Loading...
1986 01 28 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 28, 1986 7: 00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER A. Due to the absence of Chairman Thornburgh, Vice Chairman John Walling called - the Planning Cc~mission mseting to order at 7:00 p.m.; he then called upon Cc~missioner M~ran to lead the flag salute. 2. ROLL CALL A. Vice Chairman Walling requested the Roll Call; the Secretary called the Roil: Present: Cc~T~issioners Brandt, De Gasperin, Moran and Vice Chairman ~alling Absent: Chairman Thornburgh Cc~missioner De Gasperin made a motion, seconded by Cc~m~ssioner Brandt, to excuse Chairman Thornburgh. Unanimously Adopted. Also present were Community Develo~z~=_nt Director Lawrence L. Stevens, Principal Planner Sandra L. Bonner, Associate Planner Gary W. Price, and Secretary Donna M. Velotta. 3. HEARINGS Due to his business association with the Applicant regarding the first t~ items of hearing, Vice Chairman Walling stepped down. CcmT~issioner Moran introduced the t~o public hearing items as follows: -- A. Specific Plan No. 84-003, Amenddment No. 1, a request to amend the current specific plan approval for a resort hotel facility by increasing the site from 28.8 to 37.5 acres, by increasing the number of rentable units from 60 to 86 rocms, and by proposing other related minor changes; Morris and Grayson, Inc., Applicant. B. Change of Zone No. 85-019, a request for approval to change or shift the boundary between the R-3/SP Zone and the R-2-12,000 Zone to conform with the proposed revised site for "The Orchard at La Quinta" Resort Hotel (Specific Plan No. 84-003, Amendment No. 1); Morris and Grayson, Inc., Applicant. Com~ssioner Moran advised that these two items would be heard concurrently. She called for the Staff Report. 1. Principal Planner Sandra L. Bonner addressed the first item regarding the Specific Plan stating that Morris and Grayson, the Applicant, is requesting the Planning COnT~ission to review a proposed amandment to an approved Specific Plan. They are requesting to make modification to the resort hotel by increasing the site by approximately 9 acres, by increasing the number of rentable rocks from 60 to 86, to add an additional 2400 sq.ft, of accessory retail or shop area to the main building, and to make minor changes in the parking lot design. The other major design points of the hotel will remain the same, as shown on the site plan and as reviewed at the Study Session. The Applicant will still retain a substantial number of trees, will still have a rural-type appearance, the buildings will still be retained in small clusters as designated on the site plan - the Applicant is adding several clusters at the southerly portion of the site. They are maintaining substantial setbacks frc~ the property boundaries and also from Avenue 50. Lastly, they are keeping the building designs all low level, with the exception of the restaurant which has a lower service level. She noted that the hotel is a consistent use in this area, both with the General Plan. designation of Special Conm~rcial and also with the proposed zoning of C-T (Tourist Commercial). The site is physically suitable for this type of use and the design is coNpatible with adjacent proposed develoDr~nt. Principal Planner Bonner addressed access, a point that was discussed at the Study Session, stating that she wished to reemphasize the concern of the number of driveways, which was a condition of approval on a related parcel map. This condition was again MINUTES - PLANNING COMMISSION January 28, 1986 Page 2. incorporated into the conditions of approval for this matter. There are no other specific concerns regarding this Specific Plan Amen~t, therefore, Staff is recc~m~_nding approval of same in accordance with the Findings in the Staff Report. The request is consistent with the General Plan, and with both the existing zoning of R-3 (General Residential) and proposed zoning of C-T (Tourist Cc~nercial); it is also consistent with the Redevelopment Project No. 1. There are no physical constraints on the site that ~Duld prohibit development. There are utilities and services available to the site and lastly, the develop- ment ~uld not result in any significant environmental impa. ct. Staff is recc~nen~g approval in accordance with the conditions of approval attached to the report. Principal Planner Bonner stated that, in conjunction with the Specific Plan, the Applicant has requested a Change of Zone. Under the previoUs