Loading...
1985 10 22 PC Minutes MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA A Rsgular Mmeting Held at the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California. October 22, 1985 7:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER A. Chairman Thornburgh caii the Planning Co~ssion meeting to order at - 7:00 p.m. and called upon Ccrmnissioner Moran to lead the flag salute. 2. ROLL CALL A. Chairman Thornburgh requested the roll call. The Secretary called the roll: Present: Cc~mlissioners Brandt, De Gasperin, Moran, Walling and Chairman Thornburgh Absent: None Also present were C~l,tlunity Development Director Lawrence L. Stevens, Principal Planner Sandra L. Bonner, Associate Planner Gary W. Price and Secretary Donna Velotta. 3. Chairman Thornburgh addressed .the first two items of hearing, to.~be 'heard concurrently as follows: A. Street Vacation No. 85-008, a request for the City to vacate a 29+-foot-wide strip along the easterly and southerly portions of the existing 100-foot-wide right-of-way for Eisenhower Drive between San Vicente Street (east) and Avenida Fernando (south); La Quinta Golf Estates Cunmllunity Association, Applicant. B. Plot Plan No. 85-186, a request to construct a private frontage road vith controlled access gates at San Vicente Street and Coachella Drive, with an - alternate plan showing an additional access gate adjacent.to Eisenhower Drive and north of Avenida Fernando (south). The Applicant is also requeSting installa- tion of a perimeter wall and landscaping within the remain~lg Eisenhower Drive public right-of-way; La Quinta Golf Estates C~l~tiunity Association, Applicant..~.~ Chairman Thornburgh then called 'for the Staff Report. 1. Principal Planner Sandra Bonner reported that the Applicants, La Quinta Golf Estates Conmiinity Association, are requesting approval of two items. First, to vacate a 29'-wide portion of the existing 100'-wide right-of-way of Eisenhower Drive between San Vicente on the east and Avenida Fernando (north extension) on the south. Secondly, they are requesting Planning Commission approval for construction of a frontage road, perimeter wall and entry gates into their project area. Addressing the street vacation, ~is. Bonner stated there are three major points to be brought up. First, consistency of the request with the general plan; secondly, need of the portion of the road proposed for vacation for future use, and lastly, the public benefic resulting from the vacation. Regarding consistency with the Conml~nity Design Element of the new proposed General Plan, ~.ls. Bonner stated that the proposed general plan designates the pr~ ~nage corridors into La Quinta's village center as Eisenhower Drive, Calle Tampico and Washington Street. For these three streets, the general plan proposes to have 12' to 18 '-wide, center landscaped medians and above average landscaping treatment along tiir~ys and roadways. She noted that it is Staff's opinion that this proposed vacation, which would result in the deletion of the possibility of constructing a median along Eisenhower and would also result in a decrease in the ~par~y area along the east and south side of the project area, would not be consistent with this el~t of the general plan. In addition, it would also result in possibly substantially weakening this proposed concept of establishing primary image corridors in and out of %he downto~ area. Regard~g con- sistency with the other two main elements of the general plan, circulation and noise, the Applicant's proposed plan is consistent with some minor changes o MINUTES - PLANNING CC~4ISSION October 22, 1985 Page 2. 'Discussing the need of future use of the vacated portions of Eisenhower Drive, Ms. Bonner advised that the Applicants are proposing that the public street improv~ts, instead of being located in a 100' right-of-way, that they be located in a 71' right-of-way. The pro~posal is for four travel lanes, a 4' center painted median, a 12' .par~y on the west and north sides of Eisenhower Drive and a 7' public parkway adjacent to the project street along the east and south side of Eisenhower Drive. As currently pro.posed, Ms. Bonnel advised that this is essentially a "bare-bones" design for the public right-of. way. If there is any additional space that is n~ed either to provide for additional parkway or turning lanes or any additional improvements within the public right-of-way, that pro.perry must be obtained in tw~ ways. First, eithe the frontage road has to be redesigned in order to provide more than the 71' currently provided or secondly, additional right-of-way has to be obtained across the street frcm this project- namely, on the. west side or in the Laguna De La Paz project. It is Staff's opinion that there is a need for at least a portion of the area proposed for vacation for future use. With respect to traffic safety, Ms. Bonner advised that there are ~ areas where there is absolutely a need for an additional 12' area in the existing curb-to- curb area. The first area is Avenue Fernando at the northerly extension and the second area is south Ursula Street further to the north. This additional area is required to provide left-turn lanes into the undeveloped property to the west and also to the existing Laguna De La Paz project. In order to obtain this 12' right-of-way, which is the absolute minimum required, either for a painted turn lane or for a raised, planted median, there are two options Avenida Fernando (north) or the right-of-way could be obtained from the adjacent property owner across the street since it is undeveloped. In the case of Laguna De La Paz, it is scmewhat more difficult as street improvemsnts are already in place so obtaining this right-of-way would require substantial changes to the existing street improv~ts and landscaping at Laguna De La Pa Ms. Bonner ended this portion of her report by stating that if it is the decision of the City that it is in the public's best interest to have a cente~ ~an along the entire length of Eisenhower Drive ~d this frontage road, it w~uld necessitate the 12' widening of Eisenhower for the entire length of the project area. Addressing the last major point, public benefits of the proposal, Ms. Bonner advised that the project benefits revolve around three main issues; traffic safety, noise, and aesthetics. Under current standards, Eisenhower Drive is propos~ to be a 100' right-of-way which includes 4 travel lanes, 12' center ~an, 12'-wide parkways on either side and also 8'-wide parallel parking or breakdown lanes on each side. In the area of Avenida Fernando, the situation is very similar to Highland Palms Subdivision on Washington Street. There are 17 lots that directly front on Eisenhow~r Street, 12 of which have no choice but to enter/exit directly onto Eisenhow~r Drive, therefore causing a hazard for both the residents and also for the general public with vehicles backing on and off Eisenhower Drive. The most practical and most effective solution to eliminating this hazard for everyone concerned is by constructing a frontage road between the tw~ extensions of Avenida Fernando. The construc- tion of a frontage road would benefit both the general public by increased traffic safety and also the residents in the same manner. Ms. Bonner stated that there is also the option, in order to minimize visual impacts of the narr~ roadway by eliminating the msdian, to acquire additional right-of-wa5 across the street and shifting the entire roadway to the west. In that way, we would have increased traffic safety with the frontage road while also providing for the landscaped median and other ~ities. With regard to the cul-de-sac areas, Ms. Bonner stated there is a different type of lot configuration in this area. The lots have the opportunity to access onto the side streets rather than directly onto Eisenhow~r Drive. In the cul-de-sac area, there are currently eight lots developed (7 with homes and 1 with a tennis court). Of the 7 hcmes, 1 has direct access onto Eisenhower Drive with the r~maining 7 having their garages enter onto the side streets. Ms. Bonner stated that it is Staff's opinion that the ability of these lots to enter onto the cul-de-sacs and, in addition, the minor modification that w~uld be required by one hcme's garage, ar~ the future restriction of prohibiting any additional garages or driveways from entering onto Eisenhower Drive, will provide adequate safety for this area. MINUTES - PLANNING C~SSION October 22, 1985 Page 3. In addition, current street specs provide adequate space for a left-turn lane in this area and acceleration/deceleration lanes, therefore the current street section provides adequate safety for residents to enter and leave their residential streets without creating a hazard to the general public or themselves. While, in general, the reduction of cross traffic on any street improves traffic safety, it is the City Engineer's opinion %ha% %he cul-de-sacs in themselves do not create a significant traffic hazard. Particularly, in light of the fact that there is adequate room in the public right-of-way for both left-turn, acceleration and decelera- tion lanes. Ms. Bonner went on to note that traffic accident reports for this area from 7/82 to 6/85 reported only 2 accidents. In conclusion, regarding the cul-de-sac area, the benefits gained by the general public, by the increased traffic safety, over that which can be provided by the current, ultimate roadway standards, is not significant enough to offset the benefits which can be accrued by the vacation of the 29' and the cons%ruction of a frontage road. In addition, the vacation of 29' in this area w~uld result in the taking of additional area from Laguna De La Paz, which has ccmpleted its roadway improvements, in order to provide adequate area for a left-turn lane. Based upon these considerations, Ms. Bonner stated that it is Staff's recc~nendation, with regard to the street vacation, that vacation of the portion of Eisenhow~r Drive between the north and south extension of Avenida Fernando be approved and also that we acquire right-of-way on the westerly side of the street to offset the loss of right-of-wa~v in order to provide for median and increased park-way along the project's perimeter wall. For the area east and north and the cul-de-sac area, Staff is recon~ending that the street vacation not be approved. Principal Planner Bonner then reported on Plot Plan No. 85-186 which was su_hmit~ concurrently with the street vacation regarding this same matter. She advised that the plot plan details the specific impr~~t design. Addressing that area at Avenida Fernando, Staff is recc~mendir~ several specific design changes which are all relatively minor. o The Applicant has requested a 24 '-wide frontage road- Staff is recc~ending this be increased~ to 32' to allow on-street parking. o The proposed cul-de-sacs do not provide adequate turning area for trucks or passenger cars - Staff is recon~end~g that the radius of the cul-de-sacs be increased to a minimum of 28' in the area of Coachella Drive. Regarding the location and design of the entry gates, the Coachella gate is located and designed to provide adequate stacking space for vehicles waiting to enter the project and Staff reccmmsnds no changes. For Avenida Fernando (north) and its intersection with Eisenhow~r, Staff is recc~m~_nd~g that the Applicant design it to allow for consolidation with the access point for the property located across the street to the west. This ~Duld make it possible for both the residents of this project and the residents from future projects to the west to enter Eisenhow~r at this intersection. Addressing the last gate on Avenida Fernando (south), there is currently c~nflict with the Club La Quinta project located at the southeast corner of this