Loading...
PC Minutes 2006-06-20MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 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 Ray; Commissioner Tait was absent. Staff members in attendance were Community Development Director, Rob Strong, Assistant Planner, Ryan Foster and Public Works Engineer, Victor Devens. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Request for the public to turn off their cell phones during the meeting. AGENDA REVIEW: No changes to the Agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ray to approve the minutes of May 16, 2006, with Chair Fellows requesting a change on Page 3, second bullet, to clarify the meaning of it; the motion passed on a 3/0 voice vote, Commissioner Tait being absent this meeting and Commissioner Parker being absent May 16 meeting. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Parker, to approve the minutes of June 6, 2006, with minor typographical corrections requested by Commissioner Ray; the motion was approved on a 4/0 voice vote, Commissioner Tait being absent. A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: John Belsher, Attorney for Pace Brothers, stated he was serving Commissioners Parker, Ray, Tait (absent) and Chair Fellows with a lawsuit regarding denial of the Pace Brothers proposed project at 123 Whiteley Street; the City Clerk and City Council would also be served with the same lawsuit. B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 1. Letter dated June 16, 2006 from Marlis Witt, re Agenda Item II.B., CUP 05-013, Cingular Wireless, 300 Reservoir Road, stating concerns regarding the proposed project. 2. Letter received June 16, 2006, from Mary Zell, re Agenda Item II.B. CUP 05-013, Cingular Wireless, 300 Reservoir Road, opposing the proposed project. 3. Memo from Planner, Ryan Foster, re request from Public Works for modification of Conditions of Approval for TPM 06-003 & CUP 06-004, Agenda Item II.C. for the Faeh Street/EI Camino Real proposed project. 4. Memo from Mr. Foster re additional administrative approvals: MEX 06-018, 1190 The Pike, for an increase in fence height to the rear yard of a property that sits below the adjacent property which allows neighbors to look over an existing 6' fence; MEX 06-019; 431 Dixson Street for an increase in maximum lot coverage of 5°/a for an addition to an elder care facility. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 PAGE 2 5. A letter from Greg McGowan regarding the Cherry Creek Project. 6. A letter from Otis Page regarding an attempt to file an appeal on staff's recommendation to Planning Commission regarding the Cherry Creek Project. C. REFERRAL ITEMS FOR COMMISSION ACTION: None. II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 05-001, VIEWSHED REVIEW CASE NO. 06-009, & MINOR EXCEPTION CASE 05-006; APPLICANT — DUANE DEBLAUW; LOCATION — 605 EMAN COURT Rob Strong, Community Development Director presented the staff report prepared by Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon for consideration of a parcel map for a three (3) lot residential subdivision on 1.28-acres; a viewshed review for a 2-story residence, and a Minor Exception for wall height and lot depth (previously reviewed by the Planning Commission on September 6, 2005). In conclusion, Mr. Strong stated that staff's recommendation is that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution approving the parcel map, viewshed review, and minor exception. The Commission asked staff questions regarding the required archeologist report, the grading report from Garing & Taylor regarding the creek setbacks, the steep embankment, and the erosion that has taken place over the last couple of years and how this would be taken care of during construction; how the General Plan requirement for designation of a creekwalk would be addressed (also with respect to the steep slope and erosion problems). The Commission stated concerns with the danger of the large tree hanging off the edge of the creek bank and the location of creek bank stakes south of this tree; how erosion would effect the future of the project; what could be done to shore up the creek bank; how the mitigation measures for tree relocation and protection plan would be monitored and storm water retention. Chair Fellows opened the public hearing for public comment. Duane DeBlauw, applicant, addressed the Commissions concerns: • Re erosion control measures, they had noticed some erosion on the southwest/southeast corner of the property (where the fence that was built a couple of years ago is hanging out about two feet) and have since pulled the building footprint back to make sure that there is a 25-foot setback (parcel 3 now has the required setback); the soils report requirement is to make sure that the foundation is down far enough to have the specified horizontal distance from the slope; it may require some further depth of footing to create required slope stability; during grading operations they will have their soils engineer present and he will determine if more needs to be done; it appears that it's a fairly stable situation. • Re Zone 1A, this property is not in this zone. • Erosion during construction (erosion control plan): Steel fencing has to be provided along anything that is downslope of the construction or any construction PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 PAGE 3 debris; the vegetation is also a good buffer as there is not a real steep embankment where structures are proposed which makes erosion control very achievable without any disturbance to the buffer zone. • The Palm trees will be retained; replacement plan for the trees in the orchard will be shown on the plan. • Re the comments on Eman Court flooding, they have not received any information on this; the conditions require a drop inlet to be installed on the cul- de-sac to hold more capacity. • Re storm water retention, the new road into the property will collect the vast majority of the water on the surface and it will then be directed to a low point where the catch basin and filter is. Commission questions to Mr. DeBlauw and his answers. Brown: • For parcel 3, what is distance from the structure to setback and grade change from finished floor level to building pad? Distance from the strucfure is approximately 8' and the grade differential is about 6' (split level building). • Would they be willing to have a condition for a hard structure at the setback line during the period of construction? Orange fencing with metal stakes does a pretty good job of delineating a line during construction and they will monitor the best they can. • Re the buffer and holes in the vegetation, what will be done about this? They could have a condition to add vegetation to these areas. • Do you have any problem with including language in the deed restriction as to what type of activity can take place in the Ag Buffer and the creek setback? Without interfering with property rights, something could be added with respect fo "no strucfures thaf require a permit can be added'; however, they would like to be consu/ted first on this. Parker: • Because of the fact that the 8-foot setback is now 5-foot due to erosion, what is proposed to be done regarding the footprint and the grading? The foundation has to be below existing grade and the face of the foundation has to be at least 1/3 away from the slope so you are not creating any additional fill or any impact on the 25-foot setback area, but just providing a taller foundation (stem wall) that comes out of the ground. Fellows: • What will the size and species of the buffer trees be (shown on the plan)? This will be referred back to Firma as part of the condition on this. • Re Phase III archeological study, asked for clarification on statements regarding the significance of the prehistoric site located at Eman Court. Thor Conway, archeologist: Phase lll mitigation calculations are based on fhe 40% that appears to remain intact. Parker: • Questioned the fact that an earlier report stated it was estimated that 80°/a of the archeological deposits remained intact (in conflict with the 40% now stated). Mr. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 PAGE 4 Conway: this must have been a technical error as when the initial calculations were done for Phase 111 it was based on the 40% intact. Mr. Conway then described fhe process that they will go through for the Phase 111 archeological study. Fellows: • Asked what the approximate cost would be if the project goes through for the archeological research for Phase I, 2 and 3. Mr. Conway: The cost will be based on final plan impacts and could be as much as $60,000. Ray: • If there is an erosion problem what does this mean for the future? The requirement in the soils report will take care of this. Parker: • Who will take care of the common open space and common facilities? All the open space is on parcel3, so the owner of that will be responsible; the common facilities will be taken care of by all the owners. Ray: • What will replace the cyclone fence when this project is completed? It will be left as it is as this /eaves it the most undisturbed. Chris Deidrichsen, 582 Newman Drive, lives next to the proposed house, stated his concerns regarding the sewer easement and asked how the sewer would be installed without damaging his or his neighbor's property; there is a major erosion problem in this area and recently there was a landslide into the creek; the erosion problem has been ongoing for 40 years. _ Bernard Landsman, 579 Newman Drive, next door neighbor to Mr. Deidrichsen, stated concerns with erosion of the slope; explained how many years ago they had a landslide by his house and tons of concrete was brought in to fill the hole, after which the City checked it out and they also dumped soil into the hole; the creek bank needs major attention even if no project occurs; he has a report dated 1987 from a geologist, Mr. Wooley, advising that the ground is silty sand; Fish & Game will not allow concrete stabling now and this needs fixing before the next winter rains; a 40 ft. bank has already dropped away; the runoff every year will eventually dislodge the large tree on the edge of the slope and cause it to fall into the creek taking the creek bank with it and causing yet even more erosion; in 1987 he had received correspondence from the City stating the erosion damage was done by storm water runoff not the creek; he has legal precedent from the City of Arroyo Grande establishing the City's responsibility for damage due to inadequate storm runoff drainage; if the developer puts property on the edge of the bank of the creek that will cause erosion, endanger his house and his neighbors, it will be a liability to the City (reports mentioned will be delivered to staff for the record). 