approval, the site was s~aller and the southerly portion of the hotel site was zoned for Multiple Family Residential; therefore, the Applicant is requesting a Zone Change to R-3/SP which was the zoning on the original hotel site. In light of recent discussions regarding the adjacenthotel property to the east, and also the redesignation of the property from residential to Special ~cial type of use, Staff is recc~mending that the entire hotel site be rezoned to C-T (Tourist Cc~m~rcial). This w~uld be consistent with past actions by the ~ssion and Council for the rezoning of the property adjacent to the east and also to the south and the Oak Tree West Specific Plan. In another portion of this Zone Change, Staff is requesting that the Planning Cc~ssion approve the rezoning of a portion of the property to the west of the hotel site from R-3/SP, which allows the hotel use, to R-2-12,000, which is consistent with adjacent zoning. This is due directly to the fact that the boundaries of the hotel site were slightly modified and ended up with the zoning crossing over outside the hotel project area. Staff is reconmending approval of the Change of Zone from R-3/SP to R-2-12,000. In accordance with the findings in the Staff Report, this request is consistent with the General Plan and ccmpatible with surrounding land uses. This approval w~uld not result in any significant impact to the environment. This concluded the Staff Report. As the ~ssion had no questions of Staff, Cc~missioner Moran opened the public hearing at 7:05 p.m. Henry Casey, P. O. Box 299, La Quinta, CA- Applicant's representative. Mr. Casey spoke in behalf of the Applicant explaining the reasons for the request as addressed in the Staff Report. He alSo addressed the concern that Staff pre- sented with regard to the number of entrances into the project from Avenue 50. He advised that they are planning to have a traffic study done in this regard and have received a letter of proposal for this study from a firm in Newport Beach. Once undertaken, the report should be complete within a 30-day time period. To further discuss this traffic study and the concerns presented by Staff, Mr. Casey introduced his associate, Mr. Warren Bradshaw. Warren Bradshaw, P. O. Box 299, La Quinta, CA- Applicant's representative. Explained the Applicant's proposed design for the entrances and exits, not only for The Orchard project, but for the entire one-mile frontage they have along Avenue 50. He noted they are trying to reduce the number of entrances frcm five to three along the 1/2-mile section of The Orchard frontage and when the Faracos property at 50th and Jefferson is developed, there will only be one entrance into that project off Avenue 50. There being no further ~ts or questions, Cc~missioner Moran closed the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. - At this point, Director Stevens stated that Staff assumes, from the discussion at the Study Session, that the Cc~mission ~uld like to review- on an informal Study Session basis - the entryway plans. This ~uld not require a modification of the conditions. The Cc~mission affirmed that statement. After a brief discussion, C~ssioner Moran called for a mo%ion. 2. Cc~m%issioner De Gasperin made a motion, seconded by Cc~missioner Brandt to approve Specific Plan No. 84-003, Amen~t No. 1, in accordance with Exhibits A, B, C, and D, as amended, and subject to attached conditions; also, to approve Change of Zone No. 85-019 from R-2-12,000 and R-3/SP to C-T (Tourist ~cial), and from R-3/SP to R-2-12,000, based upon the findings in the Staff Report. Unanimously Adopted, with a 3-0 vote; Vice-Chairman Walling abstained and Chairman Thornburgh absent. MINUTES - PLANNING COMMISSION January 28, 1986 Page 3. Vice Chairman Walling returned to his seat on the Planning Conmtission at this time. 4. CONSENT CAT.~ A. Cc~missioner Moran made a motion, seconded by Vice Chairman Walling, to approve the minutes from the regular meeting of January 14, 1986. The minutes of the regular meeting of January 14, 1986, were approved as submitS. Unanimously Adopted, with a 4-0 vote; Chairman Thornburgh being absent. 5. BUSINESS Vice Chairman Walling introduced the first item of business as follows: A. TRACT 18765 - A request for the second Extension of Time on a 19.1-acre, 72-unit tract located on the south side of Avenida Fernando between Avenida Obregon and Calle Mazatlan; Landmark Land Cc~pany, Applicant. He called for the Staff Report. 