Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJan 19, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1- 1, 0' ` Meeting - Thursday, January 19, 2006 - 5:30 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue 1. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Lomas Absent: Commissioner Blockley Advisory Members: Robert Sherfy, James D. Movius, Marian Shaw, Janice Horcasitas Staff: Jennie Eng, Dana Cornelius 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS: Will Winn commented in regard to the policy of public notification of development. He stated that much of the planning back logs and delays are due to the lack of sufficient time sensitive public input notification that seems to be involved in the City's planning process. He pointed out that notification to the 300' requirement is usually given within the 10 days prior to the hearing, and requires an immense amount of effort to pull together a mostly diverse and unattached neighborhood into a cognizant viable group to meet with the developer and express concerns, get a response from the developer and resolve the issues before the scheduled Planning Commission meeting. He thanked the Planning Commission and Mr. Movius for responding to his concerns and putting it before the City Council. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Non-Public Hearing Items 4.1a Approval of minutes for Planning Commission meetings of November 17, 2005 & December 1, 2005 Motion made by Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to approve the non-public hearing portion of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried by group vote. 4.2 Public Hearing Items 4.2a Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract 6503 (John A.Wilson) 4.2b Approval of Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 11384 (McIntosh and Associates) 4.2c Approval of Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 11386 (Maurice Etchechury) 4.2d Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract 6638 (The Keith Companies) 4.2e Approval of Zone Change 05-1165 (Smith-Tech) 4.2f Approval of Zone Change 05-1381 (McIntosh &Associates) Planning Commission — Thursday, January 19, 2005 Page 2 4.2g Approval of Zone Change 05-1507 (Marino &Associates) 4.2h Approval of Continuance to February 2, 2006 Zone Change 05-1686 (Quad -Knopf) The public hearing is opened. David Reese stated that he would like to remove 4.2d. Gary Buntman, Crimson Resource Management, asked to remove 4.2c. Commissioner Tkac abstained from agenda item 4.2e (5.6). Commissioner Spencer removed item 4.2d. The public hearing is closed, except for 4.2h. Commissioner Tkac moved, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to approve all consent agenda items, except for items 4.2c and 4.2d which were removed from consent. Motion carried by group vote. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS —Tentative Parcel Maps/Tentative Tract Maps/Zone Changes 5.1 Vesting Tentative Tract 6503 (John A. Wilson) Heard on consent calendar. 5.2 Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 11384 (McIntosh and Associates) Heard on consent calendar. 5.3 Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 11386 (Maurice Etchechury) The public hearing is opened. Staff report given. Gary Buntman, Crimson Resource Management, stated they are the mineral owner below the current 7 'h acre parcel, which has a producing oil well within the fenced parcel, which is roughly in the center of the parcel. He indicated the type of use is of a light industrial variety, and that their well number 18-1 is an active producing well which has an electrified pumping unit with some polychemical tanks around it. He indicated that the flow lines are presently subsurface under the asphalt-like chip sealed surface. He further indicated that they have electrical lines going to the motor that drives the pumping unit, which are also subsurface. Mr. Buntman indicated that the light industrial zoning is conducive to both the mineral and surface uses. He stated that as long as Crimson continues to have 24 hour access to this well and the associated flow lines, the pumping unit, the well head, the electrical lines, the starter, and that there is a responsive party to move equipment in short order from the vicinity of the well to allow for servicing, they would urge the commission to approve this parceling. He indicated that this assumes that they will continue from this point forward to be net zero financially with regard to any surface use improvement requested by the application, or subsequent owner, or subsequent lessor, or subsequent lessee. He indicated these are requests such as flow line relocation, landscaping, painting or any other associated facility re-location. Mr. Crimson stated that as the mineral owner they should not be required to subsidize surface improvement, and would appreciate it if it needs to be added as a condition to the parceling. Mr. Crimson further apologized for not being present at the December 15th hearing on the 140 acre parcel due north of this project, as they were not notified by Staff of a meeting on that 140 acre, which was confirmed with Staff today. Maurice Etchechury, representing the owner of the property, clarified that Mr. Buntman stated that the present use of the property is a light industrial use, but it is actually related to a service industrial use or M-2 use, which it is being zoned in this annexation to the City. He indicated that an SI or M-2 use is concurrent