PC Minutes 2006-04-18MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 18, 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 Parker and Tait; Commissioners
Brown and Ray were absent. Staff members in attendance were Community Development
Director, Rob Strong, Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon, Assistant Planners, Ryan Foster
and Jim Bergman.
ANNOUNCEMENTS: Request for the public to turn off their cell phones during the
meeting.
AGENDA REVIEW: No changes to the Agenda.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of April 4, 2006 were approved with the following
requested changes:
Commissioner Parker:
• Page 4, fourth bullet, replace "...she could not figure out... ", with "...the report does
not indicate... ".
• Page 6, second paragraph, change "...read from prepared notes" to "...gave her
reasons... "; same paragraph, end of sentence, add "...and safety issues"
• Page 9, replace "She was not sure... ", with "She has no problem either way... ".
Fellows:
• Page 2 & 3, correct spelling "wattles" not "waddles ".
• Page 4, (under Ray's comments), second bullet, last sentence, replace "...top lots"
with "tough lots ".
• Page 8, correct name spelling "Ragan ", not "Regan ".
• Page 9, third paragraph, replace "...in front of... ", with "...in front of existing
development adjacent to the south. ".
Commissioner Parker made a motion, seconded by Commission Tait, to approve the
minutes of April 4, 2006; the motion passed on a 3/0 voice vote, Commissioners Brown and
Ray being absent.
A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None.
B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
1. Letter dated 4/18/06, from Cyndy Jones, Quarterdeck Restaurant, stating concerns
with Agenda Item II.B, Coast Hills Credit Union.
C. REFERRAL ITEMS FOR COMMISSION ACTION: None.
11. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
A. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 05 -004, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
CASE NO. 05 -003; APPLICANT — PAT MCKENNA; LOCATION — 137 JUNIPER.
Mr. Bergman presented the staff report for consideration of a proposal to divide a 9,289
square foot property into two lots, construct a new home on the rear parcel, and the
remodel and expansion of an existing residence in the front; the project does comply with
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
APRIL 18, 2006
the PUD development standards, except for usable open space (minus about 480 sq. ft.).
Staff has included a condition of approval that final landscape plan, site plan, and elevation
details return to the ARC before building permits are issued. In conclusion, Mr. Bergman
stated that staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution approving
the tentative parcel map and planned unit development.
The Commissioners asked staff for clarification on some technical issues in the staff report.
Chair Fellows opened the public hearing.
Mike Obayashi, architect for the project, answered Commission questions.
The Commission had questions on the retention basin, drainage from the project, how the
turf would be affected by the drainage and stated concern with the retention basin being
filled in by homeowner at a later date.
Patrick McKenna, 137 Juniper, in reply to questions from Commissioner Parker, explained
that the tree in the driveway area would not be removed although the roots are pulling up
his driveway (he would have to fix it); he has lived in the same house for many years and
the grass covered retention basin at the house next door never gets filled up (the water
soaks into the ground).
Chair Fellows asked if something other than foam could be used under the stucco (on the
lower level of the house)? Mr. McKenna stated he would prefer to use plastic instead of
foam, but not wood.
In reply to a question from Commissioner Tait, Mr. McKenna stated that the houses directly
next door are under 2,000 sq. ft. and similar in size to the proposed house.
Chair Fellows closed the hearing to public comment.
PAGE 2
Commission Comments:
Parker stated concerns with the many projects coming in for approval that are zoned MF
with PUD standards being used. Although this specific proposal seems acceptable and
works well in the neighborhood, she believes it goes too far in loosening up on the
standards; the homes next door are 1,295 sq. ft. with 2 -car garages and this house is 2500
sq. ft. plus 3 -car garage; the house in the back is closer to what she would like to see - 1900
sq. ft. What is being proposed is too much for the area and the land and does not meet the
open space criteria and it needs to be scaled down. It would then fit better with the
neighborhood, allow the required open space and she could then approve it.
Tait:
• He likes the homes next door as they are substantially smaller, but this proposal is
permitted and satisfies the PUD standards.
• A condition should be included in CC &R's so the owner of Parcel 2 would not be
able to make any changes to the retention basin.
