Loading...
1985 07 09 PC Minutes MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF LA QUINTA A Regular Meeting Held at the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California July 9, 1985 7: 00 p.m. A. Chairman Thornburgh called the Planning COMMission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. He called upon Sandra L. Bonner, Principal Planner, to lead the flag salute. 2. ROLL CALL A. Chairman Thornburgh requested the roll call. The Secretary called the roll: Present: Cc~missioners Brandt, De Gasperin, Moran, Walling and Chairman Thornburgh Absent: None Also present were Cum]unity Development Director Lawrence L. Stevens, Principal Planner Sandra L. Bonner and Secretary Donna M. Velotta. 3. ELECTION OF NEW CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING COMMIISSION Chai~ Thornburgh opened nominations for the office of Chairman of the Planning Conmtis s ion. Commissioner Moran nominated Thomas Thornburgh for this office. There being no further nominations, Chairman Thornburgh closed the ncminations for the office of Chairman· of the Planning Conmission. Commissioner Moran made a motion that Thomas Thornburgh be reelected to the office of Chairman of the Planning Cc~raission by acclamation. Cc~missioner Walling seconded the motion. Unanimously Adopted. Chainm3n Thornburgh opened nominations for the office of Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission. Cc~missioner Moran ncmtinated John Walling for this office. There being no further nominations, Chaimman Thornburgh closed the nominations for the office of Vice Chairman of the Planning Conmission. Cc~missioner Moran made a motion that John Walling be reelected to the office of Vice Chairman of the Planning Cc~mission by acclamation. Chairman Thornburgh seconded the motion. Unanimously Adopted. 4. HEARINGS Chairman Thornburgh introduced the hearing item as Development Agreement No. 85-001, a request by The Grove of La Quinta to enter into a development agre~t pursu_~_nt to Section 65854 et seq. of the California Government Code, relative to Specific Plan No. 85-004, which was approved by the City Council on November 20, 1984. He called for a report from Staff. 1. Lawrence L. Stevens, Community Development Director, advised the Cc~ssion that this develo~n~_nt agre~t is a contract betw~ the Applicant developer and the City whereby each contracts for certain guarantees. This contract is authorized under Section 65854 et seq. of the California Government Code. He noted that during the past several months, the City Attorney and he (Director Stevens) have been meeting with Dave Howerton, who is the Architectural Planner for The Grove project, and Jeff Trant, the project attorney, discussing the details of the agreement. The document before the Cc~xmission is now in a fairly satisfactory form. Therefore, the purpose of this hearing is to solicit the Planning Cc~nission's point of view and any public cc~ment that might be pertinent to this particular proposal. MINUTES - PLANNING OOMMISSION July 9, 1985 Page 2. Director Stevens then gave a brief overview of The Grove project as a review for those who are familiar with it and to bring the new Cc~missioners up-to-date. He noted that the project had been approved in October/November of 1984 via a revised Specific Plan that had been approved originally by Riverside County in 1978. A copy of the Specific Plan document was passed along to the Cc~missioners for their review. Director Stevens advised that part of the developmant agreement document does include the conditions of approval which the City imposed on the project, which are in addition to the elements shown in the Specific Plan document and related maps. Addressing the Staff Report prepared on the develo~x~ent agreement, Director Stevens stated that he tried to give the Cc~mission a sunm~3ry of the main reasons why someone would want to enter into a develo~r~nnt agreement. He felt that frcm the Applicant developer's point of view, the document gives th~ protection frc[n uncertainty as, fOr example, zoning is not a guarantee unless it is supported by a document such as this. Projects with a long- term buildout are helped by having such a documant in the areas of financing, etc. He stated further that the City's advantages in entering into a developmsnt agreement is that if the devel~t has certainty, it has a better likelihood of proceeding instead of being just a paper project. The City can also attach more certainty to the phasing of infrastructure improve- ments, particularly to those that have benefit outside of the project. Director Stevens advised the Cc~mission that the City did not enter into this contract lightly, as one of the provisions ~e have asked for is a $40,000 annual fee in order to maintain the contract in effect. In the State Law, a develo~ant agreement does have an annual review requirement which is primarily due because there are perceived limitations on Councils to bind future Councils to certain aspects and certain financial commitments, etc. The proposed devel~t agreement includes the following significant features: o Incorporation, by reference, of the Specific Plan and its related conditions of approval. o Estsblishing that setbacks, minimum