PC Minutes 2006-09-051
1
1
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 5, 2006
6:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER - The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session.
The meeting commenced at 6:10 p.m. with Chair Fellows presiding; also present were
Commissioners Ray and Tait. Commissioners Brown and Parker were absent. Staff
members in attendance were Acting Community Development Director, Teresa
McClish, Assistant Planner, Jim Bergman, Planning Intern, Tyler Montgomery, and
Public Works Engineer, Victor Devens.
ANNOUNCEMENTS: Request for the public to turn off their cell phones during the
meeting.
AGENDA REVIEW: The Commission agreed to hear Item IV, Referral Item MEX 06-
021, before Item I I.A.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Commissioner Ray made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait, to approve the
minutes of August 15, 2006 with the following corrections:
1. Page 2, A. last sentence, change name from Mr. Otis to Mr. Page.
2. Page 2, B. No. 11, name correction, should be Mr. & Mrs. Atkisson.
3. Page 9, C. first paragraph, second sentence, remove words "there that" to clarify.
4. Page 11, under Commissioner Ray's comments, fourth bullet, change language
to clarify, "The proximity to the highway makes it more affordable ".
5. Page 11, under Commissioner Fellow's comments, second bullet, correct name
of tree should be Liquid Amber, variety "Festival ".
The motion was approved by a 3/0 voice vote, Commissioners Brown and Parker being
absent.
A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None.
B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
1. Letter dated September 5, 2006 from Rodger & Krista Frederickson and George
Haugen, 1234 & 1230 Montego Street, regarding Agenda item II.B, Development
Code Overlay Districts D -2.5, D -2.6, and D -2, requesting the current overlay and
definitions remain unchanged.
2. Memo from Councilman Arnold, requesting the Commission hold a public hearing
on Administrative Item No. 8, Plot Plan Review 06 -016: A request from Ocean
Oaks Builders to convert 12 of 60 two- bedroom units to three bedroom units.
3. A letter from Augustus Fenning and Angelina Cummings, 236 Ruth Ann Way,
opposed to changes in height restrictions for the D -2.7 overlay district.
4. A letter from Warren & Cristie Weiss, 187 Ruth Ann Way, opposed to changes in
height restrictions for the D -2.7 overlay district.
5. A letter from Lionel & Dana Senes, 244 Ruth Ann Way, opposed to changes in
height restrictions for the D -2.7 overlay district.
Case, o, , °,<
°,�`, App.,R,
" ,A ddress =
D'escri tion
a P ,'
' "'Action -
Planner
1. MEX 06 -021
", ,
Andrew and Liane
Peterson
��
1040 Robin Circle
Construction of a privacy trellis
8' -9'3" tall behind existing rear
fence line.
A
Tyler M.
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 5, 2006
IV. REFERRAL ITEMS FOR COMMISSION ACTION:
PAGE 2
Planning Intern, Tyler Montgomery, presented the staff report and described Referral
Item No. 1, a request for a minor exception to construct an 8 -9 foot privacy trellis. Mr.
Montgomery addressed the Commissioner's questions and concerns regarding the
reason for the height and the positioning of the trellis.
Commissioner Ray made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait, to approve Minor
Exception Case No. 06 -021, for construction of a privacy trellis inside the existing fence
line. The motion passed by a 3/0 voice vote, Commissioners Brown and Parker being
absent.
I. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
A. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 06 -005 & PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 06 -003; APPLICANT — DAVE STURGES;
LOCATION — 130 -132 SHORT STREET
Assistant Planner, Jim Bergman, presented the staff report for consideration of a
proposal to divide one parcel with two existing houses into two parcels with a single -
family home on each parcel. Mr. Bergman stated that the applicant had requested a
waiver of the requirement for installation or payment of in -lieu fees associated with
sidewalks and placement of utilities underground. In conclusion, Mr. Bergman stated
that staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution approving the
tentative tract map and planned unit development (PUD).
Mr. Bergman answered Commission questions regarding the sidewalk and
undergrounding requirements for the project.
Chair Fellows opened the public hearing for public comment.
Dave Sturgess, applicant, answered Commission questions:
• He was willing to pay his fair share for the undergrounding.
• If undergrounding was required it would involve three to five other properties.
