Loading...
1985 09 24 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 September 24, 1985 7: 00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER A. Chairman Thornburgh caiied the Pianning Cc~ssion meeting to order at - 7:00 p.m. Chairman Thornburgh led the flag~ salute. 2. ROLL CALL A. Chairman Thornburgh requested the roi1 call. The Secretary called the roil: Present- Cfmmlissioners Brandt, De Gasperin, Moran, Walling and Chairman Thornburgh Absent: None Also present were C~],t~ty Develotm~nt Director Lawrence L. Stevens, Principal Planner Sandra L. Bonner, Counci~ Pena, Wolff, Bohnenberger, City ~l~nager Frank Usher, and Secretary Donna Velotta. 3. HEARINGS Chairman Thornburgh introduced the first item of hearing as follows: . A. La Quinta General Plan and EnviroNMENTAL Impact Report/Master Environmental Assessment, to consider the Hazards, Cultural Resources, Natural Resources, C~mlunity Develotm~_nt, Infrastructure and Housing Elements of the proposed General Plan. (Continued) He called for the report from Staff. 1. C~t~unity Development Director Lawrence L. Stevens explained that the. ~- purpose of continuing the General Plan hearing to this date was to review the text changes in final form. However, Staff has not had the opportunity to complete that work due to the press of other work. Therefore, Staff is recording that this matter be continued to a special meeting, possibly October 2 or October 3, and in addition, that the GPAC be invited to that meeting. Another option would be to continue the matter to the next regular meet~ of the Planning Conrnission on October 8th. After a brief discussion period, Chainmxn Thornburgh called for a motion. 2. Co~ssioner Walling moved to continue the General Plan hearing to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission on October 8, 1985. Conmzi'ssioner Brandt seconded the motion. Unanimously adopted. Chairman Thornburgh introduced the next three items hearing items to be heard concurrently as follows: B. General Plan Amendment No. 85-006, a request for an amendment to the current Land Use Element of the La Quinta General Plan frcm Very Low Density Residential (3 or less dwellings/acre) to Iow Density Residential (3-5 dwellings/acre) on 849 acres and to General Ccmnercial on 40 acres; Landmark Land Cc~pany ("Oak Tree West"), Applicant. C. Specific Plan No. 85-006, for a total site of 1020 acres, a proposal for 2245 dwellings on 449 acres, a 27-hole golf course and a 18-hole golf course on a total of 400 acres; a 26,000 Sq. Ft. office compl~¢ on 3.5 acres; a 36.5-acre site with a 200-room hotel, 25,000 Sq.Ft. golf clubhouse facilities (size unknown); and 115 acres of the site which are undevelopable and will remain - in Natural Open Space; Landmark Land Company ("Oak Tree West"), Applicant. D. Change of Zone .No. 85-016, a request for a zone change to imple3nent the pro- posed specific plan frcm A-l-10 (Light Agriculture, 10-Acre Minimum Parcel Size), W-2-20 (Controlled Develo~t, 20-Acre Minimum Parcel Size), N-A (Natural Assets), R-l-1 (One Family Dwellings, 1-Acre Minimum Lot Size), R-l-12,000 (One-Family Dwellings, 12,000 Sq..Pk. Minimum Lo% Size), R-l-10,000 (One-Family Dwellings, 10,000 Sq. Ft. Minimum Lot Size), to R-2 (Multiple Family Residential) on 849 acres, R-5 (Open S~ce Ccmbining Zone- Residential Develo~ts) on 115 acres, and C-P-S (Scenic Highway O3nm~rcial) on 40 acres; Landmark Land Company ("Oak Tree West"), Applicant. MINUTES - P~~ING COMMISSION September 24, 1985 Page 2. Chairman Thornburgh called for ~he S%aff report. 1. C~t,~ity Development Director S%evens explained that the ~3~ree applications being jointly considered are for the sams project. First, is the request to amend the General Plan and the Applicant's request in that regard is to designate the property Very Low Density Residential on 849 acres and General - Cc~ne~ial on approximately 40 acres. The remaining land use designation of Open Space-Planned Development on 115 acres of mountain w~uld be unchanged. The second portion of the request is a Change of Zone to r~ve various existing zones- Agricultural, Controlled Development, Natural Assets, and various R-1 Zones in favor of R-2 zoning on 849 acres of residential and golf course property; R-5 on the mountain area and C-P-S on the cc~r~_rcial requested in the General Plan Amen~t. The remaining component of the application is the Specific Plan for the 1020 acre site for 2245 dwellings on 449 acres, a 27-hole and a 18-hole golf course on approximately 400 acres; 26,000 Sq.Ft. office complex on 3.5 acres and a 36.5 acre cc~mercial site with a hotel, golf clubhouse facilities and office retail facilities, totalling approximately 200,000 Sq.Ft. Director Stevens explained that