Loading...
2005 09 27 PC Minutes MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA September 27, 2005 ~_.' t 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 Alderson to lead the flag salute. . B. Present: Commissioners Ed Alderson, Richard Daniels, Kay Ladner, Paul Quill and Chairman Kirk. I C. Staff present: Community Development Director Doug Evans, Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston, Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer, Planning Manager Les Johnson, Associate Engineer Paul Goble, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate Planners Wallace Nesbit and Andrew Mogensen, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: A. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of Septem~er 13, 2005. There being none, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners. Daniels/Alderson to approve the minutes as submitted. IV. CONSENT ITEMS: None. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: . A. Site Development Permit 2003-727, Amendment #1; a request of Paragon Signs, Inc. for Dr. Mathew Werner for consideration of a revised Sign Program for the Lake La Quinta Plaza, for the property located at 47- 250 and 47-350 Washington Street, the east side of Washington Street, just north of Omri and Boni Restaurant. 1 . Chairman Kirk noted the request to continue the item. It was moved and seconded 'by Commissioners Alderson/Daniels to continue Sign Application 2003-727, Amendment #1. Unanimously approved. G:\ WPDOCS\PC· Minutes\9-27 -05 .doc -. ,-".. --.........,. - 'Ylllru"V~\~..ttl.F"VtJ.(JOC " Planning Commission Minutes September 27, ·2005 B. Conditional Use Permit 2005-094; a request of La QuilÌta Country Club for. consideration of a request to establish temporary long-term modular clubhouse facilities as replacement for a permanent clubhouse for the property located at 49-650 Eisenhower Drive. 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 was on file in the Community Development Department ., 2. Chairman Kirk asked ·if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Alderson asked if the trailers would be connected to public utilities. Staff stated some of the utilities would be, but the applicant could answer in more detail. Commissioner Alderson asked about the landscape screening. Staff stated a moré detailed landscaping plan would be submitted for approval and noted the conditions that still needed to be worked out. 3. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Larry Reddel, Program Manager for Gafcon, Anthony Palmasono, architect, and Larry Helm, General Manager of the Country Club of the Desert gave a presentation on the project. Mr. Palmasono clarified the clubhouse utilities will be connected to the public utilities. They are looking at how the fire sprinklers will be attached; he assumes they will be buried underground. Mr. Reddel stated there are 25 existing trees that will help to screen the trailers as well as 25 to five gallon plants will be planted. 4. Commissioner Daniels asked if there was a hedge around the perimeter. Mr. Reddel stated yes. Commissioner Daniels asked how they were going to accòmmodate the Bob Hope ClassIc people. Mr.· Helm stated they have spoken with the 'Bob Hope people and believe it is worked out. 5. Commissioner Alderson asked if the urgency was to meet the plans for the Bob Hope Classic. Mr. Helm stated that is part of it. 6. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Mr..Greg Helm, President of the Homeowners' Association and on the Board of Bob Hope Classic, stated they are in agreement with the plans. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-27-05.doc 2 Planning Commission Minutes September 27. 2006 7. Chairman Kirk asked if anyone else would like to address the Commissioner. There being none, Chairman Kirk closed the public hearing. 8. Commissioner Ladner stated she supported-the request. 9. Commissioner Daniels stated the entire perimeter is screened and to him it is an issue for the members of the Club. 10. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Alderson to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005-039 approving Conditional Use Permit 2005-094, as recommended. ROLL CALL: A YES:Commissioners Alderson, Daniels, Ladner, Quill and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. C. Site Development Permit 2005-840; a request of One Eleven La Quinta, LLC for consideration of development plans for a 15,257 square foot pet shop, supply, and grooming retail commercial building to e located within the One Eleven La Quinta Center at the northeast corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street. 1 . Commissioner Alderson stated he has a business relationship with the applicant causing a potential conflict of interest and withdrew from the.dais. 2. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Associate Planner Andrew Mogensen presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which was on file in the Community Development Department. 3. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Daniels asked if the building to the east was the vacant theater. Staff noted the location of the proposed building. 4. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would .like to address the Commission. Mr. David Smolley, representing the applicant, stated he was available to answer any questions. They have no objections to the conditions. Community Development Director Doug Evans noted the sign is not a part of this permit and will have to come back for approval. Mr. Smolley stated they were not submitting the sign for approval. G:IWPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-27-05.doc ~ __T__' -___TO _ ....I"rllii.