Loading...
PC Minutes 2000-07-051 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 5, 2000 PAGE 1 CALL TO ORDER Chair Greene called the regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL ABSENT Commissioner Costello X Commissioner Keen X Commissioner London X Vice -Chair Parker X Chair Greene APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of June 6, 2000 were continued to July 18, 2000 for correction. On motion by Commissioner London, seconded by Commissioner Keen the minutes of June 21, 2000 were approved as written. ITEM I. I.A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None 1.B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 1. City of Arroyo Grande, Economic Development Strategy 2. Agenda Item 11.a. from the May 23, 2000 City Council meeting from Diane K. Sheeley, Economic Development Director 3. Memorandum Dated June 27, 2000 from Lynda K. Snodgrass, Director of Financial Services to Diane Sheeley, Economic Development Director ITEM II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS II.A. LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 00 -001, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00 -009, CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 00 -001; LOCATION - 231 CORBETT CANYON ROAD; APPLICANT - BLAKE CHAFFEE Kelly Heffernon, Associate Planner, spoke to the Planning Commission explaining that the project site encompasses three legal parcels totaling about two and a half acres in size. The larger lot fronts on Corbett Canyon Road, with the two other parcels located towards the rear of the site. These two smaller parcels are abandoned railroad right -of -way properties. Because of their narrow lot size, proximity to Corbett Canyon Creek, and lack of access, development of these two smaller lots for residential use would be problematic. The purpose of the lot line adjustment is to allow greater development potential of the property. Ms Heffernon further explained that several structures currently existed on the site, including two single - family residences and two shop buildings. The proposed lot line adjustment would place all of the existing structures on parcel 3, leaving the other two parcels vacant. The Conditional Use Permit is to legally establish a second residence that currently exists on parcel 3. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 5, 2000 PAGE 2 Ms. Heffernon said that the proposed lot line adjustment meets the minimum Development Code requirements for lot size, width and depth. The existing second residence also meets relevant Development Code requirements, including setbacks, lot coverage, maximum size and parking. A two -car garage and a carport are attached to the second unit, which satisfies the parking requirements for both residences. The Development Code further requires that the second residential unit be architecturally compatible with the primary residence. Although this requirement is intended for new construction, the existing older residences share the same architectural design, building colors and materials. Ms. Heffernon stated that staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolutions approving Lot Line Adjustment 00 -001, Certificate of Compliance 00 -001, and Conditional Use Permit 00 -009 subject to the conditions of approval. Commissioner Keen asked that a correction be made to the Conditions of Approval Nos. 20 and 21 changing the street name to Corbett Canyon Road. Vice -Chair Parker stated that in the SAC Notes it stated that curb, gutters and sidewalks would be required. She asked when this would be done? Mr. Campbell stated that as each parcel comes in for development, the improvements would have to be done. Ms. Parker asked if the existing second residential unit would need to be brought up to code? Ms. Heffernon stated that if the applicant came in for a building permit to do anything additional to what is existing, then they would have to bring the structures up to the current Building Code standards. Chair Greene opened the Public Hearing. Blake Chaffee, applicant stated that he would be happy to answer any questions from the Planning Commission. Vice -Chair Parker asked why the proposed lot lines were placed as they were? Was it to keep the buildings that existed on one piece of property? Chair Greene closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Keen stated that he was concerned about having the covered parking in the second unit. He feels it should be worked out so that the parking requirements are divided between the two units and not all with one unit. Ms. Heffernon stated that the Development Code does not specify where the parking shall be placed. Kerry McCants, Community Development Director, added that the Development Code states that the Planning Commission can require the two attached covered parking spaces for the primary unit. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 5, 2000 PAGE 3 Chair Greene asked if there was covered parking for the primary unit? Mr. McCants stated that there is no parking attached to the primary unit. The primary unit has a detached garage that also contains the second residential unit as a second story. Mr. Chaffee stated that when the home was built it was built with a detached garage. It also has a garage facing the house and one facing the other way with a carport at the end. The units are very close together in proximity. Also, there are two full single car garages and carport attached to the secondary unit. Mr. Keen asked Mr. Chaffee to point out the direction the garages were facing. Vice -Chair Parker discussed the parking requirements for a second residential unit and asked Mr. McCants to discuss the settlement of the lawsuit against the City over a second residential unit and the parking requirements. Chair Greene stated that in this circumstance, the garages exist already. Does the Development Code require that the garage be a part of the primary residence before a secondary residence can be approved? Mr. McCants stated that the Development Code was not specific to that. It only states that the primary residence needs to have two covered parking spaces. Commissioner Keen asked if the two car garage that is attached to the secondary residential unit had access between them. Mr. Chaffee stated that there was no access doors between them. Chair Greene stated that because this is an existing condition, and the Development Code does not require Mr. Chaffee to have an attached garage for the primary residence it appears this meets the standards of the Development Code for parking. Commissioner Keen moved that the Planning Commission adopt: ROLL CALL VOTE ABSENT Commissioner Costello YES Commissioner Keen RESOLUTION NO. 00 -1740 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT CASE NO. 00- 001 AND CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE CASE NO. 00 -001 FOR THREE (3) LOTS, LOCATED AT 231 CORBETT CANYON ROAD, APPLIED FOR BY BLAKE CHAFFEE With Exhibit A and the amendment to Conditions of Approval No. 20 and 21. Vice -Chair Parker seconded the motion. The motion was approved with the following roll call vote: ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 5, 2000 PAGE 4 YES Commissioner London YES VICE -Chair Parker YES Chair Greene Commissioner Keen moved that the Planning Commission adopt: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 00 -009, LOCATED AT 231 CORBETT CANYON ROAD, APPLIED FOR BY BLAKE CHAFFEE Including Exhibit A. Commissioner London seconded the motion. The motion was approved by the following roll call vote: ROLL CALL VOTE ABSENT Commissioner Costello YES Commissioner Keen YES Commissioner London YES Vice -Chair Parker YES Chair Greene II.B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00 -001; LOCATION - 206 NORTH HALCYON ROAD; APPLICANT - OPERATING ENGINEER'S UNION Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon, informed the Planning Commission that new issues have developed with this project that will have to be resolved. The applicant and staff is requesting that the Planning Commission continue this item to the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting on July 18, 2000. Following a brief discussion with the Planning Commission and the applicant, Commissioner Keen moved that the Planning Commission continue this item to the July 18, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner London seconded the motion. The motion was approved by the following roll call vote: ROLL CALL VOTE ABSENT Commissioner Costello YES Commissioner Keen YES Commissioner London YES Vice -Chair Parker YES Chair Greene RESOLUTION NO. 00 -1751 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 5, 2000 PAGE 5 II. C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00 -005, VARIANCE 00 -002, LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 00- 003; LOCATION — 1375 GRAND AVENUE; APPLICANT — ZADDIE BUNKER TRUST, GARY WHITE Kelly Heffernon, Associate Planner reminded the Commission that last February, the Planning Commission had considered a similar project, but because the variance findings could not be made to deviate from the floor area ratio and front setback requirements, the project was denied without prejudice, allowing the applicant to return with substantially the same project. The current proposal includes a modified lot line adjustment, which eliminates the previous floor area ratio and setback issues. Ms. Heffernon explained that, as before, the applicant was proposing to expand an existing mini - storage facility with a manager's apartment, and construct a new commercial building for either office or retail use. She told the Commission that the property consisted of three parcels totaling two acres, and was currently developed with a restaurant, a couple of shops, and the mini - storage facility. Different from the earlier proposal, this project is not separated into phases. In the previous submittal, a variance had been required for a twelve -foot high wall along the west property line. Since the wall is actually part of the building and not a separate structure, it is not subject to the six -foot maximum wall height requirement. A Minor Exception will be required for the combined fence and retaining wall located between the buildings along the west side, since it is shown as greater than six feet, but less than eight feet in height. The current variance is being proposed to deviate