Loading...
1985 05 14 PC Minutesi .... ~ ....... ~' APPROVED ""-' ' r'LA I~TA PLA.N.N.j~,,,G COMMISS.I, BN M I N U T E S DATF/~ 7 F, /P ~-- PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA A Regular Meet~g Held at the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California May 14, 1985 7: 00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER A. Vice Chairman John Walling called the Planning Coommission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. He called upon Cc~missioner Klimkiewicz to lead the flag salute. 2. ROLL CALL A. Vice Chairman Walling requested the roll call. ~ne Secretary called the roll: Present: ConTmissioners Goetcheus, Klimkiewicz, Moran and Vice Chairman Walling Absent: Chairman Thornburgh C~ssioner Klimkiewicz made a motion, seconded by ~ssioner Goetcheus, to excuse Chainnan Thornburgh. Unan~sly Adopted. Also present were Conmanity Develo~t Director Lawrence L. Stevens, City Manager Frank M. Usher, City Councilman Larry Allen and Secretary Donna M. Velotta. At this time, Vice Chairman Walling introduced City Manager Frank Usher and Councilman Lar~7 Allen, who presented ConTnissioners Klimki~icz and Goetcheus with placques for their service to the City as Planning Ccmmzissioners for the first three years of La Quinta'a Cityhood. Both ConTmission~s Klimkiewicz and Goetcheus have resigned their posts as of this meeting. Vice Chai~ Walling called for a short break so that everyone could enjoy cake and coffee for the occasion. 3. HEARINGS Vice Chairman Walling introduced the tw~ items of hearing, advising that they w~uld be heard concurrently. A. Plot Plan No. 85-143, a request for approval to construct a maintenance facility, including a one-story, 7,000-square-foot golf course maintenance building, a one-story, 5,380-square-foot homeowner's maintenance building, and a one-story, 2,220-square-foot superintendent' s residence; Landmark Land ~y, Applicant. B. Plot Plan No. 85-144, a request for a~qproval to construct a satellite maintenance facility for "PGA West", including a one-story, 4,500-square-foot maintenance building and a one-story, 2,200-square-foot superintendent' s residence on 1.2 acres; Landmark Land Company, Applicant. Vice Chairman Walling then called for the Staff Reports on these matters. 1. C~[~.lunity Development Director Lawrence L. Stevens advised that these two hearings would be heard by both Planning ConTmission and City Council because of conditions of approval attached to the Specific Plan for PGA West, which requires such facilities to be reviewed through that process, even though the zoning regulations might not otherwise require it. The first facility is the larger of the tw~ and is located on the south side of Avenue 54, west of Jefferson Street. Director Stevens then described the five buildings comprising this ccxqplex. Tw~ existing buildings would be retained and enhanced to visually blend in with the rest of the project. There are two existing buildings that will be remov~ as part of the proposal. The project design is basically intended to fit into the extent feasible with the remainder of the PGA West project. He pointed out this fact by use of renderings provided by the Applicant. Director Stevens noted that Staff, in reviewing the proposed project, has looked at basic zoning require- ments as well as evaluation of the compatibility of the proposed use with both existing and planned uses in the surrounding area. It is Staff's jud~t MINUTES - PLANNING COMMISSION May 14, 1985 Page 2. that with the plans smtmtitted and with the conditions of approval being imposed on this facility, that the project can be reasonably cc~pat/ble with both present and existing uses in the area. He noted that the condi- tions of approval mitigate any limited concerns that vapuld occur as a result of the project. As a result, Staff is reccl~mend/ng approval of the Avenue 54 maintenance facility, subject to the conditions of approval contained in the Staff Report. Director Stevens stated that the conditions, for the most part, are similar to those imposed on other golf course maintenance facilities that we have reviewed in the past. He noted that there was scme discussion at the Study Session as to what type of landscaping would be appropriate, particularly across the front of the facility. If the Cc~ssion desires to have sc~e~g more specific, it would be necessary to amend the conditions and provide for additional landscape setbacks. Other concerns discussed at the Study Session were relatively minor in terms of their impact, but Staff would recc~anend that the conditions included in the report be adopted. For the record, Director Stevens noted that the Con~ssion has been given a copy of a letter received from Thomas and Suzanne Kennedy objecting to the location of the facility. Moving on to the second facility, Director Stevens noted that it was also located south of Avenue 54 on the west side of Madison Street. This facility would be located adjacent to the proposed Fire Station facility, which is at the corner of Avenue 54 and Madison, and a CVWD well site, which would be located between the fire facility and the maintenance facility. This is a smaller facility than described in the first plot plan request. %he archi- tecture is again similar, blending into the type of architecture proposed for the other facility and for the overall project. The landscaping is basically intended to be consistent with that imposed on the surrounding project and to facilitate appropriate screening. Director