Loading...
10/19/1987GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEE_TING OCTOBER 19, 1987 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 October 19, 1987 at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman, Norman Caouette. PRESENT: Norman Caouette, Chairman W Fran Van Gelder, Vice -Chairwoman Jerry Hawkinson, Commissioner Gerald Cole, Commissioner Stanley Hargrave, Commissioner Ray Munson, Commissioner Jim Sims, Commissioner ABSENT: Pledge of Allegiance: ----------------------------------------------------------------- MINUTES - WORKSHOP ---------CONVENED---------AT----6:30----P.M.--------------------------------------- WORKSHOP ADJOURNED AT 6:55 P.M. BANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONVENED AT 7:00 P.M. Chairman Caouette opened the meeting for discussion of the minutes for July 20, 1987 and August 17, 1987. MOTION PCM-87-71 The Planning -Director stated that he had received some questions regarding the minutes of July 20th and suggested that the Commissioner continue them until the next meeting. Chairman Caouette asked for any discussion on the minutes. Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder moved that they continue the July 20, 1987 minutes until the next meeting and accept the August 17, 1987 minutes. 1 Commissioner Ray Munson seconded. Chairman Caouette asked for discussion on the motion. He called for a vote. MOTION CARRIED, ALL AYES. 7-0-0-0 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM #1 Chairman Caouette called for the public hearing TPM-87-7 items. The first item was TPM-87-7, a request FOREST CITY for the consolidation of four (4) individual DILLON parcels into one legal lot. The Planning Director presented the staff report with conditions and recommendations by reviewing agencies and staff. The Planning Department recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution recommending the City Council approve TPM-87-7. Chairman Caouette asked for any questions for staff. Hearing none, Chairman Caouette opened the Cl Public Hearing. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Caouette asked for comments from the public in favor of the project. Hearing none, Chairman Caouette asked for comments from the public against the project. Tony Petta 11875 Eton Drive G.T. Mr. Petta stated that he was not aware that this was coming up and asked if it had been advertised as a public hearing. The Planning Director stated that it was advertised in the Sun Telegram as required by the public hearing requirements of the City Code. Mr. Petta asked in what matter was the public notified. 2 C C The Planning Director corrected his comment. He stated that this item was not advertised in the paper. That was required for zoning code changes and specific plan requirements. The notification procedure for this map was that all the property owners within 300 sq. ft. of the property were notified by mail and the notice was posted at three different public locations. Mr. Petta asked if they were notified for this action here. The Planning Director stated that was correct. Mr. Petta stated that he would like to point out that when the public hearing affects property owners to a wider extent than just 300 feet that it would be wise on the part of the City to at least put some notification in the paper or alert the newspaper that there be some type of article to notify the people. Mr. Petta stated that a lot of people did not know about this at least he did not. He just happened to be here because he generally attended the meetings. He stated that he did not fully understand what the action was because he did not have preliminary information. He questioned that what was being done was the combination of parcels into one area. Chairman Caouette stated that was correct. In reference to the first phase of the Mt. Vernon Villas and one of the conditions of approval of the specific plan, the four lots that were existing on the project be combined into one. Mr. Petta questioned if they were still speaking about Phase I. Chairman Caouette stated that was correct. Mr. Petta stated that there were four parcels in Phase I that are being combined now. The Planning Director stated that the purpose of the combining, because the Specific Plan has apartment buildings going across the lines which exist now and one of the requirements of the City Engineer was that a one lot subdivision be done in order to set monuments and to eliminate property lines going through the proposed project. Mr. Petta stated for clarification that this was 3 only for Phase I. The Planning Director stated that was correct. Chairman Caouette asked for further comments against the project. No comments. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION Chairman Caouette asked for any discussion on the project. MOTION PCM-72 Commissioner Hargrave made a motion to approve TPM-87-7. Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder seconded. Commissioner Hawkinson asked if this was a recommendation that they have City Council approve also. Chairman Caouette stated that they would actually be adopting the resolution for approval of TPM-87- 7. Commissioner Hargrave concurred. Chairman Caouette asked for any other discussion and a vote. Item #2 TPM-87-8 V-87-2 Applicant/ Trawinski/ Dotson MOTION CARRIED ALL AYES. 7-0-0-0. Chairman Caouette took up the next item for discussion, TPM-87-8 and V-87-2. He called on Mr. Sawyer for the staff report. The Planning Director presented the staff report with conditions and recommendations by the reviewing agencies and staff. The two items, TPM- 87-7 and V-87-2, would be combined in one staff report. Staff recommendation that the project be approved subject to conditions submitted in the report. 