Loading...
2005 06 14 PC Minutes MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA June 14, 2005 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 Kirk who asked Commissioner Daniels to lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Ed Alderson, Rick Daniels, Kay Ladner, Paul Quill and Chairman Kirk. C. Staff present: Community Development Director Doug Evans, Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston, Assistan~ City Engineer Steve Speer, Consulting Planner Nicole Criste, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: A. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of May 24, 2005. There being none, it was moved and seconded by Commissioner Daniels/Alderson to approve the minutes as submitted. IV. CONSENT ITEMS: None. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Environmental assessment 2005-544, General Plan amendment 2005- 104, Zone Change 2005-124, and Site Development Permit 2005-826; a request of the City of La Quinta Redevelopment Agency for certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact, change to the General Plan Land Use and Zoning designation from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential, and approval of an SO-unit, multi-family residential project, located west of Adams Street, on the north side of Miles Avenue. 1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Community Development Director Doug Evans presented the information contained in the staff report. Staff introduced G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6-' ~5.doc Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 2005 I Frank Spevacek and Jon McMillen of RSG, who elaborated on the project and introduced the rest of'the design team. 2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Daniels asked what the opportunities were to create a pedestrian walkway from the development to the City park. Staff stated originally there was an access, but after discussing the project with the Sheriff's Department it was their determination not to have access to the City park. Commissioner Daniels asked if children would be allowed in the development. Staff stated yes. Commissioner Daniels asked what they would have to do to access the park. Staff stated they walk out the front gate and around the corner to get to the park. 3. Commissioner Alderson asked if the merged retention basins would be grass. Staff stated the existing basin would remain turf with the new basin transitioning from a more native material to the grass. Commissioner Alderson asked if there were any legal ramifications to joining the two. Staff stated no, as the City owns both basins. I 4. Commissioner Quill asked the size of the living space of the units. Also, what will happen to the large Oak tree next to the retaining wall? Staff stated that will be resolved in the final design stages. Mr. Jon McMillen, RSG, stated the church did want to leave it there in the beginning. Now it is dying and they are going to remove it to locate a storage facility in this location. Ms. Robin Vettraino, gave the dimension of the units. 5. Commissioner Alderson asked if each unit had their own storage unit. Ms. Vettraino stated there is one per tenant. 6. Chairman Kirk asked about the blank walls facing the internal streets on Plan 2; were popouts or some other type of architectural treatment considered. Ms. Vettraino explained the pedestrian traffic is directed to the paseo walkway between the units to keep the drive aisle as simple as possible. Chairman Kirk asked about having windows face the drive aisle. Ms. Vettraino explained the landscaping with larger trees to break the exterior unit wall and give relief. This would create a pattern to keep it simple. I G:\ WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6-14-05.doc 2 Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 2005 7. Commissioner Ladner asked where this style came from. Ms. Vettraino stated the design team originated from San Diego. The idea was to create a' simple, clean design for the least amount of maintenance. 8. Chairman Kirk stated the project request is to approve a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change. Why not take advantage of the density bonus? Why not designate it Medium High Density. Staff stated it could be increased. The Commission could make the findings to increase the density. Chairman Kirk'asked who internally reviewed the project. Staff stated it is the same level of review for any development and in this instance probably more. Chairman Kirk a,sked if we were reducing the number of affordable units. Mr. Frank Spevacek, RSG, City's Redevelopment consultant, explained the City's Redevelopment Agency (RDA) purchased the property and even though the City may reducing the total number of units currently by 13. Under State law this would be converted to a different project if the Agency did not buy it and any affordable units would be lost. From the RHNA numbers, we would gain 80 affordable units. 9. Commissioner Quill asked if the density is increased the applicable number of units that could be allowed, do we negate what has been done in terms of the Environmental Assessment. Assistant City Attorney Michael stated no because the approval is specific to the request being sought. 10. Commissioner Daniels asked why the basketball court and picnic area were not reversed in regard to their location to put the noise closer to the street. Staff stated the basketballs could end up in the street and staff did not want to break up the picnic areas. 