Loading...
1986 02 11 PC Minutes PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA A Regular M~eting Held at the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California February 11, 1986 7:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER A. Chairman Thornburgh called the Planning Cc~mission m~eting to order at 7:00 p.m.; _ he then led the flag salute. 2. ROLL CALL A. Chairman Thornburgh requested the Roll Call; the Secretary called the Roll: Present: Czmmzissioners Brandt, 5bran, Walling and Chairman Thornburgh Absent: ~ssioner De Gasperin ~ssioner Walling made a motion, seconded by CzmNnissioner Moran to excuse ~ssioner De Gasperin. Unanimously Adopted. Also present were ~ity DeveloIxm~nnt Director Lawrence L. Stevens, Principal Planner Sandra L. Bonner, and Secretary Donna M. Velotta. 3. HEARINGS Chairman Thornburgh introduced the first item of hearing as follows: A. Tentative Tract Map No. 21381, a request to divide a 42.6-acre portion of the "PGA West" project into 24 lots to accc~m~date 118 attached condominium units; Sunrise Company, Applicant. He then called for the Staff Report. 1. ~ty Development Director Stevens addressed this matter by explaining that this tract is a 42.6 acre portion of PGA West and is a proposal to create 24 lots to accc~mxxtate 118 attached condominium units. The site is located generally west of PGA Boulevard, off Arnold Palmer entrance driveway. He felt the the Ccxm~ission was familiar with the basic conditions and cir- cumstances at the PGA West project. This proposal is for 118 units which are a mixture of the units referred to as the "Classics". They are large duplexes ranging in size from 3500 to 4300 square feet in size and are priced from $500,000 to $600,000. The Applicant is proposing to construct 54 of the "Classics" units. The other type of unit proposed for this tract is known as the "Legends". These will be fourplex buildings, although there are a couple of exceptions in this area where there would be some duplex and some triplex units. The "Legends" units are generally 2300 to 3000 square feet in size and are priced fram $275,000 to $350,000. In our previous reviews of the PGA West project, we have had the opportunity to see the floor plans and both the "Classics" and the "Legends" units can be seen in the model complex on site. The exterior of the units are referred to as contemporary and Mediterranean. This plan is generally consistent with the overall specific plan and is a fairly logical expansion of the previous develo~nnt approvals. Director Stevens advised that Staff has reviewed the plan relative to the Land Use Ordinance, the Specific Plan and the Subdivision Ordinance and are receding that the tract be approved subject to the findings and conditions in the Staff Report. Addressing the conditions of approval, Director Stevens stated that he had a few minor changes to discuss with the Conmzission. The first change is in Condition 14.c., which relates to a temporary cul-de-sac primarily to facili- tate fire department access during the interim period when some of the streets are not fully constructed into the loop system. To add clarity to the condi- tion, we would reccmm~n~d that the word "Temporary" be inserted as the first word of Condition No. 14.c. The next change relates to Condition No. 15. He reminded the Cxmmzission that within the overall specific plan there is a traffic monitoring condition where we would determine, based on the growth pattern that occurs, an appropriate time for a traffic signal. This condi- tion was really written before the City had fully developed its Infrastructure program and he felt that there was scme question as to exactly how this condi- tion should be written and applied. Because this is a relatively small tract, Director Stevens suggested that the condition be deleted from this particular tract and work on making it more appropriate as we get additional develo[m~nt within the project. MINUTES - PLANNING C(IMMISSION February 11, 1986 Page 2. The next minor change is in Condition No. 17.e. Basically, this is just some basic minor language changes for clarity. It relates to adequate fire protection prior to the arrival of cc~bustible materials on the site. Staff suggests that the condition be changed to read as follows: "17.e. Prior to arrival of cc~bustible materials on the construction site, adequate fire protection facilities, temporary or permanent, must be operating to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal." He noted that it may be that the actual lines and hydrants may not be in yet; that is why we use the word temporary, as it may be there will be a 'tank or scme other storage mechanism that would take care of this on a short term basis. Generally, we have allowed the Fire Marshal to approve alternates, but we just w-anted to make it a little clearer relative to that particular circumstance. The other issue that was discussed