Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/08/2002MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR STUDY SESSION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOER 8, 2002 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Ruzicka called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. in Room CC -8 of the South Coast Air Quality Management Center, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California, 91765. I. ROLL CALL: Present: Chairman Joe Ruzicka, Vice Chairman Steve Tye, and Commissioners Steve Nelson, Dan Nolan and Jack Tanaka. Also Present: James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager; Ann Lungu, Associate Planner; Linda Smith, Development Services Assistant, Stella Marquez, Administrative Assistant, David Meyer and Milan Garrison, LDM Associates. 2. DISCUSSION — ENTITLEMENT PROCESS POLICIES AND PROCEDURES — Presentation by David Meyer and Milan Garrison Mr. Meyer explained how specific plans are generally considered for much larger projects that the project currently under consideration. C/Tanaka asked if the Grand Avenue/Diamond Bar Boulevard intersection area was built as it was because of different property owners. Mr. Meyer explained that Los Angeles County did not use a specific plan for that development. The County allowed the area to be cut up into smaller lots and sold off. When the development was fist proposed it may have been owned by a single property owner. However, the County cut it up into small lots and there was no requirement for the owners to work together for the common good of the area. As a result, parking is inadequate and some of the delivery areas and alleys are dead ends so that there is no possible way to make one circle around the area. Some of the centers in the City are extremely difficult and dangerous to access. These are examples of projects being economically driven. In addition, the City was unable to adopt certain development standards until the General Plan was finally adopted in 1995, five and one-half years after the initial attempt to get it adopted. OCTOBER 8, 2002 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION General Plan is generally considered a long- term plan, five or ten years out. In a community such as Diamond Bar that is 90 percent developed, is it common practice to change the General Plan for specific initiatives. Mr. Meyer responded in the affirmative. When circumstances change and a City recognizes there is a better way to do business, it can change its General Plan. The project currently under discussion is zoned for industrial use and one of the Commission's considerations is to determine whether industrial is an appropriate use for the site given what is taking place in the immediate area. If the City believes there are better opportunities for the site, then General Plan modifications may be considered. DCM/DeStefano explained that this particular property was not an issue during any of the General Plan discussions. Other parts of the City were at issue. This particular parcel has been slated for development for the past 12 or so years. There was a project approved back in 1991 that did not proceed when the economy nose-dived. The General Plan that was adopted in July 1995 was a snapshot of where the City felt it wanted to be in 10-15-20 years. It is common for a General Plan to change over time and when a City determines it is out of alignment with its document, it is appropriate for modification to take place. DCM/DeStefano explained to Chair/Ruzicka that there is no prescribed time for this to take place. Each year staff is required to submit a basic report to the State Office of Planning and Research, and Housing and Community Development. Mr. Meyer is talking about a basic review of the document to determine whether it states what the City still intends to do. Discussion should likely be agendized on an annual basis. Mr. Meyer explained that the purpose of this discussion is to understand the tools available to the Planning Commission. Staff did not want to introduce this matter as a public hearing item and become involved in an educational process. He said that his firm remains ready to assist the Planning Commission. C/Tanaka asked if the current use of this property went through the Conditional Use Permit process to which Mr. Meyer responded that he did not know because this use was inherited from the County. DCM/DeStefano informed the Commissioners that staff would present a specific project to the Planning Commission for consideration on ' October 27. In the meantime, if any Commissioners have questions about OCTOBER 8, 2002 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION their decision-making responsibilities, staff will provide additional backup for their edification. For educational purposes, Commissioners ought to take a look at the current General Plan paying particular attention to the Land Use Element. Mr. Garrison explained that "page 3" of the discussion memo gives a brief outline of the proposed project. DCM/DeStefano explained that when projects are presented Commissioners are concerned about what types of uses are compatible. The specific plan gives the Commissioners the opportunity to separate out those uses that they may not believe to be appropriate. It is a tool that provides the list of uses that would be permitted within this property and allows the Commissioners to list the uses they would want to include within this piece of unique property. He believed that in the future, there would be an opportunity for more specific plans. Other areas of the City may be identified for this kind of detailed planning. