Loading...
PC Minutes 1998-08-181 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 1998 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Vice -Chair Haney presiding. Present are Commissioners Keen, Greene and Parker. Chair Lubin is absent. Also in attendance are Community Development Director Jim Hamilton, Associate Planners Helen Elder, and Bruce Buckingham, Contract Planner Lezley Buford, and Senior Consultant Engineer Craig Campbell. WELCOME TO NEW COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR JIM HAMILTON On behalf of the Planning Commission, Vice -Chair Haney welcomed Jim Hamilton, the City's new Community Development Director. MINUTE APPROVAL The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of June 16, 1998 were approved as prepared on motion by Commissioner Greene, seconded by Commissioner Parker, and carried with one abstention. The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of July 7, 1998 were approved as prepared on motion by Commissioner Parker, seconded by Vice -Chair Haney, and carried with two abstentions. Vice -Chair Haney corrected the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of July 21, 1998, page 8, 4t paragraph, last sentence, changing the date of August 21st to September 1'. Hearing no further corrections, the minutes were approved as corrected on motion by Commissioner Greene, seconded by Commissioner Parker, and carried with one abstention. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Colleen Martin, 855 Olive Street, spoke regarding the plans for the Five Cities Center. She stated it looks like a nice plan and appears they are putting a lot of trees in. Her reason for appearing before the Commission tonight is the fact that every single living tree has been taken down now. She suggested that a policy be created that would require phasing of removal and planting over possibly a five year period. She also suggested the developer be required to put some articles in the paper and possibly put up a sign showing the landscaping plan. She stated that people are getting angry when they see the trees being taken down and are blaming Wal- Mart and the City, so perhaps some educational program to inform the public as to why they are doing that would be valuable. Vice -Chair Haney advised that Agenda Item II. C., which is an application for a Conditional Use Permit for a Burger King Restaurant at 525 Traffic Way, has been requested to be continued to the next Planning Commission meeting of September 1, 1998. Hearing no comments from the audience regarding the application, on motion by Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner Greene, and unanimously carried, the item was continued to the next Planning Commission meeting of September 1, 1998. PUBLIC HEARING - PASEO STREET EXTENSION - REVIEW OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION RELATED TO A GRADING PERMIT FOR THE EXTENSION OF PASEO STREET; APPLICANT: HANS VANDER VEEN; REPRESENTATIVE: STANLEY BELL; LOCATION: BETWEEN THE EXISTING TERMINUS OF PASEO STREET AND CORBETT CANYON ROAD (HIGHWAY 227) Associate Planner Bruce Buckingham reviewed the staff report dated August 18, 1998. He advised that the applicant has applied for a grading permit to construct a 20 foot wide private driveway to extend from the existing Paseo Street from the base of the hill connecting to Highway 227. The proposed project would provide access to 14 existing lots created in 1903. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 2 August 18, 1998 He stated that typically, grading permits are a ministerial action, allowing staff to issue permits if all Code requirements can be met. However, this project site is located adjacent to Tally Ho Creek with many Oak trees, including several that are designated "Landmark Trees" by the City Council. Therefore, staff required that an Initial Study be conducted and hired firma, an environmental consultant, to prepare the study. An archeologist, a botanist and biologist all surveyed the site to determine potential impacts and recommend mitigation measures. The proposed mitigation measures in the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration included erosion control, red legged frog surveys, willow tree replacement and time limitations on construction activities to limit noise. He noted that the purpose of tonight's hearing is to allow public comment on the content of the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration during the review period. He advised that three letters were received from adjacent neighbors, and no comments were received from State agencies that received the Negative Declaration. Because the proposed project requires the issuance of a grading permit, the Public Works Director is the decision making body in this case, and the California Environmental Quality Act requires that the decision making body consider the proposed Negative Declaration before approving the project. Tonight the Planning Commission will be acting as an advisory body to make recommendations to the Public Works Director. Mr. Buckingham further advised that, once it has been determined by State law that a proposal qualifies as a "project ", staff must do an Initial Study if it is felt there are going to be significant impacts. In this case, because it was clearly a sensitive biological area, it was determined that this study should be done by a environmental consultant. Initially, however, the