Loading...
1986 05 27 PC Minutes ~ U QUI.,~rA PUNNING ~M~SSION ] M I N U T E S DATE i~ Z~ /'?~4 _~ ~ PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA A Regular Meeting Held at the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California May 27, 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, and Secretary Donna M. Velotta. Councilpersons Judith Cox and Fred Wolff were also present. Absent: None. 3. HEARINGS Chairman Thornburgh introduced the first hearing as follows: A. PLOT PLAN NO. 86-274, a request to construct three, two-story, retail/office buildings totaling 10,216 square feet on a .846-acre site; John Feld, La Quinta, Ltd., Partnership - Applicant. He - called for the Staff Report. 1. Community Development Director Lawrence L. Stevens reminded the Commission that this matter had been continued from their last meeting to give the Applicant more time to submit additional information on the project to Staff. The deadline for that information to be submitted to the Planning Division was May 22, 1986. He noted that as of May 22, 1986, no con- tact had been made by the Applicant, nor was any information received. Therefore, Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission table this matter until such time as the requested information is received. At that time, the project will be set for hearing and renoticed. Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion. 2. Commissioner Walling made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Brandt, to table Plot Plan No. 86-274 until such time that the Applicant submits additional information requested. Unanimously Adopted. Chairman Thornburgh introduced the next three hearing matters, which will be heard concurrently. B. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 86-009, a request to amend the text of the Community Development Element by adding a new classifi- cation, "Very High Density Residential" (16-24 units/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.(Continued) 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 square foot net lot area per dwelling unit) to R-3 (General Commercial).; Western Corporation, Applicant. (Continued) 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. (Continued) He then called for the Staff Reports. 1. Director Stevens reminded the Commission that all three of the requests noted by Chairman Thornburgh had been continued from their last meeting of May 13. Relative to the General Plan Amendment, Director Stevens advised that the Applicant is requesting an amendment to the General Plan text, Community Development Element, to create a "Very High Density Residential" Land Use Category (16-24 units per acre); and is also requesting an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Map near Calle Tampico and Desert Club Drive from Medium to High Density Residential to "Very High Density Residential". At the last Commission meeting, they requested Staff to prepare alternatives of various methods to allow the increase in density requested by the Applicant. Director Stevens reviewed four (4) alternatives prepared by Staff for their consideration. Director Stevens went on to the second component of the application which is'the change of zone request. He advised the Commission that the Applicant is requesting a change of zone to R-3 basically to facilitate the development, primarily because the R-2 Zone has a limitation on density at 13 units per acre based on, the Duna La Quinta Specific Plan; and the R-2 Zone also provides for some limits as to the maximum number of units that can be in a particular building. The R-3 Zone is a more general, apartment zone and should you approve the project, the R-3 Zone would be an appropriate regulatory device. Staff has prepared Findings for approval of the change of zone should you determine that it is an - 2 - action. The R-3 Zone is the most suitable zone that we currently have available. He further adVised that, as had been discussed previously, that we may in the future opt for a different type of zoning district particularly for affordable housing projects that may give us a better regu- latory device for standard apartment projects. Director Stevens addressed the last issue which is the project approval. He described the proposed project's size, density, location and content. He reminded the Commission of their discussion of issues which were of concern to them at the May 13 meeting. Staff has attempted to address those issues and other concerns which they felt appropriate in preparing Findings which would allow the Commission to approve the project, should they wish to do so; and has prepared a series of conditions for the Planning Commission to consider if they desire to approve the plot plan. Director Stevens reviewed the conditions of approval. Lastly, Director Stevens reiterated to the Commission that Staff's recommendation on the General Plan Amendment, the Change of Zone, and the Plot Plan is for denial. This concluded Staff's report. There was a short discussion period between the Commission and Staff. Chairman Thornburgh opened the hearing for public comments at 7:30 p.m. The Applicant/Representatives who spoke in support of the project are as follows: * Tim Ealey, President - Western Corporation, 74-075 E1 Paseo, Palm Desert, CA * Craig Combs, Architect for project - 1535 Monrovia, Newport