HomeMy Public PortalAboutMinutes - 2005/03/08 - Regular" I N I T I A T I O N :
1 . C A L L T O O R D E R
"
"
P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N
M I N U T E S
M A R C H 8 , 2 0 0 5
P u r s u a n t t o t h e A g e n d a p o s t e d M a r c h 3 , 2 0 0 5 , C h a i r m a n G r i f f i t h s c a l l e d t h e
m e e t i n g o f t h e P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n t o o r d e r a t 7 : 3 0 p . m . o n T u e s d a y ,
M a r c h 8 , 2 0 0 5 .
2 . P L E D G E O F A L L E G I A N C E T O T H E F L A G
3 . R O L L C A L L
P r e s e n t : C o m m i s s i o n e r s : L e B e r t h o n , Y u , B l u m , S e i b e r t , G r i f f i t h s
A l s o P r e s e n t : C i t y A t t o r n e y M a r t i n , C o m m u n i t y D e v e l o p m e n t D i r e c t o r
D a w s o n a n d A s s i s t a n t P l a n n e r s G u l i c k a n d L i u
4 . T I M E F O R T H O S E I N T H E A U D I E N C E W H O W I S H T O S P E A K
5 . C O N S E N T C A L E N D A R :
A . A P P R O V A L O F M I N U T E S F e b r u a r y 2 2 , 2 0 0 5
R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : A P P R O V E A S S U B M I T T E D
C o m m i s s i o n e r S . i b . r t M a d e a m o t i o n t o a p p r o v e t h e m i n u t e s o f F e b r u a r y 2 2 , 2 0 0 5 ,
s e c o n d e d b y C o m m i s s i o n e r L e B e r t h o n a n d u n a n i m o u s l y c a r r i e d . C o m m i s s i o n e r B l u m
a b s t a i n e d f r o m a p p r o v i n g t h e m i n u t e s b e c a u s e h e w a s n o t p r e s e n t a t t h e m e e t i n g o f
F e b r u a r y 2 2 , 2 0 0 5 .
6 . U N F I N I S H E D B U S I N E S S : N o n e
7 . N E W B U S I N E S S :
A . P U B L I C H E A R I N G : A Z O N E V A R I A N C E T O A L L O W I M P R O V E M E N T S T O A 7 0 2
S Q U A R E F O O T L E G A L N O N - C O N F O R M I N G S E R V A N T ' S
Q U A R T E R S T H A T I S S I T U A T E D 3 F E E T 6 I N C H E S ( I N S T E A D
O F T H E M I N I M U M R E Q U I R E D F I V E F E E T ) F R O M A 6 3 0
S Q U A R E F O O T S T O R A G E R O O M , W H I C H W A S
C O N V E R T E D F R O M A G A R A G E W I T H O U T P E R M I T S . I N
A D D I T I O N , T H E A P P L I C A N T I S A L S O P R O P O S I N G T O
C O N S T R U C T A N E W 2 - C A R G A R A G E O N T H E R E A R
P R O P E R T Y L I N E , W H I C H W I L L B E A T T A C H E D T O T H E
E X I S T I N G ( G A R A G E ) S T O R A G E R O O M . T H E S U B J E C T
S I T E I S L O C A T E D W I T H I N T H E S I N G L E - F A M I L Y ( R - 1 )
R E S I D E N T I A L Z O N E .
Planning Commission
March 8, 2005
Page 2
SITE: 4917 BALDWIN AVENUE
CASE NO.: ZONE VARIANCE 05 -1604
PROPERTY OWNER/
APPLICANT: TZU -HUNG AND HSIU -TUAN LIN
4917 BALDWIN AVENUE
TEMPLE CITY, CALIFORNIA 91780
RECOMMENDATION: 1) HEAR STAFF REPORT
2) HEAR THOSE FOR AND AGAINST
3) CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT [15301]
4) ADOPT RESOLUTION
Commissioner L e Berthnn — Recused himself for hearing this item because he lives
within 500 feet of the subject site.
Director Dawson - Read the Staff Report dated March 8, 2005.
Assistant Planner Gulick- Narrarated and showed the presentation.
Lk e- Chairman Blum — Asked if the garage that has stucco had just recently been done.
