Loading...
07/15/2004 Community and Economic Development Department CALIFORNIA GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINTUES OF REGULAR MEETING July 15, 2004 The regular meeting of the Grand Terrace Planniinq Commission was called to order at the Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California, on July 15. 2004. at 7:00 p.m., by Vice Chairperson Matt Addington PRESENT: Doug Wilson, Chairperson Matthew Addington, Vice Chairperson Brian Whitley, Commissioner Robert Bidney, Commissioner Tom Comstock, Commissioner Gary Koontz, Community Deve!opment Director John Lampe, Associate Planner - Jeff Gollihar, Planning Technician ABSENT: None 7:00 P.M. CONVENE SITE AND ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD/ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Pledge of Allegiance led by Vice Chairman Addington Roil Call PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Debbie Burrows 22954.Victoria Street Mrs. Burrows wanted to express her concern vrith the lot at the corner of Freston and Victoria Street. In April of 2002, she had presented a petition before the Commission to oppose splitting the lot into fivo parcels. Mrs. Burrows says that she has noticed that the property has been divided into two lots. Mrs. Burrows claims that she and her husband, along with a couple of neighbors have contacted the City and the City has given information that the first house will be built, and the second house will be built some time later on. 22795 Barton Road • Grand Terrace, Cdlifornia 92313-5295 • 909/ 824-6621 Planning Director Koontz replied that the low-mod housing program was working on the project through the City Manager's office and the Planning Department has no involvement in it. To the best of Mr. Koontz's knowledge, there is only one home proposing to be built on the lot. ITEMS: 1. MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 20, 2004 RECOMMENDATION: Approval MOTION PC-1372004: Vice Chair Addington made a motion to approve the minutes. Chair Wilson seconded the motion MOTION VOTE PC-13-2004: Approved 5-0-0-0 2. MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 3, 2004 RECOMMENDATION: _ Approval MOTION PC-14-2004: Vice Chair Addington made a motion to approve the minutes. Commissioner Bidney seconded the motion. MOTION VOTE PC-14-2004: Approved 5=0=0-0 3. MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 17, 2004 RECOMMENDATION: Approval MOTION PC-15-2004: Vice Chair Addington made a motion to approve the minutes. Commissioner Comstock seconded the motion MOTION VOTE PC-1 5-2004: Approved 5-0-0-0 4. SA-04-09, SA-04-10 TTM-04-02, E-04-04: Construction of a 55-unit condominium project on 4.8 acres. APPLICANT: NBD Development, Incorporated 2 LOCATION: Approximately 4.8 acre, more or less vacant parcel located generally on the north side of De Berry Street between Reed Avenue and the Gage Canal right-of-way. RECOMMENDATION: Open the Public Hearing, receive the staff report and testimony, close the public hearing and approve the Resolution calling for the approval of SA-04-09, SA-04-10 and E-04-04 and recommend to the City Council the approval of the Resolution calling for the approval of TTM-04-02 supported by the required findings and subject to the recommended conditions of approval. Associate Planner Lampe presented his staff report. The Applicant is requesting approval to construct a 55 unit single family home development to be sold to individual home buyers as a condominium subdivision. Per State Law, the City's subdivision ordinance does require the filing of tentative map since this is a condominium type of project. The subject site is approximately 4.8 acres located on the north side of De Berry Street. The site is mainly vacant except for two houses located on. the southerly corners of the site. Those homes will be demolished to make way for the project if it is approved. In the past, the site was a developed multi-family courtyard type of project. That development was torn down in the late 1980's. The surrounding area is developed single family residential to the west, and single story residential to the south. A retirement hotel is located to the north of the subject site facing Barton Road. To the east of the subject site is another condominium type of project called the "Cape Terrace Condominiums". De Berry Street is a 66 foot wide local collector road on the City's Circulation Element. Currently, it is developed only with an asphalt type of curb in one-location. The rest of the area does not have curbs, gutters or sidewalks. Reed Avenue does have curbs, gutters and sidewalks. Additional right of way will be needed at the southerly portion as a part of this project as well as the needed street improvements. The master plan shows a 51 inch storm drain running along DeBerry Street carrying storm water downhill in a westerly direction. The site is zoned R-3 or Medium Density