Loading...
1986 05 13 PC Minutes APPROV~~ ~NNII'J~ COMMISSI~ ~ MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA A Regular Meeting Held at the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California May 13, 1986 7:00 p.m. -- 1. CALL TO ORDER A. Chairman Thornburgh called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and led all present in 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, Principal Planner Sandra L. Bonner, Associate Planner Gary W. Price, Planning Assistant Wallace Nesbit and Secretary Donna M. Velotta. Mayor John Pena and Councilman Dale Bohnenberger were also present. Absent: None. 3. HEARINGS Chairman Thornburgh introduced the first public hearing matter as - follows: A. PLOT PLAN NO. 86-274, A request to construct three, two-story retail/office buildings totaling 10,216 sq.ft, on a .846-acre site; John Feld, La Quinta, Ltd., Partnership - Applicant. He then called for the Staff Report. 1. Community Development Director Lawrence L. Stevens advised the Commission that this matter was heard at their previous meeting on April 22 and was continued to this meeting in order to allow the Applicant additional time to submit further information on building materials and colors and to evaluate alternatives to redesign the corner of Bermudas/Montezuma to open it up more. The Applicant was advised of this, but did not submit the revised materials in sufficient time for review at this meeting. In fact, the materials have not been received to date. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue this matter again to the meeting of May 27 to allow the Applicant the same opportunity. Staff also recommends that should the materials not be submitted in time for that hearing, that the matter be tabled. If that occurs, Staff would renotice for recon- sideration at such time that revisions were submitted. There being no discussion, Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion. 2. Commissioner De Gasperin made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Walling, to continue Plot Plan No. 86-274 to their next meeting of May 27, 1986. Unanimously Adopted. Chairman Thornburgh introduced the next four public hearing matters, which were to be heard concurrently, as follows: B. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 86-009, A request to amend the text of the Community Development Element by adding a new classification, "Very High Density Residential" (16-24 units per acre), and to amend the Land Use Plan on a 30.01-acre site from Medium Density Residential (4-8 units/acre) and High Density Residential (8-16 units/acre) to Very High Density Residential (16-24 units/acre); Western Corporation, Applicant. C. SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 83-001, AMENDMENT NO. 3, A request to amend the "Duna La Quinta" project by decreasing the site from 246 to 180 acres, increasing residential densities within por- tions of the project, and increasing the total number of dwellings from 1,146 to 1,225 units; Landmark Land Company of California, Inc., Applicant. D. CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 85-020, A request for a zone change on the 30.01-acre site from R-2-3350 (Multiple Family Dwellings, 3350 sq.ft, net lot area per dwelling unit) to R-3 (General Residential); Western Corporation, Applicant. E. PLOT PLAN NO. 85-254, A request for approval of a 688-unit apartment project on a 28.64-acre portion of the 30.01-acre site; Western Corporation, Applicant. He called for the Staff Reports. 1. Associate Planner Gary W. Price addressed the General Plan Amendment advising the Commission that the Applicant is requesting same to introduce a new General Plan desig- nation of "Very High Density Residential" at 16-24 units per acre. The site is located within the Duna La Quinta specific Plan. He advised that the issues on which this report is focussed are the appropriateness and consistency of the "Very High Density Residential" land use designa- tion and how it is appropriate with the General Plan. Is the amendment consistent with the goals and intent of the - 2 - General Plan? Are Very High Density Residential projects appropriate developments to be encouraged in the City? Mr. Price went on to discuss the next issue, that being the suitability of the project site to accommodate a "Very High Density Residential" land use project. Is a "Very High Density Residential" land use appropriate given surrounding existing and planned land uses in the surrounding area? Should the General Plan encourage - "Very High Density Residential" developments in or nearby the Village at La Quinta and the Duna La Quinta Specific Plan project area as well as the southern portion of the City? Mr. Price stated that during the development of the General Plan, there were several public hearings and community forums, at which time it was determined to limit High Density Residential to only a few areas and restricted this designation to 16 units per acre. It seems that the existing High Density Residential of 8 to 16 units is sufficient in providing a wide variety of housing opportunities, including apartment development. However, should you consider the General Plan Amendment as submitted, there are several issues that should be addressed with regard to certain elements within the General Plan. Many of those specific issues were pre- sented to the Commission at the study session. Some of the major issues include the Circulation Element. This relates to how high density projects create traffic impacts, which means we must be very careful in assessing these impacts to certain areas of the City. Particularly, as it relates to the southern part of the City where there is a very limited traffic circulation. -- Addressing the Housing Element, Mr. Price stated there is an inclusionary housing program as part of the City's commitment to contribute to the supply of affordable housing in La Quinta. Higher density projects allow a better opportunity to provide for the affordable housing inclusionary program. Therefore, should the "Very High Density Residential" category be considered, that the inclusionary housing program be included as specified in the staff report. Also, we recommend changing the "Very High Density Residential" category to "Affordable Density Residential". Regarding the Cultural Resources Element, Mr. Price advised that it specifies basically that there should be provision of some Open Space requirements within a "Very High Density" project; obviously, as you increase density - 3 - in projects like this, there is a need to provide open space. Mr. Price advised that Staff is recommending denial of this General Plan Amendment per findings in the staff report. This concluded Staff's report on this matter. Director Stevens addressed Specific Plan No. 83-001, Amendment No. 3. He stated that initially, the Duna La Quinta Specific Plan consisted of some 240 acres which was ultimately approved for 1,277 units. He referred to the wall renderings of the Land Use Plan and the Phasing Plan for the Duna La Quinta project. The project which we are specifically talking about with the three other matters related to this is a 30-acre site. The Duna La Quinta Specific Plan currently calls for 13 units per acre. You may recall that the density is established by generally taking the overall development ability within the entire 246 acres of the Specific Plan and redistributing it via the Specific Plan device to various portions of the project. In this case, in the previous approvals, the remaining units that were avail- able to this site were 390, based on the overall redistribution of units. Director Stevens stated that the Duna La Quinta Specific Plan Amendment request is before the Commission for two reasons. The first of which relates to the proposal by Western Corporation and the second relates to some cleanup activity associated with the previously approved Oak Tree West project. With respect to the latter, the Oak Tree West Specific Plan was revised to include land area that was previously Phase 9 of the Duna La Quinta plan. That was deleted from Duna La Quinta and added to Oak Tree West. In addition, a small parcel of property which is currently a golf school and driving range, located on the north side of Tampico between Adams and Calle Rondo, is proposed as a park in compliance with conditions set forth in the Oak Tree West plan. It is also proposed that this site be deleted from the boundaries of the Duna La Quinta plan. In evaluating the specific Plan proposal, Director Stevens advised that Staff recommends approval of the Amendment No. 3 to the Specific Plan; however, there are revisions recommended to it. The revisions recommended, in order to be consistent with our recommendation on the General Plan Amendment request by Western Corporation, are that the 13 unit per acre density be retained on that site rather than the 24 units per acre being requested. In addition, Staff has a couple of lesser issues that relate to the revised approval of Amendment No. 3. Those - 4 - lesser issues relate to the phases that Jack Clark is developing on the north side of the evacuation channel. Landmark is requesting an increase in density in the undeveloped portion of that phase from 54 to 72 units. Staff recommends that you not increase the density in that location as there is a recorded map on that site and we believe that should be the limiting factor in terms of the unit approval for that phase. We have a minor request for increased density on the estate lot phase which is - currently approved at three units per acre and the Applicant is requesting it be increased to five units per acre. Staff does not have any objection to this even though there is an approved tentative map which has not been recorded and there is some potential given the development of the Western Corporation phase that a minor increase in density may be reasonable. Director Stevens advised that the remaining differences relate to building heights. He referred the Commission to discussion at the study session