Loading...
1984 06 12 PC Minutes PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA DATE / A Regular Meeting Held at the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California June 12, 1984 7: 00 p.m. CALL, TO ORDER A. Chairman Kiimki~cz called the Planning Cc~zission n~=eting to order at 7:00 p.m. Be then called upon Cc~ission~ Zmkame. to lead the flag salute. ROLL CALL A. Chairman Kiimkiewicz requested the roil call. The Secretazl~ caned the roil: Present: Ommiissioners Goetcheus, Imkamp, Thorntlirgh, Salas and Chairman Kiimkiewicz Absent: None Also present were Planning Director Lawrence L. Stevens, Principal Planner Santra L. Bonner and Secretary Donna Veiotta HEARINGS Chairman ~iimkiewicz advised the Cc~issioners and ail those present that the first two hearings were regarding the same planned residential develop- ment project and therefore would be heard concurrently as fonows: A. Change of Zone Case No. 84-010, a request by Psomas and Associates to change the existing zoning frcx~ R-1-12,000/PD to R-1-10,000/PD to allow for a planned residential deveiotzent in acco~_ance with a proposed tentative tract. B. Tentative Tract Map No. 20016, Amended No. 1, a request for approval of a 140-unit, detached, single-family dwelling, planned residential deveiotme~t located at the northwest corner of Miles Avenue and Dune Palms Road~ Psc~as and Associates, Applicant. Chairman Kiimkiewicz then called for the report fr~ staff. i. Principal ~ianner ~onner presented the staff report informing ail present that the Applicant is proposing a 140-unit, statutory condcmir~'um project. The residences are detached, single-family units at a density of four (4) units per acre. They wiii be clustered along one main collector icop street, ~aiier icop streets and cul-de-sacs. There is a plan for a large centrally located recreation area plus three (3) smaller recreation areas. The main entrance to the project is frcm Miles Avenue with an emergency entrance along Dune PaLms Road. There are three (3) designs proposed and the ntijority of the units are set back farther than the 20-foot minimal setback required. The residences ail conform to single-family dwelling standards. ~rincipai ~ianner ~onner mentioned the concern brought out at the study session on June ii regarding the closeness of the units in the center of the project site. She advised that staff feels there is enough flexibility in the overall density to allow the units in this area to be shifted in order to provide adequate space betwse_n ail of the units. in conjunction with the tentative tract, the Applicant is requesting a zone change to R-1-10,000/PD. Staff is reccmending that the cllinge of zone be approved based upon the findings in the staff report. staff also recc~ze_nds approval of the tentative tract map based upon the findings and subject to the conditions of approval. MINUTES - PLANNING CC~ISSION June 12, 1984 Page 2. Planning D~rector Stevens advised the Ccaxnission that the only potential ccndition of approval not noted is the one to provide improvement of Dune Palms Road through the storm channel. He read aloud the condition of approval imposed upon an adjacent project by the City Council: "Provision shall be made to improve Dune Palms Road as it crosses - the Whitew~ter Storm Channel to protect the roadway from damage and/or washout during high-water times. Improvement plan drawings shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and be sukn~tted for review and approval by the City Engineer and the City Council. If the Applicant so requests, the City shall determine a reimburse- ment area and establish a reimbursement program affecting any benefiting properties in the area." The Planning Ccax~ssioners had no questions for staff at this time, therefore Chairman Klimkiewicz called upon the Applicant for his presentation. Bill Tackabery, Pscmas Associates, 158 Paulerino, Costa Mesa, CA, Applicant, explained s~ne of the highlights of the project. He advised the Cc~nission that this project is a redesign of one originally presented to staff. He noted that they plotted for 140 units, which is 3 less than the R-l-10,000 zoning permits. Some of the units along the outer edge of the project may have private, fenced yards. The large, central recreation area would have restroc~ facilities and a cabana. The smaller recreation areas will have a jacuzzi, but no other facilities. Mr. Tackabery stated that they concurred with the conditions of the staff report. However, regarding the new condition Mr. Stevens read aloud previously, regarding Dune Palms Road improvements, he felt they v~ld be willing _ to ccatribute toward these improvements on an equitable basis, but if they were the first to develop in this area, they do not believe they should be required to build a crossing, as