at the Study Session was regarding the noise condition and it was agreed to leave that condition intact. Director Stevens stated that these are the only changes and Staff recommends that the Cc~w~ission approve the tract subject to the conditions with those minor revisions. This ended the Staff Report. The ~ssion had no questions of Staff, therefore, Chairman Thornburgh opened the hearing for public conments at 7:10 p.m. Jim Resney, Vice President, Sunrise Cc~pany, 75-005 Country Club Drive, Palm Desert, CA., Applicant's representative, stated that the minor concerns c~ntained in the conditions have been satisfied. He further cc~m~ented that as they were beginning to develop the second phase, he was very pleased with the cooperation they have received from the City and is sure it will continue. No one else appeared on this matter. Therefore, Chainm3n Thornburgh closed the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. After a short discussion, Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion. 2. Cc~missioner Moran made a motion, seconded by C(~missioner Walling, to approve Tentative Tract Map No. 21381 based on the findings in the Staff Report and subject to the conditions of approval, as amended. Unanimously Adopted. Chairman ThozTtmrgh introduced the next item of hearing as follows: B. Specific Plan No. 86-007, "Washington Street Corridor Study", a request for approval of a Specific Plan for Washington Street, including improvements, alignment and streetscape; City Initiated. He then called for the Staff Report. 1. Director Stevens advised that this is a project that has been discussed for a considerable period of time and that has been aggressively worked on during the past four or five months. The Washington Street plan has been to both the Cc~mission ar~ the Council for preliminary ~ts in anticipation of preparing the current document which we are calling a hearing draft. The purpose of this meeting and any subsequent meeting the Commission has, if they choose to continue this item, and of course the Council hearing on this matter, is basically to hear public input relative to the plan and modify, adjust or otherwise consider the plan in light of that public cc~nt. The basic objectives that we are trying to operate under in the development of the plan were to asSess both the short range and the long range needs and deficiencies along Washington Street and to make specific rec~dations on the ultimate development of the corridor. The City considers Washington its most important entrance street and Director Stevens stated he believes that is why we have chosen to take this type of emphasis with that corridor street. Other objectives we attempted to follow in developing this plan was to deter- mine the design of the righ~-~Of~way.".i.improvements .'~o make sure they were appropriate to handle future traffic levels. We wanted to provide for traffic safety by solving existing safety hazards and by establishing reasonable design criteria for future developments. We also wanted to deal with some landscaping issues, resolving the problems in the Singing Palms area where scme properties have access directly onto Washington, etc. We MINUTES - PLANNING COMMISSION February 11, 1986 Page 3. also wanted to try to establish a unified design theme for the corridor, which ~uld include landscaping and lighting, street furniture, street signs, etc., so that instead of having a scattered, piecemeal approach from one end of Washington to the other it would really create an identity along that corridor. There is also the need to estimate the cost of the corridor improvements, for the purpose of prioritizing those improvements, and providing us with assistance in developing a w~rk program to actually implement or construct Washington. Recalling earlier discussions, Council has indicated their desire (approximately a year ago) to construct this corridor to a minimum four-lane condition at least be~ Highway 111 and Avenue 52. That was the initial impetus for getting this program under way. In looking at the study, everyone will have to be concerned with the cost and whether we can reasonably acccmplish the goal of getting it done within the next six months to a year, but he believes we are still cc~mitted to at least trying to make that happen. The other purpose of the plan was also, we have a number of develotm~_nts that have been approved along Washington and most of those approvals have relatively generalized conditions stating that they shall comply with the Washington Street Specific Plan or with the standards that came within the General Plan which was developed subse- quent to those development approvals. We wanted to get as specific as we could along the corridor to facilitate that design problem for those approved developments. Director Stevens stated that we have attempted, through the course of the specific plan, to give you as many illustrations as