Residential. It does permit for a multi family type of project. ' The zoning was changed in 1984. The single family homes located to the west and south of the subject site are zoned R1. The properties to the east of the subject site are also zoned R3 as is The Crest Apartments located to the south of the subject site.. The maximum density in the R3 Zone is 12 units to the acre. The requested 55 units are 11.5 units per acres, which are consistent with the R3 Zone. The site Plan shows the proposed development consisting of 23 residential buildings throughout the site. 14 of the buildings will consist of a two unit configuration. There will be 6 residential structures at the center of the property which will contain 4 units in each structure. Three different locations will have a single unit configuration. r' Interior access will be provided by a 24 foot wide interior streets. An entrance driveway will be located at DeBerry Street. No direct access will be provided onto Reed Street with the 3 exception of emergency access that is required by the Fire Department, in which an emergency driveway approach will be provided for adequate emergency access for their vehicles. The buildings will conform to the R3 setbacks in that the residential structures will setback 25 feet from DeBerry Street, 15 feet from Reed Avenue, and 10 feet from the Gage Canal. The applicant has asked for a minor deviation on the north side to modify the rear yard, which would normally be 20 feet to 16 feet which is allowable under the zoning code. This will make for sufficient room for a turning radius of the interior driveways and parking aisles. The Staff does feel that this is allowable and will still allow for 80-90 feet of separation between the residential structures of the northerly part of the property of the residential hotel, located just north of the subject site. Total parking on the site will consist of a two car garage with 110 covered parking spaces. In front of each garage there will be two open parking spaces which would consist of 110 parking spaces. There will be 15 open guest spaces scattered about the project. The amount of parking that will be provided is almost a factor'of two more than what is required by the zoning code. There will be an open type of landscape with a pathway leading to a tot.lot, gazebo and bar-b-que facility. The south portion of the site will consist of a basketball court along with additional.bar-b-que and gazebo facilities. The-proposed floor plan will consist of two stories in height. The first floor of Plan Number One will contain a "great room" or family room, kitchen and half bath. On the second floor will be two bedrooms with a loft or office area and two baths. Subsequent to writing the staff report, a written opinion was received from the City Attorney with regard to the provision in the zoning code that says that a multi-family unit can consist of no more `than two bedrooms, and that the third room can be made-into. an additional bedroom. Plan Two will be a two story unit with a living room, dining room and half bathroom on the first floor; two bedrooms a den and a loft area will consist of the second floor. The elevations of Plan One and Two will consist of an architectural style to reflect California Craftsman with composite roofs and stucco finish and trim; as well as exposed wood rafters, decorative columns. The architect is present to answer any questions with regard to the design and layout. The applicant's architect provided a color board in which muted type of colors will be used to fit in to the existing neighborhood. The project has a condition that the landscaping on the exterior south and west sides be treated with the maximum amount of landscaping to provide transition and softening of the residential areas to the west and south of the project. The landscape architect did provide some landscaping amenities that will be provided around the gazebo and recreation areas of the project. The recommended conditions of approval on the tentative map require that a homeowner's association be formed. The association would have the responsibility of managing and maintaining the development. 4 The applicant's engineer did provide the staff with a conceptual grading plan to show how the site will be graded in which the property will drain to the west and southerly parts towards Reed Avenue and De Berry Streets. In addition, as part of the plan check process if this project is approved, the grading plan submitted for plan check will have to comply with the NPDES Requirements. The Applicant has provided an NPDES Compliance Study for the Commission's review, and has also provided a hydrology study showing how the draining coming on and off the site would be managed. The applicant's engineer is here to answer any questions that the Commission may have with regard to the studies provided. Based upon the Environmental Analysis Initial