Loading...
1994 02 08 PCwlty a/ 9?a 2uen�a PLANNING COl►MISSION WA A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chambers 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California February 8, 1994 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 94-003 Beginning Minute Motion 94-006 CALL TO ORDER - Flag Salute ROLL CALL PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Item ............... CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-010 Applicant .......... Mr. & Mrs. Jack Eldridge Location ........... 48-731 San Vicente Street Request ............ Approval to convert an existing attached 21h car garage into a second unit (Granny Unit) for living purposes for an individual 62 years of age or older, pursuant to the City's R-1 Zoning Code standards (Chapter 9.32.015). Action ............. Resolution 94- 2. Item ............... AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN - PROJECT AREA #1 Applicant .......... City of La Quinta Location ........... Generally south of 50th Avenue Request ............ Amendment to Project Area #1 Action ............. Resolution 94- PC/AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT This is the time set aside for citizens to address the Planning Commission on matters relating to City planning and zoning which are not Agenda items. When addressing the Planning Commission, please state your name and address. BUSINESS SESSION - None CONSENT CALENDAR Approval of the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of January 25, 1994. OTHER Conference update. ADJOURNMENT STUDY SESSION Tuesday, February 8, 1994 Study Session Room 4:00 P.M. 1. All agenda items. PC/AGENDA STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: FEBRUARY 8, 1994 CASE NO.: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-010 REQUEST: TO CONVERT AN EXISTING SEMI -ATTACHED 21/z CAR GARAGE INTO A SECOND UNIT (GRANNY UNIT) FOR LIVING PURPOSES FOR AN INDIVIDUAL 62 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER PURSUANT TO THE CITY'S R-1 ZONING CODE STANDARDS (CHAPTER 9.32.015) APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNERS: MR. & MRS. JACK ELDRIDGE DESIGNER: JUAN OCHOA (OCHOA & ASSOCIATES) LOCATION: 48-731 SAN VICENTE STREET ZONING: R-1.* (ONE FAMILY DWELLING - 1,200 SQ. FT. MINIMUM HOUSE SIZE) BACKGROUND: Site Location The subject parcel is approximately 400-feet south of Eisenhower Drive on the south side of San Vicente Street. Eisenhower Drive is a private street within the subdivision that runs parallel to Eisenhower Drive. The private street has been referred to as a frontage road to the main Eisenhower Drive to the north. The parcel is in the La Quinta Golf Estates. The south side of the house is located on an existing 18-hole private golf course (Attachment 1). The site is the only flag lot located on the loop street. A 30-foot wide access strip provides access to the existing home. San Vicente Street is a private street (e.g., 50-feet width). Access into the gated subdivision can occur at the east -leg of San Vicente or at Coachella Drive from Eisenhower Drive. Eisenhower Drive is a local public street bordering the north and west sides of the subdivision. The width of Eisenhower Drive is 100-feet (i.e., four lanes). PCST.161 1 Existing Site Improvements The existing ±3,800 square foot home (excluding garages) was built approximately fifteen years ago, prior to the City's incorporation. The U-shaped house is located on the south and west sides of the lot, with the private recreational facilities located in the center of the home (i.e., swimming pool, spa, and gazebo). The home has two separate covered parking garages which can accommodate four vehicles plus a golf cart. Project Background, The applicants initially submitted their construction plans to the Building and Safety Department in November, 1993. 7'he plans were rejected because the proposal did not meet City requirements. The property owners were told that the City passed two new ordinances for accessory units in 1992, and in order to construct a guest house, the maximum size was 300 square feet. The plans were redrawn to meet the 300 square foot size requirement in December because the owners wanted the construction work completed before Christmas. In December, however, the property owners withdrew their plans because they felt the City's 300 square foot limit was too small for them. In January, the Eldridges' requested that staff process a conditional use permit for their project since the unit was greater than 300 square feet based on our "Second Unit" provisions. Tract Background, The La Quinta Golf Estates project was approved by the County of Riverside in the late 1950's and the tract map was recorded in 1959. The project includes 155 single family lots (i.e., Golf Estates #1) and is located on a portion of the existing La Quinta Country Club golf course. The other projects which abut the golf course are the Montero Estates, Lago La Quinta, the Islands, Club La Quinta, and Washington Villas. The existing home is surrounded by other single family homes. The minimum size house for this tract is 2,000 square feet, per the recorded CC & R's. Environmental Determination The La Quinta Planning and Development Department has determined that the proposal is Categorically Exempt will be filed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Section 