Stevens noted t_hat Staff had more concern with the visibility in regard to this project, with Madison Street being a more major street than that section of Avenue 54 that the first facility is being proposed on. He noted that it is Staff's judgment that this facility can, with the conditions, be reasonably ounpatible and Staff is also reccmm~_nding its approval subject to the conditions in the Staff Report. Director Stevens stated that the only issue of concern dis- cussed at the Study Session was the proposed n~dian opening on Madison Street. Staff recc~nends that the condition requiring that the median opening be deleted remain intact. He noted further that Staff recc~nends Condition No. 23 be modified to el/minate the specific reference to an easement ar~ simply indicate the Applicant provide adequate access for the golf course on the west side of the property. As the Cc~ssion had no questions at this time, Vice Chairman Walling opened the hearing to public ccnm~_nt at 7:34 p.m. Kaye Chandler, Vice President of Planning and Design for Landmark Land Ccmpany, the Applicant, spoke as their representative. Mr. Chandler stated that. it has been just a year ago that they received approval for the PGA West Specific Plan project and since that time they have been preparing the develotanennt plans and actually implementing scme of the construction. Also, duirng this period of time, Landmark has contributed toward the preparation of the engineering plans for flood control; they have made the first install- ment toward the $1,000,000 City contribution of $200,000; they have made payment to the City for mitigation fees for Lake Cahuilla of $50,000; they have prepared the plans and actually implemented the improvement plans on the streets for curbs and gutters on Madison and Avenue 54 which cost in the area of $700,000; they also relocated the majority of the major irrigation lines on the property for CYWD, which came to roughly $600,000. Construction began on the first golf course in December and is now rough graded and will be seeded next w~ek. The second golf course's construction began approxi- mately 2-3 w~eks ago. Also, since the original specific plan approval a year ago, Landmark prepared the plans for PGA Boulevard. Those plans have been submitted to the City as well as plans for the walls and landscaping associated with it. Additionally, they have prepared plans for the golf and tennis clubhouses. Sun~narizing all of this to date, Mr. Chandler noted that Landmark has put roughly $2.5 million dollars worth of public/semi-public infrastructure into the project. MINUTES - PLANNING CIIMMISSION May 14, 1985 Page 3. Mr. Chandler w~nt on to state that during this time, completing the golf course routing, the next step was making a determination of the types of maintenance facilities and their locations. This resulted in the ccmbina- tion of the golf course maintenance/hc~sowner's maintenance buildings in one ccmplex, and because of the size of the project as a whole, having a satellite facility as opposed to a central facility. Using the renderings, Mr. Chandler pointed out the locations of the t%~ maintenance facilities before the Cc~nission at this hearing as well as the location of a proposed third facility in future. Mr. Chandler stated that sc~e of the location criteria was based on security, control, access, and took into consideration landscaping and screening. The intensity and type of landscaping Landmark is proposing that will occur along both maintenance facilities is the same type of landscaping that will occur along both Madison and Avenue 54, and also down PGA Boulevard. The standard Landmark has set as an example is similar to what Sunrise Cc~pany has done on Country Club Drive next to their Palm Valley project and the Lakes project. That landscaping adds up to approximately $1,000,000 a mile. Mr. Chandler advised that Landmark felt locating the facilities along major public thoroughfares was to minimize the impact of citizens living within the project and also properties which are surrounding the property to the north where Landmark currently has an application in for the Oak Tree West project. He noted that Landmark feels the location of the facility on Madison Street in the area of the new pro- posed Fire Station and CVWD's water well site ~uld make them compatible to those uses. The main facility site on Avenue 54, west of Jefferson, was chosen because there are already sc~e existing facilities there that had been used for agriculture purposes in the past, which %Duld make the new facility c~Npatible with the current zoning on the property. Another major factor was that there is existing infrastructure there, including building improvements, electric power, water source and the ability to move into it right away to be able to execute their maintenance program. Mr. Chandler stated that Landmark feels all of their development efforts in the area to date have increased the land values. He noted that they are pleased with Staff' s recc~mendation of approval, advising that Landmark has sc~e $3,000,000 invested in the golf course at this time, and wuuld therefore wish to urge the Planning Conm~ssion/City Council approval of the maintenance facilities. No one else wished to speak at this time. Vice Chairman Walling closed the public hearing at 7: 42 p.m. Vice Chairman Walling called for ~ts from the ~ssion. Cc~missioner ~ran stated she did not like the locations of the facilities, but if it was going to be, she was willing to ~rk