• Re the concern on the drainage, most of the surface water will percolate into the
ground and water runoff into the street will be minimal due to the Hollywood
drive.
Chair Fellows closed the public hearing for public comment.
Commission Comments:
Ray:
• She liked the design of the property and the driveway — nice touch for the Village.
• She was leaning toward waiving the sidewalk fee as it looks as though a
sidewalk will never get built there, as it would be impractical.
1
1
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 5, 2006
PAGE 3
• Requiring the whole in -lieu fee for the undergrounding would be an unfair burden
for this project; perhaps a reduction of the in -lieu fee would be appropriate
Tait:
• Pedestrian access is important especially in the Village, but after looking at the
site he agrees a sidewalk would not be necessary.
• He appreciates that the applicant has the Hollywood driveways for water run off.
• He agrees that an in -lieu fee of $15,000 is a high price for undergrounding.
Fellows:
• He could agree to waiving the sidewalk fee (sidewalks do not allow water to
percolate down to replenish the aquifer), there is already a sidewalk on one side
of the street that adjoins the bridge so most people do not walk on the other side.
• $15,000 for undergrounding is not a fair in -lieu fee for the pole, but somewhere
between $3,000 - $5,000 would be fair.
Commissioner Ray made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait, to approve
Tentative Parcel Map 06 -005 and Planned Unit Development 06 -003, for 130 & 132
Short Street with the provision to waive the sidewalk requirement and charge a 33% in-
lieu fee ($5,000), and adopt:
RESOLUTION NO. 06 -2011
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE
NO. 06 -005 AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 06 -003;
LOCATED AT 130 AND 132 SHORT STREET; APPLIED FOR BY DAVE
STURGESS
The motion was approved by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Ray, Tait, and Chair Fellows.
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Brown and Parker.
the foregoing resolution was adopted this 5 day of September 2006.
B. (Continued from 8/1/06) DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 04-
005; APPLICANT — CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION — CITYWIDE
Ms. McClish presented the staff report for consideration of proposed modifications to
development standards for residential districts, applicable to Design Development
Overlays including the D -2.5, D -2.6, and D -2.7 Districts, and amendment to Section
16.16.110 regarding Minor Use Permits for viewshed review. In conclusion, Ms.
McClish recommended that the Planning Commission accept public comment and
discussion on preliminary alternatives concerning Design Overlay Districts SF -D2.5, in
the vicinity of Montego Street, RS D -2.6, in the vicinity of Newport Avenue, and SF D-
2.7, in the vicinity of Ruth Ann Way. Ms. McClish reminded the public and Commission
that the hearing would be continued to the October 3, 2006 Planning Commission
meeting, as noticed, to provide an extra opportunity for public comment.
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 5, 2006
PAGE 4
Ms. McClish answered Commission questions for clarification on the staff report
regarding viewshed review; described the three overlay districts, then suggested that
the Commission receive public comment after her presentation and deal with each
overlay separately.
Ms. McClish then made her presentation:
Design Development Overlay District SF D -2.5. (Approved by Ordinance 86 C.S. in
June 1973.) Maximum height is 11 ft. from curb to peak of house for the south side of
Montego Street; no other additional standards:
Alt. 1: revise to include westerly six lots north side of Montego Street (11 ft from highest
existing grade elevation at perimeter of development envelope).
Alt. 2: No change
Commissioner Ray: If Alt. 1 was chosen, how many non - conforming lots would be
created out of the six houses? Ms. McClish: Measurements for all six homes have not
yet been done, but she knew of at least two that would not be.
Commissioner Tait: If other properties were developed would they be affected (Alt. 1 re
the six homes)? McClish: In the future there may more homes behind the proposed
expansion area which meet the provided viewshed protection with Alt 1. Although it is a
fairly severe restriction, it has worked well on Montego Street.
Commissioner Tait: If Alt. 1 was chosen, has staff looked at whether homeowner's
policies would be affected (concerns addressed in letters received from the
Fredricksons and George Haugen? Ms. McClish: Their letters were received after
preparation of the staff report; however, staff will be considering these concerns before
the October 3 Planning Commission hearing.
