Loading...
PCMIN 06 23 1998 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta Ci.ty Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico. La Quintm CA June 23, 1998 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:03 P.M. by Commissioner Abels who asked Commissioner Gardner to lead the flag salute. B. Commissioner Abels requested the roll call: Present: Commissioners Gardner. Kirk, Seaton, Tyler, and Commissioner Abels. Commissioner Woodard and Chairman Butler arrived late. C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Dawn Honeywell, Planning Manager Christine di Iorio, Senior Engineer Steve Speer, Principal Planner Stan Sawa. Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand, and Executive Secretary Betty, Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confmxted IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Commissioner Abels asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of June 9, 1998. Commissioner Tyler asked that Page 8, Line 10 be amended to read, "City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated' the City was not about to rezone a piece of property .... "; Page 12, Item 34, change the word "streets" to "view"; and Page 16, Item 5, change the word "bas in" to "basin". There.being no further corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Seaton/Gardner to approve the minutes as corrected. Unanimously approved. B. Deparm~ent Report: None V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: __ A. Continued - General Plan Amendment 98-056 and Zoning Code Amendment 97-057; a request of the City to amend the Zoning Code Chapter 9.140-Hillside Conservation Regulations, and the General Plan Land Use and Environmental Conservation Elements regarding Hillside Development Density Transfers. C:LMy Documents\WPDOCS\p¢6-23-98.wpd 1 Planning Commission Meeting June 23. 1998 1. Chairman Butler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand presented the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community, Development Department. 2. Commissioner Kirk asked if that portion of the staff report that states a "variety of design methods for reducing the visual impact of access roads are given including reducing the width of the travel way", is now identified as one of the possible strategies for addressing the impact of access roads. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated it was included as part of the proposed Planning Commission changes and was meant to be included in the staff recommended ordinance and would be corrected, commissioner Kirk asked where staff obtained the information on what the County required that was more restrictive on slopes. Staffstated it was an inaccurate interpretation by staff. Commissioner Kirk questioned Page 64, Item #7, of the staff report whether there were any limitations on the mount of soil that could be placed against the hillside and has staff considered this. Staff stated they had not considered this, it would be considered under the conditional use permit process as to how it fits within the hillside. Commissioner Kirk stated that at the last meeting it was suggested placing a line on the map and restricting any development above that line; has staff' considered this. Staff noted it was an item listed on the page of Proposed Planning Commission changes. 3. Commissioner Kirk asked if legal counsel had any concerns about establishing this type of restriction. City Attorney. Dawn Honeywell stated she had concerns because denying even access roads above the 30% grade does create a problem for the City. Commissioner Kirk asked if the City Attorney had looked into how the City of Indian Wells and Riverside County are able to do this. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that in her review of their ordinances, she found the City's proposed ordinance .was much more restrictive. For someone to challenge their ordinance, a person would have to bring a specific project to the City Council, have them deny it and make the findings in their ordinance that they do not allow it. They do not pro.hibit development; they just require their City Council to review and approve each development. It would be easier to defend either the City of Indian Wells or Riverside County's ordinances than the Planning Commission proposed change restriction of any development on slopes in excess of 30%. Commissioner Kirk asked if counsel had asked either the County or Indian Wells if they had been challenged. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated she had not. 4. Chairman Butler asked if Commissioner Kirk would like to make a recommendation that the City adopt that portion of Indian Well's ordinance. Commissioner Kirk stated he would prefer to do this, but would wait until after public comment had been taken. C:LMy Documents\WPDOCS\pc6-23-98.wpd 2 Planning Commission Meeting June 23. 1998 5. Commissioner Gardner asked Senior Engineer Steve Speer to explain the boulder fields. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated that three properties had been chosen for an analysis and as suggested by the City Attorney they will remain anonymous. He proceeded to explain how the analysis was made at each of the three sites. commissioner Woodard arrived at 7:15 p.m. 6. Chairman Butler asked if this process could be followed by other engineers. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated that before he would go to the site with a developer, he would take a section of rope and mark off the ten foot sections to be more specific in his analysis. The issue is whether or not the Planning Commission wants to stay with the 24-inch size boulder, or go larger, or smaller. Discussion followed as to how the 24-inch number was chosen. 7. Commissioner Woodard asked staff if they were asked today, would they still chose the 24-inch size or would they rewrite any portion of the guidelines. _ Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated his purpose in choosing the 24-inch size boulder was to have a more Substantial size rock to make a determination. Commissioner Woodard stated that if the purpose was to retain the uniqueness of the area, is it staff's determination that the 24-inch size would gain what staffis trying to accomplish? Staff stated it would; a larger number may require losing more of the hillside. Discussion followed regarding the boulder field determination process. 10. Commissioner Kirk questioned whether the Commission's recommendation would be forwarded to the City Council. Planning Manager Christine di Iofio stated they would be taking the Commission's recommendation, but would also be taking staff's recommendation. Commissioner Kirk asked if this was the direction staff was taking. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated that based on the advice of legal counsel, yes. Commissioner Kirk asked if it was the legal concern regarding the 30% grade. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated there was a legal concern with writing the ordinance that absolutely nothing Can be built at any time Under any circumstances above the 30% grade. Commissioner Kirk asked if language contained in the Indian. Wells Ordinance similar to a waiver, would that make legal counsel and staffmore amenable to the direction of the Planning Commission. City' _ Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the Indian Wells Ordinance prohibits hillside development unless the City Council in their discretion, determines whether or not they can build. Her confusion is why the Commission is leaning toward their ordinance when it is much less clear and would require a developer to go through the entire planning process to the City Council C:LMy Documents\WPDOCS\pc6-23-98.wpd 3 Planning Commission Meeting June 23, 1998 _ before they would know whether or not their project would be allowed. This seems to be very, counter to the direction the Commissionwas trying to go. Staff's recommendation is very clear. There would only allow extremely limited types of uses to be built above the 20 percent.slope, with a conditional use permit. Commissioner Kirk stated that the way it was originally proposed, many uses would be allowed above the 20 percent. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell corrected that the only things that would be allowed above the 20 percent would be the access roads to those areas that are less than 20 percent. Commissioner Kirk stated they would be allowed above the 20 percent slope but in the areas that are less than 20 percent. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that was correct, but the Indian Wells ordinance is also only talking about land areas with 20 percent or greater slopes. It would also allow greater development, as long as it is on an area with less than 20 percent, depending upon the underlying zoning. Commissioner Kirk stated this was not exactly true; you would have to get to that point. The way the topography works in Indian Wells, you ar~ not able to develop on land above 30 percent, even if there was a plateau at the top of the slope, because you could not get to it. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated it is an assumption that the City Council would not allow the developer to build an access road to get to the area below the 30 l~ent. Commissioner Kirk asked if this was a policy statement or legal opinion. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that no one would be able to challenge their ordinance on its face because on its fa~e it does not clearly prohibit all development. It allows a mechanism to allow development of any type if someone wants to take it through the process. They would only know whether or not they would be allow~l to develop after they went through the entire planning process. Then the developer would have to argue that the Council unreasonably denied the project. As the Commission proposes the ordinance, with absolutely no development and no mechanism given to the Council for their discretion to allow development, can be challenged on its fa~;e without a proje~;t. Commissioner Kirk asked if the Commission's proposed changes wer~ amend~l with language similar to that used by Indian Wells, would legal counsel have a problem.. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated she would not have a problem. Commissioner Kirk stated legal counsel has concerns with how attractive his policy objections would be, but that is not a legal issue. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated it is a legal issue as it is her .. responsibility to write ordinances. It is her responsibility to make sure that the ordinances written reflect the policies that are directed from the City Council and the Planning Commission in their recommendation to the City Council. Therefore, it is her responsibility that if she believes the Commission or Council has a concern whether it is making something less C:LMy Documents\WPDOCS\pc6-23-98.wpd 4 Planning Commission Meeting June 23. 1998 discretionary, or making it more clear, that it is reflected in writing. That we do not pick something because it sounds easier but actually opens the door to a great deal of discretion on the part of the City Council. Commissioner Kirk asked if the 30% grade requirement were left in the ordinance and a statement was included that allowed for City Council to waive the 30% requirement, perhaps under very circumscribed conditions, would legal counsel have any' concerns. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated she would not have as much a concern from a taking issue. Commissioner Kirk asked if based on this information, would staff be more comfortable taking the Commission's recommended conditions to the City Council and not give a staff recommendation that was independent. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated they would rely on the discretion of the City Attorney as it relates to defensibility of the way it is worded. If the City Attorney accepts it, staff would not provide an alternative to that recommendation. Commissioner Kirk went on to question Planning Manager Christine di Iofio on hillside ordinances that were adopted by other cities she had worked for. 11. Commissioner Tyler stated that since the City was now a Charter City, didn't the City Council have the authority to overrule any action of the Planning Commission if they did not concur with their recommendation. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated yes, they did, but they cannot overrule their own ordinance if it is written in a tight way. They can amend their own general zoning criteria, but they would have a difficult time allowing someone to build on a 20 pen:em slope. Under the Indian Wells ordinance, if the Council could make the findings that no environmental issues were being made to safety, health, etc., they could approve the construction. It just depends on how much discretion was given to the City Council to decide on a specific project. Commissioner Tyler stated that if that portion of the ordinance concerning waiverability were included in our ordinance would it not solve the problem. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated it would make it more defendable on its face. 12. Commissioner Woodard cited a possible scenario of a boulder field and asked what a developer would do if he did not agree with staff"s interpretation of what is a boulder field; what would be the process he would follow to.appeal this decision. Staff stated he could appeal the decision to the Planning Commission without progressing on with his development plans. -- 13. Chairman Butler asked if anyone else would like to speak on this subject. Mr. Chevis Hosea, representing KSL Land Corporation, stated they also would prefer a line that defines where development cannot occur above. C:WIy Documents\WPDOCS\pc6-23-98.wpd 5' Planning Commission Meeting June 23. 1998 Also. they would like to object to boulder fields in that perhaps the grid should be expanded because you could have a patchwork of development area and boulder fields, on a piece of land. separated from each other and the property, owner could lose the ability to build anywhere on the site. 14. Chairman Butler noted that in staff's report it appears to answer Mr. Hosea's concern. Mr. Hosea stated they believe it may do that. but as it is 'written, they still question whether the whole area is exempt or just that area where the boulder field exists is exempt. Senior Engineer Steve Speer explained that each grid had to be 80% filled with boulders to qualify as a boulder field. Mr. Hosea stated that if flexibility existed for the developer to find the grid; they could work with this. 15. Mr. John Criste. Terra Nova Planning and Research. speaking for Mr. Meyer and his group, asked the Commission to determine the purpose of the ordinance as this may be the challenge to this ordinance. The criteria for determining the size of the boulder, "view from afar", should be better clarified: boulder fields are typically an edge phenomenon that are typically adjacent to certain geological edges of a slope and seem to be isolated. He questioned what a topographic aberrant meant and stated that unique geology and topographic aberrant were subjective concepts that are difficult to cope with. The definitions need to be more thoroughly thought out and maybe more functionally rationalized to be more defendable. Currently, the basis seems to be a mistake. 16. There being no further comment, Chairman Butler closed the public participation portion of the hearing and opened it for Commission discussion. 17. Commissioner Tyler stated he agreed with Commissioner Kirk's suggestions regarding the inclusion of that portion of the Indian Wells ordinance to restrict any development above the 30% grade, but in compliance with the City Attorney's concerns. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated she had no legal concerns, but she is not sure it is the direction of the City Council. 18. Commissioner Seaton concuxxea ~ith Commissioner Tyler and thanked staff for their time and work on this project. She would object to changing the size of the boulders to anything larger than 24-inches. 19. Commissioner Woodard stated he still had concerns about a person's property which contains a boulder field, is the entire area building prohibitive, or does the ordinance define where the boulder field leaves off. If it did not, he would not vote for the ordinance. In working with staff, he had the privilege of seeing how the 20% grade was determined and.found the process extremely easy. C:~ly Documents\WPDOCS\pc6-23-98.wpd 6 Planning Commission Meeting June 23, 1998 20. Commissioner Abels asked Commissioner Woodard what he would recommend. Commissioner Woodard stated that m the areas that are defined as boulder fields, only those areas are to be excluded from development. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated this is the way the ordinance is written. 21. Commissioner Gardner stated he believed the boulder fields had a certain aesthetic value that should not be disturbed and he would like to retain them as they are. 22. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by. Commissioners Kirk/Abels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98- 043 recommending to the City Council certification of Environmental Assessment 98-351. ROLL CALL:AYES: Commissioners Abels, Gardner, Kirk, Seaton, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 23. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Abels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98-044 recommending to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 98-056. ROLL CALL:AYES: Commissioners' Abels, Gardner, Kirk, Seaton, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 24. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Abels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98-045 recommending to the City Council appwval of. Zoning Code Amendment 97-057, with the direction to add those appropriate sections of the Indian Wells' ordinance pertaining to waivers ROLL CALL:AYES: Commissioners Abels, Cmrdner, Kirk, SeatOn, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. B. Tentative Tract M~ ?8838; a request of KSL Land Corporation for approval ora subdivision of 133.42 acres into 200 single family and other common or street lots within the bOundaries of Specific Plan 83-002 (Amendment #2) and Specific Plan 90-017 in PGA West. 1. Commissioner Gardner excused himself due to a possible conflict of interest and left the dais. C:LMy Documents\WPDOCS\pe6-23-98.wpd 7 ' Plannmg Commission Meeting June 23. 1998 2. Chairman Butler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Start Sawa presented the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Commissioner Tyler asked staff if they were being consistent with the use of "Primary Arterials" and "Agrarian Image Corridors". Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated each one serves a different purpose and staff needs to be more explicit when referring to it. Madison Street in this instance, is shown as a Primary Arterial which defines the width of the street. 3. Commissioner Tyler questioned the undergrounding of utilities. The east and west side along Madison Street currently have overhead utility lines, as well as along Airport Boulevard. Which of the existing utility lines will be undergrounded. Staff clarified that the east side contained the major transmission lines and would not be undergrounded. The power lines on the west side of Madison Street and any on Airport Boulevard, smaller than the large 12KB lines will be undergrounded. 4. Commissioner Seaton asked if the equestrian trail was a developer request or staff. Staff clarified that the General Plan under the Recreation Element identified Madison Street as an equestrian corridor for access to Lake CahuiHa. It is a requirement that was added to the development and it would be placed within their 20-foot landscape easement. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated that in order to approve the tract, the Commission has to make a finding of consistency with the General Plan. Therefore, you have to have the equestrian trail or they cannot make the finding of consistency to approve the tract. 5. Commissioner Woodard asked if the equestrian trail would be within the landscaped setback, what materials would be used. Staff stated the General Plan' only identifies the trail and does not give any other specifics. The applicant has a proposed plan to show what they would look like. There will be a bikeway in the street fight of way and within'the 32 foot street there will be the 12 foot right of way and 20 feet of landscaping easement, that will consist of a sidewalk and equestrian trail. Commissioner Woodard asked where the equestrian trail started and ended. Staff explained the path. ., 6. Commissioner Kirk questioned the amount of traffic that would be generated. Staff stated it was the ultimate build out for the two specific plans. Commissioner Kirk asked if all the conditions as proposed, were grounded in existing law/regulations/ordinances. Staff stated they were. C:~Iy Documents\WPDOCS\pc6-23-98.wpd 8 -- Planning Commission Meeting June 23. 