Loading...
2006 01 10 PC Minutes I I I MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA January 10, 2006 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 Commissioner Alderson to lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Ed Alderson, Richard Daniels, Paul Quill, and Chairman Tom Kirk. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Alderson to excuse Commissioner Ladner. Unanimously approved. C. Staff present: Community Development Director Doug Evans, Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston, Planning Manager Les Johnson, Associate Engineer Paul Goble, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate Planners Wallace Nesbit and Andrew Mogensen, Assistant Planner Jay Wuu, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed. IV. CONSENT ITEMS: A. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of the December 27, 2005 regular meeting. There being no changes to the minutes, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Alderson to approve the minutes as submitted. Chairman Kirk abstained. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None. A. Continued - Environmental Assessment 2005-550, General Plan Amendment 2005-106, Zone Change 2006-126, Specific Plan 83-002, Amendment #5, and Tentative Parcel Map 32752; a request of Ray Shaffer for consideration of: 1) a Negative Declaration of environmental impact; 2) a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change from golf Course to Low Density residential; 3) a Specific Plan to allow the conversion of 2.3 + acres of existing golf course/common area to residential use; and 4) review of a Parcel Map to subdivide 2.3 + acres into three single- G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2006\ 1-1 0-06PC.doc Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2006 family lots, for the property located between Weiskopf and Jack Nicklaus Golf Courses, immediately south of PGA Boulevard, within PGA West. I 1 . Commissioner Daniels informed the Commission that he belongs to the Master Homeowners' Association (HOA) for PGA West, but not the HOA for this subdivision. He does not believe it is a conflict of interest and will participate in the meeting. 2. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wanted to speak regarding the project. Mr. Myron Mintz, 80-355 Weiskopf, stated his objections to the project and asked that this item be continued . 3. Staff informed the Commission why the continuance was requested. 4. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Quill to continue Environmental Assessment 2005-550, General Plan Amendment 2005-106, Zone Change 2006-126, Specific Plan 83- 002, Amendment #5, and Tentative Parcel Map 32752 project to January 24, 2006. Unanimously approved. I B. Site Development Permit 2005-839; a request of Marchi and Associates for Wells Fargo Bank for consideration of development plans and a sign for a bank with a drive-thru with approximately 4,500 square feet of floor area, for the property located northwest of the intersection of Highway 111 and La Ouinta Drive in The Pavilion at La Ouinta project. 1 . Chairman Kirk asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which was on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Daniels asked about the Americans for Disabilities Act requirements in regard to the sidewalk to Highway 111. Staff stated access must be provided to the public sidewalk as well as the parking lot. 3. Chairman Kirk stated asked the location of the bus stop. Staff stated they would need to review the plans to determine the exact location. I G:\ WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2006\ 1-1 0-06PC .doc 2 I I I Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2006 4. Commissioner Daniels asked if the drive-thru intruded into the landscape area at the southeast corner. Staff stated it will slightly for the knuckle. 5. Commissioner Alderson thanked staff for taking into consideration the slope design for the drive-thru. He then asked if the landscaping plans would come back before the Commission. Staff stated currently it is recommended for staff review, but the Commission can condition it to come back. 6. Commissioner Daniels asked if the landscaping plans reflected the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee (ALRC) concerns. Staff stated no but, the applicant is aware of what they are and they are included in the conditions. 7. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Brett Marchi, architect representing the applicant, stated he had a concern with regard to Condition 26.A.1.a. as it was his understanding that all street conditions have been completed. Associate Engineer Paul Goble stated that was true, but the condition was added because the Specific Plan and Site Development Permit calls out changes to the street configuration and they have not been completed. The plans for the ultimate improvements are still pending, so the condition was placed on the project until they have been completed. Mr. Marchi asked about Condition 30.G. regarding the 14 foot drive-thru aisle width. The setbacks are taken from the curb of the drive aisle and if they have to provide a 14 foot drive aisle, it would cause them to reduce the building by two feet and he does not have the room. He asked if there was an exception that could be taken in regard to the setback. Associate Engineer Paul Goble stated they have had extensive discussions with the City's traffic consultant regarding aisle widths and the 14 foot requirement was the reasonable width that was decided upon. Mr. Marchi asked what this was based on. Staff stated it was based on large vehicles with maneuverability that could create problems. 8. Commissioner Alderson asked where the 14 feet came into play. Mr. Marchi stated it is along Highway 111 when you first come into the Center. He went on to discuss his reasoning for requesting a smaller drive aisle. Commissioner Quill asked the width of the aisle at the knuckle. 9. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2006\ 1-1 0-06PC.doc 3 Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2006 Mr. Marchi stated he did not know, but their dimension was based on a suburban size vehicle. He believes they have the 14 feet at the radius. 10. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would address the other issues raised. Mr. Marchi stated that in regard to the parking (adjacent to the drive-thru), on the approved master plan for the site, the parking is already laid out in this location. As far as the employee parking area being in conflict with the A TM users, the employees will be arriving in the morning and leaving at the end of the day which he believes will not be a conflict with the A TM users. The area will be identified as employee parking. 11 . Chairman Kirk asked if staff had any issues with the employee parking. Associate Engineer Paul Goble stated it is a concern, but staff addressed this in Condition #30 A-J. Staff's primary concern is site distance on the north as you leave the drive-thru aisle. Mr. Marchi stated they would extend the walkway and put a bend in the berm to soften the look. 12. Commissioner Daniels stated that since they protrude into the required setback on the curb, could they move the building to the north. Mr. Marchi stated the only way to get a 4,500 square foot building on this site is to move the drive aisle back or remove the parking on the front. They are pinched at the top for the exit aisle to get the handicap area out of the building. The building is very tight and they would have to lose square footage. Commissioner Daniels asked how far they protrude into the setback. Mr. Marchi stated about three feet. 1 3. Commissioner Alderson asked if they could make the planter on the south side of the building narrower and widen the driveway. Mr. Marchi stated he would agree with this but they were required to buffer the building with landscaping. I I 14. Chairman Kirk asked if the grid element shown on the elevation was a trellis. Mr. Marchi stated it would be a very tight green wire mesh product that vines will grow into. 15. There being no further public comment, the public participation I portion of the hearing was closed and the matter was opened to Commission discussion. 1 6. Commissioner Daniels stated he was trying to resolve the intrusion G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2006\ 1-1 0-06PC.doc 4 I I I Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2006 into the setback. He would rather have the landscaping removed adjacent to the building and supplement for landscaping on the berm. He does not have a concern with the parking and he agrees with the applicant on the public walkway. 17. Commissioner Alderson complemented the applicant on the colors. He would agree with the applicant in regard to the 12 foot drive- thru aisle on the straight portion. 18. Commissioner Quill stated the width of Chick-fil-a driveway was not even discussed when it was before them; what was their width. Staff stated it was approximately 14 feet and will narrow at one point. The traffic engineer wanted more and staff settled on 14 feet. Some areas of this drive aisle could be reduced. Community Development Director Doug Evans suggested they consider reducing the width on the straight portion of the aisle and keep it at 14 at the radius. Staff could work with the applicant to taper the aisle on some portions. A 12 foot lane on a straight aisle is sufficient, as long as the radius in larger. 19. Commissioner Quill thanked staff for making sure the berm is at four feet to screen headlights of the cars entering the drive aisle. He likes the applicant's suggestion to meander the sidewalk access to bring the berm in tighter and screen the view. He would like the Texas Ranger size increased on the drive aisle and add an additional six or seven Texas Ranger plants on the west side to help screen the area. Has no problem with the encroachment into the setback and he is willing to compromise to reduce the drive- thru aisle on the straight portion and have the knuckle wider. 20. Chairman Kirk stated the building is a nice design, with respect to the setback encroachment if they allowed the 1 2 foot drive aisle they could add the two feet to the setback in another area and the average would be 50 feet. He agrees with Commissioner Quill in regard to the landscaping and the applicant treatment of the curvilinear sidewalk. He did not hear what the Commissioners wanted in regard to the parking. 21 . Commissioner Quill stated he has no issue with the parking. 22. Commissioner Alderson stated the area was not conducive for public parking and therefore would have no problem. He would like to see larger plants. Community Development Director Doug G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2006\ 1-1 0-06PC.doc 5 Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2006 Evans stated one gallon plants would not be as root-bound as five gallon plants. 23. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Alderson to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2006-001, approving Site Development Permit 2005-839, as recommended and modified: a. Condition added to require curvilinear sidewalk between Highway 111 and the building. b. Condition added to require additional landscaping - five gallon Texas Rangers. b. Condition added to allow the drive aisle to be reduced in the straight areas as long as the knuckle is 14 feet ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Daniels, Quill, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Ladner. ABSTAIN: None. C. Tentative Tract Map 34185; a request of Sienna Corporation for consideration of a subdivision of approximately 3. 