2005 01 11 PC Minutes
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78~495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
January 11, 2005
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 Daniels to lead the flag
salute.
B. Present: Commissioners Ed Alderson, Rick Daniels, Kay Ladner, Paul Quill
and Chairman Tom Kirk.
C. Staff present: Community Development Director Doug Evans, Assistant
City Attorney Michael Houston, Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer,
Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit, Consultant Planner Nicole Criste, and
Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer.
II. . PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed.
IV. CONSENT ITEMS:
A. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of the
regular meeting of December 28, 2004. There being no corrections, it
was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Ladner to approve
the minutes as submitted.
B. Department Report:
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Addendum and Tentative Tract Map 31249, Amendment #1; a request of
Madison/58th Partners, L~L.C. for consideration ota recommendation to
certify an Addendum to the Environmental Assessment and an
Amendment to the Tentative Tract Map to allow the reduction of certain
interior private street widths forthe property located on the south side of
Avenue 58, ± 1/2 mile west of Madison Street.
1 . Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit presented the
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\1-"-05.doc
Planning Commission Minutes
January 11, 2005
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 Alderson asked about the structures at the
northwest corner of the project. Staff stated it is a preexisting
structure, not proposed.
3. Commissioner Daniels asked about the changes to the conditions.
Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated the changes are 'based
on the changes the applicant has requested and staff is in
agreement.
4. Commissioner Quill asked why the language on the retention basin
was removed for Condition #38. Staff stated the wording should
be "the proposed retention basin". Commissioner Quill asked why
Çondition #35 was being deleted. Staff stated the applicant has
requested and staff has no objection. Commissioner Quill asked
why the reference to split rail fence was deleted. Staff stated
because it was not needed if the sidewalk was removed.
5. Chairman Kirk asked the purpose of the Addendum to the
Environmental Assessment; did anything change. Staff stated the
only impacts that were identified were minor as the only change is
the street width. Chairman Kirk asked for an example. Assistant
City Attorney Michael Houston stated that when a subsequent
discretionary approval is processed, the City will look to determine
whether or not the change constitutes a substantial revision to the
environmental document. When the answer is no, it is appropriate
for the City to adopt an Addendum. Chairman Kirk asked why the
prior Environmental Assessment. Assistant City Attorney Michael
Houston for purpose of the statue of limitation and litigation
challenges it is appropriate to do an Addendum. Chairman Kirk
asked why reducing the width by eight feet you cannot have any
parking. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer explained that with
36 feet road widths you can have parking on both sides of the
street. With 32 feet you can park on one side. Chairman Kirk
asked if there was· a provision that does not allow us to park on
the wedge portion of the curb. Staff stated they could physically
park on the wedge. Staff's purpose is to maintain two-way
traffic.
6. Commissioner Alderson stated he cannot find any provisions for
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\'-"-05.doc
2
Planning Commission Minutes
January 11, 2005
guest parking and therefore determined the guest parking is on
each single family lot. Staff stated the Zoning Code required each
dwelling to provide 2.5 parking spaces. Two are provided inside
the garage and the % space is for guest parking. Each unit has an
additional space and a half of parking. There are no other uses on
the property, such as recreational uses that warrant any additional
parking. Staff is concerned that if there is a resident that has a
party or need for a large amount of parking, there is no place for
guest parking. Staff has added a condition relating to this issue,
but there is nothing in the Code requiring it.
7. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. David Turner, CV Engineers, representing the
applicant, clarified the applicant is now Ehline Company. In regard
to the condition changes, Condition #35 they have requested it be
removed as they had resolved all issues with the surrounding
property owner. In regard to Condition #38, this is what was
resolved between staff and the applicant, but the retention basin
wording needs to be added back in. Substantially, the onlychange
is the 20 foot easement with the adjoining property owner for the
relocation of the irrigation line. This caused an encroachment into
their open space and decided to reduce the size of the streets.
They would also like to request Condition 7.A. be changed to not
require them to widen the street, but stay at 32 feet curb face.
The General Plan ·shows a bike lane and they believe it can be
included in the multi-purposetrail. Condition #26 in regard to the
issuance of building permits, they would like to request it be
changed to the 25th building permit instead of 17th. Staff has
stated the 20 % requirement has been the norm and they would
like to stay with this.
8. Commissioner Quill asked if they would bond for the
improvements. Mr. Turner stated yes.
