Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-01-08 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Meeting – May 1, 2008 - 5:30 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue 1. ROLL CALL: Present: , Commissioners Blockley, Andrews, McGinnisStanley, Tragish, Tkac Absent: Commissioner Johnson 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 3. APPOINTMENT OF CHAIRMAN AND VICE-CHAIRMAN: Commissioner Tragish nominated Russell Johnson as Chair, and Tom McGinnis for Vice-Chair, seconded by Commissioner Andrews. Motion unanimously carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Blockley, Andrews, McGinnis, Stanley, Tragish Five minute break taken Hearing reconvened, and Commissioner Tkac joined the Commission at 5:34pm. 4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS: None. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR: 5.1 Non-Public Hearing Items 5.1a Approval of minutes for Planning Commission meeting of April 3, 2008. 5.1b Acceptance of Planning Director’s Report on Administrative Review 05-1407 (Castle & Cooke California) Commissioner Tragish stated that on the April 3, 2008 Minutes, page 2 under agenda item 5.2c references that Mr. Johnson, Mr. Tragish and Mr. Blockley recused themselves, however on page 5 the motion shows that Blockley, Johnson and Tragish abstained from those votes. Commissioner Tragish questioned if it is a proper characterization because they did not abstain from voting, but rather recused themselves from voting. Mr. Sherfy responded that it should not show those commissioners as abstaining and would only show those that voted. Commissioner Tragish requested that on page 5 where there are 3 motions made referencing abstention by Tragish, Blockley and Johnson show they recused from participating. Commissioner Tragish moved to approve the Minutes for the regular Planning Commissioner meeting on April 3, 2008, agenda item 5.2c, and then stated he adopted Mr. Sherfy’s comments that the motion would be for all of the Non-Public Hearing Items on the Consent Calendar, motion was seconded by Commissioner Andrews. Commissioner Tkac commented that he declares a conflict of interest of all properties owned by Old River Land Company that they are voting for in this, if they are, in fact, in this. Motion carried by group vote. 5.2 Public Hearing Items 5.2a Approval of Extension of Time of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6410 (Delmarter & Deifel Engineering) Minutes of Planning Commission – May 1, 2008 Page 2 5.2b Approval of Extension of Time of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6454 (Dewalt Corporation, Inc.) 5.2c Approval of Extension of Time of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6331 (SmithTech/USA, Inc.) 5.2d Approval of Continuance of Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 11755 to June 5, 2008 (M.S. Walker & Associates) 5.2e Approval of Continuance of Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 11783 to June 5, 2008 (DeWalt Corporation) 5.2f Approval of Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 11809 (Summit Engineering) 5.2g Approval of Zone Change 08-0179 (Summit Engineering) 5.2h Approval of Zone Change 07-2195 (Milestone Management) 5.2i Approval of Planned Development Review 08-0387 (SmithTech/USA, Inc.) The public hearing is opened, no one from the audience spoke in favor or against the consent agenda items. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Tragish requested removal of Consent Agenda item 5.2 (regular agenda item 6.4), and Consent Agenda item 5.2h (regular agenda item 6.4), and Consent Agenda item 5.2i (regular agenda item 6.5). Mr. Sherfy stated that 5.2d and 5.2e are also removed from the consent calendar. Commissioner Tragish moved to approve the public hearing items with the understanding the public hearing is closed on all the items except 5.2h and 5.2i. Commissioner Tkac reiterated that with regard to 5.2f (agenda item 6.2) and 5.2g (agenda item 6.3) he has a conflict of interest, and other than that, seconded the motion as stated. Motion unanimously carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Blockley, Andrews, McGinnis, Stanley, Tragish, Tkac 6. PUBLIC HEARING – VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAPS / ZONE CHANGES /PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 6.1 Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 11783 (DeWalt Corporation) Heard on consent calendar. 6.2 Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 11809 (Summit Engineering) Heard on consent calendar. 6.3 Zone Change 08-0179 (Summit Engineering) Heard on consent calendar. 6.4 Zone Change 07-2195 (Milestone Management) The public hearing is opened, staff report given. No one spoke in favor or against this project. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Tragish inquired if when this comes back if the PC will be able to make suggestions or if they are limited to health and safety. Staff responded that this zone is not an overlay zone, but rather is an outright PCD zone so tonight the actual plans are before the PC. Commissioner Tragish inquired if the fast food restaurant has been built, to which Staff responded that the fast food restaurant is on the C-2 portion of the property and not on the PCD, and therefore does not have a PCD review through the PC. Commissioner Tragish inquired if it will be new construction, to which Staff responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Tragish further inquired if 16,581 sq. ft. future retail space would be new construction or a vacancy at the shopping site. Staff responded that they believed it was a vacancy on the shopping site, west of the sporting good store that is there. Commissioner Tragish inquired what the impact is of adding more retail space in this shopping center even as it is designed with the current traffic at the particular corner in question. He stated that he is concerned with the traffic impacts. Staff responded that they did not do a formal Minutes of Planning Commission – May 1, 2008 Page 3 traffic study, but in looking at the square footage proposed for the CVC drug store, and what was initially approved with a fueling station at Ralf’s, the change in traffic generation was negligible, and therefore there were no comments at that time regarding to any traffic changes or impacts. Commissioner Tragish inquired if that location at California and Stockdale is the busiest intersection in town, to which Mr. Walker responded that it typically ranks in the top 5. Commissioner Tragish commented that due to the development to the south of this property (New Stine), there is more traffic at this intersection then there was five or eight years ago, and he is concerned if they would be making a bad situation worse by agreeing to how they want to lay out this particular pharmacy. Mr. Walker responded that it is a busy intersection, and the traffic patterns that are most effected at this location are during the morning peak commute period, and at that during that time there is very little traffic attraction to the pharmacy as their