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, Chair/Ruzicka adjourned the Study Session at 7:00 p.m. to the Regular Planning Commission Meeting. JameDeStefano Depu City Manager Attest: Ch irman Joeuzic a 1 MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR STUDY SESSION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DCTOER 8, 2002 CALL TO Chairman Ruzicka called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. in Room CC - 8 of the South Coast Air Quality Management Center, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California, 91765. ROLL Present: Chairman Joe Ruzicka, Vice Chairman Steve Tye, and Commissioners Steve Nelson, Dan Nolan and Jack Tanaka. Also Present: James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager; Ann Lungu, Associate Planner; Linda Smith, Development Services Assistant, Stella Marquez, Administrative Assistant, David Meyer and Milan Garrison, LDM Associates. 2. DISCUSSION - ENTITLEMENT PROCESS POLICIES AND PROCEDURES - Presentation by David Meyer and Milan Garrison Mr. Meyer explained how specific plans are generally considered for much larger projects that the project currently under CITanaka asked if the Grand Avenue/Diamond Bar Boulevard intersection area was built as it was because of different property Mr. Meyer explained that Los Angeles County did not use a Specific plan for that development. The County allowed the area to be cut up into smaller lots and sold off. When the development was fist proposed it may have been owned by a single property owner. However, the County cut it up into small lots and there was no requirement for the owners to work together for the common good of the area. As a result, parking is inadequate and some of the delivery areas and alleys are dead ends so that there is no possible way to make one circle around the area. Some of the centers in the City are extremely difficult and dangerous to access. These are examples of projects being economically driven. In addRion, the City was unable to adopt certain development standards until the OCTOBER 8, PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Nolan reiterated that the General Plan is generally considered a longterm plan, five or ten years out. In a community such as Diamond Bar that is 90 percent developed, is it common practice to change the General Plan for specific initiatives. Mr. Meyer responded in the affirmative. When circumstances change and a City recognizes there is a better way to do business, it can change its General Plan. The project currently under discussion is zoned for industrial use and one of the Commission's oonsiderations is to determine whether industrial is an appropriate use for the site given what is taking place in the immediate area. If the City believes there are better opportunities for the site, then General Plan modifications may DCM/DeStefano explained that this particular property was not an issue during any of the General Plan discussions. Other parts of the City were at issue. This particular parcel has been slated for development for the past 12 or so years. There was a project approved back in 1991 that did not proceed when the economy nose-dived. The General Plan that was adopted in July 1995 was a snapshot of where the City feft it wanted to be in 10-15-20 years. It is common for a Generai Plan to change over time and when a City determines it is out of alignment with its document, it i 1-s appropriate for modffication to take place. DCM/DeStefano explained to Chair/Ruzicka that there is no prescribed time for this to take place. Each year staff is required to submit a basic report to the State Office of Planning and Research, and Housing and Community Development. Mr. Meyer is talking about a basic review of the document to determine whether it states what the City still intends to do. Mr. Meyer explained that the purpose of this discussion is to understand the tools available to the Planning Commission. Staff did not want to introduce this matter as a public hearing item and become involved in an educational process. He said that his firm remains ready to assist the Planning Commission. Clfanaka asked if the current use of this property went through the Conditional Use Permit process to which Mr. Meyer responded that he did not know because this use was inherited DCM/DeStefano informed the Commissioners that staff would present a specffic project to the Planning Commission for consideration on .