Loading...
PCMIN 10 13 1998 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA October 13, 1998 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman Tyler who asked Commissioner Abels to lead the flag salute. B. Chainnan Tyler requested the roll call: Present: Commissioners Abels,'Butler, Kirk, Robbins, and Chairman Tyler. C. Staffpresent: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Dawn -Honeywell, Planning Manager Christine di Iorio, Senior Engineer. Steve Speer, Principal Planners Stan Sawa and Fred Baker, Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand, -- and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC-COMMENT: None III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Chairman Tyler asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of September 8, 1998. Commissioner Abels noted Commissioner Kirk was Stated as being present during the discussion of the first public hearing when in fact he was absent and asked that this be amended to note he was not present. There being no further corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Robbins to approve the minutes as amended. Unanimously approved. B. Department Report: None. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Tentative Tract Map 29003; a request of Bmokfield Homes for approval and recommendation to the City Council to subdivide 5.4 acres into 19 residential lots and other common/street lots for the property located west of Madison Street, along Brae Bum, south of Laurel Valley within PGA West. C AlVly Documents\WPDOCS~PC 1 O- 13-98.wpd' 1 Planning Commission Meeting October 13, 1998 1. Chairman Tyler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff noted that a change had been made to Condition #23 to clarify that it is a revision of the existing utility lateral construction. 2. Chairman Tyler asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Chevis Hosea, speaking for the applicant, stated KSL had sold this tract to Brookfield Homes, but KSL would retain the responsibility for the off-site improvements. He had no specific concerns regarding the conditions, bud did have some concerns with the off-site improvements for the other tracts that are before the Commission at this meeting. They understand the need and obligation to have the Perimeter improvements in place for the City before PGA West is built out. They are trying to accomplish this as fast as they can and would like to have the ability to work with staffto resolve these improvements. 3. There being no further public comment, the public participation portion of the public hearing was closed and opened for Commission discussion. 4. Commissioner Robbins asked for clarification on the tract map as it showed a cross section of rolled curb and he was unaware of any rolled curb at PGA West. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated there were some places where rolled curb was used and it was in place on this tract. Commissioner Robbins stated the map showed a "typica! cross section for Brae Bum" and a standard curb. Staff stated the detail of the curb was more accurate than the full street cross section. It is a rolled curb. 5. Chairman Tyler asked that the first two items on the legend of the map be removed as they were no longer applicable and the "ovals" were being used for two different purposes and should be corrected. 6. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98- 066 approving Tentative Tract 29003, subject to the condition as modified. Condition #23: "...shall furnish a plan for revision of the existing utility lateral construction abandonment and provide approved estimates for the work." ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk Robbins, and Chairman Tyler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. C:~ly Documents\WPDOCSLPC 10-13-98.wpd 2 Plarming Commission Meeting October 13, 1998 B. Tentative Tract Map 28961; a request of Brookfield Homes for approval and recommendation to the City Council to subdivide 44.30 acres into 48 residential lots and other common street lots for the property located on the west side of Madison Street, south of Avenue 54, within PGA West. 1. Chairman Tyler opened the public heating and asked for the staff rePort. Principal Planner Fred Baker presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Tyler asked what the plans were for the. large lot at the entry to the tract. Mr. Chevis Hosea, speaking' on behalf of the applicant, stated the large lot is frontage of the property owner to allow them room for privacy. In regard to the conditions, he questioned Condition #22 and why they would have the full burden of the traffic control improvements at Jefferson Street and Avenue 54 when this comer has three owners. He could understand a 75% responsibility,'but the balance of the improvements should be placed on the property owner to the west. If it becomes private, they would like to have the condition removed. They do understand their obligation, but they would like clarification that the condition would be removed if the City vacates the arterial. Senior Engineer Steve Speer commented that in' regard to the traffic signal, he would agree with the 75% share as long as this is stipulated in the conditions for the Oak Street Specific Plan. With regard to Avenue 54 at the west end, it seems appropriate to add language that if the street is vacated the signal would not be constructed. 3. Commissioner Butler asked if staff reduced the amount of the responsibility in the conditions, would it reduce the applicant's bond obligation. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated it would. '4. There being no further'public comment, the public participation portion of the public heating was closed and open for Commission discussion. . 