Loading...
1984 04 10 PC Minutes ..... APPROVED " LA QU, J'fi~I'A PLANNI,NG COMMISS~N DATE A Regular Mmeting Held at the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California April 10, 1984 7: 00 p.m. 1. CJ~T.T, ~ OPJD~_J~ A. Chairman Klimkiewicz called the Planning CoNnission meeting to order at -- 7:00 p.m. and led the flag salute. 2. ROLL CALL A.Chairman Klimkiewicz requested the roll call. The Secretary called the rol 1: Present:Comtissioners Goetcheus, Imkamp, Thornburgh, Salas and Chairman K1 imkiewicz Absent: None Also present w~re City Manager Frank Usher, City Attorney Jim Longtin, Planning Director Larry Stevens, Principal Planner Sandra Bonner and Secretary Donna Velotta. 3. HEARINGS Chairman Klimkiewicz advised that the four hearings before the Planning ~ssion this evening w~re regarding the Duna La Quinta project, LML Development Corporation of California, Applicant. He noted that the hearings would be held concurrently as follows: A. Request for Certification of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared __ by LML Development Corporation of California for Specific Plan No. 83-001. B. General Plan Amendment No. 84-003, Amended, a request to amend the Land Use Element fron High Density Residential to General Cc~mercial. C. Specific Plan No. 83-001, a request by LML Devel~t Corporation of California to approve 1269 residential units and a 6-acre ~cial center on 246 acres. D. Change of Zone Case No. 84-006, a request by LML Development Corporation of California to change the existing zoning frcm R-l, R-l-12,000, R-2-4000, R-2-8000 and R-5 to R-2-8000, R-2-7000, R-2-6000, R-2-5000, R-2-4000, R-2-3000, R-5 and C-P-S. Chairman Klimkiewicz then called for reports from staff. 1. Planning Director Larry Stevens advised those present that he would go through each of the hearings in sequence, giving a brief sunmmry and, wheze necessary, additional detail. ~ - PLANNING CC~v~ISSION April 10, 1984 Page 2. The first hearing discussed was the Certification of the Environmental Impact Report. This document cc~prises the specific plan, a response to the cc~nents document, as well as a separate traffic study. Planning Director Stevens noted that the only major significant impacts resulting were those typically associated with all urban develo~n~nts in our developed areas, as well as scme basic concerns regarding traffic and how it should be handled. It is staff's recc~n~ndation that the EIR be certified based on the two findings in the staff report. The Planning Conmtission had no questions with regard to the above report. Planning Director Stevens then reported on the General Plan Aman~t. He stated that this requested change was for the area located on Calle Tampico which consists of 6 acres currently zoned High Density Residential. The Applicant is requesting the zoning be changed to General Ccnm~rcial. This request would be an extension of existing ~cial area now located on Calle Tampico. He advised that staff, after evaluating the request for this amendment, does not support this change. The principal reasons for staff's non-support are related to the amount of ccnm~_rcially designated land in the downtown area (51 acres) which is developed to less than 10% of that acreage. Since the General Plan's policies and goals tend to encourage develotm~nnt of existing ~cial areas and discourage additional ~cial zoning, this lends credence to staff's position that the additional cc~nercial is not warranted at this tims. Planning Director Stevens stated that staff's report incorporates three findings and reccmnends that the General Plan ~dmmnt not be approved. The Planning Cc~nission had no questions with regard to this report. The next report given by Planning Director Stevens was regarding the Specific Plan. He noted that the Applicant is requesting approval for 1269 residential units of varying densities, spread over 240 acres, and the 6-acre ~cial site mentioned earlier. He referred the Planning Conmission to the documents contained in their packets which show the Applicant's proposal. A portion of this project is under construction presently with the last phase proposed for construction in January 1987. The location of this project is along the levee of the storm channel and along 50th and Washington intersection. He explained that of the 246 acres involved, 44 would be golf course and the remaining 202 acres are developable as residential property. There is a portion of storm- channel property which runs through this acreage which accounts for the discrepancy of 274 acres, which is shown on scum of the documents, and the 246 which is owned and developable by the Applicant. Planning Director Stevens advised the Planning ~ssion that in evaluating the specific plan, they need to be aware of types and levels of densities that are allowed in the current General Plan which would allow a maximum of 1266 units on the currently designated residential property. The existing zoning would allow something less than that depending on precisely how you calculahe the densi%y. The Applicant is asking for scme adjustment in the zoning and to use the specific plan to spread the density over the entire property. MINUTES - PLANNING C~SSION April 10, 1984 Page 3. Planning Director Stevens stated there are a number of major issues discussed in the staff report. 