15303a). Development Proposal The applicants would like to convert the northerly semi -attached 21/2 car garage (i.e., attached by the roof structure only) into living quarters for a member of their immediate family. The converted facility is designed to include a living room, wet bar (i.e., sink, dishwasher, and small refrigerator), bedroom, and bathroom. The unit is approximately 700 square feet in size (Attachment 2). No cooking facilities are proposed. PCST.161 The second unit is one story (13'6") and the only new improvements will be converting the inside to a habitable area and replacing the existing garage doors with bay windows and brick veneer. The existing garage is attached to the existing house by the roof structure only. The second unit is separate from the main house by an existing entry court.. Homeowners' Association Review The Homeowners' Association approved the applicants' request on November 8, 1993. The property owners have stated that there are existing single family homes in their development which have attached or detached accessory living quarters (e.g., maid's quarters, etc.) which were approved after construction of their existing home. Staff is unable to confirm or deny this statement. However, we have reviewed the CC & R's for the project and accessory facilities were allowed, subject to the approval by the Association. Zoning Code Requirements The site is zoned R-1* (One Family Dwelling) by the City. The Code requires a conditional use permit for second units (i.e., granny units). The second unit provisions became effective in October, 1992 (Ordinance 213). Second units are designed for persons 62 years of age or older. The attached or detached units cannot be sold, but they can be rented provided the ordinance requirements are met. A copy of the Code is attached (Attachment 4). Public Noticing, Public notices were mailed to all property owners within 300 feet in January, and the notice was published in the Desert Sun on January 15, 1994. Approximately 26 public notices were sent. Conditional Use Permits No applicant shall be deemed to ever have any "right" to a conditional use permit. Such permit is in the category of an "exception" under the zoning regulations, and the grant of the same shall be viewed as a special dispensation. In granting the permit, the Commission may require certain safeguards and establish certain conditions to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the community subject to the following findings: A. That the use applied for at the location set forth in the application is a proper one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by this Ordinance. B. That the use is necessary or desirable for the development of the community, is in harmony with the various elements or objectives of the General Plan, and is not detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the zone in which the proposed use is to be located. PCST.161 C. That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate said use and all of the yards, setbacks and walls or fences, landscaping, and other features required in order to adjust said use to those existing or permitted future uses on land in the neighborhood. D. That the site for the proposed use relates properly to streets and highways which are designed and improved to carry the type and quantity of traffic generated or to be generated by this proposed use. State Law provisions Government Code Section 65852.2 begins simply by authorizing cities to provide for second units, attached or detached, in single family and multi -family residential zones. It in fact mandates that some second attached units be permitted in at least some single family residential zones, except in unusual circumstances such as adverse impact on the public health, safety, and welfare. Such findings might include traffic congestion, existing high densities on small lots, and lack adequate water or sewer services. However, it is doubtful that factual findings sufficient to withstand legal attack could be made in most instances. The State guidelines were used to develop the City's existing Zoning Code provisions. The City's Code was developed with the idea that second units would be allowed provided they were proposed on lots greater than 7,200 square feet, and other minimum standards were met (i.e., unit size, age restrictions, etc.). The Eldridges' application is the first application request the City has processed since adoption of our existing Zoning Code standards. ANALYSIS: The applicants are proposing a second unit for a family member who is over 62 years of age. Mr. & Mrs. Jack Eldridge have stated that they wish to have Mrs. Eldridge's father live with them, but they are limited by their existing residence even though it is larger than an average single family home. They believe their options are: 1) to sell their existing home and buy a larger home; 2) try to build an addition without using the existing garages; or 3) propose a conversion of the existing 21/2 car garage. Their preference is to convert one of their existing covered garages to meet their immediate needs because they cannot build a two story addition based on their existing CC&R requirements. The proposed plans are consistent with the City's Zoning Code requirements as designed. The site is adequate in size to support the development