Loading...
2000 04 25 PC Minutes MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA April 25, 2000 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman Kirk who asked Commissioner Abels to lead the flag' salute. B. Present: Commissioners Jacques Abels, Richard Butler, Robert Tyler, Steve Robbins, and Chairman 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. Mr. Peter Rodholm, 56-640 Calle Paloma, applauded the Commission on the Washington Street Bridge widening project. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed. IV. CONSENT ITEMS: A. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of April 11, 2000. Commissioner Tyler asked that Page 1, under Public Comment, be amended to state" ..... 8 condos with CC&R's ..... "and "The developers are'proposing ..... ". 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. Tract ?5389, Amendment //2; a request of La Quinta Fairways Homeowners' Association for approval to modify Condition //9 of City ................... CouncilJ~solution_91-_1_~15 _to_. expand.~an_'_'_Emergency Only" access to allow a resident exit access form La Quinta Fairways onto Calle Rondo, located on the east side of Calle Rondo, north of Avenida Tujunga. Planning Commission Meeting - April 25, 2000 1. Chairman Kirk opened the Public Hearin§ 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. Staff clarified that consideration of a gate on Calle Tampico would require a new tract map application. 2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler asked staff to clarify the location of the proposed emergency gate. Staff stated it would be opposite the intersection of Calle Rondo and Avenida Tujunga. 3. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Ms. Saundra Hawk, 78-770 Spyglass Hill Drive, President of the Fairways Homeowners' Association (HOA), stated their reasons for the "exit only" gate. She Clarified there would be two gates, the required emergency only and a "exit only" gate..The exit only gate would be a single sliding unit, operated by magnetically triggered - embedded lopes located in the interior street. Spikes installed to prevent entry. The driveway will be designed so that upon exiting, drivers will have to stop and go left to Calle Tampico. As to the landscaping on Calle Rondo, it was conditioned by City Council Resolution 91-115, Condition //4, to be completed during Phase IV. RJT has just started Phase IV and the landscape architect is working on the design. Upon approval by CVWD and the City, the irrigation and landscape planting will begin. There concern is that with 99 homes one gate has been sufficient, but with the buildout of 254, it will not. Precedent was set by the City when permission was granted to Parc La Quinta and Rancho La Quinta allowing each development an additional entrance/exit onto Sagebrush, a public residential street with 17 homes. If they are to believe that City Council Resolution 91-11 5, which states the conditions of approval for La Quinta Fairways, then it would seem the residents of La Quinta and in particular the homeowners of Desert Club have long reaped the benefits from the presence of La Quinta Fairways. The original developer was responsible for an eight foot sidewalk and bikeway on the north side of Calle Tampico from Washington Street to Park Avenue and the west side of Park Avenue, plus the street improvements that were imposed. The General Plan has not been revised since 1982 and , needs to be brought up to date with reality and meet the needs of all the citizens~ hot just a-seleCt few. C:WIy Documents\WPDOCSLPC4-25-20.wpd 2 Planning Commission Meeting April 25, 2000 4. There being no questions of the applicant, Chairman Kirk asked if there was any other public comment. Mr. Peter Rodholm, 56-640 Calle Paloma, stated he opposes the gate. Most of the residents from the La Quinta Fairways are affluent and would be traveling toward the Ralph's Shopping Center or Palm Desert area and with that in mind, he addressed some of the comments made in the traffic study. Assuming that the numbers generated were correct, the trip distribution depicts 35% exiting the second gate. Examining the site plan, this appears to be Iow and should be 45%. This would increase the volume an additional 10% or 240 trips per day. The trip distribution exhibit depicts 35% exiting the second gate to be further divided into 30% on Calle Rondo, 3% on Calle Quito, and 2% on Calle Paloma. These numbers should be modified to 20%, 10%, and 5% respectively. The existing volume on Calle Rondo is 201 vehicles per day. Assuming the traffic generation numbers are correct, the new gate will add 365 trips or a 180% increase over the existing volume. The City's criteria for a residential street is 300 vehicles per day, which equates to 313 per hour during peak hours, or an average of 5 cars per minute. This volume does appear to be excessive given the type of neighborhood that exists on Calle Rondo which is a Iow density area. La Quinta Fairways is a medium density area. Therefore, the numbers are esqued, based on the numbers in this report traffic coming out of the gate would be tremendous compared to what is currently coming out of this neighborhood. If. it were reversed, La Quinta Fairways residents would not be happy either. A medium density residential neighborhood to a Iow density residential area is not appropriate. The staff report, in the Environmental Assessment states, "The proposed egress to Calle Rondo represents an over concentration, of traffic at one point onto a local street that is in conflict with the intended designed and specified above. The intent of the General Plan is to limit traffic on local streets to that generated by a single family residence. The concentration of trips generated by over 250 residences is inappropriate and a potential significant impact on this local street. Incompatibility of land uses is a potential impact. The General Plan policies enumerated above require only traffic from abutting single family uses. The over concentration of traffic flow from the egress onto Calle Rondo is not compatible with the Iow density character of the existing neighborhood. Egress at this location represents a potentially significant impact" It is his hope the Planning Commission will find to keep it as originally approved. C:\My Documents\WPDOCSXPC4-25-20.wpd 3 Planning Commission Meeting April 25, 2000 5. Chairman Kirk noted that two petitions had been received from each of the opposing sides. 6. Mr. John Dangleis, 78-775 Spyglass Hill Drive, stated he has been living in La Quinta for about 20 months. The existing gate is satisfactory at the moment, but as the City is growing, it will not be. The staff report states the current traffic volume on Calle Rondo are 201 trips per day. By staff's estimates these numbers would double. To double this number is nothing and the 566 exit trips added per day by the exit gate would still be within the local street capacity of 3,000 average daily trips. The only impact would be Calle Rondo and he would question the impact to any of the other streets. The problem is that La Quinta Fairways is an impacted area and the cars need to get out and the one access gate will never be adequate. The suggestion of constructing a gate on Calle Tampico is lost as there are homes there now. Also, the entry would be too close to where Calle Tampi¢o joins Park Avenue that it would be dangerous. The logical gate is Calle Rondo with a left turn only, as it will be a minimal use. There is no reason to enter any of the other streets. The only issues not mitigated in the Environmental Assessment is the traffic and noise. 