Assistant Planner Gulick — Stated that in 1991 a permit was issued to convert the existing
three -car garage into a storage room and construct a detached two -car garage, but the
permit expired and no inspections were ever done, so the City does not know when this
work was actually done. Stated that there was a permit pulled but it expired.
Director Dawson — Stated that based upon an approved plan there was a permit pulled to
convert the three -car garage to a storage building and construct a new two -car garage.
Commissioner Yu — Asked about where the new two -car garage would have been
located in 1991.
Director Dawson — Stated that it was approximately in the same general location as
where it is being proposed now.
Assistant Planner Gulick — Showed the commissioners the building permit packet.
Commissioner Yu — Asked if it was a different owner at that time.
Assistant Planner Gulick — Stated that it was a different owner.
N: \Word \Department \CDD \MINS \PC MINUTES 2005 \PC MINUTES March 8, 2005.doc
•
•
•
Planning Commission
March 8, 2005
Page 3
• Chairman Griffiths — Asked Director Dawson if there were permits indicating that there
was a servant's quarters when it was built and if so, what were the specifics of the
servant's quarters.
Director Dawson — Stated that there is a record search in the permit packet and states
that the original permit contained a seven room dwelling, garage and servant's quarters,
but there is no further detail.
Chairman Griffiths — Stated that it does appear that the servant's quarters building had
been added to or remodeled over time and wanted to know if any permits were on record.
Stated that the kitchen and dining room portion could have been added on later, but with
no information it is hard to tell.
Director Dawson — Stated that the packet did not show anything about refurbishing the
guesthouse.
Vice - Chairman Blum — Asked if there was a Fire Code problem with the two buildings
being so close together.
Commissioner Seibert — Stated that it has been existing.
Director Dawson — Stated that if this were going to be approved, a condition could be
• imposed to require that the two buildings be attached.
Chairman Griffiths — Stated that it could also be suggested to move the buildings so that
there is adequate separation.
Commissioner Yu — Stated that on the 1991 proposal, the drawings actually show a five -
foot space between the two buildings.
Commissioner Seibert — Stated that it also shows over 17,000 square feet on the lot.
Chairman Griffiths — Stated that there are errors on those plans. Opened the Public
Hearing.
J-Isili -Tuan I in — 4917 Baldwin Avenue — Stated that she had someone to speak on her
behalf
•
Selina Sue 15446 Golden Ridge 1 ane, Hacienda Hts — Stated that according to Ms. Lin,
they purchased the house in 1999. Stated that regarding the servant's quarters, the
suggestion is that there not be a kitchen, but they would like to keep the kitchen. Stated
that she would like the Planning Commission to approve her zone variance.
Director Dawson — Asked the applicant how she felt about converting the original three -
car garage back into a three -car garage.
N: \Word \Department \CDD \MINS \PC MINUTES 2005 \PC MINUTES March 8, 2005.doc
Planning Commission
March 8, 2005
Page 4
Selina Sue 15446 Golden Ridge Lane, Hacienda Hts. — Stated that was a financial
burden.
Commissioner Seibert — Asked if she was planning on changing the configuration of the
roof or if it was going to remain a flat roof.
- I.
•
• • -• :
-I•..
original proposal of 1991.
— Stated that she was following the
Commissioner Yu — Asked how she felt about the condition regarding permeability.
- •.
•
• • -• : ••- -1-
. -••.. •
— Stated that her children use the
concrete yard for playing basketball and other recreational activities. Stated that she did
not want to remove any concrete.
Chairman Griffiths — Asked if there were any more questions for the applicant.
Selina Sue 15446 Golden Ridge I ane, Hacienda Hts — Stated that she wanted to
emphasize that they would like the new garage to be along the north property line.
•
Chairman Griffiths — Asked if anyone wanted to speak in favor or opposition to the
project.
Commissioner Seibert — Made a motion to close the Public Hearing, seconded by •
Commissioner Yu and unanimously carried.
Chairman Griffiths — Closed the Public Hearing and began discussion.
Vice- Chairman Blum — Stated this is sort of a hodge podge and it has existed for a long
time. Stated that he did not have a problem with the re- roofing. Asked Director Dawson if
the installation of a kitchen in the servant's quarters was a problem.
Director Dawson — Stated that if the applicant is agreeable to recording a covenant
saying that the living quarters would not be used as a rental unit or as a second dwelling,
there would be no objection to having a kitchen.