normally Staff w~uld give a detailed description of the project itself at this time, but would defer this to the Applicant's representative at this time and at the conclusion of their presentation requested the Applicant to .refer the hearing back to Staff to discuss and make their recordations. Then the hearing could be opened for any cc~m~_nt from the Applicant and the public. Kay Chandler, representative of Landmark Land Company, gave a detailed report on 'the proposed project covering the following topics: o .Demographics o Phasing Plan o Existing Conditions and Constraints o Proposed Zoning _ o Existing General~ Plan Designations o Typical Housing o Public Services and Utilities o The 3.5 Acre Office ~cial o Circulation o The Golf Clubhouse o Fire Station Response Time o The Hotel ~cial Site o Street Concepts o Hotel/Golf Club Elevations o Architectural Character o Hotel/Golf Clubhouse o Land Use Plan o Hotet/Cc~nerci~ Center At the ccmpletion of the Applicant' s. presentation, he turned the m~eting back to Staff for the cc~pletion of their report to the Planning Conm~ssion. Director Stevens advised that Principal Planner Sandra Bonner ~uld present the Staff recc~nendations. Addressing the General Plan Amendment request, Ms. Bonner advised that Staff is recording that the Planning Conm~ission be consistent with their previous recc~m~ndatio~ for the new proposed La Quinta General Plan for this area. ~nose recc~nendations fo~ward~ to the City Council are as follows: o The majority of the site, with the exception of the northeast corner, be designated Low Density Residential with the density range of 2-4 units, which is consistent with the Applicant's proposal, which has an average density of approximately 2.7 units per acre. o Only the ~eme northeast corner be designated as resort cc~ercial consistent with the Planning Cc~mission's previous approval, which w~uld allow the Applicant to construct his hotel and accesso~3 commercial uses and the golf clubhouse. In conjunction with this, Staff is requesting that the Planning Cc~mission not a~!%Drove the Applicant's request for conm~rcial at the corner of Avenue 52 and Jefferson Street or for the cc~plete 40-acre parcel shown at the northeast corner of the site. o Staff concurs with the Applicant's request to leave the mountain areas sp eo MINUTES - PLANNING COMMISSION September 24, 1985 Page 3. Addressing the Change of Zone request, Ms. Bonner advised that Staff is recc~m~_nding that' the change of zoning be consistent with their recc~r~en~-i,, tions for the General Plan. First, portions~ of the residential project be zoned R-2; second, the 20-acre site at the northeast corner of the Project be designated C-T (Resort Con~rcial), which ~Duld allow the uses the Applicant is proposing that we are recc~m~_n~g in the Specific Plan report; and lastly, Staff is reconm~_nding R-5 zoning, which is Open Space Residential ~ining Zone, for the mountainous area for which the Applicant is not proposing any develoument. Ms. Bonner addressed the Specific Plan application next stating that the Applicant had covered most of the areas regarding the Specific Plan in his presentation so she w~uld just briefly cover Staff's areas of concern. o Land Use and Circulation - Staff is proposing to ensure compatibility with adjacent property through tw~ means - first, by regulating density and second, by regulating height. Referring to. the Applicant's wall rendering (Exhibit "B" in the application packet) Ms. Bonner addressed the areas of concern as the existing single-family area and the Calle Rondo area, the undeveloped, 40-acre parcels adjacent to Avenue 50 and %he Kennedy Ranch property on Avenue 52. Staff is proposing,, since the Applicant is proposing a variety of housing styles with a variety of' densities ranging frcm estate lots to cluster housing, that density restrictions be placed only in those areas shown in yellow on the wall rendering. Staff recc~mends that the density of these areas should be limited to 5 ~units per acre. Ms. Bonner advised that the reason Staff is using the w~rd "should" is that the plans are tentative - there will be changes as far as circulation, layout of the golf course and Tentative Tract Maps we will be getting will be crossing over the lines. With regard to height, Staff is concerned with height along public thoroughfares in addition to the areas shown in yellow ~on the w-all rendering; therefore, it is requested that height limits in the "yellow" areas and also within 200' of the public thoroughfares (Avenue 52 and Jefferson Street) be limited to a height of one story or 20'. The Applicant has agreed to this. Corm~ssicner Walling interjected at this point to ask the height limit for the Resort Cc~r~rcial