Loading...
_07022018-350Planning Commission July 2, 2018 1 Final Minutes Planning Commission July 2, 2018 City of Orange Monday 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Glasgow, Gladson, Willits, Correa STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Sheatz, Senior Assistant City Attorney Anna Pehoushek, Assistant Community Development Director Marissa Moshier, Historic Preservation Planner Ms. Schwartz, Associate Planner Vidal Marquez, Assistant Planner Simonne Fannin, Recording Secretary REGULAR SESSION 1.1 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Glasgow called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 1.2 FLAG SALUTE: Chair Glasgow led the flag salute. 1.3 ROLL CALL: Commissioner Simpson absent 1.4 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None 1.5 CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN ITEMS: None 1.6 PLANNING MANAGER REPORTS: None 2. CONSENT CALENDAR: 2.1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING OF JUNE 4, 2018. Motion was made to approve the minutes with a correction on page 6 to show that Commissioner Simpson was absent for the adjournment vote: MOTION: Commissioner Willits SECOND: Commissioner Gladson AYES: Commissioners Gladson, Glasgow, Correa and Willits NOES: None ABSENT: Simpson ABSTAIN: None MOTION CARRIED. Planning Commission July 2, 2018 2 3. NEW HEARING: 3.1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3014-16 – PRW INDUSTRIES, INC. The applicant is requesting to legalize a 1,432 sq. ft. interior second floor addition within an existing industrial condominium and to allow administrative office area in excess of 25% of the total gross floor area in the Industrial (M-2) zone. LOCATION: 1081 N. BATAVIA STREET NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15301 (Class 1 – Existing Facilities) because the project consists of the operation of an existing business within an existing private structure in an industrial complex that involves a negligible or no expansion of the use beyond what currently exists. There is no environmental public review required for a categorical exemption. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 21-18, a Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Orange approving Conditional Use Permit No. 3014-16 to legalize a 1,432 square foot interior second floor addition within an existing industrial condominium and to allow administrative office area in excess of 25% of the total gross floor area in the industrial (M-2) zone located at 1081 N. Batavia Street. Ms. Schwartz, Associate Planner provided an overview of the project consistent with the staff report. Commissioner Willits asked if staff received any responses from the 126 people that were notified. Ms. Schwartz stated two individuals from the existing condo complex responded stating that accurate square footage had not been accounted for on the plans therefore the parking calculations were incorrect. The expressed concerns there could potentially be parking issues if the project was approved. Commissioner Correa asked who built the addition and when had been done. He also asked if there were and record of permits for the structures in the Planning or Building Department records. Ms. Schwartz stated the permit history was unclear because the only records she could locate were business license records which indicated PRW began its business operation in 2005. There are no permit records for the second floor in the Planning or Building files. Commissioner Gladson asked if staff knew when the second floor was added and if the City was currently pursuing any Code Enforcement cases related to parking problems on the property. Ms. Schwartz stated, per the applicant, the second story addition was built in 1985; however she visited the site and it appeared to be more recent than 1985. As for the parking, there are no open cases. For the record, this came to the Planning Department's attention through a Code Enforcement case. Commissioner Gladson stated that the owner was moving forward to legalize the use in order to have Planning Commission July 2, 2018 3 everything documented. She asked who prepared the plans and if the City was under any obligation to verify those plans. Ms. Schwartz responded that the applicant had a designer who provided staff with the plans. It was not the City's practice to verify and measure each of the indivi dual tenant spaces; nor does the Commission have the legal right to do that; therefore, the City was taking the applicant's word on the accuracy of the submitted plans. Commissioner Gladson asked if the CC&R's require all of the tenants to work in unison and operate together. Ms. Schwartz stated yes and the applicant would govern the owners that go into the center, types and amounts of employees and regulate the shared parking. Chair Glasgow stated this could open up a can of worms because it sounded like other tenants had added square footage to the building and could be in