PCMIN 04 22 1997 · MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California
April 22, 1997 7:00 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:08 P.M. by
Chairman Abels who asked Principal Planner Stan Sawa to lead the flag salute.
B. Chairman Abels requested the roll call: Present: Commissioners Butler, Gardner,
Newkirk, Tyler, Seaton, Woodard, and Chairman Abels.
C. Commissioner Butler clarified that Commissioner Tyler does live in La Quinta in
contrast to what was printed in the Desert Sun.
D. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Dawn
Honeywell, Planning Manager Christine di Iofio, Senior Engineer Steve Speer,
Principal Planner Stan Sawa, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer.
II. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confm'ned
III. PUBLIC COMMENT: None
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Chairman Abels asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of April 8, 1997.
There being no corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Tyler/Gardner to approve the minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved with
Commissioner Seaton abstaining.
B. Department Report: None
PC4-22-97 I
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22. 1997
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. CONTINUED - TENTATIVE TRACT 28410 AND SITE DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT 96-602; a request of McComic Consolidated, Inc., to subdivide 17 acres
into 69 single family and other common lots in PGA West resort and club, and
compatibility review and approval of three house plans.
·
1. Commissioner Gardner withdrew due to a possible conflict of interest.
2. Chairman Abels opened the. public heating and asked for the staff report.
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.
3. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff.
4. Commissioner Tyler asked why the preliminary elevations had not been
submitted for Commission review. Staff explained that since the applicant
had requested a continuance for the Site Development Permit, the elevations
had not been submitted. Commissioner Tyler asked why the entire request
was not being continued. Staff explained'that the tract map could be
considered separately and the elevations could be brought back at a later date.
Discussion followed regarding the application.
5. Mr. GeoffMcComic, the applicant, stated there had been mis-communication
between the City and his staff. The City required more detail than what was
required by the Homeowners' Association and therefore they did not have
time to prepare the elevations as requested by the City.
6. Commissioner Butler expressed his concern that the Commission hold off on
their review of projects-until the entire submittal package had been received.
This project had been submitted without color boards, elevations, etc. Mr.
McComic stated it was his understanding that the tract map could be
approved separate from the Site Development Permit. Commissioner Butler
asked staff for clarification. Staff stated the tract map could be approved
separately.
7. Commissioner Woodard asked if a grading plan had been submitted and if it
was required. Staff stated it was not required for the review process of a
tentative tract map, but is required prior to the final map. Commissioner
Woodard asked if it would come before the Commission for their review.
PC4-22-97 2
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22. 1997
Senior Engineer Steve Speer explained that the grading plan does not go
before the Planning Commission or City Council. Commissioner Woodard
stated he would prefer to see the grading plan in order to see the elevations
in relation to the different pads. Staff explained that the pad elevations are
shown on the tentative tract map. Commissioner Woodard, then asked if the
landscaping would be approved by the Commission. Staff explained that if
the Commission wanted to review the landscaping, it could be required to
have Commission approval. Commissioner Woodard asked staff what the
amenity ratio was for the tract. Staff stated there was no minimum or
maximum for detached single family houses in accordance with the Specific
Plan, therefore they were not required to submit any information.
Commissioner Woodard asked staff to explain the concerns that had been
received from the homeowner association. Staff explained the concerns
raised in the letter from the homeowners' (HOA). They do not supersede the
City's requirements. Discussion followed regarding the privacy wall.
8. Commissioner Woodard asked staff if the developer was required to provide
swirnn~ng pools per any agreements. Staff explained it is an issue with the
HOA, not the City. The Specific Plan only requires pools when the
residential units are attached.
9. Commissioner Woodard asked whether or not the golf car access should be
addressed. Staff stated it was up to the Commission whether or not it should
be addressed.
10. Commissioner Seaton asked staff to explain Fugitive Dust Control. Staff
explained it was a State mandated requirement.
11. Mr. Barry McComic, 2032 Via Cassa Alta, San Diego, the applicant, stated
he was there to answer any questions. He stated that the island where the
four lots were proposed had been resolved. The two lots would be built with
nice views. He further stated there were no problems with the golf cart
access easement as they would work with staff to resolve. In regard to the
swimming pools, he did not believe any more than two were needed. It was
his belief that if people purchasing one of his homes wanted a swimming
pool, they would install one on their property. In reviewing the area, he had
not fodnd a lot of use being given to the pools provided.
