff should not be closed and spent on and acted like it's going to happen until everything that is legally supposed to be done has been done. In addition, the peaker plant was supposed to have an extensive EIR on it. No people in Grand Terrace were notified of the environmental report. It was only notified in the Highgrove paper to Highgrove residents, and it was supposed to be in the library which it is not; so people have not been able to review it. That in itself needs a CEQA review which also needs to be a part of any high school plans. So there is a whole basket of problems with this. I don't think a street should be closed until we've looked at the whole traffic circulation which was one of the problems in the high school, and a lot of people in Grand -- Terrace don't realize that this is a very damaging high school for our City because it's asking us to pay for roads and damage for many residents of other communities to come into our community, and these issues have not been properly addressed. Thank you. Commissioner Addington: Are we allowed to ask questions to the speaker? Chair Wilson: Sure Commissioner Addington: Thank you for coming back to the podium. Typically fiscal matters are left to the City Council. Though I'm just curious as to what expenses are being incurred by the City in the vacation of this right-of-way? Patricia Farly: Well, it involves so many projects that we're getting involved in approving a peaker plant and moving things for it without the environmental reports, and we're paying to move some pipes from what I understand in order to accommodate a high school that really shouldn't go there and hasn't been legally approved because there has been challenges to it; so that's where I think we'll run into a lot of costs and problems because we haven't done things in the right sequence. Commissioner Addington: Thank you very much. Commissioner Comstock: Mr. Chairman, I have a question of staff. Is the City Attorney aware or involved with the challenges of the EIR, the various EIRs that our former speaker just spoke 4 about? I'm just asking if we're aware of that, and if so, has the City Attorney had anything to say regarding the vacation of the lower portion of Pico? Director Koontz: The City Attorney is actively involved in every challenge that is affecting the City. The street vacation, I've had numerous conversations with him. He had reviewed the Staff Report that is before you and has actually made a couple of revisions to it and approved it; so he's actively involved, yes. Commissioner Comstock: Thank you. Commissioner McNaboe: I have a question. If it is voted to vacate this portion of Pico Street and the high school does not go through, what happens then? Director Koontz: As I've noted in the Staff Report presentation, this is a conditional street vacation. This does not take effect until we are given at least 30 days notice prior to actual construction of the high school, and its construction in this area guarantees that they have to close it. If they don't do the north playing fields like part of like phase one and they just build a campus, this stays open. They have to prove that they need to close this to do whatever construction they're going at this time. If the high school never happens, the street never gets closed. Chair Wilson: I think maybe we can clarify a little bit, and you can help me with this, but I understand for a summary vacation to take place, there is paper work that has to be exchanged ' with the County; so the bottom line is that wouldn't be triggered. Director Koontz: Right. Chair Wilson: So there is a fail-safe in relation to this particular item. We can recommend to the City Council to go through the vacation, but there is a series of steps that have to be observed prior to the next step going through. So we're, I guess we have a fail-safe situation. Director Koontz: Right. From the very beginning the City Staff and City Manager on down, we've always been concerned of what happened if something does happen to the high school, and we don't want to mess things up if the high school is not going to happen. If it actually never happens, the street goes through. Chair Wilson: Do you know if the contract specifically states in relation to that language that says specifically that says that the property reverts back or something to that affect? Director Koontz: The school district is going to buy the property. It's their property from that point. If they never build a high school and never give us a 30 days notice that they're actually going to start construction in that area, the vacation never takes affect. And that is in the sales agreement to the school. They're very much aware that they can't touch that unless they can actually prove that they're going to actually need it. 5 Chair Wilson: Anyone else in the public that would like to come forward and address this _ particular issue? If not, we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to the Commissioner for discussion,motion. MOTION PC-15-2006: Commissioner Addington made a motion to approve the vacation of a portion of Pico Street, E-06-10. Commissioner McNaboe seconded the motion. Chair Wilson: Motion has been made and has been seconded. Any discussion? Please vote. Clerk Laura Reinarz: Motion carries all ayes MOTION VOTE PC-15-2006 Approved 5-0-0 2. SA-06-05, CUP-06-03 