Loading...
1986 03 25 PC Minutes pAPPR~ED~ ~NI MMI~IO M I N U T E S ~ ~ PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA A Regular Meeting Held at the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California March 25, 1986 7:00 p.m. - 1. CALL TO ORDER A. Chairman Thornburgh called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.; he called upon Commissioner De Gasperin to lead the flag salute. 2. ROLL CALL A.Chairman Thornburgh requested the Roll Call; the Secretary called the Roll: Present: Commissioners Brandt, De Gasperin, Moran, Walling, and Chairman Thornburgh Also present were Community Development Director Lawrence L. Stevens and Secretary Donna M. Velotta. 3. HEARINGS 4. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Commissioner De Gasperin made a motion, seconded by Chairman Thornburgh to approve Plot Plans Nos. 86-273, 86-276, and 86-277. Unanimously Adopted. B. Commissioner Brandt made a motion, seconded by Chairman Thornburgh to approve the minutes from the regular meeting of March 11, 1986, as submitted. Unanimously Adopted. 5. BUSINESS Chairman Thornburgh introduced the item of business as follows: A. 1986 General Plan Review - Cycle I. He called for the Staff Report. 1. Community Development Director Lawrence L. Stevens reiterated that this was a new procedure stating that approximately six or eight weeks ago, we adopted a proce- dure to coordinate the review of General Plan Amendments by setting up a three-cycle-a-year system. That was to assure compliance with the government code provision which limits general plan amendments to a maximum of four times a year. In essence, we set up three general plan MINUTES - PLANNING COMMISSION March 25, 1986 Page 2. application deadlines of December 15, April 15 and August 15, with essentially a four-month review. Part of the review that we provided for was that upon submittal of applications, the Planning Commission and City Council would review the applications on a preliminary, non- hearing basis to make sure that the scope of what we were considering was appropriate, since a particular applicant could only ask to amend his particular piece of property. This would maintain a General Plan approach rather than looking at our General Plan as a colored zoning map. In addition, the purpose of the review was to also give the Commission the opportunity to identify other changes not related to applications that might be appropriate for consideration of amendment to the General Plan. There- fore, the purpose of this preliminary review is to establish a scope for each of the applications received and then to determine if there are other areas that should be considered for amendment beyond those raised by the applications. Director Stevens advised that this year only, Cycle I is done outside of the normal review period since we did not set up the schedule until February, we are using a modi- fied review for the first cycle this year. And, as you can see, one of the reasons we set up a coordinated review for General Plan amendments is that we now have three such applications and if we assessed them independently, we would have used up three of our four amendment reviews. So, there is a good reason for setting up this type of review schedule. Director Stevens then referred the Commission to the memo provided them regarding the three applications received which gives a general background of each and asks the Commission to determine the scope they feel should be considered for each. He then briefly explained each of the applications. General Plan Amendment No. 86-009 is an application from the Western Corporation. This affects 30 or so acres within the Duna La Quinta specific Plan area and what the Applicant is requesting is that we amend the text of the Community Development Element to create a new land use category entitled "Very High Density Residential" which would permit 16 to 24 units per acre. At the present time, the maximum density we would allow would be 16 units per acre in our "High Density Residential" category. Then the Applicant is asking, in addition, that should you create a "Very High Density Residential" category that a particular 30-acre parcel be so designated for the purpose of a allowing a 688-unit apartment project. They intend MINUTES - PLANNING COMMISSION March 25, 1986 Page 3. to process the zone change and the plot plan associated with that, as well as a specific plan amendment to the Duna La Quinta Specific Plan simultaneously with the General Plan amendment application. Director Stevens informed the Commission that looking at the factors, there are two factors to consider in evaluating this request. The first factor is the text change to "Very High Density Residential" and I think it should be understood that we are going to have to define it and we probably will have some policies associated with that. He thought that merely the initiation of a text change gives us an adequate range to raise those poli- cies as part of the review. Therefore, should the Commission and Council approve this request, we will have a text describing what "Very High Density Residential" means and probably a number of policies telling us about how and when we will use it. However, if the Commission has some particular interest in areas of concern, you may raise those now and we will make sure they are addressed in the preparation of our report and the evaluation of possible policies under that text. The second issue is whether or not the land area under consid- eration should be larger than the land area for which the Applicant has applied - the 30-acre parcel. Director Stevens stated that he feels there may be reason to look at a larger area than the 30-acre parcel. It may make some sense, but he felt you could look at this project as a transition from commercial on Tampico to Very High Density to High Density so, in this case, we are not recommending that you consider anything other than the _ Applicant's land area. Director Stevens addressed the second application as General Plan Amendment No. 86-010 from Drew Wright and Associates. It is a 40-acre parcel at the northeast corner of Washington and Sagebrush. As noted in the Staff Report, in addition to the land use amendment which would be from "Low Density Residential" (2-4 units per acre) to "Medium Density Residential" (4-8 units per acre). There are associated requests relative to a change of zone to a new zoning district to be developed that would make provision for some components of the development. In addition, there is a tentative tract map and a change of zone. Again, it would be our inten- tion to process these relatively simultaneously. In