project was reviewed with the idea that perhaps we would find that, once the Initial Study and these initial surveys were conducted, there would not be significant impacts that could not be mitigated. Therefore, the conclusion of this Initial Study was that these impacts could be mitigated and so the document was termed a Mitigated Negative Declaration. If for some reason it was felt there were significant impacts that would occur as a result of the project that could not be mitigated, that would kick it up to the next level of review. Senior Consultant Engineer Craig Campbell discussed the Council's action and the existing right of way situation that would establish this 20 foot wide private driveway. He advised that the street right of ways were originally established in 1885 and 1903. In 1985 and 1986 there were eleven City Council meetings on what should be done with this stretch of road. The overall pattern discussed was one of downsizing; each time a meeting was held they would get a little bit smaller in response to environmental constraints. In 1997 an applicant for several of the lots approached staff and wanted to construct the access so that he could have access to his properties and develop them. Revised design standards went back to the City Council for review, such as how wide should the road be, how much right of way is needed, is a sidewalk needed, etc., and it again received a reduction to a minimal facility. He commented that at this point the project has gone through quite a bit of history on defining options, however, it does have to go through the environmental review process, and we are seeking public input on environmental impacts to assure they are all addressed. He explained the phases of the project and the extent of development. Mr. Buckingham advised that Phase 1 would be a 20 foot paved driveway from Highway 227 to between two lots. The additional area connecting to Paseo Street would be graded for the 20 foot road and 12 feet would be paved, 8 feet would be based. When development of other lots occurred, the owners would be responsible for paving the remainder of 8 feet, and as approved now, the gate would be eliminated, resulting in a 20 foot driveway connection. 1 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 3 August 18, 1998 In answer to Commissioner Greene's comment that it appears Lots 23 and 24 are going to sacrifice a significant portion of their property for the dedication of the driveway, Mr. Buckingham advised there are many property owners that are part of this private driveway and in order for it to be constructed, they will have to give their permission to grade on their private lots, as well as make offers of dedication. That would be one of the requirements for the Department of Public Works to issue a grading permit. David Foote. firma, stated his firm prepared the expanded Initial Study and Draft Negative Declaration. In consultation with staff, it was determined there were several areas of focus required to do the Initial Study and those were archeology and biology, as well as the potential impact on the Oak trees. The document includes fairly detailed studies of each of those items. The archeology came out negative; there were no artifacts noted. He stated in his opinion, and according to the biologist, the area is out of any jurisdictional wetland which would bring in Federal agencies. In this case, the project is clearly outside of the ordinary high water line and there are no other indicators of wetland situations, although there are what is consider to be riparian plants. He commented that all of the impacts that are occurring are primarily to what are considered sensitive plant communities, oak woodland and riparian woodland, which is primarily willow trees. Mr. Foote advised that, as a matter of course, the grading permit would have to comply with the grading ordinance, which has detailed siltation control measures required on all projects. He mentioned that the red legged frogs are an endangered species and are known to exist downstream in the Arroyo Grande Creek. The biologist has conducted a pre- survey, which has been sent to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, who has jurisdiction over these endangered species. They have not responded to date. Since they have not responded, Mr. Foote stated he basically took their standard conditions for work around an area that may have red legged frogs and included them as a mitigation measure pending their response. He pointed out that it would be the applicant's responsibility to follow through on the issue of endangered species and coordinate with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. After discussion between Mr. Foote and the Commission, Vice -Chair Haney opened the hearing for public comment. Stanley Bell. Pismo Beach, stated he is one of the six property owners on Paseo Street. He advised that the City Council, in January of this year finally approved the pre -grid for the area, and the primary reason they approved the plan was because of the environmental concerns with minimum amounts of disturbance to vegetation, and particularly the Oak trees. He noted that the project itself is not an issue that is being discussed this evening. The discussion is the environmental aspects because the grading and street design has already been approved. Staff has recommended that the Mitigated Negative Declaration be recommended to the Public Works Director for approval. He further stated that the applicants have reviewed the document and are prepared to meet all of the requirements thereof. He urged the Planning Commission to pass staff's recommendation on to the Public Works Director. Mick Bordello. 