Loading...
05/03/2012 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Adopted 06/07/20121 Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting MAY 03, 2012 I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Aulman called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. and led the pledge of allegiance. Chair Aulman noted that Assistant City Attorney Jolie Houston was participating in the meeting by conference call. II. REPORT ON POSTING THE AGENDA AND ROLL CALL Deputy City Clerk Knerr reported that the agenda for the regular Planning Commission meeting of May 3, 2012 had been posted on April 27, 2012 at 4:30 p.m. Roll Call: Present: Commissioner Brad Bannister; Commissioner Tom Fischer; Commissioner Christi Garcia; Commissioner Kai Lai; Commissioner Ermelindo Puente; Vice Chair Elizabeth Sanford; Chair Terri Aulman Staff Present: Kristi Abrams, Community Development Department Director/Building Official; Don Dey, Transportation Engineer; Melissa Durkin, Planner II; Shawna Freels, City Clerk; Jennifer Knerr, Deputy City Clerk; Teresa Mack, Senior Civil Engineer; Rick Smelser, Public Works Director III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. April 5, 2012 Motion on Item III.A. Motion: to approve the minutes of April 5, 2012. Moved by Commissioner Tom Fischer; seconded by Commissioner Christi Garcia Vote: Motion carried 6-0-1-0 Yes: Commissioner Brad Bannister; Commissioner Tom Fischer; Commissioner Christi Garcia; Commissioner Kai Lai; Commissioner Ermelindo Puente; Vice Chair Elizabeth Sanford No: None 2 Abstain: Chair Terri Aulman Absent: None IV. PRESENTATION BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC No comments or presentations were made. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. RDO-HE 12-01 Residential Development Ordinance Housing Exemption to request the allocation of 60-Residential units, under Section 50.62 (b) (10), on property zoned DGD (Downtown Gateway District), located at Monterey Street and Eleventh Street. APN: 799-33-045 thru 799-33-064 Signature Development Group c/o Tom Quaglia, applicant. Planner II Durkin presented the staff report. Commissioner Bannister asked if approved would it be approving the 60 units. He also asked about Eleventh Street going through to Monterey. Planner II Durkin stated it is an approval of up to 60 units and modification can be made under this approval. She also stated Eleventh Street will not go through to Monterey. Commissioner Puente asked about the fence design for the project. He stated he would like to see a brick fence. He also asked about the water run-off and if new water pipes are needed. Planner II Durkin stated that the fence design and storm easement will be discussed when the process is further along. Commissioner Lai asked about parking on Monterey Street. He also asked about exits onto Monterey and street lights. Planner II Durkin stated that there is no parking on Monterey Street and residents would have to walk around on the sidewalk to exit. She also stated street light will be put into the project as it moves forward. Chair Aulman stated that the project is not being tabulated in the 10 year housing goal. She then asked why is it exempt. Planner II Durkin stated that the City Council has allowed in -fill projects in the downtown area and they are in addition to the housing goal. Vice Chair Sanford asked about traffic flow onto Monterey and would it be a right turn 3 only. Planner II Durkin stated it would be a right turn only onto Monterey. Chair Aulman opened the public hearing. Tom Quaglia of Signature Homes, spoke about the project and working with staff. He stated the project would be private streets with public utilities, installation of front yard landscaping and street trees would be installed and maintained by the Home Owners’ Association. He stated there would be a masonry fence between the theat re parking lot and the homes and a black cyclone fence by the levee to meet Water District standards. He also stated he has met with neighbors and they would like to see a wood fence instead of a masonry fence. Chair Aulman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Fischer stated he would like to see the project move forward and approve the RDO. He would also like to see how the applicant is going to address the roadway issues. Motion on Item V.A. Motion: to recommend the City Council approve RDO-HE 12-01 Residential Development Ordinance Housing Exemption to request the allocation of up to 60- Residential units, under Section 50.62 (b) (10), on property zoned DGD (Downtown Gateway District), located at Monterey Street and Eleventh Street. Moved by Commissioner Kai Lai; seconded by Commissioner Brad Bannister Vote: Motion carried 7-0-0-0 Yes: Commissioner Brad Bannister; Commissioner Tom Fischer; Commissioner Christi Garcia; Commissioner Kai Lai; Commissioner Ermelindo Puente; Vice Chair Elizabeth Sanford; Chair Terri Aulman No: None Abstain: None Absent: None B. AS-PUD 11-16 Architectural & Site to request the construction of two hotels, on property zoned C3-PUD (Shopping Center Commercial-Planned Unit Development), located at the NE corner of Leavesley Road and Forest Street. APN: 835-01-050 and 835-01-064 Fresh Group c/o Eric Chen, applicant. 