Loading...
PC Minutes 2005-09-061 1 CALL TO ORDER - The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Brown presiding; also present were Commissioners Fellows, Parker and Tait. Staff members in attendance were Community Development Director Rob Strong, Associate Planners Kelly Heffernon and Teresa McClish, Assistant Planners Ryan Foster and Jim Bergman Bergman and Public Works Engineer Victor Devens. AGENDA REVIEW: No Changes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Parker made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait, to approve the minutes of August 16, 2005 with the following changes: • Page 11, third paragraph, third bullet, remove Planning Commission and replace with, in parenthesis (City Council minutes 1991). • Page 15, end of first paragraph remove words she wants everything. The motion was approved by a 3/0 voice vote, Commissioner Fellows abstaining having been absent. A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Brown announced that Commissioner Keen had resigned from the Commission after many years of distinguished service to the City. He stated that although the City Council would be honoring him at their September 27th meeting, the Commission wanted to express how much Commissioner Keen had added to their meetings and they wished him well. Mr. Strong stated that the applicant for Public Hearing item No. III.0 had requested that his item be continued to a date certain, as he would be unable to attend this evening. B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 1. Resolution for text amendments to Title 16 of the City of Arroyo Grande Municipal Code public hearing Item III.E., not previously included with the staff report. 2. Letter dated September 2, 2005 from Miner's Ace Hardware re Item III.C., Plot Plan Review Case No. 05 -008, 230 Station Way. II.A. CONSENT AGENDA AND ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS SINCE AUGUST 16, 2005: ase TUP 05 -017 PPR 05 -015 PPR 05 -019 VSR 05 -015 St. Patrick's Church Hunter's Landing David Denison Tim Harris MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 6:00 P.M. Address;: 900 W. Branch St. 102 E. Branch St. 1402 E. Grand #A 624 Gaynfair Terrace escriptiof 43 Annual BBQ & Auction Coffee shop inside the Village Emporium CD's Pet Garden Second -story addition of 1,348 s.f., 25'.5" height ction A A A !antler J. Bergman Bergman/ Strong Bergman R. Foster MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 Commissioner Fellows requested Consent Item No. 2 be pulled for discussion. Commissioner Tait made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Parker to approve Consent Items 1,3 &4. The motion was passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Tait, Parker, Fellows and Chair Brown NOES: None ABSENT: None The motion was passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Fellows, Tait, Parker and Chair Brown NOES: None ABSENT: None PAGE 2 Discussion on Item No. 2: Mr. Strong described the proposed Plot Plan Review; stated coffee shops are allowed in the Village and this would not fall under the "Formula Business" ordinance. In reply to questions from Commission Fellows, Mr. Strong explained the parking requirements, including the exempt areas; stated the outdoor seating would have ADA clearances and would be within the 8 -10 foot sidewalk area (the same as similar businesses in the Village). Commissioner Fellows made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait to approve Consent Item No. 2. III. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 05 -001 & MINOR EXCEPTION CASE 05- 006; APPLICANT — DUANE DEBLAUW; LOCATION — 605 EMAN COURT. Associate Planner Heffernon presented the staff report for a parcel map resulting in three (3) residential lots on a 1.28 -acre site and a Minor Exception for wall height and lot depth. She described the site, gave the history, described the driveway design, drainage system, and explained the CC &R's that are required. She stated all setback requirements have been met including the building envelopes for parcels 2 and 3. Ms. Heffernon then described in some detail the four main issues discussed in the staff report: • Protection of archeological resources • Agricultural land • The Arroyo Grande Creek • Tree protection Ms. Heffernon stated that in response to one neighbor's concern with his view of the hills being blocked with the new residences, a condition had been added to restrict the building height on parcel 2 to one story; story poles could also be required on site so that the neighbors can see the proposed height. In conclusion Ms. Heffernon stated that staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt under Section 15315 of the CEQA Guidelines (subdivision of properties in urban 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 PAGE 3 areas into four or fewer parcels); the project is also considered exempt under Section 15332 (relates to infill projects in urban areas). If the Commission does not agree with the exemption determination, particularly as it relates to archeological resources, the matter can be continued to allow time for the preparation of a Negative