Loading...
07/05/1989I GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING JULY 5, 1989 The regular meeting of the Grand Terrace Planning Commission was called to order at the Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California, on July 5, 1989 at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Stanley Hargrave. PRESENT: Stanley Hargrave, Chairman Jerry Hawkinson, Vice -Chairman Dan Buchanan, Commissioner Herman Hilkey, Commissioner Ray Munson, Commissioner Jim Sims, Commissioner David Sawyer, Community Development Director Karen Stevenson, Assistant Planner Maria Muett, Planning Secretary ABSENT: Fran Van Gelder, Commissioner John Harper, City Attorney PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Stanley Hargrave, Chairman PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP CONVENED AT 6:30 P.M. * Discussion on approved Zoning Revision Map by City Council on June 22, 1989. * Suggestion that all applicants receive copy of protocol procedures for Planning Commission Meetings. PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP ADJOURNED AT 7:00 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONVENED AT 7:00 P.M. Item # 1 Planning Commission Minutes June 19, 1989 Chairman Hargrave opened with item #1, Planning Commission Minutes. 1 MOTION PCM-89-71 MOTION VOTE PCM-89-71 Commissioner Buchanan made the motion to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of June 19, 1989. Commissioner Munson second. Motion carried, all ayes. 6-0-1-0. Item #2 CUP-88-14R1 Domtar Gypsum Revision of Operating Hours 21516 Main Avenue Grand Terrace The Community Development Director presented the staff report with conditions and recommendations of approval from the City Engineer, reviewing agencies and the planning department. The Community Development Director clarified that at the Planning Commission Meeting of June 5, 1989, it was the intention to open up the July 5, 1989 Planning Commission Meeting to public comments regarding this item. Discussion of testing trial period for this item from June 6, 1989 to July 5, 1989. The Community Development Director read into the record a letter from Mr. Frank Garza, 44 Highland Avenue, Highgrove. Mr. Garza stressed his opposition to the earlier hours of operation. Chairman Hargrave asked the applicant to present his request. Domtar Gypsum Mark Sheline, representative 21516 Main Avenue Grand Terrace, CA. Mr. Sheline stated that they appreciated the last 30 day testing period for 0 the earlier hours of 5:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Initially, they hoped to load 2- 2 X 3 trucks per day during the 30 day testing period however that turned out to be impossible. During the testing period 2 trucks were loaded, 4-5 days, during that period. On the average they loaded one truck earlier than the 7:00 a.m. loading period that they had been granted initially. Chairman Hargrave asked if any of the local residents had voiced their opinions directly to the facility. Mr. Sheline replied to the negative. Discussion on the feasible deadlines for the earlier loading period; i.e., through the summer to September 1, 1989. Discussion on the testing period and if it aided the facility in getting the customer trucks out earlier. Mr. Sheline explained that the reasoning behind this operation was to assist the customers that needed earlier loading time due to codes, stocking conditions in certain cities. He stated that it has helped their facility by allowing an additional time frame. Discussion on the effect of one complaint, Mr. Garza, and its effect on the operation of the facility. Mr. Sheline stated that they had given the residents due consideration thus the reason for appearing before the Planning Commission. He referred to other businesses in the area that are in operation around 5:30 a.m. Discussion on other businesses in the area that may be operating prior to 5:30 a.m. The Community Development Director explained that he is unaware of any as such. The Community Development Director explained that the reason this facility had to come before the Planning Commission was due to the conditions dealing with hours of operation placed in the original Conditional Use Permit. Discussion of the Noise Ordinance which goes into effect at 7:00 a.m. The Community Development Director clarified that businesses are not restricted in operation at that time but the decibles of noise are regulated by the Noise Ordinance. Discussion on the total truckloads which average around 11 per day. Commissioner Buchanan asked the applicant for their average starting time of operation during the testing period. Mr. Sheline explained that it has been around 6:00 to 6:30 a.m. 3 Commissioner Buchanan asked the applicant if they could operate effectively with a starting time of 6:00 a.m. Mr. Sheline responded to the affirmative. Discussion on the earlier 5:00 a.m. staring time and the increase, if any, on the total truckloads per day. Mr. Sheline explained that the Conditional Use Permit revision request was based on certain stocking situations they have encountered. Discussion on the trucks that enter the facility and their status. Mr. Sheline explained that the trucks are required to shut down when parked