Loading...
PC Minutes 1998-11-04ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 1998 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in special session at the Arroyo Grande Women's Club with Chair Lubin presiding. Present are Commissioner Parker, Keen, Haney and Greene. Also in attendance are Community Development Director Jim Hamilton, Contract Planner Lezley Buford and Senior Consultant Engineer Craig Campbell. MINUTE APPROVAL There being no additions or corrections, the minutes of the regular meeting of October 6, 1998 were approved on motion by Commissioner Haney, seconded by Commissioner Parker, and unanimously carried. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mike Fuller, 131 CaIli Court, Arroyo Grande City Councilman, spoke regarding a letter dated October 28, 1998 addressed to the City Council and Planning Commission from Otis Page regarding the El Campo Interchange Project Study Report. He stated he felt compelled to address various points in the letter that are erroneous or mis- quotes of the Council. He stated he felt the letter is damaging to the political process and to those who try and serve the people of Arroyo Grande. He addressed comments made in the letter, in which Mr. Page expressed his opinion on what the Council did in regards to a Project Study Report on the El Campo /Brisco bridge interchange. Mr. Fuller pointed out that many of the statements contained in the letter are false and /or mis- quoted. Mr. Fuller expressed his concerns over the mis- conceptions contained in the letter, stating he wanted the Commission to be aware of what actually took place at the Council meeting. He stated he hates to see someone putting forth outrageous mis - truths out to a lot of people who are uninformed and who sometimes don't get to see the real truths. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM 96 -118 (97 -124) AMENDMENT AND VARIANCE CASE 98 -210; PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM FOR THE FIVE CITIES CENTER; APPLICANT: AGRA, LLC /FIVE CITIES CENTER; LOCATION: WEST BRANCH STREET AND RANCHO PARKWAY. Community Development Director Jim Hamilton advised this item was continued from the last meeting to provide staff an opportunity to incorporate some modifications into the proposal that will be going to the City Council. He noted several additional changes that were submitted by Commissioners between the time the agenda was sent and this evening. The Commissioners indicated their concurrence with the corrections listed by Mr. Hamilton. Commissioner Greene referred to staff memorandum dated November 4 Attachment "A" Conditions of Approval, under Condition 4, and recommended the date of October 20 be changed to November 4, 1998. He further stated he feels that the Community Development Department has done a wonderful job in coordinating this report for the Commission. He commented that this project has gone through so many changes that have been difficult to keep track of, and he believes the job the staff has done in putting this recommendation together is one that is worthy of high praise. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 2 November 4, 1998 Commissioner Haney referred to the elevations on Page 10 stating that the "No Signs Allowed" should be transferred over to the southeast elevation. On Page 15, under the note on the right hand side, the "Drug" sign C6 was also deleted. On Page 16, Commissioner Haney stated the Commission's recommendation was that the Five Cities Center words and logo fill the area now occupied by the tenant identification, so that gives the sense that the total square footage remains at 70 square feet. He referred to the Table of Contents stating he feels that is a very welcome addition to the program, and with that addition, he doesn't believe that the right hand side of Page 2 is needed now and could be eliminated because, basically, that was the Table of Contents. With regard to Page 3, under "Fee Monument" off of Rancho Parkway, Commissioner Parker suggested listing the maximum size of 36 square feet. Also, on Page 5, she suggested it might be helpful to the Council under the "Tenant" column if the building letters were added to show which building follows under each criteria. She referred to Page 11, Hollywood Video signage, noting that both elevations show 85 square feet. She commented that the lower elevation should be changed to 70 square feet. Chair Lubin stated his only concern was that Hollywood Video be clearly marked as 70 square feet for the second sign.. Chair Lubin re- opened the public hearing for comment. Hearing none, Chair Lubin closed the public hearing and the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 98 -1672 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE FIVE CITIES CENTER PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM 98 -118 (AMENDED) AND VARIANCE 98 -210 APPLIED FOR BY AGRA, LLC, LOCATED AT FIVE CITIES CENTER, WEST BRANCH STREET WITH ATTACHMENT "A" AS MODIFIED On motion by Commissioner Parker, seconded by Commissioner Haney, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Parker, Keen, Haney, Greene and Lubin NOES:None ABSENT: None the foregoing resolution was adopted this 4 day of November 1998. