Loading...
1985 04 23 PC Minutes PLANNING COMMISSION - CTTY OF LA QUINTA A ~~ ~t~g Held at ~e ~ ~ta City Hall, 78-105 ~lle Es~do, ~ ~~, ~lifo~a APRIL 23, 1985 7:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER - A. Chairman Thornburgh called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. He called upon Comissioner Moran to lead the flag salute. 2. ROLL CALL A. Chairman Thornburgh requested the roll call. The Secretary called the roll: Present: Commissioners Goetcheus, Klimkiewicz, 5bran, Walling and Chairman Thornburgh Absent: None Also present were ~ty Development Director Lawrence L. Stevens, Associate Planner Gary W. Price and Secretary Donna M. Velotta. 3. HEARINGS Chaiznmmn Thornburgh identified the public hearing as Tentative Tract Map No. 20717, a proposal to divide 132+ acres into 109 lots with 23 single-family dwellings on individual lots and 488 condcminium units on the remaining lots on the south side of Avenue 54, along the proposed alignment of PGA Boulevard; Sunrise Company, Applicant. He called for the staff report. 1. Lawrence L. Stevens, Cc~munity Development Director, advised that this project - is the first ~hase of the implementation of the PGA West Specific Plan, which is a 5,000-unit project with a resort core, commercial and four major golf ccurses. At present c~nstruction has already begun on the Pete Dye stadium golf course, Avenue 54 and Madison Street have been improved and accepted by the City. Plans for PGA Boulevard. have been approved and the ~rk will begin on that shortly. The Cc~munity Development Department has other plans in process for other ccmponents of the project, which the Cc~mission will be seeing shortly. This is the first residential cc~ponent and consists of 511 units around the stadium course and around part of the Arnold Palmer course, for which a grading permit has been issued. The units are mixed and include 488 condc~iniums which are broken into duplex, triplex and fourplex units. The overall development plan is consistent with the PGA West Specific Plan. The number of recreation facilities is in excess of our /mum standards. The units are of fairly good size and are tentatively priced frcm $120,000 to $650,000 depending upon the group of units. In general, we have very little problem with the proposal. A number of concerns which were discussed at the Study Session included, the current con- flict regarding school district boundary lines, circulation - principally as it was necessary for emerg~ vehicle access and interior access with regard to how off-street parking ~Duld be ~rked into the narrow street system. However, for the most part, the conditions of approval resolved the majority of these c~ncerns. Therefore, Staff reccmm~_nds that Tentative Tract Map No. 20717 be approved based upon the findings in the Staff Report and subject to the conditions of approval, as amended. Director Stevens related the four minor changes in the conditions of approval to be as follows: o Traffic Signal at Jefferson, PGA Boulevard and Avenue 54 - The consensus at the Study Session was that the timing of the -- installation of this signal should be related to the City traffic monitoring program which we will be starting in the next fiscal year, but at minimum we will review the traffic here at the time building permit No. 250 of the 511 units is issued, using that as a control point. The language in Condition No. 14 will be modified to accc~plish %his. o In Condition No. 15.c', Staff has deleted the reference to Lot 30 because we were able to provide a temporary, continuous loop at that point. MINUTESi- PLA~ING CC~MISSICN April 23, 1985 Page 2. · o In Condition No. 19, Staff added an additional cc~anent that would allow the Fire Marshal to approve alternate means of ccmpliance with his requir~_nts hOW he de,ms it appropriate and determines them to be equivalent to the detailed standards listed. o In Condition No. 31, Staff added an additional cc~ment noting that a change in the total number of units ~uld not exceed 10% of the approved total of 511, shall be deemed ccmpat~le with approved unit designs, and shall be consistent with the overall character of the project. In addition to this, Director Stevens requested that the Cc~ission give him authority to approve changes in unit mix rather than having to cc~ back to them. The purpose of this is to allow the Applicant flexibility to adjust to the market, both up and down, without having to go through the formal review process. This concluded the Staff Report. Chairman Thornburgh opened the public hearing at 7:14 p.m. Jim Resney, Vice President_, Sun~_ ise Cc~Pany - _Applicant, 75-005 Country Club_ Drive, Palm Desert, stated to the Cc~m~ssion that his ccmpany is very excited about starting their first project in our City. He noted that in working so closely with Staff, most of the concerns they had with the City's conditions have been worked out to everyone's satisfaction. Robert Altevers, Architect for the project, 2915 Redhill Avenue, Costa M~sa, gave a descriptive presentation of the design of the project. There was a brief disCUssion period. Kevin Manning, Landmark Land Cc~pany, P. O. Box 1578, La Quinta, spoke in favor of the project. Charles Schultz, Attorney, 3800 Orange Street, Riverside, spoke for his client (Mr. Giannini), a property owner in~ the area of the project, who was concerned with access to their propertY. These concerns were satisfactorily solved. Chairman Thornburgh closed the public hearing at 7:38 p.m. There was a discussion among the ~sioners. All w~re in favor of the project with the exception of Cc~m~ssioner Goetcheus, who was concerned with the zero lot lines. Conditions of approval that were amended or added were Nos. 14, 15, 19, 19.a., 31 and 31.b. Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion. Cc~missio~r Walling made a motion based on the findings in the Staff Report to approve Tentative Tract Map No. 20717, subject to attached conditions, as amended. Cc~m%issioner MDran seconded the motion. Chairman Thornburgh called for a Roll Call. The Secretary called the roll as fOllows: Cc~missioner Goetcheus - Nay Ccmmissioner Klimkiewicz - Aye ~ssioner Moran- Aye Cc~missioner Walling - Aye Chairman Thornburgh - Aye Unanimously adopted with one objection. CONSENT CALENDAR A. & B. ~ssioner Klimkiewicz made a motion which was seconded by Cc~ssioner Walling to approve the minutes of the regular n~=etings of March 26, 1985, and April 9, 1985. 