Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - Planning Commission - Meeting Date: 11/17/2005 MEETING MINUTES CITY OF GLENDALE PLANNING COMMISSION GLENDALE COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5850 WEST GLENDALE AVENUE GLENDALE, ARIZONA 85301 THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2005 7:00PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Ernie Arce Daniel Drew Mickey Lund Richard Schwartz Natalie Stahl Henry Maynard, Vice Chairperson Rod Beal, Chairperson CITY STAFF: Jon Froke, AICP, Planning Director Jim May, AICP, Deputy Director for Current Planning Jon Paladini, Deputy City Attorney Kate Langford, Senior Planner Teresa Hillner, AICP, Senior Planner Maryann Pickering, AICP, Senior Planner Diana Figueroa, Recording Secretary Chairperson Beal stated the Planning Commission is a citizen body whose members are appointed by the City Council. The Commission is empowered to make final decisions on certain matters, with those decisions being appealable to the City Council. On other matters, the Commission acts in an advisory capacity to the Council, which makes the final decision. As the first order of business, Chairperson Beal took roll call and asked that the record reflect all Commissioners were present. Chairperson Beal dispensed with the reading of the minutes of the October 13, 2005 Workshop and October 20, 2005 Regular meeting. The minutes were approved. Chairperson Beal called for Business from the Floor. There was none. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 17,2005 Chairperson Beal asked staff if there were any requests for withdrawals or continuances. APPLICATION NO.: GPA05-05/ZON05-08 REQUEST: Requests by The Mashburn Companies representing Willis 51 L.L.C. to amend the General Plan Land Use Map from 1) PC (Planned Commercial) and Medium-High Density Residential (8- 12 dwelling units per acre) to High Density Residential (12-20 du/ac) and Office (OFC) and 2) rezone from C-2 (General Commercial) and R-4 (Multiple Residence) to R-4 and C-O (Commercial Office). This 5.9 acre site surrounds the northeast corner of 51st and Northern Avenues (8045 North 51st Avenue). Staff contact: Brian Friedman (Cactus District). Commissioner Drew MADE a MOTION to CONTINUE Case No. GPA05-05/ZON05-08 to the Commission's December 15 meeting. Commissioner Lund SECONDED the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Chairperson Beal called for the Public Hearing Items. APPLICATION NO.: ZON05-01/PP05-01 REQUEST: A request by Union Hills 54 L.L.C. to rezone a 9.8 acre parcel from R1-6 (Single Residence) and A-1 (Agricultural) to R1-6 PRD (Single Residence, Planned Residential Development). The property is located south of the southwest corner of 54th Avenue and Topeka Drive (19268 North 54th Drive). This request would allow a 39-lot single-family residential subdivision at a gross density of 3.9 residential dwelling units per acre. Staff contact: Teresa Hillner (Cholla District). Ms. Teresa Hillner, Senior Planner, presented the staff reports. She said the Planning Commission should recommend approval of ZON05-01, subject to the five stipulations set forth in its staff report, and PP05-01, subject to the four stipulations set forth in its staff report. Commissioner Lund asked if the questions brought up at the public meeting were addressed by the applicant. Ms. Hillner deferred the question to the applicant. Mr. Dan Caparros, Applicant's representative, said most of the questions that came out of the neighborhood meeting were related to construction. He said site inspections will take place prior to construction to address concerns and pest control will be performed prior to the commencement of construction. Chairperson Beal opened the meeting up for public comment on this item. 172 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 17,2005 Ms. Kathy Slaughter, 5445 West Topeka Drive, Glendale, said she is one of the five houses directly adjacent to the new subdivision. She stated they have been very pleased with the developer's professionalism. She expressed concern about the additional traffic on Topeka and 54th Drive, asking if a stop light could be installed at Union Hills and 54th Drive or speed humps could be installed on the two streets going into the subdivision. She said they are pleased with the prospect of having homes on the site, noting the have fought numerous less desirable developments in the past. She encouraged the Commission to approve the application. Mr. Gregory Locker, 5427 West Topeka Drive, Glendale, said, while they support the proposed development, they are concerned about construction traffic going through their neighborhood and two story homes being built behind their homes. He explained their lots are somewhat shallower than other homes in the neighborhood and the proposed home sites will be the same depth as theirs. He stated they want to ensure a safe construction site with their primary concern being scorpions, termites and other pests. He said they are also concerned about damage that might occur to their properties during the construction phase, but feel the applicant's offer to inspect their homes is adequate. Commissioner Lund asked Mr. Locker if he has spoken with the developer about limiting the lots that back up to their homes to single story homes. Mr. Locker said he has had conversations with