Loading...
1985 01 08 PC Minutes City Hall, 78-105 C. alle Estaclo, La Quint. a, C. aliforrJJ.a PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 8, 1985 7:00 p.m. A. Chairman ~nornburgh called the Planning Cc~nission meeting to order at - 7:00 p.m. He then called upon Cc~missioner Klimkiewicz to lead the flag salute. 2. ROLL CALL A.Chain~an ~nornburgh requested the roll call. The Secretary called the roll: Present: Commissioners Goetcheus, Klimkiewicz, MDran, Walling and Absent: None Also present were ~ity Develo~ent Director Lawrence L. Stevens, Principal Planner Sandra L. Bonner, City Counci~ Lawrence Allen and John Pena, and Secretary Donna Velotta. 3. HEARINGS A. Chairman Thornburgh introduced the first hearing as Change of Zone Case No. 84-013, a request for a change of zone frc~ A-l-10 to R-2-12,000, at the southwest corner of Jefferson Street and Avenue 50; Morris and Grayson/Rufus Associates, Applicant. He then called for the staff report. - 1. Principal Planner Sandra Bonner explained that this is the third change of zone request filed by the Applicant. The first request being frcm A-l-10 (Light Agriculture) to R-2-12,000 (Multiple Family Residential) and R-3/SP (General Residential, Specific Plan Required). In conjunction with this zone change, the City Council also approved Specific Plan No. 83-003 for a resort hotel on 30 acres. The second change of zone was for 80 acres adjacent to the west, again from A-l-10 to R-2-12,000. One of the findings made in this second rezoning was .that the R-2 type of zoning, which ~Duld allow up to eight units per building, was consistent with the adjacent develoIm~_nt and approved plans. Adjacent development (now known as The Grove) at that time was zoned on the north side at R-2-4800. Approximately a quarter mile to the west is the Duna La Quinta Specific Plan, and again, that property was rezoned to an R-2 type zoning to permit condo developmant. Ms. Bonner stated further that, as discussed in the staff report, Staff is recc~m~- ing that the R-2-12,000 zoning not be allowed, but rather R-l-12,000 be permitted. This type of zoning is residential and would allow the same density; ho~=ver, the R-1 zoning would allow a maximum of two units per building, versus eight units per building allowed under the R-2. The reasons for this r~dation are: (a) Riverside County Conmunity Plan designation as rural residential with minimum ½-acre parcel size. (b) City of Indio's stated opposition to extending any north-south streets down to Avenue 50 betw~=n~ Jefferson _ Street and Monroe Street on the basis of retaining the rural residential character of this area. (c) The land pattern with small acreage lots and numerous landowners. (d) The existence of E1 Dorado Polo Club, which sets the character of %he area for rural residential uses with pastures or agriculture. MINUTES - PLANNING C(I~IISSION January 8, 1985 Page 2. Ms. Bonner explained the last point Staff wished to make is that the R-1 type of zoning would permit the type of devel~t as proposed by the Applicant currently, which is single-family lots or a maximum of two units to be attached. Since, at this time, we have no assurance that the Applicant will develop this property, it would be prudent for the City to zone for this lower type to provide ccmpatibility with adjacent land uses to the east and also to provide for the transition between more intense residential uses to the west, versus the rural residential to the east. If the Applicant should sutmtit a developmmnt plan later on where he does propose clustered units, he can then request the R-2 zoning at that time. The change of zone and tentative tract applications can then be processed concurrently. Therefore, based on the findings in the staff report, Staff reconm~nds denial of the change of zone request frc~ A-l-10 to R-2-12,000 and approval of the change of zone frcm A-l-10 to R-l-12,000. There being no questions by the Cc~m~ssion regarding the staff report, Chairman Thornburgh opened the public hearing. He called upon the Applicant for his presentation. Larry Spector, 79-700 Avenue 50, La Quinta, President of ~Drris and Grayson spoke as Applicant. He noted they requested the R-2 Zoning because they have a concern as to what later marketing will bring, especially for this parcel as it is the least attractive for what they want to create. He stated that they can accept the R-1 Zoning at this point, but they do request that the Planning Conm~ssion include in the cc~nents and r~- dations, should they approve it, the latitude to protect the Applicant if they find the eight unit per building clustering is what they do need in the end. Conmunity Develot~nent Director Stevens directed the Applicant's attention to the statement in the staff report under "Recc~/~nded Zoning" which states: "If a tentative tract map is sutmtitted showing clustering of units away frcm Avenue 50 and Jefferson Street and the City determines that such a plan is consistent with planned and existing area develotxnent, then a change of zone to R-2-12,000 could be processed at that time." Director Stevens stated he felt this represented Staff's and the City's position with regard to the point that Mr. Spector raised. Chairman Thornburgh requested any further ccnm~_nts. As there were none, he closed the public hearing at 7:14 p.m. After a brief discussion among the Cc~nissioners, Chairman Thorn~h called for a motion. 