PC 062707 - Laserfiche WebLink

With respect to the mitigated Negative Declaration, she noted that there would typically be an environmental document for the Planning Commission’s consideration. She would like to pull those two items for discussion as one is a design review for a gateway location, and the other is a PUD. Ms. Decker noted that staff had no objection to pulling those items to discuss those issues. She wished to clarify that the site was previously developed, both with the gas station and the subsequent car wash. She noted that there were constraints on the two projects, such as the addition of pumps, but that it was not necessarily required to perform a traffic study. In this case, the concern was that the Bernal retail center had a traffic study done for retail half the size of this proposed structure; a traffic study had also been performed for Home Depot. This traffic study was intended to evaluate the traffic impact fees and was more accurately a fee analysis and a greatly reduced traffic analysis. She noted that the analysis, rather than a study, addressed the fair-share cost that the applicant needed to pay in traffic impact fees. Therefore, staff informed the applicant that it would be in the range of $150,000 to $300,000. In addition, a deposit had been made by the applicant, and the analysis would be completed within the next few weeks. She noted that the purpose of the traffic analysis was not to identify which intersections must be mitigated. She noted that although there were controversial sites, this was a different project. In addition, the same controversy did not pre-exist due to this particular project moving forward. She advised that this project was consistent with the Stanley Business Park PUD and its uses. Chairperson Fox expressed concern that the traffic study relevant with Home Depot was currently being looked at and inquired about the order of items to be heard. Commissioner O’Connor replied indicated he would prefer to address the two Consent Calendar items first because members of the audience attended with the expectation they would be heard earlier in the meeting. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR a. PDR-563, Stanley Center, LLC Application for design review approval to construct an approximately 31,180- square-foot retail building, an approximately 3,940-square-foot retail pad, parking stalls, and landscaping at the property located at 3595 Utah Street. Zoning for the property is PUD-C (Planned Unit Development – Commercial) District. Ms. Amos presented the staff report and described the background, scope and layout of the proposed project. Chairperson Fox cited a section under Traffic Considerations on page 5 of the staff report: “As an example of this, the Bernal Retail Center (PDR-421) was required to prepare a traffic study although conforming to the General Plan and zoning land use designations. The Planning Commission did not agree with the assessment of the traffic study and therefore required the applicant to pay only traffic impact fees and not install or retrofit any additional intersection improvements.” She inquired whether that referred to the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 27, 2007 Page 3 of 28