Loading...
1985 08 27 PC Minutes MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA A Regular Meeting Held at the La Quinta ~ity Center, 77-861 Avenida Montezuma La Quinta, California August 27, 1985 7: 00 p.m. 1. CALL, TO ORDER A.Cha~ Thornburgh called the Planning Comnission meeting to order at ?:00 p.m. _ 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 Ccemunity Develo~t Director Lawrence L. Stevens, Associate Planner Gary W. Price and Secretary Donna M. Velotta. 3. HEARINGS Chairman Thornburgh introduced the hearing matter as follows: A. La 0uinta General Plan and Envir~tal Impact Report/Master Environmental Assessment, to consider the Hazards, Cultural Resources, Natural Resources, ~ty Develot~ent, Infrastructure and Housing Elements of the proposed General Plan. Chaizman Thornburgh called for the report from Staff. _ 1. ~ity Development Director Lawrence L. Stevens advised that the matter to be discussed at this and the next Planning ~ssion meeting is one of the more impo~t documents in the planning process as it affects cities in the State of California.~ T~o documents to be discussed at this meeting are - first, a document termed as a Master Environmental Assessment, which is basically a variation of an Environmental Impact Repor%~ When a cc~pre- hensive General Plan is done, it is generally suggested that you use your environmental review process as a data base and take the position that the policies and goals that you establish within the plan are, in fact, the mitigation measures of any environmental consequences. Also, by using the MEA format, it gives the opportunity to review other develotm~nt projects using that as a primary data base and could eliminate or at least reduce the need for environmental dooz0ents in the future. Director Stevens advised those present that the MEA document is available for review in the Cowry Devel~t Department at City Hall. He further advised that formal c~ts on the MEA will be accepted until September 18, although the hearing process will allow additional conm~_nt subsequent to that. The second document to be discussed is the General Plan itself. Director Stevens stated that the City has chosen to format the General Plan in a manner consistent with the newly revised General Plan guidelines for the State of California to suggest a slightly different format than what was the traditional format of nine separate General Plan elements. The format that the City has selected provides for six elements and merges some of the old original topic areas. The six elements that are identified as part of the plan are as follows: Hazards Element - the goal of this element is to reduce and mitigate man- made hazards to public safety. Natural Resources Element - to provide protection and stewardship of natural environment as a major community asset for the future. Cultural Resources Element - the basic goal is to enrich the ccemunity by adequate cultural and recreational facilities and activities. MINUTES - PLANNING CC~qISSION - August 27, 1985 Page 2. Czmmunity Development Element - the purpose is to provide a balanced growth to enhance a healthy local economy with opportunities for housing and employment. Infrastructure Element- provides for progranming, construction and mainte- nance of a comprehensive system of streets, utilities and other facilities necessary for optimum functioning. Housing Element - provides for adequate housing including a range of types of housing and costs for all existing and future residents. Director Stevens advised that each of the six elements consists of a separate chapter in the text of the plan. In reviewing the preliminary draft that is before the Czmm~ssion, it should be noted that a number of different factors have been included in the prepara- tion of this preliminary draft. The initial effort, after meetings with our General Plan Advisory Cc~mittee and the ~ty Workshop, is to identify issues and begin to prepare drafts of the various elements. There was then an additional Community Workshop and from that Workshop, the current draft entitled "Preliminary Draft" was prepared. Upon receipt of that material frcm the consultant, the GPAC has been meeting weekly for the last five or six weeks going through the Preliminary Draft. There are a number of both major and minor changes that are evolving from that GPAC review process. Not all of those changes are contained within the text. Director Stevens stated that he ~Duld highlight the major directions or modifications that the City anticipates happening from that process and are hopeful that the revisions will ccme back in final form for the September 10th Planning Crmm~ssion hearing. Director Stevens advised that it is not the ~ssion's intention to reach any conclusions or decisions at this hearing with regard to the General Plan or any requests that might be forthccxming with regard to changes or related issues. We will take testimony, identify issues of concern, refer those - issues and concerns back to the Staff and advisory conm~ttee, who will prepare a report and return it for fozmal and final action, hopefully, at the Planning Cc~n~ssicn meeting of September 10th. At this time, Director Stevens revi~, in detail, the policies contained in each of the six elements referred to earlier. There was a discussion period between Staff and the Planning Cc~mission. Chainm~n Thornburgh opened the public hearing at 8:20 p.m. The following persons were heard: Audrey Ostrowsky, P.O. Box 351, La Quinta, CA Robert Cunard, 78-045 Calle Cadiz, La Quinta, CA Lawrence Spector (Morris & Grayson, Inc.) P.O. Box 867, La Quinta, CA Frank Murphy, 46485 Manitou Drive, Indian Wells, CA William "Joe" ~, 677 Dryfalls Road, Palm Springs, CA Bruce Cathcart, P.O. Box 346, La Quinta, CA Louie Cc~pa~a, P.O. Box 1286, La Quinta, CA Chris Clark, Los Angeles, CA Bob Holderith, P.O. BOx 1085, La Quinta, CA -- After all persons had been heard, ChaLrman Thornburgh advised that