with parking vehicles outside, etc., and this is a construction yard, and there are many trucks and vehicles parked out in the yard. He indicated that the oil well within the fenced are that is the yard today, is electrified, and the service to that is actually overhead and not underground. Mr. Etchechury indicated that Mr. Buntman's request for access will be granted. He indicated that they will provide Crimson with a code for the key pad entry gate so that they will have 24 hour access to the property. Planning Commission — Thursday, January 19, 2005 Page 3 The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Tkac inquired if Staff sees any huge differences in the overhead and/or underground lines. Staff responded that Crimson does not want to incur any financial costs as a result of the urban development that will occur, and that it is understood that the developer would have to accommodate the existing resource activity within the site at no cost to the mineral right owners. Mr. Etchechury confirmed that it is understood in California that whoever is there first has a prior right, and any developer is going to have to take into account that operating system and make sure that it can continue to operate. Mr. Etchechury stated that he is not fluent in the actual maintenance costs as related to painting the unit itself. He indicated that he is alright with relocating wells, underground electrical service, relocating flow lines, etc. for further development being done at the developer's cost. Commissioner Tragish inquired if there was a need for additional conditions as suggested by Mr. Buntman. Staff stated that existing Codes require that the developer show how they will incorporate the existing uses within their project, and if the mineral right owner somehow feels that they have incurred a cost as a result of the development of the property that would be a civil matter, and Staff does not have any way to enforce or understand if they are trying to make the mineral resource developer pay for any of it. Staff indicated that they will see a set of plans and make sure that they provide the appropriate setbacks and improvements for the area, and they do accommodate the existing. However, if there's any cost incurred, that would be a civil matter between the mineral rights owner and the developer. It would be outside the pervue of the PC to put the requested conditions in. Commissioner Tragish further inquired if a condition is required that the operator will have 24 hour access to the site. Staff responded that this condition could be added. Commissioner Tragish moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to approve tentative parcel map 11386 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached Resolution, including a condition that the proposed developer shall provide 24 hour access to the well. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tragish, Lomas NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Blockley 5.4 Revised Vesting Tentative Tract 6332 (Smith Tech) Public hearing is opened. Staff report given. No one spoke in opposition to Staff's recommendation. Bob Smith with SmithTech USA discussed the ag setback variance. Mr. Smith stated that it will be a year in February when the original tentative came and since that time the GPA on the northwestern 40 has been approved, and on the south the road would create the buffer (required McKee Road), and the portion directly to the west and the south will be heard in March. Mr. Smith stated that they would request that the variance be approved, and if it is not approved the final map could record and they would have to come back with parcel map waivers to create the lots that are left out due to the setback. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Lomas inquired about the waste treatment facility as a basis for denial of the lot, width and depth reduction request. She further inquired about the western portion of the property where her map shows there is an M-1 property and a C-1 property Staff indicated that they are not sure about that agricultural zoned property as it relates to the status of this property's relationship to the sewer treatment plant. Staff indicated it may or may not stay agricultural. Staff indicated that if it changed designation before the map is recorded then the condition is a moot point, and there is no longer a zone adjacent, and they could do it. Staff indicated that it appears that the applicant does not want to wait, and wants to record this map prior to the zoning actually being in effect, and would probably be July before it would actually go into Planning Commission — Thursday, January 19, 2005 Page 4 effect. Staff indicated that this is not a condition that Staff would fight extremely hard for, so if the Planning Commission wants to look at amending this or removing this condition it will not be opposed. Commissioner Lomas inquired about the southern boundary, to which Staff responded the southern boundary is McKee Road, and thus staff does not consider this being adjacent to the ag as the collector street separates the two. Therefore, the southern boundary does not need to be addressed. Commissioner Lomas inquired about the difference in setbacks for the M-1 and agricultural, to which Staff responded that there would be no required lot depth that is different from the minimum lot depth along the edge, even with the M-1. Staff indicated that if it develops as M-1, the M-1 would have to provide a 6' block