Loading...
2000 02 08 PC Minutes MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA February 8, 2000 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 Kirk who asked Commissioner Abels to lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Jacques Abels, Richard Butler, Steve Robbins, Robert Tyler, and Chairman Tom Kirk. C. Staffpresent: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Dawn Honeywell, Planning Manager Christine di Iorio, Planning Consultant Nicole Criste, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: 'A. Mr. Dan Hooper, 78-620 Calle Tujunga, addressed the CommisSion regarding an issue that was peripheral to project. His concern was the notification process, or the lack of notification regarding the heating. He was concerned that staff used the 300- foot role to notify the residents and in fact this is an issue that would affect all the residents of the Desert Club Estates. By allowing the gate to be opened all the streets in this area are affected. He suggested all residents that live in this area be notified of this issue. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: A. It was moved arid seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to reorganize the agenda to take Public Hearing Item "B" before Item "A'. IV. CONSENT ITEMS: A. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of January 25, 2000. There being no changes, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to approve the minutes as presented. Unanimously approved. B. Department Report: None. C:\My Documents\WPDOCSXPC2-8-20.wpd 1 Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2000 . V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Tentative Parcel Map 29613; a request of RJT Homes, LLC for approval of the subdivision of 0.58 acres into two residential and other common lots within the boundaries of Specific Plan 83-001. Parcel B proposes emergency and exit only access onto Calle Rondo, a public street located between Calle Rondo and Cypress Point Drive and south of Avenida Ultimo in La Quinta Fairways. 1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio gave a brief review of the request and informed the Commission that the applicant had requested a continuance to the Commission's meeting of February 22, 2000. 2. Chairman Kirk informed everyone that even though the applicant had requested a continuance, due to the nUmber of people present the Commission would go ahead and take public comment at this time. 3. Mr. Richard Moreno, 50-825 Calle Rondo .stated he would hold his comments for February 22, 2000. 4. Mr. M .apny Marmer, 78-740 Tujunga, stated the proposed gate is 150 feet from his house and he does not understand why they would want to have a gate at this location when there is already a construction gate on Calle Tampico. He does not want them driving down his street when they already have a gate off Tampico. 5. Mr. Fred Rodriguez, 50805 Calle Guaymas, stated they had purchased a home knowing that an emergency access had been approved for this site. They have lived there with no problems and now this developer is wanting to change the rules. Their concerns are additional traffic in the neighborhood with children playing in the area. They do not have sidewalks so children play in the street. There is nothing to prevent the developer from coming back again'to request an entrance. The pedestrian traffic will increase. Additional traffic adds to a less seclusive neighborhood which diminishes property values. RJT already has adequate access on Park Avenue. If an emergency exit is needed could Calle Tampico be used instead? He then submitted a signed petition by the residents objecting to the gate. He asked how many times the developer could ask for a continuance. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated there is no limit. In this case there is a portion of the report that is not prepared and this is why it is being continued. 6. Mr. Dotig Gillund 78-710 Naranja, stated they do have a planned statement they would like to present at the next meeting in opposition to this request. They are not against the development and understand the need for an C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC2-8-20.wpd 2 Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2000 emergency exit and the need for the City to work with them to come up with a solution. With 50 homes it is simple, but with 300 there is a need for access and exits. They do Understand the exit that is used.for construction is not a viable as it is near a comer, but there could be a fight mm at this location. They also Understand that the exit onto Calle Tampico could be a dangerous left/right turn, but could be a right turn to separate the traffic which needs to be done. They are working with the project to make it work for everyone, but will make a more formal presentation at the next hearing. 7. Mr. Dane Hooper, 78-620 Calle TujUnga, stated that in the event he is not able to attend the meeting on February 22~, stated that when the street improvements' were being made, the residents at that time in the Desert Club Estate went to the City and requested restricted access to their streets. The City built a wall and closed the access to Washington Street. For this they paid a substantial assessment to achieve seclusion. This achieved their goal of reducing the traffic to those who live there. He knows of no country club that dumps its traffic onto a residential street. They all exit onto major arterials as they should. In his opinion Park Avenue is an adequate street to handle the traffic flow. 8. Ms. Kahnema Melkesian, 50-795 Calle Guaymas, stated she loves the neighborhood because of the serenity. There is no traffic except for the residents and their guests. Kids have the freedom to ride bikes and rollerblade all around on Calle Tujunga and Calle Rondo and feel they are safe. People walk and jog as well and they feel it is safe. She cannot imagine an access at this site which would accommodate anyone wanting to make a quick trip to the market going through their neighborhood. This exit could increase the traffic by 25 to 100 cars a day. It is unfair to dump another neighborhood into theirs when they moved there for the safety and quiet they currently have. 9. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Butler tO continue the public hearing on Tentative Parcel Map 29613 to February 22, 2000. Unanimously approved. B. Environmental Assessment 99-389. General Plan Amendment 99-064. Zone Change 99-092,' Specific Plan 99-040, and Tentative Tract Map 29323; a request of Wade Ellis/Warner Engineering requesting Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, approval of a Pm-Annexation General Plan Designation from CoUnty Designation 2b (2-5 units per acre) to Low Density Residential (2-4 units per acre), Zone Change from County Designation of r- 1-9000 to Low Density Residential, a Specific Plan for development standards and design guidelines for a residential development; and Tentative Tract Map to allow 379 residential units on 117 acres, to be located on the northwest comer of Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street. C:\My Documents\WPDOCS~PC2-8-20.wpd 3 Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2000 1. Chairman Kirk informed everyone that the public hearing was open 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. 2. Chairman Kirk asked if there'were any questions of staff. Commissioner Abels asked if the applicant had made any revisions as requested by the Commission. Staff stated none were made. 3. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Mike Smith, Warner Engineering, representing the applicant stated they had reviewed the project and believed it was a good project as presented. He was reviewing the grading plans for Laguna de la Paz which has lots of 3900 square feet and it is a frae project and the people there are happy with their lot sizes. In regard to the amenities, they do not believe they should force basketball or volleyball courts, etc on the homeowners' association. This should be left up to them. They have left plenty of open space and flat pads for these purposes .. if they chose to have them. They believe they have a good product as i presented. : 4. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Tyler stated that on Page 047 of the staff report, there are several conditions based on the Commission's recommendation in December, specifically Conditions #68, 69, 70, 71, 72; do .they have any objection to these conditions. Mr. Smith stated they do not. They have agreed to increase the minimum house size to 1,400 square feet, 25 foot setback, and roll up garage doors. Their only objection was to being forced to supply the amenities, or Condition #72. Commissioner Tyler asked if he objected to the perimeter wall requirement or street widths. Mr. Smith stated they did not. Staff noted that the recommendation was that the Specific Plan include a provision for amenities showing the area and uses and did not address the lot sizes. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell clarified that staff was not recommending the larger lot size, this was a requirement of the Planning Commission. 5. Commissioner Robbins agreed that Laguna de la Paz has the smaller lots, but it also has extensive amenities that this project does not have. Therefore, by eliminating Condition #72 it is not the same project. Without the amenities there is nothing to balance the allowance of the smaller lots. Mr. Smith stated there is enough room to add these amenities if the property owners want them. CAMy Documents\WPDOCSXPC2-8-20.wpd 4 Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2000 6. Chairman Kirk stated that he did not know of any homeowners' association that has come back after the master developer has completed the project and added the amenities. Mr. Smith stated that Laguna de la Paz has just upgraded their amenities. If the homeowners want them, they will build them. 7. Commissioner Abels stated the lots at Laguna de la Paz were built before the current City standards. Mr. Smith stated the plans show they were constructed in 1990. 8. Commissioner Butler stated that the streets are recommended for a minimum width of 33 feet on Tampa Bay Court, Key West, White Cloud and staff is recommending they be increased to 41 feet to be a minimum width sweet. Mr. Smith s.tated this is a private street width from curb to curb. The public streets have the additional width for the right of way where they have a public utility easement that serves the same purpose. Commissioner Butler stated that if staff is recommending the wider street for fire access and parking, this doesn't seem to agree. Mr. Smith stated staff considered these streets to be -- more through streets than they planned for them. They have agreed to increase the width on them. CommiSsioner Butler stated he believed the City has the right to require the 7,200 square feet lots. It was the Commission's original request when the project was first brought before them. Now, the applicant is back with no changes to the original proposal and this tells him that they chosen t° ignore the Commission's recommendations except for the change in house sizes. With this development on a specific plan basis, they have a lot of very nice property, why would they want to make the lots any less than the City's requirement of 7,200 square feet for 132 houses. In addition, this project will be sold to a merchant builder who has every fight to build whatever he wants on those lots. He' does not see why the City should accept this proposal for the City of La Quinta to take this kind of density in an area where he believes will affect the City negatively. Mr. Smith stated that the density of the overall tract they are in Low Density Residential. Commissioner Butler stated that if you look at the average standpoint that is correct. He agrees it is a nice job, so why take a high density area and put it in the center of the project which impacts the surrounding area and not just this project. Mr. Smith stated that what they did was reduce the perimeter lots to match the adjoining projects reducing the lot size as you get closer to the comer which has a commercial zoning across -- the street. 9. Chairman Kirk questioned why a section of the project was not being required to provide a block wall on the northeastern boundary. Mr. Smith stated the project was gated and it would have a wall completely surrounding the project. Planning Consultant Nicole Crist clarified the Specific Plan will require the integration of existing walls to provide a continuous wall. C:\My Documents\WPDOCSXPC2-8-20.wpd 5 Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2000 -' Chairman Kirk stated that his concern was that as the condition read, it would only cover two and a half of the sides of the project. Staff stated that was because the Specific Plan does specify walls on the other two sides of the project. 10. CommiSsioner Abels asked what would happen if the City did not annex the area. Mr~ Smith stated it would be processed through Riverside County. It is the owners preference to be annexed into La Quinta. The precedent had been setby the areas to the west and on the north side of Fred Waring that already had been annexed into the City. 11. Commissioner Tyler stated he had a lot of questions that had been raised at the original hearing and they have never been answered and he wasn't sure it was worth pursuing them at this time as the overall project did not meet their standards. 