Loading...
PCMIN 10 10 1995 MINUTES PLANNING coMMIsSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampieo, CA October 10, 1995 3:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 3:05 P.M. by Chairman Abels. Commissioner Anderson led the flag salute. II. ROLL CALL A. Chairman Abels requested the roll call: Present: Commissioners Adolph, Butler, Gardner, Newkirk, and Chairman Abels. -' B. Chairman Abels stated both Commissioners Barrows and Newkirk had informed him they would be late. He therefore, moved and Commissioner Adolph seconded a -- motion to excuse Commissioners Barrows and Newkirk. Unanimously approved. C. Staff Present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Dawn Honeywell, Planning Manager Christi di Iorio, Senior Engineer Steve Speer, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: A. Chairman Abels asked if there were any changes to the Agenda. 1. Commissioner Adolph asked that "Political Signs" be added to Commissioner Items 2. Chairman Abels asked that a discussion regarding General Plan Amendments be added. IV. PUBLIC COMMENT - None V. WORKSHOP -- A. Zoning Ordinance Update; a request of staff for a review of the Zoning Ordinance. 1. Staff presented portions of the revised Zoning Ordinance Update for the Commissioners review indicating proposed changes are written in the draft. PCIO-IO 1 Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 1995 2. Page 006, Section 9.110.080. Change the title to "Sexually Oriented Businesses". Change it wherever it appears 3. Page 009, Table 9. a. Water wells and pumping stations changed to Permitted Use. b. Water tanks and reservoirs changed to Conditional Use Permit. 4. Staff asked that the following changes be made: a. Page 013.E. Change Design Review to Site Development Review as well as "design review" to "site review" b. Page 014.G.2. To be rewritten by staff to update archaeological requirements. c. Page 015. Add a G.g4. Regarding View sheds from Page 016. d. Page 015.H. - Remove #1 and #2 and move #3 to Page 018 as a separate paragraph under "Landscaping" and renumber the remainder. 5. Page 020. Staff to clarify C.1. and bring back to the Commission. Chairman Abels noted that all Commissioners were now present. 6. Page 040. Table 9. Apartments and airspace a. Change the number of covered parking spaces for three or more bedrooms to 3 covered spaces. 6. Page 043. Table 9 a. Parking for a General Office reduce back to 250 sq./ft. GFA. b. Add a requirement for 30% covered parking for Banks-etc.; Convalescent Hospitals, General Office-etc., and Medical or Dental uses under "Office and Health Care Uses". 7. Page 044. Car Washes a. Staff stated the number of parking spaces may be too high. b. Need to base the number of employees or services being provided. Staff to bring a recommendation back to the Commission. 8. Page 060.M.6. Parking Lot Shading. a. Need to add a requirement requiting covered parking for all parking in apartments for units with including guests. Staff to review and report back to the Commission. Remove "leave as is". PCIO-IO 2 Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 1995 9. Staff asked that the following changes be made to Chapter 9.160: Signs a. Page 064.Section 9.160.010.A.3. Add "provide directional information". b. Page 069. Clarify "project neighborhood entry sign" and clarify all lighting to be indirect. c. Page 070. Table 9. Lighting - direct or indirect for all signs. d. Page 071. Gas stations. Remove the first sentence under Additional Requirements. e. Page 072 F - total signs shall not exceed 30. f. Page 078 #5.a. Change Director to Planning Commission; (1) Remove # 1 and b. g. Page 081//4. "...vehicles which are primarily used..." h. Page 082 #25 - Remove; #20, Except in the Village; #21, change neon to illuminated and add "sign program". i. Page 086.X. Eliminate pylon and pole signs. -- j. Page 088.KK. Change "plate line" to "roof plane". _ 10. Commissioner Adolph asked to address Political Signs on Page 072 under Permitted Temporary Signs. City Attorney stated the City might be able to put a restriction on the maximum number allowable in the City fight-of-way, but not on private property. The Planning Commission felt a maximum of 30 signs was appropriate. Political signs could also be required to be removed by a certain time and a fine imposed. Following discussion it was determined that staffwould bring a recommendation back to the Commission regarding aggregate size and deposit amount. Add language to require a refundable deposit for any function requiting more than five signs. Chairman Abels recessed the meeting at 5:00 P.M. and reconvened at 7:03 P.M. VI. PUBLIC COMMENT: None VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Street Vacation 95-027; a request of STAMKO Development for approval to vacate an unimproved section of Westward Ho Drive. 1. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Commissioner Adolph asked if a new tract map would be required. Staff stated no. PCIO-IO 3 ' Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 1995 3. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Abels opened public hearing. The applicant, Chris Clarke, addressed the Commission and stated the purpose of the vacation was to transfer ownership of the site toCoachella Valley Water District for use as a well site. 4. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the public hearing. 5. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Adolph/Anderson to Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 95-041 certifiying Environmental Assessment 95-308 as requested. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Anderson, Adolph, Barrows, Butler, Gardner, Newkirk, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None. -- 6. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Adolph/Barrows recommending approval of Street Vacation 95-027 to the City Council by _ adoption of Planning Commission Resolution 95-042. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Anderson, Adolph, Barrows, Butler, Gardner, Newkirk, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None. B. Municipal Code Amendment 95-045; a request for approval of specifications for the forms and acceptance standards for Subdivision Improvement Security. 1. Senior Engineer Steve Speer presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Commissioner Butler asked why the bond was being increased. Staff clarified this Amendment was to identify which type of securities the City would accept. 3. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Abels opened the public hearing. _ 4. There being no public comments, Chairman Abels closed the public hearing. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Barrows to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 95-043 approving Municipal Code Amendment 95-045. PCl0-10 4 Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 1995 ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Adolph, Anderson, Barrows, Butler, Gardner, Newkirk, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. C. Conditional Use Permit 95-022; a request of Mr. Moe Nourkhah for approval of a vehicle sales lot on a portion of a 2.7 acre site on Highway 111. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Abels asked staff to clarify the entrance to the site. Staff clarified the entrances and discussion followed. 3. Commissioner Adolph asked if this application had been sent to any State agencies. Staff stated the report had been sent to Cal Trans and staff had not -- received any reply. __ 4. Commissioner Adolph stated he felt this was a safety factor due to the location and cars entering the site. Staff stated the Public Works Department had reviewed the traffic circulation pattern and had no objections. 5. Commissioner Adolph asked about the lighting for the project. Staff stated there would be night lighting and that the current lighting was illegal. Therefore, the applicant would be required to install lighting that would conform to City Code. 6. Commissioner Newkirk confirmed that the building would have to be painted. Staff stated the project was conditioned to require the building be painted. 7. Commissioner Butler asked about loading and unloading of vehicles and whether a vehicle transporter could get into the property. Staff stated that if they cannot get into the site, they would have to unload at a different location and drive the vehicles to this location. 8. Commissioner Gardner asked if this was permitted. Staff stated they were uncertain about Cai Trans requirements and this was why the project was _ conditioned to prohibit loadning/unloading on Highway 111. 9. Chairman Abels asked what the distance was to Dune Palms Road. Staff stated Dune Palms was 300 feet to the east. Discussion followed as to the unloading and loading of vehicles. PCIO-IO 5 Planning Commission Minutes -- October 10, 1995 10. Commissioner Barrows questioned the chain link fence and the requirement. for the trees and shrubbery. Staff stated the trees and shrubbery were required for aesthetics and to buffer the view of the fence. Commissioner Barrows asked for clarification on the size of the plants as she too was concerned about the aesthetics of the fence and perhaps it could be screened additionally, yet maintain the visibility of the building. Staff stated the fence could be required to be removed and replaced with another material. 11. Commissioner Adolph asked if this fence was temporary. Staff clarified it was a nonconforming use and the fence is existing. 12. Commissioner Barrows questioned the sign submittal and whether it would be submitted to staff for approval. Staff stated that the applicant was not changing the sign structure, but only the wording on the sign, therefore, it would be submitted to staff for review and approval. -- 13. Commissioner Anderson stated his concem about the sign being installed at the top of the grade. Staff clarified that the drawings had been submitted _ with the application, but all the information was not complete therefore, it would be approved by staff. Commissioner Anderson stated his concern about the height of the sign on the grade. He would like to see it installed below the grade or have the height of the sign lowered. Staff informed the Commission that the applicant was allowed to keep the sign as it was, as his request was only to change the wording on the sign. 14. Chairman Abels asked for clarification of the hours of operation. Staff clarified what the applicant had submitted. 