1. The minutes of the regular meetings of March 26, 1985, and April 9, 1985, were approved as submitted. Unanimously adopted. MINUTES - PLANNING COMMISSION April 23, 1985 Page 3. BUSINESS ADJOUP~MENT ~nere being no further items of agenda to ccxne before the Ccrcmission, Chairman 5hornburgh called for a motion to adjourn. Chairman Thornburgh made a motion to adjourn to the adjourned meeting of April 30, 1985, at 7:00 p.m., in La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, CA. Ccmmzissioner Walling seconded the motion. Unanimously adopted. The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, was adjourned at 8:00 p.m., April 23, 1985, in the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California. ~.PPROVED ~ PLANNING CC~[SSION - CITY OF LA QU~ A Regular Meeting Held at the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California April 9, 1985 7:00 p.m. 1. CAT,T, TO ORDER A. Chairman Thornbur~h called the Planning ~ssion ~eeting to order at 7:00 p.m. He called u~on C~n~issioner Kiimkiewicz to lead the flag salute. 2. ROLL CAT.T. A. Chairman Thornburgh requested the roil call. The Secretar~ called the roil: Present: Commissioners Goetcheus, Kiimkiewicz, ~ran, Wailing and Chairman Thornburgh Absent: None Aisc present were ~ity Deveiot~nent D~rector Lawrence L. Stevens, Principal Planner Sanara L. Bonner, Assistant Planner Tamara J. Campbell, City Manager Frank M. Usher and Secretar~ Donna M. Veiotta. Chairman Thornburgh annclinced that he ~z)uid turn the n~eeting over to Vice Chairntin John Wailing due to the fact that he owns property adjacent to the projects under discussion at this meeting. He stated that after discussion with the City Attorney, it was felt there may be a conflict of interest in this matter. vice Chairman Walling explained to ali those present the procedures foiiowea during a public hearing. He continued by stating that there were four public hearings before the ~ssion at this meeting that are directly reiatea. He noted that the ~ssion would hear the first t~ items separately and the third aha fourth items concurrently. He also announced that the Sand Pebble Countr~ Club project is now known as Cr~stai Canyon of 3. BEARINGS A. Vice Chairman Walling introauced the first item to be heara as Specific Plan No. 83-001, Ane_n~t No. 1, a proposal to amend the previously approved sl~ific Plan for Duna La ~uinta reducing the acreage from 246 to i79 acres, and reducing the approved ntm~er of units from 1,277 to 979 for the area generally bounded by Avenue 50 on the north, Calie Tan~ico and Avenue 52 on the south, Aveni~ Bermuaas aiigmemt on the west and Aaams Street alignment on the south; ~k Land ~y, Applicant. He called for the Staff Re~ort. i. Sahara Bonnet, Principal Planner, advised that this S~ecific Plan had been previously approved on my i5, i98~ by City Council Resolution No. 84-34. The project area is bounded on the north by 50th Avenue, Washington Street goes through the center, Avenida Tampico and Avenue 52 currently go through the top of Phase 9 of the project. The Applicant's original request was to delete Phase 9 and i0 acres of Phase 8. This ~uid reduce the total acreage frcm 246 to 179 acres, and the total number of approved units frown 1,277 to 979. Principal manner Bonner stated, however, that on April 8, i985, Staff received a request from the Applicant to change the ~roposed amenament from deleting any property to just showing the proposed, realigned Avenue 5~ going through the property. She noted three options to the Ccmm~ssion for acting on this request: o To act on the Applicant's original request just adciressed. If this is done, then the property ~uld revert to the underlying General Plan designation which is Ver~ Low Density Residential and limits it to three units per acre. o To act on the Applicant's new red, est adaressea a~ove. This would leave the iana use designations on this Sl~cific Plan as they are at 4.4 units ~er acre on Phase 9 ana ~.6 units per acre on Phase 8. Aisc, to just show the Avenue 52 reaiigme_nt running through Phase 9. o To ~i~ the request by modifying the densities or whatever else the ~ssion feels appropriate. MINUTES - PLANNING C(]v~IISSION April 9, 1985 Page 2. Principal Planner Bonner turned the remainder of the Staff Report over to ~ity Develo~t Director Lawrence L. Stevens. Director Stevens explained that with the revised request received on April 8, 1985, it is the Applicant's intention to maintain, in effect, the extra units by simply accepting the fact that there l.will~ be ~a~major highway bisecting portions of Phase 9. He believes that the'Applicant is doing this in recognition of the fact that there will shortly be before the Cc~nission a revised Specific Plan which will ultimately change the densities in those areas, and in effect, delete the Phase 9 area from the Duna La Quinta Plan and add it to the Oak Tree West Plan. The Applicant as Director Stevens understands it, has scme concern that if some problem erupts during this interim period, that they have essentially lost units. That is the reason for the Applicant's revised request. Director Stevens advised the Ccnmlission that the way the conditions are written on the Duna La Quinta ~Specific Plan leaves rocm for very little modification of the conditions except for perhaps a couple of procedural items. He noted that Staff does not object to approving the Applicant's revised request. Staff ~ould, however, suggest that the portion of Phase 9, which would end up being south of the realigned Avenue 52, density be est~_blished at the zoning density rather than the Specific Plan density, which would be three units per acre rather than 4.4. Director Stevens noted that concluded the Staff Report. Vice Chairman Walling asked for any questions from the Cc~xnissioners. Cc~ntissioner Klimkiewicz asked Staff why they would suggest the density in this manner. Director Stevens replied that it was simply because you cannot put public _ roads through these types of projects with the Specific Plan density noted. The zoning density would physically divorce this portion from how the Applicant proposed to develop the remaining project and as a result, the density transfer that you get from being part of a Specific Plan really should not apply to that area. He noted that because there will be a major highway going through it (Avenue 52), it really changes its relationship to the Specific Plan. You may note that Washington Street goes through the Duna La Quinta project, but that project is being developed