request. Staff recommends approval of the plans pursuant to the attached Findings and Conditions of Approval. No major impacts are anticipated if the request is granted. PCST.161 RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission should certify the Categorical Exemption and adopt Planning Commission Resolution 94- , approving the development request subject to the attached Findings and Conditions of Approval. Attachments: 1. Location map 2. Reductions 3. Letter from applicant 4. Zoning Code Excerpt 5. Land Use Map 6. Draft Resolution with Conditions of Approval 7. Large exhibits (Planning Commissioners only) PCST.161 5 ATTACHMENT 1 i♦ i � wnit • ' . z, a OwNTA I GOtFHOTEL6 O T TENNIS RESORT dip � Al. At •` � •1 � �yl�(,uu t �� �l eLua/oUsf - Jay •I LA' OUINTA 7 •f.4,'•MOUNTA/N, COURSE, C ~ Ilia •' o = a 2 Lr �� •�. J Q .l•V �- 42 a s> a i Y m> ,� o 0 0 0 0 i i a i AVENIDA MOn zt CASE MAP CASE Np, Conditional Use Permit 94-010 Mr. and Mrs. Jack Eldridge Location Man I NA GR TI SCALE: nts wo..are+•w.awwmw.ow aaaara•vwYaw•v��o.�°s.w• � *w.•U •IYdwo V1NvoA11V* 11 Y1N1Qo V1 —I Frn raw o'l,tea gtgN 1r117M7f 3001Zi'13 )19 • .. • • , , • ' S ItVM00 mm=,Lw"'° ATTACHMENT 2 ail ■ w �1. � - : Ilii h Q • gyeppIt 1 Y f F �tsj p vi ViNino a.�....�, f '13 )3 saw 8 aw N.,.12M-doov ta,nxI `� Llausa 4 es ♦ Z_3v l S % S 11 91 ---�- _ ti NN 0d19" ' t1Nifl0 tl sNaarns�s YoiYsaN� Mpaa3Y ttOYa ag �m r..■®a+w.w•...•,n •a,ww w vo4nsis i asHn Ntl/ Y001/'Y1100sM9t �y■ p E 532R.7�SSY9 WHO .. ..i•[Tt�•-1�� _, pQ! NML100t GoN3Y 33HiM23M r _ _ _ _ .1 0 s I ( 6661 1 Z 03Q s ksd I ATTACHMENT 3 Jack & Barbara Eldridge 40-731 San Vicente Street P.O. Box 407 La Quints, CA 92253 Greg Trousdell City of La Quinta 48-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 JAN f 0 IiTY G PLA�t+dlNu UtFRtt,;GNT SUBJECT: PROPOSED GRANNY UNIT USING EXISTING UNUSED GARAGE. ®ear Greg Trousdell: My Father in law Paul Reinschmidt, is 82 years old and is alone due to his wife passing away last October (See enclosed memorial announcement). Because of his advanced years, we plan to take care of him at our home most of the time. Our home, although fairly large, has only two bedrooms because I use a bedroom as an office. Several years ago 1 added another 2-1/2 car garage with the plan of using the original garage as a granny unit, in anticipation of becoming a caretaker for one or both of my wives parents. ATTACHMENT 4 9.32.015 Conditional uses. The following use may be allowed subject to obtaining a conditional use permit as provided by Chapter 9.172. A. Second Units ("Granny Housing'). A second unit which provides for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation will only be allowed on a lot or parcel with a minimum of seven thousand two hundred square feet or larger. A second unit may be attached, as part of the existing residential unit not to exceed thirty percent of the existing living area, or a unit may be detached with a square footage not to exceed one thousand two hundred square feet. This unit is intended for the sole occupancy of one or two persons who are sixty-two years of age or more, or a handicapped person of any age (and spouse or care giver). The following provisions are applicable: 1. The unit is not intended for sale and may be rented; 2. The lot is zoned for single-family or multifamily use; 3. The lot contains an existing single-family dwelling; 4. a. The second unit is attached to the existing residence and is located within the living area of the existing dwelling, b. Whenever an increase in floor area is involved, it shall not exceed thirty percent of the existing living area, c. Local building code requirements shall apply to attached structures as appropriate; 5. a. The unit may be a detached unit which does not exceed one thousand two hundred square feet, b. Any second unit shall conform to height, setback, lot coverage, architectural review, site plan review, fees, charges, and other zoning requirements applicable to residential construction in the zone in which the property is located, c. Local building code requirements shall apply to detached dwellings, as appropriate; 6. Approval by the local health officer where a private sewage disposal system is being used, if required; 7. "Living area" means the interior habitable area of a dwelling unit, including basements and attics (if permitted) and shall not include a garage or any accessory structure; 8. A minimum of three off -sheet parking spaces must be provided (two car garage for the primary residential unit and one space enclosed or open for the second unit). Tandem parking does not qualify for this provision; 9. No more than sixty percent of the lot can be covered with permanent/temporary buildings (such as a single-family home, second unit, accessory buildings, garages, covered patios, guest house, gazebos, etc.). (In -ground pools, for this calculation, are not part of the sixty percent.) (Ord. 213 § 1 (part), 1992) ATTACHMENT 5 POR. S//2 /UW//4 SEC. 3/, r 5S, R 7£ T. R. A. ow- oos � F fAr - Adl i t Home Home Home Home Vacant 3 1�4 ; Vacant J fj • ® t! N / Io /? t 0 ® • 0 Home Vacant Vacant I Horne Vacan Home ati /d J Home Y Vacant Vacant .,�„ Home ome r o ® .n Vacant Home Home ati:ie Home Homea� II l6 Home-1sr O /J Home Proper Location pIKI M 1� AfB 37/916-95 Lo Or//n/o Bo/1 £i1bh� INx / PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 94- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, ANNOUNCING FINDINGS AND APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A SECOND UNIT FOR AN EXISTING RESIDENCE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-010 MR. & MRS. JACK ELDRIDGE WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 8th day of February, 1994, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of the approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow conversion of an existing two and one- half car garage into an independent living quarters (±700 square feet) for an individual 62 years of age or older, pursuant to Chapter 9.32.015 of the La Quinta Municipal Code. The site is located at 48-731 San Vincente Street, more particularly described as: A PORTION OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 31, T5S, R7E, S.B.B.M. (APN: 646-140-007; LOT 12, LA QUINTA GOLF ESTATES # 1) WHEREAS, said Conditional Use Permit has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (Resolution 83- 63), in that the Planning Director has determined that the project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment per Section 15303a (Categorical Exemption) of CEQA; and, WHEREAS, 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, findings, and reasons to justify approval of said Conditional Use Permit: 1. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community. 2. The Conditional Use Permit, as conditioned, is consistent with the approval and conditions of which this site is a part of. 3. The Conditional Use Permit, as conditioned, is consistent with the zoning requirements of the City. 4. That the proposed. project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Section 15303a). RESOPC.126 Planning Commission Resolution 94- NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case. 2. That it does hereby approve Conditional Use Permit 94-010 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions, labeled Exhibit "A". PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this Sth day of February, 1994, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: KATIE BARROWS, Chairwoman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Planning Director City of La Quinta, California RESOPC.126 2 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-010 - MR. & MRS. JACK ELDRIDGE FEBRUARY 8, 1994 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 1. The development of this site shall be generally in conformance with the exhibits contained in the file for Conditional Use Permit 94-010, unless otherwise amended by the following conditions. 2. The approved conditional use permit shall be used within one year of the Planning Commission approval; otherwise it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. "Be used" means the beginning of substantial construction which is allowed by this approval, not including grading, which is begun within the one year period and thereafter diligently pursued to completion. 3. That the provisions of Chapter 9.32.015 (Second Units) of the Municipal Code shall be met during plan check. 4. Construction shall comply with all local and State building code requirements in effect at the time of issuance of a building permit. 5. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any building permit, the applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: Coachella Valley Water District Imperial Irrigation District Desert Sands Unified School District 6. Prior to final occupancy of the second unit, the property owner shall sign and execute a covenant and/or agreement restricting the use of the new living quarters to persons 62 years of age or older and/or restricting the future use of the accessory unit. The agreement shall be recorded with the County of Riverside and it shall run with the existing and future property title. The agreement shall be processed with the Planning and Development Department, with the final agreement to be approved by the City Attorney prior to recordation. CONAPRVL.115 1 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: FE:BRUARY 8, 1994 REQUEST: RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR THE AMENDMENT TO THE LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1. REPRESENTATIVE: EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ISSUE: California Community Redevelopment Law, Health and Safety Code Sectin 33000 et. sgg. (the "Law") requires that the :Planning Commission and the Redevelopment Agency cooperate in the selection of project areas and in the preparation of a preliminary plan. The Redevelopment Agency is requesting that the Planning Commission consider and adopt the attached Preliminary Plan, which will initiate the proceedings to amend the Redevelopment Plan for Project No. 1. BACKGROUND: On April 13, 1993, the Planning Commission approved the Preliminary Plan for the merger of Redevelopment Projects Nos. 1 and 2; this approval initiated proceedings to merge the Agency's two Projects into a single, consolidated project. Subsequent to the Planning Commission's action, Agency staff conducted a series of discussions with representatives of the taxing entities that receive revenue from both Projects to assess the fiscal implications of the merger. As a result of these discussions, Agency staff concluded that a merger would detrimentally affect the financial position of