SA-06-05, CUP-06-03 and E-06-06 to construct &E-06-06 a wireless telecommunications facility. The facility will consist of 6 panel antenna mounted 33 feet high, screened inside of a 35 foot tower that will be attached to the north east corner of Robinson Hall at Christ the Redeemer Catholic Church. APPLICANT: Omnipoint Communications, Inc. LOCATION: 12745 Oriole Avenue, Grand Terrace(APN# 1178-211-01) RECOMMENDATION: Open the Public Hearing, receive testimony, close the public hearing, and approve SA-06-05 to construct a wireless telecommunications facility. Commissioner Addington: Mr. Chair, if I may, I'd like to point out that I'm a parishioner of Christ the Redeemer Church, and I will not be receiving any financial benefit from this project. Commissioner McNaboe: I'd like to point out I'm a parishioner at Christ the Redeemer Catholic Church, and I receive no financial gain from this project. Chair Wilson: Thank you. Do we have a Staff Report? Planner Assistant Garcia: Good evening, my name is Richard Garcia. I'm Assistant Planner, and I have an application from Omnipoint, a subsidiary of T Mobile. They have submitted a letter of intent to build a wireless telecommunication facility on the northeast side of Robinson 6 Hall at Christ the Redeemer Catholic Church, 12745 Oriole Avenue, as part of a network covering the Southern California area. The proposed facility will consist of six panel antennas, 4 feet in length and mounted to and screened inside of a new tower thirty five feet in height designed to match the existing building to which it will be attached. The telecommunications equipment will be installed within a 10 x 20 foot shelter. The subject site is developed as a Roman Catholic Church. The surrounding area is developed as single family residential to the west, north and south. There is also a Sisters of St. Benedict Convent to the east and a seminary house to the north. Oriole Avenue is an improved local street with sidewalks and curbs serving the residential lots on Oriole Avenue. The subject site is located in the "LDR" (Low Density Residential) land use category of the City's General Plan. The zoning of the site is R1-7.2. That's (single family residential with a minimum required area of 7,200 square feet). The proposed telecommunications facility is conditionally permitted by the General Plan and Zoning Code. Properties to the immediate north, south, east, and west are also within the same General Plan and Zoning classification as the subject site. Section 18.63.020 III of the Zoning Code requires a site and architectural review with a public hearing before the Planning Commission for the development of a wireless communications facility. The site plan at the proposed facility consists of six panel antennas, as I mentioned earlier, only four feet in length but 33 feet in height inside the tower, which will not be visible to the public. It will be in the church tower in the shelter. It will comply with all of the development standards for wireless communications facilities in the R1-7.2 zone. The equipment will be located inside of the new concrete masonry unit designed to match the color, material, and architecture of Robinson Hall, to which the tower will be attached. This is the Robinson Hall building, the long building running north and south, and the tower will be attached to the right of the northeast side of it, and there are no residences within that immediate area, and it is a very low emitter of radio frequencies which we do not have any jurisdiction over anyway. Notification has been sent to neighbors. I had one inquiry and they were very pleased to see the design of the building, the extent to which it's been architecturally enhanced, and I haven't received any objection at all for the tower from any of the residents and two accolades from residents. In addition, I've received comments from the County of San Bernardino Fire Department, the Department of Building and Safety and Colton Unified School District for conditions which will be met upon approval by the Planning Commission. The Environmental Review, there is a Negative Declaration, it actually qualifies for Negative Declaration under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, in that the project will not have an adverse affect on the environment. Copies of the Negative Declaration and the Initial Study/Environment Checklist with the mandatory finding of no impact for this project are attached hereto as Attachment 7. 7 Regarding health issues, it is the Staff s understanding under the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, the local government cannot deny application for a Telecommunication facility because of health issues from "radio frequency emissions." And at this time the project is in compliance with the requirements that the City has established for-the establishment of telecommunication facilities in the city. The Staff recommends approval of the project. Chair Wilson: Thank you. Any questions of Staff? Commissioner Addington: I have a couple. On sheet A3 looking at the top of the tower there is some dash rectangles. I take it that represents the antennas that are inside of the tower, and those are not any architectural features on the outside of the building? Assistant Planner Garcia: Yes, that's correct. Director Koontz: There is no exterior equipment on