wall along the perimeter. Commissioner Tragish inquired if the setbacks would stay in place until such time as development occurred, and then the setbacks would terminate. Staff responded in the affirmative, indicating that in this type of circumstance, if the agricultural adjacent zoning changes prior to recordation of the map, then they don't have to provide the lot depth separation. Staff confirmed that this would not apply to the C-1, but only to the southern half of the map on the west side. Commissioner Tragish inquired if there could be a condition, that if the land that's currently zoned agricultural changes prior to recordation of this map that the setback requirements would terminate. Staff responded in the affirmative, stating that a condition to number 22 could be added which states that "If the agricultural zoning is changed prior to recordation of the adjacent lot, this condition does not apply." Commissioner Tragish inquired of the applicant about the suggested condition, to which Mr. Smith replied that they will probably record the map prior to July the zoning will become complete so that they'd essentially loose the 10 lots, but then as soon as the zoning got complete, they could come back in and do parcel map waivers and get the lots back, which is what they will do. Commissioner Tragish stated that while it may be more work for the applicant and staff that at least the applicant can get some lots built within the conditions of the market. Commissioner Johnson inquired where the '/ mile buffer of the city sewer farm was located, to which Staff pointed out where it comes through. Commissioner Johnson stated that he is in favor of the project with the added language to condition number 22. Commissioner McGinnis stated that with Staff's indication of their position on reduction of lot size, and the appearance that we're in the midst of a development situation there that appears to be eminent, he does not feel that they should have the applicant go through unnecessary steps, and would have no problem voting for the reduction in lot sizes as it stands right now. Commissioner Lomas stated that she concurs with Commissioner McGinnis. Commissioner Tragish moved, to approve revised vesting tentative tract map 6332 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached Resolution Exhibit "A", with the condition that if the agricultural zone changes prior the recordation of the adjacent map then the condition should disappear as it pertains to condition 22. Commissioner Lomas asked for clarification of Commissioner McGinnis' position. Commissioner McGinnis clarified that he approves the project the way the applicant has proposed it, and does not support an amendment to what he wants done, as they should not apply the reconditioning with respect to agriculture. He indicated that he does not want to vote against the project, but believes that it should go through as the applicant has requested. Commissioner Lomas stated that is does require a bit of an amendment, and that she concurs with Commissioner McGinnis. She indicated that the question is whether or not it should go through with an amended motion, and that she believes that development of the parcel to the west is imminent, and doubts very seriously that it is going to be farmed, as they already have a zone Planning Commission — Thursday, January 19, 2005 Page 5 change application. She indicated that it is going to create more work for everybody to have to come through and deal with a condition that is being requested. Commissioner Lomas inquired if the addition to the condition is needed. Commissioner Tragish stated that it presupposes that the application is going to go through, and presupposes that it would eventually get through shortly. He indicated that he does not know if anything is actually going to happen and is just dealing with what is in front of him at this moment. Commissioner Tragish suggests that Commissioner McGinnis make a motion and see how it goes. Commissioner Johnson inquired about Commissioner McGinnis proposal of eliminating condition 22 entirely, to which Commissioner McGinnis responded that he is proposing that they give the applicant his request of reducing the lot line size not conditioned upon any rezoning of the adjacent parcel. Staff confirmed that this proposal would eliminate condition 22. Commissioner McGinnis moved, seconded by Commissioner Spencer, to approve the revised vesting tentative tract map 6332 with the findings and conditions set forth in the attached Resolution Exhibit "A", and eliminate staff's condition number 22. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Lomas NOES: Commissioner Tragish ABSENT: Commissioner Blockley Commissioner Tragish stated that due to it's proximity to the City Waste Treatment Plant is a consideration, but primarily they need to deal with the particular projects on an even-handed basis, and does not condone waiving the condition entirely just because there's a potential pending application which may be withdrawn or canceled, or be months or years before it is approved. He pointed out that the developer should adhere to the existing ordinances as suggested by the Planning Department, and eliminating condition 22 in its entirety is a little drastic, and would have preferred a modified condition which would have eliminated by the achievement by the adjacent owner of obtaining its alleged zone change. 