1. Staff feels concern with density at the corner of 50th and Washington. (Phases 3, 4, and 5) 2. Cc~nercial zoning requested by the Applicant - it should be noted here that if the 6 acres is deleted in favor of cc~nercial designation, the maximum permissable number of units under the General Plan will be reduced by approximately 60, or 10 units per acre for the 6 acres. 3. Another concern with density that staff has is the area south of the extension of Calle Tampico between Calle Rondo and Adams. ~nis area is zoned R-l-12,000 which allows 3 units per acre. The Applicant's request would allow 5% units per acre. 4. There are two areas of specific concern with regard to traffic. One area is %he extension of Calle Tampico betw~_n Calle Rondo and A~___~_ms. The second area is south of the stormwater channel (Phase 7) to Avenue 50. Planning Director Stevens moved on to discussion of the conditions for the Specific Plan. He advised that these conditions had been discussed at the Planning Cc~nission study session the day prior to this hearing. The conditions of concern are: Under heading of Traffic and Circulation, Conditions 11, 13, 14, 16, and 17. Under heading of Land Use, Conditions 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, and 29. Under heading of Public Services and Utilities, Condition 32. At this point, Principal Planner Bonner gave a brief report regarding setbacks on Washington Street. Planning Director Stevens stated staff recc~n~J~ed approval of the Specific Plan subject to the findings, and subject to the 37 conditions as amended during this hearing. This would also include adoption of the revised exhibit. There was a brief discussion regarding the conditions by the Planning Conmtission and staff. Planning Director Stevens went on to the last report which was the Change of Zone request. He stated that essentially, the zone change implements the Specific .Plan and the densities reccmmx=n~ded. He advised the ~sion that staff has made reccmr~ndations to adjust the various densities requested in the zoning to acute our reccnm~_ndations in the Specific Plan. There- fore, any adjustments that the Cc~nission makes to the r~dations would have to also be adjusted in the zoning. He advised the Cc~nission that for the Phase 9 area, staff is reccnm~=_nding R-1 as opposed to R-2 zoning to MINUTES - PLANNING CC~v~SSION April 10, 1984 Page 4. encourage buildings to have no more than tv~ units per building, which is the maxinum allowable under the R-1 zoning. R-2 zoning allows 8 units per building. As there w~re no further questions or cc~nents by the Conm~ssion, Chairman Klimkiewicz called upon the Applicant for his response. Kevin Manning, representative for the Applicant, LML Develot]nent Corporation of California, P. O. Box 1000, La Quinta, CA 92253, advised the Planning Conmtission that the plan before them at this hearing is a revised version of a plan sutmtitted a year ago (March 1983). The original plan showed 1220 units and 11 acres of cc~nercial. In March of 1984, subject to n~=etings with staff and concerns of La Quinta residents, the Applicant amended their Specific Plan to delete the cc~nercial designation on Phases 4 and 5. In place of this deletion of 5 acres of cc~nercial, the Applicant requested 10 units per acre on each of .these two parcels, which is not inconsistent with the General Plan. Mr. Manning further noted that the Applicant felt the six-acre cc~nercial zoning they were requesting at this hearing was appropriate for a 250-acre residential project as well as residents currently residing here. Mr. Manning further stated that he felt the traffic study sutmtitted by the Applicant to staff had been basically ignored because it did not mmet the needs of staff. He noted that the Applicant feels Avenues 50 and 52 will fill the traffic needs. He ~ w~nt on to discuss the conditions of concern for the Applicant Under the head_ing of Land Use: Condition No. 23. The Applicant is requesting 8 units per acre as opposed to staff's request of 5 units per acre for Phases 2 and 5. Condition No. 24. The Applicant is requesting 10 units per acre as opposed to staff's request of 8 units per acre for Phase 4. Condition No. 25. The Applicant is requesting the 6-acre ccmnercial acreage remain in the plan as opposed to staff's request that it be deleted in Phase 6. Condition No. 26. The Applicant is requesting the density remain 5.6 units per acre as opposed to staff's request for 4.4 units per acre in Phase 9. Condition No. 27. The Applicant is requesting the term "residential" be allowed within the Specific Plan. Condition No. 28. The Applicant is requesting this entire condition be deleted. MINUTES - PLANNING COMMISSION April 10, 1984 Page 5. Under the heading of Traffic and Circulation: Condition No. 13. The Applicant is requesting that this condition be deleted. Condition No. 15. The Applicant is requesting that the words 'With the exception of Calle Tampico between Calle Rondo and Ad__~_ms Street." be deleted. Conditions Nos. 16 and 17. The Applicant is requesting that these be deleted. Under the heading Public Services and Utilities: Condition NO. 32. The Applicant is requesting tJmt subsections a, b