Loading...
PCMIN 01 14 1997 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall · 78-495 Calle Tampico, CA January 14, 1997 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:04 P.M. by Chairman Abels who asked Community Development Director Jerry Herman to lead the flag salute. B. Chairman Abels requested the roll call: Present: Commissioners Butler, Gardner, Newkirk, Seaton, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Abels. C. Staffpresent: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attomey Dawn Honeywell, Planning Manager Christine di Iorio, Associate Engineer Fred Bouma, -- Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate Planners Greg Trousdell and Wallace Nesbit, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA - Confirmed III. PUBLIC COMMENT: A. Mr. Mike Smith, Warner Engineer stated he was concerned about the number of on- going street improvement projects and inconveniences that have been caused. He asked if the City of La Quinta had any influence with the City of Indian Wells to reopen Miles Avenue. Would a joint effort of the Valley cities working with CVAG, or some other Valley-wide organization, have any input. Chairman Abels stated staff would look into it, but in the meantime, when the construction at Highway 111 and Washington Street is completed combined with the opening of 48th Avenue, a lot of traffic problems would be alleviated. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Chairman Abels asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of December 10, 1996. Commissioner Butler asked that the Minutes be amended on Page 1, B. to -- state that "Vice Chairman Butler requested the roll call:" There being no further corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Gardner to approve the minutes as corrected. Unanimously approved. B. Department Report: None Planning Commission Minutes -- January 14, 1997 V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Contifiued - Vesting Tentative Tract 28458. Site Development Permit 96-594, and Variance 96-027; a request of EZ Okie for approval of a 28.8 acre subdivision consisting of 115 single family and other lettered public streets and well site lots; approval of house plans; and deviation in the rear yard setback to not less than 10 feet on cul-de-sac and knuckle lots. 1. Chairman Abels re-opened the continued public hearing and asked for the staff report. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff informed the Commission that the Site Development Permit would be approved/denied by Resolution, not Minute Motion. 2. Commissioner Woodard asked staff to clarify why new Condition # 13 was minor as he did not consider any of the items listed as minor. He was also concerned as to why the applicant was requesting changes that had been required and approved by the Design Review Board and Planning Commission for the original tract map. In a final design solution, if side loaded garages are to be used, where are they to'be used, and if these are proposed, why are they not included in the package they are reviewing. Staff explained that the final design solution was based on the outcome of the Variance application. If the Variance request was denied, a different design solUtion would have to be prepared. There were a number of different solutions proposed and staff was submitting only one for Commission consideration. 3. Commissioner Woodard asked staff if it was customary/appropriate planning to allow single family detached residential units instead of attached, to be constructed next to commercially zoned property. Staff explained that the existing zoning categories match the Parcel Map layout. Commissioner Woodard stated it seemed inappropriate to have a road where the main entrance to a single family residential development is across from a commercial use. Community Development DirectOr Jerry Herman cited examples where this did occur in the City. 4. Commissioner Woodard questioned why only one facade per plan was being submitted for Commission review. As it appeared, the plotting map showed the Plan 2 units being constructed together with the same elevation. In addition, he asked if the front yard landscaping, whatever that will be, will be planted at the time of the construction of each house. Staff stated the front yard landscaping plan was conditioned to be approved by staff. PC1-14-9 2 Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 1997 Commissioner Woodard questioned why the Commission was approving landscaping on some projects and not on others. Staff stated it was a case-by- 'case situation. Commissioner Woodard stated that he believed that the landscaping was a very important aspect of reviewing these projects to make them unique to La Quinta. Staff responded that the Planning Commission can add or amend the draft conditions to support their position. 5. Commissioner Woodard questioned Condition #1 which allowed the applicant to work with staff to replot units if the Variance was denied. He would prefer to have this brought back to the Commission for their review and approval and not staff. Chairman Abels stated this should be added as a condition. 6. Commissioner Seaton asked for clarification on the entrance and exit to the project and when the Palm Royale Road street improvements would be completed. She was concemed that with the number of homes to be constructed there would not be enough ingress and egress access points into the tract. