Loading...
PC Minutes 1997-10-071 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 1997 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Lubin presiding. Present are Commissioners Greene, O'Donnell, Rondeau and Haney. Community Development Director Doreen Liberto - Blanck, Associate Planner Bruce Buckingham and Assistant Public Works Director Craig Campbell are also in attendance. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT 2240, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 97 -553 (P.U.D.) AND ASSOCIATED ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW, 9 UNIT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT; APPLICANT ZADDIE R. BUNKER TRUST /GARY WHITE; LOCATED AT 410 S. ELM STREET Associate Planner Bruce Buckingham reviewed the staff report dated October 7, 1997. Staff recommends that this item be continued to November 4, 1997. This item was originally scheduled for October 21 however, the applicant has requested continuance to the November 4 meeting. On motion by Commissioner O'Donnell, seconded by Commissioner Haney, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was continued to November 4, 1997. PUBLIC HEARING - LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT CASE NO. 97-541, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 97-559 (P.U.D.) AND ASSOCIATED ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW, VARIANCE CASE NO. 97 -203; APPLICANT ED DORFMAN (MORNINGRISE PHASE II); LOCATED AT 1097 FARROLL AVENUE. Associate Planner Buckingham briefly reviewed the staff report dated October 7, 1997. He advised that in February 1995 the Planning Commission approved Morningrise Phase I, a 37 unit Planned Unit Development located adjacent to this site. The applicant is now submitting Phase II of that development for an additional 37 units. The project site overlays a portion of an antiquated subdivision which was originally approved in 1908. The original lots were 25 feet wide by 140 feet. Some of the projects adjacent to the site also were overlying this antiquated subdivision and have recently had lot line adjustments approved by the Planning Commission in the last two years, including Morning Rise Phase I adjacent to the west, Victorian Court adjacent to the east, and the Keith/Gin project at the southeast corner of South Elm Street and Farroll Avenue. Mr. Buckingham advised that in January 1995, the Planning Commission adopted an interpretation of the Development Code that allows projects that have been reconfigured through the lot line adjustment process to use pre - development code development standards. This increased the allowable lot coverage for this project from 40% to 50 %, and reduced several setbacks. The proposed lot line adjustment would reconfigure 40 existing lots, portions of 20 lots, and three previously abandoned roads into 37 lots. The design of the adjusted lots includes the proposed Starlight Lane, which would connect Morning Rise Lane to Farroll Avenue. The applicant is requesting a Variance to reduce the required curb to curb width from 40 feet to 38 feet. As a result, the right of way width would also be reduced from 52 feet to 50 feet. This is necessary to match the existing width and design of Morning Rise Lane, which was approved by the Planning Commission as part of Morning Rise Phase I. The Public Works and Fire Departments support the modified street design. It also creates a slightly deeper lot, allowing for more private open space. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 2 October 7, 1997 The applicant is also requesting approval to increase the combined retaining wall and fence heights above the maximum code requirements of six feet, and the variance request is to allow walls higher than that. Since the plans you have were submitted, the applicant has been able to refine some of those elevations and, as a result, they believe they can meet all the conditions as stipulated in Variance Condition #7 regarding the wall/fence heights except for the lots adjacent to Lots 59 through 62 of the proposed development. Mr. Buckingham advised that staff met with the applicant earlier today regarding the conditions of approval and a few changes were recommended by staff. He briefly reviewed the revised conditions that were handed out to the Commission at tonight's meeting. Mr. Buckingham stated that, based on the above, the Staff Advisory Committee and Architectural Review Committee recommend that the Planning Commission approve the project subject to the conditions of approval as modified. After a brief discussion between the Commission and staff, Chair Lubin open the hearing for public comment. Ed Dorfman. 