PCMIN 09 28 1993 PLANNING COMMISSION- CITY OF LA QUINTA
A regular meeting held at He La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California
September 28, 1993 7:00 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairwoman Barrows who led
He flag salute.
H. ROLL CALL
A. Chairwoman Barrows requested the roll call. Present: Commissioners Adolph,
Ellson, Marrs, Abels, and Chairwoman Barrows.
C. Staff Present: Planning Director Jerry Herman, Principal Planner Stan Sawa,
Associate Planner Greg Trousdell, Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer, and
Department Secretary Betty Sawyer.
Commissioner Ellson moved to add the discussion of R-1 zoning and the completion of
incomplete tracts to the agenda. Commissioner Adolph seconded the motion and it was
unanimously approved.
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
B. Continued - Change of Zone 91-066. Specific Plan 92-023. Tentative Tract
27854. and Plot Plan 93-022; a request of JASCORP for approval of a change of
zone designation for from R-l, R-2'8,000, and C-P to R-2; a specific plan to
develop design and architectural standards for a 124 unit planned unit
development project; a tentative tract map to subdivide 12+ acres into 124 single
family lots; and a plot plan to develop a low and moderate income zero lot line
single family home project.
1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented He information contained in
the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and
Development Department.
PCM9-28
Planning Commission Minutes
September 28, 1993
2. Commissioner Marrs questioned the parking requirements as he was
concerned with the width of the streets being able to accommodate street
parking. Commissioners discussed with staff the problem of parking.
3. Chairwoman Barrows asked staff where the sidewalk space would come
from. Staff stated the sidewalk would encroach into the front setback or
they would have to reduce the rear yard setback.
4. Commissioner Ellson stated her desire for an internal sidewalk system.
She felt that when the rear property line block walls were built, the open
corridor area would become a safety hazard. She would like to see these
units back to back and an internal circulation pattern created along the
streets. In addition, she asked how the tenants of the project would exit
the project if walking.
·
5. Commissioner Marrs asked if the houses on the west side boundary would
be restricted to one story. Staff stated they would have to comply with
the R-2 regulations which would allow two story units up to 28-feet. The
developer proposes one and two units in this area.
6. There being no further questions of staff, Chairwoman Barrows opened
the public heating. Mr. Joe Swain, applicant addressed the Commission
regarding the project. Mr. Swain stated they reduced the garage size as
they felt a two car garage was not needed for this type of project. He
further stated that in reference to the "sidewalk alley" between the rear
property line walls, they had originally envisioned this backyard area as
having a 30" high wrought iron fence, but felt that Commissioner Ellson's
idea would be better and it would help them gain extra space.
7. Commissioner Ellson inquired whether the trash would be picked up at
one location or at the individual homes. Mr. Swain stated they would be
picked up at the individual homes.
8. Commissioner Ellson questioned the problem of stacking at the entrance
for the non-resident drivers. She felt there should be a minimum of two
cars stacking. Mr. Swain stated there were two lanes as well as a turn
around area for those not entering. Commissioner Ellson questioned
where school bus pick-up was provided. Mr. Swain stated there was a
need for a deceleration lane at the bottom of the bridge on Washington to
accommodate this.
PCM9-28 2
Planning Commission Minutes
September 28, 1993
10. Commissioner Ellson asked how the tenants would exit the project if
walking to the shopping center. Mr. Swain stated there would be a
pedestrian gate provided at the entry on Washington Street.
11. Commissioner Ellson asked if restrooms were provided for the gardeners.
Mr. Swain stated they would be provided as part of the recreation
building. Commissioner Ellson asked about the drainage area at the end
of the westerly north/south street. Mr. Swain stated it would drain into
an off-site open space/retention area.
12. Commissioner Adolph asked if a pool and spa would be installed. Mr.
Swain stated the pool and spa would be built and in addition the use of the
recreation room was optional, it could be used as a child care facility.
Commissioner Adolph asked if the houses would look as they are drawn
on the detailed elevations. Mr. Swain stated he would have his architect
address this question.
13. Commissioner Adolph stated the front yards would be landscaped and
irrigated but questioned the rear and side yards. He felt that as these were
low income homes, that the owners would not be able to afford to install
lawns and irrigation systems immediately and perhaps the builder could
do this. Mr. Swain stated he had no objection as long as it was for the
low income homes only (40 units).
14. Commissioner Marrs asked if the applicant was aware of the impact to the
northerly lot when the bridge on Washington Street is widened. Mr.
Swain stated he was not aware of the bridge widening, but the lot would
be elevated three feet and the house another six inches and it would have
retaining walls. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer explained the height
of the retaining wall and the wall in addition to the retaining wall. He
further stated this was not in the current City's Five Year Capital
Improvement Plan but hopefully it would be widened within ten years.
Commissioner Marrs expressed his concern that these property owners
receive a disclosure regarding the bridge during any future sales program.
Mr. Swain agreed.
15. Mr. Steve McCutchan, Hunsaker & Associates, engineers for the project,
discussed the retaining wall and perimeter wall with the Commission and
staff. Mr. Speer stated the walls will be in place upon completion of the
project even though the bridge would not be widened at this time.
PCM9-28 3
Planning Commission Minutes
September 28, 1993
16. Commissioner Ellson asked Mr. McCutchan if he could address the
stacking at the entrance to the project. Mr. McCutchan stated there would
be enough room for two car stacking as there were two lanes going into
the project and one exiting. Discussion followed as to the number of
lanes and the location of the entrance phone. Mr. Speer interjected that
the width of the shared driveway to Washington Street would have to be
a total of 54-feet. Commissioner Adolph asked if the shopping center
would have its own entrance further south. Mr. Speer stated it would and
this would alleviate some of the pressure on this entrance.