1998 7. Chairman Butler asked if the applicant would like to speak regarding the project. Mr. Chevis Hosea, representing KSL Land Corporation, asked for consideration on some of the conditions: 1) Condition #37 regarding storm drains, they would like to add that unless the nuisance water is directed to the golf course retention area, a sandfilter and leachfield is required. This is because they have the golf course to disperse the water through a system of dry wells to the golf course and lake system. 2) Condition//40 clarification on the utilities that Imperial Irrigation would accept the undergrounding of the utilities, but it is cost prohibitive. 3) Conditi°n #86 requires the installation of permanent restrooms for golfers and golf course maintenance workers. This is a request for approval of a residential tract and this condition is not appropriate. Halfway houses are on the golf course and they would not like to set a precedent that requires golf course maintenance restroom facilities in the residential tracts. Therefore, they are asking to delete this condition. In regard to the equestrian trail they are concerned that they are being asked to complete one leg of the trail that may or may not ever be completed. Therefore, they are asking to be relieved of the construction of this trail that may never be completed as there is a significant amount of _ undeveloped land between their tract and the trail's beginning and ending. Another concern was whether or not the State Fish and Game Agency would be able to prevent any humans fi.om entering the area where the trails go through the mountains. He then introduced Forrest Haag who presented the equestrian trail proposal. The first condition they would, suggest shows that from the centerline of Madison Street there is a 12 foot median, 110 foot fight of way, so from the curb to the median there are two lanes, an emergency stop, and bicycle lane in the s-nxeet section. Then on the turf area there is a six foot meandering si&walk within the 12 foot setback to fight of way. The meandering sidewalk also moves in and out of the 20 foot landscape area. In the ultimate condition, a ten foot equestrian, trail would be developed to meander with the sidewalk with an equestrian fence separating the two. Without knowing the connection points of the trail, they suggest that within the 20-foot setback where the trail would be, they be allowed to have a green belt with an irrigation system. This gives the effect of a fully landscaped area without having a trail that would be a maintenance burden on the City. 8. Commissioner Kirk asked if the trail would be a maintenance burden for the City. Staff stated the trail would be conditioned to be maintained by the homeowners' association. Mr. Hosea stated it would be difficult to get the Department of Real Estate as well as the homeowners' association to maintain a fight of Way that anyone can fide in. During that time when it is landscaped median, they are proposing it be maintained by the homeowners' association. When the City assumes the fight of way the City would acquire the maintenance of the trail. Community Development Director Jerry C:LMy Documents\WPDOCS\pc6-23-98.wpd 9 Planning Commission Meeting June 23, 1998 Herman stated they would recommend that the trail be built as part of the improvements for the entire length of the this tract and it be maintained under the homeowners' agreement. It is the developers and homeowners' responsibility. Staff is still recommending that it be built now and not later as it can become an issue of enforcement to have the trail constructed. 9. Commissioner Kirk asked if KSL would want to bond for the trail. Mr. Hosea stated they understood the reasoning for the trail and they would bond for the additional improvements that it would take to convert their improvements to an equestrian trail. On the premise that if the City is unable to connect the trail, they would ask that the General Plan be amended and their bonds released. 10. Commissioner Kirk asked if it would be more costly to maintain' the transitional planting than the equestrian trail. Mr. Hosea stated they were surprised that the City would not maintain an required equestrian trail they require. It is unfair to make the homeowners' association responsible for the removal and disposal of manure that is outside their walls that was deposited by a horse that could be from anywhere. Mr. Haag stated that in the short term, the cost of the irrigation system to accommodate the landscaped area is minimal. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated that if they wait for the equestrian trail to come after the houses are built, the likelihood-hood of having an equestrian trail along that frontage is slim to none once the property is built and sold. The General Plan policy requires the trail to be constructed from Avenue 50 to Lake Cahuilla. City Attorney DawnHone~ell stated that if they had a desire to have the trail eliminated, they should have applied for a general plan amendment as part of this consideration. Mr. Hosea stated that if the trail is going to be built, they are being required to build the most expensive leg of that trail. They are disclosing to the homeowners that the condition exits and do not understand' why they cannot bond for the improvements. Staff suggested they install the split mil fence to delineate the trail and the grass. Mr. Hosea asked how the City was going to handle the requirement for an' equestrian trail with property owners who did not want any development adjacent to their property. How will that leg of the trail be completed. Community Development Department Jerry Herman stated that in some instances, the City may have to construct a temporary trail system where a property Owner has no intention of developing his land within the 12-foot setback. '11. Commissioner Woodard asked what the 'difference was between the construction of the fence and a sidewalk being built. Both can dead end until the adjoining property is built. Mr. Hosea stated improvements can be bonded for to be completed during the phasing of a project. When the equestrian trail between 50t~ Avenue and this section occurs, they will construct their portion of the trail. C:LMy Documents\WPDOCS\pc6-23-98.wpd 10 -- Planning Commission Meeting June 23. 1998 12. Commissioner Woodard asked if the applicant was requesting the City to maintain the trail. Mr. Hosea stated the homeowners are to maintain the area in the fight of way, but in this environment when there are not only additional maintenance costs but additional liability issues it is unfair to ask the homeowners to assume this responsibility unless they are creating an equestrian environment. Mr. Start Morse, engineer for the project, stated that in projects he is involved with in Chino Hills and Rancho Cucamonga, the regional horse trails are maintained by the city and the homeowners' association maintains all the landscaping outside it. Commisioner Woodard asked why the equestrian trail would not be adjacent to the wall and not meandering to make it simple. Mr. Haag stated the wall is meandering as well. 13. Chairman Butler asked staff if the City has ever considered maintaining the trail. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated that in conformance with the State's mandate, Proposition 218, all developers who build are required to maintain the common area between the wall and City _ fight of way including the median if it is not in the current Lighting and Landscaping District. Therefore, it is staff's recommendation that the Commission adopt the requirement that the homeowners' association maln~ everything between the block wail. When the issue goes to the City Council they can decide whether to exclude the trail for maintenance by the City. Mr. I-Iosea stated they have a developer who wants to build his model complex and get it open for the season. Therefore, they are asking to have this forwarded to the City Council for their decision. 14. Commissioner Woodard asked if there were design standards for the equestrian tra~l. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated guidelines were contained in the Equestrian Overlay. 15. Commissioner Tyler stated that a previous meeting the Commission ~tas reviewing Tentative Tract 28776 and at that time there was a discussion regarding permanent lighting for the street median; is this the tract that would be responsible for that lighting. Mr. Hosea stated no, it is the tract off Winged Foot, adjacent to the Southern Hills project. 16. Commissioner Seaton asked if the applicant was asking for a delay in the construction of the trail or the maintenance. Mr. Hosea stated that during their scoping meeting with staff, it was his understanding the City would be maintaining the trail. 17. Commissioner Tyler noted the elevation for Lot 85 was incorrect; it should be 470 feet. C:~Vly Documents\WPDOCS\pc6-23-98.wpd ! 1 Planning Commission Meeting June 23. 1998 18. Mr. Haag stated the 0.39% figure, noted in the report regarding traffic, is the total capacity these two projects would put on these arterials. 19. Commissioner Woodard asked if the reason the applicant was asking for relief from the requirement to provide restroom facilities was because their golf course maintenance men use the restrooms at their maintenance shed. Mr. Hosea stated this is correct.' They will be constructing another maintenance facility with the Norman Course that is being designed for the north end of this property. This will serve the east side of Madison Street. 20. There. being no further public comment, the public participation portion of the public hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 21. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated staff had no objection to the requested change to Condition #37 to allow drainage onto the golf course. The applicant will need to denote permanent easements from the residential area to the golf course so there is no question in the future as to whether or not they can drain onto the golf course. On Condition 843, a provision needs to be added requiring fencing to be constructed in accordance with Section 9.140(3) of the General Plan for a split rail fence. In regard to Condition #86, staff's concern was not to provide restroom facilities for the maintenance workers of KSL, but rather the maintenance workers for the homeowners' association who do not have use of restroom facilities. Therefore, the condition should be changed to delete golf course workers and add the words association maintenance workers. Discussion followed as to how this had been handled in prior tracts. 