4 Planner II Durkin presented the staff report. She turned the staff report over to Transportation Engineer Don Dey to present the traffic portion of the report. Transportation Engineer Dey discussed the background of the project and he explained why the City Council implemented a number of measures regarding traffic. Planner II Durkin continued the staff report. Commissioner Puente asked about the southbound turn going West. He also asked about pavement lights at the crosswalk. Mr. Dey stated Leavesley Road is 3 lanes and trucks can sweep across all lanes to make the turn from Forest onto westbound Leavesley. He stated that Leavesley Road is a State Highway and the State does not allow pavement lights. Chair Aulman asked about the truck route on Murray Avenue and was there a problem with trucks turning onto Murray Avenue. She asked if the City Council was aware of the turn problem when they moved the truck route from Murray to Forest. She also asked about the Surface Transportation Assistance Act and if Forest was always a Federal Aid Primary System Route. Mr. Dey stated there was no problem due to the width of the pavement on Murray this gave the trucks enough room to turn. He stated that it did not get that specific when the truck route was discussed with the City Council. Mr. Dey stated it has always been a Federal Aid Primary System Route. Commissioner Sanford asked about an increase in truck traffic. Mr. Dey stated there has been an increase in truck traffic, but with the addition of hotels this would increase. Director Abrams clarified that one of this project’s mitigations was to install a median on Forest Street and that exasperated the conditions of the trucks turning. Mr. Dey stated that there was another required mitigation measure, T1, that required a median strip on Forest Street due to the driveways in the immediate vicinity of the intersection. Commissioner Sanford summarized if there was no development it would not require a median or compound curve and could remain as is, but since there will be an increase in traffic due to the proposed development, there needs to be a median. Mr. Dey stated that with the development there will be an increase of traffic with the potential of accidents. Commissioner Lai stated that it is his understanding that we are asking the applicant to 5 provide the property needed for the curve and we need to have the applicant remove the utility pole to accommodate the future curve. Mr. Dey stated we are asking the applicant to construct the curve and we don’t see a need to remove the utility pole. Assistant City Attorney Houston stated the applicant accepted the mitigated negative declaration that required certain mitigations. These were not challenged at the time and therefore are binding upon the City and the applicant. She stated that if a mitigation required by the original mitigated negative declaration will not be implemented, then the mitigated negative declaration is no longer valid and the architectural and site approval cannot go forward, or if it does go forward must be denied. She stated the implementation of the compound curve is a condition of the architectural and site plan, if not implemented the project is out of compliance with the CEQA and the City cannot approve the project. Director Abrams explained that the City has not determined that there is a safety hazard at this intersection. She stated at this time there is a lower volume of traffic at that intersection and therefore the City is not obligated to do anything. The project will increase the traffic and that is the reason behind the compound curve. Chair Aulman stated that Mr. Dey spoke about the trucks having to cross over the double yellow lines to turn onto Forest. Assistant City Attorney Houston stated that this has not been determined as an un-safe intersection. We are trying to mitigate future traffic patterns. Commissioner Fischer asked about the storm drain basin and if there is an underground storm system. Planner II Durkin stated that there are basins in the landscaping along Forest Stre et and one in the rear of the property. There is an underground system but it’s not adequate for the property. Commissioner Garcia asked what would be staff’s recommendation regarding the water and what is the cost difference. Planner II Durkin stated that staff would recommend underground detention and staff does not know the cost. Chair Aulman opened the public hearing. James Suner for the applicant stated that he was contacted by the majority of the Council who asked him to help the applicant work through the issues on the project. He stated the applicant is going to pay 3.1 million in impact fees along with additional road improvements and they