intersection. Ms. Bonner directed the Planning Conm~ssion's attention to tw~ letters the City has received from the Club La Quinta's association, which state they wish to go on record as being opposed both to having their current access frcm Eisenhower Drive on Avenida Fernando (south) blocked or to being included within the proposed perimeter. Therefore, at the recc~men- dation of our City Attorney, Staff is requesting that the gates be redesigned so that Club La Quinta still retains direct access to Avenida Fernando (south) to their project site. In addition, that the most easterly gate on Avenida Fernando (south) be relocated further east so that t~ units of the Club La Quinta project, which access on Avenida Fernando and are currently divided by the gates, will not be included within the proposed wall. Staff has also requested in the conditions that the gate design for the frontage road in this area be redesigned to eliminate possible traffic conflicts from the way it is currently designed. Regarding the perimeter wall, Staff MINUTES - PLANNING CC~MiISSION October 22, 1985 Page 4. feels that the conditions attached to the street vacation, requiring addi- tional parkway in that area to allow more substantial landscaping, will be adequate to improve the appearance of the wall. In addition, Staff is requesting a noise study to ensure that the wall is constructed adequately for noise mitigation. Ms. Bonner advised the Planning Co~mission that the conditions for both the street vacation and the plot plan detail Staff's recC~nendations. Staff is reccmm~_nding approval of Street Vacation 85-008 in accordance with the findings, as amended, subject to attached conditions of approval. Staff is also recc~men~g approval of Plot Plan No. 85-186 in accordance with the findings in the Staff Report and subject to the conditions of approval. Ms. Bonner then turned the meeting over to the Cun,tunity Development Director. Director Stevens addressed (for the record) the many letters received expressing various opinions relative to the proposed project, which letters the Planning Cc~ssion reviewed at the Study Session. He advised that this concluded Staff's reports on these matters. Chairman Thornburgh asked for any questions the ~ssion may have of Staff. Cc~ssioner Walling: Is Staff saying, in effect, if additional right-of-way is acquired on the west side of Eisenhow~r between Avenida Fernando (south) and Avenida Fernando (north) that the problems in that area ~uld be solved? Director Stevens: In the Avenida Fernando area, Staff is recc~m~_n~ng that there .be scme additional right-of-way acquired to accommodate adequate standards; basically, turning opportunities, landscape medi~ opportunity, relative to the image corridor concept that was talked about. Staff is suggesting that the abandoned vehicle lanes are not necessary ar~ are making scme minor adjus~ts in our parkway standards, so that it will not be a full 100' width, but somewhere in the mid 80' width. This means that some 14-15' w~uld need to be acquired on the opposite side of the street to accc~modate those standards. Staff does not feel the same about the cul-de-sac area. The tw~ major areas of difference with regard to the ~3_hmitted proposal is that Staff is suggesting some additional right-of-way and modification of the proposed cross-section of the road in the Fernando area, land in the cul-de-sac area, Staff is simply reccmm~_nding that there not be any road abandonment. Staff feels it would be possible to include that area within a fenced area, using a fence design consistent with the remainder of the project, but that each cul-de-sac ~uld have to be separately gated if it was desired to have security. Director Stevens stated there w~uld be no objection to that, but Staff does not feel there is adequate public benefit relative to traffic safety to warrant abandorm~nt of right-of-way along that cul-de-sac area. Cc~ssioner De Gasperin: What happened to the Applicant's request for assessment? Director Stevens: Staff has not had the opportunity to review financing mechanisms at this point. It will be discussed as a separate issue should the vacation and plot plan requests be approved. Once it is known what type of road is to be approved, then we' 11 know what the costs are and can determine which portion is the Applicant's responsibility and which we can justify as a .public benefit. Therefore, at this point in time, Staff is not making a recc~mendation as to the formation of an Assessment District or trying to assess a benefit relative to such a district. Cc~ssioner De Gasperin: So we really don't have any vision yet as to how it will be paid for if approved? Director Stevens: That is correct. ~ssioner De Gasperin: With respect to right-of-way, the property across the street does not belong to any of the Applicants involved in this request? MINUTES - P~ING CC~4MISSION October 22, 1985 Page 5. Director Stevens: There are essentially two ownerships on the opposite side of the street. In the area of the Fernandos,. that is an undeveloped piece of property no-t owned by the Applicant or any resident in the area. The area around the cul-de-sacs is developed and approved as part of the Laguna De La Paz project and obviously not affiliated with the La Quinta Golf Estates Association. Co~ssion~ De Gasperin: Does the inability to acquire right-of-way across the street from the cul-de-sacs affect the Planners' recc~m~_ndation? Director Stevens: It does effect Staff's recc~m~ndation. He stated he did not want to say there is not the ability to acquire right-of-way- the City has the ability to use eminent doma~ to condemn that property, paying a fair market value, and then determine a way to do the improv~nents. He stated there is an ability to do that, but Staff questions whether 'that is necessary in light of the traffic safety consideration. Cc~ssioner De Gasperin: If the street vacation is approved as reconm~nded, the right-of-way acquisition w~uld be included in the assessmsnt cost of the entire p~oject? Director Stevens: It could be. Chairman Thornburgh: Assuming that a developer on' the west side came in for a subdivision approval, the City w~uld at that point in time have the opportunity to evaluate the street and decide that we might want it wider, we might need sc~ more room, it could be held until he develops, it could be picked up by emin~t domain, it could be purchased by these people - so there are four or five solutions. The point being, as we do in most subdivisions, we are concerned with the improv~nent and the reason we are concerned with the other side is because the east side is a little short. If we feel, at a later date, we need to make up the other side, the City, through .the .Cc~ssion and Council, has the right to do that. Is that correct? Director Stevens: That is basically correct - its possible, if we don't want to construct it as an entire project, if we can reasonably phase the improvements, that we could simply await development and then make a dedi- cation. So you see, 'it is hard to determine what those costs might be because there are four or five different ways that it could go. He stated he felt it fruitless to evaluate all those costs and options until we know if, or what, or what type of road improv~t plan is going to be accept~_ble to the Cc~mission and Council and then we can go back and look at financing mech~~ o Conm~ssioner De Gasperin: Is it fair to state that Staff's recc~a~_ndation then is written that construction of the perimeter wall is contingent upon the acquisition of the right-of-way or is that scmething that may fall along the wayside at scme point in time? Director Stevens: Its possible that it could fall by the wayside if we can develop an adequate phased cross-section. We may determine that its not necessary to get that right-of-way now, that we can simply await development. We really are. not going to know until we get to the detailed design to know if thats going to be absolutely necessary or not. All that w~uld have to be done, for exan~le, prior to forming an assessment district if that ended up being the principal financing system. Cc~missioner Walling: Won' t the Applicant, if approved, be required to develop at least three-fourths of the street? Director Stevens: You are probably right. The Applicant will run into, I believe to a degree when they get down to detailed improvemant plans, the same situation that M~rv Johnson ran into. He was making such substantial alterations in the grade of Eisenhow~r that he ended up having to do a lot more of the street than, in fact, w~uld have been evident at the time his MINUTES - PLANNING CC~{ISSION Octc6er 22, 1985 Page 6. approval was granted, simply because of those grade variations. That is a possibility here. Its likely the Applicant will have to construct more than half just to make grades and alignments come together because of the nature of the changes that are being adjusted. They may also have to go beyond both the easterly and southerly portions of the project limits simply to provide adequate transitions frcm existing roads to the revised roads. It is hard to give a reliable answer until you get down %o the detailed improvement plans. I think what we are really talking about here is the concept of how wide the road is going to be and if there is an approval for that concept, then it is w~rthwhile to expand the desi.qn time and see what ad jus~ts are necessary in order to create a smooth and safe traffic circumstance along the entire area. There being no further questiolms from the ~ssion to Staff, Chairman Thornburgh opened the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. Chaizman Thornburgh advised those present that occasionally Staff and the Planning .Cc~ssion do not agree, so you cannot assume that Staff's Report is the Commission's decision. The Ccax~ission is here to listen to you express your opinions. He then called upon the Applicant for their presentation. Morgan Ward, Jr., 48-800 San Pedro, La Quinta; President of the La Quinta Golf Estates Ccamunity Association, spoke as representative of the Applicant. Mr. Ward asked the Secretary .to distribute a document to the Ccamtissioners. Mr. Ward advised that the document being distributed is a brief description of the benefits to the C~mmnity and an artist's rendering of the proposed appearance of the gate, a cross-seCtion at two different POints on Eisenhower to show what the end product w~uld look like, and sc~e bar charts regarding traffic safety, along with a news release made available to the press tonight. Mr. Ward stated that he represents 185 united hc~eowners, who are also tax- payers and residents of the corm~nnity, and have the right to state their feelings about what the public benefit can be. He noted that previous to February of this year, the Association was not united, but since that time the conflicts have been reconciled due to the master concept they have adopted and the ea~loyment of a qualified traffic engineer (Berryman & Stephenson). Mr. Ward advised that he v~uld like to go through the problems they are facing .and how they plan to solve them via the project being proposed, along with the benefits of the project. Then, he ~Duld like to address the Staff Report which unfortunately he did not get a copy of until approximately 24 hours before this hearing. He noted the report represents a drastic departure frcm all of the conversations and interactions and the many, many plan checks that took place prior to final submittal to the City. He went on to address the problems with regard to traffic safety stating that there are 40 lots that empty out onto Eisenhower and the speed limit being 45-miles-per-hour is fast. Another problem is traffic noise which is only going to get worse as buildout