in phases which are not as small as this 18-acre section we are referring to here. Therefore, Staff feels it is more typical of the surrounding residential rather than the density allowed in the Specific Plan. Director Stevens advised the . C~ssion that if they were not comfortable with that condition, they have the option of letting the Applicant retain the Specific Plan density in that area. Vice Cha~ Walling asked Staff if the Conmtission did take the third option and modify the densities, would not there be a need for an actual plan frcm the Applicant. Director Stevens replied that Staff could condition it and follow the Cc~nission's direction in modifying the exhibits appropriately. Vice Chairman Walling asked about the future extension of Calle Tampico. Director Stevens replied that Staff would recc~nend deletion of the reference to Calle Tampico at the present time on all three of the options before the - Cc~ntission. Vice Chairman Walling opened the public hearing at 7:41 p.m. Kaye Chandler, representative for the Applicant, Landmark Land ConR0any, apologized for the last minute sutmtission of the revised request, but noted after reviewing Staff's cc~nents and the conditions of approval, the Applicant felt the application as originally submitted was premature. He stated that they felt this application's set of conditions were more appro- priate to the Oak Tree West Specific Plan which has now been submitted to MINUTES - PLANNING CC~MISSION April 9, 1985 Page 3. the City. He stated that Landmark was sutm~tting their request with regard to the realist of Avenue 52 at this time instead of with the Oak Tree West Specific Plan simply to accc~rodate the Crystal Canyon project and the City. He noted they %~uld not have submitted the original request in the first place if they ~uld have realized it meant down zoning the property. He stated that the Applicant w~uld like the ~ssion to act strictly on the realignment of Avenue 52 and delete any reference to - reducing the densities in the portion of Duna La Quinta Specific Plan referred to at this meeting. As no one else wished to be heard, Vice Chairman Walling closed the public hearing at 7: 25 p.m. After a short discussion period, Vice Chairman Walling called for a motion. 2. Cc~missioner Goetcheus made a motion based on the findings in the Staff Report to adopt Planning ~ssion Resolution No. P.C. 85-006, with attached conditions, as amended. Cc~m%issioner Klimkiewicz seconded the motion. Unanimously Adopted with one abstention. B. Vice Chairman Walling introduced the second item of hearing to be Specific Plans Nos. 85-005A and 85-005B, proposals to amend an existing specific plan of alignment for Avenue 52 be~ Jefferson Street and Desert Club Drive; William Young and Landmark Land Cc~pany, Applicants. He called for the Staff 1. Assistant Planner Tamara J. Campbell advised that additional information has been received since this hearing was last presented at the March 26, 1985, Planning Cc~a~ission meeting. This information is regarding noise impacts and traffic concerns. The acoustical study received concluded that increased noise ~Duld impact residents north of the proposed ali~t. - The ~iate impact ~Duld be approximately three times greater than existing noise levels. Over the years, noise levels ~uld gradually increase in that the final noise levels may be approximately seven times the current noise level. She advised that it should be noted that the area ~uld experience increased traffic noise over the ccming years regardless of whether Avenue 52 is realigned or not. The acoustical study provided several scenarios for several methods of mitigation. The most effective of these methods would be to construct a 12' wall between Avenida Nuestra and the proposed Avenue 52, and also to replace the previously proposed perimeter wall of Crystal Canyon with a berm so that noise would not bounce back to residents on Avenida Nuestra. With these tw~ barriers, the acoustical engineer deter- mined that the existing noise levels would be replicated. Assistant Planner Cantobell stated that the 12' wall presented sc~e aesthetic problems, there- fore, Staff consulted with the acoustical engineer regarding a cc~bination 6' berm and a 6' wall, which would have the same effective acoustical qualities as the 12' wall, but provides a more pleasant appearance. ~he Applicant has agreed to this ccmbination on a 35' parkway between the streets. She identified this 35' parkway on a rendering displayed for the Cc~mission. Assistant Planner Campbell went on to state that there is a 10' setback along Avenida Nuestra so the nearest resident ~uld probably be 77' frc~ the curb of the proposed Avenue 52 and approximately 47' from the wall. 5~Dving on to the traffic concerns, Assistant Planner Campbell advised that the proposed realist of Avenue 52 would necessitate the closure of Avenida Nuestra at Washington Street to restrict access, as recc~x~=~nded by a report received frcm Berryman & Stephenson. In addition, 12' will be added to the Avenida Nuestra right-of-way to provide for t~D travel lanes, with parking. The Berryman & Stephenson report also commented on the need for a bicycle/pedestrian path on Avenida Nuestra to minimize conflicts between autos, bicycles and pedestrians. Staff recc~mends that the Applicant be required to provide both bicycle and pedestrian paths to mitigate these safety hazards. Sat the Applicant has proposed is a 6' msandering bike trail. Currently, we have 8' minimum standards for a cc~b~tion bike/ pedestrian path. Staff is reconm~nding that an additional 5' path be provided on the south side of proposed Avenue 52. In contact with the MINUTES - PLANNING COMMISSION April 9, 1985 Page 4. City Engineer, he recon~ner~s that the radius of the easterly curve of proposed Avenue 52 be increased to 2000', based on the California Highway Design Manual Standards for anticipated speed limit of 55 mph. Due to the anticipated lower spccd limit for the westerly portion of proposed Avenue 52, the proposed 1200' curve radius is adequate. Staff is reconlnending that the proposed realignment be revised according to the City Engineer's reconm~_ndation. Assistant Planner Campbell stated there were concerns raised by local residents, the Planning Cc~ssion and Staff regarding the aesthetic impacts. These concerns included the height of the wall, the design and materials of the wall and the proposed landscaping along the south side of Avenida Nuestra. Essentially, there