Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1986-11-05 "C'r.:~L " '--" BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Ar-~1P-A Cl ty Councl 1 Chambers ,._ - 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach. California . f'he Seal Beach Planning Commission meets in session every first and third Wednesday of each month at 7:30 p.m. If you wish to address the Commission on any particular public hearing item, the Chairman will call for public testimony first for those in favor of the project, and second, for those who are not in favor. When you see that the speaker's position in the center of the room is unoccupied, step up to the microphone and when recognized by the _ Chairman, speak directly into the microphone by first stating your name and address clearly and distinctly for the records. State your business as clearly and succinctly as possible and then wait a moment to see if the Commissioners have any questions in regard to your comments or questions. If there are no other questions or comments, return to your seat so that the next person may address the Cammdssion. If you wish to address the Commission on matters other than pUblic hearings, the agenda provides for that time when the Chairman asks for comments from the public. Address the Commission in the same manner as stated for public hearings, always stating your name and address first. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA November 5, 1986 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call 3. Report from Secretary 4. Consent Calendar A. Minutes of October 1, 1986 Meeting B. Minutes of October 15,1986 Meeting 5. Public Hearings A. Conditional Use Permits 14-86 and 15-86 981 Ocean Avenue (Continued from October 15, 1986) Resolutions . 1439 and 144I/J . A request to permit the establishment of a new take-out/sit-down restaurant with on-sale beer and wine. Environmental Review: This project is categorically exempt from CEQA review (California Government Code Section 15382). Code Sections: 28-1388(6); 28-2583 Applicant: Jack Haley Owner: Same B. Conditional Use Permit 16-86 (B-53 Surfs ide Avenue) Resolution 11442 A request to permit an addition to a nonconforming residence in Dist~ict III (Surfside). Environmental Review: this project is, categorically exempt from CEQA review (California Government Code Section 15381). Code Sections: 28-586; 28-2583 Applicants: Bruce and Maralyn Moe Owners: Same . C. Variance 15-86 (485 Opal Cove Way) A request to permit a room addition that exceeds the maximum lot coverage by three percent, and to permit a bay window that encroaches within the required front yard setback. Resolution '1443 - on- _. ..,....._._ _.............__ ~__ .., t! ,,0) . PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Page 2 Environmental Review: This project is categorically exempt from CEQA review (California Government Code Section 15301). Code Sections: 28-401, 28-2500 Applicant: Yates and Associates Owner: Robert Raices D. Zoning Text Amendment 2-86 Resolution 11432 A request to amend the Municipal Code to provide definitions for, and possibly to develop regulations for hotels and motels. Environmental Review: Negative been prepared in lieu of an Report. Declaration 6-86 has Environmental Impact Code Sections: 28-243, 28-261, 28-2608, 28-2681, 28- 2682 Applicant: City of Seal Beach . 6. Scheduled Matters 7. Commission Requests 8,. Oral Communications from the Audience 9. Commission Communications 18. Adjournment Agenda Forecast: November 19, 1986 CUP 18-86 231 14th Street (Burns) CUP 2-86 99 Marina Drive (Chevron) Z.T.A. 4-86 Large Family/Small Family Day Care . . '. . .__ __.__ .._ _ _.__.....l.._....._ ___ _____..____.._:_ . ---- PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 1986 The Seal Beach Planning Commission met in regular session on Wednesday, November 5, 1986 at 7:35 p.m. Commissioner Suggs lead the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Jessner Commissioners Sharp, Suggs, Covington (arrives 7:40pm) Commissioner Perrin Absent: Also Present: Edward Knight, Director of Development Services Quinn Barrow, City Attorney Pamela Walker, Administrative Aide Ginger Bennington, Secretary to City Manager . REPORT FROM SECRETARY Mr. Knight reported that at the City Council meeting in October, the Great Western sign appeal was denied without prejudice. He further reported that staff was requested to study the roof sign issue and come back to the Commission in 60 days with a recommendation. The ultimate goal would be to recommend a roof sign definition. CONSENT CALENDAR Sharp moves to approve consent calendar which includes the minutes of October I, 1986 and of October IS, 1986 Planning Commission meetings; Suggs seconds. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Jessner, Sharp, Suggs None Perrin, Covington Motion Carried . PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS 14-86 AND 15-86 - 901 OCEAN AVENUE - JACK HALEY - RESOLUTIONS #1439 AND 1440 Mr. Knight indicated this item was continued from the October IS, 1986 meeting wherein the Commission requested additional information in three areas: the parking layout, a possible lease agreement between the property owner and City for 13 parking spaces and the circumstances of the variance application filed by the former tenant of the property. The lease agreement was researched by staff and in 1/25/82 and offered to the City Council for 13 parking spaces at $25/space/year. That lease was never executed and the opportunity to lease those parking spaces was not extended to any subsequent property owner. With regard to the variance application made by the previous tenant (which surfaced due to an outstanding in-lieu fee of approximately $1800 which the City Attorney felt would be liable to the property owner by his signature on the variance application), it was found that the property owner did not sign the variance application, only the tenant. It was both staff and City Attorney~s opinion that the property owner was not liable. for the fee. Upon further . . study, it was determined that the fee had been subsequently paid by the tenant, which no longer makes this issue a concern. With regard to parking layout, the property owner and each of the Commissioners have received a memo which further discusses the issue of parking layout. The original site plan approved in 8/84 and the most current layout of the property shows that since the variance application, additional improvements have taken place on the property increasing the number of in-lieu spaces by 3 but also encroaching on the current on-site parking area to the point that the 10 parking spaces can only be accommodated to the number of 8. Due to those circumstances, staff is recommending that condition 19 be amended to have the in-lieu parking spaces required be "11" and the condition to read "the applicant/property owner shall provide a written agreement to participate in such in-lieu parking program as has been or shall be established by the City Council to the amount equal to 11 spaces. Any changes to total parking requirements for the site shall cause the modification of the rate of participation in the in-lieu program, subject to the Planning Commission review." Mr. Knight also requested the addition of a 12th condition to read: "The applicant shall provide a final set,of plans showing the improvements at 901 Ocean subject to the satisfaction of the Director of the Development Services." Given these changes, Mr. Knight recommended approval of the CUP 14-86 and CUP 15-86, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Mr. Knight indicated that the City Attorney will be providing an in-lieu lease agreement. The lease agreement will be signed by the tenant and the property owner. The in-lieu form will be amended to provide signature of property owner and lessee. Chairman Jessner declared the public bearing open. Mr. Jack Haley, 404 Ocean Avenue, stated he had no objections to the conditions. Mr. Haley felt the other in-lieu parking program participants should sign a similar lease document. Mr. Knight indicated the Finance Department will be updating the in-lieu program. Staff is trying to streamline the process to insure that payments are made. It was determined that the lease' agreements will be signed by all those currently participating in the in-lieu program. As no others spoke in favor nor in opposition to this matter, Chairman Jessner declared the public hearing closed. Chairman Jessner suggests a change in condition 18 to read "Eight on-site parking spaces shall be striped and maintained for the use of restaurant employees and patrons per the approved site plan;" the Commission concurred. . . Commissioner Covington moves to approve RESOLUTION #1439 and 11440 with changes in the conditions as described; Sharp seconds. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Covington, Jessner, Sharp, Suggs None Perrin Motion Carried . PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 16-86 - B-53 SURFSIDE AVENUE - RESOLUTION #1442 - MOE Pam Walker indicated this was a request by the applicant to permit structural improvements to a nonconforming single family residence. Staff's recommendation is approval with conditions. She stated this property is nonconforming due to substandard front and side setbacks and parking. Presently there is one parking space in a garage attached to the residence. This garage measures 8-1/2 ft. by 16-1/2 ft. The proposed improvements include the enlargement of a powder room, and dining room on first floor and the enlargement of a bedroom on the second floor. Ms. Walker further pointed out that in any other zoning district, these modifications could be done through a plan review, however, in Surfside, a CUP is required for any renovation to a nonconforming residence. Staff finds that all findings may be made for this remodel and recommends approval with condition. Chairman Jessner declares the public hearing open. As no one spoke in favor nor in opposition to this public hearing, Chairman Jessner closed the public hearing. . Commissioner Covington discusses the parking availability on the leased land adjacent to Surfside. Ms. Walker noted staff looked at extra parking space on the leased land but hesitated to include it in the condition because the zoning ordinance makes such mention 8~ to some point in"time when the leaae becomes unavailable. Covington felt a condition could be made that stated "as long as the land was available to be leased, that it continued to be used as parking space. Staff concurred with that additional condition. Commissioner Covington moves to approve RESOLUTION #1442 be approved with the changes outlined by staff; Sharp seconds. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Covington, Jessner, Sharp, Suggs None Perrin Motion Carried . PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE 15-86 - 405 OPAL COVE WAY - RESOLUTION 31443 - RAICES Pam Walker indicated this was a request by the applicants to permit a room addition that exceeds the maximum lot coverage by 3% and to permit a bay window that encroaches within the required front yard setback. Staff does not recommend approval of Variance 15-86. The application before the Commission, reported Ms. Walker, is part of an effort to legalize construction already underway on the site. In late August, staff issued a stop work order to halt the construction of improvements in question. Consequently, in order to obtain proper permits, the applicant submitted plans to the Planning Department from which staff determined the proposed room addition exceeded lot coverage. The applicant filed for a variance. Staff subsequently visited the site and noted that a bay window that did not appear on the plot . plans would encroach within the front yard setback. Staff asked the applicant to amend the plan or to amend the variance request. The applicant opted for the latter. Staff has two main concerns regarding this application: 1) whether the ~roper findings can be made to support this variance and 2) the propriety of the variance in general. Staff does not find any special circumstances to substantiate this variance and feels that the granting of a variance in the absence of such hardship would be a grant of special privilege. With regard to the propriety of this variance: construction had begun on this site without proper permits. The applicant had an opportunity to reduce the size of the room addition and to modify the window designs but declined to do so. For those reasons stated Ms. Walker, staff recommends denial of this variance. Chairman Jessner declared the public hearing open. Mr. Jerry Yates, architect, wished to correct two items in the staff report. 1) The bay window will not touch the ground in its final form, but will be supported off the ground; therefore it will not provide additional square footage. 2) Mr. Yates stated he is the agent and architect for Mr. Raices, and came into this matter after construction was begun and the stop work order was issued. . Mr. Knight stated that a bay window encroaching into the 3 ft. setback in Old Town would not be permissible because of fire regulations. For zoning regulations, setbacks are determined from foundation. Therefore if a line is drawn from the bay window down to the foundation, it would encroach into the front setback. Mr. Knight told the applicant if he did not increase the floor area, it would not be considered an encroachment into the setback for zoning ordinances. Chairman Jessner concluded that if this was true, no variance was needed for the bay window. Mr. Knight indicated that this matter was continued because the applicant had not indicated this change this evening. Pam Walker indicated there is some discrepancy between the assessor's parcel book and what the applicant shows on the plans. Staff went with the assessor's parcel book, which subsequently increased the lot coverage. Mr. Yates stated the owner did in fact begin construction without permits and did not follow proper procedures because he did not understand them. The stop work order he reported was sent to the previous owner. Be was eventually told to stop in person, which he then did. The expansion is a logical expansion for this type of structure. . Mr. Robert Raices, 405 Opal Cove Way, indicated he was willing to make amends for what he did wrong. The window is to beautify the front. Mr. Covington questioned Mr. Raices regarding this stop work notice received in the mail. Mr. Knight indicated that notices are delivered to whoever is working on the site, that the notices are not mailed. The notice is posted on the site and whoever is working on the site is told to cease. Mr. Knight . .--- . indicated that the bay windows were discovered at a later inspection. Mr. Raices stated he received one notice that says stop work on the bay window, which Mr. Raices did. As no others spoke in favor nor in opposition to this matter, Chairman Jessner declared the public hearing closed. After some discussion by the Commission, Sharp moves to deny Variance 15-86; Suggs seconds. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Covington, Jessner, Sharp, Suggs None Perrin Motion Carried Chairman Jessner explained that the applicant has 10 working days after Resolution 01443 is adopted (which should take place at the December 3rd meeting) in which to appeal the Commission's action. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 2-86 - RESOLUTION 01432 - HOTEL/MOTEL DEFINITION . Mr. Knight noted that at the October 1 workshop, two issues were defined: the definition of a hotel or motel and whether they should be permitted in the RUD zone. At the direction of the Commission, staff prepared" 4 alternatives to amend the zoning regulations for transient occupancy facilities: two definition amendments and two regulatory amendments; i.e., 1) the definition of a hotel and motel in detail as to types of services provided, 2) a more general definition of a hotel. Each of these definitions would require a conditional use permit for a hotel in either the C2 or R3 zone. The regulatory amendments included 1) removing hotels as an allowable use in the RUD zone, allowing them as a use in the C2 and Specific Plan zones only and 2) allow hotels 1n the R3 zone but subject to certain findings: parking, signage, accessory uses, and landscaping. Under this condition hotels would be allowed in C2 and RHD zone both subject to conditional use permits. The Commission could opt for any of the proposed amendments or to adopt only a definition or only a regulatory change. Mr. Knight indicated staff recommended approval of either of the two hotel and motel definitions. As to the regulatory amendments, any possible change in the zoning regulations covering hotels and motels 1s a matter of policy for the Commission and the City Council. . Mr. Knight indicated there was much literature received regarding Seal Beach Inn, most of literature in favor of expansion of the Inn. Mr. Jessner felt that the wording in the definition should be "hotel/motel" not just "hotel." Mr. Knight indicated the draft ordinance deletes the term motel. All transient occupancy within the City, would be referred to as "hotel." The City Attorney stated that a developer could call a facility anything he wants, but under the definition "hotel" refers to all types of . accommodations that appeal to transient occupancy facilities. The City Attorney felt the definition covers all manner of transient occupancy facilities. Mr. Sharp suggested "hotel or establishments accommodating the public for rooms". The City Attorney felt the definition could be clarified to address the Commission's comments. '. ~ ~ i J. 4 i Chairman Jessner declared the public hearing opened. He indicated there were two definitions under discussion with regard to hotel/motel usage and two definitions regarding zoning for these establishments. . Mr. Robert Cook, 441 Central Avenue, stated there is a section in our code which refers to a variety of transient type facilities and reads that portion of the c~de. Mr. Knight indicated Mr. Cook was reading the portion of the code dealing with the collection of transient occupancy tax, but has nothing to do with zoning. Under the zoning definition, the hotel definition would apply to all types of transient occupancy accommodations and the business code which defines as to what constitutes the gathering of tax would apply to all those mentioned according to Mr. Knight. Mr. Knight indicated this code requirement does not cover bed and breakfast inns, as they usually have less than 6 rooms for accommodations. Any home with at least 6 rooms and calling itself a bed and breakfast inn, would fall under the hotel definition and would require a conditional use permit. Mr. Cook stated under the current code, a hotel is permitted in the RHD zone. Mr. Cook felt this should require a change in the General Plan as it would permit all types of transient occupancy facilities in a residential zone. Mr. Cook pointed out that the RHD zone is allover the City, not just in Old Town. Mr. Knight indicated that hotels would need to apply for a conditional use permit to show compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood before approval was given. Mr. Knight also indicated that existing facilities would have to apply for a conditional use permit related to their operations - whether they wanted to expand their use, include accessory uses, etc. The current transient occupancy establishments would be grandfathered in unless they wished to change their operation in some way (at which time the owner must apply for a conditional use permit). It was pointed out that Oakwood Gardens did not apply for a use permit in the past. The City has been collecting taxes from their transient occupancy usage. The City Attorney indicated that Oakwood has been operating in that manner for several years now. They could be requested to cease, however, no taxes would be forthcoming to the City. Mr. Jessner asked if Mr. Cook was opposed or in favor of the definitions and regulatory amendments. Mr. Cook stated he was in favor of providing the greatest prote.:tion that we can for our residential neighborhoods from any form of commerc~al activity that encroaches upon their tranquillity. . In addressing the summer rental issue, Mr. Knight stated this practice is very prevalent. Be noted that by the code it would .. ........... . ~. . .' ". . ." . .. .