Loading...
2002 - December 2 APPROVED MINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange December 2, 2002 Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: INRE: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Romero, Smith Jeffry Rice, Planning Manager/Secretary Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer Sharon Penttila, Recording Secretary PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Mel Vernon, 2301 E. Hoover Avenue, voiced his concern with the appearance of the neighborhoods in the City of Orange regarding various code violations. He was in favor of a pro- active code enforcement stance. IN RE: ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None IN RE: CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETINGS OF OCTOBER 21, 2002 AND NOVEMBER 4, 2002. The October 21,2002 minutes were pulled for comment. The following changes were made: On page 3, following the sentence "Chair Smith asked if there was anyone present who was opposed to this application, add "Commissioner Bonina recused himself from the D & Sons International Deli and Market discussion and action." On page 4, under the motion, remove Commissioner Bonina's name showing he abstained. On page 11, third paragraph from the top, the sentence should read, "Commissioner Brandman asked for confirmation that the revetment wall was underneath the landscaping." On Page 16, the first sentence of the third paragraph should read, "Commissioner Brandman asked what is the official position of the Regional Water Control Board, have they commented on the conditions, does the staff feel the grassy swale with the bio- swale is enough or was better water quality treatment necessary. " Commissioner Pruett was absent from the October 21 meeting and he will be abstaining from the minutes, however, for the record, he did view the video tape of that meeting so he could stay up- to-date on the Fieldstone project and he will be participating in the discussion tonight. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Bonina, and seconded by Commissioner Romero to approve the Minutes from the October 21,2002 meeting with corrections. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Romero, Smith None Commissioner Pruett MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED December 2, 2002 MOTION Moved by Commissioner Brandman, and seconded by Commissioner Bonina to approve the Minutes from the November 4, 2002 meeting. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Romero, Smith None None MOTION CARRIED INRE: CONTINUED HEARINGS 2. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 1-01, ZONE CHANGE 1208-00, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 15750, MINOR SITE PLAN REVIEW 249-02, VARIANCE 2113-02, ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT 30-02, AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1647-00 - FIELDSTONE COMMUNITIES, INC. A proposed 189 single-family residential units on 109 acres located north of Santiago Canyon Road, east of Cannon Avenue, south of the Mabury Ranch Community and west of Santiago Oaks Regional Park and the Reserve Development. The City's General Plan Land Use Map indicates that the subject site has three General Plan Land Use designations - 1) Open Space (OS), 2) Resource Area (RA), and Low-Density Residential, 2 to 6 dwelling units per acre (LDR). The zoning classification for approximately 12.60 acres located in the central area of the northerly half of the site is zoned Residential, single-family, minimum lot size 8,000 sq. ft. (R-I-8), while the remainder of the subject site is zoned Sand and Gravel (S-G). This item was continued from the October 7, 2002 and October 21, 2002 meetings. NOTE: Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 1647-00 was prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts for the project in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 et seq. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive input from the applicant and public and continue item to January 6, 2002. Mr. Rice introduced the project. This item was continued until this date while the applicant was looking at various options and addressing many of the concerns raised by the Commission. In response to this, the applicant has some alternatives that they would like to present to the Commission and the community. Mr. Rice explained that the Commission could reopen the public hearing, receive input on these alternatives and, at that point, they could close the hearing and have the option of either taking action on the submitted project or continue the item to allow the applicant to revise their applications based on the modifications presented tonight. Staff would appropriate analyzes and come back with a complete staff report with findings and conditions for the Commission's consideration at a later time. Steve Cameron, 14 Corporate Plaza. Newport Beach. representing Fieldstone. He explained the new alternatives to the project they are proposing. The original TIM included 18 lots north of creek, 171 lots south of the creek, a 3.5-acre park and ten 20,000 sq. ft. equestrian lots. They are proposing three alternative land plans for the south side of the creek and one revised proposal for the north side of the creek. All three alternatives for the south side of the creek 2 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED December 2, 2002 include a six-acre park. The park would include a baseball, softball, and soccer field with a restroom building and a parking lot. With a six-acre park, the lots on the west side would be 6,000 sq. ft. lots versus the 8,000 sq. ft. lots which were proposed