1996 06 25 PCs
y Qum&
OF N�
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
A Regular Meeting to be Held at the
La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California
June 25, 1996
7:00 P.M.
**NOTE**
ALL AGENDA ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. MAY BE CONTINUED
TO THE NEXT COMMISSION MEETING
Beginning Resolution 96-025
Beginning Minute Motion 96-023
CALL TO ORDER - FLAG SALUTE - ROLL CALL
PUBLIC COMMENT
This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled for public hearing.
Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your comments to three minutes.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Item .................... SPECIFIC PLAN 83-002, AMENDMENT #3
Applicant ............. KSL Land Corporation and City of La Quinta
Location .............. The Specific Plan area is bounded by 54th Avenue on the north,
Madison Street on the east, 58th Avenue on the south, and the Santa
Rosa Mountains on the west
Request ............... Approval of an update to the PGA West Specific Plan for consistency
with the City's General Plan
Action ................ Resolution 96-
PC/AGENDA
BUSINESS ITEMS
Item .................... CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-023, PLOT PLAN 96-571,
AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 96-311
Applicant ............. Keith International, Inc. for USA Properties Fund, Inc.
Location .............. West side of Washington Street and 700 feet north of Calle Tampico
Request ............... Approval of the preliminary landscape plans, recreational amenity
plans and other supplemental site materials/structures in compliance
with the Conditions of Approval under Resolution 96-023 for the 116
unit Terracina Apartment complex
Action ................ Minute Motion 96-
2. Item .................... STREET VACATION 96-032
Applicant ............. Robert and Kelly Jones
Location .............. The east ten (10) feet of the west twenty (20) feet of Tract 21176 - La
Quinta Polo Estates
Request ............... Determination of La Quinta General Plan consistency with proposed
vacation of a portion of an offer of public utility and drainage
easement dedication
Action ................ Minute Motion 96-
3. Item .................... PLOT PLAN 96-584
Applicant ............. TD Desert Development - Mr. Tom Cullinan
Location .............. North of the east terminus of Sagebrush Avenue, east of Date Palm
Drive (if extended) - Tract 25154 - Rancho La Quinta
Request ............... Approval of three single family detached prototype units
Action ................ Minute Motion 96-
CONSENT CALENDAR
Approval of the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of June 11, 1996.
COMMISSIONER ITEMS
1. Commissioner report of the City Council meeting of June 18, 1996
2. Department update
ADJOURNMENT
STUDY SESSION
Session Room
4:00 P.M.
PC/AGENDA
PH # 1
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: JUNE 25, 1996
CASE NO.: SPECIFIC PLAN 83-002, AMENDMENT # 3
REQUEST: APPROVAL OF AN UPDATE TO THE PGA WEST SPECIFIC PLAN
FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN
LOCATION: THE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA IS BOUNDED BY AVENUE 54 ON THE
NORTH, MADISON STREET ON THE EAST, AVENUE 58 ON THE
SOUTH AND THE SANTA ROSA MOUNTAINS ON THE WEST.
APPLICANT:
GENERAL
PLAN:
ZONING/
SPECIFIC PLAN:
BACKGROUND:
CITY OF LA QUINTA AND KSL LAND CORPORATION
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, TOURIST COMMERCIAL,
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL, AND GOLF COURSE OPEN SPACE
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (2-4 DU/AC); SPECIFIC PLAN
RESIDENTIAL AND SPECIFIC PLAN RESIDENTIAL-1, GOLF
COURSE/OPEN SPACE, TOURIST COMMERCIAL AND
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL
The PGA West Specific Plan was approved by the City Council on May 15, 1984,
under Resolution 84-31. The 1,665 acre area initially allowed 5,000 single family
residences, a 65 acre resort village (400 hotel rooms, 250 apartments/condominium
cottages and support facilities), four 18 hole golf courses and a 20 acre commercial
center (Attachment 1).
The first amendment, approved by the City Council in 1988, under Resolution 88-1 1 1,
allowed additional hotel rooms not to exceed 1,000 and the height of the hotel was
increased from four stories to six stories. A Supplemental Focused EIR was processed
analyzing the traffic, noise, height, visibility and aesthetic impacts due to the increase
of rooms.
A second amendment, approved by City Council in 1989, under Resolution 89-70,
added 21.5 acres to the Specific Plan and a Change of Zone 89-041 from agricultural
to residential, south of 54th Avenue, east of All -American Canal and north and west
of the existing boundaries of the Specific Plan.
1
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION:
This Specific Plan update is determined to be exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act under the provisions of California Government Code Section 65457 (a).
An Environmental Impact Report was prepared in conjunction with the original Specific
Plan approval and was certified by the City Council on May 1, 1984 under Resolution
84-28. A Supplemental Focused EIR was prepared and certified in conjunction with
Amendment # 1 to the Specific Plan, on September 20, 1988, under Resolution 88-
1 10. Therefore, no additional environmental review is deemed necessary.
Protect Description
KSL and City staff have worked together in preparation of this updated Specific Plan.
The objective is to better address the current design characteristics and standards in
response to the current development pattern occurring in PGA West. Most
importantly the changes will bring the Specific Plan into conformance with the General
Plan. The proposed document (Attachment 2) modifies the existing document as
follows:
Chapter 1. - Introduction
This section now incorporates the two Specific Plan amendments within the project
setting, history, environmental review and enabling legislation.
Chapter 2. - Plans, Programs and Guidelines
Section 2.2 Land Use Plan
Provides a current Land Use map depicting the existing and proposed land uses
(Exhibit 4; Specific Plan).
Section 2.3 Circulation Plan
All outstanding conditions of City Council Resolution 88-1 1 1 relating to Traffic
and Circulation are now included. The Circulation Plan (Exhibit 5) is updated.
Section 2.5 Infrastructure and Utilities Plan
All conditions of City Council Resolution 88-1I 1 1 regarding public services are
now included.
Section 2.6 Community Design Guidelines
Provides architectural, site planning and landscaping design direction. Also
recommended are building and plant materials for all residential, recreational and
commercial uses.