4 e Chairman Caouette asked for any questions from staff. Commissioner Hargrave asked if the conditions were available. The Planning Director informed the Planning Commission that they had been inadvertently taken out of the staff report. He stated that the conditions were as follows: 1. The rearyard setbacks for the lots be 20' rather than the required 15' of the existing R-1 code. 2. The lot coverage be no greater than 60%. 3. The requirements and conditions of the City Engineer be included in the resolution. Chairman Caouette asked if the Planning Commission had any questions from staff. Commissioner Sims asked the Planning Director for clarification on the low density residential, what does that say exactly. Referred to #2 in the variance report. The Planning Director stated that one of the required findings for a variance is that the zoning variance had to be in conformance with the General Plan and answered that it was in compliance with the General Plan designation, since that property was low density residential. He stated this allowed 1-4 dwellings per acre and that this project would be within that density range. Commissioner Sims asked if on the exhibit, to the left, the long one was parcel #1? The Planning Director stated that it was parcel lot #1. Commissioner Sims asked if that would be the smallest lot in the cul-de-sac area or would it be basically in conformance as to size with the rest of the lots in that area. The Planning Director stated that they are 5 �t approximately the same size. When you look at the other lots there are odd shape sizes due to the cul—de—sac and they are larger as far as square footage went. However the frontage onto the street was narrower. Therefore, there are some lots that are larger than this and there are some that are very close to the square footage on all three of these lots. Commissioner Sims asked if the open areas behind lots #2 and #3, and the house that sat on DeBerry and the wooded area directly to the west of lots #2 and #3 would have any conflict if the owner would want to build and additional structure back there. The Planning Director stated that on the map they had the existing dwelling laid out, with no room on this particular lot to do any further construction in this direction. There would be room in the back where an additional structure could be put if it met the lot coverage requirements and was an accessory structure. That was one of the reasons why he was recommending that the setback be 20' so that there would be ample room in case they wanted to do anything in the future and to accommodate the existing structure there. Chairman Caouette asked for any questions from the Planning Commission. PUBLIC HEARING CONVENED Chairman Caouette asked if there was anyone present in the audience who wished to speak in favor or against the project. PUBLIC HEARING ADJOURNED Chairman Caouette closed the public hearing and brought the item back for discussion. Commissioner Munson asked for the name of the applicant. The Planning Director stated that the applicant was Kevin and Cheryl Trawinski and is represented by James Dotson, the Engineer. Chairman Caouette asked for any further discussion 0 c on the project. Commissioner Sims asked of the Planning Director if he knew what type of fencing requirements would be put on this type of development. The Planning Director stated that all of the major subdivisions required fencing, and that he would have to check the code to see if a parcel map would be applicable. He referred to the section on the General Regulations of the Zoning Code which deals with fences and wall height. ..Fences and walls in any district shall be subject to the following height and location restrictions. Side and rear yards and the required side and rear yards including the street sites at corner lots, the minimum heights shall be 6 feet above the service of the ground. Provided however that site clearance is maintained and the grade differential exists between the building and side yards, the height of the fence shall be measured above the highest finished grade. The front yard requirements are that any maximum height of a solid fence or wall shall be 3 feet above the service of the ground." The Planning Director stated that it does not specify that there is a requirement for a fencing along that backyard in that section of the code. Commissioner Sims stated that along DeBerry at least up to the building setback line you would have a 6 foot high fence. The Planning Director stated that any fencing along the property lines would have to be 6 feet. Once they are in the front yards they are dealing with site problems. This particular front yard and other front yards would be 3 feet high and that 3 foot height regulation would not be affecting this rear yard property fence, as it is far enough away from that intersection. Commissioner Sims expressed his concern that if the 6 foot fencing were allowed this close to the intersection, he foresaw sight problems which would be encountered from traffic coming onto DeBerry turning into the cul-de-sac. With the shape of the lot the Planning Commission would want to be sure that the applicant could not put up a 6 foot fence that could impair the sight 7 distance of traffic. The Planning Director stated that there are two street frontages for that corner lot and the fence could not go over 3 feet high on either of them. He stated that the Planning Commission could put another condition on the rear fence, within 25 feet, of the property line closest to the street which would be in that front yard and that fence would not be over 3 feet if they wished. Commissioner Cole asked if they were to