9. Mr. Turner asked that Condition #53.A. be changed to require the
88 foot right of way or 32 feet south of the centerline. Condition
#86, they would like the off-street parking to be addressed in the
CC&R's as they believe they more than meet the 2.5 parking
requirement. The location identified by staff for potential guest
parking has been planned for a water feature with heavy
landscaping.
10. Commissioner Ladner asked how it could be addressed in the
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\ '-"-05.doc
3
Planning Commission Minutes
January 11, 2005
CC&R's. Mr. Turner stated they would have to provide the HOA
with a plan for the parking. The retention basins could be used for
temporary parking controlled by the CC&R's. Commissioner
Ladner stated her concern was for the homeowners.
11 . Commissioner Alderson stated that when he first evaluated the
project he was concerned with the guest parking, but the applicant
has identified some areas of relief .
·12. Chairman Kirk asked staff for their opinion on the applicant's
request on the conditions. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer
stated they were not included in the memo because staff is
concerned. In regard to the right of way width on Avenue 58, the
General Plan calls for Class II bike lanes which are to be striped
lanes on the pavement. You cannot get two lanes of traffic,
center turning lane and the bike lane unless you put the curb back
or you have very narrow streets. With respect to Condition #26,
staff prefers a percentage as it is more consistent with all the
other tracts. Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit stated that in
regard to Condition #86, staff thought the common area at the
entrance could be used for additional parking.
13. Commissioner Quill stated the bike lane should be retained as it is
highly used and necessary. In regard to Condition #26, he has no
issue with the request to change it to the 25th building permit.
With respect to the parking he believes it is overkill and agrees
with the applicant that with the 28 foot street width with parking
on one side is sufficient.
14. Comm.issioner Daniels stated he agrees especially when there are
three car garages and there is no golf course.
1 5. Commissioner Ladner stated she does not agree with the parking
being governed by the CC&R's. The cost to maintain the turf and'
the management to the community would be too great. It requires
a lot of detail for the HOA to maintain.
16. Chairman Kirk stated they were suggesting one side of the street
allow parking, not creating a designated guest parking area.
17. Commissioner Ladner stated she would agree then.
18. Chairman Kirk stated he understands staff's reasoning, but the
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\'-"-05.doc
4
Planning Commission Minutes
January 11, 2005
wider streets, with no parking, encourage faster traffic. He would
suggest they move forward to changing Condition #38 to allow
parking on one side. Staff's recommendation on Conditions #7.a.
and #53.a., to maintain the bike lane and allow on-site parking on
one side.
19. There being no further public participation, the public hearing was
closed and open for Commission discussion.
20. Commissioner Quill stated this is a case where a substantial
conformance should have been done instead of an Addendum to
the Environmental Assessment.
21 . Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated that in regard to
allowing the parking on one side ·of thè street, the General Plan
does allow it but Council has made a point to not approve it. The
HOA has the right to control the parking or no parking. Permission
could be obtained from the HOA and they would determine what
side of the street and the hours. Chairman Kirk asked that staff
and the Commission review the street standards.
22. It was moved by Commissioners Quill/Daniels to adopt Planning
Commissioner Resolution 2005-001 recommending to the City
Council certification of an Addendum to Environmental
Assessment 2003-475, as recommended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Daniels, Ladner, Quill~ and
Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
23. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Daniels to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005-002 recommending
to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map 31249,
Amendment # 1, as amended:
a.
b.
d.
Condition #1 9: Amend by revising 1" = 40' to 1" = 60'.
Condition #26: Changed to the 25th· building permit.
Condition #35: Deleted
Condition #38: Add IIretention basin" back into the
condition.
Condition #53.A.1.c.: As requested by the applicant.
Condition #86: Deleted
e.
f.
g.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\1,11-05.doc
5
Planning Commission Minutes
January 11, 2005
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Daniels, Ladner, Quill, and
Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
C. Environmental Assessment 2004-520, Specific Plan 99-035, Amendment
#1, Tentative Tract Map 33076: a request of ND La Quinta Partners
L.L.C., for consideration of: 1) Certification of an Addendum to an
Environmental Impact Report; 2) Specific Plan Amendment adding 120
acres to the Specific Plan area, changing the land use distribution for
lands easterly of Madison Street and adding provisions for guest houses
throughout the Specific Plan area; and 3) The subdivision of lands within
the Specific Plan area east of Madison Street into 225 residential lots,
and miscellaneous lots for golf, streets and community facilities, for the
property located between Avenue 52 and Avenue 54, arid between
Jefferson Street and Monroe Street.
