Loading...
2002 01 08 PC Minutes MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA January 8, 2002 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 Abels who lead the flag salute. B. Present' Commissioners Richard Butler, Tom Kirk, Steve Robbins, Robert Tyler, and Chairman Jacques Abels. C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez, Planning Manager Christine di Iorio, Senior Engineer Steve Speer, Planning Consultant Nicole Criste, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. . II. PUBLIC COMMENT: III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA' A. It was moved and seconded by CommiSsioners Tyler/Butler to reorganize the Agenda as follows: Public Hearing Items A, F, G, I, B, C, D, E, and H. IV. CONSENT ITEMS: B. Chairman Abels asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of December 11, 2001. CommisSioner Tyler asked that Page 12 be amended to show that he voted No and Commissioner Robbins voted Yes. There being no further corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Tyler to approVe the minutes as corrected. Unanimously approved. C. Department Report: None V. PRESENTATIONS: None. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC 1-8-O2.wpd Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2002 VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Environmental Assessment 99-387, General Plan Amendment 99-063, Zone Change 99-091, Specific Plan 99-039, and Site Development Permit 99-659; a request of Point'Happy Ranch, LLC 1 .) Certification of an Environmental Impact Report as described below for the project; 2.) change of General Plan land use designation from Medium Density Residential to Office Commercial for five acres of the 43 + acre site and from Low Density Residential) to Medium Density Residential for 11.55 acres for the 62 villas; 3.) Zone 'Change designation from Medium Density to Office Commercial for five acres of the 43 + acre site and from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential; 4.) Specific Plan for design guidelines and development standards for senior care residential project and two commercial buildings on the 43 + acre site; 5.) review of architectural and landscaping plans for senior care units consisting of 62 one story high independent living villa units in duplex to 4-plex configurations with a two story club building, and 310 rooms for assisted living, independent living and continuing care in two 2 to 3 -- story high buildings, a one story high maintenance building, two commercial office buildings (two stories high) with a total of 44,000 square feet of floor area and a 9,500 square foot one story high project administration building, for the property located on the west side of Washington Street (Point Happy Ranch) . 1. No action was required and none was taken. F. Code Compliance Case 3859; a request of Christopher Kiernan for an appeal of a Public Nuisance Notice regarding a halogen light on the south side of the property line, on the hill in front of a residential structure for the property located at 46-201 Washington Street (Point Happy Ranch). 1. No action was required and none was taken. G. Environmental Assessment 2001-431, Addendum to Environmental Impact Report No. 232, General Plan Amendment 2001-080, Zone Change 2001-103; a request of T. D. Development for 1) Certification of an Addendum to Riverside County Environmental Assessment No. 232; 2) Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental -- Impact for the area bounded by Avenue 58, Monroe Street, Avenue 60 and Madison Street, outside of Riverside County Specific Plan No. 218, Amendment #1; 3) Change the land use designation from: A. Medium Residential, Medium High Residential, and Golf Course, Community G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC 1-8-02.wpd 2 Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2002 Facilities and Commercial as shown in Riverside County Specific Plan No. 218, Amendment #1 to Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Major Community Facilities, Neighborhood and Community Commercial; B) From Agriculture to Low Density Residential for the area bounded by Avenue 58, Monroe Street, Avenue 60 and Madison Street, outside of Riverside County Specific Plan No. 218, Amendment #1; 4) Change the zoning from: A) Riverside County designation Specific Plan as shown in Riverside County Specific Plan No. 218, Amendment//1 to Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Golf Course, Major Community Facilities, Neighborhood and Community Commercial; B. From Agriculture to Low Density Residential and Golf Course Bounded by Avenue 58, Monroe Street, Avenue 60 and Madison Street, outside of Riverside County Specific Plan No. 218, Amendment #1, for the property bounded by Avenue 58, Monroe Street, Avenue 60, and Madison Street. Also, a portion of the area east of Monroe Street between Avenue 69 and Avenue 61. 1. Chairman Abels asked for a motion to continue to January 22, -- 2002. 2. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Tyler to continue the applications to January 22, 2002. Unanimously approved. !. Environmental Assessment 2001-436. General Plan Amendment 2001- 083, and Zone Change 2001-105 and Specific Plan 2001-055 - "The Gateway"; a request of the City of La Quinta Redevelopment Agency for review of a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change from High Density Residential to Medium Density Residential and Tourist Commercial and review of development standards and design guidelines for Tourist Commercial uses including hotels, and retail-related uses, and residential development including townhouses and single family residences for the property located at the southeast corner of Miles Avenue and Washington Street. 