Loading...
1985 11 26 PC Minutes PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA A Regular Meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California. November 26, 1985 7: 00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER - A. Chairman Thornburgh called the Planning Comnission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. He then called upon Cc~nissioner Walling to lead the flag salute. 2. ROLL CALL A. Chairman Thornburgh requested the roli cai1. The Secretary calied the roli: Presen%:Cc~ssioners Brandt, De Gasperin, ~ran, Walling and Chairman Thornburgh Absent: None AlsO present was C~t,ll~t~ Development Director Lawrence L. Stevens, Principal Planner Sandra L. Bonner and Secretary Donna M. Velotta. 3. HEARINGS Chairman Thornburgh introduced the first hearing item as follows: A. Tentative Tract Map No. 21120 ("Santa Rosa Cove"), a request to divide 14+ acres north of Avenida Fernando, within Santa Rosa Cove, approximately 3600 feet west of Eisenhower Drive at Avenue 50, into 37 lots for custom, single- family housing; Anden Corporation, Applicant. He then called for the Staff J_ 1. Director Stevens advised that this is a request by Anden Corporation to divide 14 acres into 37 lots for the purpose of constructing custom, single-family houses. This property is located within Specific Plan 121-E (La Quinta Cove Golf Club) which was approved by the County a number of years ago. It is in essence a resubdivision of an area previously desig- nated for condos typical of those constructed within the Santa Rosa Cove project. The approved density under the tentative tract that implemented this particular portion of the property is 5.09 dwellings per acre. In this case, the proposal would reduce this density down to 2.51 dwellings per acre. The design of the project was referred to on a rendering by Director Stevens who explained that this is a cul-de-sac extension of some existing improvements. A series of lots are proposed generally between 11 and 12,000 square feet in size and it v~uld be intended that individual purchasers of the lots would then approach the H~wners Association and then the City with their plans for approval to build custom homes on the lots. Director Stevens stated that Staff has reviewed the proposal with the affected public agencies and their co~ts have been incorporated into the Staff Report. It is Staff's judgment that the proposal is con- sistent with the previously approved Specific Plan and that it otherwise complies with applicable zoning regulations and with the requir~ts of · the Subdivision Map Act. Based upon the findings in the Staff Report, Staff recc~mends that the Co~ssion approve Tentative Tract Map 21120 subject to the 25 conditions contained in the Staff Report, most of which are relatively standardized. Director Stevens directed the Planning Com~ssion's attention to Staff's suggestion that there be an Architectural Review Cc~n~t~, if one is not currently established within the CC&R's. - He advised that this is being added because Staff is not certain of one's existence, although we know that there is a Hcmeown~'s Association. He stated that this concluded the Staff Report. Chairman Thornburgh asked for any questions of Staff. There being none, he opened the hearing for public ccmm~/nt at 7:05 p.m. Mike Smith, 78-760 Runaway Bay, Bermuda Dunes, CA, representative of the Applicant, stated the Applicant and he had reviewed the conditions of approval and found no problem with any of them. MINUTES - PLANNING CC~MkISSION November 26, 1985 Page 2. There being no other public comments, Chairman Thornburgh closed the public hearing at 7: 09 p.m. There being no questions or discussion from the Cc~mission, Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion. 2. Conm%issioner Walling made a motion, seconded by ~ssioner Moran, to approve Tentative Tract Map No. 21120 based on the findings in the Staff Report in accordance with Exhibit A' and subject to attached conditions. Unanimously Adopted. Chairman Thornburgh introduced the next item of hearing as follows: B. Change of Zone No. 85-010, a request for a zone change from R-l-12,000 (One Family Dwellings, 12,000 Square Foot Net Lot Area Per Dwell~g) to R-3 (General Residential) on a 40.2-acre site; Morris and Grayson/Rufus Associates; Applicants He called for the Staff Report. At this time, Cc~missioner Walling info~ those present that he has a business relationship with the Applicant in this matter so therefore must exclude himself frcm the discussion and ruling of the request. 