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio explained that the applicant's idea was to begin construction of the adjacent tract (TTM 28457) with the circulation pattern progressing as the tract developed. The access to the tract would be through Tract 28457. She went on to explain the circulation plan. 7. Commissioner Seaton asked if there would there be a signal constructed where Palm Royale Drive exited onto Washington Street. Staff explained the realignment of Darby Road and the proposed signal locations for Fred Waring Drive and Palm Royale Drive. 8. Commissioner Butler asked staffabout the ingress and egress of the tract onto Fred Waring which could potentially create another traffic problem on Fred Waring. He asked if there was a schedule for further street improvements to alleviate this problem. Staff stated this question would need to be answered by the Public Works Department. Commissioner Butler clarified that this tract would be built with only one access onto Fred Waring Drive. Staff stated that initially this was true. Until such time as the Public Works Department or Fire Department dictated that the demand existed for a second access point, only one would be provided. Associate Engineer Fred Bouma stated that a condition had been added requiring construction of the second access/ingress onto Palm Royale Drive at any time the City requires it. At the latest, it would be constructed when the Fire Department requires a secondary access. The Fire Department's normal procedure is to require the secondary access when 40 homes are constructed. The Public Works Department has asked that the developer secure the cost of constructing the signalized intersection and that portion of Palm Royale Drive leading up to the tract's secondary access, in case the commercial property is not developed before the PC1-14-9 3 Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 1997 second access is needed for this tract. If the commercial parcel is developed first, then this tract is conditioned to participate only for its fair share of the · Palm Royale Drive and signal improvements. 9. Commissioner Woodard asked why there wasn't a warrant number that would determine when the signal would be required. Associate Engineer Fred Bouma stated that as the Public Works Department would not be tracking the traffic flow on Palm Royale Drive to know exactly when the signal would be required, the City did not want to put the burden on this developer. The City would prefer to wait until the commercial developed, hopefully at the same time. The City therefore, conditions the tract according to the number of units constructed. It is assumed that the commercial will develop before the residential to keep the burden off the residential developer. 10. Commissioner Butler questioned why staff was not conditioning the tract to provide the minimum diameter tree size as well as the size of the trees to be used throughout the project. Staff clarified that until now the diameter of the tree requirement had only been required for parkway landscaping. Commissioner Butler stated he would prefer that it be required for the - residential projects as well. Staff stated the conditions would be changed to require the diameter size of the tree as well. 11. Commissioner Butler stated he understood that Plan 4 would be required to have a three car garage, but this was not shOwn on the elevation plan. He would not like to approve a development with only four facades plotted at the developers discretion and now with a setback requirement problem, the same floor plan could be constructed next door to each other. He could not approve a development when only four facades are submitted and the tract was plotted due to setback requirements. 12. Commissioner Tyler stated he too, was concemed about the lack of details on the facades, but as the designs were already constructed within the Quinterra tract, he was at least able to visually see the homes. Secondly, he was also concerned about the ingress/egress along Palm Royale Drive as he did not believe the commercial development would happen very soon. He would like the conditions to be more precise as to when the street improvements and signalization would be required. In addition, he inquired about the on-going negotiations between the developer and the property owners to the north. On Page 6, Issue 2 of the staff report, it was stated that there had been dialog between the developer and the property owners to the north regarding the grade deviation. Staff stated they had hoped the developer would have the slope easements in place before tonight's meeting, but negotiations were on- PC1-14-9 4 Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 1997 going. The applicant has provided signed agreements from some of the property owners prior to the meeting. They are trying to work out a solution ' that would not require large retaining walls, but would still allow the property to drain into the retention basins. The design solution is based on connecting the property to existing off-site sewer improvements. 13. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Mike Smith, Warner Engineering, stated they had received 100% approval from the residents to the north. In regard to the variance, he stated the problem was that the City standards had changed between the time they had received their application and the time it was filed. The problem was that they could achieve large sideyards on the cul-de-sacs, but one comer of one of the houses would be within ten feet of the wall. This problem is unique to the cul-de-sacs that were widened as requested by the Fire Department for mm around purposes. This widening shortens the depth across the front of the lots. This is why it was an unfair advantage and warrants the variance. With the old zoning standards they had no problem meeting the City standards. Their only other solution was to develop smaller size houses. 