lot sizes, lot coverage and building height regulations now in effect will apply for the life of the project. o Establishing that the General Plan now in effect will apply for the life of the project. o Estsblishing that no roads will be required beyond those already required by the Specific Plan and parcel map. o Acknowledging that the already adopted conditions, fees, changes and dedications are cc~prehensive and shall not be added to - except where changes in conditions, fees, etc., are generally applicable to all similarly situated developers. o Establishing that improvement and construction standards, building codes and development fees now in effect will apply, except where changes are for health and safety reasons or where generally applicable to all similarly situated developers. o Acknowledging that certain design and site planning reviews still need to be performed. o Providing for the State mandated annual review and amendment/ cancellation clauses. o Providing for an annual fee of $40,000. o Establishing various default procedures, legal remedy mechanisms and related technical features. o Termination of the agreement on December 31, 1995. Director Stevens stated that this concluded his report. Staff is recc~x~=_nding approval of Development Agreement No. 85-001 based on the findings in the staff report with the deletion of Section 23 relating to attorney's fees. He stated that the deletion of Section 23 has been discussed with the Applicant and they are in agreement. MINUTES - PI2kNNING COMMISSION July 9, 1985 Page 3. There was a brief question and discussion period regarding the annual review, the annual fee and scme of the ~ording of the document itself. Director Stevens answered all questions to the satisfaction of the C~ssion. Chairman Thornburgh opened the hearing for public ~t at 7:30 p.m. Dave Howerton, Architectural Planner for The Grove project, of Robert Lamb Hart, 260 California Street, San Francisco, California, spoke in behalf of the Applicant and thanked Staff for their efforts and input into the develo~n~nt agreement documant, and thanked the Planning Ccn~nission for their consideration of the documant. There being no further public cca~r~nts, Chairman Thornburgh closed the hearing at 7: 31 p.m. After a brief discussion period, Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion. 2. Co~ssioner Walling made a motion based on the findings in the staff report to r~d approval of Development Agreemant No. 85-001, with the deletion of Section 23, relating to attorney's fees. Conmmissioner Brandt seconded the motion. Unanimously Adopted. Director Stevens informed the Cc~ntission that this matter would corns before the City Council at their meeting of July 23, 1985. CON~ C__AT ,~ A. Cca~nissioner De Gasperin rode a motion, seconded by ~ssioner Walling to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of June 11, 1985. 1. %he minutes of the regular meeting of June 11, 1985, were approved as sukm%itted. Unanimously Adopted. BUSINESS Chairman Thornburgh introduced the first t~o items of business as follows: A. Plot Plan No. 85-178, a request to construct a single-family dwelling on the west side of Avenida Madero, 130' north of Calle Colima; Rick Johnson Construction, Applicant. B. Plot Plan No. 85-179, a request to construct a single-family dwelling on the west side of Avenida Madero, 180' north of Calle Colima, Rick Johnson Construction, Applicant. He called for the staff reports. 1. Director Stevens advised that these t~o requests are consistent with the requirements of the R-1 Zone and the goals and objectives of the La Quinta General Plan, their building designs are compatible with area develotx~_nt and the projects will not have a significant Japact on the environment. Therefore, based on these findings, Staff reccaxnands approval of the plot plans. However, he stated that three Applicants who have approved plot plans to construct single-family dwellings on the sams street are represented at this meeting to make an objection. Sandra Bonner, 69-784 Sugarloaf, Pinyon Pines, CA, spoke in behalf of herself and two others who recently received approvals to build directly adjacent to Mr. Johnson's two proposed houses to the north. She stated their cc~cern is in regard to Mr. Johnson's proposed asphalt shingled roofs. Ms. Bonner advised the Conmtission that they felt it more appro- priate if the Ccamtission could require that Mr. Johnson be conditioned to install concrete tile roofs. The area involved on Madero is primarily undeveloped. There are only tvx~ houses on the whole block and only one across the street. Therefore, they saw the opportunity to establish a theme a little above the stan_d~_rd in the Cove and install concrete tile which would give scme sort of a design theme on this street. She stated MINUTES - PLANNING CfMbIISSION July 9, 1985 Page 4. that they have discussed this matter with Mr. Johnson and Brian Monr~ and they have not been very receptive to the request to change their plans. In fact, they advised Mr. Johnson that the matter was going to be presented to the Cc~nission at this meeting and Mr. Johnson stated that he would not be present. Ms. Bonner requested that if the Cc~nission did not feel comforts_hie