Loading...
1984 10 30 PC Minutes ~ ..... MINUTES DATE PLANNING COMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA A Regular Meeting Held at the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, california October 30, 1984 7:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER A. Chairman Thornburgh called the Planning Conmission meeting to order - at 7:00 p.m. He then called upon Larry Stevens to lead the flag salute. 2. ROLL CALL A.Chairman Thornburgh requested the roll call. The Secretary called the roll: Present: Cc~missioners Goetcheus, Klimkiewicz, Walling and ChaLrman Thornburgh Absent: Cc~missioner Salas Chairman Thornburgh requested a motion to excuse Conm~ssioner Salas. Cc~missioner Goetcheus moved to excuse Cc~missioner Salas frc~ this meeting of October 30, 1984. ~ssioner Walling seconded. Unanimously adopted. Also present were Cc~munity Develo~nent Director Lawrence L. Stevens, Principal Planner Sandra L. Bonner and Secretary Donna M. Velotta. 3. HEARINGS Chaizman Thorntmrgh advised all those present that the tw~ hearings on the agenda were regarding the same project and therefore would be heard con- currently as follows: A. Change of Zone Case No. 84-014, a request to change the existing zoning frc[n R-2-3000, R-2-4800, R-2-9000, C-P-S, W-2, R-5, and W-1 to R-2, to allow for a planned residential development generally located between Avenues 48 and 50 and Washington and Jefferson Streets, in accord_ance with a proposed specific plan; The Grove Associates, Applicant. B. Specific Plan No. 84-004, a request for approval of a 1500-unit, planned residential development with a 28-acre country club, tw~ golf courses and 80 guest cottages on approximately 682 acres generally located between Avenues 48 and 50 and Washington and Jefferson Streets; The Grove Associates, Applicant. He then called for the Staff report. Cc~munity Development Director Lawrence L. Stevens addressed the Change of zone request first stating that the request is intended to facilitate the proposed Specific Plan No. 84-004. Under current zoning, approved by the County, scme 2049 dwelling units could be constructed along_ with a 20-acre resort hotel. With the proposed zoning of R-2, without the lot size or density limitation, approximately 6 units per acre could be constructed. However, the Applicant only intends to construct approximately 2.2 units per acre. As a result, it see~s necessary to append the proposed R-2 zoning with a 20,000 square foot per dwelling lot area limitation to control the density. -- Director Stevens stated that the Applicant's proposal regarding building height is satisfactory, therefore there is no need to attach anything to the zoning in that regard. He stated that, based upon the findings in the Staff P~port, the Community Develo_~ment Department recc~mends approval of Change of Zone Case No. 84-014, as revised, and in accordance with attached Exhibits entitled "Staff Reccm~ended Zoning". Director Stevens then went on to address the second portion of the Staff Report for the EIR Addendum and the Specific Plan No. 84-004. An EiR was prepared for the prior Specific Plan which was a 2049-unit project with a MINUTES - PLANNING ~SSION October 30, 1984 Page 2. 20-acre resort hotel and two golf courses. This EIR was certified by the County in 1979 when they approved that plan. When the Applicant was pre- paring to sutmtit the revised application, essentially downscaping the project in terms of its density and intensity, our Staff evaluated the previous EIR and the regulations of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and it was Staff's determination that the project was substantially the same. As a result, a new EIR was not warranted. Staff, however, did feel that there were changeS in the enviro~t surrounding the project which warranted additional cc~sideration. The three issues for which Staff asked consideration in the addendUm were: o School Impacts - (Which were not a concern in 1979) These were evaluated in the addendum and a mitigation measure proposed which is similar to mitigation measures proposed in other residential projects o Fringe-toed Lizard - (?