Declaration. Staff recommends that the Commission adopt a Resolution approving the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map and the Minor Exception, subject to conditions of approval.' Commission questions followed: Tait: • Are the fruit trees being removed to make way for the driveway? Ms. Heffernon: A tree removal and protection plan has not been submitted by the applicant yet, but the driveway will have to be extended. • Re the Ag. buffer: Is there presently a 20 -foot wide transition in place with vegetation that is contiguous to the Ag. buffer? Ms. Heffernon: The whole creekway, the riparian vegetation on top of the creek bank, plus the 30 foot of grade change will add to the buffer effect, except for one place in the upper north corner (the Commission could require some additional vegetation). • Will the driveway be extended as the project goes forward? Ms. Heffernon: The existing driveway will be extended to serve parcels 2 and 3. • What did the SAC discuss regarding drainage, the Ag. buffer and the riparian? Ms. Heffernon: There was basic discussion with the applicant on items that we thought could be an issue; drainage is deferred to Public Works. Mr. Devens (Public Works) explained that their main concern is that the applicant may want to connect to a corrugated metal pipe which is 40 -50 years old and which may be deteriorated. • Re CEQA: Staff has determined that it is exempt, but in the Guidelines there is a category called "Exceptions to the Exemptions" which states an exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource; he would like the question answered (during the meeting) as to what a historical resource is versus other resources. Fellows: • He asked Public Works to describe an in -line storm water filtration system and does Public Works maintain these systems on a periodic basis. Mr. Devens described how an in -line system works and stated currently there are non - installed in the City, but in the next five to seven years the City will have to start installing systems of this kind; maintenance of this one will be the responsibility of the homeowners. • Asked Public Works to describe a fossil filter insert and asked who would maintain these? Mr. Devens explained how the filter worked and stated that City maintenance crews would be maintaining this particular one. Parker: • On parcel 3 the grading has a 13 -foot (approximate) drop. How will the drainage be dealt with and will it go directly into the creek? Mr. Devens: The grading in front of parcel 3 is sloped down toward the driveway (sheetflow); the drainage around the house will be surface flow toward the drop inlet and it will go into the existing storm drainage line; the homeowners will be responsible for maintenance of this, the retaining wall and the driveway (CC &R's). • Why is an 8 -foot retaining wall required along the driveway? Ms. Heffernon stated that this design would cause the least site disturbance. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 PAGE 4 • Is there any other public property on this site? Ms. Heffernon: The common facilities are public property and include utilities, driveways, on -site drainage, and if required additional landscape requirements for the Ag. buffer. • In reply to Ms. Parker, Ms. Heffernon confirmed that if a Negative Declaration was prepared, the mitigations for the archeological site would be no different than the conditions already included in the Resolution. Brown: • Condition No. 11: The deed restriction should include more detail about what could and could not go on within the 100 -foot buffer. • Re exemption of CEQA & Condition No. 12, is the grading plan and building plan done yet? Ms. Heffernon said it was not. • CEQA Section 153.15, this section may not apply because an exception is being requested (for lot width). • Page 10 of the archeology report states that this site is a significant theme of California prehistory- would this not trigger CEQA? Ms. Heffernon replied that it could. • He had heard information in the presentation tonight that was not included in the written staff report and in future he would like to have such information included in the written staff report. In reply to a question from Chair Brown, Mr. Strong stated that in discussions with the Ag. Commissioner it had been concluded that there is not sufficient distinction from prevailing winds to justify different setbacks re the Ag. buffers. Parker: • How was it determined where the top of creek bank was? Ms. Heffernon: It was surveyed to be where the top of the bank drops off. Fellows: • Are the fossil filter systems working? Mr. Devens: They are fairly new, but when the first time maintenance was done (Jasmine Place), the entire storm drain was cleaned without any issues. Tait: • If the HOA did not want to do this what could be done? Mr. Devens: The City could use Code Enforcement or it could be referred to the City Attorney. Chair Brown opened the hearing for public comment. Duane DeBlauw, applicant, answering some of the Commission's concerns stated: • Neighbor's concerns: He had sketched a typical roofline for the single -story house over a photograph of the site area, to show how it would sit against the mountain range (he felt this showed the view better than story poles would); the topography of the neighbor's property and the fact that the house will be single story should also address some of the concerns. • The trees called out on the site plan are Black Walnut trees, not native Sycamore trees. • Parcel 3, toward the creek, will have the raised foundation. • He had placed several stakes along the creek easement (based on a survey of the property in 2003 by Garing & Taylor and not by their own engineer). 