they do have other routes out of their project. Ccmmtissioner Goetcheus asked the Applicant how they could draw up CE & R's and designate cc~non areas and still tell scmeone they could fence in theLr own backyard. The Applicant responded stating that the fencing would be built by them and the unit sold that way. He noted that they have not done a project with a mix of cca~on area and fenced yards prior to this one and he did not know at this time how the CE & R's would be drawn up to cover this situation. Cc~nissioner Goetcheus asked Planning Staff if this would be our problem or the Applicant' s. Planning Director Stevens stated that it could become the City's problem depending on whether we want the 70% open space to be avail- able to everyone. He stated that as these are statutory condc~ini~, he would prefer not to see fences. Principal Planner Bonner stated that it is not unccamon for statutory condcminiums to have fenced-in patios. If you look at the point that all the property remains in cc~mon ownership, there has to be a way to designate what property is attached to certain units because the unit itself is standing on cca~on open space reserved exclusively for that unit's use. Chairman Klimkiewicz opened the hearing for public ccam~_nt. There being no public ccaments, he closed the public hearing. Cc~missioner Goetcheus requested that staff pursue the topic of having developers install restrocms next to "all" pool areas in any project. This request was followed by substantial discussion of same. It was decided that staff w~uld work with this Applicant to see if this would be a feasible request to require of future tracts. Staff will then bring a report back to the Conmmission. MINUTES - PLANNING CC~MISSION June 12, 1984 Page 3. Density was the next topic of discussion between ~ssion and staff. Principal Planner Bonner advised the Cc~nissioners that the area in question was prezoned in February '83 as Very Low Density Residential, but the actual annexation did not take place until September '83. The Planning Cc~ntission and City Council designated this zoning as appropriate at the time of the prezoning. Chairman Klimkiewicz advised the Cc~nission to keep in mind the fact that, even if they should vote to approve the change of zone, it does not m~an that they cannot require fewer units in the design of this project. The units prescribed for any particular zoning is maximum, and the Cc~n%ission has the discretion to change the number of units permitted to a lessor figure if they dc~n it appropriate to the project area. Cc~mtissicner Thornburgh stated he preferred to leave the zoning at R-l-12,000. He stated the Applicant would lose approximately 20 units, but felt it %x~ld be a better project. He also felt the Conmtission would have lived up to the prezoning and what they had told the citizens of la Quinta at that time. Cc~nissioner Imkamp felt that a few units should be pulled out. She liked the concept of unattached dwellings feeling this would be a draw for the sale of these units. ~ssioner Salas stated he had no problem with the density of this project, but reminded the Cc~nission that City Council has already kicked one change of zone approval back to them. He felt if they deny this change of zone, it would set a precedence of Very Low Density Residential for the area under discussion. He vx~ndered if that was the zoning the Cc~nission wanted there. Conmtissioner Salas felt the ~ssion should give this matter more thought and possibly a continuance. ~ssioner Goetcheus had no objection to the Applicant's request, but stated he would like scme feedback frcm staff with regard to the CC & R's and the feasibility of requesting restroc~s be provided at all swiaming pool sites. Principal Planner Bonner advised that all contact with surrounding property owners revealed no objections to this project. Planning Director Stevens informed the O0nmtission that when prezoning was done, the Benmz~a Dunes area to the north was Very Low Density Residential (0-3 units/acre) and the County in doing its new General Plan, which was after w~ had done our prezoning and pre-General Plan, changed that zoning to 2-8 units/acre. He noted that staff feels that is too large of a range to provide nuch direction to a developer. Therefore, staff felt that the slight increase was in keeping with those additional changes and was still reasonable and not out of line with the thinking that was presented during the annexation, prezoning reviews. Principal Planner Bonner added that at the time of the prezoning, the City wanted planned develo~nents in this area, then when this project and another one close by were presented to the Planning Department, staff realized that, economically, PRD's may not get developed at 3 units per acre. Staff had really not thought about