evaluating General Plan issues, we think there are several. The first one we discussed is surrounding land use and it is Staff's judgment that it would really be a "spot zoning" issue if we talked merely about the 40-acre parcel, as it would be an island of Medium Density MINUTES - PLANNING COMMISSION March 25, 1986 Page 4. surrounded by Low Density. Therefore, Staff feels it would be appropriate to expand the area of consideration to include the existing Sagebrush area tract coming all the way down and actually pick up the small parcel on the southeast corner of Avenue 50 and Washington down to the channel. It would create a more logical land use pattern should you choose to approve this request. Other General Plan related issues include the suggestion to consider whether or not you wish to have a policy included in the Infrastructure Element of the General Plan regarding private versus public streets. Currently, the Applicant is proposing that all local streets within the subdivision be dedicated as public streets. And, as of the present time, the City has not established any policy in this regard. Staff is concerned that long-term.maintenance requirements on the City for public streets means that it should be an issue for us and we should consider estab- lishing a uniform policy in the General Plan for these types of projects and consider having a policy requiring these streets to be private. Staff believes that this would be an appropriate issue to consider with this pro- ject since this is the first such application that we have received. We also have some problems with this application relative to the Washington Street Specific Plan, although we make no recommendation nor think it appropriate to amend that plan or for the Commission to initiate such an amendment. We think that the issue can be dealt with in conditions of approval for the project. It is our understanding that, based on some recent dis- cussions with the Applicant, that this application may be withdrawn in favor of a development that would be in compliance with the General Plan Density of 4 units per acre. If that is the case, obviously we would not to proceed with any of the other issues at this time. The last application is General Plan Amendment No. 86-011 from M. B. Johnson Properties for property at the north- east corner of Washington and Avenue 48 which is the site of the "Isla Mediterranea" project. The Applicant is requesting a change from "High Density Residential" to "Mixed-Use Commercial". This property is bordered by the "Mixed-Use Commercial" both on the north and the east and has major streets on the opposite sides. In terms of the land area, Staff does not think it of any use to look at a larger land area than for what the Applicant has applied. We do think however, based on discussions with the Applicant related to the Highway 111 Bypass issue, that this may be the time to go ahead and consider the MINUTES - PLANNING COMMISSION March 25, 1986 Page 5. upgrading of Adams Street from a Secondary to a Major street and resolve that bypass issue. Director Stevens reiterated that the policy in the plan says that we will conduct a further study to determine whether Adams or Dune Palms between Avenue 48 and Highway 111 should be widened - to accommodate this bypass. In summary, Director Stevens advised the Commission that Staff's recommendation with regard to this 1986 General Plan Review - Cycle I is as follows: a. GPA 86-009: * Consider amending the text of the Community Development Element to include a Very High Density Residential (16-24 units per acre) land use category including pertinent supportive policies. * Consider amending the Land Use Plan for the land area as requested by the Applicant. b. GPA 86-010: * Consider amending the Land Use Plan for the land area as requested by the Applicant and for the land area south of the Applicant's to and including the southeast corner of Washington Street and Avenue 50. * Consider amending the Infrastructure Element to establish a policy concerning public or private streets in new single-family subdivisions. c. GPA 86-011: * Consider amending the Land Use Plan for the land area as requested by the Applicant. * Consider amending the Circulation Plan and associated policies concerning the roadway classi- fication for Adams Street and the Highway 111 Bypass. Director Stevens advised the Commission that one of the things he did try to point out in the report that this is really a scoping type of session to make sure that we are dealing with the right scope of the General Plan issues. It is not really intended to be a pro or con discussion MINUTES - PLANNING COMMISSION March 25, 1986 Page 6. of the projects and Staff, very carefully, in the Staff Report tried not to indicate positions on any of the applications. He noted that Staff is also recommending that the Commission not initiate any amendment to the General Plan beyond those associated with these appli- cations so that we can get them through the process. This concluded Staff's report. There was a brief discussion among the Planning Commission concerning policies for the Very High Density Residential category, the Highway 111 Bypass and the expanded land area related to the Wright Associates application. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to concur with the recommendations from Staff. Commissioner Moran stated in the "Very High Density" designa- tion, she would like to see the percentage spelled out with regard to the open space/recreational area on a case-by-case basis. She would also like to see a buffer between the "Mixed-Use Commercial" and single-family zoned areas. There being no further discussion, Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion. 2. Commissioner De Gasperin made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Walling, to agree with the Staff recommenda- tion as to each of the three General Plan Amendments, with the understanding that if any of the three Applicants withdraws their request, the Community Development Department not proceed to continue to consider that - withdrawn application. Unanimously Adopted. 6. ADJOURNMENT There being no further items of agenda to come before the Planning Commission, Commissioner Brandt made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Walling to adjourn to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held April 8, 1986, at 7:00 p.m., in the La Quinta city Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, CA. The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, CA was adjourned at 7:37 p.m., March 25, 1986, in the La Quinta city Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California.