Loading...
PC Minutes 2006-09-051 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2006 6:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER - The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session. The meeting commenced at 6:10 p.m. with Chair Fellows presiding; also present were Commissioners Ray and Tait. Commissioners Brown and Parker were absent. Staff members in attendance were Acting Community Development Director, Teresa McClish, Assistant Planner, Jim Bergman, Planning Intern, Tyler Montgomery, and Public Works Engineer, Victor Devens. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Request for the public to turn off their cell phones during the meeting. AGENDA REVIEW: The Commission agreed to hear Item IV, Referral Item MEX 06- 021, before Item I I.A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Ray made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait, to approve the minutes of August 15, 2006 with the following corrections: 1. Page 2, A. last sentence, change name from Mr. Otis to Mr. Page. 2. Page 2, B. No. 11, name correction, should be Mr. & Mrs. Atkisson. 3. Page 9, C. first paragraph, second sentence, remove words "there that" to clarify. 4. Page 11, under Commissioner Ray's comments, fourth bullet, change language to clarify, "The proximity to the highway makes it more affordable ". 5. Page 11, under Commissioner Fellow's comments, second bullet, correct name of tree should be Liquid Amber, variety "Festival ". The motion was approved by a 3/0 voice vote, Commissioners Brown and Parker being absent. A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 1. Letter dated September 5, 2006 from Rodger & Krista Frederickson and George Haugen, 1234 & 1230 Montego Street, regarding Agenda item II.B, Development Code Overlay Districts D -2.5, D -2.6, and D -2, requesting the current overlay and definitions remain unchanged. 2. Memo from Councilman Arnold, requesting the Commission hold a public hearing on Administrative Item No. 8, Plot Plan Review 06 -016: A request from Ocean Oaks Builders to convert 12 of 60 two- bedroom units to three bedroom units. 3. A letter from Augustus Fenning and Angelina Cummings, 236 Ruth Ann Way, opposed to changes in height restrictions for the D -2.7 overlay district. 4. A letter from Warren & Cristie Weiss, 187 Ruth Ann Way, opposed to changes in height restrictions for the D -2.7 overlay district. 5. A letter from Lionel & Dana Senes, 244 Ruth Ann Way, opposed to changes in height restrictions for the D -2.7 overlay district. Case, o, , °,< °,�`, App.,R, " ,A ddress = D'escri tion a P ,' ' "'Action - Planner 1. MEX 06 -021 ", , Andrew and Liane Peterson �� 1040 Robin Circle Construction of a privacy trellis 8' -9'3" tall behind existing rear fence line. A Tyler M. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 5, 2006 IV. REFERRAL ITEMS FOR COMMISSION ACTION: PAGE 2 Planning Intern, Tyler Montgomery, presented the staff report and described Referral Item No. 1, a request for a minor exception to construct an 8 -9 foot privacy trellis. Mr. Montgomery addressed the Commissioner's questions and concerns regarding the reason for the height and the positioning of the trellis. Commissioner Ray made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait, to approve Minor Exception Case No. 06 -021, for construction of a privacy trellis inside the existing fence line. The motion passed by a 3/0 voice vote, Commissioners Brown and Parker being absent. I. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 06 -005 & PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 06 -003; APPLICANT — DAVE STURGES; LOCATION — 130 -132 SHORT STREET Assistant Planner, Jim Bergman, presented the staff report for consideration of a proposal to divide one parcel with two existing houses into two parcels with a single - family home on each parcel. Mr. Bergman stated that the applicant had requested a waiver of the requirement for installation or payment of in -lieu fees associated with sidewalks and placement of utilities underground. In conclusion, Mr. Bergman stated that staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution approving the tentative tract map and planned unit development (PUD). Mr. Bergman answered Commission questions regarding the sidewalk and undergrounding requirements for the project. Chair Fellows opened the public hearing for public comment. Dave Sturgess, applicant, answered Commission questions: • He was willing to pay his fair share for the undergrounding. • If undergrounding was required it would involve three to five other properties. • Re the concern on the drainage, most of the surface water will percolate into the ground and water runoff into the street will be minimal due to the Hollywood drive. Chair Fellows closed the public hearing for public comment. Commission Comments: Ray: • She liked the design of the property and the driveway — nice touch for the Village. • She was leaning toward waiving the sidewalk fee as it looks as though a sidewalk will never get built there, as it would be impractical. 