1. Director Stevens info~ the Cc~x~ission that this is a request filed by Morris and Grayson/Rufus Associates requesting a change of zone on a 40-acre parcel located on the southwest corner of Jefferson and Avenue 50. Several of the Cc~issioners may recall that almost a year ago they considered a zone change on this property frcm A-l-10 to R-l-12,000 and that reqUest was approved, based upon the General Plan and densities in effect at the time. In this case, the Applicant is requesting a change to R-3, although in discussion at the Study Session, the Applicant indicated they w~uld be willing to change that request to C-T rather than R-3. Director Stevens addressed, the fact that this site had been the subject of some discussion throughout the General Plan process and is included within the area designate in the new General Plan as Special Cc~mercial. The Special Cc~mercial cate- gory was-basiclly intended to facilitate some hotel and/or recreation development, essentially when it was determined that there was a cc~mitted user and developer for a project and w~uld also allow scme office and retail cc~x~ercial uses, with the understanding that our initial priorities related to development of the Village area as opposed to the Jefferson area for those types of uses. The site is undeveloped, it is ~iately east of the 30-acre site designated for The Orchard at La Quinta project, which is a much lower density hotel/spa resort activity. DireCtor Stevens noted that it is Staff's understanding, based upon discussions with the Applicant, that their intention is to .develop a 300-room hotel with related accessory facilities on this 40-acre site and that is the purpose for which they are requesting the zoning. At this tim~, there have been no develo~t plans submitted, although effort has been made to prepare at least some preliminar~ plans relative to the development of the site. In reviewing the request, it is clear to Staff that the General Plan intends to acconm~ate this type of use and intends to accc~modate change of zoning from R-l-12,000 to an appropriate zone. Director Stevens stated he believes there is scme question, particularly in light of Policy 6.20 in the General Plan, as to whether or not this is the time to grant that zoning. Policy 6.20 states, "Prior to obtaining develo~r~nt approval and zoning, it shall be the responsibility of the developer to demonstrate that a cc~x~itted user and construction funding are available". The text of this policy was not available to the Applicant .at the time of ~3_hmittal of this application, but Director Stevens stated he believed that it is still appropriate for the Cc~mission and subsequent Council consideration relative to this request. Staff's concern is that the request is simply premature until we get more information about the ccmmi%%ed user and abou% the i~minence of cons%ruc%ion as i% rela%es %o the availability of funding. For that reason, it' is Staff's recc~men~~on that this matter be continued to allow the Applicant additional time to get this information together for our consideration. Director Stevens stated that Staff is requesting continuance to the January 14, 1986 meeting. MINUTES - PLANNING C~SSION November 26, 1985 Page 3. Staff has also suggested that C-T Zoning w~uld be more appropriate than R-3. Previously, we used the R-3 Zoning for "The Orchard" site because we did not want to use a cc~mercial zone since the General Plan was residential in nature. Now that the General Plan is Special Cc~ercial, we should use a more appropriate cc~m~rcial designation, such as C-T, which would generally permit most of the uses being proposed. 5here may be scms office and related facilities, which ~Duld not strictly fall within the C-T Zone, but they may end up being part of a phase program, etc. Right now,~ however, Director Stevens advised that C-T is the best zoning we have available, based on our understand~g of the basic nature of the development- He went on to state again that it ~uld be Staff's recc~menda- tion to continue this matter to allow the Applicant to put together addition~ information to respond to the concern of prematurity. He noted that this concluded the Staff Report. As the Cc~mlission had no questions of Staff at this ~, Chairman Thornburgh opened the hearing to public comment at 7:15 p.m. 'Lawrence Spector, P. O. Box 867, La Quinta, CA, Applicant, advised the Planning Ccmmissi~n that they are in agreement with the C-T Zoning over the R-3. He noted that the situation being addressed by them at this time really relates to the question of timing. In the Staff recc~mendation, the question is one of prematurity and available funding with a conm~tted user sufficient to this purpose. He info~ the Cc~z%ission that their response to this is that they feel this is the appropriate time for th~ to get the zoning for the hotel. He went on to say that they are not in La Quinta to be land speculators; they have an ongoing project which has been ongoing for quite some time. He felt there was scme question as to whether they had just quickly developed some plans in the last few weeks and advised that statement is incorrect. They have been ~rking on this project since March and they do have a cc~m~tted