15. Commissioner Gardner questioned Condition #2, Staff clarified it was to make sure the applicant was complying with the Conditions of Approval. 16. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Abels opened the public heating. Mr. Tom Suitt, owner of the property, addressed the Commission and gave a history of the site. Mr. Suitt stated he had no objection to the conditions as imposed by staff. He would like to request that rather than dedicating the 26 feet at this time, that since it was his intent to acquire the properties to the west, east, and north of this site and develop the entire project and he would like to dedicate the land at that time. -- 17. Commissioner Barrows asked about the chain link fence. Mr. Suitt stated it was for security purposes and he saw no other way of installing any other type of fencing. Commissioner Barrows stated she would like to see the view shed improved. Mr. Suitt stated they would see what could be done. PCIO-IO 6 Planning Commission Minutes October 1 O, 1995 18. Commissioner Butler suggested that for purposes of security, the applicant consider constructing pillars with a cable stretched between them to improve the aesthetics. This would allow security and have a low profile. Mr. Suitt stated that allowing easy access would only increase the potential for problems. Discussion followed regarding problems the applicant had incurred at other locations. 19. Staff stated that they were not requiring the dedication at this time, just an irrevocable offer for the dedication. 20. Mr. Greg Shannon, spoke on behalf of the applicant and stated that the fence would be heavily planted and the business would be closed by 5:00 P.M. on Sundays. Regarding Condition #6B, dust control, the applicant is requesting that an inspection be done by the City to determine what was being asked of the applicant. In reference to the vehicle transport, the applicant does not use -- the vehicle transports. This is a temporary use until development occurs. With regard to the existing lights, he is requesting they be removed as the _ new ones are installed. 21. Commissioner Adolph asked if the same lights would be on when the operation was closed. Mr. Shannon stated they would be security lighting only. 22. Mr. Shannon stated the applicant would also like to see the traffic flow reversed. 23. Mr. Robert Tyler, 44-215 Valletta Drive, stated his concem about the Conditions of Approval. He felt the traffic pattem would be a safety hazard, especially across Highway 111. He felt the Commission must insist upon a right turn in and out. He was also concerned about the lights being on 24- hours a day. If the applicant agrees to using security lighting only at night, he would like to see that in writing. 24. Chairman Abels asked Senior Engineer Steve Speer if the access to the site was across a double/double yellow line. Staff stated it was a double/double line and it was illegal to cross. He further informed the applicant that when the raised median was built, there would be no left mm lane and the _ egress/ingress would always remain a right mm in/out. PCIO-IO 7 Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 1995 25.. Commissioner Butler asked if signs could be placed in the median to notify drivers that a left mm was illegal. Staff stated this was a request they had received at the One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center, but staff has determined that a sign in the median would not be beneficial as it would be difficult to see at night and would end up being nm over. 26. Chairman Abels asked if the Cliffhouse entrance now allowed a left mm. Staff stated that if it was changed, it was done so by Cai Trans. Discussion followed regarding the traffic flow. Staff stated that when the School District builds their Administration Center there would be a traffic signal installed at Dune Palms Road. 27. Commissioner Adolph asked Engineering staff to review the striping on Highway 111 in front of the proposed site as he felt the left mm was allowed. Staff would review the site. Discussion followed. 28. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the public hearing. 29. Commissioner Barrows stated her appreciation that the applicant's would install additional landscaping, but she would like to see additional screening requirements added to the Conditions of Approval. 30. Commissioner Adolph stated he agreed with the applicant that something is better than what is there. He was however, concerned about the traffic safety and this was not a permanent use that the City would desire, but it would help to enhance the site. 31. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Barrows to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 95-044 recommending approval of Conditional Use Permit 95-022, with the added condition that the fencing be landscaped (added to E.4.). Commissioner Adolph asked if the conditions should be reviewed by a law enforcement agency. Staff stated that the Sheriff's Department had reviewed the application and had no objections. 