regarding Condition No. 14 in the revised approval, where Staff has suggested that building height limitation within 200' of the perimeter of the site be the same as previously imposed on the Oak Tree West and The Grove Specific Plans. The Applicant has objections to that condition primarily for those phases that are on the easterly side of Washington Street. In addition, Staff is requesting another condition that requires dedication of a neighborhood park between 5-10 acres within or in the general vicinity of the Duna La Quinta Specific Plan area. The Applicant again objects to that condition; however, Staff recommends that it be retained. All other revised conditions for the Duna La Quinta Specific Plan, to the best of my knowledge, are - acceptable by the Applicant. Director Stevens advised the Commission that Staff's recommendation is for approval of this matter as outlined in the staff report with the minor revision addressed on the estate lot phase. This concluded the staff report on the Duna La Quinta Specific Plan, Amendment No. 3 request. Associate Planner Gary Price addressed the Change of Zone Case No. 85-020 and Plot Plan No. 85-254. The Applicant, Western Corporation, is requesting a change of zone from R-2-3350 (Multiple Family Residential) to R-3 (General Residential) for the purpose of developing a 688-unit apartment project. He advised the Commission that, as Staff has recommended on the General Plan Amendment, they also recommend that the R-2-3350 be retained on this site, and therefore recommend denial on the change of zone request. -- 5 -- Regarding the plot plan, Mr. Price advised that the project is located on the north side of Calle Tampico and the east side of the Desert Club Drive alignment. The way in which this request is related to the General Plan Amendment and the Change of Zone is that the project boundary encompasses 30 acres and the plot plan relates to 28.64 acres, which is the actual project. So the density is 24 units per acre within the 28.64 acre area, whereas the Applicant has left 1.36 acres open for future _ development. Mr. Price continued by addressing the project design stating that there would be two-story (28' high) building complexes contained along the perimeter of the project and within the center areas are included two, three-story (32' high) building complexes. The project contains approximately 80% of the two-bedroom units with the one and three-bedroom units distributed within the remaining percentages. The main access to the site is by a private driveway extending through the southerly portion of Calle Tampico. Secondary access is provided by the Desert Club Drive alignment. Project amenities include 4 tennis courts, a central recreation building and a large community pool, with 6 smaller, satellite pools; 7 laundry facilities and a full, security guard system. There is also the feature of subgrade parking. Mr. Price further stated that if built, this project would be the largest and highest density project in the Coachella Valley. In light of previous actions taken regarding the General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, and Change of Zone, Staff recommends denial - of this plot plan request. However, in the case that these requests are looked at favorably by the Planning Commission, Staff recommends that the following design considerations be reviewed. The density of the buildings should be spaced appro- priately to provide for openness and sunlight between the buildings. Presently, this space is not provided resulting in a dense, intense feeling. Regarding the east/west and north/south orientation, there is actually no diagonal orientation which creates an architectural interest in other projects. Mr. Price advised that some of the considerations for design would be maybe deleting the three-story buildings in the center of the project. Staff feels that the density and intensity of this project is just overly so. Also, given the unit distribution and design, La Quinta does have a family-oriented population and this project consists of primarily two-bedroom units. - 6 - Staff feels more three-bedroom units are required to assist in the need for that. Staff also has indicated that there are some minimal living requirements that have been used in past projects in other areas, such as the 10' x 10' clear dimensions required for all bedrooms, that should be applied here. Also, minimum dwelling sizes, which are indicated in the Staff Report, which would be consistent with the General Plan in developing an overall distribution of minimum dwelling unit sizes for apartment projects. Staff also feels that as compared with other apartment projects within the desert, the project lacks recreational amenities and suggest these features be addressed in a future redesign, if necessary. Mr. Price advised that this concluded his report. Director Stevens continued stating that, in general, Staff's position could be summed up as follows regarding the four applications. Staff thinks the project is too intense for the Community as the Community was envisioned by the recently adopted General Plan. Its intensity is expressed by the relatively high density of the project, by its traffic impacts, and by its impact on public services. The project, Staff feels, is inappropriate for a village type concept, even though it does have some advantages in terms of an increased population base and some opportunity to enhance our supply of affordable housing. However, we do not feel these sufficiently offset the disadvantage or defiencies we have noted. As a result, Staff recommends denial of each and every application associated with the project, based on the various findings in the Staff Reports. Mr. Stevens advised the Commission that if it was their desire to consider some alternatives or alterations of the project, Staff will be available at the Commission's direction to - look into and report back on available options. This concluded Staff's presentation. Chairman Thornburgh opened the public hearing at 7:30 p.m., calling upon the Applicant to speak. Tim Ealey, President, The Western Corporation, 74-075 E1 Paseo, Suite A-6, Palm Desert - Advised the Commission that The Western Corporation is ready to make a signifi- cant investment, not only on their behalf, but on behalf of the City of La Quinta. He stated they are prepared to invest at least $50 million dollars into this project to own, build, and manage on a long-term basis. What we've done is set out to build the highest quality apartment project that we can with the greatest amount of afford- ability. Hence, what we have done is engage Merrill-Lynch as Senior Manager to provide tax exempt bond financing for the project. What that does is lower our total cost in - 7 - money to the point where we can service more debt. By being able to service more debt, we can put more money into the project; hence, the underground parking and some other amenities such as security. What we are doing is not only making an investment in the project, but also to create a quality living environment for future residents, which is very important. We believe that intensity of the project is an issue, but we believe its a positive issue. In fact, in Staff's report, there are several references - to One Quail Place in Palm Desert, which is an excellent project and we all regard it highly. What we would like to do is give you some information that we created that provides some comparisons that you can look over and we can run through quickly, based on that project. (Mr. Ealey passed out a document to the Planning Commission and Staff.) Mr. Ealey stated that as you can see on this document, originally and as noted in Staff's report - as a matter of clarification - the site is 30.01 acres. In calculating the density, as all of the 30.01 acres is part of the project, the density actually, according to our calculations, is 22.5 units per acre. In comparison, One Quail Place is 17.5 acres with 384 units, which is 21.5 units per acre. A mix as far as type of apartments, One Quail Place has no three-bedroom, two-bath apartments. They have not addressed the issue of family living as we have in this project. In spite of the fact that we have a larger number of units, we still maintain a very close building coverage based on the entire site. He felt the park area and landscaped areas were all very comparable. He stated one thing he wanted to mention is that the landscape and open space in the project is surely just that. At One Quail Place, they have 51% open space which includes their recreation buildings, sidewalk areas and open areas. This was con- - firmed today by the City of Palm Desert. He went on to state that these are comparisons of what they (One Quail Place) have done and arrived at a very good project and we are trying to make ours a little better. In doing that, we have created 11 additional acres at our expense, which is the underground parking. By taking the parking off the surface and placing it underground, which is again a pretty costly situation, it provides for more open space and more landscaping and a higher quality of life. What we have also is a very secure and comfortable situation for the tenants. This project has two covered parking spaces per unit, whereas, One Quail Place has one per unit. As far as the compatibility of the site, we feel it is a very good location. It is approximately 660' off Tampico. There is a planned office/commercial project in front of part of this project, High Density Residential in front - 8 - of the project and to the east there is High Density Residential, which is all vacant. We believe it is a compatible land use. We believe it is in the right location without being on top of a major street which does cause problems. Therefore, we believe it is a compatible land use and we believe it is in close proximity to the village area without being too close. It is buffered in several different ways. _ Re market research that we have obtained, Mr. Ealey stated that based on intense growth of