• If this proposed new house comes in close to the house next door it will fit with the
neighborhood better.
1
1
1
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
APRIL 18, 2006
Fellows:
• He likes the idea of building another house on this parcel because its infill.
• Likes to the use of rigid plastic with detailing and stucco over it instead of foam.
• We need to include a condition of approval to keep the tree discussed by
Commissioner Parker and in addition require two street trees instead of just one in
the front of the house.
Commissioner Parker made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait, to approve
Tentative Parcel Map 05 -004 and Planned Unit Development 05 -003 with the following
changes:
• Scale down the size of the front house to the same as rear house (rear house
acceptable at 1900 sq. ft.).
• Add a condition to keep the tree near the driveway on the left hand side.
• Add a condition to require two trees in front of the property instead of one.
• Retrofit the rear house with low -flow devices.
• CC &R's to include a condition that the retention basin on Parcel 2 not be tampered
with.
and adopt:
RESOLUTION -06 -1995
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 05-
004 AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 05 -003; LOCATED
AT 137 JUNIPER STREET; APPLIED FOR BY PATRICK MCKENNA
The motion passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Parker, Tait and Chair Fellows
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Brown and Ray.
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 18 day of April 2006.
PAGE 3
The Commission agreed that the revised plans should be reviewed and approved by the
ARC.
B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 06 -001 AND ADMINISTRATIVE SIGN
PROGRAM CASE NO. 06 -001; APPLICANT — COAST HILLS FEDERAL CREDIT
UNION; LOCATION —1570 W. BRANCH STREET
Ms. Heffernon presented the staff report for consideration of an application for a new, one -
story credit union facility, with one drive -up lane and a walk -up ATM. The project site is
currently used for parking so a parking reduction is necessary for any project proposed on
this site and a 2.3% parking reduction is being requested. The traffic impact study
concludes that the project traffic will not change the daily level of service along the studied
road segments; in addition, the project applicant is required to pay the City's standard traffic
impact fees. All changes suggested by the Planning Commission and ARC, when the pre -
application was considered, have been incorporated into the design. The Administrative
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
APRIL 18, 2006
PAGE 4
Sign Program (for three wall signs) has been approved by the ARC. In conclusion, Ms.
Heffernon stated that staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the Conditional Use Permit and Administrative Sign Program to the City Council.
Ms. Heffernon referred questions regarding types of trees proposed for removal and detail
on the trash pick -up to the applicant.
Commissioner Tait stated concern that there were no trees shown on the southern
exposure to provide shade and cooling for the building as a mitigation measure. Ms.
Heffernon recommended that more landscaping or evergreen trees could be added to this
side.
Commissioner Tait stated concern that the drainage would not be filtered from this proposal
before getting to Meadow Creek.
Commission Tait pointed out that MM 5.7 should be corrected to state "5.8 — 5.10 "; also, the
floor plan shows a vault located in the women's restroom, which is probably a mistake.
Commissioner Tait asked why the parking for this proposal is not diagonal (not consistent
with the rest of the lot). Mr. Devens explained that the perpendicular parking allows
vehicles to pull in right when coming in off West Branch Street.
Commissioner Parker stated that a correction should be made to the Negative Declaration,
Page 4. a) to state that this will be a "Less than significant effect ", as there is no mitigation
included. Ms. Heffernon stated she would correct this.
Commissioner Parker asked if there were filters for drainage into the sewers and asked if
this is the one that is overloaded? Mr. Devens stated that the site predates most of the
requirements of filtering and the net increase in drainage is zero; the applicant will have to
either do the retrofit program or pay the in -lieu fee.
Commissioner Fellows commented that if a parking reduction were allowed for this proposal
at this site we would have to consider the same for the next applicant that requests this.
Ms. Heffernon agreed with this comment.
In reply to Commissioner Fellow's question, Mr. Devens stated that he had informed the
project engineer that the double- detector check value connector for the Fire Department
has to be screened and he would be following up on this.