1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. -- 2. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Robbins to continue this application to January 22, 2002. Unanimously approved. B. Continued - Environmental Assessment 2001-415 Tentative Tract Map G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC 1-8-02.wpd ~ Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2002 29963 and Street Name Change 2001-013; a request of Dr. & Mrs. Bruce Baumann for certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; subdivision of approximately 9.1 acres into four single family and one street lot for the property located at the terminus of Kirk Court, north of Avenue 48. 1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio presented the information contained in the staff:report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler asked which school district the land was within. Staff stated it was within the CVUSD. Commissioner Tyler asked the significance of the 50-foot easement lines shown around each lot. Commissioner Robbins clarified they were building setback lines. ~ -- 3. Commissioner Robbins asked that the map be amended to remove the irrigation line hooking up to a sewer line. 4. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the 'Commission. Mr. David Turner, Coachella Valley Engineers representing the applicant asked for clarification on Conditions #8 and #21. Kirk Court is current a public street and they intend to leave the right-of-way as it is; just the extension where it will be gated will be private. In regard to Condition #21, Security Agreements, they are building a full 28 feet on Kirk Court and will have no property adjoining Avenue 58 and they request this condition be removed. Same with Condition #22 which requires them to build full width improvements for Kirk Court and they would like it to read, "construct 28 foot width of pavement." Mr. Turner stated that in the future it will be 36 feet, they are proposing 28 feet to be built now to allow two way .traffic and the rest of the improvements would be developed when the adjacent property owners develop their land. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated if this entire 20 acres were being developed they would all have to participate in -- the full cost of the improvements. Since only half is participating, the City is asking them to bond for their half now, so the funding is available when the street is built. With respect to Kirk Court, G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC 1-8-02.wpd 4 Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2002 staff is asking for two lanes of travel, or 28 feet, and the balance of the improvements will be added when the remainder parcels are developed. In regard to Condition //22 staff is asking them to either fully construct or satisfy its obligation. Staff is not asking for full street improvements, but that the condition is fully satisfied. 5. Commissioner Butler asked if it was customary to ask the applicant to bond for 50% of the improvements on a street that is adjacent to. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated yes, they have a burden for 50% of the cost. The City needs security and there are different ways of accomplishing this other than bonding, such as a lien. Mr. Turner stated they volunteered to develop the 28 feet coming into the site because they are developing 75% of the street improvements for Kirk Court. This will leave eight feet of pavement, curb and gutter to be installed. They thought the adjacent five-acre property owners on Avenue 58 should bond or develop the remainder of the street improvements. They are building 28 feet of the ultimate 36 feet for Kirk Court. This is more than their 50% share. They are building more of Kirk Court which should be a trade off. If this was allowed they would also ask that Condition//42.A. be deleted. 6. Commissioner Robbins stated he disagreed with Mr. Turner in regard to the amount of the costs as they were not doing all the curb and gutter to the next developer. Mr. Turner stated they will grade it and all they will have to do is the curb and gutter. 7. Commissioner Tyler asked what portion of the 20 acre parcel was owned by Dr. Baumann. Mr. Turner stated only the rear ten acres. Commissioner Tyler asked about the right-of-way on Kirk Court and whether or not it was a private street. Mr. Turner stated Kirk Court is a public street and indicated on the map where they were intending to construct a gate creating a private street to serve the four parcels. 8. There being no further public comment, the public participation portion of the hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 9. Commissioner Robbins stated he has no problem changing the condition to allow them only to construct the 28 feet, but agrees with staff in regard to the bonding. (~:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC 1-8-02.wpd .5 Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2002 10. Commissioners Kirk, Butler, and Tyler agreed. 11. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-001, recommending Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 2001-415, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 12. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Robbins to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-002, recommending approval of Tentative Tract Map 29963, as submitted. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 13. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Robbins/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-003 recommending to the City Council that a public hearing be held to consider Street Name Change 2001-013. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. C. Continued - Environmental Assessment 2001-417 and Tentative Tract Map 30092; a request of Barton Properties for certification of an Environmental Assessment and subdivision of approximately 38.4 acres into 130 single family and other common lots located at the northwest corner of Avenue 58 and Monroe Street. 1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Planning Consultant Nicole Criste presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler asked if this was within the City's Sphere of Influence. Community DeveloPment Director Jerry Herman G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC 1-8-02.wpd {~ Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2002 clarified it was annexed into the City November 30., 2001. Commissioner Tyler asked about the temporary designation for the CVWD lift station. Commissioner Robbins clarified till someone builds a sewer it will be used. Commissioner Tyler asked about Condition #2 regarding the expiration date. Staff stated it is two years from the date of the City Council approval and the condition could be removed. Commissioner Tyler asked about Condition 50 regarding the City's new standard in regard to the Kvs for power poles. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated it is only the power lines that are attached to the 92 Kv power poles that are exempt, and therefore, it would be changed to 92 Kv. Commissioner Tyler asked about the multi-use trail as it did not appear to go anywhere. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated the City has envisioned a trail system that goes east and west to create a trail system leading to Lake Cahuilla which has a trail head. Commissioner Tyler questioned Condition #62 as to whether or not is was needed as it does not appear to allow sufficient stacking. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated that since these are private streets staff anticipates that a future HOA will want to gate the entrance and staff wants to ensure the street entrance is sufficiently designed to accommodate a gate. Since the map and language have been redesigned, staff would suggest the condition be deleted. Commissioner Tyler questioned Condition #89 as to whether or not it would apply to the emergency access on Monroe Street. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated as the condition is currently written there would be a pedestrian access at the emergency access. 3. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. David Hacker, Hacker Engineering representing the applicant, stated he concurred with the conditions with the exception of Condition #52.D, regarding the multi-use trail. It would be a maintenance item for the HOA. They would prefer to dedicate to the City so that when the dedication of the additional right-of-way from adjacent property owners was obtained, this could then be constructed. At this time they would prefer to landscape the area. 4. Commissioner Butler asked if they were willing to bond for it. Mr. Hacker asked what type of trail it would be. Commissioner Butler stated mostly equestrian. Mr. Hacker stated they accepted the condition as written. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC 1-8-02.wpd Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2002 5. Commissioner Robbins asked about the purpose of having a dry well on each lot, as most of them will never be maintained and why isn't the retention basin sized to handle the run off. Mr. Hacker stated the retention basin is large enough to handle the run off, this is a backup solution only. 6. Commissioner Kirk stated it appears to be the drainage plan of first resort by the way the lots are laid out. Mr. Hacker stated the dry well is an option and will only be installed if they d° not meet the drainage requirements. 7. Commissioner Robbins asked staff if this was allowed. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated the 100 year storm needs to be retained in the retention basin. The City does allow them to retain their nuisance water in privately gated communities in alternate methods. If they are for nuisance water it is up to the applicant. If storm water, the retention basin needs to retain it. Mr. Hacker stated he concurred; 8. There being no further discussion, the public participation of the hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 9. Commissioner Tyler stated 'his only concern was that it is just another straight line development. 10. Commissioner Butler asked if the stacking on Avenue 58 was enough. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated two car stacking is 50 feet and will be enough and went on to explain the traffic flow. 11. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-004, recommending certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 2001-417, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 12. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Robbins to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-005, recommending approval of Tentative Tract Map 30092, Amendment //1, as amended. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC 1-8-02.wpd ~ Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2002 A. Delete Condition //62. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. D. Specific Plan 98-034, Amendment//1; a request of Warner Engineering for Lundin Development Company for an amendment to the text development standards and design guidelines and an amendment to the site plan design adjacent to Avenue 50 for a 100,500 square foot shopping center located at the northwest corner of Jefferson Street and Avenue 50. 1. Chairman Abels opened the 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 Abels asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler asked if the Commission had the authority to waive the requirement for the berming. Staff stated it is a Zoning Ordinance requirement but, under a Specific Plan the development standard can be modified. Commissioner Tyler asked if the right- out at the emergency gate on the westerly driveway not being included in the Specific Plan was an oversight or a reluctance of the applicant? Staff stated they did not know, but they are conditioned to install it. 3. Commissioner Butler asked about any alternatives to the berming. Staff stated the applicant's alternative is landscaping to provide the screening along with a wall next to the fast foot restaurants. Commissioner Butler asked if the berming was a safety factor for traffic on Jefferson Street or aesthetics. Staff stated it was aesthetics. 4. Commissioner Kirk asked for background on the use of setbacks for retention. Staff explained the reasons and gave examples. Commissioner Kirk asked if staff had a recommendation on the number of accesses that should be allowed on Avenue 50, beyond the emergency access. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated staff has been scaling the distances between the driveways and it came to 109 feet which is rather short. As a result, staff 'added Condition //38.E. eliminating the one access on the west end of the site on Avenue 50. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC l-8-02.wpd 9 Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2002 5. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Mike Smith, Warner Engineering representing the applicant, asked that Condition #48 be amended to delete the first two words and add "...shall be landscaped." Mr. Ray Lopez, Landscape Architect for the project, gave a presentation on the landscaping. 6. Commissioner Kirk asked if the applicant had been having any problems with the Palo Verde trees being pruned incorrectly because storefronts were being obscured by the landscaping in other centers. Mr. Lopez stated he had not seen any disappear but the problems have been with maintenance people not knowing how to prune the trees. It becomes a code enforcement issue. 7. Commissioner Tyler stated the trees can be butchered to the point of nonexistence. Mr. Lopez stated, this is a problem. Commissioner Tyler stated there was a statement in the Specific Plan that the trees would reach maturity within 20-30 years and the plans show within five to six year. Mr. Lopez stated when mature, the Acacia species will be 25-feet and depending upon maintenance, fertilization, and watering they can reach that height in ten years. 8. Commissioner Robbins stated the retention basin at the southeast corner near Jefferson the retention basin comes right up to the base of the sidewalk, then the sidewalk, and then out toward Jefferson Street there is a wide band of grass, is there any reason the sidewalk needs to be so close to the slope. It seems it could be moved closer to the street. Mr. Lopez stated that would not be a problem. In that area, there is a slight berm. It could be meandered and berm Commissioner Robbins asked staff if that would resolve the issue. Staff stated they would need to see the plans first. Mr. Lopez stated they could get 1-4 feet in height in that section along Jefferson Street and meander the walkway. 9. Mr. Herb Lundin, owner of the project, stated that in regard to the fifth driveway it is to serve the customers for the end shops and staff determined the driveways to be safe. With regard to the distance it is a safe distance, there is stacking and will be a lightly used driveway, and will be a right turn-in and out. It is also consistent with the General Plan. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC 1-8-02.wpd ~ 0 Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2002 10. Commissioner Butler asked the location for the gas station and whether or not additional accesses would be needed. Mr. Smith stated it would be located on Pad E and they were not requesting any additional accesses to service the gas station. 11. Chairman Abels asked if there was any other public comment. There being no further public comment, the public participation portion of the hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 1 2. Commissioner Robbins stated he has no objection to the retention basin in the setback area. He would suggest the sidewalk on Jefferson Street be moved, meandered and as much berming as possible. He does not have any real concerns in regard to the driveway. 