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 5, 2006 PAGE 3 • Requiring the whole in -lieu fee for the undergrounding would be an unfair burden for this project; perhaps a reduction of the in -lieu fee would be appropriate Tait: • Pedestrian access is important especially in the Village, but after looking at the site he agrees a sidewalk would not be necessary. • He appreciates that the applicant has the Hollywood driveways for water run off. • He agrees that an in -lieu fee of $15,000 is a high price for undergrounding. Fellows: • He could agree to waiving the sidewalk fee (sidewalks do not allow water to percolate down to replenish the aquifer), there is already a sidewalk on one side of the street that adjoins the bridge so most people do not walk on the other side. • $15,000 for undergrounding is not a fair in -lieu fee for the pole, but somewhere between $3,000 - $5,000 would be fair. Commissioner Ray made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait, to approve Tentative Parcel Map 06 -005 and Planned Unit Development 06 -003, for 130 & 132 Short Street with the provision to waive the sidewalk requirement and charge a 33% in- lieu fee ($5,000), and adopt: RESOLUTION NO. 06 -2011 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 06 -005 AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 06 -003; LOCATED AT 130 AND 132 SHORT STREET; APPLIED FOR BY DAVE STURGESS The motion was approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Ray, Tait, and Chair Fellows. NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Brown and Parker. the foregoing resolution was adopted this 5 day of September 2006. B. (Continued from 8/1/06) DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 04- 005; APPLICANT — CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION — CITYWIDE Ms. McClish presented the staff report for consideration of proposed modifications to development standards for residential districts, applicable to Design Development Overlays including the D -2.5, D -2.6, and D -2.7 Districts, and amendment to Section 16.16.110 regarding Minor Use Permits for viewshed review. In conclusion, Ms. McClish recommended that the Planning Commission accept public comment and discussion on preliminary alternatives concerning Design Overlay Districts SF -D2.5, in the vicinity of Montego Street, RS D -2.6, in the vicinity of Newport Avenue, and SF D- 2.7, in the vicinity of Ruth Ann Way. Ms. McClish reminded the public and Commission that the hearing would be continued to the October 3, 2006 Planning Commission meeting, as noticed, to provide an extra opportunity for public comment. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 5, 2006 PAGE 4 Ms. McClish answered Commission questions for clarification on the staff report regarding viewshed review; described the three overlay districts, then suggested that the Commission receive public comment after her presentation and deal with each overlay separately. Ms. McClish then made her presentation: Design Development Overlay District SF D -2.5. (Approved by Ordinance 86 C.S. in June 1973.) Maximum height is 11 ft. from curb to peak of house for the south side of Montego Street; no other additional standards: Alt. 1: revise to include westerly six lots north side of Montego Street (11 ft from highest existing grade elevation at perimeter of development envelope). Alt. 2: No change Commissioner Ray: If Alt. 1 was chosen, how many non - conforming lots would be created out of the six houses? Ms. McClish: Measurements for all six homes have not yet been done, but she knew of at least two that would not be. Commissioner Tait: If other properties were developed would they be affected (Alt. 1 re the six homes)? McClish: In the future there may more homes behind the proposed expansion area which meet the provided viewshed protection with Alt 1. Although it is a fairly severe restriction, it has worked well on Montego Street. Commissioner Tait: If Alt. 1 was chosen, has staff looked at whether homeowner's policies would be affected (concerns addressed in letters received from the Fredricksons and George Haugen? Ms. McClish: Their letters were received after preparation of the staff report; however, staff will be considering these concerns before the October 3 Planning Commission hearing. Design Development Overlay District RS- D -2.6. (Approved by Ordinance 360 C.S. in September 1987.); maximum height: two- stories shall not exceed 30' and no main building shall exceed 15' from the highest corner of the property; minimum net building site area: 12,000 square feet for residential use, 20,000 square foot for churches and other public uses; minimum lot width: 60 feet for residential