Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1994-06-22 '. . . .. .. IV. V. CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA of JUNE 22, 1994 7:30 P.M. * City Council Chambers 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, CA Next Resolution: #94-21 I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA By Motion of the Planning CommissIOn, tIllS IS the time to: (a) Notify the puhhc of any changes to the agenda; (b) Rearrange the order of the agenda; and/or (c) Provide an opportul1lty for any member of the Planning COInJnJssion, staff, or public to request an item be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS At this time, members of the public may address the Planning Commission regarding any items within the subject matter JUrisdiction of the Planmng commission, provided that NO action or diSCUSSion may be undertaken by the Planning Commission unless otherwise authOrized by law. CONSENT CALENDAR Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and are enacted by one motion unless prior to enactment, a member of the Planning commission, staff or the public requests that a specific item be removed from Consent Calendar for separate action. 1. Approve Minutes of June 8, 1994 2. Receive and File City Council Staff Report re: Consideration of "Balanced Development" Issue, SCAG, dated June 13, 1994. 3. Receive and File City Council Staff Report re: Legislative Status Report - 1994 Legislative Sesion, dated June 13, 1994. 4. Receive and File City Council Staff Report re: 1994 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), South Coast Air Quality Management District, dated June 13, 1994. . . . Page 2 - City of Seal Beach Plannmg Comllllqqlon Agenda of June 22. 1994 VI. VII. Vill. IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. Conditional Use Permit #92-19 [Continued from 6-8-94] Business: Clancy's Address: III Main Street Applicant: Steven Meier Property Owners: Mr. & Mrs. Richard H. Wells Request: Approval at 12 months for an indefinite extension of an alcohol-related land use permit. Resolution 94-20: Approve CUP 92-19 subject to conditions in staff report, as revised by Planning Commission on June 8, 1994 6. Negative Declaration #94-4 General Plan Amendment #94-2 (A, B) Zone Change #94-2 Variance #94-3 Height Variation #94-4 Address: Applicant: Property Owner: Request: 1600 Pacific Coast Highway Dave Bartlett Mitchell Land and Improvement Company Approval to construct three two-story commercial structures and two single-family dwellings on three adjacent parcels. Resolution 94-21: Approve ND #94-4, GPA/ZC # 94-2, Variance #94-3 and HV #94-4 subject to conditions in staff report, as revised by Planning Commission STAFF CONCERNS COMMISSION CONCERNS ADJOURNMENT The City of Seal Beach compbes WIth the Alllerlcallq With Dlqablbtleq Act of 1990 If you require spcclalaqqlstancc to 1I11end or pal'IClllate m tllIq meetlllg, Illeaqe telephone the City Clerk's Office at (310) 431-2527 at ICII\I 24 houn prior to tllC meetmg '. . . CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES of JUNE 22, 1994 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The City of Seal Beach Planning Commission met in regular session at 7:30 p.m. with Chairman Dahlman calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the flag. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Dahlman Commissioners Law, Campbell, Soukup Absent: Commissioner Sharp Also Present: Development Services: Lee Whittenberg, Director Barry Curtis, Administrative Assistant Joan Fillmann, Executive Secretary Craig Steele, Assistant City Attorney MOTION by Law; SECOND by Campbell to excuse the absence of Commissioner Sharp. MOTION CARRIED: A YES: ABSENT: 4-0-1 Law, Campbell, Dahlman, Soukup Sharp APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION by Soukup; SECOND by Campbell to approve the Agenda, indicating Commissioner Soukup's "yes" vote to approve includes his abstaining from voting on the June 8th Minutes as he was absent from that meeting. MOTION CARRIED: A YES: ABSENT: 4-0-1 Law, Campbell, Dahlman, Soukup Sharp HONORING COMMISSIONER SOUKUP With the agreement of the Commissioners, Chairman Dahlman reiterated that Commissioner Soukup had announced his resignation from the Planning Commission and this will be his last meeting. Chairman Dahlman read Resolution No. 94-21 which honored Commissioner Soukup and thanked him for his service to the City. A plaque was also presented. Page 2 - PlanlllDg COIlumsslon Mmutes or JUlie 22, 1994 . ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no oral communications from the audience. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approve Minutes of June 8, 1994 2. Receive and File City Council Staff Report re: Consideration of "Balanced Development" Issue, SCAG, dated June 13, 1994. 3. Receive and File City Council Staff Report re: Legislative Status Report - 1994 Legislative Session, dated June 13, 1994. 