Loading...
PC Minutes 2006-08-01� � MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 2006 6:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER - The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Fellows presiding; also present were Commissioners Brown, Parker and Tait; Commissioner Ray was absent. Staff members in attendance were Community Development Director, Rob Strong, Associate Planners, Kelly Heffernon and Teresa McClish, and Public Works Engineer, Victor Devens. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Request for the public to turn off their cell phones during the meeting. AGENDA REVIEW: No changes requested. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Parker to approve the minutes of July 13, 2006 with one correction (to a name spelling). The motion passed on a 4/0 voice vote, Commissioner Ray being absent. I. A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Carolyn Johnson Freedman, 192 Ruth Ann Way, stated that she would like to add a small second story addition to her home; after a meeting with her neighbors to discuss this she was submitting a letter describing their suggestions for modifications to the D- 2.7 Overlay boundaries. She presented the Commission with a letter detailing the suggested modifications, requesting that they be considered at the meeting of September 5, 2006 when this overlay was scheduled to be considered by the Planning Commission. B. 1 2 3 4 5 6 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: , A letter submitted at the meeting from David Mann, 270 Alder Street, opposed to item II.A. Alder House. , A letter submitted at the meeting, from Marsheila DeVann & Danny Williams, 268 Alder Street, opposed to Item II.A. Alder House. , A letter received August 1, 2006 from John Dohm (signed by four other neighbors) opposed to Item II.A. Alder house. . Jason Blankenship, requesting D-2.7 Overlay be considered first. . Staff report from T McClish with addition of Exhibit C. . A letter dated July 27, 2006, from David Robasciotti, 178 South Elm Street, regarding Development Code Amendment for the area of West S. Elm Street not included as part of the existing Design Overlay Districts. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 1, 2006 PAGE 2 II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT CASE NO. 04-001, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 04-001, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 05- 006, & LOT MERGER CASE NO. 05-001; APPLICANT — TODD TOSE; LOCATION — 265, 279 AND 295 ALDER STREET Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon, presented the staff report for review of a proposal to expand an existing 13,000 square foot, senior assisted living facility, by approximately 10,000 square feet, allowing for a maximum capacity of 48 bedrooms. Ms. Heffernon stated that the ARC considered this project on April 6, 2006 and their recommended conditions had been included in the resolution of approval. In conclusion, Ms. Heffernon recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending the City Council approve the General Plan Amendment, Development Code Amendment, Conditional Use Permit and Lot Merger. In answer to Commission questions staff clarified the parking requirements and stated: • The mass and scale fits in with the current neighborhood • If the 10" oak remains where it is, the proposal would require a redesign. • Other concerns regarding the trees can be conditioned by the Commission (in addition to the conditions recommended by the ARC) and will be incorporated when the final landscape plan comes back. • Water conservation retrofit for the existing facility can be confirmed with the Building Department; the voluntary retrofit funding for the City is working very well. • The City determined that the PD designation was not justified for the small size of the subject property. • Erosion control measures contained in the mitigation measures of the mitigated negative declaration are standard measures for all developments. • The grading at this site will not require special monitoring for archeological artifacts. • The Fire Department equipment can be screened with landscaping as it is only required to be 12" above grade — staff will monitor this. • Fast growing evergreens will be planted to fill in gaps in the landscaping along the southern property boundary. • The sidewalk will not be extended all the way down Dodson due to the short front setback on one of the properties; Condition No. 35 will be changed to reflect this. Chair Fellows opened the public hearing for public comment. Todd Tose, Manager of Alder House, gave the history of Alder house; displayed a large model of the proposed expansion and stated they were requesting this to meet the growing needs of the community; they were seeking the recommendation of an arborist concerning the 10" oak and the Cedar tree; it would not be feasible to keep the oak where it . is as they would lose six bedrooms; they had talked to residents in the neighborhood to try to address their