-~·g-¡i~'W-LT-v'1.UUt;;; A Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2005 5. There being no other public comment, Chairman Kirk closed the public participation portion of the hearing. 6. Commissioner Quill stated he would prefer receiving a complete site plan, with color boards showing a better relationship of this building and the existing buildings. 7. It was moved by Commissioners Daniels/Quill to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005-040, approving Site Development Use Permit 2005-840, as recommended. ROLL CALL: A YES:Commissioners Daniels, Ladner, Quill, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Alderson. ABSTAIN: None. Commissioner Alderson rejoined the Commission. D. Site Development Permit 2005-838; a request of Washington 111, Ltd. for consideration of development plans for a 27,225 square foot retail commercial building featuring one sub-major unit and multiple minor units within the Washington Park Commercial Center (Sub-major 5 and Shops 4)) for the property bounded by Highway 111, Avenue 47, Washington Street, and Adams Street. 1 . Commissioner Alderson stated he had a potential conflict of interest due to the location of the project and withdrew from the dais. 2. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report.· Associate Planner Andrew Mogensen presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which was on file in the Community Development Department. 3. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Daniels asked if the driveways were right-in, right- out only. Staff stated the southerly driveway would have a left turn in. 4. Commissioner Quill stated he was concerned as the building front appears to be flat. He wQuld also like to see a more detailed color board and renderings submitted with the report. 5. Chairman Kirk asked for clarification regarding the statement in the staff report regarding modifying eliminate the overhang and include G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-27-05.doc 4 .Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2005 an access ramp for maintenance purposes. Does this mean that if a ramp were installed it would be easier to maintain? Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer explained that if they want to keep the encroachment into the retention basin there is room to reconfigure the basin to the north. Chairman Kirk asked, if there was a ramp for maintenance purposes, and if so, ·what is staff's reaction to the cantilevered portion of the building? Staff stated the retention basin should be accessed regardless. There is also room on the north side of the retention basin. Chairman Kirk asked if there was room for a ramp what about the cantilever condition. Staff stated they should be able to access the retention basin regardless. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated the cantilever is a concern because of nuisance issues. 6. Commissioner Quill stated this retention basin will be fairry hidden and the opportunity to not maintain it could be a problem. He asked if it was fenced, or accessible to the public. Staff stated it is not fenced and therefore will be accessible to the public; it will be maintained by the property owner at the expense of the merchants. Commissioner Quill asked if there was any additional sub-drainage for nuisance drainage. Staff stated yes and explained their function. 7. Chairman Kirk asked if an underground retention system was considered. Staff stated yes and met with the applicant regarding them. The cost is expensive and they need to be maintainable. 8. Commissioner Daniels stated he is concerned this will be a problem. Could the building be turned to put the retention basin in the front of the building as a design feature. The retention basin will become a nuisance and maintenance problem. Community Development Director Doug . Evans stated they reviewed the building. under the Specific Plan guidelines and there is no question, a backdoor retention basin will have problems. He does, however expect visibility because the Center has an access on the east side. 9. Commissioner Daniels asked if there were any incentives that could be offered to the developer to redesign this portion of the Center. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated he is unaware whether or not there could be any incentives offered. Any change would require a renegotiation of the Specific Plan. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-27-05.doc :) Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2005 10. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Jack Tarr, Bill Sanchez, and Micha~1 Kerredy, representing Washington 111, Ltd. gave a presentation on the project. Mr. Kerredy noted the elevation deviations and the awnings that extend out six feet as well as· variations in height. The rear is very blank as it is the loading area and will not be seen from the public. 11 . Chairman Kirk noted there was not a lot of vertical plant material on the north elevation. Mr. Kerredy stated that was because it was too close to the street and limited in what could be done. 12. Commissioner Quill asked if they intended to cantilever the building. Mr. Tarr stated they had considered it, but the stem wall works fine for them. 1 3. Chairman Kirk asked about the concerns th.at had been raised about the retention basin. Mr. Tarr stated it is a cost benefit ratio. The City does not have clear criteria as to what is required. Based upon their meeting with staff, the City prefers the more expensive alternative for underground. They are analyzing their options. They have no objection to amending the Specific Plan to address some of these issues. He noted the maintenance of the retention basin will be included in the rental contracts as common area costs. 