PC 121003 - Laserfiche WebLink

~r. Iserson presented the staff report and noted that the item had been continued from tl""1e rnceting ofJ'\./lay 28" 2003. .At that time", the Commission requ.ested more information on some issues; the applica..nt has since provided that il""1rOrmation" resulting in a nevv- staff report. Staff brought the General Plan Amendment and rezoning of the DaSil-va parcel to the COn""1IT1ission and City Council" vvhich vv-as required for this development. a..nd the pote.ntial adjacent Bl'v'IX development to be approved. The Commission recommended approval of those iten~s in June" and the Council a.pproved it in Jl..:lly. crhe design revievv and condition use permit approvals """ere origirl.ally accompm""1ied by the General Plan An:"lendment and the rezoning." but vvere split for convenience and to Tacilitate the BNlX. project. Staff had alvvays anticipated that all or tl"1ese lTlattcrs vvould also go to City C::'<yu.ncil for their revieVV" and final action. I]~ response to all. inquiry by Chairpersorl. Arkin", l'v1r. Isersorl confirmed that tl:t.e current. iten::"l.s vvere not appealable or su.bjeet to referendum; tl.....e :z:onil""1g change "V'Vas subject to referendum. He noted that if the City C::'ouncil approved these it.ems", they vv-ould not be subject to referendum. "M"r. Iserson re-vievv-ed the details and layout of the proposed project. In response t.o an inquiry by Commissioner l\I1aas", l\I1.r. Iserson conf:'irmed that the site vv-ould be closed to the public during the off:':...season. Chairperson .Arkin noted t.hat his company often held gatl"1erings at similar facilities vvhich "V'Vere closed to the public. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Roberts", l\I1r. Iserson confirmed that the use of tl.....e park. for a corporate party duril""1g tl:t.e off-season VVCH.l.ld ol""1ly be alloVV"able if cOl""1ditioned; there vvas no refere.n.ce in the rna"lerial tl"1at the park vvould be opened off---- season, . I'V1r. lserson advised that tll.e applican_t SublTlitted a pl.....asirl.g plan" """hereby 75 percent aT tl"l.e project vvould be built in the first year; the rest of the project vvould be phased in o-ver the next six years. Starf recommended that the entire project be approved by the Con""1missiol"1", but that each phase be revievved before it is allovved to be constructed. .Any issues or additional requirements may be addressed at that time. The revievv "V'Vould be cOl""1du.eted by the Planning Director" but the Comn::1ission may modify that cOrLdit.iorL i:t- it VV"ished to participate in tl.....c revievv. l'v1r. Iserson ad-vised that the major issue at the last hearing and in comments recei-ved by staf:T centered aronnd traffic. The applicant submitted traffic reports vvhich had been revievv-ed by staff., and supplemental information by tl.....e applicant."'s traffic el.""1gineer """as submitted in. response to specific questions. The greatest number or trips occurred on vveekends and summer holidays; the background traffic in the City is lighter during those tilT1.es. During the vveekday peak-hour traffic times" a small number of trips "VVol..l.ld be added as a result of the project. Those trips vvould occur in the opposit:e direction of--the critical flovv- oftraf:fic. He described the traffic mitigation measures taken by Ponderosa PLANNING COJVTlVIISSION l'VlINUTES Decerr,ber 10,2003 Page 4 r- --r ,---...,...