14. Commissioner Butler asked what floor plans were to be used in the cul-de- sacs. Mr. Smith explained that they would not have the same floor plan next to each other. Commissioner Butler asked if a different floor plan was used, would this not solve the problem. Mr. Smith stated that it wouldn't as the problem lies only with one comer of the house, no matter what plan is used. Alternatives were discussed. 15. Commissioner Tyler asked why some of the lots could not be reoriented/rotated (for example Lot 105), to solve the problem. Mr. Smith stated this could be done, but it would not solve all the problem lots as the comer would still be within the twenty foot setback on some of the lots. 16. Commissioner Woodard stated that Lots 24 and 25 could not be rotated, as well as Lot 32, 42, and 51. If this method is used on the interior lots it could solve the problem. 17. Commissioner Tyler clarified that the variance was only being requested on the cul-de-sacs and not the entire project. 18. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell reminded the Commission that the entire map was before the Commission and they could require that any of the lots be changed in shape to solve the problem. This is not a fixed map and will not be until it is approved and becomes a vesting tract map. The applicant by applying for a variance, is asking the Commission to make findings to PC1-14-9 5 Planning Commission Minutes -- January 14, 1997 approve the variance based on the irregular shapes of lots that, as of yet have not yet been fixed by the Commission. The Commission will have a hard ' time making the required findings when the lot sizes have not been fixed, if the premise for asking for the variance is irregular lots. The lot sizes have not been fixed and the Commission can require the lot sizes be changed to solve the problem. Although the applicant wants to build larger houses on larger lots or different size houses, the Commission cannot make findings to approve the variance. The Commission cannot approve five or six lots as the findings need to be made that the lot itself is irregular in shape. When the Commission is in the process of approving the lot, the Commission would be approving irregular lots that the Commission knows in advance require a variance from the City's ordinance. It would not be logical. 19. Commissioner Woodard stated he did not understand why the Commission cannot define which lots can have a variance applied. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated that in order to grant a variance there must be four findings made to justify the variance. One finding is that the lot is irregularly shaped and the owner cannot build on the lot because of its size, shape, or topography. At the present time there are no lots, as the Commission is creating the lots through the approval process. Therefore, the Commission can create those lots to be any size to accommodate the house plans and meet the setbacks. As the lots are not yet created, the Commission has no ground to grant a variance. This is not a City law, but based on State law. 20. Chairman Abels asked if it would be advisable to have the tract redrawn and resubmitted to the Commission. Staff stated it was up to the Commission's discretion. Chairman Abels stated that in view of the facts presented, the applicant should redraw the map and submit it again. He would suggest a continuance to give the applicant an opportunity to redraw the map. 21. Commissioner Woodard stated that as the Commission had raised numerous questions concerning the tract, that if the Commission was going to continue the project, the applicant should be told what should be address. 22. Mr. Smith stated a lot of the conditions relate to fees and this is why they were filing a vesting tentative tract. They needed to lock the project into the existing fee schedule. The conditions they were referring to were Conditions #4, 21, 41, 65, as they refer to fees that are in place at that time permits are pulled. 23. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated that as it relates to fees on a vesting tract map, it is true the approvals would be vested for the term of the development. However, the City has the right to condition the tract to pay the fees at whatever time it so chooses. For this tract, the City is PC1-14-9 6 Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 1997 recommending that the fees be fixed at the time construction begins and not now. Commissioner Woodard stated he had empathy for the developer and · he should know what the fees will be. City Attorney Dawn Attorney stated the City's current practice is to require that the fees be what they are at the time of permitting. What the developer is entitled to is vesting of all the City's cgrrent practices as they are today. If the Council decides to change the standard practices at a future date, they would not be applicable to this tract. As it is written in the staff report, is the way it is for all tracts. 24. Commissioner Woodard stated that he was surprised that the plotting of the homes in both phases had already been done. Would the developer be able to change floor plans as the project develops. Mr. Smith stated that when a tract is vested it is required to be plotted. Commissioner Woodard asked if there was any way the developer could replot at a later date to enable them to meet the market demand. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that by receiving a vesting map, they are protected from any zoning changes made by the City in the furore. But part of that approval requires approving the level of detail being presented at this time. If they want to make a design change some time in the future, they can request an amendment to the map, but the map would be reopened and the City could apply any requirements it deemed necessary at that time to meet any existing City code requirements. It is to the developers advantage to retain the original apprOvals. 