2004 03 23 PC Minutes
, ~
.
.. '
MINUTES
I . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La 'Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle'Tampico, La Quinta, CA
March~3, 2004 7:00 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. This meeting of the, Planning Commission was called to order at 7 :00
p.m. by Chairman Kirk who asked Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer to
lead the flag salute.
B. Present: Commissioners Jacques Abels, Rick Daniels, Paul Quill, Robert
Tyler, and Chairman Tom Kirk.
C. Staff present: 'Interim Community Development Director Oscar Orçi"
. Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston, A'ssistant City Engineer Stéve'
Speer, Principal Planners StanSawa and Fred Baker,AssociatePlanners
Wallace Nesbit and Martin Magaña,' and Executive Secretary Betty
Sawyer. '
I U. PUBLIC COMMENT: . None.
III., CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed.,
IV. CONSENT ITEMS:
A. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of .
February 24, 2003. CommissionerTyle'r asked that Page 1 ,Item B, be
, '
corrected to read, II ...commercial development guidelines had been...";
Page 2, Item 4 delete, Commissioner Daniels from the motion. There
. being no further'. corrections, ii was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Abels/Daniels to approve the minutes as corrected.
B. Department Report: None.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Continued - Village Use' Permit 2004-021; a request of Coronel
Enterprises for consideration of a request to construct a two-story,.
I 15,525 square foot office building on a .30 acre site located at the
. southwest corner of Calle T ampico and A venida Navarro
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-23'()4.doc
..
Planning Commission Minutes
March 23. 2004 .1
1 . Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the ~taff
report. Associate Planner Martin Magaña presented' the,
information contained in the report a copy of whjch is on file in the
, '
Community Development Department.
2. ' Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Tyler commended the applicant on the redesign of
the project.
3. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the
, '
Commissioner. Mr. Lucas Coronel, representing the applicant,
stated they had, mitiga:ted the issues with t~e adjoining property
owner and the issues raised at the last meeting.
, 4. Chairman Kirk asked if there was any other public comment. Mr.
David Brudvik, 78-120 Calle Estado, stated that all the items of
concern had been addressed and he had no further issues.
5. There being no further questions, and no other public comment, I
Chairman Kirk closed the public participation portion of ihe hearing ,
and opened the matter for Commission discussion.
6. 't was moved and seconded by Commissioners AbelslTyler to
adopt Planning, Commission Resolution 2004-020, approving
viii age Use Permit. 2004-021, as amended: '
a. Condition #11: Delete California Water Quality
b. Condition #1'2: Remove the language except compliance
with the PM 10 requirements and Wind Erosion Control
c. Conditions #21-24: Delete
, , '
ROLL CALL: A YES: Commissioners Abels, Daniels, Quill, Tyler, and
Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None.'
ABSTAIN: None.
B. Site Development Permit 2003.796; a request of Madison Development,
LLC for consideration of architectural and landscaping pans for fiv~ new
sin~le-family prototype residential units with 1 ì different" elevations
within the Estates at Point Happy development. I
G:\WPDOCS\PCMinut8s\3-23-04.doc 2
.. -
. .
, Planning Commission Minutes
I ' March 23,2004
, '1 . Chairman Kirk opened the public, hearing and asked for the staff
report. Associate Planner Martin Magaña presented the
information contained in the report a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department.
2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Tyler asked that Condition #6 be clarified ,to stated
the exterior garden wall. Conditions #11 and #13 should be
deleted.
3. CommissionerOuill asked if a single tile mudded' roof was, being
used. Staff stated yes.
4. Chairman Kirk asked staff for clarification on the City Council's
decision on the access. Staff clarified Option 2A was approved t?V
CouricilwithOption5as a default. Chairman Kirk asked staff to'
identify the letters that had been received expressing concern
I. about t~e project, Staff explained the letters were not apart of
the applicant's request.
5. There being no questions of staff, Chairman Kirk asked if the
applicant would like to address the Planning Commission. Mr. Rick
Wilkers'on, representing the applicant, stated he was available to
answer any questions.
6~ Commissioner Tyler asked about the original entrance gates. Mr.
