Loading...
1983 05 10 PC Minutes · APPROVED M I N U T E S LA ~TA PLANNING C0MMISS~N ~ PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF IA QUINTA EY ~~,~.. A regular meeting held at the La Quinta 0~T[ ~P ~ ~'/ CaliforniaCity Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, iY~/~/ /~ May 10, 1983 7: 00 p.m. A. Chairman Pro Tern Judith Inkamp called the Planning Cc~mission to order at - 7:00 p.m. She then called upon Tom Thornburgh to lead the flag salute. 2. ROLL CALL A. Chairman Pro Tern Imkamp requested the roll call. The Secretary called the roll: Present: Cc~missioners Reilly, Goetcheus, Klimkiewicz and Chairman Pro Tern For the Record: Chairman Tom Thornburgh was present as a m~T~er of the audience due to the fact that Planning Cc~nission was reviewing a proposed project sukmit~ by him. Absent: None Also present were City Manager Frank M. Usher, Associate Planner Sandra L. Bonner, City Attorney Ray Ott and Secretary Donna Velotta. 3. HEARINGS A. Chairman Pro T~n Imkamp explained the first item on the agenda was a public hearing regarding Tentative Tract No. 19203, Amended No. 1, and its related environmental negative declaration, a request for a 60-unit statutory condo- minium project on 15.8 acres located on the east side of Avenida Bermudas at Calle Sinaloa, Desert Club of La Quinta, Applicant. She then called for a _ report frcm staff. 1. Associate Planner Sandra Bonner explained that several changes have been made in the original develotm~_nt proposal. They are as follows: * The six, one-story buildings and two, two-story buildings with a total of 61 units has been changed to eight, two-story buildings with a total of 60 units. * The location or orientation of the buildings has been changed fr~n the previous plan which showed buildings along both sides of the common open space area to a design with the buildings located along the north side of the contain area. * Concerning the two buildings located in the southwest corner of the condcmtinium project on lot 1, the setback frcm the Avenida Bermudas right of way has been increased frcm 15 feet to 40 feet. * The parking plan has been changed, adding a second row of parking along the north side of the housing and deleting a row of parking in the south- west corner of lot 1. MINUTES - PLANNING CQMMISSION May 10, 1983 Page Tw~ * The access to the new Avenue 52 on the north boundary has been eliminated. * The floor plan for the two-bedrocm unit has been increased frcm 1,059 square feet to 1,220 square feet. The size of the one-bedrocm unit has been decreased frc~ 750 square feet to 700 square feet. The - three-bedroc~ units r~ain the same at 1,344 square feet. * The design of the open space area has been changed by reducing the area of the pond and deleting the hot pool. Ms. Bonner w~nt on to explain that the above changes were frcm proposed development plans s3__~b~itted to the Planning Department approximately tw~ w~eks prior to this hearing. After staff had cc~pleted the report of these changes, the Applicant formally sutm~tted an amended set of plans. The following items are changes frcm the previous plan reviewed by staff in the report and the exhibits which were given to the Planning Cc~missi~n for their review. * The setbacks of the buildings frcm the eastern and western property boundaries have been changed. * A secondary access ~nto Avenue 52 has been added. No information is available on ~hether either access will be gated. * The row of parking spaces are set back the minimum required three feet frc~ the northern property boundary (the report incorrectly stated five feet). * The number of parking spaces in the northern portion have been reduced frcm 98 to 94. Regarding the number of parking spaces which are covered, 58 of the total 135 spaces will be covered by carports. A concern of staff addressed in the March 22, 1983 report to the - Planning Cc~mission was that the project area included two parcels not c~ned by the Applicant. ~er, since that report w~s given, the Applicant has purchased one lot ar~ received permission frcm the owner of the second lot to include their land in this plan. Ms. Bonner stated that with regard to the density of the project, the proposed development is consistent with the current zoning (R-3-4,000). However, the proposed sizes of the units are inconsistent with the ~ dwelling size requir~=_nt. With the amended set of plans, the Applicant has increased the size of the one-bedrocm units to 750 square feet once again. To allow for this size unit, the Planning Cc~mission would have to approve a Change of Zone, as the current single family dwellings in the cove area require 1,200 square feet of living area. Associate Planner Bonner went on to explain other concerns