Study this project does qualify for a Negative Declaration under the provisions of CEQA in that the project will .not have an adverse impact on the environment. The proposed architectural treatment with the California Craftsman style will be compatible with the-residential neighborhood. The site at present has been used for illegal dumping and other unsavory activities. The Staff is recommending that the Commission approve the 55 Unit Condominium development under the requested site and architectural reviews as called by the Resolution of Approval and the staff report with the appropriate findings of the conditions of approval. The Staff is also recommending that the Planning Commission in turn recommend to the City,Council the approval of the Tentative Tract Map that is called for by the Resolution of Approval that is attached to the staff report. Vice Chair Addington asked when the previous application was proposed on the site for an apartment project, how many units was the previous applicant applying for? Associate Planner Lampe replied that there were 69 apartment units proposed with 12 being townhouse configuration and 57 typical flat type orientation configuration. Chair Wilson opened the Public Hearing by inviting the applicant to speak about his proposed project. Chris Gerold- NBD Development 1726 Manhattan Beach Blvd., Manhattan Beach Mr. Gerold greeted the Commission and introduced his engineer and architect. Mr. Gerold stated that he would like to propose 55 units for sale condominium units. Mr. Gerold expressed that he would like for the proposed buyers to use the Fannie Mae for financing in which their terms would require that 80% of the project be owner occupied. Mr. Gerold stated that he has worked with many attorneys over the years to keep condominiums as owner/occupied, and the Fannie Mae Guidelines have come close to what they are trying to achieve. Mr. Gerold provided some background with regard to preparing for the application brought before the Planning Commission. An invitation was mailed to all of the property owners within the 300 foot radius to come to a town meeting which was held July 1st in the - Community Room. 13 attendees were at the meeting and signed a guest list. Five of the residents actually wanted to be put on a waiting list to purchase condos. 5 Vice Chair Addington asked why there are two floor plans rather than 3 plans being offered. Why are there only two plans being laid out rather than three plans? Mr. Gerold replied that that there is a requirement of the City with regard to 20 feet between buildings and it limits the density issues. A lot of research has been done and it was found that the two plans would allow the ability to build economically and to keep the prices at a level that exists in the area today. Should the project be online at this time, it is thought that the condominiums would be sold in the $200,000-300,000 range. Chair Wilson opened up the public participation portion of the public hearing. Lewis James 12286 Reed Avenue Mr. James .lives on the corner of Reed and De Berry and is opposed to the project. Because it is a residential area, Mr. James feels that this project is not compatible with the rest of the area. Mr. James expressed his concern with additional traffic, noise and pollution on De Berry Street that will be generated from the residents in the project along with the impact of the city schools. He is also concerned with the water supply and how it would impact the future of the water supply for the City. Chair Wilson asked the staff with regard to the Traffic on DeBerry Street, was there any other comments that have been added by the traffic engineer. Planning:Director Koontz replied that the traffic engineer had the same comments as his last comments that he had with regard to the proposed apartment complex that he did not see any concerns with regard to the street impacts. There is also a letter from Riverside Highland Water that had no concerns with the water supply. Patricia Farley 12513 Michigan Ms. Farley stated that she was concerned with the poor planning all over Grand Terrace and feels that there have been irresponsible efforts with out taking the care to protect everyone's rights. Initially, there were people who were not interested in having apartments placed on the area. Ms. Farley feels that this project is a way of slipping in apartments and calling them condominiums so that they can move forward with the project. She also feels that Mr. Koontz and Mr. Lampe make a lot of efforts to make certain project go through and others not go through. Barney Karger 11668 Bernardo Way Mr. Karger wanted to know if Mr. Koontz had telephoned McKeever Engineering, and asked if the existing sewers in which Mr. McKeever had stated that the sewers were designed for the ultimate flow of sewage. 