PC 021104 - Laserfiche WebLink

view, the applicant was careful to design the building so that the noisy outside environment did not disturb the animals. The minimum wall width would be six inches, and double-paned windows and insulation would be used. He noted that all the uses were indoors, with the exception of an attendant walking one dog at a time. Mr. Iserson noted that there are deciduous trees at the back of the arroyo on the project side, and vines would be planted along the mesh fences in the rear of the property. There would be no chain link fencing. He noted that the lighting would be low and would be designed so that the neighbors would not be disturbed. Mr. Iserson displayed an overhead presentation of the site plan. Staff believed the applicant did a good job in fitting the building to the site, which was a difficult site to plan. He noted that with respect to the street improvements along the frontage, the applicant showed aright-of--way designation. As was the City's normal policy, the developer would be required to install the street improvements. Staff recognized that the applicant is anon-profit organization but that there were advantages to doing it at this time. He noted that 12 feet of the road would be improved and that they would install the utility laterals at the same time. In addition, only curb and gutter would be required; no sidewalk would be required on that side of the street because of the future trail by the arroyo. There would also be no street lighting requirement on that side of the street. He advised that the Commission may choose to delete the condition altogether, which was potentially precedent-setting. Mr. Iserson noted that the use would generate a limited amount of traffic, which would average between four to six trips during the p.m. peak hour, two of which would use the Stanley Boulevard/Bernal AvenueNalley Avenue intersection. The public education classes would be the most traffic-intensive uses and would not be held during the p.m. peak hour. For these reasons, staff did not require a traffic analysis. Staff believed that the 11 parking spaces would be sufficient based on anticipated attendance. He noted that was another advantage of performing the streetwork at this time. Mr. Iserson displayed the exterior plans and added that the animal medallions were an attractive design addition. He noted that the building did not meet the Zoning Ordinance criteria for peer architectural review analysis. He noted that a conceptual landscaping plan had been submitted and that staff would work with the applicant to further define the details. He noted that there were two monuments signs proposed on site; one was to identify the facility and the other identifying the service entrance. Staff believed the use was appropriate, fitted well into the area, and continued a desirable community service. Staff further believed that the project mitigated any impacts to the adjacent neighbors and that the vaziance made sense, given its limited amount of encroachment and the site constraints. He believed the street improvements were reasonable and that they were sensitive to the non-profit nature of the agency. Staff recommended that the Commission make the findings for the variance and the conditional use permit and approve the design review application. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 11, 2004 Page 5 of 19