32. Commissioner Anderson asked if the 86-foot dedication was to be required. Staff stated this was an irrevocable dedication that was not required at this time, but would be when further development occurs. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Adolph, Anderson, Barrows, Butler, Gardner, Newkirk, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Pc~o-~o 8 Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 1995 D. Conditional Use Permit 95-091. Plot Plan 95-564, and Environmental Assessment 95-309; a request of The Keith Companies for certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of enviromental impact; approval of a deviation from the development standards to reduce the gross livable area; and approval of a 30% density bonus to allow 11 units per acre, and a reduction in parking spaces for affordable housing to allow a 128 unit apartment project on Washington Street. 1. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff clarified the parking requirements, setbacks concerns, two story massing adjacent to the single family homes, parkland dedication, the need for a hydrology study, reducing the retention basin by two acres, and expanding the landscaping by moving the areas between the buildings north two acres. 2. Commissioner Adolph asked if Units # 11 and # 12 were two story units and -- if their height could be reduced. Staff stated they were looking to maintain unit count. Commissioner Adolph reiterated the history of this site and each project was required to reduce its density. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated the other units could be picked up as the project is shifted to the north. 3. Commissioner Butler asked if there was a need to have affordable housing at this location. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated that the City needs to supply 1500 affordable units and the City has not even scratched the surface. Even with the land the City now owns, the City could not provide all the affordable housing units needed. 4. Commissioner Butler asked if the affordable housing breakdown could be changed. Staff stated the mix of low and very low was based on tax credits. 5. Commissioner Gardner asked about the ingress and egress points. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated there would be a signal installed at the Washington Street entrance once the City acquired 50% of the money from this project. 6. Commissioner Gardner asked if Sunline Transit was considered public transit. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated there was a bus stop at the comer of Washington Street and Calle Tampico and it would supply service to the Shopping Center and the project. PC10-10 9 Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 1995 7. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Abels opened the public hearing. Mr. Mike Rowe, The Keith Companies, addressed the Commission, representing the applicant. He gave a history of the site and all the proposals that had been presented for this site. He explained why the park site was chosen and the applicant's desire to not import dirt to the site. A video was shown regrading the applicant's other projects. Other items discussed were reasons for dedicating the parkland, the retention basin, and problems they face if the City does not accept theparksite dedication. Mr. Rowe clarified the setbacks for Units # 11 and #12. He noted Unit # 11 is a single story and #12 is two story with a 18-foot setback. He further stated they had no objection to most of the conditions. They would however like consideration given to Conditions #67 and #68 as the parksite was a balance to the site and they would like to keep it. They could move it 20-feet to the north, but want the parksite at this location as it would be an amenity. They are requesting the project be approved as submitted. -- 8. Commissioner Adolph stated he had seen'the Cathedral City site and asked what the occupancy was. Mr. Rowe stated the project had just opened and ~ less than 20 families are living there. The units required a minimum of a six month lease. Ms. Karen McCurdy with USA Properties, stated it had just opened and they were in the process of reviewing applicants. Commissioner Adolph stated his concern about the units being so close to each other and the streetscapes. The landscaping was very sparse even though he realized it was new. Density has always been a concern for this site. Commissioner Adolph asked if the units could be spread out over the site more. Mr. Rowe stated that the Cathedral City site was a 20-unit per acre project; this project is almost half that amount. He stated they would push the project to the north, as this was the reason for the parksite being located where it is. Mr. Ron Gregory had been hired to do the landscaping. 9. Commissioner Adolph asked about the covered parking spaces. Mr. Rowe stated there was one covered stall per unit. The remainder are open. Commissioner Adolph suggested softening the parking lots with landscaping. Mr. Rowe stated this could be reviewed when the landscaping plans come before the Commission. 