user and have really been wrestling with the question of funding. He stated they simply are not strong enough to finance the preliminary expenses of this project without a cc~mitment frcm a user and advised that their reality is those joint venture developers with them need to know that they have the zoning for the hotel pinned down before they will finance or begin to finance enormous costs. Mr. Spector stated they were astonished at the costs of developing plans for The Orchard, which they had financed before successfully getting the zoning they requested. Mr. Spector stated that they are taking note of the fact that they are really the only other people within that Special or Tourist Cc~mercial Zoning, other than neighboring Landmark, who have been granted that zoning, so they don't really see it as a precedent and they do not see it as a loss of control by the Planning Co~nission because they will be c~g back with a Specific Plan for review and approval.. He directed the Ccm~ission's attention to the wall render~g of the proposed use, a 300-roc~ hotel, and advised that they are not displaying nor are they approaching at this time, the intended cc~anercial use. It is the hotel that they are seeking zoning for. Mr. Spector stated that they do have a plan develoPed and they find that this cart or the horse probl~n of which comes first, the zoning or the' putting in position of their people and venture capital, they have found that they need to be able to say to their co-venture partner, we have the zoning in hand, we have the 'General Plan in hand, we have the specific zonin¢ in hand, so we now ccme before you for the Specific Plan approval~ He went on to state that the City's 8% on this represents, at a reasonable occupancy~ $980,000 in tax base. Mr. Spector reiterated that they do not see the Planning Cc~x~ission losing control and they see the Specific Plan protected. In conclusion, he stated that for them it is not premature at all, it is a matter of being able to move forward. There being no further public cc~nents, Chairman 5hornburgh closed the public hearing at 7:21 p.m. M_TNUTES - PLANNING CC~v~SSION November 26 ~ 1985 Page 4. Chairman Thornburgh cc~nented that he felt this request is a proper use for the requested zoning. It is not a proper use for the R-l-12,000 zoning we approved previously and he stated he would hate to see it developed into one-acre parcels. Chairman %hornburgh felt that the hotel ~ould be a proper use at this time; he noted that we are zoning the property and to his recollection, the only other time we got into this was .concerning having a valid tenant or financial feasibility study and somebody as a tenant would be under the Special Cc~nercial. Director Stevens responded by noting that in trying to assess those policies for the Special Cc~anercial land use category, there is no question that the hotel and related uses are appropriate at any time without benefit of supportive market analysis. He believes that was clearly oriented toward the retail/office uses. Director Stevens stated he believes the concern that Staff is trying to convey is that maybe we need a little more informa- tion before we grant this zoning. He reminded the Cc~mission that they had a debate on this property when the R-l-12,000 was requested, in that they felt they reallY needed a develo~t plan or a preliminary developmmnt plan or more information. He advised the Con~ission that the plan (rendering) the Applicant presented this evening was initially seen by Staff the day before. He felt that sc~e of this type of information is really pertinent to the Conmtission's consideration of the zoning. As an example, the zoning for The Orchard has been in place for three years and nothing has happened. Will that be the samm situation on this parcel? Director Stevens stated he felt the General Plan gives potential financial supporters clear evidence that the City would support ccmnercial, tourist, hotel type developmmnt on the site and that we want to retain our zoning control and consider processing zOning changes with develotm~n~t plan approvals rather than separately. If you grant the zoning now, and he stated he was not saying this is the Applicant's intention, but you have seen it with other applications that the minute you grant the approval, the Applicant puts up a "For Sale" sign. Director Stevens advised that Staff is looking for more of a c~tmmnt from the Applicant in terms of what is going to be there and the nature of what is going to be there before we grant the zoning. Chairman Thornburgh again reiterated his feelings that this corner should be for a Tourist Cc~nercial type use and that this hotel should be built here. Cc~nissioner Moran questioned Staff as to whether or not a developmmnt agreement of some sort would work in this situation. Director Stevens responded that the problem you run into with that is what