5.5 Vesting Tentative Tract 6638 (The Keith Companies) The public hearing is opened. Staff report given. David Reese, 12759 Lean, south of this proposed development, stated that his number one concern is that it is very hilly country, and from his property to phase three it rises about 1,000 feet, and that phase one drops probably 25 feet. He stated that he run off is tremendous and the clay is very dense, and when you add streets, curbing, sidewalks and driveways, the water has to go somewhere. He indicated that north of his property is a proposed 12' drainage easement, and he is unclear as to what a drainage easement is. He inquired how this will impact his property directly south of this drainage easement. He further indicated that the cut and fill concerns him tremendously. He further inquired about the connecting road between Lean Place and Comanche. He indicated that he would not like to see traffic go through this road as it makes a round about way around, but he's not quite sure what making it into a cul-de-sac at the end of his property would entail. He stated that he does appreciate the large lot sizes being proposed. Jesse Leal, 4348 Comanche Drive stated that he submitted a letter to the Planning Department. He stated he and his neighbors have several concerns about this project, including drainage, Mr. Leal stated that on August 9, 1983 they had .77 inches of rain in half an hour and the previous owner that he purchased his property from, and his neighbor had 20 feet of water up into their property. He stated that the road being proposed is right up against the property lines and those 2 roads are at least 10-12 feet higher than the lowest spot in that area and so he has concerns about how the run off will be addressed across 178. He indicated that they enjoy the hills in the area, and proposed that the applicant provide some sort of access that would allow them to get up to Planning Commission — Thursday, January 19, 2005 Page 6 Paladino Drive to be able to access their neighborhood through Grand Canyon. Mr. Leal further stated that Grand Canyon is one of the two main feeds to this project, and that Paladino will be phased causing traffic concerns. He further stated his concern about the cut and fill issues. Arlan Andracia,12761 Lean Place, stated that he concurs with his neighbors' concurs. Marvin Roe, lives on Sunny Hills Court, south of the project, stated his property was flooded with the rain. He indicated that he abandoned Comanche from 178 to the city property in lieu of a 30" storm drain, which did not solve the drainage problem. He stated that water drainage problem needs to be resolved by the City. He further stated his concern for the traffic issues. Steve Purcell, 5805 Sunny Hills Court, stated that if Grand Canyon Street is the only access street back to the property that will be developed, it will put a lot impact on the traffic in and out of the second phase of Vista Fenestra. Irene Purcell, 5805 Sunny Hills Court, stated she is very concerned with getting on and off Highway 178 at different times of the day. She inquired about the time line for the expansion of 178, and what the plan is to alleviate the traffic. Steve Purcell further stated that with regard to the water flow, it not only comes off the undeveloped property, but there is a considerable amount of water that comes from the south side of 178 from the El Dorado development, and drains into Jesse Leal's house. Ron Henderson, 12102 Vista Montana, stated that the back of his property is up against the proposed parcel, and stated his concern with traffic. He would like a consideration for a stop light at 178 on Valley as an access. He further asked for clarification as to the 12' easement, and if he will have access to his property, etc. A.J. Whitaker, StanTech, formerly the Keiths Companies, representing the landowner, addressed some of the concerns raised. With regard to Mr. Reese's concerns with cut and fill, Mr. Whitaker stated that this is an earthmoving project, and the grading will be consistent with the surrounding development across Alfred Harrell Highway and across 178, and there will be continued development north as S&S Homes continues to proceed with their tract north of Paladino. Mr. Whitaker stated they will balance the site and after the development occurs there will not be an excessive amount of stockpiled dirt as it is now. With respect to drainage, Mr. Whitaker stated that they recognize that there is a significant amount of off-site drainage currently entering this site from the south side of the property. He stated that as part of this development they will have to mitigate the off-site drainage. He indicated that it will have to continue to run through the site as it does now, and they are proposing to mitigate this through the use of a storm drain that will carry the water through their site completely and release down where it is currently being released now into the drainage channel on the north side of the site. He indicated that the 12' drainage easement that is being proposed along the south property line has two functions. It is intended to intercept what off-site drainage may be flowing north from the adjacent property onto this property, and it is also intended to intercept if there's any field slopes along the south edge of the proposed development it will intercept drainage coming off of those slopes in a concrete V-ditch and direct that water into the storm drain that will then carry the on-site water to an on-site retention basis, and any off-site water will be routed through the previously