5. Commissioner Robbins stated he Was confused regarding whose responsibility it was in regard to the participatory requirements. They do not seem to be applicable to the tracts in conjunction with their location. Senior Engineer Steve Speer explained it was an old problem that until now had nOt been resolved. The majority of the developments at PGA West have been on the interior lots. Now, as the site is reaching buildout, it'is important to see that all the off-site obligations are completed. Staff is therefore tying 'conditions for these improvements to any tract to see they are completed. KSL as the master developer is working out the off-site obligations with their builders. Staff does have an off-site phasing plan worked out with KSL. C :~¢ly Documents\WPDOCS~PC 10-13-98.wpd 3 Planning Commission Meeting October 13, 1998 6. Commissioner Kirk asked if there would be a problem with some of the other projects as far as not being responsible for the off-site improvements. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated that the Oak Tree West Specific Plan had not started any active movement on their project and the City would consider their off-site improvements at that time. The Citrus Course has the bonds in place for their off-site improvements. Currently, there is a dispute with the two main developers that is in arbitration. 7. Commissioner Kirk asked if the interior street widths was to be 37-feet and was this consistent with the other streets. Mr. Hosea stated this was standard for PGA West. Commissioner Kirk asked if the market would allow the street widths to be reduced. Mr. Hosea stated they were looking at reducing the width to 32-feet for the single loaded streets. They are studying this now to see if it is possible. With a doubled loaded situation they would keep the streets at 37-feet. 8. There' being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98- 067 recommending approval of Tentative Tract Map 28961, subject to the condition as modified: a. Condition #22.A. Modified to read "75% of the cost to design and construct traffic control improvements if required within the Ranch Specific Plan otherwise 100%." b. Condition #22.C. If the street is vacated or included into another development, street improvements shall not be constructed. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Robbins, and Chairman Tyler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. C. Tentative Tract MaP 28603; a request of KSL Recreation Corporation, Inc. for approval and recommendation to the City Council to subdivide 22.67 acres into 60 single family residential and other common/street lots for the property located on the north side of Hermitage (extended) and east of Riviera and west of Madison Street abutting the existing Tom Weiskopf Golf Course within PGA West. 1. Chairman Tyler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. C:XMy Documents\WPDOCSLPC 10-13-98.wpd 4 Planning Commission Meeting October 13, 1998 2. Chairman Tyler asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Chevis Hosea, speaking for the applicant, asked that Condition//22 be modified to find some other mechanism to fund the improvements. As they. do not generate southbound traffic, he did not believe they should be responsible for the improvements. Condition #33B, they would like to request 32-foot wide street widths. Condition #45, they have had previously approved plans and worked with CVWD to create a design that is being approved for the development of green areas within 18-inches of the curb. They would like to request this type of development be encouraged within the City. This also allows the sidewalk to be placed away from the curb and lawn sprayer irrigation within 18 inches of the curb. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated that with respect to Condition 22.B., staff has reviewed Specific Plan 90-017 and found that even though most of the specific plan area is on the east side of the street, there is a portion of the specific plan area on the west side, in particular this tract, and requires full street widening for the entire length of the specific plan area to Avenue 58. This being the first tract, staff is requesting 25% participation. The balance, or three quarters of the street, will come when the other tracts on the other side of Madison Street develop. _ In regard to Condition 45, staff is unable to substantiate this requirement in the City's Ordinance and will therefore delete that sentence from the condition. In regard to Condition 33.B., reducing the street to 32-feet, the condition already allows this. 3. Commissioner Kirk asked if the Madison Street 'improvements are for Specific Plan 90-017 and if this is the first tract under that specific plan. He also asked if there was a reasonable' fair participation rate for this size of tract. It seems unfair to pass the burden to the next tract to the south as that tract would not support the off-site improvements. 4. There being no further public comment, the public participation portion of the public hearing was closed .and open for Commission discussion. 5. Commissioner Butler asked if the burden of the off-site improvements could make the property unfeasible to developi Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated they try tO analyze the amount of land being developed in relation to the street improvements. Staff is looking at a revised infrastructure fee schedule. Commissioner Butler asked if this type of system would force the smaller developer into a Mello Roos. Staff stated that a smaller developer with a narrow piece of land is still required to do the sidewalk, curb, and perimeter ~-- wall. KSL would still be required to develop everything behind the curb. C:~My Documents\WPDOCS~C 10-13-98 .wpd 5 Planning Commission Meeting October 13, 1998 6. Commissioner Kirk asked if the infrastructure fee was referenced in the conditions. Staff stated it was alluded to, and they are required to pay into the fund. It covers those items that are remote to this project. The small landowner is also dedicating his right of way. Commissioner Kirk asked if the infrastructure fee schedule would be defined at a .later date. Staff stated it is in the drafting process. 