on the facility. Commissioner Buchanan asked the applicant if he would have any objection to having it listed as a condition to the hours of operation. Mr. Sheline responded that the would be willing to comply. Chairman Hargrave opened the Public Hearing for this item. PUBLIC HEARING CONVENED AT 7:20 P.M. Mr. Ornelas 16 Highland Avenue Highland, CA. Mr. Ornelas stated that he was in opposition to the request for earlier hours of operation. He explained the truck route and the loud noise of the shifting by the trucks. He stated that he did not agree with the applicant and has heard the trucks loading at 5:00 a.m. in the morning. He asked who he should contact for Code Enforcement of any violations. He stated that the landscaping is in need of repair. Chairman Hargrave advised Mr. Ornelas of the Code Enforcement process for violations of the Noise Ordinance. Mr. Sheline pointed out that the actual weight of the trucks are maximum 49,000 lbs. He explained that it is their safety policy not to allow the trucks to be running while being loaded in the loading area. However, if the trucks are waiting to enter the yard they are allowed to keep the trucks running. PUBLIC HEARING ADJOURNED AT 7:25 P.M. n u PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION Discussion on the length of time for this revision of the Conditional Use Permit. MOTION PCM-89-72 MOTION VOTE PCM-89-72 Commissioner Buchanan made the motion to revise CUP-88-14R1 to allow Domtar Gypsum to begin hours of operation from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. until September 1, 1989 at which time the hours will return from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. as in the original Conditional Use Permit. Trucks shall not be permitted to idle while loading. Commissioner Sims second. Chairman Hargrave asked if their was some mechanism in the Conditional Use Permit for revision due to complaints. The Community Development Director explained that it was discussed if there were any complaints during the review period then staff would come back to the Planning Commission at the June 19, 1989 meeting. Discussion on the policy of not allowing the trucks to idle while on the facility's loading area. Commissioner Hawkinson asked the applicant if the trucks would be on his property while idling or waiting to enter the facility on Main Street. Mr. Sheline explained that the gate would be open and they would proceed onto the property. Commissioner Hawkinson asked if the applicant wished to change this temporary revision for summer hours into permanency status would they have to file for a Conditional Use Permit. The Community Development Director explained that they would have to come back again in the summer of next year. This gives the Planning Commission more control on a summer by summer basis. Discussion of the Noise Ordinance and the control available with that code Motion carried. 4-2-1-0. Commissioners Hilkey, Hargrave, Buchanan and Sims voted aye. Commissioners Hawkinson and Munson voted noe. 5 Commissioner Gelder absent. The Community Development Director backtracked and responded to Mr. Ornelas' comments that the landscaping in front of the businesses on 21516 Main Street have deteriorated. Staff has received an application from Central City Recycling to place a concrete slab in the front along with tenant improvements. Staff has indicated to Domtar Gypsum, American Modular and Central City Recycling along with the owner of the property that no more applications for tenant improvements will be accepted until landscaping has been brought back up to the condition that was necessary for the approval of the Conditional Use Permit. Chairman Hargrave asked if the maintenance of the landscaping wasn't a part of the conditions of approval. If the Conditional Use Permit is violated than that gives the Planning Department opportunity to request that the Conditional Use Permit be changed or revoked. The Community Development Director explained that if staff does not receive a satisfactory response to the letters dealing with improvement of the landscaping then the next step would be a CUP revokation hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNED AT 7:30 P.M. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CONVENED AT 7:30 P.M. Item #3 SA-89-02 Terrace Gateway (Commercial, Restaurant, and Auto Retail Center) Gary Clark 12028 La Crosse Avenue Grand Terrace The Community Development Director presented the staff report with conditions and recommendations of approval by the City Engineer, reviewing agencies and the Planning Department. A Traffic Study compiled by JF Engineering was also presented. The Community Development Director read the conditions and it was noted that the numbering of conditions #5 and # 10 were incorrect. Chairman Hargrave asked the City Engineer for interpretation of his memo stating recommendations. The City Engineer presented his recommendations. He also stated that the additional right of way may be necessary to provide for the following. The CI total roadway with curb separation of 48' not 42' as referred to in 1A of the recommendations. Item C will be amended in accordance with the Traffic Engineer's recommendation. Also #5, should