mentioned storm drainage. Mr. Whitaker stated that they will have to deal with the storm water and it is their intention to do so. He indicated that with regard to the traffic issues, they have been restricted by the City from gaining access to this property from Alfred Harrell Highway or Highway 178, and therefore there will be no traffic from this development being routed to the east or to the south directly. He indicated that the two access points for the project are located on Paladino to the north and to Grand Canyon near the northeast corner of the property. He noted that improvements of Paladino will occur before construction of this site commences. Mr. Whitaker stated that in all likelihood the storm drain that they are proposing through the project would possibly alleviate some of the existing flooding problems that are being encountered by those homeowners. He stated that with regard to access to the foothills mentioned by Mr. Leal, they have had discussions with Staff concerning the issue of access to the existing homes, and they are willing to work with Staff to come up with a plan for incorporating some sort of a trail system into the project to provide the access. Planning Commission — Thursday, January 19, 2005 Page 7 The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Spencer stated his concerns are with drainage. He inquired about the phasing, as phase one does not incorporate the development of all of Paladino. He further stated his concern that they are putting this subdivision in harms way of protected freeway 178, and inquired what is anticipated for Paladino's access at the freeway. He reiterated that his concern is that the subdivision map does not reflect what is being developed by phases, and the subdivision not acknowledging the interaction of Paladino and the future freeway. Ms. Shaw responded that with regard to Parcel A, and the letter from Cal Trans, they are talking about State Route 178 on the south at the existing roadway and not to the future Freeway 178. She pointed out that the little parcel at the corner of Alfred Harrell Highway and 178 has a waiver of access from that parcel to Alfred Harrell Highway, and therefore it cannot get access from that point. She stated that Cal Trans has said that it will allow access to 178 to the south. She stated with regard to future State Route 178, it's a specific plan line and they are required to do a reservation, and the circulation element shows Grand Canyon and Paladino intersecting roughly in that location, and there will not be an intersection of a freeway into roadways, but rather a grade separation. She indicated that the freeway has not been designed yet, but it looks like it will probably go up and over the roadway at the intersection of Grand Canyon and Paladino. Ms. Shaw indicated that in response to the construction of Paladino Drive, she indicated that 6 and 14 are duplicative conditions so 14 can be stricken. She indicated that they constructed the requirements to set up how they thought the major routes should relate to the phasing, and the reason they allowed the construction of Paladino to stop at Cornejos is because there was no access to Paladino at any other point, and therefore absent Paladino being connected all the way to Masterson they'd have a lot of pavement with no one driving on it, and they try to avoid that. She indicated that it may not occur since S&S Homes to the north is going to be building most of Paladino, but the condition was set up to reflect what might have if S&S Homes does not go in. Ms. Shaw indicated that Public Works has no problem with changing the condition to reflect construction of all of Paladino along the northern boundary. Commissioner Spencer inquired for clarification as to Lot A, to which Ms. Shaw responded that Lot A means it is not a buildable lot, and is within the specific plan line, so essentially that lot is reserved, and the City will be purchasing that lot for the freeway right-of-way. Commissioner Spencer inquired about asking the developer to reconfigure the subdivision to where Lot A is not a part of it. Ms. Shaw indicated this is commonly the way they handle a subdivision that has a specific line crossing it, stating the actual specific plan line as laid out will be laid on the tract and that area will usually be shown as a reservation, and since it's a little corner they called it Lot A (State Route 178 Specific Plan line reserved area). Ms. Shaw stated that they are accommodating the design of the tract to the layout of the future freeway. Commissioner Spencer inquired if Grand Canyon will be completed in its entirety with Phase two, to which Ms. Shaw responded that it will be constructed along the full frontage of the trace in phase two, and is included in the conditions of approval. Ms. Shaw indicated that it could state, "With phase two Grand Canyon will be constructed from Paladino to the southern tract boundary." Commissioner Tkac inquired to what extent 178 is being re-routed, as it seems as laid out currently, S&S Homes has almost all of that developed, but there is no right-of-way apparent. He inquired as to where 178 begins and where it connects. Staff explained the lay out design. Commissioner Tkac inquired what has to be done to make the soil so it isn't so clay-like. Staff responded that there will not be sumps that pump it back into the ground, but will rather be diverted through the storm drains into the Kern River. Staff indicated that they will be reviewing a drainage