PC4-22-97 3
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22. 1997
12. Commissioner Butler stated he agreed that community pools were not
necessary, but was there a commitment on the part of the developer to install
the pools. He then asked the applicant to explain"Seoktop". Mr. McComic
explained that was the name of his partner.' Commissioner Butler asked if the
swimming pools was an issue that should be resolved by the Commission or
the HOA7 Mr. McComic stated that as far as the planning of the project, it
is not required. It is a marketing decision, and in their opinion it would be a
waste to build more than the two pools they are proposing.
·
13. Commissioner Butler asked the City Attorney for her opinion. City Attorney
Dawn Honeywell stated that as long as they were meeting zoning and specific
plan requirements, it did not need to be addressed.
14. Commissioner Woodward asked for clarification. City 'Attorney Dawn
Honeywell stated it was an issue that was resolved at the time of the approval
of the Specific Plan for the entire PGA West project. At this time, it is not
an issue.
15. Commissioner Woodard stated his concern about installing pools on the
residential lots as they were deep and narrow. This may be a justification for
requiring the community pools. Should the location of the pools be a concern
of the Commission? City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that if there was
a health or safety concern, yes. Commissioner Woodard stated his objection
was that the community pools are poorly located; one is near the golf tee, and
both are at either ends of the development. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell
stated the Commission could make a recommendation. McComic clarified
that there were other pools in the area, and the location of the pools is based
on the· entire community and not just this tract. Commissioner Woodard
asked legal counsel to clarifiy whether it was within the Commission's
purview to determine the location of the pools. City Attorney Dawn
Honeywell stated there was no criteria to make a determination as to the
location of the pools.
16. Mr. McComic addressed Commissioner Woodard's concern about the long
and narrow lots stating the houses were designed so a pool could be located
in the front yard. The pools were not intended to be in the backyard.
Commissioner Woodard stated his concern was that the pools were proposed
to be located at either end of the development and families would have to
travel a distance to use the pool. Mr. McComic clarified that the existing
pool at the end of Cedar Crest is also accessible.
PC4-22-97 4
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22. 1997
·
17. Commissioner Newkirk asked where the model complex would be located.
Mr. McComic stated it would be at the comer of Merion and Riviera backing
up to the only lake on the project. Commissioner Newkirk stated this would
require an opening at both ends of Cedar Crest and asked Mr. McComic to
clarify how this would work. Mr. Geoff McComic explained this was a
requirement of the Public Works Department. Discussion followed as to the
road design.
18. Mr. Chevis Hosea, KSL Land Corporation, clarified that the road is a
secondary access conditioned by the City for this tract. It is not a condition
of the developer to construct the road. Mr. Brian Esgate, engineer for the
project, clarified that presently it is their intent to connect the road at the.
north end per staff's request to eliminate the cul-de-sac.
19. Commissioner Woodard stated it was his understanding that Cedar Crest
would hook up with Jack Nicklaus. Brian Esgate, engineer, stated that was
his understanding. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated that Tentative Tract
28259 is required to provide a short piece of street to connect to existing
Cedar Crest. Until the two tracts are matched up, it is not possible to require
the applicant to provide the street connection. With the development of these
tracts, it will now provide the oppommity for this to happen.
20. Commissioner Woodard asked if this tract would not need the connection for
emergency vehicles. Discussion followed regarding the road design.
21. Commissioner Butler asked if the model complex was a part of this project?
Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated that even if the model complex was
located on the comer, the road was not required to be connected as KSL Land
Corporation did not own the land. Now with the development of this tract
there is a need for the access. Mr. McComic stated he had no objection to
providing the access. Mr. Brian Esgate stated their drawings showed an
access to the north and they would align their street to the north eliminating
with the cul-de-sac. Alternative solmions were discussed.
22. Commissioner Woodard asked if KSL had any concern with this connection.
Mr. Chevis Hosea, representing KSL Land Corporation, explained that since
they had acquired PGA West, they were asked to design their tract 'and create
the access. In their opinion it is not an effective use of the land for this area.
The bye hole golf tee was designed to accommodate this access and it would
PC4-22-97 5'
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22. 1997
be a monetary concern of theirs to have this connection. They have no
objection to an emergency access, but do not want the access open to their
tract due to the high end homes in their area.
23. Commissioner Woodard stated his concern with a 1400 foot long cul-de-sac;
however, he could understand their concerns. Mr. Hosea went on to explain
that these homes, as they approach the clubhouse, are on large lots and are
over a million dollars.