22. Commissioner Woodard asked the applicant how they could accommodate for this. Mr. Hosea stated it would be an issue to be worked out with the homeowners. 23. Chairman Butler asked if the homes could be constructed and mm the issue of the restrooms over to the homeowners' association. 24. Commissioner'Woodard questioned how the restrooms could be required to .. be built without any pool facilities. This could be upsetting to the property owners next to them and across the street. Mr. Hosea stated that depending upon the size of the homeowners' association, there are no funds available for this purpose. C:~dy Documents\WPDOCS\pc6-23-98.wpd 12 Planning Commission Meeting June 23. 1998 25. Commissioner Tyler asked if this area would have its own maintenance thcility. Mr. Hosea stated one is not noted on this map. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated it is her understanding this is a policy of the City Council and she did not understand why there was a problem in requiring it as it has been a requirement of every other tract. Developers have always been responsible for the construction of the common area items and the responsibility of maintaining them has been the homeowners' association. 26. Commissioner Kirk asked staff if the landscaping associated with this tract is an issue that could be addressed by the Commission. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that if there are specific setbacks requirements, or specific things in the specific plan that are pertinent, or if there is a basis either in Our Zoning Code that requires it to be considered at the tract map stage, or in the specific plan for this particular project, then it could be discussed. Commissioner Kirk asked if the Zoning Code requires a review of the landscaping plan as part of the tentative tract map process. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the City gets more specific on what the perimeter landscaping is on the tract maps. Commissioner Kirk asked if the mount of turf on Madison Street could be reconsidered due to the water issue. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the City could adopt a more stringent policy for future tracts. Traditionally, within an existing development, it has not been the policy of the City to do this. Public findings could be made that water is so scarce that developers could be required to be more conservative. Cornmi.,4oner Kirk stated his concern was not within the private community, but the public areas. He asked if guidelines could be required of this tract. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated that Condition #56 requires the applicant to meet the City's Landscape Standards. 27. Commissioner Kirk asked staffhow they interpret this condition that lawn be minimized when lawn is an essential use along Madison Street to be compatible. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated they will have to meet the requirements of Condition #56 and yet be consistent with what is currently existing. 28. There being no further discussion, it .was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Abels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98- 046 recommending to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map 28858, subject to findings and conditions as modified for Conditions #37, modified by changing the wording for allowing the drainage to flow onto'the golf course with the easements; 43.C. modified to add the specifications for the equestrian trail; and #86 to change the restroom buildings for homeowners' association maintenance workers. C:LMy Documencs\WPDOCS\pc6-23-98.wpd 13 Planning Commission Meeting June 2.3. 199g 29. Commissioner Woodard stated he objects to the motion as stated on the basis that it is inappropriate and inconsistent to deny bonding for future development as it is a process that works and has traditionally been an accepted method of the City for the provision of such amenities. Secondly, an equestrian trail should be maintained by the City and not the homeowners' association. If the developer is going to be required to install the restrooms, it should be defined better as to how and where they will be located. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Seaton, Tyler, and Chairman Butler. NOES: Commissioner Woodard. ABSENT: Commissioner Gardner. ABSTAIN: None. Commissioner Gardner returned to the dais. VI. BUSINESS ITEM: None. VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. VIII. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS. A. Commissioner Tyler gave a report of the Council meeting of June 16, 1998. B. Chairman Butler thanked everyone for their participation while serving on the Commission. C. Commissioner Tyler asked that a discussion of when the Commission will go dark be added to the Commission agenda for the next meeting. D. Commissioner Seaton thanked everyone for the privilege of serving on the Commission. ADJOUKNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held on July 7, 1998, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:22 P.M. on June 23, 1998. C:LMy Documents\WPDOCS\pc6-23-98.wpd 14