2000 03 28 PC Minutes MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
March 28, 2000 7:00 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:01
P.M. by Chairman Kirk who asked Commissioner Tyler to lead the flag
salute.
B. Present: Commissioners Jacques Abels, Richard Butler, Steve Robbins,
Robert Tyler, and Chairman Tom Kirk.
C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City
Attorney Dawn Honeywell, Planning Manager Christine di Iorio, Senior
Engineer Steve Speer, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, and Executive
_ Secretary Betty Sawyer.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT:
A. Ms. Saundra Hawks 78-770 Spy Glass Hill Drive, representing the La
Quinta Fairways Homeowners' Association (HOA) stated she wanted to
clarify why there was a deferment of the La Quinta Fairways request for
exit only gate at Calle Rondo. RJT Development is in process of building
oUt the remainder of their tract. As a favor to the HOA, of which she is
the president, RJT joined their request for an exit only gate with their
Parcel Map approval. For the HOA to proceed to public hearing a traffic
study was required by the City. This traffic study was delayed and
delayed keeping them from going forward with the public hearing. As
RJT has a critical building schedule, they requested the City remove the
HOA request from RJTs' to allow the developer to proceed without
further delay. They now have the traffic study and the public hearing on
their request for an exit only gate is scheduled for April 25, 2000. At
that time they will make a formal presentation of their plan. They would
like to make it understood that the City has already ruled on the subject
of an entry gate on Calle Rondo, and it was emphatically no. There is no
_ room at this location for vehicles to wait for entry and there will never
be room for an entry.
III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed.
C:\My Documents\WPDOCSLPC3-28-20.wpd 1
Planning Commission Meeting _
March 28, 2000
IV. CONSENT ITEMS:
A. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of
March 14, 2000. Chairman Kirk asked that the minutes be amended on
Page 9, Item 30 to state "Chairman Kirk stated he did not believe the
parking issue was a fatal flaw, provided the applicant came back and
addressed the issues, they may be resolved." There being no further
changes, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Butler to
approve the minutes as amended. Unanimously approved.
B. Department Report: None.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Continued - Tentative Tract Map 2.9613; a request of RJT Homes, LLC
for approval to subdivide 0.58 acres into one residential lot and one
common lot within the boundaries of Specific Plan 83-001, between
Calle Rondo and Cypress Point Drive, south of Avenida Ultimo in La
Quinta Fairways.
1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa 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 Tyler asked if it was only one large residential lot
and one open space lot. Staff stated yes.
3. Chairman Kirk asked if the testimonies that had been given at
previous Planning Commission meetings would be made a part of
the file for the HO A request for an exit gate. Staff stated it could
be done.
4. Mr. Jeff Jackson, 54-560 Avenida Vallejo, stated owns a lot at
the southeast corner of Calle Guayamas and Calle Tujunga. This
development that is requesting a gate consists of 250 homes; can
they all exit through this gate, or just the those from the homes
being built at this location? He asked how many lots were they
talking about. Chairman Kirk clarified only one lot was being
referenced to and there would be no changes to the access. Mr.
Jackson stated he understood when he bought his lot that this
was an emergency access gate only. Now, it is his understanding
C:\My Documents\WPDOCS~PC3-28-20.wpd 2
Planning Commission Meeting
March 28, 2000
they want to continue the item to make the 9ate a short cut exit.
He suggested they exit onto Calle Tampico and not come through
their neighborhood. Chairman Kirk stated that since the president
of the HOA was present, she has heard his suggestion and others
as well. For clarification, the application that is before the
Commission does not include any new entrance/exit out of that
development. An application for the gate is tentatively scheduled
for April 25, 2000. Community Development Director Jerry
Herman stated the application that is before the Commission at
this meeting, keeps the exit as an emergency only gate. Mr.
Jackson asked if this gate was opened to the HOA, could all the
cars from the subdivision exit from the proposed gate. Staff
stated that if the gate was approved for use by the HOA, everyone
in the subdivision would be able to use it.
5. Mr. Fred Rodriguez, 50-805 Calle Guayamas, asked if when the
new application from the La Quinta Fairways HOA is noticed will
the Desert Club property owners, as well as La Quinta Fairways
--
property owners be notified. Staff stated everyone on the west
side of Calle Rondo, as well as the La Quinta Fairways would be
notified. Mr. Rodriguez asked if the property owners on the south
side of Calle Tampico would be notified. Staff stated they could
be added to the list.