1. C~ty Develotmemt Director Stevens advised the Comlission that this requested second extension of time is for the r~maining 24 units of the Tennis Club Villas project. %he unit designs are unchanged; the road improve- ments, etc., are already in place. This request is merely to give the Applicant more time to accc~plish this project. He noted that Staff reconnemds approval of this request for an extension of time in which to record the final map for a period of one year (11/2/86). Director Stevens stated Staff is recc~nendJmg the deletion of Condition No. 17, which is an obsolete condi- tion, based upon some revisions that we've done and the addition of Conditions Nos. 17 and 18, which relate to our infrastructure fee program now in effect, and park and recreation facilities. In addition, there was discussion at the Study Session initiated by Chairman Thornburgh suggesting that considera- tion of a condition to encourage the retention of an area at the southwest corner of Avenida Fernando and Avenida Obregon, which has a number of trees and is a nice entryway, as opposed to developing there. As a result of that suggestion, Staff has prepared some draft language for such a condition should the Cc~ssion feel it desirable to include one for that area. The draft condition (which would be Condition No. 19. ) reads as follows: "19. The Applicant is encouraged to retain the existing date grove at the southwest corner of Avenida Fernando and Avenida Obregon prior to approval of the final map or issuance of building permits. The site plan of this area shall be reviewed by the Planning Ccmmiission." Director Stevens advised that the addition of this condition has been discussed with the Applicant and they have objected to it. This concluded the Staff Report. Vice Chairman Walling advised all that this is not a public hearing, but he wished to ask the Applicant's conl~ents regarding the addition of such a condition. Kevin Manning, P. O. Box 1000, La Quinta, CA- Applicant's representative. Addressed this matter, stating Conditions Nos. 17 and 18 are fine, but the new Condition No. 19 is not acceptable. He reminded the Cc~ssion that a year-and-a-half ago, the Applicant came to them with a revised tract map from the original 106 units down to 72 units, which they would like to retain. The new condition would result in a further reduction of units, as there ire four units shown on that property on the tract map. He further stated that the matter before the Cc~nission tonight is just a request for an extension of time not for a design change. Mr. Manning stated that Chairman Thornburgh was correct in stating that the area in question is a beautiful piece of property, but in rebuttal to that he advised that it is a non-public corner; it is a private location. He noted that building permits have been issued for a guardhouse here, so it is a private area not nextnt to be a public park, etc. He stated he did not understand the logic of the condition, that the Applicant made the property beautiful and now it seemed they were being penalized for it. He further stated that everything has been budgeted for the 72 units and felt at this late stage, when they are finally getting ready to do the final tract map, this request does not help them in their planning process. ! MINUTES - PLANNING COMMISSION January 28, 1986 Page 4. C~ssioner Brandt: Asked Mr. Manning if they intended to remove all the trees. Mr. Manning: Responded that he did not know, but info~ her that in the past, the Applicant has redistributed trees that w~re in that particular grove through- out the project. Vice Chairman Walling: Asked Mr. Manning if the Applicant could build around the grove of trees. Mr. Manning: Advised that the plan shows that 12 to 16 trees ~uld be saved at that general location, but he could not guarantee that actuality. Cc~anissioner Moran: Stated she agreed with Mr. Manning in that she felt this request for an extension of time is not the time to add conditions regarding design change. Cc~ssioner Brandt: Agreed, stating she felt the Applicant ~uld adequately landscape the project. Vice Chairman Walling: Agreed, stating that he felt it too late to add such a condition. There being no further discussion, Vice Chairman Walling called for a motion. 