you call conditional zoning which has generally been frowned upon by the California courts. As Chairman Thornburgh indicated before, the zoning is really based on the characteristics of the property, not who owns it. Even if we had a development plan and we use %hat as criteria for granting the zoning, that is not to say that the plan cannot change and the developer cannot change, so that issue is still there. Cc~xmissioner De Gasperin stated she tended to agree with Staff's recc~ne~n~- tion that this matter be continued to January 14. Her reason is that the property in question is vacant, undeveloped property and she preferred to have a tighter control on how the City controls the developmmnt of that property. This particular Applicant does have a small history of speculation with regard to this corner. There is a history of a previous request for zoning and apparently the Applicant was not able to follow through, for whatever reasons. Co~nissioner De Gasperin went on to cc~n~nt that we have now designated this corner Special Co,mercia, which should tell the financie~ in what direction the City is going, so that Mr. Spector should be able to becomm more firm. She advised that she would like to know exactly what is going to happen on this property to the extent that Mr. Spector can tell us before we shift everything and call it a particularly zoned area, to avoid losing ccntrol. To give Mr. Spector the benefit we can, she advised she would prefer to see this request continued, so the Applicant can firm up his plans before we ccnmtit ourselves to a zone change. MINUTES - PIANN~G CQMMISSION November 26, 1985 Page 5. Cc~mission~ Moran cc~ent~ that she is inclined to agree with Chairman Thornburgh. She felt that in order for Mr. Spector to go to his lenders, he will need to show- the zoning for this property in order to get financing. Commissioner Brandt advised that she w~uld like to see more information and therefore agreed with Staff's recc~x~en~~on of continuance. Chairman Thornburgh requested of the Cc~x~issioners what they felt the Applicant should bring back to them at the January 14 meeting to justify this request. Cc~missio~r De Gasperin stated she w~uld like to have a feeling from Mr. Spector of the direction he is going; what efforts he has made to get financing, etc. Chairman Thornburgh requested Director Stevens to clarify what the Applicant should bring back to the Cc~mission. Director Stevens responded by advising that the Applicant should at least bring back a preliminary plan, so w~ can evaluate that and make son~ general cc~nents on a concept basis. The second thing he w~uld expect is scme written description or material frc~ the Applicant indicating who the intended developer is (he noted that there was scme discussion at the Study Session that M~rris and Grayson or Rufus Associates w~uld be the developer) and then he would look for additional information as to what financing efforts, if any, have been sought. There was further discussion regarding the zoning and then Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion. 2. Cc~issioner De Gasperin made a motion to continue Change of Zone 85-010 to the January 14, 1986 meeting of the Planning Con~ission to allow the Applicant additional tim~ to provide information demons~a~ng that a c~tted user and construction funding are available. Cc~missioner ~Brandt seconded the motion. Unanimously Adopted with one abstention. Chairman Thornburgh introduced the last item of hearing as follows: C. Plot Plan No. 85-217, a request for aPProval to construct an 88,575-square-foot ccmm~rcial/office plan made up of four separate structures on 5.58 acres, in conjunction with the Duna La Quinta Specific Plan No. 83-001, Amendment No. 2; Landmark Land ~y, Applicant. He called for the Staff Report. 1. Director Stevens cc~mented that he believed everyone was familiar with this piece of property as the Cc~nission had just recently finished processing a Change of Zone, Specific Plan and General Plan ~dment on it, and it was also the topic of considerable discussion during the course of the ~eral Plan process as to whether it should be included within the Village Cc~ercia~ area. At the end of the General Plan process, it was the consensus that it should be included in that category. We granted C-P-S zoning to this area in the interim to allow deVelopment of a Village Commercial Zone and the Applicant has prepared a develo~t plan to actually start construction on the site. ~his develo~t plan that is before you is actually a request to .construct office building #1 which is located in the northeast corner of the site and for a general layout approval of the site. Subsequent plot plans will be necessary for the remaining buildings and Director Stevens felt, when the conditions of approval have been cc~pleted, that we will probably be looking for scme additional modifications of