6. Mr. Jack Winters, 50-790 Calle Guayamas, stated he understands
there are benefits to the homeowners in La Quinta Fairways, but
there are no benefits to those in Desert Club. This is the fourth
meeting they have had to attend. Is there no way to make this
brief and get it over. Chairman Kirk stated the issue of the gate is
not on this Agenda. A separate application has been submitted
and will be before the Commission at a later date.
7. Mr. Chris Berg, MDs Consulting, representing the applicant, stated
they are in agreement with the conditions and available for any
questions.
8. Mr. Dean Joost, 50-795 Calle Quito, stated he was glad that
finally representatives from RJT were present. He asked if they
were present for the lot split, or to re-enforce the exit only access
on Calle Rondo. Chairman Kirk stated they were present for the
lot split. Mr. Joost asked why they were not present at the prior
meetings. Chairman Kirk stated he should address that question
to the applicant. Mr. Joost asked if they were aware this was the
C:\My Documents\WPDOCSLPC3-28-20.wpd 3
Planning Commission Meeting
March 28, 2000
fourth time they have taken time from their lives, family, and work
to come down and address an issue that is totally irresponsible.
For F1JT to even suggest this on the initial application was
irresponsible. It was insensitive, ridiculous to dump their traffic
into their neighborhood. You look around at other developments
in this County, in this City; does anyone do this? He can not think
of any other situation like this. And yet they are dragcjed down
here four times. FIJT is creating a great community feeling for the
people in the Desert Club Estates. They have families and jobs;
they have children playing in the streets and FlJT suggests initially
to dump their traffic into their neicjhborhood. It is ridiculous, It is
a flawed concept. It is an irresponsible concept and it is costincj
him time, money, effort and enercjy. He should be home with his
child doincj his homework right now. They are our neighbors; how
irresponsible and if the homeowners want to take up this issue,
they will hear the same thing, not just from him, but everyone in
the neighborhood.
9. Mr. Mike Brockman, 78-535 Avenida Ultimo, asked if the
notification process is to place the notice on the windshield of his
truck as he did not receive any notification except for a flyer on his
windshield. Staff stated the notices are mailed by first class mail
to the current property owner based upon the current Tax Rolls of
Riverside County. If the house was just purchased and the new
owner is not on the Tax Rolls, it will go to the previous owner.
Mr. Brockman stated he was misinformed as to the content of this
meeting regarding the access gate.
10. Mr. Chad Myers, Project Manager for RJT Homes, informed
everyone the access request was brought by the HOA and the
gate is of no interest to his company. The La Quinta Fairways
H OA has been very kind and good to work with for RJT Homes.
RJT own the property and the emergency gate will be built. The
HOA approached RJT and asked them if the type of access could
be changed. RJT agreed to make the request to the City because
they own the property, but this gate is for the existing and future
homeowners. RJT is only the owner of the property and not the
beneficiary of the gate. They have no intention of using the gate.
They are required to build the emergency gate. This is a large
community with one entrance. Lastly, in regard to the mailing list,
he was instructed to include all the' property owners between
Washington Street and Calle Rondo, Avenida Ultimo and Calle
C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC3-28-20.wpd 4
Planning Commission Meeting
March 28, 2000
Tampico. He did obtain labels for everyone within the 500 foot
radius, but not south of Calle Tampico, unless they were within
the 500 feet.
11. Mr. Gary Flanders, 51-345 Calle Paloma, asked if the developer
had withdrawn his application for anything other than an
emergency gate. Staff stated the application tonight is only for
the parcel map. Mr. Flanders then asked if the City were to deny
this gate as anything other than the emergency only gate to the
HOA, would the gate thenl remain emergency only. Planning
Manager Christine di Iorio stated the access gate part of the
application has been withdrawn and the Commission is only acting
on the parcel map. The HO A has submitted a separate application
regarding a request to change the emergency gate for the purpose
of exiting onto Calle Rondo. Mr. Flanders asked if the issue was
now between the Desert Club property owners and the La Quinta
Fairways HOA. Staff stated that was true.