zoning. Director Stevens explained that the Resort Con~rcial zoning w~uld be excluded frcm the height limit and the exhibit shown in the Specific Plan document ~uld be the controlling height in the conm~rcial area. Therefore, the four stories requested for the hotel would be allowable in the con~ercial area. Conx~issioner Walling then asked if the setback on the hotel height is not that 1320' distance, will there be a height setback from the north property line? Director Stevens answered that Staff does not recc~r~_nd one because there is a proposal frcm the property owner to the north to construct a conm~rcial hotel of a similar intensity. In addition, he noted that the exhibits that the Applicant has presented show the hotel on the southerly portion of the site with the lower level shopping center closer to the Avenue 50 parcel. Therefore, Staff feels, with those controls, if the Cc~mission approves it as the Applicant has requested, that they w~uld be sufficient. If the Cc~ssion approves the request as Staff has reconm~nded, then Staff does not feel that the hotel develop- m~nt will proceed much, if any further, west than the 200-300 room hotel that Rufus Associates is proposing. Principal Planner Bonner continued with the Staff report by citing tw~ more points of concern regarding land use. She noted that a con~ent had been made at the Study Session about perimeter trea~t along streets, such as providing openings. The Applicant has agreed, conceptionally, to that and the conditions of approval require the Applicant to provide plans for openings and to balance it out with noise protection for residents. MINUTES - PLANNING COMMISSION September 24, 1985 Page 4. Ms. Bonner stated %hat the Applicant has agreed, conceptionally, to the provision of a park. The General Plan designates a neighborhood park in the vicinity of %his project. A change %o Condition No. 34 regarding the park site adds an additional clause stating that the Applicant will provide for a site for a neighborhood park or "provide for alternative methods to secure park land in the general vicinity of the project". With regard to traffic, Ms. Bonner stated that the Applicant has agreed to provide for an alternative local street route to the school ~site, which will give us an all-weather crossing from Washington Street to the school and also provide for emergency access. In conclusion, Ms. Bonner stated that based upon the findings in the Staff Reports for the General Plan Amen~t No. 85-006, Change of Zone 85-016 and Specific Plan No. 85-006, Staff is recc~m~_n~g to the Planning C~ssion that they rec~d approval to the City Council of this applications, subject to the conditions and, in addition, that the Specific Plan's approval be subject to the conditions presented to you. Chairman Thornburgh requested that Ms. Bonner explain to all those present what Staff m~ans when they denote the 5 units per acre and the 2.7 units per acre, etc. Ms. Bonner advised that the 2.7 is overall density. Overall density is only that portion .of the site that can be developed. In this case, it excludes the 115 acres of hillside and also excludes 16 acres of roadway. So, overall, including the golf course and everything that is not proposed for cc~m~_rcial, the overall density is 2.7 units per acre. She went on to explain that the 5 units per acre are just the areas proposed for residential development. If you only consider those areas and exclude the golfcourse, the hillside, etc., the average density for the entire project is the 5 units per acre. At this point, Director Stevens reiterated to the Cc~m~ssion that at the Study Session he had advised them that Staff and the Applicant had an agreement on 57 of the 59 conditions that were recc~m~_nd~ and the two with which there was a difference .related to the amount of ccranercial (Conditions Nos. 28 and 29). There is still a disagreement, of which the Planning Cc~x~ission is aware, of the two points of view with regard %o the Jefferson cc~m~rcial corridor and going with conditions that cc~pl~t that decision. Director Stevens explained the second issue with which there was disagreement (Condition No. 46.a. ) was the requirer to prepay fire mitigation fees of $232,000 with appropriate credits, etc. He stated that after discussion with the Fire Marshal and the Applicant, all are in concurrence that the revised subcondition (46.a.) w~uld be more appropriate given our current state of knowledge. That condition essentially says that the infrastructure fee program is the primary method for the City to secure funding for Fire Station facilities. The City may, however, in conjunction with reviewing tentative maps and related zoning applications, request prepa~t of fire facilities fees on an "as