Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/20/1987 - Minutes PC' Y d IFS, City of Orange Orange, California April 20, 198? Monday - ?: 30 p. m. The regular meeting of the City of Orange Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Greek at 7:30 p. m. PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Jack McGee, Associate Planner and Acting Commission Secretary; Ron Thompson, Director - Department of Community Development; Gene Minshew, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: MINUTES OF APRIL 6.1987 Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission approve the Minutes of April 6, 198? as recorded. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master NOES: None ABSTAINED: Commissioner Scott MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1576 - ORANGE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT: ' Proposed operation of bingo games within the R-1-6 zone on property located on the northeast corner of Walnut _ Avenue and Shaffer Street at Orange High School, addressed 525 North Shaffer. NOTE: This project is exempt from environmental review. Joan Wolff, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. The property encompasses approximately 34 acres and is zoned R-1-6, single family residential, minimum lot size 6,000. The City's General Plan designates the property for public facility land use. The property is surrounded by single family residences on the north, east and south, and a college dormitory recreation buildings to the west. In May, 1986, the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~m°"^~ ~ Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1987 ~~` Page 2 t , Orange Municipal Code was amended to permit groups, such as non-profit organizations, senior citizens groups and mobilehome park associations to conduct bingo games in any zoning district sub,~ect to prior approval of a conditional use permit. The applicant proposes to hold games on Saturday evenings from 6 to 11 p. m. in the high school gym. The gym is centrally located on the high school campus and plans indicate there will be seating for 316 participants. There is on-site parking available for 342 cars within parking lots on the property. No other activities will be conducted on the site simultaneously with the bingo games. Concession snack items will be sold at the bingo games with all profits to be used to support public education. The Commission is being asked to take final action on this application. Mr. Minshew suggested using O. U. S. D. School Pride, Inc. as the non-profit organization that will be operating the games. The land owner is Orange Unifed School District; however, in order to have bingo games, it is required that a non-profit organization conduct the games. O. U. S. D. nor the City of Orange are allowed to authorize bingo. School Pride, Inc. meets the state's qualifications . The public hearing was opened. Dolly Robinson, 702 South Laurinda Lane, President of O. U. S. D. School Pride, Inc., has been involved in this organization for over three years. They have been trying to get a large fund raiser to support the group, which without they will dissolve. Bingo can raise revenue up to one million dollars a year. This would be dispersed evenly between the high schools, junior highs and elementary schools for books, computers, and athletic equipment. They have the support of the school board and many community members. There is no alcohol allowed, there are security guards; noise will be at a minimum. These games are conducted in an orderly manner. Commissioner Master questioned the percentage of expenses in regards to gross income. Ms. Robinson stated there are very strict codes and 20% is allowed for operating expenses. Eighty percent goes back to the schools. Those speaking in favor of the application: ,. Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 19$? Page 3 Russell Barrios, 235 East Maple, questioned the process and reserves comment until the end. Those speaking in opposition: Tom Trischler, 703 North Shaffer, lives at the north end of the tennis courts/field of Orange High School. He is concerned because Orange High has not been a good neighbor in the past and feels this is one more imposition. Concerns include noise,. traffic problems, inadequate parking, size of auditorium, band practices every day of the week, trash/vandalism. Requests the school district find another site for bingo. M. J. Martini, 638 East Walnut, a retired school teacher, opposes bingo. He understands the need for funds, but it is not ok to gamble at the high school. Barbara DeNiro, 1118 East Adams, made comments regarding her concerns. She asked where the other licensed bingo games are operating in the City? <The Commission said there were three locations -- Elks Club, Y. M.C.A. , and R. I . O. > She wanted to know why this proposal was exempt from an EIR? Mr. McGee said it was categorically exempt under CEQA state law. Joan Wolff stated Section 15323, which allows the normal operations of existing facilities for public gathering for which the facilities were designed. Ms. DeNiro continued stating only 1/2 of the schools in the district are located within the City of Orange; yet all would benefit from this operation. None of the