Loading...
PC Minutes 2006-10-03MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 3, 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, Tait and Ray (expected to arrive later). Staff members in attendance were Community Development Director, Rob Strong, Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon & Teresa McClish, Assistant Planners, Ryan Foster & Jim Bergman, and Public Works Engineer, Victor Devens. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Commissioner Ray would be arriving late due to her having to attend an important meeting. AGENDA REVIEW: The Commission agreed to be hear Public Hearing Item II.D. and Non - Public Hearing item III.A. before the other items. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Brown made a motion to approve the minutes of September 19, 2006 with the following corrections requested: Fellows: • Page 6, second bullet, delete repeat words "is there "; third bullet, change language at the end of the sentence to state: ... "this building will stand out as it is on a corner that is directly in line of sight of east bound traffic ". Parker: • Page 6, fifth bullet, change language at the end of the sentence to state ... "the adjacent uses surrounding the project be marked on the plans to help identity ". The motion was seconded by Commissioner Parker and approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brown, Tait, Parker and Chair Fellows NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Ray A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Jonathan Fow, M.D., stated his interest in a dilapidated house across the street from the Arroyo Grande Hospital, at 378 S. Halcyon, currently not being used, zoned Senior Housing; he would like to improve the building and make it into a medical office space; it would need to be rezoned; would the City be interested in rezoning this? Chair Fellows explained to Dr. Fow that he could apply to the City for a rezoning. Mr. Strong informed Dr. Fow that the City has already had discussions with the property owner and the adjacent property owner regarding a General Plan Amendment, which would need to be done and General Plan Amendment applications are in process of being submitted to the City. Mr. Strong then spoke regarding the City's protocol on recording minutes for SAC, ARC, and the Planning Commission and explained that due to the fact that Planning Commission meetings are now video taped and recorded on DVD, the cassette tapes are no longer required to be kept. DVD's will be kept for the record in addition to written action minutes; all notes and minutes will be abbreviated /action type minutes so as to make better use of staff time. The Commission agreed to discuss this at the end of the meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 2006 B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS (received after agenda preparation): 1. Memo from Assistant Planner, Ryan Foster regarding Item II.C. with request from Mark Vasquez, regarding Conditions of Approval for the project. III. NON PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT CASE NO. 06 -002; APPLICANT — S & S HOMES; LOCATION — NORTH SIDE OF FARROLL AVE. BETWEEN OAK PARK BLVD. AND GOLDEN WEST PLACE Assistant Planner, Jim Bergman, presented the staff report for review of a proposal to move a lot line that would fix an error on the approved plans that have the basketball court in the water basin. In conclusion, Mr. Bergman stated that staff recommends that the Commission adopt the Resolution approving Lot Line Adjustment Case No. 06 -002. Staff answered Commission questions to clarify the lot line location. Although this was not a public hearing Chair Fellows opened the item for public comment and hearing none closed it. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait, to approve Lot Line Adjustment Case 06 -002 and adopt: RESOLUTION 06 -2013 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT CASE NO. 06 -002; LOCATED ON LOTS 24 AND 25 OF TRACT 2310 -2 (NORTH BAKEMAN LANE); APPLIED FOR BY S & S HOMES The motion was approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brown, Tait, Parker and Chair Fellows NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Ray the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 3rd day of October 2006. PAGE 2 II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 06 -007; APPLICANT — SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY FARMER'S MARKET ASSOCIATION; LOCATION — 1400 —1488 EAST GRAND AVENUE (Parking lot in front of Spencer's Fresh Market) Assistant Planner, Jim, Bergman, presented the staff report for consideration of a Conditional Use Permit application for the relocation of the Wednesday morning (8:30 -to 11:00 a.m.) Farmer's Market, to the shopping center at East Grand Avenue and Court land Street. In conclusion, Mr. Bergman stated that staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the Resolution for approval of the conditional use permit. In reply to Commission questions Mr. Bergman stated: • Some increase in traffic can be expected, but the owners of the other businesses PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 2006 seem supportive of the relocation of Farmer's Market to this site. • This will be the permanent location for Farmer's Market and will begin in mid - November. • They will comply with the Health Department sanitation rules. Chair Fellows opened the public hearing for public comment. PAGE 3 Peter Jankey, 635 Buckley Road, representative for Farmer's Market, gave details of their decision to request relocation and explained the manner in which the public had been notified of the upcoming change. Carolyn Freedman, 192 Ruth Ann Way, stated her support of the relocation and asked if this was found to be successful could it be expanded to a Saturday or an evening without coming back to the Commission? Mr. Strong stated that such a request would have to be reviewed by the Commission to be sure that it would not cause conflict with either the neighborhood or the merchants. The Commission had no further concerns and stated their unanimous approval of this request. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Parker, to approve Conditional Use Permit Case No. 06 -007 and adopt: RESOLUTION 06 -2014 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 06 -007, APPLIED FOR BY THE SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY FARMER'S MARKET, LOCATED AT 1400 -1488 EAST GRAND AVENUE The motion was approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brown, Parker, Tait and Chair Fellows NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Ray the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 3rd day of October 2006. A. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 04 -005; APPLICANT — CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION — CITYWIDE AREAS (Continued from 9/5/06 meeting) Associate Planner, Teresa McClish, presented the staff report to continue consideration of an Ordinance with proposed modifications to viewshed review provisions and development standards applicable to Design Development Overlays, SF- D -2.5, RS- D -2.6, and SF- D -2.7. Ms. McClish then explained the proposed changes to each of the overlays, as well as process changes as to what triggers a Viewshed; specific standards to the three design Development Overlay Districts and the definition of story/basement modified on the presentation slides (essentially referring to the Uniform Building Code). PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 2006 In conclusion, Ms. McClish stated that staff recommends that the Commission adopt the Resolution recommending to the City Council that they modify the Zoning Map and Standards for Design Development Overlay Districts as stated above. The Commission asked questions for clarification on each of the Overlays and proposed modifications included in the staff report. Chair Fellows opened the public hearing for public comment. PAGE 4 D -2.5 Comments Faye Ogden, 1211 Montego Street, stated she would like the maximum height to remain as is — does not want change. Howard Mankins, 200 Hillcrest Drive, asked for clarification on the definition of a basement. Ms. McClish explained the proposed modification would work. Jim Dunn, 1247 Montego Street, south side, stated he was in support of the revision to D- 2.5 presented at the meeting of September 5, 2006. Richard D. 1390 Newport Avenue, would like the RS -D -2.6 height controls to be extended to include all of lower Newport Avenue /private drive; this would preclude any possibility of confusion over the basement definition (previously recommended by him and another neighbor at the last meeting). Ms. McClish explained that with the proposed change in process, if someone wishes to increase the height of their property on the south side of Newport Avenue /private drive, it would trigger a viewshed review; this should be enough protection. D -2.6 Carolyn Freedman, stated her support of the proposed viewshed review process for lower Newport Avenue. D -2.7 Marilyn Grover, 260 Ruth Ann Way, (lives at top of hill) stated she and her neighbors had spoken against raising the height and asked why the proposed alternative for Ruth Ann Way was included? Ms. McClish: Staff had considered historical requests received at the counter to remodel (as many of the homes in this area are fairly small), comments received at previous workshops and meetings. Even though their was not much support at the September 5 meeting there was partial neighborhood consensus for removal of height only for several properties in the district). Ms. Grover then stated her concern that a homeowner may not receive a public hearing notice if they are traveling and miss the opportunity to comment on a viewshed review- what happens then? Mr. Strong: Any discretionary decision can be appealed to City Council; there is no assurance that the maximum height would be approved — this is just a threshold. Terry lavicoli, 222 Ruth Ann Way, in support of "no change" and would like this overlay to stay the same; strongly opposes going to 22 -feet. Could a variance be requested for a change in height? Mr. Strong stated it is very difficult to make findings with a variance and most would be denied. 