10. Commissioner Newkirk stated his concern about the screening process of the prospective tenants. Ms. McCurdy stated that the screening is based on the Tax Credit requirements as well as employment verification, credit check, tmlawfial detainer check, and past residency check. PCIO-IO 10 Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 1995 11. Commissioner Adolph asked if the management for the project was to be on site. Ms. McCurdy stated it was. 12. 'Commissioner Gardner asked about the security being provided. Ms. McCurdy stated this would depend on the neighborhood. 13. Commissioner Gardner asked if the pool would be larger than the normal due to the demand in the desert. Mr. Rowe stated this was a point well taken and was a possibility. Mr. Rowe further stated each unit would have an intruder alert installed. 14. Commissioner Gardner asked if the Tax Credits requirements require that the units be maintained by the applicant for a minimum of 15 years. Mr. Rowe stated this was tree. Commissioner Gardner stated the video showed both parents working. This would require having two cars; where are these people expected to park. Ms. McCurdy stated their parking study showsedl.7 cars -' per unit. Even with two adults, this was less than two cars. Parking is controlled and any problem vehicles could be towed if they became a -- nuisance. Mr. Rowe stated the rent restrictions would be enforced. 15. Commissioner Butler stated his concern about approving this high of a density when right next door there will be a senior project. The Cathedral City project was too new to determine what the eventual outcome would be. He recognizes the City needs the project, but he still has concerns about the objections raised from the residents/businesses. What would the impacts be on the community? Covered parking needed to be provided in this project. What controls are there to keep people from doubling up in the units? Mr. Rowe stated that senior people would also qualify for the development and the screening process would weed out those people that are not desirable. The people selected would be an amenity and not a detriment to the community. They were committed to stay 15 years and maintain the site. 16. Commissioner Butler asked if the block wall would nm the length of the project along Washington Street and wrought iron along the retention basin (the north elevation). Mr. Rowe stated that was tree. 17. Commissioner Butler asked how the tenants were Screened and how unnfly tenants would be controlled. Ms. McCurdy stated that there is a minimum _ six month lease on the units, but they were allowed to stay longer. They could also rent month to month at~er the six months, if the tenants desire. PClO-lO 1 1 Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 1995 The lease was written to allow removal of the undesirables. Commissioner Butler asked what the percentage of occupancy was at their other locations. Ms. McCurdy stated they run 98% because of the screening process. Cathedral City has accepted 26 applicants and mined down 78. 18. Commissioner Butler asked if the project was directed toward families. Ms. McCurdy stated most seniors do not want three bedroom apartments, therefore it is not desirable for their use. 19. Commissioner Barrows stated she was unclear about the western boundary, next to the Seasons. Mr. Rowe clarified which units were two story and which were single. Commissioner Barrows asked if the'applicant would agree to moving the units back to a 20-foot setback. Mr. Rowe stated they would be interested in order to retain the parksite. 20. Commissioner Barrows asked if the covered parking could be increased to 1.5 spaces. Staff stated they were meeting the Code requirements. Commissioner Barrows suggested that additional trees be added. 21. Commissioner Barrows agreed that the pool size should be increased due to the size of the project and use the pool would receive. Mr. Rowe stated they . would review it. 22. Commissioner Barrows asked for clarification as to what would be on the other side of the six foot wall along the west side. Mr. Rowe stated they were the single family residences. 23. Commissioner Butler asked Mr. Rowe to clarify the parksite and who would maintain the site. Mr. Rowe stated the adjacent area and the area to the northwest is maintained by the City and their parksite would be an additional one that could be maintained by the City as well. As it is attached and increases the parksite it would become an amenity to both projects. Discussion followed regarding the proposed parksite. 24. Commissioner Anderson stated his concerned about the cost of maintaining this parksite that is not accessible to the public. Mr. Rowe asked if the parksite next door was open to the public? Mr. Rowe stated the argument was the same for both sites. Community Development Director Jerry Herman clarified that the land next door is primarily a retention basin to maintain the water runoff and is adjacent to the school site and will be PCIO-IO 12 Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 1995 available to the students. The site is maintained by the Lighting and Landscaping District. If the additional parksite is added to this retention basin, it would increase taxes. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the primary purpose of the parksite was a retention basin and it was designed as a passive park for the dual use. 25. Commissioner Anderson questioned whether there was enough laundry space for the residents. He asked if the statistics showed this was adequate number for the number of tenants. Mr. Rowe stated the laundry room was located in the recreation building. Mr. McCurdy stated that based on the previous developments, this was adequate for the site. If it was determined that if more washers/dryers were needed, more could be added. 26. Chairman Abels stated his concern about the density and the two story building, but since the two story unit faced a cul-de-sac in the adjacent tract, this would solve that problem. Chairman Abels asked about the leases. Ms. -- McCurdy stated that due to personal circumstances, people are hesitate about signing a long term lease. It was a matter of economics for the people living ~ there. 27. Commissioner Barrows asked about the maintenance of the site. What happens after the 15 years; what arrangements are made to make sure of the maintenance? Mr. Steve Gouff, USA Properties, stated that as it relates to long-term, 15 years of continuous ownership, their desire is to maintain ownership. 28. Commissioner Gardner asked if their first project was in 1951. Mr. Gouff stated the company had been in existence since 1951, but this program had not been around that long. 29. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell suggested that Condition//54 include CC & R's and that they be reviewed and approved by the City's legal counsel. The City needs to have covenants recorded on the property that state they are afford ability units for the 15 years. The maintenance standards need to be recorded on the property to be sure these covenants are carded on to any new owners. 30. Chairman Abels suggested a continuance might be in order to allow the Commission time to evaluate all the information. PC10-10 13 Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 1995 31. Commissioner Adolph asked for clarification on the retention basin/park that if the City did not want the parksite, what would the developer do with the site. Mr. Rowe stated they would build a block wall around the entire site and maintain it as a passive parksite. He pointed out the value of increasing the volume of the retention basin adjacent to the parksite. 32. Chairman Abels stated this was an important site and he was not comfortable at this point and would like a continuation for further research. The Commission would like to have the information earlier in order to review the project. Mr. Rowe stated that due to time concerns, they would like to have a decision tonight. Their time line is to have the project under construction by the end of the year. 33. Commissioner Butler stated he agreed with the Chairman and he would like to have additional time. Commissioner Gardner stated he would like to have answers to some of the Commission's concerns in written form. 34. Commissioner Adolph asked if there was a way to take the site plan and utilize moving the buildings to get more open space. Mr. Rowe stated the problem with importing with dirt. Discussion followed regarding the parksite and Mr. Rowe stated the costs of importing dirt. 35. Mr. Robert Tyler, stated his concern for the storing of recreational vehicles. It was an acronym that this was a low income project that is next to a grocery store that does not cater to low income people. 36. Mr. Dennis Chapel, Desert Contractors Association, stated that when USA Properties came to Cathedral City, they got involved with the local community. They utilized local contractors to build a quality product. The construction is the quality of a custom home. The subcontractors that he had talked to are committed to building a quality project. Some of the concessions should be looked at, as this is a win/win project. 37. Commissioner Butler stated he felt the project had a lot going for it. He would however, like to see a copy of the lease, to feel comfortable about the type of people that would be renting. If parking requirements are being lowered maybe space should be set aside for recreational vehicles. The pool site was a question, and the parksite a problem as staff does not want to maintain the parksite. The option of the parksite being increased and the City maintaining it is valid and should be looked into. ~,c~o-~o 14 Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 1995 38. Commissioner Gardner stated that even though 78 applicants had been rejected, why were they rejected? He had concerns about the screening process and security. If the City is understaffed in regards to the Sheriff s Department deputies, will this project provide its own security. Also, eviction is a very difficult process, and if a there is an easy way, he would like to know about it. Mr. Rowe stated that the Sheriff's Department had been consulted regarding the project and they had no comments. Mr. Rowe asked the Commission to determine what the specific issues were. The site or the lease issue? The apartments could be approved for this site and be a viable solution to meeting affordable housing requirements in the City. Maintenance of the site could be addressed as a separate issue. 