• October 2 In the meantime, if any Commissioners have questions about OCTOBER 8, PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION their decision-making responsibilities, staff will provide additional backup for their edffication. For educational purposes, Commissioners ought to take a look at the current General Plan paying particular attention to the Land Use Mr. Garrison explained that "page 3" of the discussion memo gives a brief outline of the proposed project. DCM/DeStefano explained that when projects are presented Commissioners are concerned about what types of uses are compatible. The specific plan gives the Commissioners the opportunity to separate out those uses that they may not believe to be appropriate. It is a tool that provides the list of uses that would be permitted within this property and allows the Commissioners to list the uses they would want to include within this piece of unique property. He believed that in the future, there would be an opportunity for more specific plans. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, Chair/Ruzicka adjourned the Study Session at 7:00 p.m. to the Regular Planning Commission Meeting. Jame DeStefano Depu City Manager Aftes Ch irmari Joe uzic a I I MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 8, 2002 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman. Ruzicka cabled the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California 91765. 1 PLEDGE OF Commissioner Nolan 1 d the pledge of allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Chairman Joe Ruzicka, Vice Chairman Steve Tye, and Commissioners Steve Nelson, Dan Nolan and Jack Tanaka. Also Present: James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager, Ann Lungu, Associate Planner, Linda Smith, Development Services Assistant, and Stella Marquez, Administrative Assistant. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCEIPUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered. 3. APPROVAL AGENDA: Chair/Ruzicka requested that Item 7.1 and 7.3 be considered ahead of Item 6.1. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes of Regular Meetings of September 24, 2002. C/Nolan moved, CfTanaka seconded, to approve the minutes of September 24, 2002, as presented. Without objection, the motion was so ordered. 5. OLD BUS None. 7. PUBLIC HEARING (S): 7.1 Develom 2ent Review No. 2002-16(l), or CondigoW Use Permit 151 d Minor Wagriance No. 2000-171 (pursuant to Code No. Sections ' approved 2.66,050.C.) is a request for a one-year extension of time for a project by the Planning Commission on October 24, 2000. The Planning Commiss'on approval allows the construction of a two-story, single-family residence, W. OCTOBER 8, 2002 PAGE 2 PLANNING CONINIISSION of approximately 12,340 square foot two-story single-family residence with two garages for five -cars, pool/spa, gazebo, and tennis court. A Minor conditional Use Permit is required to process the circular driveway. The Minor Variance is a request to decrease the rear yard setback by 20 percent. The extension of time, if approved, will allow the continuation of this entitlement until October 24, 2003. PROJECT ADDRESS: 2521 Braided Mane (Lot 91 of Tract No. 23483) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: Ton -Dei Chiu 2822 Bentley Way Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: Tein Wang 801 S. Garfield Avenue Alhambra, CA 91801 DSA/Smith presented staff's report. Staff recommends Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 2002-16(1), Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-15(1) and Minor Variance No. 2000-17(1), the Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Chair/Ruzicka opened the public hearing. There was no one present who wished to speak on this item. Chair/Ruzicka closed the public hearing. VC/Tye moved, C/Nolan seconded, to approve Development Review No. 2002-16(1), Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-15(1) and Minor Variance No. 2000-17(l), Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution.. Motion carred by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Nelson, Nolan, Tanaka, VC/Tye, Chair/Ruzicka NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ' ABSENT: COM IISSIONER& None i I OCTOBER 8, 2002 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION 7.3 Condi onal Use Permit No. 2002-10 (pursuant to Code Sections 22.58.22.42.035 and 22. 