from the front setback of 15 feet for Parcel "A" to allow a 10 -foot front setback for the proposed commercial building. The purpose of the request is to allow the same visual exposure along Grand Avenue as the neighboring properties. Since the majority of the businesses in the vicinity were allowed to develop close to or on the front property line, it appears that the applicant is not requesting a special privilege that other property owners don't already enjoy. Staff believes that the findings can be made to grant the variance request and recommends approval. However, staff is further recommending that the landscape plan be modified to show the front setback area fully landscaped and the pavement removed except for the pedestrian entrance. Except for the variance request, the proposed project would then meet all site development standards for the General Commercial District. Ms. Heffernon explained that the required frontage improvements were addressed in the Conditions of Approval, which included installing curb, gutter and sidewalk, planting street trees, and placing overhead utilities underground. Ms. Heffernon explained to the Commission that the applicant was requesting an exception to the undergrounding requirement, stating that the cost would render the project financially infeasible. Finally, Ms. Heffernon stated that staff was recommending that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolutions, thereby approving Conditional Use Permit 00 -005, Lot Line Adjustment 00- 003 and Variance 00 -002 subject to the conditions of approval. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 5, 2000 PAGE 6 Vice -Chair Parker asked if, when adding on to the existing project, would the original storage unit need to be brought up to code with regards to the back lot line. Ms. Parker stated that she had raised this issue when the project had come before the Planning Commission in February and, according to the plans, this had not been changed. The Development Code states that between Commercial and Single Family zoning a buffer is required. This should be at least a six- (6) foot wall with vegetation on the commercial side. Ms. Parker went on to say that at this time there is an existing 6 foot chain -link fence with two rows of barbed wire on the top. She also asked if the existing gate was going to be left. She did not feel that this was an appropriate emergency access gate. Finally, she said that the Development Code also states that between commercial and residential use there should be at least a 10 foot buffer. She was questioning that this 10 foot buffer has been met? This is mentioned on page 210 and 218 of the Development Code. Kerry McCants, Community Development Director, explained that if the applicant is causing the use /structure to be less conforming, then you have to bring everything up to code. Mr. McCants stated that he does not view this project as creating that type of situation. This is referenced on page 215 of the Development Code. Commissioner London stated that he remembers the issue of the back property line and the fencing located there from the previous meeting. He also recalled that the developer had indicated that he would replace the chain -link fence etc. Secondly, Mr. London stated that on the building on the front of the property, the applicant is requesting a deviation from the 15 foot setback. Mr. London had noticed that there was going to be an overhanging facade on the front of the building. Was this overhang allowed to encroach onto the setback? Ms. Heffernon stated that overhangs are allowed. Commissioner Keen stated that the plans showed a 25 -foot entrance easement situated entirely on Parcel 1. Will this be a shared easement with both properties? Craig Campbell, Public Works, explained to Mr. Keen that it was his understanding that the easement was split over the property line however, in any case there is a condition of approval that requires shared maintenance of the driveway and reciprocal easements of the driveway. Mr. Campbell stated that he would review the conditional of approval to make sure it is compatible with what is shown on the plans. Mr. Keen stated that, with regards to the landscaping for this project, it appeared to him that 85% to 90% of the required amount was going to be in the retention basin. Was this correct? Ms. Heffernon stated that in her opening remarks she had talked about the needed revision of the landscape plans to show the 10 -foot landscape requirement, which would improve the situation, Mr. Keen was referring to. 1 1 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 5, 2000 PAGE 7 Vice -Chair Parker stated that she had looked at the project and she noticed that there were many buildings that had a zero lot line at the front of the property. She asked what was discussed when the Long's pre - application had come before the Planning Commission? Ms. Heffernon stated that she did not remember this being discussed with relationship to the Long's pre - application. Chair Greene asked Ms. Heffernon what the term "rule -20 funds" meant as used in Mr. White's June 26, 2000 letter? Ms. Heffernon stated that this was money that P.G. and E. has set aside