Pa
Chapter 3 - Zoning and Development Regulations
These are the changes incorporated from Section 3.1 - Specific Plan Residential (SPR)
Uses and Standards. This section establishes the permitted land uses and development
standards for property designated as Specific Plan Residential (SPR) on the Land Use
Plan.
Section 3.1.1 - Single Family Detached Development Standards
The minimum lot size is 6,500 square feet with 50-feet being the minimum lot
frontage for units fronting golf fairways.
The minimum lot size of 6,500 square feet with 55-feet minimum lot frontage
for interior lots.
The rear yard setback for private pools is at property line if adjacent to common
open space.
Section 3 1 2 - Single Family Attached Development Standards for Specific Plan
Residential
The minimum lot size is 6,500 square feet with 50-feet being the minimum lot
frontage.
Community pools are required for every 30 residential units.
These are the changes incorporated from Section 3.2 - Specific Plan Residential (SPR)
Uses and Standards. This section establishes the permitted land uses and development
standards for property designated as Specific Plan Residential-1 (SPR-1) on the Land
Use Plan.
Section 3 2 1 - Single Family Detached Development Standards for Specific Plan
Residential -I (one-story detached dwellings)
The minimum lot size is 6,500 square feet with 50-feet being the minimum lot
frontage.
The rear yard setback for private pools is at property line if adjacent to common
open space.
Section 3.3 - Community Commercial Uses and Standards
Addition of development standards including the Floor Area Ratio, minimum building
site, structure height and stories, landscape and building setbacks.
3
Section 3.4 - Tourist Commercial Uses and Standards
Addition of development standards for hotels, condominiums and apartments,
including the Floor Area Ratio, structure height and stories, frontage and setbacks.
Surrounding Zoning/Land Use
The property immediately surrounding the Specific Plan is designated on the General
Plan Land Use Diagram as Low Density Residential to the north, east and south. The
Santa Rosa Mountains and Lake Cahuilla Regional Park are to the west.
Public Notice
The case was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on June 2, 1996. All property
owners within 500-feet of the Specific Plan were mailed a copy of the public hearing
notice as required. No negative comments have been received. All correspondence
received before the meeting will be given to the Commission.
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES:
Issue 1 - General Plan Consistency
The Specific Plan update is consistent with the Land Use, Circulation, Open Space,
Park and Recreation, Environmental Conservation, Infrastructure and Public Services,
Environmental Hazards, and Air Quality Elements of the General Plan. The Specific Plan
contains a summary of each of the goals and policies applicable in evaluating the
document's consistency with the General Plan. Overall, the Specific Plan offers
guidelines promoting a balanced and functional mix of land uses consistent with the
City's General Plan.
Issue 2 - Public Welfare
The Specific Plan update will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public
health, safety and general welfare of the community in that the document establishes
comprehensive guidelines to ensure the character, design and standards of
development is of the highest quality. The Specific Plan's ultimate goal is to provide
a resort community with golf oriented villages defined by four eighteen hole golf
courses. The commercial area will be the center of commerce providing necessary
goods and services to the community. The Resort Village Core is centrally located
with adequate design and development standard provisions to ensure limited impact
for the surrounding residences:
Issue 3 - Land Use Compatibility
4
Issue 4- Property Suitability
The Specific Plan update is suitable and appropriate for the area in that the community
maintains a low density residential character blending compatibly with its environmental
setting adjacent to the Santa Rosa mountains. The small scale commercial area is
appropriately located as an entry statement into the community.
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 96- , recommending to the City Council
approval of Amendment 3 updating Specific Plan 83-002
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Specific Plan, 3rd Amendment
Prepared by:
i
/ fl
CHRISTINE L. DI IORIO, ,,lanning Manager
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 96-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, ANNOUNCING
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY
COUNCIL APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN 83-002,
AMENDMENT #3.
PGA WEST SPECIFIC PLAN 83-002, AMENDMENT #3
KSL AND CITY OF LA QUINTA
WHEREAS, the City in participation with KSL Land Corporation did request a 3rd
Amendment to said Specific Plan to bring into compliance with the General Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California did on
the 25th day of June, 1996, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing on said Amendment #3 request; and,
WHEREAS, said Specific Plan Amendment #3 complies with the requests of the
"Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (County of Riverside,
Resolution 82-213, adopted by reference in the City of La Quinta Ordinance No. 5), in that the
Community Development Director had prepared an Environmental Assessment and reviewed the
prior EIR for PGA West, including Supplemental, and determined that proposed Amendment will
not have a significant adverse impact on the environment; and,
WHEREAS, on May 1, 1984, the La Quinta City Council certified the EIR for PGA
West Specific Plan 83-002 (Council Resolution 84-38) as adequate and complete, adopted
"Statements of Overriding Considerations", and adopted "CEQA Findings and Statements of Facts";
and,
WHEREAS, the City Council approved the PGA West Specific Plan 83-002 (Council
Resolution 84-31) on May 1, 1984, subject. to conditions; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council did, on the 20th day of September 1988, hold a duly -
noticed Public Hearing on the PGA West Specific Plan 32-002, Amendment # 1 (Council Resolution
89-110 and 89-111) to increase the hotel by 350 units and conditionally approve said Amendment;
and,
WHEREAS, the City Council did, on the 23rd of May, 1989, hold a duly -noticed
Public Hearing on the PGA West Specific Plan 83-002, Amendment #2 (Council Resolution 89-70)
to add. 21.65 acres for residential use; and,
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find
the following facts and reasons to justify the approval of said Specific Plan Amendment:
I . Consistent with the General Plan: The Specific Plan update is consistent with the Land Use,
P:resopc.208
Planning Commission Resolution 96-_
Consistent with the General Plan: The Specific Plan update is consistent with the Land Use,
Circulation, Open Space, Park and Recreation, Environmental Conservation, Infrastructure
and Public Services, Environmental Hazards, and Air Quality Elements of the General Plan.
The Specific Plan contains a summary of each of the goals and policies applicable in
evaluating the document's consistency with the General Plan. Overall, the Specific Plan
offers guidelines promoting a balanced and functional mix of land uses consistent with the
City's General Plan.