0.030. Table 2-5.) is a request to allow a computer services/gaming center in an exis 'ng shopping center. A computer services/gaming center is defined as a busines establishment that provides the space, equipment and technology to make fast, mu ti -player PC games and high speed computers available to patrons for a fee. PROJE ADDRESS: 962 N. Diamond Bar Boulevard (The Oak Tree Plaza) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 TY OWNER: Beal Bank 600 Legacy Drive #4E Plano, Texas 75024 APPLICANT: Paul Esteves 23025 Paseo De Terrado Diamond Bar, CA 91765 ' AssocP ungu presented staff s report. Staff recommends Planning Commission approval of Conditional use Permit No. 2002-10, the Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Paul Esves, applicant, said he read staffs report and conditions of approval contained within the resolution. opened the public hearing. Greg Kisl r, 606 Boxcove Place, said his 16 year-old son lost his 10"' year of school due to ga ning. The issue was curfew. He was extremely concerned that youths would rei min at Garners X past the stated curfew. He asked how the City would prevent rr 'nors from violating curfew at Garners X. He was also concerned about safety anquoted from a June 16, 2002, Los Angeles Times article regarding security measures at Cyber Cafes. DCM/De fano explained that the Ordinance dealing with this type of use was carefully rafted to include pro -active measures including curfew. Monitoring of this ordinance is the responsibility of 1) the property owner and 2) the City of Diamond Bar's Nei borhood Improvement staff. He pointed out that no problems with this establish ent have been brought to the City's attention during its term of operation. OCTOBER S, 2002 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION ` D Chair/Ruzicka closed the public hearing. VC/Tye was still concerned about enforcement of the curfew. Mr. Esteves responded that his establishment has been in business for about a year. He knows most of his customers, their schools and ages. He and his staff are very aware of the possibility of young people getting into trouble if they stay out past a certain hour. As a result, he and his staff ask the students to leave or call their parents to pick them up. Some times parents are late picking up their children. If this occurs, the individual is asked to get off of the computer and wait in the lounge area. C/Nolan asked the applicant if notices regarding the 10:00 p.m. curfew are posted at his business to which he responded that such notices are posted in the front entrance. In addition, Sheriff's Deputies periodically monitor the establishment. Monitoring occurred quite frequently during the first year of operation. Monitoring has slowed down because of the self-monitoring. C/Nelson asked for clarification of Item (g) (3) on Page 5. CfTanaka moved, C/Nelson seconded, to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-10, the Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Tanaka, Nelson, Nolan, VC/Tye, Chair/Ruzicka None None C/Nelson urged the applicant to use common sense monitoring of patrons to avoid implementation of additional restrictions by the Planning Commission. 6. NEW BUSINESS: 6.1 Discussion of the City's Telewnunimications OWinance. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission direct staff as appropriate. Chair/Ruzicka reminded the Commissioners that the first installation on Darin Drive turned into a very controversial decision. He felt that cell sites should be installed in ' such a manner as to be as non -disturbing as possible to the surrounding property owners. Since that time, at least three additional cell sites have been incorporated at OCTOBER 8, 2002 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION the sam location with the latest consideration indicating full cooperation and consideration from the property owner. In another instance, another property owner, a churc , introduced a second cell site to the Commission. He was extremely disappoi ited with the telecommunications company and property owner's uncaring attitude bout the effect of the site on its surrounding neighbors. He is not so concerned about the company because the City can govern the telecommunication's company. However, it is the attitude of the property owners that give him caution that the Planning Commission should give them up -front notice that it will not tolerate hem giving carte blanche to telecommunications companies to put up any kind off wility they wish to install. At some point in the ordinance there should be a complete and required reading of the permit process and related materials by the company and the property owner to insure compliance. VC/Tye It that the Commission should determine boundaries. In that regard, he did not find the current ordinance to include limitation of sites. Should there be a different set of criteria for residential and commercial sites? When the antennas were installed Dn Golden Springs Drive at Torito Lane there were no private residences in the area. area resi The site is hideous and now residents have to live with the blight. Is that ntial or commercial at this point? He appreciates the opportunity to revisit this evolving process. He agreed wholeheartedly that businesses do whatever they need to do at the least cost and the neighborhoods "be damned". It becomes the city's responsibility to take care of the neighborhood. C/Nolan aid he believed that at some point the current technology would become outdated and would it make sense to include clauses that speak to the eventual removal f the antennas by the property owner or company. C/Nelson felt that applicants should come before the Commission with appropriate cross -sec ons and visual simulations. He believed that part of the answer to the question `when is enough, enough?" has to do with the aesthetics. He was also interested in timely remmediation at no cost to the City. He agreed with C/Nolan's comment regarding dismantling. 