14. Commissioner Quill asked where the tenants will deposit their trash. Mr. Bill Sanchez noted the location of the trash enclosures on the site map. Mr. Tarr stated the maintenance will be included in the CC&R's for the Center for maintenance. He would like to request the memo submitted by staff dated September 27, 2005, with the revised changes be adopted. They only condition they are in disagreement with is Condition #36, regarding driveway access and circulation. They believe they have all the accesses that are needed and request Condition #36 be deleted. 1 5. Commissioner Daniels asked if this portion of the Center could be redesigned to move the retention basin. Mr. Tarr they do not believe there is a viable design that gives them the efficiency they need. Discussion followed regarding benefits to the present design. 16. Commissioner Quill stated with this design the tenants delivery trucks will be dropping off at the front door. He cannot see how a semi-truck can get in and out of the loading dock as designed. Mr. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-27-05.doc 6 Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2005 Tarr stated these tenants use the smaller trucks. He noted the circulation on the site plan and discussion . followed. Mr. Tarr noted the acces~ would be constructed on the future phase, east of the parcel map for this project. 1 7. Commissioner Daniels asked if along the east side of the building there is a driveway that connects to the driveway behind Lowes. Mr. Tarr stated yes. 1 8. Commissioner Quill noted that is not where the trash enclosure is or where the shop loading would be located. Mr. Sanchez clarified the loading areas for the sub-major and the shops on the site map. 1 9. Chairman Kirk noted the Specific Plan has been approved and typically when a Site Development Permit is brought back, the focus will be on the architecture and landscaping and yet on this application major issues are being addressed that should have been resolved when the Specific Plan was being considered. . How much discretion does the Commission have addressing issues that conceptually were approved in the Specific Plan. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated that circulation and circulation phasing can be discussed at each phase of the development. With regards to the specific plan flexibility, this City has reviewed Site Development Permits for conformity to a specific plan and staff does believe this site plan does conform as far as location of buildings and primary access points with the exception of the one concern. We do have issues with the access and retention basin but a Memorandum of Understanding was entered into to resolve several of these issues. Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston added that while the City takes the position that specific plans do confer entitlement, a discretionary body does have the ability to add additional discretionary conditions ata subsequent approval process; especially when the site has not been built. If additional traffic impacts need to be studied, it would be appropriate to have that study done and not take action. With respect to the retention basin, he would defer to the Public Works Department to the particulars. It may be appropriate to amend the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that· exists between the City and the developer should the Commission desire so. 20. Chairman Kirk asked why and when was the MOU entered was into. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated in May, 2004 and because the City and the developer could not come to terms in G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-27-05.doc 7 Planning Commission Minutes September 27 2005 regard to how much water they have to take onto their site. The Specific Plan has proposed the location of the basin at this location. Chairman Kirk asked if the MOU precludes the Commission making suggestions in regard to the retention basin or the design of the retention basin requiring the under grounding of the retention basin. Staff stated the City did not require it to be under grounded. This was the option the developer determined. Staff worked on how much water had to be retained more than where it should be retained. 21 . Commissiòner Daniels asked if the developer had submitted an "L" shape design would the City found that compatible with the earlier approval. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated the Commission could have made the findings that it did not change the intent of the approval. If the Commission wants to pursue the retention basin further, staff would recommend continuing the application to allow further time for review in relation to the MOU. 22. Chairman Kirk stated this isa good looking commercial project, and it would be a benefit to get it approved as soon as possible. Mr. Tarr stated the retention basin was designed as part of the overall hydrology for the entire Specific Plan site. It was not designed as a part of just this particular building. 23. Commissioner Ladner asked if staff was comfortable with the retention basin and overall circulation plan. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated they have no issue with the retention basin. hi regard to the circulation, staff does think proving another connection to the north-south street that connects to Avenue 47 would be useful. Additionally, in regard to traffic onto Washington Street, the big concern about the signal is to keep traffic flow moving on Washington Street. Stacking will cause people to look for an alternate route and this is why staff is looking for those alternate routes. The temporary road behind Lowes would be a solution. 