possible and enough guidance that you can reasonably understand what we are trying to accc~plish. Another thing that the ~ssion must realize that this is not an improv~ent plan or a design plan of sufficient detail to actually construct. It is an alignment study and establishes the centerline. It estimates where right-of-way adjustments need to be made. Each of these need to be refined further when the preparation of street improv~_nt plans are done and when financing mechanisms are developed. The report only generally speaks about financing. One of the things that needs to be made clear is that the plan is not a solution to the financing problem. That will require additional analysis and additional hearings as we get to the point of implementing the plan. The cover m~mo to the Cc~mission that Staff prePared basically reaches a number of conclusions as to the study and how it relates to our intended goals. Staff has also prepared the appropriate findings that ~Duld allow the Co~mission to approve the specific plan should you desire to do so at the conclusion of this hearing. Director Stevens stated that he felt the key as to whether the Cc~mission is prepared to adopt the plan tonight is what is the nature or issues developed from the public inUut tonight and does that require subsequent adjustments in the proposed plan as it currently stands. If there are changes, you would probably want to continue the hearing and allow Staff to fine tune the plan based on the cc~nents made. If you find that the majority of the ~ts made find the plan in good shape, you ma_v decide to go ahead and adopt the plan. That is a judgment for the Cc~ssion to make at the conclusion of this hearing. Director Stevens stated that this represents the general background of the plan. He then turned the meeting over to Principal Planner Bonner for discussion of further concepts of the plan. Referring to the wall renderings, Principal Planner Bonner explained that Washington Street is the main gateway into the City and is indicated as the major image corridor on our General Plan. The primary areas where there are current problems for which we need solutions are the general area south of Highway 111 (Singing Palms/Highland Palms area) where right now we have a condition where we have approximately 20 houses that have driveways backing out onto Washington Street. This is a problem to the residents with regard to safety and it is also a hazard to the people driving on Washington Street. Our consultant looked for solutions eliminating this problem which are repre- sented by the exhibits displayed on the wall. Generally, what is proposed is to have a frontage road in the Singing Palms and Highland Palms area. . This would be a two-way, 32' wide street that would allow t%~ travel lanes, an 8' parking lane, a 12' park~ay area that would have a wall to serve as a noise barrier and then a 120' wide public roadway or street for Washington that can ultimately be widened to six lanes. What this will do is put the signalized intersection at the southerly (Highland PaLms) intersection and the northerly intersection (Singing Palms) would be closed off to prevent access into the develo~nent. Ms. Bonner advised that Staff has had a response frc~ a representative of the hcmeowners in this area and they have requested that the Planning C~ssion and City Council consider a modification of this plan suggesting that a right-turn only be allowed into the development. MINUTES - PLANNING~SSION February 11, 1985 Page 4. Ms. Bonner went on the explain that in order to acute this redesign of the roadway to the east, it will be necessary to acquire additional right-of-way from the property owners along the east side of Washington Street. This additional acquisition w~uld be approximately 90' or so. The projects that will be affected are some portions of an undeveloped land division that is part of the Simon ~btors develo~nent; to the south, the George Marzicola property which is proposed for a regional shopping center; and further south, is 5~=_rvin Johnson's project Isla Msditerranea project. Beyond that point to the south, the road returns to its ultimate right-of-way. The second area that is involved in a realignment for traffic safety involves the area south of Eisenhower Drive. Generally, right now the road bows out toward the west. The engineer is recc~nending that the road be realigned towards the east so that it w~uld be straightened. She referred to a wall rendering which indicated the realigned Washington Street and the land which w~uld become surplus and used for landscaping and the installation of a noise barrier in this area. In this case, again some right-of-way area will be purchased from the property owners and the surplus property ~uld be developed as parkway along the west side of the street. Ms. Bonner stated that Staff has received numerous calls and office visits from persons concerned about the