Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1002 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - OCTOBER 2, 1990 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Whitlock called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Downs led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Carol Whitlock, Chairperson Bob Downs Sabby Jonathan Jim Richards Members Absent: Rick Erwood Staff Present: Ray Diaz Kandy Allen Phil Drell Steve Smith Dick Folkers Tonya Monroe '�► IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration for approval the September 18, 1990 meeting minutes. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, approving the September 18, 1990 meeting minutes as amended. Carried 4-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Diaz summarized pertinent September 27, 1990 city council actions. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR None. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 2, 1990 It was moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, suspending the agenda item order. Chairperson Whitlock informed the audience that item B under Miscellaneous would be discussed at this time. B. Proposed School Site at Hovley Lane and Monterey Avenue Request for approval of the site location for a proposed 9. 5 acre elementary school on Hovley Lane west near Monterey Avenue. Mr. Diaz explained that this item was not a public hearing and citizens were not informed, but indicated that as outlined in the staff report, while staff was not opposed to the site, commission could hold a public forum to obtain comments from the neighborhood and give a recommendation to the school district. He stated that he spoke to Richard Beck of the Desert Sands Unified School District and was informed that the school district would hold a public hearing on November 6 at the Desert Sands Unified School District Headquarters. Mr. Diaz suggested that if commission wished to hold a public forum, notification could be sent out to the residents within the 300 foot radius and the Monterey Country Club Property Owners Association, as well as posting the notice in the newspaper. a.r Chairperson Whitlock stressed that while the city would hold a public forum, the city has no jurisdiction to approve or deny the proposed site because the district is a public agency. After further discussion, commission determined that a public forum would be held at the planning commission meeting of October 16 and notices would be sent. Mr. Diaz distributed a notebook for anyone interested in signing up to receive a notice. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, directing staff to notice a public forum on October 16, 1990. Carried 4-0. 2 No MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 2, 1990 VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS ""' A. Continued Case No. CUP 90-12 - HARRY LIOSIS, Applicant Request for approval of a 19, 000 square foot two story office building with a modification to the parking requirements and negative declaration of environmental impact northwest of Deep Canyon and Highway 111. Staff explained that the applicant submitted a letter withdrawing the proposal and no further action was needed. Action: No further action was needed. CHAIRPERSON WHITLOCK CALLED A FIVE MINUTE RECESS AT 7: 18 P.M. THE MEETING RECONVENED AT 7:23 P.M. B. Continued Case No. CUP 90-17 - SEAN SUNTAG, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to expand the existing Louise ' s Pantry restaurant by 600 square feet (enclose the existing east patio area) VMW located in the 111 Town Center at Highway 111 and Town Center Way. Mr. Diaz explained that the applicant was requesting a continuance to November 6, 1990 to allow time to work with the architectural review commission. Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked if the anyone wished to address the commission in this regard. There was no one. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, continuing CUP 90-17 to November 6, 1990. Carried 4-0. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 2, 1990 C. Continued Case Nos. GPA 90-2, C/Z 90-7, PP 90-13 - DSL SERVICE COMPANY, Applicant ..r Request for approval of a general plan amendment, change of zone, precise plan of design and negative declaration of environmental impact to allow construction of approximately 222, 110 square feet of retail and commercial buildings on the east side of Highway 111 between Fred Waring Drive and Park View Drive. Mr. Smith explained that the applicant was requesting a continuance and Mr. McAllister of Downey Savings was present to make that request. Commission directed staff to proceed with the staff presentation. Mr. Smith indicated the matter had been continued from August 21. He noted that the applicant had a meeting on the 25th with the neighborhood at which time they showed some revised plans. He indicated that previous concerns with the site plan involved not meeting the parking requirement, the landscaping, ambience at the intersection of Fred Waring and Highway 111, configuration of the loading area, and indicated that most of these matters had been revised on the new plan. The location of the Albertson Is market had not changed. There were 17 items discussed at the meeting between the applicant and neighborhood as listed in the staff report. The applicant also had a noise study prepared; the area at present was subject to a high level of noise. The existing condition at the east property line was at 64 dba. The upper end of the range of acceptable noise for a residential community was 65 dba per the general plan and zoning ordinance. He explained that a certain portion of the noise would be reduced because of the buildings blocking the Highway 111 noise, however, they would be bringing in noise closer to the residents. As indicated, the loading docks were turned around at the rear of the Albertson' s market, they enclosed the trash compactor and raised some walls. The noise study proposed an eight foot noise barrier wall along the east property line as well as a more densely planted landscaped buffer and 15 other mitigation measures. He stated that some other mitigations were to