be corrected to read ...install paving as may be required from lip of gutter to lip of gutter." The drainage will have to brought out to La Crosse Avenue. He did not believe that the drainage would effect any surrounding properties. Discussion on the Traffic Study by J.F. Davidson and whether it was completed prior to or after the Keeney's Commercial Center at La Crosse. The City Engineer explained that this Traffic Study was done after the Keeney study was completed. Discussion on the desired traffic level service of C. The City Engineer explained that the off ramp freeway traffic will have the major impact to the level of operation to that particular facility. He stated that the Traffic Engineer's report recommended providing an additional lane in order to have that facility at level D. Chairman Hargrave asked the City Engineer for comments regarding the ingress or egress off of La Crosse Avenue. The City Engineer stated that the recommendation for standard street type intersection was excellent for this type of project. He stated that there would be a left turn pocket on the northerly entrance. He clarified that there would be egress into the property from the southerly direction off the freeway and there would also be a left turn pocket going north on La Crosse Ave. As far as coming out of the project that should only be a right turn only for the middle driveway. Discussion on the plans which reflected an egress/ingress path. The City Engineer stated that he would have to look at the final plans but he did not feel it would be a difficulty making a left turn onto La Crosse and going northerly. There would be no problem with 48' curb to curb to make a left turn into the project going north up La Crosse Avenue, referring to the middle driveway next to the restaurant. Discussion on the signalization on Barton and La Crosse Avenue. The City Engineer stated that based on the studies he has seen the signal could handle the additional traffic. Chairman Hargrave asked if the signalization was going to be upgraded. The City Engineer responded stating that the signalization was not going to be upgraded. He stated that after the completion of Keeney's Terrace Village, west of this project, there would be additional striping. 7 Commissioner Sims asked if an exit speed sign off the freeway was necessary. The City Engineer referred to Cal Trans for their input. He felt that there was adequate sight distance off the driveways. Staff did contact Cal Trans and they were not receptive to the idea of additional signage but would consider it if pursued. Discussion on the neccesity, if any, of additional sidewalk in front of the project as referred to in the City Engineer's Memo as item #3. Discussion of the destination of the pedestrian traffic on the proposed sidewalk and traffic hazards. Discussion on the provision for a median island for a left turn on the egress and ingress entrance (middle driveway). Discussion on the standard commercial driveway approaches of 36'. The Planning Commission discussed the difficulty in entering the driveway entrance off of Mt. Vernon at the Denny's and Carl's Restaurants site at Cooley Ranch. Discussion on the difficulty semi -truck traffic would have in negotiating the northern driveway. Chairman Hargrave referred to the Colton Unified School District's request to mitigate the traffic and noise level. Discussion on the feasibility of needing additional compaction tests on existing dirt work. The City Engineer stated that a preliminary soils report would be required prior to issuing permits. Discussion on the traffic study allowances for this project. Discussion on the upcoming Barton Road Specific Plan and its impact on this project. The City Engineer stated that the traffic compacity will be determined by the width of the Barton Road overpass. Discussion on the traffic patterns and lanes along La Crosse Avenue. Feasibility of adding a right turn lane for the Barton Road offramp to turn into the main entrance. The City Engineer stated that was addressed in an earlier traffic study but the Traffic Engineer's recommendation was to have two southbound lanes from La Crosse, Barton Road south, come together just prior to the triangle off of Barton Road. At that point one additional lane would provide for traffic moving west on Barton Road and the other two would continue on south of Barton Road. Discussion on architectural design for Barton Road. The Community Development Director stated that at this time nothing has been proposed. He explained that the project next door, Terrace Village, and this project, Terrace Gateway, are different but compliment one another. Discussion on the right hand lane of La Crosse which can continue westerly on Barton Road. Commissioner Hilkey asked what happens with the traffic flow when it goes from the transition of this project to the next project. Chairman Hargrave stated that the entrance to the Keeney Project (Terrace Village) on Barton Road is a northwestern entrance. The Community Development Director explained that the traffic from La Crosse Avenue has to make a stop before going west onto Barton Road. Discussion on traffic impact study between the two projects. The Community Development Director