PCMIN 07 09 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
July 9, 1991 7:00 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. The meeting was called to order at 7:03 P.M. by Vice Chairperson
Barrows. The Flag Salute was led by Commissioners Ellson.
II. I~I.ECTION OF OFFICERS
A. It was moved by Commissioner Mosher and seconded by Commissioner
Ladner to nominate Commissioner Barrows as Chairperson. There being
no further nominations, Commissioner Ellson moved and Commissioner
Mosher seconded the motion to close the nominations. On a roll call vote
Katie Barrows was elected Chairperson unanimously.
B. It was moved by Commissioner Ladner and seconded by Chairperson
Barrows to nominate Commissioner Mosher as Vice Chairman. There
-- being no further nominations Commissioner Ellson moved and
Chairperson Barrows seconded the motion to close the nominations. On
a roll call vote H. Fred Mosher was elected as Vice Chairman.
III. ROLL CALL
A. Chairperson Barrows requested the roll call. Present: Commissioners
Mosher, Ladner, Ellson, and Chairperson Barrows.
B. Staff Present: Planning Director Jerry Herman, Principal Planner Stan
Sawa, Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit, Associate Planner Glenda
Lainis, and Department Secretary Betty Anthony.
IV. AGENDA REORGANIZED
A. Commissioner Mosher moved and Commissioner Ladner seconded the
motion to reorganize the agenda as follows:
Public Hearing Item #2 becomes Item #5
Public Hearing Item #5 becomes Item #2
All other items stayed the same. Unanimously approved.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Continued Public Hearing - General Plan Amendment 90-031, Change of
Zone 90-056, Specific Plan 90-016; a request of Landmark Land for
approval of a 327 acre project, including golf course, residential and
commercial uses, incorporating a 21 acre commercial site and 1208
residential units.
1. Chairperson Barrows opened the public hearing and as no one
wished to address the Commission regarding the matter it was
moved by Commissioner Mosher and seconded by Commissioner
Ladner to continue the matter to July 23, 1991.
ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Mosher,
Ladner, Ellson & Chairperson
Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT:
None. ABSTAINING: None.
B. General Plan Amendment 90-029, Change of Zone 90-054, and Specific
Plan 90-015; a request of Landmark Land Company for approval of a 265
acre project, including golf course, and residential uses, incorporating
1060 residential units.
1. Chairperson Barrows opened the public hearing and as no one
wished to address the Commission regarding the matter it was
moved by Commissioner Ladner and seconded by Commissioner
Mosher to continue the matter to July 23, 1991.
ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Mosher,
Ladner, Ellson & Chairperson
Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT:
None. ABSTAINING: None.
C. Continued Public Hearing for Tentative Tract 26181; a request of Ray
Troll to subdivide 14 gross acres into 52 single family lots.
1. Chairperson Barrows opened the public hearing and as no one
wished to address the Commission regarding the matter it was
moved by Commissioner Ellson and seconded by Commissioner
Mosher to continue the matter to August 13, 1991.
ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Mosher,
Ladner, Ellson & Chairperson
Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT:
None. ABSTAINING: None.
D. Public Use Permit 91-009; a request of Desert Baptist Church regarding
a proposed church with associated parking on a 4.21 acre site in the R-
I- 12,000/PD zone.
1. Commissioner Ladner excused herself due to a possible conflict
of interest.
2. Associate Planner Glenda Lainis presented the information
contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Planning and Development Department.
3. Commissioners questioned Staff regarding the completion timing
of the parking lot, the adjacent projects dead-end street, the
setback requirements, and the possibility of chimes. Planning
PCMIN7-9 2
Director Jerry Herman stated all were in compliance with City
policies. He asked that the Applicant be addressed concerning
the issue of chimes.
4. Chairperson Barrows opened the public hearing. Warren
Stallard, Boardmember of the Church, spoke on behalf of the
Applicant and stated they had reviewed all the Conditions of
Approval and had questions regarding the following:
a. Condition #6: asked that the noise study be deleted as no
additional noise would be generated and the wall and
landscaping would mitigate any possibility.
b. Condition #9: Coachella Valley School District needed to
be changed to Desert Sands Unified School District.
c. Condition #23: would like to add a prefix to read, "Prior
to issuance of a grading permit".
d. Condition #24: again add prefix to read, "Prior to
occupancy".
e. Condition #26: delete portion that reads, "performance
security in the amount of 100% of the approved estimated
-- cost of the improvements and", and add at end of
sentence, "posted prior to issuance of grading permit".
e. Condition #27: prefix to read, "Prior to occupancy or any
use allowed by this permit".
f. Condition #28: delete in its entirety as the above covers
everything.