prohibit horn honking, loud talking and radios, and prohibit external mechanical equipment on the market except for the trash compactor. Even with the list of 15 mitigation measures, staff indicated there were two properties that would be at 65 dba and the rest would be quite high. Staff' s position was to recommend denial because there 4 No MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 2, 1990 was no margin for error or non-compliance on those mitigation matters. In the report staff suggested relocating the Albertson' s market toward the Park View/Highway 111 side of the site. It would then be 350' -370 ' from the residences on Joshua Road and was now 60 ' from the property line to the wall of the building. Staff also noted that to achieve that noise level they require an eight foot high wall on the property line and views were a concern. He felt it was apparent that the wall would impact more on the view than the 24 foot high building. Staff noted that while the applicant had submitted an unacceptable site plan, he originally could see some merit in the requested general plan amendment and zone change in that it would be consistent with other general plan designations and zonings for the rest of the area along Highway 111 towards the Town Center. However, until an acceptable site plan was received he did not feel staff could recommend approval of the zone change and general plan amendment to the city council . Given the noise situation, he did not feel the site plan was acceptable and recommended denial . Commissioner Jonathan asked if the concerns could be relieved with the elimination of the supermarket use. Mr. Smith felt it would address many of the noise issues; as the acoustical report indicated, a high number of trucks per day would service the supermarket and they would be using the perimeter driveway going along the sides of those residences. Reducing the trucks and refrigeration units on the trucks would also reduce the noise, or moving it 370 feet away would also take away most of the noise issue. He informed commission that he had not had a chance to extensively review the new plan, but they appeared to have addressed the other issues of concern. Staff also noted that a letter from Ahmanson was received in opposition to the supermarket use. Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. MR. MCALLISTER, president of Downey Savings, indicated that they owned the property for the last five years and wished to develop the property. DSL Service Company has successfully developed commercial properties for the last 25 years and he felt Downey Savings was one of the most solid savings and loan institutions in the nation. He stated that they first attempted to build a hotel on the property and spent approximately $500, 000 to $600, 000 5 "MW MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 2, 1990 getting plan specifications and processing through the City. They decided not to proceed with the project. In addition, he noted they have an office in Palm Springs err and La Quinta and indicated that there were hundreds of customers in Palm Desert who have asked them to build an office in Palm Desert. He stated that he was willing to develop the shopping center for anyone they could get that would sign a lease to be a tenant that was satisfactory with the city, with them and with the neighbors. He indicated that they wanted to work with the community. He noted that Ahmanson was a competitor and it was difficult to please everyone. He indicated that he wished to cooperate to proceed with the project. Commissioner Richards indicated a problem with signing anyone willing to sign a lease. He stated there was a problem with the basic traffic supermarkets generated, both from the turnover of inventory requiring constant deliveries and hours of operation versus a different type of retail use. He did not see any compelling reason for a continuance; staff recommended a denial; economic development committee, of which he is a member, recommended no supermarket, but the applicant came to commission with a supermarket. He noted the neighbors had a problem with the location of the supermarket. He did not see a reason for the continuance if the applicant was not ready to say that the supermarket would not be part of the development. Mr. McAllister indicated that he did not mean to imply that they would sign a lease with just anyone, but any kind of legitimate tenant. He indicated that they did not put in bars or beer joints. He meant any tenant that the city and DSL would approve. He stated there were a lot of people who would like an Albertson' s supermarket in this location. He noted that they turned in a petition at the last meeting with over 400 signatures on it. He said that if commission was willing to approve the project without the market, he would like them to do SO. Commissioner Richards asked for staff' s opinion. Mr. Smith indicated that the design of the building would have to be reconfigured in that they had the market with just an 80 foot frontage and then the remainder of the width of the market some 300 feet was divided into other tenant spaces, which would require some major reconfiguration in that portion of 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 2, 1990 the building. Staff indicated they had no problem with the continuance. Commissioner Richards felt that the commission .r.. was totally opposed to the supermarket in that location and suggested that if a continuance was requested to a time certain, there might be votes for that if he was willing to come back with a completely different design, one that did not include the supermarket. He noted that the city attempts when possible to create a buffer zone to form a mitigation when residential backs onto commercial. He indicated that there were a number of concerns: this being the main entrance to the city, there was no proven need for an additional supermarket because there were several supermarkets approximately 300 yards away, and stated that if the applicant came back with a supermarket he would be opposed to the project. Mr. McAllister stated that in discussing this property with staff, it was their