of staff with regard to this proposed development. With regard to Site Plan Design, the following concerns were noted: MINUTES - PLANNING COMMISSION May 10, 1983 Page Three. * The project is oriented with its back to Avenue 52, which will be the major traffic corridor for the cove area. * The overall density is not incc~patible with adjacent R-1 zoning to the north, east and west; however, the concentration of buildings along the north boundary creates an appearance of very high density develotz~nt. This could be incc~patible with the surrounding low- density single housing develotm~_nt. * The nearly solid wall of buildings' could adversely affect the view frcm the houses along the north side of Avenue 52, which will most likely be oriented southward to enjoy the view of the cove's mountains. These two-story units could dc~inate this view for the adjacent residents. * By locating the parking area only the minimum required 5 feet back frc~ the property lines, the six-foot-high wall which must be con- structed to screen the parking will be built on the property lines along Avenue 52 and Avenida Bermudas. * The location of the main entrance of Avenida Ben~udas is not cc~sistent with the future circulation pattern. The most cc~mon travel route for the residents returning hcme will be south on Washington Street and t~ west on Avenue 52. The proposed location of the entrance will result in the residents having to turn left at Avenida Be~nudas and left again to enter the project. With regard to Building Design, the following concerns were noted by staff: * Concerning the rear view along Avenue 52, the cc~bination of height, rectangular shape, flat straight lines of the roof, and flat building face or wall with only two rows of windows will create a sense of greater bulk and mass than other develot~nent in the area. * The view fr~n Avenue 52 of the central stairways for each building and the stairways connecting the buildings emphasized the fact that this is a high density develotm~_nt. * The appearance of the two, one-bedrocm buildings emphasizes the fact that this is a high density develotm~_nt with smaller unit sizes. Although this may be considered compa~le with the two existing hotel buildings to the south, the design fails to address the fact that these are single family condcntinium units rather than hotel units. * The Applicant intends to cover the parking along Avenue 52 with carports. This would result in the view frcm Avenue 52 being of a six-foot-high wall and the roof of the carport. Ms. Bonner noted the following items which were not addressed in the staff report to the Planning Co~ssion: MINUTES - PLANNING COMMISSION May 10, 1983 Page Four. * The tract boundaries, which are marked by the dark blue line on the map, include property which the Applicant still has not received authorization to include. This property includes: a 36-foot-wide strip along the southern boundary of Lot 2 which is in the public road right of way; the well site which is labeled as "Not A Part" yet is included within the project boundary. * The map incorrectly identifies the Southern California Water Cc~pany fee ownership land as an easement (a letter frcm the Water Cc~pany to the Applicant is in the file). In conclusion, Ms. Bonner stated that there are three options open to the Ccamtission. First, it could approve the project, including all the plot plans, floor plans and elevations, and condition this approval to the extent necessary to address all their concerns regarding the project layout and design. The conditions would also require the approval of an ordinance amendmant reducing the ~ floor area to 640 square feet. Staff does not recc~mend this option because it could involve conditioning the project to such an extent that it would result in the City redesigning the project. The second option would be for the Cc~mission to approve the basic tract map showing the creation of tw~ lots and the proposed density of 60 dwellings on Lot 1. Since the state law does not require either the site plan or the building plans to be filed in conjunction with this tract map, the Ccam%ission could require that new devel~t and building plans be sutxmitted for their review and approval prior to the Applicant recording the final map. Staff r~ds this option which would allow additional time for the Applicant to develop an alternate design which addresses the previously stated concerns. This option would still allow the Cca~uission to review the proposed site and building plans as part of the original approval. This option could also satisfy the Applicant's stated desire to receive at least preliminary approval of the project as soon as possible. Ms. Bonner noted the third option open to the