11. Chairman Kirk asked if there was any other public comment. Mr. Jim Sherman, 78-825 Nolan Circle asked about the current retention wall as it has been compromised and caused numerous problems. Also, he would strongly urge the development be open to the City park. He asked if the RDA will own the project and who will run it. Staff stated the' Agency will build it, then sell it to a non-profit agency specializing in affordable housing. The Agency will set the criteria as to how it is run and selection of the tenants. Mr. Sherman asked if there was a criteria set up to monitor the number of tenants in each unit. Staff clarified the number of G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6-14-05.doc 3 Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 2005 people in each unit would be predetermined and overseen by the management company. You can have restrictions, but there are laws against discrimination, so the Agency will need to well define the criteria. Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston stated you can have pure numerical restrictions, but there are certain discrimination laws that apply. Mr. Sherman asked when they anticipate the Park being closed. Mr. Spevacek stated it is anticipated to have the Park closed by the end of the year. In regard to merging the two retention basins it is due to the CVWD irrigation requirements. In regard to the access to the City park, it was designed to keep it open, but based on the Sheriff's Department comments', the access was closed. 12. There being no further public comment, the public participation portion of the hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 13. Commissioner Alderson commended the use of solar panels and stated he liked the architecture. 14. Commissioner Quill stated he too likes the architecture. He does question the Architecture and Landscape Review' Committee (ALRC) condition in regard to the Date Palm trees. He does not believe it is a big enough safety issue to have them removed. He has strong objection to having the tenants closed off from the City park when there is a direct access available. He asked who the reviewing agent would be for the rental documents. Staff stated it will be part of the selection process the Agency will go through to select a firm to manage the site. I I 15. Commissioner Ladner commended those who are working on this project as there isn't enough affordable housing in the Valley. She understands the need for maintenance free units, but has a problem with the architecture. In regard to the gate to the park, she too strongly believes the tenants should have access. If it becomes a problem, the management company can control it. She asked if the basketball court would have restricted hours. Staff stated it is anticipated it would be. Commissioner Ladner suggested it not be lighted. 16. Commissioner Daniels stated he too believes the tenants should I have access to the City park. There is a potential of having 96 children in this development. This should off-set any concerns G:\ WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6-14-05.doc 4 I I I Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 2005 raised by the Sheriff's Department. He would suggest the basketball court be moved no closer than 15 feet from the front property line. This will also give a larger picnic area. 1 7. Chairman Kirk stated he too strongly agrees the connection between the City park and this development should be open. The Date Palm trees should be kept; he agrees with Commissioner Daniels comments on the basketball court. In regard to the architecture, he likes that it is different, but it still is not appealing. Besides all the paseo and courtyard area, the streetscape still needs some architecture detail added. The site design is well done and sensitive to the neighboring community. 18. Commissioner Ladner stated she believes this architecture is much less than what was turned down at the last meeting. 19. Commissioner Quill stated it is a contemporary design and computer generated pictures do not always do justice. 20. Commissioner Alderson stated that to introduce a window on the streetscape would put a window in the living room and dining room and he would believe this would be advantageous to the home. Mr. Spevacek stated they did not want the windows to reduce heat load and air conditioning costs. 21 . It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Quill to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005-020 recommending certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact for Environmental Assessment 2005-544. ROLL CALL: A YES:Commissioners Alderson, Daniels, Ladner, Quill and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 22. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Daniels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005-021 recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 2005-104, as recommended and amended: a. Change the zoning from Medium Density to Medium High Density. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6-14-05.doc 5 Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 2005 ROLL CALL: A YES:Commissioners Alderson, Daniels, Ladner, Quill and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. I 23. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Alderson to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005-022 recommending approval of Zone Change 2005-124, as amended a. Change the zoning from Medium Density to Medium High Density. ROLL CALL: A YES:Commissioners Alderson, Daniels, Ladner, Quill and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 24. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Alderson to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005-023 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2005-826, as recommended and amended: b. Add Condition: An open connection shall be provided to the City park at the north end. Condition #81: Delete reference to the deleting the date palm trees. Condition added: The basketball court shall be moved to the south 15 feet from property line. Condition added: .Plan 2 elevation shall be modified where possible to add windows to the east. If not possible on the west, some other type of architecture treatment'shall be added. I a. c. d. ROLL CALL: A YEs:Commissioners Alderson, Daniels, Quill and Chairman Kirk. NOES: Commissioner Ladner. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. B. Environmental Assessment 2005-536, Zone Change 2005-123, and Tentative Tract Map 31434; a request of Monroe Dates for consideration of a request to certify a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental. impact, a Zone Change from Low Density/Agriculture-Equestrian Residential to Low Density Residential, and the subdivision of 28.7.±. acres into 118 single-family lots for the property located on the west side of Monroe Street at Avenue 61 . I G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6-14-05.doc 6 I I I Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 2005 1. Chairman Kirk 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. 2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Daniels asked if the lots that abut Trilogy are single- story homes. Staff stated yes. Commissioner Daniels asked if Trilogy had a condition limiting them to one-story. Staff stated the homes were approved under the County and not reviewed by staff. Commissioner Daniels asked if the open space lots would remain open. Staff stated they are defined as play/recreation or common area lots. Commissioner Daniels asked that they remain open space. He asked about the traffic calming methods and why 36-foot wide streets were needed on streets with a traffic calming' effect. Staff stated they would be restricted to parking on one side of the street if the streets are narrower. 3. Commissioner Alderson asked if the emergency access would also be the construction access. Staff stated yes, and it would be gated for fire and police access only at the completion of the tract. 4. Commissioner Ladner asked about the density change in regard to what Trilogy is zoned. Staff explained. 5. Commissioner Quill asked if the height restriction for the residences on the lots would come to the Commission. Staff explained that if it were a custom lot subdivision, the elevation plans would not come to the Commission. Staff would review them to ensure they would not exceed the height I.imitation. 6. Chairman Kirk asked for clarification that the applicant was asking for a density change from three to four units to the acre. Staff stated yes. Chairman Kirk asked for the justification to the zone change. Staff stated basically there would be no agricultural or equestrian uses that would warrant the existing zoning. 7. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Craig Knight gave a presentation on the project. 8. Commissioner Daniels asked about the roundabout or restriction for traffic calming. Mr. Knight stated they determined the G:\ WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6-14-05.doc 7 Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 2005 restriction was a better method. Lot" J" has nothing planned for it specifically. It is an open space with landscaping. I 9. Commissioner Alderson asked if the grades had import fill due to the neighboring project. Mr. Knight stated yes, and more infill will be needed to reach the same height for a shared wall for the entire site. 10. Commissioner Daniels asked why he was requesting 36-foot wide streets. Mr. Knight stated he had no particular reason except to have the ability to park on both sides of the street. 11. Chairman Kirk asked if there was any other public comment. Mr. Candelario Felix, 65-575 Orchid Court stated he lived about a half mile from this project and had no objection to the project. 12. Mr. Mike Keebler, representing CVUSD, stated the District is requesting a bus turn-out on Monroe Street. 13. Ms. Natalie Levi, 81-730 Sun Cactus Lane, stated one concern is that there are no CC&R's or HOA for the proposed tract, and asked who would be responsible for the common areas. These could be significant impacts on their community. I 14. Mr. Nick Pandullo, 60-680 O'Rourke Circle, stated his concern was that his home is 150feet from the retention basin. Retention basins are problematic and it should be redesigned as a detention basin. Retention basins create mosquito breeding places if water is retained which presents an environmental detriment. Who is going to maintain the basin? There is no pathway for emergency overflow. Another issue is noise pollution that will be created by the lots being located right behind their wall. Lastly, they would like the Commission to consider rearranging the units away from their rear wall. 15. Mr. Kenneth Biba, 81-749 Sun Cactus Lane, addressed concerns contained in the Environmental Assessment in regard to how this tract is building upon the tracts in the area. This tract is nothing like the other homes in the area. 16. Ms. Linda Gibbs, 81-857 Sun Cactus Lane, stated her concern I was also the retention basin concern, standing water nuisance, noise pollution, and that it is not zoned compatible with the G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6-14-05.doc 8 I I I Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 2005 adjoining communities. She requests it be reconfigured to be more compatibility by allowing more space between the two communities. Lastly, they would like to request that one palm tree be planted for each tree removed. 