7. Ms. Carol Adam 78-740 Spyglass Hill Drive, stated her concern regarding the City's policy on the number of entrances and exits for a gated communities of 100 and less homes, of 101 to 200, and more than 200 homes, and is there a policy, in her opinion, there are no gated communities the size of La Quinta Fairways with only one gate. Some policy and/or standard for safety should be established is none exist. An exit is shown on the early plans for Calle Rondo and why now is that exit being debating it. Why has the Planning Commission staff report been published when only tonight is the issue being publically addressed. She is aware that the Desert Club neighborhood has spoken and they were unaware there would be a time at prior meetings when they could speak. This appears to be a preconceived and predetermined decision and does not consider the presentation of information of both neighborhood to the we'st of Calle Rondo and La Quinta Fairways. Lastly, La Quinta Fairways asks only for an exit gate only to be used by the homeowners and would alleviate the bottleneck of traffic that already exists on Park Avenue. It would not bring more traffic into the neighborhood west of Calle Rondo. C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC4-25-20.wpd 4 Planning Commission Meeting April 25, 2000 8. Chairman Kirk informed those present that the previous application for the access [late was submitted by the developer and the Commission has heard a lot of testimony, mostly from the opposition, on this subject. Commissioner Tyler stated the comments that were received were held at a public hearin§ in which the entire public was invited. If people did not hear about it, the process was followed and the City cannot go door to door and invite people personally. 9. Mr. Roy Stevens, 78-550 Avenida Tujun§a, stated he had submitted a letter to the Commission and will summarize what was stated in that letter. He moved here in 1995 and purchased a home on the Stadium Course in PGA West and decided they did not want to be within a gated community and bought here. They found their home on Tujunga, saw the wall at the end of the street with a hole in it. 'He checked and found out that it was to be an emergency only gate. Now, the HOA want an exit for their personal convenience and he does not want their high density traffic on his street and he will fight it anyway he can. The real problem which forces the HOA to file the request in the first place is the heavy traffic on Calle Tampico and Park Avenue. This street was planned as a residential access for the La Quinta Fairways, Painted Cove, and Bajada developments to get to the Village area. It is not a short cut for the residents of La Quinta Cove to go to work or take their children to school. It is this traffic that instigated the HOA to want the back gate. The way to accomplish this is to put a stop sign at the Calle Tampico intersections. Also at Calle Paloma, Calle Quito, and Calle Rondo and a stop sign at the entrance to the La Quinta Fairway homes on Park Avenue This would discourage the use of Calle Tampico/Park Avenue as a shortcut to 50th Avenue. In addition, a double turn lane on Calle Tampico turning north onto Washington Street would also cause the traffic to use the new 'six lane bridge, which is where the traffic should go. With the traffic reduced on Calle Tampico 'the residents of the La Quinta Fairways would not have their entrance blocked in the morning and afternoons. 10. Mr. Earl Leslie, 50-440 Spyglass Hill Drive, stated the back of his gate sits on Grand Traverse, right across from the homes across the street. If any of those homes had an emergency, the emergency vehicles would block their entrance gate causing them to be a prisoner in their own subdivision. In his opinion, if the Original deV~ioper~--didn't believe the secOnd gat~ wasn't necessary, they would never have left the concrete gate on Calle C:LMy Documents\WPDOCSLPC4-25-20.wpd 5 Planning Commission Meeting _ April 25, 2000 Rondo. There are two sides to every issue, but in this case the pros out weigh the cons. In conclusion, to put this in its proper context, their complex, without a second gate, is like having a home without a back door. 11. Mr. Dane Hooper, 78-620 Avenida Tujunga, expressed his appreciation to the Commission for their time. The RJT Homes was designed to be served by the one gate. The approval has been survived by three developers. There is no reason to believe that an added .exit gate is required to adequately serve the residents. Many other gated communities in La Quinta and throughout the Valley are served by only one entry/exit gate. Their request is for convenience only. Desert Clubs Estates had six to seven streets that exited onto Washington Street and they petitioned the City Council to close most of those streets in the interest of providing a more controlled local traffic patter. Their request complied with the General Plan and those streets were closed and they the residents are paying an assessment for this closure. This was done to provide access to their community from Calle Tampico only through local streets. Their street and curb improvements were also installed at that time, but did not include sidewalks. They walk, bike, rollerblade and push baby strollers on the street. These are by definition "local" streets. They are planned to handle traffic generated by the Iow density housing associated with the immediate neighborhood only. The approval of this application would negate their investment in those improvements and be detrimental to their property values. The proposed access gate would be detrimental to the safety, health, and general welfare of the residents of Desert Club Estates. The approval of this application would severely degrade the quality of the environment and create long term problems due to the over concentration of traffic on their streets. A negative declaration is inappropriate in this issue. A full EIR must be submitted if this case is to be pursued. On Calle Paloma which would carrY most of this traffic, there is a school and ChUrch. The school has no security fencing, or school signs, and would not want to see those children unprotected from the added traffic that would result from the approval of this application. 