Loading...
1985 09 10 PC Minutes MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA A Regular ~=eting Held at the La Quinta ~ity Center, 77-861 Avenida ~Dntezuma La Quinta, California September 10, 1985 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER A. C~~ ~o~urgh calle~ f_he ?lar~i~g Cc~ssion ~eetir~ to order at 7:00 p.m. R0LL CALL, A. C~~ Thorr~urgh reg~este~ f_he roll c~ll. The ~ret~ calle~ the roll: Present: Cc~issioners 8tarOt, ~e G~sp~ri~, ~ora~, Walling and ~bse~t: ~one Also present were ~ity Develo~n~nnt Director Lawrence L. Stevens, Principal Planner Sandra L. Bonner, Associate Planner Gary W. Price and Secretary Donna M. Velotta. HEARINGS Chairman Thornburgh advised that the hearing before the Planning ~ssion this date had been continued from the last public hearing held on August 27, 1985. He introduced the matter as follows: A. La Quinta General Plan and Environmental Impact Report/Master Environmental Assessment, to consider the Hazards, Cultural Resources, Natural Resources, C~ty Development, Infrastructure and Housing ~lements of the proposed General Plan. He called for the report from Staff. 1. ~ity DeveloFment Director Lawrence L. Stevens advised that he ~Duld concentrate on the minor changes made in the General Plan since the last meeting and w~uld go over the issues raised by the public and the Planning Cc~anission at that meeting. Some of the changes were as follows: o La Quinta Tennis Club Villas area previously shown as high density; the hotel site is now shown as Tourist Cc~rercial and the Tennis Club Villas Tract is now shown as Medium Density since that fits the approved density of that tract, which is recorded and about tw~-thirds constructed. o At the last hearing, the Desert Club area was designated as high density. Since we've created the Tourist ~cial category_, we are now showing the existing Desert Club develorm~nnt as Tourist ~cial and the approved Desert Club condc~'um project as High Density Residential. o We have changed the Special ~rcial by reducing the size approximately in half to be more realistic and to reflect our intention. o The Sphere of Influence area has also been added as Low Density Residential. o Changes to the Circulation Plan were made by designating Fred Waring as a major arterial (120' wide street) and Miles Avenue as a Secondary (88' wide street). Westward Ho has been added, which was inadvertently left off the plan, and designated as a 64' to 72' wide collector. The desig- nation for Avenida Bermudas has been increased through the downtown area from a collector (72' wide) to an 88' wide street, which is the current planned width for that area. The plan showed Eisenhower Drive, south of Avenue 52, as a collector which has now been upgraded to a secondary (88' wide). The small extention of Avenue 52 has been deleted going to Avenida Obregon. Director Stevens continued by addressing the parks issue. He advised that what has been done is, taking the densities in the proposed plan, we have estimated the population base that ~uld occur within each area and used our knowledge of approved projects and based on those population projections in the areas that were predcminantly country clubs, we used a one-acre per MINUTES - PLANNING CQMMISSION September 10, 1985 Page 2. thousand as the demand created for public parks by those projects. In the remaining areas, we used a 3-acre per thousand standard to detennine park needs. Using those standards, we determined we needed betw~_n 130 and 150 acres of public parks. That is excluding the open space for visual type relief which is basically the mountainous areas. It is also excluding any trail heads or similar type facilities that ~ould be developed in conjunction with that natural open space. The next step was developing a program to determine approximate locations for park needs. Director Stevens pointed out the locations selegted on a new rendering prepared since the last meeting. The conclusions were prepared from ccmbined efforts of GPAC and Staff. He noted that there are three types of parks designated on the plan. One is neighborhood parks (be~ 5-10 acres in size) and eight of these have been sited on the rendering. Ounmunity parks (greater than 10 acres in size) were sited in t%o locations. The third type of park noted is a regional one represented by the Lake Cahuilla area. Director Stevens went on to address each of the issues raised at the last Planning Cc~nission meeting by the public and the Planning Cc~ntission. Those issues w~re as follows: IA. Land Use Designation west of Ad__~_ms be~ Washington Street and the Whitewater Channel. B. Land Use Designation at the northeast corner of Washington Street and Miles Avenue. 2A. Land Use Designation on the south side of Avenue 50 just west of Jefferson Street. B. Jefferson Street corridor traffic. C. Land Use Designation re Special Cc~nercial along Jefferson Street. 3A. Standards for Mixed Use CxaNrercial. _ B. Land Use Designation at the northwest corner of Avenue 48 and Jefferson Street. 