PCMIN 05 28 1991 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 28, 1991 7:00 P.M.
I. CAT,T, TO ORDER
A. The meeting was called to order at 7:03 P.M. by Chairperson Steding.
The Flag Salute was led by Commissioner Ladner.
II. ROLL CALL
A. Chairperson Steding requested the roll call. Present: Commissioners
Mosher, Dowd, Barrows, Ladner, and Chairperson Stealing.
B. Staff Present: Planning Director Jerry Herman, Principal Planner Start
Sawa, Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit, and Department Secretary
Betty Anthony.
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Continued Public Hearing on Development Agreement 90-002; a request
of Washington Adams Limited Partnership for approval of a Development
Agreement pursuant to Section 65845 et. seq., of the California
Government Code, relative to Specific Plan 89-014, which was approved
by the City Council on April 17, 1990.
1. Chairperson Steding opened the continued public hearing and as
no one wished to comment on the subject; it was moved by
Commissioner Dowd and seconded by Commissioner Barrows to
table the matter at the request of the Applicant.
ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Dowd, Mosher,
Barrows, Ladner, & Chairperson
Steding. NOES: None. ABSENT:
None ABSTAINING: None.
B. Plot Plan 91-457 (EA 91-191); a request of J. Paul Smith for approval
of a plot plan application to allow the construction and operation of a
10,000 square foot dance nightclub in the C-P-S (Scenic Highway
Commercial) Zone on a 4.5 acre site.
1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained
in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and
__ Development Department.
2. Chairperson Steding asked ff any response had been received
from the Fire Department. Principal Planner Sawa stated they
had no objections.
3. Commissioner Dowd inquired as to the location and if the building
would be soundproof to eliminate noise. Principal Planner Sawa
stated that would depend on the materials used in the
construction and the Applicant could best answer that question.
4. Commissioner Barrows asked what the distance was from the
project to the Wilma Pacific project. Principal Planner Sawa
stated it was approximately 300-400 feet from the property line
to the Wilma Pacific project.
5. Chairperson Steding asked Staff what the proposed size was for
the supper club. Staff stated they did not know but the pad
available was 17,000+ square feet.
6. Chairperson Steding opened the public hearing. Mr. J. Paul
Smith, Applicant presented a lengthy, detailed report regarding
his proposed plans and gave his response to Staff's reasons for
denying the project.
7. Commissioner Dowd asked the Applicant to explain the connection
between the supper club and night club, how he anticipated
drawing a young cliental with "older" band names, and what his
time frame was for the development of the complete project. She
also felt the noise factor for the Wilma Development project
needed to be addressed. Mr. Smith explained that his experience
was in nightclub management, not the restaurant business and
did not want to compete with that business industry. His goal
was to have a joint use with the supper club and blend the age
groups. He further stated this was a place to provide
entertainment following dinner. Discussion followed regarding
the type of food to be served and the age group he would be
targeting.
8. Chairperson Steding asked Mr. Smith if he had any figures to
show how many business people travel through this area year
round and if there was a study relating to this. Mr. Smith stated
that they did not plan on a year round operation but would be
seasonal with reduced summer rates and days open.
9. Commissioner Ladner asked Mr. Smith if he had closed escrow on
the property. He stated no. She asked if he had put a
substantial non-refundable on the property. He stated he had
option payments on the land. She asked if there was a double
escrow, an investment group in escrow on the project. He stated
no there was no double escrow and no investment group
involved. She then discussed the letters sent in favor of the
project. She stated that most of the people spoke in favor of Mr.
Smith rather than the project and probably would not frequent
the club.
PCMIN5-28 2
10. Commissioner Mosher reiterated the Design Review Board's
approval was for the aesthetics of the project. His concerns of
the project were in regards to the Sheriff Department's reversal
of their objections, Staff objections concerning the Highway 111
Specific Plan policies, and zoning. Mr. Smith stated he had
spent a great deal of time with the Sheriff's Department
explaining the project and making changes according to their
suggestions. Staff's concern he felt had been covered in his
presentation.
11. Commissioner Barrows stated her approval of the design and the
changes that had been made to the project. She asked if the
Applicant had done a market survey to see if the market was
there for his project. Mr. Smith gave the results of a survey
that had been conducted which showed a definite market for this
type of business. Commissioner Barrows inquired about the
amount of glass to be used and if energy efficient ideas would be
utilized in the construction. Mr. Frank Urrutia, architect for
the project stated there would only be a small amount of glass and
it would be double glazed.
12. Chairperson Steding asked what the capacity of the building and
members only portion would be. Mr. Smith stated the building
capacity is 625 but they had not made an exact determination as
to the number of memberships that would be offered. It would be
determined upon the demand and market conditions. She further
asked if the criteria for the membership was based solely on the
ability to pay. Mr. Smith stated what the criteria would be based
on credit history and vocation. Discussion followed regarding
membership fee, serving of food, financing, and the use of extra
Sheriff deputies.
13. Commissioner Mosher inquired about the list of recording artists
that would be performing and how many people would be patrons
for this type of concert. Mr. Smith stated 400-500 could be
seated comfortably and they would be paying $75-125 a ticket.