12. Commissioner Abels stated he could not approve the plan with the density as proposed. Mr. Smith stated the way the project is laid out, the density grows as you move toward the comer with the smaller units for those that want homes with smaller lots and less maintenance. - 13. There being no further questions of the applicant, Chairman Kirk asked if anyone else would like to speak on this project. There being no further discussion, the public participation portion of' the hearing was closed and open foi' CommissiOn discussion. 14. Commissioner Tyler expressed his disappointment that they had spent so much time with the applicant and made viable recommendations to bring it up to City standards that they could approve and the applicant has chosen to not make any of those changes. 15. Commissioner Butler stated he understands the applicant believes there is a market for the smaller houses, but he sees it mining into a rental property as investments for people. You are trying to accommodate the seasonal buyer and his concern is what happens to that property for the remainder of the season. The market in the north La Quinta area is absorbing slowly the individuals wanting the smaller house, but they are not lining up to get into a gated community/ He could not support it unless it is brought up to at least the minimum City standards. If the applicant does not want to upgrade the lot sizes nor provide the amenities, and even though there is space provided to allow for those amenities in the furore, they are shown on the map as retention basins. The way it is presented he cannot support it. · C:hMy Documents\WPDOCSXpC2-8-20.wpd 6 Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2000 16. Commissioner Robbins stated he concurs with what has been stated. Rather than single family homes this project should have been condominiums with units of 1,400 square feet. There would not have been any issues. It isn't different than a condominium project. The problem he has is the absolute lack of amenities that should go with this project. He. could potentially support the project with an amenity package. Otherwise with the smaller lots and no amenities he cannot support it. 17. Commissioner Abels stated he could not support it. If the changes were made according to the recommendations, he could have supported it. Mr. Smith suggested approving the project with staff's recommended conditions. 18. Chairman Kirk stated that even there were a number of issues wrong with the project, there were some good points such as the circulation pattern. In his opinion, the Specific Plan has been used as a tool to skirt the City's Zoning Ordinance. The Specific Plan should have been used to design and build a commu.nity that will be viable and safe for a long time. This project is for 379 units or approximately 1,000 people. Density is not an issue, it is how the density is woven into the community and he does not see any attempt to weave the density in appropriately. The amenities are not planned for, and even if they are graded, the likelihood of that happening is slim. There is very little attention to design features; the landscaping plan is plain with very thought to visual ques, hardscape, and soffscape elements. The entire plan needs work. It wasn't properly conceived. It was not taken seriously as a whole integrated community and he believes this would be a black mark on the City and an important one as it is situated at the entrance to La Quinta. If the developer agreed to some community facilities it would be a plus. He believes strongly that this is not an application the Commission should approve~ 19. Commissioner Abels stated he is concerned that the Commission had given the applicant the oppommity to revise the plan and they have declined to do SO. 20. It was 'moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000-005 recommend to the City Council denial of the project as submitted. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC2-8-20.wpd 7 Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2000 VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Street Vacation 2000-041; a request of Victor L. Villeneuve of MDS Consulting representing Steven Walker Homes for a determination of a General Plan f'mding of consistency for a proposed ten foot wide public utility easement vacation on a portion of the Spanish Hills Lane public utility easement adjacent to Lot 52, located within PGA West Tract 28603-1. · 1. Chairman Kirk asked for the staff report. Senior Engineer Steve Speer presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Butler asked if the easement continues to the north, will it still be used or will it become an issue. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated the lot to the north is a golf course and it will have no effect. 3. Commissioner Tyler questioned where the utilities to.the east come in for those lots. Staff stated he believes would are on the frontage of the property. That easement is not being vacated. He went on to explain the direction of the utilities. Commissioner Tyler asked if' there was any encroachment of this pillar into the required setback area. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated there is none as it is a patio cover and it is allowed. 4. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Kirk asked if the anyone would like to speak regarding this project. 5. There b~ing no discussion, Chairman Kirk closed the public participation and opened the issue for Commission discussion. 6. There .being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Butler to adopt Minute Motion 2000-002 making the findings that Street Vacation 200-041, the vacation of the ten foot wide public utility easement adjacent to the Spanish Hills Lane frontage of Lot 52 is consistent with the adopted Circulation Element of the General Plan. Unanimously approved. VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: C :XaMy Documents\WPDOCSXPC2-8-20owpd 8 · --. Planning Commission Minutes FebrUary 8, 2000 A. Commissioner Abels reviewed the City Council meeting of February 1, 2000. B. Commissioner Tyler asked about the public hearing regarding the eucalyptus trees by Century to be heard on February 22nd. His concern was that he heard it was a disease problem. Commissioner Butler stated the report stated there was no disease in the trees. IX. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioner Abels/Robbins to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held February 22, 2000, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 7:59 P.M. on February 8, 2000. Respectfiflly submitted, BI~TT/lr)V. SAWYER, ExecutiVe Secretary City o'fLa Quinta, California C :\My DocumentS\WPDOCSXPC2-8-20.wpd 9