~ich was not officially considered a rare and endangered species in 1979) There is a mitigation program which is proposed and ccnm~only accepted for the develot~nent projects which was discussed in the Addendum and is appropriate without doing additional environ- mental review. o Update of Traffic and Circulation Issues which were extensively discussed in the project EIR. Staff did want to update that information to current situations and various traffic studies have been discussed and rediscussed. Staff did not feel that it warranted doing an EIR, as this can be adequately handled through the additional traffic analysis and resolved through conditions of approval. As a result, Staff selected the use of the Addendum procedure to assure cc~pliance with CEQA. Therefore, it is Staff's reccnxn~ndation, should the Cc~nission approve the project, that you certify the AddendUm as a modification of the original EIR. Director Stevens described the project as having up to 1500 residential units to be located on approximately 320 acres. There would be a country club facility, including tennis, swianting and dining facilities with 80 guest cottages reserved for members and outside guests to be located on 28 acres. It would also include two, 18-hole golf courses located on approximately 305 acres. The project would have a gross residential density of 2.2 units per acre. He noted that one of the main issues relating to the project is traffic and circulation. There was a joint meeting of the Planning ~ssion and City Council on October 24, 1984, at which the traffic issues were discussed considerably. Staff cc~ntissioned a traffic report which vras prepared by Berryman and Stephenson, and which everyone had the opportunity to review; the. Applicant had a report prepared by Charlie Abrams and both reports were discussed extensively at the study session. Discussion of the two traffic studies raised the principal concern of whether or not there is a need for a north-south corridor street be~ Washington and Jefferson Streets. The Applicant's traffic report stated such a corridor was not necessary. The traffic report prepared by Berryman and Stephenson concluded that the road was necessary. There was considerable debate as to whose numbers and assump- tions were correct. Director Stevens stated that ultimately the decision would not be resolved based on differences in numbers, but will be based upon what benefits exist as trade-offs and whether or not those benefits sufficiently off-weigh any nc~ or desire for additional north-south corridor. Most of the discussion centered on Ads_ms Street as that north-south corridor. As a result of the information contained in the traffic reports and based on Staff's analysis and judgment of %he situation, i% is Staff's reccnm~_nd_ation that the project be tabled and the Applicant directed to prepare revised plans including the north-south corridor street. However, in the event the Planning C~ssion and/or City Council do not agree with Staff's recc~aner~ation, we have prepared, for your consideration, a Resolution which incorporates needed findings, and we have prepared conditions which we think are sufficient should it be the Cc~mission's desire to approve the project without the north-south corridor street. MINUTES - PLANN1/9~ ~SSION October 30, 1984 Page 3. Director Stevens then reviewed the Conditions of Approval. Conditions that were revised and/or added as a result of the study session are as follows: Condition No. 12 - Revised Condition No. 16 - Revised A new "Traffic and Circulation" condition added. Condition No. 17 - Revised Condition No. 23 - Revised Condition No. 26 (b.) - Revised A new condition re "Building Height". Condition NO. 29 - Revised Director Stevens noted that Staff's recc[m~_ndation has been stated - in the event that the Conmkission approves the project, Staff feels tha~ the conditions, as revised, are adequate. After a short discussion, Chairman 5hornburgh called upon the Applicant for their presentation. Dave Howerton, Architect for the project, spoke in behalf of ~ne Grove Associates. He stated that out of the 37 conditions presented in the Staff report, the Applicant only had problems with a few and that w~uld be the topic of his presentation. Condition No. 24. The Applicant objects to having to dedicate a 10-acre site for park and recreations purposes. The reasons for this are, (1) The econcmics do not w~rk when you have to give up 10 acres of developable land for a public use and, the land devoted to recreational and open space in the project is 380 acres. Then in Condition No. 26 with the additional setbacks on the perimeter walls, we will have to give up an additional eight acres. With all of the recreational area in the project being available to all who live here, the Applicant sees no need for a park next to this project. The second reason that the Applicant objects to this condition is that the City already will have a park facility at this location as the new schools that are to be built adjacent to this project will have play- ground and ballfield facilities. The Applicant feels that donating ten more acres of land for a uublic park really does not give the City what it needs and is not the best opportunity for the City. The Applicant