parcel size and the econc~ics involved. She noted that if the Cc~nission wants PRD's, then the zoning should facilitate it. Staff believes that 4 units per acre makes it econc~ically viable so that we will get PRD's in this area. Consequently, being that services are being brought in frcm the north for this area, staff has an interest in seeing the northerly portion of our annexation area developed so that services are e3ctended in order to have develotm~nt to the south. MINUTES - PLANNING ~SSION June 12, 1984 Page 4. Chairman Klimkiewicz stated that he felt this was a good project, but also felt he could not vote in favor of the requested zone change. He thought the design could be loosened up by deleting possibly 10 units. After further discussion, it was decided to continue these items of hearing to an adjourned m~eting. Planning Director Stevens informed the Cc~ission that the Horizon Palms project would be brought back for discussion to the same adjourned m~eting as the City Council had referred it back to the Cc~nission for further evaluation. Chairman Klimkiewicz called for a motion. 2. Cc~m%issioner Salas made a motion to continue Change of Zone Case No. 84-010 and Tentative Tract Map No. 20016, Amended No. 1 to an adjourned meeting to be held on June 21, 1984, at 7:00 p.m. Cc~m%~ssioner Imkamp seconded the motion. Unanimously adopted. C. Chairman Klimkiewicz introduced the next hearing as Change of Zone Case No. 84-011, a request by ~k)rris and Grayson, Inc./Rufus Associates to change existing zoning frcm A-l-10 to R-2-12,000. He called upon staff for their report. 1. Principal Planner Bonner stated that this request is for an 80-acre site located on the south side of 50th Avenue, a half mile west of Jefferson Street. It is contiguous to the west of Orchard at La Quinta's resort hotel. The Applicant is requesting this change of zone to allow the maximum 3.6 units per acre which is consistent with the General Plan designation of Very Low Density Residential. This request is consistent with surrounding develo~E~nt. A point of concern brought up at the study session was whether the property should be rezoned to R-1 (Single-Family Dwelling) zoning or R-2 (Multiple Family Dwelling) zoning. Principal Planner Bonner advised that density of the use is still ruled by the General Plan, which is 3 units per acre. That would not be changed whether the zoning was R-1 or R-2. She noted also that the City always maintains c~ntrol over the design of the density through the tentative tract or PRD process. So, even though R-1 allows 2 units per building and R-2 allows up to 8 units per building, the Planning Cc~x~ssion and City Council still have the right to review the design and decide what would be appropriate for the area. Another point brought out at the study session is the differentiation be~ the two types of zoning as far as how many units can be in the buildings. This is scmething that is most likely going to be changed in our zoning ordinance. It is pretty much an arbitrary limit and creates confusion. There is really no need for the differentiation now that we have design review process. Staff recc~/~n~ds that the Planning ~ssion r~d to the City Council a~uproval of this change of zone to R-2-12,000. The Cc~m~ssion had no questions of staff at this time. Therefore, Chairman Klimkiewicz called upon the Applicant for his presentation. Larry Spector, 78-098 Lago Drive, La Quinta, CA (President of M~rris and Grayson, Inc./Rufus Associates), Applicant, began by thanking the Cc~m%issi~n and the City for the approval of the first half of their project a few meetings back. He noted they have now purchased the parcel of land adjacent to the first half and wish to ccmplete the project by rezoning those 80 acres. He explained that the con- sideration of the Cc~nission to change the zoning to R-1 rather than the requested R-2 would put th~ in serious financial jeopardy as the appraisal of the property w~uld be changed. He urged the Planning ~ssion to support staff's r~dation of R-2. MINUTES - PLANNING CC~b[ISSION June 12, 1984 Page 5. Chairman Klimkiewicz opened the hearing to public ~t; there being none he closed the public hearing. Cc~missi~ner Goetcheus felt they should not vote for a change of zone on the entire 80 acres without seeing a develo~_nt plan. After a brief discussion, Chairman Klimkiewicz called for a motion. 2. Cc~missioner Thornburgh made a motion to approve Change of Zone Case No. 84-011 frc~ A-l-10 to R-2-12,000 based on the findings in the staff report and in accordance with the attached Exhibit A. ~ssioner Imkamp seconded the motion. Unanimously adopted. D. Chairman Klimkiewicz introduced the next hearing as Tentative Tract Map No. 20052, a request to approve a planned residential development for that portion of Tentative Tract Map No. 13640 (Laguna De La Paz) not recorded, consisting of 336 units on 69.7 acres, located at the northwest corner of Washington Street and Eisenhow~r Drive; Laguna De La Paz, Ltd., Applicant. He called for the staff report. 