resort hotel industry in this valley, the number of jobs being created at this point in time, requires permanent, affordable housing. What we have done is create a project that can handle that need. Our market information also tells us that in the next three years, the City of La Quinta can absorb 1500 units City-wide. Obviously, this project with its 688 units is not going to come on line with all of the units probably for three years. By the time the project is started and built, we are looking at the first occupancy probably in January, 1988 for the first two phases. After that, there is another 12-month buildout. We are not going to have 1100 people dumped on the down- town area in one month. We feel this very significant. As far as the apartment sizes, again, our market research has indicated the appropriate sizes for apartment units. That is what we based them on. In the event any clarifi- cations or design changes need to be made, those we believe can be mitigated by working with Staff, along with a lot of other items of design which can be mitigated. · Mr. Ealey went on to state another thing that the project will do re the infrastructure of the City. Schools - $432,000 will be contributed directly as a result of this project. City of La Quinta - $480,000 in Infrastructure Fees; Coachella Valley Water District - $1,720,000; and County of Riverside Fire Department - yet to be deter- mined. If it is in accordance with normal fees, we are talking in excess of $200,000. Mr. Ealey felt that this speaks to the fact that the project is more than paying its way. Again, these are strictly fees, not anything that requires mitigation. With regard to the economy, Mr. Ealey stated they feel the project will have a terrific overall effect on the economy of downtown La Quinta. We believe, and other people believe, in the development business it takes a popula- tion base near the downtown to create a catalyst for growth, both in commercial and retail area§. The City of La Quinta has many times and in many ways indicated the desire to develop the downtown. We believe that this project, among others, will provide the catalyst for growth in the downtown area. The Riverside County Community Development Department indicated to us that each individual that lives in the project will have approximately $7,000 in disposable income per year which they will spend somewhere. At that $7,000 per person living in the project, it calculates to almost $5,000,000 of infusion into the local economy. It will increase the sales tax fee and it will also increase the subvention monies that the City receives from the State. Once these people move into the project, these fees continue every year. Regarding locating projects such as this with this type of density within the northern part of the city, it would probably be appropriate, but those people will shop else- where - not in the downtown area. Overall, Mr. Ealey stated, what we feel we have, with the assistance and the help of the City, is a project the Western Corporation, in cooperation with the City of La Quinta, can point to with pride. This concluded Mr. Ealey's presentation. Chairman Thornburgh - asked Mr. Ealey about the statement he made that the project would be on 30 acres, while Staff is saying 28 acres; he asked if the small 1.5 acres would be a part of this project? Mr. Ealey - responded that originally, the application stated the project was going to consume 28.84 acres. In subsequent meetings with Staff, we indicated to them that it was 30.01 acres and that the 1.5 acres would be part of the project. Therefore, as part of the project, we feel it should be part of the density. Commissioner Walling - asked Mr. Ealey what the density would become if the 1.5 acres was included in the project? Mr. Ealey - responded it becomes 22.5 units per acre, comparing it to One Quail Place, which has 21.5 units per acre. Chairman Thornburgh - questioned that the proper assump- tion is that the 1.5 acres will be a part of the project and it will be a green area not to be developed or built on at a later date, that it will be part of the project? Mr. Ealey - responded that what we indicated is that it will be green area or park area and would be a permanent - 10 - part of the project. He stated he appreciated the question because it is an important clarification. Commissioner Moran - asked Mr. Ealey how large the area was? Mr. Ealey - replied that it was 1.38 acres. Chairman Thornburgh - asked Mr. Ealey what Phase I of the project would comprise? Mr. Ealey - responded (referring to the wall rendering) that first it would include the improvements for the entry roadway which will be gate guarded by 24-hour guards. The entire community will be walled. He noted that Phase I would include the first two quadrants, all of the tennis courts, the leasing and recreation building and the main pool. This would account for approximately 340 units. We would like to open the project with all of these amenities in place. Craig Combs, Architect for this project, 1535 Monrovia Avenue, Newport Beach, California - speaking as a repre- sentative of the Applicant, he advised that he has been involved with this project for approximately a year. He stated that the project is accessed from Calle Tampico in two locations and the project is approximately 660' back from the street, which he felt was significant. Therefore, the project will probably not be perceived visually from Tampico. The perimeter buildings are two- story on grade and are 24'8" in height. The buildings on the parking lids themselves, the majority of which are two-story, are 24'8" above the lid and the lid is 4'6" above grade. The three-story buildings are sited in the center of the project and will probably not be seen from the perimeter at all. He referred the Commission to a drawing which showed the buildings in perspective. Mr. Combs went on stating that parking has been broken into four living enclaves or clusters. Access to the parking areas is at two points for each of the clusters. There are two parking spaces per unit under the lid and they can be accessed by the resident very smoothly and easily, and they do not have very far to walk to their parking area. Additionally, on each of the lids, there are two swimming pools on three of them. The Staff Report states we have seven pools, but there are eight. That works out at about one pool for 85 units, where One Quail Place has one pool for 95 units. There are four tennis courts and quite a recreation building. Trash locations are within the - 11 - parking structure. Management would operate a system wherein the trash bins would be taken from the structure and brought to a location in the northeast corner of the project where there would be one major pickup twice a week or whatever it may turn out to be and we are working with the refuge company on that. In that same corner location, there will be a maintenance building and space for recreation vehicle parking. Mr. Combs conducted a short slide presentation showing various apartment projects in Southern California with underground parking facilities. Commissioner Walling - asked Mr. Combs if his firm was involved in many of the projects shown in the slide presentation? Mr. Combs - Responded that they were involved in quite a few of them. In terms of density, we have designed projects, truthfully, of the density type we are present- ing tonight, 22.5 units per acre, which is quite a light density, believe it or not, for this type project. He noted further that his firm is working on projects now that exceed 45 units to the acre and still obtain two- story buildings over the parking lid. He stated they feel fortunate to have Mr. Ealey and a client who is willing to make the commitment for this type of a parking situation. Typical projects of 24 units per acre will develop an awful lot of surface parking and driveways. This type of project, however, is unusual in that the cars are virtually out of the project. They will only show along the perimeter and perimeter drive. Commissioner Walling - asked Mr. Combs if there would be - water features in the project? Mr. Combs - replied that there would be such features. The site plan that was prepared does not illustrate in full the landscaping intentions. We would carry a lot of waterscape. This is going to be a very attractive project, both on and off the lid, and I doubt that a resident or guest would perceive whether they were on or off the lid. This concluded Mr. Combs' presentation. Mike Smith, J. F. Davidson Associates, 78-760 Runaway Bay, Bermuda Dunes, CA, Engineer for the project - Mr. Smith advised the Commission that it was his firm's job to make sure that there was flood controls, sewer and water for the project which has been done. He stated he did a line-of-site study (referring to the wall rendering) to show that if a person was standing in the center of Tampico, they would not be able to see the project. The - 12 - first building is approximately 708' from the centerline of Tampico. He further stated that sewer exists at the cul-de-sac at the top of the dike which can take care of this project. The water line is in Tampico and the storm drain runs out Desert Club Drive and in. We have designed the tennis courts, the play yards and recreation area to hold the water in a storm. We have a five-day drainoff from another project (Crystal Canyon) which must get through the pipe first. Then water from this project would be pumped off at a later date. Commissioner Walling - What would you do with residual water in the parking structure? Mr. Smith - replied that they would pump it out. The way the parking structures are designed, we have rolled the driveway up and then down and since it is only four feet down, it really isn't very bad. At the very bottom, there is a grate and any water that comes in will go through the grate into a dry well. When the dry well gets within 4' from the top, the electric pump starts and will be pumped into the retention area. Chairman Thornburgh - asked if the retention