12. Mr. Robert Knies, 50-445 Spyglass Hill Drive, stated his house is exactly in the middle of the La Quinta Fairways, and the only time he ever turns right on Park Avenue is to go to the Post Office, ....... Ralph's-Marke-t-~eV'~ii~t's in the Village. Otherwise he goes' left to 50th Avenue. Living in the middle of the La Quinta Fairways, with C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC4-25-20.wpd 6 Planning Commission Meeting April 25, 2000 a speed limit of 20 mph, takes a long time to get out. Therefore, he does not' intent to use gate due to the time getting out, but if an emergency happens, he will. The La Quinta Fairways residents could say Park Avenue is their street and they do not want anyone else using it to drop off their kids off at school, etc. 1 3. Mr. Gary Flanders, 51-345 Calle Paloma, stated he was a painting contractor for' HOAs in the Valley and he cannot think of one HOA he has worked for where an exit dumps into a residential neighborhood. PGA West on the Palmer Gate serves 800 homes and the Stadium Gate serves almost 1,000 homes and both have one gate. La Quinta Palms, on Fred Waring Drive, consists of 242 homes and has only one gate. If there was an emergency, the fire or police, could open the emergency gate for the time being. 14. Mr. Ralph Squillace, 50-465 Grand Traverse, stated his concern was that if there was an emergency at their gate access to their development would be blocked. They have accidents and Park -- Avenue is a very busy street. They will only be using Calle Rondo to get to Calle Tampico. Stop signs will become a nuisance as cars screech to a stop and usually cause more problems than they solve. 15. Mr. Doug Gilland, 78-710 Avenida Naranja, stated this was his fourth time to address the Commission regarding this issue. Before coming to the meeting he and his daughter were rollerblading in the street as they do not have sidewalks, and would not be interested in more traffic. He understands the need for an exit gate, but when there is a solution such as Calle Tampico, they should use it. They should do the same thing the homeowners in Desert Club Estates did to follow the City's procedures and closed off their blocks to have the cul-de-sacs. When they purchased their homes they bought them knowing the requirements and accepted them. We want La Quinta Fairways to do the same. 16. Ms. Marion Walker, 50-075 Doral Street, stated her points had been addreSsed and did not chose to speak. -- 17. Ms. Noreen Selberg, 50-925 Calle Quito, stated she was opposing the Environment Checklist Form #6.e., where it states that the hazards to pedestrian or bicyclists have no impact. She would like ......... to seethis ch-§fig~d'-t6~ p-ot-enfi~lly-sighificant~im~act'becat~se there C:WIy Documcnts\WPDOCS~C4-25-20.wpd 7 Planning Commission Meeting April 25, 2000 quite a few bicyclists and pedestrians. If a member of I_a Quinta Fairways were to exit the gate and drive fast, it could potentially cause an accident. 18. Mr. Dick Welsh, 50-505 Grand Traverse, stated the staff report concentrates on what is a local street and what is allowed on a local street. It does not state you cannot have movement of traffic other than abutting property owners and this is what they are asking for. This will only be a minor traffic increase. They paid for their private streets when they purchased their homes and they maintain them so they are not a burden on the taxpayers of La Quinta. Whereas, Calle Rondo and the other streets, are public streets maintained by everyone's taxes and they should have the right to use them the best they can as long as it fits within safety realms. 1 9. Mr. Jeff Withers, 50-790 Calle Guayamas stated everything has already been stated and declined to speak. - 20. Mr. Jim Kuh, 50-405 Grand Traverse, also stated his comments had already been stated and declined to speak. 21. Mr. Bobbie Melkesiam, 50-795 Calle Guayamas, thanked the Commission for their time at the prior hearings. In regard to an exit only gate which the La Quinta Fairways residents state will not be that much of an impact, to him that means it will be only half as bad as they already know the additional traffic will be bad for their neighborhood. He thanked staff for their sensible recommendation. They chose their neighborhood because it is a Iow density and non gated community. Those who live in the La Quinta Fairways chose their neighborhood for their kind of lifestyle with only one gate in and he hopes it remains this way. 22. Mr. Philip Shamis, 78-955 Del Monte Court, stated an issue that has not been discussed is the .existing gate for which only an emergency gate has been approved. The original builder, Brock Homes put up the wall, he installed a fence between 48 and 50 feet wide. If it was intended for an emergency gate only, why did the City commit that fence to remain in place for over ten years. He assumes the original intent of Brock was to have an entrance and exit gate at this locate because of the size of the fence. Unfortunately, at the time, Brock only owned 99 lots out of the 254 10t--¢0'mpi~X', Wheh-hiS pa?tner, a bank, Went'bankrupt in 1992, Brock left the development. At that point 36 homes were C:\My Documents\WPDOCSLPC4-25-20.wpd 8 Planning Commission Meeting April 25, 2000 completed. The bank who was holding the mortgage brought in a contractor in to develop 13 homes bringing the total to 49 homes. Another developer built 50 homes and the remaining homes were owned by Landmark, then KSL, and now RJT Homes. Since the gate in question seems to have been provided for something which was entrance and exit, all La Quinta Fairways is requesting at this point is an exit gate coming out on Calle Rondo, and making a left turn. This would only affect four homes and he has not heard from any of these four people objecting to this gate. No one in the La Quinta Fairways dreamed the .amount of traffic that would be generated on Park Avenue. 23. Mr. Gillen Steiner 78-725 Avenida La Jarita, stated there are over 100 children in this neighborhood, and no one supports any gate on Calle Rondo. The location of the proposed gate encourages cars to go down Calle Tujunga which is the center of .their 'neighborhood. If they install a left turn at Calle Rondo taking people down to Calle Tampico, anyone knows this is a dangerous corner due to the traffic traveling down Calle Tampico. If there is a gate at this location, no matter which way the cars turn it creates a dangerous situation. He Would support either a gate on Calle Tampico or Park Avenue. 24. Mr. Jeff Jackson, 54-560 Avenida Vallejo, stated he owns the proPerty at southeast corner of Calle Tujunga and Calle Guyamas, which is 60 yards from proposed gate. He has written two letters and attended two of the public hearings to express that he is vehemently opposed to this gate. He has a five year old son and the only reason he bought this property was to ensure he would not have any traffic problems. He researched the issue before even purchasing the lot. This will impact him and his property values. 25. Mr. Richard Moreno, 50-825 Calle Rondo, bought this property because of the solitude. He does understand the nature of development, but he does not expect adjacent development to impede on their solitude. He does not understand who they believe they can do this and If it is all right for them to come through their neighborhood they it must be all right for them to drive through their neighborhood. 26. Mr. T.C. Morris, 50-785 Calle Rondo, stated he had sold his house ................ ~n-Indian Wells because he wanted to be in~ q~iet ne~-g~borfi0~d~ He is in the-process of building a house on Calle Rondo and three C:WIy Documents\WPDOCS~PC4-25-20.wpd 9 Planning Commission Meeting -- April 25, 2000 houses in Indian Wells. The houses in Indian Wells have an emergency only exit. At the Reserve, where he is also building, you can hardly get in or out and they are having to live with it because the City will not drop them out into a quiet neighborhood. He went into the Fairways and exited their construction gate and turned right onto Park Avenue and went to Washington Street on the clock. At the same time he had a worker stop at the proposed gate and simulated a stop with another driver on Calle Rondo who drove down to Calle Tampico to Washington and he arrived at Washington Street first. In his opinion the quickest way out is through the current construction gate and he does not understand why this gate cannot be approved. 27. Mr. Dick Ellingwood 78-745 Spyglass Hill Drive, stated that if he owned property in La Quinta the size of the property that La Quinta Fairways is, and if he asked the City to plot the ground, he knows the City would not allow them to have just one gate. He knows he bought into the development knowing their was only one gate, but thought there would be two. He was notified about the school and the lights, but things change, and with the advent of 254 homes, to have one exit is not practical. If those who are opposing this emergency gate, would turn west on Calle Tampico and go out Washington Street to take their children to school this would alleviate the traffic they have on Park Avenue. 28. Ms. Saundra Hawks, applicant, stated they could not use Calle Tampico because the builder would not sell them the lot. When their development was initially approved in 1990, the Desert Club neighborhood had an unfair advantage. The La Quinta Fairways homeowners' pay taxes as well and they would like to demand equal consideration. The General Plan is a living document that must reflect current times. Implementation of the General Plan appears to be arbitrary and selective. When Rancho La Quinta and Parc La Quinta have several gates that dumps onto Sagebrush, it sounds like those people are not important. Ms. Hawks continued on and stated staff informed them when they submitted their application, they were pitting neighborhood against neighborhood. It is not them, it is the City. Park Avenue cannot accommodate all the traffic. The City approved the gates for Rancho La-Quinta and Parc La Quinta and if the plans to make Bottlebrush and Saguaro cul-de-sacs even more traffic will be using Sagebrush. They are puzzled by the inordinate support of City staff and homeowners Who will never De affected by this gate. PGA West may have One ' exit, but they have a boulevard with no impact from schools, C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC4-25-20.wpd l 0 Planning Commission Meeting April 25, 2000 sports complex, Boys and Girls Club, etc. The streets in question are public and paid for and maintained by La Quinta taxpayers. If these people are so hung up on privacy, then maybe they should pay for the maintaining of the streets instead of picking their pockets to maintain their streets. Their request is not a convenience but a traffic safety issue. To knowingly refuse to, or fail to correct a recognized problem creates liability. Should their request be denied, it appears the City owes RJT a refund of $60,000 for half street right-away on Calle Rondo and yet their homeowners are denied access. She would like to know the rationale for allowing Parc La .Quinta and Rancho La Quinta additional entrances/exits onto a residential street, Sagebrush. 29. There being no further public comment, Chairman Kirk closed the public participation portion of the hearing and opened it for Commission discussion. 30. Commissioner Abels asked staff about the existing construction gate. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated it is for construction purposes only and when they reach buildout it will become a buildable lot. It is not a goOd location for access for the general public because it is too close to the 90 degree turn on Park Avenue to Calle Tampico. Commissioner Abels asked it could be done as suggested. Staff stated it is a buildable lot and would have to be purchased from the developer. 31. Commissioner Robbins stated there was an opportunity on Park Avenue, about six lots up from Calle Tampico that appears to be able to accommodate an access gate. Staff stated that opportunity does not exist any longer as it is a golf cart gate. Commissioner Robbins asked if it could be altered to accommodate both uses. 32_. Commissioner Butler stated he too was looking for an alternative exit location. It appears that the.gate on Calle Rondo would require the residents of the La Quinta Fairways to go to the furthest point to get out. 33. Commissioner Tyler asked if the way the tract is currently approved, the break in the wall is designated as an emergency exit only. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated yes. Commissioner Tyler stated that when RJT brought this request C':\My Documents\WPDOCSLPC4-25-20.wpd 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting April 25, 2000 before the Commission, were they not the owner of the lot and could sell the lot. Staff stated that was correct; it was up to them. 34. Commissioner Butler asked when would the exit [late be completed. Community Development Director 3erry Herman stated at was conditioned to be installed upon completion of Phase IV. For the Commission's information, another community in the City that has one §ate is Tradition and the rest are emergency only exits. 35. Commissioner Tyler asked if a left turn sion were installed on Calle Rondo, what authority does the City have to enforce it. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that if it is on private property, the Sheriff's Department cannot enforce it. 3t5. Chairman Kirk stated they would like to see a perfect solution, but --- it cannot be done in this settin§. 37. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Abels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000-018 recommending to the City Council denial of Tract 25389, Amendment//2. ROLL CALL: AYES' Commissioners Abels, Butler, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN- None. Chairman Kirk recessed the meeting at 8'20 p.m. and reconvened at 8:31 p.m. B. Tentative Tract Map 29702, Parcel Map 29724,' and Site Development Permit 29724; a request of KSL Casitas Corporation for approval to resubdivide 3.17 acres into 30 resort residential and miscellaneous lots, · subdivide one parcel and development of a 21 space parking lot plus eight additional spaces on Avenida Obregon, south of Avenida Fernando within the La Quinta Resort and Club grounds. 1. Chairman Kirk opened the continued Public Hearing and asked for the staff report. 