25. Commissioner Woodard stated another problem was the repetition of garage placements. He would want to see three facades for each plan. Thirdly, the plotting shows Plan 3 next to a Plan 3 even though it is flipped. Mr. Smith stated he would refer this issue to the architect. 26. Commissioner Woodard stated that the floor plans as drawn on the cul-de- sac, showed the bedrooms facing the majority of the open space. The developer needed to revisit the floor plan so the bedroom, with small windows, would not be facing the majority of the open space portion of the lot. The entrances off of Fred.Waring Drive and eventually off Palm Royale Drive is weak, as the distance from the road to the first house is unacceptable. The wall configuration off Fred Waring Drive is one continual wall, and he would like to see a variation from the property line to the wall. He then stated that he was concerned about what was happening north of Highway 111. It was becoming the backdoor to La Quinta. He would like to suggest to the Commission, that there is more than one way to beautify La Quinta. If they can't create more change on the interior of the property, they could require creative setbacks and landscaping to impact the exterior. Therefore, in reviewing this project he would be fanatical about the landscaping. As an example Fred Waring Drive should be required to have better landscaping and wall treatments. Architecturally, the elevations submitted are the worst he has seen. On one plan for Quinterra them is a difference between the roof PC1-14-9 7 Planning Commission Minutes -- January 14, 1997 and garage door having a stucco header, and the proposed plan showed that it is only a very thin header. He hoped that the final product would be as nice · as the elevation. ' 27. Commissioner Woodard addressed the developer regarding several items on the plans. Mr. James Snellenberger, developer addressed Commissioner's Woodard's concerns on the plans and discussion followed. 28. Commissioner Tyler stated he too was not pleased with what has been proposed as everything was a straight line. The developer needed to add some curves, to give more character. Once the project was completed they would have built 230 houses that would contain family with a lot of children and there was no consideration of any park or play area for them. There is a need for some green space. 29. Chairman Abels stated he concurred with the statements that had been presented and would like to have a continuance to allow the applicant time · to make the corrections. 30. Commissioner Woodard stated he would be happy to meet with the applicant to discuss some solutions. 31. Commissioner Gardner asked staff if the Fee Schedule would be changed before the applicant was able to resubmit his drawings. Staff stated is was not likely as there were no changes proposed. 32. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Gardner/Tyler to continue the public hearing to February 11, 1997. Unanimously approved. C. Vesting Tentative Tract 28457. Site Development Permit 96-593, and Variance 96- 028; a request ofEZ Okie for approval of a 33.1 acre subdivision consisting of 116 single family and other lettered public streets and retention basin lots; approval of house plans; and deviation in the rear yard setback to not less than 10 feet on cul-de- sac and knuckle lots. 1. Chairman Abels re-opened the continued public heating, but requested a continuance based on the discussion for the prior public hearing. 2. There being no comments, It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Seaton to continue this public hearing to February 11, 1997. Unanimously approved. PCI-14-9 8 Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 1997 D. Specific Plan 96-028. Conditional Use Permit 96-029, Tentative Parcel Map 28422. and Site Development Permit 96-590; a request of Lapis Energy for approval of a specific plan and use permit to allow construction of a multi-use facility incorporating 1) a dedicated CNG fueling station for Desert Sands Unified School District operations; 2) an approximate 63,800 square foot self storage/warehouse complex which includes a 3,000 square foot managers mt/office; 3) an 11,000 square foot auto service/repair center; and 4) a 2,500 square foot convenience store/service station which includes a 500 square foot take-out food restaurant, all to be built on 10.29 gross acres. 1. Chairman Abels re-opened the public heating and asked for the staff report. Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Commissioner Woodard stated that he had been requested by the applicant to meet with them to review the plans and was very pleased with ,the significant changes that had been made. He then asked staff to discuss the interior pedestrian circulation pattern on the site. He was disturbed about the circulation plan as to the number of roads traveling through the project. Staff stated that certain locations for certain uses required that the applicant design the circulation areas to accommodate traffic. Discussion followed relative to the circulation pattern. Staff informed the Commission that they had conditioned the developer to work with staff to alleviate some of the traffic concerns and to create better pedestrian circulation patterns. Discussion followed regarding the pedestrian travel pattern. 