Beach, CA * George Parmenter, Project Traffic Engineer - J. F. Davidson, 10200 S. Mt. Vernon, Colton, CA * Mike Smith, Engineer - J. F. Davidson, 73-080 E1 Paseo, Suite 103, Palm Desert, CA The following persons spoke in favor of the project: * Bruce Cathcart, P. O. Box 346, La Quinta, CA The following persons spoke in opposition of the project: * Audrey Ostrowsky, P. O. Box 351, La Quinta, CA * Kiki Haynes, 51-945 Avenida Velasco, La Quinta, CA - 3 - * Ann Young, 77-526 Calle Nogales, La Quinta, CA * Dorothy Becker, 53-700 Avenida Diaz, La Quinta, CA * Wayne Nordstrom, 78-094 Calle Norte, La Quinta, CA * Gene Sheffner, La Quinta, CA There are also several letters on file in the Planning Division regarding this matter. At this time, Tim Ealey of Western Corporation, spoke in _ rebuttal to some of the public comments. Chairman Thornburgh closed the public hearing at 8:10 p.m. There was considerable discussion among the Commissioners on the General' Plan!Amendment application. Primary issues were: - Reasons that the General Plan was adopted with a maximum of 16 dwelling units per acre. - Need for higher density to provide support for development. - Benefits of a density bonus for affordable housing. - Opportunity to encourage "good design" with density bonus. - Need for flexibility in General Plan. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that a Very High Density or Affordable High Density Residential Land Use Designation would not be appropriate, but that a density bonus system with associated text modifications to the General Plan would be the better approach to allowing some higher density projects. Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion. _ 2. Commissioner Moran made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Walling, to approve General Plan Amendment No. 86-009 per Alternative 2A set forth in the Staff Report, which retains the existing Medium and High Density designations on the 30-acre site, but creates a density bonus system as follows: * Up to 25% for housing affordable for moderate incomes. * Up to 35% (not cumulative) for housing affordable to low and very low incomes. * Up to 10% for particularly desirable design amenities. Chairman Thornburgh called for a roll call vote. AYES: Commissioners Moran, Walling and Chairman Thornburgh NAYS: Commissioners Brandt and De Gasperin. Adopted on a 3-2 vote. - 4 - Moving on to the Change of Zone request, there was no substantive discussions by the Planning Commission on matters directly relating to the application. Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion. 3. C0mmissioner Walling made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Moran, to approve Change of Zone No. 85-020 based upon the Findings in the Staff Report dated May 27, 1986. Chairman Thornburgh called for a roll call vote: -- AYES: Commissioners Brandt, Moran, Walling, and Chairman Thornburgh NAYS: Commissioner De Gasperin Adopted on ~a 4-1 vote. _ , Addressing the Plot Plan application, the Planning Commission discussed it at great length. The primary items of discussion were as follows: - Appropriate density for the project, including the granting of any density bonuses. - Design of Tampico entrance. - Building separation within the project. - Adequate guarantees for mature landscaping. - Appropriateness of three-story buildings. - Adequacy of recreation facilities. - Traffic and related on- and off-site road improvements. After discussion of the conditions of approval, it was the consensus of the Commission to revise them as follows: 19. - 633 apartments at 21.1 dwelling units/acre - 20% bonus for affordable housing (96 units at 3.2 dwelling units/acre) - 10% bonus for subterranean parking (57 units) 26. - 3 stories at maximum height of 36 feet - 2 stories at maximum height of 25 feet 36. Community Development Department to approve plan. 40. 20% bonus for affordable housing. 45. Planning Commission review required. 58. 24-hour, manned gate and related security is required. Both Commissioners Brandt and De Gasperin dissented on the approval of density bonuses and three-story buildings. -- 5 -- Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion. 4. Commissioner De Gasperin made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Moran, to. approve Plot Plan No. 85-254 subject to conditions of approval, as amended. Unanimously Adopted. (Commissioners Brandt and De Gasperin dissented on the approval of density bonuses and three-story buildings.) Chairman Thornburgh introduced the next item of hearing as follows: B. 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 portions of the project, and increasing the total number of dwellings from 1,146 to 1,2265 units; Landmark Land Company of California, Inc., Applicant. (Continued) He called for the Staff Report. 