Vice - Chairman Blum — Stated that this could be described as a granny flat and that the
lot is big enough to accommodate everything they are requesting. Stated that he wanted
to hear from the other Commissioners.
Commissioner Yu — Stated that he felt that the buildings needed to be looked at as one
building because they are so close together and that at one point, there was an approved
plan. Stated that he has a problem with the proposed new two -car garage in the
proposed location. Stated that he agrees with the Staffs recommendation and is in favor
of converting the three -car garage back into a garage. Stated that he was in favor of the
re- roofing.
N: \Word \Department \CDD \MINS \PC MINUTES 2005 \PC MINUTES March 8, 2005.doc
•
Planning Commission
March 8, 2005
Page 5
• Commissioner Seibert — Stated that he did not have a problem with the re- roofing and
was agreeable to converting the original three -car garage into a two -car garage, leaving
one bay for storage. Stated that he did not have a problem with adding a kitchen or re-
roofing.
Chairman Griffiths — Stated that he was also not in favor of adding a new two -car garage.
Stated that he was fine with the re- roofing of the existing structures. Stated that he felt
the garage should be restored back to a garage.
Vice - Chairman Blum — Made the motion to approve the request as noted below,
seconded by Commissioner Seibert and unanimously carried:
1. Allowing the re- roofing of both existing structures.
2. Leaving the three -car garage where it is and converting it back to a three -car
garage or a two -car garage with some storage.
3. Allowing the kitchen in the servant's quarters
4. Not constructing the two -car garage as proposed
5. Eliminating the condition of permeability
Chairman Griffiths — Stated that the motion to approve carried, subject to a 15 -day
appeal /review period.
•
B. PUBLIC HEARING: A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF AN AFTER SCHOOL
PROGRAM FOR A MAXIMUM OF 45 PUPILS. THE
PROPOSED HOURS OF OPERATION WOULD BE
MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY, FROM 3:30 PM TO
6:00 PM; AND THE STUDENTS WOULD RANGE
FROM 6 TO 12 YEARS OLD.
SITE: 6019 BALDWIN AVENUE
CASE NO.: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 05 -1608
PROPERTY OWNER: FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF TEMPLE CITY
6019 BALDWIN AVENUE
TEMPLE CITY, CALIFORNIA 91780
APPLICANT:
REBEKAH HSU
9116 HUNTINGTON DRIVE, #E
SAN GABRIEL, CALIFORNIA 91775
N: \Word \Department \CDD \MINS \PC MINUTES 2005 \PC MINUTES March 8, 2005.doc
Planning Commission
March 8, 2005
Page 6
RECOMMENDATION: 1) HEAR STAFF REPORT
2) HEAR THOSE FOR AND AGAINST
3) NEGATIVE DECLARATION
4) ADOPT RESOLUTION
Director Dawson - Read the Staff Report dated March 8, 2005.
Assistant Planner Gulick- Narrarated and showed the presentation.
Chairman Griffiths - Asked if there were any questions of the Staff. Opened the Public
Hearing.
Vice - Chairman Blum — Made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by
Commissioner Seibert and unanimously carried.
Commissioner L B .rthon — Stated that he was in favor of the project.
Commissioner )(it — Stated that he concurred.
Commissioner Seibert — Stated that he concurred.
Chairman Griffi hs — Stated that he also concurred.
Commissioner I e Berthon — Made a motion to adopt the draft Resolution and the
negative declaration seconded by Commissioner Yu and unanimously carried.
Chairman Griffiths — Stated that the motion to approve carried, subject to a 15 -day
appeal /review period.
C. PUBLIC HEARING:
A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PRESCHOOL AND
KINDERGARTEN FACILITY (6539 ROSEMEAD
BOULEVARD) TO EXPAND TO AN ADJACENT
PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH, ADDRESSED AS
6515 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD. THE EXPANSION
WOULD UTILIZE MOST OF THE EXISTING 5,712
SQUARE FOOT BUILDING FOR SCHOOL
RELATED PURPOSES. THE OVERALL PROJECT
WOULD INCREASE THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF
STUDENTS FROM 120 TO 200; STUDENTS
WOULD RANGE IN AGE BETWEEN 2 AND 10
YEARS OLD. THE PROPERTY IS ZONED (C -2)
GENERAL COMMERCIAL.