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 PAGE 5 • The fruit trees were not surveyed in because there were so many; if there is a concern this can be done. • From their experience filter systems work well; maintenance is typically done by the homeowner (private property). • He understood that the Right to Farm ordinance would be a deed restriction for the new homeowners. In reply to a question from Commissioner Tait, Mr. DeBlauw said he was not sure if the fruit trees would be good screening /filtering buffers, but thought they would be a good screen from the agriculture. In reply to a question from Commissioner Fellows, Mr. DeBlauw said at this stage of the project they do not have a soils report, but it is all sand. In reply to questions from Commissioner Parker, Mr. DeBlauw explained how the grading for parcel 3 foundation would be achieved and stated that fencing for protection could be erected to stop disturbance in the 25 -foot setback area. Commissioner Parker stated she would like to see a rendition of the proposed Ag. Buffer, showing a minimum of 100 -feet including 20 -feet of vegetation (landscaping). Commissioner Brown asked if the building envelope for parcel 3 could be moved over 1 -2 feet? Mr. DeBlauw replied that it would cause the house to be less than 1,000 sq. ft., but they could do a two -story. Commissioner Brown stated regarding the Ag. buffer he would want to see a deed restriction that goes beyond the Right to Farm Ordinance. Commissioner Tait stated that the fact that the houses will be on sand concerns him due to seismic activity. Mr. DeBlauw stated that there are already hundreds of reports in the Arroyo Grande area that are all based on sand — and a soil report will address this. Commissioner Tait stated he would feel more comfortable if they already had the soil report. In reply to Commissioner Fellows question re parcel 2, Mr. DeBlauw stated that if they went two story the house would stand about five feet higher than the ridge line. In reply to a question from Commissioner Fellows, Mr. Strong explained that the 25 -foot creek easement is for use of maintenance access (City staff in emergency) not public access. Thor Conway, President of Heritage Discoveries (professional certified archeologist) answered Commission questions: • He gave description of a survey he had done for the previous owner- Phase I. • For the present applicant he did Phase II, archeological sub - surface testing (part of City Conditions or Approval); there are archeological materials across all three lots and this site appears to be the edge of an archeological site, but not as dense as other sites in the City. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 PAGE 6 • The general area is well known as an area of sensitivity; Eman Court is on the edge of the area; there are no burials on the applicant's site; this area did have a Chumash village of some importance; it is his general understanding that the overall archeological site in the whole area would qualify as a "significant theme" under CEQA. • CEQA Section 5020.1, he agreed that this definition could relate to this site as historically significant in general terms. • He explained how the sequence of a Phase III archeological mitigation excavation would take place and what it would involve; how it would specifically address the final development that is proposed for the property and address how the impacts would be mitigated, i.e. slab on grade and minimal foundation impacts, as mentioned by the developer, is already a mitigation. Commissioner Fellows suggested that an interpretative site be located near the creek on the north side of Fair Oaks Avenue and artifacts recovered from the site be displayed in a local (Arroyo Grande) museum. Mr. Conway stated that there has to be a careful balance so that areas are not disturbed by the public. Commissioner Parker expressed concern that there are not many of these sites remaining that are not covered up. CEQA archeological resources states that until we have completed and documented all of the scientific information (data & resources) the project cannot go ahead; who would make that decision? Mr. Conway said he would advise locking at other areas, such as Santa Barbara who have already gone through this. In reply to another question from Commission Parker, Mr. Conway stated that they would work out the exact details of mitigating developments impact of the resource after their plan is approved the City. In reply to a question from Commissioner Brown, Mr. Conway said they did not discover any