4A. Land Use Designation on east side of Avenida Bermudas be~ Calle Cadiz and Calle Barcelona. B. Land Use Designation on north side of Calle Tampico easterly of the extension of Desert Club Drive. C. Land Use Designation in the downtown area. D. Village ~cial standards~ 5. Designation of parks including mini-parks. 6. School site designations. 7. Land Use Designation at the Point Happy Ranch area. 8. Inclusionary Housing policy. 9. Noise standards. 10. Miscellaneous additional minor policy modifications. Director Stevens briefly explained the proponent' s concerns, GPAC' s proposals and Staff's proposals for each of the listed issues. In conclusion, Director Stevens stated that he expects additional issues to be raised at this public hearing, bat it is his recc~nendation that, after conducting the public hearing and giving the Planning Cc~mission _ the opportunity to discuss issues raised, that the Planning Oumtission approve, in concept, the Land Use, Circulation, Parks Plan, the text as shown - being aware that a number of modifications that have been discussed must be put in final form before the Conmtission can 'formally approve the plan. Based on I.that concept approval, Staff %ould bring the plan back with a Resolution and final text for adoption at the September 24 meeting. Director Stevens also requested that this public hearing be kept open to the September 24 meeting for the purpose of discussion of the text, but that the Planning Cc~mtission close consideration of any land-use related requests at the end of this hearing. MINUTES - PLANNING~SSION September 10, 1985 Page 3. There was a brief discussion period betw~_n the Planning Ccam~ssion and Staff. ChaJ_rman Thornburgh then called for any comments from the public as this portion of the hearing remained open from the last n~cting. This cc~ment section began at 8:00 p.m. ~he following persons were heard: Don Young, 44-309 Nice Court, Palm Desert, CA Jerry Spackman (Associated with Don Young) Carl Meisterlin, 49-725 Anacopa Circle, La Quinta, CA Audrey Ostrowsky, P. O. Box 351, La Quinta, CA Drew Wright, P. O. Box 1876, Indio, CA (Sagebrush/Washington Street Develotm~_nt proposed- $80 - $100,000 hcmes) Floyd Wright (Associated with Drew Wright) Bob Cunard, 78-045 Calle Cadiz, La Quinta, CA Chris Clarke, LQD, Inc., 1925 Central Park East, Suite 650, Los Angeles, CA Earl Ellson, 80-082 Palm 'Circle, La Quinta, CA (Spoke as representative of the La Quinta Chamber of ~ce) There being no further public c~ts, Chairman Thornburgh closed the public hearing at 8:30 p.m. Chairman Thornburgh advised that the Planning Cgaxoission ~ould now address each of the issues mentioned earlier (by number) and attempt to make a r~dation for each which, if unanimous, would be sukmtit~ to the City Council. %he Planning Omnnission reccnmre_ndations were as follows: lA. Land Use Designation west of Ad__~_ms be~ Washington Street and the ~hitewater Channel; Chris Clarke, Proponent. Planning Ccnmtission rec~ further changes per revised map with scme overall density increases, booauu~ of donmit~_~lc~d in Indi~ * B. Land Use Designation at the northeast corner of Washington Street and Miles Avenue; Carl Meisterlin, Proponent. Planning Co~mission recc~nends designation of area for Medium Density Residential because of noise related to traffic makes Low Density less desirable, existing zoning, and use of setbacks and height limits will still retain low density character. 2A. Land Use Designation on the south side of Avenue 50 just west of Jefferson Street; Larry Spector, Proponent. Planning Cxannission agreed with Staff in designating site and area for Tourist Comrercial because hotel development is desirable and the opportunity for better class hotels than on Highway 111, and the need for City revenue. B. Jefferson corridor traffic; Planning Cxmmmission, Proponent. Planning Ccnmmission agrees ~ with GPAC/Staff in r~ding policy to study "parkway concept", but designate as major arterial now because of need for more information regarding traffic and parkway concept prior to cc~ni~t to this approach. C. Land Use Designation re Special Ccam~rcial along Jefferson Street; Planning Cc~mission; Proponent~ Planning Ccam~ssion r~ds Tourist ~cial, per revised map, near Avenue 50 and Jefferson only because hotels are OK, but other ccaxNercial not needed now or in foreseeable future, the traffic concerns on Jefferson Street and protection of the downtown. MINUTES - PLANNING ~SSION September 10, 1985 Page 4. 3A. Standards for Mixed Use Ccmm~rcial; Joe Hanmar, Proponent. Planning Ccmm~ssion agrees with GPAC/Staff to reduce ~ parcel size for mixed use option to 25 acres because of better standard after reviewing existing parcel sizes. B. Standards for Mixed Use ~cial; Planning Ccxmtission, Proponent. Planning Ccmmtission agrees with GPAC/Staff in r~ding added policy to support buffer needs betw~n Con~mrcial and Residential and be~ Low and and High Density Residential along Avenue 48 because it is good planning practice. C. Land Use Designation at northwest corner of Avenue 48 and Jefferson Street; Frank Murphy, Proponent. Planning Ccxmtission agrees with GPAC/Staff to designate the site for Mixed Use Cc~nercial because same ownership as west side of channel, more flexibility for owner, c~nsistent with Indio and Mixed Use has ~adequate controls. 