area was the tennis courts? Mr. Smith - advised that the tennis courts were the storm retention area and the nuisance retention is the greenbelt area in low lying spots which will be handled by dry wells so the children will not splash around in it. Commissioner Brandt - asked if there was something to show line-of-site from the estate lots on the levee? _ Mr. Smith - replied that his firm did the plan for the estate lots. They had designed that area with a block wall at the top of the slope. The estate lots are on top of the levee and are set back from the block wall to the curbline about 8', then there is a 32' street, with a 25' setback to the face of the garage. Those units are oriented off their north side to face the golf course. George Parmeter - J. F. Davidson, 10200 S. Mt. Vernon, Colton, CA - advised the Commission that he is a registered traffic engineer in the State of California and has a background of some 30 years with the County of San Bernardino, some time with the City of Palm Springs as traffic engineer and with the City of Irvine as Principal Transportation Analyst responsible for develop- ment review. - 13 - Mr. Parmeter noted that he had a copy of the BSI, Inc. consultant's report dated April 17, 1986. Although the report is not signed by a traffic engineer, Mr. Parmeter stated he had a couple of things he wanted to clarify with the report. The travel demand forecast is based on the Car Counter Company's counts made in Palm Springs. It was good at the time, but its becoming somewhat dated now because of a more recent study. More recent information indicates condos and apartments of this nature run about _ 6.3 trips a day. The travel desire lines are very much the same as he had worked out - 70% to the north; he had used 30% to the east instead of the 20-10 split shown in the BSI report. He stated he had no quarrel with the trip assignment data or the traffic volumes that were developed. They are all based on sound criteria and have been part of reports previously presented to the City, including the Washington Street Corridor Study, also done by BSI. Traffic impacts are illustrated very well in the Volume capacity Ratio information. As can be seen, the Existing + Project Volume Capacity on all streets is well under a normal design criteria, the highest being Washington Street at a .58. He went on to state the only thing that he finds a little confusing is that the Cumulative ADT on Washington Street is compared to a two- lane street capacity and reading the Washington Street Corridor Report previously prepared by this same firm, I find that the point in time when 33,000 cars are going to be generated, Washington Street is contemplated to be a six-lane, divided roadway. That, depending on the efficiency of traffic signals, should easily carry 36,000 to 42,000 vehicles a day. At the minimum of 36,000, you would have a .93 Volume Capacity Rate which is well within the operation since it would probably only occur perhaps 30 minutes a day at that level. Mr. Parmeter stated other _ than those particular items, he finds himself in agreement with the report. This concluded his presentation. Commissioner Brandt - asked if on that section of Washington Street, are we not looking at a four-lane, divided street south of Avenue 50 going to Avenue 52? Director Stevens - replied that we are designating sufficient roadway right-of-way to accommodate six travel lanes. We are hoping that the projections for traffic are high and we can maintain a four-lane configuration in terms of striping, but the road would be sufficient to accommodate six lanes throughout the length of Washington. Commissioner Walling - stated the trip generations, a portion of them anyway, presumably are for people going to some commercial area. Has it been taken into considera- - 14 - tion that a portion of them will not be going on Washington, but satisfying their commercial needs in the downtown area? In other words, relieving some of that ultimate traffic. Mr. Parmeter - advised that it is not considered here (referring to the report presented to the Commission at this meeting). He stated he did run some figures on that particular item and felt something like 28% of the trips - generated would stay within the local area. He stated he did not have any concrete figures to back that up. Only experience based on other similar developments. Kevin Manning - Landmark Land Company, P. O. Box 1578, La Quinta, CA - advised the Commission that his firm is the applicant on the Specific Plan Amendment. He stated that throughout the course of the past 45 minutes, he has been cognizant of the fact that much of the discussion he has heard from Staff, as well as the Staff Report, focuses on the fact that the Specific Plan Amendment that they have submitted is inconsistent or in conflict with the existing General Plan, which was adopted by you six months ago, and of course the City Council thereafter. However, he stated as he reads the existing General Plan, the entire request is consistent with it. A review of the plan indicates that the total 178 developable acres allows a maximum density of 1,425 units. The total requested number of units is 1,225. Therefore, the request that is before you tonight is 200 units less than the allowable maximum density. The density requested is 6.87 units per acre. These density figures assume that the entire resi- dential property area is designated Medium Density Residential. By that, Mr. Manning stated he meant that there are two or three or four acres along the southern border of The Western property acquisitioned that may be designated High Density Residential. Therefore, although on a stand alone basis, this project would require a General Plan Amendment. By that, he stated he meant there is no General Plan designation for up to 24 units to the acre. He felt, based upon the fact that this is part of an overall Specific Plan, the Duna La Quinta specific Plan that this 30-acre request is consistent with the existing City General Plan and is definitely consistent with the intent of the plan, as well as the Duna La Quinta Specific Plan, as approved. Mr. Manning further stated that he felt that a General Plan Amendment is unnecessary if this project is considered as a whole to the Specific Plan, which it is, in his opinion. This concluded Mr. Manning's presentation. - 15 - The following persons appeared and were heard: For the project: Aqainst the project: Earle Ellson (Repr. Ann Young of La Quinta Chamber of Commerce) Audrey Ostrowsky Lee Sleight (Pres., La Quinta - Property Owners Assoc.) Chuck Jimenez (Owner/Principal of Plaza Tampico project) Bruce Cathcart (Realtor/Owner of La Quinta Palms Realty). As no one else wished to speak, Chairman Thornburgh closed the public hearing at 8:25 p.m. To begin the Planning Commission discussion period, Chairman Thornburgh asked for any questions that the Commissioners may have of Staff or the Applicant. Commissioner De Gasperin: Questioned Mr. Ealey as to what the impact would be on the project should the Commission disagree with the Very High Density factor and look at the project favorably at a less density. Mr. Ealey replied that the impact would be an economic one; units mean income, income means debt service. Debt service is based upon what you put into the project, so they all interrelate. There is really no direct answer to the question. We feel that the number of units was - derived at, not only to plan the project in the best possible living environment, but also to service the type of debt it will take to build "a project like this". Commissioner De Gasperin: Again questioned the Applicant as to whether he would build at a Medium Density or High Density, and not at a Very High Density. Mr. Ealey replied that Medium Density would immediately eliminate the parking structures causing the project to go back to surface parking. The original study that they did was at a lesser density; 70% of the entire acreage was in asphalt either in roadways, accessways or parking. The High Density would also make it impractical to build the project shown to you this evening. Commissioner De Gasperin: Questioned Mr. Manning of Landmark Land Company regarding/the impact of this - 16 - / project on their estate lots located on the northern border of the project. Mr. Manning: Replied that theirs is a tentative map and they have five years in which to record it. When they submitted the map, they were under the impression that they would go ahead and do the improvements, finish the final map and record it, and then sell the lots. However, with the fruition of the negotiations with Western - Corporation, we have basically put the tentative map on hold. The bottom line is that if this project goes through, we will have to rethink what we want to do on that eight acres. Commissioner De Gasperin commented that the feeling of the community six months ago was not only to put a lid on how we would define High Density which this project is way beyond (in her opinion) and secondly, to move that High Density away from the Cove. That seemed to be the expression of the community, which was then adopted in the General Plan. Then, also, there was an expression of the community to enhance the Cove and define a Village at La Quinta project, which she was not sure this apartment project is in line with. Now, she stated she is hearing representatives of the community, from business and property owners, saying they are in favor of this project, which seems to fly in face of those two different aspects of the General Plan. Earle Ellson: Replied to Commissioner De Gasperin's comment, stating tht the density has to be looked at from exactly where the location of that density is occurring and the impact that it will have on the surrounding area. If you wanted to put this project out in my neighborhood, I'd say forget it, that wouldn't do. It is not going to enhance that neighborhood. However, I do think that the location where it is now is an enhancement because it is going to be a tremendous economic factor