4. Receive and File City Council Staff Report re: 1994 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), South Coast Air Quality Management District, dated June 13, 1994. MOTION by Law; SECOND by Campbell to approve the Consent Calendar, noting Commissioner Soukup abstains from voting on Item #1. . MOTION CARRIED: A YES: ABSENT: 4-0-1 Law, Campbell, Dahlman, Soukup Sharp PUBLIC HEARINGS s. Conditional Use Permit #92-19 [Continued from 6-8-94] Business: Clancy's Address: 111 Main Street Applicant: Steven Meier Property Owners: Mr. & Mrs. Richard H. Wells Request: Approval at 12 months for an indefinite extension of an alcohol-related land use permit. Commissioner Soukup's Review Chairman Dahlman asked Commissioner Soukup if he had reviewed a videotape of the June 8, 1994 meeting since he had been absent? Commissioner Soukup said he had not seen a video but had read the Minutes of June 8th and the staff report. Mr. Steele said this preparation was sufficient to allow Commissioner Soukup's participation tonight because there was no evidence presented during the Public Hearing. Public Hearin~ Re-opened Chairman Dahlman re-opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Curtis said the only change in the staff report from June 8th is a re-wording of the fifth finding, to say a bar is not compatible with the . . . . Page 3 - Planning COIIUm..,OO Mmu\es of June 22. \1I114 Main Street area, but the subject property's pre-existing use as a bar is conditionally permitted under the City's General Plan. No one from the audience wished to speak for against this proposal and Chairman Dahlman closed the Public Hearing. Commission Comments Commissioner Soukup said he felt the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) should regulate hours of operation. He would be against the Planning Commission attempting to change Clancy's hours of operation within this CUP. MOTION by Law; SECOND by Soukup to approve the indefinite extension of Conditional Use Permit #92-19 through the adoption of Resolution No. 94- 19 with the revised findings per the June 8, 1994 Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED: A YES: ABSENT: 4-0-1 Law, Campbell, Dahlman, Soukup Sharp Mr. Steele said the Commission's action is final and the ten calendar day appeal period will begin tomorrow, June 23, 1994. 6. Negative Declaration #94-4 General Plan Amendment #94-2 (A, B) Zone Change #94-2 Variance #94-3 Height Variation #94-4 Address: Applicant: Property Owner: 1600 Pacific Coast Highway Dave Bartlett Mitchell Land and Improvement Company Conflict of Interest Commissioner Soukup stated he lives on 16th Street, within 300' of this proposed project. He declared there would be a conflict of interest on this basis and left Council Chambers for the remainder of the discussion. Staff Report Mr. Curtis presented the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. The applicant, Mitchell Land & Improvement Company, through their representative Dave Bartlett, proposed approval to construct three two-story commercial structures and two single-family dwellings on three adjacent parcels. . . . Page 4 - Planning COIIU1UnlOlI M111ute, of JUlie 22, 1994 Commission Comments on Staff Report Commissioner Law expressed her concerns that any future commercial building would encroach right up to the residential structures. Public Hearing Dave Bartlett * 6082 Jade Circle. Huntington Beach. CA Mr. Bartlett introduced himself as a land use and planning consultant who has represented the Mitchell Land & Improvement Company during the planning and processing of this project. He said they held a meeting at the Marina Community Center which 15 to 20 people attended. They notified everyone within 300' of the proposed project and posted notices throughout City Hall. Chairman Dahlman explained that with only three of five Planning Commissioners able to vote on this project tonight, they must unanimously agree for the project move forward. He indicated that whatever the Planning Commission should approve is fully transferrable if the Mitchell Land & Improvement Co. should wish to sell the land. Decateur Mitchell. President. Mitchell Land & Improvement Co. Mr. Mitchell explained his company is closely held and has been in business since 1921. They purchase, develop and manage their properties. They do not normally sell any of their properties. Their philosophy is long term growth. They may move their office from Signal Hill to one of these buildings in Seal Beach. He has been a Seal Beach resident for eleven years. The idea for this proposal was gleaned from a project in Amarillo, noting when people spend the major part of their day in an office they should be as comfortable as possible and therefore this proposal has a homey atmosphere. Chairman Dahlman questioned the need for a Variance, asking if the property line had to be 0' from the residences