Loading...
PCMIN 12 09 1997 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A Regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California December 9, 1997 I. CALL TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman Butler who asked Commissioner Gardner to lead the flag salute. B. Chairman Butler requested the roll call: Present: Commissioners Abels, Gardner, Seaton, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Butler. C. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Woodard/Gardner to excuse Commissioner Kirk. D. StaffPresent: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attomey Dawn Honeywell, Planning Manager Christine di Iorio, Senior Engineer Steve Speer, A Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate Planner Greg Trousdell, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: A. Mr. John Clark addressed the Commission regarding the Zoning Code revision to reconsider vegetable/fruit stands. Chairman Butler asked staff when this would be on the agenda. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated it was tentatively scheduled for late January or early February, 1998. Discussion followed regarding possible alternatives for allowing fruit stands. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Chairman Butler asked if there was a Department Report. There was none. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Site Development Permit 97-615; a request of PGA West Residential Association, Inc. for certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and approval of a 14,760 square foot PGA West Residential Association Headquarters (office/maintenance) building on 1.93 acres at the northeast comer of Winged Foot and Southern Hills. PC12-9-97 1 Planning Commission Meeting _ December 9, 1997 1. Commissioner Gardner asked to be excused due to a possible conflict of interest. 2. Chairman Butler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 3. Chairman Butler asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Woodard asked if there were any other uses for this site. Staff stated the property was acquired by KSL and sold to the Homeowners' Association. Commissioner Woodard asked if the neighboring property owners were aware of this project. Staff stated a notice was mailed to each property owner within 500-feet. In addition, the applicant had held two meetings with the neighboring property owners on-site. 4. Commissioner Woodard asked how may employees would be on site. Staff stated the facility is to accommodate the existing employees. Commissioner Woodard stated his problem was with the amount of landscaping at the entrance to the facility. It was his opinion that additional landscaping was needed but, he did not want it to be a detriment to the operations of the facility. Staff stated they were providing more parking than what was required by the Code. Commissioner Woodard asked how the parking was determined. Staff stated it was based on a formula in the Zoning Code. 5. Commissioner Woodard stated that the property owners across the street originally bought with the intention that houses would be on this site. Staff stated no negative comments had been received from the adjoining property owners. 6. Commissioner Woodard asked if the ten foot landscaped area along Winged Foot, will be different on the top of the road to the top of the berm where the wall will be located. Staff stated that along Winged Foot there is the existing curb, ten foot berm and the wall and then a small landscaped strip. Commissioner Woodard asked if the houses across the street were setback 25-feet. Staff stated they averaged 20-25 feet and larger. Commissioner Woodard stated that as you drive along Southern Hills there are walled-in areas. Staff explained the wall configuration to the north of the site. PC12-9-97 2 Planning Commission Meeting December 9, 1997 7. Commissioner Tyler asked staff to explain what was proposed for the wall on the east side of Southern Hills. Staff explained Exhibit A-4. 8. Commissioner Tyler stated there was a community swimming pool at the comer of Winged Foot and Southern Hills on the south side, and asked staff to identify where the termination of the three foot high wall was located and the transition to the six foot wall relative to the adjoining property owner. Staff explained the construction of the wall that was to transition around the corners for visibility. The 45-degree diagonal wall transition proposed is acceptable. Commissioner Tyler stated his concern was what the residents at the comer, and next to that house, would see across the street. Discussion followed regarding the wall configuration and the view from the neighboring properties. 9. Commissioner Seaton asked what the problem was with the bike path and traffic. Staff stated the bikepath crossed at the exit/entrance to the facility on Madison Street and they need to be sure that individuals exiting/entering are aware of any bicyclists. It is a right in/right-out which will help. Commissioner Seaton asked if signage would help. Discussion followed as -- to possible solutions. 10. Chairman Butler read a letter from Mr. Paul Valenti, Jr., a property owner on Winged Foot within PGA West into the record. 