the overall site plan itself before we reach a final conclusion. He advised that this application was structured this way for two basic reasons. First, we don't have any detailed information on the other three buildings and that makes it difficult to grant any approvals. Secondly, the Applicant has a very strong desire to begin site develo~nt because of an agreement with the developer of the site prior to January 1. so, by getting this building approvaI and general concept approval of the site plan, Staff is confident that it will be enough of an approval so they can begin the grading w~rk prior to that deadline date. This will necessitate, however, based on some of the issues raided in the report and the conditions, a little give and take on both sides as we get farther down into the detailed plans of the subsequent buildings. MINUTES - PLANNING COMMISSION November 26, 1985 Page 6. Director Stevens advised that he felt it ir~po~t for the Ccnm~ssion to understand what they are approving, which is basically building #1 and a basic concept of the site plan. He went on to advise the Cc~nission that Staff has sent the development plan out on a relatively short notice to various agencies and their c~ts are incorporated in the Staff Report and the conditions. Staff sees a number of concerns with regard to this matter. Generally, it will fit into our General CcnTaercial concept. There are some detailed items relative to pedes- trian access, etc., but he felt they were workable with the proposed site plat. There are scme concerns with buffering the residential area, but again he fel~ this a soluble problem. Staff is a little concerned with the nature of pedestrian orientation on the site - we have identified in the conditions of approval some additional amenities felt to be appropriate which will probably impact the parking area to some degree, but not significantly. Staff is not overly concerned with building design, particularly as it relates to the Village Commercial and the architectural w~rk we are doing because we anti- cipate several different architectural styles within the overall village concept and this, in fact, is one that already exists. Director Stevens stated that he felt we could w~rk around landscaping and pedestrian and other amenities that one w~uld expect to use as our principal link for within the village. We really are not being restricted by granting this approval with regard to those issues. Director Stevens went on to address one of Staff's major~ concerns which relates to parking. He stated that Staff is concerned that the amDunt of building square footage being proposed is excessive in light of what we expect the parking demands on the site to be. For exauple, both of the office buildings at the rear of the parcel are designated office/commercial. There can be considerable variation in what the requir~ts are based on how much of that square footage is used for office versus how much is used for comTercial. This really makes it pretty difficult without precise information, particularly on the larger of the tw~ buildings, to come to~ real conclusions on parking. The restaurant parking is an additional example based on the amount of serving area. There is a 7500-square-foot pad, but we haven't the foggiest idea of how much serving area will ultimately end up in the restaurant. What we are really saying is that there are some details of those three additional buildings that we really need in order to give fina~ · site plan approval and we may come down to approving the medical building, which will probably be the next plot plan we'll see, and the restaurant, whirl will probably be the third plot plan; and may have to limit the square footag~ of building #4 based on the available number of parking spaces. There may be some opportunities of joint use of parking, but Director Stevens felt we real] need to know more about the uses before we can evaluate that joint use oppor- tunity. He advised that, at this point in time, we can give a concept approw but with the understanding that as we see future buildings and we start to ti( down the planning requirements more specifically, w~ may need to impose addi- tional limitations; and the Applicant needs to be aware that, in fact, those limitations may cause him to reduce the building area from what is shown. If that becomes critical to their financing, that they need to be more specific before they can get the level of commitment that we can give them under our regulations.. This is not a probl~ with the proposed .building, 'as we can f/nd the number of parking spaces for it, but it could become an issue with future buildings. Director Stevens addressed another issue regarding circulation; basically, what kind of access is appropriate for the property and what type if improve- ments are appropriate. Calle Tampico has three different category designatio] in the General