on the original TIM. On the east side of the project, in Alternative 1, no changes have been made to the land plan except in the corner of the project the applicant would dedicate the land for a future bridge over Santiago Canyon Road but they would not build the bridge. The applicant would build a bridge across Santiago Creek. When the applicant gives the six acres to the City for the park, they plan to fully remediate the soil on the site. In Alternative 2, the west side is the same as Alternative I except on the east side of the project site, they are no longer subdividing for ten 20,000 sq. ft. lots. They are proposing to provide a stable on the property, provide a bridge over Santiago Creek and dedicate land for the bridge crossing. The stable would be a private stable owned and operated by the homeowner's association. This stable area would include over 30 parking spaces, RV/trailer storage, and 40-44 stables. It would also include a restroom, hay storage, a horse wash and a place for shoeing. Alternative 3 is basically the same as 2 except the stable is in a different location. The applicant is still proposing an at-grade recreational trail crossing on Santiago Canyon Road. The tunnel option is not feasible because the tunnel would have to be 210 feet long. The better alternative would be to build a bridge, which would connect the property with the OP A arena. Community input has indicated Alternative 2 is preferred because the stable is close to the bridge crossing and the OP A arena. The revised plan on the north side of the creek has reduced the number of lots to 17 (originally it was 18 lots) and graded to a lower elevation. The sewer line can be built under the recreational trail bridge and the lower elevation will reduce the amount of dirt being brought onto the site. The bridge is being built above the 100-year flood plain. Mr. Cameron showed a map illustrating the lack of parks in the Mabury area. The applicant, by providing a bridge across the creek, would allow Mabury residents access to a six-acre park. The applicant has found a way to connect the bike trail along the south side of the creek to Canyon Avenue and has worked this out with the County. Also they are working with the County to find a way to connect the trails to the park. The new plans will make it possible to have all the trails connect to public parks. Mr. Cameron summarized by stating they have revised the project to maintain the equestrian community, set aside land for the bridge across Santiago Canyon Road, built a bridge across Santiago Creek, have six acres of active park, maintain 40 acres of open space, reduced the import of dirt and minimal view impacts. The applicant is utilizing all 117 acres in a way that meets the needs of the City. Mr. Cameron addressed five additional points: . The reclamation plan - the subject site, due to uncompacted fill, needs to be recompacted and the ground water has been found to be fine. . The eastern berm and Santiago Creek - according to the County the creek shall be designed to 6,000 cubic feet per second. The eastern berm, based on historical photos, was built in 1967, and the applicant is going to extend the underground revetment wall half way down to protect any further erosion. There is a 70 foot difference between the edge of the berm and the property line and the fire department is requiring a fuel modification zone of 100 feet, so there will be no structure within 170 feet of the edge of the berm except for the revetment wall which will prevent the berm from eroding. The largest storm was in 1989 in which 6003 cubic feet per second went through Santiago Creek and there was no erosion. 3 APPROVED Planning Commission Minutes December 2, 2002 . The great park/school idea - a school district is not allowed to take privately owned property. . A conservancy buying the property - why would these groups buy this property when a developer is going to give forty acres of open space along the creek to them for free. . An update on the revegetation plan with the County on the eastern side of the property - the applicant knows they have to revegetate with coastal live oaks and black walnut trees to restore that area. Commissioner Bonina thought it looked like at some point the County would take responsibility for the creek based on Fieldstone meeting the criteria the County has put forth. Mr. Cameron said they are OK with meeting the County criteria on the south side of the creek but since the north side of the creek shows no sign of erosion, the applicant is not proposing to build a revetment wall except on the north side where they plan on building homes. He suggested putting a condition on the tentative map that prior to the approval of the final map, the applicant either gets the Orange County Flood Control District to take the property or work out some other arrangement with the City of Orange. Commissioner Romero stated that at the prior meeting the County would accept the liability only if the wall was concrete and he asked if the County was backing off the concrete construction and will they accept the liability if it is just a revetment wall and natural foliage. Mr. Cameron clarified that the County is saying that for them to accept the creek and the liability, they want hard protection the entire length of the property on both the north and the south sides. The proposed revetment wall on the south side of the creek is fine and if they were willing to do that on the entire length of the north side, they would be fine with that. The revetment wall would be underground. The applicant is still working on the full liability agreement with the County