207 McKinley, stated he is a field biologist and has resided on McKinley'Street for the past 19 years. He further stated he recently walked through the area and along Tally Ho Creek for about an hour. He described the different animals and bird species he observed on his walk. He commented, in his opinion, this proposed development would negatively impact these species. Willows and shrubs would have to be cleared to cut the connecting road and Oak trees would have to be removed. He stated that the fabric of interconnection that makes this a viable wildlife community would be torn and many species would disappear. He stated that the additional homes that would result are simply not as important as the compressed wildlife regions that they would disrupt. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 4 August 18, 1998 Rick Uc, 211 Corbett Canyon Road, stated he owns two lots on Paseo Street. The problem that he has is one that deals with old laws still on the books. He noted there is a plan to join Corbett Canyon to James Way and when he bought his property, that was one of the easements he had to sign off on. The easement is 20 feet long and it runs until it meets James Way through his property. He further stated he likes the idea of the driveway, however, his problem is that he has already signed off 20 feet across and if this goes through, he is losing an additional 30 feet of his property, for a total of 50 feet. He stated he would like to go ahead and approve this proposal, however, he cannot because of the other 20 feet he has already signed off on, and he would like to have this old law taken away. Another problem he has is they are also going to put in utilities as they are doing the grading on the easement unsigned by him. He noted that if this project goes through he is going to lose more ground. He stated the City has an old law that should be removed and he would like to start some kind of process to remove that law and, until that time, he cannot sign the easement. He also noted that the majority of the trees to be cut down are on his property. Heather Jensen, 569 May Street. stated their property is adjacent to Lots 19 through 24. She stated she realizes that the EIR is being addressed tonight and she has no argument with that. She stated, however, there is still no agreement on the grading plan and, specifically affecting Lots 23 and 24. Otis Page, 606 Myrtle Street, questioned the City's criteria for accepting a private road as opposed to a road that meets the City standards. Also, with regard to the discussion years ago relative to a Highway 227 bypass, he questioned if that 227 bypass is ever resurrected and this area would be impacted by a larger road, what would the implications be on this proposal? There being no further comments from the audience, Vice -Chair Haney closed the public hearing and restricted further discussion to the Commission. He noted that the purpose of the hearing this evening is to provide comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Mr. Foote who will be doing a final on the Negative Declaration, which will also be made available to the Public Works Director. Commissioner Greene stated whether some or all of these properties should be developed will be determined at a later date in a different forum. He stated he does share Mr. Bondello's concern for the loss of habitat and for the threat that will be raised to the species, the animals and the birds that live in that area, although at this time there is nothing that can be done about that. However, in his opinion, there are some things that can be done to make this project more environmentally sensitive and more environmentally effective. He stated replacing the lost Oak trees on a 3 for 1 level is a good idea. If it is decided to utilize 5 gallon and 1 gallon trees in lieu of 15 gallon trees, he stated he would like to see the cost savings devoted to increasing the number of Oak trees. He recommended that Mitigation Measure C include some focus on the 15 gallon requirement and some modification to provide for extra 5 gallon and 1 gallon Oak trees to mitigate the loss of the 19 trees that will be removed. Also, he would like to see an enhancement for the Oak tree mitigation measures with a requirement that, should the grading permit be approved, that the applicant is required to reforest the area with native plants, which are not only native to California, but are consistent with some of the plants that are growing in that area. It would also be a good idea to remove some of the exotics which threaten some of the existent native plants. He commented that Mr. Bondello might want to assist to see if he can provide some insight into the appropriate reforestations that have been suggested. 