is a trade-off between constructing a barrier to mitigate noise while still maintaining a low profile, all to retain the view of the mountains to the south. Even though the combination berm a~d wall will be a total of 12' high (it is set back 47' from the nearest property line), this should allow for a view of the mountains to even those closest to the barrier. The int0act on the southerly view decreases as the distance of the barrier increases. As explained earlier, Assistant Planner Campbell stated the Applicant is proposing a 25' wide, 6' high berm, with a 6' high block wall on top. There will be a 12' wide, landscaped berm with parkway between Avenida Nuestra and the wall. This will be fully landscaped. In addition to the trees planted along Avenida Nuestra, the trees planted along Avenue 52 parkways and center median will also be visible frc~ the subdivision. The use of both the berm and extensive landscaping will serve to minimize the height and soften the appearance of this noise barrier. All landscaping and wall plans shall be approved by the City prior to installation. With regard to light and glare, Assistant Planner Campbell stated that the proposed noise barrier should screen direct light and glare. Along the south side of Avenue 52, the Applicant proposes to install wrought iron fencing with extensive landscaping in order to minimize light and glare affecting the Crystal Canyon project. She went on to note other points which should be noted such as the fact that Avenida Nuestra will only be improved from Calle Rondo to Washington Street. Also, the intent of the proposal is to cc~pensate for changes in cc~munity flood control. Assistant Planner Campbell turned the Staff Report over to Director Stevens for the flood control report. Director Stevens stated that at the Study Session on April 8, the Cc~ntission had indicated a desire to see if a representative of the Coachella Valley Water District could be requested to attend the meeting this date (4/9/85) to discuss scme of the rationale that went into the flood control design that necessitated these changes. Unfortunately, no one from CVWD could attend at such short notice due to other cc~nti~ts. Director Stevens stated he spoke with a couple of CVWD representatives, however, and ~ould try to relate what they told him. He stated, however, that the important think to point out is that Staff perceives, in our support for the Applicant's request, that the flood control is really this cc~nunity's highest priority concern and actions which will facilitate the implementation of that flood control program in the most cost effective fashion are reasonable and appropriate. Director Stevens went on to explain that the prinicpal reasons that the project had to be redesigned and, ultimately, Avenue 52 realigned to accc~rodate flood control are these. Staff imposed a condition on the previous tentative tract relative to requiring the developer to accept drainage from the Cove area. In designing the flood control system, it was determined that this, in fact, meant the entire Cove - because the design of the Bear Creek system on the west side of the Cove could not accon~te any additional flows from local street drainage from the Cove area. This, in essence, meant that ultimately a storm drain system is going to have to bring that drainage to the east to this project, and we MINUTES - PLANNING COMMISSION April 9, 1985 Page 5. needed to ensure that the design of this project could acute those flows. So, the engineers w~rked out an analysis of the 100-year flood, which ~Duld impact those streets and determined how much capacity they needed for retention to make the hydrolics of the system w~rk. You must remember that, ultimately, there is a connection bet~n the Bear Creek system and the east Cove drainage syst~n at the evacuation channel, so you are really talking about basins that have storage and then control the time of flow to ultimately move all the water out. ~nerefore, large areas are needed for storage. That necessitated more than the 39 acres we saw in the tentative tract, and when we finally ended up ~Drking out the details, we needed 82 acres of land area to store, and yet still allow some reasonable use of that land area as part of the golf course development, which has been a cc~mon design approval in the valley. Therefore, we had to increase the area substantially to allow ccmpliance with the Cove drainage system we ultimately expect to be installed there, and we needed the land area now. The second major reason that the flood control necessitated changes related to differences in elevation be~ the area ultimately receiving the water, which is the La Quinta Stouter Evacuation Channel, and the site itself. You nust be equal to or higher than the elevation where you are emitting the water to the evacuation channel and, when you look at the volume that required storage and the depths you would be required to have to store that water, you are getting to the point where the bottc~ of the storage areas would be lower than the evacuation channel. As a result, you have to make sure you have an appropriate relationship between those elevations and that is what resulted, essentially, in this design. Director Stevens noted that at the Study Session, there was discussion of the possibility of leaving the project as previously approved and using that portion of the boc~erang parcel (where the current bend is) for a storage basin. This alternative created two major problems. The first being the requirement of a large dike (similar to that at Eisenhow~r and Tampico) all along that portion of Avenue 52 and in order to obtain the necessary elevation difference be~ that area and the evacuation channel, that storage basin would have been scme 12 to 14' deep and contain sufficient amount of acre-feet of water to subject the project to the requirements of the California Bureau of Dam Safety. The California Bureau of Dam Safety requirements would have added approximately one million dollars, or there- abouts, in cost to the flood control project and w~uld have likely delayed that project as much as a year while the design was going through their approval process. Therefore, we tried to find a design which would allow the avoidance of time delays in going through the Bureau of Dam Safety. ~nis led to the early rejection of a large basin on the north side of the former alignment of Avenue 52. Director Stevens stated that we are now able, with this design, to handle