8:20 pm The Commission took a 10-minute break. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 PAGE 5 Mr. DeBlauw addressed the public comment regarding the erosion and stated he did not see the connection with a property 100 feet downstream of their project (Newman Drive). In conclusion, he stated that the Commission could condition the project to address the erosion/engineering concerns. Commissioner Brown asked Mr. DeBaluw if he had a sense of personal liability as a builder and if he was comfortable going forward? Mr. DeBlauw replied he was confident in going forward and would take it upon himself to satisfy the concerns expressed. Hearing no further comments Chair Fellows closed the public hearing. Chair Fellows then suggested that due to the new information received from public comment tonight the Commission could have the choice of continuing the project or discussing parcels 1 and 2 and leave parcel 3 vacant for now. Commissioner Brown stated that he believed the Commission should give the applicant as much feedback as possible to help bring the project to fruition. Commission Comments: Brown: • He has concerns regarding the creek setback on the corner of the building pad (although not enough to deny the project); he is leaning toward approval. • He was comfortable with the archeological report. • There are holes in the Ag buffer that need to be plugged. • He would like specific language included in the mitigations (MM 2.1), in conjunction with input from City staff and City Attorney, that adequately describes the issue between creek setbacks and the Ag buffer for future owners of these parcels. • Concern with Mr. Landsman's comments that if the City approves this project they could be liable for erosion problems in the future; the project planner did her best to cover the basics; ultimately if the stem wall is put in for support this should be sufficient for safety; Mr. DeBlauw would not put himself in a position of this being inadequate and having a safety issue. � • He is nervous about what may happen to the creek setback during construction and this issue has not been resolved to his satisfaction. Parker: • Since this project was last presented to the Commission it includes a lot more really good information. • She has concerns with the 25-foot creek setback. • The CEQA document was well done and staff has addressed the Commission's concerns and Mr. Conway did good job on the archeological report, she has no issue with this. • The Ag buffer has been taken care of and the 100-foot setback is fine. • Originally she did have some concern with the 8 ft wall on the driveway, but this is not a big issue. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 PAGE 6 • Public comment came forward with a lot of information and it would be inappropriate and irresponsible for us not to find out more about this; it needs to be reviewed further and more information received from staff regarding this; perhaps reestablish the setback; the recent erosion is also a concern. • Morally the City is responsible in approving something in a situation where we have received prior information (on the erosion), to ensure that erosion does not go down into the creek. • We need to make sure that construction does not go into the buffer as there is such a big drop off. • Separating parcel 1& 2 from parcel 3 could cause a problem for the developer. • A lot of problems have been taken care of, but more time is required to review the new information. Ray: • Before hearing the public comment tonight she was inclined to give her approval, but because of the erosion problem she could not (although she did not wish to deny it). � • The date on the soils report is 10/20/05 and the date on the survey is 9/30/05 (before the rainy season) so this needs to be updated. Fellows: • This is basically a good project; it's infill and in a good spot if the problems can be solved. • Mr. DeBlauw is paying attention to the 25-foot creek setback. • He agrees with the archeological report that there is little of potential value to the public for what is left on the property. • Based on the soils report he has no problem with the 8 ft wall, no problem with the minor exception for rear yard setback of parcel 3 as this is a large lot and contributes to the buffer and the creek setback. • He is glad to see that the large palms are being saved - a great asset to the entire neighborhood; he would like to see 24" box trees along the driveway be prepared early to effectively replace the trees being removed for the driveway. • The gap where the grassy area is should be large trees. • The 25-foot setback boundary closest to parcel 3 should be staked so we can see where it is; no activity should take place in the setback during construction and not after; he would also like to see a fence along the 25-foot boundary of the setback with a notice that states "Creek Habitat, no dumping, herbicides, pesticides — and No Entry", to protect the creek. • MM 4.9: The name "California Red-Legged Frog" should be spelled out — no abbreviations, so people of aware of what this is. • He is pleased to see the three to four new mitigation measures to protect the creek. • If this project is approved with a 100-foot Ag buffer, the rationale for this should be made clear (this is not a precedent) that it's a minimum buffer; however, this is acceptable in this case, especially with the trees in the driveway and in the hole in the buffer. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 PAGE 7 In reply to a question from Chair Fellows, Mr. DeBlauw replied that he probably would not like to have parcel 1 and 2 approved without parcel 3; economically they need three buildable parcels; one possibility is to see if they can shift the house on parcel 3 a little further north and increase setbacks this way. Chair Fellows stated he shares the Commission's concerns (except Commissioner Browns') regarding the erosion of the creek on the south east corner of parcel 3 and the City needs to look at this before we can go forward. Commissioner Brown asked staff to answer some issues that had come up: • The creek bank issue re the Garing & Taylor report: he would like to see some discussion in the staff report on the rate of change of the erosion between the time of the report and the present time, to see if it is a real problem in terms of the amount of slippage. • Discussion on the sewer easement re the comments made by Mr. Deidrichsen.. • Could staff recommend an idea to solve the issue of the creek bank slippage that would be acceptable to Fish & Game? Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ray, to continue consideration of the vesting parcel map, minor exception, and viewshed review to a date uncertain. Mr. Strong advised the Commission that the public hearing should be reopened to consider new information and continue to a date uncertain. Commissioner Brown agreed to include this in his motion and in addition include a request for some discussion with the City Attorney on the new information received from Mr. Landsman, specifically, that the City could be held liable if the project is approved. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brown, Ray, Parker and Chair Fellows NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Tait B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 05-013; APPLICANT — CINGULAR WIRELESS; LOCATION — 300 RESERVOIR ROAD Rob Strong, Community Development Director, presented the staff report prepared by Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon, for review of a proposed unmanned wireless communications facility consisting of 12-panel antennas mounted on a 35' tall monopine structure and installation of nine (9) equipment cabinets on a concrete slab along the water tank perimeter road, above Old Ranch Road adjoining the Methodist Camp. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council. In reply to a question from Commission Brown, Mr. Strong clarified that the monopine is at the south east side of the reservoir not on the west side closest to residents. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 PAGE 8 In reply to questions from Commissioner Ray, Mr. Strong said he was not aware of the amount of revenue the lease agreement would bring to the City and referred this question to the applicant; if approved this site could be available for an additional carrier or carriers. Chair Fellows commented that if approved this proposal for a monopine would not be precedent setting as we already have one at a reservoir in Arroyo Grande Chair Fellows opened the pubic hearing for public comment. Tricia Knight, representative for Cingular Wireless, gave an overview of the proposal and stated that the site at the church school was considered, but it would have to be a much taller antenna as it is lower in elevation; in addition, during the undergrounding of Reservoir 1, utilities were actually stubbed up for a telecommunication facility to eventually be installed; the closest residence is 380 feet away; the EMF standards are met (it is 4 to 6 feet from the antennas); a 35 feet monopine was required to allow a natural progression for the top of the pine; the facility is not readily visible from residents located immediately adjacent to the City property along Old Ranch Road and Mecedes Lane; this site was the most logical choice for them to meet coverage objectives. Commissioner Parker asked Ms. Knight what "not readily visible" meant, as residents on Old Ranch Road and Mecedes Lane had written letters complaining about the close proximity to their residences. Ms. Knight stated that "readily visible" meant that approximately the top 15 feet of the monopine would be visible and one could be within "4 to 6 feet" of the antennas mounted high on a pole and still be within safety standards established by the Federal government. Commissioner Ray stated that she had concern with the cumulative effect of the exposure of this tower. Ms. Knight stated they are required to prove cumulatively that they are within the FCC Guidelines for radio frequency emissions, but there are grounds re the visual esthetics to decide against approval of an antenna. Mr. Strong clarified that after consultation with the City Attorney he verified that the City cannot regulate on the basis of health impacts as long as the facility is in compliance with the FCC and asked that testimony relating to this not come from either the Commission or the public. Don O'Da 317 Old Ranch Road, stated if this is approved it will be very difficult to stop any others telecommunication from coming into the City; we will have a monopine forest; the City has not landscaped around the Reservoir as promised; esthetics needs to be considered; this is another attack on their neighborhood. Pamela Hurd, 361 Old Ranch Road, stated there had been a tremendous amount of noise and dust when the reservoir was installed and asked what the noise level will be and who will take care of the dust; the road is very close to her home; how long will it take for the installation to be in place if this is approved. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 PAGE 9 Alan Stevenson 341 Old Ranch Road, stated his house is the closest to the tower; the exposure becomes greater with every tower added; how many years will it be before we find out that the exposure is not what we thought it was; do we really know what will happen in a decade? Chair Fellows closed the hearing for public comment. Commission comments: Ray: • There is an aesthetic issue with this - there is nothing around it that is this height and it will stand out. • The applicants have stated that they are getting better coverage than expected so they could look for alternate sites that would camouphlage better - she would like them to do this. Brown: • The applicants have only looked at one other option for site location, and he would like to see more options brought forward and especially some private options; he would like to see some discussion of the Methodist campsite which would provide them with much needed revenue and give the camouflage required. • When the City originally subbed the site they may have been thinking of something connected to the tank, not a monopine with no true camouflage around it. • He did not think they have proven their case esthetically. Parker: • Concern with the public comment that states that the City has not put in the foliage around the water tower. • The monopine would be okay if it were mitigated with more pines so we could ask Cingular to do this. • After looking at this site she did not think that Old Ranch Road residents have visual of this monopine. • She could recommend this to the City Council as long as the mitigation is in place. Chair Fellows advised that he believes the Commission is treading on thin ice in their discussion regarding the health effects; he then read from the Telecommunication Act of 1996 stating the following areas of concern: • We shall not have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless facilities: Most of us have cell phones and yet we are saying "not in my backyard". • A local government shall act on any request for authorization to place, construct or modify personal wireless service facilities within a reasonable time. So we cannot delay it for very long. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 PAGE 10 • We shall put any decision to deny a personal wireless service facility into writing and support such substantial evidence into written record. In his opinion, we cannot do this as we do nof have the evidence. • The local government shall not regulate personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emission to the extent that such facilities comply with FCC Guidelines for such emissions. He believes there is no such evidence`that there would be any danger from this facility. • The existing monopine is fairly well camouflaged and he believes this one would be too. • The cell towers need to be somewhere high and this is not close to residential neighborhoods; cell phones are here to stay. Commissioner Brown asked if they have an obligation to approve this because other cell towers have been approved in the City and again stated that all options have not been considered; he urged the Commission to consider that they do have the authority to make a decision on this issue. Commission Ray stated that she would like to see other options considered and if not she could agree with the mitigations requested by Commissioner Parker to camouflage. Commissioner Brown stated concern that the mitigation may take a long time as trees take a long time to mature and asked — could we live with this. Chair Fellows stated that the other options have been explored and Cingular wants to close the gap - other sites may not do this. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ray, to continue to a date certain to allow time for further discussion between the applicant and staff regarding both public and private locations that meet the applicant's need and the community's desire to have the most aesthetically pleasing site available. Mr. Strong asked Ms. Knight how long it would take to evaluate alternative locations in the vicinity and also to consider a design alternative, such as a variable height of antenna for difference coverage that would lower the height of the monopine. The next available date certain for reconsideration would be August 15, 2006. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brown, Ray and Parker NOES: Chair Fellows ABSENT: Commissioner Tait 10:00 p. m. The Commission took a 10-minute break. r—. � PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 PAGE 11 Commissioner Brown made a motion to continue the meeting past 10:00 p.m. and to consider Item IV.A, Administrative Approvals tonight (due to time constraints on some of these), but to continue Item II.C. - Conditional Use Permit Case No. 06- 004 & Tentative Parcel Map Case No. 06-003 to the special meeting of July 13, 2006; Commissioner Parker seconded the motion. Commissioner Ray expressed concern that Mr. Vasquez's projects have had to be continued several times at prior meetings. Mr. Strong asked the applicant (for Item II.C.) if this would be acceptable as he was aware that there is a timeline to meet, due to a tax exchange. The applicant replied that continuing consideration of his proposal to the special meeting of July 13, 2006 would be acceptable. The motion passed on the following roll 'call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brown, Parker, Ray and Chair Fellows NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Tait III. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: None. IV. A. NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS SINCE JUNE 6, 2006 � � � Case�No: ��' A �°n�'� ' � Aiidre'ss= � � Desc�i tion ` '��,� ` Action `'Planner�,. � _ a� , � ," x '- . �s...; • � :�,» � �� ��.,, ° �- � 1. MEX 06-014 K. McKinley 230 Stagecoach Rd For an accessory building 1.4 feet A. B. Soland & VSR 06- above the 14- foot accessory 010 structure hei ht limitation. 2. MEX 06-013 S. McRae 239 Corbett Canyon 10% deviation to the rear setback A. T. Ricard standard (allow setback of 18 ft. instead of 20 ft. 3. ASP 06-012 J&M Trans. 1015 E. Grand Avenue For one sign. A. B. Soland 4. MEX 06-016 S& S 1308 Glenbrook Way Rear yard setback deviation. A. K. Homes & 413, 415, 467, 475, Heffernon 410, 418 & 420 Bakeman Lane 5. TUP 06-013 Kerrie 1030 Sycamore Drive Temporary use of travel trailer during A. K. Guttierez construction Heffernon 6. ARC 06-004 Dennis 314 Whiteley Street Demolition of 1960s ranch-style SF A. R. Foster Daniels home, construction of new Spanish eclectic-st le SF home. 7. MEX 06-018 1190 The Pike Increase in fence height. A. 8. MEX 06-019 431 Dixson St Increase Mr. Strong apologized to the Commission for the lack of information provided to them on the Administrative Items and that two more items had been added tonight, which was PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 PAGE 12 due to shortage of staff, but any time the Commission has questions staff will have the files available to hopefully help with answers. Commissioner Parker stated she had asked for more information on Item No. 2 due to concern with it's proximity to the Creek. Mr. Strong described the site and the proposed deviation to the setback. Commissioner Parker stated that she had no further concerns with this item. Mr. Strong clarified administrative item No. 1 for Commissioner Brown. Chair Fellows stated he would like to have item No. 6, 314 Whiteley Street, be brought forward to a full public hearing; the two architects on the ARC had voted against this (it passed on a 3/2 vote); the problem with the design of the proposed new house is that the garage is on the front and would not be in line with the Design Guidelines and Standards for the Village; in addition there is a hardscape plan to replace the front lawn (Creek Workshop testimony stated that we should strive for 100% of water that falls on property stay on property); he would also like to see a discussion on demolishing a home rather than remodeling it ("not green"). Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Parker, to appeal Item No. 6., ARC 06-004, located at 314 Whitely Street, and bring it to a public hearing. The motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brown, Parker, Ray and Chair Fellows NOES: None ' ABSENT: Commissioner Tait The Commission had no further concerns regarding the remaining Administrative Items. III. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: None. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: None. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: Chair Fellows said he would like members of the Commission to go by "Wet Pets" store and take a look at their trash enclosure; it is the best trash enclosure he has seen anywhere in town and would like to see a landscaped enclosure required on other projects that come forward. Commissioner Ray stated that in this month's "Metropolitan Home" there is an interesting article on the roles of Planning Commissioners, which she will copy to the Commissioners. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 PAGE 13 VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW-UP: Mr. Strong stated that the special meeting of July 13, 2006 would place the Faeh Street project (Item II.C.) first on that agenda; the item for the Bicycle Plan we be moved to a future Agenda. Mr. Strong reminded the Commission that if they would like to change any of their bylaws the first meeting in July would be the regular time to do this. V.III. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m. on a motion by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Parker. ATTEST: � LY EARDON-SMITH SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION AS TO ROB`�STR6TVG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR (Minutes approved at the meeting of July 13, 2006) CHUCK FELLOWS, CHAIR --, J