noise barriers. The widening or realign- ment of Washington Street just ~ately south of Highway 111 and again just south of Eisenhower Drive is allowing additional space for the con- struction of a noise barrier. ~nere se~ns to be an interest from property owners along Washington Street that noise barriers be made a part of this Washington Street Specific Plan on the basis that ultimately it will be a six-lane highway which will result in substantial noise. She referred the Cc~m~ssion to a letter frcm Howard Tons, President of M~ntero Estates, in which they requested that the noise barrier be made a part of the specific plan. 5he same request has been received frcm a property owner in the area of Tampico and Washington. We currently have a situation with the 5~ntero Estates development and directly to the east (Sagebrush, Bottlebrush and Saguaro) and then south again on the east side of Washington where we have existing subdivisions and as they develop, the ccmplaints about noise and the number of people being affected will be increasing. Therefore, it ~uld be appropriate to consider strengthening the statement in the plan regarding this matter. Regarding bridges, Ms. Bonner advised that the one on the Whitewater Channel is currently a half-bridge and according to the plan will be widened to allow for six lanes. The other existing bridge is located in an unincorporated area that is going to be annexed into Indian Wells, and therefore, the City could be required to fund the improvement of this bridge. Staff has been talking to Indian Wells and hopefully, they will contribute to a portion of the widening of this bridge. The second bridge within the City is located over the La Quinta Evacuation Channel which is between Avenue 50 and Tampico and again, the design called out for in the plan is construct a bridge that will allow for six travel lanes. This bridge has an additional effect on the design of the roadway in that area. Obviously, we have half the bridge there (the northbound lanes) and the roadway must line up with this bridge. ~hat looks to be a frontage road north of Avenue 50 to the west is actually the southbound lanes of Washington Street and the ultimate right-of-way. There is not much flexibility here of how to shift the road. There is a desire of property owners on both sides of the street to shift the road the other way, but there is only so much you can shift either way because we have half the improv~t on the east side and half on the west side. Therefore, what the consultant is proposing in this area closely follows what the county specific plan was for Washington Street which they adopted in 1966. What - they are doing is offsetting the road, taking more right-of-way from the west side of Washington Street than along the east. In this case, our consultant is proposing that the City acquire 50 feet of additional right- of-way along the west side of Washington, south of Avenue 50 down to Avenue 52 and then 10-foot of right-of-way along the east side of Washington Street, essentially all the way from Avenue 48 down to Avenue 52. This is to provide the necessary 120 feet for a six-lane road. With regard to cul-de-sacs, Principal Planner explained that what we are trying to do is limit the number of accesses with regard to cross traffic and try to maximize the distance betw~_n intersections so as traffic increases we will be able to install traffic signals. We are carrying this concept downward on Washington Street and are looking at the area again ~ately north of Avenue 50 (Bottlebrush, Sagebrush and Saguaro). We are proposing MINUTES - PLANNING CONFESSION February 11, 1986 Page 5. that two of those three streets be cul-de-saced. This would provide a little more integrity for the neighborhood, cut the through traffic and eliminate the number of intersections. We are also proposing a number of cul-de-sacs at Tampioo and Washington, south of Avenue 50 - this would include Palc~a and Calle Quito - thereby eliminating four more intersections and would change the primary entrance into the sukxlivision to Calle Tampico. Ms. Bonner addressed costs involved in this project. She stated that the costs included in the main document, excluding costs for inflation of land, is approximately $33-million dollars for improvements. This includes street improvements, bridge improvements and utility improvements. Of these costs, approximately one-quarter are for that area north of Fred Waring Drive to Interstate 10. Another quarter of this $33-million is related to improve- ments for extensions to the utilities. Again, as develotarent occurs and developers extend lines in order to construct their projects, these costs may be reduced over time. Ms. Bonner advised that the consultant has provided us with more information regarding land costs at the request of C~nissioner Walling. Using the figure of $10 per square foot, the consultant assessed the cost of the area