285 La Crests, developer of the project, stated their original goals in the first phase of this project were small lots, strong architecture to permit diversity of appearance, single story units to allow privacy in outdoor areas in all adjacent homes, and the zero lot line to allow full use of the property. This second phase is just a mirror image of the first phase; same floor plans, exteriors and layouts. He noted that the idea of zero lot lines is simply not to waste two five foot side yards on each side of the units. Jim Garing, engineer for the tract, complimented staff for the way they worked with them on the project. Hearing no further comments for or against the proposed project, Chair Lubin closed the hearing to public comment. Commissioner O'Donnell stated he believes the proposed development is in compliance with the City Codes, goes well with the area and ties in with Phase I. He commented he likes the architecture and the idea of zero lot lines to give residents more yard space. Commissioner Greene stated he does not have concerns about the project and, given the modifications made by staff, he believes the project should be approved and he supports the recommendations by staff. Commissioners Haney and Rondeau concurred with the comments made by the other Commissioners. Chair Lubin stated he was on the Planning Commission during approval of the first phase and did have some concerns about the wall height. However, he was pleased about how it came out, he further stated he is very pleased with the side -on garages and feels that is an added design feature needed to eliminate the rows of garages when driving down the street. There being no further discussion, the following action was taken. RESOLUTION NO. 97 -1635 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMIVIISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT CASE NO. 97 -541, LOCATED AT 1097 FARROLL AVENUE, APPLIED FOR BY ED DORFMAN; ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WITH MITIGATION MEASURES AND INSTRUCTION THAT THE SECRETARY FILE A NOTICE OF DETERMINATION 1 1 1 1 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 3 October 7, 1997 On motion by Commissioner Greene, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Greene, O'Donnell, Haney, Rondeau and Lubin NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing resolution was adopted this 7 day of October 1997. RESOLUTION NO. 97 -1636 A RESOLUTION OF 1HE PLANNING COMNIISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (P.U.D. PERMIT) CASE NO. 97 -559, AND ASSOCIATED ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW TO CREATE A 37 UNIT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, APPLIED FOR BY ED DORFMAN AT 1097 FARROLL AVENUE; ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WITH MITIGATION MEASURES AND INSTRUCTION THAT THE SECRETARY FILE A NOTICE OF DETERMINATION On motion by Commissioner O'Donnell, seconded by Commissioner Greene, and by the following roll call vote, to wit : AYES: Commissioners O'Donnell, Greene, Rondeau, Haney and Lubin NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing resolution was adopted this 7` day of October 1997. RESOLUTION NO. 97 -1637 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING VARIANCE CASE NO. 97 -203, APPLIED FOR BY ED DORFMAN, AT 1097 FARROLL AVENUE, VARIANCE FROM DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 9- 15.020 TO REDUCE THE RIGHT -OF -WAY WIDTH OF A LOCAL STREET FROM 52 TO 50 FEET (CURB TO CURB MEASUREMENT) FROM 40 FEET TO 38 FEET); INCREASED WALL /FENCE HEIGHTS; ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INSTRUCTION THAT THE SECRETARY FILE A NOTICE OF DETERMINATION On motion by Commissioner Haney, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Haney, O'Donnell, Greene, Rondeau and Lubin NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing resolution was adopted this 7 day of October 1997. Staff advised the audience of the appeal period. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 4 October 7, 1997 PRE - APPLICATION REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL PLAN FOR AN EIGHT (8) BUILDING BUSINESS PARK CONSISTING OF 145,000 SQUARE FEET ON 13.5 ACRES; APPLICANT ED DORFMAN/LEE WEBB; LOCATION NORTHEAST CORNER OF TRAFFIC WAY AND EAST CHERRY AVENUE Associate Planner Bruce Buckingham advised that the 13.5 acre site is comprised of two parcels. The 2 acre comer lot is designated General Commercial. The adjacent 11.5 acre lot is designated Agriculture. Currently the entire 13.5 acres are planted in row crops. The site is within the Village Design Guideline Overlay and would be required to conform to the adopted design standards. Mr. Buckingham explained that a Pre - Application Review is intended to allow feedback and /or discussion between the applicant and the Commission. It is not a public hearing, although the Commission may allow interested parties to speak on the matter. He further stated that the Commission's comments are not final and do not necessarily have to reflect any future action by the Planning Commission. In summary, Mr. Buckingham sated that the applicant is seeking feedback on whether the City would support a General Plan Amendment to allow a business park on the subject site, and the Commission should consider providing feedback on what issues exist and whether there is support for a business park at this location. Ed Dorfman. 