warranted" basis if those funds are determined to be necessary to facilitate needed construction. We have generally asked for prepaymsnt in cases where we had specific needs. In this case, the issue relates to the potential relocation of the Avenue 52 Fire Station, whether that will occur as part of Crystal Canyon and whether any funds need to be forthcc~g as a prepa~t from this project to facilitate that movement. Director Stevens went on to state that Staff does, however, think the decision as to amount and need can be deferred to such time as actual development is beginning to occur and tract applications are requested. Staff feels that will give them reasonable opportunity to solicit any prepa~t fees that are necessary and still allows them to proceed with the City's capital programs. Staff thinks this is a reasonable compromise and the Fire Department and Applicant are in agreement with it. Therefore, Director Stevens info~ the Cc~mission that there is only one issue in disagreement with regard to this project. MINUTES - PLANNING CC~MISSION September 24, 1985 Page 5. Cc~missioner Walling requested to know if any park locations had been discussed with the Applicant. Director Stevens replied that park locations have been discussed with the Applicant, some of which are within the project area and some are near to, but outside the project area. Director Stevens stated he thinks there is - a consensus that land rather than fees are necessary and that there are several reasonable alternatives available, and we have an understanding that we can, before they get very far in their land planning, come to an agreement as to a particular site and size and then, as the condition is written, we w~uld bring it back to the Planning Cc~m~ssion and City Council for affirmation. Cc~m~issioner De Gasperin requested to know if the PGA West approval included a hotel. Direct°r Stevens replied that it was his understanding that a hotel developer has an option and has maintained, to date, in effect, that option. They do not have a specific starting date nor do they have a detailed plan approval prepared. Based on discussions with the Applicant, it may be as much as a year or tw~ away from a formal cc~x~itment and then there would be an 18-month construction period. ~nerefore, Director Stevens stated he sees a hotel as being several years away frcm happening. Cc~anissioner De Gasperin asked if there is the possibility of there not being a hOtel here. Director Stevens replied that he believed there ~Duld be a hotel. Cc~missi~ner De Gasperin asked if The Orchard project also had a specific plan approval for a hotel developm~at. _ Director Stevens replied that The Orchard project did have approval for a hotel of a slightly different concept because of its very low density. Cc~m~ssioner De 'Gasperin asked if a convention center on this piece of property w~uld be consistent with the Planning Co~sion's present recc~r~_ndation to the City Council. Director Stevens answered that he thought a convention center ~Duld fall within the general definition of Touris Commercial, althoUgh the current zoning text that w~uld subsequently apply does not make provision for that. We w~uld have to make a'text amen~t to our zoning code, but he believes the General Plan category that we talked about of Tourist Cc~nercial could reasonably acconm~date a convention center type of use. There being no further questions of Staff, Chairman Thornburgh opened the public hearing at 8:05 p.m. Kaye Chandler, representative for the Applicant, Landmark Land Cc~pany, P. O. Box 1578, La Quinta, CA, spoke again stating that when discussing the open space or greenbelt windows along Jefferson, he forgot to mention that one of the 18-holes of the public golf course has been lined up against Jefferson Street. He pointed out on the wall rendering that they have designated breaks in the wall where there are view corridors off of Jefferson that wculd look over the golf course with views to the mountain. He noted they were also looking at ~the course further south on Jefferson where they could place open- - type materials in wall breaks so there would be views into the project. Lawrence Spector, Rufus Associates, P. O. Box 867, La Quinta, CA, (The Orchard at La Quinta project) spoke having concerns about the height and closeness of the four-story hotel to their approved project. He also requested that the Landmark Land Ccmpany keep them advised of the progress of the project as it is on property adjacent to The Orchard development. There being no further public conm~nt, Chairman Thornburg closed the public hearing at 8:15 p.m. MINUTES - PI2LNN~G C~SSION September 24, 1985 Page 6. At this time there w~s discussion clarifying previously