from Highway 111 south to Avenue 52. Therefore, to acquire the additional right-of-way proposed by this plan, the cost would be $7.6-million dollars for land costs alone. In sunnmry, the costs, excluding the area outside the City and reasonably excluding utilities is approximately $23-million dollars. The consultant has recommended mitigation measures, he has included the cost and also has prioritized, which will be one of the factors as far as balancing out what the cost is, what our anticipated or means of funding are and the need for certain improvements. Ms. Bonner then explained scme of the wall renderings which included entry monument designs for the area at Highway 111 and Washington Street. This concluded her report. Director Stevens advised that the above presented an overview of the issues and the design concept and how the plan generally proposes to deal with those. One thing he wanted to emphasize is that w~ have talked about Washington being 120-foot-wide, six-lane street. We are making provision within that right-of- way width to have the ability to acccnmx~date six-lanes of travel in the future should the ultimate traffic dictate that. Our traffic studies say that will occur. It is not, however, our intention to initially develop the roadway to autcmatically go to six lanes. What will be done is basically have a four-lane striping arrangement and use the excess right-of-way for bikes, bus stops, vehicle lanes, etc., and hope that the projections are wrong about six lanes, but we will at least have the physical ability to acconm~date them if the projections are right. This concluded Staff's presentation. There was a brief discussion period between Staff and the Cc~ssion regarding the number of approved projects along the Washington Street corridor and how their participation in this plan would affect the cost to the city. Director Stevens stated that the method of participation will be highly contingent upon the timing of our construction relative to when some of those develop- merits occur. Chairman Thorrburgh opened the hearing to public c~t at 7:50 p.m. The following persons appeared on this matter: Gerald Dupree, 78-430 Cameo Dunes Place, La Quinta - Presented the Cc~ssion with a 90-signature petition regarding traffic signalization in the Singing Palms/Highland Palms area. He also presented copies of ingress/egress designs suggested for that area and explained each to the ~ssion. Steve Gaylord, 46-555 Washington Street, La Quinta - Had concerns with previous speaker's recc~nendation to cut frontage road down to 20' (he lives in one of the 18 hcmes fronting Washington). Felt the noise wall should start in this area, as these homes front Washington Street and the homes in the Montero area have their back yard on Washington. He stated the majority of the 18 hc~es are occupied with families with young children and the City is talking six-lanes in future which frightened him. Sybil Jaffey, 46-410 Cameo Palms, La Quinta - Felt a signal at Singing Palms and Washington was warranted now, not later. Has concerns with the traffic figures and demographic figures in the plan. Suggested the City look at the possibility of an overpass at Washington and Highway 111. MINUTES - PLAN~ING CC~4MISSION February 11, 1986 Page 6. Marie Redding, 78-450 Crestview Terrace, La Quinta - Resident here for 20 years. Felt the plan good, but felt a traffic signal is warranted now at either the Singing Palms/Highland Palms area and Washington. Don Williams, 46-675 Washington, La Quinta - Agreed with Mr. Dupree's concept of a one-way entrance at the Singing Palms, but did not agree with his suggestion to narrow the frontage road to 20'. He questioned the proposed height of the wall to front their hcmes along Washington (Director Stevens responded to this). He questioned if there was to be a southbound turn fr~m Simon Drive onto Washington (median cut). The City's consultant, Jim Kawa~ura, replied that it was not proposed, but could be provided. Mr. Williams stated he did not want a m~dian cut at Simon Drive. Reverend Conrad Nala of Coachella representing Mr. Javier Munoz, 59-570 Washington Street, La Quinta - Reverend Nala stated Mr. Munoz was concerned with the amount of property the Cit~v w~uld be taking along his hcme which fronts Washington. (His property is on the east side of Washington, just north of Tampico. ) Mr. Munoz is also concerned that he will have to pay for these improv~e_nts on Washington. One other concern was the closing of some of the streets in the area with regard to access to Washington. Director Stevens explained that the proposal is to close Calle Paloma and Calle Obispo at both ends which would mean they would cul-de-sac at Washington Street. As far as the amount of property that ~Duld be taken from Mr. Munoz's lot, Director Stevens advised that it ~Duld approximately 5' to 8' and would more than likely not be for the entire frontage. It would be