stated that he would be more comfortable with the City Engineer addressing this issue. Discussion of C-2 Zones with allowable and unpermitted uses. Chairman Hargrave stated that he supported blocking the view of the gas station bays with frontage architectural relief including monument signage. Mr. Gary Clark Terrace Gateway Mr. Clark stated that his family has been long time residents of the City of Grand Terrace. He provided a history scenario of their property and proposed project. He referred to a similar center in San Diego and its architectural enhancement to the surrounding area. He felt that their project would be in compatibility with the Keeney Project (Terrace Village) by the similarity of color tones. Discussion on the feasibility of a wall relief to hide the gas station bays. The applicant explained that the intention of that particular site was to make a convenience store/gas station facility. There will be no internal work done on vehicles. They expect to see approximately four (4) pumps. 0 Mr. Clark referred to the site in San Diego that contains a 3 foot brick wall containing a monumental sign. Discussion on the convenience store slotted for Keeney's Project (Terrace Village) in comparison to this project's convenience store/gas station facility. Discussion on the main entrance, middle driveway, which could be used by the truck traffic. He was in agreement to have an additional 5 or 6 feet for the entrance to accomodate the truck traffic. Discussion on the loading and service access area which is part of Building A. Building A will be an upscale automobile service center which will contain auto retail stores. The loading and service access area behind Building A will be for tenants only to be used for deliveries of supplies. Mr. Clark stated that they are looking into lessening the access area to widen the driveway in anticipation of prospective tenant/ Winston Tires. Discussion on the need for sidewalks in front of the project. Mr. Clark stated that be really did not see a need for it and he would be in favor of replacing it with a wider green belt. Discussion on landscaping for the front portion of the project. Alternatives for bushes would be to use more grass. Discussion on proposed signage to advertise location of project. Mr. Clark suggested a standard freeway sign along a block wall. He also stated that the property to the north of them has large eucalyptus trees which block off view of their project. He stated that the trees are on Cal Trans property and he intends to contact them to request they trim their trees. Commissioner Buchanan stated that he shared the Chairman's concern with the visual impact of the gas station bays. He suggested that the design of the convenience store and other tenants be submitted for Site and Architectural Review as well. Mr. Clark stated that he would have no objection to that request. Discussion on examples of other centers with gas stations that have been camoflauged. Chairman Hargrave called for a ten minute break. BREAK AT 8:50 P.M. 10 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING RECONVENED AT 9:00 P.M. Mr. Lewis Senior Traffic Engineer J.F. Davidson Mr. Lewis explained that the traffic study was completed as a worse case scenario. It was based on site plan and uses. They calculated levels C and D using ICU Methodology and also used the 1985 Highway Capacity of the Intersection Capacity Manual. Discussion on the Planning Commission's concern with the ability for the transition between the Barton offramp and La Crosse. If the main entrance to the project was adequate to handle both the through southbound traffic and turning traffic. Mr. Lewis stated that they shared similar concerns and felt that the area would need additional signage. Mr. Lewis explained the present traffic pattern on La Crosse onto Barton Road, going south. Commissioner Buchanan referred to the City Engineer's memo referring to 1A, with a 42' curb separation which should be changed to 48' according to the traffic study. Mr. Lewis explained that the traffic study itself did not recommend any specific width but rather the number of lanes. He believed that there has been discussion between the developer and the City Engineer's Office on the width to provide for the number of lanes according to City guidelines. The Community Development Director clarified that the City Engineer had indicated that he intended that to be changed to 48'. Discussion on 80' centerline and lip to lip on both sides of the roadway. Discussion on the standard driveway approaches on the northern and southern entrances and street intersection designed for the center entrance. Mr. Lewis explained that by putting a standard intersection type of a design at the center entrance then the amount of slowdown by the traffic to enter the project would be greatly reduced. In response to an earlier concern, truck radius can be designed for that driveway. Also, they can determine whether or not the radius would have to be improved to allow the trucks to make that turn. Commissioner Hilkey asked if 36' was adequate for that intersection. Also, any blockage caused by traffic waiting to turn left onto La Crosse Avenue. 