to the develop- ment of the Village area. It will provide an instant market for a lot of things that will attract more development. He felt this was all positive. Mr. Ellson went on to comment that if it turns out that there is a problem with the density in that neighborhood, then he would be the first to say, be considerate of it. He felt that the surrounding project, Duna La Quinta, has made no complaint with regard to the density requested and felt they would be the first to do so. Commissioner Moran: Questioned Mr. Ealey regarding the fact that this project will generate a great deal more - 17 - traffic and what his feelings would be toward a require- ment of providing a traffic signal at the corner of Calle Tampico and Washington Street. Mr. Ealey replied to Commissioner Moran's question by stating that in any circumstance where you have new development or growth, there is always something involved in that new development or growth that needs to be miti- gated. He advised her that they have already expressed _ to the City, and felt it was an appropriate question here, that if there are things that can mitigate traffic or other situations, they would be happy to do them. He commented that they believe it is necessary if they are going to be a part of the community. Therefore, the direct answer to the question is yes. Chairman Thornburgh commented at this point that if the Commission saw justification to go forward with this project that they would request Staff to re-evaluate and come back with an opinion regarding mitigation measures relative to traffic, etc. Commissioner Walling: Questioned Mr. Ealey regarding the private drive into the project and whether it would have pedestrian circulation along it. Mr. Ealey replied that there would be bikeways and walk- ways along it. It has been designed as a 60' wide entryway. Commissioner Brandt: Questioned Mr. Ealey regarding a market study mentioned earlier in his presentation. Her question was whether the 1500 units mentioned in the report to be absorbed by the City of La Quinta were just apartment units or a combination of apartment/single- family units. Mr. Ealey replied that the market study that they had completed in February of this year indicates that over the next five years, La Quinta has the ability to absorb 1500 apartment units. The report was strictly done based on this type of project. Chairman Thornburgh commented that looking at the 30-acre project and seeing that there is 11 acres of subgrade parking, he felt that the City is benefitting from this type of parking. Comparing the size of 11 acres, he referred to the Plaza Tampico project, which is going to have 90,000 square feet of office buildings on it, which is only six acres. Therefore, looking at the 30-acre project, plus the 11 acres of subgrade parking, the - 18 - result is actually 40 acres - which brings the density down, in his configurations. Chairman Thornburgh went on to comment that he felt the Applicant used intelligent choices when placing the three-story buildings in the center. He stated that one concern he had was regarding the entrance into the project from Tampico, which Commissioner Walling had brought up earlier, which he felt should be given a "country club" look such as we have requested of previous developers. Another concern was the - spacing between the buildings which he felt should be greater. He requested that Staff evaluate this concern and come back with some guidelines. And lastly, he requested that Staff look into the matter of a guarantee of mature landscaping being planted within the project. Commissioner Moran stated she agreed with Chairman Thornburgh's comments. The only thing that she wondered about was the spacing of the buildings. She commented about the joint City Council/Planning Commission tour to different apartment complexes in the valley and the closeness of some of the buildings. She felt, however, that with mature landscaping, the closeness could be mitigated. Commissioner Walling commented that an interesting thing is that if we rezoned this area to 20 units per acre and allowed whoever developed the property to come in with 25% of inclusionary housing at 30 units per acre, you would end up with an average of 22.5 units per acre, which is what this Applicant is asking for currently. He noted that this might be something to think about; if we do approve a general plan amendment, if we do increase the density, then we should make it restrictive because there are some unique features here that we really should require if someone is going to get this kind of density. One feature, of course, is the opportunity of inclusionar¥ housing and, at this ratio, you would get the density you wanted by using that formula. Other things, perhaps like requiring underground parking, a certain amount of open space, a certain recreational ratio in terms of units, etc., he felt should all be included in whatever designa- tion, if we do decide to change the density. It should not be a density per se, but it should include these restrictions so that we are sure of getting a very good, high quality project with the increased density. Commissioner Walling stated that professionally, he did not share the stigma as most people do about high density. He stated that he has seen many projects with this density and higher that are excellent, well-designed, and would be welcomed by any community. So, the fact that there are - 19 - more people per acre is not a problem in that respect. It does increase traffic, unquestionably, but whether it increases to a degree that is going to be any more detri- mental than other factors in the community is questionable. One thing that is unique here is that we will eventually have 1100+ people within walking di~tano¢ of the downtown area. The downtown area, as it develops commercially, will always have a problem with parking. we have the advantage here of having the project within foot distance, thus not having a lot of cars in the down- town. Commissioner De Gasperin asked if it is possible to impose restrictions or conditions upon approving a general plan amendment for a particular parcel. Director Stevens replied that the Commission has two options with regard to the density, assuming that there would be an approval for something higher than the current maximum of 16. One option is to basically specify any density beyond the 16 be for affordable units, and he believed that the current General Plan language would allow that and would also be supported by Housing Element policies. He felt that this interpretation would rely on all units above 16 being affordable for either low or moderate income persons. The other alternative with regard to approving a higher density, if you wanted to take Commissioner Walling's suggestion of a more restric- tive approach, would be something similar to the approach Palm Desert took which they called Affordable High Density Residential. They did not use that as a land use designation that they imposed on individual pieces of property, but what they did is create a General Plan overlay and said these are the areas we want to consider on a case-by-case basis, and then created some policies that would do it. Of course, you could go to another approach and just designate it high density and go from there. Director Stevens felt that these are the options that the Commission has to get the density to some point beyond 16, if that is your desire. Chairman Thornburgh commented that he would prefer to not see our density go beyond 16 without special conditions being applied to it. He felt that with approving 10,000- 11,000 units, having the golf courses and what we have done with the Village at La Quinta, that we will create business down here. He felt this project.is exciting for the downtown community and liked the idea~that it is out of the way. He stated he would like Staff to become creative and allow so much for low-cost housing and so - 20 - much for underground parking, and so much for a few other things, so as to get our density up without changing the General Plan, and without having these conditions tied to it. Commissioner De Gasperin asked if any of the other Commissioners were concerned that the surrounding undeveloped land will also go the same way. Chairman Thornburgh replied that it becomes their choice - and stated he felt that it was economics rather than zoning that would control what they do downtown. At this point, Chairman Thornburgh asked if there was a consensus to go forward with the project, and if so, his recommendation would be to point out the things that the Commission is most concerned about, making Staff aware of those things; then he would like to recommend the matter be continued to their next meeting so that Staff would have the opportunity to get back to them with changes and a report based on what we have said, rather than a negative report that denied it. The Commission presented the following comments: Commissioner Brandt stated she would like to see in the general plan amendment some language regarding an afford- able housing density bonus program, so as not to create a new density category; i.e., Very High Density, but remain at the 8-16 units per acre and consider a 25% maximum density bonus provided that additional units would go toward meeting our fair share of the regional housing needs in the valley, as identified by the Local Agency Governments. Chairman Thornburgh commented that Staff and the Applicant should study that and bring back a report to the Commission. Commissioner Brandt stated she would also like to see the market feasibility study that was prepared for the Applicant's project. (Director Stevens advised that a copy was not provided to Staff.) Director Stevens requested clarification on the 25% maximum density bonus requested by Commissioner Brandt. He asked if there was a consensus on that because that also implies basically, a maximum 20-unit-per-acre density; therefore, he wanted to clarify if that is agreed to or not, or understood. - 21 - Chairman