2. Cc~nissioner Walling made a motion, based on the findings in the staff report, to deny Change of Zone Case No. 84-013 from A-10-10 to R-2-12,000 as shown on Exhibit "A" and moved to approve Change of Zone Case No. 84-013 frcm A-l-10 to R-l-12,000, and adopt the negative declaration for the environmental assessment, based upon the findir~s and in accordance with Exhibit "A", as amended. Cc~nissioner MDran secor~ed the motion. Unanimously adopted. Chairman Thornburgh explained that the following two hearings would be heard concurrently. B. Street Vacation No. 84-005, a request to vacate portions of Calle Tampico and Avenida Obregon; and C. Plot Plan No. 84-088, a request to construct a golf course maintenance building at the southwest corner of Calle Tampico and Avenida Obregon, Landmark Land Company, Applicant. He then called for the staff report. MINUTES - PLANN/NG CC6~4ISSICN January 8, 1985 Page 3. 1. Cc~nmnity Develc%unent Director Lawrence Stevens explained that the vacation request is for a small triangular ~portion of Avenida Obregon which is along the frontage of Parcels 5 and 6 of Block 44, and also a small rectangular portion of Calle Tampico adjacent to Lot 1 of Block 44. He stated that Avenida Obregon is a 60' right- of-way, currently improved, but not to current standards. Calle Tampico is a 30' right-of-way and is improved between Eisenhower _ Drive and Avenida Carranza, but not accessible west of Avenida Carranza due to existing flood control channel. The area north of Calle Tampico is developed as part of the La _Ouinta Hotel and Golf Course complex, while south of Calle Tampico is partially developed with single-family reSidences. There is an existing flood channel located parallel to and between Avenida Carranza ~and~Avenida Obregon. It is contemplated that the area used for flood improve- ment will be relocated to a point west of Avenida Obregon within the next two years. This application for vacation is intended to facilitate construction of a golf course maintenance building. Director Stevens stated that this request is scmewhat premature to Staff. Staff feels it probably should be better coordinated with the flood improvements which are not finally designed at this point in time. In considering vacation requests, there is a four-fold responsibility. Director Stevens explained the following items in detail: o Consistency of the proposed abandonment with the General Plan. o Evidence of public benefit of proposed abandorm~_nt. o Demonstration that roads proposed for abandonment are not needed for future use. o Compliance with provisions of the California Enviror~ental Quality Act. Director Stevens stated that Staff's concern with this road vacation is that it is piecemeal and may be premature in light of future flood improvements which are not fully designed. He stated that Staff is reccmm~=_nding that the road vacation matter be continued principally because of its association with the plot plan over which 'Staff ~' has more significant concerns. Regarding the plot plan approval, Director Stevens explained it is a request by Landmark Land Cc~pany to construct a one-story, 8000- square-foot golf course maintenance building to be used in conjunc- tion with the La Quinta Hotel and Golf Course ccmplex. The area in question is designated R-1 Zoning. We have interpreted zoning regulations to allow golf course maintenance buildings when accessory to golf ccurses which are pennitted use in the R-1 Zone. With respect to the environmental assessment, concerns of Staff are as follows: o Noise o Lighting o Land Use o Risk of upset due to fuel, fertilizer, pesticides, etc. o Decrease in attractiveness of adjacent area for residential uses. o Generation of traffic o Increased demand for public services and utilities. The project can be determined to not have a significant adverse impact _ on the environment provided that appropriate mitigation measures are incorporated in the design. These measures should be reflected as conditions of approval if the project is approved. Director Stevens then described the project and noted ~ts Staff received frcm public agencies. He went on to explain the concerns of Staff with respect to this development which need to be carefully reviewed prior to taking action. These concerns include the following: o Traffic and circulation impacts on the surrounding residential area. o Adequacy of proposed parking. o Building design. MINUTES - PLANNING ~SSION January 8, 1985 Page 4. o Noise and related activities associated with the building use. o Timing of project as it relates to flood improvements necessary in the area. o Associated application to vacate roads in the area. o Landscaping improvements at Tampico and Eisenhower. o Fire DepOt