Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 2005-04-051 1 1 CALL TO ORDER: The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session starting at 6:06 p.m. with Chair Brown presiding. Present were Commissioners Fellows, Keen, Parker, and Tait. Staff members in attendance were Community Development Director Rob Strong, Associate Planners Teresa McClish and Kelly Heffernon, Assistant Planner Ryan Foster, and Public Works Engineer Victor Devens. AGENDA REVIEW: No changes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None. MINUTES CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 5, 2005 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: 1. Debra Sauerbier, 602 Cornwall Street, shared concerns about the decrepit condition of a partially built flooring store on East Branch Street. It is near a proposed historic district (because of the house next to it). It's important to deal with existing problems before creating new designations. She's interested in being a member of the HRC and invites other long -time City residents to apply. In response to Chair Brown's request for staff follow -up, Mr. Strong stated that Jim Bergman has been working with the Building Department on this. He does not have a complete report, but can return with further comments at the next meeting. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 1. One Consent Agenda item was added (ARC 05 -005, ASP 05 -009, and CDBG 05 -003; 118 East Branch Street; exterior modifications and new sign for South County Historical Society). 2. Tentative schedule of upcoming agenda items was distributed to Commissioners. II.A. MINOR USE PERMITS APPROVED SINCE MARCH 15, 2005 SUBJECT TO 10- DAY APPEAL: se No„ dam& App , :� "' � _Address ,... ...... aa� �D escriptlon ,,,,i A ction Planner STAFF 05 -004 125 Nelson Street Demo of SFR in Village A R. Foster 2. VAR 05 -002 684 Paseo Street Adopt denial reso per 3/15/05 meeting D R. Foster 3. VSR 05 -003 1045 Maple Street Remove and replace leaky flat roof with high side walls and gable roof A A. Brownwood 4. Cherry Creek Project E. Cherry Ave. and Myrtle Street Consultant Contracts for additional studies A K. Heffernon 1 1 1 CALL TO ORDER: The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session starting at 6:06 p.m. with Chair Brown presiding. Present were Commissioners Fellows, Keen, Parker, and Tait. Staff members in attendance were Community Development Director Rob Strong, Associate Planners Teresa McClish and Kelly Heffernon, Assistant Planner Ryan Foster, and Public Works Engineer Victor Devens. AGENDA REVIEW: No changes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None. MINUTES CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 5, 2005 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: 1. Debra Sauerbier, 602 Cornwall Street, shared concerns about the decrepit condition of a partially built flooring store on East Branch Street. It is near a proposed historic district (because of the house next to it). It's important to deal with existing problems before creating new designations. She's interested in being a member of the HRC and invites other long -time City residents to apply. In response to Chair Brown's request for staff follow -up, Mr. Strong stated that Jim Bergman has been working with the Building Department on this. He does not have a complete report, but can return with further comments at the next meeting. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 1. One Consent Agenda item was added (ARC 05 -005, ASP 05 -009, and CDBG 05 -003; 118 East Branch Street; exterior modifications and new sign for South County Historical Society). 2. Tentative schedule of upcoming agenda items was distributed to Commissioners. II.A. MINOR USE PERMITS APPROVED SINCE MARCH 15, 2005 SUBJECT TO 10- DAY APPEAL: MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 5, 2005 PAGE 2 Consent Agenda Item No. 1. STAFF 05 -004 Chuck Fellows stated the Design Guidelines and Standards for Historic Districts (DGS) are not just to protect old buildings, but also the simple, old, vintage buildings. This house was occupied by Leo Brisco; the basic structure should be preserved, even if it's moved elsewhere on the lot (in part to save materials and energy); there should be further interpretation of the DGS and City Council should review this item. In response to a question from Commissioner Parker, Mr. Strong stated this is not scheduled for City Council review. After consulting with South County Historical Society and Howard Mankins (representative of the Brisco family), neither felt the structure had historical or architectural value. The City Attorney has stated the City has no authority to deny this demo, other than CEQA, and there are no documented reasons for denial. In response to a question from Commissioner Fellows, Mr. Strong explained that he could file an appeal as a private citizen during the 10 -day appeal period. Commissioner Fellows made a motion, to deny Consent Agenda item No. 1 in that the wording of the DGS is sufficient to at least need clarification before the