just enough property to make the cul-de-sac large enough for a fire truck to turn around. He advised that there is even the possibility that the cul-de-sac could be provided within existing right-of-way already there. Gloria Lepke, 46-700 Cameo Palms, La Quinta - Felt a traffic signal is warranted now. Felt the plan is great. She questioned whether or not there is presently any projects cc~ing into the Washington/Highway 111 area that ~Duld be partici- pating in the financial aspect of the plan. Director Stevens advised that the City does not currently have any applications for this area, but have discussed a project with Mr. George Marzicola who owns the majority of the property directly across the street from Simon MDtors. Mrs. Lepke said her reason for asking this question was to see if some of the cost was going to be assessed to their taxes. Director Stevens advised that we do not know the answer to that yet. He advised that he felt it fair to say that the property owners all along Washington will have to realistically expect sc~e form of an assessment district to help; not to pay for the entire improvement, but to basically make the project work. Director Stevens advised that everything he is saying tonight must be taken in a very general context, as we are cc~xnitted to more formal hearings where we can give you real numbers at such ~ when we get the details of the financing mechanism worked out. This will probably be four to six months away yet. George Marzicola, 73-745 E1 Paseo, Palm Desert - Owner of the property across frcm Simon Motors south and also front Highway 111. He praised the Washington Street Specific Plan and stated all persons involved should be cc~plimented. He advised that he is concerned with regard to adequate signalization. He stated that his firm has done an overpass study for the Washington/Highway 111 area and they believe it to be futuristic. He advised those present who live in the area that they do plan to participate in the improvements involved in this plan. Robert Vatcher, VTN Engineers, 74-947 ~ Highway 111, Indian WellS - Explained they are the engineers involved with M. B. Johnson's "Isla Maditerranea" project. He stated that they wish to go on record as having vital interest in these proceedings. At this stage of these proceedings there is not enough information to realize the impact of the amount of property that will be needed to make the Washington Street improvements that will have to be taken frcm Mr. Johnson's project. On tonight's agenda, we have a request for a ~ extension for the "Isla M~diterranea" project for which we have requested a continuation in order to work closer with Staff and their representatives in determining these impacts. He advised the C~ssion and Staff that a good portion of the final engineering has been accc~plished pursuant to the original approval of the tentative map, so from this point forward, any impa~ cts can be greatly multiplied especially when coupled with adherence to the newly adopted General Plan requirements. He further advised the Con~ission that they have already set up a meeting with Staff in this regard. MINUTES - PLANNING CC~b~ISSION February 11, 1986 Page 7. %here being no further public cc~nents, Chainm3n %hornburgh closed the public hearir~ at 8:30 p.m. Chairman Thornburgh called a ten-minute break at this time. The meeting was reconvened at 8: 40 p.m. _ Chairman Thornburgh called upon the City's consultant, Jim Kaw-amura of BSI, Inc., to respond to the concerns presented by the residents who had spoken o Mr. Kawamura thanked those who presented their staten~nts and concerns and advised that during the process of the study, they looked at a number of alternatives. He advised that they did look at the possibility of the frontage road in the Singing Palms/Highland Palms area being a narrow, 20' one-way lane as opposed to the 32' alternative. He stated that they also saw the need for prioritizing the improvements to determine which were more urgently needed. He referred the Ccmmtission to the list on Page 40 of the report which showed the improvements in the Singing Palms area as third highest. The first on the list is the widening and signalization of Avenue 50 and Washington and the second highest ~ould be improvements to Highway 111 and Washington Street. He advised that they did look at a number of alterna- tives and the need to balance the needs of the cc~m~anity with respect to safety, circulation, parking, etc., with the costs for those types of improve- m~nts o Referring to the street design drawings presented by Mr. Dupree earlier in the meeting, Mr. Kaw-anura cc~pl~ted Mr. Dupree on thegn and stated that we really appreciate the efforts that were put into the exhibits as they present clearly what the public is proposing. The designs exhibited a one-way street for the frontage road in the Singing Palms/Highland Palms subdivision and Mr. Kawamura stated that