6 Chair Wilson wanted to clarify Mr. Karger's question by asking Mr. Karger's concern was if the City was equipped to handle sanitary sewer service for the zoning that is approved on those parcels all along the proposed area including the undeveloped areas of De Berry Street. Planning Director Koontz replied that the discussion for the proposed 55 units was with regard to the storm drains and not sanitary sewage drains. Mr. Karger asked if there was any request with regard to the sanitary sewage flow requirement from the applicant to the planning department. Planning Director Koontz replied that there was no such request and it was a requirement that would be required from the Public Works Department during final plan check. Mr. Karger replied that he was required to have a count of the sewage flow for his own property. The other question for the staff was with regard to the traffic flow. What would be the maximum allowed for traffic flow on DeBerry'Street. Chair Wilson recalled that at the meeting when the proposed apartment complex was brought before the Commission he did recall asking specific questions in relation to the traffic circulation. Associate Planner Lampe replied that the correspondence from the City Traffic Engineer reads: "the proposed project will not have a significant traffic impact on the City's circulation system; a traffic study is not required." Planning Director Koontz added that when the original General Plan was completed, there was an Environmental Impact Report attached to it, and the build out of the entire City was reviewed as well as the maximum density with the traffic impacts. Since we were not around when that had taken place, when the traffic study was done, they sized the streets on the Circulation Element to address those particular issues. Debbie Burrows 22954 Victoria Street Mrs. Burrows had a question with regard to how much will the condominiums cost, how long have the developers owned the piece of property and what does the City get out of the project, and what are the projections the City will earn as far as taxes and school taxes. Chair Wilson replied that as far as the project being a residential project, so in so far as taxes are concerned, each individual homeowner will have to pay basic property taxes. The majority of the taxes will end up with the State. The City will get a very nice project in return. The minimal fees that the city will receive will be with regard to plan check fees and application fees. Planning Director Koontz replied that standard impact fees will be incurred to the City for the project. Commissioner Comstock added that the school district charges $650.00 per unit for school impact fees. 7 Chair Wilson concurred and said that the fee was a standard school fee. It is a state mandated school fee. Any residential project is set up as mandated school fee. Mrs. Burrows wanted to know if the Staff took into account the traffic that will impact Grand Terrace because of the Spring Mountain Ranch homes. Chair Wilson agreed with Mrs. Burrows with regard to the traffic impact with the Riverside County Project. It was suggested that the only way that the City can actually deal with'the project on a regional basis was to legally set up a war fund that we could oppose portions of the traffic traveling into certain areas. As far as the traffic impact that we are specifically dealing with here is minimal compared to what is being built regionally. Chair Wilson invited the applicant to answer questions for the Commission, and asked Mr. Gerold how long he has owned the property. Chris Gerold-NBD Development 1726 Manhattan Beach Blvd- Manhattan Beach Mr. Gerold reported that at current the development company does not own it, but rather Mr. Heyming, who was the previous applicant for the apartment complex owns it and NBD Development is currently in escrow to purchase the property from Mr. Heyming. Vice Chair Addington recalled and asked the civil engineer that the previous applicant was asked to bring further information with regard to drainage for the property, and did he provide information about the drainage capacity of De Berry Street. Dennis Stafford Mc Keever Engineering 647 N. Main Street-Riverside Mr. Stafford replied that the drainage study that was performed shows the majority of site draining westerly to Reed Street then south and west along DeBerry Street. Street capacity calculations were performed on both streets and the street capacity is adequate to carry the flows that currently exist and the flows that will be added about 600 feet west of the site into a master planned storm drain. The study was performed by Bill McKeever. Chair Wilson asked with regard to the parking count, how would it be effected in relation to converting the proposed den space into a bedroom, how would it affect the parking count to the project. Associate Planner Lampe replied that there would have to be some comparison'done with other jurisdictions to see if they may have a higher parking requirement for three bedroom units or more. Mr. Stafford reported that the proposed parking requirement is actually twice over the City's requirement as presented. With additional guest parking scattered throughout the project. Chair Wilson asked the applicant's why the fire department does not allow turf block. Mr. Stafford replied that some agencies choose to allow or not to allow it. The San Bernardino County Fire Department prefers to have a full driveway access rather than turf block. 