the same situation if someone called Code Enforcement. Ms. Schwartz added that it could be that other spaces have added square footage with or without building permits. Based on City records, it is difficult for staff to determine what's existing today because most of the permits that were issued were in the 80's and 90's and with the change of tenancy over the years, they're not certain how the spaces are being utilized today. To calculate the parking, they took the square footage of the unit, multiplied by 25% to come up with a number. Anything exceeding that 25% permitted office area is calculated at 4/1000 sq. ft. anything within the 25% is at two per 1,000 sq. ft. Commissioner Correa stated currently he does not know how many internal structures have been constructed in the condominiums; therefore, the applicant can't really verify the parking calculations. Ms. Schwartz stated that even though the square footage on past permits was indicated, they don't differentiate between warehouse and office area, so it was difficult to reconcile what is existing on the sites. Many of the permits were unclear, you can't read them and square footage is missing. Chair Glasgow invited the applicant to step forward. Becky Swank, with PRW, explained they did not go into each building to measure. Their warehouse is in Hemet and this location would be used to meet with people from China on a rotating basis; nobody would be there full-time. Jeff Weiner, Weiner Construction explained there were 13 spaces and they were only asking for two. They had been trying to get everything up to Code for the past two years and were eager to getthe work inspected and move on. Commissioner Willits asked him how confident he was with the square footage numbers. Becky Swank stated she could not be 100% certain because she did not go into each building; she was given numbers from Mr. McLaughlin and obtained some from City records. Mr. Weiner stated he could definitely confirm that their floor area was accurate. Planning Commission July 2, 2018 4 Commissioner Correa asked if they submitted their structural plans to the Building Divison. Ms. Swank stated they had to wait until the Commission approved the item. Chair Glasgow opened the public hearing. Ron Wyatt (1077 N. Batavia, Orange, Ca), stated he'd owned two properties at that location for 30 years and was the original electrical contractor that did the electrical for Scott and Associates in 1983; he did the TI work on all the buildings in 1985 and 1986. He stated the information provided by PRW was not correct and asked that the CUP be denied or that the Commission postpone its decision until it had time to review all the information in the package he provided. He provided several charts indicating that there was a difference of almost 6,000 sq. ft. in the floor area. Every owner signed one of the charts, verifying that to the best of their knowledge the built- out footages are different thanthose presented in the CUP application. He provided some examples of build-outs that were not in the City records. Jim Richmira, (1079 N. Batavia St., Orange, Ca) stated there was misinformation on the submitted plans. They had experienced parking issues in the past and were concerned about the build-outs. The original building had 6,000 sq ft. of office space and 2,000 sq ft of warehouse space that is not reflected in the PRW submittal. There is a predominance of office space, in essence changing it from an industrial park to an office park. He was concerned about the market value being diminished because of inadequate parking. Milo Weaver, (1079 N Batavia St., Orange, Ca) one of the original owners of unit 1079, as well as a board member, is aware of the build-outs that have taken place in the other units. He also disputed the data that was provided to staff in the chart provided by PRW. He pointed out the errors in the charts that skewed the parking calculations. He stated with the current build-out, there is a deficit of 15 parking spaces and he requested that the application be denied. Chair Glasgow closed the public hearing and asked the applicant to step forward for a rebuttal. Ms. Swank reiterated that the permits were not on file with the City and she did not go into the buildings, so she didn’t know what the built-out condition was. Chair Glasgow asked her if the chart that was submitted in the plans was consistent with what the City had on file. Ms. Swank stated that was what she and the architect were able to determine based on City records. Mr.Weiner stated that if everyone else had added office space and was in the same position as they are he wanted to be first in line to claim parking spaces. Chair Glasgow clarified that building 1071 is also in violation. Mr. Sheatz, Senior Assistant City Attorney, explained one of the issues was the difference in uses that Planning Commission July 2, 2018 5 occurs at the different units over time. First of all, the City does not have a right