occurs and if the City makes Eisenhower a primary corridor. He advised that this is an older subdivision and did not have the benefit of being involved in a master plan, so there is a cluttered collection of streets not making an attractive entry into the City. Many of the lots have not been built on because of the noise and traffic in the area. There is also an unacceptable crime rate in the area as it is easY to drive or walk right onto the project. He noted that there are many more problems and if they had a raw piece of ground, this w~uld be a lot easier than it is, but that not being the case, the Association feels that the benefits that will be portrayed and that the engineer, who can speak to the technical angles, will override the shortcomings, if they can be called that in our case. Mr. Ward stated that the conce~rfc of the perimeter wall began many years ago and for whatever reasons did not get off the ground until the past year. He noted that the Planning Commission approved the Coachella Gate last February with the actuation of the gate contingent upon the erection of a perimeter wall, and at that same meeting, the Cc~mission charged the Association with the responsibility of hiring a traffic consultant to MINIYI~S - PI2kNNING CC~4ISSION October 22, 1985 Page 7. determine the feasibility of that wall, which was done through the firm of Berryman & Stephenson. Mr. Ward advised that in April of this year, their Association had a homeowners' general election which really united the Association with 80% of the membership being in favor of this project and funding, what it took to prepare the maps. Also, the 150 rmmnbers of the Islands Homeowner's Association, who will use the Coachella Drive Gate, are so in favor of the project that they have pledged financial support. Mr. Ward stated that it is unfortunate he did not have time to absorb the lengthy Staff Report, but he does understand what Staff is driving at. He wanted to stress that the benefits of the project vastly imp_rove traffic safety, and .a much reduced road noise situation would be provided by the construction of the perimeter wall. This project will complete the corridor of Eisenhower that was started by the Laguna De La Paz project. He went on to state that the project will obviously reduce the crime situation in the area and should encourage the buildout in the area which .will increase the tax base of the City. He stated that the Association will pay fOr %he improvements. Looking into an Assessment District was a promise to the homeowners as a way to look to another way of defraying the costs' and if that is not feasible, the Associahion stands ready to pay for %he improve- ments themselves. They have lien and foreclosure power to ensure this with no financial impact to the City. Addressing the Staff recc~m~_ndations, Mr. Ward noted that the cul-de-sac area is a vital area not to be taken away by deleting it from the vacation of the 29' and the vrall. If it were eliminated, the traffic safety, noise abatement and the aesthetic corridor would be cc~promised. Mr. Ward stated he feels that the engineer can tell the C~ssion that the design is sound and leaving that area unimproved would cause more problems than ~ould be created by the proposed vacation. He stated one entrance into the cul-de-sac area is much better than seven. As far as the San Vincente secondary gate entrance, the Association's engineer feels it is pro..perly designed. Regardin~ the Fernando to Fernando area, the~v have done the best they can with what the~ have and they don't have anymore bo give, unless property is acquired in the future from across the road. The emergency gate proposed, flush with the street, is the Association's preference, but if the Conntission so feels that there is a great problem in this, so be it. The Association has just shown it as an alternative as their willingness to go along with the City's wishes. This will result, however, in a couple of homeowners being eliminated from the project and will also increase the "per owner" cost. Mr. Ward advised that the bottom line is that the proposed project benefits far outweigh any shortcomings. He urged the Planning Cc~mission's support of the project and turned the m~eting over to the engineer. John Lower, Berryman & Stephenson, 69-730 Highway 111, Rancho Mirage, CA: Mr. Lower stated that the primary issue his firm was asked to address was the conceptual feasibility of a frontage road within existing rights-of-way. The primary issue related to this was public safety both frcm the prospective of accident histOry and accident potential. Mr. Lower referred to a wall rendering displaying the locations of accidents which occurred over a 2 3/4 mile segmmnt of Eisenhow~r and given the existing average daily traffic, the accident rate, which is calculated as the accidents which occur per million vehicle miles of travel, was in excess of urban standards of further concern, the accident severity was about 10% higher than urban standards. One of every two accidents which occurred along this area resulted in an injury. If this condition remains unchecked, the existing average of approximately five accidents per year may be anticipated to increase to over 20 accidents per year, given buildout of the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the increase of Eisenhower traffic of approximately three to four timms the existing. If mitigated, there would be a reduction to approximately 12 accidents per year. Perhaps the reasons for the higher than expected acciden' rate on this stretch of Eisenhower are the closely spaced intersections of both driveways and collector streets. Technical standards have been develop~ and for an arterial with 45-mile-per-hour posted speed limit, as is Eisenhowe~ min~ recc~mne_nded spacing is 230 feet, which is not currently met by his scale frcm the San Vincente cul-de-sac to three cul-de-sacs over (San Dimas). MINUTES - PLANNING C~SSION October 22, 1985 Page 8. The purpose of the frontage road and the perimeter wall was to consolidate these closely spaced local streets and driveways to reduce the degree of accident potential or ex. SUre of vehicular conflicts. The frontage road is essentially a "bare-bones" as recc~nended. That is what happens when you get into the process of retrofitting (trying to make things fit with existing development). ~nere are national guidelines and the book is from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials entitled "A Policy on Gec~stric Design of Highways and Streets", adopted in 1984. This reference was consulted prior to preparing the proposed plan and the frontage road width of 20 feet is the minimum AASHTO recon~endation together with four feet of curb and grading, totalling 24 feet that is achieved with ~the frontage road. Another concern is the turn radius. Again, the AASHTO policy states that a 15 foot turning radius is the minimum acceptable for an automobile and given the retrofit nature of this, that minimum standard is what was employ~ at the proposed minor access at San Vincente (east). Upon review of the Staff Report, Mr. Lower stated he has three issues of concern. Addressing these from least important to most impo~%, the first is the cul-de-sac area not being included within the wall. He stated he is not an _expert in the field of noise engineering, but as you know, less noise is going to be attenuated when there are more holes in the wall and also less noise is going to be attenuated by a fence as opposed to a block wall. This certainly is an issue of concern given the traffic noise which is anticipated to increase with the three to four times increase of existing average daily traffic volumes along this segment given buildout of the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The second major concern is the increased accident potential. It is true that the parcels in the cul-de-sac area can be made to access on the side streets, but that does not correct the existing less than recc~m~_nded spacing of 230 feet fr~m San Vincente (east) to San Dimas. The final concern is construction of a fence along the parcels and in between the cul-de-sac collector streets. Mr. Lower stated he has not conducted a sight distance analysis, but w~uld venture· to say that minimum sight distance standards for stop controlled collector streets w~uld not be met. Typically, it involves 200-foot unrestricted sight distance fr~m the point of the driver in his car at a stop sign and that is in both directions. This concluded Mr- Lower's presentation for the Applicant. Fred Rice, 48-780 Eisenhower Drive, La Quinta: Stated his house is located right at Avenida Fernando (north) and Eisenhower Drive. Mr. Rice stated he would like to address the political ramifications of the report as he heard it at this meeting. He feels that it is really important to include the entire Golf Estates in the project area. He also addressed the speeding along the project area. Jack Thompson, 48-761 San Vincente, La Quinta: Addressed the aesthetics, stating that he felt they w~uld balance out very nicely if the corridor w~uld be expanded on the other side of the street. So by excluding the cul-de-sacs, which is only approximately 400 yards of street, which isn't a whole lOt, there is enough variation on this corridor anyway that it will not make a great deal of difference in the aesthetics of the project by isolating these 300-400 yards. He reiterated, as a resident of the Golf Estates, that the noise is terrific and if there will be 2300 cars as opposed to the 5300 cars there today and as brought up by the engineer earlier, a 50-foot hole in the wall every 200 feet will be disastrous for any kind of noise abat~t. In conclusion, he stated the project should be approved as submitted and that he is very much in favor of it. Paul Selser, Attorney with the firm of Best, Best and Krieger- representing the Club La Quinta: He stated that while their association has no objection to the project in general, they are concerned about the proposed gate at Avenida Fernando (south). He noted that he has not had the opportunity to review the letter or msn~randum prepared by the City Attorney. However, he imagined that it said that the City Council did not have the power to block that Public street. That is the homeowner's position; opposing the closure of Avenida Fernando (south), and they hope that the CommiSsion respects their rights in that public street. Obviously, Club La Quinta is currently MINUTES - PLANNING C~SSION October 22, 1985 Page 9. gated and walled and the benefits of this project to its residents are negligible. The results of gating Avenida Fernando (south) would be of scme inconvenience to those residents. Therefore, it is respectfully urged that any reconmendation to the City Council by the Planning Cc~muission would be to delete the closure of Avenida Fernando (south) with its intersection of Eisenhower. Tc~ Jones, 49-300 Avenida Fernando, La Quinta: Stated that some time ago, when Club La Quinta became a develo~t, he believed they had access through a private street. He noted he was on the Association's Planning Cc~mitt~ at the time and things were being run through the County as La Quinta was not yet a City. He stated he felt the City was doing a great job (by .the way). He went on to ask how Club La Quinta got access to their (Golf Estates) road? He advised that as far as he knows, Club La Quinta did not have permission to put their gate where they did to begin with. Chairman Thornburgh answered Mr. Jones' question by stating that it was his understanding that at the time Club La Quinta developed the property, Fernando was part of Club La Quinta's Association. At that time, the County let. them subdivide - it was accepted then and no one protested to his