understanding that not too long ago they raised a question before these plans were done, asking if it-would be satisfactory to include a Mervyn' s on the property and "staff was very careful the way they replied, which made it difficult to get the right signals or understanding as to what exactly was going on. " They determined from those discussions that staff did not want a Mervyn' s. He asked if a Mervyn' s department store would be objectional to the city. Commissioner Richards stated that he personally was not opposed to Mervyn' s. He indicated that the concerns were that a supermarket would have ten times the amount of deliveries that a Mervyn' s would and a supermarket could be open 24 hours a day or start at 6:00 a.m. and close at midnight, whereas a Mervyn' s would open at 10:00 a.m. and close at 9 :00 p.m. and would be a lot easier to live next too. He felt the site would be applicable for any kind of development of that nature; retail business with less use and compatible with the neighbors. Mr. McAllister stated that there was always competition and that was the way the system should work and it was his understanding that the Ahmanson project had fallen through. He was not in a position to know which tenants they have or which ones the city would like there or in the DSL center. 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 2, 1990 Commissioner Richards stated that the commission wanted to do something right on this key city parcel and stated that different projects had been approved for this site, but through the course of economic events it was not possible and indicated that if the Ahmanson deal has fallen through, DSL would have to get their information just like anyone else and if Mervyn' s was still interested in locating in Palm Desert the city was willing to review their request. Mr. Diaz addressed Mr. McAllister' s comment and stated that he was sorry that the relationship between the applicant, the department and the director had deteriorated, but felt that staff makes their opinions very clear. He told the applicant to submit his application, staff would review it and hold the hearing. Commissioner Jonathan indicated that the proposal was very close to being acceptable and felt the applicant had taken care of a lot of concerns. Regarding the supermarket use, he personally was not opposed to a supermarket in that location, but the reason he was not in favor of it was because the people directly effected were opposed. If they had come to the commission and said they met with the developer and could live with the proposal as the residents behind Lucky' s did, he would not have a problem. If properly designed, he did not feel it would be a detriment to the city' s gateway. He stated that if a supermarket was needed there and if the applicant came back with a supermarket that was acceptable to surrounding owners, he would not have a problem. He noted that the applicant could also come back with other uses and another precise plan. He felt the impact on the surrounding property owners was very critical . Mr. McAllister stated that he would like to cooperate with the city and surrounding neighbors and wanted to please everyone. He requested a continuance to come up with an acceptable plan. Chairman Whitlock asked how long of a continuance the applicant wished. Mr. McAllister indicated that 30 days would be acceptable; staff indicated this would be the meeting of November 6. Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . 8 r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 2, 1990 MR. WOODY HARTMAN, 73-135 Guadelupe in Palm Desert, stated that when they bought the four acres at the low corner, he assumed there would be an intelligent master plan by the city and in the ten years they have owned it they got everything but the canal in front of the frontage property on Park View. As far as traffic and truck counts, he asked how far the houses were from the Town Center from Monterey behind the wall and stated that the number of homes effected in this location was probably only eight houses on their side. In the last ten years everything had been turned down, including the hotel, none of their requests had worked and felt that maybe the city should tell him what would work. Commissioner Downs stated that previous discussion indicated what would be acceptable to commission and indicated there were more than eight homes that would be effected; the new pad heights would take the 24 foot high building and raise it another four feet, which would make it 28 feet and indicated if the building was moved around to the Highway 111/Park View site, the line of sight to the affected residents would go back to the way it was and the eight foot high fence would not be necessary and a six foot high fence would be more than adequate. Commission had not been unfair and he felt they hadn' t received the cooperation that was suggested or requested. He noted that commission was going to deny the project, but were willing to concede to a continuance. Mr. Hartman indicated Commissioner Downs mentioned more houses that were on the other side of Joshua and Mr. Hartman was discussing the ones on their property. Commissioner Downs informed Mr. Hartman that anyone within 300 feet of the project would be effected and there were more than eight houses within that 300 foot radius. Mr. Hartman stated that the Town Center runs about 900 feet and on the other side of the wall was homes and felt that there wouldn' t be that much traffic in the proposed center. Commission indicated that was mitigated many years ago and was quite a distance from buildings and traffic. Commissioner Richards stated that when the city approved the commercial development on that site, from their standpoint they approved it and the fact that it was never built wasn't the city' s problem. They approved a hotel, a buffer of office professional buildings between the heavy commercial activity 9 `r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 2, 1990 and the residents and indicated that was acceptable planning. He noted that office professional uses were a much less intensive use and felt it was not acceptable to take a high- end