13CM/Detefano responded yes to C/Tanaka's question about whether the section addressin abandonment and removal addressed antennas that were no longer worker, i operable or useless. Chair/RU2icka placed great emphasis on the "Attitude" of property owners about these type of installations. So long as attitudes are tuned to paying attention to the effect these installations would have on their neighbors would satisfy his concern. And, should there be reference to X number of sites per acre or per half acre, etc. OCTOBER 8, 2002 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Nolan felt that if a number were not specified in the ordinance, there would be no limit to the number of applicants per site submitted to the City resulting in a proliferation of antennas on any one location. VaTye wondered if the Commission could legislate attitude. If a specific number were set down in the ordinance, property owners and companies would understand the City's expectations. C/Nolan concurred with C/Tanaka's comments regarding the abandonment paragraph he felt the Commission should review the wording and concur with the definition. DCM/DeStefano assured Chair/Ruzicka that his remarks tendered at the September 24 meeting were included in the minutes. Staff will explore the issue of "when is enough, enough?" because the consideration is pertinent to commercial and industrial locations as well as residential locations. Staff will explore the clause addressing what must occur when a device becomes inoperable, antiquated or unused. Staff will explore application requirements and consider strengthening areas addressing visual aesthetics of a device by using graphics to depict what the device might look like in its proposed setting. Staff will also consider imposing bond requirements to ensure timely implementation of conditions. VC/Tye pointed out that the task force minutes indicate the members wanted to be careful that an onerous process was not placed on telecommunication companies by requiring bonds. 7. PUBLIC HEARING(S): 7.2 Co do t Na7 No. 2 Develo znent Review No. 2002-10 (pursuant to Code Sections 22.42.130.G.4, 22.58, 22.54, and 22.45) is a request to install a wireless telecommunications facility with Antennas (mounted on a mono -cypress) camouflaged as a cypress tree and equipment cabinet. The Variance relates to the height of the mono -cypress that exceeds the maximum allowable 35 -foot height. The Development Review relates to architectural/design review. PROJECT ADDRESS: 2151 S. Diamond Bar Boulevard Diamond Bar, CA 91765 OCTOBERS, 2002 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION PROPERTY OWNER: Roman Catholic Abp '. 3424 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90010 AYYLI ANT: Cingular .� 2521 Michelle Drive Tustin, CA 92780 Assoc P ungu presented staff s report. Staff recommends Planning Commission approval. of Conditional Use Permit 2002-07, Variance No. 202-02 and Development review No. 2002-18, the Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. C(Nelsoi asked how tall the current Cypress trees stand at this location. socP ngu responded that some of the Cypress trees are not as tall as the `„:.ropo mono -cypress. Some pine trees appear to be close to the same height and the Cyp ss trees will eventually mature to this height. She said she has not inspected the mate 'al of the mono -cypress. C/Nelso was concerned that the mono -cypress would be a bad imitation of a Christmas tree. This is a good example of an applicant appearing before the gib;,,, , Commis ion expecting it to rule on camouflage material it has not inspected. Chair/R icka asked that the record reflect this Commissioner's deep concern about that Roman Catholic Archdiocese short sightedness restricting access to the bell tower. This bell tower could be amply modified to house the antenna to insure that this site would be totally invisible and at the same time provide the J eco unications company with what they need. ,,John Hal minsky, Cingular, stated he read staffs report and concurs with the condition of approval. Regarding the Commission's valid concerns, he explained .that in addition to lack of access to the bell tower, the architect and structural zea;,,{,,b�.,,., engineer onceded that the best available option for location of the equipment was found to outside the church. VC/Tye ked why the antenna could not be located on the courtyard