Thornburgh stated he would not want to agree on figures, but agree on the principal, to have it studied and brought back to the Commission. Commissioner Moran stated she would also like to see a density bonus given the Applicant for the underground parking because it opens up so much open space. Also, if they do grant density bonuses, she would like to have a specific plan approved at the same time. - There was a consensus to Commissioner Moran's requests. Chairman Thornburgh felt that Item 13 (regarding contri- bution by the Applicant toward funding of a central fire station project) should be left for the City Council to determine. He stated that they have left these dollar figures for the Council to determine in the past. Chairman Thornburgh asked for any comments/questions on the Change of Zone application. Director Stevens advised the Commission that Staff will raise an additional issue on the Change of Zone and that is the concern as to whether or not the R-3 Zone is appropriate. He felt Staff would use the R-3 Zone to start with, but felt they may suggest that, as a final action, Staff be directed to develop a new zoning district to handle affordable housing projects, with the under- standing that it would ultimately be placed on this site. This might give us a better technique to control the appropriateness of projects where we grant affordable units. To begin discussion of the plot plan application, Chairman Thornburgh stated he felt the most important - decision that the Commission had to make, rather than deciding do we want this density or do we want this project, or whatever, is do we want apartments in this area. If that is the intent of the Commission to pursue he felt what they should do is go forward, disecting the project as they have done on previous applications. Commissioner Brandt stated she had problems with the location of the RV parking/maintenance area adjacent to the levee. She was concerned with the interface between this development and what is tentatively going to go on the levee. Chairman Thornburgh responded stating the reason he has paid no attention to that area of the project is that Landmark owns both and this would be ahead of Landmark's - 22 - proposal, and Landmark does not know what they will do with the levee property at this time. Commissioner Brandt advised that there is also the property to the south and east which would also be adjoining the RV parking/maintenance area, and they are not represented here tonight. We do not know what their plans are so we do have them to consider also. Commissioner Moran, addressing the subject of building -- heights, stated she did not have a problem with this matter because the three-story units are within the interior of the project and they would not be visible from Tampico. Commissioner Brandt stated she did have a problem with the building heights. Without the adoption of our Village plan, she is not sure that we would have allowed three- story development. She is not sure this is consistent and feels we would be setting a precedent now with this three-story development. Admittedly, it is within the interior of the project and set back from Tampico, but she is not convinced that three-story is consistent with the downtown area and consistent with the Village theme. Commissioner Walling stated it seemed to him that the three-story is only relevant if you can see it from out- side the project. If it is well-screened from the exterior, he felt it would not be much of an impact. All these things are precedent setting, but what we are doing here is trying to establish a device where we can control these items when they come up in another project. He felt the consideration here should be project specific. In another project perhaps, it would make a visual impact and we should allow the three stories. Chairman Thornburgh commented that he looks at this as impacting the Village at La Quinta, but not as part of it. He felt that design-wise and whatever, it sets off by itself and that it will impact because of the people it brings. Design-wise it will not impact what our final decision will be on the Village at La Quinta design. Therefore, he sees no problem with the three-story buildings. Commissioner Brandt stated she would like to see a more varied mix of units and maybe increasing the percentage of the one-bedroom, as well as the three-bedroom units. She would particularly like to see a variation in the mix reflect the need for the low and moderate income units. - 23 - Chairman Thornburgh felt that the people who put their money up should make the decision on this matter. He felt if they go into the low-cost housing, it would be a benefit to the community. He commented that he did not feel smart enough to tell people how many one-bedroom or two-bedroom units to develop and felt the Commission should not recommend a change in the Applicant's mix. Regarding this matter, Director Stevens recommended to the Commission that they request the Applicant to submit their market study to Staff. Staff will evaluate the study in light of a couple of other market studies we have and will come back with a recommendation of whether we should get involved in the issue of bedrooms and mix. Commissioner De Gasperin stated her feeling regarding this matter is we should be encouraging units for small families. Director Stevens questioned the Commission as to whether they wished to pursue the matter of recreation amenities more thoroughly or whether they felt that what has been proposed is generally adequate. Commissioner Moran replied she felt what the Applicant presented was adequate; the comparisons Staff made in their report was with condominium projects and this is not a condominium project, it is an apartment complex. Commissioner De Gasperin felt the need for some discussion verifying that the one-acre parcel south of the project WILL be used for a park. Chairman Thornburgh, in answer to Commissioner De Gasperin's request, replied that it is on record tonight that the parcel will be used for a park. Commissioner Brandt commented that from what she under- stood from the presentation given by the Applicant earlier, there are additional recreational facilities in this project that are not reflected in the plot plan rendering before them. She stated she would like to see the recreational exhibit only, showing all the little tot lots and all amenities that the project has to offer so that the Commission will know exactly what they are approving. She stated she would like this information prior to approval because the Applicant had indicated in their presentation that this plot plan did not reflect all of the recreational facilities. - 24 - Chairman Thornburgh commented that he felt the Applicant was referring to the waterways and different landscape amenities that were not shown on the rendering. He called upon the Applicant's representative, who verified this statement. Director Stevens stated he assumed, in that regard, not only did the Commission wish to see the additional recreational amenities, but a number of other things that were pointed out that are not shown on the plan submittals that the Commission would expect Staff to prepare condi- tions to assure that those things were going to occur. Commissioner Walling stated he would like to see a little more study on the building orientation as Staff pointed out in their report. There are some buildings that are quite close. There was a consensus of the Commission regarding this concern. Chairman Thornburgh stated he would like to have the entry driveway look like a part of Tampico; not knowing what is going in on either side of it, he would like to have it stand on its own with landscaping, possibly a wall, or some kind of break so that it is not a pretty road down through the dirt. Commissioner Walling questioned Director Stevens as to the distance between the entry driveway into the project and Desert Club Drive. Director Stevens replied that it was approximately 1200 feet. Commissioner Walling asked if a median break or even a traffic signal would not be a bad request for that area. Director Stevens replied he felt that Staff would support a signal at the entrance location. He stated that Staff would evaluate a median break and make a recommendation. He was not sure that it was evaluated by BSI, Inc., as part of our traffic recommendation; we would probably ask BSI to look at it and then incorporate it into the condi- tions based on their recommendation. Chairman Thornburgh requested Staff to make sure that, if this project goes before Plaza Tampico, it is in the conditions to require the improvement of Desert Club Drive. Director Stevens replied that Staff would definitely make some provision, based on who was first, relative to Desert Club improvements. He advised the Commission that in the - 25 - Plaza Tampico conditions, Staff basically did not specify that Desert Club Drive go further north from that project as, frankly, we were not sure how this property and property to the west was going to develop. We are still not sure how Desert Club is going to be aligning to this area to the west. We do not think we will make it a cul-de-sac at that driveway - we have got to look at some connection further to the west - whether that ends up being just an L-shape or a U-shape and coming back to Tampico. What we will probably do is put some additional traffic analysis requirements on this to evaluate an appropriate configuration for Desert Club and the immediate area, so that we can determine how far north it should proceed. Continuing with the discussion, Chairman Thornburgh felt there was no need to discuss Hearing Item C tonight. Director Stevens added that the issues pertaining to Hearing Item C are clearcut. He felt there was an under- standing of the points the Applicant would raise, based on discussion at the study session. Staff will continue to work on those points between now and the continued hearing so that the Commission can take action on all those related items at the same time. Chairman Thornburgh felt that the Commission's recommen- dation would be that the property on top be increased, whereas the Clark property not be increased because it is a final. There being no further discussion on these matters, Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion. 2. Commissioner Brandt made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Moran, to continue General Plan Amendment No. 86-009, Change of Zone No. 85-020, and Plot Plan No. 85-254, to their next regular meeting of May 27, 1986. Unanimously Adopted. Commissioner Brandt made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Moran, to continue Specific Plan No. 83-001, Amendment #3, to their next regular meeting of May 27, 1986. Adopted with a 4-0 vote; Commissioner Walling abstained due to a conflict of interest. After a short discussion, it was the consensus of the Commission to hold their next study session at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 27, 1986, due to the 3-day, Memorial Day weekend. Chairman Thornburgh introduced the next item of hearing as follows: - 26 - F. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 86-011, A request to amend the General Plan Land Use Plan on a 154.5-acre site from High Density Residential to Mixed Use Commercial; a related request initiated by the City to designate Avenue 48 and Adams Street as the Highway 111 Bypass, and to upgrade Adams Street on the Circulation Plan from Secondary to Primary Arterial; M. B. Johnson Properties, Applicant. He then called for the Staff Report. 1. Director Stevens informed the Commission that this is a - proposed general plan amendment for 154.5 acres located at the northeast corner of Washington Street and Avenue 48. Everyone should be most familiar with this as the site of the location of the approved tentative tract map for the Isla Mediterranea project. During the course of the General Plan hearings, this site retained its former designation of High Density Residential, which would allow 8-16 units per acre (the project being approximately 10 units per acre), using the principal that approvals made prior to the General Plan would be retained in force provided that it was the desire of the Applicant to main- tain those approvals. Subsequent to the adoption of the plan, the property owner has submitted a request to modify that land use designation to Mixed Use Commercial. The Mixed Use Commercial land use category was primarily devised as a method to deal with the Highway 111 area through the course of the General Plan, a relatively large commercial area, as a way to introduce some residential support. He stated that you may recall that we generally said on large parcels that Applicants would have the opportunity, based upon market studies, development agreements, and master development plans for their sites, to include a maximum of up to 30% of the development in a residential use with a density that was not specified, but which was to be justified on the basis of a market study. - The Applicant, in this case, feels it would give hiTM more flexibility in developing his site and frankly, Staff, in its assessment, does not disagree with that approach. Director Stevens stated that it is really Staff's feeling that this request would bring this property into a condi- tion that is more appropriate in terms of its relationship with surrounding properties, yet still providing what we consider to be that important residential component to support the commercial development that we anticipate on the Highway 111 Corridor. Staff does not feel that this request would substantially alter traffic or similar patterns. Director Stevens referred the Commission to the rendering presented by the Applicant showing the schematic plan of intentions relative to development. The northerly portion of the site is designated for tourist commercial; the southwesterly portion of the site is designated for - 27 - residential uses of mixed densities; and the southeast portion of the site is designated primarily for health and medical facilities and related activities. Director Stevens emphasized that this plan is not part of any approval that the Commission would be granting should you approve the general plan amendment. It is only illustra- tive of the Applicant's current desires for the site. Any such plan would, obviously, have to come back to the Commission for further approval. Given the General Plan designation, that would probably be in the form of a Master Plan of Development, a Development Agreement with appropriate market study support. The additional map that the Applicant has provided is entitled, Community Design Features, and is attempting to demonstrate that a lot of the design and amenity features that everyone found so desirable within the Isla Mediterranea project will be retained. Director Stevens advised the Commission that one of the assumptions that the Commission will have to make relative to the Isla Mediterranea project is that, while its approval would remain in effect for the remaining period of the tentative map that you just extended - should you approve this amendment - the tract map would not be able to be extended again because of its lack of consistency with the newly adopted general plan amendment. So, in essence, if the Applicant opts to go back to the Isla project, they basically have a year to record that map and proceed with any requirements associated with that. Given the current status, you should pretty well assume that the Isla project probably would not proceed should you approve this general plan amendment. Staff's evaluation of the impacts associated with the project indicates that they are not significantly different from those that would occur to surrounding property currently designated Mixed Use, nor are they significantly different than that which would occur if the Isla project were done. Staff's overall feeling is that it is more consistent with the intent of the plan to use the Mixed Use designation in this area. We probably will have some concerns as to what the use mix is and where some of the uses relate, and trying to emphasize some of our Washington Street Specific Plan concerns in this development. One of the other points raised as part of the general plan amendment was that there is within the adopted General Plan Circulation portion, a requirement to evaluate the need for a Highway 111 Bypass generally along the Avenue 48 alignment and connecting to Highway 111 at an appropriate point within La Quinta. As a result, we also raised the necessity to redesignate Adams Street between Avenue 48 and Highway 111 as a - 28 - Primary Arterial as opposed to its current designation as a Secondary Arterial. This would, in essence, change the right-of-way needs from 88 feet to 100-110-foot width associated with the Major Arterial. Staff feels that this would accommodate any modest increases in traffic that would occur and relate more appropriate to regional traffic needs and some of the activities that have come out of our recent meetings with the County and City of Indio and surrounding cities on overall traffic needs. It is Staff's recommendation, therefore, that you approve the requested change to Mixed Use Commercial for the site and that you also amend the Circulation Plan to designate Adams Street as a Primary Arterial between Avenue 48 and Highway 111. This concluded Staff's presentation. There being no questions of Staff, Chairman Thornburgh opened the public hearing at 9:55 p.m. Steve McCormick, 31882 Camino Capistrano, San Juan Capistrano, CA, of Tierra Planning - Spoke in favor of the request; explained the conceptual plan drawing displayed. John Adams, Vice President of Psomas/Harrison, 3901 Lime Street, Riverside, CA - Spoke in favor of the project; his firm is the Applicant's engineer for the project. Mr. Adams explained the compatibility of the revised request and also the consistency with other area develop- ment. Before opening the hearing to public comments, Chairman Thornburgh requested Director Stevens to explain regarding this matter, that the Commission is only changing the _ General Plan Land Use Element and is not approving a particular designation, site plan, or zoning. Director Stevens responded stating that we are not approving a master plan, and we are not approving the land use concept or the community design features. We are merely approving a land use designation of Mixed-Use Commercial on the 154 acres should that be the action that the Commission takes, and the Council takes upon the Commission's recommendation. We would also be changing the designation on the Circulation Element for that por- tion of Adams Street between Avenue 48 and Highway 111. Chairman Thornburgh called for any additional public comments. The following persons were present and were heard: - 29 - Aqainst the request: Christine Clarke, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 650, Los Angeles, CA - One of the principals of an upcoming proposed project in the City of La Quinta spoke at length against the Applicant's request. Audrey Ostrowsky, P.O. Box 351, La Quinta, CA - Requested the Commission to work on development of the downtown area _ and then go on to other projects. Joe Hammer, 677 Dry Falls Road, Palm Springs, CA - Owner of large parcel located near Applicant's property spoke at length against the Applicant's request. George Marzicola, P.O. Box 47, Palm Desert, CA - Owner of property at corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street spoke at length against the Applicant's request. Neil Liddicote, Gorton-Ashman Associates, 180 S. Lake Avenue, Pasadena, CA - Representative for Mr. Marzicola's firm who presented a preliminary analysis with regard to traffic impacts which would result from the approval of the Applicant's request. Mr. Johnson and Mr. Adams responded to some of the comments presented by the above noted speakers. There being no further comments, Chairman Thornburgh closed the public hearing at 10:45 p.m. He then called for the Commission's comments. Commissioner Moran stated she would like to request this matter be continued. _ Commissioner Brandt stated she would like clarification on the trip generations created by approval of this request. There being no further comments, Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion. 2. Commissioner Walling made a motion, seconded by Chairman Thornburgh, to continue this matter to their next regular meeting of May 27, 1986, and directing Staff to provide additional information regarding the traffic issues. Unanimously Adopted. Chairman Thornburgh introduced the next two hearing items, which would be heard concurrently, as follows: - 30 - G. AMENDMENT TO LAND USE ORDINANCE, "SPECIAL RESIDENTIAL" ZONE, A request for approval to amend the text of the Municipal Land Use Ordinance No. 348, by adding the new zoning classi- fication of "Special Residential" Zone; City Initiated. (CONTINUED) H. CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 86-022, A request for approval to rezone certain property located within the City as a "Special Residential" Zone in order to bring the zoning into compliance with the General Plan Land Use Plan; City Initiated. - (CONTINUED) Chairman Thornburgh called for the Staff Report. 