Plan. One is Primary Arterial, which is a designation used fo~ many streets and basically establishes its width and whether or not a median is required; second designation is Secondary Image Corridor, which means we'll set scme more detailed landscaping standards relative to the type of material: etc., and the last designation is a Ceremonial Street, which ~uld anticipate additional standards relative to landscaping and related aesthetic type feat~ These designations do not d~d more road width or those types of things, bu~ woUld affect the design of the road and particularly the aesthetic character- istics. Again, Director Stevens reiterated that Staff may have some detail MINUTES - PLANNING C~SSION November 26, 1985 . Page 7. disagre~nents with the Applicant, but he does not believe they are substantiv~ in light of building ~1 requested. Staff does, however, suggest- because of the nature of the street - that median openings should be limited. The General Plan suggests, on Primary Arterials, that medians be sited at inter- sections, and we would perceive a median opening as an intersection, should be spaced at intervals of 1200 feet. The site is 600+ feet across, so Staff's suggestion is that there be one ~an opening. We feel that we can anticipa~ other users on the west side of Desert Club Drive, so the median should be at Desert Club Drive and not at the project driveway entrance. ~his is one of t~. issues that Staff and the Applicant do not agree upon, so we will leave the decision to the Corm%ission. Staff is recc~m~_nding that the tw~ driveways on each street be approved. Director Stevens also addressed Staff's request that Desert Club Drive be improved, as a local street along the west side of the property and what we envision, primarily because of the depth and amount of cc~m~rcial property on the north side of Tampico, that we will probably need some kind of a limit~ collector road system within that area north of Tampico, so this is the beginning of that. We are not certain as to the appropriate design since we have no development proposals to the west, but we need to reserve that oppor- tunity. We may decide, based on the phasing plan, not to construct that improve~_nt right away and see what happend with adjacent property. Director Stevens advised the Applicant and the Cc~mission that they were given sc~e revised conditions based on additional discussion Staff had with the Applicant's representative this date. A lot of the changes were editorial in nature, son~ were just coming to an agreement on con~on language. He then briefly reviewed those changes. Condition No. ll.a. was changed to note exact road width relative to Tampico and Desert Club Drive. Cc~dition~ No. 12.b. changed to show the requir~t of a 20' landscaped parkway along the frontage of the project on Calle Tampico. What that does to the project is take out the first tier of parking or at least requires substantial redesign relative to that front tier of parking. The Applicant shows a three-foot setback and the landscaping is within the City's parkway. That is a long way from what we anticipated in terms of the General Plan issues and the appropriate designation along ~alle Tampico. Within that Condition 12.b., you will probably hear a disagre~ant from the Applicant regarding a~meandering sidewalk. ~ The rema~g issues relative to parking and landscaping are not major concerns and generally reference existing regulations and set som~ standards for parking lot landscaping. Director Stevens stated that from Staff's perspective and based upon discussion with the Applicant this date, there are only three issues: 1. Setback- whether it should be 20' or not. 2. Meander~g sidewalk 3. ~ether or not an additional n~ian opening on Calle Tanpico should be permitted. Based on the discussion at the Study Session, Director Stevens addressed an additional c~ncern frcm the Planning Cc~mission. It relates to the design and location of the covered parking, particularly the parking along the Tampico frontage. The Commission expressed a concern of whether or not that really created an appropriate visual environment along Calle Tampico and whether or not it should be redesigned, deleted or scme~~ else. It is possible because we are reserving scme additional review of the site plan that the issues related to that, particularly the setback, could be something we could defer final approvem~nt on; for example, to the second building, and let the Applicant start the project if we felt that issue warranted more consideration or tiros before we reached a final conclusion. In conclusion, Director Stevens stated that it is Staff's recC~menda~on that the Cc~mission approve the plot plan subject to the revised conditions sub- mitted to them tonight. MINUTES - PLANNING ~SSION November 26, 1985 Page 8. Chairman Thornburgh asked for any questions of Staff. Conmtissioner Brandt