1 3. Commissioner Kirk stated he has no issue with the berming in the setback area, but has a concern with the process and fairness. If it is a City Code to have consistency in regard to Major Arterials in regard to aesthetics, then the Zoning Code should be changed to reflect this. He has a strong objection to using a specific plan to get rid portions of the Zoning Code that are problematic. This is a good project using the specific plan process to alleviate itself of an annoying requirement in the Zoning Code and for that portion he is not supportive of the request. In regard to accesses, he believes they should limit the number, and only allow two accesses on Avenue 50 with an emergency access. 14. Commissioner Butler stated he concurs with most of his statements, but also believes the applicant has addressed the issues raised by the Commission. He does not have any concern regarding the number accesses and would support their request for the third access, especially since the gas station would not be requesting any accesses. 15. Commissioner Tyler stated he agrees with most of the issues as they have been addressed. As to the third driveway, if it is eliminated it will increase traffic on the other accesses causing a greater circulation problem. 1 6. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Robbins to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-006 approving Specific Plan 98-034 Amendment //1, as amended. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC 1-8-02.wpd ] ! Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2002 A. Condition //38.E.: Secondary Entry into Parcel 2 Parking area (Avenue 50, 810-foot W. of C/L Intersection with Jefferson Street): Right turn in, Right turn out. B. Condition //48: Storm water will be permitted to be retained in the landscape setback areas. The meandering public sidewalk adjacent to Pad "C" shall be moved closer to the street in order to allow up to three feet of berming, east of the adjacent retention basin. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: Commissioner Kirk. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Chairman Abels recessed the meeting at 8:29 p.m. and reconvened at 8:35 p.m. E. Environmental Assessment 2001-437, General Plan Amendment 2001- 081, Zone Change 2001-104, Specific Plan 90-01 6 Amendment//1 and Tentative Tract Map 30357; a request of the Toll Brothers, Inc. for approval of an Environmental Assessment; a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to change 14 acres at the northeastern corner of Jefferson Street and Avenue 52 from Low Density Residential to Neighborhood Commercial; a Specific Plan Amendment modifying standards and guidelines for the construction of 490 single family residence, 60 fractional ownership units, an 18 hole golf course and a 14 acre neighborhood shopping center; and a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide portions of the project area into 178 residential lots, lots for future residential subdivision, casitas development, golf course, maintenance and clubhouse facility lots, and other lettered lots for streets and other facilities. 1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Planning Consultant Nicole Criste, presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler asked if additional buffering should be considered between this project and the equestrian uses on the northern portion of this project. G :\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC 1-8-02.wpd ! :~ Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2002 3. Commissioner Kirk asked at what point was this area to be zoned Neighborhood Commercial. Staff stated that when the land use analysis was made for the General Plan, it was designated at that time. Commissioner Kirk asked why the golf course was not being required to use canal water. Staff stated it was cOnditioned to use canal water. The Specific Plan had not been edited to meet the conditions. Commissioner Kirk asked if living fences were being allowed in specific plans. Staff stated yes. 4. Commissioner Robbins stated the canal should be referenced as the Coachella Valley Canal in the Specific Plan. 5. Commissioner Tyler questioned the number of accesses in the Specific Plan in proximity to the round-about at Avenue 52 and Jefferson Street. Staff noted they were right in, right out accesses only. Commissioner Tyler pointed out some inconsistencies in the Specific Plan. 6. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Forrest Haag, representing Toll Bros., gave a presentation on the project. He stated his concern regarding Condition //8, and asked that it be amended to add, "with the exception of flag logs, irregular cul-de-sac lots, and lots fronting on curve streets." Condition //13, they agree with staff's recommendation and ask that it be amended to add, "the improvements to those areas shall be adjacent to residential or commercial development as they take place." On Condition//19, they would like to request clarification on the lateral location. Condition //20 add," .... use as a primary source .... ". Condition //26, delete any reference to the tunnel. Condition //44.E., they are requesting to use a "100 scale plan" and last paragraph changed to read, "to allow perimeter walls not to be required on rough grading plan mandatorily." Condition //57, rather than keeping the pads within one foot, leave them where they are in natural grade and create slope banks on their property to deal with the impacts as well as the perimeter walls. Condition//71, they are requesting to use 20 scale plans. 7. Commissioner Robbins asked if the applicant would object to having a condition that the golf course conform to City's Landscape Ordinance as far as water usage. Mr. Haag stated yes; it would be the first in the Valley. This is a flat-land golf course which makes it more difficult. Discussion followed regarding different golf courses. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC 1-8-02.wpd ] 3 Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2002 8. Chairman Abels asked if there was any other public comment. Mr. Robert Cunnard, 80-225 Avenue 50, stated he was the landowner adjacent to the project on the west side. His concern was the existing 20-foOt easement that runs the length of his property; what happens to this easement? Which side will the wall be on? Also, what will happen to the water standpipe that services his property? Will Avenue 50 be widened only in front of this site or will the entire length be widened? How will the dust be controlled during the grading? Mr. Forest Haag stated the easement is owned by Toll Bros and will probably go away. Mr. Cunnard stated it also serves the back part of his property. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated the easement was part of the Kanlian property and is now part of the Toll Bros property and will go away with the development of the site. 9. Mr. 'Wells Marvin, 79-258 Cetrino, owns lot two at the Polo Estates, stated his concern was with the height of the houses to be constructed as it is not clear in the Specific Plan. He would like a limit of 20 feet. The Polo Estates houses cannot build above 18- feet. Also, the height of-living fence. If it is placed at the level of the top of the canal it will block their view. If that fence is put at the bottom of the slope it will have no additional impact. He is also concerned about the vacant pads and suggested they be sodded and kept green or landscaped in some way to control the dust. Another concern is that there will be no maintenance facility built within a reasonable period of time. The street improvements need to be done on a time frame that is within 1-3 years of construction. Finally, there should be at least a golf cart entrance to the Neighborhood Commercial site. 10. Mr. Jack Kalvin, La Quinta Polo Estates, asked for a definition of a living fence. He would like to note he is opposed to a living fence and if it should be built, it 'should be below the canal height to not obscure their view. There needs to be a control on any berming heights. Is it possible for the Homeowners' Association to receive more defined plans. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated the plans are always available at City Hall for review. Mr. Kalvin asked if the houses would be constructed at the height of the canal height. Staff stated there are no house plans to review at this time. Another public hearing would be held when the tract is mapped and building elevations were available. G :\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC 1-8-O2.wpd ! 4 Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2002 11. Mr. Dan Hammonds, 50-325 Vista Montana, La Quinta Polo Estates, stated he was concerned with the house heights adjacent to his property. 1 2. Mr. Jay Baden, 47-415 Via Cordova, stated he purchased property at Avenue 52 and Jefferson Street and is glad to have the golf course, but believes there is enough commercial at this location without allowing the rezoning of this site. 1 3. Mr. Wells Marvin stated the grading is before the Commission at this time. There is an existing grade now and if they are allowed to raise that grade it can obstruct their view. It should not be allowed to go higher than one foot. 1 4. Mr. Chris Bergh, MDS Consulting, engineers for the project, stated that where they are adjacent to La Quinta Polo Estates they are within one foot of the existing pad elevation for the adjacent lots. The grades for future development are shown on the tentative map. If they are to maintain retention requirements they will need more than one foot. The existing ground along their entire eastern border varies by only one foot. To get proper drainage on streets you cannot stay within one foot for the entire easterly boundary. They are staying within a couple feet and that is what they are proposing. In regard to the irrigation lateral, this line will be relocated and will continue to supply the irrigation water to the existing lots as it does now. 1 5. Commissioner Kirk asked that the grade elevations on the eastern boundary be explained. Mr. Bergh stated the pads are about 26- feet. Discussion followed regarding elevations and heights of the houses. Mr. Haag stated the building heights are limited to 28- feet. 16. Commissioner Kirk asked about a maintenance facility. Mr. Haag noted it is located on Lot 90. It will be built in conjunction with the golf course development. 17. There being no further public comment, the public participation portion of the public hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. G :\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC 1-8-02.wpd ! 5 Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2002 18. Commissioner Tyler stated he too was not in favor of a living fence and suggested there be an eight foot wall height on the northern property line for a buffer from the equestrian uses. Once the site is graded, there should be some sort of permanent dust control provided. 19. Commissioner Kirk stated that in regard to the grade differential, he would suggest the eastern boundary be conditioned to keep the grade within two feet of the native grade. With respect to the living fence, he asked if it is a fence with a vine, or a hedge. Mr. Haag stated it would be a six foot chain length fence with a plant that would grow on it. The proposed fence would be at the bottom of the grade. Commissioner Kirk stated he had concerns about sodding the lots due to the water usage, but there should be a soil stabilizer. Also, what is staff's recommendation in regard to timing the development. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated it will be bonded for all the off-site improvements with the first phase of the map. The City does not release the bonds until the first phase map is completed. The City does allow that to be extended for a period of time if needed. 20. Commissioner Robbins stated he agreed that there needs to be dust control measures and the project is conditioned to do so. The berm is another issue. In some places where there will be a wall it will be six feet higher than the top of the existing road and it is unavoidable. In regard to the water, he believes there is a way to have a grass golf course that can meet the Landscape Ordinance. Discussion followed regarding the Landscape Ordinance in relation to a golf course. 21. Commissioner Tyler asked if the Commission should not consider lowering the height of the houses from 28-feet. Consultant Planner Nicole Criste suggested the houses along the eastern boundary be limited to 18 feet. 22. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-007 recommending adoption of Environmental Assessment 2001-437. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC 1-8-02.wpd ] (~ Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2002 23. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Robbins/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-008 recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 2001-081, as submitted. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 24. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-009 recommending approval of Zone Change 2001-104, as submitted. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 25. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Robbins/Kirk to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-009 recommending approval of Specific Plan 90-01 6, Amendment #1, as amended. A. Condition #4: "All references to the landscape buffer at the northern boundary of the commercial shopping center site shall be changed to 50 feet if adjacent to residential." B. Condition #8: add, "...except flag lots, irregular cul-de-sacs, and curvilinear streets." C. Condition #12: "Item C., page 3.15 shall be amended to reflect 6 foot walls in all residential areas, and 8 foot walls for commercial areas and for the property line adjacent to the lots on Avenue 50." D. Condition #13: "The landscaping plan shall include all frontages on City streets, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission prior to completion of precise grading plan on any portion of the site, and shall include phasing plan for installation of perimeter landscaping." E. Condition #14: "The landscaping plan shall include all frontages on City streets, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission prior to completion of - precise grading plan on any portion of the site, and shall' include phasing plan for installation of perimeter landscaping." F. Condition #1 6: "The Specific Plan Site Plan shall include a pedestrian, golf cart, and bicycle access between the G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC 1-8-02.wpd ] ? Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2002 residential/golf portion of the site, and the neighborhood commercial portion of the site." G. Condition//18: "The golf course landscaping shall conform to the City's water conserving landscape ordinance. Prior to City Council hearing, the applicant shall prepare the calculations to determine whether the golf course design conforms to the City's water conserving landscaping ordinance. Should the calculations show that the golf course cannot conform to this standard, the City Council shall consider eliminating this condition." H. Condition //24: Water from the Coachella Canal shall be used as the primary source for irrigation of golf course and greenbelts within the project area. I. Condition//27: Change to CVUSD J. Condition //30: "The applicant shall block off the existing golf cart tunnel crossing under Jefferson Street in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer." K. Condition//48.E.: "100 scale". L. Condition//62: "The applicant shall minimize the differences in elevation between the adjoining properties and the lots within this development. The overall site grading adjacent to the Canal shall not exceed two feet from natural grading, and shall not exceed more than one foot over the entire length of the site." M. Condition #74.A.(c): Traffic signal at the projects main entry on Avenue 50 when warrants are met. Applicant is responsible for 50 % of the cost to design and install the traffic signal if complementing cost share from development on other side of street is available at time signal is required. Applicant shall enter into a SlA to post security for 50 % of the cost to design and install the traffic signal prior to issuance of an on-site grading permit; the security shall remain in full force and effect until the signal is actually installed by the applicant or the developer on the other side of the street. If the land on the other side of the street does not have an approved project connecting to the subject intersection, the applicant shall pay 100% of the cost to design and install the signalization for the resulting "T" intersection. If, however, the applicant's development trails the progress of the development on the other side of the street, the applicant shall be responsible for 50% of the cost as previously stated. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC 1-8-02.wpd ! 8 Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2002 ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 26. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Robbins to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-010 recommending approval of Tentative Tract Map 30357, as amended. A. Condition//3: Change to CVUSD B.' Condition//6: Change to read, "The applicant shall block off the existing golf cart tunnel crossing under Jefferson Street in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer." C. Condition//24.E.: Change to 100 feet. D. Condition//38: "The applicant shall minimize the differences in elevation between the adjoining properties and the lots within this development. The overall site grading adjacent to the Canal shall not exceed two feet from natural grading, and shall not exceed more than one foot over the entire -- length of the site." E. Condition //50.A.(c): Traffic signal at the projects main entry on Avenue 50 when warrants are met. Applicant is responsible for 50 % of the cost to design and install the traffic signal if complementing cost share from development on other side of street is available at time signal is required. Applicant shall enter into a SlA to post security for 50 % of the cost to design and install the traffic signal prior to issuance of an on-site grading permit; the security shall remain in full force and effect until the signal is actually installed by the applicant or the developer on the other side of the street. If the land on the other side of the street does not have an approved project connecting to the subject intersection, the applicant shall pay 100% of the cost to design and install the signalization for the resulting "T" intersection. If, however, the applicant's development trails the progress of the development on the other side of the street, the applicant shall be responsible for 50% of the cost as previously stated. --- F. Add Condition //90: "Any residential lot occurring within 300-feet of existing equestrian or agricultural land uses at the time of subdivision of that lot, shall be deed restricted to require notification by the seller to the purchaser of the lot that the lot is located within 300-feet of an existing equestrian or agricultural land use." G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC 1-8-02.wpd ! 9 Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2002 G. Add Condition #91: "The landscaping plan shall include all frontages on City streets, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission prior to completion of precise grading plan on any portion of the site, and shall include phasing plan for installation of perimeter landscaping." ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. H. Site Development Permit 2001-722; a request of Wayne Price, Price's Nursery and Supply, Inc. for review of development plans for a 3,600 square foot equipment storage building and convert a mobile home residence into an office for the property located at 80-420 Avenue 52. 1. 'Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff --- report. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Robbins asked about the Fire Department conditions to provide fire flow that are being required and there is no domestic water to the site. How is the applicant going to comply with these conditions. 3. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Chuck McBride, architect for the project, stated the water line proposed for Avenue 52 is on hold. The Fire Marshal was asked how they could achieve this if there was no water line on Avenue 52 as it would be cost prohibitive for the applicant to supply it. The alternate was suggested that a temporary supply could be taken from the canal, set up a pump and when the water was available on Avenue 52 they would then connect. This they could meet under a temporary condition. 4. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the public hearing and opened the meeting to Commission discussion. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC 1-8-02.wpd ~-0 ---- Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2002 5. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-012 approving Site Development Permit 2002-01 2, as corrected. A. Conditions//10,//12,//13 and//22: Delete B. Condition //14.A. Delete everything after "...ADA requirements". C. Condition //24.A · Revise to read, "Primary Entry (Avenue 52' Left and Right turn in, Right turn out." D. Condition //24.B.' Revise to read, "Secondary Entry (Avenue 52 at Wst P/L)' Right turn in, Right turn out." E. Condition//36 &//37 combined and add, "...or other means acceptable to the Fire Department pursuant to any approvals necessary from CVWD." F. Condition//38' Delete. G. Conditions //39, //42 &//43' Deleted. VII. BUSINESS ITEMS: None. VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: · H. Commissioner Tyler gave a report on the City COuncil meeting of January 3, 2002. X. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Robbins to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held January 8, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 10:53 p.m. on January 8, 2002. ._.~tfully submitted, ' I. ~~~,E~;~i~otir n~iasecretary G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC 1-8-02.wpd ~ !