24. Commissioner Newkirk stated that as long as there is an emergency access,
he would be in favor of retaining the cul-de-sac. Staff stated the Subdivision
Ordinance would allow an emergency access to be installed in place of
through street.
25. Commissioner Woodard stated he still had a problem with pool locations and
asked if the pool at the end of the cul-de-sac was provided for other people
outside this tract. Mr. McComic stated this was the location originally
proposed by the HOA. Commissioner Woodard asked for clarification as to
who the pool would serve. Mr. Hosea stated the proposed location supports
the developer's plan as it follows the overall changes proposed by KSL Land
Corporation to have more single family detached homes and less condos.
26. Commissioner Butler stated that across the street from this tract is KSL
property who is willing to allow their property to end at the cul-de-sac. Mr.
Hosea clarified that this property was originally owned and developed by
Sunrise Company. Mr. Brian Esgate clarified that these homes were built out
condos and they have access to an existing pool on Cedar Crest.
27. Mr. Ax;t. o Nuutinen, attorney for the Coachella Valley Unified School District
(CVUSD), asked for clarification as to what condition would be imposed on
this tract regarding school fees. He went on to explain the original conditions
that had been placed on the Specific Plan (Condition #39) for the PGA West
development. He stated that if a condition was originally imposed regarding
school impacts, it was there because of unmitigated impacts. If the condition
had been removed, then the impact would now have to be addressed. In
reviewing the documents, he was unable to find any changes to the conditions
regarding the school fees. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the issue is
that the original Specific Plan adopted in 1982, did not have State
requirements regarding specific school fees at certain levels. Later as the
PC4-22-97 6
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22. 1997
Specific Plan was amended in 1996, the State requirements regarding schools
fees had been adopted. It was the City's understanding that agreements had
been made between the original developers and the school district in regards
to school fees. As the Plan was amended last summer, it was the City's
understanding that those agreements were still in effect. It was not the City
Council's intent to continue, requiring a condition that had meaning in 1982
and 1983, but after the State requirements changed no longer had the same
type of meaning. Subsequently, the reference in the current Specific Plan that
is approved and governs this project, is Section 2.5.4 and refers to the fact
that the school services for the Specific Plan area are facilitated by DSUSD
and CVUSD. There is a requirement contained in the Conditions of
Approval (Condition #3) of the proposed tract, that prior to the issuance of
any grading or building permits, the City will have clearances or permits from
the different agencies, one of which is CVUSD. If the school district has an
existing agreement that they believe is enforceable, then presumably they will
not issue their permit unless that is met and if they do not, then presumably
they will be following the State mandated requirement fees that will need to
be paid to them. So it is not the case that they will not be receiving anything.
It is the case that the City has made a determination that they will not be
requiring something different than what the State is currently requiting. Mr.
Nuutixien stated that his challenge was when did the City make this
determination, as it was not in the City records. If this is in writing, he would
like to ask, according to Public Record Act under Government Code 6250
and following, for all those documents. He went on to state the School
District's concern regarding the requirements and further if the City had such
an intent, where was it expressed. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated she
had repeated the condition that is existing in the current Specific Plan. That
is the only condition that relates to schools in the existing Specific Plan for
this project. The City has no intent to require anything other than what is
already required. The City is not imposing a separate fee. The City is saying
this is between the developer and the School District. The City will not issue
building permit's until CVUSD gives their release. Mr. Nuutinen stated that
is a conclusion, but does not explain how it was arrived at. City Attorney
Dawn Honeywell stated the City is not required to give a reason under our
own zoning documents as to what conditions we come up with when it is not
something required of the City to provide. Mr. Nuutinen stated it is required
when the City is making an approval that has conditions that says the
conditions are being carried forward. Discussion followed regarding how the
City arrived at this decision.
PC4-22-97 7
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22. 1997
_
28. Chairman Abels asked Mr. Nuutinen make a formal request of the City
Attorney as this issue cannot be resolved during this meeting.