home is demolished. The motion didn't carry for lack of a second. Commissioner Keen made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait, to adopt staffs, recommendation on Consent Agenda Item No. 1 (STAFF 05 -004). The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Keen, Tait, Parker and Brown NOES: Commissioner Fellows ABSENT: None Consent Agenda Item No. 2. VAR 05 -002 There was no discussion or question on this item. Commissioner Keen made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Parker to adopt: RESOLUTION NO. 05 -1958 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DENYING VARIANCE 05 -002; 684 PASEO STREET; APPLIED FOR BY TOM RILEY The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Keen, Parker, Fellows, Tait and Brown NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 5th day of April 2005. 1 1 1 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 5, 2005 PAGE 3 Consent Agenda Item No. 3. VSR 05 -003 In response to a question from Commissioner Keen, Mr. Strong requested deferral of this item to check information on file. Consent Agenda Item No. 4. Cherry Creek Project Consultant Studies (Mr. Strong stepped down for this item.) In response to a request from Chair Brown, Ms. Heffernon presented this request to approve consultant contracts for additional studies. She added that the Biological Analysis scope of work had just been received this afternoon from David Wolff, and she read the scope aloud for the Commission. Chair Brown requested that in at least one of the two drainage studies that they address the event of a 100 -year storm. Commissioners Tait and Fellows requested they address filtration alternatives (specifically bio- filtration) to see if it would be desirable over the two 6' pipes option. The Commissioners repeatedly stated that they are putting the applicant on notice that he enters into these studies at his own expense /risk, and that they may still require completion of an EIR after the studies are completed. Victor Devens noted that Condition of Approval #99 was strictly for onsite drainage. Chair Brown replied that "concern was brought up at Commission level, and it needed to do more than that, which is what this (study) does." Commissioner Parker noted that regional drainage is a City issue and suggested that the City might be willing to share the costs of these studies. The Commission in general was glad to see that regional drainage was being studied rather than just on -site drainage. John Keen stated "an EIR doesn't necessarily give the feasibility study of what the Newsom Springs drainage upstream ponding would be. We could get an EIR that doesn't even address that, because it's not actually part of the scope (of the EIR) ... I'm in favor of seeing the regional drainage study to see which system is the best." Nancy Parker added "they're totally separate and they both may need to be done, but this definitely needs to be done." Damien Mavis, representative, stated that he's agreeable to moving forward and paying for these studies. The Commission requested that: • Public input is allowed before the study is finalized. • There is a public hearing to discuss what would be included in the scope of work. • The consultants receive all minutes and written information in regards to this project MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 5, 2005 PAGE 4 Commissioner Fellows made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Parker to approve Consent Agenda item No. 4., (STAFF PROJECT 05 -004), with the conditions that all comments be made available to the consultants and that there be public input and testimony before the study drafts are made final. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Fellows, Parker, Keen, Tait and Brown NOES: None ABSENT: None Commissioner Keen made a second motion, seconded by Commissioner Parker to recommend to City Council that because this is a regional issue, the City should help fund the cost of the drainage studies (both items 1 and 2, but not 3 - the Biological Analysis). The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Keen, Parker, Fellows, Tait and Brown NOES: None ABSENT: None Ms. Heffernon passed out scope of work copies received today from Mr. Wolff. Consent Agenda Item No. 3. VSR 05 -003 In response to Commissioner Keen's question, Mr. Strong stated that this project will not affect the oak tree. Commissioner Keen stated that after seeing the photos, he has no problem with this project. Jeff Hiser, 1033 Maple, stated there are no other two -story homes in this neighborhood, and the privacy was advertised as a selling point of the house. The addition will look down on his backyard and into bedrooms, so privacy is the issue. In response to questions from Commissioners, Mr. Strong said • There's nothing in the Development Code to specifically deal with privacy; he understands the concern, and they could plant trees as one option. • A condition of approval could be included that windows be modified not to face north, but the enjoyment of the applicant's property (their view) would be hampered. • Mr. Strong didn't observe a grade difference, but it would still conform to building height requirements. • A minor exception could be requested for an 8' fence to increase privacy. 