2. Public Welfare: The Specific Plan update will not create conditions materially detrimental
to the public health, safety and general welfare of the community in that the document
establishes comprehensive guidelines to ensure the character, design and standards of
development is of the highest quality. The Specific Plan's ultimate goal is to provide a
resort community with golf oriented villages defined by four eighteen hole golf courses. The
commercial area will be the center of commerce providing necessary goods and services to
the community. The Resort Village Core is centrally located with adequate design and
development standard provisions to ensure limited impact for the surrounding residences.
Land Use Compatibility: The Specific Plan update is compatible with zoning on adjacent
properties in that the General Plan Land Use Policy Diagram shows the surrounding
properties to the south, north and east as Low Density Residential. This is compatible with
the Specific Plan residential land use designation since it is also designated Low Density
Residential. The zoning to the west is designated on the General Plan as Open Space. The
Specific Plan Land Use Map identifies the area adjacent to this open space as golf course
which is a compatible Open Space use.
4. Property Suitability: The Specific Plan update is suitable and appropriate for the area in that
the community maintains a low density residential character blending compatibly with its
environmental setting adjacent to the Santa Rosa mountains. The small scale commercial
area is appropriately located as an entry statement into the community.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City
of La Quinta, California, determines the following:
That it does hereby confirm the environmental determination for the proposed Amendment;
2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of
Specific Plan 83-002, Amendment #3, for reasons set forth in this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission, held on this 25th day of June, 1996, by the following vote, to wit:
P:resopc.208
Planning Commission Resolution 96-_
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
JACQUES ABELS, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
P:resopc.208
BI#1
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: JUNE 25, 1996
CASE NOS.:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-023, PLOT PLAN 96-571, AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 96-311
REQUEST:
APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLANS,
RECREATIONAL AMENITIES PLANS AND OTHER
SUPPLEMENTAL SITE MATERIALS/STRUCTURES IN
COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL UNDER
RESOLUTION 96-023 FOR THE 116-UNIT TERRACINA
APARTMENT COMPLEX
LOCATION:
WEST SIDE OF WASHINGTON STREET AND 700-FEET NORTH
OF CALLE TAMPICO
APPLICANT:
KEITH INTERNATIONAL, INC. (MIKE ROWE)
DEVELOPER:
USA PROPERTIES FUND, INC. (ARTHUR M. MAY)
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT: RONALD GREGORY ASSOCIATES
ARCHITECT: BASSENIAN/LAGONI ARCHITECTS
BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW:
The site is vacant and located approximately 700-feet north of Calle Tampico. The 11.6 acre site has
560 feet of frontage on Washington Street. Access to the site is from an existing shared driveway
with the La Quinta Village Shopping Center to the south. A traffic signal will be installed at this
intersection when warranted.
The site is surrounded by the existing La Quinta Village Shopping Center to the south, existing single
family homes to the east (across Washington Street), portions of the Dunes golf course to the north
(in the evacuation channel), and under construction Season's project to the west.
The Terracina apartment complex will be made up of 116 affordable apartment units that include two,
three and four bedroom units ranging in size from 750 to 1,200+ square feet (Attachment 1 -
Reduced Site Plan).
STRPT.57b-A
City Council Action
On April 2, 1996, the City Council on a 4-0 vote approved the affordable apartment complex by
adoption of Resolutions 96-022 and 96-023 for Environmental Assessment 96-311, Conditional Use
Permit 96-023 and Plot Plan 96-571. Conditions were imposed that require the Planning Commission
to review and approve the preliminary landscape plan and enclosed storage/carport facilities (See
Attachment 2, Condition Excerpts).
Staff Comments
The Community Development Department has reviewed the plans, and has the following comments:
Landscaping Amenities (Conditions 2 and 42). The attached landscape/irrigation plans have been
reviewed and approved by the Coachella Valley Water District (Water Code Title 7) as required but
have not been approved by the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner. A landscape lighting
plan has not been submitted. The landscape plans have been prepared to comply with Chapter 8.13
(Water Efficiency Ordinance) of the La Quinta Municipal Code that outlines that projects shall be
water efficient. The landscape architect's computations are on Sheet IP-6. The site information is
broken down into three categories (site, retention basin, and parkway). In each category, the water
used by the developer for the project versus maximum water available is less than allowed.
Small lawn areas are proposed around each apartment building. Accenting these areas are five gallon
shrubs abutting the structure with trees randomly placed to provide shade cover for the buildings and
lawn areas. Trees consist of African Sumac, Bottle, California Pepper, and other trees that provide
good shade cover in the summer. Tree sizing varies from 15-gallon to 36" box depending on
location. Palms trees also are spotted throughout the project. The retention basin is grassed for
passive or active outdoor play with trees and palm trees circling its perimeter. The plant material
selected is appropriate for this climate.
Recommended Conditions - (L) Staff shall approve the landscape and walkway lighting plans when
submitted. (2.) Before final acceptance, the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner's Office
shall approve the landscape plan.
Carports/Storage Areas (Condition 68) -
A. - C=orts - Prefabricated metal carport structures are proposed for the covered parking areas.
The project architect states they may be similar in design to the Season's development to the west
of their project, however, the final specifics have not yet been determined by USA Properties.
Additional material may be presented at the meeting.
Recommended Condition - The final construction details for the carports shall be submitted to staff
for final approval prior to building permit issuance. Metal carports will be permitted provided an fl-
inch wide metal fascia is included around the entire perimeter of the metal roof.
STRPT.57b-A
B. - Storage Areas - As required, two wood frame and stucco storage buildings, with concrete tile
roofing, are proposed for the project to provide additional on -site storage areas for the tenants. The
buildings are from 1,176 and 1,680 sq. ft. in size. Minor architectural details such as horizonal
stuccoed plant-ons and fixed shutters are used around the building's exterior with metal roll -up doors
providing access to each storage space (i.e., 74 sq. ft.).