Wilkerson stated it had been determined they are not historic and
they intend to, create new elaborate entry gates. Commissioner
Tyler asked the material of the garage doors. Mr. Wilkerson stated
they would be a simulated wood.
7. Mr. Rob Park~r,' RGA Landscape Architect,askedabout the
condition regarding se1backs. He noted there was one floor plan
that does have a front-loaded courtyard which makes the front
setback appear greater than if the entire front of the house was
pushed back to the front-setback' to allow variation in the
stree1scape. Second, they have eliminated the Chilean mesquite
from the plant palette. The building material and, colors are
I consistent. The Eldorado stone will be used on the main entry.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-23-04.doc 3
..
..
Planning Commission Minutes
March 23, 2004 I
, '
8. There being no further questions, and no other public comment,
Chairman Kirk' closed the public participation portion of the
hearing.
9. Commissioner Tyler asked if the landscaping and gate would be
brought back to' the ALRC and Commission fór review. Staff
stated the ALRC requested the landscaping along Washington
Street be brought, back to them and staff is asking that staff b~
allowed to review and approve the plans if the Commission
approves what is presented at this meeting.
10. Commissioner Quill, asked that a materials sample board be
submitted.
11 . Chairman Kirk stated he would lean toward approving the entry as
submitted, but if the access changes, he would like to see the
, '
entry design brought bac,k.
12. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Abels to I
adöpt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-021 ,approving Site "
Development Permit 2003- 796,as amended:
a. Condition added: If an alternative access is used, the entry
design is to 'come back for Planning Commission review.
, ,
b. Condition #6: Clarify to refer to the exterior garden wall.
'c. Condition # 11: 'Clarify to read u.. .shall comply with those
plans submitted..."
d. Condition #13: deleted.
ROLL CALL: A Y'ES: Commissioners Abels, Daniels~ Quill, Tyler, and
Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
C. Site Development, Permit 2004-773; a request of California Cove
Communities for consideration of architectural plans for three new sing'le-
family prototype residential units with two different facades for each plan
located at the northwest corner of Monroe Street and Airport Boulevard
within the Greg Norman Course.
I
G:\WPOOCS\PC Minutes\3-23-04.doc 4
Planning Commission Minutes
I March 23.2004
1 . Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the .staff
. .
report. Principal Planner Stan' Sawa presented the information
contained in the report a copy of which is on file in the Community
, Development Department.
2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were .any questions of' staff.
Commissioner Tyler asked whether or not the bedroom was
included with the 'casitas for the Plan 1 as it appeared to be very
small if it was. Staff stated the applicant would need to answer
. .
this.
3. Chairman ~irk asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. Chris Young, representing the applicant, stated
they have reviewed the conditions and have no problems.
4. Commissioner Tyler asked if the bedroQm w~s included in the
casitas. Mr.Y oung stated yes.
.1 5. There being no questions of the applicant and no other public
comment, .Chairman Kirk closed the public participation portion of.
the hearing. . .
5. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Quill to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-.022, approving Site
Development Permit 2004-773, as recommended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Daniels, Quill, Tyler, and
Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
D. Environmental Assessment 2004-496 and Tentative Tract Map 31910; a
request of John Megay & Associates 1orconsideration of certification of
a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact; and the
subdivision of 38.85 acres into 1 32 single-family res'identiallots located
on the west side of Monroe Street, ~ mile north of Avenue 58.
1 . Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the' staff
. . .
report. Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit pre~ented the
I in,formation contained in the report 'a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department.
G:\WPDOCS\PC .Minu~s\3.23-04.doc 5
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes I
March 23, 2004
2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Daniels asked if the tract had only one access.
Staff stated ye,s and the project also has an emergency access.
3. Commissioner Tyler asked the purpose of the recreation amenity
lot. Staff stated it has not been defined in '" regards to any
structures. Commissioner Tyler asked staff for the location of the
three easements on the drawings. Staff stated the applicant
would need to answer this. ' ,
4. Commissioner Quill asked if the southerly tract was developed.
Staff stated no, they, have submitted an application for a secOnd'
time extension.