7. Commissioner Robbins asked if there was enough right of way to build this street. Staff stated no, when they are prepared to move forward with the street, and the fight of way is not there, you do not proceed. If you approach the land owner and it is possible you do proceed. · 8. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Abels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98- 068 recommending approval of Tentative Tract Map 28603, subject to the conditions as recommended by staff with the deletion of the last sentence of Condition/445. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Robbins, and Chairman Tyler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None.' D. Tentative Tract Map 28960; a request of KSL Recreation Corporation, Inc. for approval and recommendation to the City Council to subdivide 24.33 acres into 75 single family residential and other common/street lots for the property located 500 feet north of the future Weiskopf course, southeast of PGA Boulevard, and west of Madison Street abutting the exiting Jack Nicklaus Tournament Golf Course within PGA West. '. 1. Chairman Tyler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Start Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. · 2. Chairman Tyler asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Chevis Hosea, speaking on behalf of the applicant, questioned Condition #22.B. and'asked that this condition be placed on a tract map within Specific Plan 90-017. On Condition #22.C., to construct the north three quarter full width improvements for Avenue 58 with the Jefferson Street realignment, it is their understanding that this is being completed in concert with another specific plan south of PGA West. The realignment has pulled Avenue 58 away from PGA West due to this other development and it is their belief that this condition should rest with them. This is also tree of Condition #22.E. the extension of Interlachen If another tract is causing this realignment, the ' C :LMy Documents\WPDOCSLPC 10-13-98.wpd 6 · Planning Commission Meeting October 13, 1998 burden should be on that tract. Condition #32.A.1. is required by TT 28444. Senior Engineer'Steve Speer stated that in respect to 22.B., he would concur that this condition does not belong to this tract and should be picked-up at a later date. In regard to Condition 22.E., while the realignment of the street may be due to another project, it is a City-initiated plan, therefore all projects affected need to comply. Condition #32A.1., has already been applied to Tract 28444 and is satisfied. 3. Chairman Tyler asked staff to respond to Mr. Hosea's concerns. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated that in regard to Condition 22.B, the signal or round-about at Madison Street and 58th Avenue, he would concur that it does not apply to this tract and should be removed. With respect to Condition 22.E, the Interlachen extension, while the realignment study was paid for by another developer, it is a City document and the approved realignment for Jefferson Street and Avenue 58 by General Plan Amendment. All projects will have to conform with this .alignment since its approval. He recommended that this condition stand as written. In regard to Condition 22.C. this is the same issue and language that should be added to state that _ this will be required at the time of the street realignment. Mr. Hosea is correct that Condition 32.A. 1. states that the applicant shall build this access entry is actually a requirement on previous tracts. However, this particular street is an access connection to Madison Avenue and directly across the street there is another entrance to the subdivision on the west side of Madison Street. These two access points do not match up. They are 100-feet off. The key language in this condition has to do with the alignment and configuration as required by the City Engineer when authorized by the City. It is being required because the City is not satisfied with how the two sides will match up.' The condition could become a separate condition to not confuse it with any other issue. Chairman Tyler asked that it be separated. 4. There being no further public comment, the public participation portion of the public hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 5. Commissioner Robbins asked if Mr. Hosea was satisfied with staff's comments relative to the conditions. Mr. Hosea stated they were concerned about the exposure of developing within.a specific plan that has conditions, and those conditions can be modified by something that occurs outside the plan. The benefit from these improvements will benefit mostly those projects to the south more than PGA West. Chairman Tyler asked if this project -- should be continued to allow time to resolve the issues. Staff stated that in regard to the realignment of Avenue 58 and its impacts to PGA West,'the · City held two noticed open workshops and KSL and/or their predecessors, did attend and were given an opportunity to respond at that time. The City C :XlVly Documcnts\WPDOC SXPC 10-13-98.wpd 7 Planning Commission Meeting October 13, 1998" looked for input from all the landowners at that time to arrive at a consensus alignment. After the workshops the City spent $90,000 on aerial topographic pictures, designing the street configuration, etc. to realignment the street. After this it was presented to the Planning Commission and the City Council at public hearings as a General Plan Amendment. To imply that it was a developer driven change is incorrect. When the City conditions street improvements to be installed, we condition them to be installed in the approved alignment. Staff realizes the existing street is adjacent to PGA West, but this is not the approved alignment for any new improvements. Mr. Hosea asked if this issues could be worked out with staff. Discussion followed as to the responsibility of the street improvements and realignment. 6. Commissioner Robbins stated he did not believe it was fair to change the conditions after the specific plan had been approved. He tended to agree with the developer. 