PC Minutes 2003-07-151
1
CALL TO ORDER: The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with
Chair Guthrie presiding; also present were Commissioners Arnold, Brown, Fowler and
Keen. Staff members in attendance were Community Development Director, Rob Strong,
Associate Planner, Teresa McClish, Assistant Planner, Ryan Foster, Planning Interns, Jim
Bergman and Kristin Krasnove.
AGENDA REVIEW: The Commission agreed to continue Tentative Tract Map Case No.
03 -003 & Planned Unit Development Case No. 03 -001; Applicant - Phil Zeidman; Location -
125 Nelson Street to the meeting of August 19, 2003.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of June 3, 2003 were unanimously approved as
submitted.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Chuck Fellows, 202 Canyon Way stated he had comments
regarding the Discussion Items, a demolition permit request at 528 E. Branch Street and
submitted a letter to staff and the Commission.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
Chair Guthrie opened the Public Hearing.
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING - PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 15, 2003
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM II.A - LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT CASE NO. 03 -002; APPLICANT
— DORFMAN HOMES, INC; LOCATION — 312, 318 PLATINO LANE & 272 LA CRESTA
DRIVE. Staff report prepared and presented by Kristin Krasnove, Planning Intern.
Ms. Krasnove gave an overview of the project and stated corrections to the staff report in
the width and depth of the lots had been made and the lot sizes meet Development Code
standards.
Don Brugler, 272 La Cresta Drive, owner of Lot 91, stated that he had no objection to the lot
line adjustment and was in support of it.
Chair Guthrie closed the Public Hearing.
The Commission had no comments.
Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fowler, to recommend
approval of Lot Line Adjustment 03 -002 for three Tots located at 312 & 318 Platino Lane,
and 272 La Cresta, and adopt:
RESOLUTION 03 -1882
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 03 -002 FOR
THREE (3) LOTS LOCATED AT 312 PLATINO LANE, 318 PLATINO LANE
AND 272 LA CRESTA, APPLIED FOR BY DORFMAN HOMES
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 15, 2003
The motion was approved on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Brown, Fowler, Arnold, Keen and Chair Guthrie
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
the foregoing resolution was adopted this 15th day of July 2003.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM II.B - PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM 03 -004; APPLICANT —
COAST NATIONAL BANK; LOCATION 1199 EAST GRAND AVENUE. Staff report
prepared and presented by Kristin Krasnove, Planning Intern.
Ms. Krasnove gave an overview of the Planned Sign Program for four wall signs and stated
that the signs and architectural weathervane had been approved by the ARC.
Chair Guthrie opened the Public Hearing.
Mr. Pierre Radamaker, representative for the applicant and architect described the
proposed signage.
Chair Guthrie closed the Public Hearing.
Commission Comments:
• The weathervane on top of the roof appeared too large /high and out of proportion
and they would like to see a reduction and a prototype on site to give an idea of
proposed size.
• There was concern about the amount of pruning to take place on the mature trees
on EIm Street to aid in sign visibility.
Commissioner Arnold made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Brown, to approve the
Planned Sign Program applied for by Coast National Bank at the intersection of EIm and
Grand Avenue with the conditions that:
• A temporary prototype be placed on the roof to show the proposed size of the
weathervane.
• Staff will make the decision to approve the weathervane after Planning Commission
review of the size.
and adopt:
RESOLUTION 03 -1883
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM 03 -004,
APPLIED FOR BY COAST NATIONAL BANK, LOCATED AT THE
INTERSECTION OF ELM AND GRAND AVENUE
The motion was approved on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Arnold, Brown, Fowler, Keen and Chair Guthrie
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
PAGE 2
1
1
1
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 15, 2003
7
the foregoing resolution was adopted this 15th day of July 2003.
PAGE 3
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM II.0 - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 03 -003;
APPLICANT — KEITH SLOCUM; LOCATION — 159 PINE STREET. Staff report prepared
and presented by Ryan Foster, Assistant Planner.
Mr. Foster stated this proposal had been previously reviewed by the Commission on June
17, 2003 when the Variance to deviate from the required minimum lot depth was approved,
but not the minimum stem width. The applicant has revised the parcel map design.
Mr. Foster answered questions from the Commission regarding in -lieu fees and that despite
other properties in the area having similar flag lots, each Variance is considered on a case -
by -case basis. Staff recommended a 15 -foot stem width similar to others in the area.
Chair Guthrie opened the Public Hearing.
Keith Slocum, 520 Alder Street, applicant stated:
• To obtain stem width this is only way this could be designed.