Design Development Overlay District RS- D -2.6. (Approved by Ordinance 360 C.S. in
September 1987.); maximum height: two- stories shall not exceed 30' and no main
building shall exceed 15' from the highest corner of the property; minimum net building
site area: 12,000 square feet for residential use, 20,000 square foot for churches and
other public uses; minimum lot width: 60 feet for residential uses and 100 feet for public
uses; minimum lot depth: 90 feet; no other additional standards:
Alt. 1: No change other than to measure height from building envelope.
Alt.2: Repeal. Amended viewshed and other standards consistent with Rural Suburban
(RS).
Alt. 3: Expand to lots fronting the south side of Newport Drive.
In reply to questions from Commissioner Ray regarding the alternatives, Ms. McClish
stated that:
• Alt. 1 would be more conservative for height control, offer more protection, but
harder for someone to build a second story addition.
• Alt. 2, if repealed, would be less conservative for viewshed protection; any
addition would be considered on a case -by -case basis and possibly with the use
of story poles (if so directed by the Commission).
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 5, 2006
PAGE 5
• Staff initiated alt. 3, after a public workshop held by some of the neighborhood: It
may preserve some views, but it may also mean more onerous requirements for
a neighborhood that doesn't currently have them.
Commissioner Fellows: If the overlay were removed would it cause flag lots on the
north side of Newport? Ms. McClish: It would have no impact on flag lots.
Design Development Overlay District SF D -2.7. (Approved by Ordinance 138 C.S. in
June 1976); maximum building height: 18 feet from established curb height, except lots
1,2,3 of Tract 554; Lots 1 & 2 of Parcel Map AG 73 -383; and Lot 1 of Parcel Map AG
74 -293, where maximum height is 22 feet from established curb height. No other
additional standards:
Alt 1: No modification
Alt 2: Modify to allow up to 24 ft height for all within the overlay, with viewshed review
process.
Alt 3: Remove several properties from the southern half of the overlay district and rely
on citywide viewshed process.
Commissioner Ray: Re Alt. 3, how were specific lots chosen for modification in this
overlay district? Ms. McClish: Alt. 3 was brought forward by the neighborhood after a
public workshop and staff has since received comments both for and against this and
she believed the modification considered the geography in the neighborhood.
Commissioner Tait: Would more viewshed reviews be required if Alt. 2 and 3 were
chosen? Ms. McClish: There may be more applications, but it would depend on the
heights that the Commission recommends.
Vegetation
Ms. McClish: During previous workshops, public comment has included a request for
regulation upon private trees since such vegetation often will obstruct views. Since
regulation of private vegetation includes many controversial elements and vegetation
also provides enhanced views, staff is not recommending regulation at this time.
However, a mediation process works for the City of Santa Barbara in included in the
packet for informational purposes.
Chair Fellows opened the public hearing for public comment.
Public Comment on Overlay D -2.5:
Howard Mankins, 200 Hillcrest Drive, stated he went through a long ordeal last year
with a viewshed review issue that affected his property and he would not like to go
through that again. The Planning Commission and City Council upheld his position on
the viewshed review. Viewshed is a very important issue. He suggested that property
owners have a height limit on the north side of Montego Street and that the existing
roofline be the limitation on any modification (this may still allow a two -story if one is
subterranean) and it would simplify the process. Seven lots, (not six) [Alt 1]should be
included on Montego Street (seven of the lots could affect his property).
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 5, 2006
PAGE 6
Rodger Fredrickson, 1234 Ruth Ann Street, stated he agreed with Mr. Mankins that
existing roofline would be a fair way to protect viewshed; the definitions on the staff
report were difficult for him to understand (he did not receive notice until the day before
the meeting); his biggest concern was that these changes could have an impact on the
value of his property and that his homeowner's insurance would also be affected; if he
wanted a second story he would not want to affect his neighbor's view so he would
excavate under his property.
Jim Dunn, 1247 Montego Street (south side), stated he supports using the existing roof
line; this an excellent solution and the way to go as it's more simple; the definition of the
basement story etc. is more confusing and difficult to measure.
Eric Hawkins, 1215 & 1213 Brighton (south side), and 1203 Priscilla Lane, they have
concerns that their views of the ocean would be diminished, if not taken away, even with
a 3 -foot change in height; he is opposed to removal of any overlays that would affect
their ability to see the ocean.