5. Commissioner Daniels asked if the existing house was a part òf
this project. ,Staff stated it will not be a part of the development. '
Commissioner Daniels asked if there would be any redevelopment
of t,h,iS separate I.ot. His co.ncern.iS that if this tr.act were approved " , .1
there would be a tract with one access and a lot that has one '
access òntoMonroe Street.' Staff stated it is a separate lot that is'" "
not a part of the tract.
6. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. John Megay, the applicant, stated they had
spoken with the owners of the separate parcel and were told they
have no interest in selling so they will be constructing a wall
around their property excluding this parcel. He then went on to
describe the project. ' ,
7. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of the applicar\t.
Commissioner Quill asked if the applicant was being required to
improve the frontage of the separate parcel. Mr. Megay stated he,
would be willing to do the curb and gutter to its ultimate width.
Assistant City Engineer Steve Spèer stated staff would have tö
look into the right of way needed., Commissioner Quill asked if the
applicant could be required to acquire the needed right of way and
dedicate it to the City in a timely manner. Mr. Megay stated he
had no problem with this requirement.
I
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3:-23-04.doc 6
-,
Planning Commission Minutes
I March 23, 2004
8. Commissioner Tyler asked the applicant to identify the easements.
Mr. Matt Petroni, engineer for the project, stated. they are roads
associated with the existing agricultural work, áccess for Impe'rial
Irrigation District andCVWD. Commissioner Tyter asked the use
of the rècreationallot. Mr. Megay stated they 'have not defined it
, as of yet, but they are considering a clubhouse and/or a sports
workout building. .. .
9. Chairman Kirk asked if there was any other public comment.
There being none, the public partiCipation portion of tbe hea~ing
was closed and open for Commission discussion.'
10. CommissIoner, Daniels stated he still believe~, a sec,ond acc'ess,
could be created frof1Ì.theseparate parcel. 'He asked if staff knew
when this property was separated from this larger parcel. . Sta1f
stated it was unknown.
, '
11 . Chairman Kirk stated he would like this' tract designed to provide
I', .fora future access Wi.t.h an ~asementth.roughthis. s~P, ar~te.' parcel.
. . He suggested.staff work with the ~pphcant to see If this co~I~~e
accomplished. .
12. Commissioner Quill ~sked if the applicant had been conditioned to
install the curb aJ:'d gutter in front of the separate parcel. Staff
stated at present it is not required. Assistant, Citý Attorney
Michael Houston stated a lender would not allow an easement on
an adjacent property owner. Commissioner Quill asked why Lot J
could not be extended to Monroe Street. Discussion followed
regarding potential alternatives.
13. Following discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Quill/Abels to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2004-023 cer~ifying a Mitigated Negative Declaration
. for Environmental Assessment 2()04-4~6, as recommended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners, Abels, Daniels", Quill, Tyler, and
Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
I 14. . It was m'oved. . and seconded by Com.missioners QuililTyler to adopt
: Planning Commission Resolution. 2004-024 . approving Tentative
Tract Map 31910, as amended:' .
(;:\WPOOCS\PC Minutes\3-23-04.doc 7
-
.
PlannihgCommission Minutes
March 23. 2004 I.
a. Condition added: Applicant shall make every effort to
acquire the needed right of way on Monroe Street in front
of the separate parcel in a timely manner and construct the
neededsidevvalk, curb and gutter. . ,
b.Condition added: the applicant's engineer shall work with
staff to pursue the opportunity of providing a future 36 foot
access into this separate parcel whether by easement or
some other means and such drawings be presented to the
City Council for approval.
15. Chairman Kirk expressed his concern regarding the potential of the
separate parcel having access onto Monroe Street at some time in
the,future. Discussion1-ollowed regarding clarification on what the
Commission was asking regarding a potential access.
16. Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston stated there are potential
solutions such as creating a lot that could be owned by the HOA
for pot:.ntial stub b. ing, b~t i~ the concept is. to hav. et he lot retained I
'by a private party for building, a lender would probably not allow.
that sort of easement nor would a title company be likely to allow ,
it. Commissioner Quill asked why Lot J could not be extended to
have :a petential connection to Monroe Street. Maybe what should
be considered is an emergency access gate where Lot R comes
into the project.. . .