Cc~ission is to continue consideration of this project. Staff recc~mands that the project be approved as suggested in Option Tw~ and forwarded to the City Council for their review of the design. Chairman Pro T~n Imkamp then invited ccam~nts frcm the Applicant. Tc~ Thornburgh, 49-452 Avila, La Quinta, Applicant, went through the concerns mentioned above by staff explaining why the plans were drawn up and presented to the Planning Department as they had been, with regard to density, parking, building design, etc. He stated that by building the condca%iniums, they w~uld be tOtally upgrading the Desert Club with new lawns, new streets, etc. He noted that the cost of this project would be approximately five million dollars and that out of the 60 units proposed, they already have 35 verbally sold. Ail of the units are being built with solar systems for water heating, heating and air conditioning. This will be one of the first develo~m%=nnts with a solar system of this type in the MINUTES - PLANNING CC~TLISSION May 10, 1983 Page Five. Chairman Pro Tern Imkamp then opened the hearing to public cc~nent. Bob Lotito, 712 Eugene Road, Palm Springs, CA, Civil Engineer for this project', explained that the two reasons that water ccmpany property was shown on the tract map presented were (1) to make clear the transfer of property to the water ccmpany and (2) to keep their walls on the outside - of this property instead of on the inside. He stated that if this pre- sented a problem to the Planning Ounnission, they could remove this area fr~n the tract map. Mr. Lotito further noted that a letter was received frcm the water ccmpany, which was presented to the Planning Department, giving their pennission for Mr. Thornburgh's use of their property for this project. Chairman Pro Tem Imkamp questioned Mr. Thornburgh as to whether he had talked again to Mr. Stuart of Southern California Water Cc~pany since the presentation of the letter noted above and/or had he pursued the procedures cited in said letter as far as the legalities of the transferral or use of water cc~pany land. Mr. Thornburgh stated that nothing had changed since his last conversation with Mr. Stuart. Chairman Pro Tern Imkamp made mention that she had a concern with the fact that walls ~re to be built on the property lines with no setbacks for landscaping. Also, if carports are considered structures, why was there only three feet between the block wall to the carport instead of the 10 feet required for setbacks. Mr. Lotito went on to state that whatever our City Engineer requested of the project, they would ccmply with those conditions. He further noted that he has known Mr. Thornburgh for scme 20 years and has worked with him in other counties knowing him to be a pretty successful builder. This being based on the fact that he does quality work and takes a personal interest in his projects. He stated that after he left the study session on May 9th, he felt that he could not believe what he had heard there. The reason for this was that he very rarely heard a positive statement being made. Even when a positive statement was attempted, it was a double negative. He stated he felt that he was wishing they were being judged by a true architectural design review board which would mean Tcm's project being reviewed by his peers and therefore receive sc~e fair ocm~ents. Chairman Pro Tem Imkamp responded to Mr. Lotito's last r~nark by stating that the Planning Cc~nission was trying to treat Mr. Thornburgh as they would any developer and not with favoritism because they do know him personally. She stated that they would not want to be criticized for showing such poor jud~t. She hoped that Mr. %hornburgh was not taking this as a personal affront against him, but that the Ccnmtission was trying to be objective and perhaps by doing so may cc~e across overly harsh. MINUTES - PLANNING C~SSION May 10, 1983 Page Six. Cameron Marshman, 53-955 Avenida Velasco, La Quinta, stated that he admired anyone who tried to change the environment. He noted that this was his positive statement. He went on to state that when they voted a little over 13 months ago to incorporate, he had the feeling that houses would look better and be bigger and that none would be built that we thought looked cheap. His concerns with this particular - project were the fact that it looked like a motel as far as the design and the fact that the buildings were two-stories which he thought had been ruled out when we becan~ a city. He was also concerned with the density and the size of the one-bedrocm units. He stated that 750 square feet of living space appalled him. There being no further cc~ments frc~ the public, Chairman Pro Tem Imkamp called upon the Cc~mission for their