2. Cca~nissioner Brandt made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Moran, to approve the second, one-year extension of time in which to file the final maps for Tentative Tract Map No. 18765 to November 2, 1986, based on the findings in the Staff Report, subject to the original conditions and the revisions contained therein. The Cxmmission agreed not to add a Condition No. 19 relative to the retention of trees on the southwest corner of Avenida Fernando and Avenida Obregon. Unanimously Adopted with Chairman Thornburgh absent. Vice Chairman Walling introduced the next item of business as follows: B. TRACT 19458 - A request for a first Extension of Time on Isla Mediterranea, an 894-unit, 152-acre tract located on the northeast corner of Washington Street/ Avenue 48 alignment; M. B. Jc~anson, Applicant. He called for the Staff Report. 1. Director Stevens advised the Cc~ssion that Staff received a letter today from the Applicant requesting a continuance of this matter to the next regularly scheduled meeting on February 11, 1986. He noted that Staff has no objection to this request and it is basiCally to give the Applicant ample time to make sure there is adequate understanding of the revisions to the conditions that have been receded with this time extension. Director Stevens stated that if it is the Cc~ssion's desire to grant the continuance, there is no need to go into a Staff Report. Vice Chairman Walling requested the cc~ents of the ~ssion, who unanimously agreed to the continuance. Vice Cha~ Walling called upon the Applicant for any ccnm~_nts. Mervin B. Johnson, President of M. B. Johnson Properties, 74-140 E1 Paseo, Palm Desert, CA, Applicant. Mr. Johnson advised the Commission that he had only received the conditions the day prior and had not had an opportunity to review the extent of the conditions that are being imposed. He noted that they w~uld like to review the conditions and then meet with Staff prior to the next regular maeting on February llth. He expressed his appreciation to the Cc~mission for this consideration. Director Stevens stated that most of the conditions added were to bring the project, as Staff views it, up to consistency with the new General Plan. We need to go through them and see what their actual impact is, which will require more time. Staff will gladly meet with Mr. Johnson and his Staff regarding this matter. Vice Chairman Walling asked the Applicant if he felt he could be ready by the next meeting on February llth. MINUTES - PLANNING CQMMISSION January 28, 1986 Page 5. Mr. Johnson stated he was not sure as involved as this all is. He felt that it will require more time. He addressed the matter of noise abatement and was not certain whether professional review %ould be necessary before the meeting. There being no further cc~ments or discussion, Vice Chairman Walling called for a motion. 2. Ccmm%issioner Nbran made a motion, seconded by ~ssioner De Gasperin to grant continuance for the first extension of time for Tract Map No. 19458 to the next regularly scheduled Planning Cc~mission meeting on February 11, 1986. Unanimously Adopted; with Chairman Thornburgh absent. Vice Chairman Walling introduced the next six items of business, to be heard con- currently, as follows: C. Plot Plan No. 85-250, a request to construct a single-family dwelling on the west side of Avenida Alvarado, 150' north of Calle Tecate; American General Development Corporation, Applicant. D. Plot Plan No. 85-251, a request to construct a single-family dwelling on the west side of Avenida Alvarado, 100' north of Calle Tecate; American General Development Corporation, Applicant. E. Plot Plan No. 85-252, a request to construct a single-family dwelling on the east side of Avenida Alvarado, 100' south of Calle Potrero; American General Development Corporation, Applicant. F. Plot Plan NO. 86-255, a request to construct a single-family dwelling on the south side of Calle Fortuna, 200' east of Desert Club Drive; Curtis Loser, Applicant. G. Plot Plan No. 86-256, a request to construct a single-family dwelling on the - west side of Pebble Beach at PGA West, Lot 13; Sunrise ~y, Applicant. H.Plot Plan No. 86-257, a request to construct a single-family dwelling on the west side of Pebble Beach at PGA West, Lot 16; Sunrise ~y, Applicant. He called for the Staff Reports. 