4C Public Hearing 2014 0721 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Excerpts from the Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes May 15, 2014 Page 8 of 9 have crime statistics on Floresta Gardens, but only on the whole of District 3. Commissioner Hernandez said that’s true generally, but public comments did address the crime issue. Ms. Faught said that with Finding #1, we must find that the location of the use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Code, and public safety considerations ought to be addressed in Finding #2. Planner Penaranda said the proposal meets setback and sight distance requirements. When Planner Penaranda noted that PD 77-11already visited and addressed preventing through traffic, Commissioner Hernandez pointed out the current proposal furthers the effort to discourage through- traffic. Planner Penaranda agreed, adding that it follows the spirit and intent of the original PD because the existing design serves to only partially solve the problem. Commissioner Leichner said unauthorized vehicular and pedestrian traffic being able to cut through the PD impairs the residents’ quiet enjoyment of private property. He said Finding #1’s last sentence might say, “The proposed gates and fencing would eliminate unintended pass-through traffic and restore the quiet enjoyment of private property for the residents of the Planned Development.” Ms. Faught summarized that Finding #1 would then incorporate language about the gate meeting setback requirements, etc., being consistent with the spirit of the original PD to prevent or eliminate through traffic, and restoring quiet enjoyment of private property for residents. Finding #2 Chair Abero read existing Finding #2: “That the proposed location of the use and the proposed conditions under which it would be operated or maintained, will be consistent with the General Plan; will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the neighborhood of such use; and will not be detrimental to properties or improvements in the vicinity or to the general welfare of the City.” Planner Penaranda said revised Finding #2 could include verbiage about the location of the proposed pedestrian and vehicular gate and associated fencing meeting the general objective for setback and site distance, and about the gate reducing the volume of speeding through-traffic, which would be the overriding public safety consideration. Ms. Faught said it would be good to elaborate in Finding #2 about how this PD differs from others, how many other complexes in the area are gated, how the absence of a gate encourages pass-through shortcutting, that other attempts to discourage such activity have been unsuccessful, and generally, what makes Floresta Gardens different. She said the General Plan discourages gating absent overriding public safety concerns, and public safety doesn’t mean crime only. Finding #3 Chair Abero turned to Finding #3: “That the proposed use will comply with the provisions of this code; including any specific condition required for the proposed use, in the district, in which it would be located.” Commissioners agreed that the last sentence [from staff’s denial text for Finding #3] which stated “In this instance, installation of the gates and fencing will isolate the development from the adjacent properties and change the characteristics of the area in which it is located.,” should be revised to say that the installation would neither isolate the development nor change the characteristics of the area. Finding #4 Chair Abero quoted the current finding: “That the proposed use will not create adverse impacts on traffic or create demands exceeding the capacity of public services and facilities, which cannot be mitigated.” She said this finding can be made provided the proposal meets all requirements for police, ambulance and fire access requirements for gated communities. At Commissioner Hernandez’s request, Planner Penaranda said he’d check to see left-turn arrows are necessary. Finding #5 Chair Abero quoted the current finding that the project plan “ will provide superior urban design in comparison with the development under the base district zoning regulations.” This goes again to