1 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 5 August 18, 1998 Commissioner Parker stated she visited a supplier of Oak trees and was advised that the survival rate of the 15 gallon size trees is much greater because they are more established. She agreed that the property owners need to have access to their homes. She stated she would also like to see a buffer zone to the creek to protect the forage area from road intrusion, provide the vegetated buffer for the wildlife, and would also keep light from intruding into sensitive areas. She noted these are all items that come from the General Plan. Also, she would like to see the three year follow -up on the landmark trees, the replacement trees and the impacted trees. Commissioner Keen stated he is also concerned about the number of trees being cut. He also stated he is curious about the easement and the James Way extension. The way that project was completely done away with was because of the claim that it was wetlands, however, the report indicates it is not wetlands. Mr. Foote advised that the James Way extension project entailed crossing the creek, and the creek from some distance on either side of the channel is a wetland, however, in his opinion, this project is outside of that zone. Commissioner Keen stated he is not opposed to the 5 gallon trees vs. the 15 gallon if more trees are required to compensate for the difference. He further stated he believes this project is necessary to give the owners access to their property. Vice -Chair Haney noted that a letter was received from Joe and Sheila Taylor stating their primary concern with the project is safety. Their concern was that with the addition of more home sites, there would be an increased risk of accidents on Highway 227 because of the limited line of sight. Senior Consultant Engineer Craig Campbell commented on the line of sight issue raised by Mr. and Mrs. Taylor. He advised that the location where the road enters Highway 227 is probably the best it can be. He stated it is marginal however, in his opinion, it is acceptable. Mr. Campbell agreed with Vice -Chair Haney's comment that the sight distance for the people coming out of Wildwood Ranch is worse than the sight distance from across the street. Vice -Chair Haney referred to the tree monitoring and review program, stating his feeling that it is a good idea for the replacement to be more specifically called out. He also supported the selectively on -site replacing of trees, with the understanding that ultimately the homeowners that are going to be building there will have something to say about how those are going to be retained, but he would like to see as many retained on site as possible. In response to Commissioner Keen's question regarding planting acorns from the trees in that area, Mr. Foote advised that could be a consideration, because it is not unusual to have a requirement to plant acorns gathered from the project site where Oak trees have been removed. There being no further discussion, on motion by Commissioner Greene, seconded by Commissioner Parker, and unanimously carried, that the Planning Commission and public's comments be conveyed to the Public Works Director. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 98 -567 AND ASSOCIATED ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW; APPLICANT: JAMES PANKEY /JOE DE LUCIA (VILLAGE CENTRE); PROPOSAL: DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF A COMMERCIAL CENTER; LOCATION: WEST BRANCH STREET AND WESLEY STREET Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 6 August 18, 1998 Contract Planner Lezley Buford advised that the site is located at West Branch Street and Wesley Way and is approximately 2.9 acres in size. The applicant is proposing to develop the site with six individual buildings; approximately 25 % would be designed for office and 75 % for retail use. The total square footage would be approximately 28,000 square feet. She briefly reviewed the design of the buildings and the project as described in the staff report dated August 18, 1998. With regard to the site itself, Ms. Buford stated staff prepared a Draft Negative Declaration and circulated it for public review. No comments were received on that Draft. The staff report includes the proposed Final Negative Declaration with mitigation measures in several of the issue areas. She further stated that staff recommends the Commission adopt the Final Negative Declaration and the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 98 -567 subject to the Conditions of Approval. Vice -Chair Haney opened the hearing for public comment and invited the applicant to make his presentation. Kimo Pankey, Shandon, applicant for the project, stated he is willing to take the risk for this project because he believes it is very good for Arroyo Grande. He commented that from the first meeting with the Commission, the applicants have taken the Commission's input and have included that input in the presentation being given tonight. The facility has been changed substantially, the design is different and has taken into consideration a lot of the Commission's perspective. There is about 22% site coverage which is very minimal. There is 16% landscape coverage, and it is his understanding that most cities require only 10 %, so the landscaping is way over what is normally required. He mentioned that Arroyo Grande does have a traffic problem, however, this project alone cannot solve that problem by itself. The project, however, is paying its fair share by contributing to the Traffic Mitigation Fees. He stated they have helped this traffic problem already by eliminating direct access off of Branch Street. He noted this is their fourth time before the Planning Commission and he would appreciate it if a favorable decision could be made tonight. In answer to Commissioner