3. Commissioner Woodard asked staff to explain the internal ingress/egress patterns. Community Development Jerry Herman explained that these were internal driveway aisles and traffic movements only. Commissioner Woodard stated his concern that one of the driveway aisles in the middle of the project would be entering at a 45-degree angle entering off-center to the driveway going out of the project. That is an intersection that would be illegal for a public street. In addition, the applicants did not increase the width of the easement on the street going from the street to the property to the east. The applicant stated they had not increased the width as they had opened the spaces at the comers and moved the southerly retail building slightly forward. He then asked why the gates for the storage area were drawn for only on one exhibit? Staff stated the gates were known to exist therefore, they were only drawn on one exhibit. However, they were conditioned to be constructed at all the entrances. Commissioner Woodard asked if the gates would be solid. Staff stated the elevation showed them to be wrought iron. Commissioner Woodard asked if this was a marketing requirement or design element. Staff stated that the gate locations were not PC1-14-9 9 Planning Commission Minutes -- January 14, 1997 shown on the plans, but that any gates proposed would have to be reviewed by the City for design and function, and have been so conditioned. 'Commissioner Woodard asked if the applicant had come up with an acceptable retention basin design. Staff stated that the Public Works Department had added conditions to alleviate this concern. Commissioner Woodard stated it was his understanding that the solution would not only require a change to the landscaping plan, but the treatment along Dune Palms and Highway 111. This could have an impact on the visual look of the project. Staff stated that at this point in the process, the City would not have a solution until the final engineering plans for the drainage had been completed. 4. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated that the Public Works Department had conditioned the developer to request permission from Desert Sands Unified School District to allow drainage from this property to the facilities on the District's property. 5. Commissioner Woodard asked staff to explain the conditions that required the parking aisle and stall dimensions to be improved in conformance with the development standards. Staff stated that the intent was that they would - be designed in conformance with the standards of the Zoning Code. Some discrepancies appeared and the Public Works Department was requiring that these items be reviewed with the grading plans. This ensures that when the grading plan is submitted, the applicant is required to incorporate the Code requirements into the grading plan. 6. Commissioner Gardner stated his concern about whether or not the Fire Department had approved the traffic control/circulation plan. Would they be able to get their equipment in and out of the site? His concern was based on the compressed natural gas and its extreme fire hazard. Staff stated that the Fire Department had reviewed the original site plan, but not this most recent plan. It is anticipated that relocation of the CNG facility would not present any new concerns. The access off Highway 111 could be considered better, depending upon their approach. Commissioner Gardner stated he would not approve the design based upon the fact that the Fire Department had not approved it. 7. Commissioner Seaton stated she was also concerned about safety as well as whether the revised landscaping plan would include trees along Dune Palms Road and Highway 111. Staff stated the revised plan was basically consistent with the original plan and explained the additional landscaping along the street as well as the retention basin. Commissioner Seaton asked if the lighting would be separate. Staff stated that a lighting plan had not been submitted. Commissioner Seaton asked about handicapped parking and what PC1-14-9 10 Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 1997 the overall parking requirement would be. Staff stated the project had 110 parking spaces shown and the Zoning Code only required 88. Some of the · 110 spaces would be decreaSed because of the changes being required. The total number of handicapped spaces shown on the current plan was four and would be sufficient for a parking area of this size. 8. Commissioner Butler stated his concern that the additional trees added around the mini-market would block the view into the store and would be a concern to the Sheriff's Department. Staff stated this was usually the Sheriff's Department concern. However, the comments received expressed their concern that the area around the actual building be kept open. In consideration of their requests, staff concentrated on the landscaping area contiguous to the building structures. 9. Commissioner Newkirk commended the applicant on the design changes. 