submit two separate motions or one motion. MOTION PCM-73 Commissioner Cole moved that they approve V787-2 along with TPM-87-8. Seconded by Commissioner Sims. Chairman Caouette called for a vote on the motion. MOTION CARRIED, ALL AYES. 7-0-0-0. Commissioner Hargrave asked if the Negative Declaration would need a separate motion for approval. The Planning Director stated that if the resolutions in the staff report were adopted it would be covered in that. Chairman Caouette stated that that concluded the public hearing and business of the Planning Commission. PUBLIC HEARING ADJOURNED SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CONVENED. Item #4 SA-87-10 Applicant/ L.A. Wainscott & Assoc. The Planning Director presented the staff report with conditions and recommendations by the reviewing agencies and staff. The Planning Department recommends approval of SA-87-10 with conditions as listed in the staff report. Chairman Caouette asked for any questions from the L Planning Commission. Commissioner Hargrave asked if this location was going to take over the location of the structure presently there, if this project would incorporate that area. He also asked if the structure was going to be demolished. The Planning Director stated that it was correct. He clarified that structure was a two-story building and abandoned. Commissioner Munson asked about the area that was occupied by heavy duty equipment. The Planning Director stated that was to the south of the other property, it was to the east of this property, that would be remaining at this time. Commissioner Munson asked if this approval was for Phase I. The Planning Director stated that Phase I was the building on the map. The applicant was anticipating an additional square footage being added onto a portion of the building, with the addition of another structure in the back at a later time. -'' Commissioner Munson asked if the equipment yard was to the left. The Planning Director stated that was correct. Chairman Caouette asked for any questions from the Site and Architectural Review Board. Commissioner Munson asked how the proposed RV Park would effect the traffic there. The Planning Director stated that the proposed RV Park would be across the street from this project and we were waiting for the traffic report. We have received the traffic report from CG Engineering and are presently waiting for Cal Trans and the City Engineer's comments. Commissioner Sims asked if there was an indication as to what the future building or what type of building it would entail. The Planning Director stated that there would be 9 another building or office space which would be the same architecturally as the present structure. Chairman Caouette asked for discussion from the public. Al Wainscott President of L.A. Wainscott & Associates Mr. Wainscott stated that he would like to compliment the staff on their review of and comments on the proposed project. He stated that for those present who did not know him or L.A. Wainscott and Associates they have been residents of the community for 12 years. For the last 6-7 years they have occupied suite 200 in the Towne and Country Professional Center leasing property from Richard Britton. The building they are presently in is shy of 6000 square feet. They have leased additional space in the complex there which separated their operation and made it difficult to get the job done. He stated that they are excited about the opportunity of staying in the Terrace and they think Grand Terrace has wonderful people and they would like to remain in the community. He stated that what they have proposed is the demolition of the old two story house. They have incorporated the use of a part of the Riverside right-of-way, which has been vacant for the past two years. They will try to maintain it on lease with the City. They are sorry that the old equipment yard is not leaving but it will someday. He stated that they did not know what they are going to do with the future building on the southside. That borders the northside of the Auto Body and Paint Shop which is on La Crosse. He stated they realized that it will surplus their needs and any final use of it would come back to the Planning Commission for their approval. He mentioned that they do have one problem and have discussed it with both the City Engineer and the Planning Director. That was the present General Plan requirement for the ultimate width of Barton Road. He stated that he realized that the uptown area needed to be fully widened but where there are constraints, such as the existing freeway overpass, the bridge over the railroads by Stater Brothers, and the other existing constraints on the westside of the freeway they questioned whether it was practical 10 to widen Barton Road to the ultimate width as proposed on the current circulation element of the General Plan of the City. Mr. Kicak has indicated that he could support a lesser requirement and Mr. Sawyer has indicated that he could likewise support a lesser requirement, and is, in fact presently working on a change to the General Plan. Mr. Wainscott further stated that what he would like to see the Planning Commission consider an amendment to the conditions which would allow the ultimate width or improvement of Barton Road and this project or others in the area in accordance with that revised General Plan requirement. He referred to the current requirement as conditioned in Mr. Kicak's letter. Chairman Caouette asked Mr. Wainscott what the difference was between what he was proposing and what is now on the General Plan. Mr. Wainscott explained that what they were proposing would be 32' half and 32' half, 64' total. He explained that what the City