this project at all. It's inside of the building. Commissioner Addington: Including the GPS antenna that is shown on A3 also or A4, one of the two? It's a little tiny circle called out as GPS antenna? Assistant Planner Garcia: It appears to protrude slightly out of the exterior but... Commissioner Addington: Is there a GPS antenna on the east side where it would less likely.... Director Koontz: It's a very small structure on the east side. We don't believe it's going to be very noticeable. Commissioner Addington: Second question I have, is this facility shared with other cellular providers, or are we looking at another cellular company coming in and trying to install one on the lot next door to fill in their gaps and all of that also? Assistant Planner Garcia: There is a possibility there could be a co-location at this location, but as this time, no, there is no intent to do that. Director Koontz: Right now the Applicant is a subsidiary of T Mobile. Whether they make a deal with another company and add more, if there is another one coming in, we'd much rather fill this tower with them so they're completely out of site. Again, any of these projects regarding cell towers have to go through the Commission. Commissioner Addington: I understand, but you know, if the next company decides instead of co-sharing they want to build one on the lot next-door, I mean, then we start to get a whole bunch of these in town. 8 {" Director Koontz: Well, I can assure you if someone wants to build one next-door, we're going to - strongly suggest that they go talk to T Mobile because there is already one there. We have to inform them that we have to go through a formal public hearing, and I'm sure you folks will be a little concerned if there is one right next to this one. Commissioner Addington: In relation to where this one is going up, where are the next closest towers within Grand Terrace; do we know? Director Koontz: Probably the next closest is over at Rollins Park. Commissioner Addington: Is that being used? Director Koontz: Yes, that's activated. Chair Wilson: Any other questions of Staff before we go into public hearing? No, all right then we'll open the Public Hearing. We invite the Applicant,if they choose, to speak on their project. Please state your name and address for the record. Monica Miranda: Good Evening. My name is Monica Miranda, and I'm here representing T Mobile and my address is 1 Venture, Suite 200, Irvine, California, 92618. After review, my client and I have reviewed the Conditions of Approval, and we'll decide to accept and comply with all of the outlines provided. Chair Wilson: Any questions for the Applicant? Commissioner Addington: Yes. Does T Mobile co-venture with other cellular providers so that they could also access your facility? Monica Miranda: There is a possibility for that; however, the height of the structure itself is 35 feet. At this point it will be too low for the possibility of another carrier to co-locate with that. It will have to be increased; the height of the tower if that's what will work for their project. Commissioner Addington: It will have to be what? Monica Miranda: Increased to work for their project. Director Koontz: Which would require a public hearing. Commissioner Addington: Okay. Thank you. Chair Wilson: Any other questions for the Applicant? Commissioner McNaboe: I have a question. I want to make sure I understand. You and the land owner currently have an agreement to build this tower? Monica Miranda: Yes. 9 - Commissioner McNaboe: And they have approved your design concept as you have it here? Monica Miranda: We actually worked together with the diocese and complied with their requirements as they have the right to review the design. Commissioner McNaboe: They've reviewed it, and they liked the design? Monica Miranda: Yes. Commissioner McNaboe: I have a picky question about sheet No. Al and the T & E line that you have going through the site. At one point you have it going under a sidewalk in two different locations and then also through a landscaped area and through a parking lot. That is the handicapped parking spot. I'm wondering if there is any way you can reroute that line so you're not tearing up so much of the concrete and the landscaping. Monica Miranda: Basically all the electrical and all the connections will be underground. They will not be visible, and in that case, we would have to...... Commissioner McNaboe: I'm not asking if they're going to be visible. I'm asking if you can set the routing different so that you're not breaking up the concrete and going through the landscaped area and minimizing tearing up of a handicapped parking spot? Monica Miranda: Actually, that's a question that I can actually have my co-worker here who can actually respond to your question and answer your question. Chair Wilson: State you name and address for the record. Pete Shubin: Good evening. My name is Pete Shubin. I'm also with Supportive Services. My address is 1 Venture, Suite 200 in Irvine. And the answer is yes, we could reroute that as much as possible using existing landscape planters in the parking lot as long as there is a route there that, I'm not exactly sure of the area you're talking about. We can avoid planters.... Commissioner McNaboe: It cuts through a sidewalk path at two different points, and then it goes through an area that is