Loading...
PC Minutes 2005-12-20Case No App. � . Address r D escription ; Action , : Planner 1. TUP 05 -027 PS Contractors 1168 W. Branch St. Interior remodel with outdoor staging, equipment and supplies A. J. Bergman 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 20, 2005 6:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER - The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Brown presiding; also present were Commissioners Fellows, Parker, Ray and Tait. Staff members in attendance were, Community Development Director, Rob Strong, Assistant Planners, Ryan Foster and Jim Bergman and Planning Interns, Brian Soland and Tim Ricard and Public Works Engineer, Victor Devens. ANNOUNCEMENT: Chair Brown expressed appreciation to Assistant Planner, Jim Bergman for all his hard work and noted that City Council would be presenting him with a Mayor's Commendation. AGENDA REVIEW: No changes requested. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: No minutes. A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None. C. REFERRAL ITEMS FOR COMMISSION ACTION: The following Minor Use Permits were referred for Commission discussion and Planning Commission Resolution: Assistant Planner, Jim Bergman, presented the oral report regarding the Temporary Use Permit explaining details of the remodel and reason for the remodel. Mr. Bergman answered questions and concerns from the Commission regarding the Temporary Use Permit. Chair Brown opened the public hearing for public comment. Jolene Duggins, Walmart, spoke regarding the fencing, storage containers, photo lab (no changes to square footage) and noise concerns and addressed Commission questions. In reply to a questions from Chair Brown, Ms. Duggins stated they have off -site storage now and stated that since the outside garden supplies have been removed a Conditional Use Permit will be applied for if Walmart wishes to put it back at a later date. Chair Brown closed the hearing for public comment. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 20, 2005 Commissioner Parker asked that if City Council approve this Temporary Use Permit a provision be included to state that if there are any complaints from the neighbors, especially regarding noise and night time work that this come back to the City to be re- evaluated Commissioner Tait stated that item 'F' included in the letter from Mike Trester, PS Contracting, Inc. addresses the above concern. Commissioner Parker stated she would still like to include this. Chair Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ray, to recommend that City Council approve the Temporary Use Permit and include a condition that if there are any complaints from the neighbors during construction that the Temporary Use permit be brought back to the Council to be re- evaluation. The motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner's Brown, Ray, Fellows, Parker and Tait NOES: None ABSENT: None PAGE 2 I. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CASE NO. 05 -002 & PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 05 -006, APPLICANT - PRESTON THOMAS; LOCATION -125 NELSON STREET Assistant Planner, Ryan Foster, presented the staff report for a proposed subdivision of 0.32 acres into five (5) lots and construction of one (1) mixed -use building with ground -floor office and a second -floor apartment and four (4) town homes as a planned unit development. Mr. Foster stated that two letters of public comment had been received 1) from Mr. Sturges, owner of an adjacent property regarding the proposed height and, 2) from Mr. Nonella, a resident next to the development regarding concern for traffic congestion. Mr. Foster stated there were two corrections to the staff report: 1. The drainage would be an offsite drop inlet fossil filter. 2. Condition of Approval No. 88 should read: "The project shall have a fire flow based on the California Fire Code Appendix III -A. To clarify some of the Commissioner's concerns: • Tree replacement: There are 17 fruit trees on -site proposed to be removed; 24 trees to be planted and there are three main species that could potentially range in height from 10 -30 feet. • Water neutralization mitigation measure: Explained how the retrofit program would work to offset the increase in water usage; water usage for this year is consistent with last year. • The fire sprinkler connection: The Fire Chief is agreeable to the connection being located in the landscape strip alongside the western edge of the property to visually buffer it from the public right -of -way. 1 1 1 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 20, 2005 Chair Brown opened the public hearing for public comment. PAGE 3 In conclusion, Mr. Foster stated that it was staffs recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the Resolution with the included findings of approval for the proposed project. Mr. Foster answered Commission questions regarding information contained in the staff report. Mr. Devens answered Commission questions regarding information contained in the staff report. Mark Vasquez, architect, explained the intent of their design; stated their sensitivity to the neighborhood and the environment. Regarding the drainage, after discussions with Public Works and Community Development they felt the best solution was to redo the drop inlet at Bridge Street; this would serve a larger area and clean up the water that comes off the street area and flows into the creek. In regards to the tree removal, after discussion with the landscape architect they did not think the existing trees would survive transplanting, but they would like to offer them to someone who would like to transplant them. Commissioner Fellows stated the landscape architect had listed a Madrone tree (potential height of 30 -40 feet) in the species recommended for planting, but he had never seen this tree get this tall in