Mr. Caparros and his concerns were adequately met. He stated their concern about construction traffic in their neighborhood has also been met in an appropriate manner. Commissioner Schwartz asked if the existing homes that back up to the proposed subdivision are single story. Mr. Locker said his home and the house next to his are two-story homes. Commissioner Schwartz suggested their construction traffic concerns can be addressed by mandating that construction traffic must enter and exit off 54th Avenue. Mr. Locker agreed 54th Avenue is the most logical route. Commissioner Drew asked if the existing two story homes have balconies. Mr. Locker said his home does, but his neighbor's does not. Commissioner Drew asked Mr. Locker if he will be able to look into the backyard of the house to be built behind him. Mr. Locker agreed that is a possibility. He explained he and his neighbors originally intended to purchase the lots behind their homes to expand the depth of their properties. He said, unfortunately, the person who owned the land did not want to sell the land because it would have made the remainder of his property less than 10 acres in size. He clarified the residents are not opposed to the proposed development, simply the disruption of the construction. He stated, as long as construction occurs in a professional manner, they support the project. He pointed out the developer will have to excavate 10 to 12 feet of soil to make the land suitable to build the homes, increasing the chances that scorpions and other pests will be disturbed and invade other properties in the neighborhood. Mr. Caparros said he has spoken with both Ms. Slaughter and Mr. Locker and has tried to address their concerns. He said the city gave them a water meter off Topeka, resulting in a 173 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 17,2005 mishap during the initial construction process. He said they will now get their meter off 54th Lane. He said they will also spray the properties to eliminate pests. He pointed out the developer will sell the property to a home builder, stating that makes it difficult for them to stipulate that two story homes will not be built directly behind the existing residents. He assured the Commission, however, they will convey the residents' concerns to the ultimate builder. Commissioner Drew asked if the natural flow of water will be impacted by the disturbance of the ground. Mr. May said the soil will be excavated and fill will be brought in to bring the land up to the same level it is at now. Mr. May said he will put Ms. Slaughter in touch with a representative in the Transportation Department to discuss a potential traffic light and speed humps in the neighborhood. He stated, while city staff empathizes with the neighbors regarding the inconveniences that will happen during the construction phase, they cannot address those issues at this point in the planning process. Chairperson Beal closed the public hearing. Commissioner Maynard MADE a MOTION to RECOMMEND APPROVAL Case No. ZON05-01, subject to the five stipulations recommended by staff. Commissioner Schwartz SECONDED the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Maynard MADE a MOTION to APPROVE Case No. PP05-01, subject to the stipulation recommended by staff. Commissioner Stahl SECONDED the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6 to 1 (Commissioner Schwartz voted nay). Mr. Paladini stated the Planning Commission's action on Case No. ZON05-01 is not final. He explained that the Commission's recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for further action at a future City Council meeting. He said the Commission's action with regard to Case No. PP05-01 is final on behalf of the City of Glendale. He stated anyone wishing to appeal the action must do so by filing a written Notice of Appeal with the Planning Department within 15 days. APPLICATION NO.: ZON05-11 REQUEST: A request by Longo Builders to rezone 4.17-acre site from A-1 (Agricultural) to RR-45 (Rural Residential). The site is located south of the southeast corner of 63rd Avenue and Greenbrier Road (17305 North 63rd Avenue). Staff contact: Teresa Hillner (Sahuaro District). Ms. Teresa Hillner, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. She stated the Department received two telephones calls in support of this rezoning. Mr. Hillner stated the Planning 174 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 17,2005 Commission should recommend approval, subject to the two stipulations set forth in the staff report. Mr. Joseph Longo, Applicant, said they proposed the project as a private, gated community with 45,000 square foot lots. He noted they will submit a preliminary plat within the next week. He offered to answer questions. Chairperson Beal opened the meeting up for public comment on this item. As no comments were made,he closed the public hearing. Commissioner Arce MADE a MOTION to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of Case No. ZON05-11, subject to the two stipulations recommended by staff. Commissioner Stahl SECONDED the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Paladini stated the Planning Commission's action on Case No. ZON05-11 is not final. He explained that the Commission's recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for further action at a future City Council