• Asked the Commission to waive the requirements for undergrounding existing
utilities and installation of sidewalk.
Chair Guthrie closed the Public Hearing.
Commission Comments:
• They agreed to approve the revised design.
• They agreed to waive the undergrounding requirement for existing utilities in the rear
of the property.
• They would like to have an in -lieu fee alternative to the undergrounding requirement
for single residential projects addressed in the future.
• They agreed to waive the sidewalk requirement in this specific case.
• They agreed to require a 3% affordable housing in -lieu fee on both the new and
existing residences.
Commission Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fowler, to approve the
Tentative Parcel Map 03 -003 and adopt:
RESOLUTION 03 -1884
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 03 -003
LOCATED AT 159 PINE STREET, APPLIED FOR BY KEITH SLOCUM
The motion was approved on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Brown, Fowler, Arnold, Keen and Chair Guthrie
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 15, 2003
the foregoing resolution was adopted this 15th day of July 2003.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM II.D - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CASE NO. 03 -002 & PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 03 -001; APPLICANT - KEVIN HUNSTAD, INC;
LOCATION - 1180 ASH STREET. Staff report prepared and presented by Ryan Foster,
Assistant Planner.
Mr. Foster gave an overview of the project stating:
• This is a subdivision of a 0.58 -acre site into eight residential lots and construction of
four duplexes for a total of eight single - family attached dwelling units.
• One oak tree on -site is proposed to be removed and would be subject to an oak tree
replacement program.
• Asked that Condition #8, regarding the affordable housing in -lieu fee of 3% not be
included as the applicant is proposing to restrict two units as affordable.
• Condition No. 9 language should be changed to allow for the sale or rental of units.
For clarification the Commission discussed the in -lieu fee requirement, the density bonus
and affordable housing requirement with staff. Mr. Strong concluded by stating that there
had been some confusion and inconsistency since the adoption of the General Plan
because the Development Code had not been amended to incorporate the General Plan
provisions.
Commission Comments:
• Condition No. 42 has a typo, need to add "sidewalk ".
Chair Guthrie opened the Public Hearing.
PAGE 4
Sharon Wilcox, 597 'B' Ash Street — not in support and stated reasons:
• Too much density for this street.
• Will cause too much traffic on this street.
Doreen Mathew, 1193 Ash - not in support and stated reasons:
• Traffic very heavy.
• Parking big issue.
• Like to see 6 units.
Ms. Fossio 1186 Ash Street — not in support:
• Disagree with 8 units.
• Too much parking on- street.
Kevin Hunstad, applicant, addressed parking:
• 2 car garages and two spaces in front of garages plus two additional guest spaces
provides 34 spots.
• Other units he had done have no parking problem.
• Asked for waiver of water retrofit in -lieu fee for the two affordable units.
Jerry Bunin, Home Builders Assoc. in support stated:
• Supporting good development projects is most important thing government can do to
promote more affordable housing.
Chuck Fellows, 202 Canyon Way — Voted against the project at ARC because:
• The existing oak tree was proposed to be cut down and he would like to see
modification to save the tree. He suggested moving the driveways to accommodate
1
1
1
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 15, 2003
the oak within the landscape area between the driveways and have permeable
paving.
Chair Guthrie closed the Public Hearing.
PAGE 5
Commission Comments:
• Concern that the two affordable units would not be the same as the other units. Mr.
Hunstad explained that they would be same size and compatible with the other units
and would look same outside, but inside some of the upgrades may be cut.
• Concern on only having a 7 -foot setback in back of garages. Mr. Hunstad explained
that the side yard where the patio opens onto would be considered the back yard
and would be a nice area for entertainment.
• Concern about the removal of the oak tree.
• The project will improve the area and provide affordable units and were well
designed.
• Understand concern about traffic and parking, but the parking for these single - family
homes is adequate.
• Difficult to make a decision on waiving of water retrofit in -lieu fee for "moderate"
housing as this contradicts the proposed Housing Element policy (to waive only very
low and low income housing fees).
Mr. Strong advised the Commission that City Council would decide on the request to waive
fees so no action need be taken in this regard.
Chair Guthrie asked staff to investigate if the oak tree could be transplanted to the site for
the Santa Lucia Bank (transplant had been recommended for the Santa Lucia Bank
project). Staff would investigate this.
Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold to recommend
City Council approve the Tentative Tract Map 03 -002 and Planned Unit Development 03-
002, located at 1180 Ash Street, with the following conditions:
• Language to state that the affordable units should be consistent in square footage
and outward appearance as the other units.