12. Mr. Dane Hooper, 78-620 Avenida Tujunga, stated he lived
directly in front of the proposed gate. He did not intend to address
the Commission on this issue, but is doing so only because it has
turned into an agenda on the proposed exit. Chairman Kirk stated
that is not the intent. Mr. Hooper stated the Commission can see
the number of people who are concerned about that application
and the way they have been played in regard to the handling of
this project. The representatives from RJT can make their
apologies, but this is an absolutely arrogant proposal in the first
place and will continue to be so. How can the HOA go ahead and
propose to dump their 250 residents into their neighborhood of 98
homes? If they lose numbers because of all the delays and
continuances, the HOA is going to be facing a very angry crowd.
13. Mr. Peter Rodholm, 50-640 Calle Paloma, explained that at the
last meeting of the planning Commission, they were told this
meeting was to be the last and a decision would be made on the
gate. Now, RJT and the HOA have sidestepped that decision
because they have withdrawn their request for the entrance gate,
which was a part of the original Conditions of Approval for this
-- project, for this to be an exit and entrance for emergency vehicles
only. They took the residents of Desert Club for a ride for the first
three meetings; they have now sidestepped it and the HOA plan
· on taking it back to the Commission for decision on whether or nOt
this can be used for an exit only. We are now fighting the HOA
over this issue. If they go on and continue to fight this, when will
C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC3-28-20.wpd 5
Planning Commission Meeting
March 28, 2000
this stop and when can they have a final decision on this gate.
How many times can they bring this before the Commission?
Staff stated an application can be made for a full access gate as
many times as someone wants to~ pay the filing fees. Chairman
Kirk stated the Commission is also tired of seeing the same
application come forward multiply time. They have limited
patience and have other items on the Agenda to resolve.
14. Ms. Joann Shirley, 50-860 Calle Paloma asked why the
Commission was even considering this request. The property
owners of the Fairways knew t. his was to be a emergency exit
only. This is a residential area and why can't the City just say no.
1 5. Mr. Dillon Steiner, 78-725 Avenida La Jarita, stated that as long
as they put forth an application more and more residents will be
here to oppose it. In regard to RJT, they are not good neighbors
because anyone who has driven down Calle Rondo will notice that
the wall has no landscaping. Not only do they want to dump their
traffic into their neighborhood, but they do not have the courtesy
to landscape that portion of the wall that bqrders their
neighborhood.
1 6. There being no further public comment, Chairman Kirk closed the
public participation portion of the hearing and opened the hearing
for Commission discussion.
17.Commissioner Tyler asked that Condition #10 be revised to add
the word "emergency".
18, There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Robbins/Abels to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2000-011 approving Tentative Parcel Map 29613, as
amended.
a. Condition #10: "Gated emergency access on Calle
Rondo .... "
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Robbins, Tyler, and
Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSTAIN' None. ABSENT:
None.
C:\My Documents\WPDOCSLPC3-28-20.wpd 6
planning Commission Meeting
March 28, 2000
B. Environmental Assessment 99-3'8.?. Tentative Tract Map 99694 Site
Development Permit 99-675, a request of World Development for
approval to subdivide 2.44 acres into ten single family residential lots,
one street lot, three landscape lots, and approval of architectural and
landscape plans for four prototype residential units.
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 noted corrections in
the options; there is no Plan 3C and it Should be deleted; Plan 4B
has front loaded garages. Street Lot A to be named Ladera Drive.
2. Chairman Kirk asked staff to explain the difference between what
is proposed and what is existing. Staff stated Plan 1 is 2,100
square feet including the garage and 1,700 square feet without
the garage; Plan A is 2,200 square feet of livable area and 695 of
garage; Option B is 2,200 square feet and is the same plan. Plan
4 is 2,500 square feet of livable area with a 688 square foot
-- garage. Staff displayed the building elevations.
3. Commissioner Robbins stated this project may not be reviewed
under the Compatibility Ordinance, but how do the house sizes
compare to the adjoining tract. Staff stated they could look at the
tract map for a comparison.
4. Commissioner Tyler stated the First School of the Desert appealed
the requirement to underground the utilities to the City CounCil and
that appeal applies to this tract as well. Staff stated the Council
approved their request to not underground the utilities and will
apply to this tract and the conditions have been changed to reflect
Council's action. Commissioner Tyler asked who would be
maintaining the common areas as well as the setback along Adams
Street. Staff stated it would be maintained by HOA for this tract.
5. Commissioner Robbins asked staff to clarify the inconsistencies
with regard to street widths. This is a private street with a width
of 37-feet as opposed to the 33-feet noted on the tentative map.
Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated the applicant changed from s
- public street to private street on short notice and the language
regarding the HOA taking care of the common area lots needs to
be added. He explained the HOA will be responsible for the
landscape setback lot adjacent to Adams Street and the three on-
site common area lots.
C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC3-28-20.wpd 7
Planning Commission Meeting
March 28, 2000
15. Commissioner Robbins stated the tentative map shows this street
linin[l up with the existin[l Ladera DriVe and asked the width of the
existin[l street. Staff stated the existin[l street is 3t5 feet between
the curbs. The new street will be conditioned to be 315 feet
between the curbs. They will be the same width.
7. Chairman Kirk asked if anyone would like to address the
Commission on this project. Mr. Ken Stittsworth, representin[l
World Development, stated they are utilizin[l a product that is
currently bein[l built at Wildflower. In re[lard to the letters
received in opposition to their project, he would like to state the
houses would be an up[lrade to the Quintette tract. Their smallest
unit, Plan 1 will be 1,704 square feet and will be unique in that it
will have two master bedrooms and baths and only one will be
built on Lot 5. The remainder of the units are 2,100 to 2,§10
square feet. There will be up[lrades to meet the market demand.
They are a community developer.
8. Commissioner Tyler asked about the roll up [late[lc doors. Mr.
Stittsworth stated he would never use a wooden door in this
climate condition. Commissioner Tyler asked about block walls.
Mr. Stittsworth stated the units will have block walls. They will
raise the wall by two courses and cap it. The wall will be
decorative and will have a meandering walkway with landscaping
that will be maintained by the HO A.
9.~ Chairman Kirk asked if anyone else would like to address the
Commission. Mr. Alex Londos, 79-090 Ladera Drive, stated his
concern was regarding this street coming through onto Ladera
Drive. When they purchased their home, they called the City as
there was an odd bl'°ck wall at the end of the street and he
assumed if the street was to be continue they would have installed
a block wall up to the point of the street and then maybe a rail or
something to indicate the street would be continued. He was also
told at that time a church was going in and the road would not
continue. He understands that things can change, but it has
always been his understanding the road would not be completed.
In addition, he also has several concerns with the architecture and
how it will blend in with the existing landscape. He saw the
elevations and thought it odd they would just take the plans from .
another tract and drop them here. They should not take a cookie
cutter plan from one tract to another. They should be required to
C:\My Documents\WPDOCSLPC3-28-20.wpd 8
Planning Commission Meeting
March 28, 2000
blend in with the existing neighborhood. He requested the
Commission require further research of the Ladera Drive extension
as it does impact their neighborhood. He cannot understand why
they cannot come off Adams Street.
10. Mr. Bruce Mercy, 79-080 Ladera Drive, stated he lives right next
to the wall. When they bought their home they checked into what
was going in on the other side of the wall and they were told a
church. They were assured by the developer and the City it would
be a church and no other homes would be developed in this
location so they purchased their home. They have two small
children and enjoy letting them play in the cul-de-sac and not deal
with traffic. This is not the first issue they have had with the City.
He and his neighbors lobbied until the City adopted a Compatibility
Ordinance to require any development within an existing tract to
be compatible with the existing tract. By continuing Ladera Drive
you are continuing the Quinterra development. Therefore, there
has to be harmonious elevations and congruent with the other
homes in the area and not deviate more than 10% from the'
existing smallest home. Based on this, the smallest home that
could be built in this area is 1,900 square feet. For them to
propose a 1,700 square foot house is in violation of this
requirement. Second, to bring a Wildflower elevation in is also an
opposition to this requirement. If they were to enter off Adams
Street and be a completely separate project that would be a
different project. As it is proposed it is a continuation of their
neighborhood. He then asked what'the proposed retaining wall
was to hold. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated the pad will be
raised slightly over the adjacent pad so a separate retaining wall
will be required to prOtect the adjacent wall. Mr. Mercer asked if
this would cause their water to drain to his lot. Staff stated this
pad will graded to drain to the street at the front of the new lot.
Mr. Mercer stated compatibility was an issue before and they sent
11 ,'000 letters to the City Council and fought very hard to have
the compatibility requirement so no one could step into a
development and shrink the size of the homes and change the
contours and elevations.