all local street drainage with the Cove up to either Durango or Sinaloa. All of that area would be able to use this east Cove drainage system. We still need to find a soluticn for the area north of that, which is presently in the works. One of our additional goals and also trying to work within the project was that the cost of the flood control project was significantly cheaper if the City did not have to pay for the land that we were doing the storage on or if the City did not have to at least acquire ~ type of an easement right, if n~t outright fee purchase of the land. Trying to ~Drk all of this into the frame~rk of a development plan, the City saved a considerable sum of money to the ultimate cost of the flood control project by securing, at no cost to the City or Redevelopment Agency, the necessary easements upon which this retention will occur. In return, the City allows multiple use with the golf course, but that has been c~n practice with the District as a flood control agency and Staff thinks it is an appropriate multiple use in light of the nature of the storms we usually get. Therefore, Staff sees significant benefits to the City, principally to its flood control project, by the realignment of Avenue 52. Director Stevens stated that this concluded the Staff Report regarding flood control and asked the Cc~mission for any questions. MINUTES - PLANNING ~SSION April 9, 1985 Page 6. Co~ssioner Bran ~ted that in looking at the plans, she only saw a 36-inch drainage pipe going to the evacuation channel and wondered if that was correct. Director Stevens advised that it is not correct. It will be a 60-inch, underground culvert that would go essentially along the alignment of Desert Club Drive frcm the project to the evacuation channel. ~ssioner Goetcheus asked how many feet high the dike is at the north- west corner of Avenida Tampico and Eisenho~r Drive. Director Stevens stated that Lloyd Watson (who was present at the meeting) of Landmark Land ~y advised that the dike was 15' or more above the street. Con~sioner Goetcheus went on to comment that looking at the corner of Avenue 50 and Eisenhower Drive, we have a beautiful view of Landmark property. He noted that he has always been after as good a view from the Cove side as there is from the other side. He stated he has always wanted sidewalks, landscaping, etc., and the developer had good plans three or four years ago, but it has not been improved to date. Con~ssioner Goetcheus stated he feels this is an example of where we have not insisted that the plans be what people in the Cove would like. He noted that it bothered him that we might start over on sc~ething else here that will be as bad as what we have done already. He advised that he was referring to the tw~ sides of Avenida Bermudas where there will be berms and walls because of flood control, which, try as he will, he does not understand. Assistant Planner Ca~ll continued her Staff Report by noting scme changes in the written report. On Page 9, under Findings, Item 4 should read: "4. The project will not have a significant impact on the environment if adequate mitigation m~asures are required as conditions of approval." On the first page of the Conditions of Approval, under Noise, Item 14 should read: "14. The Applicant shall provide a 35-foot-wide, 6' to 8' high berm on the south side of Avenue 52 to mitigate noise impaction. Any wall on the south side of Avenue 52 shall be subject to City approval." On Page 2 of the Conditions of Approval, under Miscellaneous, Item 16 should read: "16. The Applicant shall provide a meandering, 6-foot-wide, bicycle path on the north side of Avenue 52, and a 5-foot-wide, meandering pedestrian path on the south side of Avenue 52." Director Stevens followed by stating that Staff's recc~x~_ndation to the Cc~ssion is adoption of the Resolution with the modifications to the cc~ditions. Cc~ssioner Klimkiewicz asked for a review of the dimensions of proposed Avenue 52. -- Assistant Planner Campbell did so by using the displayed rendering of that Vice Chariman Walling opened the hearing at 8:00 p.m. J. B. Gold, Vice President of the Crystal Canyon project, Applicant, spoke in reference to the flood control concerns which ~ssioner Goetcheus related earlier. He spoke also on the acoustical report received which gave them a difficult task trying to develop noise mitigation for the residents on Avenida Nuestra. He went on to explain the project to the Cc~sion. MINUTES - PLANNING CC~iISSION April 9, 1985 Page 7. Kevin Manning, Planner for Landmark Land Company, Applicant, advised the Conm%ission that the Applicant had no problems with the Conditions of Approval in the request for the realist that pertained to them. Specifically, Conditions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 12. However, they do have a problem with Condition No. 10. They had proposed a 1000' radius. Landmark feels that the 2000' radius is a safety hazard and wish to compose by proposing a 1200' radius at the curve. He stated that the Berryman & Stephenson report proposed a 900' radius, which was ignored by Staff. The City Engineer proposed the 2000' radius which was prcmoted by Staff. Director Stevens replied to Mr. Manning's report that Berryman & Stephenson did indeed show that a 900' radius ~Duld be adequate. But because that was in conflict with the recc~x~endation we received frc~ the City Engineer, who recc~mended the 2000' radius, Staff talked to both parties. The City Engineer indicated he was trying to avoid a super elevated road, which means a banking situation in order to maintain the type of spc~ that will occur on Avenue 52 (55 mph). In discussing this point with Berryman & Stephenson, they stated they did not take into consideration the impact of having to super elevate. Therefore, Staff r~ded the 2000' radius because it basically avoids the need to do the super elevation. He noted that the super elevation or banking procedure is more of a highway design and we do not presently have any roads with this type of design. Dr. Sodikoff, Rt. 1, Box 134, Del Mar, California, an Avenida Nuestra property owner, spoke against the realist. Karen Sodikoff, Rt. 1, Box 134, Del Mar, California, an Avenida Nuestra property owner, spoke against the realist. Audrey Ostrowsky, La Quinta, California, a La Quinta property owner, spoke against the realist and Staff. Bill Young, President of Crystal Canyon, Applicant, responded to the concerns of area residents who had just spoken. Vice Chairman