Engineer required would be the 100' with 74' of paving. The 100' right-of-way was excessive according to Mr. Wainscott, whether the 64' was quite enough he did not know and it would be up to the City Engineer. He mentioned that this was the General Plan requirement approximately three (3) years ago. It was the right-of-way that was obtained from the people who put the parcel map that created the lot that they are buying. He mentioned that somewhere in between there had to be a happy medium. Chairman Caouette asked if the plan they looked at showed the full width. Mr. Wainscott stated no, that the plan in front of them was based on the parcel map which had the recorded right-of-way which was 64'. He mentioned that to go from 32' to the 50' they would have to do some modification. He asked that they be allowed in the course of development to look at something that would be taking place over a period of 9 months or so, that they be given the latitude to work with the new General Plan and not the old one. Commissioner Hargrave asked if the turn of the cards were 50' where would the additional 18' come 11 01 from. Mr. Wainscott stated that they would just slide the building back. The Planning Director stated that the current plan has 12' of landscaped right-of-way and 8' of landscaping within the parking lot and on the applicant's property. In order to make up the extra 50' half -street, which is 6' more than what is currently proposed because of the 32' improved and the 12' of landscaping it would be 3' on each side and we would basically take away 3' of landscaping in their parking area pushing down to 5'. Mr. Wainscott clarified that it was still 6' overall on the one side. He stated that the difference on a half -street was 44-501. The Planning Director stated that it would be 6' not 3' so that it would kick in by 3', so therefore the whole area as indicated on the map would need to be shifted 3' back in order to pick up that 5' required buffer zone. Commissioner Hargrave stated that the parking that was provided would be adequate for the shift. The Planning Director stated that he did not see any problem. He stated that the Planning Commission could change Joe Kicak's first condition to read differently. He did mention that the problem with that was the same as they faced with Victor Construction. They had the General Plan with one width seeing that they could live with probably another width. If they change the memorandum by Joe Kicak, condition #1A, to read (dedicate to provide 50' of right-of-way southerly of Barton Road center line or a half - street width of 44' if the General Plan should be amended to allow such a width along Barton Road), that would give staff and the applicant the opportunity in the future to either go with the General Plan change. Or, if they feel it would take too long in waiting, they could go ahead with the first recommendation of the 50' and adjust the plan on the staff level. Mr. Wainscott stated that he would be agreeable to that modified condition. 12 c Chairman Caouette asked for any further discussion from the public. Chairman Caouette opened the discussion from the Planning Commission. Vice —Chairwoman Van Gelder asked about the cross road and if there would be any change in the width from the standard. The Planning Director stated that would stand as recommended. Commissioner Sims asked if the RV Park proposal would have any bearing on the width of that particular section of Barton Road. He mentioned that his real purpose in bringing it up was that the public should be conscious of that since there was a traffic study addressing that issue. The Planning Director stated that he did not have a comment on that until he read the consultant's study. Commissioner Hargrave asked if there was a conflict because of the condition they put on the RV Park. He asked if they had a widening condition on that project. The Planning Director stated that was a condition. Commissioner Hargrave stated that he could understand Mr. Wainscott's purpose for requesting this, it was a good sound business purpose. However, he was wondering about the project across the street and the condition of widening to the width that the City Engineer has specified in the memorandum. The Planning Director stated that it was probably not even considered because there wasn't any objection to the widening of that street. If this goes and this widening is allowed to go at a narrower width we can readjust if we feel it is necessary. Commissioner Hargrave stated that if they allow it of one they have to consider the other side of the street too, because based on what the traffic study shows or doesn't show they may have a turning radius problem. 13 C 9 The Planning Director stated that he understood. Commissioner Sims agreed that could possibly be a problem but the reason that he brought it up in the first place was to forewarn. He certainly imagined that any type of change with the circulation element in that area that particular traffic part would be considered and thrown into the formula. He mentioned that leaving the condition as proposed it still leaves the door open for all of those possibilities. The Planning Director agreed and if the City Engineer felt that the extra width was needed because of the RV park then that would be their recommendation for the circulation element and in that case we could go with the 501. Commissioner Munson stated that according to the minutes, the City Engineer stated that a 50' paved travelway would be adequate for the RV type vehicle. Commissioner Munson stated that it appeared that we have requested a 50' area on the north half of the street. The Planning Director stated that the City Engineer had