asked if Staff knew what improvements would be done in conjunction with the first building. Director Stevens responded that generally there would be a general site grading, they would provide a minimum of 89 parking spaces and an access directly to Tampico. ~H~ noted that , in fact, it may be the City's desire that all of the improvements not be made because Staff is %~0rking on the Village Specific Plan. Cc~ssion~ Walling asked if signalling was antiCipated between Washington Street and Eisenhower on Tampico. Director Stevens responded that no signalling was anticipated at the present time, although ultimately we will probably have scmething at Tampico and Bermudas. Conn~ssioner Walling asked if stop signs are anticipated. Director Stevens replied that there probably would be a two-way stop sign at Desert Club Drive. After a discussion period, Chairman Thornburgh opened the hearing for public cc~mlent at 8:30 p.m. Kaye Chandl~, P. O. Box 1000, La Quinta, CA- representing Landmark as a seller, representing Skip Fonner. and his associates as a buyer, and repre- senting Dixie Federal who are involved in approving a loan, and also representing themselves as they will be occupying one of the buildings. Mr. Chandler discussed the issue of parking explained earlier as a concern of Staff. With regard to improvements to Desert Club Drive, he agreed with Staff's request. On Staff's request for only one median cut on Tampico, he did not feel he could agree. On the issue of the 20' setback on the Tampico frontage, which would el intinate the covered parking proposed there currently, Mr. Chandler felt if they did give it up, it could be moved elsewhere on the site. He further felt that the 20' setback brings up the problem of going back to try to maximize the site. Mr. Chandler stated that he always has a problem with cities that say they want a 100' right-of-way or 120' right-of-wa so they design to that right-of-way and later find there are setbacks on top of that. He suggested that in future, if the City wants a 100' right-of-way for a street that is one thing, but if they want the setbacks on it, they should call for 150' outright. This would make it a lot clearer to developers and this issue would not be a concern at this point in the application process With regard to the 20' setback requirement, Mr. Chandler advised they must go back to the buyer, Skip Fonner, and his associates, to see what that does to his 'financial plan in reducing the building size. He addressed the issue of pedestrian access stating they did not believe the central tk%rk~g area in this size of a project is really large enough to warrant installing pedestrian sidewalks. He stated that the key matter is~ theY need a ruling on this matter tonight in order to go fo~d with the next step of going into a grading plan Part of their agreement with the group is that Landmark would produce build__~bl pads on such and such a date. Obviously, they do not want to mass grade the site and conl0act it, put utilities in and then find out that none of the buildings in the front will ~ork because of the way the parking lot is laid ou So, when we say we are going to get a conceptual approval, we should all have some understan~g conceptually of what will change and what will not. Bruce Cathcart, P. O. Box 346, La Quinta, spoke in behalf of the Applicant. He info~ the Cc~n~ssion that he could almost assure them that the medical building, ~k's building and probably the restaurant would all start construction at the .same time. He felt that the 20' setback would be an issue, but stated what we are dealing with here is aesthetics and aestheticall he felt it inl0ortant to consider the difference of 12' and 20' and the Viabili of making this project work and go forward. Addressing the median requirement .he felt it important that the project have access from. both directions. MINUTES - PLANNING ~SSION November 26, 1985 Page 9. Mike Smith, 78-760 Runaway Bay, Bermuda Dunes, CA, addressed Condition No. 18.a., where it states the Applicant shall provide a 40' easemsnt to the district parallel to the west property line. He stated that exceeds the right-of-way provided for Desert Club. (Mr. Stevens advised that this is Condition 17.a. on the revised set of conditions. ) Mr. Smith went on to state that they would like to have the opportunity to negotiate with the district on this matter, rather than having this condition direct them. The 40' eas~t requirement extends into the parking lot area. ~ne road is only a 30'-wide dedication and probably 10' of that will be parkway- Director Stevens advised that it w~uld be agreeable with Staff to delete the "40'" notation in the condition, so the condition w~uld just require the Applicant to provide an easement to the district. There being no further public co~ts, Chairman 5hornburgh closed the public hearing at 8 :.50 p.m. Chai~ 5hornburgh