Condition 68 requires any parking spaces lost to construct the storage enclosures be replaced with
new parking spaces on a one-to-one basis plus an additional ten parking spaces. A final parking plan
has not been submitted. The original location of the oversized parking spaces has been shifted west
deleting a small tot lot and in its place one storage building is proposed (i.e., southwest side of the
project). The other structure is to the north of Apartment Building No. 14 replacing five open
parking spaces
Recommended Condition - The storage structures are architecturally compatible with the project as
designed.
CONCLUSION:
The Community Development Department will work with the applicants to ensure that the final
parking plans are consistent with the Conditions of Approval for this project.
RECOMMENDATION:
By Minute Motion 96- , approve the conceptual landscape plan, recreational amenities plan and
other miscellaneous site improvements for the Terracina Apartment Complex, subject to the attached
Conditions.
Attachments
1. Reduced Site Plan
2. Conditions of Approval (Exhibits A and B, Excerpts)
3. Draft Conditions
4. Large Plans (Commission only)
by:
Associate Planner
Submitted by:
CE RISTINE DI IORIO,/Planning Manager
STRPT.57b-A
ATTACEMENTS
FOR
USA Properties
FORMS
Attachment 1 - Site Plan
I
41L��
v
L.
is ir
7ZT7
E 7TA VILLAG
------ QUIN
MARKETPLACE
SOURCE: THE KEn COMMIES
Attachment 2
Condition 2 (CUP 96--023. Exhibit A) - A master landscaping plan for all perimeter street parkways
shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Commission prior to issuance of a building permit
for the project. Landscaping materials to be native and drought tolerant. Irrigation system to utilize
emitter irrigation system where possible. Within five -feet of the curb, no spray irrigation heads nor
lawn shall be used (i.e., off -site only). Within this area only emitters and spreading shrubs and ground
cover may be used. All final landscaping and architectural pans shall be reviewed and approved by
staff.
Condition 42_lylot Plan 96-571. Exhibit BZ - Landscape and irrigation plans for the Washington
Street: median island, and landscaped lots, and retention/detention basins facilities shall be prepared
by a licensed landscape architect. The Planning Commission shall approve the preliminary landscape
plan prior to submission to the Community Development Department for final consideration and
approval. The plans shall be submitted before a building permit is issued. The residual pad (.9 acres)
at the entrance of the project shall be used for open space purposes and include landscape
improvements. A minimum 36•-inch box tree shall be planted adjacent to each building complex along
the west property line.
Landscape and irrigation plans shall meet the requirements of and be signed by the Community
Development Director, the Director of Public Works, the Coachella Valley Water District, and the
Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner.
Condition 68 lot Plan 96-5Z1. ExWbit B) - That the preliminary plans including design, color,
materials, finishes, etc., for the carports, storage units and any other structures, shall be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Commission as a non-public hearing item prior to issuance of a building
permit. All parking spaces lost to the construction of the storage enclosures shall be replaced with
new parking spaces on a one-to-one basis plus an additional ten (10) parking spaces.
CAND . 340b--p
Minute Motion 96- Attachment 3
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
June 25, 1996
The Community Development Department shall approve the final landscaping and lighting
plans prior to building permit issuance. The Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner
Office shall approve the final landscaping plans before acceptance by the City.
2. The final construction details for the carports shall include an 8" metal fascia around the flat
roof structure(s) prior to issuance of a building permit. All metal surfaces shall be painted
to match the colors of the apartment building structures.
Cond..57b-A
BI #2
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: JUNE 25, 1996
CASE NO.: STREET VACATION 96-032
REQUEST: DETERMINATION OF LA QUINTA GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
WITH PROPOSED VACATION OF A PORTION OF AN OFFER OF
PUBLIC UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT DEDICATION AT
TRACT 21 176 — LA QUINTA POLO ESTATES.
LOCATION: THE EASTERLY TEN (10) FEET OF THE WESTERLY TWENTY (20)
FEET OF TRACT 21176.
APPLICANT: ROBERT AND KELLY JONES
BACKGROUND:
Pursuant to State law, prior to public easements or rights -of -way being vacated by the
City Council, the "Planning Agency" shall make a finding that the proposed vacation is
consistent with the City's General Plan and Circulation Element. The planning agency in
this case is the Planning Commission.
The proposed area of vacation is the easterly ten feet of the twenty -foot -wide public
utility and drainage easement offered for dedication when Tract 21 176 was approved by
the County of Riverside in 1987. The easement is located along the westerly and
northwesterly boundaries of Tract 21176, also known as the La Quinta Polo Estates.
Although these public utility and drainage easements were not accepted by Riverside
County at the time the map was recorded in March 1987, the offer of dedication is still
valid. According to Section 66477.2 of the Subdivision Map Act, if at the time a final
map is approved and any easements are rejected, the offer of dedication shall remain
open. This offer of dedication may be terminated and abandoned in the same manner as
1Goverrment Code Section 65402
F:\PWDEPT\STAFF\FULLER\STVAC\96-032\96-032.WPD Page 1 of 4
prescribed for the summary vacation of streets by Part 3 (commencing with Section
8300) of Division 9 of the Streets and Highways Code.
Of the eleven lots along the west boundary of the tract, four contain residences. These
four homeowners have petitioned this vacation proceeding, as well as the President of
the Homeowners' Association, (see Attachment 2). These petitioners dislike the
intrusion of this easement offered for dedication along the rear property line of those
eleven lots. It is their desire to down -size the offer of easement dedication from twenty
to ten feet so the usable lot sizes will increase.
The Engineering Department supports the petition to vacate a portion of this offer of
easement dedication associated with Tract 21176 with appropriate conditions, as
outlined in Exhibit A, because it 1provides an opportunity to more effectively plan for
storm water management of the effected lots. The original plan to use the west
easement for drainage purposes is not possible due to the topography of that side of the
tract. From the west boundary, the land slopes to the east. Because of this, it is
impossible for drainage from the adjacent lots to utilize the twenty -foot -wide area offered
for drainage easement dedication.