-- 11. Ms. Shellie Stiver, 44-960 Malia Circle, stated they 'are part of the
original Quinterra development and have put a lot of time and
money into getting these laws'in place for North La Quinta. Why
does this developer need to use the Quinterra name. How does it
benefit them. Their tract of homes are the original Windsor
C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC3-28-20.wpd 9
Planning Commission Meeting
March 28, 2000
I~ouses. They have small children playing along Ladera Drive and
do not want their children .playing outside with the additional
traffic. Drainage is another issue. They already have problems
with their retention basin. They do not need any more
aggravation. Why can't they come off Adams Street and have
their own separate development.
1 2. Mr. Bob Tette, 44-930 Malia Circle, stated their homes have two
or three car garages and one of their plans has only a two car
garage. Also, he purchased his home because it is not a through
street. It gives them the privacy and security they wanted with
little, or no traffic. He would also like to see this development
take its access off Adams Street. They purchased their home
under the conditions at that time and now the conditions are being
changed and he doesn't understand how that can happen. They
fought Mr. Snellenberger originally regarding the compatibility
issues. Some of the homes were built so close to the street the
cars are hanging into the sidewalk. This is only one example of
the issues they are faced with. -
1 3. Mr. Kim Job, 79-100 Ladera Drive, stated he too was one of the
originally homeowners. He reminded the Commission that the City
also spent $100,000 supporting this ordinance. If this developer
is allowed to call his tract Quinterra, there should not be any two
car garages and it should be required to meet the compatibility
rule. The developer misinformed them regarding the size of the
homes by including the size of the garages as part of the house
size. In regard to the developer's statement that this tract would
have upgrades, if you look at the original 18 homes they have
steel window frames steel doors and a lot of additional upgrades.
The newer units use plastic. They do not want Ladera Drive
extended. If they are going to have their own HOA to maintain
the landscaping they should be their own tract. In regard to the
drainage problems, many times they have stagnate water that
doesn't drain off.
14. Mr. Neil Ludlam, 79-130 Ladera, stated he agreed with everything
that had been stated. In addition, he thanked everyone for their
help in winning the first "Quinterra Wars". His issue is covenants.
This project is proposed to extend his street. When Quinterra was
built out, no one was told there were covenants on the land.
People who moved in were Surprised to learn they could not park
their RV. It is important to him that if this project is approved as
C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC3-28-20.wpd 10
Planning Commission Meeting
March 28, 2000 .,
proposed, they should be required to have as strong a covenant as
they have on.their street; especially in regard to RV's. In regard
to elevations, the proposed garages seem to be so narrow you
cannot get in or out of them. The garages should be built usable.
Another issue is the details of the houses. The outside looks like
the existing except the Windsor homes, but missed some of the
significant points of the Quinterra architecture. The Windsor
homes were a dramatic square zig-zag architecture. Almost Native
American. There were no curves, or colonial' treatments. Now, if
you drive through the development you will see curved window
treatments and rather astounding sudo-Colonial brass carriage
lamps which does not go with the original American Indian motif
the original designers constructed. He requested that if the street
is built out, the builder should be required to follow the original
American Indian architecture. The houses from Wildflower are not
acceptable. He would not object to a crash gate for safety sake
as long as it was aesthetic and RV were not visible.
-- 15. Ms. Joan Kneuer, 79-120 Ladera Drive, stated she agreed with
what had already been stated. Her issue is that she did check
with the City.before purchasing their home and were told a church
was to be built and the street would not go through. When she
saw the World Development sign going up she contacted the City
and she was told that because they were not a part of the original
Quinterra development, they could not be required to meet the
Compatibility Ordinance requirements. The plans look nothing like
the adjoining homes. She is against the road being constructed.
If they want to be a private HOA, turn them around and let them
gain access to their development from Adams Street. If they want
to build here, they should use the original blueprints to be
compatible with their neighborhood.
16. Mr. Tom Hanes, 79-180 Ladera, stated he too agrees with what
has been stated and asked if the extension of Ladera Drive a dead
end or attached to Adams Street. Chairman Kirk stated it is a cul-
de-sac. Mr. Hanes asked if the construction trucks would come
down Ladera Drive; if so can the construction entrance be moved.
Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated staff would work with the
developer to take the trucks down Adams Street. Mr. Hanes
asked that if their drainage is to come into their existing retention
basin, is the retention basin big enough. Staff stated it was.