know- ledge. They have used .the street to this point in time and have acknowledged that it is part of the hca=owners and he believed the hcraeowners have acknow- ledged it. Ckai~ Thornburgh stated he believes the City Attorney's opinion is, seeing that the road has been used and there have been no ~laints, to be better safe than sorry and he feels the homeowners who have purchased their hcx~es there have a conmitted right to that property. Chai~ Thornburgh stated that according to the City Attorney's report, it was his suggestion to say that Fernando should probably be open because of the access they have · had for a~ certain amount of years, which could probably be enough or not be enough. He felt that the City Attorney felt the Club La Quinta homeowners did have a right to that road access and the people who bought the hc~es assume~ that right and the hcmeowners, or the County or the City, did not protect .that right. He stated the Conmission was not being a judge here, but that is basically the two sides of the story. Mr. Jones then asked Chairman Thornburgh that if that is the .City Attorney's opinion, would not the Club La Quinta be a part of the Golf Estates Association? Chai~ Thornburgh answered by stating they could be - not knowing if that was an absolute answer. He advised Mr. Jones that an attorney could probably answer that question for him. Mr. Jones stated that the point Chairman Thornburgh just expressed ~ould make Club La Quinta part of the Golf Estates. Chairman Thornburgh replied that the point he just expressed was the opinion of how our City Attorney sees it, that the hcrmmowners of Club La Quinta have a right to access Avenida Fernando. He stated he felt it ~ould be their decision and his (Mr. Jones') decision if they want~ to be a part of the Golf Estates Association. He felt they could not be forced to be a part of the Golf Estates Association. Chairman Thornburgh did not think that Club La Quinta was picked up in the Golf Estates regulations and CC&R's originally. Mr. Jones again questioned- "just the right to use the street?" Chai~ Thornburgh replied he felt by not being protested, they have - assumed the right to use the street. He referred the question to Director Stevens. Director Stevens stated he felt that Chairman Thornburgh's reply was a fair assessment. He advised further that it is important to point out that the City Attorney did not do an exhaustive analysis of the legal rights of either association relative to the rights of that access. He felt what the City Attorney has done is a brief overview of the available and accessible facts and reached the general conclusion that the access should not now be interfer~ with o MINUTES - PLANNING ~SSION October 22, 1985 Page 10. Director Stevens went on to state that if there are parties who wish to demons~ate whether that access was legally obtained or constructed or established or is now legally available, they will probably have to use their private resources to resolve any dispute of accessibility to a private street. He reiterated that it is clear that the City has not done an exhaustive and substantial review, that what the City has done represents our best judgment based on a limited overview of the available facts. Bill Hoyle, 48-530 San Pedro, La Quinta: He addressed the matter of dust. He realized that a 6-foot wall does not stop a lot of dust and stated that when the Laguna De La Paz project was being constructed last spring, he had three inches of dirt in his swir~d~g pool. He info~ the Conxnission that scme of his neighbors had to ccmpletely drain their pools, resurface and refill them because of the dirt created at that time. He advised that there was a mon~tal amount of restraint produced because of what was seen in the future. Gary Running, 78-237 San Timoteo, La Quinta: Stated there is a clear cut will of. the people in this area to build a wall around their c~t~]unity. He noted that 80% voted for it. Mr. Running stated he felt the will of the people, should prevail in this particular case. He said that it is the responsibility of this Cc~nittee to grant their wishes - nothing else but what they (Golf Estates Association) want to have happen. He further added that it is the best for the community, the City and their Association. There being no further public cc~m~_nts, Chairman ~hornburgh closed the hearing at 8:05 p.m. For the record, C~,lunity Development Director Stevens advised~ the Planning Cc~mission that the Applicant's engineer (John Lower) does work for BSI. Subsequent to their (BSI' s) emplo~t by the hc~ecwners association to work on this project, that firm (although a different individual representing that firm) has been selected as the City's engineer. We need to make clear the divorcement of these tw~ positions. The Applicant's engineer's position, as an employee of BSI, is not the same as Staff's engineer's position, who is also an. employee of BSI. ~ne City would like to note (for the record) that the cc~m~nts contained in the Staff Report relative to engineering related standards are not those of the Planning Staff, but are those of the City Engineer, who is a Registered Professional Engineer in the State of California as is Mr. Lower, the Applicant's engineer. There are differences in judgment as to where and when min~ standards are acceptable and that represents the differences when you see those numbers. Essentially, you have tw~ qualified experts who have disagreements as to what are the appropriate minimum, standards to apply in particular circumstances. It has been a little bit of a sensitive situation for all of us, but Director Stevens felt this should be made clear to everyone. ~ssioner Walling asked Director Stevens if our City Engineer is also a traffic engineer as well as a civil engineer? Director Stevens: The City Engineer's expertise is not traffic, but he did consult with members of the firm (BSI) who are traffic engineers in his discussions with Staff relative to standards, so we did have the avail- ability of traffic-related expertise from the firm' even though that expertise is not directly the individual who performs the City Engineering function. At this .point, Chairman Thornburgh addressed the Cc~nissioners stating that - with their permission he would like to do some~~g he has never done before. He noted, originally, when this Ommlission started after incorporation in 1982, he served as the first chairman ar~ Paul Goetcheus served on the Cc~anission. Chairman ~nornburgh said that tw~ days prior to Paul's death, he received a letter frcm him and he w~uld like to read it here. The letter is addressed to the Chairman of the Planning C/remission regarding the Golf Club Estates H~wners' Association and reads as follc~s- MINUTES- PLANNING COMMISSI~ Oct~ 22, 1985 Page 11. "The information on the plan of the Golf Club Estates Hcms~~'s Association should be of benefit to the City of La Quinta. Some of the desirable features would be: 1. Security for the entire square mile that is sorely needed.' 2. Lend attractiveness to Eisenhower Drive. 3. Benefit the traffic flow on Eisenhower. 4. The initial cost and maintenance would be nil to the City. I have considerable knowledge of their needs for the past 10 years and appreciate it if the City of La Quinta would make a favorable decision as to the passage of their plan." Chainm3n Thornburgh stated that he did not bring the letter up to be dramatic, but felt it important as he (Paul) served on the Cc~nission for four terms and he was present at the hearing on' this matter in February and in favor of the project. Chairman Thornburgh advised the Cc~x~ission that some of the points to be brought, up as he sees them (and advised the Cc~ssioners to bring out any points if he should miss them) are as follows: First, in the Plot Plan request.under Staff's cc~xnents regarding the frontage road. The Applicants are requesting a 24' frontage and Staff has recc~anended a 32' frontage road to allow for parking along that street. There was some discussion among the Conmtissioners at this point regarding what the appropriate item for beginning their discussion should be. Commissioner Moran: Asked what kind of traffic is being proposed for the frontage road. Director Stevens- Replied that essentially the traffic on the frontage road would be the residents along it and you could approximate 10-12 trips per day frcm those residents. Chairman Thornburgh: Asked for the number of lots along the proposed frontage road. Director Stevens: Advised that there are 10-12 lots north of Coachella and the same south of Coachella. Cc~ssioner Moran: Advised that there are 16 lots from Fernando to Fernando. At this point, the discussion returned to Chairman Rhornburgh's first point mentioned previously regarding the proposed frontage road width. Co~ssioner Brandt: With the 24' frontage road requested by the Applicants, the residents along that frontage road would have no on-street parking avail- able at all. With the 32' frontage road reccnm~_nd~ by Staff, there would be an additional 8' that would need to be acquired. Chairman Thornburgh noted that if he lived there, one of the trade-offs he would be ccmfortable with is a wall. Conm~ssioners Walling and Moran both stated they felt comfo~le with the 24' frontage road requested by the Applicant. Con~ssion~ Walling stated he felt the turning radius would also work at the cul-de-sacs on the ends of the frontage road. Chairman Thornburgh said he felt this road should be treated like a driveway. As an example, Fred Rice and Jim Wiltse were both present at the February hearing and very upse% that %hey were going %o be cub off of %he proposed project. It is interesting to note that, as Mr. Rice has spoken this evening and Mr. Wiltse is not present, that the driveway approach can be lived with for eight houses or so. MINUTES - PLANNING C~SSION October 22, 1985 Page 12. con~issioner Walling: Advised that the Cc~mission is supposed to determine if this is for the public benefit and, in this case, the public is the residents who live off the street and if they are ccmfortable with it, it seems it is to their benefit. Ccmmissioners Moran, De Gasperin and Brandt all agreed. Cc~nissioner Brandt questioned the presently requested footage for the cul-de-sac area. Principal Planner Bonner replied that it is an offset 40; the fire departmsnt required a minimum radius for engines to get in so they have offset it so that if a fire engine goes to the center ~ian when turning around, it has an adequate ~turn radius to enter. This does not ~ly with a true cul-de-sac with a radius of 28 feet. A vehicle, on this radius, according to the City Engineer, could still not make a complete U-turn. Cc~missioner Brandt: Did the Fire Marshal Say this could be done? Ms. Bonner replied that the Fire Marshal said it was the absolute minimum, assuming that the fire engine can go to the center of the street as part of the turn. Director Stevens advised that it is not only the number of houses here, but you must remember that there is approximately an 800-foot-long. cul-de-sac and the fire department generally has a higher standard when cul-de-sacs exceed 550 feet because they do not want to have to back up their equipment any farther than a 550-foot distance. Staff believes the 28 feet is adequate 'based on the con~_nts from the Fire Marshal and the City Engineer. This would require the purchase of more property' ~.to make a 28-foot radius, but it would generally be in the same location, just larger than currently propose Chairman Thornburgh felt we should point out that that ~uld be in someone's front yard as there are existing homes at the end of the cul-de-sac on the north. It was the consensus of the Cc~mission that the Applicant's requests regardin~ the frontage road and its