10. Commissioner Tyler also commended the applicant on responding to the Commission's concern raised at the prior meeting. He then asked how the gas price signing would be affected by the landscaping. He thought the wording of some of the conditions aS they relate to circulation needed to be addressed. He then aSked what the current scheduling was for the traffic signal to be installed at Dune Palms Road and Highway 111 as it would be nice to have it incorporated in with the construction of this project. The separation of the storage buildings to break up the wall worked out well. He assumed there were short block walls between the buildings and he waS concerned that they be high enough to retain the security. Mr. Lewis Bishop, architect for the project, stated that the wall portions will be ten feet high and described the landscaping that would be used to break up the wall. Regarding the parking, six handicapped spaces were planned for the site. The landscaping and circulation on the center portion of the project necessitated changing the location of the CNG fueling facility and its service building. Regarding the volatility of the CNG, he explained that it was not compressed until it was used. It is the same gas that is used in your home. It offers no more or less difficulty than is experienced in your water heater in your home. At the time the fuel is dispensed, it is then compressed and put into a smaller container to carry around with you. In regard to the cemer portion, they could have less cars in the center area and remove the problem of the off center driveway. He went on to explain the aisle ways. The placement of the hip roof on the comer building did soften the comer view. He went on to -- describe the landscaping planned for the comer of Highway 111 and Dune Palms Road stating they would have more canopy trees at the comer. The ~ design plan would be brought back to the Planning Commission along with the signs to be used for the gaS prices. Regarding the building in the center PC1-14-9 11 Planning Commission Minutes -- January 14, 1997 of the storage facility, it has been designed to be used for large vehicles such as RV's, boats, etc., that would be stored indoors behind secured doors. He · stated there would be 39 exterior storage spaces and 36 interior. In their redesign, they had tried to revisit all areas that were of concern to the Commission. 11. Commissioner Woodard asked where the public art would be placed. Mr. Bishop stated it was to be located in the large green area near the public CNG fueling station. 12. Commissioner Woodard asked why there were no pedestrian walkways proposed on the landscaping plan and how were the pedestrians to get around. Mr. Bishop stated these were items that still needed to be addressed. 13. Commissioner Woodard stated commended the applicant on how the shops and retail area had been opened up and asked if they would be willing to move the southerly retail building 10 feet to the east property line to have more open space in the front of the building. Mr. Bishop stated there was no objection as there was plenty of space. Discussion followed regarding the articulation on the buildings. Mr. Bishop stated he would like to clarify that the gates will be an open design. Commissioner Woodard asked if they could take the northerly most building in the storage area and extend the hip roof west toward the street and tile it. This would tie the project together and provide a more consistent roof line for the overall project. 14. Commissioner Tyler stated his concern about blowsand and asked if there were any special seals that would be used on the storage doors to reduce the sand. Mr. Bishop stated that at this level of design, it had not bee considered. Commissioner Tyler asked about air conditioning of the storage units to cut down on the heat. Mr. Bishop stated that again they will bring the operations of the facility back to the Commission. Commissioner Tyler stated he was glad to see they were providing both inside and outside RV storage areas. He asked that enough room be left to accommodate the maneuvering and accessibility of the RV. Mr. Bishop stated they would be paying close attention to these details. 15. Mr. Dale Leopard, Lapis Energy, stated he would like to make a few comments regarding the project. He had been working with the School District, and Sunline was their partner on the CNG aspects of the project. They had met with the Chamber of Commerce which is now endorsing the project. He passed out a letter of support from them. They would like to PC1-14-9 12 Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 1997 move forward with the project to meet the needs of DSUSD. Regarding safety of the CNG gas, he would like to state that it is the safest of all fuels · as it is lighter than air, dissipates into the air, and has a very low combustion rating. They currently have systems installed by the airport, as well as at the current DSUSD site. 16. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the public hearing. Commissioner Woodard stated he understood that the materials to be used on the columns had been changed to split face block. Staff confirmed this. He then asked what the materials were to be used on the trellis. Staff stated they were to be painted steel. 17. Commissioner Woodard stated that even though the applicant had made huge changes to the design of the project, there were still two major issues the Commission needed to review. One is the access road to the adjacent property on the east. The buildings adjacent to the access road were too close and too high. The road should not become a back alley and needed to be addressed. The building to the fight of the easement needs to be another 10 feet away. Second, the middle section of Parcels 1 and 2, needs to be addressed in regards to the flow of traffic and open space to not create as asphalt jungle. Discussion followed regarding proposed changes. He was concerned about the retention basin to be located offHighway 111 and down Adams Street. If it is depressed there would virtually be no landscaping seen as you drive by. He would suggest that a three foot high wall dividing the driveway and asphalt paving for the cars, from the landscape area. He requested that the landscape plans be reviewed by the Commission; that the south building grouping containing the sales and shops be moved ten feet east to add more landscaping to the public side of the project; extend and tile