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 98 -548, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 98 -565; APPLICANT: ROBERT ANDERSON; PROJECT DESCRIPTION: CONSTRUCTION OF A 27,250 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL /RETAIL BUILDING AND A LOT SPLIT; LOCATION: 200 STATION WAY 1 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 3 November 4, 1998 Contract Planner Lezley Buford reviewed the staff report dated November 4, 1998 and gave a brief history of the project. She noted that on September 1, 1998 the applicant submitted revised plans and although the plans did revise some of the issues that had been discussed over the course of the past few months, staff felt that the plans still did not address the Planning Commission's comments and direction, nor did they actually address the requirements of the Development Code. She advised that since the staff report was prepared and the agenda sent out, staff received revised plans as of last Friday. She commented that staff has not had the opportunity to review the plans, nor has the Staff Advisory Committee had the opportunity to review them. It is particularly important that the Staff Advisory Committee look at the plans because several of the items are Public Works conditions. It is, therefore, staff's recommendation that this item be continued until the plans can be reviewed by staff and the Staff Advisory Committee. In response to Chair Lubin's request, Ms. Buford reviewed the items that do not meet the Code. She stated the plans are not in conformance with the Development Code for building and property setbacks for landscaping, parking and lot coverage; they do not include the minimum landscaping which is a 10 foot landscaping area between the parking and the property line as required in the Development Code. Also, they did not address the design concerns expressed by the Planning Commission, both from the square footage of the buildings themselves, and also addressing the desire to have more open space and more pedestrian plazas, etc. Chair Lubin opened the public hearing for public comment and invited the applicant to make his presentation. Brad Anderson, stated he is representing the applicant, Dr. Robert Anderson. He stated that since the project was last reviewed by the Planning Commission on June 2n several meetings have been held with the staff. He commented that in reading the recommendation of denial from staff, it appears that staff is basing their recommendation on two main issues. The first issue being the landscape area between Station Way and the on -site parking, and as a secondary issue, the density of the buildings in regards to the site. On the issue of landscaping, Mr. Anderson referred to a letter that was received by Dr. Anderson on July 13, 1998 representing the comments by the Planning staff and the requirements issues before coming back to the Planning Commission. He pointed out that the letter requires that Section 9.12.130 of the Development Code be used as a standard for this project for parking along the right -of -way. He referred to the Development Code section that states: "In addition to interior landscaping, parking facilities abutting a public street right -of -way shall provide a minimum perimeter landscape strip of a minimum of 5 feet in width." He then read from the staff report, dated September 23' staff is now requiring the applicant to meet the requirements of Development Code section 14.07.040, special requirement B4, requiring that the landscape area shall be 10 feet in length. He explained that the existing property right -of -way was at the center of the street in most instances on the original development plan, however, because of Public Works staff recommendations, they requested that the right -of -way be moved to the back of a sidewalk area along Station Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 4 November 4, 1998 Way on the west side. He commented that there is no sidewalk on the west side except a portion of a sidewalk, then the rest of the development down to Traffic Way has no existing sidewalk, nor does it have the ability for a sidewalk. This original project was approved with a 10 foot setback from Station Way. The new development as planned takes into account that alignment of the original development and leaves a 10 foot existing landscaped strip from the face of curb to the on -site parking. According to the first development letter submitted by staff, a five foot buffer was requested, however, after going through the process with staff, they came back and asked for a 10 foot buffer. Providing a 10 foot buffer would require shifting the parking lot an additional five feet and would put a jog between the existing parking lot coming out of Roger Dunn all the way to the end of the project. One option there would be to shift the buildings as allowed in the Development Code to a zero lot line on the back freeway side. With regard to