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 staff to clarify how many units were approved for each side of the street as there appeared to be a C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC4-25-20.wpd 12 Planning Commission Meeting April 25, 2000 shortfall of 21 that will not be built. In addition, he asked where the handicapped parking would be. Staff stated they will have to comply with state requirements in regard to any handicapped parking. In regard to the unit count, there will be 613 on the west side and 30 on the east side for a total of 98 units. A total of 1 14 were approved, but the applicant has reduced the number of units to be constructed. Commissioner Tyler asked where the requirement for one parking space for each bedroom came from. Staff stated it was a requirement of the Specific Plan. Commissioner Tyler asked if any of the tennis courts would be removed. Staff stated no recreational amenities would be removed. 3. Commissioner Robbins asked if units were being taken out and how many. Staff stated approximately 17 Casitas units were proposed for removal. Commissioner Robbins stated it appeared they would be creating only 13 more units than what is there today. Staff stated that was correct; however, the difference is in the number of bedrooms being created. It is a difficult proposal because the uses are different. 4. Commissioner Butler asked if some of the Casitas units would be removed and if any of them were historic. Staff stated the units being removed were built in the mid 60's and are not historic. 5. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Chevis Hosea, representing KSL stated that in regard to some of the letters received in opposition, he wanted the Commission to know they were previously approved for 119 units and have reduced that number to 109. They have been acclaimed as one of the most notable resorts in the USA. Of the 68 homes built all have been sold and they have now opened sales in Phase IV and they are currently selling for over $400 a square foot. Out of the 68 units 60-65 of the units are participating in the rental program creating $300,000 to 400,000 in Transient Occupancy Tax for the City. The tract is before the Commission due to some minor changes in the unit design to enlarge the patios and other amenities requested by some of the homebuyers. In regard to the traffic, specifically construction traffic, they plan to do some of the work off-site as well as before the season begins to diminish. the impact. In consideration of the traffic, when the resort is full, C:\My Documents\WPDOCSLPC4-25-20.wpd 13 Planning Commission Meeting April 25, 2000 they are busing construction traffic to and from site from the off- site employee parking lot. In regard to the citrus trees, it is their intent to relocate the citrus trees behind the wall. 6. There being no questions of the applicant, Chairman Kirk asked if there was any other public comment. Mr. Steve Davis 77-500 Avenida Fernando, stated he had delivered a letter to the City for the Commission's consideration and asked that it be part of the record. His issues are that KSL does not own the bulk of Avenida Fernando. When he purchased his property his deed included 1 5 feet of the street from the curb. The only rights KSL has on this street are' through an easement granted by the previous property owner, Mr. Loeb. The easement is very specific in what it allows; ingress and egress for the homeowners only. It does allow construction for the purpose of building or repairing the road, but not for construction of KSL's units. Currently the easement is being overburdened and overused. All construction traffic is diverted down Avenida Fernando. Construction vehicles cannot get down Calle Mazatlan or Avenida Obregon. It is not his intent to get aggressive regarding this, but the City may be granting permission to construct this project which is in violation of this easement. The traffic analysis and EIR are predicated on an assumption. In addition, the diesel fuel used in their shuttle vehicles is not even considered in the EIR. It would be his recommendation that a full EIR be required. The traffic analysis also does not include the carts that travel down the street or the huge delivery trucks which cannot get into the delivery bays. These trucks close the entire street in order to turn around. He also suggested KSL wall off their delivery areas to alleviate this congestion. 7. There being no further public comment, Chairman Kirk closed the public participation portion of the hearing and opened it for Commission discussion. 8. Commissioner Tyler asked the City Attorney as to whether Mr. Davis' letter had any bearing on their decision. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that in regard to a private easement for Avenida Fernando which is a private street, the City does not get involved with matters that are to be resolved by the private parties. As to environmental concerns, these are appropriate to be addressed and if the Commission determines the need to address them~-then mitigation measures should be imposed. C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC4-25-20.wpd 14 Planning Commission Meeting April 25, 2000 9. Chairman Kirk asked why a complete EIR was not done. Staff stated because this is a revised project and did not create any 'additional concerns. There was an original EIR and then a Mitigated Negative Declaration was required with focused studies. Therefore, no additional environmental studies were needed. 10. Commissioner Tyler noted that as there are less units being built, therefore, the impact had already been lessened. In regard to the staff report, Condition //17, should be changed to "relocate". 11. Commissioner Robbins stated that as they are putting in less units, it is a compensation to be considered. He would hope KSL would move forward to resolve some of the issues raised by the residents regarding the' loading and unloading. 1 2. Commissioner Abels stated he had no issues with the project. 13. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/R°bbins to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000-019 recommending approval of Tract 29702, subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval as submitted. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN' None. 14. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners. Abels/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000-020 recommending approval of Parcel Map 29724, subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval as submitted. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 15. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Abels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000-021 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 97-607, Amendment //1, subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval as amended- a. Condition //17: Wording changed to "replace or relocate" - ROLi~-~ALL:-"A~Esi c0n~missi0ners AbeiS'i Buti~--R0bbins, Tyler, and - Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Planning Commission Meeting - April 25, 2000 C. Environmental Assessment 2000-395, Specific Plan 2000-043, Conditional Use Permit 2000-049; a request of Madison/P.T.M. La Quinta, L.L.C., for certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, approval of design guidelines and development standards for a 72,950 square foot commercial center, and approval for a service station on the northwest corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street. 