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 2006 PAGE 5 Mr. Dunn, 1247 Montego Street, supports leaving the Overlay the way it is, primarily because people bought their property that way and it would save a lot of review process. Ms. Freedman spoke again, regarding Ruth Ann Way and the neighbors concern regarding notification for public hearings for viewshed review, suggested that a 30 -day notice could be given. In addition, the suggestion to restrict the floor area of a second story to 50% of first story — suggest to make this 40% (this would still be a good size and would be more suitable for the neighborhood; suggested to add language to limit the increase to the date this Ordinance is adopted. Chair Fellows closed the public hearing for public comment. Commission comments: Tait: • D -2.7 is the most controversial, but he agrees with staff's recommendation on all three overlays; it's important to simplify. Parker: • Agrees with all the changes made to date — it's important for the future to have language that everyone can understand. • Has the most concern with D -2.5 for Montego Street (and Mankin's property), but with the triggers for viewshed review included, this should work. • Agrees that using Variance for modifications does not work. • Agrees with Ms. Freedman's suggestion on the 30 -day notice, or two notices, this would give the public enough time to comment or appeal a decision. Brown: • Agrees with the proposed changes. • Also agreed that trying to make findings for a variance is very difficult. • Increase in height limit is a great improvement over story definition. Fellows: • Does not agree with changing the height on the D -2.7 Overlay because of the effect it may have on the people who already own homes in this area; this would change what a person paid for (even though it may create value in one or two cases). • Agrees with the changes to the D -2.5 Overlay, although he would be surprised if all the homeowners are in favor of this. • D -2.6 Overlay: There does not seem to be any problems with the changes as proposed. Commissioner Brown made a motion to approve the Resolution recommending that City Council amend portions of Title 16 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (Development Code Amendment 04- 005B), modifying the Zoning Map and Chapters 16.04, 16.12, & 16.44, as applied to Viewshed Review and Design Development Overlays SF- D -2.5, RS -D- 2.6 & SF- D -2.7, including Exhibit "A" as revised and Exhibit 'B', to ensure consistency with the Arroyo Grande General Plan. Commissioner Parker seconded the motion to adopt: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 2006 The motion was approved by the following roll call votes: Overlay SF- D -2.5: AYES: Commissioners Brown, Parker, Tait, and Chair Fellows NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Ray Overlay RS- D -2.6: AYES: Commissioners Brown, Tait, Parker, and Chair Fellows NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Ray Overlay SF- D -2.7: RESOLUTION 06 -2015 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 04- 005B), MODIFYING THE ZONING MAP AND CHAPTERS 16.04, 16.12, & 16.44 AS APPLIED TO VIEWSHED REVIEW AND DESIGN DEVELOPMENT OVERLAYS SF- D -2.5, RS -D -2.6 AND SF -D -2.7 TO ENSURE CONSISTENCY WITH THE ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL PLAN AYES: Commissioners Brown, Parker, and Tait NOES: Chair Fellows ABSENT: Commissioner Ray the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 3rd day of October 2006. The Commission took a 10- minute break. B. PLOT PLAN REVIEW CASE NO. 06 -015; APPLICANT — OCEAN OAKS BUILDERS; LOCATION — 579 CAMINO MERCADO Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon, presented the staff report for consideration of a proposal to convert twelve (12) of the sixty (60) previously approved condominium units from two (2) bedrooms to three (3) bedrooms. In conclusion, Ms. Heffernon stated that staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve, by minute action, a request to convert 12 of the 60 previously approved condominium units from two- bedrooms to three bedrooms. Staff answered technical questions from the Commission regarding the history of the project and what effect the requested changes would have on the affordable housing issue and traffic. Chair Fellows opened the public hearing for public comment. PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 2006 PAGE 7 Gary Young, applicant and Jeremy Gardener, representative, explained why they were asking for the modification to the floor plans. In reply to Commission questions Mr. Young gave the history of the project and stated that the increase in bedrooms would increase the price for both market units and affordable units, but would satisfy a need. Carolyn French, 525 Dos Cerros, stated that she was not in support of this as it would increase traffic and parking. Asked what the City intended to do regarding the potential increase in traffic. Staff agreed there could be an increase in traffic with the proposed increase in bedrooms; installation of a three -way stop sign would not be feasible in the immediate future; the parking requirement would not change with the increase in bedrooms. Mr. Strong suggested that four of the 3- bedroom units be guaranteed for affordable units. Mr. Young agreed they could do this. Chair Fellows closed the public hearing. Commission comments: Tait: • Concern with the potential increase in traffic. • Agreed that four of the 3- bedroom units should be reserved for affordable. • Concern with the history of this project and how many times it has been changed. • Concern on the impact this will have on affordability — prices will go up. Parker: • Concern on the affordability also, but understands that the developer has to make money - does not believe this is a greed factor as it is offering people what they want, giving them choices — supports the idea of offering 3- bedroom homes. • Agreed that three of the 3- bedroom units could be reserved for affordable, but could approve without this requirement. • Not agree that an increase in bedrooms would trigger an increase in traffic; the Development Code does not require an increase in parking with an increase in bedrooms. • She is in support of this conversion; it offers a choice for people; condos are more affordable and it is great for the community that 25% of the units will be affordable. Brown: • Concern that this project has changed so much since originally being approved. • Concern with the changed affordability issue, but that is past history. • He could support the modifications if some of the 3- bedroom units are reserved for affordable. In reply to a question from Commissioner Fellows on whether a 3 -way stop sign could be installed coming out onto Camino Mercado, Mr. Devens explained why it could be a while before this could be approved. Fellows: • It would be better to have more than one bathroom in the 3- bedroom units. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 2006 • Looking at the big picture, he could support the request for the 3- bedroom units; this project is what we need in this area. • Agrees with the suggestion to reserve three of the 3- bedroom units for affordable (this avoids risk of 12 units going up in price). • If some of the units do not sell the ratio may be able to be changed in the future. Commissioner Parker made a motion, seconded by Chair Fellows, to approve the request to convert 12 of the 60 previously approved condominium units, from 2- bedrooms to 3- bedrooms, with the provision that 25% of the 12 units (or 3 units) be reserved for affordability. The motion was approved by minute action on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Parker, Fellows and Brown NOES: Commissioner Tait ABSENT: Commissioner Ray C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 06 -005; APPLICANT — JEFF HOLLISTER; LOCATION — SOUTH HALCYON ROAD Assistant Planner, Ryan Foster, presented the staff report for consideration of a Conditional Use Permit application for a mixed -use building at the above location consisting of 3,720 square feet of commercial /office space and one (1) apartment. The ARC reviewed the project and their conditions have been included in the Resolution. In conclusion, Mr. Foster stated that staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the Resolution for approval of the proposed project. Staff answered Commission questions regarding drainage, sewer laterals, in lieu fees for undergrounding, permeable paving for the parking area, and the request for cuts in the asphalt on Dodson Way for utility connections. 9:25 p.m. Commissioner Ray arrived. Chair Fellows opened the public hearing for public comment. PAGE 8 Mark Vasquez, representative, then began answering Commission's questions regarding the drainage, undergrounding of overhead utilities, waiving of the condition versus in -lieu fees, permeable paving and the request for making the utility connections on Dodson Way. 10:00 p.m. Commissioner Brown made a motion to continue the meeting past 10:00 p.m. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ray. Discussion: Commissioner Parker stated she would like the time for adjournment to be included in the motion. Commissioner Brown agreed to amend the motion to adjourn at 10:30 p.m. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 2006 AYES: Commissioners Brown, Ray, Parker, Tait, and Chair Fellows NOES: None ABSENT: None The Commission took a 10- minute break. Mr. Vasquez continued addressing the Commission questions and concerns on potential noise from the air conditioning unit, maintenance on the drop inlet, storm water filtration, and the retention system; and stated that they would like to see green building on a project such as this. Hearing no further public comment Chair Fellows closed the public hearing. PAGE 9 Commission comments: Brown: • He could agree to waive Condition No. 16, regarding the cut in Dodson Way and asked Mr. Vasquez what his preference would be. Mr. Vasquez replied that they would like to do the paving, complete the curb and gutter and grind to the center of the street (do half the street). Mr. Foster informed the Commission there are two lots on the property so a condition needs to be added to require a lot merger prior to issuance of a building permit. Brown's comments continued: • He agrees with the retention basin. • He agrees with an in -lieu fee for the undergrounding. Parker: • Agreed that Condition No. 16 could be waived. • It would be a major improvement if undergrounding were done at this site, but understands that it is too much to require for this one development so suggest that the applicant pursue looking for some public funding or City in -lieu fees to address this; would like to see it done at this time if at all possible. • Agree that it may be better to contribute funds to the regional drainage if the City is going to do this in a timely manner; Public Works should decide. • Think this project will be a good improvement to the area; the improvements made from prior recommendations are good also. Tait: • There are a lot of good things about this project — infill, mixed -use, bike racks etc. • He still has issues with the drainage: the balance of the storm water runoff that is not going to be in the retention basin will have a lower level of water quality than historical water run off. • Glad to hear that the applicant is agreeable to contributing to an area -wide regional drainage solution. • He's not in favor of in -lieu fees for undergrounding, but understands the applicant's request. Fellows: • The retention vault is a good idea - absent a regional drainage project. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 2006 • The $35,000 fee for undergrounding utilities will eventually be used for undergrounding, but it would be totally unfair to require a $135,000 fee. • An 18% parking reduction is too much; there is a lot of on street parking due to the apartments next door. • Condition No. 16: Half the street should be required to be paved (not curb to curb). • Condition No. 5: Agree a Lot Merger should be required. • The Fire Department connection, double detector check valve, should be as low to the ground as possible, in a landscaped area and painted a "John Deer" Green. Chair Fellows made a motion to adopt the Resolution recommending approval of Conditional Use Permit Case No. 06 -005 to City Council with the following conditions: 1. The retention vault is required. 2. The $35,000 fee for undergrounding is required. 3. Condition No. 16 is reduced to half of the requirement for the paving. 4. Condition No. 5 is required for the Lot Merger. 5. The Fire Department connection double detector valve be as low to the ground as possible, in a landscaped area, but not obscured. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Brown and moved to adopt: RESOLUTION 06 -2016 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 06 -005; LOCATED AT 231 SOUTH HALCYON ROAD; APPLIED FOR BY JEFF HOLLISTER The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Chair Fellows, Commissioners Brown, Parker, and Tait NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Ray 10:45 P.M. Commissioner Brown made a motion to continue the meeting past 10:30 p.m. to give them time to complete item II.E. Commissioner Ray seconded the motion. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brown, Ray, Tait and Chair Fellows NOES: None ABSENT: None PAGE 10 1 1 1 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 2006 E. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 06 -006; APPLICANT - LUCIA MAR UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (LMUSD); LOCATION — STANLEY AVENUE /PAULDING MIDDLE SCHOOL GROUNDS (Continued from 9/19/06 Meeting) Assistant Planner, Jim Bergman, presented the staff report for consideration of a proposal to construct a 200' x 36' metal maintenance building and place three (3) modular office buildings adjacent to Paulding Middle School and the "Bus Barn ". The ARC has considered this project and their recommendations incorporated in the Conditions of Approval. In conclusion, Mr. Bergman stated that staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the Resolution for approval of the conditional use permit. Staff addressed Commission concerns regarding access from Stanley Street, the height of the building, the distance from single - family homes, the drainage system with respect to the creek, how the in -lieu fee for excess water use will be calculated, when a soils report and grading report will be submitted, how close the building is to the creek, foundations for the building, Chair Fellows opened the public hearing for public comment. Hearing no further comments Chair Fellows closed the public hearing. PAGE 11 Kevin Baker, Director of Maintenance, representative for the LMUSD, explained the history of the (school bond) project, and the reason why the project had been in progress before coming forward to the Commission and then gave a detailed overview of the project. Mr. Baker then addressed Commission questions and concerns regarding the drainage to the creek, the proposed water demand, the structure will contain fire sprinklers, they do have a soils report, they would prefer not to install curb and gutter due to the expense, design of the road to address safety issues, why he had not attended the previous Planning Commission meeting, what will be housed in the building, spill prevention control measures (will mimic the Bus Barn plan), creek setbacks, and architectural details to mitigate the visual for the maintenance facility. Commission comments: Ray: • She does not have too many issues with this proposal, but understands some feathers have been ruffled. • Yes, the buildings are ugly, but they are cheap and schools need cheap as they are spending taxpayer's money. • There was definitely a break down in the chain of command, but she would not like to impose penalties or make this more difficult than it needs to be. • If the grading permit was not issued, this should be required, but no penalties should be applied. • The street should be curbed and guttered. • The condition for the trees will help screen the building. • Hand drawn plans are hard to read, but understands this saves a lot of money. • If this hadn't been so close to the creek there wouldn't have been so much concern - she is willing to approve this as submitted. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 2006 PAGE 12 Brown: • He is ready to make a motion of approval if the ARC recommendations are incorporated. • Commissioner Parker's issues with the fence and possible setback issues should be cleared by the Community Development Director Parker: • Appreciates the environmental plan for the Bus Barn, but is concerned with the lack of an environmental plan for this project. Due to her concern with the creek, the health and safety of the employees, as well as children, it was necessary to discuss these issues. Suggest it be conditioned to require the environmental plan for the Bus Barn be utilized for this project also. • The Stanley Street improvements should be included for safety /traffic calming. • Would like a Condition to require that this project comply with all creek setback requirements. • Suggest that the community get together to help improve the visual of the building, with murals etc. • Agrees with Commissioner Ray that this does need to