5. Mr. Stallard stated this would allow them to build their building
and have these costs at the completion of the building.
6. Discussion followed between Senior Civil Engineer Steve Speer
and the Applicant regarding Condition #38. Mr. Speer stated
this condition was applied to ali projects and most had found
engineers who would certify to the statement when one of their
qualified employees did the monitoring. To all the above
changes, the City had no objections.
7. Planning Director Jerry Herman stated the noise study could be
deleted if the Commission adopted a finding stating that the
project was consistent with the General Plan in that it would not
generate any additional noise more than generated in a
residential neighborhood and the use is less than a 24 hour per
_ --
day use.
8. In regards to the chimes, Mr. Stallard stated the church had no
plans for any chimes or bells.
PCMIN7-9 3
9. Commissioner Ellson inquired if the Applicant had any plans to
convert the classrooms to any type of school or day-care. Mr.
Stallard stated they had no plans for such at this time.
10. Chairperson Barrows inquired if the church had any objections
to reducing the amount of lawn. Mr. Stallard stated they had no
objections.
11. There being no further discussion Chairperson Barrows closed
the public hearing and Commissioner Mosher moved and
Commissioner Ellson seconded the motion to adopt Planning
Commission Resolution 91-018 approving Public Use Permit 91-009
to allow the creation of a church subject to the amended
conditions as stated above with the addition of the following:
a. Condition 42. That chimes would not be allowed.
b. Condition 43. That the lawn area adjacent to the street be
reduced and replaced with ground cover.
ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Mosher, Ellson
& Chairperson Barrows. NOES:
None. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAINING: Commissioner Ladner.
E. Commissioner Mosher moved and Commissioner Ellson seconded the
motion to again reorganize the agenda as follows:
Public Hearing Item #6 becomes Item #5
Public Hearing Item #5 becomes Item #6
All other items stayed the same. Unanimously approved.
F. Public Use Permit 91-010; a request of Michael and Glenda Bangerter for
approval of a proposed Preschool/Day-Care Center.
1. Chairperson Barrows opened the public hearing and informed
everyone that this matter would be continued to allow the
Applicant time to have a traffic study completed.
2. Mr. Bruce Cathcart, realtor spoke on behalf of the Applicant.
In addition Diane Moser, the designer, Glenda Bangerter,
Applicant, and Mike Smith, Engineer, spoke in great detail to
describe the project to the Commission.
3. The following residents addressed the Commission:
a. Carrie Norlin, 78-695 Saguaro Road, objected to traffic
and noise.
PCMIN7-9 4
b. Helen Nelson, 78-707 Saguaro Road, objected to a
commercial project next door, traffic, and noise. In
addition Boy's Club and YMCA Child Care Centers will be
in same area. Had several petitions objecting to the
Center.
c. Carla Croff, 78-635 Saguaro Road, objected to traffic and
strangers entering neighborhood. In addition challenged
credentials of Mrs. Bangerter to administer and teach.
Also noted that the Chamber of Commerce map showed
school on map on project site.
d. Jim Battin, 78-650 Saguaro, representing petitioners on
Saguaro, Bottlebrush, Sagebrush. Objected to Day Ca~e
business in their neighborhood, which causes traffic and
noise problems and questioned whether the school will be
able to be profitable and not fold. In addition he felt their
property values will decrease. He would like to know when
City will cul-de-sac the streets. Lastly the area is not
zoned for this purpose.
e. A.J. Maragos, 78-540 Bottlebrush Drive, stated the
neighborhood needs playground facilities for children to
play on. This area should be developed by the City for
-- playground area. Objected to noise and traffic.
f. Gary Avise, 78-710 Via Sonata, spoke on behalf of Parc La
Quinta homeowners objecting to traffic including speed of
cars traveling down Sagebrush, street width, turning
lanes, and zoning.
g. Roger Little, 78-700 Bottlebrush, felt this was not the only
affordable piece of property where this project could be
located. He also stated he felt it would cause a traffic
problem.
h. Mary Kate Kelly, 78-565 Sagebrush, objected to traffic,
noise, and pollution.
i. Carla Klein, 78-585 Sagebrush, asked if the City would be
held liable for any accidents that occur due to the
increased traffic.
j. Laurie Skochil, 78-595 Bottlebrush, had a concern for
children needing area to play, as well as traveling to
school with the increased traffic.
k. Mark Skochil, 78-595 Bottlebrush, felt this use should not
-- be allowed in a residential neighborhood.