1. Principal Planner Bonner stated that this is a resu_~_P~ittal of a new tentative tract map on that portion of Tentative Tract 13640 which has not been recorded. This property is located on the northwest corner of Washington Street and Eisenhower Drive. The site has been previously graded and, in fact, the Applicant has brought in a half million cubic yards of dirt to build up the pads above flood level. The water line is being currently installed along Washington Street at this time, frcm 50th Avenue to the Catholic church. The Applicant has recorded 3 phases of this 9 phase map. Phase 1 is the model hcme ccmplex, Phase 2 is the open space area consisting of a 6-acre lake, approximately 9 tennis courts and a swing pool, and Phase 3 is the first phase of hcmes for sale. Of the r~maining phases, the Applicant - has 4 of the 6 in plan check with the City. The Applicant is requesting approval of this new tentative tract map to allow cc~pletion of the final map check process and have the City approve the final map so he can record and begin construction and land sales. Principal Planner Bonner advised there have been no design changes of this map from the previously approved design. The Applicant has ccmplied with all of the building standards of the City. Regarding the conditions of approval, the majority of th~ are ones we previously applied to the map. There are several new conditions which will be addressed by the Applicant. Principal Planner Bonner referred the Cc~mission to Condition No. 7.f. which should be changed to read: "7.f. Knuckles shall be constructed throughout the land division in accordance with requirements of the City Engineer and Fire Department." The Applicant has concerns with Conditions 8 and 16.b, however, staff supports these conditions. Conditions 20, 22, 24 and 25 are new, but are being applied to all tentative tracts in the City. Staff recc~x~J~ls that the Planning Cc~ssion r~d approval of this tentative tract map in accordance with exhibits and subject to the conditions of approval contained in the staff report. Chairman Klimkiewicz called upon the Applicant for his presentation. Gary Fatland, Engineer for the project, ~ty Engineering Services, 5225 Canyon Crest Drive, Suite 252, Riverside, CA, spoke in behalf of the Applicant stating that they do have 3 tracts currently recorded and have improvement plans cc~pleted for the majority of the project, which the City Engineer has checked. He noted, however, that scme of the new conditions of approval imposed will put a burden on this development with regard to budget, etc. The conditions of concern are as follows: MINUTES - PLANNING ~SSION June 12, 1984 Page 6. 7.i. - Mr. Fatland stated that the Applicant had paid fees to the County at the tim~ the first tract, 13640-1, was checked by them. Now the City is imposing this condition and they feel this is a matter of double feeing. They w~uld like the City to acquire these fees frcm the County and give them back to the Applicant or have the City do the striping required by this condition. _ 8. and 11. - The Applicant feels both of these conditions ~Duld be and unfair burden to them. 16.b.- The Applicant would like this condition rewritten. 21.b.- The Applicant would like this condition changed to show "6-foot wide" path instead of the "8-foot wide" as shown. M~rvin Johnson, 400 N. Tustin Avenue, Suite 431, Santa Ana, CA, the Applicant, spoke to the Cc~mission regarding Conditions 7.b., 8, 17 and 25. After further discussion, Chairman Klimkiewicz opened the hearing for public ~t. Kiki Haynes, 51-945 Avenida Velasco, La Quinta, CA, spoke in favor of the project, but questioned the reasoning of not having lighting installed along Washington Street or Eisenho~sr Drive. She was informed that the City only requires developments to light intersections or entryways. Dick Felling, Fresno, CA (soon to be a La Quinta resident), introduced himself as a ne~ member of the M. B. Johnson staff. He noted that we - would be seeing a lot of him as the project got under construction. He also stated that he was in favor of this project. As there were no further public cc~nents, Chairman Klimkiewicz closed the public hearing. Planning Director Stevens went over the conditions of approval that were of cc~cern to the Applicant. 7.f. Will be rewritten as noted previously. 7.i. This is an original condition and staff will do research as far as fees are concerned and work with the Applicant. 8. This condition will remain as written. 