PC 10/10/79 - Laserfiche WebLink

Planning Commission _ October 10, 1979 Page 11 Dale Hornberger, Creegan & D'Angelo, represented the applicant. He stated they had no problems with the staff report except concerning condition ~~8 relating to widening of the road at the developer's full expense. He stated they would want some way to be reimbursed by other developers and don't wish to be responsible for the full cost. He further addressed concerns with condition ~~13 regarding the sound wall and stated they would want some flexibility whereby if it is later determined it is necessary they would conform to this request, but they do not feel it will be necessary now or in the future and would like an opportunity to prove there is no need. He inquired about condition ~~25 and whether or not this was a standard condition. The staff confirmed that it is a standard requirement. Dan Christian, architect for this project spoke to the noise level. He stated they are 400 feet from the road and there is a large structure between the pool and the freeway itself. He stated there would also be landscaping. He stated they propose that a fence or wall itself can be eliminated but added later when an acoustic engineer could do testing. He stated if needed they would erect a wall to the City's satisfaction. There was further discussion concerning screening and the pool between Commissioners Jamieson and Doherty. Ron Parker, Flying "J", spoke. He stated this is their 5th motel and he explained where they were located. Commissioner Getty then inquired as to how the Commission could address condition ~~8. Mr. Walt Schaumburg suggested a revised condition as follows: Use Condition ~~8 as shown bL~t add "This work shall be deferred until deemed necessary by the City Engineer and the developer be notified in writing". The public hearing was closed. A motion was then made by Commissioner Jamieson finding that the mitigation measures recommended in the Initial Study for those aspects of the project which could have significant adverse effects would reduce the effects to insignificant levels and, thus, if such measures are included as conditions to project approval the impacts would be reduced to insignificant. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Getty. ROLL CALL VOTE Ayes Commissioners Getty, Jamieson and Chairman Doherty Noes None Absent Commissioners Geppert and Wilson Resolution No. 1810 was then entered and adopted approving the mitigated negative declaration for PUD-79-10. Mr. Parker then stated they would probably obtain building permits by the end of the year and commence construction when the weather permitted in response to an inquiry of Commissioner Jamieson. Mr. Harris explained the problems involved with sharing the cost of the road concerning current developments. He did say that this could be done as part of an assessment district. Mr. Parker responded that it would be difficult to determine the total cost of that. Commissioner Doherty stated he agreed with the staff report. Commissioner Jamieson made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Getty to approve PUD-79-10 subject to the conditions of the staff report of October 10, 1979 amending conditions ~~8 and 413 as follows: -11-