use project and put it next to residential . Mr. Hartman indicated that he lives on Guadelupe and when he moved there he had a nice view of the mountains and now all he could see was a nine foot fence, two stories and air conditioners, which was noisy even with the nine foot fence. He stated that he did not have anything to do with Downey Savings, but indicated it was expensive to put projects like this together. Commissioner Downs stressed that the city has approved projects and it was not the city' s fault that what was approved had not been built. Commissioner Richards stated that the city has spent many hours reviewing and approving projects for this site and did not want it implied that the city had wasted ten years. A resident at 48-551 Valley View addressed the commission and indicated that the center at Cook and Highway 111 with the Ralph' s market and the cove homes behind it was an example of how the center could be developed. Commissioner Downs noted that the Ralph' s market did not face ..n the homes and were a long way from it - approximately 320 feet away and Ralph' s market was built a long time before the homes. MR. DAVE NEWSOME, Ahmanson Commercial Development Company, informed commission that the Ahmanson program had not fallen through and they were currently site planning the Town Center Square project, which was a 58 acre site across from Toys R Us and Travellers Inn and they were conducting a number of engineering and marketing studies and hoped to approach city staff with a precise plan development in a couple of months. Commissioner Jonathan noted that Mr. Newsome ' s letter made reference to the proposed people mover system being seriously impacted with a fragmentation of shopping patterns along Highway 111 and gateway properties and asked for clarification. 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 2, 1990 Mr. Newsome felt that in order to make the people mover function properly to meet its maximum potential or shopper utilization of the system that it would be necessary for there to be a synergy between the types of development and these properties. He did not feel a customer shopping pattern of a neighborhood supermarket would fit that goal. He felt that comparison shopping was a different type of shopping pattern versus that of a service/convenience oriented type of neighborhood center. He was referring to more of a destination oriented retail use and more likely in his opinion to be better utilized between people doing comparison shopping between the Town Center, their property and other proposed uses in that corridor. MS. JUNE PEVER, 74-123 Aster Drive, indicated that if she was one of the people who lived in the area she would not be thrilled to have a supermarket in that location, but wished to point out that this was a prime piece of property and would be developed eventually. She suggested that it be considered that it would be better to deal with a good neighbor than to run into someone who would bring in high-powered lawyers and steam-roller everyone. MR. RAY NURNEN, 72-445 Cactus, informed commission that +�► it was his understanding that the project had been under the works for over one year and they have never been contacted; DSL was supposed to be working with them, but they did not know about the proposal until the notice was receive from the city and at the last meeting they received a notice that day from DSL. He felt DSL was not trying to work with the neighbors. He also was opposed to the increase in traffic and took a video over the weekend of the Toys R Us and indicated that was only part of the problem. DSL was requesting a continuance, but at the last meeting they wanted two weeks rather than the month and as far as a bank goes, 220, 000 square feet of bank was a good size bank. He noted that in the area there were two Von' s, one Lucky' s, one Ralph' s and one Jensen' s. He did not feel another supermarket was needed. He showed his video of the Toy' s R Us grand opening and felt this demonstrated that there would be parking problems, citing other centers that are extremely crowded during the season. 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 2, 1990 MS. BEVERLY VORWALLER, 72-445 Cholla Drive, did not feel this was the project to be developed because of the supermarket. The traffic on Fred Waring was where they want to add another entrance into the parking lot and the proposed site plan they saw there was a left-turn going back on Fred Waring and a right-turn going back on Highway 111 . She felt that right now the intersection was a hazard for them to get to their homes and suggested a signalized intersection as an alternative and they didn' t want that in their neighborhood. She felt high- use retail was inappropriate for their residential neighborhood and felt that the entrances and exits needed to be changed. An entrance off Fred Waring would cause problems and the traffic study done did not take into account the fact that all the surrounding properties were already zoned for commercial and would significantly add to the traffic patterns already existing. She felt that the big picture of the development along Highway 111, Town Center Way, the parcel by the fire department, all needed to be considered. She felt the traffic report by DSL was contradictory; she also felt the traffic on Joshua would be increased and noted that Joshua Road was a short-cut for residences on the Rancho Mirage site, as well as traffic to the Town Center and to the heart of Palm Desert. She did not feel a lot could be done to decrease existing traffic, but felt that whatever was approved had to be in keeping with the neighborhood and should not add to the commercialism of their property. She indicated they were also concerned about decreased property value, theft, vandalism, and traffic. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the proposed mitigation measure of cul-de-saccing of Joshua Road at Fred Waring would alleviate those concerns. Ms. Vorwaller informed commission that the issue of cul-de-saccing had caused neighborhood problems. She stated that people living close to the cul-de- sac did not want the police and fire time responses cut down. She noted that the project in Rancho Mirage that they used to be part of worked out well with the belted area along the highway. She felt the whole project should be compatible with the neighborhood. She also expressed concern regarding the drainage system, noting their past problems with flooding. She indicated that the city had been sued over this in the past. She did not feel a supermarket was an appropriate use for the center. 12 No MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 2, 1990 Mr. McAllister requested and received Ms. VorwallerIs address. MR. BRUCE MESTERLY, 43-600 Joshua Road, stated that Saturday' s grand opening was just the beginning of problems they would have and suggested that Joshua Road should be gated on both ends, with emergency access available to police and fire vehicles. MR. MAX ABRONOWITZ, a resident in Desert Falls Country Club, asked if the commission was against Downey Savings having a business in this location and speaking in favor of the project, stated that he had been a member of Downey Savings for 25 years. He indicated that it takes him 25 minutes to get to Palm Springs and felt Downey Savings was a solid institution. He felt that a Downey Savings building in this location would reduce traffic. MR. LEN FENZINO, 39-123 Warm Springs Drive in Palm Desert, indicated that he understood the plight of the effected residents and noted that Palm Desert was a growing community and the winter season was always bad. He stated that he has to travel to La Quinta to visit Downey Savings and felt there was room for the project proposed and it would be an asset. MR. LAQUIRM BAGA, 42-655 Cook Street, indicated that he r' was not opposed to a supermarket and requested that the city make the entrance into the city nice. Mr. Diaz stated that this was a concern at the last meeting and if the applicant had spent as much time attempting to contact the Joshua Road residents as they did the residents of Palm Desert Country Club, La Quinta and the Palm Springs area a lot of the issues being discussed might have already been resolved. He noted that there seemed to be a problem with getting developers and the school district to talk to people they immediately impact. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, continuing GPA 90-2, C/Z 90-7, PP 90-13 to November 6, 1990. Carried 4-0. 13 Now MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 2, 1990 D. Case No. CUP 90-18 - WEBCO DEVELOPMENT CORP. , Applicant Request for approval of a Negative wo Declaration of Environmental Impact, conditional use permit and development agreement associated with a 22 unit senior apartment project on . 93 acres on the east side of San Rafael south of Catalina Way. Mr. Drell outlined the salient points of the staff report and recommended approval of the project. He noted that it would go to city council because of the development agreement. Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. Staff noted that the applicant was not present. MS. VERONA STEWART, 44-476 San Rafael, asked for and received clarification regarding the amount of parking being provided. Commission determined that the matter should be continued to allow the applicant to be present. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, continuing CUP 90-18 to October 16, 1990. Carried 4- 0. E. Case No. CUP 90-19 - JAMES P. ANDERSON, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to add two units to an existing triplex creating a five unit, minimum age 62 senior housing project on the east side of San Rafael Avenue, north of San Gorgonio. Mr. Drell outlined the salient points of the staff report, noted that the applicant was proposing the setbacks to be consistent with existing development, and recommended approval . 14 No MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 2, 1990 Commissioner Jonathan asked if the restrictions relating to senior projects applied to the new units only and Mr. Drell �► replied that it applied to all five. Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. HARRY SCHMITZ, representing Jim Anderson who was also present, indicated that the conditions of approval were adequate and described the proposed setbacks. Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MS. VERONA STEWART, 44-476 San Rafael on San Carlos, asked for and received clarification regarding parking. Chairperson Whitlock closed the public testimony. Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Downs, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-0. Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Downs, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1473, ... approving CUP 90-19, subject to conditions. Carried 4-0. VIII. MISCELLANEOUS A. Amendment Nos. 6 and 7 to the Redevelopment Plan, as amended, for Project Area No. 1, as amended. Staff outlined the salient points of the request and recommended approval. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1474, confirming certain matters with respect to the preliminary plan for Project Area No. 1, as amended, in connection with proposed Amendment No. 6 to the Redevelopment Plan, as amended, for Project Area No. 1, as amended, and making its report and recommendation regarding the conformity of proposed Amendment No. 6. Carried 4-0. 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 2, 1990 Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1475, confirming certain matters with respect to the preliminary plan for Project Area No. 1, as amended, in connection with proposed Amendment No. 7 to the Redevelopment Plan, as amended, for Project Area No. 1, as amended, and making its report and recommendation regarding the conformity of proposed Amendment No. 7 . Carried 4-0. IX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. X. COMMENTS Commissioner Jonathan requested that staff have applicants provide renderings that clearly depict what is being proposed, especially on the larger projects. XI. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commisss..--:ner Richards, adjourning the meeting. Carried 4-0. The meeting adjourned at 8:38 p.m. RAMON A. DIAZ, 916cr ary ATTEST: A/1:liC_ � ) CAROL WHITLOCK, Chairperson /tm 16