11. Chairman Butler asked if the applicant wished to address the Commission. Mr. Don Hodges, La Jolla, architect for the project, stated he would like to address some of the questions raised by the Commissioners. Mr. Hodges explained that the colored elevations shown to the Commission had been prepared and used in their presentation to the homeowners. Additional landscaping would be added and some parking spaces would be eliminated to accommodate this. The gates on Southern Hills would be left open to allow residents access to the parking lot during board meetings. The Madison Street doors would also remain open so vendors would not pass through the security gates. Additional parking was added due to the duality of the use. The facility design had been reviewed by KSL as well as the homeowners and both had approved them. In contrast to staff recommendation, they would like to keep the six foot wall along Southern Hills. The site is currently three to four feet higher than the surrounding terrain. They are exporting dirt, but will be leaving some of the dirt to allow -- the walls to have a higher elevation to shield the building from view. This PC12-9-97 3 Planning Commission Meeting December 9, 1997 is why they are requesting to keep the four foot berm landscape setback on Winged Foot and the three foot high bank on Southern Hills and the six foot wall on both sides. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell stated that in discussions with the Ms. Mac Galliard, a three foot high berm with the six foot high wall would be processed. Ms. Mac Galliard stated she did not want to revise the plans and staff would redline the plans to the three foot berm and six foot high wall and these are the plans that have been shown to the Commission. Mr. Hodges explained along Winged Foot they are requesting to keep the three foot berm and six foot wall along Winged Foot. Commissioner Woodard asked as opposed to what. Mr. Hodges stated as opposed to having a three foot wall from the point indicated westerly. In contrast staff is recommending a three foot wall on a three foot berm. Their purpose is to tie into the existing wall. The height of the wall is to screen the building. The landscaping and wall will be more attractive and will reduce any noise generated. The higher wall was presented to KSL and the surrounding property owners and approved by both. Commissioner Woodard noted that if the Commission were to change the berm or wall, it would not be known to KSL or the surrounding property owners. 12. Mr. Hodges noted their second issue with staff's recommendation is the mansard roof. The roof could be called a mansard roof or a hip roof that is truncated on the top and has a roof well. It was their intent to place the mechanical equipment in the roof wells and the roof wells are a part of the acoustical performance of the building. If the HVAC equipment is taken off the roof and placed on the ground, the acoustical report is uncertain and a less satisfactory solution. The Specific Plan does not call for a hip or gable roof; it states "roofing materials shall be limited to concrete base or clay tile materials in barrel tile or shade type forms and predominate exterior building material". The Architectural Design Guidelines for the Homeowners' Association states that artificial mansard roofs will not be allowed and these plans have been reviewed and approved by the Architectural Design Committee for PGA West. 13. Mr. Hodges went on to state that thirdly, the 12-foot high roll-up garage doors are on the south side of the facility are needed on both ends for flow- through for vehicular access. Therefore, they would not like to have them eliminated. The south side doors will remain closed at all times except for access for and security purposes. He went on to explain the workings of the facility. PC12-9-97 4 Planning Commission Meeting December 9, 1997 14. Commissioner Woodard stated he had an issue with the amount of landscaping and amount of parking and asked Mr. Hodges to explain how the workers come and go. Mr. Mike Walker, PGA West Residential Association General Manager, stated there are 24 employees of the Homeowners' Association who work on the property. They currently contract with a company for landscape maintenance of the entire 1300 homes, swimming pools, and a considerable amount of common area. During a normal work period there are an additional 45-50 gardeners. During seasonal times for planting of flowers or pruning of trees, there could be an additional 30-40 employees. This was how the number of parking spaces was determined. Vendors parking is sporadic as they come and go. On a daily basis there may be 26 homeowners who come to the site each day. Commissioner Woodard stated this added up to 80-100 people. Discussion followed regarding the proposed parking. 