Joseph Beckham, 220 Hillcrest Drive, stated he agreed with Mr. Mankins; he would like
to see the first seven homes on Montego Street be looked at first, this would make a
more consistent height requirement.
Nina Crosswell, 1204 Priscilla Lane, when they bought their house years ago it was
included in the height restriction, they had to have a flat roof, and in order to build their
garage they had to excavate. To alter the elevation now, particularly on Ruth Ann Way,
would take away their viewshed.
Tom Parsons, 1219 Montego (south side), stated he also supports having the existing
rooflines as a height restriction, rather than 11 -foot, to preserve views and keep the
character of the neighborhood; there should be some restriction on properties on the
north side too; he is glad to see that the vegetation may also be considered in the
viewshed review.
7:50 p.m.
The Commission took a 10- minute break.
Public Comment on Overlay D -2.6:
Carolyn Freedman Johnson, 192 Ruth Ann Way, advised that she would recommend
against including the south side of Newport Avenue in the overlay; this would not work
on this side of the street and would just add another neighborhood to an overlay.
Ken Levine, 1420 Hillcrest Drive (south side), stated he supported Alt. 1; he would not
like to see this repealed, as everyone would have to go through the viewshed review
process.
1
1
1
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 5, 2006
PAGE 7
Larry Harlan, 1315 Hillcrest Drive, re the viewshed trigger recommendations, he
supports Alt. 2, and that anything beyond existing heights (not a story definition) would
be subject to viewshed review; new construction should also be viewshed review. In
addition, as Commissioner Brown always reminds us, viewshed review is a not a right
but a privilege that the City has granted to residents. Re viewshed on vegetation, there
are significant things that can be done: The City has placed several trees on the level
of Newport Avenue (and they need to keep them trimmed otherwise they will affect
views); however, there are City trees below him, on the west end of Newport Avenue,
that significantly affect property owners viewshed at this time; they need to be properly
maintained.
Public Comment on Overlay D - 2.7:
Ted Akland, 1222 Brighton Avenue (north east of Ruth Ann Way), stated
inconsistencies in the old way of determining height limit, as there is a house down the
hill from him on the corner of Ruth Ann Way and Brighton Avenue that has a higher
roofline than his house. He supports the 24 -foot height recommendation and use of the
roofline.
Mr. Dunn, 1247 Montego, stated that D -2.5 district overlooks the D -2.7 district; they
purchased their property after much research and they understood that they were
protected by an overlay that limits those houses to 22 -feet (there are approximately six
houses below their property that could affect their view if the height was changed to 24-
feet; this would also affect the value of their property; making changes puts them into
the viewshed review and would require them to defend something that was already
theirs.
Edward Grover, 260 Ruth Ann Way, the primary consideration when they purchased
their home was the viewshed and character of the neighborhood, both of which are
protected by the height limitations; they are opposed to any changes in the height
limitations.
Terry lavicoli, 227 Ruth Ann Way, they have lived in their home for 26 years and when
they purchased it their primary concerns were the area and protection of their views by
the overlay that was in place; they strongly oppose any change in the height limitation.
Brent Mooney, 227 Fairview Drive, adjacent to Ruth Ann Way; stated that what happens
on Ruth Ann Way could also affect them; they had a small view, which they lost, and he
would now like to have the opportunity to build a two story and go through the viewshed
review process.
Rick Anderson, 212 Ruth Ann Way, stated they also bought their house because of the
height restrictions that were in place; he strongly recommended that the 18 -foot height
limitation be maintained; he agrees with Mr. Mankins that any change in height should
trigger the viewshed review process; they travel a lot and do not want to have to worry
that they might miss notice on a viewshed review.
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 5, 2006
PAGE 8
Ms. Freedman spoke again, stating that if the City decides to regulate vegetation for
viewshed review they will also need to include a request for additional staff and attorney
fees; after listening to public comment she suggests the D -2.7 overlay remain intact for
upper streets - Ruth Ann Way and Montego Street; she would like staff to consider Alt. 2
as she is interested in adding a 450 -600 sq. ft. addition upstairs and excavating would
be too expensive; there could be a limit on any second floor to say to 40% so as to not
impact the neighbors; with a viewshed review requirement it could be considered; the
population is changing and at least property owners should have the chance to ask; if
story poles or a photo montage are chosen it could be expensive for a homeowner.