29. Mr. Jim Saul, president of Homeowners' Association #2, stated he was in
favor of the proposed project and they will be a part of their HOA. However,
there are several unresolved issues. These issues had been alluded to in their
letter of April 16, 1997. They are requesting that the Commission not
approve the tract until the issues are resolved. One issue is finding a better
location for the model complex that would allow better security for the
existing homeowners. The proposed location of the models is to be deep
within'the existing homes which is an issue of security. The north end of
Cedar Crest would be a better location. That location would require
cooperation with KSL Land Corporation to keep the models secured and not
allow visitors accessibility to the rest of the tract. They would have no
objection to this location if they could let them know how they could provide
security. The second issue is the location of the two homes proposed to be
constructed on the island. They would prefer it be developed as a green belt
with a community pool as there are no pools available to the residents in this
area.
--
30. Commissioner Butler asked Mr. Saul to identify how he was "related" to this
project and if he would explain any requirements regarding the pools. He
stated that the Commission is responsible for making decision on this tract,
and it can be difficult to make a decision on a part of a development when the
overall scheme of the development is not known. Mr. Saul stated it is their
desire to resolve the issues before the tract map is approved. Once the tract
is approved they have no alternative. Discussion followed regarding the
different concerns raised by the HOA.
31. Mr. Ted Martens, HOA, stated that Mr. McComic had met with the HOA on
one occasion. In regards to swimming pools, it is not tree that 85% of the
residents of detached homes put in their own pools. Only 8% of the existing
detached homes in PGA West have pools. He then went on to give the
statistics of the pools at PGA West. He further stated that on one of the
streets that is a part of this tract, Cedar Crest, the homes on the west side of
the street (25 attached condos), have one pool on the southern end that serves
all 25 homes. Since the original development plans for this area called for
two more pools on the east side of Cedar Crest, most of the existing homes
on the west side of Cedar Crest expect the pools to be constructed.
PC4-22-97 8
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22. 1997
32. Mr. Chuck Otto, 80-070 Cedar Crest, stated he lived approximately opposite
of Where he understood the models would be constructed. He had no
objection to this location as long as there is security to keep people from
wandering through the rest of the community. He did purchase his home
with the understanding that there would be a pool provided for their area. As
everyone lives in the community and pays dues, they do not care who owns
the pools. In regard to the models, the concern is if their access is to be off
Cedar Crest. They do not want Cedar Crest used as the thoroughfare. This
would require an access from the Niehlaus Gate and this would require some
type of fencing.
33. CommiSsioner Woodard asked if the ten houses across from the proposed
tract on Cedar Crest were expecting pools and were not to have them, and if
the pools are not an issue for the Commission, then the pool locations
become an issue relative to this tract. Where are the pool locations relative
to the entire Specific Plan? Community Development Director Jerry Herman
stated this tract is not required to construct the pools; they are installing two
pools at their discretion. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that at the
time there was an assumption that townhouses would be constructed and
therefqre the density would be greater. It is not an issue of the Commission,
even though there was an assumption at that time for the existing
homeowners.
34. Commissioner Woodard and Commissioner Tyler asked staff to identify the
location of the proposed models. Staff stated they would be processed under
a Minor Use Permit.
35. Mr. MCComic stated it was their opinion that the two lots to be constructed
on the island was good planning and makes good monetary sense. If they
were not allowed to build the homes it could be a monetary loss of $150,000.
He then asked the City Attorney if the model complex was to be considered
by the Commission. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated it would be
before the Commission as a separate application to be heard at a different
time.
36. Mr. McComic stated that they had dealt with the issue of security for
numerous developments when the models were on the interior of the project.
Their procedure has been to put a security person in a vehicle who is in
comm,unication with the guard gate to monitor who comes and goes to see the
PC4-22-97 9
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22. 1997
models. The gate would notify the guard who and. how many were coming
and the guard would monitor their movements. In-all their years of
construction, they have never had an issue of someone coming in who did not
come to see the models. They take the security of the development seriously.
In regards to the location of the models, it is imperative to them that they be
on the best lots to offer them the best possible showcase for marketing their
models.
37. Mr. Saul stated he appreciated Mr. McComic's comments as he had not heard
this information prior to this meeting. It would be appreciated if he would
have a representative attend their board meetings to provide this information
as they would like these issues resolved. In regards to the overall PGA West
projecL it would be to the advantage of the Commission to understand the
Specific Plan for the entire project to be aware of what has been planned.
38. Mr. Robert Foulk, 57-540 Interlachen, stated he and his neighbors object to
the construction of the homes on the islands as it would be the only island
with homes.
39. Mr. Geoff McComic, applicant, stated he had met with the Architectural
Review Committee and the Board of the HOA.. After reviewing the plans
with the Architectural Review Committee they had reduced the homes from
four to two. In addition, they had described their plans for security regarding
the models at their board meeting.
40. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the public
hearing.
41. Commissioner Tyler expressed his concern that the issues raised by the HOA
be addressed and therefore he thought a continuance would be in order.
42. Commissioner Woodard stated he still had a problem with the two lots being
constructed on the island and the access off the cul-de-sac. Discussion
followed regarding alternative layouts.
43. Commissioner Butler stated his concern that the cul-de-sac be addressed as
a through street at some future time. Regarding the pools, it was his opinion
that the developer was being generous to construct the two pools. The
Commission does not have an understanding of the adjoining projects,
therefore, if the developer wants to put in two pools, it is a bonus.
PC4-22-97 10
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22. 1997
44. Commissioner Seaton stated that in her opinion the developer had addressed
the issue of security for the model homes; the Commission needs to have
additional information regarding the pools; the two proposed lots on the
island Is an issue and perhaps the Commission should listen to the HOA; and
there still needs to be information provided on the golf cart access.
45. Commissioner Newkirk stated he too believed most of the issues had been
addressed. His greatest concern was the cul-de-sac. He too believes the
construction of the two homes on the island is a big mistake and it should be
a park that would enhance the entire area. Commissioner Woodard suggested
the island become a park with a pool and the pool to be constructed at the end
of the tract become a house. Commissioner Newkirk agreed.
46. Commissioner Tyler stated it would be impossible for the Commission to
impose the conditions of the original Specific Plan on this developer. He
concurred with the concerns raised about the two houses on the island.
However, he too would not want a home with a community pool next to it.
As numerous issues still remained to be resolved, he would move to continue
the project.
47. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Tyler/Woodard to continue Tentative Tract 28410 to May 13,
1997. 'Unanimously approved.
Chairman Abels recessed the meeting at 9:00 p.m. and reconvened at 9:08 p.m.
Commissioner Seaton informed the Chairman that she was ill and left the meeting during the recess.
B. TENTATIVE TRACT 28444; a request of KSL Land Corporation for approval to
subdivide 38.36 acres into 69 single family and other common or street lots on the
south side of the southern terminus of PGA Boulevard and west of Madison Street
abutting the Tom Weiskopf and Jack Nicklaus Tournament Golf Courses.
1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report.
Principal Planner Start Sawa presented the information contained in the staff
report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department.
2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff.
3. There being no questions of staff, Mr. Chevis Hosea, representing KSL Land
Corporation, reviewed the conditions. He stated they were unclear regarding
Condition #30, but after discussions with Senior Engineer Steve Speer, they
PC4-22-97 11
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22. 1997
understood they are only required to construct the west side of Airport
Boulevard. He then questioned their participation in a Thoroughfare
Improvement Program to be implemented by the City, but as there are now
other development to share in the costs, they have no objections. Regarding
the issue of school fees, he stated they had inherited the agreement that was
negotiated between DSUSD and CVUSD from Landmark Land Company
and it is their position that they are participating on based on those
agreements.
4. Commissioner Tyler asked for clarification as to the main and emergency
entrances into the tract. Mr. Hosea explained the entrances and stated the
design is tentative until they decide whether or not there would be another
entrance into the project.
·
5. Commissioner Butler asked about their fees for the construction of the
Madison Street Primary Arterial. Senior Engineer Steve Speer explained that
the reason for the requirement is that the Specific Plan requires the
development of the off-site streets. As they are in the final stages of
development for the specific plan area, that is why this is being required.
This condition is only identifying the ultimate width of the street. The second
half of the condition requires the applicant to secure 50% of the cost to
construct the west side of the street. -
6. Commissioner Woodard asked if someone is entering the Nicklaus gate was
there a traffic issue. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated there is a possibility
for a fender bender. Mr. Hosea stated that from a traffic engineering point,
the safest point to make the entrance is at the slowest point. Additional
measures such as speed bumps can be used. This is consistent with every
gate entrance at PGA West and it has not been an issue to date. Staff stated
that in the tight situations at slow speed there are conflicting problems that
will occur.
7. Mr. Ano Nuutinen, attorney for CVUSD, stated his concern was to obtain
what the City's policy is regarding these conditions. At some point a
determination will need to be made.
8. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the public
hearing.