human remains in their intensive testing at this site. Wade Hoon, 621 Eman Court, also owner of property at 193 South Alpine Street, has concern that he might loose the view; stated that DeBlauw's sketch of the building height looked good; he would not like to see the house turned the other way; he would like to have "story poles" to be able to view the proposed height when the final plan is brought forward; he has lived on Eman Court for at least 14 years and during a storm there is a large volume of water going over the tops of curbs during a storm and has concern with restrictions with filters and maintenance. In reply to Commission Fellows, Mr. DeBlauw stated that the project really has no impact on the size of the drain line as this is an existing street, below the cul -de -sac and not creating any additional impact. In reply to a question from Commissioner Parker, Mr. DeBlauw stated that bi leveling the house (on lot 3) would not work because it would not be consistent with the garage. Chair Brown closed the public hearing. 8:10 p.m. The Commission took a 10- minute break. 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 PAGE 7 Commission Comments: Tait: • CEQA Guidelines, page 21, states the reasons for an exemption are: a. Where no exceptions or variances are required: There are exceptions. b. Where all access to the proposed parcels are available: The driveway is being extended to allow access to the other parcels. c. If the parcel was not involved in division of a larger parcel in the previous two years. Could staff confirm this? d. If the parcel does not have an average grade slope of more than 20 %. Could staff confirm this? Ms. Heffernon stated she had not calculated the average slope for the entire site (the applicant could give this information); the minor exceptions are administrative in nature and would normally go to Planning Commission on the consent agenda; re the access, the driveway already exists and is just being extended to provide access to the other parcels. Mr. Strong concurred with Ms. Heffernon's comments and stated that if the Commission feels that there are issues that are not a potential impact they could be dealt with a mitigated negative declaration. Commissioner Tait asked for Commission feedback as to whether they feel this site is an historical resource and stated that the archeologist in his report had stated this area is culturally rich. In addition, an exception can be a cumulative impact and there have been quite a few projects in this general area where archeological sites have been found so this could be applied here. Chair Brown stated the archeologist report says that this site is part of the Grieb Pre - Historic Archaeological Site and even if staff believes this project is categorically exempt, the Commission does have the ability to err on the side of safety and mitigate this as a historical resource; condition no. 12, page 5, states "prior to the issuance of a grading permit an archeologist shall review the final grading and building plans (which has not been done) and prepare a Phase 3 mitigation plan. It would therefore be irresponsible to approve a condition on an archaeological mitigation plan on building and grading plans that we have not seen yet. Fellows: • He was comfortable with approving Condition No. 12, as this site is a very small fragment of the whole archeological area; no grading permit could be issued before Phase 3 archeological mitigation plan is developed; the houses would cover up the artifacts and they would remain there forever; he would like to see Mr. DeBlauw fund in part, an interpretive site off of Fair Oaks and some of the recovered artifacts displayed in a local museum. • He is fine with the basic project although it needs a lot of fine - tuning. In reply to a comment by Commissioner Tait, Commissioner Fellows stated that even if artifacts are buried it was his understanding that research would continue through the Phase 3 mitigation period and grading would not begin until Mr. Conway was satisfied with the results. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 PAGE 8 More Fellows comments: • He is satisfied with the Ag. buffer as it relates to the farmland, except for the one area at the top; the Ag. buffer should be properly planted and maintained as stated in the Queensland Report (a 100 -foot Ag. buffer would be acceptable in this case because of the change in topography) and include firebreak and non - combustible landscape materials. • The Palm tree should be preserved and remain where it is. • The project is do -able, but he would need to see a soils report. • He could approve the minor exception on the wall height and the retaining wall that will face away from the residences. • He could approve the minor exception for the dimensions on one of the houses because it has a huge parcel (which would mitigate this). • He is concerned that it is proposed to put a foundation on the creek setback boundary line; there should be a 5 -10 foot setback (or a two story, which would have less lot coverage and larger setbacks). • He would like to see story poles and it may be necessary to lower