Janice Anderson, 191 Ruth Ann Way, stated the reason she bought her house was
knowing her view would not be blocked; she would prefer Alt. 1.
Dana Fenance, 244 Ruth Ann Way, (top of hill), stated opposition to any changes on the
height requirements on Ruth Ann Way; if the home next door to her were to go up even
four feet her view would be blocked; they also bought their home with the understanding
this could not happen.
Chris Barrett, 1340 Newport Avenue (north side), stated he would like to see the south
side of Newport Avenue included in the viewshed overlay (many of the existing houses
are two -story and large).
Chair Fellows closed the public hearing for public comment.
Commission Comments and questions:
Tait:
• Is the existing roofline for height restriction an alternative for the north side of
Montego Street? Ms. McClish: It will be included for 10/03, as it was previously
requested, but if a restriction is applied to a district it has to be consistent for
everybody; using the existing roof line for height restriction could cause more
severe restrictions on some homes (such as not being able to raise a ceiling
height or not being able to have a different style of roof; a standard must allow
fairness and consistency within a specific district.
• He would like to see the viewshed review process simplified so he would like to
see these ideas included at the next hearing; we do not want to require more
hoops for applicants to jump through; suggested looking at removing "second
story" as a definition.
Fellows:
• He was not ready to make comments on building heights now; he could not
support getting into controlling the height of vegetation - it would be too costly for
the City.
Ray:
• If the City restricts to the height of rooflines could we get into a into legal
situations? Ms. McClish: There are two issues with using existing rooflines; 1)
should the existing roofline be a height requirement? 2) In other places should it
be used as a trigger to require a viewshed review instead of "story"?
C ase!No. -
A pp.
Description ,$ r
Action
&Planner Planner
1. TUP 06 -014
Church of Jesus Christ
of LDS
751 Traffic Way
2 480 sq. ft. trailers for
temporary classrooms
A
T. Montgomery
2. TUP 06 -016
St. Patrick's School
900 W. Branch St.
Fundraising BBQ and Auction
A
M. Meier
3. TUP 06 -017
Donna's Interiors
1069 E. Grand
Ave.
Set up a temporary sales tent
A
M. Meier
4. PPR 06 -014
Theresa Ziegger
Teresa Rea
126 W. Branch St.
#5, 6 & 8
Therapeutic Message Offices
in an existing office complex
A
M. Meier
5. VSR 06 -015
Gordon Murdoch
117 Pearwood
Construction of a second
story addition to the rear part
of the home.
A
M. Meier
6. VSR 06 -012
John Ziomek
689 Woodland
Construction of a 781sq./ft.
A
M. Meier
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 5, 2006
PAGE 9
• Re the discussion regarding other jurisdictions and whether or not we could
specify a "primary view ", she does not like this idea; if the second story definition
is not removed the proposal that marries it to the California Code makes it
clearer.
• After research on viewshed review and the use of story poles- although there is
an increased cost for a project up front there could be a decreased cost down the
line as it could speed up the process.
• D -2.5 Overlay: She is still listening to information on the D -2.5 Overlay.
• D -2.6 Overlay: She likes the idea of the more conservative viewshed review and
the proposed change to the building envelope rather than the corner of the lot.
• Re the south side of Newport Avenue and Montego Street, she is not sure at this
time — there is still some confusion on this.
• D -2.7 Overlay: She is still listening to information on this also.
• She is really concerned about removing the overlays, putting a heavier reliance
on the viewshed process, whether the City could handle this, and what the cost
to the applicant could be; she likes the idea of simplification.
A discussion followed on story poles, with Commissioner Ray stating that the City of
San Leandro uses story poles and they will not even notice a project until the story
poles go up. In reply to a question from Commissioner Fellows, Ms. McClish stated that
in the jurisdictions that require story poles her research found that people do put them
up themselves with some verification to make sure they are at a correct height.
Commissioner Tait made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ray, to continue
discussion of D -2.5, D -2.6, and D -2.7 Overlays to the Planning Commission meeting of
October 3, 2006.
The motion was approved on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Tait, Ray, and Chair Fellows.
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Brown and Parker.
III. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: None.