11. Staff will modify this condition to reflect the fact that the City has a miniaum street lighting program, principally at the entrance and intersection and the City will take care of the intersection with our signalization program. 16.b. Will remain as written. 17. Will be deleted. _ 21.b. Will be changed to reflect a 6-foot wide path. Following a discussion period, Chairman Klimkiewicz called for a motion. 2. Cc~ssioner Imkamp made a motion to approve Tentative Tract Map No. 20052 for that portion of Tentative Tract Map No. 13640 not recorded, based on findings in the staff report and subject to the conditions of approval, as amended. Cc~missioner Salas seconded the motion. Unanimously adopted. MINUTES - PLANNING ~SSION June 12, 1984 Page 7. E. Chaizman Klimkiewicz introduced the next hearing as Tentative Tract Map No. 20158, a request for approval of a 48-unit, statutory oon~'um project on a 6.4 acre site located on the north side of the La Quinta Stormwater Channel west of Washington Street; Jack L. Clark Enterprises, Applicant. He called for the staff report. 1. Principal Planner Bonner informed the Cc~ission that staff is reccmrending that consideration of this tentative tract be continued to the July 10, 1984 Planning Cc~uission meeting to provide the Applicant additional time to make necessary changes in the proposed site plan. lWne Applicant is also purchasing the parcel of land adjacent to the east and intends to include this land in the amended site plan and tentative tract map. Chairman Klimkiewicz called for a motion. 2. Cc~missioner ~nornburgh made a motion to continue the hearing for Tentative Tract Map No. 20158 to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held on July 10, 1984. Commissioner Salas seconded the motion. Unanimously adopted. 4. CONSENT CAT,RNDAR Moved by Cc~missioner Salas, seconded by Cnmm~ssioner Goetcheus to adopt the Consent Calendar, subject to the change of Chairman Salas to Ccmm~ssioner A. ~ne minutes of the regular meeting of May 8, 1984, were approved as corrected. Unanimously adopted. 5. BUSINESS A. Chainman Klimkiewicz introduced the first item of business as Plot Plan No. 84-041, Revised, a request for approval of a revised plan for a previously approved single-family house located on the west side of Avenida Diaz, 250 feet south of Calle Madrid; Michael Head, Applicant. He called for the staff report. 1. Principal Planner Bonner advised the Commission that this revised plan is cc~ponent-type housing whereby the w~lls are constructed at a factory and then assembled at the site. The Applicant has two other houses now under construction, but will be cc~pleted within the month. He is also requesting approval for a single- family house on the adjacent lot to the north (Plot Plan No. 84-042). To provide variety, the layout of the second dwelling, which is of the same design, will be flipped and other different ornamental features will be varied. This request is consistent with the zoning, the design is in cc~pliance with the City's adopted standards and the proposed house is cc~patible with the surrounding developm~_nt. Therefore, staff is r~ding that the Planning ~sion approve this plot plan. Cha~ rman Klimkiewicz called for a motion. 2. Cc~missioner Salas made a motion to approve Plot Plan No. 84-041, Revised, based on the findings in the staff report, in accordance with Exhibits A, B and C and subject to the attached conditions. Cc~m~ssioner Thornburgh seconded the motion. Unanin~sly adopted. B. Cha~ Klimkie~icz introduced the next item of business as Plot Plan NO. 84-042, a request to construct a single-family house on a single lot on the west side of Avenida Diaz, 300 feet south of Calle Madrid; Michael Head, Applicant. He called for the staff report. 1. Principal Planner Bonnet advised the Cc~nission that this Applicant had previously sutx~itted plans for a pueblo-style house on this lot, but later withdrew the plans from consideration prior to an action by the Planning Conm~ssion. This plan is of the same design as Plot Plan No. 84-041 with the exception that the floor plan and elevations are reversed. This is a cc~ponent-type housing also. MINUTES - PLANNING CC~MISSION June 12, 1984 Page 8. This request is consistent with the 'zoning, the design is in compliance with the City's adopted standards and the proposed house is ccmpatible with the surrounding development. Therefore, staff is recc~r~nding that the Planning Cc~mission approve this plot plan. Chainm3n Klimkiewicz called for a motion. 2. Cc~m~ssioner Thornburgh made a motion to approve Plot Plan No. 84-042 based on the findings in the staff report, in accordance with Exhibits A, B and C and subject to the attached conditions. Conm~ssioner Salas seconded the motion. Unanimously adopted. C. Chairman Klimkiewicz introduced the next item of business as Plot Plan No. 84-044, a request to appeal a condition of approval for a previously approved single-family house located on the northwest corner of Avenida Martinez and Calle Ensenada; Thurston and Joan Pendley, Applicants. He called for the staff report. 