PCMIN 06 11 1996 MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
regular meeting held at the La Quinta City. Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
June 11, 1996 7:00 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. This meeting of the Planning CommiSsion was called to order at 7:03 P.M. by
.. Chairman Abels who asked Commissioner Barrows to lead the flag salute.
II. ROLL CALL .
A. Chairman Abels requested the roll call: Present: Commissioners Anderson, Barrows,
Butler, Gardner, Newkirk, Tyler, and Chairman Abels.
B. Staff present: City Attorney Dawn Honeywell, Planning Manager Christine di Iorio,
Principal Planner Stan Sawa, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer.
III. PUBLIC COMMENT: None
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Tentative Tract 75691. Amendment #1 (Fxtension #3); a request of Mr. Richard
Deman for approval of a one year time extension for the subdivision of 9.3 acres into
39 single family and other street/common lots.
1. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio presented the information contained in
the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department. Staff asked that the conditions be modified by the deletion of
Condition #56.
2. Commissioner Gardner asked staff tO explain the dates when the tract would
expire. Staff explained that the applicant had submitted their request for a
third extension in the allotted time, but staff was unable to bring it to the
Commission until now. The extension therefore, would be for a ten month
period. ·
3. Commissioner Tyler asked how the State's automatic extension would apply
in this case. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the State extension would
add another year onto the City's extension, if approved.
PC6-11 1
Planning Commission Meeting
June 11, 1996
4. Commissioner Newkirk stated the new tract appears to have lots that are
narrower than those to the tract to the north. Principal Planner Stan Sawa
stated he was unaware of any change, but appeared to be smaller on the
drawings. Commissioner Newkirk pointed out that the old tract shows seven
lots and the new drawing shows nine lots. Planning Manager Christine di
Iorio stated the map is the same as submitted before.
5. Commissioner Tyler asked if the City conditioned tracts to continue street
names that adjoin neighboring tracts.. He would like to see the same name on
the street that passes into the adjoining tract. Staff stated a condition would
be added to make sure this happened.
6. Commissioner Tyler asked if Condition ~2.g., was limiting regarding the
number of garages. Staff stated the condition was to require that no less'than
two car garages must be constructed. 'Commissioner Tyler stated that the
words "at least" should be added to the condition.
7. Commissioner Tyler stated Condition #53 was a duplication of Condition ~48
and one should be eliminated. Staff stated they would eliminate Condition
#53.
8. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Abels opened the public
hearing. Mr. Dan Ferguson, engineer for the project, stated they had no
objections to the Conditions as recommended.
9. Commissioner Anderson asked if their was a condition addressing the
concerns of the neighboring development about two story homes being
constructed next to existing single family homes. Commissioner Tyler stated
Condition 42.e. addressed this issue.
10. Commissioner Barrows asked if the neighbors concern was for just those
homes on the boundary, or the entire tract. Commissioner Newkirk stated he
understood that they wanted the entire tract to be single story. City Attorney
Dawn Honeywell stated the conditions require 75% of the development to be
single story and it is not a part of the City's standard codes to require the
entire development to be single story. Discussion followed regarding what
was customary.
11. There being no questions of the applicant and no further public comment, the
public hearing was closed. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Anderson/Barrows to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 96-023
PC6-! 1 2
Planning Commission Meeting
June 11, 1996
recommending to the City Council approval of a third one year time
extension for Tentative Tract 25691 (Amendment # 1), subject to the revised
Conditions of Approval.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Anderson, Barrows, Butler, Gardner,
Newkirk, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT:
None. ABSTAIN: None.
B. Tentative Tract 28335-R (Reversion to Acreage); a request of Mr. & Mrs. Robert R.
Taylor for approval ora reversion to acreage to reconsolidate Tract 26251, Lots 1 and
2, and Lot "A", and Parcel Merger 93-298, Lots 1 and A into a single 3.3 acre parcel.
1. Chairman Abels stated staff had received a letter from the attorney
representing the adjoining homeowners' association requesting a continuance
to give them time to review the proposal. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell
Stated the Commission needed to open the public hearing or decide whether
to continue the item. Commissioners Gardner/Newkirk moved and seconded
a motion to continue the request to the next Planning Commission meeting.
-- 2. Mr. Murray, speaking on behalf of the applicant, apologized for speaking out
of order, but requested to speak regarding the application. Staff informed the
Commission that the letter requesting the continuance had been received from
the homeowners' association and not the applicant. Chairman Abels asked
the City Attorney if they needed to take an action if they were going to
continue the item. City Attorney stated if the Commission decided to
continue the item they would not take any action, but the continuance was up
to the Commission's discretion.
3. Commissioners Gardner/Newkirk withdrew their motion and second.
4. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information coqtained in the staff
report, a copy of which is on file in' the Community Development
Department.