285 La Cresta, applicant for the project, stated that they are asking for input on how to proceed on this project, and responding to requests from some of the business people, Chamber of Commerce and other persons to get "clean industry" in our area. He stated they held a meeting with 10 to 15 of the neighbors on Cherry Avenue to get their input. One of the concerns the neighbors had was increased traffic. Another issue was compatibility of the business use and the residential use. The Commission discussed the drainage problems, height of the two story buildings; buffers between the mobilehome park and business park; proposed architecture of the buildings, and uses that would be permitted in the project. Other issues were hours of operation, lighting and noise generated by the proposed project. Chair Lubin opened the discussion for public comment. Lynn Titus. 404 Lierly Lane, stated her opposition to the proposed business park; this property is in the Village. The City is now undergoing a General Plan update and to change the zoning before the General Plan is updated would not be fair. The property is surrounded on three sides by homes; some of which are new homes on the hill and they will look down on a business park. She stated that this is not the place for a business park; this is the Village. Otis Page, 606 Biddle, agreed with Ms. Titus' comments. He made reference to the contemplated development of the Fredericks' property and the possible annexation of land in that area, and it would be a contradiction for the City to endorse this project as a business development considering its unique residential quality. L. E. Vandeveer, 756 Myrtle, stated this is not a place for a business park. He commented that a residential development would generate far less traffic than a business park. 1 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 5 October 7, 1997 Nanci Parker. 129 East Cherry, stated she is amazed that anyone would even consider putting an industrial business commercial park in the middle of a housing community in the Village. Also, this agricultural property brings in crops of lettuce and vegetables three times a year, which is very important. Other concerns are noise and commercial lighting, water flow and traffic. She commented she is not opposed to commercial use or industrial use, but she is opposed to having a business park in the middle of her neighborhood. James Adair. 131 E. Cherry Avenue, stated his main concern is traffic. He recommended traffic lights at Cherry Avenue and Traffic Way, and Traffic Way and Fair Oaks Avenue; a turn lane on Traffic Way. The same needs to be put in on Cherry Avenue; parking on both sides, paved and with sidewalks, and a turn lane in the middle. Ella Honeycut, Coastal Resource Conservation District, spoke regarding preservation of prime agricultural land. She stated we have the finest farm land in the country and growing vegetables is the highest and best use of that land. Laurie Williams. 411 East Cherry, stated she is concerned about increased traffic and the safety of her children and the children who live on East Cherry. The traffic backup is already from Fair Oaks Avenue to Fast Cherry. She is also concerned about the safety of people coming off the freeway, and the trucks coming in will be driving all around the outside in the residential area. Cindy Fear, 317 E. Cherry Avenue, stated she agrees with Laurie Williams and is concerned about the traffic hazards. Kevin Ferguson. 605 Village Court, agreed with prior comments made by the audience and thinks the historic downtown Village has a lot of potential and it is shortsighted to think we need a big injection from a business park. Michael Thomas. 267 E. Cherry Lane, stated his concerns about the traffic and the safety for his son. He also asked for information of other examples where light industrial parks have been developed in the middle of a residential area and the affect of property values and quality of life in those areas. Dave Johnson, 502 Allen Street, spoke regarding the increased traffic. Lisa Ferguson. 605 Village Court, stated the proposed site is in the Village area; and a business park does not belong in the Village area. Steve Fear, 317 E. Cherry, stated he has worked in industrial parks for the last 20 years and after about 5 or 10 years these areas look terrible because of crime, etc. Salvatore Federico. East Cherry Avenue, stated he has lived on Cherry Avenue for almost 30 years; he does not think it is right to put industrial in the Village area; it is a quiet peaceful area and should stay that way. Mike Titus. 404 Lierly Lane, commented about the upcoming General Plan update and, in his opinion, any significant rezoning at this time is premature. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 6 October 7, 1997 Lela Perez, 500 Launa Lane, stated the retired people living in the area would not like to have the extra traffic and noise that an industrial park would generate. Larry Turner, 323 Noguera Place, stated he is in agreement with the previous comments and would like to see the agricultural use stay. Royce Parker, 129 E. Cherry Avenue, spoke regarding increased traffic the proposed project would generate and he would like to see the agricultural use remain. Hearing no further comments from the audience, Chair Lubin thanked the audience for their participation and input. After a brief discussion among the Commissioners, it was the consensus of the Commission that because of the wide range of impacts this project would have on the City, it would be more appropriate