1 1 1 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 5, 2005 Commissioner Fellows made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait to recommend to City Council that Consent Item #3 be approved with the condition that there are no (north facing) windows looking down on Mr. Hiser's backyard. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Fellows, Tait, Keen, Parker and Brown NOES: None ABSENT: None Consent Agenda Item No. 5 (added) ARC 05 -005, ASP 05 -009, and CDBG 05 -003. There were no Commission questions or comments on this item. Commissioner Keen made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait to recommend approval of Consent Agenda Item No. 5. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Keen, Tait, Fellows, Parker and Brown NOES: None ABSENT: None PAGE 5 PUBLIC HEARING ITEM III.A: (CONTINUED ITEM) SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 03 -001; APPLICANTS — S & S HOMES OF THE CENTRAL COAST and RUTH MATSUMOTO DEA; LOCATION — SOUTHWEST CORNER OF EAST GRAND AVENUE AND COURTLAND STREET (Continued from 3/1/05 meeting). • This item started at 7:18 p.m. Assistant Planner Ryan Foster presented the staff report for an amendment to the Berry Gardens Specific Plan, Subareas 3 & 4, creating mixed -use development standards for approximately six (6) acres of vacant land. The Berry Gardens Specific Plan was adopted in 1998 with standards for Subarea 1 only (and assumption that 3 and 4 would be commercial /retail space). This amendment addresses 3 and 4, and was reviewed by Planning Commission in October 2004. Mr. Foster addressed the commissioners' previous concerns. He noted that one portion of Subarea 3 was approved for nine single family residences (now under construction), but the rest of Subarea 3 is currently for sale, while Subarea 4 is planned for development once the SPA is adopted. This SPA would establish standards for development but is not an entitlement. The two owners have been working to agree on certain issues before development occurs. Staff has suggested that a phasing schedule and reimbursement provisions be included in the SPA to address the need for access /utility easements and mutually beneficial infrastructure improvements necessary for a cohesive integrated project. Subarea 4 is denoted as phase I (owned by S &S Homes), and Subarea 3 would be phase 2 (owned by Ruth Matsumoto Dea), since they won't develop concurrently. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 5, 2005 PAGE 6 In response to Commission questions, Mr. Foster and Mr. Strong made the following statements: • Staff's recommendation for reimbursement of easements and infrastructure is worded such that interest starts to accrue at the beginning of development on phase 1. The phase 2 property owner could make the reimbursement at the time improvements are made, or wait until development is started on phase 2 and make the additional simple interest payment at that time. • Staff has encouraged the owners to coordinate rough grading for phase 2. Last week, an offer for free fill material came through from S &S Homes to Ruth Dea. It was tentatively decided it would be transported and stockpiled on her property, but as of today there was a phone message from her stating she didn't want that to occur. The dilemma is that any material to be imported for phase 2 done after completion of phase I would have to cross Grand Avenue driveways, so it seems reasonable to do now. • Standards are included for low and moderate income housing as the 25% affordable housing required by City policies. • Residents will not be able to drive from the commercial area to the homes, due to the difference in grade. There's pedestrian access, but not vehicle access. • Staff felt only one easement was needed for mixed -use portion of Subarea 3 access to Court land Street, and the specific design can be reviewed when a CUP is proposed. • While staff was hoping for property owner agreement on easements and infrastructure (including grading), at this time this agreement has not occurred. Commissioners could preclude 100% of phase 1 or they could approve the SPA and allow for fill to be brought in off of Grand Avenue. • Commissioners can request that lot coverage be increased from 50% to 75 %. The original SPA proposal came in before the Gateway Mixed Use zoning was adopted, and it is a maximum standard. • The conceptual building height for this site would be lower than the Santa Lucia Bank (SLB) tower, because the SLB pad is higher. The SPA specifies that any building face be 35' maximum. That "may be increased to 45' from average grade for architectural features that do not exceed 25% of the floor area of the floor located directly below the feature and provided that any portion of the feature that exceeds 35' from average grade be setback 20' from the perimeter of the building." Basically, this means they can