area. Mr. Hal 'nsky explained that the courtyard is a public gathering area, Equipment containment would require approximately 10x15 feet of area that would greatly reduce tharea to which the church was opposed. OCTOBER 8, 2002 PAGE 8 PLANNING CONIlVIISSION Chair/Ruzicka said he now has a different picture of the process leading to this proposal after the applicant's explanation. Mr. Halminsky apologized for not providing the Commission with a sample of the product. He visited the manufacturing site in Escondido that houses several such products that appear realistic. The product is UV protected and will not lose its color. He suggested the Commission impose a condition to provide that the applicant submit material samples for review and approval. Chair/Ruzicka opened the public hearing. Dennis Anderson, 1950 Silverhawk, said that if the applicant knew that 24-hour access was unavailable, why did they go to such lengths to consider the location. Mr. Halminsky stated that during the long negotiation process the church realized it would not be feasible to house the equipment in the bell tower when they decided not to allow 24-hour access. C/Nelson and C/Nolan felt that the best location might be outside the church. They both wanted to see a sample of the material. DCM/DeStefano indicated to C/Nolan that proliferation of antennas at this site is possible, depending on various factors. It is likely that one or two additional applications would be forthcoming for this location. VC/Tye reiterated that therein lies his concern. The church needs to consider placing these antennas in the bell tower for the good of the neighborhood. C/Nelson moved, C/Nolan seconded, to continue the public hearing for Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-07, Variance No. 2002-02 and Development Review No. 2002-18 to October 22, 2002. The applicant is requested to provide the following: 1) A substantial amount of the mono -cypress material including a leaf and portion of the branch leading from the trunk as well as, a sample of live Cypress tree for comparison purposes; 2) a conceptual plan for increasing the equipment cabinet wall to six feet in height including landscape materials and 3) a drawing of the possible location in the courtyard for the equipment cabinet. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: i=; OCTOBER 8, 2002 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION i AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Tanaka, Nelson, Nolan, VC/Tye, Chair/Ruzicka NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABM : COMMISSIONERS: None 8. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS: VC/Tye thanked staff for addressing issues raised by 'm at a prior meeting. The bins and graffiti have been removed. He asked if the Big Lots 1ation has a certain number of days to respond or are they cited on a daily basis. resolve the would be s 9. INFORMATIC two of the four t two bins current] as indicated. Z construction deb but needs further Staff believes th reportedly, all th Commissioner is VC/Tye advised and a future cloy Estates." DCMI, improvement pur and City staff and cell site, the City' dead and has bees application of he approved the Parc Earlier this eveni by JCC. 10. SCHEDULE As presented in 1 responded that Big Lots, through the citation effort, was given 30 days to ,in and pay for the citation. If they do not comply within the 30 days they to a second citation. NAL ITEMS: DCM/DeStefano reported that Big Lots has removed ig bins. Staff continues to work with Big Lots toward the removal of the V located between the stone and the Edison substation. Graffiti was removed he Planning Commission also asked staff to look into the matter of is. Staff has observed that the area looks better than it did two weeks ago consideration. Such is the message that will be conveyed to the developer. problem of access with "The Country Estates" has been resolved and it the Commissioners need to provide is a piece of identification. Each on a list and should be provided access to review sites for consideration. din about the gate closure on Diamond Bar Boulevard at Shadow Canyon am on Grand Avenue at Shotgun, both ingress/egress to "The Country )eStefano reported that once the City became aware of the closures for )oses, a coordination effort took place between "The Country Estates" staff essential services. With respect to the dead tree at the 24401 Darrin Drive Arborist visited the site and reported that indeed, the Black Walnut tree is so for about two years. He believes that its demise is attributable to the bicide in the immediate area. At a recent meeting, the City Council -1 Map No. 22987 for Gentle Springs Drive properties (Best Western, etc.) ig he approved three additional homes in "The Country Estates" proposed FUTURE EVENTS: agenda. OCTOBER 8, 2002 PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, Chairman Ruzicka adjourned the meeting at 9:25 p.m. to October 22, 2002. Attest: 4rm�an J E 1