cul-de-sacs were appropriate as su~tted. Chairman Thornburgh went on to the next point of discussion ~hich was the construction of the wall along Eisenhower. He questioned Staff as to whether there was a wall or fence proposed at the Avenida Fernando (north) entry. Director Stevens advised that the Applicant is requesting a pedestrian entry only at that point and Staff is recc~m~ending that a vehicle entry be there. Chairman Thornburgh: Said he felt it hard to place a gate there when they just placed one at Coachella. He felt the main reason for this is to keep accesses from ccming on to Eisenhower and felt if the City wanted to hold the right-of-way, he felt these people w~uld give us a right-of-way if, in any point in time, it was truly needed to place a stop sign or signal at a later date. However, he felt Coachella, with an existing gate, w~uld be a better place for a stop sign or signal. He noted that possibly the answer to solve both Staff's and the Applicant's positions is to let the Applicant build the wall across the north end and obtain a bond so that any time the City desired, they could knock the wall down and use it as an entrance. Cc~amissioner Walling agreed that the more wall, the less noise attenuation. It was the consensus of the Planning Ccmmission that the Applicant be permitted to continue with their wall plan. as submitted, but that some source, be it a bond, etc., be provided to protect that intersection for the City's fu%ure use. MINUTES - PLANNING CC~MISSION October 22, 1985 Page 13. Chairman Thornburgh moved on to the next issue on his list which was the Club La Quinta. There was discussion regarding the t~D houses on Fernando that were part of Club La Quinta, but outside of that project's gates. Con~m~ssioner Walling: Asked Staff of the possible redesign of that area where the two hcmes are located to allow for ingress/egress into the Club La Quinta by a parallel street. Director Stevens: Replied that he did not feel we could speculate as to how leaving that area out might cause a redesign. He stated it is merely a matter of our making it a condition and then it would be their responsi- bility to ccme up with an acceptable design' Further, he noted, based on the City Attorney's cc~raents, that it woUld be highly inappropriate to reduce the Club La Quinta's access. The conditions do say if that Association or those two members have the ability to act independently, if they choose to accept the modified access and so confirm to us, they have the ability to do that within this approval; not having to ccme back to you for approval. If they choose not to, the City Attorney's and Staff's recc~men~~on is that they not be included within the gating and access system of the Golf Estates. Therefore, if that design results in the exclusion of one or two lots that are within the Golf Estates at the tip of Fernando (south), unfortunately, thats the way it is. Chai~ Thornburgh stated he believed that the residents of the two homes on Fernando would want to be behind s~ne's gates. Therefore, why don't we go ahead and approve it on the basis that the Applicant will have to get the permission of those two hcraeowners and getting it, the Applicant could go to a legal point past the existing gate or if they did not get permission, to extend the .gate. He noted it could also be done in a driveway type situation. The Commission agreed to this determination by Chairman Thornburgh. C~ssioner Brandt: Requested scme discussion of the proposed alternate design of the entry to the frontage road from Fernando (south) being redesigne to prevent serious traffic safety conflicts as advised in. the Staff Report. Chairman Thornburgh: Replied that he believed that ~ould be that the gates be redesigned to the satisfaction of Staff, the Fire Marshal and others concerned. He believed that the entire corner had to be redesigned and the only possible concern we have here is that those two hcmes are included or not. If they say they want to be behind the gates, that would determine where they would, go, but as far as the turning radius, he believed that should meet City standards. We will have a transition right at that point where the street will be narrowing down frcm what is existing. Chairman Thornburgh moved on to his next points of discussion which were the parkway,, the wall and the noise study. Chairman Thornburgh noted at the present time, we have the wall, per our rec~ndation, as to where its been reconwend~ by the Applican%. He asked Director Stevens if we take and widen that parkway, knowing full well that between Fernando and Fernando that we w~uld be encroaching to solve that problem on the other side, are we in the position where we can make that r~dation and try to pick~ it up later or are we in a position where we will have to purchase or agree to purchase? Director Stevens: Replied that if you want to widen the parkway so it is larger than seven feet on the Applicant's side of Eisenhower Drive and you want to change that to normal parkway width of 12 feet, for example, the five feet will have to ccme frcm scmeplace. It cannot come from the remaining available travel lanes, it cannot ccme from the painted, striped median, so - in essence - if you do that, the right-of-way would have to ccme frcm the opposite side of the street. There are obviously any number of ways to obtain that right-of-way, and I assume you are not telling us how to obtain it, but that you want that right-of-way to be obtained. MINUTES - PLANNING COMMISSION October 22, 1985 Page 14. Chairman Thornburgh: Maybe we should look to see what our turning radius is on those intersections. Maybe that's more important to us right now than how much planning we have. Conmissioner Walling: It seems that on the major intersections you will need the right-of-way to get the turning lanes and if we are going to do that, we might as well get a straight line across there and pick up sc~e landscape median, which is frankly more important to me than a parkway. Chairman Thornburgh: So what we are saying is on the Applicant's side we would have a narrow parkway from the wall (7') and we %ould not have the eight-foot stall lane, but on the west side we would have the opportunity then to have a proper, wide parkway, a driveway and a stall lane if we felt it was in~po~t at the time we approved the subdivision. C~ssioner Walling: The turn lanes would be the important things on the other side. I dcm't know about a stall lane. I ~ould substitute the stall lane for a landscaped median. It would maintain the· image corridor and keep us consistent with the General Plan. Cha~ Thornburgh: So, you are suggesting we leave the seven-foot alone and the street alone and go for a reccmm~_nda~on of a 10' parkway? Cc~m%tssioner Walling: Right, a 12 ' parkway and a 10' landscaped median. Director Stevens: Advised that a landscaped median would have to be a minimum of 12'. That is to accc~w~date curb width, adequate planting and also when you get to the point where you need a left-turn pocket, there is enough room to provide for same. In responding to Chairman Thornburgh's question on the opposite side, with the 71' of right-of-way we would have left, if the proposal is approved as requested, we would have on the opposite side of the street a 12'-wide parkway, but we would not have a stall lane on either side of the street. So, if you say you want those things, then everything we want beyond four travel lanes, a four-foot-wide striped median, a 12' parkway on the opposite side and a seven-foot parkway on the Applicant's side, anything else must be added on to the 71' and acquired on the opposite side of the street frcm the Applicant's property. Chairrm3~ Thornburgh: One thing I thought about is coming frc~ the bridge going north on Eisenhower, there is no center divider. If we can a raised center divider through this area, and I would presume when we get to the cul-de-sac streets there will be no center divider, so from Washington to the bridge, other than this opportunity along the two Fernandos, we will not have the opportunity for a center divider. Director Stevens: That is not correct. We do have sufficient right-of-way planned with the width across the front of the hotel and Santa Rosa Cove to accommodate a landscaped median. Technically, where the country club itself is, I am not sure all that right-of-way has actually been dedicated to us, but there is an ultimate 100' road width frcm parkway to parkway which is sufficient to acccmm~x~ate the 12' wide, landscaped median. We only then have to come up with a mechanism to pay for and construct. Chairman Thornburgh: One thing to consider then is that if this property is subdivided on the west side at a later date, that would be the time to consider' if we want a center median or not. At the present time, if these people go ahead and spend their $600,000 to improve their street and wall, even~ if they agree to a median, it will not be put in at this point in time anyway, but when the westerly side goes in. Director Stevens: It may be possible to put it in and I think that ccmes with trying to impl~t and figure out final costs, etc. It may be possible to put it in like we have at PGA. It depends on what the width of the cross section design is and there may be some feeling when we get down to determin~ costs that maybe that is part of the reason for doing the frontage road if, in fact, it is approved. Part of the ccmpensation is putting in the road median at the time ycu do that work. MINUTES - PLANNING CCMMISSION October 22, 1985 Page 15. Chairman Thornburgh: Or setting aside an amount of money for doing it at a later date when the other side ccmes in. Director Stevens: Yes - or entering into some sort of an agreement like the City did with Merv Johnson. C~ssioner Brandt: If we were to decide to have a 12' msdian, ~Dn't we only need to acquire eight more feet? Director Stevens: We w~uld need 10' of right-of-way because of the raised median; we must made the lane adjacent one-foot wider. Chairman Thornburgh: Maybe a suggestion w~uld be then, as long as they are going to raise the money, would be to go ahead and provide for the money for this ~an, but decide for it at a later date - but the money w~uld be there when the west side develops and not designate that they would pay for their half of the msdian and when the west side develops they w~Uld cc~e in and put it in - that's what we have done with other subdividers. This group of 185 people, who we may never get together again to ask a question for more money- we may .ask th~ then within their proposal to set up some sort of bond 'agreem~t. Isn't that what was done on Washington? Director Stevens: No, it wasn't as substantial as a bond, it is basically an agreement to participate in an asses~t district or other joint funding ~chanismo There is/money to back it up, other than there are a lot more units to build there. Chai~ ~nornburgh: · Maybe we should go ahead and designate ~that we want the money set aside in the form of a bond or whatever vehicle Staff wants to use, but not designate the size of it at this time. Cc~missioner Moran: I thought it (the m~dian) had to be a 12'. minimum width? Chairman Thornburgh: We can decide when the westerly side ccmes in- we're proposing an ultimate 12' medi~, but as the westerly side comes in, we can decide what the width will be. But, they can go ahead and pay for their half of it or provide for the money at that tim~ if we w~nt ahead and did it. Cc~missioner Walling: In order to get the turn lanes though, we definitely ~uld need the 12' ~an. It seems to me we should decide that in order to make it work. Director Stevens: So, in addition to the Applicant's proposal, you do want a minimum 12' area fOr landscaped medi~ and turning opportunities? The