add an architectural feature higher, but it must be set back, so it should not look like a towering mass of building on Grand Avenue (see conceptual plan on file for illustration). Vice Chair Brown opened the public hearing John Mack, architect and representative for S & S Homes made the following comments and responded to Commission questions: • The SPA has been reviewed by SAC, ARC and Planning Commission. He shared north and south elevations from a proposal that will return for 1 1 1 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 5, 2005 PAGE 7 discretionary review in the future. • Depending on the front restaurant tenant and other considerations, they may not need the first driveway onto Court land Street. If the driveway is not there, two parking spaces could be added. • They purposely designed the basement commercial parking not to be shared with the residential development so there would not be any conflicts, but there is pedestrian access via a sidewalk with landscaping and trees that will end at a future bus stop. • S &S would be okay with maximum coverage increase from 50% to 75 %. However, they like to include as much landscaping as they can and would not redesign the project now, as parking dictates much of what can be done on this site. • S &S is willing to bear up front the expense of easements and infrastructure in order to move forward with their proposals. It won't hold them back from doing their project, so long as they will be paid back later with simple interest, borne by the next property owner if Ms. Dea sells. Ruth Matsumoto Dea made the following comments: • She wanted to clear up some misunderstandings and misperceptions. Yesterday, she met with staff and S &S Homes. She had a serious bid for her parcel, but the potential buyers are concerned that with the SPA they have no input on future development and may retract the offer if it's approved. • This affects both properties, but Ms. Dea doesn't consider herself party or applicant to the proposed SPA. • She felt backed into a corner to make decisions that will affect Subarea 3 and any future owner, but she doesn't have development experience or knowledge. Money is not the issue. She feels she's being steamrolled. • These are the last six acres of unimproved property along Grand Avenue and she also wants to see something integrated and cohesive. She doesn't want to impede progress, but wants it to be in a way the City can be proud of. • She requested a continuance for more time to better understand the proposal. She has major concerns and questions to review with her lawyer. o For instance, she thought the "multi- family dwellings" were going to be independently -owned parcels (condos) — for young people who couldn't afford traditional homes. She doesn't want to be an apartment landlord. • The serious purchase offer for her property was attracted to its lower grading. She rejected the fill offer, because she doesn't know what other potential buyers could be looking for. She's trying to sell it as expeditiously as possible, but wants a developer with a track record that can make an exemplary gateway. She hoped if she quickly got a buyer /developer, then they could work together, instead of phasing, but the SPA hogties any developer coming in. • In response to questions from Commissioner Brown, Ms. Dea requested a 90- day continuance to further review the material and to discuss it with her lawyer, real estate agent and potential buyers /developers so they could have input as MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 5, 2005 8:40 p.m. The Commission took a 10- minute break. PAGE 8 well. If she can't come up with a buyer by then, she doesn't know what the next step would be, but emphasized she didn't want to hold it up forever. She added that S &S made her an offer that she rejected, and if the SPA is adopted, they would be the only willing buyer since it's their plan. • In response to questions from Commissioner Parker, Ms. Dea would still have an interest in the project — like an affordability factor for young people in the community. She has an interest in what happens to that land and what's appropriate for the citizenry, as she still has family and friends here. John Robasciotti, real estate agent for Ms. Dea: • He reiterated that by adopting the SPA, that pretty much casts in stone what is done to the property and that the buyer is hog -tied to the plan. While there is an option for an individual to amend the SPA, a lot of cost and time is involved. • Precluding new owners from coming in with their own proposals does a disservice to the rest of the community, as there are many people with different and possibly better ideas. • This property is very special and it would be better to wait 90 days now, which will be inconsequential 25 years from now. • In response to questions from Chair Brown, Mr. Robasciotti replied that there's not a good answer for how much time Ms. Dea might need for sale or al alternative development plan. Jan Sanderlin, Keller Williams real estate agent for the potential buyer, • The SPA severely