Walling closed the public hearing at 8:30 p.m. Co~ssioner ~bran stated that she feels the residents of Avenida Nuestra are benefiting by the proposed plans for their street with regard to all the landscaping and the fact that it will be closed frem Washington Street traffic, etc. She feels that the Applicant has also done a very good job with regard to the noise mitigation measures they have proposed for Avenue 52. Cc~missioner Goetcheus stated he feels the Applicant has a very good project and that everything on the inside of it is fine. He stated he does not like the Avenue 52 realist and felt the project was fine as developed previously. He stated he does not like the Avenida Bermudas develo~r~nt with regard to the wall and berm. He further stated that if he voted yes on this project that he hoped the City Council, in their wisdom, ~uld say that this project is ~Drth it to the City by changing the water affairs to gain a project. He noted he is not satisfied that the water has to be handled in the way it has been given to the Cc~mission and even though Director Stevens explained the plans, he wished a representative frcm CVWD had been present to answer any questions. ~sioner Klimkiewicz stated that if this was just a request of an Applicant, he w~uld say no to the request. But, since it is a way to solve scme of our flood control concerns, and b~ving reviewed our alterna- tives as far as the impaction on the houses in the area, it sc~s like the best solution we have cc~e up with. La Quinta is not going to remain as it has been for the past 30 years. MINUTES - PLANNING COMMISSION April 9, 1985 Page 8. Vice Chairman Walling stated he tends to agree with ~ssioner Klimkiewicz. He noted that sc~e people may not realize it, but if Avenue 52 is not moved and there was a project to the south of Calle Nuestra, the people there would probably still be subjected to a large wall system, and perhaps not with such a thorough landscaping design as this. This also provides for ample open space between Avenida Nuestra and any buildings. This seems to be the most equitable means of obtaining -- flood control for the City. Vice Chairman Walling called for a motion. 2. ~ssioner Klimkiewicz made a motion to adopt Planning Ccmm%ission Resolution No. 85-005 with modifications to the Conditions of Approval as recc~l~ended by Staff. Ccmm%issioner Mmran seconded the motion. Unanimously Adopted with one objection (with friendliness) and one abstention. Director Stevens made a ~t for the record. Staff disputes Mrs. Ostrowsky's recollecton of the facts regarding the availability of information. He noted that you cannot read a person's mind when they cc~e in asking for the Staff Report and try and understand that to mean the acoustical study. He noted that several of the residents who spoke at the last meeting and who are here tonight had copies of the acoustical study as soon as it was available to the public, which was eight days ago. Dr. Sodikoff made arrangements to receive a copy and paid for it and Mrs. Higgs made arrangements to receive a copy. We cannot read peoples' minds in terms of the information they want and we do the best we can. He stated again for the record that the acoustical study was available to anyone who wished to receive a copy. Vice Chairman Walling advised that the next twD items of hearing would be heard concurrently. -- C. Change of Zone Case No. 85-015, a proposal to change the zoning frcm R-l*, R*:: 1-10,000, R*-2-20,000, and N-A* to R*++-i-10,000, R*-2-20,000, and N-A* on a 746-acre site easterly of Avenida Bermudas and southerly of Avenida Nuestra; Sar~ Pebble Country Club, Applicant. D. Tentative Tract Map No. 20328, Revised No. 1, a proposal to approve a planned residential development with 843 condcndnium units, 47 single-family lots, a tennis and country club and an 18-hole golf course on a 417-acre portion of a 731-acre site easterlY of Avenida Bermudas and southerly of Avenida Nuestra; Sand Pebble Country Club, Applicant. Vice ChaLrman Walling requested the Staff Report. 1. Principal Planner Bcnner stated that this is the same Change of Zone Case as presented at the previous Planning Ccnm~ssion meeting. Due to the addition of 57 acres, the Applicant is requesting a Change of Zone frcxn R-l* to R-2~20,000. That is the same zoning as placed on the remainder of the project. The Applicant has made minor modifications to the single- family lot area and, therefore, has adjusted that boundary for the R-l* zoning. The southeast corner of the project has a 17' height limit, a mininum 1200-square-foot dwelling size and minimum 10,000-square-foot lot size. The next change is due to more engineering infonaation the Applicant has received. He has made minor modifications on the boundary be~ the mountains and the units and has actually lost a minor amount of land to keep away frcm the toes of the slopes. Staff is recc~m~_nding approval of this Change of Zone based on findings that the proposed zoning is consistent with the general plan, that the proposed zoning ~Duld reduce the densities - allowable under the existing zoning, that it is cc~patible with the surrounding area and, in fact, has a density approximately 3 to 4 units per acre less than the surrounding area and that the approval of the request will not result in a significant adverse impact on the environment. Moving on to the Tentative Tract, Principal Planner Bonner stated she would just review additional information and changes Staff has received since the last hearing on this case. She noted concerns brought up at the previous hearing regarding the single-family units. Specifically, the t~D-story units around the perimeter of the project. The concerns MINUTES - PLANNING ~SSION April 9, 1985 Page 9. were in regard to the height of the units, the fact that they were clustered along the perimeter, the majority of the units were in larger buildings having four units and, therefore, they had substantial bulk. Also, the fact of the close spacing and clustering of units seemed to increase the mass of them. At the last hearing, Planning Ccmmtission conxnents and c~ts frcm the audience requested that the Applicant redesign or modify his plans to modify these concerns. Therefore, last Friday, the Applicant sutmzitted a revised plan showing different treatment for the perimeter units. He has eliminated scme of the units on Avenida Bermudas, he has mixed units be~ one and tvx>-story units, he has decreased the building size by going frc~n fourplexes