7. Commissioner Abels stated he agreed with Commissioner Robins. 8. Commissioner Kirk asked staff if KSL was informed they would have no further responsibility given the realignment. Staff stated this General Plan Amendment occurred in 1994, and any specific plan that comes for approval of its improvements after this amendment has been adopted, will have to conform. This is the reason for the public hearings. If the Amendment will impact your specific plan, you have the oppommity to address it at that time. As there were no changes made for their specific plan, they will have to conform to the General Plan Amendment. Commissioners 'discussed with staff if these changes were discussed during the Specific Plan Amendment for SP 83-002. Mr. Hosea stated he was not concerned with the consistency finding, but who was financially responsible for the improvements. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated their Specific Plan was always obligated to build Avenue 58 from Madison Street to Jefferson Street. In one of KSL's amendments, the burden was lightened and they were only obligated for that portion of Avenue 58 improvements that was adjacent to their specific plan. Now, the City is asking KSL to move the cost of these improvements, which is the'same amount, to the realigned alignment. There are no additional costs involved, just a relocating of the cost. Mr. Hosea stated they do not object to the Avenue 58 improvements, only the extension of Interlachen. 9. Commissioner Kirk asked staff to indicate on the map the area under discussion. Staff stated that PGA West is adjacent to the north side of Avenue 58 for about a quarter of a mile. When Jefferson Street is realigned and constructed it will be done by an assessment district and a participatory C :hMy Documents\WPDOCSkPC 10-13 -98.wpd 8 Planning Commission Meeting October 13, 1998 agreement. The extension of Interlachen would keep the access gate to PGA West, however it would have to be extended to connect to the realignment of Jefferson Street. If they do not complete the street improvements PGA West will no longer have an access to Avenue 58. Mr. Hosea stated that if the arterial is moved, it is the other developer's option whether or not to connect. They do have the option of developing a 32-foot landscape area that will not be enjoyed by anyone. They did not create the obligation. Community 'Development Director Jerry Herman stated KSL can redesign their tract map. and have no access to Jefferson Street from Interlachen. This is a General Plan Amendment and the tract before the Commission at this time cannot be approved ~f it is not consistent with the General Plan. Mr. Hosea asked if this obligation could be placed on the Specific Plan Amendment #4 that is in the process-of being submitted to the City. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated the Planning Commission cannot approve this tract as it is proposed, because it is not consistent with the General Plan. 10. Commissioner Robbins asked if the applicant accepted this condition at this time, could they amend it at a later date after their general plan amendment. Staff stated this was possible. Mr. Hosea stated they could not delay the tract as it has been sold. 11. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Robbins/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98-069 recommending approval of Tentative Tract Map 28960, subject to the conditions as follows: a. Condition 22.B. Would be deleted. b. Condition 22.C. would have the following wording added: "Shall' conform to the new Jefferson Street alignment." c. Condition 33.A.1. would become a new condition #38. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Robbins, and Chairman Tyler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. E. Tentative Tract Map 28912;'a request ofT. D. Desert Development for approval and recommendation to the City Council to subdivide 29.11 acres into 8.1 single family residential and other common/street lots for the property located on the north side of · 50th Avenue, east of Park Avenue (extended) within the Rancho La Quinta Country Club. 1. Chairman Tyler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. C :~My Documents\WPDOC SXPC 10-13-98.wpd 9 Planning Commission Meeting October 13, 1998 2. Commissioner Robbins asked how this tract would handle the nuisance drainage as it appears to drains to no where. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated that if CVWD does not want the nuisance water in the Channel, it would have to be handled with some kind of a sand filter system, a French drain system, or something that does not leave the nuisance water exposed on the surface in the channel. It would be a privately maintained nuisance water handling system and the City would be open to any kind of improvements the developer wanted to propose and mm over to the HOA for maintenance. Commissioner Robbins asked that this requirement be added to the conditions. 3. Commissioner Kirk asked if CVWD had made any comments relating to this project. Staff stated that a letter had been received from CVWD stating that water could not drain into the Channel. ~Staff stated that Condition #31 does address the nuisance water system, but does not specify what type of system should be used. Discussion followed regarding how nuisance water is generally handled in the City. 4. Chairman Tyler asked if the applicant would like to address the Commissibn. Mr. Grady Sparks, speaking for the applicant, asked for clarification on Condition 36.A. 1. & 2. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated this has to do with the reimbursement of improvements for Avenue 48 recently completed by the City. Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan has been responsible for this improvement cost since the beg!nning of the project and the City is now asking for that reimbursement. Condition 36.A.1 which is for Avenue 48 between Dune Palms Road and Adams Street, half the cost attributable to Rancho La Quinta would be due in the amount of $622,304. The second half of the Avenue 48 improvement, which is attributable to Rancho La Quinta at a later time, would be $622,304. Condition 36.A.2. should be changed to read Avenue 48 and Dune Palms Road, not Adams Street. 5. Chairman Tyler stated the tract is not to have any access onto'50th Avenue, but there currently is a construction entrance. Mr. 'Sparks stated the construction entrance will remain until the tract is built. From there the. entrance will probably go to Jefferson Street. Their future entrance will eventually line up with the Estancia's entrance, and will be their easterly boundary. Mr. Art Gardner, Watson and Christiansen Engineering firm, stated there would be a fire access and turnaroUnd serving as a joint entrance with the adjoining tract. In addition, in regard to the nuisance water, they are considering either a single catch basin and a cross gutter, or two catch basins and a dry well, and a large area of gravel with fabric around it to take care of the nuiSance water. C:WIy Documents\WPDOCSLPC 10-13-98.wpd 10 Planning Commission Meeting October 13, 1998 6. There being no further public comment, the public participation portion of the public hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 7. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Robbins to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98-070 recommending approval of Tentative Tract Map 28912, subject to the conditions as amended: a. Condition #31: applicant shall be required to install a City approved nuisance water percolation improvement for water directed to the Evacuation Channel. · b. Condition #36.A.1., the cost of $622,304 would be added. c. Condition #35.A.2., remove Adams Street and 'replace with Dune Palms Road and the cost of $622,304 would be added to the end of the sentence. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Robbins, and Chairman Tyler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Chairman Tyler recessed the meeting at 9:50 and resumed at 9:55 p.m. He also noted that a request had been received to revise the Agenda to take Business Item A. at this time. VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Sign Approval 98-433; a request of Fashion Bug (Imperial Signs) for approval of a deviation of an approved sign program to permit a corporate identification sign for the property located at 78-870 Highway 111, within the One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center. 1. Chairman Tyler asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa' presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Tyler asked if there were any questions of staff. 3. Commissioner Kirk asked the length of the sign. Staff stated it was approximately 15-feet and within the required size. 4. There being no further public comment, the public participation portion was closed and open for Commission discussion. 5. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Butler to adopt Minute Motion 98-008 approving Sign Application 98-433, subject to the conditions as recommended. Unanimously approved. C:hMy Documents\WPDOCSXPC 10-134}8.wpd 11 Planning Commission Meeting October 13, 1998 PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED: F. Environmental Assessment 97-029-Amendment #1. Site Development Permit 97- 603-Amendment # 1. Development Agreement 97-002-Amendment #1; a request of Stamko DeVelopment Company for approval and recommendation to the City CoUncil for Certification of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report; approval of "The 'Centre at La Quinta" Specific Plan Amendment creating development guidelines and standards for a multi-phased Mixed Regional Commercial complex with three planning areas having four development scenarios; approval of a Site Development Permit Amendment including the building elevations, site, landscaping, and lighting plans for' three auto dealerships; and approval of the Development Agreement Amendment, for the property located south .of Highway 111 between Adams Street and Dune Palms Road. 1. Chairman Tyler stated for the record that he had met with the applicant on September 23, 1998, for a brief informal discussion of the project. Commissioners Robbins and Kirk noted they had also met with the applicant for the same purpose. Chairman Tyler noted the 45-day Public Review period required by CEQA for the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) did not end until October 23, 1998, which is the day before the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission. An additional period of time will then be required for staff and City consultants to respond to any comments received. In view of the current incomplete, status of that process, he was proposing that this public hearing be limited to the following: staff report and questions of the Commission, the applicant's presentation and questioning by Commissioners, and any public testim°ny. The public participation portion of the hearing would then be closed and the public hearing continued until the first regular meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled for November 10, 1998. At that meeting, further testimony fi.om the applicant and the public may be heard, but will be limited' to responding to issues raised during the Public Review of the SEIR. Discussion among the Commissioners and voting on the various Resolutions would then take place. This schedule will permit the Commission to make its recommendations in time for consideration by the City Council at its regular meeting on November 17, 1998. He then opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Tyler asked staff to explain the four scenarios in the Specific Plan and if the Commission should consider the entire document or only where development was going to occur at this time. Staff stated the entire site. C :LMy Documents\WPDOCSLPC 10-13-98.wpd 12 Planning Commission Meeting October 13, 1998 3. Mr. Tony Locacciato, Impact' Sciences, gave an overview of the SEIR document. 