5. Commissioner Anderson asked if any improvements had been made to the
site other than recordation of the map. Principal Planner Stan Sawa stated
there was a rough road that had been graded, but no other work had been
started that he was aware of.
-- 6. Commissioner Tyler stated that a building pad has also been roughed in.
PC6-11 3
Planning Commission Meeting
June 11, 1996
7. Commissioner Butler asked about the items that were referenced in the
attorney's letter, such as drainage, wind erosion, water erosion, and
restoration of natural hillsides, and asked if these items were covered by the
bond, and if released would the City lose any control. Staff stated the bond
was required by the Public Works Department and staff was unaware of
exactly what the bonds were for. Staff believed it to be for subdivision
related improvements which would include the roadway, but it is unknown
whether or not it included all the items mentioned in the letter. The
conditions of approval contain requirements regarding these items. Planning
Manager Christine di Iorio stated the requirements were in case of any
buildings being constructed on the site in the future. If a permit is pulled the
items will be covered at that time. Principal Planner Start Sawa stated the
requirements were for the construction of a single house on the one parcel
once it is reverted back to acreage.
8. 'There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Abels opened the public
hearing. Mr. Bill Murray, engineer for the applicant, stated they had no
problem with the Conditions of Approval. They have taken steps to insure,
under the property rights portion of the Condition (fi4) that legal access rights
to a public road are secured. In reference to improvements, there is a dirt
road and pad, but he was not aware of when they were plak:ed there. They do
concur with the need for dust control as noted in the conditions. The request
is unusual in that it is difficult to divide the property in the first place,
therefore, in considering reversing the property back to acreage was given a
lot of thought. Mr. Murray went on to explain the process they had gone
through to join the lots. All easements and agreements for the improvements
are still in place. The Public Works Department had sent them a letter
informing them which bonds would be retained to secure the improvements
until the project is completed. He had spoken with the homeowners'
association attorney and they would like to review the Conditions of
Approval that might affect the homeowners. During the process, the
applicant has granted a storm drainage easement to the homeowners'
association. His objective is to be before the Council on July 2nd. The final
map is on tract for that date and to delay this project for two weeks will mean
they will miss that meeting. He did not understand the need for a continuance
to review conditions that are already in place to protect those issues raised in
their letter. Mr. Murray stated he was meeting with the attorney and the
homeowners to assure them that all their concerns are being addressed. He
respectfully requested that the Commission approve his application at this
meeting.
PC6-11 4
Planning Commission Meeting
June 11, 1996
9. Commissioner Anderson asked Mr. Murray to explain what the difference
was between a parcel merger and reversion to acreage. Mr. Murray.stated
the end result would be one lot in either case. The difference, is that the
reversion to acreage process allows for the elimination of the tract and the
condition requiring bonds. Certain bonds could be released whereas a parcel
merger does not achieve the same objective. Commissioner Anderson
clarified he was inquiring if there was anything physically to prevent one
large house from being constructed.
10. Commissioner Butler asked the City Attorney if the Commission approved
the request, could the homeowners' association still present their questions
to the City Council. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated there would be
nothing to prevent them from asking their questions at the City Council
meeting. Commissioner Butler stated he had no objection to approving the
request before them, as long as the homeowners' association are not
prejudiced by this decision.
11. Chairman Abels clarified that the homeowners' association was asking for
the continuance because they had been out of town and not received the
notice till late. The item could be continued and then go to the City Council
for their second meeting in July. He felt it was a difficult situation, and the '
homeowners should have the oppommity to present their concerns to the
Planning Commission. Mr. Murray stated he had tentatively set a meeting
with the homeowners' association and their attorney to discuss their concerns
and insure them the issues would be taken care of to their satisfaction. If the
Planning Commission approves the request, they would have ample time to
work out any problems with the homeowners' association prior to the July
2nd City Council meeting. They would like to stay on their time schedule.
Chairman Abels stated he understood Mr. Murray's concerns and realized
he would be meeting with the homeowners' association and their attorney,
but he was still reluctant to proceed.
12. Commissioner Barrows stated that it appeared that the conditions would
address the issues raised in the association's letter, however, as they were
unable to be present, it was difficult to be certain they were addressing all
their concerns. The applicant is required to address all these iSsues in the
Conditions of Approval. Commissioner Butler agreed.
13. ' Commissioner Anderson stated he saw no reason' why the attorney and
applicant would not be able to resolve their issues and still make the City
Council meeting. If those issues are not resolved, the City Council can
continue the matter. The issues are minor and he would hate to see things put
off, due to the homeowners' association not being able to attend.