there v~uld be problems with this concept especially to the 18 hcmes fronting on Washington Street. Scmeone living on the corner at the beginning of the one-way street might feel it all right to enter the street (going the wrong way) because he is just going to the first driveway. And those living at the end of the one-way street would have to drive all the way around the subdivision to enter the street to get to their hc~m. He further advised that there is an aesthetic as well as an environmmntal concern with regard to the 20' one-way street versus the 32' , , two-way street, and that is that they tried to find a greater separation betw~_n the traffic on Washington and those homes that would be fronting Washington. It is an additional 12' of buffer provided by the street. This is the environmental or noise concern. The aesthetic concern relates to the provision of a sound wall of some type in the landscaped area. With the 20' wide road, this wall would be 12' closer to the residents along there which would have a more significant impact on those people. For all the above reasons, which specifically impact those 18 homes fronting Washington, they felt the one-way street was not a good idea and that their should be at least a two-way circulation system. On the issue presented regarding the possiblily of having a right-turn only entrance onto Singing Palms, Mr. Kawanura stated they felt this was an idea that did have as many merits as it did disadvantages. The major problem with providing that type of situation is safety. We felt it would be of much more benefit to those persons living in that area to focus the traffic activity at one location, namely Highland Palms as opposed to Singing Palms. The Singing Palms intersection is relatively close to Highway 111 and the Highway 111 and Washington Street intersection is one in which they anticipate will have major traffic problems Ln future, even with the improvements being proposed. There- fore, to have an additional point of conflict, even though we are talking about a southbound, right-turn movement only, it would not necessarily work to the advantage of the residents in that area. Another reason they did not think this would not be reasonable is that they wanted to take another look at the homms in the area, that they are quite attractive and deserve more protection so therefore felt they should be provided with a "gated" type of conmunity. By providing another turn, you would go back to the traditional concept of a tract. The plan shows this "gated" type of ~ity concept without actually being gated. Discussing the concept of an overpass at Highway 111 and Washington Street, Mr. Kawamura stated that visually they are pretty awful looking structures and have quite an impact. He stated that they are mostly used in very urbanized areas where there is a very intense type of develot~nent and there are no other alternatives. He stated that he felt the City of La Quinta would never have MINUTES - PLANNING CYIMMISSION February 11, 1986 Page 8. this type of situation with respect to traffic and felt that the people ~ould never allow it to get to that type of situation where a grade separation is necessary. There are major cost factors involved as well as a lot of other problems with the construction of an overpass. Director Stevens asked Mr. Kawamura about lots to the south of Tampico along Washington that are currently undeveloped and what the plan is for that area. Mr. Kawamura replied that in that area they felt it %ould basically be the acquisition of the necessary right-of-way for Washington Street. As to how those properties would be developed would be something that would have to be handled almost on an individual, property by property, basis. Director Stevens stated he felt maybe we should place a standard in the plan as to how the access to Washington Street in that area south of Tampico should be handled. Mr. Kawamura addressed the concern mentioned of when the signalization would be provided at the Highland Palms intersection. He advised that if it were done ~iately it would probably cost approximately $60,000 - $70,000 and then when other improvements along Washington were done, it would have to be redone. Addressing the noise barriers, Mr. Kawamura stated he felt that they would have to be done under a specific noise study to determine what the heights of the walls should be, etc. Generally, with what is being proposed, he did not feel we were talking about a 7' wall or anything like that. Mr. Kawan~ra stated he wished to reemphasize the point that this Washington Street Specific Plan is not a precise alignment study, but merely a planning type of effort to try to decide in general terms and in conceptual form what -- Washington Street would look like in future and how we should plan for that facility and whether or not we can plan some improvements over what is out there currently and what would happen if