1 2 acres into ten residential lots and other miscellaneous lots for the property located ± 425 feet west of Jefferson Street along the north bank of the CVWD Stormwater Channel, south of Fiesta Drive, accessed from Hummingbird Lane. 1 . Chairman Kirk asked for the staff report. Associate Planner Andrew Mogensen presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which was on file in the Community Development Department. Staff noted some changes to conditions identified in a memorandum distributed to the Commissioners. 2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Alderson asked if the four or five parking spaces that were on Lot B, were removed and moved to a proposed parallel parking option along the CVWD Flood Control Channel, and on the premise CVWD will not allow this option, then the applicant would go to a 32 foot street width, has the applicant agreed. Staff stated the owner has reservations about increasing the street width. 3. Commissioner Quill stated that typically development along the Channel requires lining of the Channel; is that the case here. Staff G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2006\ 1-1 0-06PC.doc I I I 6 I I I Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2006 stated it is already lined except for a small strip which the applicant will line. 4. Chairman Kirk asked if this property has ever been designated as open space. Staff stated that was not known without extensive research of the files. Chairman Kirk asked if there has ever been any other designation made on this property. Staff stated that would be question for the applicant. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated staff was not aware of any development or restrictions on this site. 5. There being no further questions of staff Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Mike Rowe, representing Sienna Corporation, gave a presentation on the project. They did have an objection to the condition requiring the widening of a street to accommodate parking; they would agree to widen the entry road and restricting the parking on the street. With regard to the proposed gate for the CVWD access, he does not believe CVWD will allow this. They do not propose any gates along an access roadway. This property was originally purchased to provide well sites for CVWD. These well sites have gates and they have spoken with CVWD regarding curb returns for access to the well sites on the southerly return. 6. Commissioner Quill asked if they were proposing a private street with no gates. Mr. Rowe there would be public access. 7. Commissioner Daniels asked how public access was proposed for the two original lots they were proposing previously. Mr. Rowe demonstrated their proposed location and reasoning for changing the tract design. 8. Commissioner Alderson asked about Lot Band C in regard to how they would be treated. Mr. Rowe stated they would be landscaped and could use berming to hide the parking spaces. An HOA will be created to maintain the lots. 9. Chairman Kirk asked if there was any other public comment. Mr. Shane Falleur 79-895 Fiesta Drive, stated he lived right behind Lot B and his concern is that there is no wall or landscaping to hide headlights coming from the proposed parking into his property. They were told only two lots were going to be created and now things have changed. There is no wall to separate this tract from G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2006\ 1-1 0-06PC.doc 7 Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2006 his property. Mr. Rowe stated they would be willing to construct a wall. Chairman Kirk asked if a six foot wall would address his concerns. Mr. Falleur stated yes. I 10. Mr. Rod Wright, 79-859 Hummingbird Lane, Lot 65, s~ated his concern is that he bought his house to live on a cul-de-sac and now there will be a lot of traffic on his road. He too had been told there would be only two lots. Now with ten lots he has traffic concerns. 11 . Ms. Bobbie Froemming, 79-865 Hummingbird Lane, stated she too was approached and told that a block wall would be constructed between her house and the homes to be built. She is also concerned with the amount of traffic these ten lots will create. The construction of the homes will also bring a lot of construction trucks onto Hummingbird Lane. 12. Mr. Robert Denewiler, 79-915 Fiesta Drive, Lot 58, stated he too is concerned with the amount of traffic. When he bought his I home, he was told nothing would be built behind his house now, there will be ten homes. Commissioner Quill asked if Mr. Rowe or anyone from the Sienna had ever spoken with them regarding the proposed tract. Mr. Denewiler stated no, and he also did not receive any notification regarding this hearing. 13. Mr. Lee Larimore, 78-925 Fiesta Drive, stated he agrees with what has been stated as well as concern regarding the density of this tract. He asked the size of the lots as it appears the houses are as big as the lots. This will affect their property values having the smaller houses next door. He is also concerned about their access onto Jefferson Street. 14. Chairman Kirk asked Mr. Rowe to address the concerns that had been raised by the residents. Mr. Rowe stated the lot sizes along Fiesta Drive will be 8,700 to 10,800 square feet. These lots are comparable to lots in the area with the exception of the cul-de-sac lots. The construction traffic for the tract will come down Fiesta Drive. In conversations with the residents he has informed them what the area was zoned for and this tract is still below the allowable density, four units to the acre. He believes he has always been upfront with the residents in the area. I G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2006\ 1-1 0-06PC.doc 8 I I I Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2006 15. Commissioner Quill stated Lots 55 and 56 currently have houses on them and asked if Sienna ever owned them? Mr. Rowe stated no. 16. Commissioner Alderson asked the house sizes proposed. Mr. Rowe stated they are not intending to build. If they are unable to sell the lots, then they will build what is comparable to what is there. 