PC4-22-97 12
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22. 1997
9. Commissioner Tyler reviewed the Conditions of Approval for each of the
tracts and asked staff to clarify why they were not the same. It was his
opinion that the language should be consistent for each tract. Condition #2,
should have a sentence regarding when the tract would expire and an
additio, nal condition added regarding drainage requirements.
10. Commissioner Newkirk stated he believed the issues raised in a letter by Mr.
D. R. Lutz should be addressed. Staff stated they were reviewing the issue.
5. There being no further comment or questions, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Butler/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97-
028 approving Tentative Tract 28444, subject to the findings and Conditions
of Approval as amended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Newkirk, Tyler, Woodard, and
Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioners Gardner
and Seaton. ABSTAIN: None.
Commissioner Gardner rejoined the Commission.
VI. BUSINESS ITEMS:
A. HIGHWAY 111 GUIDEI.INES; a request of the City for review and approval of
landscaping, entry signs, bus stops, and building design guidelines.
1. Chairman Abels asked for the staff report. 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.
2. Mr. Ray Lopez, consultant for the project, gave a presentation on the
proposed guidelines. He stated the guidelines would go to the City Council
for final approval.
3. Commissioner Woodard asked if the landscaping plans were designed to
blend with each of the adjoining cities. Mr. Lopez stated that there had been
no conscious effort to do this. Council direction was to give La Quinta its
own identity through signs, landscaping, bus stops, etc., to create a theme.
Commissioner Woodard questioned why the bicycle path along Highway 111
PC4-22-97 · 13
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22. 1997
stopped at the channel; are there plans to continue the bikepath? Senior
Engineer Steve Speer stated the City does have a plan to continue the path,
but not necessarily on Hwy 111 and described the proposed route.
'4. Commissioner Woodard asked Mr. Lopez to explain what appeared to be a
wall on the plan, Mr. Lopez stated it denoted an area where larger plants may
be used to screen parking lots including buffer walls. Commissioner
Woodard asked what the time span was for the growth of the plants. Mr.
Lopez stated it has not been determined yet but he had recommended the
sizes that should be used. Commissioner Woodard asked whose
responsibility it would be to maintain it. Staff stated it would be the
developer. Commissioner Woodard stated they would like to see the larger
plants and as much as possible, if the developer is paying.
5. Commissioner Butler commended Mr. Lopez's plan. He questioned the
utilization of the Ocotillo plant, but waterirg determines whether or not they
are blooming, but how can the watering be controlled. Mr. Lopez stated that
if there is a well drained soil with ample water, they will flourish.
Commissioner Butler stated that as Highway 111 develops and the cost of
installing the planting will be the developers, are there any other plants that
should be recommended that would enhance the area. How does the City -
control the developers that want it enhanced and those who don't. Mr. Lopez
stated that it needs to added to the guidelines so that the transition is
controlled to keep 'the continuity.
6. Commissioner Gardner asked what the height of medium high shrubs were.
Mr. Lopez stated three to five feet with screening shrubs being five to eight
feet. Discussion regarding the different plants and their heights.
7. Commissioner Woodard expressed his concern that if the developer is
planting and maintaining the landscaping, it could take years before it
develops to any substantial size. Size is therefore very important. Mr. Lopez
stated this could be addressed immediately. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell
stated that if the Commission wants a certain size, it has to be stated in this
document. These are the guidelines that will determine what will be required.
8. Commissioner Newkirk stated he agreed with the concept and would like to
see it developed in his lifetime. He did believe the diameter of the trees
needed to be added.
PC4-22-97 14
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22, 1997
9. Commissioner Tyler stated his concern about the heavy use of mfr. Mr.
Lopez stated the turf is high water use and low maintenance. It is being used
to identify La Quinta as well as being indicative of some of the businesses
along Highway 111 who have requested the more lush and not the desert
landscaping. Commissioner Tyler asked how the design would be
integrated into what has already been done; do you make this retroactive to
what i~ now along Highway 111. Staff stated they are working with the
current property owners regarding the proposed landscaping.
10. Commissioner Woodard stated his concern was to have the developers install
the more mature material to ensure a more lasting landscape. The City needs
to take the aggressive role and require the more lush landscaping. Mr. Lopez
stated that most businesses would prefer the more attractive.
11. Commissioner Butler stated there currently are developments along Highway
111 that will not maintain even their parking lots. It is difficult to motivate
some of the developers to produce the landscaping the City desires.
Regarding the medians, are they the City's responsibility? Staff stated they
-- were the responsibility of the City.