17. Commissioner Quill/Tyler withdrew their motion to allow further
discussion.
18. Chairman Kirk reopened the public hearing to allow further
discussion.
19. Assistant City Engineer Steve Spee.r stated that if a secondary
access is desired for this tract it could be by extending the cul-de-
sac to Monroe Street. The Palms project to the north, does not
. , .
have any access onto. Monroe unless it is an emergency access.
20. Chairman Kirk stated his concern is. net the lack ef a secend
access but to limit the access onto Monroe for the s,eparate parcel.,
The poi~t raised was that theCit. y could not restrict that parc~1 I
from having access onto Monroe Street. He asked that even If .
this parcel was redeveloped in the future and there was an option
.(3:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-23-o4.doc 8
-
. .
Planning Commission Minutes
I March 23,2004
for an easement or roadway through this parcel or could they be '
restricted to provide something at this meeting? Assistan1 'City
Attorney Michåel Houston stated they could but because there' is
no discretionary approval at this time for that separate parcel, it is
academic at this time. Mr. Petroni, applicant's' engineer, stated it '
is possible to extent Street Bto the south property line toallQw a
landscape easement. Discussion followed regarding potential
alternatives.
21 . There being no further discussion, Chairman Kirk closed the public
hearing and opened the matter for Commission discussion'. .
22. It was moved, and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Abels. to,
adopt Planning Com'mission Reso.lution .2004-024, approving
Tentative Tract Map 31910, as amended:
a. Condition added: Condition added: Applicant shall make
every effort to acquire the needed right of way infi'ontof
the separate p~rcel in a timely manner and construct the
I needed curb and gutter.. . .
ROLL CALL: A YES: Commissioners Abels,. Daniels, Quill, Tyler ,and
Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None~ ABSTAIN:
None.
E. Site Development Permit 2004-800; a request of Jack Tarr Development
for consideration' ofa request to allow construction of a 12,000 square
foot grocery store located at the southeast corner of Washington Street
and Simon Drive.
1 . Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Principal Planner Fred Baker'presented 'the information
contained in the report a copy of which is on file in the Community
Development Department.
2. Chairman Kirk a,sked if there were. any questions of staff.
Commissioner Daniels asked about the parking (equirements.
Staff stated it is based on the requirements of the Specific Plan for
the entire site which inCludes shared parking. The par~ingis' being
I track~d as each new business comes in for their site development
permit.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-23-04.doc 9
-
.
Planning Commission Minut.es
March 23,2004 I
3. Chairman Kirk asked if Simon Drive would continue to allow 00-
street parking. Senior Engineer' Steve Speer stated it is 'a policy
decision at . the discretion of. the City Council.. It..is a
. nonconforming local street. It. has 54-feet .between . curbs.
Chairman Kirk stated his concern is that some' of those who now
park on the street will' use the new, parking lot.
4. Commissioner Quill asked if the egress and ingress 'driveway that
has a right-in, right-out onto Washington Street southerly of Simon
Drive is approved. Staff stated yes. Commissioner Quill ask.ed if
the access clos,est to Avenue 47 would have a dec,~leration lane.
Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated. they hàve been
conditio,ned to install a decleration at this entrance and at Simon
Drive. He went on to explain the purpose of deceleration lanes~
Cornmissioner Ouillstated his concern is the amount of. traffic.
generated by these businesses on these access points. . Staff,
stated a lot of discussion has been taking place by staff' and the
Council to coordinate the signals to alleviate any traffic problems.
. Discussion followed on traffic alternatives.
5. Commissioner Quill asked .if the Commission could require the I
second access be. removed. . Staff stated one access on Simon
Drive was, approved under the Specific Plan and itwoul,d require an
amendment to the Specific Plan to change it.. The applicant is
now showing two accesses which is a change from the Specific
Plan. Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston stated the
Municipal. Code requires as a finding that circulation and. other
issues comport to the surrounding' area. It would be appropriate to-
allow conditions to make it better, but removing'it would require a
Specific Plan Amendment. The applicant is not able to add the
second access without a Specific Plan Amendment. Discussion
followed regarding what was approved under the Spec,ific Plan and
the accesses indicated on the Site Development Permit"
6. Commissioner Tyler questioned Cond,ition #35 where it refers to a
primary entry and secondary entry on Simon Drive. Staff stated
the easterly access is the secondary entry. Assistant City
Engineer Steve clarified. why traffic exiting the Center is not
allowed to turn left onto Simon Drive.