uses and 100 feet for public uses; minimum lot depth: 90 feet; no other additional standards: Alt. 1: No change other than to measure height from building envelope. Alt.2: Repeal. Amended viewshed and other standards consistent with Rural Suburban (RS). Alt. 3: Expand to lots fronting the south side of Newport Drive. In reply to questions from Commissioner Ray regarding the alternatives, Ms. McClish stated that: • Alt. 1 would be more conservative for height control, offer more protection, but harder for someone to build a second story addition. • Alt. 2, if repealed, would be less conservative for viewshed protection; any addition would be considered on a case -by -case basis and possibly with the use of story poles (if so directed by the Commission). PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 5, 2006 PAGE 5 • Staff initiated alt. 3, after a public workshop held by some of the neighborhood: It may preserve some views, but it may also mean more onerous requirements for a neighborhood that doesn't currently have them. Commissioner Fellows: If the overlay were removed would it cause flag lots on the north side of Newport? Ms. McClish: It would have no impact on flag lots. Design Development Overlay District SF D -2.7. (Approved by Ordinance 138 C.S. in June 1976); maximum building height: 18 feet from established curb height, except lots 1,2,3 of Tract 554; Lots 1 & 2 of Parcel Map AG 73 -383; and Lot 1 of Parcel Map AG 74 -293, where maximum height is 22 feet from established curb height. No other additional standards: Alt 1: No modification Alt 2: Modify to allow up to 24 ft height for all within the overlay, with viewshed review process. Alt 3: Remove several properties from the southern half of the overlay district and rely on citywide viewshed process. Commissioner Ray: Re Alt. 3, how were specific lots chosen for modification in this overlay district? Ms. McClish: Alt. 3 was brought forward by the neighborhood after a public workshop and staff has since received comments both for and against this and she believed the modification considered the geography in the neighborhood. Commissioner Tait: Would more viewshed reviews be required if Alt. 2 and 3 were chosen? Ms. McClish: There may be more applications, but it would depend on the heights that the Commission recommends. Vegetation Ms. McClish: During previous workshops, public comment has included a request for regulation upon private trees since such vegetation often will obstruct views. Since regulation of private vegetation includes many controversial elements and vegetation also provides enhanced views, staff is not recommending regulation at this time. However, a mediation process works for the City of Santa Barbara in included in the packet for informational purposes. Chair Fellows opened the public hearing for public comment. Public Comment on Overlay D -2.5: Howard Mankins, 200 Hillcrest Drive, stated he went through a long ordeal last year with a viewshed review issue that affected his property and he would not like to go through that again. The Planning Commission and City Council upheld his position on the viewshed review. Viewshed is a very important issue. He suggested that property owners have a height limit on the north side of Montego Street and that the existing roofline be the limitation on any modification (this may still allow a two -story if one is subterranean) and it would simplify the process. Seven lots, (not six) [Alt 1]should be included on Montego Street (seven of the lots could affect his property). PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 5, 2006 PAGE 6 Rodger Fredrickson, 1234 Ruth Ann Street, stated he agreed with Mr. Mankins that existing roofline would be a fair way to protect viewshed; the definitions on the staff report were difficult for him to understand (he did not receive notice until the day before the meeting); his biggest concern was that these changes could have an impact on the value of his property and that his homeowner's insurance would also be affected; if he wanted a second story he would not want to affect his neighbor's view so he would excavate under his property. Jim Dunn, 1247 Montego Street (south side), stated he supports using the existing roof line; this an excellent solution and the way to go as it's more simple; the definition of the basement story etc. is more confusing and difficult to measure. Eric Hawkins, 1215 & 1213 Brighton (south side), and 1203 Priscilla Lane, they have concerns that their views of the ocean would be diminished, if not taken away, even with a 3 -foot change in height; he is opposed to removal of any overlays that would affect their ability to see the ocean. Joseph Beckham, 220 Hillcrest Drive, stated he agreed with Mr. Mankins; he would like to see the first seven homes on Montego Street be looked at first, this would make a more consistent height requirement. Nina Crosswell, 1204 Priscilla Lane, when they bought their house years ago it was included in the height restriction, they had to have a flat roof, and in order to build their garage they had to excavate. To alter the elevation now, particularly on Ruth Ann Way, would take away their viewshed. Tom Parsons, 1219 Montego (south side), stated he also supports having the existing rooflines as a height restriction, rather than 11 -foot, to preserve views and keep the character of the neighborhood; there should be some restriction on properties on the north side too; he is glad to see that the vegetation may also be considered in the viewshed review. 