A more effective storm water drainage plan is to require the homeowners of the lots
adjacent to the effected area to be responsible for storm water falling on the lots during
the 24-hour peak period of a 100-year storm. Furthermore, for undeveloped lots, this is
an opportunity to require these lots to provide individual, on -site retention basins
designed by a Civil engineer and inspected by the City, prior to occupancy of any building
on that lot. For storm water volumes greater than the 24-hour, 100-year storm, the
remaining ten -foot -wide offer of easement dedication and/or the onsite streets can be
utilized as relief routes.
The size of the effected lots, ranging in size from 1.73 to 2.16 acres, are large enough
to meet these drainage requirements. In addition, the easement area is not currently
utilized by any public utility agency and lacks any improvements therein.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION:
The proposed vacation is categorically exempt under Section 15305, and not subject to
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
PUBLIC AGENCY COMMENTS:
On June 13, 1996, staff mailed notices to all public agencies, informing them of the
proposed vacation. The utility companies have indicated that they have no facilities
within the proposed closure area, and do not require any easement reservations.
F:\PWDEPT\STAFF`,FULLER\STVAC\96-032\96-032.WPD Page 2 of 4
FINDINGS:
1 . The proposed vacation of a portion of an offer of public utility and drainage
easement dedication will have no environmental effects that adversely impact the
human population, either directly or indirectly, because the offer was never
accepted and the easement area never fully utilized for its purpose; and secondly,
the act of vacating the offer of dedication will have no physical environmental
effect.
2. The vacation of a portion of an offer of public utility and drainage easement
dedication will not impact public utility companies
3. The portion of the offer of public utility and drainage easement dedication
proposed for vacation is not used as a means of access, and is not identified as
a component of the La Quinta General Plan, its Circulation Element, or any adopted
specific plan.
4. Reducing the drainage easement size will not impact storm water control because
on -site retention basins will be provided in lieu of the reduced easement area.
RECOMMENDATION:
By minute motion adopt the findings that the vacation of a portion of an offer of public
utility and drainage easement dedication is in compliance with the adopted Circulation
Element of the La Quinta General Plan, and that the City Council consider for inclusion
in the vacation resolution those conditions outlined within Exhibit A.
Prepared by:
, ZZV
DAVID M. O ER, Public Works Director
Submitted by:
CHRISTINE DI IORIO, Planning Manager
MF/mf
Attachments:
#1 — Street Vacation Case No. 96-032 - General Vicinity Map
#2 — La Quinta Polo Estates Petition to Vacate PUE/Drainage Easement
F:\PWDEPT\STAFF\FULLER\STVAC\96-032\96-032.WPD Page 3 of 4
Exhibit A
Conditions Proposed for Inclusion in Street Vacation 96-032 Resolution
Prior to recordation of the Resolution of Vacation of the easterly ten feet of the twenty -
foot -wide PUE/drainage easements along the west boundary of Tract 21176, the
homeowners' association (HOA) shall record revisions to the tract's CC&R's (Covenants,
Conditions and Restrictions) which:
1. Hold owners of individual lofts bordering the west boundary responsible for storm
water falling on the lots during the 24-hour peak period of a 100-year storm.
2. Require that currently -undeveloped lots bordering the west boundary of the
subdivision (Lots No. 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, and 10 ), at the time of their development,
be provided with on -site retainage of all storm water falling on the lots during a
100-year, 24-hour storm. To comply with this provision, the owner of each of
these lots shall, at the time the lot is developed:
a. Construct an individual, on -site retention basin prior to final inspection and
occupancy of any buildings on the lots. The basin shall be designed by a
registered civil engineer and constructed according to plans which are
approved by the City Engineer. The owner shall be responsible for the costs
of City plan checking and of grading permits for construction of the basin
improvements;
b. Maintain the basin in perpetuity or until alternate provisions for drainage,
approved by the City and the HOA, are in place and functional;
C. At the time the basin is constructed, grant the HOA and the City irrevocable
rights to enter and maintain the basin in the event that the individual lot
owner fails to maintain the required capacity; and
d. Reimburse any costs incurred by the HOA or the City in reconstructing
and/or maintaining the basin in the event that the individual lot owner fails
to maintain the required retention capacity.
3. Obligate the HOA to maintain, within the tract, the cumulative retention capacity
of all basins constructed and, if the HOA neglects to maintain the required
capacity despite written notice from the City, to reimburse the City for costs
incurred in restoring or maintaining overall retention capacity or in expanding
downstream facilities to mitigate actual or potential off -site effects of the failure
to maintain the cumulative retention capacity.
F:\PWDEPT\STAFF\FULLERISTVAC\96-032\96-032.WPD Page 4 of 4
ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT 1
I6
I El
El / El 0
❑
I
� �� 0 I N
I
� = O
O O _1
O c
w F- w >
I
I
ATTACHMENT 2
LA QUINTA POLO ESTATES
PETITION TO VACATE PUE/DRAINAGE EASEMENT
E ASTEP-i-j t o r n tjq
We, the undersigned owners of property known s La Qunita Polo Estates -
Tract 21176 (La Quinta, California), hereby submit this petition to the La
Quinta, California city authorities to vacate th PUE/drainage
easement located on the back portion of owners' property who hold title to
land on the west/northwest side of Vista Bonita Trail. As said easement is
not in use by any PUE and is not used or necessary for drainage on the
west/northwest side of Vista Bonita Trail, the property owners propose that
the PUE easement recorded by the City of La Quinta be offically
(re)located/restricted to the street known as Vista Bonita Trail.
6 x 9
X,-e /--� �,
CLD �-5 7`5 7 14
dr .. Z M Q t� CIA ass3 -
BI #3
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: JUKE 25, 1996
CASE NO.: PLOT PLAN 96-584
APPLICANT: T D DESERT DEVELOPMENT (TOM CULLINAN)
ARCHITECT: PEKAREK CRANDELL, INC.
REQUEST: APPROVAL OF THREE SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED
PROTOTYPE UNITS FOR TRACT 25154 WITHIN RANCHO LA
QUINTA COUNTRY CLUB.