8 Mr. Gerold wanted to let Commissioner Comstock know that the current school fee for commercial is at $3.05 per square foot which amounts to $5100 per unit. The fees that are paid to the City as part of the application are in relation to sewer impact, plan check and permits. We will also have to pay for sewer capacity and water capacity fees and will amount to $300,000. Vice Chair Addington asked what the City Engineer's opinion was on DeBerry carrying additional 20 plus CFS coming out of the project. Planning Director Koontz replied that the building official had no concern with the project. Debbie Burrows 22954 Victoria Street Mrs. Burrows feels that Mr. Koontz replying with each agency that has "No concerns" does not make her feel very comfortable. Chair Wilson explained to Mrs. Burrows the Reviewing Agency process in which the agency does not respond, then it is assumed that the agency has no comment, hence no concerns with the project. Should the agency write back with concerns, they will specify what an applicant will be required of. These letters are included in the meeting packet and are available for public review at the City Hall counters. Chair Wilson closed the public participation and brought the item back to the Commission for review and comment. Commissioner Bidney asked if the letter of concern that was received from the Gage Canal Company has been addressed with regard to curb and gutter for water flow. Associate Planner Lampe replied that there is a condition that was applied to the project that it is the applicant's responsibility to meet with the Gage Canal Company to resolve any issues that have been addressed in their letter. Vice Chair Addington commented that he likes the project and appreciates the fact that the density of units has been decreased compared to the previous apartment project that was denied. MOTION PC-16-2004: Vice Chair Addington made a motion to approve SA-04- 09, SA-04-10, TTM-04-02 and E-04-04. Commissioner Comstock seconded the motion. MOTION VOTE PC-16-2004: Approved 5-0-0-0 5. CUP-04-08: Request for time to operate an existing K&M Raceway for model racing cars be extended and that the days and hours to operate the Raceway be expanded. APPLICANT: Extreme RPM/K&M Raceway c/o Bobby Haney 9 LOCATION: 22474 Barton Road, Suite A RECOMMENDATION: Open the public hearing, receive the Staff report and testimony, close the hearing and approve the Resolution calling for the approval of CUP-04-08 subject to the recommended conditions of approval. Associate Planner Lampe presented his staff report to the Commission. The applicant wishes to continue on with their operation, and also to expand the current number of days that they are allowed to operate along with the expansion of operating hours. A letter of intent has been included in the staff report to expand the hours of operation. In June of 2003, the Commission approved an additional year to operate the facility along with additional hours. At current, the applicant is not allowed to operate on Mondays, Tuesday, and Thursdays. Mr. Haney would like to be able to operate from 4PM to 8PM, on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays. These hours would be used for practice sessions only. Practice sessions would not include a public address system or racing. On the weekend days when he will be allowed to be open, including Fridays, he is asking that the weekend hours to be 10AM to 10:30PM. The applicant is requesting this because many of his customers are requesting that the track be opened for an extended period of time. The raceway consists of about one third of an acre and is located south of Britton Way,-north of Barton Road and just west of Mt. Vernon Avenue. The site is located. in the Barton Road Specific Plan area with commercial uses to the east and south and a proposed commercial site to the north which has not been developed as yet. And farther to the north is the convalescent hospital. The most sensitive land use is the single family residences on the east side of Mt. Vernon. Access is provided to the site a driveway off of Barton Road through the two commercial buildings to the south. And a driveway off of Britton Way serves for the raceway as well. Our original presentation was approved by the City Council in 1990. The Planning Commission has approved the Conditional Use Permit thereafter about every two years. In June of 2003, a very detailed presentation was provided to the Commission to outline that the staff had gone out to the site several times with a noise meter to make sure that the applicant complied with the conditions of noise not exceeded over 55 decibels in the front yards of the houses on the east side of Mt. Vernon. Based on the conclusions from the noise meter that was borrowed from the health department, the applicant did comply with the requirement in terms of the level of noise. There were some conditions-that still hadn't been met where their use permit would be granted for no more than a year to continue the operation. That application expired in May of this year and staff is proposing to extend the conditional use of the raceway. 