PC6-11 5
Planning Commission Meeting
June 11, 1996
14. Commissioner Tyler stated he basically agreed that the conditions addressed
all the concerns. However, they had indicated to the homeowners'
representative, Mr. Tom Hill, that they had no problem with continuing this
item, they should consider the request. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell
informed the Commission that the only consideration before the Planning
Commission is what is stated during the public hearing. Any commitment
made prior to the public hearing would be an action taken in violation of the
Brown Act. .The Planning Commission is only to consider what is said
during the meeting.
15. Chairman Abels stated that in reference to the comment made by
Commissioner Anderson, the Planning Commission was to resolve these
problems so when they go to the City Council most of the issues are resolved.
If the Planning Commission is going to mm the matters oVer to the City
Council without resolving them, there is no need for the Planning
Commission. Commissioner Anderson stated he understood the argument
and agreed, but he saw no need to delay the applicant.
16. Mr. Murray stated he was sorry the homeowners' association representative
was unable to attend the meeting, but all the concerns raised in their letter are
still in place to protect them and he did not consider it fair to the applicant to -
continue the item.
17. Commissioner Barrows asked staff if there was any value to adding a
condition that would require a meeting between the applicant and the
homeowners' association. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated this would
not be allowed. Commissioner Barrows further agreed with Commissioner
Anderson that the concerns of the homeowners' association are addressed in
the Conditions of Approval, and along with staff's recommendation, she did
not feel they were passing any unfinished business on to the City Council.
18. Mr. Murray stated his client should not be penalized because the
homeowners' association was unable to attend. They had ample time to get
' a response to the City and they did not. Further, he will be meeting with their
attorney and he cannot see anything they would be concerned about that is not
addressed in the conditions.
19. Commissioner Gardner asked if the City was holding bonds and would they
be released if the Commission approved the reversion. Planning Manager
Christine di Iorio stated the Commission was making a recommendation to
the City Council and nothing would happen with the bonds until the City
Council made a decision. The action of the Planning Commission would not
affect the bonds.
PC6-11 6
Planning Commission Meeting
June 11, 1996
20. There being no further public comment, the Public Hearing was closed.
21. Commissioner Butler stated that although he felt the homeowners'
association should be heard and he had no objection to continuing the item.
However, in light of the fact that the applicant is willing to meet with the
homeowners's association and resolve any concerns they may have, he
believed it would be unfair to the applicant to continue the project.
22. Commissioner Barrows stated she agreed that the applicant should not be
held up when there are conditions in place that reference the concerns raised
by the homeowners' association.
23. Commissioner Gardner stated he also agreed that the applicant should not be
held up. He asked if a condition could be added to require the meeting
between the applicant and the homeowners' association. City Attorney Dawn
'Honeywell stated it would not be appropriate.
24. Chairman Abels asked what would happen if the meeting between the two
did not happen. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the homeowners'
association attorney would present their arguments before the City Council
and Council would address the issues at that time. Chairman Abels stated he
did not want to put the Planning Commission in a position where this could
· happen.
25. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Barrows/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution
96-024 recommending to the City Council approval of the reversion to
acreage for Tentative Tract 28335-R, subject to the revised conditions.
26. Commissioner Tyler stated he would Vote no as he did not feel they were
giving the homeowners' fair consideration by presuming that the items
mentioned in the letter are their only concerns. These issues should be
resolved before passing it goes to the City Council
27. Commissioner Gardner asked if the request was approved on a four to three
vote, would this relay the message to the Council that there are some
reservations on the part of some of the Commissions. City Attorney Dawn
Honeywell stated that Council members do read the minutes so they would
be informed.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Anderson, Barrows, Butler, and Newkirk. NOES:
Commissioners Abels, Gardner, and Tyler. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
PC6-11 7
Planning Commission Meeting
June l l, 1996
28. Chairman Abels stated he felt the Planning Commission should resolve the
issue before sending it on to the Council.
29. Commissioner Butler stated the homeowners association has had ample
opportunity to address the issue. The applicant is here and prepared. The
letter states the issues they are concerned with, and the Conditions of
Approval address those issues and the applicant has stated he will resolve any
other issues prior to the City Council meeting. Therefore, he sees no reasOn
to delay the applicant.
30. Commissioner Gardner agreed. He did not want to hold up the project, but
felt the issues should be addressed.
VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: None
'VI. ' CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Chairman Abels asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of May 28, 1996.
There being no changes or correction, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Tyler/Gardner to approve the minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved.
VII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS
A. Commissioner Tyler reported on the City Council meeting of June 4, 1996.
B. Department update - Planning Manager Christine di Iorio report that Mr. Bogan had
file an appeal to his sign program and it will be before the City cOuncil on July 2nd.
In addition, staff had received the Boston Market application for processing.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Gardner/Butler to
adjourn this meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting on June 25, 1996. This
regular meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 7:55 P.M. Unanimously approved.
PC6- l I 8