meeting. APPLICATION NO.: CUP04-17 REQUEST: A request by William Scarbrough, on behalf of CVS Pharmacy and Armstrong Development for Conditional Use Permit approval to allow a convenience use (pharmacy with a drive-thru window) in the C-2 (General Commercial) zoning district. The 2.22-acre parcel is located at 6030 North 43rd Avenue near the northwest corner of 43rd Avenue and Bethany Home Road. Staff contact: Maryann Pickering(Cactus District). Ms. Maryann Pickering, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. She said the request appears to meet the required findings for a Conditional Use Permit and the request should be approved, subject to the six stipulations set forth in the staff report. Commissioner Lund asked if the two remaining buildings will be updated to blend with the new buildings. Ms Pickering responded yes. Commissioner Drew asked if only one entrance/exit will be created on 43rd Avenue. Ms. Pickering answered yes. Commissioner Drew asked if left hand turns will be allowed onto 43rd Avenue. Ms. Pickering said they will. Commissioner Drew asked what is the City of Phoenix's position with regard to the left turns onto 43rd Avenue. Ms. Pickering said the applicant spoke with the City of Phoenix regarding the project. She pointed out all of 43rd Avenue is within the city limits of Phoenix; stating, however, Glendale has been working with Phoenix because it is a Go intersection. Commissioner Drew asked if the City of Phoenix Transportation Department has approved the plan. Mr. May said the City of Phoenix reviewed the site plan and approved the driveway on 43rd Avenue. 175 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 17,2005 Mr. Jason Morris, Applicant's representative, said it has been a challenge to redevelop the subject site and their proposal represents an effort by both the applicant and city staff. He said the buildings being redeveloped are quite old, making it difficult to meet current development standards. He stated they had to deal with ten driveway curb cuts, noting most were full access curb cuts. He said the proposed redevelopment will result in significantly fewer traffic conflicts and provide for the redevelopment of the existing buildings. Commissioner Stahl asked if the tenants in the existing buildings will remain. Mr. Morris said they anticipate the long term mix of tenants will change; however, the existing leases are not yet at full term. Commissioner Drew asked if the City of Phoenix Transportation Department has any reservations about the left turn capabilities at the exit onto 43rd Avenue. Mr. Morris said they have discussed the issue with the City of Phoenix and been given approval for the full turning movement onto 43rd Avenue because the curb cut is the furthest north from the intersection. Commissioner Drew asked if the City of Phoenix is comfortable with the exit onto 43rd Avenue. Mr. Morris responded yes. Commissioner Schwartz asked if the drive-thru for the liquor store will remain. Mr. Morris answered yes. Commissioner Drew asked if the drive-thru is included in one of the stipulations. Mr. Morris said there is a stipulation specific to the removal of the billboards, but not one related to the drive-thru. Commissioner Schwartz asked if there is a Conditional Use Permit related to the existing drive- thru. Mr. May explained the application is for the CVS Pharmacy only, noting the store to the west is going through design review. Ms. Pickering confirmed the drive-thru does not have a Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Arce asked how far is the proposed driveway on Bethany Home Road from the center line of 43rd Avenue. Mr. Morris said approximately 150 feet. Commissioner Drew asked if it would be appropriate to attach the liquor store drive-thru to the subject request. Mr. Paladini explained the existing drive-thru is a legal non-conforming use with vested rights and lacks the necessary connection to be tied to the subject proposal. Commissioner Schwartz asked if the developer will have to request a Conditional Use Permit for the drive-thru when the building comes in for design review. Mr. Paladini responded no, assuming it stays in the same place. He said,however, a Conditional Use Permit may be required if the drive-thru changes in size, scope or location. 176 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 17,2005 Commissioner Drew asked if traffic in the two drive-thru's will intermingle as they meet up at the southwest corner of the CVS store. Mr. Morris said there will be circulation all the way around the proposed CVS building. He pointed out the spacing between the proposed CVS building and the existing building will allow for two way traffic. Commissioner Drew asked if traffic will flow in both directions in the area of the drive-thru as well. Mr. May said staff's understanding is that traffic will enter from the east side of the building and exit to the south through a one-way driveway. Mr. Morris clarified the south side of the CVS building is restricted to one-way traffic; however, the existing building has full traffic circulation. Commissioner Drew asked if the west side of the CVS building will allow for southbound travel only. Mr. Morris responded yes. Commissioner Drew asked what on the backside of the store will prevent traffic from entering the 20 foot area to go north and exit onto 43rd