to duplexes, he has removed scme units frcm the northwest corner to allow a window into the project. Principal Planner Bonner pointed out the areas where changes have occurred by use of colored renderings submitted by the Applicant. Staff still has concerns with scme of the two-story buildings along Avenida Bermudas and Avenue 52. On Avenida Bermudas, the view frc~ the single-family dwellings on the west side ~ould allow the entire second floor to be visible on the east side. Staff feels that the height limit being 17 feet on the west side, that the two-story structures on the east side should be kept away frc[n this area, particularly in the interest of ~tibility and not blocking the view from adjacent residents. ~nerefore, Staff is reccmm~ending that the units be dropped back approximately 100' from the right-of-way line. The units involved ~ould just be reduced to one story. The Applicant has agreed to three th/rigs in regard to the tennis clubhouse. First, he has agreed to set back the building an additional 20 feet; second, he will modify the wall design and third, the overall height of the building will be limited to 20 feet. Regarding Avenue 52, Principal Planner Bonner stated it is a different situation than on Avenida Bermudas. Right now, the distance frcm the property lines on the west side of Avenida Bermudas to the wall on the east side as _ proposed by the Applicant is about 100 feet. On Avenue 52, when you take into consideration Avenida Nuestra, the extra setback for landscaping, etc., you are looking at approximately 200 feet to the wall (this is from property line of Avenida Nuestra to perimeter wall of the project). Because they are not adjacent to any other single-family units that are one-story and will not be imposing on anyone's privacy or viewscape, Staff feels that the units on Avenue 52 would have the opportunity to mix one and two-story units more than proposed by the Applicant. Staff feels they can work with the Applicant as far as revising the plan with this point in mind. Principal Planner Bonner stated that ~ts made at the previous mmeting tended toward the fact that we wanted more views into--the~ project and this has been a standard the City has tried to encourage in develotmnmnts so that we do not have a solid wall. As Assistant Planner Campbell m~ntioned earlier, any requests for solid walls are all going to be conditioned upon. The acoustical engineer will look at any of these plans to determine any "bouncing" back of noise. Principal Planner Bonner noted that Staff has not sho~ these plans to the acoustical engineer at this point. Regarding the maintenance building, the Applicant has set back the building from the Desert Club and the adjacent street. He has broken up the roof lines to be ccml0atible with surrounding area and plans to recess the parking area also. With regard to concerns raised on the Japact of the project to the wildlife habitat, it is noted that 314 acres of the mountainous portion of the site will remain in natural open space. %he Conditions of Approval prohibit the installation of fencing which will restrict wildlife access frc~ this area into the project. In addition, the sandy wash habitat area in the southeast area will be incorporated into the design. The biologist who prepared the section within the La Quinta Flood Control Redevelopmmnt Project Environmmntal Impact Report on flora and fauna reviewed the project with respect to the mitigation measures adopted as a part of the flood control project. He stated that although any project affects existing h_~bitat and foraging areas, the design of this project and Conditions of Approval would reduce these impacts significantly. Staff will also take extr~ care in reviewing the landscape and tree retention plans to ensure that Jat0acts on wildlife will be minimized to the extent feasible. MINUTES - PLANNING CflV~viISSION April 9, 1985 Page 10. Principal Planner Bonner went over the Conditions of Approval that were being added to or changed. Add to Condition No. 9: "9. (d) All two-story units will be set back a minimum of 100 feet frcm the right-of-way line." Add additional condition under "Building and Site Design": "Staff recc~r~nds that the maximum number of allowable units, including single-family and condominiums, be reduced from 889 to 850." Principal Planner Bonner noted that this concluded her Staff Report to the Cgnmtission on the t~o items being heard concurrently. Director Stevens noted that Staff is recc~n~nding approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 20328, Revised No. 1, subject to the Conditions of Approval, as amended, and based on the findings in the Staff Report. Vice Chairman Walling opened the public hearing at 9:13 p.m. Bill Young, President of the Crystal Canyon project (formerly known as Sand Pebble Country Club), Applicant, reviewed the project as a whole, speaking in favor of same. J. B. Gold, Vice President of Crystal Canyon, representative of the Applicant, replied to scme of the concerns addressed along Avenida Bermudas. He also spoke in favor of the project. -- Homer Davis, 52-211 Avenida Bermudas, La Quinta, questioned whether there ~ould be a bike lane, a gutter and a sidewalk on the west side of Avenida Bermudas. Director Stevens replied to this by noting that these type of improvers would be done by the Applicant on the east side of Avenida Bermudas only. Robert Craven, 53-125 Avenida Bernudas, La Quinta, questioned the height of the two-story units on Avenida Bermudas, as to how much would be seen by the hcmeowners on the west side. Principal Planner Bonner explained to Mr. Craven that with the additional setback being requested, only the roof of the closest building should be seen by those residents on the west side of Avenida Bermudas. Vice Chairman Walling closed the public hearing at 9:25 p.m. Cc~nissioner Klimkiewicz stated that most of his concerns have been satisfied, with the exception of the northeast corner density of units. Director Stevens advised that Staff could add a condition that particularly indicates the northeast corner be evaluated to minimize the appearance of bulk to the exterior of the project. If Staff cannot work out the details of this with the Applicant, they will bring it back to the ~sion. Cc~nissioner Goetcheus again stated that he has no objections to anything - inside the walls. Cc~mtissioner Moran stated she would like to see 100' to 150' setbacks frc~ the wall for the two-story units on Avenida Bermudas. In