density, Mr. Anderson stated that the density claim raised by staff in their resolution to deny the project, essentially states there is a detrimental use to the neighborhood and adjoining areas. He stated that the project right now is 22% total density of the site, and adjoining properties in this same development are already built at 35% density. The Development Code allows for a density up to 45% in the commercial zone, and this project is Tess than half the allowable density for a commercial project in a commercial zone. Mr. Anderson advised that loading docks have been added to the project; one at Building 1 and one at Building 3. The driveways have been enlarged to 24 feet to allow for truck traffic. He further advised he attended a Staff Advisory Committee meeting on August 4, 1998 and there were several issues brought up at that meeting. He stated that a sidewalk was added to the east side of Station Way to complete the sidewalk from Fair Oaks to Traffic Way to provide a continuous sidewalk on the east side, and they have - agreed to replace the 4 foot sidewalk from Fair Oaks to the new entry to the north with a 6 foot city sidewalk. Also, the grading plan was revised at staff's recommendation and a new civil engineer was hired. The drainage plan was revised and a letter from Cal Trans was acquired regarding the off -site drainage. Additionally, it was agreed to fire sprinkler the buildings at the request of the Fire Department, which is not a requirement of the City. Security lighting was added at the request of the Police Department so there would be adequate security lighting around all of the buildings. It was also agreed by the applicant to contribute up to $10,000 for the opticom system for the City to retrofit one of the signal lights for the Fire Department. Mr. Anderson stated another meeting was held with the Public Works Department on October 14 and changes were made to the right -of -way to a 5 foot offset of Station Way and, in his opinion, the applicant addressed the concerns of Public Works at that time regarding the plans. Mr. Anderson referred to the June 2" Planning Commission comments, stating that some of the issues brought up was the 10% landscaping being a minimum of the City requirements. He noted that this project has approximately 25% landscape coverage incorporated into it now. With regard to the rear of the buildings, he stated there was 1 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 5 November 4, 1998 some concern about the buildings being too big and too expansive. Landscaping and trellises have been added to enhance and soften the back of the project. In regards to traffic, Mr. Anderson stated that the project is required to provide 109 . parking spaces and 110 spaces are provided for the parcel. A parking study was also done, which shows that the parking lot would not be impacted at any time, and that report was presented to the Planning staff sometime ago. There was also a lot split, Tentative Parcel Map 98 -548, to divide the parcel into two lots, which would cause the project to have additional requirements. The owner has decided to drop that lot split and make the property one contiguous parcel. In closing, Mr. Anderson asked that the Planning Commission look at the fact that the applicant has met every condition asked by staff and has tried to address the Planning Commission's comments from the June 2" meeting. It is felt the applicant has done everything possible to make this a viable project for the City of Arroyo Grande, and that the project will be an asset to that area. Commissioner Greene referred to previous discussion regarding the problem about the shared use of parking spaces and asked if any further information is available regarding that issue. Mr. Anderson stated their plan was submitted based on the Development Code and they have met that requirement. He commented it is their intent to provide 1 per 250 square feet of reciprocal parking. He further stated that a traffic study was submitted to the Planning Department indicating that parking was no longer an issue. Commissioner Greene noted that one of the criticisms expressed by some of the Planning Commissioners related to the mass metal roofing as depicted on Building 4, Page ! -15 of the elevations. Other concerns that were expressed during prior meetings were landscaping materials, square footage of the buildings and traffic impacts. Commissioner Parker expressed concern that the security lighting not be directed to impact adjacent properties. After discussion between the Commission and Mr. Anderson, Chair Lubin invited comments from the audience. Mike Miner, 316 Oro Drive, co -owner of Miner's Hardware, commented that the building size has not been reduced at all and still remains at 27,250 square feet. He stated there are two issues here; one is that it appears semi trucks still cannot go through the parking lot to make deliveries. The main issue is parking and, at the present time, there is adequate parking in the center. He referred to the original 1985 development plan, stating that the Conditional