stated that they could discuss that condition again. If the City Engineer agreed to this condition that the 50' is needed because of that other traffic impact on that other project for that street then they would go with the 50'. If the Planning Commission desired they could give the Planning Director direction to indicate that for an approach on the staff level. Commissioner Van Gelder stated that she was very much in favor of maintaining the 50' basis on both sides of the street. It could be changed later if it was found out that it could be successfully done. She mentioned that without the traffic study she would be very hesitant to make it any narrower on the south side. She stated that it would be easier to decrease than it would be to increase after a decision had been made. Commissioner Hargrave stated that Mr. Wainscott basically said they were willing to go with either one of those two numbers. Mr. Wainscott just wanted the latitude that if it was feasible or possible and everybody agreed that he could do that. 14 c The Planning Director stated that was correct and it was the intent of the new condition that would be allowed. Commissioner Hargrave stated that if nothing worked right they would then go back to the standard they had previously set. The Planning Director stated that was correct that if the 44' were not appropriate they would go back to the 50'. Commissioner Hargrave asked the City Engineer if that was up to his discretion to make the final decision. The City Engineer stated that was correct. Chairman Caouette clarified that the final decision would come through the Planning Commission and City Council. Commissioner Hargrave stated that if Mr. Wainscott started with the construction dealing with a 44'and then comes back to the Planning Commission and is told to have a 50'instead then there will be a problem. The Planning Director stated that the applicant would either have to wait for the City Council to decide on the circulation element if he wanted to go with 44' or, if he decides not to wait for that he can bring in plans that show the 50' width because that is what recommendation is required now. Commissioner Hargrave asked what the time line was for the applicant to decide on 44' or the 50'. The Planning Director stated that it would be by the General Plan hearings in the first two weeks of December. Commissioner Hargrave asked if after the plans are approved by Council it could take the applicant up to 1988. The Planning Director stated that was correct and the General Plan hearings were set for the first two weeks of December. There would also be the 30 day second reading and the 30 day effective period. After the vote by the Council that a 15 9 Elliott Shaw L.A. Wainscott C21 certain width would be acceptable then staff could start processing. Commissioner Hargrave stated that he personally would be in favor of giving the applicant the latitude and that he understands that if the Council says no, then the applicant would have to go back to the old standard. However, if it helps the improvement in that area where it did not take away from the traffic flow in that area then he thought it would be a reasonable request. Mr. Shaw explained that he had met with the City Engineer and the Planning Director to discuss this issue. He mentioned that they were in heavy discussion about the bridge over the railroad. The City Engineer felt that the maximum bridge they would get there would be 56' which would require a realignment to the east. He stated that was the City Engineer's basis for the 44' beyond the 32'half. He stated that would be more than adequate because it would require a transition to the bridge. He mentioned that if they made it even wider to 72' it would require an even larger transition. It does cause traffic problems in transitioning. Mr. Shaw explained that was how they arrived at their present position because that was where they were in the General Plan. Commissioner Sims asked the Planning Director if the width was decreased would that area still be fully landscaped or would the property go back to Wainscott with the right—of—way remaining intact and only partially be landscaped. The Planning Director stated that as proposed on the plan that they were showing the landscaping with the narrower width that was requested. In fact it was taking some of what was being proposed away on the plans. Commissioner Sims asked if it would still have 12' from curb to right—of—way line. The Planning Director stated that was correct. Commissioner Sims asked if that would also include 16 an additional 8' The Planning Director corrected and stated 5' because they would be taking away property on their site. He stated that 8' was 3' above the minimum. Commissioner Sims asked if that would go down to 53. The Planning Director stated that would be more than likely because they were being squeezed so that they would have to cut something in landscaping. Commissioner Munson stated that they have 8' and 5' totalling 13' in landscaping. The Planning Director stated that they have 12' of non -paved right-of-way, and then a proposed 8' on the subject's property and that was with the narrower width. If it was the wider width they would still have the 12' in the right-of-way but the 8' would be reduced down to 51. Commissioner Munson asked then what the medium would be. The Planning Director stated that it would be 17'. Commissioner Munson stated that the plan did not show a sidewalk. He asked for the dimensions of a sidewalk. The Planning Director stated that a sidewalk was normally 5' but the Engineer had not required that a sidewalk be put on that particular location. (Correction from L.A. Wainscott that the