Avenue. Mr. Morris said signage would be used to indicate the flow of traffic. Chairperson Beal opened the meeting up for public comment on this item. Mr. Charles Gilbert, 4429 West Rovey, Glendale, said he is not opposed or in favor of the proposed project. He said the description does not mention LaPalma Mexican Restaurant; although it is his understanding that building is included in the proposed project. Mr. Froke commented on the challenges the applicant and city staff have had in trying to redevelop the subject property and noted that this is a quality project. Chairperson Beal closed the public hearing. Commissioner Drew MADE a MOTION to APPROVE Case No. CUP04-17, subject to the six stipulations as corrected by staff. Commissioner Arce SECONDED the motion. Commissioner Lund said she is thrilled to see the corner cleaned up and she supports the project. Commissioner Maynard agreed, stating the project will enhance that entrance into Glendale. Commissioner Stahl said big companies seem to be pulling out of south Glendale because the buildings are old. She expressed her appreciation to the applicant for their effort to bring corporate offices back to the south side. Commissioner Drew stated he does not see a problem with the Conditional Use Permit; although he has other concerns not related to the Conditional Use Permit. Chairperson Beal said he appreciates projects that elevate surrounding properties as well as the subject property. 177 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 17,2005 Commissioner Schwartz said, despite his usual position with regard to drive-thru's that are located next to one another, he supports the project because the drive-thru's already exist and because of the positive impact the project will have on the corner. Upon a call for the question, the motion passed unanimously. Mr. Paladini said the action taken by the Commission on Case No. CUP04-17 is final on behalf of the City of Glendale. He stated anyone wishing to appeal the action must do so by filing a written Notice of Appeal with the Planning Department within 15 days. APPLICATION NO.: GPA05-01 REQUEST: A Planning Commission initiated request to amend seven different sites along 67th Avenue between Glendale and Missouri Avenues. The proposed amendment would have the effect of amending the land use designation for seven different locations along 67th Avenue between Glendale and Missouri Avenues. The purpose of these amendments is to either correct the General Plan designation to reflect existing development or lowering the density allowed by the General Plan in order to benefit the entire area. Staff contact: Kate Langford (MPA). Ms. Kate Langford, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. She said staff recommends approval of the General Plan Amendment for the 67th Avenue Corridor as presented. Commissioner Drew asked if the General Plan would have to be changed if someone requested a zoning change on one of the seven parcels. Ms. Langford explained state law requires zoning requests to conform with the General Plan designation. She emphasized the proposed amendment does not effect existing zoning, explaining they are suggesting a lower density residential land use category in case the opportunity for such development arises in the future. She noted the Commission has copies of a letter from the elementary school district in support of any tool that would allow for lower density development due to overcrowded conditions in the area schools. Commissioner Drew asked about the suggested land use category offered by one of the property owners. Ms. Langford explained an heir of the Morcomb family states in a letter that they support a change in the General Plan land use from HDR 12 to 20 dwelling units per acre, to MHDR which is Medium High Density Residential 8 to 12 dwelling units per acre. She said staff is suggesting the designation be changed to 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre. Commissioner Drew asked if the land use designation could be changed to 8 to 12 dwelling units per acre in the future if the Commission approves 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre at this time. Ms. Langford responded yes. Chairperson Beal opened the meeting up for public comment on this item. 178 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 17,2005 Mr. Edward Ware, 6801 West Glendale Avenue, Glendale, said he bought his property about five years ago and it was zoned for 12 to 20 dwelling units per acre. He said the proposed amendment would reduce the density, devaluing his property and preventing him from being able to develop the property as he intended when he purchased the property. He stated the elementary school principal he spoke to was complaining about the number of apartments being developed in the area, stating he shares their concerns. He said he has low income housing in all directions of his property, limiting his options for developing his property. He stated since purchasing his property he has seen traffic in the area worsen and the neighborhood face more difficulties. He said the proposed amendment would cause him problems, particularly given the limited size of his parcel. He asked the Commission to deny staff's request since the land use designation can be changed in the future if necessary. He stated he and his neighbors have cleaned