be approved. Tait: • His feathers have been ruffled with this project - his main concern is that a large amount of impervious surface is being added to this property which will negatively affect the Arroyo Grande Creek; he does not see any mitigations to mitigate the storm water from entering the creek. • He understands the school district is trying to save money, but to push this through does not help anyone - this project has too many important concerns for him to approve this now. Fellows: • Items that should be included are: The retention basin; paving Stanley Street all the way (including speed bumps); the drainage water coming off Stanley Street and the OM yard asphalt definitely needs to go into a drop inlet with a fossil filter- or more. • He could not approve this project unless it includes: a) The addition of a request for street trees, an irrigation plan, sponge area around the trees, plus building color considerations. b) The project goes back to the ARC for final review. In reply to Commissioner Parker's concern regarding the environmental issues, Mr. Bergman stated that this project was done under an exemption with CEQA, but the suggestion to do this under the same environmental plan as the Bus Barn will be considered. Commissioner Parker made a motion to approve the Resolution for Conditional Use Permit Case No. 06 -006 with the following conditions included: 1. The Bus Barn environmental plan be utilized to address concerns regarding storage of environmental hazardous materials as well as mitigation for storm water pollutant runoff; the plan shall also be submitted to the Community Development Department for their review; if there are any questions it should come back to the Planning Commission for further review. 2. Stanley Street improvements should be made to the end of the street (curb, gutter and sidewalk), and traffic calming measures should be initiated. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 2006 3. It must comply with all creek setback codes. 4. The visual impacts are to be mitigated regarding color schemes for painting — ARC should review this. 5. A retention basin should be placed on -site. 6. An off-site drop -inlet fossil filter for drainage shall be required. 7. Street and parking lot trees shall be required as well as an irrigation plan (shall include sponge areas around the trees). ARC shall review this also. Discussion Commissioner Tait commented that the Commission is requesting an environmental plan be put in place that has not been reviewed by staff or the Commission. Commissioner Ray and Commissioner Parker stated that the Community Development Department would be reviewing the environmental plan. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion to adopt: RESOLUTION 06 -2017 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 06 -006; APPLIED FOR BY LUCIA MAR UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, LOCATED AT STANLEY AVENUE AND BRANCH STREET The motion was approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Parker, Brown, Ray and Chair Fellows NOES: Commissioner Tait ABSENT: None IV. REFERRAL ITEMS FOR COMMISSION ACTION: None. NOTICES OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS SINCE SEPTEMBER 19, 2006: PAGE 13 �_ CaseNo. 1. TUP 06 -019 Mid -State Bank & Trust Address 1026 E. Grand Ave. iescri'ption 28 -foot illuminated holiday artificial pine tree. (Cont'd from 9 -19 -06 PC) Action., A. /Planner M. Meier Administrative Item No. 1: Temporary Use Permit Case No. 06 -019, Applicant - Mid -State Bank & Trust, Location - 1026 E. Grand Avenue: Administrative approval of a request to set up a 28 -foot, illuminated, holiday artificial pine tree. Staff explained after further review of TUP Case No. 05 -025, and the issued tree removal permit, it was clear that no conditions of approval were stated for tree replacement and the applicant met all city regulations regarding the Tree Removal Permit and Temporary Use Permit; the Planning Commission approved the TUP 05 -025 for an illuminated Christmas tree last year at their November 15, 2005 meeting without a specific tree replacement condition. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 2006 The Commission agreed to approve Administrative Item No. 1. Commissioner Brown stated he would still like to see the tree replacement take place. Chair Fellows commented that it would not have to be planted in the same place, but could be planted somewhere in the parking lot. Mr. Strong stated he would talk to Midstate Bank about a tree replacement. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: None. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: Commissioner Parker commented that she would prefer not to have action minutes as not everyone has easy access to a DVD; written minutes can easily be accessed. Due to the late hour the Commission agreed to discuss this at a later date. VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP: Mr. Strong told the Commission that the October 17, 2006 meeting had been cancelled due to lack of a quorum. The Commission agreed to schedule the next meeting to Wednesday, November 8, 2006, as Tuesday, November 7, 2006 was Election Day. VIII. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 12 p.m. midnight on a motion by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Tait. ATTEST: LY REARDON -SMITH SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION AS TO CONTEN COMMUNITY DEVEL PMENT DIRECTOR (Minutes approved at the PC meeting of November 6, 2006) PAGE 14 CHUCK FELLOWS, CHAIR 1