Engineer had required the sidewalk but they did not put it in). The Planning Director stated that would be within that 12' section. Commissioner Hargrave asked if the renderings of the buildings would cause this structure to be not in conformance with the RV Park's architectural structure that was being proposed. The Planning Director stated that he did not have architectural drawings for the RV Park yet but it 17 9 was anticipated that it would be on a smaller scale than the project this evening. This building does have an office or institutional look to it. In regards to the RV Park he felt that would be on a more human scale for the architecture. Commissioner Hargrave mentioned that this project did not have glassy type finishings. The Planning Director stated that was correct. He mentioned that the major elements of the building are horizontal lines rather than vertical lines which would tend to stand out. The windows are close to the top of the wall heights. He mentioned that the rendering this evening did not show any of the landscaping that would go with that. However, if they would look at the north elevation which would be the top elevation it did have the potential of being a blank wall. There are two areas of terraced landscaped portion also with two trees being planted on each end of that to break that wall up. The landscaping did not come into play on these elevations as much as they would like to help tone down the effect,of the long walls. The windows would also break up the overall height. Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder asked if the applicant planned to occupy the entire building. The Planning Director stated that was correct. Chairman Caouette asked for any further discussion. MOTION PCM-74 Commissioner Hargrave made a motion for approval on SA-87-10, with the amendments in relation to the widening of the street area. Commissioner Hawkinson seconded. The Planning Director clarified that would be the amended 1A on Joe Kicak's memorandum. Chairman Caouette stated that the motion was for approval of the project with the amendment to the City Engineer's condition, 1A, as noted. He asked for any discussion on the motion and the vote. MOTION CARRIED, ALL AYES. 7-0-0-0. 18 64. 9 Chairman Caouette asked if there was any further business before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Munson stated that the Chamber of Commerce was present and he wished to make the point that the Planning Commission meetings were never listed. The Planning Director mentioned that there has been conflicts in scheduling between the staff reports needed for the Planning Commission and the City Council due to the meetings falling in the same week. He would like to recommend that they change the Planning Commission meetings to be the opposite Thursdays of the Council Meetings. That would allow staff to have the packets out to the Commissioners on Fridays and that would give them up to Thursdays to review the packets. This would be less of a burden on the months where the meetings fall on the same weeks. The Planning Director stated that would mean to meet on the first and third Thursdays rather than the first and third Mondays. Commissioner Hawkinson stated that to support that his packet arrived late Friday afternoon. He mentioned that was really a challenge to get everything read by Monday. He stated that what the Planning Director was recommending was a pretty good idea. The Planning Director stated that they have spoken to staff and administration and there doesn't seem to be a problem with the idea. The conflicts would be of prior commitments of the Commissioners on Thursday nights. Mayor Pro-Tem Pfennighausen mentioned that when the City Council adjusts its calendar during the holidays that many times both the Planning Commission and City Council would meet on the same nights. Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder indicated she had previous commitments on Thursday nights. The Planning Director stated that was a good point and also that the Planning Commission meetings could be on Wednesday nights if not Thursday nights. HE Chairman Caouette mentioned his support and would help avoid the problem of Mondays being legal holidays thus having to adjust our meetings. He suggested meeting on Wednesdays. Commissioner Hawkinson stated that he had a problem with the third Wednesday of the month. Commissioner Cole stated that he had a problem with Wednesday nights. Commissioner Munson asked if the Planning Director was proposing a permanent solution to the scheduling conflict. The Planning Director stated that he was proposing a permanent solution. Commissioner Munson asked what was to prevent the Council from changing their meetings and running into this problem again. The Planning Director stated that a Tuesday night would not cause this to happen that often. They could look ahead on the calendar. Commissioner Cole asked about Thursdays and how .i often did the Council have to change their schedule. Mayor Pro—Tem Pfennighausen stated that the Thursdays probably would not cause problems. The Planning Director stated that Thursdays have some problems for the City Council but usually when they do make a change, they usually have only one meeting for the month. Therefore, if we go with the opposite Thursday that may not be such a burden. Also, one of the things that the Planning Aide pointed out was if Thursday is on a holiday then the meeting would be the Wednesday before. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW ADJOURNED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED 20 C Respectfully Submitted v c an'nirk Director 21 Approved by: Nor�tian�e , �W� Chairman Planning Commission