up their properties and they do not want any changes made until they know what other development will occur in the area. He noted he never received any notification about workshops concerning the issue. He expressed his opinion he is being asked to take less now that everyone else around him has gotten what they wanted. Ms. Jean McGrath, 6208 North 67th Avenue, Glendale, said she and her husband bought their property purposely because of the zoning on it. She stated, despite staff's assurances that the General Plan amendment will not affect the current zoning, they have not explained how they intend to use the designation. She said staff will find a way to deny requests for building permits using the current zoning. As an example, she spoke about a situation where her husband requested a sign permit for their mini-storage facility before a new sign ordinance was supposed to be enacted. She said their request for a much larger sign that was in compliance with the existing ordinance at the time was initially denied and only approved upon her husband's insistence. She noted she will pay over $50,000 in taxes next year thanks, in part, to the new bond issue that recently passed. She compared her investment in her storage business to owning stock, explaining she gets a little money in dividends but her real profit will come when she sells. She stated the government should not have the ability to diminish her profits when they did not help her purchase, manage or maintain the property or offer to help with the mortgage or tax payments. She suggested unneeded and unwanted projects are undertaken by planning staff to justify their jobs. She urged the Commission to consider the issue from the point of view of those residents being affected and let the property owners decide how and when they will request a change in land use and zoning. Mr. David Muns, 6745 West Glendale Avenue, Glendale, stated he represents his neighbors. He asked for better detail concerning the amendment as it relates to his property. Ms. Langford explained the proposal is to expand the General Commercial on the corner, noting the remainder of the site is currently 12 to 20 or OFC and proposed to go to 5 to 8 dwelling units per acre. 179 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 17,2005 Chairperson Beal asked Mr. Muns if he supports or opposes the application. Mr. Muns said it was difficult to determine whether his property was proposed for a commercial land use designation in the map he was sent. He said it appears the amendment would rezone his property for commercial use. Mr. Froke clarified the underlying zoning on the properties will not be affected by the proposed amendment. He said he believes Mr. Muns property is located in the area set to be expanded into the commercial designation. He stated Mr. Muns can continue to live on the property unaffected by the amendment. Mr. Muns pointed out the properties west of 68th Avenue are private residences, not vacant properties. He said, while he can continue to live in his home, future zoning requests have to be in compliance with the General Plan. Mr. Muns asked if there will be any affect on his property taxes. Mr. Froke responded no, stating the County Assessor, not the city, assesses taxes. Mr. Muns asked if improvements he makes to his home or property will have to meet commercial code. Mr. Froke explained fences less than six feet in height do not require a building permit; although they typically require an administrative staff review. He said converting the home to a business would require a rezoning action and Building Safety approval. Mr. Muns asked if there is a difference between how the city views a future commercial site and a residential site in terms of eminent domain. Mr. Froke said the city does not typically condemn properties. Commissioner Stahl asked Mr. Muns if he supports or opposes the proposed action. Mr. Muns said the amendment does not appear to affect his ability to do anything he would want to do with his property, with the exception of possibly banning together with his neighbors to develop their properties as an apartment complex. Mr. Matthew Ludick, 3610 North 44th Street, Suite 240, Phoenix, on behalf of Judy Weller, the owner of Parcel 7, said they have consistently objected to being included in the city's proposed General Plan amendment. He explained, unlike other parcels included in the proposed amendment, Ms. Weller's parcel carries an antiquated A-1 zoning designation, making her property unusable unless it is rezoned. He stated they are currently in the process of moving forward with a rezoning application for the property and are working on their citizen participation plan. He said, since staff has already indicated they will oppose any rezoning request that comes forward not in compliance with the General Plan, adoption of the amendment would, in effect, rezone his client's property without her consent. He encouraged the Commission to eliminate Parcel 7 from the proposal and allow Ms. Weller's zoning case to move forward. Ms. Marni Fulcher, 6729 West Glendale Avenue, Glendale, said her husband was raised in their home and they have resided there for over 50 years. She stated it is more than a little disconcerting to be told the General Plan will have no impact on their property. She said she and her husband appeared before