4. Commissioner Robbins asked how the drainage requirement for the Highway 111 landscape setback area, per the recently approved Zoning Code Amendment, could now be potentially significant when the SEIR states that proposed specific plan amendment would have the same impacts on hydrology and water quality of the certified EIR. He understands where the zoning has changed, but he does not see how something that was approved two months ago can now be of significant affect. Mr. Locacciato stated the EIR not only looks at in addition to the physical impacts but also assesses consistency with applicable standards. That standard has been adopted since the original project was approved. The proposed amendment requests a deviation from the standard. Being consistent with the standard that is now applicable is identified as a significant impact. 5. Commissioner Robbins stated the SEIR speaks of the depth of the retention basins. On Adams Street and Highway 111 it is approximately eight-and-a- _ half feet lower than the adjacent Highway 111 curb, which is technically correct. When the pad itself is six feet below the curb you will have at least six feet of difference, if you do nothing. This infers that it is an eight-and-a half foot retention basin when in fact you may only have a two or two and a half foot deep retention area. Mr. Locacciato stated this was correct and could be clarified. The specific point that it is addressing is that the standards are stated such that the depth of the basin is to relate to the height of the curb. 6. Chairman Tyler questioned Section 5.5 Transportation Circulation. Between the year 2000 and 2005, the projection for the intersection of Washington Street and Fred Waxing Drive went from Level Service D to F. Even though a study must be prepared at some point in time, significant changes will take. place before that year that will have a significant impact on this intersection. All of this should have an impact on the traffic study. Does this creme a need to update the study. Mr. Locacciato stated he would check, with the consulting traffic engineer to see if any 'proposed project would impact the study. As to future growth, there is a growth assumption contained in the report, which is the same percentage that is applied to all rOadways. 7. Commissioner Kirk asked about the hydrology impacts. It is his understanding that the hydrological impacts did not change physically, but -- given the change in City standards it is now considered a significant impact. Mr. Locacciato stated this was correct. The physical impacts have not changed. The City has adopted a new standard and the SEIR has to look at consistency With applicable standards as well as the physical impacts. C:qVly Documents\WPDOCS~PC 10-13-98.wpd 13 Planning Commission Meeting October 13, 1998 8. Commissioner Kirk asked if the consultant considered the standards in the Design Guidelines for Highway 11 1 to have the same weight as the updated Zoning Code. It is his understanding that the Design Guidelines were fairly consistent with the Zoning Code so when the impact analysis was completed before, the consultant did not determine that the inconsistency with the Design Guidelines was not a significant impact. Mr. Locacciato stated the Highway 111 Design Guidelines were not adopted at the time the previous EIR was prepared and the specific plan was approved by the City. Discussion followed as tO the time line of the adoption of the Design Guidelines and the Zoning Code update. 9. Commissioner Kirk asked if the special display areas were allowed by the Guidelines. Staff stated it was not a part of the Design Guidelines. It is a part of the Zoning Code. Staff thought it would be a compromise to get the regular display areas screened and allow the applicant the visibility and focus on the special display areas. Commissioner Kirk asked if staff worked with the applicant on the number and location of the display areas. Staff stated it went through some interaction to come up with this type of design. Discussion followed as to how the final design was obtained. 10. Commissioner Kirk asked if staff thought the berming of the'regular display areas was adequate. Staff stated they did not. Commissioner Kirk asked if staff would agree to more or larger display, areas as a compromise. Staff stated it was their opinion that the length and number of cars contained in the display areas as proposed is adequate for advertising on Highway 111. 1'1. Chairman Tyler stated the issue of an auto dealership is not covered in the Zoning Code, but requires a conditional use permit and this was approved a year ago and is not before the Commission for review at this time. He would like each of the Commissioners to receiVe a copy of the original auto mall specific plan and the Highway 111 Design Guidelines. 12. Commissioner Robbins asked if the Highway 111 Design Guidelines were guidelines or an adopted ordinance that requires the applicant to comply; City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated they were adopted as Guidelines and should be considered as evidence of the City Council intent of what they want on Highway 111. The specific drainage and berming standards that were adopted as part of the Zoning Code were adopted by Ordinance. The Guidelines were not adopted in their totality in the Ordinance, but they should be considered by the Commission as the intent of what the City Council desires to have on Highway 111. The Zoning Code in and of itself, does not try to place every tree. It speaks in terms of general types of goals that the City is trying to achieve, so there is some discretion even within the Zoning Code. The Guidelines were adopted to give a more specific intent of what is wanted on Highway 111. There is some latitude. C:~My Documents\WPDOCSLPC 10-13-98.wpd 14 Planning Commission Meeting October 13, 1998 13.. Commissioner Robbins asked if the regular display areas were being confused with parking lots. We are displaying vehicles instead of some other product. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated the berming would be required. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the berming and screening is applied to all developments along Highway 111. You have basic zoning requirements in place that have to be observed and our need to look at the project from the CEQA point of view. In addition, is the fact that the City is paying for these improvements and if we want to s~e it as a part of the overall improvements, the City should be given latitude to have what it wants. 14. Ms. Christine Clarke, Stamko Development Company, spoke on behalf of the project. In regard to the Highway 111 Guidelines, they are guidelines and not cast in stone. They worked with the consultant when the Guidelines were being drafted. The original.version of the Guidelines contained flowering trees and gentle mounding. So they were aware of the Highway 111 Design Guidelines when they were designing the auto mall. What must be remembered is that this is an auto mall and should not be compared to other retail stores. The berming and mounding is required only to hide the parking. The berming would not be required if a building were to be constructed at the setback. Then through the EIR process she discovered that the Guidelines had been modified and were being required as part of the specific plan conditions. The City is paying for all the street improvements, but so is she and if the project does not generate sales tax neither she nor the City get it back. This puts the developers, City, and herself at risk. She then introduced her consultants and went on to discuss her concerns regarding the conditions for the specific plan: a. Condition #2: asked that the wording "which intends to be" be deleted and it already has been deleted; the berming on Adams Street that is being asked for, they have never intended to have berming on Adams. This is because from Highway 111 to Adams Street it drops 12 feet on Adams Street. To get the buildings to grade on 47th Avenue when you are dropping 12 feet, they are not berming because this' is where there vehicle storage is at six feet. It will be high enough by itself. Below 47h Avenue they are not berming is because there will be display areas on Adams'Street under Scenarios 2 and 3. If it becomes a retail site, they will address it at that time. The reference to the building setbacks, they are already setback 120 feet on Highway 111 and 100 feet on Adams Street from the dedication of right of way. b. Condition #3: already contains the wording being requested. In the second sentence she objects to adding that she is not consistent with the General Plan when she is consistent. C:WIy Documents\WPDOCSLPC 1 O-13-98.wlxl 15 Planning Commission Meeting October 13, 1998 c. Condition 4: she objects to all that is being requested. d. Conditions 5: she is bring the electrical up Adams Street from 48t~ Avenue. She has provided new exhibits to show this and incorporated into the specific plan. She requested that sentences four and five be deleted and this new language substituted. e. Condition #7: clarification is needed. Their intent is to have the half street improvements from Highway 111 from the east boundary of the property to Adams Street and from Highway 111 to the south property line on Adams Street be completed. The half median on Highway 111 from the east boundary to Adams Street, the full median on Adams Street from Highway 111 to the 47~ Avenue under development Scenarios 1, 2, and 3, but under Scenario 4 would only be a half median and the other half median south of 47t~ Avenue. The language needs to be clarified. f. Condition #8: she does not understand, nor does she understand how to resolve the problem. g. Condition #9: is correct. The architects for the dealers increased the lighting poles from 40 feet on center to 50-feet on center on Highway 111 because they were 40-feet and they have the special display lighting will be low bollards. h. Condition #10: they are screening the vehicle storage. They do not want to confuse the vehicle storage with the regular vehicle display on Highway 111. Vehicle storage is behind the six foot walls. This condition sounds like a repeat. She would like to add a condition that puts in the regular display area there will be no employee, visitor, or used car parking permitted on Highway 111 or Adams Street. It will be for new vehicle display only. i. Condition # 11: the language is not contained in the specific plan. The second sentence is all right. j. Condition # 12 is all fight. k. Conditions # 13 & 14 the language is already contained in the specific plan. 1. Condition # 15: she did not understand the condition, it requires her to revise the last sentence and then asks for it to be deleted. m. Condition # 16: she cannot agree to. n. Condition #17 she cannot agree to. They have already provided a new plant palette to add hybrid Mesquite, but they do want flowering trees on the comers in the setback. o. Condition #18: there will be nine dealer identification signs that must be allowed. In the second sentence it must be allowed. In sentence three they will back away from any secondary signs on Highway 111, but they want identification signs on Highway 111. The remainder of C :qVly Documents\WPDOCS~PC 10-13 -98.wpd 16 Planning Commission Meeting October 13, 1998 the condition is all fight. p. Condition # 19: the first sentence is all right, but the second sentence they can not agree to. q. Condition #20 is all fight. r. Condition #21: they will not change. s. Condition #22: they will agree to. t. Condition #24: they cannot accept any of it. They believe they are the. wrong conditions.