Loading...
1986 01 14 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 January 14, 1986 7: 00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER A. Chairman %hornburgh called the Planning Conn~ssion meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.; - he called upon Cc~nissioner Brandt to lead the flag salute. 2. ROLL CALL A. Chairman Thornburgh requested the roll call; the Secretary called the Roll: -- Present: . Cc~m~ssioners Brandt, De Gasperin, Moran, Walling and Chairman Thornburgh Absent: None Also present were Ommmnity Development Director Lawrence L. Stevens and Secretary Donna M. Velotta. 3. HEARINGS Cc~nissioner Walling stepped down at this t/me due to his business association with the Applicant.' Chairman Thornburgh introduced the item of hearing as :follows: A. Change of Zone No. 85-018, a request for a zone change frc~ R-l-12,000 (One Family Dwellings, 12,000 Square Feet Net Lot Area Per Dwelling) to R-3 (General Residential) on a 40.2 Acre Site; Morris and Grayson/Rufus Associates; Applicant.' (Continued) He called for the Staff Report: - 1. ~ity Develotm~_nt Director La~ence L. Stevens reiterated that this matter had been before the Ccmmtission at their meeting of 11/26/85, and at that time, the Con~ssion voted to continue the matter. At the November meeting a number of issues were discussed related to the requested rezoning, such as the relationship of the request to the newly adopted General Plan and several policies contained therein. At that meeting, there was also scme concern by Staff and some members of the Cc~mission that more informa- tion was needed regarding the develoF~rent; therefore, the continuance of the matter to this meeting. That additional information consisted primarily of preliminary plans for the project, giving scme basic develoDment date (number of rocms, square footage, etc. ), which information was received yesterday. The Cc~mission received blueprint coDies of that plan. The second item of infoi~ation requested of the Applicant was related to the proposed developer, ~3~,clu~]ing timing of development. The third item of information r~luested was availability of financing or efforts to secure financJ~9-. Attached to the Osmmtission's agenda materials is a letter from Mr. Spector, t/~e Applicant, outlining the status relative to these issues. Also attached to the agenda materials is a copy of a letter frc~ Laventhol ar~ Horvath to Mr. St0ector. They are doing a market study for the site and this letter indicates the timJ_ng of that study. Director Stevens advised that Staff has taken this additional material and discussed key factors that were felt relative to those issues noted above; the nature of the conmzitted user/construction ~unding issue and how those are affected by this additional information. He felt it fair to state that Staff still has reservations based on the General Plan policy as to whether it is appropriate to grant zoning at this time. He felt that this was rein- forced to a degree by Staff's concern of how the zoning on this site relates to the construction financing for the adjacent "Orchard" project. He noted, that relationship has created a degree of discomfort in his mind. MINUTES - PLANNING CC~MISSION January 14, 1986 Page 2. Director Stevens stated that the Applicant has taken efforts to at least illustrate what their current intentions are relative to the site develorm~nt. He then went over the site plan submitted by the Applicant using the rendering received from them. The main cc~ponent being the hotel cc~%olex at Avenue 50/ Jefferson Street. The hotel consists of approximately 300 rooms and would vary from 1-3 stories depending on the location within the site. There will also be the related facilities such as a dining lounge, offices, ballroom, - etc. The hotel itself will be scattered around a large lake which gives it a low density approach. There are scme facilities provided in the form of a health club/tennis club, an additional th~me type restaurant and some cc~x~_r- cial and office space of a lesser defined type. Director Stevens felt it fair to say that, to a large degree, the intentions expressed here will be impacted by who the developer is, what the market study says and then how the financiers finally end up being involved in the package. As noted in the Staff Report, the purpose of having a site plan and additional develo~nent information was not to have a plan that everyone thinks they are approving, but to graphically illustrate what the intentions are for site development and show that there was more effort than simply asking for a change of zone in their thinking. With that purpose in mind, obviously Staff did not do a detailed review of the site plan, although we did have scme input with the Applicant's architect as he was developing this plan relative to these issues. Within the report, Staff has identified three alternatives which the Cc~mission has in reaching a conclusion. ~ney are: 1. Determine that the additional information demonstrates sufficient consistency with the intent of the General Plan policies and grant the Change of Zone. (Requires m~tion to approve Zone Change to C-T and direct Staff to prepare appropriate Findings. ) - 2. Determine that approval of the Zone Change is not consistent with the intent of the General Plan and deny the Change of Zone. (Requires motion to deny Zone Change and direct Staff to prepare appropriate Findings. ) 3. Continue the request