feel that is too much. He stated besides the compound curve 6 and median issues the applicant has a few conditions of approvals that they would like addressed. Condition 9 it says the sound wall should be 15 feet from the property line. He stated I’m not sure how to comply with that. Condition 17 it says infrastructure shall be in place prior to the issuance of building permit. He stated that he called Sandra today and she agreed to remove that condition. Condition 54 it says all City and Caltrans permit approvals must be secured prior to City approval of the project building permits. He stated he would like that change to occupancy same as Condition 55. He stated the idea is to do this concurrently as we’re constructing the hotels we are doing the off-site mitigation requirements. He also stated that he disagrees with the City Attorney’s position that they are not in compliance with CEQA. Lastly he stated he thinks Council will agree with him. Commissioner Bannister stated he did speak with James Suner earlier that day regarding the project. He asked Mr. Suner what is the cost of the 20 feet and isn’t that just as much as the compound curve. Mr. Suner stated he is not sure if they have an engineer’s estimate but, would say about $700,000 to $900,000. Assistant City Attorney Houston reiterated that the way this mitigated measure is done the applicant is require to do the mitigation or the architectural and site cannot be approved because it would not be in compliance with CEQA. Mr. Suner stated that the City Attorney does not determine if they are in compliance with CEQA. The Planning Commission and City Council do. Assistant City Attorney Houston stated this is not a debate she is giving the City Attorney’s legal advice and if the applicant does not want to accept this condition then the Planning Commission has to deny the project and it has to go to Council with the recommendation for denial. Mr. Suner stated that how the mitigation is written it says one or the other. He stated this is an advisory board and he would like to see the board move the project onto Council. Commissioner Lai asked if an accident occurred before the intersection was mitigated, due to an inadequate design, who is liable for the accident. Assistant City Attorney Houston responded that is hard to say. There are different conditions that could be responsible. Liability would be determined on the actual facts of an accident not on a hypothetical situation. Director Abrams commented that like other intersections within the city, this intersection has not been studied or determined to be a hazardous location. Commissioner Bannister asked about the 3.1 million in impact fees. 7 Mr. Suner stated all the impact fees go into separate funds and then the Capital Improvement Budget prioritizes what projects can be built. He also stated the applicant is willing to work with staff to find a solution in regards to the intersection but feels very strongly that they shouldn’t have to pay 100% of the cost. Commissioner Bannister stated he would have liked to have seen the difference in figures between the 20 feet and the compound curve. He also stated that when this came before the Commission in 2010 removing the utility pole was not a requirement. Mr. Suner stated correct but, we went ahead and removed it. Director Abrams asked for clarification from Mr. Dey regarding the right of way. Transportation Engineer Dey clarified how it was determined that the compound curve was the best alternative for this intersection rather than taking additional property. Commissioner Garcia asked about the May 6, 2010 Planning Commission meeting that the applicant agreed to provide the compound curve. Mr. Suner stated that he thinks it was a conversation between Mr. Dey and the applicant’s engineer and it was just a dialog. He stated the engineer cannot speak for the applicant on conditions of approval Commissioner Garcia stated to clarify you don’t want to do the compound curve, you want to push back the median and that is your option. Mr. Suner stated yes, the median was extended to Leavesley and it blocked the driveway of the hotel. He stated that if the median was pushed back from Leavesley then trucks can make the turn onto Forest and there would be no need for a compound curve. Commissioner Garcia stated so just for clarification you are saying that this was just conversation, just a dialog, that this was not part of the actual Planning Commission hearing when the applicant agreed to the compound curve. Mr. Suner stated no we agreed to do was to work with staff to resolve the issue. Director Abrams asked either Mr. Dey or Planner II Durkin to comment on that May 6, 2010 hearing. Mr. Dey stated that at the May 6, 2010 Planning Commission hearing we had the same lengthy discussion about the radius and curve and during that presentation it was specifically asked of the applicant if they were acceptable with the compound curve. The answer was yes, they are acceptable as long as