17. Mr. Robert Schultz, 60-402 Chelsea Court, stated he agrees with what has been stated. 18. Mr. Tom Sullivan, 79-440 Citrus Street, represents two home owners at Trilogy. He does believe the property owner has the right to develop his property, but also, the existing property owners have the right to protect their property. He then submitted an alternative design for the project. 1 9.. There being no further public comment, the public participation portion of the hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 20. Commissioner Daniels stated his confusion as he has never heard of putting a street next to someone's back yard. On the issue of CC&R's and ~ HOA, he is not clear as to how the applicant intends to maintain these facilities. In addition, a condition needs to be added to accommodate Coachella Valley Unified School District's request for a bus turnout. As to the retention/detention basin issue, he would like to have staff assure no ponding would be created. 21 . Commissioner Ladner stated any gated community must have a CC&Rs to define the maintenance responsibilities. She too agrees she would prefer a backyard to a backyard than a street. In regard to the retention basin, Trilogy has a golf course that will always have standing water somewhere. The retention basin has a lesser chance of having standing water than the golf course. 22. Commissioner Alderson stated he visited the site and was impressed with the wall and with the height limitation. He does not agree the retention basin will be a health issue. He does agree with the inclusion of palm trees back into the project. He also believes the developer has been sensitive to his neighbors in the design and layout of the tract. 23. Commissioner Quill stated there is a greater risk of West Nile from the agricultural uses in the area than a retention basin that is G:\ WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6-14-05.doc 9 Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 2005 required to be maintained by CC&R's. In regard to, someone buying a house next to a wall with vacant land, this is an issue of a buyer beware. The tract lacks any form of creativity in the design. Lot sizes are significantly small for the area. Does not like the layout as there are no cul-de-sacs, traffic calming methods in the curvilinear streets are insignificant in regard to performing the function they are proposed. The application is inadequate and poor and he is not impressed. 24. Chairman Kirk stated he too agrees with ~he lack of creative layout on project. He is not in agreement with the neighbors concerns. He agrees this is not a thought out design. He is concerned about the project entrance. He needs to see a lot more detail. Lot J is not identified as to its use and how it is to be designed. He also is not convinced this project needs to go from three to four dwelling units per acre. For density increases the Commission should see . something special and he does not believe it is. 25. Commissioner Quill asked if the applicant would prefer to have a continuance. Discussion followed regarding potential action by the Commission. 26. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Daniels to remove the application from the calendar. Staff would renoticed the public hearing when revised plans are submitted. Chairman Kirk provided the following direction to the applicant: a. Provide narrow streets, no parking on street or one side; b. Provide a design for the project entry; and c. Identify the miscellaneous lots and their uses. Unanimously approved. Chairman Kirk recessed the meeting at 9:07 and reconvened at 9:17 p.m. C. Specific Plan 97-029, Amendment No.4; a request of Stamko Development Co. for consideration of a new driveway access on Adams Street and a design change to the internal circulation pattern, access, a ' retention basin, high density housing with an affordable component, for the property located on the east side of Adams Street, south of Auto Centre Drive. G:\ WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6-14-05.doc I I I 10 I I I Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 2005 1. Chairman Kirk noted the applicant had requested a continuance of the project. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Alderson to continue Specific Plan 97-027, Amendment No. 4 to June 28, 2005, as requested by the applicant. Unanimously approved. D. Site Development Permit 2005-835; a request of Stamko Development Co. for consideration of development plans for a multi-tenant retail store consisting of 23,000 square feet, located at the southwest corner of Highway 111 and Dune Palms Road 1 . Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Community Development Director Doug Evans presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which was on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Daniels asked staff to clarify the ownership of the property. Staff clarified it was currently owned by the City's Redevelopment Agency and is in the process of being sold to Stamko Development Co. 3~ Commissioner Alderson asked about the sky blue awning. Staff indicated the location of the awning on the site plan. 4. Chairman Kirk asked about Figure 8, the Circulation Plan; the pedestrian traffic between the two centers is lacking on the design. Staff suggested increasing the planting on the parking islands to make a linkage. Chairman Kirk asked about the delivery access. Staff noted their location on the rear of the building. 5. Commissioner Daniels asked if there was a bus turnout west of Dune Palms Road. Staff stated yes. Commissioner Daniels asked if there could be a cutout in the Highway 111 landscaping to allow pedestrian traffic to enter this site. Staff stated this could be addressed in the final landscape plan. Commissioner Daniels asked if it would be better to move the driveway further to the north. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated the General Plan requires it to be 150 feet from the intersection. Currently, it is designed at about 250. There does need, to be a throat and it would be difficult if it were moved further north. There is some opportunity to move it. Commissioner Daniels asked if the gas station could have a shared access and eliminate the landscaping G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6-14-oS.doc 11 Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 2005 on the east end. Staff explained the circulation pattern. Commissioner Daniels asked if the building should be flipped. Discussion followed regarding building layout. 6. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Ms. Chris Clarke gave a presentation on the project and addressed the concerns raised by the Commission. She clarified that where it states the color as blue, it is now green. Ms. Clark asked that the Sign Program be considered at this time. 7. Chairman Kirk stated the sign program was not part of the application before them. Ms. Clarke stated she would like to request a continuance to include the sign with this application. 8. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Ladner to continue Site Development Permit 2005-835 to July 12, 2005. Unanimouslyappr.oved. E. Environmental Assessment 2005-541 and Tentative Tract map 33597; a request of R. T. Hughes Co., LLC for consideration of a request to. certify a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact and development plans for the subdivision of 22.97 acres into 57 single- family lots, as well as lots for streets and retention basins located at the southwest corner of Avenue 60 and Madison Street. 1 . Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Planning Consultant Nicole Criste presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff requested the Commission add a condition to allow one master Minor Use Permit for all the casita units. 2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Daniels asked there could be a hammer-head instead of the full cul-de-sac on Lots 6, 7, and 8 and again at 14, 15, 16, to cut down the amount of pavement. Staff stated that if it meets the Fire Department requirements, it would be possible. 3. Commissioner Quill asked if this project would not be reimbursed for the cost of a signal if the Travertine project moved forward. Ms. Criste stated there is not a condition for reimbursement. Commissioner Quill questioned the realignment of a significant 60 foot irrigation line that has never been relocated before. The loss G:\ WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6-14-05.doc I I I 12 I I I Planning Commission Minutes June,14, 2005 of one or two lots would be less than moving this line. He noted the City has not received any communication from CVWD or the Bureau of Reclamation as to whether or not this line can even can, or will be relocated. Staff noted CVWD did require the relocation be approved. Commissioner Quill asked if this would be a full improvement of Avenue 60. Staff stated it will be a half street width. Commissioner Quill asked who would be responsible for finishing the street widening if the property to the south is never developed. AssistantCity Engineer Steve Speer stated there are other tracts in the process that will complete the street development. 4. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Richard Hughes, the applicant, gave a presentation on the project and stated he had a problem with the condition regarding bonding for the circulation issues. If Travertine is never built he is left with the bonding for the construction of a street that will never be built. This street is an issue for the Travertine project and no~ his. In regard to the irrigation line, they would not like to move it, but they are trying to resolve the issue with CVWD. Mr. Jerry Green, engineer for the project, spoke regarding the Madison Street improvements. He stated it has no benefit to this project and they do not believe they should be burdened with the cost. He explained the work that would be necessary to construct the street. 5. Commissioner Quill asked if Travertine is not developed, and this developer is required to construct the street, the maintenance of this street could be a waste of public funds as it goes no where. He asked if that were the case, would the street then be deeded back to this developer. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated there are other land owners on the other side of the dike in addition to Travertine. Staff does not expect this developer to widen this street unless a developer on the other side does develop. Staff is requesting a bond be kept in place until such time as this street is removed from the General Plan. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated there is a very significant parcel of land that can' be developed without restrictions on the south side of the dike. The only issue for Travertine is the trail. It is becoming realistic that Travertine may be developed. In any , other instance a developer would be required to develop the street adjacent to their project. The issue here is the grade difference. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\ß-14-05.doc 13 Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 2005 6. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant had considered extending the lots and having the slope be a part of the lot. Mr. Green stated they have a drainage swale to catch the drainage and they would prefer it be maintained by the HOA. Chairman Kirk asked if the CVWD water efficient landscaping calculations had been submitted. Mr. Green stated no. I 7. Chairman Kirk asked if there was any other public comment. There being none, the public hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 8. Commissioner Ladner commended the applicant on the design. She questioned the condition for bonding. 9. Commissioner Quill stated he would like staff to tighten-up the condition in regard to the irrigation line relocation. 10. Commissioner Alderson stated that in regard to the configuration of the land, it is an excellent land planning design. I 11. Chairman Kirk commended the applicant on the design. He would prefer to see the submittals after they go through the water calculations. Staff stated landscaping plans are not required at the tentative tract submittal. There being no further discussion, the public participation was closed. 12. It was moved by Commissioners Ladner/Alderson to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005-024, recommending certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact for Environmental Assessment 2005-541 , as recommended: ROLL CALL: A YES:Commissioners Alderson, Daniels, Ladner, Quill and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 13. Commissioner Quill questioned the reason this developer is being required to pay for the cost of the Madison Street improvements when it is not to his benefit. Staff explained that if the condition is not required, then there is no one to pay for the improvements. I Discussion followed regarding alternatives and solutions to the cost of the street improvements and whether or not they should be required to bond for the grade., G:\ WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6-14-05.doc 14 I I I Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 2005 14. Chairman Kirk stated he would like to see the perimeter landscaping plans at this stage. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated that it has not been the practice of staff to require that at the tentative tract map submittal stage. If the Commission wants to do this, the application process would need to be changed. Staff would discuss this further with the Commission at a future date. Discussion followed regarding alternatives to street improvements. 15. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Daniels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005-025, recommending approval of Tentative Tract Map 33597, as recomm~nded and amended: a. Condition #54.A.1.a. The applicant shall bond for the cost of widening only, Madison Street to its ultimate street width or provide a cash amount. The applicant shall grant and deed to the City the necessary right of way for the future Madison Street, if asked to do so by the City, prior to the final map recording. If this widening has not been completed within five years of this approval it shall not be required. Condition added: A master Minor Use Permit shall be submitted for all the casita units. b. ROLL CALL: A YES:Commissioners Alderson, Daniels, Ladner, Quill and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. . F. Environmental Assessment 2005-533 and Site Development Permit 2005-822; a request of KKE Architects for consideration of a request to certify a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact and review of development plans for Phase 1 (44,300 sq. ft.) of a 61,650 square foot center on a 6.38 acre site, for the property located on the north side of Highway 111, 1,300 + feet east of Dune Palms Road. 1 . Chairman Kirk 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. 2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6-14-0S.doc 15 Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 2005 Commissioner Daniels asked the distance from Highway 111 to the rear of the building. Staff estimated 70 feet. They are required to berm and screen the drive-through lane. I 3. Chairman Kirk asked if the doors on the rear would open into the drive-thru lane. Staff stated they were emergency only doors and would open on a concrete stoop. 4. Commissioner Alderson asked the number of trash enclosures. Staff indicated the location of the four on the site. Commissioner Alderson questioned whether or not the applicant had an easement with the property owner to the west. Staff stated to date, it has not been consummated. Commissioner Alderson expressed his CO¡:1cern that if the applicant were unable to reach an agreement, it would require a reconfiguration of the site plan. 5. Chairman Kirk asked if a reconfiguration were required, would it come back to the Commission. Staff stated it would depend on the extent of the revisions. 6. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Mark Giles, representing the applicant, stated he was available to answer any questions. I 7. Commissioner Quill asked if there would be berming in the 50-foot landscape setback ~Iong Highway 111. His concern was the grade of the drive through paving in respect to the curb and cutter along Highway 111, and what is the pad grade in respect to the existing Highway 111 curb and gutter. What is their relation to Highway 111. Mr. Dan Reese, The Keith Companies, engineer for the project, explained the relationship between the street and drive through is within three feet. Commissioner Quill stated his concern is that if the elevation of the curb and gutter and the elevation of the drive through lane is significantly different, it can be difficult to screen the cars. Mr. Reese stated he would need to refer to the landscape architect. 8. Chairman Kirk asked if there was any other public comment. There being none, the public participation portion of the hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. I 9. Commissioner Alderson stated that if the front building is going to G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6-14-05.doc 16 I I I Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 2005 have a drive-through, he is concerned about the doors opening into the drive through. Mr. Giles stated there is a five foot sidewalk between the doors and drive-through. 10. Commissioner Quill stated he wanted to be sure the cars in the drive-through are hidden from view from Highway 111. 11 . Chairman Kirk asked if the applicants could be required to submit full landscaping plans at the time they submit their Site Development Permits. Staff stated grade differential information could be required at the time of submittal. 12. Chairman Kirk stated that although the applicant has done a nice job designing the site, he does not like the building backing onto Highway 111. 13. It was moved by Commissioners Alderson/Ladner to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005-026, certifying a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact for Environmental Assessment 2005-533, as recommended. ROLL CALL: A YES:Commissioners Alderson, Daniels, Ladner, Quill and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 14. It was moved by Commissioners Alderson/Daniels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005-027, approving Site Development Permit 2005-822, as recommended and amended: a. Condition added: Retail Buildings "A" through liD" with the exception of Pad 1. b. Condition added: The applicant shall obtain approval of the access to the adjoining property to the west. c. Condition added: The applicant shall submit a more detailed elevation and landscaping plan for Pad 1 . ROLL CALL: A YES:Commissioners Alderson, Daniels, Ladner, Quill and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. G. Site Development Permit 2005-830; a request of John Garrison, GSR Andrade Architects for consideration of development plans for construction of a .±.36,000 square foot, two-story medical office G:\ WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6-14-05.doc 17 Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 2005 building, located on the east side of Washington Street.±. 400 feet south of Avenue 47. I 1 . Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Alderson asked staff to clarify what appears to be utility boxes, at the northeast corner of the site and the Architecture and Landscaping Review Commission recommendation which staff did. 3. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. John Garrison, the architect for the project, stated they are utility boxes. 4. Commissioner Quill stated he would prefer they not add any more architectural detail as the simpler, the better when trying to achieve the Mission look. I 5. Commissioner Ladner stated she agrees with Commissioner Quill. The smooth texture does make the difference. 6. There being no further discussion or public comment, Chairman Kirk closed the public hearing. .7. It was moved by Commissioners Quill/Alderson to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005-028, approving Site Development Permit 2004-830, as recommended by staff and as amended: a. Condition #73.B: Amended to require a two-piece mudded clay Mission tile. b. Condition added: No anodized metal shall be used on the windows but rather the window frames shall be a powder colored aluminum or bronze. c. Allow date palm trees to remain as proposed. ROLL CALL: A YES:Commissioners Alderson, Daniels, Ladner, Quill and I Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: G:\ WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6-14-05.doc 18 I Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 2005 VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Review of City Council meeting of June 7',2005. B. Department report: IX. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Ladner/Daniels to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held on June 28, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 11 :30 p.m. on June 14, 2005. Respectfully submitted, Bet . S yer, Execu~cretary City of La Quinta, California I I <3:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6-14-o5.doc 19