for a jurisdiction to use for undergrounding purposes. Each jurisdiction then designates an "undergrounding district ". Ms. Heffernon stated that as far as she knew, the City had already used the allocations into the future for the work that has been done on Grand Avenue. Mr. Greene asked what the Development Code said about the minimum percentage of the property that is required to be landscaped and where is the applicant proposing to place the landscaping. Also, Mr. Greene asked if the applicant was including the retention basin as part of the minimum threshold landscaping or is this separate. Ms. Heffernon stated that 10% of the parking area and the 10 -foot setback that abuts up to the street has to be landscaped. The applicant has proposed landscaping in the parking area and in the area that separates the self- storage from the commercial buildings. Finally, Ms. Heffernon stated that the applicant was not including the retention basin as part of minimum threshold requirement for the landscaping. Mr. Greene asked why this application was being processed as a Conditional Use Permit? Ms. Heffernon stated that this was because there are new commercial buildings being established. Chair Greene then asked what thoughts, if any, the Economic Development Director had on this project? Does it comply with the new Economic Development Strategy? Mr. McCants replied that he had talked to Diane Sheeley, the Economic Development Director and she had not had an opportunity to review the project so she was not prepared to speak as to whether or not it was in conformance with the Economic Development Strategy. In answer to Commissioner London's question concerning the power poles that are to be removed and the discrepancy between what is listed in the Conditions of Approval and what is shown on the plans, Mr. Campbell stated that the Conditions of Approval always govern. There was a discussion concerning which poles would be removed and which would remain. Chair Greene opened the Public Hearing. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 5, 2000 PAGE 8 Gary White, representative for the Zaddie Bunker Trust, spoke to the Planning Commission. He stated that with regards to the rear fence issue, he also remembered it from the previous meeting and it was an oversight that it was not corrected on the new plans. He stated that there was no problem with fencing the entire project so that it looked uniform. He further stated that he did not know at this point if the fence was on their property line or the neighbors so there is a possibility they would have to get permission to install a new fence. In response to Ms. Parker's question that the emergency access gate meet all City codes he stated that he had spoken to the Fire Chief and that he seemed to feel that all City codes were being met. Ms. Heffernon clarified that the zoning for the parcel directly behind the one pertaining to this project was Single Family. Ms. Parker stated that she had a problem with having a chain -link fence with barbed wire on top especially when it is next a residential area. Commissioner London asked if the applicant would have a problem putting an eight -foot wall around the entire self- storage? He felt that it would be more protected from vandalism with an eight -foot wall. Also, although the Fire Department might approve a gate that meets the Fire Codes, he felt that, in this area, an aesthetically pleasing gate would be appropriate. The Planning Commission, staff and Mr. White discussed the undergrounding of the utilities. Chair Greene stated that currently the parcel was divided into three (3) parcels with Parcel C being proposed for development and this parcel is approximately 41,000 square feet. Mr. Greene went on to say that the applicant is proposing that the existing self- storage parcel, which is approximately 26,000, be merged to form a single parcel of 67,000 square feet. Mr. Greene then surmised that the applicant was taking a 67,000 square foot parcel and only using 2,700 for commercial /office /retail purposes with the remainder being used for self- storage. Mr. Greene asked Mr. White if he had had any discussions with the adjacent property owner for the Long's project to merge the two properties to create more office /commercial /retail space? Also, Mr. Greene asked Mr. White if he had talked to the City's Economic Development Director to see if this proposal is consistent with the Economic Development Strategy? Mr. White stated that he had not done either. Mr. Greene asked what other uses besides self- storage has Mr. White considered for the 41,000 square foot parcel? Mr. White stated that they had considered commercial /office /retail space all the way to the back of the property in the beginning. He stated that the Trust has been the owner the property for 15 years. During this time they have seen a great deal of change in the economic climate and feasibility for doing certain projects. 