15. Commissioner Woodard asked if the tile would be a concrete Spanish- looking tile. Mr. Hodges stated it would be. Commissioner Woodard asked how the height of the vehicular traffic was that would be going through the building. Mr. Hodges stated the smaller trucks that would fit in the 12-foot high doors. Commissioner Woodard asked about the security needed on the east side. Mr. Hodges explained there were circulation lanes on both the south and north sides, there is a need of a 50/50 allocation of the warehouse space, it works out well to have a divided line in the middle with access to both sides. His comment regarding security, was that if the Commission was concerned that the doors on the south side would remain open and not mitigate the noise for the neighbors, he wanted the Commission to know they would not have them open as it would be a security problem for them. 16. Commissioner Woodard asked how they were handling their surface drainage. Mr. Hodges stated they were working with the Engineering Department to formulate a plan. There is a storm drain across Winged Foot that goes to an on-site lake. They are directing their storm water to this existing underground storm system. 17. Commissioner Tyler asked if the maintenance facility was air conditioned. Mr. Hodges stated the back of the facility will have an evaporative cooler and the front will (offices) be air conditioned. 18. Mr. Paul Chasey, President of the Homeowners' Association, stated he would like to address the question that had been raised regarding an alternative use for this site. He went on to explain that this property had been acquired from PC12-9-97 5 Planning Commission Meeting December 9, 1997 the Resolution Trust Company in a settlement based on a filing they had made. In order to settle the bankruptcy they were deeded the 1.93 acres to the homeowners in 1993. Their complaint to the RTC was based on the fact that the original Landmark plan submitted to the City in 1984, included a maintenance and office site on 54th Avenue and was never built and subsequently sold to Sunrise Company for the construction of homes. In order to settle the bankruptcy, they deeded the 1.9 acres to them. Since then, they have been working with KSL to determine whether or not there was an alternate site for this facility. KSL determined there was no other site they could swap for the facility. Therefore, they moved forward to make this site as architecturally compatible with the neighborhood in regards to sound and traffic to make acceptable to the homeowners at this location. KSL was in the process of trying to sell homes on Winged Foot and represented this plan, with the bermed walls, to the prospective buyers. They purchased their homes based on this representation. This is why KSL has written a letter in strong support of this plan. 19. Commissioner Tyler asked what the setback was for this wall during that presentation. Mr. Chasey stated it was his understanding it would be a ten foot setback on Winged Foot. 20. Commissioner Woodard asked Mr. Chasey what the affect would be on their agreement with KSL, if the Commission concurred with staff's recommendation for a lower wall. Mr. Chasey stated it would put them in jeopardy because it violates their agreement with KSL and he would not know what position they would take. 21. Commissioner Woodard stated he was not pleased with the architecture or straight perimeter wall. They were not meeting the same design requirement for this building that they imposed on individual homeowners. In particular, the mansard roof. Mr. Hodges explained the Design Guidelines state that no artificially applied mansard can be used. It is their opinion that this is notan artificially applied mansard roof, but a hip roof. Commissioner Woodard discussed the difference between an artificial mansard roof and mansard roof with Mr. Hodges. 22. Commissioner Abels asked why staff was requesting a three foot wall. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated it was to obtain some design variation and compatibility with the adjacent six foot high wall at the CVWD well site. Commissioner Abels stated he would prefer to agree with the Homeowners' Association. PC!2-9-97 6 Planning Commission Meeting December 9, 1997 23. Ms. Kelly Mac Galliard, Operations Manager for the Homeowners' Association, showed a photograph of the existing walls and roll up doors to explain the setback and height of the structure to be constructed. She had also inquired if complaints had been received regarding the noise or any other issue relating to the doors of this facility and had been told no. 24. There being no further public comment, Chairman Butler closed the public comment portion of this hearing and opened the item for Commission discussion. 25. Commissioner Tyler stated that if staff's recommended change in the roof was required it would be a taller building which would be more conspicuous to the neighbors. His preference would be for the roof as proposed by the applicant. In regard to the wall, he suggested tnmcating the wall and making a low landscape area at the comer to solve the problem. He agreed with Commissioner Abels that if the residents and KSL had agreed with the six foot wall, then maybe the City should agree. Regarding the roll-up doors on the south end, it is his opinion that the north end doors could be used for the same purpose of unloading materials and eliminate the need for the south doors. 