~ They should be Conditions #4, #7, and # 15. The specific plan deals with the distance between buildings. On the special display, the specific plan does not limit the number of cars. This is intentional due to what they are marketing'- large or small cars. The specific plan limited the height of the pads to 12 inches. They have no problem having a condition prohibiting anything lifting up the vehicles. In regard to the Development Agreement, they have exceeded the developmem standards. Berming is designed to have low areas in from of the special display areas and higher at the regular display areas. On the Site Developmem Permit conditions, her concerns are as follows: · . a. Conditions #1-5 are all fight. b. Condition #6; she does not have any time lines for the phasing of this project. c. Conditions: #7-21 are all fight. d. Condition #22; she objects to. Highway 111 and Adams Street nmoff may be retained in the landscaped setback. e. Condition #23 is all fight. f. Condition #24; they are asking for the slopes to be 5:1 on public property and the retention depth not exceed six feet on the private and three feet on the public. g. Conditions #25-28 are all fight. h. Condition #29: asking that the water, after separation, be put into the sanitary system, not a percolation facility. i. Condition #30: they are not constructing curb, gutter and sidewalk on the east side of La Quima Drive and the south side of Aut° Center Drive in Planning Area # 1. j. Conditions #31-32 are all fight. k. Condition #33:' need to change the slopes to 3:1 for public fights of way. 1. Condition #34: would like the last sentence changed to state: "Use of lawn shall not have spray 'irrigation within five feet of the curb along public streets." m. Condition #35.is all fight. C:~Vly Documents\WPDOCSLPC 10-13-98.wpd 17 Planning Commission Meeting October 13, 1998 n. Condition #36: would like to the end of the first sentence: "..from Highway 111 to 47th Avenue." On the second sentence she would like to add that it is not a average minimum of three feet of height of undulating mounts. The Guidelines are one to three feet and not an average of three feet. Also, if the CVWD well site is located at'the southwest comer, the setback will be the same as Adams Street. o. Condition #37: should be deleted, it is the old specific plan. p. Condition #38: eliminate the plants, they have .submitted a revised plant list. On "B" they would like the City to take the Architectural and Landscape Review Committee's recommendation to increase the trees in certain areas, instead of doubling the trees. q. Conditions #39-47 are all right. r. Condition #48.A: they would like the Commission to agree with the Architectural and Landscape Review Committee's recommendation. s. Condition #48.B: they agree with the change to #1. On #2 they agree with the Architectural and Landscape Review Committee's recommendation. On #3 they do not agree with the requested change. They have already placed portals around them and will extend the fascia wrapping over the parts department on the Nissan building. They have also agreed that the windows on Nissan, Mazda, and Chrysler will be recessed. t. Condition #49: this is confusing because the wall does not come down Adams Street, it drops down where the Chrysler storage begins and goes to 47th Avenue. Because they are not processing the site development permit below 47th Avenue, they cannot agree to have a wall with a minimum two foot berm. They ask that this be eliminated. When comparing the old specific plan tO the new, the old had six foot walls, all vehicles storage, and maintenance were located on the back of the property. They have now redesigned and the wall is down. The vehicle storage for Pads # 1 and #2 is together. Now, without the wall they are able to do a lot more undulating. On the old plan, there was almost no landscaping on site in the back of the property. 15. Chairman Tyler asked if the rooftop storage had been eliminated. Ms. Clarke stated it was. She asked if there was any legal reason the Commission was asking for the continuance. Chairman Tyler stated only to allow the public review period to be completed. Ms. Clarke stated she was surprised by this as she was told that only the City Council can make the final decision on the SEIR. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated it is not a legal consideration, only a concern of the Planning' Commission to have everything in front'of them before making a decision. .. t'.\ha,, lh .... m~.ntq\WPF)OCS\P(-2.10-13-98.wt)cl 18 Planning Commission Meeting October 13, 1998 16. Mr. Doug~anian, La Quima Chamber of Commerce, stated the project provides ~ an oppommity to approve a project that could improve the City's ecol~g, foundation. Retail sales are vital for economic growth: The Centre wi~l~ide related retail, diversity, jobs, and will serve as a catalyst for other ~'1 developmem. He would encourage the Commission to approve ~ject and move it forward because of the economic benefits. 17. There bein~ further public comment, the public participation portion of the publi'c he~ was closed and open for Commission discussion. 18. Commiss~Kirk asked if the applicant would put her thoughts imo writing and have ~lrprepare a response to her concerns before the next meeting. 19. Commissimr Robbins asked if the public hearing was being closed. City Attorney I~n Honeywell stated the public hearing may be left open for ' future discism. If it is being cominued for purposes of heating comments from the ~/, you should keep it open. 20. There beil no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissi~ Abels/Robbins to continue the public hearing to November 10, 1998. imimomly approved. VII. CORRESPONDENCE J WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. VIII. COMMISSIONERS ITll~ A. Chairman Tyler ~a.report of the Council meeting of October 6, 1998. He noted the date of the L~'of California Cities Conference on March 24, 1999. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,~lms moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Robbins to adjourn this regular meeting of~ng Commission to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held on Octola~, 1998, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 11:04 P.M. on~ll~ber 13, 1998. C:XMy Documents\WPDOCSLPC 10-13-98.q111l, 19