1. Chairman Kirk opened the Public Hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Fred Baker 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 the Commission was also approving the sign program. Staff stated yes. Commissioner Tyler stated the Specific Plan on page 36 states it is conceptual and yet on page 39 it proposes a very detailed sign program. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated it is staff's intent to approve the program and each tenant would submit an application for its own specific sign. 3. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Mike Peroni, Dudek and Associates, representing the applicant made a presentation of the project. 4. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Tyler asked about the huge rock that would be excavated. Mr. Peroni stated the applicant has tried every way to negotiate with Caltrans to resolve the intersection and this is the solution. Commissioner Tyler asked if the rock painting technique was successful. Mr. Peroni stated that in other cities in the Valley it has been successful. 5. Commissioner Butler stated his concerns were the shopping center itself and its tenants and would bring them up later. 6. Commissioner Abels asked about the entrance on Highway 111 / into the center. Mr. Peroni stated it is due to the type of businesses going into the center. It tends to assist in distributing the traffic through out the center. C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC4-25-20.wpd 16 Planning Commission Meeting April 25, 2000 7. Chairman Kirk asked if the road bed could be raised any more. Mr. Peroni stated the elevation was raised four feet and swales down to grade and goes back up two feet. If it is made much higher it will be a hazard in its own right. They are still refining the grading plan to reduce the amount of cut. Chairman Kirk stated there appears to be two apexes of cut. Mr. Peroni explained the cuts. Chairman Kirk stated it appears the road could be brought in further rather than into the toe of the slope. Mr. Peroni stated that in the back there is a rubble condition where there is a lot of rubble and rock. The thought was to clean this area up and create more buildable space. 8. Commissioner Abels asked if this pr. oject was within the Hillside Ordinance requirements. Staff stated the property is not subject to the Hillside Ordinance. 9. Mr. John Vuksic, architect for the project, stated the style of the project is Spanish colonial and features many elements of that vernacular such as multi pane windows, exposed timbers, stone details and columns, cornice details, smooth plaster and clay tile roofing, etc. The basic colors are off white and adobe with accents of coral, and chocolate and various brownish hues, as shown on the color board. Landscaping will be incorporated into the architecture in the form of pots which provide opportunities for vining over trellis works and covered walkways. There are also opportunities for set in details which provide opportunities for uniqueness for the individual tenants and opportunities for artwork as well 10. Commissioner Tyler stated he likes what is presented but asked about the use of canvas awnings. They are a nice touch, but not conducive to the desert weather. Mr. Vuksic stated the canvas awnings provide a friendly dynamic to the buildings and softens the architecture. Some weathering when looking at Spanish architecture, adds to the look. 1 1. Mr. Rick Wilkerson, representing the owners Madison TPM LLC stated the owners comprises three people., Pete Thomas Mann, Michael Shovlin and himself. They are all full time residents of the Valley but this is their combined first development in the desert, but several around the Unites States. He is providing this information because they are serious developers who try to bring quality to their developments and hope this project will be a cornerstone of development in La Quinta. In regard to the architecture, these are options offered to the tenants. Planning Commission Meeting - April 25, 2000 1 2. Commissioner Tyler stated the Specific Plan talks about carports; are they intended to be used by the tenants or users. Mr. Wilkerson stated there is one parcel where there will be an office building and carports will be offered for those tenants. 13. Mr. Richard Tate, Tate and Associates, representing Tosco Corporation, a prospective tenant, the service station, stated they had a question regarding the process to make a determination on a public convenience or necessity for the sale of beer and/or wine. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated the City has no specific requirements, and it is processed through the Alcoholic and Beverage Control (ABC) agency. Mr. Tate states ABC requires that if it is an "over concentrated census district", they will require a finding of convenience or necessity for a Class 20 license. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated the CitY Council has authorized the City Manager to make such a determination. 14. There being no further public comment, Chairman Kirk closed the . public participation portion of the hearing and opened it for Commission discussion. 15. Commissioner Robbins stated there is a discrepancies in the Specific Plan and the conditions. The staff report on Figure #5 states the total parking required 388 and Table II of Specific Plan states 379. Staff clarified the total parking is 379. A condition has been placed on the Specific Plan to clean up these errors. Commissioner Robbins stated that overall it is a good plan. In regard to the area near the mountain there is a sidewalk and it does not lead to the Cliffhouse restaurant and it can be a dangerous situation. Staff stated this area is not a part of their property. Commissioner Robbins stated off-site improvements are required at all times and someone is going to walk from this shopping center to the restaurant and it is going to be a very dangerous situation. He would like to see a condition added requiring the sidewalk. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated it will require more of the rock to be removed because of the distance of the slope of the rock and potential rock falling on the pedestrians. Caltrans does not allow you to build in a parking shoulder and contains the sewer line. Commissioner Robbins stated he was also concerned about the landscaping. The front has been given careful consideration, but no consideration - has 'been given to what it lOoks like on the rear side and should be addressed. Figure 10 shows the entrances with a lot of green; is C:\My Documents\WPDOCSLPC4-25-20.wpd 18 Planning Commission Meeting April 25, 2000 this turf or what? ' Staff stated that along Highway 111 it will follow the Design Guidelines for Highway 111 which includes shrubbery, Palm Springs gold and turf. Commissioner Robbins asked if the carports would be constructed of steel. If so, he would like a condition that they will not be allowed. Another concern is with the proposed monument signs. They do not match the rest of the center. Also on page 43 of the Specific Plan it states a walkway will be provided from the bus shelter to the medical facilities and it is not mentioned anywhere else. Staff stated the medical office is a typo and not in reference to this project. It would be clarified. Mr. Peroni stated the reference to the medical offices should have been removed and the phrase should be Highway 111. They would have walkways from the bus shelter into the project site. It is on the southeast portion of the project site where the existing bus shelter is being proposed. 