1. Principal Planner Bonner advised the Cc~mission that the Applicants were requesting deletion of Condition of Approval No. 7 for this plot plan requiring heating and cooling mechanical equi~_nt to be ground mounted. She noted that this has been a requirement of the Planning Ccm~ission since January, 1983. Staff feels that the design for screening of the roof mounted equipment proposed by the Applicant will draw attention to the unit, therefore defeating the purpose of requiring· the equipment to be ground mounted to improve the aesthetics of the City. Staff is therefore r~ding that the Planning ~ssic~ deny the appeal requesting deletion of Condition of Approval No. 7 for Plot Plan No. 84-044. Hoyt Pendley, 84-591 Via Hermosa Avenue, Coachella, CA, the Applicant, - presented his appeal to the Planning Conm~ssion. After a short discussion, Cha~m~n Klimkiewicz called for a motion. 2. ~ssioner Thornburgh made a motion based on the facts stated in the staff report to deny the appeal requesting deletion of Condition of Approval No. 7 for Plot Plan No. 84-044. Cc~missioner Imkamp seconded the motion. Unanimously adopted. D. Chairman Klimkiewicz introduced the next item of business as Plot Plan No. 84-059, a request to construct a single-family house on a single lot on the east side of Roudel Lane apprc~imately 180 feet south of the end of the street; Chris Caras, Applicant. He then called for the report frcm staff. 1. Principal Planner Bonner described the house to the Cc~mission. She stated that the intent of Ordinance 12 requires review of the design of single-family houses to ensure that the architectural aspects of the development will be cc~patible with the surrounding neighborhood. Beginning with the first single-family plot plans reviewed by the City, the staff and Commission has considered the height, size and bulk of the units. It is staff's opinion that the house, as designed, with its long ar~ narrc~ design, is not consistent or compatible with existing - area development. In addition, since the house will be visible frcm the lower lying country club area to the east, which has an average minimum dwelling size of approximately 1500 to 2000 square feet, the design of the house should have the appearance of greater width and bulk, both frcm the front and rear of the property. Therefore, staff recc~rends that the Planning Cc~nissi~n require that the Applicant redesign the house to address the concerns discussed. If the Applicant refuses to redesign the structure, staff recc~mends that Plot Plan No. 84-059 be denied. MINUTES - PLANNING O2Mb~SSION June 12, 1984 Page 9. Chris Caras, 46-465 Roudel Lane, Indio, CA, the Applicant, spoke to the Planning Ccmmtission in behalf of this request. After a short discussion, the Planning Co~nission determined that the Applicant should submit a revised house plan addressing the concerns discussed at this m~eting. Chaizman Klimkiewicz called for a motion. - 2. Conm~ssioner Thornburgh made a motion to continue this request for Plot Plan No. 84-059 to the next regular meeting of the Planning ~ssion to be held on July 10, 1984. ~ssioner Salas seconded the motion. Unanimously adopted. E. Chaizman Klimkiewicz introduced the last item of business as Plot Plan No. 84-060, a request to construct a single-family house on a single lot on the northwest corner of Avenida Carranza and Calle Tecate; David Caygill, Applicant. He called for the staff report. 1. Principal Planner Bonner advised the ~ssion that this request is consistent with the zoning, the proposed house is compatible with surrounding development and if it is constructed in accord_snce with the conditions of approval, the design will be in ccmpliance with the City's adopted standards. TherefOre, staff is r~ding that the Planning Ccmmtission approve this plot plan request. Chairman Klimkiewicz called for a motion. 2. Conmtissioner Thornburgh made a motion to approve Plot Plan No. 84-060 based on the findings in the staff report in accord_~_nce with Exhibits A, B and C and subject to the attached conditions. ~ssioner Lmkanp seconded the motion. Unanimously adopted. 6. ADJOURNMENT There being no further items of agenda to ccme before the Plar~ ~ssion, Chaizman Klimkiewicz called for a motion to adjourn. ~ssioner Salas made a motion to adjourn to an adjourned n~eting to be held on June 21, 1984, at 7:00 p.m., in La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, CA. The regular meeting of the Planning Comtission of the City of La Quinta, California, was adjourned at 10:30 p.m., June 12, 1984, at the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, CA.