C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC3-28-20.wpd 1 1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 28, 2000
1 7. Mr. Richard Santo, 79-095 Arbola Circle, stated he was concerned
about the value of the property within Quinterra. Will these units
hurt their values.
18. Mr. Jim Hanson, 79-130 Ladera Drive, stated he was present
when the retention basin filled to about six feet in depth and it
was open to all the children in the area. This is poor drainage and
to add this tract's drainage will make it worse. The drainage
should be looked at.
1 9. Mr. Bruce Mercy, 79-080 Ladera, stated they are proposing to use
their entrance, their street, their flood control and drainage area,
and are proposing to use their name, but yet they have no control
over the size, elevations, etc., they are proposing to build because
it is not a continuation of their product. What is it? It is a part of
Quinterra and will be governed by those rules, it seems it is a
contradiction to that.
20. Mr. Jim Snellenberger, representing World Development, stated
that what they are proposing is that since this is a private street,
private community they will place a gate at the entrance so the
homes will not even be seen. The existing homeowners will not
be driving into this gated community. The values of the homes
will be starting at $230,000 which is upper end for this
community.
21. Mr. Neil Ludlam, 79-130 Ladera, stated that if it is to be a gated
community, then do not make it a part of Quinterra.
22. Ms. Joan Kneuer, 79-120 Ladera Drive, stated the retention basin
is owned by the City of La Quinta. What will happen when we get
a six foot flood and a child drowns? Chairman Kirk stated staff
would answer questions regarding the drainage later on.
23. Mr..Stittsworth stated this product, whether or not it is Wildflower
or what, this home will be built all over the desert, and are
compatible with what is being built throughout the entire Valley.
Some of the people present are from the prior product. When Mr.
Snellenberger built they were required to be compatible. In regard
to the smaller unit, there is only one with a two car garage, and it
is set back and not seen from the other homes. In his opinion,
these homes will only increase the property values.
C:\My Documents\WPDOCSLPC3-28-20.wpd 12
Planning Commission Meeting
March 28, 2000
24. Commissioner Butler asked if the houses would start at $230,000.
Mr. Stittworth stated yes.
25. Mr. John Kneuer, 79-120.Ladera, asked if it was impossible to
have the tract come off Adams Street.
26. Ms. Karen Job, 79-100 Ladera, stated her concern was that she
did not know there would be a gate, will there be signage and will
she have to be concerned about the safety of the gate. They have
children who could be hurt by this gate.
27. There being no further public comment, Chairman Kirk closed the
public participation portion of the hearing and opened the hearing
for Commission discussion.
28. Chairman Kirk asked staff regarding the compatibility issue.
Planing Manager Christine di Iorio explained that it was a new
tract, not associated under the old tract number and therefore,
-- under our Zoning Code there is a requirement that there be a
review of the homes for architecture, but not compatibility
because it is not a part of the existing tract.
29. Chairman Kirk asked staff to address the flood drainage issue and
access off of Adams Street. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated
that in regard to the drainage, the retention basin for the Quinterra
project accepts water from 40 acres and this tract is less than five
acres. When the parcel map was prepared for the First School the
land was divided into two parcels and the City asked the applicant
of the parcel map to review what it would do to the retention
basin if they added the drainage water from these homes, they
indicated that during a 100 year storm, it would raise the level of
the water six inches at the maximum, At that time, the City
anticipated this project would have a public street draining to it
and since it was publically funded for maintenance, the City
determined they could do this. The applicant's change to a private
street does .create some opportunity to reconsider sending private
water into a public retention basin. In regard to the depth of the
retention basin, it is standard practice in the desert to use
-- retention basins, with La Quinta having one of the more restrictive
retention basin requirements, we size the basins to be five feet
deep when the 100 year flood occurs. We allow a maximum slope
of 3:1. This is how the City addresses the safety issues. The City
realizes that any body of water does raise a potential for hazards
C :\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC3-28-20.wpd 13
Planning Commission Meeting
March 28, 2000
to people. In regard to taking access off Adams Street, staff
stated that if the traffic were to exit onto Adams Street, it would
need to be moved away from the First School of the Desert access
and mindful of the street entering into Quinterra. Staff indicated
one area where access could be made onto Adams Street. It could
create design problems as Adams Street is higher than the existing
ground so the street would have to dive down rapidly to come
down into the tract and avoid building up the pads any more than
what is already proposed. Both stormwater and sewer drainage
would tie into the existing line in Ladera Drive and/or create its
own retention basin.