1. Director Stevens advised that all six plot plans conform to our existing zoning and design review regulations. Conditions have been added to adjust minor c~ncerns, and to make sure there is some variety. Staff recc~mends approval of all six plot plans subject to conditions contained in the Staff Duke Phelps, 43-830 Warner Trail, Palm Desert, CA, Applicant. Requested to speak regarding Plot Plan No. 85-250. He advised the Cc~m~ssion that he wished to object to Condition No. 11 requesting a tile roof. He explained that the house was presold and the owner specifically requested cc~position shingle roofing. The owner had sc~e budget constraints re the loan he had applied for and he wished to have the property cc~pletely landscaped (front and rear), and fenced, so he had to eliminate the tile roof. Therefore, Mr. Phelps requested the Planning Conmission waive the condition requiring a tile roof for this particular plot plan. There was a short discussion regarding this matter which resulted in the Cc~mission requesting Staff to delete the condition requiring a tile roof for Plot Plan NO. 85-250. Vice Chairman Walling called for a motion. -- 2. Cxml~issioner Brandt made a motion, seconded by Cc~missioner Moran, to approve Plot Plans Nos. 85-250, 85-251, 85-252, 86-255, 86-256 and 86-257, based on the findings in the Staff Reports in accordance with Exhibits A, B and C for each plan, and subject to conditions of approval attached to each plot plan, as amended. Unanimously Adopted with Chairman Thornburgh absent o Vice Chairman Walling introduced the next ite~ of business as follows: I. Report frcm the Community Development Director concerning a schedule for reviewing the General Plan. He called upon Director Stevens for his conm~ts. 1. Director Stevens advised those present that the purpose of this is to set up a routine, set schedule for reviewing General Plan Amen~ts because of MINUTES - PIANNING CC~M~SSION January 28, 1986 Page 6. the State Law that limits us to a maximum of four amendments per year. He explained the two options he prepared for the Cc~mission to implement that State Law. Staff recc~nends approval of Option I, the t~c~cycle review for GPA's, with two floating reviews available, if needed. Planning Cc~mission conclusions will be forwarded to the City Council for final determination. Each ~ssioner's choice and reasons for same are as follows: Option I- ~ssioner De Gasperin:/ Stated her position is that when the Cc~mission came to a decision upon adopting the General Plan for the City, that they should stand by that decision. If we provide more frequent opportunities to amend the General Plan, we are encouraging persons to cc~e to Staff and cause the City to review the General Plan more frequently than may be necessary. She felt that if we limit the opportunity to amend the General Plan, we are telling all persons that we are not encouraging those amendments. By giving only tw~ opportunities a year for this type of request, we encourage the Applicant to meet the deadline rather than placing that burden on the planners to meet the deadline. She felt that whatever option is chosen at this junction will set a precedent and felt a precedent set now for the t~D-cycle review w~uld be her choice. Another point she wished to make is that she is concerned that if we encourage GPA's, we will tie up the City and City planners and the Commission's ~ considerably, and will have to put a number of pro- j ects on hold waiting for that General Plan. Cc~m%issioner ~bran: Option II - This is a ~ consuming process and she felt if we had a good viable project ccming in, that it should not be delayed. She felt an applicant ~uld only request a GPA if they had a strong project because it is also expensive, as well as t/me consuming. She noted this is the first year the General Plan has been in place and we already know of sc~e projects that will be coming before the Cc~mission. She felt we should be able to w~rk with our developers and be able to have scme flexibility, at least this year. ~ssioner ~bran stated she would be favor of Option I after the General Plan has been in place for at least one year. Also, with a couple of months delay, a developer %Duld miss a market, and if you have t~D floaters, developers will ccme in feeling that their project deserves the floaters. If we had two floaters, you ~uld probably be more inclined to say yes to them, where if you have one floater, we can set a precedent that it would have to be scme~g major to assign the floater. Or, we could leave the floater in case scmeone needs an EIR and needs an extension. Cc~missioner Brandt: Option I - Stated she did not anticipate a great number of GPA's being processing in~nediately and felt the t~D-cycle review gives adequate time for Staff to get through the amendment process. Also, there are t%~ floaters we will have with the two-cycle review so if a develo~msnt