In reply to a question from Commissioner Parker, Director Strong explained that the parcel
map was created in 1998 and the pad was probably located where it is to minimize
development directly in front of the major anchor; it would be very complicated to move it.
Chair Fellows opened the public hearing to public comment.
In reply to a question from Commissioner Tait, Clarence Steel, designer for the project,
explained that the tree species are shown on the drawing.
1
1
1
1
1
1
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
APRIL 18, 2006
PAGE 5
In reply to a question by Commissioner Tait, Scott Cohen, Coast Hills, explained that "Docu
Shred" picks up their paper and recycle it.
Mr. Steele stated the location of the safe deposit vault is shown on the drawings (the one
shown in the women's restroom is an error).
Steve Orosz, traffic engineer, clarified Commission questions in reply to the traffic report:
• A traffic signal can carry traffic through an intersection more quickly than a stop sign
as it allows more traffic to move consecutively.
• Explained Brisco Road was not included in the study as the project traffic estimated
toward that intersection was very small and Public Works did not include this on the
list of intersections to be studied.
• The appendix to the traffic study gives a list of approved projects and pending
projects and the City guidelines count them both together.
• Explained how the traffic numbers in the report change as they move through
intersections and also that it was normal to have a small number of cars missing
between two intersections.
Commissioner Parker stated concern that the lighted sign would be on all night long. Mr.
Cohen stated that they could have the sign on a timer to go off at the same time as the rest
of the center.
In reply to a question from Commissioner Fellows, Mr. Devens explained that preparations
for the installation of the traffic signal light at Camino Mercado would start in about 8 -10
weeks.
Commissioner Tait asked if the hours of construction could be changed so as not to impact
the restaurant business and that the equipment yard be located on the west side so as to
not interfere with customers. Matt Beckett, Clayco, stated usual construction times are 7:00
a.m. - 3:30 p.m. (lunch break is 30 minutes about noon time), so normally they would not
interfere with the dinner time and they had already agreed to locate their equipment yard on
the west side.
Randy Potle, manager of shopping center, stated they are pleased with the parcel
development but have two concerns: 1) they would prefer that the irrigation water be a
separate meter, 2) they would like the building lit in the evening to be consistent with the
rest of the shopping center and would like this building to have certain lights on all night for
security purposes (this building will block retail shops behind). He asked if there would be
any site lighting that would shine on the building at night and how the trash would be
handled and screened?
Mr. Devens stated there could be a separate meter for the irrigation water. Director Strong
suggested that it could be part of the metered water system for Coast Hills with a separate
control valve for the outdoor landscaping.
Mr. Steele stated that there are three low pylon landscape lights proposed and they would
be located along the walkway in front of the building; in addition, they intend to relocate one
parking light fixture and add one more matching light. The trash would be removed nightly
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
APRIL 18, 2006
The applicant showed the Commission an updated colored rendering.
Chair Fellows closed the hearing to public comment.
7:50 p.m. The Commission took a 10- minute break.
PAGE 6
by the cleaning personnel and the shredded material stored until it is picked up from the
building periodically.
Mr. Potle stated he would like to see some up- lighting reflected towards the building so it
would look more active in the evening. He commented that the service people who remove
the trash nightly would need a place to dispose of it and he requested that they not use the
shopping center or restaurant trash dumpsters.
Commission Comments:
Tait:
• MM 5.2, last sentence, should be changed to state "Reclaimed (non - potable) water
shall be used' and delete "whenever possible ".
• He had concern that there is no filtering of the drainage before it gets to Meadow
Creek when recently other projects have been required to do this.
• MM 10.1: change the times to state "no later than 5:00 p.m. for construction work'.
• The new color board of the building looks good and he has no other problem with the
design of the building.
Parker:
• She is glad to see something going forward on this property and it should work very
well.
• The traffic situation seems acceptable and she is very glad to see that the signal is
going forward for West Branch Street and Camino Mercado.
• Proposal for the storage of equipment on the west side so that it will have Tess
impact on the other businesses; she would also like to see the construction parking
on the west side.
• Disagrees with Commissioner Tait's comments on the building; the whole center has
a Spanish red -tile feeling, but the proposed building looks more modern and does
not fit in; the design will take away from the center.