7. Commissioner Daniels suggested the westerly access onto Simon .1.
Drive be eliminated.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-23-O4.doc 10
_.
,..
"',
Planning Commission Minutes
I. March 23,2004
8. Commissioner Quill asked for clarification on whether or I)ot the
access just s,outh of Simon Drive on Washington Street could be
eliminated without a Specific Plan Amendment. Assistant City
Attorney Michael Houston stated in his first reference he was
referring to the access off Simon Drive. The access just south of
Simon Drive can not be eliminated without å Specific Plan
Amendment. Commissioner Quill asked if th~ Commission could
condition it to be a right out only. Assistant City Attorney Michael
Houston stated he would need to review the circulation plan, but
he believes that it could be done. After, reviewing the' plan', he
determined it could not be made a right-out only because the
, '
Specific -Plan allows both a right-in and right-out. Commissioner
Quill stated if you don't allow a right turn in, you can eliminate
rear end collisions. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated the'
applicant would need to conduct a study, to determine a
deceleration lane is needed before a deceleration lane is required~
I, 9. Commissioner Daniel!; asked if conditio, n,#35 would C, hange if the
, westerly access were eliminated. Staff stated th~y would not
recommend changing the median isl,and configuration.
1 O.Chairman Kirk asked, if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. ,Mr. Bill Sanchez, representing Washington Park
111, stated' they concur, with most of the conditions except
32.A.1.d. They do not believe they should be conditioned to pay
for the signal that, is being required because of a residential
development across the street from their project.
11 . Mr. Dan Ruiz, ,Keith Companies, spoke on the t~affic study
prepàred for their Environmental Assessment prepared for the
Specific Plan which stated a traffic signal was not warranted. '
12. Commissioner Tyler asked if a signal was identified at any other
location fronting Washington Street. Mr. Ruiz stated the existing
signal was identified at Avenue 47. The other two entrances
including Simon Drive were identified as right in, right out and left
in only. This is how the entitlements have been proceeding under
the Specific Plan.
I 13. Ms. Marleen.~lIe~, attorney for t~e a~~lica~t, stated t~e Specific
Plan and mitigation measures Identified In the Environmental
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-23-04.doc 11
-
.
Planning Commission Minutes
March 23, 2004 I
Assessment have been imposed and they are paying impact fees in
regard to any traffic issues and it would be unfåir to require them
to pay 25 %of the traffic signal. They areconcei'ned that with the
construction of this signal there may be problems with too r:nany
signals too close together.
14. Chairman Kirk asked if the City was changing the rules on
requiring the signal. Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston
stated it is appropriate for new conditions' to be placed on a
project despite C.EOA review in: that this - is a discretionary
approval. There are no vested rights and no - certainty that
additional conditions cannot be imposed on an applicant, in-
general, at a later date when a discretionary approval occurs. If a'
25 % contribution were required, based on previous studies, he ' ,
":'V°uld like to see further documentation, such as a traffic study, to
determine' this. - Chairman Kirk stated he is confused ,as to how
conditions can be changed in regard to access, but conditions ",
cannot be changed in regard to the signal. Assistant City Attorney
Michael Houston stated th~ Specific Plan allows development I' -
consistent with an over-arching set of guidelines, but an off-site ,
improvement like this would be acceptable based on findings being , ' ,
made that additional traffic was being implicated by this project.
This is not in conflict with the Plan~ ,Assistant City Engineer Steve-
Speer stated the Çity believes it has the right to require the 25%
as it will benefit the project. The original traffic study did identify
certain circulation patterns. If the signal is installed the circulation
pattern for this project will change dramatically and it willmore
than Iik~ly be this project that will trigger the signal with the
amount of traffic it will generate.