11 Mr. Lewis replied that 36' was adequate but they would want to look at the truck turn radius, particularly for the southbound. Commissioner Hilkey asked if they should consider preventing and left turning onto La Crosse. Mr. Lewis stated with that type of intersection design it probably is not necessary to put that type of restriction from two view points. First, he suspected that would be a small percentage of traffic from nearby residents. Secondly, with an intersection type design the traffic will be able to exit at a fairly decent acceleration as opposed to down a ramp through a gutter and then onto the roadway. Discussion on the service trucks entry into the northerly entrance and rear entrance. Discussion on widening the main entrance access. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION CONVENED AT 9:30 P.M The Community Development Director explained that it had been pointed out to him that the Negative Declaration's Initial Study need a correction. One of the checkoff questions had not been answered regarding light and glare. The answer should be a "YES" and therefore the attachment to the Initial Study, Section III, should have an additional wording that reads "... no potential adverse impact from additional light and glare upon adjacent property shall be mitigated through the City's light standards." Discussion on the condition for installing sidewalks and the effect, if any, upon removing that condition. The Community Development Director explained that the City Engineer had indicated that legally that was a requirement through the General Plan but what could be done would be to make a recommendation to the City Council. It can be pointed out that the Planning Commission is recommending to the City Council that this condition be removed and allow this project to go forward as approved. Discussion on the sidewalks in front of surrounding properties and extension of the sidewalks from the northside to the first entrance. The remaining area covered by a greenbelt landscaping. Commissioner Munson expressed his support for sidewalks for pedestrian traffic and skateboard enthusiasts. Discussion regarding Clark Enterprises placing their businesses into the complex. 12 MOTION PCM-89-73 MOTION VOTE PCM-89-73 MOTION PCM-89-74 The Community Development Director listed the conditions with amendments for the benefit of the Planning Commission. Condition #1 - No change. Condition #2 - Change. Commissioner Buchanan made the motion to amend proposed condition #2 to state that the architectural design of the proposed convenience store shall be similar in nature to buildings AB and C and shall be submitted for independent site and architectural review at the time said convenience store is ready for construction. Vice -Chairman Hawkinson second. Chairman Hargrave asked if the restaurant should not be placed with this condition also. Discussion on eliminating condition #2, or combining restaurant and convenience store for site and architectural review or keeping them separated. Motion carried, all ayes. 6-0-1-0. Commissioner Van Gelder absent. Condition #3 - no change. Condition #4 - no change. Condition #5 (first no. 5) - change. Commissioner Buchanan made the motion to amend attachment C (City Engineer's Recommendations), 1A change 42' to 48', #5 install paving as may be required from the lip of gutter to lip of gutter, #7 install standard driveway approaches to the northerly and southerly entrances and install street intersection approach on the center entrance which should be minimum 36'. 13 MOTION VOTE PCM-89-74 MOTION PCM-89-75 Motion carried, all ayes. 6-0-1-0. Commissioner Van Gelder absent. Chairman Hargrave made the motion to install sidewalks from the southerly portion to the first driveway and no sidewalks from the first driveway up north. Commissioner Sims second. Discussion between the Planning Commission whether or not sidewalks were necessary all the way in front of the project. Mr. Clark pointed out from a marketing standpoint they were not in favor of having a sidewalk in front of the restaurant. Chairman Hargrave suggested amending his motion to place sidewalks along the northern bend. Commissioner Munson stated that he would settle for that but suggested seeing a green area in the middle section. Commissioner Sims suggested leaving the area as open landscape for a possible monument sign for view by the traffic coming off the freeway. He stated for the residents to go around the bend and go south into the first driveway entrance would not make any sense. The Community Development Director suggested placing the sidewalk at the northern end, bring it up to the restaurant pad and leave it open from the center driveway down to the first driveway. Discussion regarding the safety hazards of a sidewalk close to street traffic. 14 AMEND MOTION PCM-89-75 MOTION VOTE PCM-89-75 Chairman Hargrave amended his motion to read placing a sidewalk from the southwestern portion to the first driveway and no other sidewalks along the remaining frontage of the property. Vice -Chairman Hawkinson second. Motion carried. 