• She recommended that the proposal be revised and come back with something that
fits more into the center (not take away from it).
Fellows:
• A credit union will have the least impact at this site.
• The traffic report shows that the parking should be adequate for the traffic
generated.
• He does not like split -faced block.
• It's a nice building, but does not fit the small -town atmosphere; he suggested that the
look be softened.
• The Quarterdeck Restaurant has asked that no construction take place between the
hours of 12 -2:00 pm., can this be resolved?
• A condition of approval should be included to require that construction materials be
stored on the west side.
1
1
1
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
APRIL 18, 2006
Tait:
and adopt:
RESOLUTION 06 -1996
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, INSTRUCT THE DIRECTOR OF
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES TO FILE A NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
AND APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 06 -001 AND
ADMINISTRATIVE SIGN PROGRAM CASE NO. 06 -001, LOCATED AT
1570 WEST BRANCH STREET, APPLIED FOR BY COAST HILLS
FEDERAL CREDIT UNION
The motion passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Parker, Tait and Chair Fellows
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Brown and Ray.
PAGE 7
• He agreed that the lights should go out between 10:30 -11:00 p.m. and suggested
some up- lighting in the landscaped area on the side of building.
• Restated concern with the lack of filtering before it gets to Meadow Creek (he
understands that the other businesses at the center do not filter either). Mr. Devens
explained that they cannot request that just this proposal filter their water; the only
logical solution would be to require filtering at the discharge location and it would
then be an overall shopping center problem.
Commissioner Fellows asked Mr. Beckett if there is a way to address the restaurant
concern with the lunch hour problem. Mr. Beckett stated they could look at this, but to stop
30 -35 construction workers for two hours may be costly for the credit union and if the
workers are stopped for two hours it may be difficult to keep them on site.
Mr. Orosz suggested that it might be helpful if the parking spaces on the side of the building
were constructed first before the other construction begins.
Commissioner Parker made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait, to recommend
approval to the City Council of Conditional Use Permit Case No. 06 -001 and Administrative
Sign Program Case No. 06 -001, with the following changes:
1. MM 10.1: change the construction times to state from 7:00 a.m. — 5:00 p.m.
2. Place signage illumination on a timer to go off between 10:30 -11:00 p.m.
3. Store construction equipment on northwest side of the project.
4. Contain construction parking to the west side of the project.
5. Provide a separate control valve for irrigation purposes (Coast Hills water to be
used).
6. Contain employee parking on the west side of the project.
7. MM 5.2: change to state "shall be used".
8. Provide outdoor landscape lighting.
PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 8
MINUTES
APRIL 18, 2006
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 18 day of April 2006.
C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 06 -002; APPLICANT — SOUTH COUNTY
VET CLINIC; LOCATION — 270 N. HALCYON.
Mr. Foster presented the staff report for consideration of an application for demolition of an
existing veterinary clinic and construction of a new two -story clinic on the opposite end of
the property. He explained that there are long range plans to widen Halcyon Road; the
effects of widening on the proposed project would reduce the setback on the Halcyon Road
side to zero feet (which is consistent with the current mixed use zoning) and would also
reduce the parking by two spaces. There are eight eucalyptus trees proposed to be
removed located on and adjacent to the southern property line and two street trees
proposed to be removed (due to the location of the building and the foundation prep
required), on the western side of the property. The applicant is proposing a replacement
ratio of 2:1, double the Code requirement, so there will be a total of 27 trees (20 new & 7
existing). The applicant is asking the Planning Commission to establish appropriate parking
requirements (as they are not specifically delineated in the Code for this type of a use).
Not included in the staff report is a proposal to utilize the existing building while the new
building is being built; the applicant is discussing additional parking with the church across
the street to mitigate the loss of onsite parking, but there is no formal agreement at this
time.
The ARC recommended approval of the project including the proposed removal of
eucalyptus trees with recommended changes to the landscape /parking; a condition was
included in the Resolution that the revised landscape /parking plan is returned for review to
the ARC prior to issuance of a building permit. In conclusion, Mr. Foster stated that staff
recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution approving Conditional Use
Permit 06 -002, including the findings of approval for the project.