it did not touch the utility pole. He stated it was staff’s understanding with the decision from the Planning Commission and 8 the City Council, the applicant was accepting the compound curve . Thomas Muniz expressed that he would like to thank staff for doing due diligence regarding the project and the Murray Avenue community. He stated the project would be good for Gilroy and hopes that Mr. Suner and the applicant work with the City to come to a resolution regarding the project. He also thanks the Planning Commission and Council for their time and consideration of the project. Chair Aulman closed the public hearing. Chair Aulman stated that she had spoken with Mr. Suner before the meeting, as well as Commissioner Bannister and Commissioner Sanford. Vice Chair Sanford asked Mr. Dey about the term, “state intersection”? Mr. Dey explained that Leavesley Road is also known as State Route 152. Caltrans maintains and operates that corridor and any changes to Leavesley Road must be reviewed and approved by Caltrans. Vice Chair Sanford asked did Caltrans review and approve Forest as a truck route. She also asked given this being a State Route is there a possibility of State funds to improve this intersection for the greater safety. Mr. Dey stated Forest is a city street and Caltrans did not have to review or approve that. He also explained that he has checked with the State on other projects and the answer was the State does not have money for projects, only for maintenance. Commissioner Fischer stated the mitigation came to light with the applicant’s project and it is the applicant’s responsibility to mitigate the intersection. Commissioner Bannister asked about the water basins and how much would it cost to do it the other way. He also asked about condition 13, additional enhancements, and how many awnings would be needed. Planner II Durkin explained that there will be a “V” slope with sod on the bottom and shrubs at the top. She stated she does not know the cost and does not know if the applicant has cost it out. She explained that the additional enhancements are a dditional awnings over the windows and doors. Planner II Durkin made a correction to condition 9 that the word “front” was left out and it should read the masonry wall must be set back at least 15 feet from the front property line. Motion on Item V.B. Motion: to recommend City Council approve AS-PUD 11-16 Architectural & Site to 9 request the construction of two hotels, on property zoned C3-PUD (Shopping Center Commercial-Planned Unit Development), located at the NE corner of Leavesley Road and Forest Street. Together with all of staff’s recommendations and that staff and the applicant work together prior to review by City Council. Moved by Commissioner Tom Fischer; seconded by Commissioner Brad Bannister Vote: Motion carried 7-0-0-0 Yes: Commissioner Brad Bannister; Commissioner Tom Fischer; Commissioner Christi Garcia; Commissioner Kai Lai; Commissioner Ermelindo Puente; Vice Chair Elizabeth Sanford; Chair Terri Aulman No: None Abstain: None Absent: None Chair Aulman read a public comment that was just received on Item V.A. from Geronimo Martinez regarding the opening of Eleventh Street to Monterey Street. Director Abrams stated that the project will not open Eleventh Street to the existing neighborhood. VI. OLD BUSINESS None VII. NEW BUSINESS None VIII. CORRESPONDENCE None IX. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS A. Current Planning Projects Director Abrams stated Current Planning Projects, Staff Approvals and Committee Assignments are in your binders. B. Planning Staff Approvals 10 C. Planning Commission Committee Assignments X. PRESENTATIONS BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION None XI. ORAL REPORTS BY COMMISSION MEMBERS A. City Council Meetings of April 2 and 16, 2012 Chair Aulman gave a summary of the April 2 and 16 City Council meeting. B. Housing Advisory Committee Vice Chair Sanford stated that there had been no meeting. C. Historic Heritage Committee Commissioner Garcia stated that there had been no m eeting. D. Arts & Culture Commission Commissioner Bannister gave a brief summary of the meeting. E. South County Joint Planning Advisory Committee Chair Aulman gave a brief summary of the meeting. F. Street Naming Committee Commissioner Puente stated that there had been no meeting. G. Climate Action Plan Stakeholder Advisory Committee Commissioner Lai stated that there had been no meeting. H. Development Standards Task Force Commissioners Bannister and Fischer stated that there had been no meeting. XII. PLANNING DIVISION MANAGER REPORT Director Abrams stated that there is no report. XIII. ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT 11 Assistant City Attorney Houston stated that there is no report. XIV. PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIR REPORT Chair Aulman stated that there is no report. XV. ADJOURNMENT at 8:37 p.m. _________________________________ /s/ Susan Johnson, Deputy City Clerk