4-2-1-0. Commissioners Hargrave, Hilkey, Hawkinson and Sims voted aye. Commissioners Buchanan and Munson voted noe. Commissioner Van Gelder absent. Condition #5 (second no. 5) should be renumbered to read #6. Concensus reached by the Planning Commission to make the numerical change from the second #5 to #6. Concensus reached by the Planning Commission to follow the wording of the report and not the diagram. Condition #6 renumbered to #7 - no change. Condition #7 renumbered to #8 - no change. Condition #8 renumbered to #9 - no change. Condition #9 renumbered to #10 - no change. Condition #10 (first no. 10) renumbered to #11 - no change. Condition #10 (second no. 10) renumbered to #12 - no change. Condition #11 renumbered to #13 - no change. Discussion regarding addressing the architectural design cover in front of the gas station during the Site and Architectural Review of the convenience store. 15 X MOTION PCM-89-76 MOTION VOTE PCM-89-76 MOTION PCM-89-77 MOTION VOTE PCM-89-77 Commissioner Munson made the motion to approve SA-89-2 as amended. Chairman Hargrave second. Motion carried, all ayes. 6-0-1-0. Commissioner Van Gelder absent. Commissioner Buchanan made the motion to recommend approval of adoption of the Negative Declaration for SA-89-2 as amended to the City Council. Chairman Hargrave second. Motion carried, all ayes. 6-0-1-0. Commissioner Van Gelder absent. Commissioner Hawkinson stated for the record that this project has to be one of the nicest projects submitted before this body in a long time. Item #4 SA-89-5 Patrick Connelly 21935 Van Buren Avenue Van Buren Business Park The Assistant Planner presented the staff report with the conditions and recommendations of approval by the City Engineer, reviewing agencies and the Planning Department. 16 Discussion by the Planning Commission regarding the lack of written comments from the Riverside Highland Water Service. The Community Development Director responded that one of the requirements is to provide a Will Serve Letter from the Riverside Highland Water Service prior to the issuance of the permits. Discussion on the history of this parcel as a C-2 Zone earlier and now presently a M-R Zone. Discussion regarding light industrial uses in the area and the need for Conditional Use Permits if the project is completed before the rewriting of the Code. The Community Development Director pointed out similarities between this project and James Goode Barton Business Park across the street. Commissioner Buchanan asked why a 6' foot wall was needed. The Community Development Director explained the reason was due to the phased development for this project. Discussion regarding no requirement for building setbacks in this area. Commissioner Hilkey asked if there would be a conflict with the projects at the western end of Van Buren Avenue. The Community Development Director explained that there would not be a conflict since the southerly end is M-R, the northerly end is C-M mix and this will blend well with the surrounding areas. Commissioner Hilkey asked if there will be adequate drainage facilities and where the drainage will drain to. The Community Development Director explained that the applicant will be responsible or the drainage of their property. Commissioner Buchanan stated that striping is not listed as a condition and it should match the rear elevations of the other buildings. Commissioner Buchanan referred to the large slope of the front portion of the project and if the applicant was intending on cutting it down and filling in, near Building A. The Community Development Director referred to the recommendation from the City Engineer regarding submittal of a grading plan for the whole parcel and hydrology study on the parcel and runoff impact on surrounding properties. 17 Discussion regarding not needing two access points due to the size of the lot. Chairman Hargrave asked the applicant to address the Planning Commission. Mr. Patrick O'Connell Van Buren Business Park MOTION PCM-89-78 MOTION VOTE PCM-89-78 MOTION PCM-89-79 MOTION VOTE PCM-89-79 Mr. O'Connell referred to the concerns regarding drainage. He explained that the drainage goes toward the freeway. He also explained that presently he has no definite tenants assigned but would favor construction tenants. Commissioner Buchanan made the motion to add a condition #10 to read, "Building D, that the striping be continued so that Building D reflects the same rear and side yard elevations of the other buildings." Chairman Hargrave second. Motion carried, all ayes. 6-0-1-0. Commissioner Van Gelder absent. Commissioner Buchanan made the motion to approve SA-89-5 with noted conditions of approval as set forth in staff's recommendations with the addition of condition # 10. Also, the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the Negative Declaration prepared by staff for this project. Chairman Hargrave second. Motion carried, all ayes. 6-0-1-0. Commissioner Van Gelder absent. 18 Chairman Hargrave adjourned the Planning Commission to the next Planning Commission Meeting on July 17, 1989. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW ADJOURNED AT 10:15 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNED AT 10:15 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, David R. Sawyer, Community Development Director P.C. Meeting July 5, 1989 W Approved by, Stanley Hargrav , Chairman Planning Commission