17. Mr. Joe DeCoster, building designer for the project addressed
Commissioner Adolph's question regarding the working drawings looking
exactly as the detailed elevation drawings. He further stated that
restrooms were designed for the gardeners as a separate facility attached
to the recreation building.
18. Commissioner Adolph questioned who would be controlling the CC & R's
once the project was built. Mr. Swain stated a board would be set up
consisting of developers representatives as well as homeowners.
19. Commissioner Ellson asked if pets would be allowed. Mr. Swain stated
they would be allowed. She also asked if there would be a resident
manager during business hours. Mr. Swain stated they would probably
hire a homeowners association management company to enforce the CC
& R's, but did not feel the project warranted an on-site staff person.
20. Mr. Mike Horton, Horton Shepardson & Associates, landscape architects
for the project, described the proposed landscaping. Commissioner
Adolph asked if the trees would be deciduous or evergreen and what size
was proposed to be planted. Mr. Horton stated they were intending to use
evergreen trees and they would be a minimum of 15 gallon and in some
instances 24" box where the budget would permit.
21. Commissioner Ellson asked that the developer consider a pedestrian
sidewalk be installed to provide on one side of the street around the entire
project. Mr. Swain had no problem with the idea.
22. Chairwoman Barrows asked that Mr. Swain keep the play area the same
size even if he did need to relocate or reconfigure.
PCM9-28 4
Planning Commission Minutes
September 28, 1993
23. Commissioner Abels stated his concern that one pool would not be
sufficient for this size of project. Mr. Swain stated that due to the type
of project and cost, the pool would be built to the size that would
adequately accomm~te the project.
24. Mr. John Koenig, Koenig Companies, addressed the Commission in favor
of the project.
25. Mr. Bruce Cathcart, Sr., resident to the east, stated his concern about the
project as well as his concern that the bridge would not be widened for ten
years. With so many people plus the shopping center this would muse
additional traffic problems. Mr. Cathcart felt the project did not belong
in this location.
26. Mr. Dane Hooper, Tujunga, expressed his concern about the project. He
did not feel there was enough parking and this was a classic design for a
walled ghetto. He asked that the Commission deny the project.
27. Mr. Dennis Moran, representing the landowner of the project (AMCOR),
expressed his objection to the project being classified as to the type of
people that would buy in the project. He felt it was a quality project and
one that was needed in La Quinta and they intended to built a quality
project.
28. Mr. Don Session, Quito homeowner, stated his objection to the project as
it was too dense.
29. There being no further public comment, Chairwoman Barrows closed the
public hearing.
30. Commissioner Abels stated he felt the project was well thought out and
designed very well but, the density was to much and it should be located
in a different location.
31. Commissioner Ellson asked staff what the density would be without the
change of zone. Staff stated it would be 50+ units for the nine acres
zoned for residential units. Staff went on to explain the bonus density
program and parking. Discussion followed between staff and the
Commission regarding the parking and density.
PCM9-28 5
Planning Commission Minutes
September 28, 1993
32. Commissioner Adolph asked if this area was zoned for low income
housing. Staff stated that according to the General Plan and Housing
Element affordable housing is required and was allowed in the Village
area since it was designed to handle multi-family units (e.g., Medium
Density Residential 4-8 de's/ac).
33. Commissioner Abels asked staff when the last traffic study was done.
Staff stated they were done during the General Plan Update (1992) and the
figures were based on the projected growth of the City for +._20 years.
Discussion followed regarding growth caused improvements.
34. Commissioner Ellson stated her concurrence with the location because of
its was close proximity to so many amenities. She still was concerned
with the density and parking and would like to see more open space.
35. Chairwoman Barrows stated she agreed with Commissioner Ellson and
reminded everyone that a project of this nature had been planned for this
area for a number of years. She felt that by placing the project in this
location it might help to mitigate some of the traffic problems on
Washington by having the project so close to the shopping and City
services. She too was concerned with the parking problem.
36. Commissioner Marrs stated he felt the project was well laid out but it was
too dense. He was in favor of denying the 10% bonus but allowing the
25 % bonus and reducing the density to 4-116 units. This would give the
project more room for off-street parking. Discussion followed regarding
the 10% (architectural bonus) and 25% density bonus.
37. Following the discussion staff explained the Commission's options: 1)
deny the project; 2) approve the project but deny both the 10% and 25 %
bonus and continue the project to allow staff to determine findings to
allow the denial of the bonuses; or 3) approve the project by denying the
10% bonus and request that the applicant resubmit a new plot plan.
38. Commissioner Abels moved to continue the project to allow staff time to
determine findings for denial of the 10% and 25% bonus. The motion
died for a lack of a second.
39. Following discussion, Commissioner Marts moved to continue the project
with approval of the 25 % bonus only and require the applicant to resubmit
a new site plan redesign with 116 units. Commissioner Ellson seconded
the motion and it carried on a 4-1 vote (Commissioner Abels voting no).
PCM9-28 6
Planning Commission Minutes
September 28, 1993
IV. PUBLIC COMMENT: None
V. BUSINF_~S SESSION:
A. Commissioner Ellson asked that the Planning Commission be given some input
into the discussion regarding R-1 zoning changes. She stated the current R-1
zoning requirements for Rancho Mirage and Indio and asked that this item be
placed on the next Planning Commission agenda.
VI. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. There being no corrections to the Minutes of September 14, 1993, Commissioners
Abels/Ellson moved and seconded a motion to approve the Minutes as submitted.
Unanimously approved.
VH. OTHER- None
VHI. AD.IOURNMENT
A motion was made and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Marts to adjourn this regular
meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on
October 12, 1993, at 7:00 P.M. at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chambers. This meeting
of the La Quinta Planning Commission was adjourned at 10:29 P.M., September 28, 1993.
PCM9-28 7