ceilings. • He would like to see stakes put out on the interior boundary (25 -foot easement) to assist City staff in monitoring. • Suggested the applicant get a copy of the Queensland Report to understand the structure of a really good Ag. buffer. • The Black Walnut tree should be preserved. • He liked the fact that the project is infill and will be a nice place to live being as it is secluded. • He is satisfied that prospective buyers of the homes will be required to sign a real estate disclosure that they are aware of the farming and a deed restriction regarding the Ag. buffer. Parker: • Re exceptions to exemptions in CEQA and Mr. Conway's report, she stated reasons why she considered this site is of a historical significance resource and a unique archeological resource. • She agreed with Commissioner Tait that this does need to go back for a CEQA review and find out what mitigations can be brought forward. • Re the historical data — a decision should be made if the archeological resources need to be collected or left buried. • Agreed with Commissioner Fellows that the flag lots will have nice views of the greenery. • The creek setback is really important; agreed that the structures should have a 5- foot setback from the creek setback boundary; raise the level of the house; again suggested the bi -level house. • Landscaping the Ag. buffer should be minimum 100 -foot and the buffer on the north should also include 20 feet of landscaping. • Concern with drainage from the asphalt and also with neighbor's stated high volume of water during storms that goes over the sidewalk; this may need a clean out and drainage reviewed. • Requested the applicant come back with more information on the Ag. buffer, and return with a CEQA review with mitigations to take care of the archeological issue. 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 Brown: • Would like to see a report regarding the creek setbacks (from Garing and Taylor). • Would like to see a soils report. • Would like to see a response from the Ag. Commissioner re the gradient distance from the Ag. land and the required buffer for this site. • He would also like to see story poles. • Cannot approve the Condition No. 12 re the mitigation plan. • Complemented staff on proposal for the deed restriction for the 100 -foot buffer. • Concern with the creek easement- suggested a hard barrier prior to building from along the creek easement to where the 100 -foot buffer begins. • Would need to see grading and building plans to be able to determine if the migations are appropriate. Tait: PAGE 9 • His fellow Commissioners had already addressed most of his concerns. • Agrees that building envelope No. 3 is too close to the creek easement; top of bank needs to be marked and adhered to. • Re CEQA, as the lead agency it is our responsibility to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the unique archeological resources and he believes theses archeological resources are unique. Chair Brown stated they would like to make a motion to continue to a date certain. Ms. Heffernon stated if grading and building plans are being requested and other studies, there could be no specific time frame and the Tentative Parcel Map would have to be continued to a date uncertain. Mr. Strong said in addition to the other requirements requested by the Commission there may also be an expanded Initial Study involved, particularly as it relates to archeology; a landscape plan provided and any concerns about the drainage also resolved. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait, to continue discussion to a date uncertain to give the applicant time to research and modify the conditions of approval based on Commission comments. The motion was passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Chair Brown, Tait, Fellows and Parker. NOES: None ABSENT: None B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 05 -010; APPLICANT — ERNIE KIM; LOCATION -1558 W. BRANCH STREET Assistant Planner, Foster presented the staff report for consideration of a proposal to expand an emergency clinic for a pet ER in the K -Mart shopping center. The Commission had no questions. Chair Brown opened the hearing for public comment and hearing none closed it. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 The Commission had no concerns. Commissioner Fellows made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Parker to approve Conditional Use Permit Case No. 05 -010 and adopt: RESOLUTION 05 -1975 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 05- 010; LOCATED AT 1558 WEST BRANCH STREET; APPLIED FOR BY CENTRAL COAST PET EMERGENCY CLINIC The motion was passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Fellows, Parker, Tait and Chair Brown NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing resolution was adopted this 6th day of September, 2005. C. PLOT PLAN REVIEW CASE NO. 05 -008; APPLICANT — ROBERT ANDERSON; LOCATION — 230 STATION WAY Mr. Strong stated that the applicant had requested the Commission continue this item. Chair Brown opened the hearing for public comment and hearing none closed it. Chair Brown opened the hearing