17. Commissioner Quill noted Lots 2 and 3 have a rear slope going into the building envelope. Mr. Rowe stated there will be stepped retaining walls to accommodate the slope. Commissioner Quill asked if the stormwater would go to the channel. Mr. Rowe stated yes and it has been worked out with CVWD. 18. Commissioner Daniels asked if there were any two story houses and would he have any objections to being conditioned to only one story. Mr. Rowe stated he would object, if it was already allowed by Code. Chairman Kirk asked what the maximum height requirement was for this area. Staff stated 28 feet. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any two story homes existing. Staff stated no. 19. Commissioner Alderson asked about the concern regarding automobile lights into the adjoining property. Mr. Rowe stated he had told the residents that if they build the homes, they will build a wall. 20. Ms. Bobbie Froemming, stated she would appreciate the Commission conditioning the applicant to one-story homes. She too was told this property would never be built upon. 21 . There being no further public comment, the public participation portion of the hearing was closed and the matter was opened to Commission discussion. 22. Commissioner Quill stated he has a concern that the applicant has not met with the residents regarding these issues. He would also agree with limiting the homes to one story and requiring the applicant to construct a wall if the adjacent property owner wants it. He would support continuance of this project to allow the applicant time to meet and discuss some of the issues with the residents. G:\ WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2006\ 1-1 0-06PC.doc 9 Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2006 23. Commissioner Alderson stated he too is concerned that some of the residents were not notified about the public hearing. He supports limiting the project to one story. He would prefer to look down the drive-in entry and see a landscaped road rather than the dirt trail that exists. If CVWD did not allow the encroachment, the applicant is not supporting the street widening alternative and he does not know where it will go. I 24. Commissioner Quill stated that in regard to street widening, he would support the 28 foot wide street. 25. Commissioner Daniels stated he would support Commissioner Quill's comments. He would also support the project going forward while working with the neighboring residents to resolve the issues. He would want Mr. Rowe to meet with the neighbors and resolve the issues as early as possible. 26. Chairman Kirk stated he too would be concerned if he lived here for 30 years and had an expectation of low density or open space. I He would like to see a continuance to see a meeting between the residents, staff, and the developer to resolve the issues such as density, amenities, and site design. He agrees with allowing the 28 foot right-of-way with rolled curbs. If they can work an easement with CVWD and have rolled curbs he would not be concerned with off-street parking. 27. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Alderson to continue Tentative Tract Map 34185 to February 14, 2006 28. Chairman Kirk reopened the public hearing. Mr. Rowe asked that the notice be made tonight to allow this public hearing to take place in one month. Chairman Kirk asked that staff deliver a notice to each resident and post it in the area. 29. Commissioner Daniels stated he believes the neighbors have been notified and he would move to continue the hearing to February 14, 2006 with the project being re-noticed for a neighborhood meeting. Commissioner Alderson seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously. I B. Village Use Permit 2005-032 and Development Agreement 2005-009; a request of Nispero Properties, Inc. for consideration of: 1) development plans for construction of a ± 19,433 gross square foot two-story office G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2006\ 1-1 0-06PC.doc 10 I I I Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2006 building, including a 935 square foot coffee bar in the Village at La Guinta; and 2) a Development Agreement for parking management to allow construction of said office building and coffee bar for the property located at the northwest corner of Avenida La Fonda and Main Street. 1 . Chairman Kirk asked for the staff report. Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which was on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Alderson asked if the westerly property wall would be four feet in height. Staff stated there is no existing wall. Staff is recommending a four foot wall. 3. There being no further questions of staff Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Steve Nieto, Southwest Concepts, representing the applicant, gave a presentation on the project. 4. Commissioner Daniels asked if the applicant saw any parking problems. Mr. Nieto stated no, his own parking lot where he has his business in the Village is never full. He has no objection to the conditions or the Development Agreement. 5. Commissioner Quill stated he would like to see a pedestrian access created to Old Town through this building. Mr. Nieto stated it would all depend on what is built on the adjacent lots to the west. They are proposing a six foot wall along the west property line. Commissioner Quill stated he would like the pedestrian access to be similar in style to what the City has installed on Avenida Bermudas. 