Cc~mission' s reply was a unan~us yes. Director Stevens: The other differences with respect to the proposal relate to the parking lanes and I didn't hear anyone say they wanted extra area for abandoned vehicles or parking lanes, so I assume you are deleting that frcm the overall right-of-way? Chairman Thornburgh: I would assume, since this is an existing tract, that the Cc~mission agrees we do not need them at this time, that we would sacri- fice those. Director Stevens: What about the parkway width on the Applicant's side- is 7' sufficient or is a larger width necessary? Chairman Thornburgh: I think it should be closer to 12' to make that graduat~ down safely. He asked Conm%issioner Walling if his suggestion had been 10'? Cc~missioner Walling: Replied no- his suggestion was to leave it as it is. MINUTES- PLANNING CO~w~SSION October 22, 1985 Page 16. Cc~nission~ Moran: Stated she felt cxmnfortable with it as is also. It was a unanimous vote of the Conm~ssion for a 7' parkway. Chairman Thornburgh: With regard to financing, which we've covered, it is my understanding that if they (Applicant) applied for that (Assessmmnt District) it was strictly as a vehicle, that the City ~ould not incur any expense or responsibility and it is my understanding that if they (the Applicant) cannot go through on an Asses~t District, they are willing to fund the project themselves. Director Stevens: I think it is important not to get bogged down in the cost aspects of it because that's probably going to require some additional consideration and reasses~t once we know what the improv~ts are going to be and we'll just have to bring the costs back if it warrants ccrming back through the approval process. Chairman Thornburgh asked if there were any further points to be covered. Director Stevens: Advised that there was another point, that being the noise study requirement, and I assume that as you did not say anything that the noise analysis is necessary to determine the appropriate height and design of the wall. Chairman Thornburgh: Do w~ get those (noise study) in an EIR? Director Stevens: Sc~times we do and s~~s we don't. In all of our specific plan approvals, we require special noise studies. I think the only time we've required a detailed noise study in advance of project approval was the Avenue 52 realignment and we felt that was a very mjor issue there. Here we're talking about maybe making some adjus~t in the design of the wall itself to enhance its noise protection characteristics. ~times that means instead of building it as a garden wall you might fully grout all the openings and' increase it or you might have to add a couple of courses in terms of 'height or that type of thing. If we anticipated that it would substantially alter the wall design, we would have asked for it in advance. I think here we're just talking about using it as a guide to prepare the final wall design, we think it is important and generally site specific noise studies for perimeter vralls is son, thing we are encouraging in the new Noise Elea~t of our General Plan. We think that position should be supported in conjunction with this project. It was the consensus of the Planning Omnmtission that a noise study be provided by the Applicant. Chairman %ho~urgh: Moved the discussion to ~the cul-de-sac area. He asked the Applicant's engineer what the cul-de-sac turn radius is in that area. John L°w~r (Engineer, BSI): That minor entry is deSigned for an inside turning radius of 15' and, again referring to the AASHTO standards, 15' radii are adequate for passenger vehicles. These radii may be provided at cross streets where there is little occasion for trucks to' turn, which certainly would be the case here. Chairman Thornburgh: What about the center lane turning - if you were going west and wanted to turn into San Vincente, is there enough area in there for turning according to your striping plan or would they have to stop in the center lane to turn? John LOw~r: According to 'the civil engineer who laid out the plans, by hugging that inside curb, a car can make that turn within the travel lane. Chairman 2ho~rgh: ~nat would be going east, we are referring to going westerly. John Lower: Stated he did not have an answer, but would get one t~orr~. MINUTES - PLANNING CO~vfISSION October 22, 1985 Page 17. Morgan Ward .(Applicant Repr.): Advised the C~ssion that there is a turn lane designated on the plans for those traveling west and wishing to turn on San Vincente. Director Stevens: I think the confusion was that you (Ch. Thornburgh) were asking about radius and I think that's what John was responding to. There is a left-turn pocket shc~n as an entrance onto San Vicente and I'm assuming that when they drew that they knew all the right-of-way widths across there and there is room for turn lane. There is no room for deceleration lanes along here however. The question then is the radius of that access restrictiv to any .types of vehicles because we've gone with a pretty limited radius cul-de-sac, there, and I suspect large vehicles such as trash trucks, moving vans, etc., will not be able to negotiate that turn, but will be forced to use the main entrance. This entry will only be adequate for passenger vehicles and vehicles of similar size. Chairman Thornburgh: If the wall ran all the way across the cul-de-sac area, there would only be one entry at San Vicente. Is that correct?° Director Stevens: If the wall ran all the way across as proposed by the Applicant, the only entrance between any of the cul-de-sacs on Eisenhower ~uld be at that point. c~sSioner Brandt: With the amo~t of traffic on Eisenhower w~uld there be a traffic safety hazard in turning right onto San Vincente with no deceleration lane provided? John Lower: The 24,000 daily trips noted in the report for this area is very close to (just 4,000 in excess) being served adequately by a four-lane, undivided facility. . Conmki.ssioner b~Dran: Stated she is not thrilled with not having a deceleratior. lane, but thought .that these people have been ~rking towards this for a long, long time. She asked how wide Eisenhower Drive is at the San Vincente entranc Director Stevens: Replied that it is currently a 100' right-of-way and the Applicant's proposal w~uld reduce it to 71'. Conm~issioner M3ran: So, in order for us to have what we have now, we w~uld · have to encroach onto Laguna De La Paz? Director Stevens: If we wanted to have more than 4 travel lanes; if you wanted to have any medi~ other than a 4' striped median; if you want parkway~ in excess of 7'; and if you want abandoned vehicle lanes - you would have to take that right-of-way frcm the existing improved right-of-way of Laguna De La Paz. Con~nissioner Moran: So, where Laguna De La Paz starts, thats where we w~uld have to give up our 12' landscaped median? Director Stevens: That' s correct. C~ssioner Brandt: Yesterday, at the Study Session, we talked about two needed intersections within this· stretch of' Eisenhower - was one of those at San Ysidro or Santa Ursula? Principal Planner Bonner: Replied that it is San Ysidro. Director Stevens: Thats the secondary entrance into Laguna De La Paz. Conm%issioner Brandt: Is that directly across frcm the tennis courts? Director Stevens: That' s correct. Cc~xaissioner Brandt- So, at this point, you are saying we would need to accommodate for a left-turn pocket here? MINUTES - PI2ENNING COMMISSION October 22, 1985 Page 18. Director Stevens: I think we are saying you need to accC~m~Ddate it, but the only way to accc~modate it is not to abandon the right-of-way. If you abandon the right-of-w-ay, then you are not going to have a lef%-turn oppor- tunity off of Eisenhcwer eastbound into the secondary entrance for Laguna De La Paz because there isn't any right-of-way left to accc~modate that turn lane unless we mod~y the improvements on Merv Johnson's side of the street. Cc~nissioner Walling: If we obtain the right-of-way eventually there will be either a lar~scaped or striped n~iian- is that correct? Director Stevens: If you retain the right-of-way, there will be a landscaped median there ultimately. -Ccmnissioner Walling: What that means is anyone leaving the cul-de-sac area, assuming there is no wall, is forced to go east? Director Stevens: That's correct and there would probably be a left-turn pocket at San Ysidro, the secondary entrance int° Laguna De La Paz, in the event we didn't abandon the right-of-way- so that ~Duld create a U-turn opportunity for approximately half of the cul-de-sac area. Cc~anissioner Walling: On the other hand, everyone coming into that area heading west on Eisenhow~r would again have to go to an intersection and ccme back around going east again on Eisenhower to get into-the cul-de-sac area. So what we're talking about is having U-turn capabilities on a curve with high traffic volume which seems to me will create a tremendous traffic hazard; to say nothing of cars coming out of the cul-de-sac area turning right on a curve as well with a high traffic volume. In light of that, it seems to me that it would be better to come out of just one area where you have the capability of going both east and west, which you ~Duld have at San Vincente. Another thing is the reccm~endation that if the cul-de-sacs were left open, the wall would provide some sound barrier, which it would, but would provide much more if the wall was extended all the way across. In my mind, the image ~corridor would be improved considerably if the wall were continuous in the cul-de-sac area. Chairman TholTtilrgh: Stated he thought if you were coming down Washington, turning onto Eisenhower, its not like you're ccming onto a 4-lane and narrowing into an area that has a different situation with a short wall and so on. You would be turning onto Eisenhow~r, accelerating up in an area that we've designated all the way around with no center median at that point, if we approve the plan as ~3___bmitted. He thought that in designing this, if you turned off Washington onto Eisenhow~r and the street was consistent as reccranend~ by the Applicant, he felt we've created a problem that is safer without .a center divider, we've eliminated 7 or 8 driveways, so he felt that overall, we have accomplished scme~~g for the people that drive by and the people that live there. He stated that he would be very happy to vote in favor of the project as submitted. Cc~nlissioner Walling: We're really talking about the lesser of several evils and I feel the way it has been submitted is the least negatively impactive of the t~D methods. C~ssioner Brandt: So, in essence, in terms of long-term improvements, we w~uld not have a medi~ on Eisenhower at the intersection of Washington and Eisenhower? Chairman Thornburgh: Stated he thinks what we're saying here is when you turn onto Eisenhower frcm Washington, you will have no center divider until you get to Fernando (north), if the project is approved as submitted. %lien you will have the opportunity to have one all the way to the bridge. Cc~missioner Brandt: Could we limit the frontage road along the cul-de-sacs to one-way travel? Director Stevens: We have not had any detailed discussion on making the frontage road one way. ~hile it is possible, it would probably have some constraints and require some additional gates or entry/exit points. MINUTES - PLANNING ~SSION October 22, 1985 Page 19. Cc~missioner Brandt: Stated she sees it as a way of obtaining the additional 12 feet which would accc~modate the median along Eisenhower and then you would have a varying right-of-way, but at least you w~uld have the consistent tying el~t of the msdian going along Eisenhow~r even though you had the varying right-of-way and that w~uld also accc~m~date the secondary access into the tennis court area at Laguna De La Paz. _ Cc~issioner De Gasperin: I agree with what Kim is reading between the lines here and we' re giving up that image corridor and realistically we may be giving it up even beyond San Lucas or San Ysidro. I know we don't want to, but the reality is that the image is at Washington and Eisenhower. Howev~, I tend to agree with the other members that it is more important to protect · the cul-de-sacs and its worse, in the long-range planning, to have seven accesses to Eisenhow~r cc~sidering the traffic buildup and the hope that it will keep moving. If we give up the medi~ and go with the proposal, is there a deceleration, right-hand turn onto San Vincente? Director Stevens: Replied that there was none. Cc~x~issioner De Gasperin: 5hat continues to disturb me, how that traffic is going to slow down to gain access to San Vincente without increasing traffic accidents, etc. Chairman Thornburgh: At the present tin~, we do just that on Coachella and Eisenhower. Stated he felt that overall, as you evaluate this, we' re never going to get 100% here. He stated he felt that what the Applicant has s3_hmitted is scmething that will ultimately improve the area. Cc~znissioner Moran: Is there any stacking space? Director Stevens: At Coachella there is adequate stacking space and at San Vincente there is also stacking space for three or four vehicles. There was a consensus of the Cc~mission to recc~x~end to the City Council that there be a wall across the cul-de-sac area as requested by the Applicant. There being no further discussion, Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion. 2. Con~issioner Brandt made a motion, seconded by Cc~x~issioner M~ran, to direct Staff to prepare a Resolution using the findings in the Staff Report, as ~ded, based upon the Planning Cc~mission's consensus determining that Street Vacation No. 85-008 is consistent with the General Plan. Unanimously Adopted o Conm~issioner Walling made a motion, seconded by Cc~mlissioner ~bran, to indicate to the City Council, Planning Cc~mission support of the conditions to be recc~mended for Street Vacation No. 85-008, with the understanding the conditions would be ~ded relative to Planning Cc~m%ission consensus. Unanimously Adopted. Con~nissio~r Moran made a motion, seconded by Cc~x~issioner Walling, directing the preparation of a Negative Declaration of Environmental ~ct in adopting such a determination and directing Staff to amend the findings relative to Plot Plan No. 85-186 and to ~d the conditions of the Plot Plan consistent with the direction given by the Planning Conm~ssion. Unanimously Adopted. - Director Stevens: For the record, notices were mailed today and the property was posted yesterday. The City Council hearing scheduled on ithis matter is to be held on November 5, 1985, at · 7: 30 p.m. The Cc~mission should be aw-are that Staff will present their recc~nendation, but will also present our r~dation to the Council pointing out the differences. MINUTES - PLANNING C(IMMISSION October 22, 1985 Page 20. Chairman Thornburgh introduced the next item of hearing as follows- C. Tentative Tract Map No. 21123 ("Duna La Quinta"), a request to divide 6.74 acres on the west side of Washington Street, 800' south of Avenue 50 into 20 lots for the develo~t of custcm single-family housing; Landmark Land Company, Applicant. He called for the Staff Report. 1. Associate Planner Gary Price addressed this matter stating that Tentative Tract 21123 pro.posed by Landmark Land ~Company is located on the west side of Washington Street, approximately 800' south of Avenue 50. The project proposes 20 estate-type lots within 6.74 acres. The lot develotm~nt is~· proposed for ~single-family custcm housing and the proposed density is 2.97 units per acre, which is substantially less than that approved on the site originally in the Specific Plan concept which was for five units per acre, for an ultimate buildout of 33 units within the 6.74 acres. With regard to circulation, the project will be accessed tJ~rough Avenida Los Verdes, through the stormwater channel which is being used as a golf course, and two main branches with cul-de-sacs. The lots will range in size frcm 11,400 to 21,950 square feet. The Applicant has indicated that the lots will sell for approximately $100,000 each depending on size and location. The project is basically consistent with the La Quinta General Plan. One concern of Staff, as indicated in the Staff Report, is that the lots are elevated 50 feet higher than the average elevation. Mr. Price advised that that is incorrect - it is actually 11 feet higher in elevation. Staff's concern is that develo~t occurring on these lots will be seen within the Duna La Quinta Specific Plan as well as surrounding areas. Therefore, a condition of approval is that building height be limited to 29 feet. With regard to emergency access during flooding, there is emergency access via Calle Tampico. That emergency access should be improved to an all-weather access. This concluded Mr. Price's repot and he then turned the meeting over to Director Stevens. Director Stevens stated he would like to make one minor correction in the Staff Report- located on Page 2, Item 5 (b). This refers to kmendment No. 1 and should be deleted. Amen~t No' 1 actually modified the alignment of Avenue 52. We originally attent0ted to take Phase 9 out per this, but that ended up being modified at the Council level. With regard to the reccnm~_nda- tion, Staff is recc~nending approval of the Tentative Tract Map generally as requested. Most of the conditions identified in the Staff Report are standard and were reviewed at the Study Session. Discussion regarding Conditions Nos. 19 and 20- in those conditions, it is Staff's intention to encourage increase setback and lot coverage standards - stand~s 'to be more consistent with estate lots rather than our typical minimum underlYing zoning standards. After discussion from the Study Session, Staff suggests that the Cc~nission delete Conditions Nos. 19 and 20 and substitute instead a condition which states generally as follows: "Applicant shall est~__blish within their CC&R's site design standards appropriate to estate lots including but not limited to front, side and rear yard setbacks, lot coverate,, etc. Standards should maximize building separation and enhance the overall streetscape and minimize the appearance of bulk. Any such standards shall be reviewed by the C~unity Development Department as part of the review of the CC&R' s, but shall in no event be less than those standards set forth in the R-2 Zone." Director Stevens addressed discussion held at the Study Session regarding building height. The standard that we've indicated here in Condition No. 22 is, in fact, the standard that was generally applied as a building height limitation to the Duna La Quinta project. These units are, however, a little different than what we have referred to as the Duna La Quinta Dike Units or also which includes those built by Landmark in their portion of the tract and by Jack Clark in his portion of the tract, in that those generally have the street and front portion of the lot at one grade and then the grade adjusts upward %o a levee with a difference of scme 8-10 feet. The standard was really written for that circumstance. In the case of these lots, the street and lot are at the same grade as the levee so you don' t have the height variation. Staff therefore recommends that Condition No. 22 be modified so that it reads as follows: MINUTES - PLANNING C~SSION October 22, 1985 Page 21. "No portion of any structure within the tract shall exceed one story or 29 feet as measured from the levee grade provided that t~D-story structures not exceeding 29' in height may be approved by the City if adequate provision is made in the architectural design and site design .to minimize the appearance of bulk and the streetscape and the other standards we indicated relative to the setbacks." _ Director Stevens stated he thinks we can live with the two-story units as long as we can encourage-some variety and alteration of setbacks so that we are not looking at a constant row. Staff also reccnm~_nds that Condition No. 27 state: "Provision shall be made to comPly with provisions and requirements of the infrastructure." Since these are custcm lots and~ the individual owner will likely pay the infrastructure fee at the time they secure building permits, this is just a minor language thing to make clear that it is not the subdivider's responsibility to pay that fee. Therefore, Staff reccxm~_nds approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 21123 subject to conditions with those revisions. This concluded Staff's presentation. , There was a brief discussion regarding lot coverage, height of the dike where the Clark Develo~r~nt is sited with regard to this project, and the eme~~~ access road. Chairman Thornburgh opened the public hearing at 9:45 p.m. Forrest Haag, Landmark Land Comply, P. O. Box 1578, La Quinta, CA; spoke as representative of the Applicant. He stated in view of the reduction in the acreage density from five to a little less than three, and the quality of the type of develo~nent that they are trying to promote here, he feels they have worked with Staff to cc~e up with a reasonable set of conditions that get them a fairly flexible series of parameters that an architect or other group could desi.qn around to allow them some architectural expression and flexibility in the lot program they are trying to promote here. He stated further that he believes they are in general consensus in the approach of letting Landmark Staff and Cit~ Staff work out between the CC&R' s'a series of regulations that dictate how the property can be built upon with the set- backs, etc. He felt they could arrive at a very reasonable approach and still allow somm flexibility in the architectural expression and give the potential lot owner scram individuality without choking it down to a point where every house is the same, etc. Another thing that has been hanm~red away at until solved is the concerns with health, safety and welfare that the City is concerned about and the promotion of the environment of developing this safe%y access to the souhh, and working with the Fire Marshal and City standards. Mr. Haag called the Cc~mission's at%ention to Condition No. 10(b) which he felt covered .the requirer to provide an all-weather emergency access discussed earlier. This'ended the Applicant's presentation. Chairman Thornburgh' closed the public hearing at 9:50 p.m. There being no further discussion, Chairman Thornburgh called'for a motion. 2. Co~nissioner De Gasperin made a motion to approve Tentative Tract Map No. 21123 as reccmn~_nd~ by Staff, subject to conditions of approval, as ~ded. Ccx~nissioner Walling seconded the motion. Unanin~usly Adopted. _ Chairman Thornburgh introduced the next three items of hearing to be heard concurrently · D. General Plan ~~t No. 85-007, a request to ~d the Land Use Elen~t of the La Quinta General Plan from "High Density Residential" (10-20 Dwellings Per Acre) to "General Commercial" on approximately six acres. E. Change of' Zone No. 85-017, a request for a zone change from R-2-3350 (Multiple Family Residential) to C-P-S (Scenic Highway Cc~nercial) on approximately six acres. MINUTES - PLANNING ~SSION October 22, 1985 Page 22. F. Specific Plan No. 83-001, ~~t No. 2, a request to amend a portion of land (approximately six acres) within the Duna La Quinta S.pecific Plan project area from apartment/condcminium land uses (13 dwellings per acre maximum) to General C~rcial; Landmark Land Cc~pany, Applicant Chairman Thornburgh called for the Staff Report. 