the hip roof west on the northerly storage building at the entrance to the public storage to give a more tiled look upon entering; and the gates leading to the storage area need to be solid and not open. 18. Commissioner Butler stated he agreed with most of Commissioner Woodard's comments, with the exception of modifying the width of the access leading to the property on the east. It was his understanding, that as this will not be a public street and not dedicated, the 36-foot width was adequate. Commissioner Woodard stated that the adjacent property was similar to this parcel in that it was long and deep and not very wide with only one access coming off Highway 111. This access road would therefore become a primary access as the property develops in the future. The Commission has a need to prepare this site for future development. PC1-14-9 13 Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 1997 Commissioner Butler stated this would penalize this property owner for a project that is unknown. Commissioner Woodard stated that he did not · believe ten feet would hurt this applicant. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated that there was a standard in the Zoning Code that requires the access road to have planter areas as well as defining the width of those planters and the applicant has met the minimum standards. Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit stated that as far as the planter area, the minimum is six foot. This is not an emergency access, but only a secondary access to the project and may carry through to the other properties to the east. But since the properties are not developing at the same time, it is impossible to designate access locations. Discussion followed regarding the easement. 19. Commissioner Tyler asked staff where the street that is shared with DSUSD would lead to. Staff stated it was access to the bus parking area for DSUSD and will be a private road for DSUSD use only. No access is planned for this road to any future adjacent developments. 20. Commissioner Butler asked if the wall around the retention basin at the front of the property, would give any shelter to the parking lot; could a berm be used instead of the rather than a wall? Commissioner Woodard stated that since the distance that is needed for the retention basin is only two or three feet, a berm would work. Mr. Bishop explained that in his discussions with Ron Gregory, the landscape architect, they had determined that difference in height between the lawn at the front edge of the walk and the grass area leading into the retention basin was so slight, that a berm would suffice. The maximum depth to retain the water is only three feet and can be accommodated with a fair amount of adjustment. Is was suggested that at the back of the grass as it gets to the bottom of the retention basin, they would change the plant material so that the material would berm and billow up to create a three foot of plant material above the level of the asphalt. Discussion followed regarding the height and plant materials to be used. 21. Commissioner Gardner stated he was still concerned about the access for the Fire Department and would like to have their approval before approving the project. Regarding the gates, as this wasn't an auto dismantelling facility, but storage, he thought the wrought iron gates would aesthetically add to the design. 22. Commissioner Newkirk stated he too thought the wrought iron gate would be more attractive. PC1-14o9 14 Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 1997 23. Commissioner Tyler stated he too agreed with the wrought iron gate and asked how they could address Commissioner's Gardners concerns about the · Fire Department's approval. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated that conditions had been added to require the applicant to meet any and all Fire Marshal's requirements. Associate Planner Wallace Nesbitth clarified that the Fire Department had reviewed the easement location and the width. This site' plan had been changed slightly but did not affect the easement. The spacing between the buildings had been widened from 43 to 52 feet between the buildings and opens up the appearance of the easement. The 36 foot easement with a 24 foot travelway had been reviewed by the Fire Department previously and they had no objections. 24. Commissioner Seaton commended the applicant on a wonderful job and stated that she agreed with most of Commissioner Woodard's comments, but concurrs that the wrought iron gate should be used. 25. Commisioner Woodard asked the applicant if there was a way to reduce the impact of the stairwell on the manager's unit building. Mr. Bishop stated that he thought the changes that had been made mitigated the Commissioner's concerns. Commissioner Woodard reiterated his concern to the Commission regarding the east-west eastment. He strongly believed that if the Commision looked at the adjacent properties, and considered what it would be like to travel this road with these tall/long buildings with only a six foot planter between from the street and building. In his opinion, the Commission was not considering the aesthetic impact on the property owners to the east. 26. Mr. Bishop stated he agreed with Commissioner Woodard regarding the access to the adjacent property and it is a major concern, but this developer should not be burdened with the cost. The changes that have been made are good aesthetic changes for their project, but there should be a limit to the concessions this developer is asked to make. They could give the extra five feet, but where does it end? Commissioner Woodard stated he would even accept the five feet. 27. Mr. Leopard, owner of the project, stated they had bent over backwards to accommodate the changes requested so far. It was his understanding that this would not to be a straight access road to the adjacent properties, but more of a drive through to his development. 