limits and inhibits development of this property. They would like time to go through the pre - application process and develop jointly with S &S Homes. When the property came up for sale, they made the offer, but if this amendment is approved, not one of the six developers she represents would want this parcel. The SPA diminishes the value of this parcel. She would prefer not to reveal her client tonight, since the offer is subject to this amendment. • In response to questions from Commissioner Parker, Ms. Sanderlin answered that there are definite problems with this SPA including infill (grading) and affordable home ownership, because her clients were thinking of doing underground parking and don't' want to be landlords for apartments. • In response to questions from Chair Brown, she replied that although she hasn't had time for in -depth review of this project, three developers looked at it and all came up with same answer independently of each other. John Mack (returned after break): • In the past, he has met with City staff and Ruth Dea to discuss these parcels coming together. 1 1 1 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 5, 2005 PAGE 9 • In response to the comment that the SPA would diminish the property value, S &S has borne the costs since applying in 2003, and Ruth Dea's signature consents to this application. • They've had mediation, two Planning Commission meetings, and they've had her review the proposal at least four times. At the last meeting, one of the issues was intensifying the residential component. Staff responded and also clarified the inclusionary housing element requirement. It's been over two years and they're requesting to move forward. They don't want it continued every time another developer or potential client has a new idea. • S &S has made five offers to purchase Ruth Dea's portion. The latest offer was based on an agreed upon appraisal by Bruce Beaudoin and then some. That offer was rejected. • S &S has exercised good faith to move forward with what the City wants to see. Apartments are in response to Planning Commission's latest requests. Ruth Dea (returned for response to above comments): • She disagreed that S &S made offers five times. They made three offers for the nine lots she sold to another developer. S &S started low and only increased the offers after she'd received higher bids. They insisted that she had to sell to them or else they would make this (SPA) a difficult process for her. Based on their intimidation tactics and bullying, she sold the nine lots to someone else. That has nothing to do with Subarea 3, but it keeps coming up. She only received one offer for Subarea 3 and that was after the last continuance. They have tried to work together in a compatible way. She didn't want to revisit issues from those nine lots, but it always resurfaces. Subarea 3 is a tenth lot. They told her if she would sell, they would give her easements. They wouldn't accept that she wanted to sell the other nine lots first. Chair Brown closed the public hearing. Commissioner comments Keen • The things he wanted to discuss (density and lot coverage) seem small compared to the issues now brought forward, so he didn't even want to get into those. • He wasn't inclined to postpone this any longer and added that approving it doesn't preclude the Deas from developing in a way that doesn't match what S &S has planned. It had been the City's desire for these two projects to be compatible, but apparently that's not going to happen and waiting won't fix anything. He favors approval of the SPA. Parker • She basically agreed with Mr. Keen and liked the conceptual plan. Most of the recommendations came from the Planning Commission, General Plan and Development Codes, not just S &S. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 5, 2005 RESOLUTION NO. 05 -1959 PAGE 10 • It would have been nice to see a cohesive plan, but she doesn't see that happening, especially since Ms. Dea is adamant that she would not come forward with proposals for apartments or grading, which were both Planning Commission recommendations. • She also stated this would not keep Ms. Dea from coming forward with her own plan, but noted the Planning Commission recommendations would be the basically the same. This does not preclude Ms. Dea from proposing her own SPA and grading plans. • After two years of preparation, this is a good plan. She doesn't want the owners/ future owners of phase 2 to feel rushed to come forward with their own proposals. Once they do, they'll be set up with infrastructure and easements, so they can come forward whenever they're fully ready. Tait • This was fairly simple until an hour ago with all the disagreement. Whether there have been five offers or one offer, she's rejected at least one. • He feels for both sides, but likes the conceptual plan and feels it's good for the City, so he can move forward to support it. Fellows • He was in agreement with staff's recommendation, but added that Ms. Dea could present her case again when it goes to City Council. Brown • He also agreed with