that this particular project be considered as part of the General Plan update. Chair Lubin stated that from the comments he heard tonight, what needs to be done now is to pass on to the Parking and Traffic Commission the traffic problems on Fast Cherry and Traffic Way. PLANNING COMNIISSION INTERPRETATION RELATING TO SKATEBOARDING ACTIVITIES; CALVARY CHAPEL, 1133 MAPLE STREET; (CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE) Community Development Director Doreen Liberto-Blanck reviewed the staff report dated October 7, 1997. She stated that included in the Commissioners' packets was a letter from the City Attorney which addresses several of the issues. After a brief discussion between staff and the Commission, Chair Lubin advised this is a Non - Public Hearing Item and opened the discussion to the audience for their input. Steve Carr, 312 Gularte Road, Senior Pastor of the Calvary Chapel, stated that the issue before the Commission this evening is simply if the Calvary Chapel is in violation of the Zoning Code. He stated he takes issue with the reference to the church group activity as a skateboard facility; he does not feel it could be could be classified as a skateboard facility with five skateboard ramps used for only three hours one night a week. This is simply a youth group activity for the youth of the church, and to classify it as a recreational facility, as under Item 14 of the Zoning Code, it clearly states that businesses or clubs are the primary use of the property; this is an incidental use of the property. This is a free activity and there is no commercial purpose for it. Pastor Carr stated he also disagrees with the City Attorney's statement that Item 14 is somewhat ambiguous. It was his opinion that the Zoning Code is very clear and anything but vague. The primary use of this property is a church and one of the functions of the church is to provide a safe activity for the kids. He referred to other churches in the community that have recreational facilities and were not required to get a conditional use permit. He stated he does not believe that the Community Development Department has the right to regulate a church activity. Pastor Carr read paragraphs from a brief sent to him by the Rutherford Institute regarding zoning and recreational activities. He concluded that the issue, according to legal minds, is not something that the Commission should determine. 1 1 1 1 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 7 October 7, 1997 Pastor Carr addressed the concerns of the neighbors regarding excess noise, parking and traffic, stating they are willing to work with the neighbors and attempt to resolve those concerns. Arlene Gibbs. 1169 Maple Street, stated she is one of the neighbors that has been complaining about the activity. She complained about the noise and traffic and parked cars obstructing her driveway. Gary Keavney. 741 Shamrock Lane. Pismo Beach, a member of the Board of Directors of the Calvary Chapel, referred to comments made by the City Attorney in his memo addressed to the Community Development Director. He also took exception to the letter received from the Code Enforcement Officer, dated September 16, 1997 requesting that the church immediately cease operation of the skateboard recreational use, and advising that a conditional use permit application be submitted to permit continued operation of the use. He stated that if the Commission just looked at the zoning law and interpret it at the face value, it would be a "slam dunk". Mike Byrd. Maple Street, stated he lives next door to the church. He pointed out he is not against the facility, however, this issue is over a conditional use permit and a conditional use permit approved the church. Another reason that a conditional use permit is required is to put conditions on a particular use; in his opinion, this is not an issue about whether or not we are going to have a skateboard facility for kids; the issue is to have reasonable conditions on that use. He referred to some of the impacts on the neighborhood such as the loud music, flood lights shining in his window and the traffic issue. Bill Miller. 578 -B No. 16t Street. Grover Beach, stated the church members did all of the work on this facility, put it all together so the kids would have a place to go on Friday nights. He expressed concern about the possibility of having to have permits for the kids coming on Wednesday nights and special permits for people coming on Sunday to park out in front; and inquired "where is this going to stop ?" Cara Denny. 2320 Ocean Street. Oceano, stated she is concerned about more and more encroachment of government, whether it be local, state or national, upon what is considered a church. With regard to prior comments relating to impacts, she believes that the impact on the community by the lives that will be changed by the ministry will be much more beneficial and will be far greater than the impact of three hours once a week. Michael Bulanzateg. 430 Mercury Drive. Nipomo, stated that skateboarders and rollerbladers are people that want to have fun and are part of the community; the church is providing a place to have the kids off the streets, where they are not into drugs and getting into trouble, and they have a safe environment. Bill Barry. 