26. Commissioner Seaton stated she had no problem with the design as presented and she had no issue with the six foot wall. 27. Chairman Butler stated he was Concemed with the parking situation. There appears to be a burden on the site to control the parking and it appears that Madison Street will be the source to alleviate this. Even though he is in favor of the additional landscaping, he does not want to loose parking. During the season, the need for additional employee parking may or may not be an issue for the HOA, but the issue of how this would affect the traffic on Madison is a concern the Commission should consider. The roll-up doors were not an issue to him. 28. Commissioner Woodard stated that he had no problem with the building if it were relocated. But as it is adjacent to homes, it should be more compatible. Therefore, he would like to see three issues addressed: a. Two parking stalls removed at the Southern Hills entrance and additional landscaping planted; PC12-9-97 7 Planning Commission Meeting December 9, 1997 b. Stamped concrete or a paving material used at the entrance; c. He does not agree with the architect that this is not a mansard root: A silhouette could be used to enhance the design. The architect could drop down and come back into a double hip roof and the area in the middle of the roof be flat and in the front of the building he could come back with two hip roof to break up the one continuous line. A second suggestion would be for them to come back with some walls that would exceed and break into the roof fascia line and disrupt the one continuous on-going fascia that goes around the building; d. The wall should be undulated to break it up. Different materials could be used, different openings, or different setbacks to the walls to get away from the maintenance building look. 29. Commissioner Tyler stated that anything would be better than what is there currently. He does not agree with the scenario made by Commissioner Woodard in regard to the look into the facility. They are talking about the need for parking and he is recommending the removal of parking for landscaping. Commissioner Woodard explained that as you drive by, or live across the street from the facility, all you see is sidewalk, wall, paving, and parking. The surfaced area at the entrance should be softened for the neighbors. 30. Chairman Butler stated he thought there was enough landscaping at the entrance to soften it without having to give up parking, but would agree with the stamped and colored concrete to soften the look. 32. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97- 077 certifying a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 97-348. Staff stated there are mitigation measures which deal with the roof, wall and roll up doors and the Commission must identify those areas that need to be changed in the Environmental Assessment. Following discussion it was confirmed by the maker and second of the motion that the following areas would be modified in the Environmental Assessment to conform with the Commission's motion: a. The roll-up doors are to remain as presented by the applicant. b. The wall will remain as proposed by the applicant. c. The roof will remain as proposed by the applicant. PC12-9-97 8 Planning Commission Meeting December 9, 1997 ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Seaton, Tyler, and Chairman Butler. NOES: Comanissioner Woodard. ABSENT: Commissioners Gardner and Kirk. ABSTAIN: None. 33. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97-078 approving Site Development Permit 97-615, subject to the Conditions of Approval as modified: a. No 19 changed to delete the requirement for the three-foot high wall; b. No. 50 deleted c. No. 49 deleted d. A new Condition would be added to. require stamped concrete at the entrance. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Seaton, Tyler, and Chairman Butler. NOES: Woodard. ABSENT: Commissioners Gardner and Kirk. ABSTAIN: None. Commissioner Gardner rejoined the Commission. VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: Chairman Butler excused himself due to a possible conflict of interest for the next agendized item and turned the meeting over to Vice Chairman Woodard. A. Tentative Tract 25953. Revised; a request of Oliphant and Williams Associates, Inc., for approval of an Elevation C for each of the three approved prototype houses (Plan 1-3) located on the northwest comer of Miles Avenue and Dune Palms Road. 1. Vice Chairman Woodard asked for the staff report. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Vice Chairman Woodard asked if there were any questions of staff. There being no questions of staff, Vice Chairman Woodard asked if the applicant wished to address the Commission. 3. As the applicant had no comments and there being no other public comment, the item was open for Commission discussion. PC12-9-97 9 Planning Commission Meeting December 9, 1997 4. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to adopt Minute Motion 97-015 approving Tentative Tract Map 25953, Revised, Elevation C as proposed. 5. Vice Chairman Woodard asked Commissioner Tyler if he thought the repetitiveness of the garage elevations on these three plans was somewhat similar. Should this be a design problem for the Commission? Commissioner Tyler states it should be a concern, but there isn't much you could do with a three car garage facing the street. 