PCMIN7-9 5
1. Alan Davidson, 78-695 Maracus Court, felt the petition
brought up by the Applicant was not a valid petition.
Their should be some consideration as to a trade off of the
property for another area, and lastly there should be a
wall to retain the children along the Flood Control
Channel.
m. Wanda Davidson, 78-695 Maracus Court, agreed with all
previous comments.
n. Laura Nelson, 52-900 Avenida Diaz, expressed the need
for day care in La Quinta for her family. She had not seen
any of the problems expressed by everyone at any of the
day care centers she has used.
o. Bettye Anderson, 52-839 Avenida Diaz, felt the preschool
was needed for this community and she did not want to
have her children attending a preschool located on a busy
street and felt this was a very appropriate site.
p. Kevin Anderson, 52-839 Avenida Diaz, felt the cul-de-
sacing of Saguaro and Bottlebrush and new signal would
increase the safety of the neighborhood. The type of
persons utilizing the streets would be concerned for
children living in the neighborhood.
q. Bill Fleming, 53-580 Avenida Mendoza, had tried to enroll
his daughter in preschools, but all had put him on a
waiting list and was in favor of the project.
r. Verna Loeffler, 52-990 Avenida Alvarado, a grandparent
who understands the need for day care felt homeowners
should have investigated what could be allowed in their
neighborhood.
s. Melanie Morris, 53-080 Avenida Ramirez, supports the day
care as it is drastically needed.
t. Tony Harvey, 78-675 Sagebrush, felt that the harassment
that the Bangerter's had been subjected to showed their
qualifications to run this facility. The manner in which
they had handled themselves, qualified them as ideal roll
models. He felt traffic was not a problem as Parc La
Quinta residents were more dangerous; noise was not an
issue as children do not create a large amount of noise; he
felt children were more important than property values or
any traffic changes.
u. Beth Uher, 78-745 Via Sonata, objects to the amount of
noise pollution and traffic problems.
PCMIN7-9 6
v. Rosie Zamarrjia, 78-611 Sagebrush, objects to traffic and
only one way in and out when Bottlebrush and Saguaro are
. cul-de-saced. She asked Commission to find another place
to put it.
w. Denise Broadhead, 52-395 Avenida Bermudas, was in favor
of the project. Did not feel the traffic 'increase would
create a problem.
x. Linda Pitts, 78-748 Via Sonata, noise is a problem and the
La Quinta schools across the Wash are already a problem
with their noise and lights. Another location should be
found.
y. Kathy Brotherton, 49-095 Marimba Court, not sure if she
is for or against the project, but felt that quality day care
was desperately needed in La Quinta. Maybe the City
could help find an alternative location.
z. Martha Jamison, 78-525 Bottlebrush, objected to traffic as
well as felt there should be a cap put on the number of
children allowed, the hours the facility can be open, and
the days that it can be open.
-- aa. Carrie Shollenberger, 53-645 Avenida Martinez, felt that
the issue of providing for the children was being forgotten
with all the arguments.
bb. Ross Patten, 49-035 Balada Court, expressed the need for
ingress and egress for this area.
4. Following the public comment, it was moved by Commissioner
Mosher and seconded by Commissioner Ladner to continue the
matter to July 23, 1991.
ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Mosher,
Ladner, Ellson & Chairperson
Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT:
.None. ABSTAINING: None.
G. Continued Public Hearing - Specific Plan 90-020, Parcel Map 26471,
Tentative Tract 26472, Tentative Tract 26473 (EA 90-183) (Vista Santa
Rosa); a request of Stuart Enterprises Limited (Craig Bryant) for
approval of a specific plan to allow 925 total residential units in 7 master
plan villages (or tracts) on 271+_ acres, a parcel map creating 6
residential parcels (or villages) on 235+ acres, a tentative tract (26472)
creating 130 single family lots on 36+ acres, and a tentative tract map
(26473) creating 116 single family lots on 35 acres.
1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa noted this item has been continued
from June 25, 1991, and Staff noted revised conditions had been
prepared and passed out. He then presented the information
PCMIN7-9 7
contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Planning and Development Department.
2. Chairperson Barrows asked Staff if a condition had been added
requiring the developer to notify prospective buyers that horses
were ailowed in the adjacent areas. Staff stated a condition had
been added.
3. Commissioner Ellson asked Staff whose responsibility the
maintenance of the park area would be. She also inquired
regarding the Mello Roos funding. Principal Planner Stan Sawa
stated that Condition #6 of the two tract maps should be deleted
as the Engineering Department Condition #42 for the two tracts
dealt with the matter.