1. Associate Planner Gary Price advised the Cc~raission that the Applicant is requesting a change of zone from R-2-3350 (Multiple Family Residential) to C-P-S (Scenic Highway Cc~mercial), on an ~~t to the Specific Plan 83-001. These requests are being made for a proposed project at the north- east corner of Calle Tampico and Desert Club Drive on approximately six acres with approximately 90,000 square feet of office/commercial uses. Regarding the General Plan Amendment, the project will be changing the area which was planned for high density residential up to 13 'dwelling units per acre to Cc~anercial which will permit a wide variety of commercial uses. in 1984, the Planning Cc~mission recc~me_nded denial of the Same project which %~as subsequently supported by the City Council. The reasons for the denial was that: 1. The six acres of cc~mercially designated land is inconsistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General P1an. 2. That there is a current over-abundance of undeveloped cc~r~rcially designated land in the inm~=diate area of the proposed ~dmsnt. 3. That neither the buildout rate nor the City's population growth rate warrant an increase in the cc~mercial area at this time. Based on recent growth trends and patterns, both within the downtown and the · City at large however, these c~nditions are changing. The new City-wide General Plan contains a policy aggressively supporting improv~ts to the downtown, including infrastructure development and a msans of enhancing potential cc~mercial development of the downtown area. This project will be a signifi- cant first step in that area and would be providing infrastructure improv~ts to the downtown area. The project site is adjacent to cc~m~rcially planned and zoned land to the west; therefore, the proposed project is a logical and contiguou extension of the downtown'S development to the east. Regarding the Change of Zone, which implements the General Plan Amendment, the same considerations are given; however, approving such a proposal w~uld open the area to a wide variety of con~ercial uses as listed in the C-P-S Zone. Regarding the Specific Plan ~dment, which goes into more detail of the project, Mr. Price stated he w~uld like to concentrate on one issue and that is the con- sistency betw~_n the Specific Plan ~~t and the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The change would be basically taking six acres of high density residential and reducing it to cc~m~_rcial, and having to transfer that density throughout the remainder of the Duna La Quinta project. To reduce that transfer and to minimize the impact of increased residential develoumsnt within Duna La Quinta, density transfer would have to be accomplished. 5{r. Price explained the formula· for the density transfer as described in the Staff Report. This concluded his report, so he turned the meeting over to Director Stevens to present Staff's recordations. Director Stevens advised that on the General Plan Am~n~t, Staff is recc~m~_nding approval of the change to con~nerc~l. Staff is, however, recon~nending Village Con~ercial as opposed to General Cc~mercial because that concept, subsequent to the submittal of the application, has been refined in the "to be adopted" General Plan to which we should be consistent. With regard to the Change of Zone, Staff is again recc~mending approval. We are recommending the use of the C-P-S Zone with the zoning primarily because that is the most compatible zoning district we currently have available. It should be anticipated in future as we implement the General Plan that we will probably write a new zoning district text that will be Village Cc~m~rcial, and then we will probably change the zoning on this property to conform to that. In the interim, we will use cur General Plan consistency_ authority to make sure that MINUTES - PLANNING COMMISSION October 22, 1985 Page 23. individual projects are consistent with the Village Cc~m~rcial concept. So even though current zoning is C-P-S, the Applicant should not anticipate that all 99 uses lis%ed under %ha% zoning will necessarily be allowed. Director Stevens advised that Staff is also recc~men~g approval of Specific Plan 83-001, ~~t No. 2. There are six conditions attached to this request which state that all other Duna La Quinta conditions remain in effect. Director Stevens pointed out Condition No. 2 referring to transfer of densities, which needs further discussion after the Applicant has made his presentation. He also pointed out Condition No. 3 wherein Staff has requested Conm~ssion and Council review of required plot plan applications which is ~e the normal standard and Staff did identify concern with a couple of areas of the overall site design we think need to be evaluated as part of that plot plan (setbacks, buffers, parking, screening, access determinations, etc. ). Staff also expressed concern that this project ultimately relate to the design guidelines of the' downtown area to the extent that we can reasonably do that, based on the timing of this project versus the timing of that design guideline project. We have identified the need for Desert Club to be at least a local street rather than a driveway or some other form of access along the west property line. Then, we have reinforced the Calle Tampico image corridor issue so that when we see ultimate plans, that is to be expected and that also assures General Plan consistency be~n the Specific and the General Plans. Chairman Thornburgh asked the Cc~mission if they had any questions for Staff. Cc~missioner De Gasperin: Regarding the General Plan ~~t, does this area fall within the undefined and still to be considered extension of the Village Cc~ne_rc ial concept? Director Stevens: It was our judgment that it does. Chairman Thornburgh: If the Council, on November 15, changes their opinion on the General Plan, this project will be behind that, w~n't it? I w~uld like our recommendations, if we do approve it, to be consistent with the General Plan after its approval. Director Stevens: In terms of scheduling this matter on their Agenda, this item will be later than the General Plan' Chairman Thornburgh: So, then, in turn, if the Council changes their opinion on the General Plan, we w~uld like this matter back. Director Stevens: This will be expressed to the Council. Chairman Thornburgh opened the public hearing at 10:05 p.m. Bruce Cathcart, P. O. Box 346, La Quinta - advised the Cc~r~ssion that a representative of the developer was present at this m~eting to speak to them regarding this project. He spoke in favor of the project and then introduced the developers' representative. Skip Fonner, Attorney, Santa Monica, CA- info~ the Cc~mission that he represented approximately 400 doctors throughout Southern California who are interested in real estate projects. At the present tiros, regarding this project, they have signed leases for the office building shc~n in the upper right of the .rendering, which encc~passes 22,225 square feet and the lease is by Landmark for a period of ten years. The medical building is leased to National Medical Enterprises, who own the J. F. Kennedy Hospital in Indio. They have leased the entire bottcm floor for a clinic which will include emergency care, ambulatory care and complete primary care (family practitioners, OB-GYN and a range of specialists). Mr. Fonner stated he also had the names of 18 physicians associated with J. F. Kennedy Hospital, who are interested in offices in the upper floor of the medical building. They also envision having a physical therapy department, an opthamology suite and a time-sharing specialist suite. MINUTES - PLANNING COMMISSION October 22, 1985 Page 24. Concerning the restaurant, they have.been currently nego%iating with several restaurants in the area. Mr. Fonner stated he had met today with owners of the Las Casuelas Restaurant and also discussed the matter with the owners of the E1 Jacal Restaurant, and also with owners of an Italian and Continental restaurant. Mr. Fonner stated that in the near future, they woUld have the three buildings (office/medical/restaurant) fully leased. With regard to the larger commercial/ office building, they have just started a marketing campaign, and as soon as the building is approximately 50% leased, they would like to construct the entire project as soon as possible. Forrest Haag, P. O. Box 1578, La Quinta (Landmark Land Cc~pany) - Informed the Cc~nission that Landmark has a very tight tLreline to make this project w~rk so he requested the C~ssion's approval at this hearing. Secondly, he wished the opportunity to reserve time to rediscuss the density transfer formula with Staff before the City Council hearing, as the loss of the 50+ units nets out at a very substantial dollar loss to the r~mainder of the project buildout. Chairman Thornburgh closed the public hearing at 10:15 p.m. There was scme further discussion regarding the density transfer formula use, Calle Tampico accesses, setbacks, etc. ~nere being no further discussion, Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion. 2. Cc~nissioner Walling made a motion, seconded by Cc~anissioner Brandt to approve General Plan Amendment 85-007, Change of Zone 85-017 and Specific Plan 83-001, ~dment No. 2, as reco~nended by Staff. UnanLmously Adopted. CONSENT CA~.~NDAR A. Cc~nissioner De Gasperin made a motion to approve the minutes from the regular meet~g of October 8, 1985. Cc~n%issioner Moran seconded the n~tion. - ~' The minutes of the regular meeting of October 8, 1985, w~re approved as suhn%itt~. Unanimously Adopted. B. Cc~m~ssioner De Gasperin made a motion to approve the minutes from the adjourned meeting of October 10, 1985, as ~ded. Cc~nissioner M~ran seconded the motion. The minutes of the adjourned meeting of October 10, 1985, were approved as amended. Unanimously Adopted. 5. BUSINESS Chairman Thornburgh introduced the t~D items of business as follows: A. Plot Plan No. 85-202, a request to construct a single-family dwelling on the west side of Avenida Rubio, 200' north of Calle Sonora; Gilbert Sherk, Applicant. B. Plot Plan No. 85-206, a request to construct a single-family dwelling on the east side of Avenida Carranza, 150' south of Calle Potrero; Thcmas Dorsey, Applicant. He called for the Staff Report. 1. Director Stevens informed the Comnission that the Applicant, Gilbert Sherk, for Plot Plan No. 85-202, had not contacted Staff with regard to necessary changes required on his house plans, so therefore requested that the matter Regarding' Plot Plan No. 85-206, Director Stevens info~ the Cc~m~ssion that the request is consistent with the requirements of the R-1 Zone and the goals and objectives of the La Quinta General Plan, the building design is ccm~oatible with area development and the project will not have a significant impact on the environment. ~nerefore, based on these findings, Staff recc~x~ends approval of of this plot plan. MINUTES - PLANNING C~SSION October 22, 198 5 Page 25. There being no discussion, Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion. 2. Cc~mlissi~er De Gasperin made a motion, seconded by C~ssioner Moran to table Plot Plan No. 85-202 to give Staff time to discuss their concerns regarding this house plan with the Applicant; and based on the findings in the Staff Report, to approve Plot Plan No. 85-206 in accordance with Exhibits A, B and C and subject to attached conditions. Unanimously Adopted o 6. There being no further, items of Agenda to ccme before the Cc~nission, Chairman ~nornburgh called for a motion to adjourn. Cc~missioner De Gasperin made a motion, seconded by Conm~ssioner Brandt, to adjourn to a Special M~eting on November 4, 1985, at 7:00 p.m., in La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California. The regular m~eting of the Planning C~ssion of the City of La Quinta, California was adjourned at 10:35 p.m., October 22, 1985, in La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California.