to go in to each unit to measure, and even if they did, it could open up a whole other can of worms. It is up to the planner to determine how the use is categorized. Commissioner Correa asked if the applicant was before the Commission due to a Code Enforcement case. Mr. Sheatz confirmed that was the case; however he did not know if it was an open and active case. The policy is to gain compliance and because the applicant was here to obtain approval, he would be gaining compliance. Chair Glasgow asked staff if the y had visited the site and observed parking utilization. Ms. Schwartz explained she visited the site on three separate occasions and did not obse rve any shortages; each time she visited, there were approximately 10 open spaces. Commissioner Correa stated he visited the site that day and only saw a few available spaces. Chair Glasgow stated he visited the site twice that day and observed 19 open spots around noon and 22 open spaces around 3:30. He also visited the week prior and observed several open spaces. Commissioner Correa stated he would not support the request because he was concerned about misinformation from so many different people and that they were coming in after the fact and asking for approval. He wanted to make sure the structure was sound and didn’t want to create a precedent for people to build something, then come to Planning Commission for approval. Ms. Schwartz stated that the request was for the purpose of allowing the applicant to exceed the 25% office space condition, if they had built less than 25%, the applicant wouldn't be before the Commission and they would have gone straight to Building Division for a permit. If the project was approved, the conditions of approval state they have to apply for building permits, legalize the buildout and obtain approval from the Fire Department and Building Division. Chair Glasgow clarified that the Commission was approving the CUP to exceed the 25% gross square footage and had nothing to do with the structure itself; conditions requires them to return to the City with all the drawings and structural calculations for inspection and final approval. Mr. Sheatz, Senior Assistant City Attorney, reiterated that applicant was before the Commission to obtain approval of the use and not the construction itself. Commissioner Gladson stated she is in support because staff has provided enough evidence that parking would be sufficient. Commissioner Willits stated he felt the bottom line was the parking issue and staff had done their due diligence in observing the parking. He supported of the project. A motion was made to Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 21-18, a Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Orange approving Conditional Use Permit No. 3014-16 to legalize a 1,432 square foot interior second floor addition within Planning Commission July 2, 2018 6 an existing industrial condominium and to allow administrative office area in excess of 25% of the total gross floor area in the industrial (M-2) zone located at 1081 N. Batavia Street. MOTION: Commissioner Willits SECOND: Commissioner Gladson AYES: Commissioners Glasgow, Gladson and Willits NOES: Correa ABSENT: Simpson ABSTAIN: None MOTION CARRIED. 3.2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3060-18 – SNOOZE EATERY, 240 W. CHAPMAN AVENUE, SUITE 101 The applicant is requesting an Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Type 47 License (On-Sale Beer and Wine – Eating Place) to serve beer and wine at a new restaurant (Snooze Eatery) at 240 W. Chapman Avenue, Suite 101. LOCATION: 240 W. CHAPMAN AVE., SUITE 101 NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15301 (Class 1 – Existing Facilities) because the project consists of licensing the sale of alcoholic beverages at a previously approved restaurant and results in negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the City’s determination. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 24-18, a Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Orange approving Conditional Use Permit No. 3060-18 for the sale of beer, wine and distilled spirits under a Type 47 (On-Sale General – Eating Place) Alcoholic Beverage Control License within a new restaurant at 240 W. Chapman Ave., Suite 101. Marissa Moshier, Historic Preservation Planner, provided an explanation of the project consistent with the staff report. Chair Glasgow invited the applicant to step forward. Peter Gaudreau, Chief Operating Officer and Christine Petty, General Manager of “Snooze” the restaurant in Tustin approached. He described the community services the company engages in and explained that alcohol sales would consist of no more than 10% of their sales. He added they specialize in customized breakfasts from 6:30 a.m. until 2:30 p.m. Planning Commission July 2, 2018 7 Commissioner Correa asked if they had any intentions of expanding their hours in the future. Mr. Gaudreau stated they began their operation in