and require the commercial properties to provide 6' of extra property. He asked why the residential lots could not be 28' wide? Mr. Bartlett explained the Variance request is for the residential structure to be located on the zero lot line side yard, adjacent to the commercial property. There is an additional 3' to 4' of setback that the commercial structure has between the property line and the commercial structure. They have proposed to move the residential building over to the side yard to the North, to free up additional space on the other side of the residential building where it's more useable and is adjacent to another residential structure. The commercial building will be located 3' - 4' off the property line. Commissioner Law explained she does not want the commercial building to infringe on the residential properties. Mr. Bartlett said the Uniform Building Code (UBC) prohibits building within 3' of a property line. . . . Page S - Plannmg Conumqsion Mmu\eq of June 22, 1994 Commissioner Law said that would leave the residential properties stuck right against the commercial buildings. Mr. Bartlett said the residential buildings are only proposed to have one opening facing the commercial zone. The privacy and noise issues when a commercial use is adjacent to a residential use would be mitigated to a point where it's not a problem. Commissioner Law said if the property line were moved over, then the commercial buildings could never creep up on the residential properties. I Mr. Bartlett said as far as moving the building over and making it a larger lot, if that were done, that would have the commercial buildings on the residential portion of the property. Commissioner Campbell explained that the buildings themselves would not be moved, just the property line would be moved over 3' to protect the residences from any future actions of the commercial owners. Chairman Dahlman clarified that everybody is starting from the staff report's recommended 6' total average setback/separation between the commercial and residential. He wondered why the property line didn't accommodate 3' setbacks on each side. Mr. Bartlett reiterated the UBC would not allow building into the 3' setbacks. If the property line were moved over 3', with the commercial buildings would not be allowed to have openings on the South side of the buildings themselves. Mr. Whittenberg said the Planning Commission is concerned with precluding any future additions to the commercial buildings so the commercial is not right next to the residential. One mechanism to accomplish this is to move the property line but that has the difficulty of not allowing any openings on the back sides of any of the commercial buildings. The current elevations show several openings to retain the residential look of the buildings. An alternative, would be to require an easement over the southerly 3' of the commercial properties, which would eliminate the potential for future building in that 3' area. Mr. Bartlett agreed, noting the UBC would prohibit such infringement, and indicating the applicant would agree to such a condition. Steve Frost * Mitchell Land & Improvement Co. Mr. Frost said he will be the project co-ordinator for this project. He said Mitchell Land & Improvement Co. purchased the property in August 1993 with the intent of developing this project in the next two to five years, depending on the economy. In January 1994, Dave Bartlett was hired as a consultant and convinced them to proceed with the project. The design concept was put together by himself and Decateur Mitchell in January 1994. They hired James Goodman as the architect and Linden Robinson as landscape architect and site planner Kenneth Rome. They have attempted to blend the residential and professional buildings, using a variation of Spanish Mediterrean and Monterey style architectures. The professional buildings will have the character and feel of residential buildings. . . . Page 6 - Planning Conmlission Mmules of June 22. 1994 Commissioner Law said she thought the design is beautiful and felt it would encourage trip reduction by having Seal Beach residents work in Seal Beach. She said she is still concerned with commercial infringement. Chairman Dahlman said his concern with the Variance is the fact that this is a 25' wide lot and there are many 25' wide lots throughout the City. This is a 25' wide lot on which the 3' required setback for each side wound up as a 6' setback on one side with the building on the property line. He indicated that people could key on such an approval and this could cause many people applying for Variances to build this way. Mr. Whittenberg said the staff report says there are only twelve (12) lots in the City in this similar configuration, where you have a 25' wide residential lot against a commercial use on Pacific Coast Highway. Chairman Dahlman said that while that may be true, there are