LOCATION: NORTH OF THE EAST TERMINUS OF SAGEBRUSH AVENUE,
EAST OF DATE PALM DRIVE (IF EXTENDED).
BACKGROUND:
Proposed Location
The Conditions of Approval for Tract 25154 require review of the architectural and landscaping
plans. T D Desert Development recently purchased the Tract and are incorporating it into the
Rancho La Quinta Country Club. Three single family prototype units are proposed to be constructed
in Tract 25154 located south of the original Rancho La Quinta boundary, east of Parc La Quinta, at
the east terminus of Sagebrush Drive. Tract improvements including streets, curbs, gutters and
graded building pads are existing. No residential units exist within the subdivision. Rancho La Quinta
can be accessed by this Tract in two locations. In addition access to Sagebrush Drive will be retained
as a card -gated entry.
Proposed Units
The applicant submitted a conceptual site plan of the model home complex area including the
common pool facility. The site plan shows each of the proposed plans; along with the parking area
adjacent to the unit which will be used as a sales center.
Landscaping plans for the proposed units have not been submitted. The site plan for the model
complex and common pool area shows some very conceptual landscaping with no specific designation
of plant materials.
A description of the floor plan and square footage of the proposed units (Attachment 1) is as follows:
PLAN 1
Base size - 1,843 square feet
Great Room Expansion Option - 160 t square feet
PC SS.206/CONAPR VL.405
No Bedroom Plus Den or Bedroom
Two Car Garage Plus Optional Third Car Garage
Optional 140± square foot oversize Two Car Garage
PLAN 2
.Size -- 2,074 square feet
Two Bedrooms Plus Den or Bedroom
7ivo Car garage Plus Optional nird Car Garage
PLAN 3
.Size - 2,288 square feet
Two Bedroom Plus Den or Bedroom
7ivo Car Garage Plus Optional Third Car Garage
Architectural Descriptiion
All prototypes are architecturally compatible and share similar design characteristics and materials.
All the units are one-story (15-feet) in height. All units will have gable roofs with two foot overhangs
with gable ends having a one foot overhang. Each plan will have one facade design treatment.
The walls will be clad with stucco. The windows on the facade will be multipane with wood shutters.
The front doors have single or double flanking lights. The garage doors are sectional multipanel with
windows (see three car elevations). Decorative clay pipe vents are proposed on the garage gable end.
The proposed windows and doors on all elevations will have stucco surrounds. The roof will be
covered with "s" shaped multicolor concrete roof tiles. Exterior stucco colors will be tans, and darker
beiges with the wood highlights being turquoise, olive green, and rust shades.
Courtyards are the primary design element of all the units. Plan 1's courtyard will be along a portion
of the front and one sideyard. Plan 2 will have a small front courtyard and a larger rear/sideyard
courtyard. Plan 3 will have a small front courtyard and larger courtyard in the rear yard. Each front
courtyard is highlighted with a decorative wall and entry gate. Three different wall designs are
proposed for use with any of the units.
Air conditioning compressors are proposed at the rear, or side of the units outside of the required
setback area.
CONCLUSION:
The residential units proposed for these lots are acceptable because they are well -designed,
compatible with the neighboring properties, and other units in Rancho La Quinta and provide for
adequate outdoor living space in the courtyard areas. The units are larger than required by Municipal
Code requirements and include a minimum two -car garage.
PC S S.206/C ONAPR VL.405
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends, by Minute Motion 96-that the Planning Commission approve Plot Plan 96-
584, allowing three prototype Ventanas plans, subject to the attached conditions.
Attachment:
Floor, roof and elevation plans (Large for Planning Commission only)
Prepared by:
STAN B. SAWA, Principal Planner
Submitted by:
CHRISTINE DI IORIO, Planning Manager
PCSS.206/CONAPR VL.405
PLOT PLAN 96-584
T D DESERT DEVELOPMENT
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
JUNE 25, 1996
GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
This Plot Plan approval is for the Ventana Plans 1,2, and 3, on file in the Community
Development Department.
2. That the architectural and site plans for the common pool area shall be submitted for review
and approval by the Community Development Department prior to issuance of a building
permit.
That final landscaping plans for individual units and common pool area shall be submitted for
review and approval by the Community Development Department prior to installation around
units and issuance of a building permit for the pool area, respectively.
conaprv1.405/pcss.206
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
June 11, 1996
CALL TO ORDER
7:00 P.M.
A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:03 P.M. by
Chairman Abels who asked Commissioner Barrows to lead the flag salute.
II. ROLL CALL
A. Chairman Abels requested the roll call: Present: Commissioners Anderson, Barrows,
Butler, Gardner, Newkirk, Tyler, and Chairman Abels.
B. Staff present: City Attorney Dawn Honeywell, Planning Manager Christine di Iorio,
Principal Planner Stan Sawa, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer.
III. PUBLIC COMMENT: None
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Tentative Tract 25691. Amendment #1 (Extension #3); a request of Mr. Richard
Deman for approval of a one year time extension for the subdivision of 9.3 acres into
39 single family and other street/common lots.
1. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio presented the information contained in
the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department. Staff asked that the conditions be modified by the deletion of
Condition #56.
2. Commissioner Gardner asked staff to explain the dates when the tract would
expire. Staff explained that the applicant had submitted their request for a
third extension in the allotted time, but staff was unable to bring it to the
Commission until now. The extension therefore, would be for a ten month
period.
3. Commissioner Tyler asked how the State's automatic extension would apply
in this case. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the State extension would
add another year onto the City's extension, if approved.
PC6-11 I
Planning Commission Meeting
June 11, 1996
4. Commissioner Newkirk stated the new tract appears to have lots that are
narrower than those to the tract to the north. Principal Planner Stan Sawa
stated he was unaware of any change, but appeared to be smaller on the
drawings. Commissioner Newkirk pointed out that the old tract shows seven
lots and the new drawing shows nine lots. Planning Manager Christine di
Iorio stated the map is the same as submitted before.
5. Commissioner Tyler asked if the City conditioned tracts to continue street
names that adjoin neighboring tracts. He would like to see the same name on
the street that passes into the adjoining tract. Staff stated a condition would
be added to make sure this happened.