24. Chairman Kirk closed the public comment portion .of the hearing and opened it to· Commission discussion. 25. Commissioner Quill stated he understands the site has been engineered to meet the water demand, but it seems it could have been designed to be more aesthetically pleasing if hydrology was not the driving force for design. He does believe loading and G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-27-05.doc ~ Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2005 unloading will take place in the front of the building instead of rear and the rear access is not gòing to be easy. He has concerns that when the signal is installed and does not work in sequence with the signal at Highway 111, it will be a nightmare. He agrees the temporary street would. be to the benefit of everyone. He questions why there are no parkway landscaping plans in this submittal. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated that if it is not already approved they will have to submit it for approval. 26. Chairman Kirk reopened the public comment. IV1r. Tarr stated the streets cape has already been approved under prior approvals. 27. Chairman Kirk closed the public comment portion again. 28. Commissioner DanieJs agreed the three signals at Highway 111, Simon Drive and Point Happy will all need to be in sequence. The applicant has made a good argument for the retention basin being where it is, but he still believes it was not good planning and should have been caught before. 29. Commissioner Ladner stated that in regard to the retention basin she has a problem with liability and believes that the rear location is better. It is a high-end developmen~ and believes it will be maintained by the tenants. As to the access road she believes it is necessary to have access to A venue 47. 30. Chairman Kirk noted the design of the building is good, however he would prefer to have the fine architecture closer to Washington Street and therefore agrees with the retention basin in the rear. He does object to the sea of asphalt next to Washington Street. He would like to see the developer and City come to some agreement that is a cost benefit and provide the underground retention. This could resolve a lot of the issues raised for the rear of the building. He would also like to see the temporary access behind Lowes constructed and would support keeping Condition #36. In addition, he would support accelerating development of the access across the site. In terms of loading access, he would like to see a diagram to ensure that the circulation works. Therefore, he would like to continue the application to review some of these issues. At that time show the articulation of the elevations as well as the design on the rear of the building as well as increased landscaping. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-27-05.doc 9 Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2005 31 . Commissioner Daniefs stated he would be more comfortable if the retention basin were underground. 32. Commissioner Quill stated he does not believe under grounding the retention basin would solve the issues. He would suggested some of the issues could possible be resolved at this time and not continue the application. 33. Chairman Kirk reopened the public hearing. Mr. Tarr pointed out the location of the proposed retention basin .for Phase 3. The under grounding at this location will not work and would be a million dollars in costs. In regard to the roadway, how do you articulate it make it easy. They can design cul-de-sacs for temporary turnarounds for the loading behind the shops. In regard to the elevations, they do have a lot of vertical as' well as horizontal articulation. The rear of the shops could have some articulation, but they are the rear of the buildings. Mr. Kerredy stated there are some areas to break up the parapet and introduce some alternative materials to break up the rear. 34. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicants suggestion for the temporary access would be acceptable to staff-as well as the applicant to not hold up the project. 35. Commissioner Quill suggested Condition #36 be revised to read, "... the temporary road access would be installed prior to a Certificate of Occupancy being issued." 36. It was· moved by Commissioners Daniels/Alderson to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005-040, approving Site Development Use Permit 2005-840, as recommended and amended: a. Condition added: A temporary road shall be constructed and maintained across the southeast portion of the site prior to a certificate of occupancy. b. Condition added: A turn around for loading and unloading and trash ,shall be added to the east side of the building. c. Condition added: Additional articulation shall be added to the rear of the building. ROLL CALL: A YES:Commissioners Ladner, Quill, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioners Alderson. ABSTAIN: Commissioner Daniels. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-27-05.doc 10 Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2005 Commissioner Alderson rejoined the Commission. E. Site DevelopmentPermit 2005-837; a request of ND La Quinta Partners, LLC for consideration of architectural and landscaping plans for a Guard House complex for the property located on the south side of Avenue 52, midway between Madison Street and Monroe Avenue within the Madison Club. 1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and~sked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa 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 óf staff. Commissioner Alderson asked for an explanation of the buildings at the entrance. Staff explained the layout. 3. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. John Gamlin, representing the applicant,gave a presentation of the project. He asked that Condition #43 be deleted as they believe they had negotiated the best solution with both the City of Indio and La Quinta in regard to the entrance. . Community Development Director Doug Evans suggested it not be eliminated, but allow st~ff to review the documents Mr. Gamlin referenced, and not require a Specific Plan Amendment. 4. It was moved by Commissioners Daniels/Alderson to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005-042, approving Site Development Use Permit 2005-837, as recommended. ROLL CALL: A YES:Commissioners Alderson, Daniels, Ladner, Quill and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. F. Environmental Assessment 2005-543 and Tentative Tract Map 33444; a request of Coral Mountain Tails, LLC for consideration of the subdivision of approximately 317.61 acres into 219 residential lots, amenity lots, street lots, and open space lots for the property located west of Jefferson Street, south of Quarry Ranch. 1 . Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Planning Manager Les Johnson presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which was on file in the G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-27-05.doc 11 Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2005 Community Development Department. Staff explained the reasoning behind the condition changes. Community Development Director Doug Evans gave a further presentation on the roadway and site plans with the necessary easements. John Criste, Terra Nova Planning and Research gave a --presentation on the environmental documentation. 2. Commissioner Daniels asked if the developer was agreeable to meeting the concerns of those issues raised in the letters received from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and~he Department of Recreation and Parks. Discussion followed as to each of the issues raised in the letters from Fish and Wildlife and the Department of Aecreation and Parks. Commissioner Daniels asked if the Jefferson Street alignment was still subject to the environmental review. Staff stated the curve is subjeét to one more environmental review currently being done. Staff has met with the Bureau of Reclamation and Coachella Valley Water District and they have no issues with the realignment. Discussion followed regarding the environmental documentation. 3. Commissioner Alderson asked if in the environmental review, were there any element of risk where a rock fall mitigation should be included. Mr. John Criste, clarified they have been incorporated into the mitigation measures. Commissioner Alderson asked if the construction of a fence had a time frame. Mr. Criste stated a fence is not required unless there is a determination that Big Horn Sheep do encroach into the area. The mitigation measure requires . for the organization of a 3-party committee. Fish and Wildlife is asking to be included in that committee. Community Development Director Doug Evans explained this is private land and not subject to Federal control, that is why Fish and Wildlife were not included. 4. Commissioner Quill asked if this land was part of the Federal Wilderness lands. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated it would have to be owned by the federal government and it is not. Commissioner Quill asked if this was part of the land covered by the Coachella Valley Multi-Species Habitat Conservation lands. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated the City is in discussions with the Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Services in regard to the Multi- Species Plan in regard to the Jefferson Street alignment. 5. Commissioner Daniels asked if there was a better name for this street. Community. Development Director Doug Evans stated a G:\WPDOCSIPC Minutes\9-27-05.doc 12 Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2005 street name change may be something to consider at a later date. Commissioner Daniels asked if the developer would have to pay the Multi~Species fee. Staff stated that once the Agreement is adopted, the developer will have to pay the appropriate fee. 6. Chairman Kirk asked why the comment period ended with the date of the hearing. Mr. Criste explained the process. 7. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Tom Cullinan,representin.g tQe applicant, gave a presentation on the project. He introduced Mr. Peter Ministrelli, principal owner and Mr. Anton Merincovich, architect for the project. 8. Commissioner Alderson asked the type of architectur~. Mr. Merincovich stated "dynamic modern". 9. Chairman Kirk questioned whether or not the property owners in the Quarry were truly aware of the project. Mr. Cullinan stated the location of the sewer connection has been determined by the Quarry development. 10. Commissioner Alderson asked if the applicant had any objections to Condition #52. Mr. Cullinan stated he has no objection as long as it states "prior to final map". 11 . Commissioner Quill asked if the CVWD had been involved with the design. Mr. Cullinan explained what work and studies had been completed. Commissioner Quill asked if the project was designed for the 500 year flood. Staff stated the City's requirement is for the 1 00 year storm. 