and working with the City trying to convince them that it's a liability that they currently have and should keep since the applicant isn't doing anything to increase that liability. Commissioner Brandman asked for clarifying that the revetment wall would be a riprap wall and buried under the landscaping. She is told the revetment wall has to be riprap or concrete to meet County requirements. Chair Smith asked the Commission if they wanted to open the discussion to the public. Commissioner Bonina wanted to know what the staff would like to do and what are they looking for. Mr. Rice stated that the items they have seen tonight are a response by the applicant to address many of the technical concerns related to the subdivision of the property and the protection of the creek. Three alternatives have been presented for the south side of the creek and a proposal for the north and other ideas have been suggested. This meeting has been set in order for the applicant to have the opportunity to present these new ideas and address those concerns and have an opportunity for the Commission to provide some discussion about those alternatives so that they can assess which would be the optimum plan to take back, put on paper and submit to the City. Even though these alternatives have been received, the Commission still has the original application before them and that's the only plan they can take any action on tonight. Commissioner Bonina asked if they should give some direction to staff in terms of a preference for one of the three alternatives so the applicant can focus their resources and do the necessary technical work that is required to bring that proposal back for consideration by the Planning Commission. Mr. Rice responded that the Commissioners can individually provide some discussion about the alternatives but as a Commission they cannot collectively give direction to staff on anyone alternative. 4 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED December 2, 2002 Commissioner Bonina stated that if it was the intent of trying to understand all three alternatives, it would help him to understand what the community has to say and he would like to open the discussion to the public. Commissioner Brandman agreed. Commissioner Pruett was not opposed to it but he thought they need to make certain that the public understood that the Commission was not going to take action in terms of selecting anyone of the three alternatives. Discussion from the public should include what features they have concerns about and what features of these projects they find favorable. This would help lead them down the path in considering which is the appropriate project. He would like to concentrate on the positive and negatives features of those alternatives. Chair Smith explained that this application is still in process and it needs to be formally submitted to the City. The information needs to be re weighed environmentally since this is a different plan. This will not be the last hearing. The Commission is taking information and then the applicant will come forward with their official documents of application and it will be re-noticed to the community. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Bonina, and seconded by Commissioner Brandman to open the public hearing. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Romero, Smith None None MOTION CARRIED Public Hearing was opened. People speaking in favor and opposition to the proiect Kati Anderson, speaking on behalf of Tom Anderson, 1392 N. Stallion Street Wayne Bouchard, 232 N. Cambridge Arlen Craig, 3402 E. Vine Avenue Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Mirada Drive Tom Davidson, 6122 Santiago Canyon Road Robert French, Orange Unified School District Stephanie Holcomb, 6336 Bryce Avenue Charles Leffler, 10693 S. Orange Park Blvd. Laurie Marine, 1290 Orange Park Blvd. Chuck McNees, 11211 Orange Park Blvd. John Moore, 2707 Killingsworth (did not speak) Sue Obermayer, 6219 E. Shenandoah James Obermayer, 6219 E. Shenandoah Catherine Parker, 6145 E. Mabury Mark Sanford, Meads Avenue Deann Shannon, 232 N. Cambridge Dan Swoish, 6121 E. Mabury Julie Taverna, 2636 E. Grove Avenue Wilford Gower, 2539 N. Crossgate Don Vogel, 2632 E. Hillcrest Avenue Peter Wetzel, 7217 E. La Cumbre Howard DeCruyenaere, 2417 North Park Blvd., Santa Ana Bill Bouska, 270 N. Malena 5 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED December 2, 2002 Comments made at the public hearing: . Fieldstone Development was complimented on their willingness to revisit their proposals for the Sully Miller property. The equestrian coalition looks upon the proposal, Alternative 2, with favor. They do have four concerns: while the movement of the proposed community stable to the southeastern comer of the property removes some usage and safety concerns, the coalition is concerned that only 12 spaces for trailers is proposed; the non-grade crossing of Santiago Canyon Road now becomes an issue of paramount concern and requires immediate further study; the coalition also needs to see some binding agreement committing all involved parties to the completion of the trail connection at the eastern edge of the property entering Santiago Oaks Regional Park; and they believe the East Orange and Orange Park Acres committees expect and would favor that the continuation of the multi-use trail paralleling Santiago Canyon Road be continued around the proposed park development and continued east to link with the proposed Ridge Trail crossing of Santiago Creek. . Support for any three of the alternatives Fieldstone has proposed. . State of California states that open