6. Chairman Kirk asked what the ALRC recommended. Mr. Nieto stated they requested the rear elevation of the coffee bar be redesigned to remove the oval windows and install some arches to reflect the other windows. Chairman Kirk stated he would rather see windows than the arches with no windows. Mr. Nieto stated the area behind the arches is for storage. He would recommend some type of inlay inside the arches with stone or tile. Chairman Kirk asked if the second floor of the rotunda, on the rear elevation behind the rail, needs some detail added. Mr. Nieto stated there is an office in the rotunda with one window. He does not believe G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2006\ 1-1 0-06PC.doc 11 Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2006 there will be much ability to see this area from the street. They could create some detail to add interest. Chairman Kirk stated he was concerned where the pedestrian activity will occur. It appears most of the activity will occur in the rear instead of the front of this building. He too wants to see the link between this project and the downtown area. Mr. Nieto stated the front elevation is the choice elevation and most of the traffic will enter from the rear. Chairman Kirk stated he would prefer the traffic be along Main Street. He asked staff if there could be some on-street parking provided with a 28-foot street width. Associated Engineer Paul Goble stated the traffic engineer found it very difficult with the layout of the building and the curve of the stree~. Something would have to be sacrificed because the building footprint has been maximized. Chairman Kirk stated they would prefer to lose parking in the rear to obtain on-street parking. This would slow the traffic down and he would prefer to see the coffee bar in the front of the building. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated this is probably starting to push the idea of 28-foot wide streets. This particular location is relatively busy with the Senior Center and Library. If the City allows on-street parking we would need to look at locations to maintain turning movements in and out of driveways. They considered popouts, but unless you pull it behind the sidewalk you could have half a car in the street. Chairman Kirk asked if the Commission supports the idea. 7. Commissioner Alderson asked if they are proposing parallel parking with an inside radius would this not cause more problems. Associate Engineer Paul Goble stated it is a problem in this area and unless a variance were given to the standards currently being used, you run into the building. 8. Commissioner Quill stated it seems you could have parallel parking spaces the entire length of the building along Main Street with a sidewalk and enhanced pavement landscaping and push the building to the west a few feet and still make it work. This would help bring the traffic into the front of the building. 9. Commissioner Alderson stated that if we are trying to create pedestrian activity in the front, could they have an ornate walkway across the street and utilize the library parking lot. Staff stated it could be done but, it may not be the best location. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2006\ 1-1 0-06PC.doc I I I 12 I I I Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2006 10. Chairman Kirk stated he would suggest no one would park across the street and walk across the street unless the rear parking lot was closed or full. Mr. Nieto suggested they eliminate or reduce the landscaping and provide a 32 foot wide street with parallel parking. Community Development Doug Evans stated the street could be widened four feet closer and landscaping reduced to accommodate the on-street parking on the inside of the curb. Some areas may need to be red-curbed, but it should work. 11 . Chairman Kirk stated he would not want to lose horizontal landscaping. If you move the curb back four feet he would like to see landscaping in the sidewalk itself. If the building were moved to the west and lose parking spaces to the north and south and make them up with parallel parking on Main Street. 1 2. Commissioner Quill suggested an enhanced or paver sidewalk with planter pockets with trees be used similar to the EI Paseo sidewalk. 13. Chairman Kirk asked if there was an opportunity to move the coffee bar to the front of the building. Mr. Nieto stated they could move it into one of the front spaces without redesigning the building. If they are required to move the building to the west he would not be able to meet ADA requirements. Discussion followed. Staff recommended parking pockets with landscaped areas be allowed which would give them ten spaces. Chairman Kirk stated he would not recommend the parking pockets on an inside radius as it would make it more difficult to get in and out. Associate Engineer Paul Goble stated he was not tied to the parking pockets. 14. Chairman Kirk asked if anyone else wanted to speak on this project. Mr. Bob Hill, 58-473 Quarry Ranch Road, developer of the project, stated that in regard to the parking issues they envisioned the building not being a retail center similar to Old Town, but office oriented. He does not see the intensity of in and out parking during the day similar to what retail uses would generate. The coffee bar was to service the businesses in the office complex and across the street and not to be a IIStarbucks II . He would agree to the on-street parking with the detailed walkway across the street. He does not agree with losing parking spaces and move the building back as he would not receive any benefit from this. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2006\ 1-1 0-06PC.doc 13 Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2006 15. There being no further public comment, the public participation portion of the hearing was closed and the matter was opened to Commission discussion. I 16. Commissioner Alderson stated the emphasis for the front parking to have a user friendly building does not appear to be what the applicant wants. Therefore, he does not believe the building should be moved back. As far as the rear window of the coffee shop, he supports some architectural detail being made. 17. Commissioner Quill stated it is a great looking building and he agrees with the window treatment to the coffee bar. The idea of this area is to make it a pedestrian friendly area. Having a traffic calming sidewalk into this site with on-street parking will help to accommodate that emphasis. He does not believe it is necessary to push the building back. The sidewalk could be reduced and enhanced with planters and it could still work with on-street parking. 