7:50 p.m. The Commission took a 10- minute break. Public Comment on Overlay D -2.6: Carolyn Freedman Johnson, 192 Ruth Ann Way, advised that she would recommend against including the south side of Newport Avenue in the overlay; this would not work on this side of the street and would just add another neighborhood to an overlay. Ken Levine, 1420 Hillcrest Drive (south side), stated he supported Alt. 1; he would not like to see this repealed, as everyone would have to go through the viewshed review process. 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 5, 2006 PAGE 7 Larry Harlan, 1315 Hillcrest Drive, re the viewshed trigger recommendations, he supports Alt. 2, and that anything beyond existing heights (not a story definition) would be subject to viewshed review; new construction should also be viewshed review. In addition, as Commissioner Brown always reminds us, viewshed review is a not a right but a privilege that the City has granted to residents. Re viewshed on vegetation, there are significant things that can be done: The City has placed several trees on the level of Newport Avenue (and they need to keep them trimmed otherwise they will affect views); however, there are City trees below him, on the west end of Newport Avenue, that significantly affect property owners viewshed at this time; they need to be properly maintained. Public Comment on Overlay D - 2.7: Ted Akland, 1222 Brighton Avenue (north east of Ruth Ann Way), stated inconsistencies in the old way of determining height limit, as there is a house down the hill from him on the corner of Ruth Ann Way and Brighton Avenue that has a higher roofline than his house. He supports the 24 -foot height recommendation and use of the roofline. Mr. Dunn, 1247 Montego, stated that D -2.5 district overlooks the D -2.7 district; they purchased their property after much research and they understood that they were protected by an overlay that limits those houses to 22 -feet (there are approximately six houses below their property that could affect their view if the height was changed to 24- feet; this would also affect the value of their property; making changes puts them into the viewshed review and would require them to defend something that was already theirs. Edward Grover, 260 Ruth Ann Way, the primary consideration when they purchased their home was the viewshed and character of the neighborhood, both of which are protected by the height limitations; they are opposed to any changes in the height limitations. Terry lavicoli, 227 Ruth Ann Way, they have lived in their home for 26 years and when they purchased it their primary concerns were the area and protection of their views by the overlay that was in place; they strongly oppose any change in the height limitation. Brent Mooney, 227 Fairview Drive, adjacent to Ruth Ann Way; stated that what happens on Ruth Ann Way could also affect them; they had a small view, which they lost, and he would now like to have the opportunity to build a two story and go through the viewshed review process. Rick Anderson, 212 Ruth Ann Way, stated they also bought their house because of the height restrictions that were in place; he strongly recommended that the 18 -foot height limitation be maintained; he agrees with Mr. Mankins that any change in height should trigger the viewshed review process; they travel a lot and do not want to have to worry that they might miss notice on a viewshed review. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 5, 2006 PAGE 8 Ms. Freedman spoke again, stating that if the City decides to regulate vegetation for viewshed review they will also need to include a request for additional staff and attorney fees; after listening to public comment she suggests the D -2.7 overlay remain intact for upper streets - Ruth Ann Way and Montego Street; she would like staff to consider Alt. 2 as she is interested in adding a 450 -600 sq. ft. addition upstairs and excavating would be too expensive; there could be a limit on any second floor to say to 40% so as to not impact the neighbors; with a viewshed review requirement it could be considered; the population is changing and at least property owners should have the chance to ask; if story poles or a photo montage