space is an irreplaceable resource and the State requires, under Government Code Section 65560, the appropriation and adoption of an open space element of the General Plan, which all cities and counties must adopt. State law also requires the appropriation and adoption of a conservation element for the conservation, development and utilization of natural resources. The current zoning on this 100 plus acres would allow for some preservation of open space. . A formal request was made that the revised plan be submitted again to the Orange Park Acres Planning Committee. . The ground of the entire property, except where the asphalt plant was, needs to be remeditated and the cost of this should be taken into consideration. . Fieldstone has not addressed school issue for the predicted 96 children that will be generated from this project. . The amendment to the General Plan should be denied because the East Orange General Plan intends for this open space to be improved with trails for hiking, biking and equestrian use. . A six-acre park is hugely needed. The horse facilities are an outstanding feature on the property. The plan putting the horses near the park would have some hazards where people in the park might get involved with the horses, therefore, Alternative 2 is the better plan. The property now is blighted and the proposed homes would be a benefit to the City of Orange. . A letter from Tim Flathers of 6007 E. Mabury Avenue was read in which he felt the new development proposal would be a benefit to the community as a whole. . Fieldstone appears to have listened to suggestions and have made some great changes, which include the trail connections, the bridge over the creek, and leaving land for the under/over crossing. Alternative 2 appears the best because it puts the horses away from the park. . The major problem has not been addressed since the issue is making an amendment to the General Plan. No agreement has been reached on the north side of the creek for flood protection and it's still in a dam indentation zone. People will still be at risk on the Santiago Canyon Road until an under/over crossing is built. . This property could be developed into a greenway. A bond could potentially be approved or other financial resources could be found which would allow for the acquisition of this open space. . It is misleading for Fieldstone to say the homeowners association is an appropriate body to maintain the creek. The Orange County Flood District will accept jurisdiction, ownership and flood liability if Fieldstone builds the creek improvements to its standards, which 6 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED December 2, 2002 Fieldstone is not willing to do. If this happens, then the City and the homeowners association must hold the OCFD harmless from damages. . The benefits of the Fieldstone proposal are the trails linking four regional parks, the addition of an arena and a community center. . Fieldstone has been unselfish to accommodate the community and what they want from this project, which includes the trails, the playing fields for the children and the esthetics, especially since the area is currently an eyesore. . Tim Flathers never lived in Mabury and his letter is considered a deception tactic. . No effort has been made to improve this site for years and the efforts Fieldstone has taken to offer many choices speaks highly for them. . After looking at the plan, it appears to be a very reasonable use of the land especially when looking at the proposed density. It's a nice blend with the reserve being next to the property. . As a parent, it would be nice to have ball fields and trails close by. . The original plan presented by Fieldstone offered a major benefit to the City in the form of forty acres of open space but there were many concerns. However, Alternative 2 looks as if Fieldstone has answered all of those concerns. . Santiago Creek provides many benefits to the community and there has been a vision for a greenway along the creek. It is not unusual for urban centers to restore highly neglected areas. . This property had been approved for mining and now it is time for the landowner to address their responsibilities to the open space element. This project does not comply with open space and the conservation element or the safety element. Mr. Cameron, in his closing remarks, wanted to respond to some of the comments made tonight. First, regarding the connection ofthe trail to the east, the applicant has worked with the County to the extent they can but once it goes off their property, there isn't anything they can do about it. Secondly, they are studying the ability to bring the Santiago Trail up along the edge of the park to connect to the trail and it could be put on the 20-foot easement. That would allow the horse riders a full loop. Thirdly, he reminded the Commission that this property is not zoned open space, it's currently zoned sand and gravel. The property on the north is zoned residential, R-1-8. Fourth, Fieldstone will be going back to the Orange Park Acres Planning Committee. Fifth, this project will contribute over 1.5 million dollars toward the construction of new schools. The benefits to this project are two miles of trails, a six acre park with direct access to Mabury residents, 7Y2 arena site with a community building, 40 acres of open space, the site will be cleaned and the NCPP next to the Santiago Regional Park will be restored. This project is providing more benefit to the City of Orange than most projects. He stated that Fieldstone has never lied or misrepresented anything. The area can never be restored to its original state