discussed issues such as emergency accesses, the Jefferson Street Parkway concept, traffic estimates, ccm~patibility of the project with adjacent property proposals, etc. The Con~ission discussed the conditions that the Applicant did not agree on as follows: Commissioner Moran- If we place commercial at the proposed site, it will take away from the do~town area. Then again, the hotel guests w~uld neet convenient shopping. She feels that perhaps if the commercial area could be moved closer to Avenue 52, the impact would be only to the owner. She also feels if left in its current location, the commercial use w~uld present a problem to The Orchard project which will be on adjacent property,j Cc~m~issioner Brandt- Looking at the City's traffic concerns and the protection of downtown con~nercial, she does not feel she could be in favor of additional con~ercial along Jefferson Street. Con~issioner Walling - Feels c~rcial should be restricted along Jefferson Street. Chairman Thornburgh- Feels that the Tourist ~ercial on Jefferson Street is adequate as presented on the General Plan. There being no further discussion, Chai~ Thornburgh called for a motion. 2. C~ssioner De Gasperin made the following motions: o To approve General Plan ~~t No. 85-006 as rended and directed Staff to prepare a Resolution using the findings contained in the Staff Report and the Exhibit contained in the Staff Report. o To approve Specific Plan No. 85-006 and directed Staff to prepare a Resolution containing the findings in the Staff Report and referencing the conditions, as modified by the Planning Commission, including the 200' buffer request, which should be w~rked into Condition No. 31. o To approve Change of Zone No. 85-016 as reccmaended, including the findings and exhibits contained in the Staff Report, which also includes those findings that support a determination of a mitigated negative declaration both in terms of the findings , the environmental document and the asterisked conditions, the Cc~mission supports the mitigated environmental document. ~ssioner Walling Seconded the motions. Unanimously Adopted. Director Stevens infozme~ those present that the City Council hearing for these applications is scheduled for October 15, 1985. 4. CONSENT C~T,~~ A. Cc~aissioner De Gasperin made a motion to approve the minutes from the regular meeting of September 10, 1985, as amended. C~ssioner ~Dran seconded the motion. 1. The minutes of the regular meeting of September 10, 1985, were approved, as amended. Unanimously Adopted. _ 5. BUSINESS Chairman Thornburgh introduced the first item of business as follows: A. Public Use Permit No. 84-002, a request by Desert S~ds Unified School District for review of landscaping and off-si%e improvemen% plans; Desert Sands Unified School District, Applicant. Chairman ~nornburgh called for the report from Staff. FuINUTES - PLANNING CC~iISSION September 24, 1985 Page 7. 1. Director Stevens advised the Conmtission that Staff has been reviewing more detailed plans prepared by the school district for the elementary school site, which is the K-2 and 3-5 schools, which will be constructed on the front 18 acres of their 36 acre parcel. This report evaluates the off-site improvement and landscape plans as they relate to the conditions of approval est_~blished for Conditional Use Permit No. 84-002. Within the report, Staff has noted some concerns with regard to perimeter sidewalks, particularly along Avenue 50. The current plans did not show a sidewalk. Staff has suggested that it be a meandering sidewalk typical of our standards elsewhere in the City. Staff has also expressed concern for the use of chainlink fencing along the Avenue 50 frontage and the lack of setback, which we require on normal development, along Avenue 52. Staff has also made a list of detailed con~nts with regard to the landscaping plan and suggested that there be some adjustment in locations of trees to improve the frontage appearance along Avenue 50 and we reconm~d that the exhibit sut]nitted by the school district be approved with certain reviSions which are ~ized in the eight conditions attached to the Staff Report, which reinforce a number of our standards. The Conmtission should be aware that, with regard to scme of these standards, our best effort is to encourage modifications rather than require them. There are limitations to our legal authority to impose certain standards or requir~ts on the school district. That basically relates to some of the on-site improvements like landscaping and fencing. It is clear that off-site improv~ts must satisfy our stan- dards. It is our intention and the reason we use the words "is encouraged'' and "should" and "shall" on several of the conditions to ~ork in our best effort