this area. Commissioner Parker asked if they were planning on putting trees in the landscape area along Nelson Street? Mr. Vasquez replied they were proposing one larger and one smaller tree. Commissioner Tait asked if the applicant would pay the in -lieu fee or deed restrict a one - bedroom apartment? Mr. Vasquez replied that it would probably be a deed restricted apartment. Commissioner Tait asked if they would be using any green building materials? Mr. Vasquez replied they are using more green building materials nowadays; they are water and lighting conservation measures, but solar is difficult in this dense of a building. Chair Brown asked for an explanation on the design of the building regarding the height and expressed concern with the area for parking and if there was adequate room for back up and turnaround. Mr. Vasquez described the design re the height; stated parking would not be allowed in the driveways (Fire Department requirements) that is why we are proposing the guest spaces. Commissioner Fellows asked if the connection for the Fire Department sprinkler system would be screened. Mr. Vasquez explained that they would screen it with landscaping and the fence line would also help. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 20, 2005 Mr. Devens stated the Fire Department connection can connect to the sprinkler system at any point as long as it is on the building side of the double detector check value. Dave Sturges, owner of the adjacent property, stated his concern regarding the potential viewshed problem; if his proposed project is built it may block views from this proposed project. The Commission took a 5- minute break. After discussion with Chair Brown, Mr. Strong stated that regarding the concern with parking in front of the garages and in the driveways, an enforceable condition can be included CC &R's (this is done in many such cases for safety reasons). Chair Brown closed the hearing for public comment. PAGE 4 Commission comments followed; some of the highlights of their comments included: Ray: • Although there are conflicts with interpretation of the Development Code and zoning, this project is an exercise in common sense planning; fits for the most part and should not be nit - picked apart; the setbacks appear to have been taken care of. • Regarding the neighbors concern with parking: there is a fair amount of parking and residents will park in their garages rather than walk a distance. • Mr. Sturges's complaint re viewshed brings up an important question and the idea of disclosure interesting, although the City Attorney has advised against this. Fellows: • This project should be a good fit in this part of the Village. • Agrees with higher density to preserve ag land and opposed to sprawl. • Agree with Mr. Strong that CC &R's can be written in to maintain space inside garage for parking. • He cannot approve of the Negative Declaration; he does not think it appropriate. • Approved of the balconies being removed in response to concerns of neighbors. • Taking out 16 trees and one holly shrub is environmental damage and he does not see appropriate mitigations for this. • Suggested the parkway include sidewalk that meanders (offset) to allow room for a street tree and irrigation to keep the roots contained. • Condition No. 63: The definition on the tree should be expanded to require a root barrier collar to direct the roots downward, a deep irrigation pipe and the right kind of trees. • Agree that the Fire Department double - detector fire valve should be screened as much as possible. • Agree with street tree fees. • Initial Study, Biological Resource No. 4: Trees on the landscape plan are more like shrubs (not large enough) and the listed trees will not grow large enough; the tree remediation is not sufficient; the project needs some trees that will achieve a reasonable size fairly quickly, be dormant in the winter provide shade in the summer; some of the fruit trees that are to be removed could be transplanted off site in Village 1 1 1 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 20, 2005 PAGE 5 area; suggest that the applicant return with a revised tree list; three fruit trees to be removed should be boxed while dormant and transplanted (apple, naval orange and fig). • Re groundwater recharge: do not see putting in low -flow toilets recharges the ground water; running the water off into drop inlets and the creek will not replace the groundwater; for him the recharge issue would be a stumbling block; suggest underground catch basin or something to allow the ground water to percolate down. Parker: • Likes the mixed -use for this area of Village; units could be smaller to allow more green space /openspace; the houses around this area are all smaller homes. • Concerned with no front yard setback; no parking area that people are accustomed to; not enough room for turnaround in the parking area and that the guest space may have to be used for this; does not want the neighbors to be impacted by the lack of space for parking. • Likes providing affordable housing (unit 5). • The design does fit into Village; likes the different layers, it makes it look not so tall although it is three stories; does not look like it will affect the viewshed for the neighbors. • Agrees with Commissioner Fellows' ideas re the trees and he would like to see more of these. Tait: • Has concern with City's water situation at present and this should be taken into consideration. • High density, mixed -use a good thing here. • Re the trees, possibly increase the mitigation and clarify the sub - species of the Madrone tree. • Prefer deed - restricted apartment vs. in -lieu fees. Brown: • Is there a condition that discusses CC &R's for the driveways, sidewalks and small open -space area? Mr. Foster replied the intent is to accomplish this through common access and maintenance agreement not