828 Quail Court, Associate Pastor of Calvary Chapel, reiterated previous comments made by the audience. He stated the church is doing all within their power to alleviate the noise and parking problems, however, he feels the major impact will be a positive impact on the community. Paul Sisemore, 2280 Ocean Street. Oceano, Youth Pastor, stated that the skateboard ramps are temporary facilities; they are not permanent structures. He stated he has 100 people in his high school youth group, and if he opened up the basketball hoops or baseball, he would have 100 people there. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 8 October 7, 1997 Diane Barstow, 200 Cienega, Oceano, Secretary of the church, stated the church and the community have grown since the original conditional use permit was granted. She pointed out that skateboarding just around town destroys public and private property and the kids are always in trouble because they are breaking the law and we are trying to prevent that activity by giving the kids a place to take their skateboards and to have fun with them without destroying public property. She stated the interest of the City is to keep crime down and to keep property damage down; the church's interest is to bring these kids in and put them on a path where their lives are going to mean good things to this community, and requiring a conditional use permit is the first step in restraining our freedom to help the community. She further stated the church will try to work with neighbors to work the bugs out and be as considerate as possible, but coming to the City every time they want to do something new would be a waste of the Commission's time and would hinder what they want to do as a church. Cathy Erickson, 1165 Maple Street, stated she lives next door to the church and since this activity began she can't get into her driveway and the noise is atrocious. She further stated it is not only the skateboard activity; in the summer time they have a school program where for one week there are a lot of kids on the site and lots of noise, but she does not complain about that or the church services on Sunday. However, she did not expect to have a skateboard park in her backyard. Cathy Smith, 363 N. 5 Street. Grover Beach, stated she applauds the church for making this facility for the kids because there is no place else where they can go, and as a citizen and a mom, she appreciates what this group is doing because it gives her kids a place to go instead of hanging out at the pier on Friday night. Randy Jenkins. 670 Via Contento. Santa Maria, suggested that before making a decision, the Commission check with the local Police Departments to see what they think about providing a facility for our youth on a Friday night, Also, before making a decision, he invited the Commission to come out on a Friday night and see what is being done. Linda Kirby. 340 No. 11 Street. Grover Beach, spoke about increased crime in the community, inquiring about what the community has done to give these children something positive to do other than getting involved in negative activities; the church is stepping out to do something because nobody else is. She stated she hopes the problems with the neighbors can be ironed out to make this work for the children and for the future. Lynn Parks, 1146 Maple Street, stated she is a close neighbor of the church, and stated that Item 14 seemed to include what this church is trying to do and in reading this, she does not see how the Commission could require a conditional use permit; but if they do require one, give it to them. Linda Nelson. 1711 Manhattan. Grover Beach, stated she is one of the adults whose job it is to make sure that the kids have the knee pads and helmets that are required before they enter if they are going to be skating. The kids are there for the entertainment and for the fellowship, and the adults are providing that for the children. 1 1 1 1 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 9 October 7, 1997 Dane Philips. 212 La Paz Circle, spoke in favor of this use, however, he would struggle with it if he lived on Maple Street. He stated that the church has grown over the years and provides a lot more service to a lot more people than it did when it was originally established. Also, he did not see any difference between skateboarding, basketball, volleyball or any other activities. He stated he does not believe it is reasonable to cite one particular activity or sport and say that would be something that would not be allowed. He suggested perhaps one compromise would be using the Soto Sports Complex on Ash Street for parking for this activity on Friday night. Josh, stated he does not feel a conditional use permit is necessary and, in his opinion, if there are any problems, the church will bend over backwards to solve them. Ron Gibbs. 1169 Maple Street, referred to the original use permit, noting that at the time the church agreed to have the Commission review any changes that would adversely affect the neighborhood. He stated he is not opposed to skateboard parks and is not opposed to kids having someplace to go; the problem is it is in the wrong place because the area is too densely residential. Terry Sisemore. 