1 . Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Consulting Planner Nicole Criste presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
'Community Development Department. Assistant City Engineer
Steve Speer explained the proposed changes to the Conditions of
Approval.
2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Ladner asked the height of the existing berms.
Assistant City Engineer St~ve Speer stated they have been
reduced from 22 feet to 18 feet. Commissioner Ladner asked if
. the parking requirement was an existing condition.. Staff stated
this could be addressed by the applicant.
3. Commissioner Quill asked if there is an accommodation to have .
the tentative map reduced to a 200 scale. Staff stated that when
the scale is reduced it is easier to miss things in the review
process.
4. Commissioner Alderson asked who pays the other portion of the
traffic signal costs not paid by the applicant. Staff stated that at
this location the Developer Impact Fees (OIF), but in the newly
annexed areas they are not included in the 01 F so staff reverts
back to splitting the cost between the four corners. At this
location one corner is in the City of Indio. Commissioner Alderson
asked the zoning on the "not a part" noted on the map. Staff
stated it is Low Density Residential.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\1-11-05.doc
6
Planning Commission Minutes
January 11, 2005
5. Commissioner Daniels. asked about the signal on Monroe Street
and Avenue 53. Staff stated one corner is paid by the Stonefield .
Development, the other is Rancho Santana, and the east side is in
the County.
6. Commissioner Alderson noted the developer of the project is in no
way connected with a company he has previously worked with.
7. Staff noted some changes to the Specific Plan that needed to be
cleaned up.
8. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. John Gamlin, representing the applicant, gave a
presentation on the project. In terms of the conditions, Condition
#9.A. is restated in Condition #56 dealing with street
improvements. They are fine with . the right turn, but have a
problem· with the duall·eft turn lane condition. They did prepare a
Traffic Study for the project and there was a difference between
the numbers to warrant the second left turn lane onto Avenue 52.
They would like to look at the analysis completed for the Merv
Griffin project and discuss this with staff. If the study warrants
the second left turn lane, then they will accept the condition. Thè
General Plan levels are less· than what would warrant the second
left turn. Condition #32.E. they would like to tie the off-sites to a
building permit threshold starting at the 50th building permit and
completed by the 100th. Condition #56.A.7 in regard to the traffic
signal should be #56.A.6. Staff agreed. Condition #56.A.7 they
are being required to pay for a signal where they have no access.
Condition #81 relates to the phasing of off-site improvements
which is the same as Condition #32.E. Condition #84 again is the
Tentative Tract phasing. They anticipate five final map phases:
golf course, dedication of perimeter streets and first 70 lots in
Phase 1 .
9 . Mr. Don Vita, Vita Planning and Architecture, gave a presentation
on the land planning and design. He requested the amended
Condition #11.A.1 regarding the decible levels and would like to
delete this condition. Staff noted this condition has already been
deleted. Mr . Vita stated Condition #43 needs to be consistent
with Condition #41 of staff's memo. Condition #60 requires a full
intersection across from the unimproved access to property on the
north side of the street which is in the City of Indio. They are
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\ 1-11-05.doc
7
Planning Commission Minutes
January 11, 2005
unable to align their centerline with the north side access. They
are therefore proposing· to have their intersection off-set and the
northern property align with them. They will need to negotiate
with the City of Indio to align these two and are requesting time to
allow these negotiations to occur. Amended Condition #42 they
would like to have the first sentence of the second paragraph
deleted. Staff noted this has already been changed. Mr. Gamlin
stated they are looking to retain flexibility to adjust the interior lot
elevations up to ten feet. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer
stated they would like the difference between the pad elevations
at four feet.
10. Chairman Kirk recessed the Commission at 8:45 p.m. and
reconvened at 8:52 p.m.
11 . Chairman Kirk asked if staff and the applicant had come to
agreement. Mr. Gamlin explained the difference in the grading
issues. Relative to the neighboring properties (Condition #86),
they are looking for clarification that it concerns landforms and not
the interior lots. Staff agreed. Mr. Gamlin stated they wo.uld like
to submit a letter from the neighboring tract that they are in
agreement to satisfy the condition. On Condition #32.E. they
want consideration to tie it to a permit issuance threshold. A
second issue is the nexus between the Stonefield project and the
condition regarding their contribution toward a signal where they
take no access. The main issue however, is the entry alignment
with the property to the north across the street, and the problem
of obtaining an agreement with the City of Indio.