1 6. Commissioner Butler stated he agrees the project is going to be an asset, but he is not happy with fast food operations or the service station aspect. As an example, on the fast food restaurant located at the northeast corner of the project, the drive through wraps around the outdoor dining. He understands there needs to be restaurants, but the Highway 111 Corridor appears to have its fair share of fast food restaurants. Concern that it will become a sign problem and not the image he would like to have for the people coming into La Quinta. He supports restaurants in this location, but not fast food. 17. Chairman Kirk asked if all the' applications were being addressed at one time. Staff stated yes. 18. Commissioner Butler stated the service station with a car wash is not needed when there are two within a block. It is an over-kill for a revenue generation and more congestion in the parking lot. 19. Commissioner Tyler stated he agrees with what has been stated including the additional fast food drive-through. Also, there are discrepancies between the Specific Plan and staff report. The lighting heights are different; 24 or 21.5 feet. Mr. Peroni stated the maximum height in the Specific Plan is 24 feet. The lighting study was worked with standards that were 21.5 feet on two foot bases. Staff stated the poles are 21.5 on a 2 foot base for a total _ of-23.5 feet. c0-mmissioner TYler asked ab0tit if this deVelopment was a part of the Lake La Quinta master drainage plan as stated C :\My Documents\WPDOC S~PC4-25-20. wpd 19 Planning Commission Meeting _ April 25, 2000 on pa§e 21 of the staff report. Staff noted it should state La Ouinta Master drainage plan. Commissioner Tyler asked about page 28 staff is recommending only a 20 foot setback on Washington Street; is that what we allowed on the other side of the street? Community Development Jerry Herman stated yes, it is the standard. Commissioner Tyler asked if Condition #23 could be expanded to require the application of turf be required for pads that are not developed. Mr. Peroni stated they would like to use a soil binders, but would work with staff to resolve the issue. Commissioner Tyler asked about the lack of a bus facility on Washington Street adjacent to this project. He asked if there could be a bus turnout near Channel Drive on Washington Street. They have a huge expanse of shared parking, could there be a variation in the surface treatment to break it up. Finally, he too wonders what the intent of the monument sign proposed. Mr. Wilkerson stated they would be willing to revisit the monument sign. 20. Commissioner Abels asked about the sidewalk plan. Mr. Peroni stated it is on the site and circulation plan. Commissioner Abels stated he is impressed with the architecture and agrees there should be some control over the number of fast food restaurants. 21. Commissioner Tyler stated his concern over street names. There is a curved street that has a potential of two different names at each end. One is Channel Drive off Washington Street and the other is Plaza Drive off Highway 111. There needs to be some consistency for emergency vehicles and recommends it be .Channel Drive. Mr. Wilkerin stated they have not contemplated naming any streets at this time and agrees with having consistency. 22. Chairman Kirk stated he concurs with most of what has been stated. He concurs with the statements regarding the monument signs. Overall it has outstanding articulation and complements the development across the street. However, he is concerned about the uses, fast food restaurants and the Point Happy Rock demolition. If he reduced the buildable area of the lot they could probably reduced the cut and daylighting necessary on that piece of the rock. 23. Commissioner Butler stated he is concerned that all of his issues cannot be resolved. The sidewalk around to the Cliffhouse is an issue that possible cannot be resolved nor the redesigning of the site to take less of Point Happy. C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC4-25-20.wpd 20 Planning Commission Meeting April 25, 2000 24. Commissioner Abels stated he did not think the Commission could dictate what uses are allowed if they meet the City's requirements. He believes the Commission should approve the project as submitted. 25. Chairman Kirk asked if the Commission had discretion over uses. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell the City's zoning for Commercial has lists of accepted uses and some require Conditional Use Permits, but fast foods are not one. of them. So typically once you have an allowed use, the City does not look any further at the use in regard to zoning. Having said that, there is the argument that when you create a Specific Plan you are allowed to have some flexibility on your usual zoning requirements. However, we have not previously used a Specific Plan in a commercial context to limit the type of uses. 26. Commissioner Abels asked if the sign uses could be controlled. Staff stated yes. 27. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would address some of the issues raised such as: a. The monument sign, and b. The access to the Cliffhouse 28. 'Mr. Michael Shovlin, one of the owners, stated there is a recorded easement with Caltrans and they will have the final say. Commissioner Robbins stated if it can't be addressed, it can't be, but he believes it is going to create a safety hazard and if in fact we cannot put a sidewalk in, then maybe staff should look at something to make it more difficult for people to walk between the two. Staff stated that whatever is done is subject to Caltrans approval. Chairman Kirk stated the consensus is not to condition the project,, but if staff could explore some options. 29. Chairman Kirk continued on with the issues raised: c. The carwash issue is no longer a problem as it appears it will not be built; d. Clarification on the amount of turf to be use; e. Soil binders on the undeveloped properties; f. Break up of the design elements on the hardscape throughout the project. C:\My Documents\WPDOCSLPC4-25-20.wpd 21 Planning Commission Meeting April 25, 2000 30. Commissioner Robbins stated there seems to be a problem keeping the parking lot trees in the planters alive. Therefore we never see mature trees in parking lots and there ought to be a way to get mature trees. g. Landscaping; h. The proposed uses. 31. Commissioners discussed the issue of uses. Commissioner Robbins stated he believes it is a developer decision. Chairman Kirk asked if the drive-thru could be eliminated. Commissioner Robbins stated that would require more parking. Staff stated that if the use required more seating, then more parking would be. required. 