necessarily CC &R's, but if a restriction for the garages is required then that could be included in the CC &R's. • In future could the issue of the fire department connection be decided earlier in the process? Mr. Foster said this could be done. Mr. Devens explained the purpose of the double - detector check valve. • Would pervious concrete in the driveway avoid the runoff? Mr. Devens had not seen this done in this area. Mr. Foster clarified that the only deviations required to approve this project as proposed are the minimum lot sizes for lots 1 -4 and sideyard setbacks for lots 2 -4 (even with these reduced lot sizes the project still meets standards for lot coverage and floor area ratios for each lot. In conclusion, Chair Brown stated that he was in favor of this project and that it could be workable if: • CC &R's are in place regarding the common areas and not parking in the driveways. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 20, 2005 PAGE 6 • Agrees with the idea of the parkway as it will soften the building in front. • Like to have a condition that revised tree list come back prior to approval of the project. • Agree with Commissioner Fellows suggestion that the three fruit trees be boxed and given to a recipient for transplanting somewhere else in the Village area. Commissioner Ray made a motion, to approve the Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit Development with the following conditions included: • Modification of Condition of Approval No. 88. • Change the wording re the neutralization to clarify the water issue onsite and offsite. • Place an appropriate restriction on the use of the garages in the CC &R's or the common area agreement, whichever is deemed more appropriate by staff. • The double detector check valve be as unobtrusive as the Fire Department will allow. • Three trees: apple, fig and navel orange be boxed to mitigate and a recipient site be found; that the City Arborist or Parks and Recreation Director advise on whether these trees would be likely to survive. • The Resolution contained in the staff report be replaced by the corrected Resolution submitted by staff at the meeting. Commission discussion followed with respect to Commissioner Fellow's concern with the type of tree that had been recommended for mitigation. Commissioner Ray agreed to add the following condition to the motion: • That the parkway be improved with a street tree and irrigation included. Commission Tait had a concern that the fruit trees may not survive after boxing and transplanting; asked if there was arborist's opinion that says they would survive? Mr. Foster advised that language could to added to the motion to state "as determined by City Arborist and reviewed by the City Parks & Recreation Director ". In reply to a request from the Commission, Commissioner Ray summarized the conditions for the motion. Chair Brown asked about the issue of whether a specific species of tree should be included (to go in the front of the project). Commissioner Ray said that she did not want to include this as part of her motion as the City Arborist should be able to decide this. Commissioner Tait concurred with Commission Ray, but said that it was important to know what type of species the Madrone tree is as it might not survive in this climate; he would like to see this resolved before he could approve. Chair Brown made a motion to include all the amendments recommended by Commissioner Ray and also the following condition: • To require that the landscape plan come back for review with City staff in terms of the type of street tree that will be put in the parkway. 1 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 20, 2005 Commissioner Tait seconded the motion. Commissioner Fellows stated he could not support the motion because it did not deal with the recharge of the water and filtering out of the pollutants; he also did not want to rely on the discretion of the City Arborist regarding the replacement trees. RESOLUTION 05 -1982 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 05- 002 AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 05 -006; LOCATED AT 125 NELSON STREET; APPLIED FOR BY PRESTON THOMAS The motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Chair Brown, Tait and Ray. NOES: Commissioners Fellows and Parker ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 20 day of December 2005. Commission questions and comments followed with the main concerns being: • Clarification of the parking and in -lieu fees. • The landscape plan and conditions for the proposed onsite trees. • Location of the double detector valve and fire hydrant. Chair Brown opened the public hearing for public comment. PAGE 7 B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 05 -018; APPLICANT — EQUITY REACH MORTGAGE; LOCATION —107 NELSON STREET. Planning Intern, Brian Soland, presented the staff report for a proposal to allow conversion of an existing building from a retail use to a mortgage office. In conclusion, Mr. Soland stated that staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the Resolution with the included findings of approval for the proposed project. Joel Snyder, project manager, Freeman Fong Architecture, described project and answered Commission questions. Mark Frassica, business owner, answered Commission questions and stated he could have some of his employee's park away from the site if this would help the parking situation, but he only had one or two customers visiting in the course of a day; most customers are signed in their homes. Dave Sturges, 132 Short Street, stated staff had told him he would have to add a commercial building to his proposed project and asked why this business does not have to add residential (mixed -use). PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 20, 2005 Terry Payne, 130 Short Street, stated concern with the increase in