the City Council in 1977 to have their business zoned commercial, but they are now being told they will have no parking for their business because of a planned lane change. She said changes the city makes to the General Plan matter and impact the residents. She stated she would like their property value to increase, but not at the expense of their current 180 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 17,2005 living situation. She asked if it is truly necessary and important for the city to proceed with the proposed amendment. Commissioner Stahl asked Ms. Fulcher to comment on the apartment complexes that have cropped up throughout the area. Ms. Fulcher said there used to be a lot of farm land and vacant properties, but she understands that things change. She stated she is concerned about the police activity that occurs in the apartment complex to the north and the frequent accidents that happen at 67th Avenue and Glendale. She said she is also concerned that she will not be able to get her mail or have her garbage collected when they remove the lane in front of her house. She said, while she is not thrilled to see all of the development that is taking place, she understands that growth is inevitable. In response to Commissioner Lund's question, Ms. Fulcher explained she and her husband own 6723, 6729 and 6737 West Glendale Avenue. She said her daughter owns 6745 West Glendale Avenue. She confirmed the properties are known as Site 2. Mr. Froke thanked everyone who spoke. He said Mr. Ware's comments touched on why the city is pursuing the proposed amendment. He stated, since adoption of the plan, they have started looking at other properties that need attention and the 67th Avenue Corridor is currently designated for very high density. He was unable to substantiate Ms. McGrath's comments concerning her previous sign permit issue. With respect to Parcel 7, he said staff is working with Mr. Ludick on a pre-application matter. He pointed out Ms. Fulcher's concerns about access to her mailbox relate to a GO-Glendale street project and are not related to the General Plan land use designation. He suggested she contact Dr. Johnson with regard to the planned street improvement project. He said staff held individual meetings with representatives of Parcels 3, 4 and 7 and the city is not interested in changing zoning without the property owners' consent. Chairperson Beal closed the public hearing. Commissioner Maynard MADE a MOTION to RECOMMENDED APPROVAL of Case No. GPA05-01. Commissioner Stahl SECONDED the motion. Commissioner Arce asked if Parcel 2 is also opposed to the amendment. Ms. Langford said more people are speaking out as time goes on, noting there was no response during the citizen participation process. Commissioner Lund said, while she understands staff's position, she also understands the position of the property owners. She stated, at this time, she does not necessarily support the inclusion of all of the parcels. In response to Commissioner Drew's question, Mr. Froke explained Site 6 is developed and the land use designation does not reflect the actual nature of development that exists on the southeast corner of the intersection. He said the apartment complex area will also be modified to 12 to 20 181 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 17,2005 to reflect existing zoning. He stated the boundaries of the underlying zoning are correct because zoning is property line specific. Commissioner Drew agreed individual parcels should not be removed from the request because they have to look at what is best for the city as a whole. He reiterated the amendment does not represent a zoning change. He said,however, he is still not sure how he will vote. Chairperson Beal agreed the decision will be difficult. He said he was not convinced when the issue first came before the Commission that it had been adequately explained, but since that time the issue was better explained at a Commission workshop. He said the Commission needs to look at the vision for the City of Glendale and decide if the general nature of a given area is being served by the overlying vision for that area. He agreed density in the subject area is high. He said the amendment will act as a guidepost for future activity; therefore, he supports staff's recommendation. Upon a call for the question, the motion passed by a vote of 4 to 3 (Commissioners Lund, Schwartz and Arce voted nay). Mr. Paladini stated the Planning Commission's action on this item is not final. He explained that the Commission's recommendation would be forwarded to the City Council for further action at a future City Council meeting. Mr. Froke noted the tentative date for the Council workshop on this matter is December 20. Ms. Langford pointed out the Council workshop is open to the public. Mr. Froke noted, however, the Council does not typically entertain public testimony during workshop sessions. Chairperson Beal called for the Planning Staff Report. Commissioner Maynard MADE a MOTION to VACATE the Commission's December 1, 2005 public hearing. Commissioner Lund SECONDED the motion and the motion passed unanimously. Chairperson Beal called for Commissioner Comments. Commissioner Lund wished everyone a happy Thanksgiving. Since there was no further business,the meeting was adjourned at 9:11 p.m. Diana Figueroa, Recording etary 182