18. Commissioner Daniels stated he too would not want to push the I building back. Allowing the on-street parking is needed. 19. Chairman Kirk stated he wants the public space image and the objective of pedestrian linkage between major activity centers in the City. On-street parking, enhanced paving, and pedestrian link across the street need to be done. If we can get 14-1 5 parking spaces with on-street parking, he does not believe a Development Agreement is needed for four spaces. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated they would need to provide the applicant with relief for parking standards which would require a different application. Chairman Kirk asked why they could not grant 1000/0 credit for parking spaces. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated they were doing that through a Development Agreement. From a parking perspective, there may be an advantage to having public parking at this end of the Village and give people the ability to walk from the east to the west throughout the Village area. 20. Following discussion it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Daniels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2006-002, recommending approval of Village Use Permit 2005-032, as recommended and modified: I G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2006\ 1-1 0-06PC.doc 14 I I I Planning Commission Minutes January 10, .2006 a. Condition added: the street section on Main Street be widened to allow an additional four feet on the half width in order to allow on-street parking in front of the building. Condition added: an enhanced sidewalk with associated landscaping shall be installed. Condition added: architectural detail shall be added to the rear elevations of the coffee bar. Condition added: coffee seating shall be encouraged in the front courtyard area of the building. b. c. d. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Daniels, Quill, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Ladner. ABSTAIN: None. 21 . It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Daniels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2006-003, approving Development Agreement 2005-009, as recommended and modified: a. Modified to allow a one to one credit for up to the number of parking spaces that is determined by the Public Works that can be created. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Daniels, Quill, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Ladner. ABSTAIN: None. VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Continued - Consideration regarding Hookah Bars; a request of City for direction in regard Hookah Bars within the City. 1 . Chairman Kirk asked for the staff report. Assistant Planner Jay Wuu presented the information in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Commissioner Daniels asked why it was not proposed as a permitted versus a conditional use. Staff stated that during their review of the use, it was found that some undesirable uses had accompanied the use in other cities. 3. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Emad gave a presentation on the project. He G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2006\ 1-1 0-06PC.doc 15 Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2006 stated there would be no serving of alcoholic beverages. Coffee, tea, juice, soda and water would be served in closed containers. Admittance would be limited to adults 1 8 years and older. It would be a safe environment. I 4. There being no further public participation, the matter was opened to Commission discussion. 5. Commissioner Daniels stated he thought it was a reasonable request and he would support the use. 6. Commissioner Alderson stated he could not support this type of business as he believes it is a health issue. 7. Chairman Kirk asked if the Commission has to allow a use that is a permitted use, similar to an adult business, somewhere in the City. Michael Houston stated not in this case. Business uses other than adult uses, do not have the same free speech protection adult uses have. Cities and counties are allowed to prohibit such uses under a general commercial speech standard. I 8. Chairman Kirk stated he too does not want to encourage smoking, but this is an allowed use. He would see this use being allowed in the Village Commercial area as well. It would add to the foot traffic in the Village. Mr. Emad stated the location is for those to sit down and smoke inside the building. 9. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Kirk to approve the use of Hukah Bars as recommended by staff. Commissioner Daniels and Chairman Kirk voted in favor. Commissioner Alderson voted no. Commissioner Quill abstained. Commissioner Ladner was absent. VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Review of City Council meeting of January 3, 2006 was given. X. ADJOURNMENT: I There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Alderson/Daniels to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a G:\WPOOCS\PC Minutes\2006\ 1-1 0-06PC.doc 16 I Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2006 regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held on January 24, 2006. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:54 p.m. on January 10, 2006. Respectfully submitted, I I G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2006\ 1-1 0-06PC.doc 17