study for the entire tract in the future. Commissioner Tkac inquired if they should see a drainage plan somewhat before so they know where the water is going to go and they know how to and how not to build. Staff responded that it will be part of the applicant's preliminary design work when they lay out the tract, but they don't have to submit the drainage study to the City with the proposed tentative map, however it is expected before any map is recorded. Staff confirmed that it is the developer's responsibility to lay out the drainage. Commissioner Tkac stated that he would like to know that there's going to be enough infrastructure in place already built before everybody starts building in and around that area. He inquired if there's a general plan that talks about an underlying Planning Commission — Thursday, January 19, 2005 Page 8 infrastructure of pipe lines that are going to end up back down the river. Staff responded that it would be part of the drainage study that will be submitted. Staff indicated that before any grading or improvement plan is looked at, a drainage study will be reviewed and approved, and therefore the infrastructure will have to be in and will have to accommodate the designated floods. Commissioner Tkac inquired if Paladino is almost all the way through to Grand Canyon currently, to which Staff responded that it is, and presumably will go through to Alfred Harrell Highway within the year. Commissioner Tkac further inquired how far north Grand Canyon will extend, to which Staff responded that Grand Canyon is a collector and will cross north Paladino and then forks to the west and intersects with Masterson approximately a quarter of a mile north of Paladino, and then goes west from there. Commissioner Tkac inquired about Lane Place and if it will actually go northeast as a point of ingress for the tract being considered, to which Staff responded that Lane and Comanche intersect the tract's southern boundary right in the middle of the tract, and actually makes a U. There will be a road that connects the two existing roadways, but that roadway will have no communication with this current tract. Staff indicated that the roadways within the tract boundary will be abandoned and will substitute the little connector road between the two pieces. Commissioner Tkac reiterated that drainage is the biggest concern in this area. Commissioner Johnson stated that he is also concerned with the drainage. He inquired about whether there will or will not be a sump on the tract. He additionally inquired if when the drainage study is submitted if the City looks at the 100 year flood, 500 year flood issues, to which Staff responded in the affirmative. Staff explained that the ground out in this location does not suck or drain into the ground, and so detention basins are put in to take the peak off the flow so there is an additional flow that comes off of the area that is now paved and which is held in the basin for awhile and then bled off into the existing channel. Staff indicated that it is not a sump per se, but is just a holding area for the water. Commissioner Lomas indicated that her concern is traffic and the timing of Paladino. Staff indicated that there will be improvements to Masterson to Paladino. With respect to the timing from Grand Canyon to Masterson, staff indicated they are not sure of the timing, but that it should be constructed within the next year. Commissioner Lomas stated that her concern is that while the tract shows access on Paladino and on Grand Canyon, everything is being funneled out on Grand Canyon and that appears to be a lot of traffic, before the improvement to Paladino to Masterson is done. Commissioner Lomas inquired if typically they would require a 32' stretch of road. Staff responded that applies if there is no street connection to an existing maintained street. Staff indicated that in this case they will be connecting to Alfred Harrell Highway, and it is all right turns. Commissioner Lomas inquired about the applicant's generous offer to accommodate some type of trail system. Mr. Whitaker, for the applicant, responded that it was his understanding in discussion with Ms. Eng that there is a staging area for the existing trail system located north of the project site along Paladino. Staff responded that on the specific parks and trails plan there is a staging area and a trail that goes along the wash and eventually there's a culvert under Alfred Harrell Highway that is actually a large culvert that you can walk and lead a horse under. Staff indicated that the parks and trails plan has a policy that states, "Gated subdivisions within the planning area shall be designed to provide public access to parks and trails and allow trail linkages through subdivisions where needed." Staff indicated that they do need a trail connection, and they have appropriate language for a condition that would require the applicant to provide a multiuse trail from the south end of the subdivision along the public street connector up to where Canejo Road entrance comes out where people could then cross Paladino and get into the trail system easier. Commissioner Lomas inquired about Mr. Henderson's 12' easement. Staff responded that they believe Mr. Henderson was referring to the easement actually shown on the subdivision itself because at the very southwest corner of the subdivision there is a 12' drainage easement directly adjacent to his piece of property. Staff explained the easement. Mr. Whitaker clarified