concerns; if the addition is built employees would then be able to park onsite; they are now asking for 48 bedrooms; they no longer offer PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 1, 2006 PAGE 3 shared rooms; retrofitting for low flow water use has already been done in the existing facility. In reply to questions from Commissioner Brown, Mr. Tose stated they intended to break up the look of the mass/scale of the expansion with substantial landscaping to screen the building and a trellis with vines growing to screen the first story bedrooms; the loss of six bedrooms would make it economically unviable as the number of service rooms, number of staff, requirement for an elevator, and common areas would all still need to be the same; most residents do not drive so the parking is more than adequate. In reply to questions from Chair Fellows, Joanne Tose stated that most residents no longer have vehicles; the 22 residents have approximately four to five visitors a day; visits by ambulances vary, but average about one every three months over a year. Dan Holland, 305 Alder Street, stated concerns with the mass and height (2-story) of the building; their second story now looks out on trees and open space; he would like to request that the mass be reduced and one-story be considered; if the plan gets approved as is, the ARC conditions regarding the pine trees and the fast growing evergreens should stay in place; this proposal would have a big impact on his property. Marsheila DeVan, 268 Alder Street, stated she moved to Arroyo Grande eight months ago; is opposed to the plan; had no idea this was being planned until finro days ago and she did not get noticed; this large two-story will change the character of the neighborhood; parking is already difficult and guests of the Alder House always park in front of their house, especially on the weekends; the size and scale of this proposal is massive; has concern with pedestrian safety (they have children) with the additional traffic; does not want to see any trees removed as the existing building sits back off the road and is screened by the landscaping; requested the Commission not pass this; if it does pass she wants it scaled down to maintain the neighborhood; noise; other environmental factors are also a concern. Danny Willams (husband of Marshiela), 268 Alder Street, also opposed to the project due to mass and scale; stated concerns with the amount of ambulances and fire trucks that come to the Alder House (does not believe only one every 3 months) and traffic from delivery trucks; he suggested the whole proposal be redesigned by turning it to sit behind the PUD's; if there is adequate parking why do their employees park on the street? In reply to a question from Mr. Williams, Mr. Devens stated there will be some undergrounding required, but they would have to consult with PG&E regarding the pole he was referring to. John Dohm. 237 Alder Street, stated his opposition to the project and wants the neighborhood to remain as it is now- a single-family neighborhood. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 1, 2006 PAGE 4 David Mann, 270 Alder street, stated concerns that instead of including the two existing family residences a two story building is now proposed; he would like to make sure that there is adequate parking and that traffic is considered; regarding the entrance off Dodson Way proposed for commercial deliveries, it seems that it would be even more restricted than the entrance off Alder Street; the double yellow line down the center of the road invites commercial traffic into a residential area; the facility does an excellent job, but this proposal is too large for the space. Mark Jones, 1014 Ash Street, stated he is for the project but he has concerns that the proposed expansion could bring problems with parking, lighting and odors from the kitchen; he does not understand why there is no driveway onto Dotson Street; this high density may set a precedence for other large lots in the area. Mr. Tose addressing the neighbors concerns, stated the number of trucks will remain the same, there should be no increase with the proposed expansion; they keep records (State mandated) showing times and dates that emergency vehicles are called to the facility; they do not have to call them often, especially not at night; employees have been parking on the street, but not at night; they had considered requesting the City for reduced parking (most of the residents do not need a parking space) as one less parking space would allow them to put in an additional driveway. Commissioner Tait stated that to address neighbors concerns the employees should be asked to park in the parking lot and not be parked on residential streets. Hearing no further comment Chair Fellows closed the public hearing. Commission comments: Parker: • She is impressed with the proposed plans for Alder House; it looks like a home - well kept and comfortable; there is a huge need for this in the community and she would really like this to