15., Commissioner Daniels asked if the environmental documentation
that included the traffic study, were not all these factorsinctuded
in the traffic study. Staff stated no, because the City's General
Plan prevented Simon Drive from being a full turn intersection.'
The applicant, Washington Park 1 1 1 , analyzed their project based
on the General Plan requirements at that time.. When that City
Council- adopted the change to' the General Plan the premise
changed. Commissioner Daniels asked how the 25% figure was
determined. Staff stated it is - determined by how: mé3ny corners
are owned by th~ applicant. Ms. Allen stated that when the I-
Specific Plan was adopted, the Environmental Assessment took -
into consideration this development and the change in the -
G:\WPDOCS\PCMinutes\3-23-Q4.doc 12
-
.0..
Planning Commission Minutes
.1 . March 23,2004
circumstances isdue to the ho~sing project and not this project. It
does not seem appropriate to charge this project for other things
that are happening in the area fòr a signal that was not indicated
as warranted when their Specific Plan was. adopted. There must
be a nexus between the condition and the project it is being
imposed on. Therefore, it would be more appropriate for the
housing project to incur the cost.
16. Mr. Michael Coretty, KKEArchitects, suggested eliminating the
easterly access and having one full turning movement off Simon,
Drive.
17. Mr. Bill, Sanchez stated they would consider one full turning
movement off Simon Drive.
18. There bei.ng no further questions öf the applicant and no other
public comment, Chairman Kirk closed the public participation
portion of the hearing and opened it for Commission discussion.
I. 19. co. rnmiss~oner D~niels C.lar!fied ~hat the acc~~sesoff Washington
Street. will remain as defined In ~he Specific P~an. He would
recommend closing the westerly access off Simon Drive and the
,easterly access have the median extended. In regard t,o the signal;
When the traffic study was first completed it did not call for the
signal and Simon "",as a' right-in, right out only. With the signal
and a full four-way traffic, it now warrants the signal. which is a
change. in circumstances that warrants the signal. The nexus is
. that once a four way traffic circulation is created it warrants the
signal and this justifies the signal.
20. Commissioner Quill agreed and stated' he also agrees the full
movement. will provide better access for this project. The signal
will generate.a better access forTrader Joes which is a benefit to
the business and should negate the cost of the signal. He would
also like to request a deceleration lane on the second access off
Washington 'Street. ' " ,
21 . Chairman Kirk stated he is having a problem with the procedural
issues.
I .,
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-23-04.doc 13
.
. -
Planning Commission Minutes
March 23, 2004 I
22. Commissioner Tyler stated that although it was not identified in .
the 2002 traffic study, discussions have taken place to h~ve a
signal at the southerly access to this project. ..
23. Chairman Kirk asked staff which access point .wo'uld be best to
close. Staff recommended closing the westerly access, off Simon
Drive and the immediately south access .off Washin'gton Street.
Staff stated that if the ea'sterly access off Simon Drive is closed,
the access into the site is a right-in, right out. Staff would
recommend closing the westerly access which eliminates the
., ,
median and the cut-through traffic. Assistant' ,City Attorney
Michael Houston stated the Specific Plan identifies 'two accesses
off of Washington Street, south of Simon Drive as being, þoth
right';in, right-out. With.the two entries on Simon Drive would' not
be allowed as the Specific Plan states only one access way is
permitted. The turn signal was not considered by the Sp~cific::
Plan. There are reasons to require a study which may require an
addendum to the environmental. Discussion followed as
alternatives available to the Commission. I
24 .It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Quill to adopt .
Planning' Commission Resolution 2004-025' approving Site
Development Permit 2004-800, as amended:
a. Condition '#32.A.1.a. corrected: 1I...east curb face shall be
located at 58 feet..." and a requirement for a deceleration
lane for the access ,directly south of' Simon Drive~
b. Condition #35: The easterly access point on Simon Drive
shall be closed and the westerly access will 'be a full, turn
movement.
C" Condition added: A traffic study shall be completed.bY the
applicant to determine the nexus for the signal, as ~ell as
'. ' , ,
,an analysis of traffic usage, fer the signal to determine if
deceleration lanes are needed on all three accesses off
Washington Street north of Avenue 47 including Simon
Drive.