requested Director Stevens to clarify exactly what the Cc~mission should rule on tonight and what could be attached to future applications for the project. Director Stevens advised the Cc~ission they could procrastinate on the covered parking issue and insert a condition that you want to review the location and final design. On the setback, he felt the Corm%ission should cc~ up with a number or range of a number so they know what to design it to, as that is critical to the .building square footage and the design. Regarding the median openings, he felt it could be deferred, but w~uld rather have a decision tonight. He also felt they should make a decision on the meandering sidewalk, but noted that it is not a critical issue. Cc~missioner Walling stated he felt it possible to move the parking tier, proposed on Tampico, back to provide the 20' setback and with ~ minor building changes, it shculd w~rk without losing the parking spaces. Cc~missioner M~ran felt that the setback is a major issue as Tampico is the entrance into the Village area. She suggested a msandering setback where you Could utilize parking area and then give up a portion. After sc~e discussion, it was the consensus of the Planning Cc~anission to require an average 15' setback along the Calle Tampico frontage. After discussion of the parking issue, it was the consensus of the Con~ission that there be no covered parking along Tsapico. It was also determined that a 6-foot-wide sidewalk be incorporated into the parkway. After discussion of median openings, it was the consensus of the Conm%ission that m~an openings on Calle Tampico shall be allowed at the westerly driveway and at Desert Club Drive. A maxinum of t%~ driveways each on Calle Tampico and Desert Club Drive shall be permitted. All discussion concluded, Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion. 2. Cc~missioner Walling made a motion, seconded by Cc~ssioner Brandt, to approve Plot Plan No. 85-217, in accordance with Exhibits A, B and C and subject to revised c~nditions per consensus of the Planning Conm%~ssion. Unan~sly Adopted. Director Stevens advised the Commission that this matter will go to City County. hearing at their December 3, 1985 meeting. 4. CONSENT CAT iRNDAR A. Cc~m~ssioner De Gasperin made a motion to approve the minutes from the regular meet~g of November 12, 1985. Commissioner Moran seconded the motion. 1. The minutes of the regular meeting of November 12, 1985, were approved as ~!__bn%itted. Unanimously Adopted. MINUTES - PLANNING COMMISSION November 26, 1985 Page 10. 5. BUSINESS Chai~ Thornburgh introduced the four items of business as follows: A. Plot Plan No. 85-211, a request to construct a single-family dwelling on the _ west side of Avenida Herrera, 50' north of Calle Madrid; David Mittleholtz, Applicant. B. Plot Plan No. 85-218, a request to construct a singl'e-family dwelling on the north side of Horseshoe Road ak the cul-de-sacs; Joe S%er~aer, Applicant. C. Plot Plan No. 85-219, a request to construct a single-family dwelling on the west side of Avenida Velasco, 294' south of Calle Ensenada; Roy D. ~rris, Applicant. D. Plot Plan No. 85-220, a request to construct a single-family dwelling fronting on Avenida Madero, 150' north of Calle Tem~a; Rick Johnson Construction, Applicant. He then called for the Staff Reports. 1. DireCtor Stevens stated that all of the requests are consistent with the La Quint2 General Plan, are consistent with the standards of the R-1 Zone and the City's adopted policies for single-family houses, their design as modified by the condi- tions of approval is cc~pat~le with area development, and the conditions of approval provide adequate mitigation of possible significant adverse impacts on the enviro~t. He addressed a minor concern for Plot Plan No. 85-218 with regard to roof pitch, but after a short discussion with the Conm%ission, it was their consensus to delete Condition No. 12 for that plot plan. There being no further discussion, Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion. 2. Commissioner De Gasperin made a motion, seconded by Commissioner ~bran, to approve Plot Plans Nos. 85-211, 85-218, 85-219, and 85-220, in accordance with Exhibits A, B and C, and subject to conditions of approval as ~ded. Unan~sly Adopted. 6. ADJOURNMENT There being no further items of agenda to ccme before the Con~ssion, Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion to adjourn. Cc~missioner Walling made a motion to adjourn to the next regular meeting of the Planning Cc~m%~sion to be held December 10, 1985, at 7:00 p.m., in the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, CA. Ccmmissioner Moran seconded the motion. UnanLmously Adopted. The regular mseting of the Planning Con~ssion of the City of La Quinta, California, was adjourned at 9:'20 p.m., November 26, 1985, in the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California.