1. Director Stevens advised the Commission that rather than give a protracted Staff Report, he would present the items left from the last discussion regarding these matters to see if they could come to a consensus. After some discussion, there was a consensus of the Planning Commission with regard to the issues presented by Director Stevens on this matter as follows: * To require concrete or clay tile roofing material unless an adjustment has been approved. * With regard to fencing, explicitly require the fencing and walls to be view obscuring; prohibit chainlink type fencing unless it is used in conjunction with a plant or vegetation screen; and allow screens of plantings, or a combination of walls or fences and vegetation, as a means to comply with the fencing requirement. * Regarding building design guidelines for multiple approvals, to require developers or applicants who - have obtained or applied for 20 or more approvals for single-family houses to submit master design guidelines to the Planning Commission for approval. Chairman Thornburgh opened the public hearing at 10:55 pm. Audrey Ostrowsky, P.O. Box 351, La Quinta, CA - had questions of the Commission regarding her particular lots with respect to their sizes and her ability to be able to split them. Also, stated she would like to see landscaping used more with regard to the fencing issue, rather than the wood, chainlink and stucco materials. Chairman Thornburgh closed the public hearing at 11:00 pm. There being no further discussion, he called for a motion. - 31 - 2. Commissioner De Gasperin made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Moran, to adopt the amendment to the Municipal Land Use Ordinance by adding the "Special Residential" Zone; and to approve, in concept, the Manual on Architectural Standards for Single-Family Houses and the Manual on Landscape Standards, as amended, to conform with the provisions of the "Special Residential" Zone. Unanimously Adopted. 1. Moving on to the second matter of the two being heard concurrently, Director Stevens advised that the Change of Zone request involves the property upon which would be imposed the Special Residential zoning. He referred to the maps displayed showing the areas of the proposed zone change. Chairman Thornburgh opened the public hearing at 11:05 pm. There being no public comments, he closed the hearing at 11:06 pm. Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion. 2. Commissioner Brandt made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Moran, to approve Change of Zone No. 86-022, rezoning certain property from R-l*, R-l*++, R-2'-4000, and R-3* to SR (Special Residential), in accordance with Exhibit "A", and adoption of the negative declaration for the Environmental Assessment No. 86-045. Unanimously Adopted. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR Chairman Thornburgh introduced the Consent Calendar which consisted of 9 requests for approval to construct single-family homes. There was a brief discussion regarding a minor change in a condition relative to Item No. 4.C. Item 4.J. (Minutes) was excluded from the Consent Calendar as there were none available. He called for a motion. Commissioner De Gasperin made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Brandt, to accept the Consent Calendar as amended. Adopted on a 4-0 vote, with Commissioner Walling abstaining due to a conflict of interest regarding Item No. 4.I. 5. BUSINESS Chairman Thornburgh introduced the first item of business as follows: - 32 - A. PLOT PLAN NO. 85-285, A request for approval to construct a 6,000-square-foot, golf maintenance facility for Oak Tree West at the northeast corner of Avenida Nuestra and Calle Rondo; Landmark Land Company, Applicant. He called for the Staff Report. 1. Planning Assistant Wallace Nesbit presented the Staff Report. He referred the Commission to the wall render- ings, explaining that this represented what the Applicant proposes to build. The location of the project is at the northeast corner of Avenida Nuestra and Calle Rondo at Oak Tree West. Basically, Staff had some concerns rela- tive to the compatibility of the building to the existing residential subdivision to the west and also with respect to access considerations as shown on Calle Rondo. Staff recommends that the access be redesigned to access from Avenue 52 and that, if necessary, the site be redesigned to accommodate that access. Relative to the building characteristics, the Applicant submitted this date the elevations shown on the wall rendering, changing from the original proposal of asphalt shingle, hip style roof with 5 and 12 roof pitch, to a flat roof design. Staff feels there is no problem with that design change, as it would address some of the compatibility problems we had with the original design as it exceeded the perimeter height limit as specified in the Oak Tree West Specific Plan's conditions of approval. Relative to the access, the Applicant has moved the access approximately 200' north, but still shows it on Calle Rondo. Staff does not recommend any permanent, primary access onto Calle Rondo due to that directing commercial traffic down residential streets. Therefore, Staff is keeping with their request to have the access from Avenue _ 52. This concluded Staff's report. Director Stevens advised the Commission that Staff would have no objection to a condition that allowed temporary access onto Calle Rondo pending the construction of the Avenue 52 improvements. Also, support of the flat-roofed building would be contingent upon an appropriate view obscuring design, including berms, walls and/or mature citrus. Staff would also not object to short delays in the actual installation of the citrus based on weather associated conditions provided there were appropriate performance guarantees. Issues discussed by the Planning Commission are as follows: - 33 - * Whether access from Rondo should be allowed as requested or should be changed to require access from Avenue 52. * The general location of the facility as it relates to surrounding property. * The need to reduce building height through redesign and various site adjustments. -- The Commission concluded that the Calle Rondo access was acceptable due to the small amount of traffic and the building and site design should be modified to more effectively screen the structure. Chairman Thornburgh called upon the Applicant for any comment. Brian Curley, P.O. Box 1578, La Quinta, CA - Landscape Architect for Landmark Land Company - appeared in support of the project, emphasizing the desirability of the Rondo access and providing revised site and building design alternatives. After further discussion, it was the consensus of the Commission to revise the conditions of approval as follows: * To require redesign of the building to lower its overall height and maintain a pitched roof more typical of residential construction (Condition Nos. 7 and 13). * To allow access via Calle Rondo, but with a curvilinear design (Condition No. 12). -- At this point, Mr. Curley noted his concurrence with the revised conditions. Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion. 2. Commissioner Brandt made a motion, seconded by Commissioner De Gasperin, to approve Plot Plan No. 86-285, based on the Findings in the Staff Report and subject to the conditions of approval, as amended, in accordance with Exhibits A, B, and C. Unanimously Adopted. Chairman Thornburgh introduced the next item of business as follows: - 34- B. 1986 GENERAL PLAN REVIEW - CYCLE II. He called for Staff's Report. 1. Director Stevens informed the Commission that Staff recommends extending the land area to be considered in this proposal as discussed in the study session. Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion. 2. Commissioner Moran made a motion, seconded by - Commissioner Brandt, to approve the scope of consid- eration for the 1986 General Plan Review - Cycle II to include the following: General Plan Amendment No. 86-012; consider amending the Land Use Plan of the Community Development Element for the land area requested by the Applicant, and also for the 20-acre area located at the northwest corner of Miles Avenue and Adams Street. Unanimously Adopted. 6. ADJOURNMENT There being no further items of agenda to come before the Planning Commission, Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion to adjourn. Commissioner De Gasperin made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Walling to adjourn to a study session to be held at 5:30 p.m., May 27, 1986, in the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California. unanimously Adopted. The regular meeting of the Planning cOmmission of the City of La Quinta, California, was adjourned at 11:45 p.m., May 13, 1986, in the La Quinta city Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, - California. - 35 -