hundreds of 25' wide lots in the City. And, at the time of remodeling or rebuilding, people might love to have a 0' lot line on one side. This could become very popular. He said he would hesitate to approve a Variance if such an approval could start a landslide of property owners applying to do things differently. Commissioner Law asked if the Orange County Fire Department would stop such approvals? Mr. Whittenberg said not necessarily. The Fire Code provides for sprinIdering, fire walls etc. where such construction could occur. Mr. Bartlett said it would meet the Fire Codes, noting this is a typical planning tool when you have a situation where residential properties are juxtaposed with commercial uses. They are attempting to minimize problems that do occur when commercial and residential uses are next to each other. He said page 14 of the staff report says: 5. The proposed residences shall maintain an average setback of six (6)feet on the southerly sides of the properties, while providing a minimum setback of three (3) feet. They requested to maintain an average setback of 5.44' on the southerly side and a minimum setback of 4'. They felt this request was in keeping with a Variance application procedure. He said this is the only Condition of Approval they have a contention with. Mr. Bartlett added the project has been designed to minimize impacts by orienting the project towards Pacific Coast Highway. Parking, lighting and pedestrians will be between the buildings and Pacific Coast Highway and away from the residential uses. The parking lots have been designed to have vehicles enter onto the property and go from parking area to parking area without turning onto another street. That eliminates vehicular traffic into the residential neighborhood. The project will generate approximately 50% of the trips that the Rum Runners restaurant generated. All the required parking will be provided on-site at one parking space per 250 square feet. The reciprocal parking agreement is acceptable. Also, the closure of the curb . . . Page 7 - Planning COIlUIlI.SIOII Minutes of June 22. 1994 cuts on Pacific Coast Highway will add three additional parking spaces. 33 % of the site will be landscaped. No one in the audience wished to speak in favor or against this proposal and Chairman Dahlman closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Curtis, referencing the Chairman's question on the Variance findings and other similar 25' lots, said there are 12 other 25' wide lots which abut commercial properties. In this case, the two residences being built right to the property line does not infringe on or diminish the distance between residential structures. What it gives is a larger-than-usual separation between the two residences. For other 25' wide lots, with zero lot line construction, it would result in a separation of only 3' between residences and would therefore result in a negative impact on the adjacent residences. Commissioner Campbell asked about undergrounding utilities, asking why the residential properties would continue to be serviced overhead. Mr. Bartlett explained that all the new development in Seal Beach is serviced from overhead poles. Should an underground district be proposed by the City, they would be a part of that and underground the utilities at that point. The commercial structures will be undergrounded from the point of connection to the buildings themselves. Mr. Whittenberg said there are existing overhead service poles in the alley that currently serve the residential uses. Those poles will remain, whether or not these two homes are required to be undergrounded. If the underground service is required for the residential units you would have an underground line going to the pole and then going up the pole. So, no poles would be removed at this time. Chairman Dahlman commented on the setback issue. One alternative could be a Zone Text Amendment (ZTA) which would envision the other 12 25' wide lots to exactly the same treatment and would avoid a Variance issuance. He asked what the delay would be. Mr. Curtis said there could be a delay but he didn't think a ZTA would delay this project. In the past, when the municipal Code needed to be changed, and the Planning Commission and City Council agreed, a Variance was issued and staff was directed to proceed with the ZTA. When the ZTA was in place, the Variance became null and void. Mr. Bartlett noted staff has given different scenarios and the Variance procedure looks at the uniqueness of each situation to determine whether the zero lot line would be a grant of special privilege. It might allow the City more control if each case were reviewed individually. He said if a ZTA is proposed, they would like to continue on with the commercial aspect of the project to the City Council and the California Coastal Commission. They would like, if a ZTA is decided upon, to have a Variance granted