go forward. • There are many neighborhood concerns so these need to be addressed; most of their concerns seem to be regarding the way it will impact the neighborhood. • She agrees that the mature trees should remain (ARC conditions); the oak tree is awesome; if it needs to be removed it would be acceptable to transplant it; it is really important to get the arborist report to see if the Cedar tree can remain out in the front of the building; this would help keep down the mass of the building. • Condition No. 35, re curb & gutter and sidewalk she agrees that the sidewalk should not be put in front of neighbor's house. • Re traffic/parking, she agrees with neighbor's concern on delivery trucks; if there could be a drive in on Alder Street and drive out on Dodson Street it would create a traffic flow and trucks would not have to back in or out. • It would be a good idea to make employees park onsite and be a good way to help neighborhood relationships. .—, � PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 1, 2006 PAGE 5 • Regarding the neighbor's concern with privacy, the windows could be placed in an alternating pattern in the proposed building (so as not to look directly into the PUD that it would be facing). • The concern with lighting can be addressed with mitigation measures. • The big issue is mass the of building; the setback is great, especially with trees planted on the front; she suggested a redesign with the single story being placed in the front and the two-story in the back (stepped back). Tait: . . He agrees with most of Parker's comments and thanked the applicants for the model. After reading the petition signed by residents in 2004, he had disagreed with some of their comments, but after listening to public comment tonight he has more concern with their issues. He would like to see the mass and scale reduced, possibly by retaining the oak tree and losing a few rooms. Delivery access should be looked at so trucks can get in and out easily and not affect the neighbors or employee parking. Condition No. 35 should be changed regarding the sidewalk, curb and gutter. Regarding demolition of the finro residences onsite, he would like to emphasize the use of "green building" which promotes good construction with energy efficiency and good indoor air quality; technology is available to do this and suggested the applicants contact SLO Greenbuild to help with this. Regarding the Negative Declaration, please adhere to (MM 4.3) retaining storm water onsite and the dust control measures during construction. Consider keeping the oak tree to screen and reduce mass and scale; it is great to get the arborist report on the oak and Cedar trees. MM 7.1 needs to include the three options. The project is good, we need facilities like this, but possibly look at reducing the mass somewhat to make everyone happy. Brown: • This type of facility is absolutely necessary and he understands that the size will fill future needs. • In order for the proposed expansion to still have a residential feel, the issue of size and scale needs to be dealt with, even if some bedrooms will be lost. • He suggested that the Commission request a redesign and that it be continued to a future date. Fellows: • MN1 7.1 is inconsistent with ARC conditions and comments on the staff report regarding the trees; all the trees should remain, but the oak tree could be moved about 10 feet to the front and a little to the south rather than box it and take it somewhere else, (that way no rooms would be lost); the Cedar tree is very healthy (so an arborist report not be needed); change the plans where it states to remove trees; the pines have to stay and the evergreens (planted along the south exposure to give the neighbors privacy). PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 1, 2006 PAGE 6 • Regarding the loss of rooms, he respects what the neighbors say so suggest moving the four rooms from the second level and step them back over the single story. • If someone else bought the two homes and a number of residences were built instead as a PUD, this could create a lot more traffic problems. • In order to have the parking lot this large and still have the landscaping, one or two parking spaces could be removed then add landscaping to this area a year or two later if the spaces are not needed. • Regarding parking at the curb, have the City paint the curb green curb and marked with one-hour parking. • It is a good idea to have traffic come in on Alder Street and out on Dodson Street. This would also help emergency vehicles. • MM 7.2, change the language to state "protective fencing should be installed at the drip line around all trees and submit a new landscaping plan showing all the trees as saved. • Condition No. 10, add language to state "no construction, including any tree removals, shall occur on Saturday and Sunday". • Provide a better materials board (not just a piece of paper). • He would like to see more landscaping in the parking lot, not just around the outside. • This project fills a really desperate need in the community. The Commission had a discussion with the applicant on whether they would like to go forward with a recommendation to City Council with the recommended changes to the design. The applicant stated they would be willing to consider changes and would like to go forward for City Council consideration. Commissioner Parker made a motion that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution recommending the City Council approve the General Plan Amendment, Development Code Amendment, Conditional Use Permit and Lot Merger with the following changes: 1. Condition of approval No. 35: curb and gutter changes be made. 2. The mature trees included in MM 7.1, as per the ARC (four conditions) be saved. 