are chosen it could be expensive for a homeowner. Janice Anderson, 191 Ruth Ann Way, stated the reason she bought her house was knowing her view would not be blocked; she would prefer Alt. 1. Dana Fenance, 244 Ruth Ann Way, (top of hill), stated opposition to any changes on the height requirements on Ruth Ann Way; if the home next door to her were to go up even four feet her view would be blocked; they also bought their home with the understanding this could not happen. Chris Barrett, 1340 Newport Avenue (north side), stated he would like to see the south side of Newport Avenue included in the viewshed overlay (many of the existing houses are two -story and large). Chair Fellows closed the public hearing for public comment. Commission Comments and questions: Tait: • Is the existing roofline for height restriction an alternative for the north side of Montego Street? Ms. McClish: It will be included for 10/03, as it was previously requested, but if a restriction is applied to a district it has to be consistent for everybody; using the existing roof line for height restriction could cause more severe restrictions on some homes (such as not being able to raise a ceiling height or not being able to have a different style of roof; a standard must allow fairness and consistency within a specific district. • He would like to see the viewshed review process simplified so he would like to see these ideas included at the next hearing; we do not want to require more hoops for applicants to jump through; suggested looking at removing "second story" as a definition. Fellows: • He was not ready to make comments on building heights now; he could not support getting into controlling the height of vegetation - it would be too costly for the City. Ray: • If the City restricts to the height of rooflines could we get into a into legal situations? Ms. McClish: There are two issues with using existing rooflines; 1) should the existing roofline be a height requirement? 2) In other places should it be used as a trigger to require a viewshed review instead of "story"? C ase!No. - A pp. Description ,$ r Action &Planner Planner 1. TUP 06 -014 Church of Jesus Christ of LDS 751 Traffic Way 2 480 sq. ft. trailers for temporary classrooms A T. Montgomery 2. TUP 06 -016 St. Patrick's School 900 W. Branch St. Fundraising BBQ and Auction A M. Meier 3. TUP 06 -017 Donna's Interiors 1069 E. Grand Ave. Set up a temporary sales tent A M. Meier 4. PPR 06 -014 Theresa Ziegger Teresa Rea 126 W. Branch St. #5, 6 & 8 Therapeutic Message Offices in an existing office complex A M. Meier 5. VSR 06 -015 Gordon Murdoch 117 Pearwood Construction of a second story addition to the rear part of the home. A M. Meier 6. VSR 06 -012 John Ziomek 689 Woodland Construction of a 781sq./ft. A M. Meier PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 5, 2006 PAGE 9 • Re the discussion regarding other jurisdictions and whether or not we could specify a "primary view ", she does not like this idea; if the second story definition is not removed the proposal that marries it to the California Code makes it clearer. • After research on viewshed review and the use of story poles- although there is an increased cost for a project up front there could be a decreased cost down the line as it could speed up the process. • D -2.5 Overlay: She is still listening to information on the D -2.5 Overlay. • D -2.6 Overlay: She likes the idea of the more conservative viewshed review and the proposed change to the building envelope rather than the corner of the lot. • Re the south side of Newport Avenue and Montego Street, she is not sure at this time — there is still some confusion on this. • D -2.7 Overlay: She is still listening to information on this also. • She is really concerned about removing the overlays, putting a heavier reliance on the viewshed process, whether the City could handle this, and what the cost to the applicant could be; she likes the idea of simplification. A discussion followed on story poles, with Commissioner Ray stating that the City of San Leandro uses story poles and they will not even notice a project until the story poles go up. In reply to a question from Commissioner Fellows, Ms. McClish stated that in the jurisdictions that require story poles her research found that people do put them up themselves with some verification to make sure they are at a correct height. Commissioner Tait made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ray, to continue discussion of D -2.5, D -2.6, and D -2.7 Overlays to the Planning Commission meeting of October 3, 2006. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Tait, Ray, and Chair Fellows. NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Brown and Parker. III. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: None. IV. NOTICES OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS SINCE AUGUST 15, 2006: Case No. = App s Address .