and c be deleted. Andy Vossler, LML Devel~t Corporation of Californ:.a, spoke at this time regarding the point made by Planning Director Stevens earlier referring to the deletion of 28 acres due to the flood control ch~el. He noted that the Applicant redesigned the channel to create more ot~n space and a golf hole, therefore they feel that scmsthing less than 28 acres should be deleted. The deletion of the entire 28 acres would be scmewhat strenuous on the Applicant. Paul Landis, Councel for the Applicant, stated that hz had three items of discussion to bring to the Conm~ssion. First, regarding the extension of Calle Tampico, becm se of the burden it puts on the Applicant, they feel it is an improper e3d~ension of the City's rights and they would be forced to protect their rights if need be. There- fore, the Applicant is requesting this provision be eliminated. Second, regarding the 30-foot right-of-way along the westerly boundary of Washington Street, he stated it would result in the elimination of an access road into the property which is on the north end of the channel. By approving the Specific 'Plan with this particular condition, the City is imposing on the Applicant a parcel which they cannot develop and there would be no way to meet fire protection with respect to two accesses. The imposition of the 30 feet is not consistent with certain areas north of Avenue 50, which areas are aligned the same way the Applicant feels they should be. Third, there are conditions in this Specific Plan that came frcm the PGA West proposal. Mr. Landis stated that the Applicant would like to go on record that they are opposed to these same conditions for this, the Duna la Quinta project. ~hey wish to reserve the right to discuss these issues when appearing before the City Council. In conclusion, Mr. landis stated that the Applicant would like the Conmtission to vote in favor of the proposals before them with due consideration of the discussion and changes they have rended. MINUTES - PLANNING COMMISSION April 10, 1984 Page 6. There being no questions or coNnents fron the Ccnm~ssion at this time, Chairman Klimkiewicz opened the hearing for public cc~nent at 8:25 p.m. Jack Clark, 50-102 Avenida Vista Bonita, La Quinta, CA, stated his concern with Phase 2 and staff's request that there be a change of density fron 8 to 5 units per acre. He requested the Conmtission approve the 8 units per acre with the restriction of 14,000 square feet per acre which would be in keeping with what his agency w-ants to do. William Caren, 49-847 Coachella Drive, La Quinta, CA, ~ded Landmark on their deletion of the portion of cc~n~_rcial area origiD~a] ly requested. He further cc~mended staff for their in-depth report regarding this proposal. He felt there should be height limitation restrictions. His concern with the extension of Calle Tampico was with regard to traffic flow. Regarding the 6-acre cc~mercial area requested by the Applicant, he did not feel that their reasoning for this request was appropriate. As there were no further public ~ts, Chairman Klimkiewicz closed the public hearing at 8:30 p.m. The ensuing discussion which was a review of the conditions of concern for this proposal, resulted in the revision of the following conditions: Condition No. 13 - Sentence added: "The status of Calle Tampico as a public or private street shall be reviewed in conjunction with tentative tract maps for the affected phases, at which time it shall be determined whether or not Calle Tampico is needed to provide an east-west access for the public to the eventual north-south connector with Highway 111 (Ad__~_ms or Dune Palms)." Condition No. 15 - Word added in last sentence: "All roadways within the Specific Plan area shall remain private with the possible exception of Calle Tampico be~ Calle Rondo and Ad_s_ms Street." Condition NO. 23. Amended to read: "The maximum allowable densities of Phases 2 and 5, as identified on Exhibit B, shall be eight (8) units per acre for a maxin~an number of 52 and 20 units respectively." Condition No. 24 - ~ed to read: "The maximum allowable density of Phase 4, as identified on Exhibit B, shall be reduced from ten (10) units per acre to five (5) units per acre for a maximum number of 25 units." Condition No. 25 - Word changed in last sentence: "This area shall be designated as residential; the allowable density shall be a maxinum of ten (10) units per acre for a maximum number of 60 units." Condition NO. 27 - ~ed to read: "The land use designations stated within the land use sunm~ry on Exhibit B shall be changed fron "residential" to residential/condoninium , with the exception that Phase 7 shall be designated as "condoninium/apartment". MINUTES - PI2kNNING CYIMMISSION April 10, 1984 Page 7. Condition No. 28 - Amended to read: "Height limitations shall be imposed as follows: a. No portion of any structure on top of the La Quinta Stormwater Channel shall exceed one story or 20 feet, as measured from the levee grade. b. All structures shall be limited to two stories not to exceed 35 feet." Condition No. 29 - Subsection a. amended to read: "A minimum 20-foot setback frcm the public rights-of-way of 50th Avenue and Washington Street, except where walls are now existing on 50th west of Washington." Subsection