25. Chairman Kirk reopened the public comment. Mr. Sanchez stated
they would object to the deceleration lane for the southerly access
on Washington Street. I
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-23-04.doc 14
-
'"'
Planning Commission. Minutes
I March 23.2004 .
26. Chairman Kirk closed the public comment portion of the hearing.
27. Commissioners discussed what accesses would be conditioned
regarding decelerating lanes.
.ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, DanJels, QÙiII, Tyler, and
Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: Nonë. ABSTAIN:
None. .
Chairman Kirk recessed the meeting at 9:45 and reconvened at 9:52 p.m.
F. Village Use Permit 2004-022; a request of Santa Rosa Plaza, L.L.C.. for
consideration of development plans for a 3,678 square foot commercial
office building located north of Calle Tampico, east of AvenidaBermudas.
1 . Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the sta,ff
report. Principal Planner Fred Baker presented the information
contained in the report a copy of which is on file in the Community
I Development Department.
2. Chairman Kirk asked if there vvere any questions of staff.
Commissioner Tyler stated the requirements on the rear" elevation
are not .wärranted.'The common area should be part of the .site
plan and not landscape plan. The block wall height should be
stipulated.
3. Chairman Kirk confirmed that the parcels to' the south are part 'of
this Specific Plan.
4. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like tq address the
Commission. Mr. Jim Jansick, Keith Companies, gave.. a
description of the site. Chairman Kirk asked the purpose of the
large vacant lot. It appears to. be a' large back yard with no
functional access.. Mr. Jansick stated it really has' no functional
purpose.
5. There being no further questions of the applicant and no other
public comment, Chairman Kirk closed the public participation
portion of the hearing.
I 6. Commissioner Quill stated the elevations appear to be more in
keeping with Highway111 designs" r.ather than theVill~ge.
G:\WPOOCS\PC Minutes\3-23-Q4.doc 15
.
.
.;;
Planning com. mission Minutes I
March 23, 2004 .
7. Commissioner Tyler expressed concern as to the rear elevations. .'
8. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Danleis/Abe'ls to
adopt Planning. Commission Resolution2:004~026 approving
Village Use Permit 2004-022, 'as amended:
a. Condition. #27: .amended to. require the architecture
. articulation for the entire south 'elevation.
b~ . Condition #26.8.: renumbered to become its own .' . ,
. ~
condition.
ROLL CALL: A YES: Commissioners Abels, Daniels, Quill,. and Tyler.
NO.ES: Chairman Kirk. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None.
G. Environmental Assessment 2004-499 , General Plan Amendment 2004-
098, Zone Change 2004-118, and Tentati~e Tract Map 32119; a request
of Mayer Villa Capri for consideration of certification of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment and ZoneChang'e from
Community Commercial to Neighborhood Commercial and Low Density I
Residential anda request of Trans West Housing for the subdivision of 15 .
acres into 48 single-family residential lots located northeast of the
intersection of Washington Street and Fred Waring Drive. .
1 . Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked. for the staff
report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the' information
contained in the report a copy of which is on file in the Community
Development Department.
2. ,Chairman Kirk asked if. there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Daniels asked how much commercial property will
be lost if the zone change is approved. Staff explai.ned the loss
wo~ld be 15 gross acres from the Community Commercial for a
total of 63 vacant acres from. the Community. Commercial'
. designation since the updated General Plan was adopted.
Commissioner Daniels asked if there were any other areas that
could be designated as commercial to make up this loss. Staff
stated they. were unaware of any currently being. planned.
Commissioner Daniels asked how much revenue would be lost
with this' change in land use, or have circumstances ch~nged to I.
cause this land use modification since the General Plan update. .
Staff stated they did not know of any change in circumstances but
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-23-04.doc .. , 16
.
~.
Planning Commission Minutes
I March 23, 2004
concerns had been raised by the adjoining residents regarding the
density in the area with a previous application that was processed
in the area. . .