cc~ments. Pat Reilly requested the height of the carport and was informed that it would be nine feet high. Her further concerns w~re with regard to the 750 square foot, one-bedrocm units and the projected size of Avenue 52. She felt that this project should be continued until all the reports were in on the Avenue 52 project. John Klimkiewicz was concerned about the 750 square foot, one-bedrocm units, the site design, building design, setbacks, and he also ~uld like to see the report on the Avenue 52 project. He felt that this project should be studied further. Paul Goetcheus felt that the houses presently being built in La Quinta were of a price range that a lot of people who would like to live in the desert area could not afford. For this reason, he felt this project would make this housing available to those people. He stated he is more c~ncerned with quality than quantity. He stated he would also like to see architectural drawings. Chairman Pro Tem Imkamp had several concerns which are listed below: o Where density is located. o Believes architectural treatment could be better. o Would like to see a report on Avenue 52 frcm the City Engineer. o W~ald like to find out what the situation is on old Avenue 52. o Would like to see application for abandonment of Desert Club Drive start moving through its processes. o If we put the property line where Mr. Thornburgh wants it and if the road shown on the bottom of the tract map is to be moved, she wants to see the two other property owner's signatures listed as o~ner/developer on the tract map before the project is ok'd. o When Avenue 52 goes through to the north of the project, it will be a main thoroughfare and she feels that the main orientation of this project does not recognize this fact. o Carports should be 10 feet back frcm the property line. o Design is not aesthetically pleasing for the density. MINUTES - PLANNING CCMMISSION May 10, 1983 Page Seven. o Concerned with the line be~ the two projects and the tennis courts. o When the lot split occurrs, she would like to be assured that the people who have memberships in the Desert Club are afforded the same facilities as when they purchased their membership. o Would like to see Avenida Be/mu~ ccmpleted the entire length to old Avenue 52. _ o Feels there are too many questions unanswered to go along with this project as it stands, therefore she would like to continue this project for further study. With regard to the statement by the Applicant that the Water Ccmpany has given Mr. Thornburgh permission to use their land, Chairman Pro Tem Im~ asked Associate Planner Bonner if she had spoken with Mr. Stuart of the Southern California Water Cc~pany. Ms. Bonner replied that she had spoken with Mr. Stuart the previous Friday and again this date. She noted that Mr. Stuart stated he had not given such permission. His only contact with the Applicant was by phone on April 8th and their conversation was "generalized subject to agreement based on information to be provided by the Applicant". Such information had not been received to this date. Mr. Stuart stated when the information and a $600 application fee is received, it would go to the Board of Directors (possibly in July) and the earliest this property could change hands would be in September irregardless when this project meets approval. Mr. Thornburgh asked Ms. Bonner if she specifically asked Mr. Stuart if he would sign the tract map. Ms. Bonner responded that she specifically asked Mr. Stuart when this property would switch over and whether he had cc~ to any agreement - about the use of the property or approved the use of the property and he stated he had not, nor did he have the authority to do so. After further discussion, it was decided that each member of the Cc~ntission should prepare a list of conditions they felt should be attached to this request and sut~t same to staff by Friday, May 13th. Staff would then collate the conditions and present th~n in the staff report at the next Planning Cc~ntission meeting. Chairman Pro Tem Imkamp made a motion to continue this hearing to an adjourned meeting to be held on May 24, 1983 at 7:00 p.m. Cc~ssioner Klimkiewicz seconded. Unanimously adopted. B. Chainmqn Pro Tem Imkamp introduced the second item on the agenda as a public hearing regarding the abandonment of Avenida Bermudas. She called for the report fran staff. MINUTES - PLANNING COMMISSION May 10, 1983 Page Eight. 