Loading...
1985 03 12 PC Minutes MINUTES PLANNING COMMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA A Regular Meeting Held at the La Quinta city Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California March 12, 1985 7:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER A. Chairman Thornburgh called the Planning Co~ssion meeting to order - at 7:00 p.m. He then called upon Cc~nissioner Moran to lead the flag salute. 2. ROLL CALL A. Chairman Thornburgh requested the roll call. The Secretary called the roll: Present: Ccnmtissioners GoetcheuS, Klimkiewicz, Moran, Walling and Chairman Thornburgh Absent: None Also present were Cc~nunity Development Director Lawrence L. Stevens, Principal Planner Sandra L. Bonner and Secretary Donna Velotta. 3. HEARINGS A. Chairman Thornburgh introduced the first hearing as Public Use Case No. 84-001, an appeal on certain conditions of approval for a proposed church facility at the northwest corner of Miles Avenue and Street; Family Heritage Church of the Valley, Applicant. He called for Staff' s report. 1. Lawrence L. Stevens, Cc~nunity Develotm~_nt Director, advised that the Applicant had applied for an appeal of condition of approval -- requiring installation of dry sewer line. However, he noted that the Applicant has since withdrawn this request; therefore, no action is required b~v the Planning ~ssion. 2. No motion for adoption required as Applicant withdrew request. B. Chairman Thornburgh identified the next item of hearing as General Plan Amendmmnt No. 85-005, a proposal to amend the La Quinta General Plan by adding the Public Buildings and Facilities Element; Initiated by the City. He called for the Staff Report. 1. Director Stevens explained that this is a proposed amen~t to the La Quinta General Plan to add thereto an element entitled Public Buildings and Facilities Elemmnt. This is a non-mandatory element in that the California Government Code does not require this parti- cular one. He noted that within the report given to the Cc~nission, Staff has noted several cQncerns and deficiencies within the City that relate to public buildings, facilities and infrastructure, and have est~_blished within the report scme criteria identifying ~e extent of the need for those facilities. Director Stevens noted that the in~acy of doing the element separately frcm the General Plan relates to the Cc~nunity Infrastructure Fee which has been an established policy for a little over a year and the impl~tation of that man- dates scram supportive documentation within the General Plan. He then briefly addressed the draft element enclosed in the staff report. Director Stevens stated that it would be Staff's r~dation that - the Cc~ssion, by motion, adopt the findings contained in the Staff Report, adopt the Negative Declaration and adopt the text of the Public Buildings and Facilities Element. After a brief discussion, Chairman Thornburgh opened the hearing for public comnent at 7:10 p.m. There being no public cc~nents, he closed the public hearing at 7:11 p.m. Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion. MINUTES - PLANNING CC~MISSION March 12, 1985 Page 2. 2. Czmmzissioner Walling made a motion to adopt the findings contained in the Staff Report, the Negative Declaration and the text of the Public Buildings and Facilities Element. Ommzissioner Goetcheus seconded the motion. Unanimously Adopted. 4. CONSENT CAT,VATDAR -- A. Moved by Cc~nissioner Goetcheus, seconded by Czxmzissioner Klimkiewicz to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of February 12, 1985. 1. The minutes of the regular meeting of February 12, 1985, were approved as submitted. Unanimously Adopted. 5. BUSINESS Chairman ThozTAxzrgh called upon Staff to report on the 13 single-family dwelling requests for construction approval before the Planning Omnnission. ~ity Development Director Lawrence Stevens stated that as these requests had been reviewed at the study session the day prior, he would identify each request and the Planning Cc~ssion could then rule on th~n as a whole. He stated that Staff is recc~m~_nding approval of each of the requests. Director Stevens then identified each of the 13 requests as follows: A. Plot Plan No. 85-123, a request to construct a s~ngle-family dwelling at the northeast corner of Avenida Villa and Calle Chihuahua; Stuart Wood, Applicant. B. Plot Plan No. 85-124, a request to c~nstruct a s~ngle-family dwelling