2280 Ocean Street. Oceano, stated if that is the wrong place; where is the right place? Bob Gannon. Grover Beach, stated there is no other place in the City to go to skate, and he took his kids over there Friday night and they had a great time. Kirk Shower. 204 Ruth Ann Way, stated he visited the park and he saw something that was connecting with the kids, and there is nothing like that in this City to his knowledge. He stated he does not think the church should need a use permit, but if they do, he encouraged the Commission to give them one because they are touching the kids. Chair Lubin thanked the audience for their input, stating it is extremely important to the Commission. Commissioner O'Donnell stated it is his feeling that this particular project needs to be reviewed under the conditional use permit because anytime there is a change in the use, it needs to be reviewed. Commissioner Rondeau agreed with Commissioner O'Donnell, adding there is fiscal responsibility in a community and we all have to share and we all have to pay our own way. Commissioner Greene stated this is not a referendum on the free exercise of a persons first amendment right to religious freedom; nor is it within the Planning Commission's authority to amend or change the Development Code. He further stated that, in his opinion, the City does have the authority to enforce the Development Code as it pertains to church related activities. He also agrees that ambiguities may exist in the Code and perhaps clarification is needed under Development Code Section 9.01.050. Further, he stated he believes that the existing conditional use permit approved in 1982 did not encompass this type of intensity of use, and he agrees that perhaps this is not so much the need of a new conditional use permit, but a reassessment of the existing conditional use permit for the purposes of determining whether this activity falls within the authority that the church was granted in 1982. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 10 October 7, 1997 Commissioner Haney substantially agreed with the conclusions of Commissioners O'Donnell and Greene. He stated it is clear that the abutting neighbors will be adversely affected by this activity, therefore, it is clear that there is a change in the circumstances from what was originally conceived when the original use permit was granted. Commissioner Haney read from the provisions of Section 9.03.050 as follows: "The purpose of the Conditional Use Permit: The Conditional Use Permit is intended to allow the establishment of those uses which have some special impact or uniqueness as such that their effect on the surrounding environment cannot be determined in advance of the use being proposed for a particular location. The permit application process allows for the review of the location and design of the proposed use, configuration of improvements and evaluation of the potential impact on the surrounding area from the proposed use. The review shall determine whether the proposed use should be permitted by weighing the public_ need for and benefit to be derived from the use against any adverse impact it may cause." Chair Lubin stated that since 1982 when the original conditional use permit was granted, the church has grown substantially, with the Wednesday night and Sunday activities and no conditional use permit has been required or a review of that conditional use permit has been required. He further stated this is a question of City regulations; not whether we want a skateboard park. He concurred with other Commissioners that the infringement on other people's rights must be considered. After further discussion, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 97 -1638 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PROVIDING AN INTERPRETATION THAT A SKATEBOARD RECREATIONAL FACILITY NEEDS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IN THE PUBLIC FACILITY ZONE On motion by Commissioner Greene, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Greene, O'Donnell, Haney, Rondeau, and Lubin NOES: None ABSENT: None after changes to the resolution reading Table 9- 09.040 -A of the Development Code to read Table 9- 09.040 -A and C of the Development Code the foregoing resolution was adopted this 7 day of October 1997. Community Development Director Liberto-Blanck advised the Commission's decision on this matter can be appealed to the City Council within ten days. PLANNING COMNIISSION /COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ITEMS AND COMMENTS Chair Lubin was appointed to the Fiscal Impact Analysis Committee. He advised he would be out of the County in November for approximately ten days. 1 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission October 7, 1997 Commissioner Greene stated it is possible he may miss the next scheduled meeting. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 11:45 p.m. on motion by Commissioner O'Donnell, seconded by Commissioner Rondeau, and unanimously carried. ATTEST: Pearl L. Phinney, Commission Jerk S TO CONTENT: Doreen Liblerto- Blanck, AICP Community Development Director Page 11