Mr. Keen. • They have the right and should go before City Council. By that time, Ms. Dea and her representatives will have the same time as a continuance to review the SPA if there's something to be concerned about. • There's apparent animosity from previous business dealings, but Planning Commission can't make decisions on particular past history — just on what's here before them tonight. • He would like to make recommendations tonight to City Council. His two concerns are 1.) height and 2.) whether 50% lot coverage is consistent with the current Development Code. If it is now 75 %, that's a huge difference. Other than that, he's willing to vote for it. Commissioner Keen made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Parker to recommend to the City Council that they approve the Specific Plan Amendment and adopt: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 03 -001; LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF EAST GRAND AVENUE AND COURTLAND STREET; APPLIED FOR BY S & S HOMES 1 1 1 1 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 5, 2005 The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Keen, Parker, Fellows, Tait and Brown NOES: None ABSENT: None the forgoing Resolution was adopted this 5th day of April 2005. PAGE 11 PUBLIC HEARING ITEM III.B: DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 05 -007; APPLICANT — CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION — GATEWAY MIXED USE AND FAIR OAKS MIXED USE DISTRICTS. • This item started at 9:10 p.m. Associate Planner, Teresa McClish presented the staff report for a proposed Ordinance considering amendments to the Municipal Code to allow auto parts sales without installation services to be a conditionally allowed use, requiring a Minor Use Permit (MUP) in the Gateway Mixed Use and Fair Oaks Mixed Use districts, (and specified permit requirements for other Mixed Use and Commercial Districts). She noted that another amendment concurrent to this approval will change Title 10 of the Municipal Code to prevent auto repair activities (maintenance) in parking Tots. One alternative to consider is to change the required MUP to a required Conditional Use Permit (CUP), which allows for public hearing and additional findings to be made. In response to questions from Commissioner Tait, Ms. McClish replied that the Police Chief supports the Title 10 amendment. There is no mention in the DCA presented tonight of prohibitions on changing wiper blades on a rainy day, so that shouldn't present a problem. Commissioner Keen felt that a required CUP would be preferable to the MUP process. Chair Brown opened the public hearing for comment. Steve Ross, 1112 Garden St., shared his personal experience of living next to the Kragen in Grover Beach. The parking lot there was also posted but not enforced, and many people did repairs anyways. There could be parking problems, and a CUP could address site - specific issues on a case by case basis. Chair Brown closed the public hearing. Commissioner Keen made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fellows to recommend to the City Council approval of Development Code Amendment 05 -007 with the condition that a CUP be required instead of a Minor Use Permit (MUP) and adopt: MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 5, 2005 RESOLUTION NO. 05 -1960 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND TITLE 16 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO CONDITIONALLY ALLOW AUTO, VEHICLE PARTS SALES WITHOUT INSTALLATION IN THE GATEWAY MIXED USE AND FAIR OAKS MIXED USE DISTRICTS (DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 05 -007) The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Keen, Fellows, Brown, Parker and Tait NOES: None ABSENT: None the forgoing Resolution was adopted this 5th day of March 2005. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM III.C: DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 05- 003; APPLICANT — CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION — CITYWIDE. Staff recommended continuance of this item. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Keen to continue this item to the meeting of May 17, 2005. Item approved on a 5/0 voice vote. IV. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: None. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. Planning Commissioner Training will be April 9 at 8:30am at the SLO Library. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: None. PAGE 12 VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP: None. VIII. TENTATIVE AGENDA ITEMS FOR APRIL 19, 2005 MEETING: It was noted that VTTM /PUD 01 -001 was continued to May 3, 2005 by Castlerock. IX. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:22 p.m. on a motion by Chair Brown, seconded by Commissioner Fellows, and unanimously carried. 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 5, 2005 ATTEST: 1 1 KATHY ME DOZA, SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION AS TO C e NTE T• ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELO MENT DIRECTOR PAGE 13 TIM B O , CHAIR