on the east side of Avenida Mendoza, 50' north of Calle Madrid; Rick Johnson Construction, Applicant. C. Plot Plan No. 85-125, a request to construct a s~ngle-family dwelling on the west side of Avenida Rubio, 100' south of Calle Nogales; Rick Johnson Construction, Applicant. D. Plot Plan No. 85-126, a request to construct a s~ngle-family dwelling on the west side of Avenida Alvarado, 50' north of Calle Potrero; Rick Johnson Construction, Applicant. E. Plot Plan No. 85-127, a request to construct a skngle-family dwelling on the west side of Avenida Mendoza, 50' north of Calle Madrid; Rick Johnson Construction, Applicant. F. Plot Plan No. 85-128, a request to construct a s~ngle-family dwelling on the west side of Avenida Mendoza, 100' north of Calle Madrid; Rick Johnson Construction, Applicant. G. Plot Plan No. 85-129, a request to construct a s~ngle-family dwelling on the west side of Avenida Velasco, 100' south of Calle Tampico; tLick Johnson Construction, Applicant. H. Plot Plan No. 85-130, a request to construct a sLngle-family dwelling on the east side of Avenida Ramirez, 150' north of Calle Sonora; Cash Construction, Applicant. I. Plot Plan No. 85-131, a request to construct a s~ngle-family dwelling _P_ on the east side of Avenida Ramirez, 100' north of Calle Sonora; Cash Construction, Applicant. J. Plot Plan No. 85-132, a request to construct a s~ngle-family dwelling on the north side of San Timoteo Street, approximately 350' east of Avenida Fernando; Garvey Develotmnent, Applicant. K. Plot Plan No. 85-134, a request to construct a single-family dwelling on the east side of Avenida Juarez, 200' south of Calle Sonora; Larry Rogers, Applicant. MINUTES - PLANNING~SSION March 12, 1985 Page 3. L. Plot Plan No. 85-136, a request to construct a single-family dwelling on the west side of Avenida Fernando, 110' south of Coachella Drive; Edgar Construction, Applicant. M. Plot Plan No. 84-087, a revision to approved roof design for a single- family dwelling at the southeast corner of Avenida Carranza and Calle Sonora; Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Carpini, Jr., Applicants. 2. ~ssioner Klimkiewicz made a motion based on the findings in the staff reports to approve Plot Plans Nos. 85-123 through 85-132, Plot Plan No. 85-134, Plot Plan No. 85-136 and Plot Plan No. 84-087, in accordance with Exhibits A, B and C for each plot plan, and subject to the attached conditions of approval for each plot plan request. Cc~m~ssioner Moran seconded the motion. Unanimously Adopted. Chairman ~nornburgh explained that the following two items of business would be heard concurrently. N. Plot Plan No. 84-088, a request to construct a golf course maintenance building at the southeast corner of Calle Tampico and Avenida Obregon; ~k Land ~y, Applicant. O. Street Vacation No. 84-005, a request to vacate portions of Calle Tampico and Avenida Obregon; Landmark Land Cc~pany, Applicant. He called for the Staff Reports. 1. ~ty Development Director Stevens advised that these two items had been heard by the Planning ~ssion previously at their meeting of January 8, 1985, at which time the ~ssion denied the applications. The Applicant appealed the denials to the City Council and during that appeal time, a number of revisions were made to the project and road vacation. Due to the revisions, the City Council, at the appeal hearing, ruled to return the requests to the Planning ~sion for review to see if the revisions would result in the Cc~z~ssion considering a different action than had been made at their initial n~eting for these items. Changes pertinent to this request included: o Applicant has submitted a letter frc~ Coachella Valley Water District requesting vacation to CVWD of pertinent right-of-way adjacent to project site. A revised exhibit shows the revised request. Director Stevens briefly reviewed the vacation request. He advised the ~ssion that in making a determination on this matter, the following alternatives 'are available to them: o Reaffirm previous position and not make consistency determination due to concerns with the development project. o Determine project is consistent with the General Plan by adopting attached Resolution No. P.C. 85-3. In conjunction with this alter- native, the ~ssion may desire to ~t on the conditions drafted for the vacation even though they are not technically part of the Cc~ssion's review responsibility. These conditions are: (1) Applicant shall provide any additional street signing (i.e., "Not A Through Street") needed as a result of the road vacation. (2) RDad improvements specified in conjunction with Plot Plan No. 84-088 as part of Phase I shall be provided in conjunction with the road vacation. (3) Applicant shall provide any necessary supporting documents including legal descriptions to facilitate recordation. (4) Applicant shall provide documentation indicating that all affected utility agencies have reviewed the vacation and that satisfactory arrangements have been made concerning their facilities, if any. MINUTES - PLANNING CC~v~SSICN March 12, 1985 Page 4. Director Stevens advised the ~sion that Staff recc~m~nds that Resolution No. P.C. 85-3 determining that this street vacation is consistent with the La Quinta General Plan be adopted. He noted that Staff further r~ds that the Planning Cc~nission support the conditic~s (noted on Page 3) if Street Vacation No. 84-005 is approved by City Council. Moving on to Plot Plan No. 84-088, the request to construct the golf course maintenance building, Director Stevens advised the Cc~m%ission that there have been several changes in the project. Changes pertinent to the develo~x~ent plan include: o Applicant has revised the site plans calling for a two-phase develo~x~nt scheme. Principal changes in the plan include changing the main entrance to Tampico frcm Obregon; changing the golf course access point (in Phase 2); providing berm, block wall, new landscaping along east property line (in Phase 2); relocating chain link fence along dike (in Phase 2). o Applicant has revised exterior building elevations changing frc~ a metal building to a stucco exterior, including several vertical and horizontal offsets el~_nts with a tile mansard roof. o Applicant has ~tted a letter, proposing to imm~iately install (as part of conditions for approval) landscaping and ~y per a plan suk~itted [See Exhibit D (New)]. The letter requests the City to maintain the area. The letter also proposes to contribute to the cost of a signal at Eisenho%~r and Avenue 50. Landmark further requests the City to require La Quinta Country Club to improve its maintenance facility across frcm the Hotel entrance. (NOTE: This letter was withdrawn at the Council meeting in favor of a revised letter offering a similar proposal, but not as part of the Plot Plan approval. ) o Applicant has met with Bruce Robinson in an effort to respond to neighbors' concerns and, according to Mr. Robinson, there will be little or no objection to the project as a result of the above referenced changes and other "agreement" made with the Applicant. Director Stevens briefly reviewed the previous Staff Report and noted that the focus of the current report is to cc~ment on the effects of the above noted changes. He advised that it is Staff's judgment that the proposed use is not appropriate to this residential location as currently designed and is not cc~patible with existing and future area uses. It is recognized, however, that the changes to site and building design have improved the situation frcm the initial sut~nittal. Director Stevens stated that, based on the findings in the Staff Report, the Ccmm~unity Develo~x~ent De~t r~ds denial of Plot Plan No. 84-088. How_=ver, if the Planning Cc~nission desires to approve this request, a list of Findings and Conditions have been included in the Staff Report. He briefly reviewed the c~nditions that were brought out at the study session and were of scme concern to the Applicant. These conditions were Nos. 8 - 13.c. - 13.d. - 13.e. - 14 - 15 - 16 - 22 - 23.a. - 23.c. - 23.e. - 24.a. and 25. After a brief discussion, Chairman Thornburgh asked the Applicant if they ~uld like to speak. Brian Curley, Planner for Landmark Land Cc~pany, gave a brief presenta- tion describing the changes made in the plans for the golf course maintenance building. Peter Shenm~n, Attorney for Landmark Land Cc~pany, made a statement for the record regarding the off site improvements. He stated that it is their positicn that the requirements for any of f site improvements that MINUTES - PLANNING CC~IMISSION March 12, 1985 Page 5. are in the conditions are arbitrary, capricious, an unreasonable exercise of police po~r and therefore, violate the due process of the law as found in the United States and California Constitutions. Any agreement towards offsite improvements that Landmark is