until the market study is available to better evaluate the opportunity for and timing of hotel and related develo~E~_nt on this property. (Requires motion to continue to specific date. ) Director Stevens stated to the Cc~mission that Staff's reservations are evident and they will leave it to the ~ssion as to how they wish to conclude this process. He also info~ the Cc~mission that he was not able to discuss with the City Attorney how the ~ssion's r~dation would be described in the event of a tie vote. However, from past experience, the C~ssion can conclude their process even though there may be a 2-2 vote. In the case of a Change of Zone, the Council makes the final decision, so we would simply report to them that there was a tie vote and explain to them the reasons for each side of that vote. This concluded Staff's report. Chairman Thornburgh called for any questions of Staff. Cc~x~issioner ~Dran: Asked Director Stevens if they could approve the C-T Zoning making a notation that the ~ssion would not allow items 1 and 2. Director Stevens: Responded negatively to the question, stating that ~Duld _ be, in essence, conditional zoning. Conditional zoning is basically not pen~itted in California. We do not have the ability to make a special zoning because we must go through hearings to do that. Therefore, we must rely on the stated and understood position that those first t~D uses, auto sales and gasoline stations, would be denied if a development application came in for those on the premise that those uses were not consistent with the general description of the land use category contained in the General Plan. We would rely on our General Plan consistency_ authority to turn down that type of application. MINUTES - PLANNING COMMISSION January 14, 1986 Page 3. Cc~uissioner Moran: Requested if the Conmission could request a C-T/SP. Director Stevens: Again responded negatively. Chairman Thornburgh: Thought it ~ould be automatic, if this matter was approved for C-T, that there would be a site plan required prior to any development anyway. -- Director Stevens: Responded that was correct and felt that the Cxmwnission would remedy the probl~u of reviewing those plans with the consideration at the next meeting relative to your review of ~cial developments, even though they may not, under the current ordinance, require your approval, he felt the ~ssion would rema~y that at their next m~eting. Therefore, you will have an opportunity to review all ~cial development plans until we get the Zoning Ordinance rewritten and you decide how you want to do it at that time. Ommzissioner De Gasperin: Asked Director Stevens what made him feel uncc~fort_mble regarding the connected financing. Director Stevens: Responded that he was concerned that the increased value of the zoning on a separate piece of property is sc~ehow the substantial basis for being able to develop a separate, adjacent project. In essence, the zoning is all that is important to being able to proceed with that project and the way he (Dir. Stevens) reads the plan is that the development of that corner site should be more important than the zoning. We (Staff) wanted to tie those two as closely together with that policy, by having scxne conmzitments before we granted the zoning. It seems that if it is so tied to the other develo~t project, that it is really the financing of that project that is important rather than the conmzi~t on this site. He noted that is where his lack of cc~fort is. _ There being no further questions of Staff, Chairman Thornburgh opened the hearing for public ccmm~_nt at 7:15 p.m. Lawrence _Spector, Rufus Associates, P. O. Box 299, La Quinta, California, the Applicant, advised the Cc~mzission that they now have an investor who came in and picked up the balance of the equity that they had involved in this project. He informed the ~ssion that they now have $8.5 million dollars in cash equity in this project. Also, they have been advised by the lender whc~n they have been working with, that their (the lender's) senior loan cc~mzittee had confizmed the financing for the "Orchard". Therefore, the "Orchard" project is cc~plete as far as financing is concerned. Mr. Spector explained why it had taken such a long time to get to this point with the project. He further advised the ~ssion that it is very possible that they may do this project themselves. They hope to break ground for the "orchard" project within 60-90 days and hope to open in September of 1986. ~ssioner De Gasperin: Requested of the Applicant the types of businesses that would be attracted to the office space. Mr. Spector: Stated that they would be attracted, as they need office space; that there may be sc~e retail shops, space for the arts, architects, ~ity involved space, etc. He advised that whatever they may be, they must knit together with the resort or they will not be there. Ccmmzissioner De Gasperin: Noted that the third alternative for the ~ssion was to wait for the return of the market study being done for the Applicant. She requested of the Applicant how that would have an adverse effect on them. Mr. Spector: Responded that it would stop the project for them. There being no further public con~nents, Cha~ Thornburgh closed the public hearing at 7: 27 p.m. Cxmm~ssioner Moran: Felt the Applicant should have the C-T Zoning. ~S - PLANNING COMMISSION January 14, 1986 Page 4. Ccam~ssioner Brandt: Felt ccmfort~ble with the additional information sutmmitted