4A. Land Use Designation on east side of Avenida Bermudas be~ Calle Cadiz and Calle Barcelona; Robert Cunard, Proponent. Planning Comnission agrees with GPAC in designating east side of Avenida Bermudas be~ Calle Estado and Avenue 52 (new ali~t) for Village ~ial because a restaurant is a desirable project, Avenue 52 is a mjor street and lots are larger. B. Land Use Designation on north side of Calle Tampico easterly of the extension of Desert Club Drive; Bruce Cathcart; Proponent. Planning ~ssion agrees with GPAC/Staff in deSignating site for Village Cc~m~rcial because minor expansion of downtown for desirable project, which is already applied for, - C. Land Use Designation in downtown area; Audrey Ostrowsky, Proponent. Planning Ommtission recc~x~_nds Village ~cial per revised map because it keeps commercial at +55 acres, it avoids encroachmmnt into existing residential and increases residential density in area to provide population for c~ial. D. Village ~cial standards; Planning Conm~ssion, Proponent. Planning O~x~ssion agrees with GPAC/Staff in reccmm~nding policy to add standards re pedestrian scale and unique character because it adds clarity to existing standards. 5. Designation of parks, including mini-parks; Louis Campagna, Proponent. Planning Cgnmtission agrees with GPAC/Staff in adoption of revised map which provides for 100-150 acres of neighborhood and ~ty parks because of preference of more larger parks, not mini-parks, better maintenance with proposed program, problems with maintenance, security at mini-parks ar~ locations and sizes on map have good distribution based on need. 6. School site designations; Planning ~ssion, Proponent. Planning Cc~nission agrees with GPAC/Staff in r~g policy encouraging school district to ~ork with the City on the Master Plan because of in_mbility to determine needs at this t/n~, but cc~i~t to plan is needed. 7. Land Use Designation at Point Happy Ranch area; Planning ~sion, __ Proponent. Planning ~ssion agrees with GPAC/Staff in receding Low/Mmdium Density per map because of adequate traffic circulation with frontage road and consistency with existing developmmnt. 8. Inclusionary Housing Policy; Planning Cc~mission, Proponent. Planning Cc~ission agrees with GPAC/Staff to retain proposed policy because of need to provide affordable housing other than in the Cove, developers should participate, and proposal is policy and ordinance will set precise standard (which should be reason_able). MINUTES - PLANNING CC~M[[SSION September 10, 1985 Page 5. 9. Noise Standards; Staff, Proponent. Planning ~ssion agrees with GPAC/Staff in supporting policies establishing noise standards because it is good planning practice and standards are consistent with current efforts. 10.** There being no further discussion, Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion. 2. C~sioner De Gasperin made a motion to approve, in concept, the Land Use, Circulation, Parks Plan, Text (as shown) portions of the La Quinta General Plan and Environmental ~ct Report/Master Environmental Assessment and further moved that discussion of this matter be continued to the next regular meeting of the Planning Ccmmtission. ~ssioner Fbran seconded the motion. Unanimously Adopted. CC~SENT CAL~NqDAR A. Cc~missioner De Gasperin made a motion, seconded by Cc~nissioner Brandt, to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of August 27, 1985, as amended. 1. The minutes of the regular meeting of August 27, 1985, w~re approved as amended. Unanimously Adopted. BUSINESS AD30~ There being no further items of agenda to cc~e before the Cc~ssion, Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion to adjourn. Conm%issioner Walling made a motion to adjourn to the next regular meeting of the Planning Con~ssion on Septem~_r 24, 1985, at 7:00 p.m., to be held in the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, CA. Comnissioner De Gasperin seconded the motion. Unanimously Adopted. ~ne regular meeting of the Planning Cc~nission of the City of La Quinta, California, was adjourned at 10:10 p.m., September 10, 1985, in the La Quinta Conm~ity Center, 77-861 Avenida MDntezuma, La Quinta, California. NOTE: At the Planning Cc~ntission meeting of September 24, 1985, these minutes were amended as follows: * Page 3, Item lA, should read as follows: "lA. Land Use Designation west of Adams between Washington Street and the Whitewater Channel; Chris Clarke, Proponent. Planning Commission reccnm~nds further changes per revised map with scme overall density increases." ** Page 5, add Item 10. after first paragraph to read as follows: "10. Land Use Designation on East Side of Washington Street, North of Sagebrush Avenue; Drew & Floyd Wright, Proponents. Planning ~ssion rec~ds land use designation of Medium Density Residential on the east side of Washington Street north of Sagebrush Avenue for the proponents' 40 acres for their moderate income project, and rec~ds expansion of this designation south of the east side of Washington Street to the evacuation channel."