feels that if they could pay to the City, through exaction fees, funds that could be used for the acquisition of land for. the construction and maintenance of parks, this w~uld give La Quinta scme better opportunities than a park in this particular setting. Condition NO. 26. Regarding the setbacks on perimeter walls, the Applicant stated they ~uld feel more ccmfortable, rather than settling a design issue with a piece of language that says an extra 20 feet back frcm the pro~r~_rty line for a wall will assure great landscaping, but ~3uld prefer this issue to the condition that staff is requiring of th~ to prepare a master landscaping of the overall project. The Applicant feels that the Specific Plan level is not the time to solve this using an arbitrary number. This does not guarantee good design. A proper landscape architectural exercise will and the Applicant stated they w~uld be happy to review this wi%h staff. MINUTES - PLANNING COM~ISSICN October 30, 1984 Page 4. Condition No. 29. ~ne Applicant stated that this condition, as revised, with regard to the $150,000 up front fees for fire protection is excessive. Comparing it to what was imposed on the PGA West project, it ~orked out on a per unit basis for PGA West at $120 and for this project $180 per unit. In theory, this approach in solving the _ fire protection probl~ns and contributing to its mitiga- tion is acceptable, but the Applicant is not in agreement with the numbers. They want to ~ork with staff to come up with a more realistic fee. There was scme additional language in this condition that the Applicant did not understar~ fully. As it reads, they feel they vxpuld be paying said fees twice, but they will ~ork with staff to clear this up. In conclusion, the Applicant noted that he would like to think of the City as a partner in this project. Staff has done a lot to help get t~is project to its present point before the Conm%ission. Chairman Thornburgh asked for any further ~ts frcm the Applicant or Staff and as there were none, ne opened the hearing to public cc~nmnt. Audrey Ostrowsky - P. O. Box 351, La Quinta, CA- stated she was against the closing of another street in La Quanta. Would like to see the entry into this project removed from Washington Street. She felt that if Ad__~_ms Street were not put in place and there was a calamity ~n the Cove area, the residents of the Cove would be stranded. No one else wished to speak, therefore Chairman Thornburgh closed the public hearing. At th~s point, the Planning Coranission held a very lengthy discussion regarding their viewpoints as to whether or not Adams Street should be put in place from Avenue 4~ to Avenue 50. As this is a very important issue, the discussion was very in-depth and as a result, it vzas the final consensus of the Planning Cc~mtission that Ad_s_ms Street Frcm Avenue 48 to Avenue 50 should not be required. Director Stevens and the Planning Cc~mmission reviewed the conditions of concern as follows: o Add sentence to Condition No. 12: "These public roads shall be imp~ved to a half-width condition." o Under Traffic and Circulation, Condition NO. 13, which is of concern to one of the Cc~mtissioners, Director Stevens stated the apprOach he suggests to try and resolve that concern is to impose an additional stated condition - he noted that he would generally state it here and if it is acceptable to the Cc~nissioners, he needed the right to work out the exact verbage after the fact - requesting the Applicant to agree to participate on a pro-rata fair share basis based on benefit in the improvement of Adams between 111 and 48th, with that funding mmthod being an assessment district or scum similar funding mechanism with the timing of the improvement to be based on a monitoring program. In other words, take Condition No. 13, modify it specifically to relate to that and require the Applicant to enter ~nto an agrc~r~nt for reasonable, fair share tklrticipat~on. - It should be noted here that the Planning Con~tL~sion agreed to the new condition and gave Director Stevens the right to work out exact verbage for the record. o Revise Condition NO. 16 to read: "The construction of Avenue 48 between Washington and Jefferson Streets shall occur prior to beginning Phase II of the project. This construction shall provide for a pavement width of 24-28 feet, but other improvements, including curb, gutter, sidewalk, etc., may be deferred as set forth in the phasing plan." MINUTES - PLANNING CC~MISSION October 30, 1984 Page 5. o Add a new Traffic and Circulat&on condition to read: "The Avenue 50 frontage improvement may be deferred, at the Applicant's discretion, to Phase III of the project." o A~d the following to Condition No.317: _ " ..... project exclusively, except that credit shall be given for any cost in excess of $25,000." o Revise Condition No. 23 to read: "The maximum allowable number of residential units shall be 1500 and the max/hum number of guest cottages shall De 80. In considerzng requests ..... intent of this specific plan. a. ~ne residential density is estsblished at a gross density of 2.2 dwelling units per acre with a net density not to exceed 6 dwelling units per acre." o Condition No. 24 - Applicant has noted strong objection to this condition requesting them to dedicate a 10-acre park site to the City. Planning Cc~uission discussed this at lengt~ and the consensus resulting was that the condition could be eliminated. o Revise Condition No. 26.b. to read: "Portion of the perimeter walls shall consider the use of wrought iron (or similar open fencing) to provide view frc~ the street into the project." Director Stevens noted that the Applicant ~as objected to the 20' setback on the major highways, required as a part of this condition, but the City _ has pretty firmly established that an "average" of 20 feet is what we want on the major highways and what we have required for past project approvals. After a short discussion, the C(~mission requested t~at Staff bring wall plans back for their review. Director Stevens stated that if we leave the language as is for this condition, Staff will ccme in on an znfo~ basis to Keep ~ informed on these wall designs. o The following condition on building height was offered for ~ssion consideration. Director Stevens stated that if approved, it w~uld be placed under the "Land Use" heading in the conditions of approval. "Building height shall be subject to height limitations specified in the specific plan, except that no building exceeding one story in height shall be allowed within 75 feet of any perimeter property line." o Revise Condition .~o. 29 to read: "Fire protection shall be provided ~n accordance with the requirements of the Uniform Fire Code and La Quinta Municipal Code in effect at the time of devel~t. a. ~ne Applicant shall, prior to is~3_snce of any building penuit, contribute as prepayment of fire mitigation fees $150,000 to assist the City ~n its needs for a new fzre station. ~his contribution shall be used as a credit for fire facilities fees until these fees exceed the amount of t_he credit, except that indivzdual custcm residences constructed on individual custom - lots shall pay a fire facility fee at time of building permit. b. No cul-de-sacs shall ..... emergency access surface. c. Provide required mininum ..... time of development." After scme discussion regarding this cond&tion, Director Stevens stated he would work on it further to clarify the fees. 1. Cc~uissioner Goetcheus made the following two motions regarding the items of ager~_a: MDtion based upon findings contained in the Staff Report, to r~d to the City Council approval of Change of Zone Case No. 84-014, as revised, changing zoning frcm R-2-3000, R-2-4800, R-2-9000, C-P-S, W-2, R-5 and W-1 to R-2, in MINUTES - PLANNING CQM~SSION October 30, 1984 Page 6. accordance with attached Exhibit entitled, "Staff ~ded Zoning". 5btion to adopt the Resolution, suDject to the modifications requested by Staff and discussed in the consensus discussion and incorporating the findings that are in the Resolution, and certifying the Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report. Cc~missioner Walling seconded both motions. Unanimously approved w~th C/mmissioner Klimkiewicz opposing. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR A. ~bved by Ounnissioner Goetcheus, seconded by Chairman Thornburgh to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of September 11, 1984. 1. The minutes of the regular meethng of September 11, 1984, were approved as sutm%itted. Unanimously Adopted. B. 5bved by Omm~ssicner Goetcheus, seconded by Chairman Thornburgh to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of October 9, 1984. A. The minutes of the regular meeting of October 9, 1984, were approved as s~unitted. Unanimously Adopted. 5. BUSINESS 6. ADJOURNMENT There being no further items of agenda to ccme Defore the Planning Commission, Chain~an Thornburgh called for a motion to adjourn. Cc~missioner Klimkiewicz made a motion to adjourn to the next regular meeting of November 13, 1984, at 7:00 p.m., in La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California. Cnnm%issioner Walling seconded. Unanimously Adopted. The regular m~cting of the Planning Cc~ission of the City of La Quinta, California, was adjourned at 9:40 p.m., October 30, 1984, at the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Es~do, La Quinta, california.