Commissioner Mosher's concern was whether it would be
economically feasible to have some of the groups. Mr. Smith
stated he had received a great deal of support from the
entertainment industry.
14. Commissioner Dowd again stated her concern about there being
a market and enough community participation to support this
type of project. Mr. Smith again stated the results of the studies
he had conducted showed that the market was available.
15. Chairperson Steding closed the public hearing and opened the
matter for Commission discussion.
PCMIN5-28 3
16. Commissioner Mosher asked the Commission how they felt
regarding further review of the Highway 111 Specific Plan
policies in regard to the legalities based upon the report of Staff.
Would there be a potential problem legally in denying this
project. Planning Director Jerry Herman clarified that the
Planning Commission would make the final decision regarding the
approval of the project and the City Council only received the
matter as a report of action or if an appeal was made by the
Applicant. In regards to the Highway 111 Specific Plan it is a
draft policy only and the decision to deny the project must be
denied based on General Plan policies and any inconsistencies
with a potential Highway 111 Specific Plan.
17. Commissioner Barrows asked if the Applicant's best option would
be to return with a project that incorporated the adjacent parcel
with a major commercial facility. Planning Director Jerry Herman
stated he had the option to appeal the Planning Commission
decision to the City Council should the Planning Commission deny
the project. Discussion followed as to the Applicant's options
and different uses of the property.
18. Commissioner Ladner stated she felt the project was beautifully
designed but did not feel it would be a good use for the
community and did not feel there was a market for the project.
In addition, it is a single use building and throughout the Valley
these uses have not been able to last.
19. Chairperson Steding stated her concerns at the previous informal
discussion of the project were the crime element and there being
a market for this type of project. She still had a concern
regarding alcohol abuse, but of greater concern was the lack of
a market for this project.
20. There being no further discussion Commissioner Mosher moved
to adopt Minute Motion 91-015 denying Plot Plan 91-457 based on
the Analysis in the report and the testimony expressed at this
meeting. Commissioner Ladner seconded the motion.
ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Dowd, Mosher,
Barrows, Ladner, & Chairperson
Stealing. NOES: None. ABSENT:
None ABSTAINING: None.
C. Tentative Tract 26281; a request of Ray Troll to subdivide 14 gross
acres into 52 single family lots.
1. Chairperson Steding opened the continued public hearing and as
no one wished to comment on the subject; it was moved by
Commissioner Dowd and seconded by Commissioner Mosher to
continue the matter to July 9, 1991, at the request of the
Applicant.
PCMIN5-28 4
__ ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Dowd, Mosher,
Barrows, Ladner, & Chairperson
Stealing. NOES: None. ABSENT:
None ABSTAINING: None.
D. Tentative Tract 26769; a request of Qualico to subdivide 20 gross acres
into 14 single family lots.
1. Planning Director Jerry Herman presented the information
contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Planning and Development Department.
2. Chairperson Steding opened the public hearing. Mr. Pat
Chiasson, Applicant, addressed the Commission regarding
Condition #4 to require a Sunline Bus turnout when the bus line
does not service this area yet.
3. Commissioner Dowd inquired of the Applicant what the price
range would be for this development. Mr. Chiasson stated they
would be $200-$245,000.
4. Mr. Bob Kull, 54-721 Monroe Street, neighbor, stated how he
liked the larger lots. His concern was regarding the lifestyle he
and others in the area now enjoyed raising and training horses.
He asked the Commission to consider the need to maintain and
establish trails to get around without utilizing streets. He
further stated the need to have the Equestrian Overlay zoning in
place as soon as possible.
5. Commissioner Ladner stated Mr. Kull's property was an asset to
the community and the City did need to address those in the
community who own horses. Discussion followed regarding
zoning and the Equestrian Overlay.
6. Ms. Carol Herrera, 54-711 Monroe, addressed the Commission
regarding her concern to preserve property in this area as horse
property. She stated people were concerned that they would lose
their right to have horses.
7. Chairperson Steding asked the Developer if he had any objection
to the horses. Mr. Chiasson stated they did not. They felt it
was an asset to his development. He would like to use it as part
of his advertising.
8. Planning Director Jerry Herman asked the Developer if he had
any objections to his property being included in the Equestrian
Overlay. Mr. Chiasson stated he had no objections as long as he
could restrict them from his property through the CC & R's.
Chairperson Steding asked Mr. Chiasson ff he planned to notify
future buyers that horses are next door. He stated he would.
PCMIN5-28 5
9. There being no one else wishing to address the Commission,
Chairperson Steding closed the public hearing and opened the
matter for Commission discussion.
10. Commissioner Dowd questioned the legality of CC & R's being able
to restrict horses. She felt the CC & R's must conform to City
Ordinances. Staff would check into the matter.
11. Commissioner Mosher inquired how many horses are allowed per
acre. Planning Director Jerry Herman stated what the current
zoning would allow verses what would be allowed with the
Equestrian Overlay and stated City Staff was in the process of
processing an Overlay zone for this area. Discussion followed as
to the permanence of the zoning.