1. Associate Planner Bonner stated this is a request by Landmark Land Cc~pany that the City abandon that portion of Avenida Bermudas right of way which extends frcm the south side of the La Quinta Stormwater Channel northward to Avenue 50. She noted that this road has never been improved nor has it been passable within the past 5 years. The City or County have not paid any money to improve or maintain the road in that time. The extension of - Avenida Ben~ndas to Avenue 50 is not needed since Calle Tampico is capable of handling all traffic be~ the central business section and Eisenhower and Washington Streets, so abandoning would have no effect. Ms. Bonner advised that this request is in accordance with the conditions of approval for Tentative Tract Map 18767 which requires that this abandonment be approved prior to the recordaticm of the final map. Chairman Pro Tem Im~ called upon the Applicant for c~ts. Kevin Manning, representative of Landmark Land Cc~pany, P. O. Box 1000, La Quinta, stated that Ms. Bonner had capsulized their exact intent. He advised that Anden Corporation, who owns property adjacent, was informed and agreed to the abando~t, as it is being d~ne primarily to develop the Tentative Tract. He noted that Landmark exes to begin construction of 23 units on this tract by the middle of June. Chairman Pro Tem Imkamp opened the hearing to public cc~ment. Paul Donley, 1830 Port Ashley, Newport Beach, CA, acting as a representative f~r Frances Hack who owns scme ccnm~_rcial property adjacent to this requested abandonment area, ~ondered what the impact of this abandonment would be on Mrs. Hack' s property. There being no further public cc~m~nt, Chairman Pro Tern Imkamp closed the public hearing. She then called for cc~rents frc~ the Cnmm~ssioners. Cc~xm~ssicmer Reilly requested to know who c~ns the property in question now and, if abandoned, who will own it and how will this transaction affect it. Kevin Manning, Landmark Land representative, explained that this property is an easement and what happens is that the City Council will do a sunmary abandonment. He further explained that the property would be developed. Ray Ott, City Attorney, further explained that the entire title of the property will revert to Iandmark Land ~y free and clear of the easement, so that it will be like any other piece of property Landmark owns. He stated that most roads and streets are easements. About the only time that you find they are owned in fee by a public agency is when the public agency bought the land in the first place. Most streets are not bought, they are dedicated. There being no further cc~m~nts, Chairman Pro Tem Imkamp called for a motion. 2. Cc~missioner Goetcheus made a motion to recc~m~nd to the City Council adoption of the negative declaration and approval of the abandonment of that portion of Avenida Beznudas in accordance with Exhibit A. ~ssioner Klimkiewicz seconded the motion. Unanimously adopted. MINUTES - PLANNING CCb~4ISSION May 10, 1983 Page Nine. 4. CONSENT CAT,RNDAR ~mved by ~ssioner Goetcheus, seconded by Cc~nissioner Klimkiewicz to adopt the Consent Calendar, approving the minutes of April 12, 1983, as submitted. A. The minutes of the regular meeting of April 12, 1983 were approved as - suhnitted. Unanimously adopted. 5. BUSINESS A. Chairman Pro T~n Imkamp explained the first item under new business as being the review of Plot Plan No. 83-012, a request to construct a single family dwelling on a 100-foot-wide lot located on the west side of Avenida Diaz, 150 feet south of Calle Chillon; Norval Holmes, Applicant. A report frcm staff was requested. 1. Associate Planner Bonner reported that the house is consistent with the zoning, its design is in ccmpliance with the City's adopted standards and it is cc~patible with surrounding develo~anent. Staff is therefore recommending that the Planning Ccnm~ssion approve Plot Plan No. 83-012 as shown on the exhibits, in accordance with the findings and subject to the attached conditions. After a short discussion, it was agreed that due to the fact this hcme was being built on two lots, condition No. 5 should be revised to require t~D (2) 15-gallon street trees per lot. 2. ~ssioner Reilly made a motion to approve Plot Plan No. 83-012 in accordance with exhibits and attached conditions, as amended. Omm~ssioner Goetcheus seconded the motion. Unanimously adopted. B. Chairman Pro Tem Imkamp explained the next it~ under new business as being _ a review of Plot Plan No. 83-013, a request to construct a single family dwelling on a 50-foot-wide lot located on the west side of Avenida Navarro, 150 feet north of Calle Arroba. She then requested the report frc~ staff. 1. Associate Planner Bonner stated the house is in cc~pliance with the zoning and development standards and is cc~patible with surrounding develo~z~_nt. Therefore, staff recc~n~_nds that the Planning Cxzm~ssion approve Plot Plan No. 83-013 as shown on the exhibits, in accordsnce with the findings and subject to the attached conditions. 