1 1 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 5, 2000 PAGE 9 Mr. White went on to explain that they feel there is not enough demand for office /commercial /retail at this time. The Trust does not want to build something that is going to stand vacant. They have had a great deal of discussion with many different people and most feel that because of the lot configuration, it does not lend itself to retail because it is too deep and narrow. The storage expansion was the best use with the office space along Grand Avenue. Mr. Greene asked what the percentage of the project space will be self- storage? Mr. White stated that it was a 6 -1 ratio. Vice -Chair Parker asked if the amount of the percentage of the property that is proposed for commercial could be increased? Mr. White explained that if a company did not have Grand Avenue frontage no one is going to rent it. He said that Longs shopping area would have anchors. He discussed the difficulty with having a retail center in this area. Finally, Mr. White said that these kind of self- storage units are scarce in this area. He also gave reasons that he felt that self- storage was important in a community. Chair Greene closed the Public Hearing. Vice -Chair Parker had the following statements and issues with this project: • She is more concerned with this project now than when it first came up because of the recently adopted Economic Development Strategy. She does not know what the City Council's direction to the Planning Commission with regards to this Strategy is. • She is unclear of the City's direction regarding the need for commercial projects. She would like some clear direction on this issue. Is there a need for commercial or not? • She would prefer not to use up this commercial property for storage, however, there is existing storage and to extend it may be a better use than creating a whole new area for storage. • She also understands that the site in question is very narrow and she sees how hard it would be to put commercial all the way back to the end of the property. • She also would like to know and have some direction on how to handle the undergrounding of utilities. • The new plans that Public Works has suggested look feasible to her. • The two poles in the back ( #7 and #8), should be easy to underground and should not be too expensive to do. • She is glad to see that Mr. White does not have any objection to putting in a buffer between the residential and commercial. • Finally, she would be comfortable if the applicant would install an eight (8) foot wall. Commissioner London had the following statements and issues with this project: • With modifications the applicant is willing to make to the back of the property, he has no problem with the project. • He feels that the office building will look good along the Grand Avenue corridor. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 5, 2000 PAGE 10 • He would agree to the undergrounding of the utilities as proposed by the Public Works Department and agrees with Ms. Parker that removing the poles at the back of the property would be easy. Commissioner Keen had the following statements and issues with this project: • He stated that he did not have a problem with the project as a whole. • He stated that the steel buildings along the Grand Avenue corridor would not be appropriate. ■ Mr. Keen does not see how the Planning Commission could approve the steel building at this location based on the Architectural findings contained in the resolution, specifically: 1. The proposal is consistent with the general Architectural Review Guidelines of the City of Arroyo Grande. 4. The general appearance of the proposed building is consistent with the character of the neighborhood because of its size and design... • If the building were steel stud and stucco he would not have a problem with it. • The plan for the undergrounding of the utilities is addressed in an equitable manner. Chair Greene had the following statements and issues with the project: • This is the first time he has been involved in this project. ■ He does not support this project at all. • He has a grave concern about the proliferation of self- storage units on Grand Avenue. • The argument that this area of Grand Avenue does not have any pedestrian traffic and therefore would not support commercial /retail is a self fulfilling prophesy. The City is about to build 160 homes within a five - minute walk from this parcel. There may be a commercial magnet with the Long's project next door. ■ This would be a gross under - utilization of this property. • Meet with Diane Sheeley and discuss a more "community friendly" development. • This project will not produce any sales tax revenue for the City. • He believes that these kinds of facilities are needed but not wisely situated in the central core of the City. • Perhaps talk to the developers of the adjacent property (Long's) and see if there could be some type of joint development. • The metal buildings are inappropriate. ■ More citizens of Arroyo Grande and the South County can utilize this area if it were retail vs. self- storage facility. • Staff's request for the undergrounding of the utilities is reasonable. • He would like to see the project continued until the applicant had a chance to meet with Diane Sheeley and discuss the project with her. Chair Greene suggested to the Planning Commission that this item be continued to the next Commission meeting to give the applicant