30. Commissioner Tyler stated that at the height of the original
compatibility issue he was involved and it does not apply to every
houses to be built in North La Quinta. It only applies to houses
within a given tract. He too, shares the concern of added traffic,
but how much traffic can come from ten houses. Streets were
built for traffic and not intended as a playground for children. In
regard to the compatibility, these houses are different than the
ones that are existing, but the ones Mr. Snellenberger built are
different than those built by Windsor. That is a natural
progression and they are around the corner and not in plain site.
He was surprised to hear there would be private streets and a gate
and he takes offense to new things being added during a public
hearing by the developer.
31. Commissioner Robbins stated he too was appalled to see
Wildflower plans submitted for this development and if the
developer cannot take the time to put together a set of plans that
are for a specific piece of property, they he does not want to
waste his time reviewing it for approval. He then asked what the
minimum lot size was for this area. Staff stated 7,200 square
feet. Commissioner Robbins stated he doubted Lot 5 would meet
that requirement as the cul-de-sac haS been changed. Because
they have private streets and the setback is measured' from the
property line, these houses will be closer to the street even with
the 20 foot setback because the 20 feet is measured from a
different place. If he were to approve the project, he would want
whatever the setback is from the curb at the Quinterra tract to
apply to this project so they are in fact an equivalent setback. If
this property is going to get by without providing for its own
.drainage retention, then there should be some tradeoffs. Some of
those trade offs, even though not bound by the compatibility
requirements, if they are going to gain an extra lot because they
C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC3-28-20.wpd 14
Planning Commission Meeting
March 28, 2000
are taking advantage of something that has taken place in
Quinterra, then the trade offs are that they have to meet some
additional compatibility requirements and more closely fit with the
existing development. He understands the problem with elevation
differences and how it would be difficult to come off Adams
Street. He does not believe the ten lots create a great traffic
issue. He too, does not like to have items added at the last
moment. The gating should have been thought of earlier and
presented as an option.
32. Community Development Director Jerry Herman, stated that taking
access off Adams Street with the height differential, .has the
potential of raising the lots adjacent to Quinterra on the east to a
pad elevation of three feet difference. These pads would be a
minimum of three feet higher than those in Quinterra. Currently,
they are only about one and a half foot different.
33. Chairman Kirk asked if these houses were reviewed by the
Architecture and Landscape Review Committee (ALRC). Staff
stated no as they were approved elevations under Wildflower and
the ALRC was reviewing them for design and not compatibility.
34. Commissioner Butler stated he likes the Wildflower houses so he
does not have an issue with the elevations, but has this ever been
done in the City where a private community with ten lots and
gated were created. Staff stated it has been done in PGA West by
The Woodard Group and the Medalist units at the Norman Course.
Commissioner Butler stated his concern is that here is an
established community and all of a sudden within this community
we put a gated community in the center of it and ignore some of
the surrounding environment because it is a gated community; so
therefore, the compatibility issue is not valid and the traffic
generated from this is also mute because it is only ten lots. Is the
Commission doing the right thing from a planning standpoint?'
35. Commissioner Abels stated he agrees with Commissioner Butler
and he understands the homeowners concern that the identify of
the Quinterra tract will be continued. He also, is not too happy
-- with the project.
36. Chairman Kirk stated the entire Commission is sensitive to the City
Laws, the Zoning Code, General Plan, etc. and try not to be hap-
hazard in regard to decision making issues, and the law in this
C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC3-28-20.wpd 15
Planning Commission Meeting
March 28, 2000
instance states compatibility review should not apply. It appears
however, that the intent of the Compatibility Ordinance does apply
to this development. As stated by Commissioner Robbins, we
may not be able to use compatibility review, at the same time this
developer is looking for some favors of the existing development.
They are looking for access, drainage, and even the name. Maybe
we could use these issues to improve this development resolve
some of the issues. The CC&R may be one issue whereby the
developer could add the CC&R's to this development. Maybe the
developer would want to prohibit any signs on the gate. These are
suggestions that could be used to make it a better project.
37. Commissioner Abels stal~ed he agreed that some of these issues
could be resolved with the developer.
38. Commissioner Tyler stated that typically the citizens of La Quinta
have a misconception of CC&R's. The CC&R's on any property, in
essence, have no legal force and affect unless there is a HOA to
enforce it. The existing Quinterra homeowners do not have an
HOA and therefore, they are looking at a piece of paper that does
not mean anything and you have to look to the City's regulations
to have them enforced by the City. This small group of ten homes
will have an HOA and thus will have more power to enforce their
CC&R's than other communities without an HOA.
39. Chairman Kirk stated some suggestions have been made that could
be negotiated at this time, or the applicant may want to ask for a
continuance. Staff stated that they had found the square footage
for Plans 1-4 and it was Mr. Snellenberger's first Quinterra project
and the Plan 1 is 1968 square feet and there proposal at this time
is 1,700 square feet and the compatibility review allows a
fluctuation of ten percent.
40. Commissioner Robbins stated that if you have used the
compatibility issue once to get to 1900 square feet from the
original proposal, you would have to go back to the original house
plans to determine the ten percent. Mr. Snellenberger stated the
original was 2,025 square feet. He further stated the gate is an
option he was offering and it did not have to be built. He would
prefer to resolve the issues at this meeting rather than continue it.
In regard to the garages, more than half of the houses are the side
loaded garages which have a very large driveway so the parking
issue is resolved.
C:\My Documents\WPDOCSLPC3-28-20.wpd 16
Planning Commission Meeting
March 28, 2000
41. Commissioner Tyler stated he too, had been somewhat surprised
to see the name Quinterra being used. In view of the numerous
public comments about this, he asked if the applicant might
consider using another name for this project. Mr. Snellenberger
stated it was not an issue to them. It was only to identify the
location of the tract to draw people to the location. If they had a
different name they would need signage and they did not want to
go through that.
42. Commissioner Abels asked that the developer if the project could
be called Quinterra I17 Mr. Snellenberger stated it did not matter
what it was called. The problem was to get the people back to
the development. Commissioner Abels stated he thought the
project should be continued to allow the developer time to resolve
the issues raised. Mr. Snellenberger stated the issue was the sign.
43. Chairman Kirk.stated signage was one issue, but it was not
compatibility related as lot sizes, setbacks, drainage, access, etc.
Mr. Snellenberger stated he could put a smaller house on the lot
and have it set back further. They can put a public street in with
the smaller house and sell it and make the same profit, but it is not
what they want to do.
44. Commissioner Abels stated he is not in favor of continuing
projects, but in this case there are too many issues to be resolved
at this meeting.
45. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Robbins/Abels to
deny the project as submitted.
46. Chairman Kirk stated that as the developer has offered the
Commission little choice. He asked the applicant if he would
prefer the Commission vote on the denial motion or continue the
project. Mr. Snellenberger stated he would prefer the continuance.
47. Commissioners Abels/Robbins withdrew their motion.
48. Discussion followed regarding meeting dates. Staff suggested the
Commissio. n stay with their regular meeting dates of April 11 th or
25th.
C iWly Documents\WPDOCSLPC3-28-20.wpd 17
Planning Commission Meeting
March 28, 2000
49. Chairman Kirk stated the issues for the developer to address were
setbacks, unit sizes, garage doors and their location, name, gated
or not, compatibility with the existing units, how the elevations are
sequenced on the lots, and whether Lot B could be a retention
basin. Mr. Snellenberger stated Lot B is used for a turn around
area at the gate.
50. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Abels/Tyler to continue this to April 11, 2000,
with the developer addressing the following issues:
a. House sequence on lots
b. Retention area
c. Garage doors
d. Name
e. Gated or not
f. Compatibility
g. Size of houses
h. Setbacks
i. Construction entrance
j. Private vs. public street
k. Drainage
I. Lot sizes
Unanimously approved.
VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: None
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None.
VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. Community Development Director Jerry Herman informed the
Commission there would be two joint meetings with the City Council.
One in April and one in September. Commissioners suggested May 9,
2000 and September 26, 2000, be submitted to the City Council for
their consideration.
B. Commissioner Tyler gave a report of the Council meeting of March 21,
2000.
C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC3-28-20.wpd 18
Planning Commission Meeting
March 28, 2000
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioner
Butler/Robbins to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next
regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held April 11, 2000, at 7:00 p.m.
This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:09 P.M. on March 28,
2000.
Respe~ctfully submitted,
,~"BE~Y~AWYER, Execu ive Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
C :\My Documents\WPDOCS~PC3-28-20.wpd 19