willing to make should not be a precedence and should be done as separate agreements and not required as part of the approval of the plot plan. Andy Vossler, Landmark Land O0mpany, stated he would like to thank the Chairman and the Cxmmnissioners for the time spent on this project. For the record, he wanted to note again a couple of points he previously made in that this golf course maintenance building is a necessity to Landmark, not a luxury. Also, there has been a philosophy throughout this project that this is not a part of Landmark's project, but a finger out into the ~ity. He stated that they view it as a part of their project and a finger into the ~ity and want to complete it repre- sentative of Landmark. He then requested that the Planning Cc~n%ission approve this request as it was presented to the City Council in the appeal process. Bruce Robinson, Avenida Obregon resident, spoke in favor of the project. He stated that through mutual consideration and cc~p~se the affected residents have reached a satisfactory agreement that they feel is of benefit to all concerned. After a short discussion, Chairman Thornburgh called upon the Conmtissioners for a ~t for or against the project. There were four ayes and one nay. Therefore, Chairman Thornburgh requested that the cc~ditions of approval be reviewed one more time. At this point, Andy Vossler of Landmark Land Company, stated that they would like the Conmtission to make their reccnn~ndation to the City Council and they (Landmark) would deal with the conditions at that time. Cc~nissioner~ Walling than asked Mr. Vossler if the review of the conditions that Director Stevens had done previously was amen_~ble to them at this time. Mr. Vossler repeated what he had said previously - that they would like the Ccmmtission to make their r~dation to the Cit~v Council and they (Landmark) would deal with the conditions at that time. Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion. 2. Cc~nissio~ Walling made a motion to approve Plot Plan No. 84-088 based on the findings in the staff report and subject to the conditions of approval, as amended; and a motion to adopt Resolution No. P.C. 85-3 determining that Street Vacation No. 84-005 was consistent with the La Quinta General Plan based on findings in the staff report, subject to attached conditions. Cnmmtissioner Goetcheus seconded the motion. Chairman Thornburgh called for a roll call vote. The Secretary called the roll: C~ssioner Goetcheus - Aye Conmtissioner Klimkiewicz - Aye Ccmmtissioner MDran - Nay '- C~ssioner Walling - Aye Chairman Thornburgh - Aye Unanimously adopted with one dissenting vote. P. Chairman Thornburgh introduced the last item of business as a Resolution amending Resolutions Nos. P,C. 82-1 and 82-2 to est_~blish a second regular meeting of the Planning Cc~mission each month. 1. Director Stevens explained that this Resolution amends the Cc~nission's Rules and Procedures to est~__blish a second regular meeting each month. This will establish C~ssion meetings on the second and fourth Tuesdays of each and every month. MINUTES - PLANNING CC~MISSION March 12, 1985 Page 6. Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion. 2. Cc~aissioner M~ran made a motion to adopt Resolution No. P.C. 85-2 rescinding Resolution No. P.C. 82-1 establishing the time and location of regular Planning Cc~xaission meetings, and modifying Resolution No. P.C. 82-2 to amend the time for regular meetings of the La Quinta - Planning Cc~m~ssion. Chairman Thornburgh seconded the motion. Unanimously Adopted. 6. ADJOURNMENT There being no further it~m~ of agenda to ccme before the Cc~mission, Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion to adjourn. Cc~xaissioner Goetcheus made a motion to adjourn to the next regular meeting of March 26, 1985, at 7:00 p.m., in La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California. Chairman Thornburgh seconded the motion. Unanimously Adopted o The regular meeting of the Planning Cc~m~ssion of the City of La Quinta, California, was adjourned at 7:55 p.m., March 12, 1985, in the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California. NOTE: These minutes were approved with the following amendment: Cc~nissioner Moran wished the minutes to reflect her statement, for the record, that she ~ould like the placement of golf course maintenance facilities for any future developments be located in the interior of the projects.