.. .. 3... Commissioner Tyler asked if. staff had any conversation with
anyone who would like to develop the commerciaL Staff stated
they have had none. Commissioner Tyler asked 'if this. project
. . were approved, would they be improving only that section of Fred
Waring Drive in front of this development. Assistant City Engineer
Steve Speer stated no, they will be. required to do the street
improvements for the entire length west to Washington Street.
4. Commissioner Daniels asked the difference between the uses of
Community Commercial and Neighborhood Commercial. Interim
Community Development Dire'ctor Oscar Orci stated the ability to .
have retail stores over 50,000, square feet are prohibited under
Neighborhood Comm~rcial and the minimum parcel size is differerat
for both. .
I.. 5. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. Larry Brose, representing Mayer Villa Capri,
stated they concur with staff's position and conditions. They own
the entire site, but Trans West HoUsing will be developing the
residential. They will maintain ownership on the commercial site
with another entity. They have no objection to improving the
entire frontage along. Fred Waring Drive. -
6. Commissioner Tyler asked . how. they envisioned Lot 1 be.ing
marketed. Chris Schultz, representing Trans West Housing,
explained their proposed use of the residential site.
7. There being' no questions of the applicant and no other public
comment, Chairman Kirk closed ~he public participation portion of
the hearing.
8. Commissioner Daniels askedthe .minimum lot size for èomniunity
Commercial. Interim Community Development Director Oscar Orci
stated the General Plan under Table 2-1 states' Community
. Commercial sizes shall range. from 20-30 acres. .This site was
I approved under a parcel map aPP.licatio.n. The action before the
. Commission will be consistent with the General Plan.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-23-04.doc 17
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes
March 23, 2004 I
9. Commissioner Tyler stated the project as designed. is not in .
compliance with the General Plan. The residential design is sterile
and shows no interest. The remaining Neighborhood Commercial
size is too small to create any substantial project that. would create
interest for the entry to the City. There is no buffer between the
residential and c.ommercial, nor the school district. Hecannot
support this project as designed.
10. Commissioner Quill stated he thinks there isa market for Lots 1-
1 0 a~d Lots Band Care good buffers from the commercial.
Curvilinear streets do not lend themselves to this rectangular
parcel. The fact that there is that much commercial in . the
neighborhood north and south of this site is a good reason to
downsize the commercial in this area.
11 . Commissioner Tyler stated he would never support a big. box at
this location.
'2. commiSSio. n. er. Daniels stated he too woul. not b. e a.ble to S.upport I
this plan. It is not consistent with the G neral Plan just adopted.
by the Council two years ago. The amou t of commercial lost is .
. traumatic for the City. There is stil 8 great demand for
commercial activity in this area. He woul like to know how this
was parceled in this manner.
13. Chairman Kirk stated he too could not support ~he project as
designed. The expectations of the reside ts and the City 'may be
different. Designed as a20 acre site w uld do better II He too
would like to know. how this happened.
. .
. 14. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/DaDiels to
adopt Minute Motion 2004-006, denying the project.
ROLL CALL: AYES:. Commissioners Abels, Dan els, Tyler, and Chairman
Kirk. NOES: Commissioner Q ill. ". ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None. ' .
VI. BUSINESS ITEMS:
A. Continued - A eal of Public Nuisance Case 9 93. a request of Robert I
and Barbara Valdivia for consideration of anap eal of a public nuisance .
for the property located at 54-360 Avenida Ju rez.
G:\WPDOCS\PCMinutes\3-23-o4.doc 18
I
.
Planning Commission Minutes
I . March 23. 20e4
1. Staff informed the Commission that the City and Valdivias were
requesting a continuance to allow the Building. and. Safety
Department time to workout issues with the Valdivias.
I ..
2. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Abets to
continue Appeal of Public Nuisance:Case 9693 to Aptit 27, 2004.
Unanimously approved.
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL:: None.
VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
. .
A. There was no City Council report on the March 16, 2004 meeting.
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by. Commissioners
I AbelSI/D.anielS to ad.jo.urn this regular me.eting of the P. lanningCOmm. ission to a r.e. gular
meeting of the Planning Commission to be held on April 13, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. This
meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 10:48 p.rn.,on March 9, 2004.
I .
G:\WPOOCS\PCMinutes\3-23-o4.doc .19