1. Director Stevens advised the Commission that this request relates somewhat to the Western project in that Phase 7 of that project is the Western site. It does enter into some issues for the entire Duna La Quinta Specific Plan. The Applicant and Staff are generally in agreement regarding the density issue in that Phases 2 and 5 and Phase 3 be modified. Staff is recommending a one-story (20') height limitation within 200' of the project perimeter, except where the existing channel is located, and within 200' of public streets. The Applicant objects to this, so you will have to determine what the appropriate height limit condition would be. Staff is also in disagreement relative to the dedication of additional park land or in lieu fees. Staff is recommending that a site be dedicated between 5-10 acres, similar to the - Oak Tree Plan. Director Stevens advised the Commission that they may opt to go for the park condition proposed on the Western project in lieu of this condition. If that would be your desire, Staff can modify the language and reference the plot plan. This concluded the staff report. Chairman Thornburgh opened the public hearing at 9:15 p.m. Kevin Manning, Planner for Landmark Land Company, the Applicant, P. O. Box 1058, La Quinta, CA - spoke noting concerns with the density changes, the building height limits and additional park dedication. Chairman Thornburgh closed the public hearing at 9:20 p.m. In their discussion on this matter, the Planning Commission considered the following issues: - 6 - - Density - primarily as it relates to Phase 7 (Western) and Phase 3 (the estate lots). - Building height limits. - Additional park dedication. Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion. 2. Commissioner Moran made a motion, seconded by Commissioner De Gasperin, to approve Specific Plan No. 83-001, Amendment #3, as recommended by Staff, revising the "Staff Recommended - Density Chart", and subject to conditions of approval, as amended. Adopted on a 4-0'vote, as Commissioner Walling abstained due to a conflict of interest. Chairman Thornburgh introduced the next item of hearing as follows: 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. (Continued) He called for the Staff Report. 1. Director Stevens reminded the Commission that this matter has been continued from their meeting of May 13, at which time, questions were raised about traffic, as well as other issues. Staff has contacted BSI concerning trip generation rates and we have made some notes on the "Trip Generation Comparison" chart submitted by the Applicant, for your review. This concluded Staff's report. Chairman Thornburgh opened the public hearing at 9:47 p.m. - The Applicant, M. B. Johnson of 74-140 E1 Paseo, Palm Desert, CA; and a representative, John Adams of Psomas/Harrison, 3901 Lime Street, Riverside, CA, spoke in support of the request noting past history, the proposed conceptual plan and ongoing studies related to the site. The following persons spoke against the request; one of whom is a property owner in the corridor area, and one who is a consultant for that property owner. * Audrey Ostrowsky, P. O. Box 351, La Quinta, CA. * Maurice Kurtz, 1231 4th Street, Santa Monica, CA. * George Marzicola, P. O. Box 47, Palm Desert, CA. The main issues cited by these people were as follows: - 7 - - The change in land use from residential to Mixed Use Commercial will generate substantially more traffic than that created by High Density Residential. - There is already sufficient area within the Highway 111 Corridor which is designated as Mixed Use Commercial. - The General Plan Amendment should be processed concurrently with a specific development proposal. As no one else wished to speak, Chairman Thornburgh closed the public hearing at 10:10 p.m. During the Planning Commission discussion, the land use consistency and traffic impacts of the request were noted. Regarding land use, it was determined that the redesignation would be a logical expansion of the Highway 111 Corridor commercial area, and that this redesignation is consistent with what the site would have been designated on the Land Use Plan, if it had not been for the approved "Isla Mediterranea" project. Regarding traffic, the majority agreed that the provision of a traffic study at the time of the submittal of the required master site plan will provide adequate opportunity for the review of traffic impacts through the approval of the type and size of land uses, and the on- site development and circulation plans~ Approval of the master plan is required prior to approval of any land division or use permit requests on the site. Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion. 2. Commissioner De Gasperin made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Moran, to recommend approval of~General Plan Amendment No. 86-011, an amendment of the La~d Use Plan from High Density ReSidential to Mixed Use Commercial, in accordance with Exhibit "A"; and to recommend approval of an amendment to the Infrastructure Element and Circulation Plan designating Adams Street/Avenue 48 as the "Highway 111 Bypass", and reclassifying Adams Street as a Primary Arterial. Chairman Thornburgh requested a roll call vote. AYES: Commissioners De Gasperin, Moran, Walling and Chairman Thornburgh NAYS: Commissioner Brandt Adopted on~ a 4-1 vote. Chairman Thornburgh introduced the next hearing item as follows: G. PUBLIC USE CASE NO. 86-003, approval to expand an existing private school from 35 to 150 students and to construct six additional classrooms and one multi-purpose building; Marywood Country Day School, Applicant. He then called for the Staff Report. -- 8 -- 1. Director Stevens addressed this matter by first identifying the location of this existing private school which consists of Kindergarten through 6th grade, with approximately 35 students. There are related play areas, kitchen facilities, administrative