• Staff and Parks and Recreation staff should explore, with the applicant, transplanting
the oak tree to another site.
• The fees should be consistent with the proposed fees determined during Housing
Element Update.
and adopt:
RESOLUTION 03 -1885
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CASE NO. 03-
002 AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 03 -002 LOCATED
AT 1180 ASH STREET, APPLIED FOR BY KEVIN HUNSTAD
The motion was approved on the following roll call vote:
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 15, 2003
AYES: Commissioners Brown, Arnold, Fowler, Keen and Chair Guthrie
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
the foregoing resolution was adopted this 15th day of July 2003.
The Commission took a 10- minute break.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM II. E - CONTINUED ITEM - AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION,
STAFF PROJECT CASE NO. 03 -004; APPLICANT — CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE;
LOCATION — CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE. Staff report prepared and presented by
Teresa McClish, Associate Planner and Jim Bergman, Planning Intern.
Ms. McClish introduced the project and gave an update on the process and the
recommendations in the report; clarified that on page 31 and in the table on page 33 re Mr.
Dorfman's property, the approx. 2 acre parcel shown (zoned Hwy Commercial) on the
zoning map, is not part of the inconsistency between the General Plan and the zoning map.
The Planning Commission continued discussion on recommendations for policy alternatives
concerning the conservation of prime agricultural lands in Arroyo Grande.
Commission questions:
• Concern with the TDC program, are there any citywide programs versus countywide
program? Ms. McClish stated that there are examples, but they tend to be
problematic and that this program is not included in the recommendations to be
forwarded to City Council.
• Page 29 bullet: There is no information included re Fredericks and Williams
property? Mr. Strong answered that this was removed as it was not prime
Agricultural soils.
• Page 34 last sentence: How does this work? Mr. Strong explained that if the City is
not supportive of making overriding considerations or does not believe that the
General Plan designation is correct then it should be considered for Ag designation
to eliminate inconsistencies — the policy should reflect majority opinion.
• Page 37 mitigation example: Where is 4/1 ratio referenced? Ms. McClish stated
that it is referenced in Appendix F, example ordinance.
Mr. Strong stated all draft recommendations still to have to have legal review. He then
explained the priorities that staff had considered in arriving at the mitigation ranges for the
policy and advised that "up to2:1" mitigation was staff recommended action.
Commission comments:
• They asked for clarification on the "expanded findings" referred to in A6. Ms.
McClish stated that they were in the report — Page 35 and also in "Agricultural
Districts ".
• Page 35, No. 6, said it was poorly written. Ms. McClish suggested that the wording
starting with ...for the use... up to ... prime farmland be removed.
Chair Guthrie opened the Public Hearing.
PAGE 6
Ed Dorfman, 285 La Cresta, stated that the report does not deal with infill or widowed
parcels as the previous General Plan Update reports did and he would like to see it put
1
1
1
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 15, 2003
back. He then read comments from part of Leroy Saritori's letter (included in the report)
stating why he disagreed with these specific comments.
Jerry Bunin, Home Builders Association:
• Not against preservation of agricultural land - smart urban planning will preserve
agricultural land.
• 5 & 7 -acre parcels will not be farms in the future, but are good sites for affordable
housing.
• Land is the biggest restraint, next is water.
Chair Guthrie closed the Public Hearing.
In response to Mr. Dorfman's comment Commissioner Brown stated:
• There is provision to convert whether the Ag conservation is adopted or not. There
should not be a concern.
• TDC big issue.
• Good document.
• Inconsistent to have parcels previously designated Ag other than hillside.
• Inconsistent to adopt the General Plan and then recommend changing zoning on
properties without conforming to mitigation and other policies.
Commissioner Fowler:
• Her comments from previous meetings were unchanged, no new comments.
Commissioner Arnold:
• Very thorough document.
• Dorfman — not rezone for affordable housing — market will dictate.
PAGE 7
Commissioner Keen:
• Farmers have right to farm that ordinance protects farmers.
• This document puts undue burden on farmers by dictating what is to be done with
land.
• Referred to definition for "taking" and the explanation — thinks City damaging by not
letting the farmer take care of his own property.
• He disagreed with City Council instructions given to staff to produce this report.
Commissioner Guthrie:
• In past seen the ability of farmers to farm, damaged by housing; it is an arduous task
to protect Ag land.
• In favor of document as it is.