12. There being no further discussion, it was moved by
Commissioner Mosher and seconded by Commissioner Barrows to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 91-011 recommending to
the City Council concurrence with the Environmental Analysis
and approval of Tentative Tract 26769 subject to the attached
conditions.
ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Dowd, Mosher,
Barrows, Ladner, & Chairperson
Steding. NOES: None. ABSENT:
None ABSTAINING: None.
13. Commissioner Barrows moved and Commissioner Dowd seconded
the motion to reconsider action on Tentative Tract 26769. The
motion passed unanimously. Planning Director Jerry Herman
gave the options that were available to the Commission regarding
the Sunline bus turnout. Chairperson Steding asked who was
responsible for the maintenance of the turnout. Planning
Director Jerry Herman stated it technically would be the
responsibility of the City.
14. The Planning Commission felt this requirement could be imposed
at a later date on a larger project. Commissioner Ladner moved
to strike the condition requiring the Sunline bus turnout from
the Conditions of Approval. Commissioner Mosher seconded the
motion.
ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Dowd, Mosher,
Barrows, Ladner, & Chairperson
Steding. NOES: None. ABSENT:
None ABSTAINING: None.
PCMIN5-28 6
IV. PUBLIC COMMENT:
Ms. Audrey Ostrowski, P. O. Box 351, La Quinta addressed the Commission
regarding zoning of commercial property. She expressed her concern that if
commercial property was downg-~aded by the City then the City must pay the
landowner the difference.
V. BUSINESS SESSION
A. Tentative Tract 24197; a request of Triad Pacific Development Company
for approval of a one year time extension for a 234 single family
residential lot subdivision on 74+ acres.
1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained
in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and
Development Department.
2. There being no discussion it was moved by Commissioner Barrows
and seconded by Commissioner Dowd to adopt Planning
Commission Resolution 91-012 to recommend to the City Council
approval of the first extension of time subject to the original
conditions. Unanimously approved.
BREAK Chairperson Steding adjourned the Commission for a break. The
Commission reconvened at 9:31 P.M.
B. Draft EIR's for Specific Plans 90-015, 90-016, 90-017; a request of
Landmark Land for solicitation of Planning Commission inquiries and
invitation of Planning Commission review of draft EIR's.
1. Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit presented the information
contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Planning and Development Department.
2. Commissioner Dowd questioned how the horses in the area would
affect the environmental concerns. Planning Director Jerry
Herman stated he would have the EIR address this issue. She
further inquired why reclaimed water was not being used.
Commissioner Barrows concurred and stated she understood the
economics of this was prohibitive, but it should be studied.
3. Commissioner Barrows asked that the Applicant look into some of
the more innovative water usage (reduced turf course designs)
ideas that were being implemented on some of the golf courses.
She further asked that the the issue of traffic be considered.
The Commission needed to consider the long term affect of the
amount of traffic that would be inundating the community due to
the number of units being planned. Air quality will be
deteriorating and alternative methods of transportation should be
considered such as golf carts being used as a means of
transportation within the projects themselves. In addition, the
loss of agriculture land is a concern.
PCMIN5-28 7
4. Discussion followed as to use of golf carts on public and private
streets and the possibility of tunnels connecting residences with
the commercial uses within a project. Commissioner Dowd
stressed her concern that the Commission address these
environmental concerns such as water and air quality as a whole
not by individual projects.
5. Commissioner Dowd asked that the issue of how trash can be
handled for the rental units be addressed in the EIR. There
needs to be a temporary storage facility for trash collection. In
addition, she reminded the Commission of the problem of
restrooms for gardeners/maintenance workers.
6. There being no further discussion Chairperson Steding
instructed Staff to schedule the matter for public hearing on
June 25, 1991.
VI. CONSENT CALENDAR
Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of May 14, 1991. Commissioner Mosher
asked that Page 2, Paragraph C, second sentence be clarified regarding the height
requirements. Commissioner Dowd stated that on Page 3, Paragraph 8, the last word
should be telephone poles. Commissioner Mosher asked that the wording be utility
poles. There being no further corrections, it was moved by Commissioner Ladner
and seconded by Commissioner Dowd to approve the Minutes of May 14, 1991, as
corrected. Unanimously approved.
VII. OTHER- None
Planning Director Jerry Herman informed the Commission that the City Council would
be dark during the month of August and asked what the Commission wished to do.
Commissioner Mosher stated the Commission would leave it to the discretion of Staff.
If there was a need the Commission would meet.
Chairperson Steding informed the Commission that the meeting of June 25, 1991,
would be a joint meeting with the City Council. Therefore the Commission would meet
at 5:00 P.M. to hear Planning Commission items at City Hall and jointly with the
Council at 7:00 P.M. at the Multi-purpose room at the La Quinta Middle School.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
A motion was made by Commissioner Mosher and seconded by Commissioner Barrows
to adjourn to a regular meeting on June 11, 1991, at 7:00 P.M. in the La Quinta City
Hall, 78-105 Caile Estado, La Quinta, California. This meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:56 P.M.
PCMIN5-28 8