10 Many of the conditions that were imposed by the Commission over the years, dealt with the appearance of the race track in which the buildings were painted and the parking lot paved and landscaping and irrigation. Based on the inspections of the site over the year, the applicant has complied with the requirements. There have been additional conditions with regard to the lighting of the track. Although there were no complaints received regarding the lighting, there is a provision in the zoning code that all commercial lighting must be shielded from the residential areas. At this time the applicant has provided some shielding of the lighting. The site was inspected in January of 2004, in which a letter was filed that there were still some requirements that the applicant hadn't met. The applicant has been cooperative and has completed the items outlined in the letter. The staff had not received any complaints with regard to noise within the past year. It is staffs opinion that the applicant has been operating in compliance with the conditions related to the closing times and noise levels otherwise there would have been complaints issued to the City. There was one gentleman that spoke the year previous with regard to the noise levels. Staff tried to contact this gentleman without success. The staff is making a recommendation to approve another year of operation of the remote control racing facility. The recommendation to extend the hours has also included a condition that any session before 3:30PM should only be used as a practice session, and not as a race sessions. Associate Planner Lampe concluded his report. Vice Chair Addington asked that in January of this year, there were some conditions: that were not met. Have the conditions been met since January. Associate Planner replied that condition Number One was to obtain an electrical permit for electrical repairs. The applicant did obtain an electrical permit and that condition was met. Condition Two was to irrigate the provided landscaping in which is has been met. The overflow parking has not been utilized because business demands has not required that the overflow parking be used. Lastly, the shielding on the lighting was completed. Commissioner Comstock asked if one of the residents across the street from the race track did have a complaint, what the process would entail. Associate Planner Lampe replied that in the past, the applicant would be contacted via letter, and should the applicant not be able to comply with the conditions, then the item would come back before the Commission to where the permit would then be revoked. Commissioner Whitley wanted clarification with regard to the gas powered cars and that they must cease operation one hour before closing time. Associate Planner Lampe confirmed that is what the conditions read. 11 Vice Chair Addington asked if there were any other conditions that have been changed other than the requested time schedule. Associate Planner Lampe replied that the conditions show the expansion of hours, and there is a provision about the NPDES Requirements. Other than what has presented, there have been no other additions or changes. Chair Wilson opened up the public participation portion of the meeting. Bobby Haney-Applicant 28111 Eucalyptus Highland Mr. Haney stated that he has owned the business for three years, and was told that it would be a very difficult battle to keep the business running and prosperous. He enjoys working with the young adults and feels that he spends more time at the raceway and feels that he has become a mentor to the young adults that come and race at the facility. Mr. Haney would like to extend his hours because his customers especially parents were requesting that he extend the hours to 4PM that way kids will. be able to go home .and do their homework and chores before they come to the racetrack. Mr. Haney wants to keep his weekend hours beginning at 10AM on those days, he would. really like the hours extended for Friday nights, so that the participants will have more time to set up before racing. Mr. Haney does not want morning hours during the week for fear of kids wanting to possibly ditch school to go to the