peak time of the day is later in the morning or in the evening, and therefore it does not effect the operation of the intersection. Mr. Walker also reiterated that the overall trip generation of the retail area is well within what was originally designed. Commissioner Tragish stated that he wants to make sure that the way this project is designed that it does not add additional problems to the current traffic situation, and questions whether it should have a different location on the property to mitigate any potential traffic problems at the intersection. Mr. Walker responded that this is a very well thought out location and does not directly effect anything on the street, and that there will be no changes to the entrances to the center, and all of the activity for the drug store is within the parking lots. Commissioner Tragish further asked if the level of service will be higher and specifically if the decel lanes are sufficient, to which Mr. Walker responded that the decel lanes are auxiliary lanes and function as both a right turn decel lane as well as an acceleration lane out of the driveway’s location. Mr. Walker referenced the lanes in front of the Promenade on Rosedale Highway as an example. He also pointed out that most of the traffic will utilize the traffic lights, or the existing driveway where the pharmacy will be located. Mr. Walker stated that they see no real substantive change to the operation, and could even be less because theoretically the gas station would actually have more trips generated then the drug store. Commissioner Tragish inquired as to the elevation changes, and if Staff is satisfied that they comply with the new ordinances. Staff responded that they do correspond to the new ordinance requirements. Commissioner Blockley commented that the drawing was not real clear, but he feels that the driveways are sufficient. Commissioner Stanley stated that of the three corners at this intersection the subject center is probably the least generating of the traffic, especially in the peak morning and afternoon sessions. He stated that he is okay with the traffic and the way it is laid out. Commissioner Tkac inquired if on a PCD such as this, if Staff is okay with the already determined a pre-approved tree size. Staff responded in the affirmative, except that Staff was concerned with the trees replaced by Crispy Cream with Palm trees. Commissioner Tkac also inquired if there is a drive-thru on the CVS Pharmacy. Staff responded that there is drive-thru, and that the cars would be coming from the west towards the east. Commissioner Tkac inquired if the CVS Pharmacy is bigger or smaller than their model normally approves. Roger Verbosa with Milestone Management, acting as a representative of Landmark Retail Group and CVS Pharmacies, stated that this is the preferred size for the CVS building, and therefore would be the most common size at other locations. Commissioner Tkac stated that he likes the decel lane concepts that mirror the Promenade lanes. Commissioner Blockley moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt a Resolution making findings approving the Notice of Exemption and approving the zone change from PCD (Planned Commercial Development) to PCD on approximately 1.8 acres as shown on Exhibit A-2, and recommend the same to City Council. Motion unanimously carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Blockley, Andrews, McGinnis, Stanley, Tragish, Tkac Minutes of Planning Commission – May 1, 2008 Page 4 6.5 Planned Development Review 08-0387 (SmithTech/USA, Inc.) The public hearing is opened. Staff report given. No one in the audience spoke against Staff’s recommendation. Bob Smith with SmithTech/USA stated he is present to answer any questions. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Tragish inquired as to the condition of approval that provides that the PC is to review and approve preliminary development plans which achieve continuity of theme and design, and specifically that the development must meet the design and guidelines set forth by the master builder, their site design and architecture, and that with the application the planned development combined zone is subject to a public hearing which is what is before the PC currently. He stated that the Staff report indicates that they will review preliminary development plans, which he did not find in the Staff report, and the Staff report contains pictures which are referred to as examples of Spanish Revival Contemporary, which are the same things that are in the master builder book. He inquired if these are the houses they are going to build, or if they are preliminary designs as he did not understand what they are approving. Staff responded that this why they don’t see PUD overlays on single family subdivisions, because you’re basically dealing with a choice of architecture that they have to pick from for the lots that they develop. Therefore, there is not much to look at as far as preliminary development plans other than the architectural structure for the homes. Staff explained that the photos are a menu that the different builders could pick from. Commissioner Tragish asked if they are being asked to approve that they are going to use these different design styles as described in the master builder site designs, and as to the specifics the Planning Department will make the final decision as to whether they adhere to the intent of that particular master builder design requirements. Staff responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Tkac inquired if there is a quantity that they are going to build, to which Staff responded that there is no quota for them to build any certain number of these plans. Staff pointed out that if the developer deviated from these particular plans it would come back before the Planning Commission. Commissioner McGinnis inquired what plans they are approving. Staff responded they are approving the plans on the screen, and the Exhibit 3 Guidelines attached to the Staff report. It was pointed out that the labeling is mislabeled, and should have been for the other plans approved. Commissioner Blockley stated that he is comfortable with approving this. Commissioner Tkac moved, seconded by Commissioner Andrews to approve development plan for file 08-0387 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached Resolution, and to include the informational memo from Jim Movius, Planning Director dated April 28, 2008. Motion unanimously carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Blockley, Andrews, McGinnis, Stanley, Tragish, Tkac 7. COMMUNICATIONS: None. 8. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commissioner Tragish commented as to the Civil Engineer’s sign. Commissioner Tkac thanked former Chairman Blockley for doing a good job. Commissioner McGinnis thanked Ted Blockley as well. Commissioner Blockley thanked the commission. Commissioner Andrews also thanked Chairman Blockley. 9. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 6:29 p.m. Robin Gessner, Recording Secretary May 23, 2008 JAMES D. MOVIUS, Secretary Planning Director