making a decision at this time, a three-week continuance would be acceptable to allow them time to continue talking to Mr. Johnson or direct him to contact the new home buyers to consider the installation of concrete tile roofs. Director Stevens advised the Ccmmtission that what is apparent here is that there are neighbors of the Applicant requesting a particular design style and this has not been done before. He noted that the Cc~mission has three options in this matter. First, to go with what has ~n your past approach - neighborhood compatibility - and you think neighborhood compatibility is appropriate with asphalt shingle, you can approve the requests as sulmtitted by the Applicant. If you think it is m~ritorious based on the request of the neighbors that this is an area that should require tile because of what is there or cc~nitted to be there, you can add the condition requiring that Mr. Johnson's houses use concrete tile. ~ne third option is to give Mr. Johnson the opportunity to give his input prior to your decision and continue the requests to the next meeting. After a brief discussion, it was the consensus of the Plarm~ Conm~ssion that a condition be added to each of these plot plans requiring the use of cement tile. They felt that when neighbors appear before them requesting changes, they should take notice. Also, the fact was mantioned that the Applicant had been contacted by Ms. Bonner and the t~o persons she was representing, notifying him that they were bringing this matter before the Ccmmtission at this meeting. Therefore, it is not being discussed without his knowledge. ~ssioner Brandt made mention of the fact that a Condition No. 12 was placed on items 6.C. and 6.D., but had not been placed on irons 6.A. and 6.B. Director Stevens stated that this was an error and the condition would be added. Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion. 2. Cc~mtissioner De Gasperin made a motion based on the findings in the staff reports to approve Plot Plans Nos. 85-178 and 85-179 in accordance with Exhibits A, B and C and subject to attached conditions, with the following revisions: Add Condition No. 12 to Plot Plans Nos. 85-178 and 85-179: "12. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for Plot Plan Nos. 85-178 and 85-179, the Applicant shall submit to the Cc~xmatity Devel~t Department for review and approval specific informa- tion or details on stucco color and texture, trim and other architectural features which will vary the appearance from the adjacent dwelling with the sams design as approved." Add Conditic~ No. 13 to Plot Plans Nos. 85-178 and 85-179: "13. Roofing material should be concrete tile subject to the approval of the ~ty Develotmr~nt Director." The motion was seconded by Cc~nissioner Moran. Unanimously Adopted. Chairman Thornburgh introduced the next two items of business as follows: C. Plot Plan No. 85-184, a request to construct a single-family dwelling on the east side of Avenida Herrera, 100' south of Calle Chillon; Rick Johnson Construction, Applicant. D. Plot Plan No. 85-185, a request to construct a single-family dwelling on the east side of Avenida Herrera, 150' south of Calle Chillon; Rick Johnson Construction, Applicant. MINUTES - PLANNING CC~MISSION July 9, 1985 Page '5. · He called for the staff reports. 1. Director Stevens advised that these t~o requests are consistent with the requirements of the R-1 Zone and the goals and objectives of the La Quinta General Plan, their building designs are cc~patible with area develotmr~nt and the projects will not have a significant inloact - on the environment. ~nerefore, based on these findings, Staff r~ds approval of these plot plans. There being no further discussion on these matters, Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion. 2. Cc~mzissioner Brandt made a motion based on the findings in the staff reports to approve Plot Plans Nos. 85-184 and 85-185 in accord__m_nce with Exhibits A, B and C and subject to attached conditions, with the following revision: Add Condition No. 12: "12. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for Plot Plans Nos. 85-184 and 85-185, the Applicant shall stRmzit to the ~ty Develot~nent Department for review and approval specific informa- tion or details on stucco color and texture, trim and other architectural features which will vary the appearance from the adjacent dwelling with the sams design as approved." Conmzissioner Moran seconded the motion. Unanimously Adopted. 6. ADJOURNMENT There being no further items of Agenda to ccme before the Cc~nission, Chairman -- Thornburgh called for a motion to adjourn. Ccmnissioner Walling made a motion to adjourn to the next mee~g on July 30, 1985, at 7:00 p.m., in La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California. Regular meeting of the Planning Cc~nzission ~ould have been July 23, 1985, but due to a change of meeting schedule for the City Council, that meeting had to be forwarded one w~_k. Ccmmzissioner Moran seconded the motion to adjourn. Unanimously Adopted. The regular meeting of the Planning Ccmnission of the City of La Quinta, California, was adjourned at 8:29 p.m., July 9, 1985, in the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California.