12. Commissioner Daniels asked if the Rancho Santana project
provided any leeway. Mr. Gamin stated they have already finaled
the map and are under construction which provides no room. Mr.
Gamlin also stated that in regard to Condition #11.A. they will
make it a drivable surface.
13. Chairman Kirk asked if the internal streets had any parking issues.
Mr. Gamlin stated they have no issue and their CC&R's will
govern.
14. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated the issue with the City
of Indio is that both cities are sensitive to turning movements.
Rancho Santana did not get full turn movement at their entrance,
it went to the polo fields. In order for a developer on our side of
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\ 1-11-05.doc
8
Planning Commission Minutes
January 11, 2005
the street to get what they wanted, they was giving and taking
between the cities. The General Plan requires 1060 feet between
signals. He would suggest not changing the condition and require
them to work it out with the City of Indio. Chairman Kirk asked
what the options were. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer
stated to move it toward Rancho Santa and have Indio allow them
to move it 40 feet. The north side has not developed and it would
be easy for them to move it 40 feet. Consultant Nicole Criste
stated the worst case would be a right turn in/out and left turn in.
Chairman Kirk asked if this was too close for the turning
movements. Staff stated they are protected movements.
1 5. Commissioner Daniels asked if the only issue is that the
intersection move 40 feet to the east. Staff stated the proposed
intersection would need to be relocated 300 feet east and the City
of Indio move it 40 feet west. Currently the existing driveway on
the north side matches up with the Madison Club's east property
line. If they canl.t work it out the applicant will have a right turn
in/out, and left turn in.
16. Chairman Kirk asked when the applicant found out about the issue
with the City of Indio. Mr. Gamlin stated in the last few days.
They assumed an unimproved project on the north and they were
establishing a signalized intersection that would drive the location
of the signal.
17. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any other issues. The duel left
turn analysis completed ·by the Griffin Ranch on Madison/Avenue
52. What does that analysis show. Assistant City Engineer Steve
Speer stated the Griffin Ranch analysis does not show Madison
Street going through. When the street goes through, it is not a fair
assumption that people will turn on Avenue 54, but rather travel to
Avenue 52. He went on to explain the circulation movements.
Today 200 cars is the threshold when you go to dual left turn
lanes. Chairman Kirk asked about the request regarding the off-
site improvements. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated it
would be appropriate to start the improvements at 50th permit and
finished at 1 ooth or May 1 , 2006, whichever is earliest. Chairman
Kirk asked why the applicant is contributing to the cost of the
signal on Avenue 5·3. Staff stated because the tract will have an
impact on the street.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\1-11-05.doc
9
Planning Commission Minutes
January 11, 2005
18. Chairman Kirk asked if anyone else would like to address the
Commission on this matter. There being none the Commission
discussed the issues.
1 9. Commissioner Daniels stated the phasing seems to be agreeable
with it tied to the building permits.
20. Commissioner Quill stated May 31, 2006 is not far away and the
chances of having 50 permits pulled is unlikely. Mr. Gamlin stated
the improvements are to be initiated by that date not completed.
Staff stated the 50th building or May 31st whichever occurred last
for the initiation of the improvements.
21 . Commissioner Daniels stated the applicant should do everything
they can to coordinate the entry points with the City of Indio. If
they are unable to do this, they should not be punished by not
having the full turn movement. He would like to see the developer
required to make a good faith negotiation and after a reasonable
period of time, 90 or 1 20 days, to find a common access point
and if not accomplished they be given full access.
22. Chairman Kirk stated he would want City staff to bea part of the
negotiations. If they go forward it may be a motivating tool to get
the City of Indio to become reasonable.
23. Commissioner Daniels stated that in regard to the signal at Avenue
53rd, if this is City policy, then so be it. In regard to the grading,
the applicant has asked for the latitude to make mass grading
adjustments and not tie them to reconcile with the tentative tract
map; he has no issue with the request. His only concern is when
it relates to the perimeter property. Staff stated the inconsistency
is with the tract map and staff recommends it stay at six feet.
Commissioner Daniels stated he agrees with the Madison Street.
dual left turn lanes.
24. Commissioner Quill stated the tentative map shows grades, but
the mass grading plan will reflect golf course grades and pad
grades. He has no problem with allowing the flexibility as long as
the final engineering reflects what is actually constructed and
adheres to good sound engineering practices. The rough grading
plans must show the changes. Staff asked for clarification on
Condition #42, the disagreement is the four foot differential
between the lots. Commissioner Quill stated he has no issue with
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\1-11-05.doc
10
Planning Commission Minutes
January 11, 2005
the six foot differential. Staff noted this applies only to the tract
map.