a chance to discuss these issues with City staff and the Economic Development Director. James O'Keefe, owner of King's Fish and Chips, stated that he felt that the City was developing many shopping centers that are not full, and the traffic on Grand Avenue is getting worse. The mini - storage, which would be located next to his property, would not bring in any more traffic. The 1 1 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 5, 2000 PAGE 11 shopping center across the street is not even full and he does not believe the City needs any more shopping centers on Grand. Gary White, made the following statements: • He is very disappointed at the new issues that have come up with his project. Some of these issues were not addressed at the previous Planning Commission meeting. • When he first approached the City with this project it was postponed several times because of traffic issues. The City felt that commercial and retail projects were generating too much traffic and he was not allowed to go forward with the second phase of the project because of this issue. • The second phase of the project was deleted from the first submittal because of the traffic and now he finds it ironic that he is being told there is not enough commercial /retail space in his project. • It had never been brought up to him before to speak to Diane Sheeley. ■ If he really felt that increasing the retail /commercial portion of this project would be what it took to have the project approved, he does not have a problem with doing this. ■ The issue is visual impact from Grand Avenue and how this relates to rentable space. ■ He would like to build this project and feels that it is a good one that would enhance Grand Avenue. • He would like to have a firm direction of what he needs to do make this project work for the City. Chair Greene stated that he was not in a position to tell the applicant what percentage of the property should be developed in a certain way. He stated that his thinking is that there is someone on staff who is a professional, for the explicit purpose of working with property owners to develop their property in a way which is consistent with the City's economic development policy. In order to make a finding necessary to support a Conditional Use Permit the Commission has to make findings that the project is consistent with City policy. Mr. Greene stated that he regrets that this information is coming to Mr. White in this way. Mr. Greene's proposal is that the project is continued until City staff has had a chance to meet with Mr. White. Mr. White stated that he would agree to continuing the hearing to the next Planning Commission meeting, without taking a vote at tonight's meeting, and he will speak to Diane Sheeley, Economic Development Director. After further discussion the Planning Commission decided to continue the project to the July 18, 2000 meeting. The Commission elected to not reopen the public hearing but to limit the discussion to new information. Commissioner Costello will receive a copy of the tapes to listen to so he will be in a position to comment on the project. Commissioner London moved that the Planning Commission continue the hearing on Conditional Use Permit 00 -005, Variance 00 -000, Lot Line Adjustment 00 -003 to the meeting of July 18, 2000. Vice -Chair Parker seconded the motion. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 5, 2000 PAGE 12 ROLL CALL VOTE ABSENT Commissioner Costello YES Commissioner Keen YES Commissioner London YES Vice -Chair Parker YES Chair Greene III. NON- PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS None ITEM. IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS None ITEM. V. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENT Commissioner Keen stated that he would like to direct the Chairman or Staff to formulate a letter to the City Council with regards to the issue of the City's undergrounding of utilities policies. He would like the City Council or Staff to direct the Planning Commission on how to handle the requests for the exemption or waiver of this requirement. Mr. McCants stated that staff has had some preliminary discussions as a result of the pattern that has evolved with this issue. Staff has already begun collecting ordinances from other jurisdictions to see what they are doing with this. Commissioner London stated that he felt the Economic Development Director needed to be included in the staff discussions of all commercial projects and that there should be a section in the staff reports that includes a statement as to the position of the City from the economic development viewpoint. The Planning Commission discussed the Economic Development Strategy and the role it will now play in the decision making process with regards to new commercial projects. ITEM. VI. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP REPORTS ITEM. VII. ADJOURNMENT On motion of Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner London the meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. to the next scheduled meeting on July 18, 2000. IQIi4JAA �i'�1.e Kathleen Fryer, Commissionklerk Laurence Greene, Chair AS TO CONTENT: Kerry ants Community Development Director 1 1