Project No. 2. Further, a subsequent litigation settlement between the Agency and the County of Riverside regarding Project No. 1 tax increment supported this conclusion. However, the fiscal project, and time constraints embodied in the Project No. 1 Redevelopment Plan continue to warrant an amendment to modify these limitations which constrain the Agency's ability to implement a comprehensive redevelopment program. In order to initiate an amendment involving only the Redevelopment Plan for Project No. 1 (the "Amendment"), Agency staff and consultants have prepared a new Preliminary Plan for the Commission's consideration. Through the Amendment, the Agency will address the financial and time constraints, and expand the public infrastructure and facilities project list. The proposed Amendment will not modify the boundaries, nor add territory, of Project Area No. 1. The Redevelopment Law prescribes that the Agency must follow the process set forth for adopting or amending redevelopment plans when undertaking this Amendment. As such, the Planning Commission is required to formulate and approve a Preliminary Plan for the proposed Amendment. PCST.164 1 ANALYSIS/FISCAL IMPACT: The contents of the Preliminary Plan are prescribed by the Redevelopment Law. Generally, the Preliminary Plan must include a description of the boundaries of the Project Area, a general description of the existing land uses, layout of principle streets, proposed population densities and building intensities, the general objectives of the Preliminary Plan, a statement of conformity to the General Plan, and a discussion of any potential impacts to surrounding neighborhoods A public hearing is not required prior to the approval of a Preliminary Plan. Further, approval of the Preliminary Plan does not obligate the Planning Commission to give final approval to the Amendment. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 94- approving the Preliminary Plan for the Amendment to La Quinta. Redevelopment Project No. 1 and submitting the Preliminary Plan to the Redevelopment Agency for their acceptance. PCST.164 PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR THE AMENDMENT TO LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 February 1, 1994 Prepared for: La Quinta Redevelopment Agency 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California 92253 619/777-7100 Prepared by: Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. 540 North Golden Circle, Suite 305 Santa Ana, California 92705 714/541-4585 PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR THE AMENDMENT TO LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION I. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................I SECTION II. PROJECT AREA LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ........................ 4 SECTION M. GENERAL STATEMENT OF PROPOSED PLANNING ELEMENTS......................................................................4 A. Land Use...................................................................................... 4 B. General Statement of Proposed Layout of PrincipalStreets............................................................................ 5 C. General Statement of Proposed Population Densities ..................... 6 D. General Statement of Proposed Building Intensities ....................... 6 E. General Statement of Proposed Building Standards ....................... 6 SECTION IV. ATTAINMENT OF THE PURPOSES OF THE LAW ........................7 SECTION V. CONFORMANCE TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY ......... 9 SECTION VI. GENERAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT UPON THE RESIDENTS OF THE PROJECT AREA AND SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS.............................................................................. 9 EXHIBIT 1 CTTY OF LA QUINTA REGIONAL LOCATION EXHIBIT 2 PROJECT AREA NO. 1 MAP PRELEVIINARY PLAN FOR THE AMENDMENT TO LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 I. INTRODUCTION This is the Preliminary Plan (the "Preliminary Plan") for the proposed amendment to the adopted Redevelopment Plan (the "Original Plan") for the La Quinta Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the "Project"). The La Quinta Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency") desires to initiate redevelopment plan amendment proceedings pursuant to the California community Redevelopment Law (the; "Amendment") to: (1) increase the dollar limit on tax increment revenue the Agency may be allocated from the Project, (2) eliminate the current limit on the amount of bond debt the Agency may have outstanding at any one time (pursuant to the provisions enacted by Assembly Bill 1290), (3) establish new time periods within which the Agency may incur debt, commence eminent domain proceedings, and receive tax increment, and (4) expand the public projects list embodied in the Original Plan. When adopted, the Amended Redevelopment Plan for the Project (the "Amended Plan") will supersede and replace the Original Plan, and will guide all future redevelopment activities, projects, and programs in La Quinta Redevelopment Project Area No. 1 (the "Project Area"). The Amendment, however, will not affect the Agency's existing obligations or indebtedness. The City Council of the City of La Quinta activated the Agency on July 