other cities within the O. U. S. D. allow bingo in a public school facility. The hours of operation are an additional imposition on the residents of this area. Ethnics and economics need to be considered before making a ma3or decision. Several questions were asked about the bingo operation. Commissioner Hart said the questions seemed to be addressed to the school board for the use of the schools, which does not apply to the Commission. The Planning Commission is a zoning body; they do not address the issues of why the school is allowing School Pride to use their facilities. Nicky Calagna, 1135 East Culver, is opposed to bingo at Orange High because it is public property paid for by tax payers. Thinks an EIR to address the impact on the c Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 1987 Page 4 general area would be very much in keeping with what everyone has been saying about the impact on their homes. Vic Calagna, 1135 East Culver, spoke in opposition. All school property belongs to the citizens. They could rent a building to conduct their bingo games instead of using the school site. Helen Gomez, 715 North Shaffer, cited the heavy traffic on Shaffer. There were 19 accidents on Shaffer in 1986; too many accidents in one year. Does not want a death in the area. She is not opposed to bingo if it is in the proper place. There is neighborhood pride as well as school pride and that should be considered. Lewis Brown, 523 North Harwood, has a problem with the traffic problem. Traffic is especially heavy in the evening hours. Bernard Davis, 553 North Harwood, lives next to the school fence. Does not believe the high school could gain enough in bingo games to offset what the rest of the neighbors will lose. Harrell Frederick, 491 North Shaffer, thinks it is morally wrong and it would be a nuisance. Thinks all the churches in Orange should be notified about this. 0 Ms. Robinson responded to Ms. DeNiro's questions. They have been working closely with the City of Orange Police Department. They have assured them they will make appearances quite often to see if the games are run properly. All books will be open to anyone who wants to look at them, check them, see where the money goes. Salaries are not being paid; they are not allowed to pay salaries to people running the games. Fans will be put in the school for the ventilation system to control the smoke. They are covering their own insurance. Bingo games will bring in 300-400 people. The average age of a player is 35 to 60; they are not allowed in under the age of 18. The codes are very strict on this. The moral issue depends on the person. Bingo is safer than going door-to-door selling items for fund raisers. They have met with the Ministerial Association to reassure them. Smoking/non-smoking areas will be designated. Alcohol will not be allowed. The games can only be run four to five hours. She feels they are going to run a responsible game with responsible volunteers from the community. ~rrt''~ Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1987 !~""'' Page 5 Commissioner Bosch felt it would have been appropriate to address the site of the high school in relation to its land use. Ms. Robinson stated there were no other facilities to meet their criteria within their budget. Feels it is a proper use. Commissioner Master wanted to know about Villa Park High School? Ms. Robinson said that was a different community and they have not approved bingo in their City. Lars Steensland, 18292 Fernando Circle, Villa Park, clarified one thing on the use of the school. In order to hold bingo they cannot go out under the City of Orange ordinance and rent a facility. It must be a facility where you are the owner or tenant. An organization would have to donate their facility for our use 100%. Russell Barrios, 235 East Maple, member of the Board of Trustees, O.U. S. D. , addressed a couple of issues. I f residents are having unusual problems with the students or activities, the Board is more than sympathetic and willing to hear their complaints and will take necessary action to rectify the problems. Senior citizens will be the ones playing bingo. The school board has approved this activity 7-0. Ms. DeNiro believes Mr. Barrios is missing the point of everything being crammed down the residents throats at Orange High School. Peralta Jr. High is empty. And they will never agree on the moral issue. They are concentrating too much in a certain area; the whale community needs to share in this response. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Scott asked what the time limit is at the other bingo locations? Mr. Minshew stated the time limit is set by the ordinance -- any straight six hour period in one day. Commissioner Master asked if there was a curfew? Mr. Minshew read the Orange Municipal Code ...may not conduct bingo games between the hours of 12 midnight and 10 a. m. on any day. C Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 198? Page 6 Mr. McGee said the conditions of the conditional use permit, as stated in the staff report, are 316 as the maximum number. The hours are 6-11 p. m. on Saturday evenings. Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Greek, that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 1576 because the proposal is based upon sound principles of land use and is in response to services required by the community and that the proposal will not cause deterioration of bordering land uses or create special problems for the area in which it is located. Also, it should be noted that O. U. S. D. School Pride, Inc. is indicated as the applicant. AYES: Commissioners Greek, Hart, Scott NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Master MOTION CARRIED Mr. McGee stated there is a 15 day appeal period on this application. It may be appealed to the City Council within 15 days. Information sheets are at the exit. IN RE: NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1579 - JAMES C. LICATA: Proposed development of a single family residence in the C-1 zone on property located on the southeast corner of Cleveland Street and Palm Avenue, addressed 289 North Cleveland. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1133 has been prepared for this project. There was no opposition; therefore, the staff report was not presented. The public hearing was opened. James Licata, 630 West Palm, has read the staff report and believes the staff has done a good, thorough ,job. Even though staff has put many conditions on the project, they are more than willing to abide by all the conditions. Those speaking in favor: Vic Calagna, 1135 East Culver, spoke in support of the pro,j ect . Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 198? '"`'"* Page ? Sharon Schaefer, 344 South Center, spoke as a Board Member of Old Towne Preservation Association, and they support Mr. Licata's project. They also commend him for being considerate of his neighbors. The public hearing was closed. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Hart, that the Planning Commission accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board and file Negative Declaration 1133. _ AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 15?9 subject to the staff conditions. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 158? - KEITH AND CORRINE SCHRECK: Proposed second story residential unit over a four car garage in the RCD zone on property located on the west side of Center Street between Culver Avenue and La Veta Avenue, addressed 436 S. Center Street. NOTE: This project is exempt from environmental review. Mr. McGee presented the staff report and referred to the exhibits posted on the wall. The parcel is zoned R-2-RCD <Residential Duplex) 6,000 square foot minimum lot size with a residential combining district zone on it. The lot is 6,250 square feet in size. The zoning on the remainder of the block is the same <R-2-6 RCD>. The zoning across Center Street to the east is R-2-6. It does not have the RCD overlay on it. Last summer the Planning Commission heard an application by the same applicant on the same piece of property -- Conditional Use Permit 1527 and Variance 1798; a similar request. At the time it was a little bit larger unit that was being asked for. The Commission's determination at that time was to deny the application based primarily on unit size and design of the ~,,,r' Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 198? !""""~ Page 8 proposal. That application was appealed to the City Council and the Council upheld Planning Commission's decision and also denied the application in September of last year. The applicant is proposing at this time a 980 square foot second unit, two story in height. Within that same building are four garage spaces which would conform to the development standards of the zone. The pro,~ect does conform in sense of all other development standards, setbacks, height, etc. The structure height is 23 feet. There are windows on the west side of the building. Staff has recommended the conditions as listed on the staff report. The public hearing was opened. Corinne Schreck, 446 North James, would like to build a ~`~'` second unit, two bedroom, two story at 436 South ~r~` Center. The size of the unit would be 980 square feet, smaller than the existing. front house. There will be four garages; no carport. There will also be a storage area for bicycles and other items so cars can fit in the garages. The unit does not have any balconies; it doesn't have a look out on the roof. There is one small window that you cannot see through on one side of the second story. The house will be constructed with wood siding to match the front house. She and her husband conducted a survey of the houses in the neighborhood who were noticed. There was a total of 55 properties that needed to be notified. Of this total, 25 of them are two story, two units. Four of them are two story, one unit. Two of these 55 properties are one story, two units. She had a petition signed by 50 people who are in favor of this pro,~ect. Those speaking in favor of this application: Kenneth Long, 18822 Fowler Avenue, Santa Ana, also owns a piece of R-2 property close to the Schrecks. Does this development comply with all the existing City ordinances and Planning Commission requirements. Obviously it does otherwise it wouldn't be at this point. He recommends this be approved. Nicky Calagna, 1135 East Culver, speaking not only as a citizen, but an advisory director for the Orange Taxpayers Association. They