in the interim. Chairman Dahlman reviewed the applicant's request for an average of 5.44'. Mr. Bartlett said the average would be 5.44', noting the footage meandering down the side of the project with the . . . Page 8 - Plannmg CoIlUlUnllln Mmules of June 22, t994 maximum being 9'4" and the minimum is 4'. They are asking for a 4' minimum, instead of a 3' minimum, having the th' difference made up on the other side rather than the 6' average side. Chairman Dahlman said this project proposes fewer housing units than Mr. Watson's proposal for this site. He asked if the City would lose any low income housing? Mr. Whittenberg said no, because there's no housing existing on the site. Mr. Bartlett did not want a rebuttal time and Chairman Dahlman closed the Public Hearing. Commission Comments The Commission had discussion on the Variance application only. Commissioner Law said that if an easement is recorded that would satisfy her concerns on commercial encroachment onto the residential properties. Mr. Steele said he would rather see an easement be part of the Zone Change than this Variance because of the setback requirements and zoning codes. Commissioner Campbell and Chairman Dahlman discussed the setbacks, saying this could be precedent setting. Any future cases could claim special privilege if they were not allowed to do this. Chairman Dahlman said this is why he suggested a ZTA, so that everybody gets treated the same, including the present applicant. In response to a question by Chairman Dahlman regarding the Height Variation, Mr. Curtis said the proposed CRASs are "L" shaped and are 62.25 square feet. They abut the zero lot line on the commercial side. Mr. Steele suggested the Commission not act on the resolutions tonight because there are some changes the City Attorney's Office would like to make to them. He would like to bring back a set of resolutions and the applicant said he does not have a problem with this. The Commissioners agreed. MOTION by Law; SECOND by Dahlman to approve Negative Declaration #94-4 as presented. MOTION CARRIED: A YES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: 3-0-1-1 Law, Dahlman, Campbell Soukup Sharp MOTION by Law; SECOND by Dahlman to recommend approval of General Plan Amendment 94-2A and 2B as presented to the City Council. MOTION CARRIED: A YES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: 3-0-1-1 Law, Dahlman, Campbell Soukup Sharp . . . Pag~ 9 - P1annmg Conuniuion MlDul~s of June 22. 1994 MOTION by Law; SECOND by Campbell to approve Zone Change #94-2 with the additional two conditions added: (1) the provision of the easement over the southerly three feet (3') of all the commercial properties to prohibit future building construction in that area and (2) the maintenance of the ground water monitoring wells until such time as it is detennined not to be necessary by the Orange County Health Department. Before the vote, the following discussion ensued. The previous discussion was to maintain 3' from the zero lot line to the commercial buildings. On the opposite side you'd have between 5.44' or 6' (depending on the Commission's action on the Variance) up to 9' between the residential structures and the existing residential structures to the south. Commissioner Law clarified where she wants the easement on the plans. The easement sets the minimum. The minimum proposed for this Variance is 4'; Commissioner Law said to leave it at 4'. Mr. Whittenberg said the minimum side yard setback for the residential structures is a 3' minimum setback. It has been requested to reduce the average residential side yard setback to 5.44'. Stafrs recommendation is to maintain the 6' average. Commissioner Law said the rear of the property has to vary because it's jagged. There was Commission disagreement on how big the easement should be. Mr. Steele said he'd like to reserve the right to change this from an easement to another type of control upon further research. He asked the Commission to instruct staff to bring back resolutions with the appropriate legal wording. MOTION CARRIED: A YES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: 3 - 0 - 1 - 1 Law, Dahlman, CampbeJl Soukup Sharp Chairman Dahlman said he would prefer to see this considered an interim Variance while the City proceeds with a ZTA to achieve even treatment for all 14 such lots in the City. Mr. Whittenberg cautioned that this should not be regarded as an interim Variance and that the Commission's determination needs to be made on this request with the understanding that a ZTA requires future Public Hearings, Noticing and in fact, it may not pass. Chairman Dahlman felt there should be no problems in getting a ZTA passed and it would take about 2 - 3 months. Mr. Whittenberg said the time would be longer because a Notice must be prepared, an Initial Study must be prepared and circulated for 21 days before a Public Hearing at