4. Planning Director Jerry Herman explained the Mello Roos process
for the benefit of the Commission.
5. Chairperson Barrows opened the public hearing. Craig Bryant
spoke on behalf of the Applicant. Mr. Bryant expressed his
concern over conditions that he had not been able to resolve with
Staff. Those conditions in contention were il0, #12.a., #13,
#14, #16.d., #22a.1., and #22.b.1., #26, #27, and #28.
6. Discussion followed among the Applicant and the Commission
regarding his lack of response to their concern regarding
increasing the minimum lot size and providing parkland space.
In addition the Commission questioned the Applicant regarding
how the common areas would be maintained, a master homeowner's
association, street improvements, financing with the Mello Roos,
and Lighting and Landscaping District.
7. Mr. Tom Teigon, 50-375 Vista Montana, spoke in opposition to the
size of the lots and the house heights. He felt the density of the
project would downgrade their property values.
8. Mr. Jack Leeney, 80-800 Vista Bonita, addressed the Commission
regarding their allowing such small lots, the height of the houses
and he strongly urged the Commission to lower the density of the
project. Mr. Leeney requested a two week continuance of the
matter.
9. The Commission discussed with the Applicant whether a public
park or possibly private parks should be required in-lieu of park
fees. Based on 925 units, the Applicant would be required to
dedicate 8.3 acres of land for parks. After an exhaustive
discussion it was determined that the retention basins provided
in the plan would be designed in such a way as to provide usable
recreation area no smaller than 1.5 acres, to be maintained by
the Homeowner's Association.
PCMIN7-9 8
10. Craig Bryant, Applicant stated that with the money he would be
paying for parkland in-lieu fees the City could purchase a large
parcel of land. He valued the ]and at between $8§,000 to
$100,000 per acre.
11. As a result of the discussion, nine conditions of the Specific Plan
were modified or added, with four changes each to the Parcel Map
and Tentative Tract Maps. Those changes are:
a. Rather than 24 feet and 30 feet, one story units are to be
18 feet and two story units 24 feet, respectively.
b. The condition recommending a maintenance storage area
and restroom facility for use by gardeners for the entire
project was deleted.
c. The Applicant was required to provide a left turn access
for Green Valley Ranches on the north side of 52nd Avenue
when they construct the raised median.
d. All residential lots were required to be a minimum of 10,000
square feet in size.
12. Based on the above discussions, it was moved by Commissioner
Mosher and seconded by Commissioner Ellson to adopt Planning
Commission Resolutions 91-019, 91-020, 91-021, 91-022
recommending approval of Specific Plan 90-202, Parcel Map
26471, Tentative Tract 26472, and Tentative Tract 26473 subject
to the modified and added conditions stated above.
ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Mosher,
Ladner, Ellson & Chairperson
Barrows. NOES: None. AB SENT:
None. ABSTAINING: None.
VI. PUBLIC COMMENT
A. Jim Morrisey, 25-973 Gertrude Lane, Hemet, addressed the Commission
regarding the noticing procedure followed by the City. Based on the
problems that had occurred with other tracts, it was suggested that the
Staff look into the procedure followed by the County. That procedure
requires notification of owners within 600 feet of the site or a minimum
of 24 property owners. Commission asked Staff to look into the matter
and bring it back to the Commission at a future time.
VII. BUSINESS SESSION
A. Tract 23269; a request of the Williams Development Company for review
of architectural elevations for units to be constructed on 44 lots.
PCMIN7-9 9
1. Based on the time taken by previous projects it was moved by
Commissioner Ladner and seconded by Commissioner Mosher to
continue the matter to the next meeting. Unanimously approved.
B. New cart storage screen wall; a request of Von's Market for approval
of construction of a cart storage screen wall.
1. Based on the time taken by previous projects it was moved by
Commissioner Ladner and seconded by Commissioner Ellson to
continue the matter to the next meeting. Unanimously approved.
VIII. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. There being no corrections to the Minutes of June 25, 1991, and the
Joint City Council meeting of June 25, 1991, it was moved by
Commissioner Mosher and seconded by Commissioner Ladner to approve
the Minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
A motion was made by Commissioner Mosher and seconded by Commissioner Ladner
to recess this regular meeting of July 9, 1991, to a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission on July 23, 1991, at 7:00 P.M. in the La Quinta city Hall Council
Chambers. This meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission was adjourned at 1:15
A.M., July 10, 1991.
PCMIN7-9 10