Commissioner Arnold:
• He did not agree a that it is a "taking" if a property owner is told that they cannot
rezone to build houses on Ag land.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 15, 2003
Commission Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold, to make a
recommendation to City Council to adopt the draft resolution to implement policies,
programs and proposed provisions, and adopt:
RESOLUTION 03 -1886
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DIRECT
THE PREPARATION OF AN ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION
IMPLEMENTATING RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE REPORT ON THE
CONSERVATION OF AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES FOR THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE
The motion was adopted on the following roll call:
AYES: Commissioners Brown, Arnold and Chair Guthrie
NOES: Commissioners Fowler and Keen
ABSENT: None
the foregoing resolution was adopted this 15th day of July 2003.
PAGE 8
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM II.F - CONTINUED ITEM — DEVELOPMENT CODE
AMENDMENT CASE NO 02 -006; APPLICANT — CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE —
VILLAGE OF ARROYO GRANDE; Staff report prepared and presented by Teresa McClish,
Associate Planner.
Ms. McClish explained that this discussion was being continued from the Public Hearing of
June 17, and changes had been incorporated into the document as recommended in
addition to:
• An open space requirement of 350 feet per residential unit pertaining to mixed -use
projects has been inserted in Section 16.48
• Section 16.08 has now been included in Exhibit "B2 ".
Ms. McClish answered the Commissioner's questions:
• Page 52: Language from Section 16.08 has been moved to Title 2 of the Municipal
Code for consistency.
• Exhibit A, 2 page: The map is incorrect and everything south of the Creek should
be Village Mixed -Use.
• Exhibit A clarification for Allen Street zoning: Only the bold outlined areas are being
reclassified. One property (not showing up on map) on Station Way, south of Fire
Station, should show as Village Mixed Use.
• Page 266 numbering is wrong.
• Page 264: Discussion on development density rounding up — staff is proposing to
revise the section on density calculation to be more consistent. Mr. Strong
suggested rounding to nearest 1 /4 number in Multi - Family and Mixed -Use and include
dwelling unit equivalent.
Commissioner Guthrie re building height:
1
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 15, 2003
PAGE 9
• Difficult to do 3 stories without an elevator, but height exception allows 15' additional
for certain features. At 45 feet there could be a tower that could house an elevator in
a 3 -story building.
• Suggest have ultimate height in Village district. Commissioner Brown agreed.
Commissioner Keen re building height:
• If 43 feet were allowed then an applicant would come in with that height; it would be
better to give exception if required where appropriate.
Mr. Strong suggested staff could come back with a different definition of building height and
allowed exceptions and suggested language for insertion under "Building Size Limits:
Maximum Height 30' or three stories, whichever is less, may exceed no more than 10% of
maximum height or 36' in Village Core Downtown and Village Mixed - Use ". The
Commission said this would be acceptable.
Chair Guthrie opened the Public Hearing.
Nancy Underwood, 142 Short Street- Handed the Commission a letter from residents in the
proposed Village Mixed Use zone which addressed concerns re:
• Concern that the wording for the hours of operation for commercial had been
changed since the last meeting.
• Commercial operating outside of the 8 -6 p.m. hours — noticing residents within 50
feet is not enough. Need to include residents within at least 300 feet.
Other concerns:
• Parking — City requires off - street parking for other Commercial and there are parking
lots existing already, but there is no enforcement to park in lots.
• Lighting — Page 266 — lighting should be shielded — for existing residences also.
• Traffic — speed exceeded on Nelson and Short — wants speed bumps.
• Density — 15 units per acre in area — too many; the proposal for 125 Nelson Street
project is too dense.
Billy Swaggard 120 Nelson Street:
• Parking — rarely ever dense parking on Nelson or Short Streets — only Farmers
Market on Saturdays.
• Lived in this area for over 50 years and no problem with parking.
• Don't need diagonal parking area next to Village green — dangerous to have parking
there.
• Hope no trees are removed — can't replace old trees.
Chuck Fellows, 202 Canyon Way:
• Hope in future some provision if a business opens that they should create some
parking.
Chair Guthrie closed the Public Hearing.
In reply to questions from the Commission, Mr. Strong said no additional trees were to be
removed from Nelson Green; the bandstand would be created in the drip line of a Walnut
tree, but the tree should not be affected; notification of a Minor Use Permit could be
required for businesses with extended hours and could be changed to 100 feet.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 15, 2003
Commissioner Arnold made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fowler to recommend
City Council approve Development Code Amendment 02 -006, rezoning the Village
Commercial District and portions of the General Commercial and Office Professional District
to Village Core DowntownNillage Mixed Use, Village Residential and Single Family
Residential, revising land use regulations in Title 16 to address requirements for Mixed -Use
Districts and approval processes with the changes noted (including 100' radius for Mixed
Use MUP with extended hours of non - residential operation), and adopt:
RESOLUTION 03 -1887
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVE DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 02 -006, REZONING THE
VILLAGE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AND PORTIONS OF THE GENERAL
COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE PROFESSIONAL DISTRICT TO VILLAGE
CORE DOWNTOWN, VILLAGE MIXED USE, VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL AND
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, REVISING LAND USE REGULATIONS IN
TITLE 16 TO ADDRESS REQUIREMENTS FOR MIXED USE DISTRICTS
AND APPROVAL PROCESSES.