that the intention is to take the off-site flow, those waters that would normally be coming onto the site from the south, collecting those and directing it through the site, releasing into the existing channel to Planning Commission — Thursday, January 19, 2005 Page 9 the north. He indicated that the on-site flows will all be routed through the detention basin. He reiterated that the off-site flows will not be going through the detention basin. Commissioner Lomas inquired where the V-ditch is located, to which Mr. Whitaker responded that it is located within that 12'wide drainage easement. Commissioner Spencer asked for clarification regarding conditions of approval under prior to recordation of these final maps, conditions 15.4 which states that "The subdivider is responsible for verifying that existing streets within the boundary of the tract are constructed to City standards and will reconstruct streets within the boundary not to standard." Staff responded that this is a standard condition applied to tracts to give the developer and engineer notice that any existing streets that are within their boundary are up to standards. Staff indicated that in this particular case there really isn't anything within the boundary of the tract that needs to be considered. Commissioner commented that if in the future Staff could provide freeway alignments, buffer zones like the treatment facility, in their package it would be really helpful. Commissioner McGinnis inquired about the applicant's need to reduce the depth from 140' to 133' on the property adjacent to the south side of the project where they have RS zoning. A five minute break was taken. Commissioner McGinnis indicated that his question was answered during the break and he is satisfied. Commissioner Tkac moved, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration and to approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6638 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached Resolution Exhibit "A", adding a condition to provide a multiuse trail from the southern most public street in the subdivision to Paladino Drive at the Canejo Street entrance, and also providing that an easement for public access to the trail shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Public Works and Planning Departments, and including that maintenance of the trail shall be the responsibility of the Homeowners' Association for Tract 6638, and trail design and improvements shall be approved by the Public Works and Planning Departments, and modifying Public Works condition number 6.2.2 to read, "Construct Grand Canyon Drive full half width to the southern boundary of the subdivision, incorporating memorandum from Marian Shaw dated January 18, 2006. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Lomas NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Blockley 5.6 Zone Change 05-1165 (Smith-Tech) Heard on consent calendar. 5.7 Zone Change 05-1381 (McIntosh &Associates) Heard on consent calendar. 5.8 Zone Change 05-1507 (Marino &Associates) Heard on consent calendar. Planning Commission — Thursday, January 19, 2005 Page 10 5.9 Zone Change 05-1686 (Quad -Knopf) Continued to February 2, 2006. Heard on consent calendar. 5.10 Pre-Zoning 05-1082 (Smith-Tech) Public hearing is opened. Staff report given. No one spoke in opposition to Staff's recommendation. Bob Smith with Smith-Tech stated that they are in agreement with Staff's conditions. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner McGinnis moved, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration and approve the Zone Change 05-1082 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached Resolution Exhibit "A", and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Lomas NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Blockley 6. WORKSHOP Fire Access Issues Presentation by Dave Weirather, Fire Plans Examiner. Commissioner Lomas inquired about the PC sending a recommendation to the City Council as she is disturbed that the Fire Department does not have the tools they need to enforce access issues. Commissioner Johnson inquired how agreeable the construction companies have been to moving the porta potties and the construction material. Mr. Weirather responded they do get compliance, but they cannot cover all of the areas where construction is going on, so when there is an emergency it is too late. Commissioner Johnson inquired if a situation has occurred to this point, to which Mr.Weirather responded that there has not been anything that he is aware of, however, there may be some record of delays. Commissioner Tkac inquired if there is water available in a tract of homes being built, to which Mr. Weirather responded that it is required by Code that water within 300 feet, and access be established before any combustibles, such as wood, are placed on site. Commissioner Tkac stated that one solution might be having Code Enforcement enforce these access issues. Commissioner McGinnis stated the Planning Commission is concerned with the health, safety and welfare of the community. He inquired how a private street community is protected by police. Staff responded they are not sure and they would have to check with the Police Department. Mr.Weirather stated that they can issue citations for violations, but they have a hard time with private streets, and would not include parked vehicles in the street. Mr. Weirather asked the Planning Commission to consider the impacts the reduced streets are having on the community. Commissioner Lomas inquired of Staff if they can get back to the Planning Commission as to what they think the Planning Commission can do. Staff responded that the Planning Commission has to depend on Staff when the projects come before the Planning Commission, because all of Staff, including fire, is present during meetings that go over projects, and if Staff sees these types of problems with gated communities and streets, they have to advise the Planning Commission. Staff indicated that the Planning Commission only has a limited authority in this area because they look at the subdivision map act and Planning Commission — Thursday, January 19, 2005 Page 11 zoning, and the issues with respect to staffing mentioned by fire regarding enforcement is beyond the Planning Commission's pervue. 