Parker's question regarding the applicant's intent to sell some of the buildings individually, Mr. Pankey advised this is a long term project for him and there is a 90% chance he will never sell. Kim Hatch, Pultz & Associates, stated he is the architect for the project. He reviewed the various architectural elements of the project. He further stated what they are attempting to do is basically provide a modern element to a more aesthetic compatible design with the downtown area. He stated they do not take exception to the Conditions of Approval except some issues on the drainage and he asked that Terry Orton of Westland Engineering, be allowed to address those issues. The Commission questioned Mr. Hatch with regard to the metal and composition roofs. Mr. Hatch reviewed the various roof designs, colors and materials. Vice -Chair Haney referred to Section 6.2 of the General Plan, wherein it states ... "avoid metal roofs." "New development must be compatible with historic architecture of the Village." Section 6.11C states "Break up the architectural element such as roof lines with smaller components." Vice -Chair Haney stated he still sees some pretty large masses that he is concerned about. The General Plan also stipulates to avoid anamacramatic appearance, encourage multi - planned pitch roofs, and discourage large blank walls and large blank masses. He stated he still sees a significant element of that to the architecture and asked for an explanation as to why these are being done in the face of the General Plan. 1 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 7 August 18, 1998 In response to Vice -Chair Haney's comments, Mr. Hatch stated he could have easily not shown the distant metal roof over the back corridor in the rendering. The only one that would be true to its descriptive nature would be the perspectives. Analyzing the perspectives will show much clearer that the intent has been met, that the large masses have been broken up and there are no blank walls. The metal roof system is narrow and long sections that only cover walkways and, as a whole, are never seen. Commissioner Greene inquired about the applicant's plan to avoid customers who are traveling on West Branch Street from using Vernon and Larchmont to get into the Center as opposed to using the intersection of West Branch and Grand, and then making a left turn on Wesley to get into the parking area. Mr. Hatch stated that in the earlier plan, the driveway was designated at a lower end of the site, however, in looking at that, it made more sense to push it further up the street to allow more room for cars to stack and avoid gridlock. It also makes better engineering sense to align streets rather than having them offset. This will lessen the confusion and lessen the impact of traffic flow. He commented that putting the driveway where it is may not in all ways be perfect, but the fact that it now aligns with Larchmont and the traffic flow seems to be contiguous to go that direction to the site. If it is placed lower, it is still not going to prevent people from coming from the Larchmont direction. Commissioner Greene suggested some kind of policy that can be mandated for tenants to encourage their customers not to utilize Larchmont, something along the lines of signage to try to get people sensitive to the idea of using Wesley and directing them southbound to Branch as opposed to directing them north and westbound to Larchmont. Carol Florence stated she is with Oasis Associates, landscape architects for the project. She stated that the plans before the Commission tonight is a concerted effort to provide a nice streetscape along East Branch Street, to provide ample room between buildings and to provide access through the buildings. The way they have been able to do this is because the elevation and grade changes created by the topography have allowed some opportunities that would not be possible on a flat site. The concern was getting people from the East Branch elevation to the back parking lot, not only with stair systems, but also for ADA or handicap accessibility. She noted that wherever there are stairs, there are also the appropriate ramps. The layout of the buildings and the elevation differences between the buildings allowed the creation of small plazas. With regard to the planting and irrigation, Ms. Florence commented that the planting enhances not only the architecture but also the spaces that have been created with the hardscape, the flat work and the walls. She briefly described the conceptual plans for plant materials, trees, etc. Contract Planner Lezley Buford advised that the landscaping plans are reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Department, and suggested they also be brought back to the Planning Commission for review and approval. Terry Orton, Westland Engineering. stated he has worked on this project quite some time and has taken a lot of the input that has come from the Commission, City Council and staff, and has implemented that input into the plans presented tonight. With regard to the Conditions of Approval, Mr. Orton stated the applicants are in agreement with most of the conditions that are in place. He referred to Item 46 regarding a 6 foot PUE to go around the site, which is standard and something the utility companies like and, basically, is for location of their boxes. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 8 August 18, 1998 He called attention to one structure which encroaches into that PUE. This issue would involve working with the utility companies to make sure they do not put any boxes in that location, which should not be a problem. Mr. Orton stated another item of concern is Condition #49 with regard to drainage facilities. He referred to pages 7 and 8 of the staff report that discusses three methods for handling drainage from the site. He stated there were concerns quite sometime ago that the pipes wouldn't handle the drainage. Those pipes were actually sized and drainage calcs submitted to the City when the Bank of America building was constructed and were supposed to handle all of the flows coming down here. He noted when the Village Centre project came to the City, it was felt that those pipes would not meet the flows and the City staff agreed. He reviewed the options on Page 8 of the staff report. Mr. Orton stated they would like to have some flexibility with Condition #49 to allow mitigation by not creating additional impacts downstream, and would like to have the potential for going to other methods of funding. The applicants do not believe they should be responsible for correcting something that is existing in the City today and they are willing to work with the City in any way they can to enable them to move ahead with this project, however, more flexibility is needed on Condition #49. In conclusion, Mr. Orton requested approval of the project tonight with the modification of Condition #49 and recognizing that Condition #46 does allow the encroachment into the PUE location. In response to Vice -Chair Haney's question regarding the specific language for Condition #49 and if this issue has been discussed with Public Works, Mr. Orton stated they have discussed this with Mr. Campbell and have asked for different options to be available, such as the potential for City involvement, the potential for redevelopment funds and, lacking that, they have asked for non - impacting of downstream properties. He further stated they are asking the City to participate in correcting an existing deficiency In answer to Commissioner Greene's request for a clarification regarding the drainage not impacting downstream property owners, Mr. Orton explained that there is a certain amount of water that comes down today and reaches the intersection that is made up of the drainage above it. The proposal would be ponding water to allow it to go out at a slower rate so that the overall peak flow coming down to the intersection would remain the same, so the peak flow would not be increased at the intersection. After further discussion between the Commission and applicants, and due to the lateness of the hour, it was suggested that the public hearing be continued to the September 1, 1998 meeting. Vice -Chair Haney invited persons to speak on this item that could not be present at the September 1°` meeting. Otis Page, 606 Myrtle Street: Virginia Rogers, 1445 -14th Street, Oceano, and Mark Clark. 3483 Sandpiper Lane spoke in favor of the project and requested favorable consideration by the Planning Commission. Hearing no further comments, on motion by Commissioner Greene, seconded by Commissioner Keen, and unanimously carried, the public hearing on the Village Centre project was continued to the September 1, 1998 Planning Commission meeting. 1 1 1 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 9 August 18, 1998 NON - PUBLIC HEARING, ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE 87 -392, AMENDMENT NO. 6, FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AN APPROXIMATELY 170 SQUARE FOOT DECK ABOVE THE EXISTING PATIO ON THE REAR OF THE RESIDENCE; APPLICANT: DENNIS DELBY; LOCATION: 382 CHAPARRAL LANE Associate Planner Bruce Buckingham reviewed the staff report dated August 4, 1998, noting that this item was carried over from the August 4 meeting. He advised a letter was submitted tonight by the applicants containing signatures and favorable comments from the adjacent property owners. He further stated that staff visited the site to look at the privacy issue, and concluded that the addition had minimal impact on adjacent neighbors. After a brief discussion, Architectural Review Case 87 -392, Amendment #6, was approved with the findings and subject to the Conditions of Approval, on motion by Commissioner Greene, seconded by Commissioner Parker, and unanimously carried. PLANNING COMMISSION /COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ITEMS AND COMMENTS. A. Update of Projects. Acting Community Development Director Helen Elder briefly reviewed the various pending projects scheduled for future Planning Commission meetings. B. Vice -Chair Haney suggested a joint session with the Traffic Commission could possibly be scheduled for October. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 1. Letter dated August 17, 1998 from Amanda Lambert, Interiors by Amanda Re: Village Centre. 2. Picture of the deck and list of neighbors in support of the deck, submitted by Dennis Delby, 382 Chaparral Lane. 3. Letter dated August 17, 1998 from Daniel D. Blough Re: CUP Amendment for Wayne's Tire, 505 Grand Avenue. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 11:45 p.m. on motion by Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner Greene, and unanimously carried. ATTEST: earl L. Phinney, Commission Clerk AS TO CONTENT: Jiv amilton, AICP ommunity Development Director Del Haney, ice -C • 1 1