racetrack. Mr. Haney expressed that he plans on staying strict on the kids that come and race cars. He does not want his business to become a hang out where some kids would want to smoke and loiter. Commissioner Comstock asked the Applicant if it would make a difference if he would start at 10AM on Sundays rather than 9AM. Mr. Haney agreed. He is not very concerned with the morning hours. He does not mind starting at 10AM rather than 9AM. Don Smith Mt. Vernon Avenue Over the last year, Mr. Smith feels that he has not had to speak to Mr. Haney about the noise level. Mr. Smith feels that the noise has decreased because Mr. Haney knew that his,permit to run the track-was up for renewal. Mr. Smith reported that he did invite Mr. Lampe to come into his residence and listen to the race from inside of the home and in the back yard. Mr. Smith wanted to ask Commissioner Bidney since he was real estate broker if the value of his home would decrease because of the noise coming from the race track. Commissioner Bidney advised him that he would have to make a full disclosure of the race track. 12 Mr. Smith had a concern with the race track closing at 10:00 seemed feasible r because that is about the time he goes to bed and likes to leave the windows open. Because of the racing noise, he cannot do this. Chair Addington asked staff about Mr. Smith's concerns, and his visit to Mr. Smith's home. Associate Planner Lampe replied that over one year ago, he visited the property and agreed that the racing could be heard, however, the noise meter did not read over 55 decibels in the residence. Vice Chair Addington asked staff when the Noise Element of the General Plan was completed, a chart was provided showing how the decibels related to what can he heard and what would be considered loud and what was considered normal as well as the background noise for the area. Associate Planner Lampe replied that the background noise is the traffic from Mt. Vernon Avenue. While taking readings for the racetrack, there were instances where certain types of vehicles that had modified exhaust systems would drown out the noise from the raceway. The traffic noise far exceeded the noise coming from the raceway. Chair Wilson asked if the railroad noise at any given time measured above 55 decibels near the raceway. Associate Planner Lampe replied that the traffic on Mt. Vernon measured above 65 decibels, but no measurement was taken with regard to the railroad. No complaints ` were ever made over the course of the year with regard to the raceway. Debbie Burrows 22954 Victoria Street Mrs. Burrows claims that she began racing at the racetrack in 1992. She had witnessed many owners and agreed that it is difficult to keep the racetrack profitable. Although the vehicles cause noise, there are a number of business in the area that stay open later than the racetrack, thereby causing traffic noise. When the proposed Sav On is built, won't the drive thru window cause noise as well? Chair Wilson answered Mrs. Burrows, by explaining that the Ordinance is required to be followed with regard to not exceed 55 decibels. Chair Wilson brought the item back to the Commission for discussion and action. MOTION PC-17-2004: Commissioner Comstock made a motion to approve CUP-04-08. Commissioner Whitley seconded the motion with the change in the resolution to start at 10AM. Commissioner Comstock concurred. 13 MOTION VOTE PC-17-2004: Approved 51-0-0 Vice Chair Addington voting No !' ADJOURN SITE AND ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD/PLANNING _. COMMISSION MEETING 8:50 PM CONVENE PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION • Information to Commissioners Planning Director Koontz reported that the next Planning Commission meeting will include the re-election of the Chairman and Vice Chairman. The Outdoor Adventures Center Hearing for the City Council has not been decided as yet, the next City Council meeting will include a discussion item as to when it would be possible to have a full quorum for the Outdoor Adventures Center Public Hearing. • Information from Commissioners Commissioner Whitley wanted to know the status of the proposed Sav On. Planning Director Koontz reported that the Planning Department received construction plans. Chair Wilson wanted to compliment the staff with the improvements that were done on Mt. Vernon Avenue, but he was concerned with the striping. Planning Director Koontz replied that it was going to be changed. Chair Wilson wanted to make .the staff aware of the left hand turn into Brentwood Avenue needs a turn lane. He has witnessed many vehicles almost getting rear ended at that intersection. ADJOURN PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION 8:50 PM NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO BE HELD ON AUGUST 19, 2004 Respectfully Submitted, proved E Gary Koontz, Planing Director Doug Wilson, Chairman Planning Commission 14