the putting clock II area, she stated she would like to see the units that are right on Avenue 52 either pulled back or have them not all two-story as shown. She agreed with ~ssioner Klimkiewicz that the density of the northeast corner should be changed. She also had concerns with the location of the golf course maintenance building with regard to noise, smell, etc., to the nearby residents and made several suggestions for relocation. Co~nissioner Moran asked the Applicant who they would have to maintain the golf course in the event of flooding. MINUTES - PLANNING COv~sSION April 9, 1985 Page 11. Bill Young replied that there will be an easement where the water will ccme through and CVWD will take care of any bad damage in the easement area and the developer will maintain the golf course. Vice Chairman Walling felt that the tw~-story units on the northwest corner and the northeast corner are too dense. He feels a 100' setback on the east should be provided. His major concern is the two-story units on the highway. He also felt that anything on the golf course maintenance building and the two-story units should come back to the Planning ~sion for review. After a short discussion, it was decided to change Condition 9. (d) which has been added previously in the meeting, as follows: "9. (d) All two-story units shall be set back 100' frcm perimeter roads as well as the common property line along Desert Club area." The ~ssion would like to review final plans regarding the above. With regard to the location of the golf course maintenance building, Director Stevens stated he would attempt to discuss other options with the Applicant when he gets to the point of final design. After a brief discussion, Vice Chairman Walling called for a motion. 2. ~sioner Goetcheus made a motion based on findings in the Staff Report, to approve Change of Zone Case No. 85-015, and Tentative Tract Map No. 20328, Revised No. 1, subject to Conditions of Approval, as amen~. Cc~mtissioner Klinkiewicz seconded the motion. Unanimously Adopted with one abstention. At this point, Director Stevens advised those present that the City Council hearings on these items is scheduled for next Tuesday, April 16, 1985, at 7:30 p.m., in these chambers. 4. CONSENT CAT.F~I~R None 5. BUSINESS A. Vice Chairman Walling introduced the first item of buisness as Street Vacations Nos. 85-007A and 85-007B, a request to determine General Plan consistency of a proposed vacation of Avenue 52, generally between Jefferson Street and Desert Club Drive; William Young and Landmark Land Cc~pany, Applicants. He called for the Staff Report. 1. Director Stevens advised that on road vacations, the Planning Cc~mission's responsibility is to determine whether or not they are consistent with the General Plan and make a report to the City Council as to that consistency. Regarding these requests, we essentially envision that the vacations will occur, if they are approved, upon the coT~letion of the improvemants on the realigned right-of-way. You can expect, across the frontage of the project, that it will be a full-width right-of-way and those areas through the Landmark Land Cc~pany portion of the property, which would be to the east of this project, would be replacing initially that section with an equivalent road section. It would be a two-lane, paved road to Jefferson and as Landmark developed the adjacent property, then it would beccme a full-width, four- lane road. It is Staff's recoTmendation that the Cc~x~ission adopt Planning Cc~mtission Resolution NO. P.C. 85-004 which determines that the vacations are consistent with the La Quinta General Plan essentially since it is the realignment of a road through an area. With regard to the conditions attached: Add Condition 1. (a) as follows: "(a) If satisfactory arrangements for a private street access cannot be worked out, provisions shall be made for a public street access along the easterly side of the Desert Club." MINUTES - PLANNING C(I~MISSION April 9, 1985 Page 12. Change 3. (6) adding Avenida Nuestra after Avenue 52. Vice Chairman Walling called for a motion. 2. Cc~ssioner Klimkiewicz made a motion to adopt Planning Cc~ssion Resolution No. P.C. 85-004 and r~ded support of the attached conditions. ~ssioner Moran seconded the motion. Unanimously Adopted with one abstention. Vice Chairman Walling called upon Staff to report on the five plot plan requests for construction before the Planning Cc~m~ssion. D~rector 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~mission could rule on th~ as a whole. He stated that Staff is recc~x~ending approval of each of the requests. Director Stevens identified each of the five requests as follows: B. Plot Plan No. 85-137, a request to construct a single-family dwelling on the west side of Avenida Bermudas, 300' north of Calle Nogales; Desert Design Development, Applicant. C. Plot Plan No. 85-139, a request for approval of tw~ classroc~ buildings in conjunction with Public Use Permit No. 84-001 at the northwest corner of Miles Avenue and Adams Street alignment; Family Heritage Church of the Valley, Applicant. D. Plot Plan No. 85-140, a request to construct a single-family dwelling on the west side of Avenida Diaz, 180' south of Calle Potrero; Rick Johnson Construction, Applicant. E. Plot Plan NO. 85-141, a request to c~nstruct a single-family dwelling on the east side of Avenida Obregc~, 200' south of Calle Chihuahua; Rick Johnson Construction, Applicant. F. Plot Plan NO. 85-142, a request to construct a single-family dwelling on the west side of Avenida Martinez, 150' south of Calle Madrid; Rick Johnson Construction, Applicant. Vice Chairman Walling called for a motion. Cormmissi~er Goetcheus made a motion based on the findings in the Staff Reports to approve Plot Plan NO. 85-137 and Plot Plans 85-139 through 85-142, subject to the Conditions of Approval. Cc~missioner Klimkiewicz seconded the motion. Unanimously Adopted. 6. ADJ~ There being no further items of agenda to con~ before the Cc~mmission, Vice ChaLrman Walling called for a motion to adjourn. Chairman Thornburgh made a motion to adjourn to the next regular m~eting of April 23, 1985, at 7:00 p.m., in La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California. Vice Chairman Walling seconded the motion. Unanimously Adopted. The regular meeting of the Planning Cc~sion of the City of La Quinta, California, was adjourned at 10:15 p.m., April 9, 1985, in the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California.