came in necessitating a GPA and we felt it a major and significant project, we could assign them to a floating review and we have tw~, as opposed to one in the three-cycle review. Cc~m%issioner Brandt felt we ~Duld be setting a precedent ar~ she ~uld rather be conservative in the number of GPA's that we allow per year. She felt it ~uld be easier to go from t%~ to three than frcm three to t%D. Vice Chain~an Walling: Option II - Because of the way things are in develop- ment, if a good project came in, needed a GPA and had a t-~-month wait, it could kill a project. To keep a tight rein on what is going on in the ccmmunity, he felt we should encourage developers who ~zunt to do good things and this is one of the ways to d~ it, not by i~p~t. He felt the General Plan is not inviolate. It, because of changing conditions, may need changing because of scmething that was unforeseeable at the time it was adopted. He felt we should not limit any attempts to alter it or at least review it. Having more opportunities for developers is certainly not going to mean they will abuse the privilege because it is a very cc~mitted thing to go for a GPA. Developers do not need encouraged to meet deadlines because the nature of the business is such that everything within the process requires them to meet deadlines. He felt in Option I, with tw~ floaters, Staff ~uld be over- loaded more, where in Option II, with three set dates and one floater, they know pretty well when these applications w~uld ccme in. It was noted at this point, that Chairman Thornburgh indicated a preference for Option II at the Study Session. Director Stevens advised the Ccmm%ission that Staff has no GPA applications as of this date, so if they wished to hold off on their decision it ~Duld not be a problem. MINUTES - PI2kNNING CYIMMISSION January 28, 1986 Page 7. After a short discussion, the Conntission requested Director Stevens to transmit their conments and reasons for them to the City Council for them to make a final determination. Vice Chairman Wallir~ introduced the last item of business as follows: J. Report from Cc~nunity Develotmr~nt Director concerning changing review _ procedures for cc~n~rcial developments. He called upon Director Stevens for his cc~nents. 1. Director Stevens stated that if the Cc~ssion agrees with Staff's reccnm~=_nda- tion in the report, they could make a motion and direct him to transmit that motion to the Council. If the Council basically agreed, they ~ould direct Staff to prepare an Ordinance to bring back on February 18. He stated he would reccnm~nd that the Council do this on an urgency basis so it ~uld take effect on that date (18th). Director Stevens advised that Staff has only one application at this time that would be affected by this and it is possible that it could be approved before the 18th, so the Cc~sion ~ould miss that one in te~ms of review. After discussion, the Cc~ssion unanimously reccnm~=_nded that the Council be requested to adopt an urgency ordinance which ~ould change the level of review of cc~nercial projects as follows: o Review all new ccnn~rcial projects, additions to existing cc~marc~l buildings/uses and ccnm~rcial remodels affecting the exterior appearance of an existing building. o Cc~nission review to be as a non-hearing item with Council review to be determined by them. (Cc~nission did not feel Council review mandatory as these types of items are fre- quently delegated to Cc~ssions.) o No change in fees. o Current applications not approved prior to the effective date of the ordinance be subject to the new procedure. Vice Chairman Walling therefore called for a motion. 2. Cc~mtissioner Brandt made a motion, seconded by Conmtissioner ~ran, to adopt Staff's reccnm~_ndations contained in the Staff Report, as amended above. Unanimously Adopted with Chainm3n Thornburgh absent. 6. ADJOURNMENT There being no further items of ager~___a to cc~e before the Planning Conntission, Vice Chairman Walling called for a motion to adjourn. Cc~nissioner De Gasperin made a motion, seconded by Co~nissioner Brandt to adjourn to the next regular meeting of the Planning Cc~mission to be held February 11, 1986, at 7:00 p.m., in the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, CA. Unanimously Adopted with Chairman Thornburgh absent. The regular meet~ of the Planning C~ssion of the City of La Quinta, CA, was adjourned at 8:23 p.m., January 28, 1986, in the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, Ia Quinta, California.