6. Commissioner Tyler asked if Condition #42.g., was limiting regarding the
number of garages. Staff stated the condition was to require that no less than
two car garages must be constructed. Commissioner Tyler stated that the
words "at least" should be added to the condition.
7. Commissioner Tyler stated Condition #53 was a duplication of Condition #48
and one should be eliminated. Staff stated they would eliminate Condition
#53.
8. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Abels opened the public
hearing. Mr. Dan Ferguson, engineer for the project, stated they had no
objections to the Conditions as recommended.
9. Commissioner Anderson asked if their was a condition addressing the
concerns of the neighboring development about two story homes being
constructed next to existing single family homes. Commissioner Tyler stated
Condition 42.e. addressed this issue.
10. Commissioner Barrows asked if the neighbors concern was for just those
homes on the boundary, or the entire tract. Commissioner Newkirk stated he
understood that they wanted the entire tract to be single story. City Attorney
Dawn Honeywell stated the conditions require 75% of the development to be
single story and it is not a part of the City's standard codes to require the
entire development to be single story. Discussion followed regarding what
was customary.
11. There being no questions of the applicant and no further public comment, the
public hearing was closed. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Anderson/Barrows to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 96-023
PC6-11 2
Planning Commission Meeting
June 11, 1996
recommending to the City Council approval of a third one year time
extension for Tentative Tract 25691 (Amendment #1), subject to the revised
Conditions of Approval. .
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Anderson, Barrows, Butler, Gardner,
Newkirk, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT:
Commissioner None. ABSTAIN: None.
B. Tentative Tract 28335-R (Reversion to Acreage); a request of Mr. & Mrs. Robert R.
Taylor for approval of a reversion to acreage to reconsolidate Tract 26251, Lots 1 and
2, and Lot "A", and Parcel Merger 93-298, Lots 1 and A into a single 3.3 acre parcel.
1. Chairman Abels stated staff had received a letter from the attorney
representing the adjoining homeowners' association requesting a continuance
to give them time to review the proposal. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell
stated the Commission needed to open the public hearing or decide whether
to continue the item. Commissioners Gardner/Newkirk moved and seconded
a motion to continue the request to the next Planning Commission meeting.
2. Mr. Murray, speaking on behalf of the applicant, apologized for speaking out
of order, but requested to speak regarding the application. Staff informed the
Commission that the letter requesting the continuance had been received from
the homeowners' association and not the applicant. Chairman Abels asked
the City Attorney if they needed to take an action if they were going to
continue the item. City Attorney stated if the Commission decided to
continue the item they would not take any action, but the continuance was up
to the Commission's discretion.
3. Commissioners Gardner/Newkirk withdrew their motion and second.
4. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff
report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department.
5. Commissioner Anderson asked if any improvements had been made to the
site other than recordation of the map. Principal Planner Stan Sawa stated
there was a rough road that had been graded, but no other work had been
started that he was aware of.
6. Commissioner Tyler stated that a building pad has also been roughed in.
PC6-11 3
Planning Commission Meeting
June 11, 1996
7. Commissioner Butler asked about the items that were referenced in the
attorney's letter, such as drainage, wind erosion, water erosion, and
restoration of natural hillsides, and asked if these items were covered by the
bond, and if released would the City lose any control. Staff stated the bond
was required by the Public Works Department and staff was unaware of
exactly what the bonds were for. Staff believed it to be for subdivision
related improvements which would include the roadway, but it is unknown
whether or not it included all the items mentioned in the letter. The
conditions of approval contain requirements regarding these items. Planning
Manager Christine di Iorio stated the requirements were in case of any
buildings being constructed on the site in the future. If a permit is pulled the
items will be covered at that time. Principal Planner Stan Sawa stated the
requirements were for the construction of a single house on the one parcel
once it is reverted back to acreage.
8. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Abels opened the public
hearing. Mr. Bill Murray, engineer for the applicant, stated they had no
problem with the Conditions of Approval. They have taken steps to insure,
under the property rights portion of the Condition (#4) that legal access rights
to a public road are secured. In reference to improvements, there is a dirt
road and pad, but he was not aware of when they were placed there. They do
concur with the need for dust control as noted in the conditions. The request
is unusual in that it is difficult to divide the property in the first place,
therefore, in considering reversing the property back to acreage was given a
lot of thought. Mr. Murray went on to explain the process they had gone
through to join the lots. All easements and agreements for the improvements
are still in place. The Public Works Department had sent them a letter
informing them which bonds would be retained to secure the improvements
until the project is completed. He had spoken with the homeowners'
association attorney and they would like to review the Conditions of
Approval that might affect the homeowners. During the process, the
applicant has granted a storm drainage easement to the homeowners'
association. Has objective is to be before the Council on July 2nd. The final
map is on tract for that date and to delay this project for two weeks will mean
they will miss that meeting. He did not understand the need for a continuance
to review conditions that are already in place to protect those issues raised in
their letter. Mr. Murray stated he was meeting with the attorney and the
homeowners to assure them that all their concerns are being addressed. He
respectfully requested that the Commission approve his application at this
meeting.
PC6-11 4
Planning Commission Meeting
June 11, 1996
9. Commissioner Anderson asked Mr. Murray to explain what the difference
was between a parcel merger and reversion to acreage. Mr. Murray stated
the end result would be one lot in either case. The difference is that the
reversion to acreage process allows for the elimination of the tract and the
condition requiring bonds. Certain bonds could be released whereas a parcel
merger does not achieve the same objective. Commissioner Anderson
clarified he was inquiring if there was anything physically to prevent one
large house from being constructed.
10. Commissioner Butler asked the City Attorney if the Commission approved
the request, could the homeowners' association still present their questions
to the City Council. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated there would be
nothing to prevent them from asking their questions at the City Council
meeting. Commissioner Butler stated he had no objection to approving the
request before them, as long as the homeowners' association are not
prejudiced by this decision.