around it and see if some of the probl~ns could be mitigated as best as possible. Cc~nissioner Moran feels that the hcmeowners within the project do have the luxury of having use of the golf course, where people on the outside do not. Therefore, the people outside should not be impacted by the negative aspects of the facility. She noted that she has made her views known in previous meetings that she does not like this type of facility on the public right-of-ways and feels they could be planned within the project without negative impact on the people on the outside and on the inside of the project. Cc~nissioner Goetcheus had no cc~ment. ~ssioner Klimkiewicz had scme concerns with the landscaping used with regard to screening and felt that the median cut in this instance should be allowed. Therefore, he requested that Condition No. 10 be deleted. There was a brief discussion regarding the median cut. The City Engineer had recc~a~ended the cut be deleted in the Staff Report. The Oum~ssioners recc~mended that the cut be allowed in this instance and that Condition No. 10 be deleted. Vice Chairman Walling felt that these types of facilities should be screened adequately and, in this instance, feels that we should use a little more parkway to do that. Possibly adding a condition where we ~uuld have a land- scaped parkway 20-25' frcm the right-of-way line which ~uld give an additional 8-12' on the Avenue 54 side depending on the ultimate width of that street. MINUTES- PLANNING CC~iISSION May 14, 1985 Page 4. That would give the Applicant the opportunity to berm it up and put a wall of scum sort on top of the berm to get the ultimate height to get much more screening than just the 6' the Applicant shows on the plans where the wall is at ground level. After scum discussion, it was decided to add to Condition No. 18 and basically ask the Applicant to redesign the parkway setback area to create the best possible screening effect and then the redesign will be brought back to the Ccmnission on an informal basis to comment on before Staff approves it. As there were no further questions or ccnm~_nts, Vice Chairman Walling called for a motion. 2. C~ssioner Goetcheus made a motion to approve Plot Plans Nos. 85-143 and 85-144, based on the findings in the Staff Reports, and subject to conditions of approval, as amended. C~ssioner Klimkiewicz seconded the motion. Vice Chairman Walling called for a Roll Call Vote per a request frcm ~ssioner Moran. The Secretary called the roll with the following results: Conxnissioner Goetcheus - Aye Cc~nissioner Klimkiewicz - Aye Cc~missioner Moran - No Vice Chairman Walling - Aye Chairman Thornburgh - Absent Motion for approval unanimouSly adopted with Conmtissioner Moran objecting and Chairman Thornburgh absent. CONSENT CAT.RNDAR A. Cc~rmissioner Klimkiewicz made a motion, seconded by Vice Chairman Walling, to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of April 23, 1985. 1. The minutes of the regular meeting of April 23, 1985, were approved as sutmnitted. UnarLimously adopted. BUSINESS Vice Cha~ Walling called upon Staff to report on the five plot plan requests for construction of single-family dwellings before the C~sion. 1o Director 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 rule on them as a whole. He stated that Staff is recomnending approval of each of the requests. Director Stevens identified the requests as follows: A. Plot Plan No. 85-146, a request to construct a single-family dwelling on the east side of Avenida Ramirez, 100' south of Calle Sonora; Michael Black~, Applicant. B. Plot Plan No. 85-151, a request to construct a single-family dwelling on the east side of Avenida Ramirez, 300' south of Calle Colima; Arthur Anderson, Applicant. C. Plot Plan No. 85-152, a request to construct a single-family dwelling on the east side of Avenida Ramirez, 250' north of Calle Arroba; Arthur Anderson, Applicant. Director Stevens noted that, for the record, the t~o requests from Mr. Arthur Anderson are for homes to be constructed for sale and not for rental purposes, as was stated in the Staff Reports. D. Plot Plan No. 85-153, a request to construct a single-family dwelling on the west side of Avenida Juarez, 130' south of Avenida Montezuma; Rick Johnson Construction, Applicant. MINUTES - PLANNING CYIMMISSION May 14, 1985 Page 5. E. Plot Plan No. 85-154, a request to construct a single-family dwelling on the south side of Avenue 46 (Westward Ho Drive), approximately 450' west of Roadrunner Lane; Richard Pescador, Applicant. Vice Chairman Walling called for a motion - 2. Cc~missioner Klimkiewicz made a motion, seconded by ~ssioner Moran, to approve Plot Plan No. 85-146, and Plot Plans Nos. 85-151 through 85-154, based on the findings in the Staff Reports and subject to attached conditions. Unanimously adopted. 6. ADJOURNMENT There being no further items of agenda to ccme before the Ccmm~ission, Vice Chairman Walling called for a motion to adjourn. Vice Chaizman Walling made a motion to adjourn to an adjourned meeting of May 20, 1985, at 3:00 p.m., to attend' the City Council Study Session where the consultant for the Washington Street Specific Plan will give a presentation. This meeting will be held in La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, CA. ~ssioner Klimkiewicz seconded the motion. Unanimously adopted. The regular meeting of the Planning ~ssion of the City of La Quinta, California, was adjourned at 8:10 p.m., May 14, 1985, in the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California.