we did not go through this effort. The next step, after getting an approval of the concept of this plan, would be to look at specific engineering types of studies, precise alignments, etc., to determine basically how much land we are talking about. At that point, there can be scme adjustments regarding what are going to be the specific takes on property. If its 5', it makes a difference between condemning a piece of property altogether or salvaging enough land to make it developable, then obviously there are adjustments that could be made on design s~s, etc., that could provide for that. Chairman Thornburgh suggested that Mr. Dupree and his representatives get a meeting set up with Staff for further discussion and clarification of their suggestions and to hear Staff's arguments in relation thereto. After a brief discussion, Chainm3n Thornburgh called for a motion. 2. Cc~mtissioner Brandt made a motion, seconded by Conm%issioner Moran, to continue the public hearing regarding Specific Plan No. 86-007 to the next regularly scheduled meeting of February 25, 1986. Unanimously Adopted with Conmtissioner De Gasperin absent. 4. CONSENT CAT.RNDAR A. Cc~nissioner Brandt made a motion, seconded by Conmtissioner Moran, to approve the minutes fr~n the regular meeting of January 28, 1986. The minutes of the regular meeting of January 28, 1986, were approved as submitted. Unanimously Adopted with ~ssioner De Gasperin absent. 5. BUSINESS Cha~ Thornburgh introduced the first item of business as follows: A. TRAC~ 19458 - A request for a first Extension of Time on Isla Mediterranea, an 894-unit, 152-acre tract located on the northeast corner of the Washington Street/Avenue 48 alignment; M. B. Johnson, Applicant (Continued). He called for the Staff Report. MINUTES - PIANNING C~SSION February 11, 1986 Page 9. 1. Director Stevens stated that Staff recc~nends a continuance of the matter to the next regular meeting of February 25, 1986. ~nere being no discussion, Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion. 2. Cc~nissioner Walling made a motion, seconded by ~ssioner Brandt, to continue the matter regarding Tract 19458 to the next regular meeting of the Planning C~ssion on February 25, 1986. Unanimously Adopted with Cc~nissioner De Gasperin absent. Chairman Thornburgh introduced the next two items of business as follows: B. Plot Plan No. 86-261, a request to construct a single-family dwelling at the southeast corner of Calle Ensenada and Avenida Obregon; Bob Boggs, Applicant. C. Plot Plan No. 86-262, a request to construct a single-family dwelling on the west side of Avenida Navarro, 100' south of Calle Nogales; Larry Rogers, Applicant. He called for the Staff Reports 1. Regarding Plot Plan NO. 86-261, Bob Boggs, Applicant, Director Stevens advised that pursuant to discussion at the Study Session, Staff met with Mr. Boggs today and are satisfied that there is a minimum of 1200-square- feet provided in the structure. Therefore, Condition No. 12 can be deleted. The Applicant has agreed to construct the garage to a 20' x 24' clear dimension, but objects to shifting the structure 6' to the east to allow additional distance frc~ the corner radius of Avenida Obregon and Calle Ensenada. Director Stevens stated that he felt if we left out the "6'" notation in Condition No. 14, we could worry about the exact number of feet with the Applicant. Director Stevensl ~stated that 'the Applicant has also objected to Condition~No. 16 regarding a requirement of interior access from the garage into the dwelling. The Cc~mtission agreed to waive Condition No. 16 as sukmtitted, but changed it to read as follows: "16. The rear patio area shall be covered so as to provide sheltered access frcm the rear of the garage to the dining roc~ area." Regarding Plot Plan No. 86-262, L~rry Rogers, Applicant, Director Stevens stated there are a few minor concerns, but nothing that could not be worked out with the Applicant. There being no further discussion, Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion: 2. Chairman Thornburgh made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Walling, to approve Plot Plan No. 86-261 and Plot Plan No. 86-262 based on 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 Commissioner De Gasperin absent. 6. ADJOURNMENT i , There being no further items of agend_a to ccme before the Planning Conwmission, Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion to adjourn. Ccmmtissioner Brandt made a motion, seconded by Ccnmtissioner Moran to adjourn to the next regular meeting of the Planning Conwmission to be held February 25, 1986, at 7:00 p.m., in the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, CA. Unanimously Adopted with Cc~nissioner De Gasperin absent. The regular meeting of the Planning Cc~ntission of the City of La Quinta, CA, was adjourned at 9:40 p.m., February 11, 1986, in the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California.