11. Chairman Abels clarified that the homeowners' association was asking for
the continuance because they had been out of town and not received the
notice till late. The item could be continued and then go to the City Council
for their second meeting in July. He felt it was a difficult situation, and the
homeowners should have the opportunity to present their concerns to the
Planning Commission. Mr. Murray stated he had tentatively set a meeting
with the homeowners' association and their attorney to discuss their concerns
and insure them the issues would be taken care of to their satisfaction. If the
Planning Commission approves the request, they would have ample time to
work out any problems with the homeowners' association prior to the July
2nd City Council meeting. They would like to stay on their time schedule.
Chairman Abel s stated he understood Mr. Murray's concerns and realized
he would be meeting with the homeowners' association and their attorney,
but he was still reluctant to proceed.
12. Commissioner Barrows stated that it appeared that the conditions would
address the issues raised in the association's letter, however, as they were
unable to be present, it was difficult to be certain they were addressing all
their concerns. The applicant is required to address all these issues in the
Conditions of Approval. Commissioner Butler agreed.
13. Commissioner Anderson stated he saw no reason why the attorney and
applicant would not be able to resolve their issues and still make the City
Council meeting. If those issues are not resolved, the City Council can
continue the matter. The issues are minor and he would hate to see things put
off, due to the homeowners' association not being able to attend.
PC6-11 5
Planning Commission Meeting
.tune 11, 1996
14. Commissioner Tyler stated he basically agreed that the conditions addressed
all the concerns. However, they had indicated to the homeowners'
representative, Mr. Tom Hill, that they had no problem with continuing this
item, they should consider the request. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell
informed the Commission that the only consideration before the Planning
Commission is what is stated during the public hearing. Any commitment
made prior to the public hearing would be an action taken in violation of the
Brown Act. The Planning Commission is only to consider what is said
during the meeting.
15. Chairman Abels stated that in reference to the comment made by
Commissioner Anderson, the Planning Commission was to resolve these
problems so when they go to the City Council most of the issues are resolved.
If the Planning Commission is going to turn the matters over to the City
Council without resolving them, there is no need for the Planning
Commission. Commissioner Anderson stated he understood the argument
and agreed, but he saw no need to delay the applicant.
16. Mr. Murray stated he was sorry the homeowners' association representative
was unable to attend the meeting, but all the concerns raised in their letter are
still in place to protect them and he did not consider it fair to the applicant to
continue the item.
17. Commissioner Barrows asked staff if there was any value to adding a
condition that would require a meeting between the applicant and the
homeowners' association. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated this would
not be allowed. Commissioner Barrows further agreed with Commissioner
Anderson that the concerns of the homeowners' association are addressed in
the Conditions of Approval, and along with staff s recommendation, she did
not feel they were passing any unfinished business on to the City Council.
18. Mr. Murray stated his client should not be penalized because the
homeowners' association was unable to attend. They had ample time to get
a response to the City and they did not. Further, he will be meeting with their
attorney and he cannot see anything they would be concerned about that is not
addressed in the conditions.
19. Commissioner Gardner asked if the City was holding bonds and would they
be released if the Commission approved the reversion. Planning Manager
Christine di Iorio stated the Commission was making a recommendation to
the City Council and nothing would happen with the bonds until the City
Council made a decision. The action of the Planning Commission would not
affect the bonds.
PC6-11 6
Planning Commission Meeting
June 11, 1996
20. There being no further public comment, the Public Hearing was closed.
21. Commissioner Butler stated that although he felt the homeowners'
association should be heard and he had no objection to continuing the item.
However, in light of the fact that the applicant is willing to meet with the
homeowners's association and resolve any concerns they may have, he
believed it would be unfair to the applicant to continue the project.
22. Commissioner Barrows stated she agreed that the applicant should not be
held up when there are conditions in place that reference the concerns raised
by the homeowners' association.
23. Commissioner Gardner stated he also agreed that the applicant should not be
held up. He asked if a condition could be added to require the meeting
between the applicant and the homeowners' association. City Attorney Dawn
Honeywell stated it would not be appropriate.
24. Chairman Abels asked what would happen if the meeting between the two
did not happen. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the homeowners'
association attorney would present their arguments before the City Council
and Council would address the issues at that time. Chairman Abels stated he
did not want to put the Planning Commission in a position where this could
happen.
25. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Barrows/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution
96-024 recommending to the City Council approval of the reversion to
acreage for Tentative Tract 28335-R, subject to the revised conditions.
26. Commissioner Tyler stated he would vote no as he did not feel they were
giving the homeowners' fair consideration by presuming that the items
mentioned in the letter are their only concerns. These issues should be
resolved before passing it goes to the City Council
27. Commissioner Gardner asked if the request was approved on a four to three
vote, would this relay the message to the Council that there are some
reservations on the part of some of the Commissions. City Attorney Dawn
Honeywell stated that Council members do read the minutes so they would
be informed.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Anderson, Barrows, Butler, and Newkirk. NOES:
Commissioners Abels, Gardner, and Tyler. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
PC6-11 7
Planning Commission Meeting
June 11, 1996
28. Chairman Abels stated he felt the Planning Commission should resolve the
issue before sending it on to the Council.
29. Commissioner Butler stated the homeowners association has had ample
opportunity to address the issue. The applicant is here and prepared. The
letter states the issues they are concerned with, and the Conditions of
Approval address those issues and the applicant has stated he will resolve any
other issues prior to the City Council meeting. Therefore, he sees no reason
to delay the applicant.
30. Commissioner Gardner agreed. He did not want to hold up the project, but
felt the issues should be addressed.
VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: None
VI. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Chairman Abels asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of May 28, 1996.
There being no changes or correction, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Tyler/Gardner to approve the minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved.
VII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS
A. Commissioner Tyler reported on the City Council meeting of June 4, 1996.
B. Department update - Planning Manager Christine di Iorio report that Mr. Bogan had
file an appeal to his sign program and it will be before the City Council on July 2nd.
In addition, staff had received the Boston Market application for processing.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Gardner/Butler to
adjourn this meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting on June 25, 1996. This
regular meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 7:55 P.M. Unanimously approved.
PC6-11 8