39. Chairman Abels stated he felt it was a good project. However, he had a lot of concerns about how the project would hold up 15 years down the road. He did not feel that waiting two weeks would make that big of a difference. 40. Commissioner Anderson stated that he would be willing to render a decision as staff recommended. He did not believe reviewing the leasing agreements would be of any benefit as he had no experience in this area. The City's position is based on staff's decision and should be just and intelligent. The project has been presented well, and even though he was concerned with the density, it was a decent project. 41. Commissioner Adolph stated he agreed, his concern was softening of the street scape along the interior streets. Additional landscaping was needed. The density of the buildings being clustered as they are, needed to be spread out. Mr. Rowe stated they would move them as much as possible. Mr. Rowe further suggested that on Condition #68 they agree to a 3-3.5 acre parksite in lieu of bringing back another plan. The building would be spread out into this area. 42. Commissioner Barrows stated this would add .6 of an acre and lower the basin to make up the difference. Commissioner Adolph stated this would follow the staffs recommendation. Discussion followed regarding the retention basin/parksite 43. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Adolph to continue this public hearing to October 24, 1995, to have a chance to review additional information. Commissioners stated their concerns regarding a continuance. ec~o4o 15 P1 .arming Commission Minutes October 10, 1995 44. Community Development Director Jerry Herman clarified the areas the Commissioners would like to see the applicant address: a copy of the lease, pool size, recreational vehicle parking, staff input regarding parksite maintenance, the screening process as it relates to developers, police/security issues, what the eviction process is and how is it used, the street scape, and covered parking. 45. There being no further discussion, the motion passed with Commissioner Anderson voting No. IX. BUSINESS ITEMS A. Sign Application 95-311; a request of Signs and Services Company for approval of an amendment to an approved business sign for Pizza Hut. -- 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development _ Department. 2. Commissioner Butler asked about the support bars on the sides of the signs; how high were they from the floor area7 'Staff stated they appear to be 11 feet. 3. Mr. John Koenig, spoke on behalf of the applicant, and stated his reasons for the request. 4. Commissioner Gardner asked for conformation that the bars had an 11-foot height. He felt at this height someone would be encouraged to use it as a pull-up bar and if the sign was structurally safe. Mr. Koenig stated it was quite high and hopefully out of reach. Commissioner Gardner asked what the legal ramifications would be to install something sharp on the cross members. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated it would be more of a risk. 5. Commissioner Anderson stated he was glad they were not filling in the archway as he felt it was a detriment to the building. 6. Commissioner Adolph was concerned about setting a precedent to allow _ other tenants to place a sign in the archway. Mr. Koenig stated this was the only archway of that height, or size of this type, and this was a unique circumstance. The Center is full so this should not be an issue of other tenants desiring the same type of sign. Commissioner Adolph stated his objection to the support bars. PC~040 16 Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 1995 7. Commissioner Anderson suggested the supports be painted the same color as the building/stucco. 8. Commissioner Newkirk stated he had no objection. Discussion followed regarding the height of the sign. Commissioner Adolph stated he would like to see the sign raised. Mr. Koenig stated he would not object to raising it. 9. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Anderson/Newkirk to approve Sign Application 95-311 (Amendment #1) by Minute Motion 95-043, with the added condition requiring the sign to be no lower than 9-feet to the finish floor. Unanimously approved. X. CONSENT CALENDAR A. There being no corrections to the Minutes of September 26, 1995, it was moved and -. seconded by Gardner/Adolph to approve the Minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved. XI. COMMISSIONER ITEMS A. Commissioner Barrows gave a report of the City Council meeting of September 19, 1995. B. Chairman Abels/Commissioner Adolph asked staff to place discussion of a General Plan Amendment for light manufacturing zone along Highway 111 on the next Planning Commission Agenda. In addition, put discussion regarding the General Plan areas of high density, multi-family units for review to see if the existing areas conform. Staff stated this was to be included in a work session at a joint session with the City Council. XI. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Adolph/Anderson to adjourn this meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting of October 24, 1995. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:51 P.M. PCIO-IO 17