b. amended to read: "A minimum 10-foot setback frcm the public rights-of-way of Ad__~_ms Street and Calle Tampico (if designated as a public street)." Condition NO. 32 - Subsection a. amended to read: "Applicant shall provide a minimum 330 foot by 330 site for an electrical substation on, or adjacent to, the development at Calle Tampico and Adams Street as approved by Inloerial Irrigation District, the City, and the Applicant; or shall provide, or partici- pate in, other facilities acceptable to Imperial Irrigation District and the City. This shall be resolved prior to recordation of Phase 3." Subsection b. amended to read: "If an on-site substation is provided, the Applicant shall provide a landscaped earthen berm around the perimeter of the substation as shown on the attached exhibit." The discussions ended, Chairman Klimkiewicz called for motions regarding the hearings. 2. Ccm~nissioner Thornburgh made a motion, based upon the findings, to certify the Environmental Impact Rmport for Duna La Quinta. Conmtissioner Goetcheus seconded the motion. Unanimously adopted. Conmtissioner Imkamp made a motion to adopt the three findings in the staff report and deny General Plan Ammndment NO. 84-003. Ccnmtissioner Salas seconded the motion. Unanimously adopted. Cc~mtissioner Goetcheus made a motion, based upon the four findings in the staff report, to approve Specific Plan No. 83-001 in accord with Exhibits A, B, and the conditions of approval, as modified. Cc~ssioner Thornburgh seconded the motion. Unanimously adopted. Cc~ssioner Thornburgh made a motion to adopt the two findings in the staff report and deny the change of zone as requested and approve it as shown in the attached Exhibit entitled "Staff Recc~nended Zoning", which shall be modified to acco~nodate the revisions in densities approved in the conditions of the Specific Plan. Cc~ssioner Imkamp seconded. Unanimously adopted. MINUTES - PLANNING CC~4MISSION April 10, 1984 Page 8. 4. CONSENT CAT.CNDAR A. ~btion made by C~ssioner Salas, seconded by Conraissioner Imkamp to adopt the Consent Calendar approving the minutes of February 14, 1984. 1. The minutes of the regular meeting of February 14, 1984 were approved as ~tted. Unanimously adopted. -- 5. BUSINESS A. Chairman Klimkiewicz introduced the first item of business as Tentative Tract Map No. 18767, a request to make minor revisions to approved building plans; I24L Development Corporation of California, Applicant. He called for the staff report. 1. Planning Director Stevens gave a brief report with regard to this request stating that originally these levee units were two stories above the dike with the garage essentially below having an overall height of 25 feet above the levee and about 35 feet high total. The revised plan reduces this height by about 5 feet prior to line-of-site analysis which the Conmz~ssion reviewed at the study session which confirms that the units would not be visible frcm the exterior. Staff still has concerns with bulk frc~ the interior, This request is for some fairly substantial changes which reduces the number of units by four. After a brief discussion, Chairman Klimkiewicz called for a motion. 2. Ccrm%issioner Thornburgh made a motion to r~d to City Council approval of the revised plans relative to Tentative Tract Map No. 18767. Cc~ssioner Goetcheus seconded the motion. Unanimously adopted. B. Chairman Klimkiewicz introduced the next item of business as Plot Plan No. 84-042, a request to construct a single-family house along the west side of Avenida Diaz, scuth of Calle Madrid; Michael Head, Applicant. He stated further that staff has advised the Cc~mission that this item has been withdrawn. There were no motions. Planning Director Stevens spoke to the ~ssion regarding the Washington Street Specific Plan. He advised them that he had gone through the materials that had been discussed to date and feels that the Cc~aission has laid out what they think the general parameters should be. Therefore, he feels that staff should try to develop an alternative or alternatives that would implement those general parameters the Conmz~ssi~n has outlined. He stated he would like to bring scme examples of how those parameters could be implemented and get the Cc~x~ission's reaction. He felt this could possibly be presented to them in six weeks or so. Planning Director Stevens also stated that he may be able to bring sc~ething to the May meeting regarding residential development standards. However, if he could not, then he would request the Cc~ssion to have a second meeting in May to discuss this issue. The Cc~rmissioners felt this was satisfactory to them, but again mentioned that the first priority should be the General Plan. MINUTES - PLANNING ~SSION April 10, 1984 Page 9. 6. ADJOURNMENT There being no further items of agenda to ccme before the Planning Cxmm~ssion, Chairman Klimkiewicz called for a motion to adjourn. ~ssioner Thornburgh made a motion to adjourn to a regular meeting on _ May 8, 1984, at 7:00 p.m., in La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, The regular meeting of the Planning Conm~ssion of the City of La Quinta, California was adjourned at 10:30 p.m., April 10, 1984, at the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, CA.