______ _ . n_____ __ __ _. . _.'_. .____ 0'_ ~_~_~~..____ "--.-.-...-------- . not be allowed. Mr. Knight indicated if tbe City bad a code enforcement officer, be would guarantee tbat tbis matter would be enforced. By enforcement, Mr. Knight indicated tbese summer rentals would be requested to cease and desist. Charles Antos, 148 l4tb Street, offered the following information. There are no regulations to deal with transient occupancy facility of less tban 6 rooms. In order to deal witb less tban 6 rooms, anotber cbange in tbe zoning ordinance must be addressed. Witb regard to taxes, tbe City's tax code bas tax licensing for wrestling matcbes, boxing matcbes - many tbings tbat are not permitted. Sbould zoning ever permit tbese matters, tbe City's tax code could tben collect taxes. Hotels are now allowed in RHD zone with a conditional use permit. Mr. Antos supports tbe first, more detailed definition of botel as it defines tbe use and the ancillary uses tbat migbt be found witb a botel use. Mr. Antos felt there was no need for tbe regulatory amendments as tbere is already a way to control the uses, by tbe conditional use permit public bearing process. .. Mitzi Morton, 153 .13th Street, felt tbat botels sbould be completely removed from tbe RHD zone. Mrs. Morton asked bow sbe could be refused if she applied for a permit for a botel and sbe was able to provide the required parking for ber apartment site. By not allowing botels in tbe RHD zone, no one would bave to worry about someone coming in to get around tbe zoning requirements. Marjorie Bettenbausen, 1311 Seal Way, owner of Seal Beacb Inn and gardens, addressed tbe bed and breakfast inn issue. Tbe American/Hotel Motel suggests tbe following wording IIwith 6 or more transient occupancy rooms licensed to offer transient occupancy. II In tbis way, someone witb an apartment could not decide to convert to a botel. Mrs. Bettenbausen supported tbe first botel definition as it fully describes tbe ancillary uses. Mrs. Bettenbausen felt eacb existing facility sbould be reviewed tbrough a permit process as eacb facility was unique. Sbe felt tbe conditional permit process is tbe best because tbe public is still in control and tbe Commission bas not given up its rigbts. Mrs. Bettenbausen does not support tbe regulatory amendments as proposed, but suggests tbat tbe existing regulations be kept as tbey are. Sbe felt tbat regulatory amendment no. 2 was too restrictive and was not feasible witb tbe way existing botels businesses are operated. . Mr. Eric Voss, 1632 Ocean Avenue, supported botel definition II and tbe Seal Beacb Inn's ancillary uses. Mr. Jack Obam, 3651 Fuscbia Street, suggests cbanging wording to IItransient accommodation facilitiesll ratber tban botels. Mr. Warren Gaye, 220 5tb Street, was concerned tbat tbe residential zelning be protected. Mr. Gaye agreed with either of tbe botel definitions but suggested tbe first regulatory amendment be adopted. Mr. Bill Bennett, president of Cbamber of Commerce, stated tbat be bad reviewed tbe staff report. Tbe Cbamber believes tbe ,h .~ ...... _. .. ...--. ... ~ . definition should be consolidated and that the first definition would be best as it does define within the definition the ancillary services. Bennett does not agree with either of the regulatory amendments. Mr. Bennett felt ancillary uses such as those at Seal Beach Inn were of benefit to the City. Mr. Bennett was speaking on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce and for himself. Mrs. Bettenhausen stated that the Seal Beach Inn performs certain ancillary uses as a civic duty. Mrs. Bettenhausen discussed her situation as the owner of the Seal Beach Inn and the cease and desist order given by the City. Mr. Bettenhausen pointed out that many of the neighbors have not been able to come to ,this hearing. Mr. Bettenhausen submits letters (24 received in support of the Inn).. Mr. Knight indicated that one of the regulatory amendments would not allow hotels in the RHD zone. No new facilities would be allowedt the existing facilities would be grand fathered int howevert any expansiont any ancillary uses would not be allowed. Mr. Covington stated his major concern with this issue is the fact that there are sites within Seal Beach where new transient occupancy facilities may be constructed. This issue is incidental to existing businesses but may have a much greater impact on the City. Mr. Charles Thompsont 335 Clipper WaYt suggests separating the Seal Beach Inn issue and the hotel definition to be dealt with at a later time. Mr. Thompson felt the Inn was a landmark for Southern California. Mr. Thompson felt the regulatory amendment should be rewritten. Mr. Kevin McCarthYt 212 5th Streett supported definition 11. Mr. McCarthy felt small businesses had unique problems and should be addressed in a CUP process. Marilyn Zahnt 220 5th Streett was concerned that regulatory amendment would be passed because of the CUP situation. Ms. Zahn travels and would be concerned that a CUP hearing would be missed while she was away. She therefore supported regulatory amendment #1. She was also supportive of either hotel definition. Ms. Josie GreelYt 1629 Seal WaYt supported definition 11. Ms. Barbara Rountreet 316 13th Streett supported regulatory amendment II as she did not feel hotels should be allowed in the Old Town area residential zones. Maureen Ramert 223 5th Streett supports either hotel definition. She supported regulatory amendment '1 as a method of protected the residential areas in the future. A compromise with the Seal Beach Inn could be addressed at a later date. Mr. Ernie Griffitht 130 11th Streett was supportive of the Seal Beach Inn as a tradition of the City. He felt there should be some way to take into consideration the importance of the Inn as a tradition in the City over and above the hotel definition. Marilyn Zahn was not opposed to the Seal Beach Innt but was opposed to anything other than regulatory amendment II. Mr. Phil Ramert 223 5th Streett requested clarification on zoning regulations which was provided by Mr. Knight. Mr. Ramer stated that Commission members change along with philosophies and that to protect the residentst regulatory amendment #1 should be adopted and definition 12 as it is simpler. ' . . To clarify a pointt Mr. Knight stated that the State constitution says that zoning uses must be consistent across the board; a zone .~....-...... _ ___...a .......... _-='a_ _-:........_..-...; ..........;..... _....___...._.. ._.__ o. . must be consistent throughout the City. The City Attorney stated that research must be done to determine as to whether a special privilege would be granted to a legal nonconforming use to be allowed to apply for expansion or for intensification of use. Mr. Jessner indicated this is a concern of many of the persons here tonight; that most do not want to see hotel use expanded in the RHD zone. He also felt that the differences are within the existing facilities and whether or not they may be treated the same as other like businesses within another zone. The city attorney recommended one of the proposed alternatives that would still allow leeway for existing facilities to still come to the City for definition of what is allowed on that property. The City Attorney stated this is designed to deal with future uses. Mr. Robert Cook, 441 Central, stated that 23 cites had been surveyed as to whether they permitted transient lodging facilities. Of the 23, Seal Beach was the only one that currently permits a hotel in an R3 zone. It should not be there, he stated. The General Plan of Seal Beach says the City shall prevent the encroachment of incompatible uses to residential areas. Staff is supposed to see that these policies are enforced. This policy is for the City of Seal Beach, not for a specific owner of a piece of property. The governing criteria for businesses is economics and Mr. Cook does not feel the public should pay the price. . Chairman Jessner declared the public bearing closed. The City Attorney was concerned about tbe legality of capping tbe existing uses of lodging facilities in the City. The City Attorney prefers that the Commission choose one of the proposed alternatives. Mr. Barrow indicated tbat amendment 12 was open to modification by the Commission. Commissioner Covington suggested tbat the Commission vote on the definition but reserve the zoning amendment for tbe next meeting. Mr. Covington indicated be was a strong advocate that the rights of an individual to enjoy the privacy of bis resident take precedence over a commercial use. Mr. Covington strongly supported regulatory amendment II at tbis time, bowever, it was suggested by Commissioner Covington that staff and City Attorney take the issues and concerns addressed tonight to come up with a modification of regulatory amendment II to be voted upon at a future date. Commissioner Sbarp moved to adopt botel definition 11 as presented; Suggs seconds. Covington suggests adding "by whatever name you migbt call sucb a facility." The City Attorney will provide the appropriate language to that effect; Commission concurs. . AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Covington, Jessner, Sbarp, Suggs None Perrin Motion Carried Commissioner Covington moves to continue to first meeting in December so that staff can provide tbe Planning Commission with . the additional clarification and options and research with the concerns addressed from this public hearing; Sharp seconds. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Covingtont Jessnert Sharpt Suggs None Perrin Motion Carried SCHEDULED MATTERS There were none at this time. COMMISSION REQUESTS There were none at this time. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Al Bergert 1635 Seal WaYt asked if the public could attend the December meeting. The Chairman indicated all meetings are open to the publict although the hearing process for the hotel matter has been closed. ADJOURNMENT It was the order of the Chairt with the consent of the Commission to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting at 11:50 p.m. .. , THESE MINUTES ARE TENTATIVEt SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. .