The Commissioners asked questions to clarify some statements in the staff report.
Commissioner Tait asked for clarification on the area behind the police modular and what
this area would be used for in the future. Mr. Foster explained that parking is located there
and a 3 -foot fence to help screen it; plans for the future will change this area and parking
may be where the modular is now located.
Commissioner Parker asked if there would be a retention wall in the area that the Police
Department had graded next to the veterinary property. Director Strong stated there would
not be a retention wall in this area.
Chair Fellows opened the public hearing to public comment.
Eugene Sims, architect, stated he had brought a model, material board, and photograph of
the proposed project for Commission review; introduced Dr. Pollock and LeeAnn Palm from
VCA Animal Hospital, Wes Conner, arborist and Dr. Levine who were present to answer
questions. Mr. Sims submitted a petition which had been signed by over 200 residents in
the area supporting replacement of the eucalyptus trees on the south side of their property.
1
1
1
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
APRIL 18, 2006
Chair Fellows closed the public hearing to public comment.
PAGE 9
Dr. Ken Levine, stated that he and his wife had planted the eucalyptus trees many years
ago and it would not hurt their feelings a bit if they were taken out.
Hugh Pope, 723 Bennett Avenue, closest residence to existing animal hospital, stated the
animal clinic has been a very good neighbor. His only concerns were that conditions would
be included to state (as conditioned in the prior conditional use permit).
• No outside dog runs;
• No boarding of animals;
• No incineration of animal carcasses; and
• No excessive noise (noise abatement).
Gary Scherquist 228 Short Street, stated he believes the trees can be saved with the
exception of one tree that has been severely cut. Regarding the soil report on the trees he
believed a different type of foundation could solve the problem; Eucalyptus Nikoli can be
used for street trees.
In reply to a question from Commissioner Tait, Steve Paulick, Medical Director, stated that
the space upstairs would be used for recovery of cats, but they are not a boarding facility.
In reply to the comment by Mr. Scherquist, regarding a different type of foundation for
saving the trees, Wes Conner, arborist, stated that having a whole series of trees side by
side would make it difficult for both aeration and nutrients to get to the remaining roots
underneath the building; in addition, the roots that have already been cut on the south side
of the relocated Police building severed some of the structural roots. With buildings on both
sides of the roots the trees would not survive and may become safety a hazard. Regarding
the comment from Mr. Scherquist on the Eucalyptus Nikoli, he agreed they can be used for
street trees, but only if put in when small and given opportunity to survive plus they would
have to be continuously pruned and maintained in order to survive. Street trees traditionally
have a life span of about 25 years.
In reply to a question from Commissioner Parker, Mr. Conner stated that even if there were
20 feet between the building (a one -story building) and the trees it would still restrict the
opportunity for the trees to survive properly.
Commissioner Parker asked if the building were a smaller footprint and the space inside
rearranged could the upstairs space be used for hospital use. Dr. Pollock stated that that
they had looked at this, but working in two stories for a veterinary hospital would not be
practical.
Commissioner Parker expressed concern that the recommended replacement trees, Holly
Oaks, (which grow to 40 feet tall and 40 feet around) and would not survive in a two foot
space close to a building. Mr. Sims stated that they would work with the City to get the
trees right and would follow up on this.
Although the public hearing was closed Chair Fellows allowed Mr. Scherquist's request to
make further comment. He was not present at the last ARC meeting, but the ARC had
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
APRIL 18, 2006
PAGE 10
suggested that the smaller area to the north be used for employee parking so there would
be an entrance off Rena Street and off Halcyon Road for the public. This would allow one
for one additional parking space in the driveway area and then would allow the building to
be moved a width of one parking space also.
Commission Comments:
Tait:
• He concurred with the ARC and would like to save the trees, but he was not sure this
could happen with what has happened in the recent past; experts are stating that
even moving the building 15 -20 feet away from the trees would not help; the trees
may be reaching senility and probably should be removed and replaced with
something more appropriate (although he does not like to state this).