25. Commissioner Ladner stated she does not agree with the applicant
participation on the Avenue 53 signal.
26. Commissioner Alderson agreed and asked if they allowed the
applicant to put a full turn movement in where they are asking for
it, would this be breaking an agreement with the City of Indio.
Staff stated it would.
27. Chairman Kirk commended the applicant on the development of
Hideaway and the lifestyle isa marketable product. He likes the
streetscape. He is concerned about the amount of turf and
greenscape and asked if they met the Water Efficient calculations.
Mr. Vito stated they have. Chai~man Kirk stated he would like to
see the calculations and would like to see a reduction in the turf in
non-golf course locations. The only issue that seems to be in
contention is the signal at Avenue 53. He agrees with staff's
recommendation on the dual left turn lane.
28. Commissioner Quill stated that there is no nexus for the cost of
the signal, he cannot support the Avenue 53 cost of the signal to
be born by the applicant. Mr. Gamlin questioned Condition #43
relative to making the Specific Plan and Tentative Tract map
consistent in regard to site grading.
29. Chairman Kirk ·closed the public hearing.
30. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Daniels to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005-003, recommending
to the City Council certification of an Addendum to Environmental
Assessment 2004-520, as recommended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Daniels, Ladner, Quill, and .
Chairman Kírk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
31 . It was moved and· seco~ded by Commissioners Daniels/Ladner to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005-004 recommending
to the City Council approval of Specific Plan 99-035, Amendment
# 1 , as recommended by staff and amended:
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\ 1 ~ 11-05.doc
11
Planning Commission Minutes
January 11, 2005
a. Condition #11.A. Amended as submitted in the memo with
the exception of deleting last sentence regarding decibels.
b. Condition #42. The second paragraph, last line change to
read, not differ more than six feet applicable to the single
family homes only.
c. Condition #32.E the paragraph after the letter E deleted and
improvements would be started at the 50th building permit
and completed at the 100th building permit and would start
no later than 5/31/06 whichever is first.
d. Condition #43: IIPrior to any site grading or regarding that
would raise or lower any portion of the site, the grading
shall be consistent with the Specific Plan Amendment # 1,
and the applicant shall submit the proposed grading changes
to the City Staff for a substantial conformance funding
review.
e. Condition #60 modified to include the applicant shall confer
with the City of India with the participation of the Public
Works staff and if the determination is not reached within
1 20 days the applicant shall be allowed full turn movement
at their intersection and as show on the plans for Avenue
52.
f. Condition #81 deleted.
g. Delete Condition 56.A.7) relating to traffic signal at Monroe
and Avenue 53.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Daniels, Ladner, Quill, and
Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
32. It was moved and seconded by Commissio·ners Daniels/Quill to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005-005 recommending
to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map 33076, as
recommended by staff and amended:
a. Condition #87: The table submitted to the Commission will
supercede the requirements of this condition.
b. Condition #11.A. Amended as submitted in the memo with
the exception of deleting last sentence regarding decibels.
c. Condition #42. The second paragrap~, las,! line changë to
read, not differ more than six feet applicable to the single
family homes only.
d. Condition #32. E the paragraph after the letter E deleted and
improvements would be started at the 50th building permit
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\1-11-05.doc 12
Planning Commission Minutes
January 11, 2005
and completed at the 100th building permit and would start
no later than 5/31 /06 whichever is first.
e. Condition #43: Prior. to any site grading or regarding that
would raise or lower any portion of the site, the grading
shall be consistent with the Specific Plan Amendment # 1,
and the applicant shall submit the proposed grading changes
to the City Staff for a substantial conformance funding.
review.
f. Condition #60 modified to include the applicant shall confer
with the City of Indio with the participation of the Public
Works staff and if the determination is not reached within
1 20 days the applicant shall be allowed full turn movement
at their intersection and as show on the plans for Avenue
52.
g. Condition #81 deleted.
h. Delete Condition 56.A.7) relating to traffic signal at Monroe
and Avenue 53.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Daniels, Ladner, Quill, and
Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: None
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None.
VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: None
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Ladner/Alderson to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a
regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held on January 25, 2005, at 7 :00 .
p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 10:03 p.m., on
January 11, 2005.
Respectfully submitted,
~~
Bet wyer, Executive Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
G:\ WPDOCS\PC Minutes\ 1-11-05.doc
13