because the rocks have been removed. When Fieldstone made their application for the tentative tract map, they thought they had a good plan but the new plans and alternatives are better than the original ones. Public hearing was closed. Chair Smith explained that the Commission now had new information before them and Mr. Rice had advised them that they are not able to direct staff on what to do with this information. Commissioner Brandman would like for the public to have the process explained that they, as Commissioners, are required to respond to the information they are given and at the appropriate time, they are allowed to vote only on the information given to them. They are allowed to respond to just the information in front of them either by a public presentation or by the staff. Chair Smith asked Mr. Rice if this plan officially would be submitted to the OP A Planning Committee. Mr. Rice stated that if the applicant should resubmit a alternative plan, then it would 7 APPROVED December 2, 2002 Planning Commission Minutes have to go through a whole new cycle including the Staff Review Committee, Orange Park Acres Planning Committee and the Parks and Recreation Commission so they can evaluate it against the existing Master Plan of Parks and give staff the opportunity to evaluate the revised plan against the environmental document to see if there is a fit or some additional analysis needs to be provided in order to have a complete environmental document on the revised plan. Based on that, it would be rescheduled for a public hearing. Should the applicant not wish to submit a revised plan, and then the Commission could proceed with the existing plan. Commissioner Pruett commented, that based on what was presented tonight, that even though there still is a lot of technical data that needs to come out of this, he thought these revised alternatives offer favorable proposed changes and on the surface they look promising. The benefit to the community is the six-acre park, access to the park with a bridge over the creek, and it provides access to the trails. He also liked the concept of the stable area and the location found in Alternative 2. He would like to have the location of the stable looked at because of a concern with the neighboring properties and their relationship to those houses. He questioned the ability of the association to manage the stables if people outside the development use the facility. He was pleased to hear that at the October 21, 2002 Planning Commission meeting the school district had hired a consultant to do a master plan for the schools, which is long overdue. The Commission is not in a position to address the school issue when these projects come before them. Once the school district has that plan in place, then the Commission will have something to work from and can help them satisfy their needs. Mr. Cameron asked the Planning Commission to continue the project to January 6, 2003 and resubmit their application with another alternative. Mr. Rice explained with a revised plan, it would be recommended to re-notice the entire project because the project description is changing and there have already been several hearings on this issue. Since this project would have to go back to the Orange Park Acres Planning Committee and the Parks Commission and given this is a holiday month, the meeting could not take place on January 6. Mr. Cameron agreed to provide a waiver to the City. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett, and seconded by Commissioner Romero to continue this agenda item to the January 20, 2003 meeting. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Romero, Smith None None MOTION CARRIED 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2425-02 - IN-N-OUT BURGER RET AIL CENTER (PHASE I OF II) A proposal to develop a 2.22-acre lot by demolishing the existing Coco's restaurant and constructing three buildings for a mix offast-food restaurants. The General Plan land use designation for the site is General Commercial (GC). The zoning of the site is Limited Business - Tustin Redevelopment Project Area (C-TR) District. The site is located at 2585 North Tustin Street. This item was continued from the October 21,2002 and the November 4, 2002 meetings. 8 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED December 2, 2002 NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15305 (Class 5 - Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt resolution PC 36-02 approving Conditional Use Permit 2425-02. Chair Smith asked if there was any opposition to this application. Since there was none, a full reading of the staff report was waived. Mr. Rice stated that the last time this project was heard, there were several concerns about on-site circulation, parking, stacking lanes for the drive-through, and turning movements on Tustin Street. Three alternatives for the stacking on Tustin were examined, this included the existing turning median, constructing a raised center median and the construction of a traffic diverter. The analysis indicated that the existing traffic circulation remains. The applicant has modified the site plan to improve on-site circulation, improving the north-south main drive aisle, improving the stacking on Tustin, improving the number of parking stalls on site, eliminating the reduction and development standards for parking and improving circulation and access to the drive-through lanes. Staff recommended support of the modified site plan. They worked out with the applicant a modification to the exit of the In-N-Out Burger in order to divert traffic to the main drive aisle rather than the one on the Del