offices, etc., located on the site. The proposal is to expand the site to allow for six additional classrooms and other additional facilities, and to expand the number of students to 150. Director Stevens used the rendering to further describe the proposed project. He advised the Commission that in the Staff Report, Staff has addressed a number of concerns. Those concerns can be categorized into two types. - Adequacy of fire protection and water service: The Applicant has been meeting with the Fire Marshal and CVWD, but has yet to resolve these concerns. - Land use and traffic concerns: the basic question here is whether or not a private school facility of this size is appropriate to and compatible with surrounding residential uses. Director Stevens advised the Commission that at the present time, it is Staff's judgment that we do not have sufficient information on fire flow or about the potential concern from the Commission or neighbors on the traffic/land use issues. It would be our recommendation, upon the conclusion of hearing public testimony on these and other issues related to this public use permit application, that the matter be continued to at least the June 10 Planning Commission meeting in order to obtain this additional information from the Applicant. This concluded Staff's report. Chairman Thornburgh opened the public hearing at 10:25 p.m. - The following persons spoke in support of the proposal: * Mary O'Neill, Director of Marywood Country Day School, La Quinta, CA. * Jack Tiano, 15 Clancy Lane, Rancho Mirage, CA. * Kathy Cole, 80-041 Avenue 50, Indio, CA. * Judy Melcasian, Co-founder of school The following.persons spoke in opposition to the proposal: * Robert Hamilton, 54-775 Avenida Madero, La Quinta, CA. * Bud Seitz, 54-621 Avenida Juarez, La Quinta, CA. * Audrey Ostrowsky, P. O. Box 351, La Quinta, CA. * Patricia Klimkiewicz, 54-880 Avenida Madero, La Quinta, CA. * Jack Barth, 77-125 Avenida Madero, La Quinta, CA. - 9 - * Bob Griffis, 54-805 Avenida Madero, La Quinta, CA. There are also a number of letters on file in the Planning Division. Chairman Thornburgh closed the public hearing at 10:45 p.m. After a brief discussion period, Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion. 2. Commissioner Brandt made a motion, seconded by Commissioner - Moran, to continue Public Use Case No. 86-003 to the Planning Commission meeting of June 10, 1986, to allow the Applicant time to submit information on the provision of adequate fire flow and to prepare and submit a revised site plan. Unanimously Adopted. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR Chairman Thornburgh identified the first item under the Consent Calendar as follows: A. STREET VACATION NO. 85-010, approval to vacate portions of Adams Street between a point 1827.2 feet north of the Avenue 50 center- line, southerly to a point approximately 2630 feet south of the Avenue 52 centerline; City-Initiated and Landmark Land Company, Applicants. He called for the Staff Report. 1. Director Stevens advised the Commission that basically this is a General Plan consistency determination. The Council conducts a hearing and determines whether or not to approve it and considers your report on consistency. Since we do not show local streets and since we have approved a number of specific plans, the consistency finding is obvious. We may have some problems with an adjacent land-locked parcel, but it can probably be resolved through conditioning the - vacation and the development of some adjacent sites where we may want to extend some local streets that aren't otherwise shown on the General Plan. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Commission determine the vacation to be consistent with the General Plan and forward that recommendation to the City Council. Chairman Thornburgh requested that Director Stevens make note of the land-locked parcel so that we do not lose tract of it. With regard to Items J, O, and P, the Commission requested that a condition be added requiring concrete or clay tile roofing material on each of these single-family homes. With regard to the minutes of April 22, 1986, Commissioner Moran requested a statement be entered relative to Plot Plan No. 86-295 stating that the Applicant did not have an opportunity to review Staff's revised parking plan prior to this meeting. - 10 - Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion. 2. Commissioner Brandt made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Moran, to adopt Resolution No. P.C. 86-001 determining that Street Vacation No. 86-010 is in conformance with the General Plan; to approve Plot Plan Nos. 86-290 through 86-294, Plot Plan Nos. 86-307 through 86-316, based on the findings in the Staff Reports, in accordance with Exhibits A, B, and C, and subject to conditions of approval attached to each request, as amended; and to approve the Minutes of April 22, 1986, as amended. Adopted on a 4-0 vote, with Commissioner'Walling abstaining relative to Item A of the Consent Calendar. 5. BUSINESS 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 Chairman Thornburgh, to adjourn to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held on June 10, 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, California, was adjourned at 11:01 p.m., May 27, 1986, in the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California. - 11 -