parking that may occur with this additional business. Chair Brown closed the hearing for public comment. Commission comments: • Parking in general may be a problem; prefer that customers not park in front of houses on Nelson Street and that employees be required to park in the Village. • A mortgage company is a good use for the Village. • The in -lieu fee is a fantastic opportunity to get a couple of parking spaces in here. • Employees of this business will spend money in the Village. • Tree wells should be required for the street trees. Mr. Strong explained that the Village Parking Study had determined that parking in the Village was never full except when there were major events; suggested that maybe the employees could find parking in Olahan Alley. In conclusion, he reminded the Commission that Nelson Street is Village Mixed -Use zoning district not Residential. Chair Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ray, to approve Conditional Use Permit Case No. 05 -018 with the following modifications to the Conditions of Approval: • The double detector valve is made as unobtrusive as the Fire Department will allow. • Tree wells shall be installed for the street trees, and adopt: RESOLUTION 05 -1983 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 05 -018; LOCATED AT 107 NELSON STREET; APPLIED FOR BY EQUITY REACH MORTGAGE The motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Chair Brown, Commissioners Ray, Fellows, Parker and Tait NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 20 day of December 2005. PAGE 8 10:00 p.m. Commissioner Ray made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fellows to continue the meeting to 10:30 p.m.; the motion was approved by a 5/0 voice vote. C. APPEAL CASE NO. 05 -007 OF TEMPORARY USE PERMIT CASE NO. 05 -023; APPLICANT — JAVIER RAMIREZ; LOCATION — 1490 E. GRAND AVENUE. Assistant Planner, Jim Bergman, presented the staff report to consider an appeal of the denial of a Temporary Use Permit to allow a food cart at Gill's Market. Staff recommends 1 1 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 20, 2005 PAGE 9 that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution denying Appeal Case No. 05 -007 of the Temporary Use Permit. Staff answered Commission questions. Chair Brown opened the public hearing for public comment. Applicant, Javier Ramirez, with the help of a translator, asked questions of the Commission. Chair Brown spoke at length in an effort to explain to the applicants why it would not be suitable to park their food cart in the Gill's Market parking area; staff had suggested another site, but this was not acceptable to the applicant; the Commission however, had great empathy for this family's situation and suggested a waiver of the appeal fees. Commissioner Fellows made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ray, to approve denying Appeal Case No. 05 -007, upholding the Community Development Director's denial of Temporary Use Permit Case No. 05 -023, including a one time refund of the appeal fees, and adopt: RESOLUTION NO. 05 -1984 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DENYING APPEAL CASE NO. 05 -007 AND UPHOLDING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S DENIAL OF TEMPORARY USE PERMIT 05 -023 FOR A PROPOSED FOOD CART LOCATED AT 1490 E. GRAND AVENUE APPLIED FOR BY JAVIER RAMIREZ HERNANDEZ AYES: Commissioner's Fellows, Ray, Parker, Tait and Chair Brown. NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 20 day of December 2005. 10:30 p.m. Commissioner Fellows made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ray to continue the meeting to 11:00 p.m.; the motion was approved by a 3/2 voice vote; with Commissioner Tait and Chair Brown voting against. III. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. PRE - APPLICATION REVIEW CASE NO. 05 -014; APPLICANT — JEFF HOLLISTER; LOCATION — 231 HALCYON ROAD Planning Intern, Tim Ricard, presented the staff report for review of a proposal for a mixed - use office building, composed of 3,750 square feet of commercial space and one (2) two - bedroom apartment. In conclusion, Mr. Ricard stated that staff recommends the Commission review the proposed project and offer suggestions /feedback to the applicant. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 20, 2005 Commission questions and comments: PAGE 10 Chair Brown asked Public Works to address the undergrounding at this site. Mr. Devens described the poles and service drops in the area of the proposed project; stated there appears to be an excessive amount of undergrounding required and he had advised the applicant to start discussing this with the various businesses (PG &E etc) involved. In addition, drainage may be a problem. In reply to questions from Commissioner Parker Mr. Devens explained that there was a moratorium on asphalt cuts along Dodson so improvements would have to be brought out onto Halcyon; the easement adjacent to the right -of -way is to facilitate utilities for this project or any future project; the tree easement is not shown on the pre - application, but is required. In reply to a question from Commissioner Tait, Mr. Devens explained that retaining the drainage onsite would be an option. Mark Vasquez, architect, in reply to further Commission questions stated: • This is a professional complex not commercial retail type uses so that is why there is no loading dock shown on the plans. • They do have a concern with the undergrounding of utilities as it will be an extreme expense to underground the pole (over $100,000) and will be asking for relief on this. • Drainage is an issue and they want to work with Public Works on this. • Re noise concern: We are proposing a room above (not on the roof) to incorporate the mechanical equipment into the structure to keep the noise down. • There will be a deck area and a courtyard area (shared) for the