12. Commissioner Woodard how does the City enforce the standards. Staff
stated a section could be added to the Guidelines regarding the standards
required for maintenance. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that if the
standards are not being upheld, it would be handled by Code Enforcement as
a violation. Discussion followed regarding the enforcement of the
Guidehnes.
13. Commissioner Gardner asked how you can make a blanket requirement for
the diameter of the trees when so many different species are being used. Mr.
Lopez explained that it would have to vary with the species. The best way to
get the best plant is to go to the nursery and tag the trees or when they are
delivered reject them if they are not up to industry standards.
14. Mr. Lopez went on to explain the landscaping design for the entry
monuments and bus stops.
15. Commissioner Woodard asked where the signs would be located as they are
an important part of the landscaping. He requested that the signs be kept out
_ of the turf area. Mr. Lopez explained a possible layout. Commissioner
Woodard suggested that Mr. Lopez have a graphic display so the developer
can visually see what is requested of him.
PC4-22-97 15
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22. 1997
16. Chairman Abels asked who would pay for the bus stops. Staff stated it was
the responsibility of the City. Chairman Abels suggested the bus stops be
sold to different entities to recover the cost.
17. Mr. Lopez described the bus stop designs. He stated Sunline Transit had
requested that the bus stops be designed in such a way that anyone waiting for
a bus could be seen by the bus drivers. He explained that the bus stops would
take on the look of the La Quinta Hotel and Resort by utilizing the concrete
tile roof. Commissioner Woodard questioned the materials to be used for the
tiles. Mr. Lopez explained that it is tiles made of concrete. Commissioner
Woodard stated his concern was that the tile roof would not have to be
slopped and therefore water would drain in on the people waiting for the
buses. Mr. Lopez stated this was a conceptual drawing and the working
drawings would address this issue. Commissioner Woodard suggested that
it be one continuous slope.
·
18. Chairman Abels asked if they could be graffiti-proof. Mr. Lopez stated that
with the smooth trowel finish and paint that is resistant to graffiti they will
be more easily maintained.
19. Commissioner Woodard asked if the waste containers were to be poured in
place concrete. Mr. Lopez stated it could be concrete masonry block. If the
concept is acceptable, it would be put out to bid to ascertain the best cost.
20. Commissioner Butler asked how many were anticipated to be constructed.
Mr. Lopez stated he understood six would be constructed.
21. Commissioner Woodard stated that the sun shade would not be needed on
those bus stops that face north. Mr. Lopez stated that was true as well as the
landscaping that would be a backdrop to the bus stop.
22. Commissioner Tyler asked if they wouldn't all be the same and shouldn't
there be a place for the bus schedules. Mr. Lopez stated they would all be the
same once a design has been approved. As far as the bus schedule, there is
no problem providing a location.
23. Commissioner Woodard stated that on Exhibit "A" there is an opening so the
bus driver can see if someone is waiting for a bus. Exhibit "B" there is no
way to see anyone waiting inside. Mr. Lopez stated that on Exhibit "B" the
structure is pulled back to allow visibility. Commissioner Woodard stated
that the driver will not be able to see anyone waiting inside. Mr. Lopez stated
PC4-22-97 16
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22. 1997
they are trying to open it up to create some interest. Commissioner Wooclard
stated that the more you open it up the more problems you have structurally
and the more costly it will be to build. If there is going to be an opening, then
Exhibit "B" will not work and if the sculpture element is used, it will be a
place for vandals. Mr. Lopez stated they would review the plans in light of
the comments made.
24. Plannitag Manager Christine di Iorio stated this is a conceptual design. Staff
is requesting the Commission make a choice between Exhibit "A" or "B"
then staff will look at the more specific issues that have been raised.
25. Commissioner Butler asked when the City was proposing to have the bus
stops constructed. Staff stated they were included in the 1997/98 Capital
Improvement Budget. The bus stops needed to be thought out more.
26. Mr. Lopez stated it would cost approximately $5,000 to bring water to the
site for the drinking fountains. Discussion followed regarding options that
could be located at the bus stops.
27. Commissioner Newkirk stated they could do without the drinking fountains.
28. Commissioner Woodard stated he did not believe the bus stops were well
thought out and he would like to see a complete redesign. The proposed
materials and tile roof are appropriate; the drinking fountain and waste
containers are inappropriate. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio asked if
the Commission would like to see what other designs had been reviewed by
the City Council. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio asked if the receptacle
and drinking fountain were removed, would it be an appropriate design.
Commissioner Woodard stated the materials are appropriate such as the wood
beams, tile roofs, and the motif is somewhat reflective of the La Quinta
Hotel. Poured in place concrete seats are appropriate in terms of
maintenance, but beyond that point, the design needs a lot of help.
29. Commissioner Tyler asked if there would be any lighting. Mr. Lopez stated
that Sunline Transit requested lights be installed.
30. Commissioner Woodard stated that Exhibit "B" was larger and has rustic
ornate canes, is this design part of the total costs. Mr. Lopez stated these are
conceptual designs and whatever elements were selected would be
incorporated into the final costs approved by Council.
PC4-22-97 17
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22. 1997
·
31. Community Development Director stated staff was asking the Commission
for their approval of one of the designs and that recommendation would be
taken tO the City Council. If the recommendation is to redesign the bus stops
then this recommendation will be taken to Council for a final determination.
There are no additional funds for redesign so it would be up to Council
whether or not to allocate additional funds.
32. Commissioner Tyler stated he would prefer Exhibit "A" with the deletion of
the drinking fountain and waste receptacle and a redesign of the roofline.
33. Commissioner Newkirk stated he agreed with Commissioner Tyler except
that he would like to have the trash receptacle.
34. Commissioner Gardner stated he too would eliminate the drinking fountain.
The trash receptacle is a necessity and regarding the roofline, he would agree
with Commissioner Woodard. His concern was not for the roof, but the
drainage water. He has no objection to either design.
·
35. Commissioner Butler stated he thought both designs would add something
to the community, but neither depicts what the community is trying to
achieve. As it appears, the Commission is going against what the Council
prefers by selecting Exhibit "A". Although he prefers Exhibit "A" and
believes it to be the more appropriate, it is still just a box. Exhibit "B" is
more appealing without the drinking fountains. Involving the art would be
an added feature if it was possible to make it vandal-proof. Exhibit "B" is a
unique design and has some character to it.
36. Chairman Abels stated he too would select Exhibit "B". Commissioner
Newkirk stated he too would prefer Exhibit "B" if it could be made vandal-
proof.
37. Commissioner Woodard stated that there were pre-cast waste receptacles that
could be used and would save costs. He would prefer Exhibit "B" but he was
concerned that the bus driver would not be able to see the people waiting. If
the problem can be solved between an art form that would obliterate part of
the view of someone waiting and then the angle wall if it has an opening it
would help. Right now if the view is a requirement, then Exhibit "B" would
not be appropriate. If it was not a requirement, he would prefer Exhibit "B".
PC4-22-97 18
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22. 1997
38. Commissioner Gardner asked why an opening was needed on Exhibit "B",
if the bus stop was sitting parallel to the street, the angle wall would afford
the bus driver the view he would need. Commissioner Woodard stated he
agreed, but it looks like with the angle the driver would not be able to see.
Mr. Lopez stated he would show the design to Sunline Transit and let them
make the determination.
39. Following discussion, it was the consensus of the Commission to
recommended Exhibit "B" with the removal of the drinking fountain and
utilizing a precasted trash can.
40. Commissioner Tyler stated his concern about the metal back sunshade. Mr.
Lopez stated it could be eliminated as needed and the sun problem could be
taken care of by the use of trees. Commissioner Gardner suggested wood be
used as it would eliminate the problems caused by the metal.
41. Commissioners asked for the location of the entry signs. Community
Development Director Jerry Herman explained they would be on Highway
111. One at the west end on the south side of the street at Lumpy's and at the
east end on the northwest side at Home Depot.
42. Commissioner Butler stated that the water feature would not work with the
winds. He would prefer Design "A".
43. Following discussion, it was the consensus of the Commission to
recommended Design "A".
44. Due to the lateness of the meeting, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Tyler/Newkirk, to continue the discussion regarding the
Highway 111. Architectural Guidelines to May 13, 1997. Unanimously
approved.
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None.
VIII. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS.
A. Chairman Abels asked for a status report on The Tradition project. Staff explained
that they are progressing on with all areas except where the State agencies are
reviewing the six lots.
PC4-22-97 19
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22. 1997
--
ADJOURNMENT: ·
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Tyler to
adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting to be held on May 13,
1997, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 10:46 p.m. on April
22, 1997.
PC4-22-97 20