7. COMMITTEE REPORTS 7.1 COMMITTEE REPORT REGARDING URBAN DECAY THRESHOLD STUDIES Staff indicated that the committee met two different times, and some interested public members were in attendance. Commissioners Blockley, Johnson and McGinnis were committee members. Staff indicated the committee recommended changes to Staff's recommendations as listed in Exhibit"B". Commissioner Tragish inquired if in Exhibit "A"the term "superstore" will exclude wholesale clubs or other establishments as set forth in that exhibit, to which Staff responded that Exhibit"A" is what was deemed unacceptable, and Exhibit"B" is the one that is recommended by the committee, and it deletes the reference to "superstores." Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to accept the committee report, and schedule the policies for consideration at the next general plan cycle. Motion carried by group vote. 8. COMMUNICATIONS: Public Hearing Notice Procedures Report from Planning Director. Commissioner Lomas stated that while she likes everything that Glendale did, she thinks it is a lofty endeavor and that realistically we probably can't do all of the things that they did. Commissioner Lomas stated that we could start out in this direction, and start with the noticing of the property itself. She inquired if this would be an ordinance or just policy, to which Staff responded they did not know which way it would go at this point. Commissioner Lomas indicated that her preference would be to go towards an ordinance. Commissioner Lomas inquired about the wording in the ordinance and whether it would include technical terms plus every day language, to which Staff responded that they would have to do both. Commissioner Lomas stated that would prefer both as well. She further stated that her goal is to get citizen involvement as soon as possible as it would benefit all parties. She indicated that the applicant would benefit from putting the sign up as soon as possible after talking with the City to see what the neighborhood response is going to be. Staff indicated that they could consider a 10 day after submittal of an application; however, it would not be appropriate to do when somebody comes in and talks to Staff, Commissioner Lomas stated that most of the time the developer is already meeting with the residences, and she did not think that requirement needed to be in the ordinance as Glendale did. She stated that with regard to the recommended signage size, she agrees with what has been proposed. She inquired about using the City's phone number and the applicant's phone number. Staff indicated that it would be appropriate. She indicated that she would like to see both so that the community has a choice. Commissioner Tragish stated that he agrees with Commissioner Lomas' comments. He supplemented by stating that he is unsure as to what the Planning Commission is being asked to do tonight. Staff indicated that it was just some ideas and not a recommendation. Staff indicated that they would recommend sending the signage up to City Council. Commissioner Tragish stated that he does not want to send the City Council anything right now, as he would like to send them something specific. He stated that he would like to see a specific recommendation made to the City Council to consider noticing, specifically recommending the posting and the spacing of the signage and its contents, and noticing within 500'. Commissioner Johnson inquired if an ordinance is instituted, what the cost benefit will be to the City if there are enforcement cost issues. Staff indicated that they could require an affidavit from the applicant that indicates that the posting has been done. Planning Commission — Thursday, January 19, 2005 Page 12 Commissioner Tragish further stated that he would like Staff to be more specific as to what the Planning Commission's proposal will be to City Council, and requested something less theoretical and more specific. They would like more specifics as to the signage details. Staff responded that they would like to meet with the Planning Commission to make sure they all agree on what they want to go to council. This issue is deferred until February 2, 2006. 9. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commissioner Lomas inquired about the pedestrian openings. She further inquired about the status of the sidewalk and tree recommendation, to which Staff responded that a report has come back from Council Committee, but they do not recall the exact status, and therefore will get back with the Planning Commission. 10. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Dana Cornelius, Recording Secretary JAMES D. MOVIUS, Secretary Planning Director February 6, 2006