Use Permit granted to the Village Creek Plaza for the entire project was approved in two phases. The first phase was done by a single developer and 132 spaces were required and 146 spaces were provided. This was accomplished by putting 27 spaces on Parcel 3. He noted that in 1990 the original developer had a plan approved for a building consisting of 21,816 square feet, which is 5,434 square feet less than the current project that is proposed. A lot Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 6 November 4, 1998 merger took place in 1984-85 for the purposes of making sure that Parcels 1 and 2 would have adequate parking. He noted that when Dr. Anderson purchased the property in 1998 this was made very clear to him by a letter written by John Fowler. Mr. Miner pointed out that the developer, the CC &R's for the center and the letter to Dr. Anderson from Mr. Fowler all recognize the fact that the 27 spaces on Parcel 3 were counted for Parcels 1 and 2 and cannot be counted again for Parcel 3. Bill Gerrish, 823 Plata Road, stated he served on the Planning Commission when this project was approved in 1985 and a lot of discussion and effort was put into the project. He further stated he has a problem with changing plans that have previously been approved by the Commission on large commercial developments. He commented that each of the property owners have different ideas and different issues, and he suggested if a change is going to be made, all of the property owners need to get together and agree on a solution. Mark Vasquez, 101 W. Branch Street, representing Mike Miner, reviewed some of the history of the development. He stated, in his opinion, in order to change a Conditional Use Permit that has already been approved would require an application by all of the property owners. He noted that Parcel 3 does stand alone, however, it is encumbered by the original Conditional Use Permit and, therefore, Parcels 1 and 2 have to be a part of the application. Hearing no additional comments from the audience, Chair Lubin closed the public hearing and restricted further comments to the Commission. Commissioner Greene stated his opinion that a 27,000 square foot project is a little too large for the site and he would like to see it reduced. He further stated the parking issue is confusing. With regard to the issue raised by Mr. Vasquez about the CUP approved in 1985, he suggested looking at the design that was approved at that time. He stated he is concerned with the loading docks and the landscape buffer. Also, he expressed concern that the plans being reviewed by the Commission has not yet been reviewed in any detail by staff or the Staff Advisory Committee. Other issues include the large expanse of the metal roof, the landscaping is sub - standard, and the back side of the building needs to be looked at. Commissioner Greene indicated his feeling that it is too soon to do anything at this point and he would support denying the project. Commissioner Keen stated he has the same concerns expressed by Commissioner Greene, and he feels that the question about the 27 parking spaces needs to be resolved. Commissioner Parker stated her feeling that the parking situation is confusing and it would be helpful to have Mr. Vasquez's information on the Conditional Use Permit. Also, she stated her opinion that the ramp would be difficult to access and she also has a problem with the lighting. She stated she understands the need for security lighting, however, she also understands that the people who live on Fair Oaks Avenue 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 7 November 4, 1998 and adjacent properties also need to have some privacy and probably do not need the addition of bright lights. She suggested perhaps the Police Department could allow soft lighting on the ends of the buildings. Commissioner Haney stated he agrees with Commissioner Greene's comments. He also has a problem with this project and its size and it is clear they are trying to put too large of a project into too small of a space. He also agreed with Mr. Gerrish's comments that changing the design is creating problems. He stated, in his opinion, the addition of the retaining wall on the back of the building, requires something to be done to break it up in some way. Also, he would like to see some alternatives to the metal roof. Chair Lubin stated in reading the comments from the April and June meetings, there were some very specific comments made regarding the size of the project. He further stated he differs with some of the Commissioners' comments. With regard to the metal roof, he stated there is an existing project there now with that type of roof and, in his opinion, we need to match the existing project so that the design factor would be the same. He commented he is confused on the 5' - 10' easements, stating the existing line should be followed. Also, the landscaped strip should continue on throughout the project. He further commented regarding the parking, stating that the owners have to get together and resolve the problem because there has to