for public comment and hearing none closed it. PAGE 10 Commissioner Fellows made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait, to continue Plot Plan Review Case No. 05 -008 to the meeting of October 4, 2005. The motion was unanimously approved on a 4/0 voice vote. D. VIEWSHED REVIEW CASE NO. 05 -012; APPLICANT — MARK VIGIL; LOCATION — 315 S. ELM STREET Mr. Strong announced that the applicant had this evening requested to continue this item to allow time to better address the code requirements in the Multi - Family district. Commissioner Fellows made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Parker to continue the Viewshed Review to the meeting of October 18, 2005. The motion was approved on a 4/0 voice vote. E. DCA 05 -006; CLEAN -UP ORDINANCE — TEXT ONLY; APPLICANT — CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION — CITYWIDE Associate Planner, McClish presented the staff report for Commission review of a proposed Ordinance considering text amendments to Title 16 of the City of Arroyo Grande Municipal Code to ensure consistency and implement provisions of the 2001 General Plan. Proposed amendments include both minor text changes for clarification purposes and revisions for internal consistency in Chapters 16.04 Introductory Provisions and Definitions; 16.12 Development Review Process (including application submittal requirements); 16.16 Land 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 PAGE 11 Use permits and Approvals (including amendments to the Minor Use Permit process); 16.20 Land Divisions (including requirements for Certificates of Compliance); 16.36 Commercial Districts (including clarifications relating to the recent establishment for Mixed Use districts); and 16.48 (including processing of applications for projects on non - conforming Tots). In conclusion Ms. McClish explained that a modification had been made to Exhibit A: the proposed modification to definitions is under Adult Businesses. "Headshop" is not now included in this definition and is proposed to be in a new category "General Retail Restricted" (18 years or older) corresponding change will be made in Table 16.030A (allowed by conditional use permit Industrial mixed use and highway mixed use districts, subject to the same location and parameters as adult businesses in Section 16.52.030. Chair Brown opened the hearing for public comment and hearing none, closed it. Ms. McClish answered questions from Commissioners to clarify some of the proposed text amendments. After discussion, Ms. McClish stated that she would make a change to Section 16.12.060, to read "if more than one application is being processed concurrently for a project ".... No other changes were requested from the Commission. Chair Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait, to approve the text amendments as shown in Exhibit A, including modifications to Al and additional language added, as suggested by Commissioner Parker, to Chapter 16.12, and adopt: RESOLUTION NO. 1976 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF ARROYO GRANDE AMEND PORTIONS OF TITLE 16 OF THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE (DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 05- 006), CLARIFYING LAND USE REGULATIONS AND APPROVAL PROCESSES TO ENSURE CONSISTENCY WITH THE ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL PLAN The motion was passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Chair Brown, Fellows, Parker and Tait. NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted on this 6 day of September, 2005. IV. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: None. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: None VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: None MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP: Mr. Strong stated that Associate Planners Teresa McClish and Kelly Heffernon would meet with Chair Brown and one Commissioner on Tuesday, September 20, 2005 at an early morning breakfast to review the pending and tentative Agenda items and to discuss any concerns. He would attend subsequent breakfast meetings each Planning Commission day for a breakfast meeting (Commissioner's attendance to be rotated). In reply to Chair Brown, Mr. Strong stated that Planning Commission packets will continue to be distributed on Thursdays and possibly even Wednesdays in the future. VIII. TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR SEPTEMBER 20, 2005 MEETING: In reply to a question from Commissioner Parker, Ms. McClish stated that the public comment period had not been closed for consideration of Vesting Tentative Tract Map for the Castlerock project, but as requested she would reconfirm this. Mr. Strong clarified that the proposal for 567 Crown Hill would be returning to the Commission for consideration as a new project. IX. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. ATTEST: 4A/a LYN REARDON -SMITH SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION S TO CONTENT: ►.-a iM/ AA •B RONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR (Minutes approved at the PC meeting of October 4, 2005) TIM BROWN, HAIR PAGE 12