The motion was adopted on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Arnold, Fowler, Brown, Keen and Chair Guthrie
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
the foregoing resolution was adopted this 15 day of July 2003.
PAGE 10
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM II.G - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CASE NO. 03 -003; APPLICANT
— PHIL ZEIDMAN; LOCATION — 125 NELSON STREET. Staff report prepared and
presented by Ryan Foster, Assistant Planner.
The Planning Commission stated that this project had been moved to the meeting of August
19, 2003, as requested by staff.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM II.H - AMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 03-
005; APPLICANT — PHILLY'S RESTAURANT; LOCATION — 1250 EAST GRAND
AVENUE. Staff report prepared and presented by Ryan Foster, Assistant Planner.
Mr. Foster gave an update on the proposal for a restaurant at the former La Tapatia Market
explaining that the unresolved issues from the prior Conditional Use Permit had been
included in the conditions of approval and that the applicant had 60 days to correct the
issues, with the exception of the driveway (6 months for completion). The change to a
restaurant would not necessitate a traffic study.
Commissioners concerns:
• They are presently operating without a permit.
• Like to see more specific language for completion of conditions of approval.
• Suggest put up performance bond within 10 days (before 60 days begins.)
1
1
1
1
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 15, 2003
:J
Chair Guthrie opened the Public Hearing for comment and hearing none closed it.
Commissioner Fowler made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold to approve the
Amended Conditional Use Permit 03 -005 to relocate Philly's Restaurant to the former La
Tapatia Market with provisions that:
• Bonding should take place within 10 days.
• Everything must be completed within 60 days, except for the driveway (completed
within 6 months), and adopt:
RESOLUTION 03 -1888
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING AMENDED CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT 03 -005 LOCATED AT 504 E. GRAND AVENUE,
APPLIED FOR BY ED GLIDEWELL
The motion was adopted on the following roll call:
AYES: Commissioners Fowler, Arnold, Brown, Keen and Chair Guthrie
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
the foregoing resolution was adopted this 15th day of July 2003.
NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS - None
PAGE 11
DISCUSSION ITEMS - Demolition Permit Request at 528 E. Branch Street — Phil Zeidman.
Mr. Strong gave an update on the demolition permit request and said that the ARC had
voted 4/0 not to allow the demolition. Letters regarding this proposal had been received
from:
1. Phil Zeidman, property owner, who believes this building is not fit for "adaptive
reuse ".
2. Chuck Fellows not in favor of the demolition due to the historical significance.
Chair Guthrie opened the Public Hearing.
Chuck Fellows, 202 Canyon Way, spoke regarding his concerns stated in his letter
submitted to the Commission earlier. He stated he was against seeing the house
demolished rather than the "adaptive reuse ".
Commissioner Keen asked if the intent was to save the tin building? The response was
negative.
Phil Zeidman, applicant, asked why this issue did not come up last year during all the public
hearings on East Village Plaza Planned Unit Development.
Chair Guthrie closed the Public Hearing.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 15, 2003
COMMISSION CLERK
AS TO ,' NTEN
ROB STRONG,
COMMUNITY DEVEL
PMENT DIRECTOR
PAGE 12
The Commission agreed that if the building is not suitable for adaptive reuse and an
alternative project is proposed it should go through the Conditional Use Permit process.
PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS - Commissioner Keen: Re banners
at Andreini's — wanted to know if the banners had been up longer than the provision allows?
Mr. Strong said he would research with staff.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP — Mr. Strong
gave update on upcoming projects and advised the Commission that Community
Development now will go forward with the Traffic Way corridor Development Code
refinements and design enhancement and then continue with East Grand Avenue Mixed
Use Development Code Amendment.
Commissioners Arnold and Brown stated they would be absent the meeting of August 5,
2003.
ADJOURNMENT — Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Arnold and unanimously approved to adjourn to a special meeting of July 29, 2003 . "r the
Housing Element Workshop No. 5. The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 •?m.
LY4J REARDON- SMITH, / JAMES GUTHRIE, CHAIR
1