N: \Word \Department \CDD \MINS \PC MINUTES 2005 \PC MINUTES March 8, 2005.doc
•
•
•
"
P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n
M a r c h 8 , 2 0 0 5
P a g e 7
S I T E :
C A S E N O . :
B U S I N E S S A D D R E S S :
P R O P E R T Y O W N E R :
A P P L I C A N T ' S
R E P R E S E N T A T I V E /
A R C H I T E C T :
R E C O M M E N D A T I O N :
6 5 1 5 A N D 6 5 3 9 R O S E M E A D B O U L E V A R D
C O N D I T I O N A L U S E P E R M I T 0 5 - 1 6 0 9
A R K P R E - S C H O O L A N D K I N D E R G A R T E N
6 5 3 9 R O S E M E A D B O U L E V A R D
T E M P L E C I T Y , C A L I F O R N I A 9 1 7 7 5
D A V I D W U
3 6 0 9 L O C K S L E Y D R I V E
P A S A D E N A , C A L I F O R N I A 9 1 1 0 7
C A R L O S P A R R A G U E
3 6 W . M A I N S T R E E T
A L H A M B R A , C A L I F O R N I A 9 1 8 0 1
1 ) H E A R S T A F F R E P O R T
2 ) H E A R T H O S E F O R A N D A G A I N S T
3 ) N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N
4 ) A D O P T R E S O L U T I O N
D i r e c t o r D a w s o n - R e a d t h e S t a f f R e p o r t d a t e d M a r c h 8 , 2 0 0 5 .
A s s i s t a n t P l a n n e r G u l i c k - N a r r a r a t e d a n d s h o w e d t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n .
C i t y A t t o r n e y M a r t i n A s k e d i f t h e C a l l i t a S t r e e t f r o n t a g e w a s f e n c e d o r w a l l e d o f f . A s k e d
a b o u t t h e p a r k i n g .
D i r e c t o r D a w s o n S t a t e d t h a t t h e r e w o u l d b e b u i l d i n g s b u i l t t h a t w o u l d b l o c k a c c e s s t o
t h e C a l l i t a S t r e e t f r o n t a g e a n d t h e r e w o u l d b e n o p e d e s t r i a n o r v e h i c u l a r a c c e s s o n t o
C a l l i t a S t .
C o m m i s s i o n e r Y u A s k e d D i r e c t o r D a w s o n t o e x p l a i n w h a t t h e t r a f f i c e n g i n e e r m e a n t b y
" m a n u a l c o n t r o l " a n d i f t h a t m e a n t t h a t t h e r e w o u l d b e a p e r s o n t h e r e . A s k e d i f t h a t
p e r s o n w o u l d o n l y h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n i n t h e p a r k i n g l o t a n d i f s o , t h a t w o u l d n o t h e l p t h e
t r a f f i c o n R o s e m e a d .
D i r e c t o r D a w s o n S t a t e d t h a t d u r i n g p e a k t i m e s , t h e r e w o u l d b e a n a c t u a l p e r s o n o u t
t h e r e t h a t w o u l d f a c i l i t a t e d r o p - o f f a n d p i c k - u p . S t a t e d t h a t t h e p e r s o n w o u l d o n l y h a v e
j u r i s d i c t i o n o n t h e p r o p e r t y , b u t w o u l d h e l p t h e t r a f f i c m o v e a l o n g a n d t h a t w o u l d h e l p t h e
t r a f f i c s i t u a t i o n .
Q , m m i s s i o n e r S e i b e r t - A s k e d i f t h e a p p l i c a n t w a s p r o p o s i n g e l i m i n a t i n g t h e f r o n t p o r t i o n
" o f t h a t b u i l d i n g .
N : \ W o r d \ D e p a r t m e n t \ C D D \ M I N S \ P C M I N U T E S 2 0 0 5 \ P C M I N U T E S M a r c h 8 , 2 0 0 5 . d o c
Planning Commission
March 8, 2005
Page 8
Director Dawson — Stated that they would eliminate the front portion of the building.
Stated that as proposed, they have the entrance driveway at the northern part of
Rosemead and the queuing driveway would actually meander around so there should be
plenty of stacking provided everyone abides by the plan.
.commissioner Seibert — Stated that was the purpose of the manual control person.