Taco site to minimize traffic at that one location. In-N-Out and Del Taco have reached an agreement on some modifications to the site plan and sign age to accommodate that. The Planning Department's report carries forth the Design Review Committee's recommendation that it be a standing seam metal roof. The site, however, is predominately tile roof and the applicant is recommending the tile roof. There is alternative language, which would allow for the tile roof should the Commission consider that appropriate. Staff recommends approval of the project with the modifications. Commissioner Bonina asked about the three way stop at the end of entrance. Mr. Rice responded that coming off of the main driveway there is a four way intersection, the inbound traffic would have free movement and all other legs of that would have to come to a stop. Commissioner Bonina asked if the square footage of the overall site has been reduced. Mr. Rice stated it was the same. Commissioner Bonina asked if the exiting out of the In-N-Out drive-through would provide for some level of signage that provides for an exit left only. Mr. Rice confirmed that. Commissioner Bonina confirmed that the sign would be located on the right side of the exit and it would be illuminated. He felt strongly that this revised site plan was much better than the previous one. Commissioner Brandman asked Mr. Hohnbaum to explain how someone is going to police the left turn lane and if it does become a problem, what future actions could be taken. Mr. Hohnbaum understood the concern that there might be an accident history at this location. If they see a spot that has a higher than normal level of accidents, then the City will move out to take appropriate measures. Commissioner Brandman is convinced there will be an issue and she wants it known that the Commission as well as the anyone in the community can bring any traffic issues to the attention of Public Works. Mr. Pruett referred to the memo from the Assistant Planner regarding Condition 4, in which it changes it from a metal standing seam roof to a roof that would compliment the existing Wells Fargo and Del Taco roofs. 9 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED December 2, 2002 Mark Lamoureux, 402 W. Arrow Highway, #4. San Dimas, authorized agent and civil engineer for applicant. He thanked the Commission for the comments made at the last meeting and he does like this site plan better. He agreed with Mr. Bonina's recommendation for a three way stop at the main entrance and it would be noted on the construction drawings. The building square footage has been reduced by 400 square feet. The initial submittal was a S mission style tile and that was rejected by the DRC. Since In-N-Out did not want to use a metal standing seam roof, as a compromise, they decided to request a flat tile roof. The applicant, however, would prefer the mission S tile to match the bank and Del Taco. Mr. Bonina's preference is the tile roof as opposed to the metal standing seam roof. He asked the applicant what the condition of the pads in Phase 2 would be. Mr. Lamoureux answered that the building pads would have grass turf to prevent wind erosion or dust. Chair Smith thought there should be international logos along with the words on the "Exit Left Only" and the "Do Not Enter" signs. The applicant will look at all the signage for the project. No one was present for the Public Hearing. In closing, Mr. Lamoureux expressed their excitement about coming into the community and he asked for Planning Commission approval. Commissioner Pruett thought this was a greatly improved plan and he was pleased with the circulation element. He did not feel there would be an issue with the left turns and head-on accidents because Villa Ford is directly across the street. He does like the S tiles because they compliment the bank and Del Taco's roofs. He liked the three way stops and that should be included with the design drawings. Mr. Hohnbaum answered Commissioner Pruett's question regarding the placement of intemationallogos on the signs. He said it was common to put an arrow indicator on "Left Only" signs and he has seen both on the "Do Not Enter" signs. Chair Smith felt the international logos would provide an extra precautionary measure. Commissioner Romero also was appreciative of the improved plan as well as the removal of the variance and administrative adjustment. He approved of the S style roof. Commissioner Bonina reiterated Commissioner Brandman's issue regarding the left hand turn. He was pleased to know that if a problem developed, the City could take action immediately to resolve any traffic issues. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Romero, and seconded by Commissioner Brandman to approve Resolution No. 36-02, consisting of Conditional Use Permit 2425-02, with the conditions and findings as stated therein with the change in the finding that Condition 4, regarding the roof, shall be tile roof and compliment the existing Wells Fargo and Del Taco buildings. The design of this feature shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director or designee prior to applying for building permits. Directional traffic signs shall include the international logos per the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Romero, Smith None None MOTION CARRIED 10 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED December 2,2002 INRE: ADJOURNMENT MOTION Moved by Commissioner Bonina, seconded by Commissioner Brandman to adjourn to the Planning Commission regular meeting on Monday, December 16, 2002 at 6:30 p.rn. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 10:07 pm. 11