32. Chairman Kirk stated that if they did not have the drive through, then 'they would not need as much developable area and could take a look at their circulation pattern and try to move the entry street from Highway 111 further east and reduce the cut on Point Happy. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated this is not a standard 90 degree cross intersection. They have pinched the angle 15 degrees to reduced the amount of cut. They have a 250 foot radius curve now and this is as tight as they can make the intersection. He has met with Caltrans once and the applicant has met with them twice. Chairman Kirk stated he was not concerned with the access, but with the area where the road meanders back to the north in the center. i. Articulation and landscaping included along the buildings elevations facing the Channel; j. The use of wood or steel for the carports; k. Bus shelters (TDM); I. Street names to be consistent with those existing; m. The monument sign design; n. Detailed signs plan specific to each tenant or building owner submitted and approved before issuance of sign permit; o. Bike path 33. Mr. Wilkinson, stated that in regard to the monument sign, they will revisit it. The landscaping around pads not used is fine. There are two serious issues. Community Commercial Zoning, which is the zoning on this site, allows for fast foods with drive through and there are deals already made that make this property viable. You can make fast food restaurants more attractive. The architecture styling of this project requires them to conform to C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC4-25-20.wpd 22 Planning Commission Meeting April 25, 2000 their architecture style. Once they found out they would be cuttinc3 the rock back to the extent Caltrans was requirinc3 them to, they then decided to clean up the back of the rock as it relates to . the curved portion. In this area there is a lot of scrub material and small outcroppin[ls and rise up of sand. Once they [lot the computer [lraphics, then they felt a more attractive look would be to create the cliff look with the retainin[l wall and the sli[lht elevations in the road and would be better Iookin§ than it is now. The second consideration, and no less important, is when you lay out this type of property, you have to start with one end or the other. They started with the service station user and pro[lressed on to the corner and a fast food user is one of the hic3hest pa¥in[l users. They are only askin[l to develop their property economically. As to the sidewalk to the Cliffhouse, in their opinion, it would be better to fence the area off and not allow anyone to walk around this area. In re[lard to the other issues they can resolve them. 34. Community DeVelopment Director 3erry Herman clarified the proposed buildin[ls will come back as site development permits for review and apl~roval by the Commission. 35. There bein[l no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to adopt Plannin§ Commission Resolution 2000-022 recommendinc3 certification of a. Miti§ated Ne[lative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 2000-043. ROLL GALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Bobbins, Tyler, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None.. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 36. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Bobbins to adopt Plannin[l Commission Resolution 2000-023 recommendin[l approval of Specific Plan 2000-043, subject to the Findin[ls and Conditions of Approval as submitted/amended: a.. Condition #23: "...The land shall be planted with interim landscapin[l or provided with other erosion wind control measures includin§ a soil stabilizer/binder approved by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. ........... b,. Condition_#3 I__,A.3.: .Bike_ Path. shall b_e consistentw.ith other ...... approvals in the recent past. The developer shall pay the prorata share of the Bike Path adjacent to the project site. c :~aMy Documents\WPDOCSLPC4-25-20.wpd 23 Planning Commission Meeting April 25, 2000 The prorata share shall not exceed $30 per lineal feet of eight feet wide PCC Bike Path. c. Condition #53: The Specific Plan text shall be modified as follows: "The detailed sign plans specific to each tenant and/or building owner must .be submitted and approved before issuance of a sign permit" d. Condition #54: A redesign of the Monument Sign to be compatible with Mediterranean architectural style shall be submitted to the Community Development Director for review and approval. e. Condition #55: Specific Plan text shall be amended to add a statement that articulation and landscaping shall be included along the building elevations facing the Whitewater Storm Channel. f. Condition #56: All carport structures shall be made of wood. g. Condition #57: Street names at existing entrances shall be consistent with existing street names. h. Condition #58: Staff shall work with the applicant to reduce the cut starting from 40 feet back. i. Condition #59: Revise the second bullet point on Page 43 of the Specific Plan under "VI. Operational Guidelines to read, 'The project shall provide a walkway from the bus shelter located on Highway 111 at the southeast corner of the project site to facilitate pedestrian access to the commercial uses within the project.'" ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: NOne. ABSTAIN: None. 37. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000-024 recommending approval of Conditional Use Permit 2000-049, subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval as amended: a. Condition #4: Deleted. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. C:hMy Documents\WPDOCS\PC4-25-20.wpd 24 Planning Commission Meeting April 25, 2000 VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: None. VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND wRITTEN MATERIAL: None. VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Discussion regarding the Planning Commission summer meeting schedule. 1. Community Development Director Jerry Herman asked the Commission to consider what meetings they would want to go dark during the summer. Following discussion, the Commission asked staff to bring the question back at the next meeting. B. Commissioner Tyler gave a report of the Council meeting of April 18, 2000. C. Chairman Kirk asked why centers could not be called by their proper name instead of the common name. Why have a monument sign? ..- IX. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved, and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Robbins to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held May 9, 2000, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 10:40 P.M. on April 25, 2000. Respectfully submitted, [ BETTY J%~AWYER, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California C:\My Documents\WPDOCS~PC4-25-20.wpd 25