12. Chairman Kirk asked if the driveway proposed at the southeast corner of the project complies with the Hillside Ordinance. Staff noted the change to the map to take the access off of Jefferson Street. Discussion followed regarding how access is taken from certain lots. 13. Commissioner Alderson asked if the homes across Jefferson Street would be gated. Mr. Cullinan stated there will be a card gate and it will be a part of the HOA. 14. Chairman Kirk asked if there would be any enhanced paving to assist pedestrian movement or traffic calming methods. Mr. G:\WPDOCSIPC Minutes\9-27-05.doc n Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2005 Cullinan stated they are agreeable to any suggestions. .1 5. There being no further questions or public comment, Chairman Kirk closed the public participation portion of the hearing. 16.· Chairman Kirk stated his concern regarding the grade differential between some of these lots and the property owners at the Quarry and them not being aware of the project. It seems it would be to the advantage of the Quarry to provide a better sewer connection. Community Development Director Doug Evans.. clarified the lots in the Quarry that would be affected are undeveloped and the owner has been in discussions with the City/applicant regarding this development and were part of the discussions regarding the sewer easement. 17. Chairman Kirk reopened thè public hearing. Mr. Tom Culinan suggested the condition be modified to state thåt if a different sewer connection is provided the grade differential would be reduced. 18. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant had any concerns regarding a risk of litigation concerning the issues raised. Mr. Wayne Gurilnik, attorney for the applicant, stated they. are willing to take the risk. 19. Chairman Kirk closed the public participation. Community Development Director Doug Evans asked that Condition #38 be modified to state that if a different sewer connection is provided a lower pad elevation shall be provided. 20. It was moved by Commissioners Ladner/Daniels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005-043 recommending certification of a . Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact for Environmental Assessment 2005-543, as recommended. ROLL CALL: A YES:Commissioners Alderson, Daniels, Ladner, Quill and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 5. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Ladner/Daniels to adopt Planning CommissiQn Resolution 2005-044 recommending approval of Tentative Tract Map 33444, as recommended and amended: a. Condition #38: amended to stipulate the owners of the lots G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9"27-05.doc 14 Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2005 in the Quarry shall be made aware of the grade differential. .b. Condition added: City staff shall take extraordinary steps to see that the property owners shall be contacted. c. Condition #52: add, "...prior to recordation of the final map. " b. Condition #58: Existing overhead utility lines, if any, within, or contiguous to the proposed development, and all proposed utilities serving Cora/ Canyon, shall be instaJled underground. The applicant is required to design and install any modification to existing utilities loc~ted in the existing Avenue 58 to properties and development to the west of the proposed Jefferson Street Realignment. The costs to design and install modifications shall become a part of the Reimbursement Agreement. b. Condition #62.A. The applicant shall enter' into a Reimbursement Agreement with the City of La Quinta, in a form and content satisfactory to the City Public Works Director and the City A ttorney, for construction of Jefferson Street from the northerly terminus at Avenue 58 to the Tentative Tract Map No. 33444 northerly boundary (Items 2) and 3) above). Said reimbursement shall not include any upgrade work proposed by the applicant. The applicant is responsible for all cost to design and construct of Jefferson Street Improvements (Item 1) above) within the property boundary. The applicant may construct improvements within the Jefferson Street right of way in phases as approved by the City Engineer. As proposed by the applicant, the first phase shall be for a curbed median with a 13-foot travel width, 6- foot bike lane and 2-foot shoulder on both sides of the west and east side of Jefferson Street. The Second Phase shall be for the remainder of the full improvements as conditioned above. c. Condition #66. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: A. Primary Entry to the West Side Development and East Side Development (Jefferson Street): Full turn movements are allowed. Emergency Entry/Secondary Exit Only to West and East Development (Jefferson Street, 850' south of the Primary Entry): Emergency vehicle access only B. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-27-05.doc 15 Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2005 and Secondary Exit Only. d. Condition #71. No building permit No certificate of occupancy shall be issued for new residential units until the construction plans for of Jefferson Street are approved and a construction contract is awarded;- 'is completed to the main entry gate and approved by the Public Works Director. ROLL CALL: A YES:Commissioners Alderson, Daniels, Ladner, Quill and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: None. VII. DISCUSSION ITEMS: VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Review of City Council meeting of September 20, 2005. X. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Alderson to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning èommission to a regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held on October 11, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. on September 27, 2005. Res ctfUIIY~. Bett wyer, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-27-05.doc 1ó