3. The oak on the right, front of the building on Alder Street be moved to an alternate site or if not be readdressed by the City. 4. The parking lot should enable ingress from Alder Street and egress out to Dodson Street (loss of one or finro parking spots would be acceptable in order to obtain this). 5. Rescale the front of the building by removing and replacing the top four rooms over the rear of the building (no loss of rooms, but the mass would be decreased on Alder Street) 6. MM 7.2 should state "protective fencing placed around drip lines of all trees retained on site". 7. Condition No. 10 should state that no construction, including removal of any trees, shall occur on weekends. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 1, 2006 PAGE 7 Discussion took place to clarify the process as to how the Council would support the requested changes and whether or not the applicant should redesign the project before going to City Council. Mr. Strong advised the Commission that if the applicant made all the requested changes before going to Council, they may still be asked to make further changes after consideration or it could even be referred back to the Commission. Chair Fellows seconded the motion to adopt: RESOLUTION NO. 06-2005 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, INSTRUCT THE CITY CLERK TO FILE A NOTICE OF DETERMINATION, AND APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT CASE NO. 04-001, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 04-001, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 05-006 AND LOT MERGER CASE NO. 05-001, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 265, 279 AND 295 ALDER STREET, APPLIED FOR BY THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE & VICTOR AND JO ANN TOSE (ALDER HOUSE) The motion was approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Parker, Chair Fellows and Commissioner Tait NOES: Commissioner Brown ABSENT: Commissioner Ray The foregoing Resolution was adopted this 1 St day of August 2006. 8:05 q.m. The Commission took a 10-minute break. B. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 04-005; APPLICANT — CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION — CITYWIDE (Continued discussion from June 6, 2006) Ms. McClish presented the staff report for consideration of proposed modifications to development standards applicable to the RS, SR, MHP and MFA, residential districts, and for consideration of alternatives for the existing Design Overlay Districts (D-2.2, D- 2.3, D-2.8 & D-2.20), as part of the Development Code Update relating to residential districts for consistency with the 2001 General Plan; public comments would also be received for discussion of forthcoming proposals on other Design Overlay districts tentatively scheduled for September 5, 2006. In conclusion, Ms. McClish recommended that the Planning Commission approve the Resolution recommending the City Council PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 1, 2006 PAGE 8 adopt a proposed Ordinance making modifications to the Zoning Map and portions of Title 16. Design Overlav District D-2.20 Only a change in the text is being proposed. In 2004 an ordinance was passed to make sure that 75% of a project would be devoted to office use. The Council has recently directed staff to revisit this issue in terms of the percentage of office use to be dedicated for potential medical offices and reduce this to 50%, which would provide adequate expansion or compatibility with future needs of the hospital. Ms. McClish explained that the Commission could vote on each Design Overlay separately and adopt the Resolution (which covers all four Design Overlays) after Commission discussion if it is still applicable. In reply to questions from the Commission, Ms McClish clarified that these changes only effect the requirements of what has to be devoted for office use and what could be available for other uses in the OMU district. Chair Fellows opened the public hearing for public comment. Jason Blankenship, Central Coast Real Estate Development, stated his support of the proposed change. Rick Castro, President of the Arroyo Grande Hospital, stated they are in support of the proposed change. Hearing no further comment Chair Fellows closed the public hearing. The Commission had no further concerns and stated their support of the text change to the D-2.20 Overlay. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait to recommend to the City Council approval of the text changes to Design Overlay D-2.20. The motion was approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Brown, Chair Fellows, Commissioners Tait and Parker NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Ray Desiqn Overlay District D-2.8 Ms. McClish explained that this area is zoned Rural Residential (RR)and that this design overlay was placed to allow a clustered area of single family homes with a large open space area (includes a church); staff is proposing to repeal the overlay and rezone a portion of the RR area to single family (SF), consistent with the 2001 General Plan PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 1, 2006 PAGE 9 designation and keep the remaining open space as Public Facility (PF) with the open space area included. In reply to a question from Commissioner Parker, Ms. McClish stated the area zoned open space (with a church) does have a dedicated easement for open space recorded on the parcel. Chair Fellows opened the public hearing for public comment and hearing none closed it. The Commission had no further concerns. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Parker, to recommend approval of the change to Design Overlay district D-2.8 to City Council. The motion was approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Brown, Parker, Tait and Chair Fellows NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Ray Desiqn Overlay District RR D-2.3 Ms. McClish stated this neighborhood is in the vicinity of La Barranca north of Tally Ho Chair Fellows excused himself from the discussion due to his residence being in the vicinity of this overlay. Ms. McClish explained that the area that includes the Overlay area D-2.2 & D-2.3 and stated some residences on the west side of James Way are currently zoned RR, but the General Plan classification is low/medium density which is equivalent to the RS zoning district; this is an area where the character of development and the current lot sizes also support the change to RS district; staff is therefore proposing that it be rezoned from RR to RS; the second unit dwelling size standard does differ in each of these districts, 850 sq. ft. versus 1,200 sq. ft. Staff will discuss potential modifications in the upcoming zoning discussions to propose that 1,200 sq. ft. units be allowed on the larger lots in the RS district and 850 sq. ft. on the smaller lots. Vice Chair Brown opened the public hearing for public comment and hearing none closed it. Commissioner Tait made a motion to repeal the overlay and rezone to RS, seconded by Commissioner Parker, to recommend approval of the changes to the Design Overlay District 2.3 to the City Council. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 1, 2006 The motion was approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Brown, Parker and Tait NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Ray ABSTAIN: Chair Fellows Commissioner Tait made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Parker recommending repeal of the Design Overlay District 2.2 and the change in the designated area from RR to RS. The motion was approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Brown, Parker and Tait NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Ray ABSTAIN: Chair Fellows Chair Fellows returned to the meeting. Ms. McClish then further discussed revisions contained in Exhibit "A": Appeals 16.12.150 A. - Appeal of Action: Language revised for clarification of this section. 16.32.020 and 16.32.050: Multi Family Apartment district (MFA) currently 11 dwelling units per acre changed to a maximum of 14 dwelling units per acre to provide consistency with the General Plan. The Senior Housing Residential District (SR), is proposed to be renamed to Multi-Family Very High Density (MF-VH) District, to provide consistency with the General Plan and in response to 2003 State law changes. Mobile Home Parks District (MHP): Density change from 6'/2 to 12 dwelling per gross acre, also to provide consistency with the General Plan. 16.32.030 A. - Residential Densities for Residential Districts - Proposed language to clarify how density units are counted for multi-family dwelling units in response to the City's Housing Element. Chair Fellows opened the public hearing for public comment and hearing none closed it. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait, to recommend approval of the Resolution to City Council, amending portions of Title 16 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code, and adopt: PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 1, 2006 � � RESOLUTION NO. 06-2006 PAGE 11 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND PORTIONS OF TITLE 16 OF THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE (DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 04-005) MODIFYING THE ZONING MAP AND CHAPTERS 16.04, 16.12, 16.32 & 16.44 TO ENSURE CONSISTENCY WITH THE ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL PLAN The motion was approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brown, Parker, Tait and Chair Fellows NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Ray ABSTAIN: Chair Fellows (abstain from Design Overlay District 2.2 & 2.3 only) The foregoing resolution was adopted this 1 day of August 2006. Ms. McClish stated that discussion on this item will continue to the September 5, 2006 meeting. C. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT CASE NO. 06-002 - BIKE & PEDESTRIAN PLAN; APPLICANT CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION — CITYWIDE Community Development Director, Rob Strong, presented the staff report for review of a bike and pedestrian plan prepared by Planning Intern, Brian Soland and himself, and the recommendations of Parks and Recreation Commission and Traffic Commission to amend Circulation/Transportation and Parks & Recreation Elements of the 2001 General Plan. In conclusion, Mr. Strong recommended the Planning Commission approve the Resolution recommending that City Council adopt the 2006 Bikeway and Pedestrian Enhancement Plan. Mr. Strong replied to Commission questions: • The proposed Class 1 bike paths near Oak Park, north of New Hope church, are currently in the Circulation and Parks and Recreation Elements, but there is no trail and it is wetland and would definitely require environmental analysis. • The proposed bike trail from La Canada to the future Hidden Oaks School is not a priority at this time. • The suggestions from Adam Fukushima, Bicycle Coalition, regarding bicycle violators taking a course in bicycle education in lieu of a fine, could be included in the Bike Plan • Re grants/Federal funding: Having a bike plan will enable the City to apply for these grants. • Re "The Safe Routes to Schoot Program", most of the priorities listed are routes to school. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 1, 2006 PAGE 12 • Regarding Hwy 227 (was priority 3), The State has not yet relinquished this portion; Caltrans is responsible for weed abatement in the area along East Branch Street below Paulding Middle School; the lane striping is not a bike lane, � but a shoulder strip; concerns regarding the weed encroachment and the fact that this is a high accident spot can be forwarded to Caltrans with a request to maintain more frequently. In reply to a request from Commissioner Parker regarding the Accident Report from Public Works becoming available, Mr. Devens stated he would pass this request on to Don Spagnolo, Director of Public Works. In reply to questions from Commissioner Brown, Mr. Strong stated he believes the City will move forward on the top 10 priority list to do striping plans, signage plans, and cost estimates if the Council approves the plan. Commissioner Brown stated he believed that pedestrian routes were more important than bicycle routes and should have first priority. Chair Fellows opened the public hearing for public comment and hearing none closed. Commission Comments: Brown: • He wanted to make the recommendation that the priority should be on pedestrian walkways although bikeways are important; the City should get creative to figure out a way to fund this. Tait: • He agreed with Commissioner Brown's comment particularly how the Bike and Pedestrian plan can be implemented and the funding sought. • Pedestrian bicycle bridges (links for shortcuts) are also important. • Re the Grand Jury Report and their findings that up to 25% of morning commutes consists of parents driving their children to school, exposing them to hazards of air pollution, traffic, and causing lack of physical activity; it is important to get the children out to walk or bike to school; the City should look for funding for safe routes to school and the school district should also encourage this. • It is important that the City look into tying into an already existing trail system, the James Way open space, as recommended in Mr. Berlin's letter to the City, in order to create a multi-use pedestrian and wildlife corridor that would also tie into Rancho Grande Park, the library, and the future recreation center. Parker: • She would like the reference to the proposed bike path on the property on La Canada to Hidden Oaks as well as the connection north of New Hope Church removed from the report; both sites are a huge environmental issue. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 1, 2006 PAGE 13 • Priority should be given to the pedestrian connections across Arroyo Grande Creek (two connections: Strother Park/Coach Road and Cherry Creek), for student's safe access. • She would like to remove references that bicycle lockers must/shall be provided (page 13 &15); long-term parking is expensive and could provide problems for keeping them clean (may provide shelter for animals and the homeless); she would rather see money spent on sidewalks, bike paths, and pedestrian safety at this time. • It is a good idea to include the recommendation regarding safety classes instead of fines. Fellows: • Thanked staff for the plan and stated he hopes this plan will encourage bicycle riders although he agrees that there are more walkers than riders at present. • The bridges are important; there is also a need for a narrow bridge where Le Point is broken in two near Tally Ho Creek. Commissioner Brown stated he would like the motion to have language that would include a recommendation to City Council that places pedestrian infrastructure of first importance. Chair Fellows stated that he would like to see the bike and pedestrian plan presented as being of equal importance. Chair Fellows made a motion, seconded approval to the City Council of the General Commissioners comments included. by Commissioner Parker, to recommend Plan Amendment Case No. 06-002 with the Commissioner Tait said the Commissioner's comments are on record so the City Council will be made aware of them. The motion remained as stated including adoption of: RESOLUTION NO. 06-2007 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT CASE NO. 06-002, TO ADOPT THE 2006 BIKEWAY AND PEDESTRIAN ENHANCEMENT PLAN & AMEND THE 2001 GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION/TRANSPORTATION AND PARKS AND RECREATION ELEMENT AS INITIATED BY THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE , The motion was approved by the following roll call vote: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 1, 2006 AYES: Chair Fellows, Commissioners Parker, Brown and Tait NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Ray The foregoing Resolution was adopted this 1 day of August 2006. III. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: None. PAGE 14 IV. REFERRAL ITEMS FOR COMMISSION ACTION/ NOTICES OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS SINCE JULY 18, 2006: None. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: Alternative Process and Schedulinq of Administrative Decisions to the Planninq Commission (continued from the special meetinq of Julv 13, 2006): Mr. Strong stated he was looking for Commission direction on the best way to allow adequate time for discussion of an Administrative Agenda that the Commission may wish to appeal. Commissioner Tait stated that this is a complex and important issue and due to the late hour he would like to delay the discussion to the joint meeting. Commissioner Parker referring to the staff report, e�xpressed her disagreement with two statements in the report: 1) First page, last sentence, regarding automatic extension of the adjournment at 10:00 pm. to allow time for Commission discussion, and stated the decision to extend the meeting past 10:00 p.m. should be a Commission decision, 2) First paragraph, second page, regarding the "courtesy appeal" if a Commissioner has a question about a project it is important to hear it out, especially if adequate information has not been provided. Commissioner Brown agreed with Commissioner Parker's comment regarding the "courtesy appeal", but believed that this discussion was taking place due to the fact that insufficient information was given to the Commission (due to staff shortage) on a project which caused an appeal to be requested; the process has otherwise been successful and he did not that they should "make a mountain out of a molehill". He would like to see the appeal process stay in place. The Commission decided to defer further discussion until the joint meeting of August 14, 2006. � VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: Chair Fellows stated he had two comments: 1) That generic name plates be placed at the staff table for public information during Planning Commission meetings, 2) That seagoing containers were becoming part of the landscape of the City and Mr. Strong has confirmed that the City will be enforcing the Code and not allow the containers. Commissioner Brown asked Mr. Strong if Cingular Wireless, had contacted the Methodist Camp to discuss the feasibility of locating the monopine at their location. Mr. � �J � �J ,� � PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 1, 2006 Mr. Strong said he was not aware that Cingular Wireless had Camp, but believes this location would require a much talle Reservoir; Cingular Wireless would be presenting information Commission hearing. PAGE 15 contacted the Methodist r monopine than the City regarding this at the next VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW-UP: Mr. Strong reminded the Commission of the August 4, 2006 tour of the sewer plant followed by a barbeque at the City Corporation Yard and also the joint meeting of the City Council, Planning Commission, and ARC, August 14, 2006 at 6:30 p.m. V.III. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. ATTEST: h L N REARDON-SMITH SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION �— CHUCK FELLO S, CHAIR TO �QNTE �... �., ., . , ........, COMMUNITY DEVELO MENT DIRECTOR (Minutes approved at the PC meeting of August 15, 2006) S