• The parking has been worked as best as can be.
• The interim parking using the Church lot whilst the building is under construction
should be a condition.
• The applicant has worked very well with the landscape to keep the entrance to the
gateway of the City looking good and have done a good job with this.
• This animal hospital is an important facility that does need expansion.
• He is favorable towards this project.
Commissioner Parker stated that this grove of eucalyptus trees is our visual gateway to
Arroyo Grande; we are proposing to replace them with a parking lot and a two -story building
and it does not make sense to her; she also has a problem imagining how 40 -foot
replacement trees planted behind the building, in a two -foot planting area, would survive;
there is only room for bushes or ground cover. She believes the project could be
redesigned to save the trees (the building moved up). She could not support the project the
way it is.
Fellows:
• This project is over - developed for site and wrong for the community; its zoned
mixed -use, but it's immediately adjacent to a residential area.
• It's in a tree City where you we are asking to take down the trees, a large esthetic
contributor to our small town rural character and asking us to grace the gateway on
Halcyon Road with a parking lot instead of a building and asking for a smaller
parking lot than is not really adequate for the size of the building you are proposing.
• You are asking to keep the building you are in while the new one is being built, but
where the building is now is the best location for it.
• He could not support the project in any form that it is in now.
Commissioner Fellows then read from the General Plan the sections that he felt related to
the reasons he could not support the project:
• Introduction, Page 7, Community Vision: This does also relate to trees and all but
one of these trees could be saved.
• Page Ag C /OS -11, C/OS1 -1.4 — "locate structures to minimize visual impact" &
C/OS1 -1.5- he disagrees with the staff report- the tress are a wonderful mitigation for
a two -story building.
• Land Use Element: Page LUE -10, LU5 -6: Mixed Use: the grove of eucalyptus trees
are a positive part of our environment.
1
1
1
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
APRIL 18, 2006
• Growth Management, Page LUE -16, LU11 -1, "Require new developments to be at
appropriate density based upon compatibility with majority of existing surrounding
land use ": Even though a lot of people signed a petition we have no idea under what
conditions they signed or what they were told so he could not give serious
consideration to the signatures on the petition.
• LU11 -1.1: As proposed this project fails in a lot of different aspects.
• LU11 -1.2: Re adequate buffering — the trees serve this function.
• LU11 -2: This project as proposed is not designed to create pleasing transitions to
surrounding development.
• LU11 -2.1: As proposed this would not be a good fit.
• LU11 -2.2: This building would be taller than the Police station and the residences
next to it.
• LU11 -2.3: Setbacks do not relate to scale of structure and width of street.
• LU11 -2.4 & 2.5: There would be no trees to screen from the residential
neighborhood.
He further stated that he does not agree with the staff report that the environmental
determination can be made for this proposed project; that the existing trees are not
appropriate for this project; that replacement of the existing trees would improve the urban
forest. However, removal of the trees would impact the sites scenic beauty; there are no
parking agreements with the neighbors yet; he cannot make the finding that: the proposed
project will not create any adverse environmental impacts.
Commissioner Tait stated he had asked Mr. Sims about the distance between the chain Zink
fence and the sidewalk as he had the same concern as Commissioner Parker regarding the
two foot planter area in the back and how trees that would grow to 40 feet would survive.
Mr. Sims stated that the dimensions stated on the site plans were correct.
The Commission had a discussion on whether they could make a motion that would include
saving the trees. Commissioner Parker stated that any motion to save the trees would
include altering the design plan and that is something they could not dictate.
Commissioner Parker made a motion, seconded by Chair Fellows, to deny, without
prejudice, the Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 06 -002, and that Findings Nos.
1., 2. & 3. could not be made as explained by Chair Fellows during his discussion on the
General Plan.
The motion passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioner Parker and Chair Fellows
NOES: Commissioner Tait
ABSENT: Commissioners Brown and Ray
PAGE 11
Director Strong reminded the public that this action is final unless appealed and filed within
10 working days, with the City Clerk.
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
APRIL 18, 2006
III. NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: None.
IV.
A. NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS SINCE APRIL 4, 2006:
V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: None.
PAGE 12
Case, No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
VSR 06 -007
MEX 06 -011
VSR 06 -008
PPR 06 -008
PPR 06 -005
App,. Name
Gregory Smith
Paul & Sandra
Fischbein
Anthony Luis
Dave Sturges
- Address,
915 Sycamore Ct.
216 Crown Terrace
1253 Cedar St.
130 Short Street
a scription, .,.,;
Second story master suite
2 Story addition over existing
garage.
To allow the continued use of a
legally non - conforming accessory
structure as a 2 dwelling unit
Bed & Breakfast Inn
Action
A
A
A
A
Planner
B. Soland
T. Ricard
B. Soland
R. Foster
The Commission asked questions regarding Administrative Items 1, 2, 3 & 4 and after a
short discussion with Director Strong stated they had no concerns.
VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS:
In reply to a question from Commissioner Tait, Director Strong stated that on Monday, April
24 from 3:00 — 5:00 PM there would be a bus tour of a proposed Citywide Bikeway and
Pedestrian Enhancement plan. In the near future, the plan will be considered by the Parks
and Recreation, Traffic and Planning Commission.
Commissioner Fellows commented that he had recently visited Grants Pass, Oregon, and
noticed they now have many electronic signs throughout the City with moving information
and he had since seen some in Paso Robles. He had a concern that this could happen in
the City and asked if there was any thing in our sign ordinance that prohibits these types of
signs? Director Strong stated that he was not sure there was anything in our sign code that
prohibits these signs; to change the code would require Council approval, but if an applicant
came forward with this type of sign request he would ask for an interpretation. The
Commission agreed that this was an urgent issue, was a safety concern and would like to
propose controls before the City gets requests for these signs.
Chair Fellows stated a concern that "Little Caesars" whole window is taken up with signs
and did not think this was allowed. Director Strong agreed and stated he would follow up on
this with Neighborhood Services investigation and report back to the Commission.
VII.
1.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP:
Director Strong gave an update on the turn - around on Hausna Road and stated it was
a former right of way of Hausna Road; there is a sewer lift station and phone company
easements; the property has been cleared and basic maintenance done around the
sewer lift station. Commissioner Parker stated that the problem is the riparian area
that goes to the creek, on the other side of the fence (that contains Willow trees) that
was cleared out. Apparently, at least once a year the riparian area is being sprayed.
Director Strong said he would ask Public Works to report on any intended
1
1
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
APRIL 18, 2006
maintenance beyond the lift station and that the 25 -foot setback from top of creek
bank could be applied here. Commissioner Fellows suggested that the creek setback
area be staked and signed.
2. Director Strong stated that the Land Conservancy Agricultural Conservation Easement
Report has been in progress and is basically complete and will probably be presented
to the Commission during June 2006.
3. Viewshed Review Appeal: Harmon /Mankins Update: Staff mediated with the
applicant and the appellant, but the applicant decided to pursue his appeal (scheduled
for City Council 4/25/06) rather than a design alternative. In reply to questions from
Commission Parker, Director Strong stated staff will be expanding the D- Overlay to
the north side of Montego Street (west half of the block) so that any alteration would
be subject to viewshed review; in the meantime we do not have the ability to preclude
people from applying, but we do have the ability to prevent permits being issued on
the North side of Montego Street until this D- Overlay has been reviewed and clarified.
4. Reconsideration of Conditional Use Permit 02 -003 & Lot Line Adjustment 02 -001, for
Richard Blankenberg /Five Cities Vineyard Church, located at 1052 E. Grand Avenue
will take place at the next meeting. Previously all conditions had been met except the
parking agreement which was not recorded before the map expired (an oversight by
both the applicant and City staff), so this is why reconsideration is being initiated.
V.III. ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 pm.
ATTEST:
n
LYN REARDON -SMITH
SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION
AS TO CONTENT
COMMUNITY DEVELO ENT DIRECTOR
(Minutes approved at the PC meeting of June 6, 2006)
CHUCK FELLOWS, CHAIR
PAGE 13
1
1
1