6. There being no other discussion, the motion was unanimously approved. Chairman Butler returned to the dias and assumed the chair. B. Site Development Permit 97-611; a request of Century-Crowell Communities for approval of a new prototype single-family house plan for Tract 27899 - Marbella, located at the southeast comer of Miles Avenue and Adams Street. 1. Chairman Butler asked for the staff report. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff reminded the Commission that this plan had been initially reviewed and in the revision that occurred is the bedroom that was converted to a dining room allowing the two car garage. 2. Chairman Butler asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler asked if the bedroom next to the garage was guaranteed to remain a bedroom or could it become a bonus room or third stall for the garage. Staff stated that as designed it would remain a two car garage. If the lot was large enough the possibility existed that the garage could expanded and would be approved by staff. If a bonus room was proposed, it would have to come back to the Commission for review. 3. Commissioner Woodard commented on the distance the homeowner would have to walk to get from this bedroom to the bathroom. Commissioner Tyler stated his comment was based on the converted garage that had been done by Del Rey, to meet the square footage requirement for compatibility, and ended up with some strange floor plans. PC12-9-97 10 Planning Commission Meeting December 9, 1997 4. Chairman Butler asked if the applicant wished to address the Commission. Mr. Ed Knight, Century-Crowell stated they concurred with staff's recommendation and informed the Commission that this produce had been approved by the Commission and was currently being built on an adjacent tract. 5. Commissioner Gardner asked what material was proposed to be used on the trim. Is it to be a dry material or left over material. His reason for asking is to have some dry material used on the one .by fours and two by sixes. Mr. Knight stated it was his understanding that this was a relief that was added to the building so there wouldn't be a flat wall. 6. There being no further public comment, the item is open for Commission discussion. 7. Commissioner Woodard stated he would like to have the bedroom moved back a foot from the garage to break up the architectural elevation on Plan A. A-2 and B-2 need variation to the roof element. 8. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Woodard to adopt Minute Motion 97-016 approving Site Development Permit 97-611 as recommended. Unanimously approved. VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None VIII. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS: A. Commissioner Tyler gave a report of the City Council meeting of December 2, 1997. B. Commissioner Woodard took issue with comments that had been made by two of the Commissioners. It was his belief that the Commission had two primary responsibilities: land planning and design issues. They are to explore and comment on design as well as planning. As has been stated previously by Chairman Butler and Commissioner Abels, the Commission cannot be concerned with the cost incurred by the applicant. When he hears that the Commission should not be imposing or asking for design elements to be added if it is going to cost to much, or it is not within the Commission's purview because it has already been approved by some other person/body, it is his opinion that it flies in the face of the Commission's responsibility. He would therefore, like to have a clarification, or consensus, by the Commission that it is the Commission's responsibility to raise these issues and vote on these issues in a responsible way when they see it will enhance the quality of the City. PC 12-9-97 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting December 9. 1997 1. Commissioner Abels stated that as tar as cost is concerned, he did not remember where he had been concerned about a cost to the applicant, if it is a situation that will improve the project. He does/'eel that if a change is warranted then the Commission should request a change. Commissioner Woodard apologized if he was wrong in assuming he had. 2. Chairman Butler stated he too stood corrected, but in regard to changing a roof structure, he was concerned whether or not the Commission could make those changes without considering the financial consequences. He was therefore, questioning the structural changes, or cosmetic change, as a financial problem and did the Commission have that right. Therefore, he stands corrected, if that is not an issue then should not have raised it. As to raising this issue previously, he does not believe he has. Commissioner Woodard apologized if he was wrong in making this assumption. C. Commissioner Woodard stated he took exception with Commissioner Tyler's comments that the Commission should not consider issues that have been approved by others as this was beyond their purview to make any changes or recommendations. This should not be the basis for the Commission's design decisions. Their decisions should be made on what is good design and they have the responsibility, as charged legally to them, to evaluate design. 