� . Descriptions „ : Ac tion,: ,_Planner . t Drive attached two -story secondary dwelling unit. 7. PPR 06 -016 A.G. Spanish Oaks, LLC 175 South Elm Street Lot 9 expansion of the first floor bedroom to a master bedroom to accommodate tenant limited mobility. Expansion of lot 10, rear bedroom, for mobility as well. A M. Meier 8. PPR 06 -015 Ocean Oaks Builders, Inc. 579 Camino Mercado Convert 12 of 60 condo units from 2 to 3 bedrooms. A K. Heffernon PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 5, 2006 PAGE 10 The Commission had no concerns regarding Administrative Items Nos. 1 -6. It was noted that Item No. 5 had been incorrectly advertised as 126 Pearwood, corrected to 117 Pearwood. Administrative Item No.7: Plot Plan Review Case No. 06 -016; Applicant — A.G. Spanish oaks, LLC; Location — 175 S. Elm Street. Ms. McClish answered Commission questions on this item regarding concern with potential loss of open space. After discussion, the Commission agreed that they had no further concerns on this item. Administrative Item No. 8: Plot Plan Review Case No. 06 -015; Applicant — Ocean Oaks Builders, Inc; Location — 579 Camino Mercado. Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon, had prepared a short staff report as follows: The Community Development Director approved a request to convert twelve (12) of the sixty (60) condominium units from two (2) bedrooms to three (3) bedrooms. There is no impact to the size of the units or parking requirements; the only change made is to the floor plan to accommodate the additional bedroom. Chair Fellows read a memo from Councilman Arnold requesting that this item be scheduled for public hearing to allow the Planning Commission and citizens to better understand the impact the requested change could have on the affordability issue. Jason Blankenship, representative, stated that the requested changes will not alter the existing building footprint, meets all uniform building code requirements, does not affect affordability, meets the affordable housing requirements, and their project is 25% affordable without being subsidized by a government grant or City funds; he does not believe this needs to be heard in a public hearing. Ms. Freedman spoke again, asking if the 12 units (of the 60) are still affordable? With the requested change the applicant would be providing an affordable opportunity for a larger household; there are people 55 years and older who have 10 year old children; if these are converted to three bedrooms it would allow a small family to be able to get into affordable units. 1 1 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 5, 2006 Mr. Blankenship stated that some of the three bedrooms would be affordable, although the prices may go up. Chair Fellows recommended a public hearing based on the fact that there are several different viewpoints on this item. Commissioner Ray made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait, that Administrative Item No. 8: Plot Plan Review Case No. 06 -015, be scheduled for a public hearing to allow time for further discussion and clarification on the affordability issue. The motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Ray, Tait, and Chair Fellows. NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Brown and Parker. PAGE 11 V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: In reply to a question from Chair Fellows regarding the PUD process, Ms. McClish replied that staff is presently researching the PUD process; because of lot size a high percentage of subdivisions are concurrent with a PUD application; this analysis will be brought forward next with the residential updates, and consideration of an ordinance to address this will be taken into consideration. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: Chair Fellows gave an update regarding a discussion at the August 15, 2006 meeting, on transplanting of existing fruit trees for a proposed project at 125 Nelson Street: He informed Commission and staff that an agreement has been reached between the Historical Society (the recipient of three trees) and the applicant, and the developer will only have to pay $2,300 instead of $30,000 for removal of the trees. In reply to a question from Chair Fellows regarding banners, Ms. McClish stated that staff is still working on this and there is no news to report. VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP: None. VIII. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. on a motion by Chair Fellows, seconded by Commissioner Tait. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 5, 2006 ATTEST: LYN REARDON -SMITH SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION AS TO CONTENT: n TERESA McC ACTING COM ISH, UNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR (Minutes approved at the PC meeting of September 19, 2006) CHUCK FELLOWS, CHAIR PAGE 12 1 1