to maintain those standards we have imposed on other developments, but Staff cannot assure the Planning Con~ssion of our success in obtaining that compliance. Richard Beck, Facilities Planner, Desert Sands Unified School District, spoke as representative of the Applicant. He noted that the school is trying to complete the final phases of the plans to go to the State. The State has all the basic plans and off-site improvement plans; however, they are waiting for a few final decisions based on property deeds and a few final improvement drawings. He stated they expect plans to be approved to go to bid for the site development work probably the first of next month. Construction for the buildings should be approved by late October and should go to bid in November. This is for the front portion of the parcel which will have two elemen~~ schools able to hold 1200 students. Mr. Beck stated that the Staff Report was very well written and the conditions were very reasonable. He went on to reiterate what Mr. Stevens had noted earlier that the school district is in~nttne to requirements of local governments. Some school districts do not even bring plans to the City Staff. He felt, however, that it was beneficial to both parties to bring the plans before the Planning Cc~nission for review and con~nent. Mr. Beck then gave a more detailed explanation of the project being proposed. In conclusion, he stated that the district is agreeable to the majority of the conditions recorm~_nded by Staff. They had concerns with Conditions Nos. 3 and 7, relating to fencinc and having the landscaping plans reviewed and approved by the County of Riverside, Office of Agricultural Commission. Cc~nissioner Walling suggested the possibility of using vines to cover the chainlink fence, rather than just leave it bare. Mr. Beck advised that could be a possibility and, if requested, he would discuss it with the district. .... Concessioner Moran requested that the district be cautious of what tI~es of plants are used because of so many of the children having allergies. There being no further discussion, Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion. 2. Chairman Thornburgh made a motion to conceptually approve the landscape plans and off-site impr~~~t plans relative to Public Use Permit No. 84-002, in accordance with Exhibits "B-i" and "B-2", and subject to the revisions recorded in the eight conditions of approval. Commissioner De Gasperin seconded the motion. Unanimously Adopted. MINUTES - PLANN/NG COMMISSION September 24, 1985 Page 8. Chairman Thornburgh introduced the next two items of business as follows- B. Plot Plan No. 85-198, a request to construct a single-family dwelling on the west side of Avenida Carranza, 150' north of Calle Temecula; Rick Johnson Construction, Applicant. C' Plot Plan No. 85-199, a request to construct a single-family dwelling on the west side of Avenida Carranza, 100' north of Calle Temecula; Rick Johnson Construction, Applicant. Chairman Thornburgh called for the Staff Report. 1. Director Stevens advised the Conmission that neither of the projects will have a significant adverse impact on the environment, the requests are consistent with the requirements of the R-l*++ Zone and goals and objectives of the La Quinta General Plan, and the building designs are compatible with the area development contingent upon the conditions of approval. Therefore, based on findings, Staff is reconmending the Planning Conmtission approve both requests. There was some discussion as to whether this Applicant could come up with a different house plan as he has been using the same plan for the 31 previous approvals given him. Director Stevens stated that on future submittals by Mr. Johnson, he would direct this information to him in an advisory capacity to see what his reaction would be. Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion. 2. Chairman Thornburgh made a motion, based on findings in the Staff Reports, approving Plot Plans Nos. 85-198 and 85-199, in accordance with Exhibits A, B and C and subject to the attached conditions. Conmissioner Moran seconded the motion. Unanimously Adopted. · ADJOURNMENT There being no further items of agenda to come before the Conmission, Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion to adjourn. Chairman Thornburgh made a motion to adjourn to the next regular meeting of the Planning Conm~ssion on-October 8, 1985, at 7:00 p.m., to be held in the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, CA. Con~ssioner Walling seconded the motion. Unanimously Adopted. The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, was adjourned at 9-54 p.m., September 24, 1985, in the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California.