residence. • They would be screening the trash area with a trellis to soften it. Commissioner Parker said she liked this mixed -use proposal, liked the recessed windows and different layered look of the building; did not see a viewshed problem along Halcyon or Dodson; agreed with the ARC there may need to be a barrier between parking lot and the resident next door. Commissioner Ray stated that first of all the undergrounding should be dealt with before this proposal goes forward. Commissioner Fellows stated it was a good project for the area because of the medical offices; he has no problem with the residential portion; much care should be taken when the parking lot is being layed out not to damage the roots of the trees; the driveway on Dodson is a very good idea; the street trees should be between the curb and sidewalk to break up the expanse of hardscape; #6 on the memorandum should state: ...consisting of retrofitting existing highflow plumbing fixtures "elsewhere" (add this word)...; should applicant not pay in -lieu fees for other units besides the residential? Fire Department check valve connection be as unobtrusive as possible; street trees should definitely go down Dodson as well as Halcyon. 1 1 1 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 20, 2005 In reply to a question from Chair Brown, Mr. Strong gave an update on the policy for the in- lieu fees for undergrounding that had been established for residential projects; for commercial projects discussion has taken place, but at this time the applicant should deposit an in -lieu fee to be spent where it can efficiently be used. Chair Brown expressed his concern that undergrounding used to be always waived and recommended more discussion on an appropriate in -lieu fee; if it comes to waiving it altogether he would vote to have the undergrounding required rather than ignored, but a fee would be a compromise. Chair Brown further stated that drainage is a big issue; street trees have become an issue and in conclusion, Chair Brown said he may have more comments later, but due to the late hour this was all he had to say for now. Mr. Vasquez thanked the Commission for their input. IV. NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS SINCE DECEMBER 6, 2005: V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: None. PAGE 11 The Commission had no concerns with Minor Exception 05 -016 and Mr. Foster stated that there is a 10 -day appeal period for this approved project. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: Chair Brown stated he would like to have some discussion on whether the PUD process could be pared down (in relation to the 5,000 square foot lots in the Village), Mr. Foster had mentioned that City of San Luis Obispo has a mechanism different from the PUD process that they used to make sure they got the development plans they wanted. Mr. Strong stated that we can research what other cities do for condo and other unit types during Development Code Update, but he believes the PUD process is not cumbersome of inappropriate for this kind of development. Commissioner Tait announced he would not be available for the meeting of January 3, 2006. VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP: None. VIII. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 11:15 p.m. Case No. . :App. t ` Address ". , ". Desc iptionx;,, fiction Ptanner 1. MEX 05 -016 Patricia Mark 266 West Branch Permit non - conforming single - family house w /detached bedroom suite. A R. Foster 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 20, 2005 In reply to a question from Chair Brown, Mr. Strong gave an update on the policy for the in- lieu fees for undergrounding that had been established for residential projects; for commercial projects discussion has taken place, but at this time the applicant should deposit an in -lieu fee to be spent where it can efficiently be used. Chair Brown expressed his concern that undergrounding used to be always waived and recommended more discussion on an appropriate in -lieu fee; if it comes to waiving it altogether he would vote to have the undergrounding required rather than ignored, but a fee would be a compromise. Chair Brown further stated that drainage is a big issue; street trees have become an issue and in conclusion, Chair Brown said he may have more comments later, but due to the late hour this was all he had to say for now. Mr. Vasquez thanked the Commission for their input. IV. NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS SINCE DECEMBER 6, 2005: V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: None. PAGE 11 The Commission had no concerns with Minor Exception 05 -016 and Mr. Foster stated that there is a 10 -day appeal period for this approved project. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: Chair Brown stated he would like to have some discussion on whether the PUD process could be pared down (in relation to the 5,000 square foot lots in the Village), Mr. Foster had mentioned that City of San Luis Obispo has a mechanism different from the PUD process that they used to make sure they got the development plans they wanted. Mr. Strong stated that we can research what other cities do for condo and other unit types during Development Code Update, but he believes the PUD process is not cumbersome of inappropriate for this kind of development. Commissioner Tait announced he would not be available for the meeting of January 3, 2006. VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP: None. VIII. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 11:15 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 20, 2005 ATTEST: LYN REARDON -SMITH SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION AS TO CONTENT: U.4 1 1;•iiirA R S RON COMMUNITY DEVELO ` MENT DIRECTOR (Minutes approved at the PC meeting of January 17, 2006) PAGE 12 t TIM BRO ' , CHAIR 1 1 1