be some kind of agreement between the owners of both parcels. With regard to landscaping maintenance on the project, Chair Lubin stated this needs to be addressed in the total project to make it a nice looking development. There being no further discussion, on motion by Commissioner Haney, seconded by Commissioner Parker, and unanimously carried, Tentative Parcel Map Case No. 98- 548 and Conditional Use Permit Case No. 98 -565 were continued to an unspecified date. PUBLIC HEARING - LOT MERGER CASE NO. 98 -551, MERGER OF TWO LOTS INTO ONE 2.88 ACRE PARCEL; APPLICANT: JOE DE LUCIANILLAGE CENTRE; LOCATION WEST BRANCH STREET AND WESLEY STREET Contract Planner Lezley Buford reviewed the staff report dated November 4, 1998. She advised that the applicant has requested approval of a lot merger for a 2.88 acre parcel located at the corner of . East Branch and Wesley Streets. The request will merge the existing parcels into one lot for the purposes of constructing the Village Centre commercial retail center which was recently approved by the Planning Commission. The proposed merger will eliminate the property lines and allow the applicant to obtain the required building permits. Ms. Buford advised that the lot created meets the minimum standards for lot size and dimensions in the Village Commercial zone. After staff's presentation, Chair Lubin opened the hearing for public comment. There being no comments from the audience, Chair Lubin closed the public hearing After a brief discussion, the following action was taken: Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 8 November 4, 1998 RESOLUTION NO. 98 -1673 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING LOT MERGER CASE NO. 98 -551 FOR THE VILLAGE CENTRE, LOCATED AT E. BRANCH AND WESLEY STREETS (APNs 007 - 191 -001, 037 AND 038) APPLIED FOR BY JOSEPH DELUCIA On motion by Commissioner Greene, seconded by Commissioner Keen, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Keen, Haney, Parker, Greene and Lubin NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing resolution was adopted this 4 day of November 1998 PUBLIC HEARING - TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 2197 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95 -534 (P.U.D. PERMIT) AND ASSOCIATED ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW; APPLICANT: DALE ARMSTRONG; LOCATION: 260 SPRUCE STREET Community Development Director Jim Hamilton reviewed the staff report dated November 4, 1998 and the background of the project. He advised that on August 29, 1998 the applicant filed a request fora one -year time extension for the project. This automatically extended the expiration date an additional 60 days to allow for processing of the extension request. The Subdivision Map Act allows for a maximum of three one -year time extensions. If approved the time extension would establish a new map expiration date of September 12, 1999. He noted that prior to the September 12, 1998 expiration date, the applicant submitted improvement plans to the Public Works Department for review, and on August 24, 1998 the plans were returned to the applicant for correction. At that time the applicant was provided with an estimate of the fees required for issuance of the permit. Mr. Hamilton advised that an extension of the approval of a project may be granted if the Commission finds that there have been no significant changes in the General Plan, Municipal Code, or character of the area within which the project is located that would cause the approved project to be injurious to the public health, safety, or welfare. Since approval of the project in late 1995, the only significant change in the project area was the approval of the Berry Gardens Specific Plan and accompanying General Plan amendment. He noted that the subject property is located immediately to the east of Subarea 2 of the Specific Plan, and to date no development proposals have been submitted for that area. Following a discussion between staff and the Commission, Chair Lubin opened the 1 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 9 November 4, 1998 public hearing and requested comments from the audience. Hearing no comments from the public, Chair Lubin closed the public hearing. There was some discussion by the Commissioners regarding fees and a question of whether or not they could be amended to reflect the current fee structure. Commissioner Haney commented that the traffic signalization fees have not been included as part of this approval and inquired if the approval could be modified. Senior Consultant Engineer Craig Campbell advised that the fees mentioned appear recognizable as the current fees and all indications are they are very near the current fee structure. Dale Armstrong. applicant for the project, commented that several of the home owners expressed concerns about the rear of the buildings backing up to the rear of their property and, therefore, the project was redesigned to meet those concerns. He stated they have discussed the fee structure with the Public Works Department and it is his understanding they will