are in favor of this project for many reasons. Variances are not needed, there are proper setbacks, it is consistent with the zoning in the area, and is consistent with the Land Use Element. For the record, she referred to the Minutes of 2/18/75 pertaining to low density zoning. Feels G Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 1987 Page 9 the two story development would be appropriate in this instance because of the two story development in the neighborhood. Joe Digrado, 130 West Crystal View, designed the unit for the Schrecks. When they redesigned the unit, they were very sensitive to all the items the Commission was concerned with in the past. It has been redesigned with a minimum amount of windows to the north and south. They tried to be sensitive with the roof lines using all hip roofs to keep the horizontal lines in effect so it does not become a large structure and hopefully pleasing to the eye. Eileen Hertfelder, 720 East Culver, feels the applicants have complied with all City regulations and zoning and they should be permitted to build this unit. Jamie Merk, 416 South Olive, member of the OTPA, and supports the building of the two story house. Feels the 400 block of South Center is one of the worst streets in Old Towne. Just the fact someone wants to improve the visual conditions of this street, to raise the property value for all of the neighborhood, is something the neighborhood should be thankful for; not in opposition to. Those speaking in opposition: Herbert Rushing, 460 South Center, opposes this because of the traffic situation. Traffic in the alley has been rough. Sharon Schaefer, 344 South Center, neighbor and board member of OTPA. There are no two story units on this block of South Center. They are concerned this is going to set a precedent to this block. This will further erode the character and harmony of this part of Old Towne. Opposes the development because of invasion of privacy, overcrowding, parking and traffic problems in the area. Karen Utterback, 414 South Center, is against adding this unit to the back of the property because of the traffic that the alley will incur. C Alma Tiemann, 454 South Center, has lived in her house for 6? years and she does not like these two story houses in the alley. There is too much traffic. People park on the street instead of the garages. Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1987 "~'; Page 10 Rachelle Mae, 464 South Center, has lived there for 26 years. She has a personal opposition to this plan: traffic and a congested alley. Rosemary Mae, 464 South Center, commented on the impact of people looking down in their backyard constantly. There is little privacy and very little security. There is no control over who is living in these units and looking down on you. The traffic is temendous both on the street and in the alley. Mrs. Schreck is intending to move into that property. Would it help if a traffic survey was conducted? She doesn't believe anyone but herself knows how many tenants she has had living there during the past year or how many vehicles they have and she does not feel it is anyone else's business except hers. There is a two story house directly behind her property that has been there for many, many years. Mrs. Calagna heard some of the things that were said and thinks the gentleman who spoke about the alley should report that to the Traffic Department. That issue can be mitigated. She also drove through that area today and did not see a lot of cars on her property. She also saw properties that were 3ust as high in height with dormer windows; they are still two story structures. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Bosch has been opposed to some projects of this type in the past, but he appreciates the particular design of this unit. It does preserve the street scape at the street itself. It does preserve the individual privacy of the units along side as much as can be expected from this type of unit. Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Hart, that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 158?. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS TENTATIVE TRACT 12970 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1584 - M. D. JANES COMPANY, INC. Proposed subdivision of approximately 53.91 acres into Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1987 "`"`; Page 11 85 single family residential lots, plus two open space parcels, and development of the tract as a Planned Unit Development in the R-1-20 zone on property located north and south of the proposed Canyon View Avenue between Chapman Avenue and Newport Avenue. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1139 has been prepared for this project. Joan Wolff, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report and pointed out the exhibits on the wall. This proposal is surrounded by existing and proposed single family residential subdivisions. When the East Orange General Plan was adopted in 1975 it originally severely limited development on the property. The plan was later amended to permit additional development because the alignment of Canyon View Avenue, which was approved subsequently to the adoption of the East Orange Plan, precluded development as originally specified by the Plan. Subdivision and development of this property had been attempted previously -- once in 1978 and once in 1985. In December, 1978, the Orange City Council approved a zone change on the property from A-1 Agriculture to R-1-20 Single Family Residential, lot size 20,000 square feet, and a conditional use permit for a planned unit development, along with the tentative tract application for an 82 lot subdivision. In 1985 the City Council approved a tentative map subdividing a 10 acre portion of the property of the 12 lots. Neither of these two tentative maps were ever recorded and are now void. Plans for the current development proposal indicate that the subject property will be subdivided into 85 residential lots, each ranging in size from 5,000 square feet to about 10,200 square feet; two open space lots, one of which is about 24.6 acres and the other approximately 10.9 acres. The housing type proposed is single family detached, size from approximately 2,400 square feet to 3,000 square feet each. The property is to be developed as a planned unit development in order to concentrate residential development and consolidate open space areas. Other than the lot size which is average under the Planned Unit Development concept, the development will conform to R-1-20 zoning development standards. This project will complete Canyon View Avenue from Chapman Avenue to Newport Blvd. Canyon View is proposed as a secondary arterial highway with an 80 foot right-of-way and has been designed with crib walls of various heights along a portion of its length to support adjacent slopes. All roads within the tract have been designed to Public Works Department standards Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 1987 '~"' Page 12 and are proposed to be dedicated to the City. Negative Declaration 1139 has been prepared to describe the environmental impact and proposed mitigation measures for the project. Staff's conditions are contained in the staff report should the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve this proposal. Chairman Greek questioned the road standards. The exhibits show two different road widths; which one are they being asked to approve or which one meets the standards? Mr. McGee interjected the one exhibit is shown as a site plan only. The other exhibit is the tentative tract map and the details on that map are the ones to be considered. Mr. Johnson stated there was a discrepancy in the plans that were submitted and believes the applicant will comment on it in his presentation. In Condition 4, their Department requires 52 feet of right-of-way with a 36 foot street section in areas of doubly loaded streets. In areas where there are singly loaded streets, their standard requires 44 feet of right-of-way with a 32 foot full street. In those areas, however, parking would be eliminated from one side. They have shown varying street sections. Following the City's street standards will clarify any question about what is required. Commissioner Scott asked Mr. Johnson to comment on Condition 5. Mr. Johnson said Canyon View will be designed and constructed to an ultimate complete roadway system. It may require construction outside the tract boundaries. He further explained Condition 5 using the exhibit as a visual guide. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Gonzales, Contract Engineering, 3822 East La Palma, Anaheim, represents M. D. Janes. They have met with staff to discuss all the conditions and we concur with every one of them. Those speaking in opposition: Ed Skelton, President of Rocking Horse Homeowners Association. His objection and concerns are for the plans of Canyon View. He talked with the City staff v ~~ Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1987 `~"' Page 13 several months ago and was told that Canyon View would be a mayor arterial street and will connect with Weir Canyon. It will be easier to widen Canyon View to six lanes; the grade of this will be less than the grade of Chapman, which means it could take truck traffic much easier. Would like to know what the future plans of the City are concerning Canyon View. Mr. Johnson stated he did speak to a group of homeowners up at Ridgeline Country Club several months ago and discussed the Master Plan in relation to Canyon View. There was concern about Canyon View being used as a cut off for trucks going to the dump. That is not the City's intent in creating this road. To eliminate Canyon View from the Master Plan is not the right approach. The City could, however, restrict truck traffic on Canyon View. Grades on the street as they were master planned would allow a 10% grade. The grades on Chapman, as they exist, are 8%. Canyon View is steeper. Diane Lutivice, 5176 Westview Drive, lives in Rockinghorse Ridge Homeowners Estates and is a member of the homeowners association board of directors. Concerned about the traffic signals. How are they going to get out on Canyon View from their community if there is no signal or stop sign? Also concerned about the truck traffic and traffic patterns for Canyon View. Steve Dunham, 5716 Westview Drive, concerned about the dump trucks, which are heavily loaded, causing excessive noise. Mr. Johnson said they are not recommending restricting truck traffic initially, but it is something that can be monitored, a history established, and staff would be in support of restricting the trucks. Mr. Gonzales had no other comments. Most of the questions were addressed to Mr. Johnson. They have no ,jurisdiction over the traffic signals. The public hearing was closed. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission accept the findings of the Environmental. Review Board and file Negative Declaration 1139. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED s ~""'* Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 1987 Page 14 Chairman Greek has a personal problem with bicycles and bike paths. He lives in an area where they are causing accidents and blocking traffic. It is a serious problem on weekends on Santiago Canyon Road. Mr. Johnson stated to solve the problem would be to provide a separated bike lane. The City does not have a system of bike trails; that is a County wide system. They will strike bike lanes if there is a demonstrated need. There are no plans for a designated bike lane on Canyon View. Moved by Commissioner Hart, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council to approve Tentative Tract 12970 and Conditional Use Permit 1584, subject to the 27 conditions for the tentative tract and the five conditions for the conditional use permit. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: PRE-ZONE CHANGE 1066 - THE IRVINE COMPANY: Proposed change of zone from County A-1 SR to City of Orange P-I (Public Institution) and PC (Planned Community) on approximately 119 acres of land located on the east side of Newport Boulevard and surrounding the intersection of Chapman Avenue and Santiago Road. C 0 NOTE: Negative Declaration 1135 has been prepared for this project. Commissioner Bosch excused himself from the meeting. A staff report was not presented. The public hearing was opened. Bryan Austin, Irvine Company, 550 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, gave a quick overview of the proposal. There is about 119 acres involved; 55 acres in the Planned Community designation, 64 acres in the Public Institutional category. Upon approval of this pre-zone we intend to proceed with annexation of the property to the City of Orange. They anticipate that annexation to appear before LAFCO on June 3 -- it is called Annexation #3?2. The ultimate uses of the property include the future expansion area for Rancho Santiago Community College C27 acres) and then 27 acres is proposed for residential use. The residential project ' v t Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 198? "~ Page 15 would include between 60 and ?0 single family detached homes. They hope to present a final version of the site plan and tentative tract map in June or July of this year. The pre-zone area also corresponds to a portion of the assessment district 86-1, which was approved by the City Council last November. The assessment district has already established the funding for the improvement of the roads that are in the area. None of the area that is subject to the pre-zone and annexation is in the General Plan area. They believe the pre-zone and resulting annexation is a logical extension of the City's boundaries and it also offers several benefits to the City in that it brings more control over the processing of the plans and construction of the north-south road. It also brings the Rancho Santiago Community College District's future expansions to the City, and it does benefit the Irvine Company in that it is another step of moving a portion of the property along towards residential development. Mr. Austin understands a conditional use permit process will be required and tentative tract process is also required. The public hearing was closed. Chairman Greek, Mr. McGee, and Mr. Austin discussed the Villa Park regional dam, which is owned by the County. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board and file Negative Declaration 1135. AYES: Commissioners Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSTAINED: Commissioner Bosch MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council to approve Pre-Zone Change 1066. AYES: Commissioners Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSTAINED: Commissioner Bosch MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Bosch returned to the meeting. 0 . A., .. J Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 198? "~ Page 16 I~rr IN RE: OTHER ITEMS 1, Study session on May 11, 1987, 6:00 p. m. to meet with Chief Thompson, OFD, and to discuss the senior citizens draft ordinance. 2. Vern Jones is requesting a point meeting with City Council on April 29, 1987, at 4:00 p. m. in Conference Room "C" to discuss the eastern transportation corridor alignment analysis. 3. City Council authorized purchase of mail boxes for Planning Commissioners. They will be purchased and installed in about six weeks. I N RE : ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, that the Planning Commission adjourn to 4:00 p. m., April 29, 198?, for a point meeting with the City Council and Planning Commission. The next regularly scheduled Planning Commission Meeting is May 4, 1987. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p. m. tsld c 0