landscaped, and I just wondered why you didn't run. it out to avoid the sidewalk and come in from a different angle? Pete Shubin: I would say that was because they were showing it diametrically. Even the condition now I would say even rerouting using the existing landscape planters as much as possible wouldn't be a problem. Commissioner McNaboe: Okay. Thank you. Director Koontz: I'm sure between Building & Safety and the Planning Commission we can make sure we get a clean route for you. 10 Chair Wilson: Thank you. We invite the public to speak on this particular item No. 2. First Request-to- Speak Form is Patricia Farley. Patricia Farley: Good evening. My name is Patricia Farley. I live at 12513 Michigan Street in Grand Terrace. There was a lot of concern by residents about a ham radio tower that went up in Grand Terrace, and there was talk about having a temporary ordinance, and they were told, I believe, they couldn't make it over 20 feet, et cetera. And I believe the Council was, I mean the Planning Commission was supposed to come back with a more permanent ordinance and have it in cement, and I think that needs to happen before anything else is approved of antennas and this kind of stuff. The other thing is I'm concerned about while members of the Planning Commission may not be benefiting from this, I am concerned about what benefits there might be for the church. And the reason I'm concerned about that is because Grand Terrace, the City of Grand Terrace, does have a track record of doing things that look to benefit private religious groups, and I want to make sure that kind of business does stop. I believe in a very firm separation of church and state, and I want to make sure that we're not setting a precedent for a lot of other towers that you'll have to allow because you allowed this, and so I don't want you to bend the law or whatever to help out a church. The other thing is our City has shown itself to be extremely negligent and ineffective in enforcing the restrictions on Conditional Use Permits. And so I'm very concerned about the precedence that this would be setting, and I'd like for you to really go back to the issue on these �,- towers to begin with and have some regulations that protect the resident of this city from a lot of unsightly stuff. Thank you. Chair Wilson: Thank you. Would the Staff like to address just succinctly the concerns about aesthetics which seemed to be the main focus of Ms. Farley's item? Director Koontz: A couple of comments. First of all, as we've noted, this tower is completely concealed inside other than—the cell tower itself is concealed inside the architectural tower. The policy of the Commission has always been use the stealth technology. Put it in a tree, put it in a tower, don't see it any more than possible. So this is an epitome of stealth. It's in a building. You can't see any of it. Secondly, comparing an ordinance for ham radio and this is totally separate. We have an existing ordinance that affects commercial cell towers, and this complies with that ordinance. As for the ham radio stuff, we are continuing to work on an ordinance. We should have something in front of you hopefully within a couple of months at the latest. So we're actually working on that. This is a totally separate issue from the ham radio tower, and this is abiding in the policies of both the Commission and the Council to use the stealth technology. Chair Wilson: I have.a question. Where is the nearest residential structure in relation to this proposed tower? 11 Director Koontz: The tower is going to be right here. (Indicating) You've got—in the labyrinth — of all of this, you've got Blue Mountain Court in here. (Indicating) So these houses in here may be closest. You've got all of this property in here is owned by the church, and this is kind of dead center in the middle of that site. Chair Wilson: We're over 1200 feet possible? Director Koontz: Probably not that much. At least definitely three--- what do you think, John? Planner Lampe: Maybe about 800 feet. Director Koontz: But it's still a quite a distance, and it's in the exact center of the church's property which we'd seriously doubt would ever be developed for residential purposes. Chair Wilson: I can appreciate Ms. Farley's concern, but we did as a body take the position in relation to radio towers and not distinguishing between this type of radio tower versus a ham radio tower. We did make a finding that the ham radio tower would be limited to the height that was established within the neighborhood which was 20 feet for accessory structures. That was an appropriate finding. In lieu of the ordinance to the contrary, though, I'd say we are addressing this particular item in relation to existing ordinance for this particular use. Any other public participation on this site? I believe we have another Request-to-Speak Form, Maureen Smith. Maureen Smith: My name is Maureen Smith. I am actually as a resident of Colton. My address is 1800 East Old Ranch Road, Colton, California 92324. But I am a member of Christ the Redeemer and spend a lot of time there. And I feel that looking at the facility the way that they have built the tower, and I also know about the ham radio tower, I don't think it can even be compared. I think that structurally looking at it for the average person going by would never think it was any