2. Cc~x~issioner Klimkiewicz made a motion to approve Plot Plan No. 83-013 in accordance with exhibits and subject to attached conditions. Ccnm~ssioner Reilly seconded the motion. Unanimously adopted. c. Chairman Pro Tern Im~ explained the third item as a request for an extension of time in which to file a final map for Tentative Tract Map No. 14496, anden Corporation, Applicant. She then called upon staff for further cc~ments. ~ - PLANNING CCMMISSION May 10, 1983 Page Ten. 1. Associate Planner Sandra Bonner stated that the Applicant is requesting a third, one-year extension of time in which to file the final map for Tentative Tract Map No. 14496 (Santa Rosa Cove). The Applicant has previously filed maps on three (3) of the seven (7) tract phases. She noted that if this extension is approved, the Applicant will have until May 20, 1984 to file maps on the r~maining phases. This request is in cc~pliance with State Law which provides 5 years frc~ date of original approval to file a final subdivision map and is also in cc~pliance with the Municipal Land Division Ordinance. Therefore, staff r~ds that the Planning ~ssion recc~m~_nd to the City Council approval of a one- year extension of time in which to file a final map for Tentative Tract Map No. 14496 to May 20, 1984. Chairman Pro Tem Imkamp invited cc~rents frcm the Applicant. He had no ~ts so she called for a motion. 2. Cc~missioner Goetcheus made a motion to r~d to the City Council approval of a one-year extension of time in which to file a final map for Tentative Tract Map 14496 to May 20, 1984. Cc~m~ssioner Klimkiewicz seconded the motic~. Unanimously adopted. D. Chairman Pro Tem Imkamp explained the last item on the agenda to be a proposed amendmant to the Municipal Land Use Ordinance No. 348 regarding the t~mporary use of recreational vehicles and trailers within the City. She then requested cc~m~nts frc~ staff. 1. Associate Planner Bonner informed the Cc~x~ssion that this proposed ordinance has been returned to the Planning ~ssion by the City Council for their ~ts. City Council amended Section 18.41 (a) (5) to increase the tot~] tim~ any recreational vehicle could remain at a residence frcm two (2), t~~ periods, or portions thereof, to a total of 45 days, with any single visit not to exceed two (2) weeks. This was done to make - the ordinance more equitable for the resident. The City Council determined that the previous writing of this section allowed a resident only t%D (2) peri, ts, or two (2) visits by people with recreational vehicles per a 12-month period, which they felt was too restrictive and thus ~uld encourage residents not to ccmply with the ordinance. The Council concluded that the change to 45 days total ~uld be consistent with the intent of the ordinance while still being fair to the resident. Therefore, staff recc~m~nds that the Planning ~ssion report to the City Council that it supports the change. Chairman Pro Tm Lmkamp called for ~ts frcm the Cc~missioners. Cc~missioner Klimkiewicz stated that he felt the first writing was more %o his liking. He did not care for the idea of seeing a recrea%ional vehicle parked in a driveway for a month and a-half. Cc~z%issioner Goetcheus agreed that the original writing was what the ~ssion had requested and he has not changed his mind. Cc~missioner Reilly stated she was in agreement with the change requested by the City Council. MINUTES - PLANNING~SSION May 10, 1983 Page Eleven. 2. Chairman Pro Tem Imkamp made a motion to accept the change in Section 18.41(a) (5) allowing 45 days total for any recreational vehicle used for temporary habitatic~ to r~ain at a residence. Cc~m%issioner Reilly seconded. Cc~m%issioners Goetcheus and Klimkiewicz were not in favor of the change. - City Manager Frank Usher presented the Cc~m~ssion with a proposed Resolution regarding study sessions. RESOLUTICN NO. P.C. 83-3. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING ~SSION OF THE CITY OF IA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ~SSION'S R~ BY ADDING PROVISIONS REGARDING THE REGULAR HOLDING OF STUDY SESSIONS. Cc~missioner Klimkiewicz made a motion to adopt the proposed Resolution. Chairman Pro Tem Imkamp seconded. Unanimously adopted. 6. ADJOURNMENT There being no further items of agenda to cc~e before the Planning Cc~mission, Chairman Pro Tem Imkamp called for a motion to adjourn. Chairman Pro Tm Imkamp made a motien to adjourn to the meeting of May 24, 1983, at 7: 00 p.m., in La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, CA. Seconded by Commissioner Klimkiewicz. Unanimously approved. The regular meeting of the Planning ~ssion of the City of La Quinta, CA was adjourned at 9:45 p.m., May 10, 1983, at La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado,