Loading...
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