Denver with the hours of 6:30 to 2:30 and have no intention to change them. Commissioner Gladson asked if he was amenable to the limitation on special events contained in the conditions of approval. Mr. Gaudreau stated he did not foresee holding any special event unless there was a community charitable organization that they would partner with. Commissioner Correa asked the City Attorney if the condition limiting hours of operation would need to be modified for special events. Mr. Sheatz stated that condition 36 allowed a special event with two weeks advance notice to the Community Development Director and Police Chief. The applicant wouldn't need any other approvals because ABC would have limitations on their license. Chair Glasgow opened the public hearing. Michael Schmidt, owner of Paul's Cocktails and Spic and Span Drycleaners asked how many more liquor licenses would be allowed in the area; there was a lot for sale that he was interested in purchasing it if he could obtain a liquor license. He was in support of the request as long as they did not go past 10:00 P.M.. Chair Glasgow responded that Mr. Schmidt would have to go through the liquor license process for a new business and it depended on Police Department approval, saturation and plan of use. Chair Glasgow closed the public hearing. Chair Glasgow and Commissioners Gladson, Willits and Correa all spoke in support of the request. A motion was made to Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 24-18, a Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Orange approving Conditional Use Permit No. 3060-18 for the sale of beer, wine and distilled spirits under a Type 47 (On-Sale General – Eating Place) Alcoholic Beverage Control License within a new restaurant at 240 W. Chapman Ave., Suite 101. MOTION: Commissioner Gladson SECOND: Commissioner Correa AYES: Commissioners Glasgow, Gladson, Correa and Willits NOES: None ABSENT: Simpson ABSTAIN: None MOTION CARRIED. 3.3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3061-18 – THE TACO STAND, 240 W. CHAPMAN AVENUE, SUITE 100 The applicant is requesting an Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Type 41 License (On-Sale Beer and Planning Commission July 2, 2018 8 Wine – Eating Place) to serve beer and wine at a new restaurant (The Taco Stand) at 240 W. Chapman Avenue, Suite 100. LOCATION: 240 W. CHAPMAN AVE., SUITE 100 NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15301 (Class 1 – Existing Facilities) because the project consists of licensing the sale of alcoholic beverages a t a previously approved restaurant and results in negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the City’s determination. The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15301 (Class 1 – Existing Facilities) because the project consists of licensing the sale of alcoholic beverages at a previously approved restaurant and results in negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the City’s determination. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 25-18, a Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Orange approving Conditional Use Permit No. 3061-18 for the sale of beer and wine under a Type 41 (On-Sale Beer and Wine - Eating Place) Alcoholic Beverage Control License within a new restaurant at 240 W. Chapman Ave., Ste. 100 Marissa Moshier, Historic Preservation Planner provided an explanation of the project consistent with the staff report. She noted that the Police Department typically recommends a condition of approval to prohibit “Happy Hours” with reduced prices for alcoholic beverages. In this case, the Police Department had recommended an alternative that would limit the establishment to one happy hour on Tuesdays between 4:00 P.M. and 9:00 P.M (Condition 22). Commissioner Correa asked what would happen to the CUP if the location were broken up into smaller restaurants. Mr. Sheatz, Senior Assistant City Attorney, stated the applicant was tied to a floor plan that is submitted to ABC and ABC authorizes the allowable area where alcohol can be sold they and served , so if they were to partition it off, a separate CUP would be required. Chair Glasgow invited the applicant to step forward. Michael Ayaz, attorney for the applicant, stated that the applicant originally asked for happy hour every day then only requested Taco Tuesday; they would like to have a solid day of happy hour. He also asked that they be allowed to serve alcohol until midnight but serve food until 1:00 a.m. He noted that the beer and wine sales represent less than 5% of their sales. Chair Glasgow stated most happy hours are for a certain number of hours and questioned the request for one that lasted all day. Planning Commission July 2, 2018 9 Mr. Ayaz stated their intent is not to have happy hour at 6:00 a.m.; they would like to be able to offer it during lunch and dinner. Other establishments have happy hour every day; however, they were only asking for one day a week. Commissioner