Chairman Griffiths — Stated that there is a couple of hundred feet of driveway.
Vice - Chairman Blum - Stated that his concern is . that if they start to drop off children at
the early part of the driveway, then the traffic will back up into Rosemead Boulevard.
Director Dawson — Stated that if the parents enter where they are supposed to enter and
queue -up, it probably will work okay.
Chairman Griffiths —Asked if there were any further questions of staff. Opened the Public
Hearing.
Carlos Parrague — Stated that he was going to pass around an overlay of the first phase
and the second phase and show how the projects differ. Stated that they want to make
this project work better and that they chose to have the queuing area in order to get some
of the cars off of the street. Stated that it will be an educational process for the parents,
but once they are educated it will work very smoothly. Stated that the applicant does not
agree with number 26 and would like to omit it from the resolution. Explained his reasons
why he would like to eliminate the condition. Stated that their objective is to be
responsive to the neighborhood and this property is zoned commercial and they are trying
to make it as palatable as possible. Stated that the scale of the design is very residential
in nature and a good fit for the neighborhood. Stated that as they started looking at this, if
they built a little bit Tess building, would that constitute a significant change to the plan and
would they need to come back to the Planning Commission.
Director Dawson — Stated that unless they were changing the site plan substantially, it
should not be a problem and could be reviewed by the Planning Department to make
sure that it is in substantial compliance.
Carlos Parrague — Stated that they were only eliminating some square footage and it was
not substantial.
Commissioner Seibert — Stated that he did not see a problem with what the applicant . was
proposing and did not feel it would require another public hearing.
Chairman Griffiths — Asked if the final plan would be to have the entrance at the northerly
driveway of the queuing lane and the exit at the southerly driveway.
Carlos Parrague — Stated that there could be a little bit of cross traffic.
N: \Word \Department \CDD \MINS \PC MINUTES 2005 \PC MINUTES March 8, 2005.doc
•
Planning Commission
March 8, 2005
Page 9
• Commissioner I e Berthon — Asked how wide the drop off lane would be and if two cars
could fit through the lane.
•
Carlos Parrague — Stated that it is not intended to be a doublewide lane.
Vice- Chairman Blum — Asked if was a doublewide drop off lane.
Carlos Parrague — Stated that it was not going to be used as a doublewide drop off lane.
Commissioner Le Berthon— Asked if the parking area would be accessible during the drop
off times.
Carlos Parrague — Stated that the parking lot would be accessible.
S.nmmissioner Le Rerthon — Asked if it was possible to make a left hand turn from the
site.
Carlos Parrague — Stated that they would have signs that said "right turn only ".
Chairman Griffiths — Asked if anyone wanted to speak in favor or in opposition to the
matter.
— Stated that she was against the project because of the
traffic that would be generated from the use. Stated that Rosemead Boulevard was a
very busy street and that she thought this project would add more traffic to this already
busy street. She gave some suggestions for solving the traffic situation, such as installing
a signal and posted signs.
Chairman Griffiths — Stated that it was a State Highway and that the applicant was not
responsible for the existing traffic situation.
Carlos Parrague — Stated that they have already had a traffic study done about this
project. Stated that 200 cars in the overall scheme of things would have a rather
negligible impact on that intersection and on that area. Stated that they will cooperate
with the City in asking the County or the State to try to do something, but he did not know
how they would respond.
Commissioner Seibert- Made a motion to close the Public Hearing, seconded by
Commissioner Bum and unanimously carried
. I
•1
Chairman Griffiths — Closed the Public Hearing and began discussion.
Commissioner Seibert — Stated that he did not feel it was the applicant's responsibility
to take care of traffic issues on Rosemead Boulevard. Stated that they could try to
• pursue the mater with the State but that is up to the Applicant. Stated that he was in
favor of the project.
N: \Word \Department \CDD \MINS \PC MINUTES 2005 \PC MINUTES March 8, 2005.doc
Planning Commission
March 8, 2005
Page 10
Vice - Chairman Blum — Stated that he agreed and liked the project much more than the
previous one. Stated that Rosemead Boulevard traffic issues were issues between the
City and the State. Stated that he would like to change section 3 of the resolution, item
number 5 where it talks about the driveway being improved with interlocking pavers
rather than stamped concrete; stated that he was not sure the whole thing had to be
improved with pavers and that the plan that he has is suitable.