more but a church tower looking at the way that it's been built. And I think it will help the community of Grand Terrace in getting reception as far as with cell phones and other facilities. Chair Wilson: Thank you. We have another Request-to-Speak Form, Kay Kendall. Kay Kendall: I'm Kay Kendall, and I live in Colton also, but I'm a member of this Parrish. My address is 1256 Bordwill Avenue, Colton, 92324. I am a member of this church. I also have a job there. I work there as Coordinator of Religious Education, and I do believe that this tower is quite far away from any residential area. The property directly behind it is vacant. It belongs to the monastery. Sisters own that property. The look of the tower, they very diligently tried to blend it into the architecture of the existing structure. Again, people will go by and think that this is a part of the church, which is really is a part of the hall, and I think it will be more of a benefit to people in that area for the reception, and I could not see anything that is going to be harmful in any way. Thank you. 12 Chair Wilson: Thank you. Any further public participation in this item? If not we'll bring it - back to the Commission. We'll close the public participation and bring it back to the Commission for a motion and/or a discussion. MOTION PC-16-2006 Commissioner Comstock made a motion to approve SA-06-05 CUP-06-03 and E-06-06. Commissioner Addington seconded the motion. Chair Wilson: Motion has been made and has been seconded. Any discussion? Please vote. Clerk Laura Reinarz: Motion carries all ayes MOTION VOTE PC-16-2006 Approved 5-0-0 Chair Wilson: Thank you. Very nice job in the architecture. Monica Miranda: Thank you. 3. MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 20,2006 RECOMMENDATION: Approval Commissioner McNaboe: I have a correction. I'll just go with the page number 17. This is a question that I asked. In the record it says "What qualifies is sufficient," and my question was actually "what qualifies as sufficient." And then also I'd like to correct the spelling of my last name on the section under"Commissioners present." My last name is actually M-c-N-a-b-o-e. Chair Wilson: Thank you. Any clarification to the minutes? I did actually read through the minutes. This is a tremendous amount of work, and I'm sure I know why. I would not presume to change anything; although, I did find some grammatical errors. It might be worth a reread,but I think the spirit of the minutes is correct, and so I will pass on going through itemized revisions. Fortunately you did spell my name right. Wilson is very difficult to mess up. Director Koontz: Well, once Commissioner McNaboe is on for seven or eight years, we'll get it right. MOTION PC-17-2006 Chair Wilson made a motion to approve Planning Commission Minutes for April 20, 2006. Commissioner McNaboe seconded the motion. 13 Chair Wilson: Motion has been made and has been seconded. Any discussion? Please vote. Director Koontz: Motion carries all ayes. MOTION VOTE PC-17-2006 Approved 5-0-0 4. MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 18,2006 RECOMMENDATION: Approval Commissioner McNaboe: I have a correction to that one also. On page six under my comments it has me referring to Wood Meadow Court, and I was actually referring to Blue Mountain court. And then on Page 16 there are two times where it has me referring to vegetative soil, and I was actually referring to vegetative swale. That's it. Chair Wilson: Any other further clarifications? I was not here during this meeting; so I'm exempt on clarifications. Motions? MOTION PC-18-2006 Commissioner McNaboe made a motion to approve Commissioner Phelps seconded the motion. i Chair Wilson: Motion has been made and has been seconded. Any discussion? Please vote. Clerk Laura Reinarz: Motion carries with Chair Wilson and Commissioner Comstock abstaining. MOTION VOTE PC-18-2006 Approved 3-0-2 Chair Wilson: We'll go on and move to adjourn the Site and Architecture Review Board/Planning Commission Meeting, and we'll go ahead and convene the Public Workshop Session. ADJOURN SITE AND ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONVENE PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION • INFORMATION TO THE COMMISSIONERS Director Koontz: We have nothing tonight. 14 Director Koontz: We have nothing tonight. Chair Wilson: Thank you. • INFORMATION FROM THE COMMISSIONERS Commissioner McNaboe: I have a question. You may have mentioned this earlier. Did you talk about when the ground breaking was for the high school? Director Koontz: I don't know. We have not been informed of that yet. Commissioner McNaboe: It was going to be this summer,right, and that's been postponed? Director Koontz: I don't know Chair Wilson: We are talking with the State. We'll adjourn the Public Workshop Sessions. If we don't have any other business,next Planning Commission meeting will be held on July 20', 2006. Commissioner Addington: I'd like to point out, for the record, I'll be out of town on a business meeting, and I will not be attending that meeting. Chair Wilson: Thank you all. ADJOURNED PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION 7:55 PM NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO BE HELD ON JUNE 15, 2006 Respectfully Submitted, Approved By, GaryVKoontz anning Director Doug Wilson Chairman Planning Commission 15