IV. NOTICES OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS SINCE AUGUST 15, 2006:
Case No. =
App s
Address
.� . Descriptions „ :
Ac tion,:
,_Planner . t
Drive
attached two -story secondary
dwelling unit.
7. PPR 06 -016
A.G. Spanish Oaks,
LLC
175 South Elm
Street
Lot 9 expansion of the first
floor bedroom to a master
bedroom to accommodate
tenant limited mobility.
Expansion of lot 10, rear
bedroom, for mobility as well.
A
M. Meier
8. PPR 06 -015
Ocean Oaks Builders,
Inc.
579 Camino
Mercado
Convert 12 of 60 condo units
from 2 to 3 bedrooms.
A
K. Heffernon
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 5, 2006
PAGE 10
The Commission had no concerns regarding Administrative Items Nos. 1 -6. It was
noted that Item No. 5 had been incorrectly advertised as 126 Pearwood, corrected to
117 Pearwood.
Administrative Item No.7:
Plot Plan Review Case No. 06 -016; Applicant — A.G. Spanish oaks, LLC; Location
— 175 S. Elm Street.
Ms. McClish answered Commission questions on this item regarding concern with
potential loss of open space. After discussion, the Commission agreed that they had no
further concerns on this item.
Administrative Item No. 8:
Plot Plan Review Case No. 06 -015; Applicant — Ocean Oaks Builders, Inc;
Location — 579 Camino Mercado.
Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon, had prepared a short staff report as follows:
The Community Development Director approved a request to convert twelve (12) of the
sixty (60) condominium units from two (2) bedrooms to three (3) bedrooms. There is no
impact to the size of the units or parking requirements; the only change made is to the
floor plan to accommodate the additional bedroom.
Chair Fellows read a memo from Councilman Arnold requesting that this item be
scheduled for public hearing to allow the Planning Commission and citizens to better
understand the impact the requested change could have on the affordability issue.
Jason Blankenship, representative, stated that the requested changes will not alter the
existing building footprint, meets all uniform building code requirements, does not affect
affordability, meets the affordable housing requirements, and their project is 25%
affordable without being subsidized by a government grant or City funds; he does not
believe this needs to be heard in a public hearing.
Ms. Freedman spoke again, asking if the 12 units (of the 60) are still affordable? With
the requested change the applicant would be providing an affordable opportunity for a
larger household; there are people 55 years and older who have 10 year old children; if
these are converted to three bedrooms it would allow a small family to be able to get
into affordable units.
1
1
1
1
1
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 5, 2006
Mr. Blankenship stated that some of the three bedrooms would be affordable, although
the prices may go up.
Chair Fellows recommended a public hearing based on the fact that there are several
different viewpoints on this item.
Commissioner Ray made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait, that Administrative
Item No. 8: Plot Plan Review Case No. 06 -015, be scheduled for a public hearing to
allow time for further discussion and clarification on the affordability issue.
The motion passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Ray, Tait, and Chair Fellows.
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Brown and Parker.
PAGE 11
V. DISCUSSION ITEMS:
In reply to a question from Chair Fellows regarding the PUD process, Ms. McClish
replied that staff is presently researching the PUD process; because of lot size a high
percentage of subdivisions are concurrent with a PUD application; this analysis will be
brought forward next with the residential updates, and consideration of an ordinance to
address this will be taken into consideration.
VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS:
Chair Fellows gave an update regarding a discussion at the August 15, 2006 meeting,
on transplanting of existing fruit trees for a proposed project at 125 Nelson Street: He
informed Commission and staff that an agreement has been reached between the
Historical Society (the recipient of three trees) and the applicant, and the developer will
only have to pay $2,300 instead of $30,000 for removal of the trees.
In reply to a question from Chair Fellows regarding banners, Ms. McClish stated that
staff is still working on this and there is no news to report.
VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP:
None.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. on a motion by Chair Fellows, seconded by
Commissioner Tait.
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 5, 2006
ATTEST:
LYN REARDON -SMITH
SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION
AS TO CONTENT:
n
TERESA McC
ACTING COM
ISH,
UNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
(Minutes approved at the PC meeting of September 19, 2006)
CHUCK FELLOWS, CHAIR
PAGE 12
1
1