the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission must have a Public Hearing. The City Council has to have a Public Hearing with first and second readings of the ordinance and then it would not take effect for thirty days. This is 4 - 5 months. MOTION by Law; SECOND _ to approve Variance #94-3. MOTION FAILS for lack of Second. , , PlI&C ) 0 - PJanning COIIUUlSSIOII Minutes of JUIIC 22. ) 994 . Mr. Whittenberg outlined the Planning Commission's options: 1. To approve the Variance as recommended by staff and instruct staff to then proceed with the initiation of a ZT A to deal with the other properties in a similar situation. Discussion ensued on the applicant's time frame for building. Chairman Dahlman said it is his understanding that the applicant does not plan to begin construction in the next 3-4 months and that other permits, such as the Coastal Commission, need to be obtained. Mr. Whittenberg said rea1isticaJly he didn't think they could be under construction too quickly because of the Coastal Commission process. Chairman Dahlman noted that the plan and it's approval or disapproval by the Coastal Commission has nothing to do with this Variance and the proposal could be presented to them without this Variance. Mr. Whittenberg said the Coastal Commission would probably not be concerned about the Variance one way or the other. 2. To approve the Variance as requested by the applicant and instruct staff to proceed with a ZTA. 3. To deny the Variance and instruct staff to proceed with a ZTA. . He indicated that if the Variance were denied, it would preclude the applicant from proceeding with building permits for the residential units as proposed unless he met the 3' setback on each side. This would be until such time as a ZTA would be hopefuJly adopted and approved. The applicant could then comply with those terms. Chairman Dahlman indicated he does not see a problem with this but, there has been little testimony tonight and he felt a ZTA is required to make sure that all 14 lots are treated the same way. MOTION by Dahlman; SECOND by Campbell to deny Variance #94-3, and instruct staff to proceed with a Zone Text Amendment (ZTA). Before the vote, Chairman Dahlman asked Commissioner Law if there was any way she could save his Motion for him? Commissioner Law said no, she felt there was nothing wrong with the Variance as presented. Commissioner Campbell said she feared the Commission would be setting a precedent for future requests. Chairman Dahlman said he felt the Commission should give out as few Variances as possible because those cities who have granted many Variances have gotten into problems. Mr. Steele said the municipal Code requires three affirmative votes either way. If there are not three affirmative votes on this Motion then there will be no action by the Commission on this application rather than a denial and the application would still be pending. Under the Permit Streamlining Act, the Commission would have six months after approval of a Negative Declaration (when it comes back to the Commission for approval and signature), to take an action on this Variance. . . . . PIIC 11 - P1anniIIg Commission Mmlllc8 of JIDIC 22. 1994 Chairman Dahlman asked when a District 1 Planning Commissioner will be appointed? Mr. Whittenberg said there will be an item on the City Council agenda for June 27th but he did not know if an appointment will be ready to be made. MOTION FAILS: A YES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: 2 - 1 - 1 - 1 Dahlman, Campbell Law Soukup Sharp *** MOTION by Dahlman; SECOND by _ to recommend to the City Council that a ZT A be initiated to allow equal treatment to all fourteen City lots. Discussion ensued on the fourteen 2S' wide lots which back to commercial properties. Commissioner Law said they all differ and Commissioner Campbell said they don't differ at all. MOTION WITHDRAWN by Chairman Dahlman. SUBSTITUTE MOTION by Dahlman; SECOND by Campbell to continue this matter for four weeks, to July 20, 1994. MOTION CARRIED: A YES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: 3 - 0 - 1 - 1 Law, Dahlman, Campbell Soukup Shmop *** MOTION by Law; SECOND by Campbell to approve Height Variation #94-4. MOTION CARRIED: A YES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: 3-0-1-1 Law, Dahlman, Campbell Soukup Sharp *** STAFF CONCERNS Director Whittenberg said the July 6th meeting will be short because the only items for consideration are the resolutions being brought back from tonight's meeting; no Public Hearing matters are scheduled. " . . Page 12 . Plannmg COllullission Mmules of June 22, 1994 . . COMMISSION CONCERNS There were no Commission concerns. A.DJOURNMENT Chairman Dahlman adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, go~a~~ Joan Fillmann Recording Secretary APPROV AL: The Planning Commission Minutes of Ju~e.LI994 were approved by the Planning Commission on July Co, 1994. ~ ~ . .