1. Commissioner Tyler commented that the plans that were before them at this meeting was a unique situation. It is contained within a gated community, with limited public access. It had been reviewed and approved by everyone that was to build it, use it, and the neighboring community. In his opinion, for the Commission to come along and put their own individual spin on the plan, is outside the Commission's purview. 2. Commissioner Woodard asked if the Commission should have any responsibility to review design for those projects within a gated community. Commissioner Tyler stated that most gated communities have their own internal architectural review and the Commission should be sensitive to their approvals. 3. Commissioner Woodard stated that the Commission has agreed in the past that the commercial buildings along Highway 111, the continuous silhouette, is a detriment to the environment of Highway 111. If that is an appropriate design concern, it seems that the Commission has the same concern to express and act upon the same situation when it prevails again. Commissioner Tyler stated his point was that there isn't a lot of drive by PC12-9-97 12 Planning Commission Meeting December 9, 1997 traffic to view it and the design had been approved by everyone who would be affected. In his opinion, for the Commission to say they did not like the way it is designed after the design has been made because they think it looks better this way, is unfair. No two architects will ever design the same. 4. Commissioner Woodard stated that the Commission has a responsibility to express and vote on design guidelines. 5. Commissioner Abels stated that if the Commission does not believe it is compatible, they should comment on it. Streetscapes are important and even though it is within a gated community and they have architectural review committees, if it is not compatible they should comment. 6. Commissioner Woodard stated his reason for bring this issue up is to have a clarification and confn'mafion between the Commissioners as to whether not it is the Commission's responsibility. It is his understanding from legal counsel and staff that this is a responsibility of the Commission, but he is uncertain as to whether or not the Commission views it as their responsibility. 7. Commissioner Abels stated the reason the Design Review Board was eliminated was that their responsibilities were transferred to this Commission. 8. Chairman Butler stated that the design function is appropriate of the Commission, but again he has to raise the issue that if study sessions were available to the Commission, it might shorten and lighten the burden of the Commission and the applicant. The Commission does deal on architecture and landscaping, that from the developers standpoint, does increase their expense, and the Commission should take this into consideration as they do not want to burden the developer with additional expenses that need not be required with a little foresight on the Commission part. It seems that in some instances, as a body, they make changes, and as a second thought, realize maybe it should not have been required, but the Council does. There needs to be a way to deal with design issues without taking so much time in the meeting. 9. Commissioner Abels stated that the Commission should try to make La Quinta the most aesthetically pleasing City whether or not it steps on someone's toes. Pc12-9-97 13 Planning Commission Meeting ~ _ December 9, 1997 10. Chairman Butler stated he agreed, but the applicant should be made aware that those potentials could occurred and that staff does not have the final say when it comes to the architectural design or landscaping when it comes to these projects, and be ready to make some changes, even if they are major changes. 11. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated this is what staff is asking the Commission to do and the applicant's are made aware of the fact that the Commission may require changes. 12. Commissioner Gardner stated there are areas that could have been done better. He is in favor of making suggestions to the developer totally from the standpoint of review and not with respect to cost. This is the charge they have as Commissioners. They do get caught up on the cost issue, but it should be removed from their thought process as best they can. Just because it is behind the gate, they should not pass up their responsibilities. It some point in time, it may become public, and someone may ask why the Commission approved something in the best interest of La Quinta. D. Commissioner Tyler asked when the League of California Cities meeting will be. Staff is to notify Commissioners. E. Commissioner Tyler reported on the Strategic Vision for County Government - Overview. F. Commissioner Gardner commented on a newspaper article regarding public involvement in local government. In his opinion, Commissioners should encourage the public to attend these meetings. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Woodard to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held on December 23, 1997, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. on December 9, 1997. PC12-9-97 14