Commissioner 1 e Berthon — Stated that he concurred with Commissioner Seibert and
Vice- Chairman Blum and it is a very good plan. Stated that the traffic problems need to
be resolved by the State and should not be the responsibility of the applicant.
Commissioner Yu — Stated that he concurred with his fellow Planning Commissioners
on all aspects, except the queuing. Stated that he was uncomfortable with the way it is
laid out. Stated that he questioned how it really would work in practice.
Chairman Griffiths — Stated that he concurred that this plan is more workable than the
original plan. Stated that the queuing may be a problem and that there is room there
for about 12 cars to line up. Stated that he is in favor of approving the project at this
point and if there is a problem with it, the Planning Commission could look into it at that
time. Stated that with respect to the State highway, he would hope that there is some
way for the minutes to reflect the concerns so that the City Council could be informed of
the problem and concerns. Stated that he concurred with approval of the project.
Commissioner Seibert — Made a motion to approve the Negative Declaration and
Conditional Use Permit 05 -1609 for the aforementioned reasons, with the change to
condition number 5 as stated by Vice - Chairman Blum and also the change to condition
number 26 to allow them to construct in phases, seconded by Vice - Chairman Blum and
unanimously carried.
Director Dawson — Stated that the condition could be re- written to say that they may
brreak the construction in two phases, subject to an actual phasing plan.
Chairman Griffiths — Stated that the motion to approve carries, subject to a 15 -day
appeal /review period.
9. MATTERS FROM CITY OFFICIALS:
Director Dawson - Gave a brief update with regard to the RRM Design Group Report.
Stated that an Ordinance was introduced on March 1, 2005 and the City Council made
two changes: (1) they wanted to keep the requirement for a three -car garage whenever
there are more than four bedrooms in a house and (2) they do not want to go with the
limitation of single story construction on narrow R -2 and R -3 zoned lots. Stated that
there was a lot of opposition to the single story development restriction on narrow R -2
and R -3 lots. Stated that those were the two changes that the City Council made.
N: \Word \Department \CDD \MINS \PC MINUTES 2005 \PC MINUTES March 8, 2005.doc
•
•
•
"
P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n
M a r c h 8 , 2 0 0 5
P a g e 1 1
C o m m i s s i o n e r S e i b e r t M a d e a m o t i o n t o a c c e p t t h e c h a n g e s m a d e b y t h e C i t y
C o u n c i l , s e c o n d e d b y C o m m i s s i o n e r L e B e r t h o n a n d u n a n i m o u s l y c a r r i e d .
D i r e c t o r D a w s o n S t a t e d t h a t r e g a r d i n g t h e d r a i n a g e c o n c e p t p l a n a p p r o v a l i s s u e , a t
t h e n e x t P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n m e e t i n g t h e r e a r e t h r e e p r o j e c t s : ( 1 ) a t e n u n i t
C o n d o m i n i u m p r o j e c t t h a t h a s d r a i n a g e c o n c e p t a p p r o v a l , ( 2 ) a t h r e e u n i t c o n d o m i n i u m
w h e r e t h e C o u n t y s a i d t h a t t h e y d o n o t n e e d p r e - a p p r o v a l o n t h e d r a i n a g e b e c a u s e i t i s
a c o r n e r l o t , a n d ( 3 ) a t h i r d p r o j e c t w h i c h i s a C o n d i t i o n a l U s e P e r m i t f o r a p a r t m e n t s
a n d n o t a s u b d i v i s i o n ; S t a f f w i l l r e c o m m e n d a n a p p r o p r i a t e c o n d i t i o n r e g a r d i n g
d r a i n a g e , b u t t h e y d o n o t h a v e a " p r e - a p p r o v e d " d r a i n a g e c o n c e p t p l a n .
1 0 . A D J O U R N M E N T
T h e r e b e i n g n o f u r t h e r b u s i n e s s , C h a i r m a n G r i f f i t h s a d j o u r n e d t h e m e e t i n g a t
9 : 3 7 P . M .
"
S e c r e t a r y
N : \ W o r d \ D e p a r t m e n t \ C D D \ M I N S \ P C M I N U T E S 2 0 0 5 \ P C M I N U T E S M a r c h 8 , 2 0 0 5 . d o c