Laserfiche WebLink
Minutes <br />Planning Commission <br />3/2/587 <br />Commissioner Michelotti stated that staff report indicated talks <br />to a request from Growth Management for low income exemption. <br />Mr. Callahan said this is correct. Mr. Swift reported that the <br />General Plan has no limit with regard to the number of exemptions <br />from the Growth Management program. <br />Mr. Callahan again spoke and stated they have decided to agree to <br />Condition No. to as written by staff. Regarding Condition 12 <br />they ask that this condition be deleted. The traffic assumptions <br />are broad. The City has no standards for High Density <br />residential traffic assumptions. Mr. Callahan suggested that a <br />study be made so that traffic assumptions could be done for <br />residential projects, and if such studies warrants this project <br />be included in participation in signalization, they would agree <br />to participate. Mr. Callahan felt the staff report to be unclear <br />and totally disagreed that the cost of a signal at Pimlico and <br />Santa Rita Road be shared by this development as this development <br />would not benefit. Mr. Swift stated that inasmuch as this <br />project would be scheduled to go before Council in approximately <br />three weeks, there would be no time to do such studies and get <br />back to City Council within that time frame. <br />The Commissioners then discussed the projects approved in this <br />area and their participation in mitigations for traffic. <br />Mr. Swift stated that everything since the approval of AT&T has <br />had this requirement with the exception of Valley Memorial <br />Hospital. Mr. Callahan argued that he didn't object to the <br />condition, but didn't feel this project would impact this <br />particular intersection. He asked for a review of the subject in <br />some detail for more signal analysis. Chairman Lindsey said this <br />can be done with the wording in Condition No. 12. Mr. Callahan <br />stated he didn't want to dodge this condition or anything else <br />but asked for an analysis to determine the benefit to this <br />project as he didn't feel this project would have an impact on <br />this intersection. Mr. Swift stated that staff asked for and <br />received a signal warrant which calls for the installation of a <br />signal. <br />Commissioner Michelotti then discussed the location of the <br />driveways and access to the units. Commissioner Michelotti asked <br />staff when the signal would be needed. Mr. Swift responded that <br />it would be needed with build out. Commissioner Michelotti <br />addressed the aesthetics of a signal at the entranceway to the <br />project and had concerns with how it would look. <br />Traffic <br />Commissioner Innes had problems with the traffic study done <br />because the November 1986 base line was approved setting certain <br />LoS figures and this study didn't use these assumptions. <br />Commissioner Innes addressed the four intersections of concern. <br />Mr. Callahan agreed there are base line errors on this report, <br />but that the total trip generation rates are the same. Mr. <br />Callahan deferred to Mr. Wintch of Bissell and Karn on this <br />matter. <br />- 8 - <br />