be going with the current fee structure. Hearing no further comments from the audience, Chair Lubin closed the public hearing. Commissioner Haney recommended Condition #5 be added to Attachment "A" of the resolution requiring that the applicant comply with all current fee structures. There being no further discussion, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 98 -1674 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING A ONE YEAR TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2197 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95- 534 FOR A FIVE UNIT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 260 SPRUCE STREET, APPLIED FOR BY RICHARD ARMSTRONG On motion by Commissioner Haney, seconded by Commissioner Keen, and by the following roll call vote; to wit: AYES: Commissioners Parker, Keen, Haney, Greene and Lubin NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing resolution was adopted this 4 day of November 1998. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. PRE - APPLICATION REVIEW, CONDOMINIUM /OFFICE COMPLEX, LE POINT STREET; APPLICANT: CLAIRE MARTIN /BAUR. This item was continued to the November 17, 1998 meeting on motion by Commissioner Greene, seconded by Commissioner Keen, and unanimously carried. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 10 November 4, 1998 B. PLANNING COMMISSION INTERPRETATION 1079 EL CAMINO REAL - TEMPORARY USE. Community Development Director Hamilton stated that Mr. Russ Worthington, owner of Worthington Pre -Fab, has entered into an agreement with U. S. Rentals to sublet a portion of their property at 1105 El Camino Real to store and sell gazebos, garden sheds, patio sets, porch swings, parquet decking and similar items on a paved portion of the property. Until recently the entire property was used by U. S. Rentals for outdoor storage of rental equipment and other supplies, however, they have indicated that the lot will be empty for approximately one year while the company reorganizes their equipment and services in Arroyo Grande. Mr. Hamilton advised that, if approved, the applicant intends to locate one 40 foot long storage container on the property and two 60 x 40 foot shade tents. In addition, the applicant will request approval for the placement of several signs advertising the business. No detail on the proposed size or location of the signs has been provided at this time. Mr. Hamilton stated that staff has initiated an interpretation to determine if the proposed use qualifies as a temporary use within the confines of the adopted Ordinance. He advised the property is located in an industrially zoned area and is surrounded by a mix of commercial and industrial uses with significant outdoor storage. The applicant and the property owner have indicated that the proposed use of the property will be temporary in nature for one year or Tess. Staff is requesting . that the Planning Commission determine if the use described would be consistent with the intent of the Temporary Use Permit ordinance. In response to Commissioner Haney's question regarding signs, Mr. Hamilton advised since this is a co- located business, a single face square foot sign would be allowed. Commissioner Green a stated, in his opinion, a temporary use should fall within a six month category. Commissioner Keen stated he would be opposed to allowing this use more than six months without a review. Commissioner Haney stated he also believes six months is an appropriate time period and suggested that the last sentence under Item #1 be amended to read "...for a period not to exceed six (6) months." RESOLUTION NO. 98 -1675 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE INTERPRETING THAT OUTSIDE DISPLAY, STORAGE, AND RETAIL SALES IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT FOR A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS OR LESS FALLS WITHIN THE INTENT OF THE TEMPORARY USE PERMIT ORDINANCE On motion by Commissioner Haney, seconded by Commissioner Keen, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: 1 1 1 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 11 November 4, 1998 AYES: Commissioners Parker, Greene, Haney, Keen and Lubin NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing resolution was adopted this 4th day of November 1998. PLANNING COMMISSION /COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ITEMS AND COMMENTS. A. Update of Projects. With regard to the Draft EIR on the James Way Annexation, Mr. Hamilton stated that the final documents has not come in yet, and will be circulated as soon as they are received. B. Recommended Modification to the Planning Commission Agenda Format. The Commission expressed their concurrence with the recommended change in the agenda format. Mr. Hamilton advised that the format will be changed by the first meeting in December. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m. on motion by Commissioner Haney, seconded by Commissioner Greene, and unanimously carried. ATTEST: Pearl L. Phinney, Commission AS TO CONTENT: Hamilton, AICP Community Development Director LAA-)K ?4' 1