access and facility needs. In conclusion, Director Stevens stated it appears that there are significant problems with the proposed use. While it is possible to make modifications to the proposed project to mitigate at least scme of the concerns identified, it is not likely that all of the concerns identified can be fully mitigated. Nevertheless, it is possible to work with the Applicant to resolve, to the extent feasible, the identified problems unless it is the Cc~mission's perception that the subject property and its location are simply unsuitable for the proposed use. If the latter is the case, it is frankly not beneficial to continue to work on design alternatives and this would indicate the project application should be denied. Based on the above, Director Stevens stated that the Cc~nunity Devel~t Department recc~m~nds that this matter be continued to the meeting of February 12, 1985, to allow Staff to work with the Applicant to see if design modifications can mitigate concerns raised within the staff report. There was a discussion period among Staff and the Cc~nission. Chairman Thornburgh opened the hearing for public cc~nent at 8:06 p.m. He called upon the Applicant for their presentation. Andy Vossler, P. O. Box 1000, La Quinta, California, spoke in behalf - of Landmark Land Cc~pany, the Applicant. He spoke in favor of the two requests before the Cc~mission and requested that a decision be made at this meeting. ~. Vossler stated that Landmark had been considering this location for a golf course maintenance building since 1978. He explained the many reasons why the maintenance facility was a necessity at this time and not just a luxury. He sutznitted scme photos of the area before it had been upgraded by one of the local hc~eowners and stated he felt this project would be of benefit to the neighborhood. He touched each of the concerns of Staff expressing either solutions or reasons why he felt there was not a concern. Brian Curley, Planner for Landmark Land ~y, spoke in favor of the projects. He thoroughly described the golf course maintenance building itself, stating that the metal building is very updated and would not be unattractive to the neighborhood. Peter Sherman, Council for Landmark Land ~y, spoke briefly about landscaping requested by Staff for the Eisenhower/Tampico area. He advised that it is clear cut that the City would be violating due process if it relates this landscaping to the projects. Both case law and statutes require that anything that the City tries to impose at this time must be a reasonsble relationship to the projects under consideration. It must be a relationship to the use of the proposals. There is no legal basis to which the City can condition the projects to cover this landscapinq as it is outside the projects' area. Bruce Robinson, 51-251 Avenida Obregon, La Quinta, acting as spokesman for the property owners in the neighborhood surrounding the projects' area, spoke against the proposals giving many reasons, sc~e of which are the following: o Felt it is an imp. roper use (clubhouse ½ mile away) ° Noise level would be heightened o Not beneficial to property owners o Info obtained gave property owners reason to believe this area was to beccme a park o Fuel storage (d_sngers of) o Health & safety hazards (storage of pesticides/fuel) MINUTES - PLANNING COt~4ISSION January 8, 1985 Page 5. o Groups of adult males lingering in area (work force). o Type of work force being used. o Land was originally residentially zoned, taken by eminent domain for flood control, turned over to Landmark Land Company for an industrial use. Property owners feel this is an affront to them. o Negative monetary impact on land values. o Feels Landmark Land ~y should find another location for this use. Maurice Bridler, 51-293 Avenida Alvarado, La Quinta, stated he supported everything Mr. Robinson expressed. He questioned why ~k Land Company did not contemplate the need of a golf course maintenance building when the golf course was put in and had set aside a piece of their own 400 acres for this purpose. He felt the people who benefitted fron the golf course should have to put up with whatever negative impacts this use would produce. Frank ~rphy, Indian Wells, spoke against the projects. He stated he owns 36 lots in the Cove and feels this is an improper use in an R-1 Zone. Director Stevens noted for the record a letter received by the Commnity Develotx~_nt Department frcm Mr. Clyde Potter, who owns property on Avenida Carranza. He stated opposition to the project generally for the same reasons previously mentioned b~v the speakers. Andy Vossler spoke in rebuttal at this time. As there were no further cc~m~nts, Chairman Thornburgh closed the hearing at 8:30 p.m. Discussion among the C~ssion resulted in the following conclusions: Cc~missioner Walling felt the requests should be continued to determine if Fire De~nrtment conditions could be met. C~ssioner Klimkiewicz stated he could not justify the use in this Cc~m%issioner Goetcheus stated he would like to see Landmark land Company ccme up with a better plan. C~ssioner M~ran felt she could not justify this use in an R-1 Zone. Chairman Thornburgh stated he felt it was an improper use for this residential area. Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion. 2. C~ssioner Klimkiewicz made a motion to deny Street Vacation No. 84-005 as it is determined that it is not consistent with the General Plan, and moved to deny Plot Plan No. 84-088 for appropriate findings of residential incompatibility, traffic, etc. Commissioner M~ran seconded the motion. Unanimously Adopted. Director Stevens advised those present that the Conm~ission's decision is subject to appeal in a specified period of time. The Applicant will be advised of this opportunity to appeal and any appeal will be noticed in the same fashion as previously done. If there is an appeal, it will go to the City Council. Andy Vossler stated that there would be an appeal forthcoming. 4. CONSENT CAT.RNDAR A. ~ved by Cc~missioner Goetcheus, seconded by Cc~missioner Walling to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of November 13, 1984. MINUTES - PLANNING CC~MISSION January 8, 1985 Page 6. 1.The minutes of the regular meeting of November 13, 1984 were approved as sukaxitted. Unanimously adopted. B. Moved by Ccr~nissioner Goetcheus, seconded by Ccarmissioner Walling to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of December 11, 1984. 1.The minutes of the regular meeting of December 11, 1984 were approved as sutmzitted. Unanimously adopted. 5. BUSINESS A. Chairman Thornburgh introduced the f~rst item of business as Street Vacation No. 84-006, a request to vacate Hatajo Drive portions of Airport Boulevard; Landmark Land Cc~pany, Applicant. He called for the staff report. 1. Director Stevens stated that as this matter was fully discussed at the study session the day prior, Staff is reccrnmendJ_ng that the Ccxmzission adopt the Resolution. 2. Chainmm3 Thornburgh made a motion based on findings in the staff report to adopt Resolution No. 84-86 and to reccnr~_nd to the Citv Council approval of the vacation of Airport Boulevard from Jefferson Street to the east boundary of the All American Canal, and of Hatajo Drive, subject to cc~pliance with the conditions contained within Resolution No. 84-86. Ccxmxissioner Walling seconded the motion. Unanimously adopted. B. Chairman Thornburgh introduced the next item of business as Plot Plan No. 84-100, a request to construct a single-family dwelling at the south- west corner of Avenida Madero and Calle Ensenada; Noel and Elaine Jensen, Applicants. -- 1. Director Stevens stated that this item had been fully discussed at the study session, and therefore, Staff is r~ding that the Omrmission approve the request. 2. Chairman Thornburgh made a motion based on findings in the staff report to approve Plot Plan No. 84-100 in accordance with Exhibits A, B and C and subject to the attached conditions, as amended. Ccrmzissioner Moran seconded the motion. Unanimously adopted. C. Chairman Thornburgh introduced the next item of business as Plot Plan No. 84-101, a request to construct a single-family dwelling on the east side of Roudel Lane, approximately 180' south of the end of the street; Daniel Ferguson, Applicant. 1. Director Stevens noted that this matter had been discussed at the study session, and therefore, Staff is recking that the Ccnxnission approve the request. 2. Chairman Thornburgh made a motion based on findings in the staff report to approve Plot Plan NO. 84-101 in accord_once with Exhibits A, B and C and subject to conditions of approval attached thereto. Ccnmzissioner Walling seconded the motion. Unanimously adopted. D. Chairman Thornburgh introduced the last item of business as Plot Plan No. 84-102, a request to construct a single-family dwelling on the west - side of Avenida Martinez, 100' north of Calle Arroba; Larry Rogers, Applicant. 1. Again, Director Stevens noted that this item had been fully discussed at the study session and reccar~J~ed that the Cc~mission r~d approval of the request. 2. Chairman Thornburgh made a motion based on findings in the staff report to approve Plot Plan No. 84-102 in accord__m_nce with Exhibits A, B and C and subject to the attached conditions. Ccaxaissioner Walling seconded the motion. Unanimously adopted. MINUTES - PLANNING ~SSION January 8, 1985 Page 7. After a brief discussion, it was decided to hold a special study session to discuss single-family residential standards on January 28, 1985, at 3:00 p.m. 6. ADJO~ There being no further items of agenda to come before the ~ssion, Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion to adjourn. -- Cc~nissioner Moran made a motion to adjourn to the next regular meeting of Febl~3_~_ry 12, 1985, at 7:00 p.m., in La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California. Chairman Thornburgh seconded the motion. Unan~sly adopted. The regular mseting of the Planning Cc~x~ission of the City of La Quinta, California, was adjourned at 9:25 p.m., January 8, 1985, in the La Quinta city Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California.