by the Applicant since the matter was last heard. She felt the Applicant should be .granted the C-T Zoning. Her only concern was with the ccam~m~ial and office uses proposed within the project property, as it is not consistent with the C-T Zone as it stands. Director Stevens: Responded that we w~uld probably have a new Zoning - Ordinance done before we have a develo~r~nt plan for this site. Chairman Thornburgh: Stated he felt the intent of the zoning that they did on the General Plan will designate this as a use for a hotel. He noted that what they w~uld be doing tonight, if they select Alternative No. 1, would be to approve it for hotel uses and it would give the Applicant the option at a later date to ccme in under Policy 6.19 and 6.20 to justify that there was some office or cc~nercial necessary. Cca~nissioner De Gasperin: Thanked the Planning Staff and Mr. Spector for their efforts and stated she felt the C~ssion was at a junction where they just had to take a leap of trust. She felt comfortable granting the C-T zoning. There was a short discussion regarding the interpretation of policies 6.19 and 6.20 of.the General Plan. Chairman Thornburgh stated he appreciated Staff's efforts in this matter, but felt they were sc~ewhat tough on this request. There being no further discussion, Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion. 2. Cc~missioner Moran made a motion, seconded by Ccam%issioner Brandt to approve Change of Zone 85-018 to C-T (Tourist ~cial) and directed Staff to prepare the appropriate Findings. Unanimously Adopted with one abstention. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Cc~missioner Moran made a motion, seconded by Cc~m%issioner Walling to approve the minutes from the regular meeting of November 26, 1985. The minutes of the regular meeting of November 26, 1985, were approved as submitted. Unanimcusly Adopted. B. Cc~ssioner Moran made a motion, seconded by Ccamtissioner Walling to approve the minutes from the regular meeting of December 10, 1985. The minutes of the regular m~e~g of December 10, 1985, were approved as sutmmitted. Unanimously Adopted. 5. BUSINESS Chairman Thornburgh introduced the items of business as follows: A. PLOT PLAN NO. 85-242, a request to construct a single-family dwelling on the east side of Avenida Diaz, 200' south of Calle Potrero; Larry McMachen/ Derrick Kramer; Applicants. B. PLOT PLAN NO. 85-243, a request to construct a single-family dwelling on the west side of Avenida Alvarado, 50' north of Calle Potrero; Larry Mc~-~chen/ Matt Roberts, Applicants. - C. PLOT PLAN NO. 85-245, a request to construct a single-family dwelling on the east side of Avenida Navarro, 160' north of Calle Nogales; Robert L. Harmon/ Linda Josie; Applicants. D. PLOT PLAN NO. 85-246, a request to construct a single-family dwelling on the west side of Avenida Madero, 200' south of Calle Chillon; Rick Johnson Construction, Applicant. E. PI//f PLAN NO. 85-247, a request to construct a single-family dwelling on the west side of Avenida Juarez, 100' north of Calle Madrid; Rick Johnson Construction, Applicant. MINUTES - PLANNING COMMISSION January 14, 1986 Page 5. F. PLOT PLAN NO. 85-248, a request to construct a single-family dwelling on the north side of Fiesta Drive, 740' west of Jefferson Street; William Hartung, Applicant. G. PLOT PLAN NO. 85-249, a request to construct a single-family dwelling on the west side of Avenida Herrera, 250' north of Calle Nogales; Larry Rogers/ Jim Pettus, Applicants. -- He called for the Staff Report. 1. Director Stevens informed the ~ssion that all of the requests would not have a significant adverse impact on the environment, that they were consistent with the requirements of the R-l*++ Zone and goals and objectives of the La Quinta General Plan, and that the building designs were cc~pa~le with the area develop- m~nt contingent upon the conditions of approval. He noted that there were a few minor concerns with a couple of the applications, but they were all being solved through the conditions of approval. There being no questions or discussion, Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion. 2. Cc~missioner Walling made a motion, seconded by ~ssioner De Gasperin to approve Plot Plans Nos. 85-242, 85-243, 85-245, 85-246, 85-247, 85-248 and 85-249, based upon the findings in the Staff Reports, in accordance with Exhibits A, B and C for each application, and subject to the attached conditions. Unanimously Adopted. At this time, Director Stevens informed the Planning Cc~mission that the Washington Street S~ific Plan w~uld not be on the January_ 28th agenda because of notice require- ments. He advised that Staff must notice the entire length of Washington Street and there is not enough tim~ to do that prior to that meeting. Therefore, the hearing will be rescheduled to the meeting of February 11, 1986. 6. AD3OURNMENT There being no further items of agenda to ccme before the ~ssion, Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion to adjourn. Chairman Thornburgh made a motion, seconded by Cc~missioner M~ran to adjourn to the next regular meetir~ of the Planning Cc~ssion to be held January 28, 1986, at 7:00 p.m., in the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, CA. Unanimously Adopted. The regular meeting of the Planning Cc~x~ission of the City of La Quinta, California, was adjourned at 7:45 p.m., January 14, 1986, in the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California.