28. Commissioner Woodard stated that with the changes that had been made, the applicant now had an additional ten feet of property at the rear that could be marketable, usable property. What he was asking for was to have this developer acknowledge the future developers by giving the extra feet at the rear. Mr. Leopard agreed to the five feet. Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 1997 29. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioner Tyler/Gardner to adopt Planning Commissin Resolution 97- '001, certifying a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment 96-328 prepared for Specific Plan 96-028 and other related applications. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Newkirk, Seaton, Tyler, Woodard and Chairman Abels. NOES: Commissioner Gardner. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 30. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Gardner to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97-002, approving Specific Plan 96-028, subject to Findings and Conditions of Approval as submitted. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Newkirk, Seaton, Tyler, Woodard and Chairman Abels. NOES: Commissioner Gardner. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 31. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Seaton to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97-003 approving Conditional Use Permit 96-029, subject to Findings and Conditions of Approval as submitted.. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Newkirk, Seaton, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Abels. NOES: Commissioner Gardner. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 32. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Gardner to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97-004 approving Tentative Parcel Map 28422, subject to Findings and Conditions of Approval as followed: a. Conditions #33, #34- modified b. Condition #7-modified c. Condition 36.b.2.-as submitted by staffC d. Condition # 1 O-add additional five feet on the width of the easement e. Condition #41-the landscaping would be approved by the Planning Commision f. Condition #33-modifications regarding the final map and DSUSD retention basin. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Newkirk, Seaton, Tyler,' Woodard, and Chairman Abels. NOES: Commissioner Gardner ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None.. PC1-14-9 16 Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 1997 33. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Gardner to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97-005 approving Site Development · Permit 96-590, subject to Findings and Conditions of Approval as modified below: a. Condition #51-changed to reflect approval by the Plannning Commission;. b. Condition #78-regarding the redesign of the onsite landscaping in the parking areas. c. Adding a new condition requiring the southerly service retail building to be moved 1 O-feet to the east and be approved by staff. d. The northern most building at the mini-storage would move the hip roof to the west and tiled. e. Condition # 16-modified f. Conditions #38, #39, #14, 44, and #82-as modified by staff. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Newkirk, Seaton, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Abels NOES' Gardner ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Chairman Abels called a break at 9:50 p.m. and reconvened at 9:53 p.m. VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS A. Commissioner Woodard stated his appreciation for staff s work on the submission form. He would like to continue the process by reviewing the number and content of the drawing plans that are required to be submitted by an applicant. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated he could agendize the issue for a future meeting or, the Commission could appoint a committee to work with staff to create a new submittal package. Chairman Abels appointed Commissioners Woodard and Tyler to work with staff on the submittal package to bring a recommendation back to the Commission for their meeting of February 11 th. B. Chairman Abels reminded the Commission of the League of California Cities Planners Institute in Monterey, to be held March 12-14, 1997. Staff explained that the City pays all expenses for the Commissioner to attend. Commissioners Butler, Gardner, Newkirk, Seaton, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Abels stated they would be attending. PCI-14-9 17 Planning Commission Minutes Janulikry 14, 1997 C. Chairman Abels asked if any of the Commissioners would be attending the American Planning Association's Planning Commissioner's Forum to be held in Riverside on January 25, 1997. Commissioner Seaton stated she would be attending. D. Commissioner Tyler gave a report of the City Council meeting of January 4, 1997. E. Staff distributed the new Boards and Commissions Handbook to the Commission. Discussion followed regarding the option of starting the Commission meetings earlier in order to have a study session during the Business Session. Staff stated that public heating items can only be discussed during the public hearing. IX. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Newkirk/Butler to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a meeting on January 28, 1997. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 10:04 p.m. on January 14, 1997. PC1-14-9 18