Willits asked if they were amenable to trying the Police Department's recommendation of 4:00 P.M. to 9:00 P.M. with a review period after one year. Mr. Ayaz stated that the Police Department’s those hours were more traditional when a restaurant offers happy hour every day of the week. The applicant would like to begin at 11:00 A.M. in order to have happy hour it for the majority of the day. He stated they are already under a year review and prefers to not have to go back through the CUP process again to modify hours. Julian Hakim, the restaurant owner, stated most restaurants have Taco Tuesday all day and it would be awkward for them to separate the items. The tacos are a dollar less and the beers are a dollar-fifty less; alcohol prices wouldn’t be so low that it would encourage excessive drinking. The intention is to allow the beverages with food consumption. Commissioner Correa asked him to clarify exactly which hour he wanted to be the happy hour. Mr. Ayaz stated they were willing to talk to the Police Department about the hours however, the preference are looking for the majority of the day; realistically 11:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Commissioner Gladson asked if they coult include a condition to end alcohol sales at midnight but stay open until 1:00 a.m. Mr. Sheatz recommended against that. ABC regulates the hours of sales, service and consumption of alcohol; from a condition standpoint there was nothing the City could enforce to stop them from serving between midnight and 1:00 a.m. They could stop serving alcohol from an operational standpoint, but the City could not enforce the condition. Mr. Ayaz stated that the applicant would voluntarily be willing to limit the sale hours on their ABC license so that the condition got placed on the ABC license. Mr. Sheatz, stated that was an acceptable and great solution. Lieut. Dennis Gomez, Orange Police Department, approached and stated the Police Department historically opposed happy hour for any new CUPs; however, in this case, there was value in offering this condition. The Police Department is requesting a set time from 4:00 p.m. – 9:00 p.m. for the first year, then the applicant could request a review for modification of the hours. Mr. Sheatz, stated that Mr. Ayaz was concerned about the additional CUP fees if they had to return to the Commission. If a reasonable time could be agreed upon between the applicant and the Police Department, and if the applicant could get it signed off by the Police Chief and the Community Development Director after the first year, perhaps the change in hours could be done through the condition of approval as opposed to coming back in front of the Planning Commission. Chair Glasgow asked Mr. Ayaz if he would be amenable to modify the condition to state that after a Planning Commission July 2, 2018 10 period of one year, with the written approval of the Chief of Police and the Community Development Director the duration of the happy hour could be modified. Mr. Ayaz stated yes Chair Glasgow closed the public hearing. All of the Commissioners spoke in support of the request. A Motion was made to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 25-18 A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Orange approving Conditional Use Permit No. 3061-18 for the sale of beer and wine under a Type 41 (On-Sale Beer and Wine-Eating Place) Alcoholic Beverage Control License within a new restaurant at 240 W. Chapman Ave., Ste. 100 with the addition to condition 14, changing hours of operation from 6:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m. if the hours are limited on the ABC license. Condition 22 will be revised to state the hours of happy hour will be between 4:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. and after first year, the hours for happy hour may be modified by written agreement between the Police Chief and Community development director and the applicant. MOTION: Commissioner Willits SECOND: Chair Glasgow AYES: Commissioners Glasgow, Gladson, Correa and Willits NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Simpson ABSTAIN: None MOTION CARRIED. Recess 8:40 -8:50 3.4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3066-18 THE PIZZA PRESS NORTH ORANGE, LOCATED AT 1500 E. VILLAGE WAY, SUITE 2197, THE VILLAGE AT ORANGE. The applicant is requesting to modify an existing condition of approval associated with Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 2965-14 related to an Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Type 41 License (On -Sale Beer and Wine) within an existing restaurant. LOCATION: 1500 E. VILLAGE WAY, SUITE 2197 THE VILLAGE AT ORANGE NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State Guideline Section 15301 (Class 1 – Existing Facilities) since the project involves the modification of an existing condition of approval for licensing the sale of alcoholic beverages at an existing restaurant and results in negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the City’s determination. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 22-18, a Resolution of the Planning Commission of Planning Commission July 2, 2018 11 the City of Orange approving Conditional Use Permit No. 3066-18 to modify an existing condition of approval associated with Conditional Use Permit No. 2965-14 related to an Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Type 41 License (on-sale beer and wine) within an existing restaurant located at 1500 E. Village Way, Suite 2197 Vidal Marquez, Associate Planner provided an explanation of the project consistent with the staff report. The Police Department does not have any opposition to this request. Commissioner Gladson asked if other businesses in the mall are opened that late. Mr. Marquez stated Buffalo Wild Wings is open until 2:00 a.m. Commissioner Willits stated a correction need ed to be made on page 6 of the staff report in paragraph 3 referring to business hours on Saturday at 11:00 a.m. until 1:00 p.m. Chair Glasgow invited the applicant to step forward. Dennis Park, franchisee owner approached and thanked the Commission for their consideration. Chair Glasgow opened the public hearing; there were no speakers. A motion was made to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 22-18, a Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Orange approving Conditional Use Permit No. 3066-18 to modify an existing condition of approval associated with Conditional Use Permit No 2965 -14 related to an Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Type 41 License (on-sale beer and wine) within an existing restaurant located at 1500 E. Village Way, Suite 2197. MOTION: Commissioner Correa SECOND: Commissioner Willits AYES: Commissioners Glasgow, Gladson, Correa and Willits NOES: None ABSENT: Simpson ABSTAIN: None MOTION CARRIED. 3.5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3068-18 SALAS CELLARS, LLC, 1975 N. BATAVIA STREET The applicant is requesting an Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Type 02 License (Winegrower) to operate a winery within an existing industrial building located at 1975 N. Batavia Street. LOCATION: 1975 N. BATAVIA STREET NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15301 (Class 1 – Existing Facilities) since the project Planning Commission July 2, 2018 12 consists of licensing for the sale and production of alcoholic beverages in an existing industrial building and results in negligible or no expansion of the industrial use beyond that existing at the time of the City’s determination. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 23-18, a Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Orange approving Conditional Use Permit No 3068-18 authorizing Alcoholic Beverage Control (Type 02 License-Winegrower) to operate a winery within an existing industrial building located at 1975 N. Batavia Street. Vidal Marquez, Assistant Planner provided an explanation to operate a winery consistent with the staff report. He noted that the Police Department had no objections to the request. He also noted that one phone call had been received regarding parking concerns and special events and identified a condition which requires a 30 day request to staff before any special event. Chair Glasgow invited the applicant to approach. Warren Parchan and Michael Salas approached and stated they would begin with 50 to 100 cases of wine this year and hoped to increase production to 300 next year. Commissioner Gladson asked if they anticipated a tasting room in the future and if there was any intention to have any branding of product related to the Orange community. Mr. Parchan stated they did not anticipate wine tasting at that location because the company’s Oceanside location was more conducive to wine tasting. The wine is not an Orange product; and the label content is governed by the Federal government. Chair Glasgow opened the public hearing; they were no speakers. A motion was made to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 23-18, a Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Orange approving Conditional Use Permit No 3068 -18 authorizing Alcoholic Beverage Control (Type 02 License-Winegrower) to operate a winery within an existing industrial building located at 1975 N. Batavia Street. MOTION: Commissioner Correa SECOND: Commissioner Gladson AYES: Commissioners Glasgow, Gladson, Correa and Willits NOES: None ABSENT: Simpson ABSTAIN: None MOTION CARRIED. A motion was made to adjourn at 9:00 p.m. The next regular meeting is scheduled on Monday, July 17, 2018, at 7:00 p.m. MOTION: Chair Glasgow SECOND: Commissioner Willits Planning Commission July 2, 2018 13 AYES: Commissioners Correa, Gladson, Glasgow and Willits NOES: None ABSENT: Simpson MOTION CARRIED. Meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m. The next regular Planning Commission Meeting will be held on July 17, 2018 at 7:00 p.m. in the Weimer Room.