this public hearing would not be closed this evening, but would remain open for the next public hearing on September 10, 1985. At this point, Chairman Thornburgh requested that each Czmmissioner cc~ment on this matter. MINUTES - PLANNING COMMISSION - August 27, 1985 Page 3. Cc~missioner De Gasperin - ~ould like to encourage pedestrian-type cc~mercial for the downtown area; does not w~nt to see cc~r~rcial zoning on Jefferson; would like to see the project "Orchard at La Quinta" be zoned Tourist Commercial; would like to discourage mini parks, as she feels we need larger parks. Cc~m%issioner Walling - agrees that mini parks are not feasible; feels density allocation north of Washington Street could stand review; on conclusionary * _ housing, he ~ould like to hear views frc~ developers on this matter. Cc~missioner Moran - concerned that park space is not specified on the General Plan; ' concerned with Point Happy area development with regard to traffic; does not want to see cc~uercial zoning on Jefferson Street. Cc~missioner Moran wished to go on record as wanting the City to establish a large, regional park close to the Cove area. Cc~missioner Brandt - not opposed to mini parks in Cove area; concerned that no school sites are shown on the General Plan; feels that we should show sites before all land is developed and we find ourselves without. ChaLrman Thornburgh - suggested that corners at Avenue 50 and Avenue 52 on Jefferson Street be designated tourist cc~muercial; suggested that there should be scme sort of buffer on Avenue 48 between the cc~r~rcial/residential zones; feels zoning at Point Happy Ranch should be reviewed; concerned with the proposed extension of downtown commercial zoning - feels existing cc~ue~ial should be developed on the north side of Tampico. After a brief discussion, Chairman ~hornburgh advised that there ~uld be no ruling made on this matter at this meeting. Discussion on the matter of the General Plan will be continued to the Planning ~sson meeting of September 10, 1985. -- A. Commissioner De Gasperin made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Brandt, to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of August 13, 1985. 1. ~ne minutes of the regular meeting of August 13, 1985, were approved as submitted. Unanimously Adopted. 5. BUSINESS Chairman Thornburgh introduced the only item of business as follows: A. Plot Plan No. 85-197, a request to construct a single-family dwelling on the east side of Avenida Obregon, 50' south of Calle Colima; Arthur Anderson, Applicant. He called for the report from Staff. 1. Associate Planner Gary Price advised the Commission that the Applicant has received fcur approvals for the sam~ house design, all within 300 feet of each other along the same street and this application ~ould be the fifth. He advised the Cc~mission that a condition of approval for the Applicant's previous houses required that the Applicant modify his plans to include varying roof designs, contrasting architectural design features, differing exterior colors, and varying landscape designs be~ these houses. The Applicant has recently ~tted a plan of design changes for three of the five subject houses. Overall, these changes are expected to create an adequate diversity in design character of the neighborhood. Mr. Price stated that the project will not have - an adverse impact on the environment, that the request is consistent with the requirements of the R-i*~-~ Zone and goals and objectives of the La Quinta General Plan, and that the building design is cc~patible with the area development contingent upon the conditions of approval. Based on these findings, Staff recommences approval of this plot plan. Cc~missioner Moran requested to know if any of these hcmes were presold or were they spec hcmes. Associate Planner Price advised the Conm~ssion that to our knowledge none have been sold. MINUTES - PLANNING COMMISSION - August 27, 1985 Page 4. D~rector Stevens advised the Cc~ssion that the Applicant was getting to the point where we ~Duld now begin asking those questions if he should su~t any more applications. There being no further discussion, Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion. _ 2. Cc~ssioner Brandt made a motion based on the findings in the Staff Report to approve Plot Plan No. 85-197 in accordance with Exhibits A, B, and C, and subject to the attached conditions of approval, with the following revisions: Add Conditions Nos. 12 and 13 as follows: "12. Prior to issuance of a building permit for Plot Plan NO. 85-197, the Applicant shall suk~t to the Cc~ty Development Director for revi~ and approval, a plan with specific information or details on stucco color, texture, trim, roof design, other architectural features, and landscaping which will vary the appearance of the house (Plot Plan No. 85-197) frc~ nearby dwellings having the same design as approved under Plot Plans Nos. 85-191, 85-193 and 85-195." "13. The interior garage dimensions shall have minimum 20' width and 20' clear depth." Cc~ssioner Moran seconded the motion. Unanimously Adopted. 6. ADJOURNMENT ~nere being no further items of Agenda to come before the Cc~mission, Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion to adjourn. - Conm~ssioner Walling made a motion to adjourn to the next regular meeting of the Planning Cc~mission on September 10, 1985, at 7:00 p.m., to be held in the La Quinta Cc~munity Center, 77-861 Avenida ~Dntezuma, La Quinta, California. Cc~missioner De Gasperin seconded the motion. Unanimously Adopted. The regular meeting of the Planning Cc~mission of the City of La Quinta, California, was adjourned at 9:55 p.m., August 27, 1985, in the La Quinta ~ity Center, 77-861 Avenida Montezuma, La Quinta, California. At the Planning Cc~ssionMeeting of September 10, 1985, these minutes were amended as follows: * Page 3, Second Paragraph-Second Sentence-LastWord; "conclusionary" should be changed to read "inclusionarv".