5, 1983. Shortly thereafter, in November 1983, the Agency adopted the Original Plan, which established the Project Area. The Project Area includes land designated for commercial, office, residential, retail, institutional, recreational and public uses. The Project Area has not been modified or amended since adoption. layukra\preptan2 1 02/01/94 Limitations of the Original Plan In 1993, Agency staff initiated discussions with the Agency Board regarding the current limitations of the Original Plan. These constraints hinder the Agency's ability to correct blighting conditions, promote economic development, and facilitate the construction of affordable housing. They involve the following: • A public projects list which does not accord with the broader statutory authority and enabling provisions of the Original Plan. In pursuing economic development, affordable housing, and other redevelopment activities, the Agency finds that public facility and/or infrastructure improvements are necessary to their success. The Original Plan does not include a comprehensive portfolio of infrastructure and public facility projects that are needed in the Project Area to accommodate development. The omission of these projects from the Original Plan restricts the Agency's efforts to fund their construction. A Financial limits which constrain the Agency's ability to complete current and initiate new redevelopment activities. The Agency has reached the current $35.0 million bond debt limit, and is projected to attain the existing $300.00 million tax increment limit prior to completing current projects. When this occurs, the Agency will not receive tax increment revenue and/or be able to incur additional debt necessary to finance the remaining Agency and taxing entity redevelopment projects. taq—ta\prepinZ 2 02/01 /94 • Expiration of the eminent domain authority that will inhibit future property consolidation (on a selective basis) which facilitates needed infrastructure projects and eradicates blighting conditions. Although„ to date, this authority has been sparingly applied, its availability has been a necessary adjunct to redevelopment project negotiations, and may be critical if the Agency is to implement redevelopment programs when the state and the regional economies recover. Given these limitations, the Agency desires to proceed with the Amendment. The Amendment would address the limitations inherent in the Original Plan, and would provide the Agency with the maximum capabilities to pursue economic development and affordable housing opportunities throughout the Project Area. Prior Amendment/Merger Preliminaa Plan On April 13, 1993, the La Quinta Planning Commission approved a preliminary plan which initiated a Project amendment designed to merge the Project with La Quinta Redevelopment Project No. 2, and rectify the aforementioned limitations. This amendment/merger was subsequently abandoned as a result of a litigation settlement agreement with the County of Riverside. Evaluation of the settlement agreement resulted in the decision to not merge the two Projects, but to instead proceed with this Amendment to address the limits embodied in the Original Plan. This Preliminary Plan has been prepared in accordance with Section 33324 of the California Community Redevelopment Law, Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et. se (the "Law"), which states that a preliminary plan should: (a) describe the boundaries of the project area; (b) contain a general statement of land uses, layout of principal streets, population densities, and building intensities and standards; laq-ta\p-plan2 3 02/01/94 (c) show how the purpose of the Law would be attained by such implementation of the redevelopment plan; (d) show how the proposed redevelopment plan conforms to the general plan; and (e) describe, generally, the impact of a redevelopment project upon residents of the project area and surrounding neighborhoods. H. PROJECT AREA LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The Project Area is located in the City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California. Located in the Coachella Valley, the City of La Quinta is 20 miles southeast of Palm Springs and 237 miles from Los Angeles. The City was incorporated in 1982 and encompasses an area of 28 square miles. The regional location of the City is depicted on Exhibit 1. The Project Area depicted on Exhibit 2 is bounded generally by Avenue 50 to the north, Jefferson Street to the east, Avenue 60 to the south, and the City limit boundary on the west. The Amendment does not propose to either add or delete property from the existing Project Area. III. GENERAL STATEMENT OF PROPOSED PLANNING ELEMENTS A. LAND USES The land uses permitted in the Project Area shall be in conformance with the City of La Quinta General Plan (the "General Plan"), the Zoning Ordinance of the City, and all other state and local building codes and guidelines as they now exist or are hereafter amended. The following uses are presently permitted by the General Plan: 1agWnffi\prep1an2 4 02/01/94 - RESIDENTIAL Very Low Density Low Density Medium Density High Density - COMMERCIAL Village Commercial Tourist Commercial Special Commercial Mixed Commercial General Commercial Commercial Park - OPEN SPACE - WATER COURSE/FLOOD CONTROL B. GENERAL, STATEMENT OF PROPOSED LAYOUT OF PRINCIPAL STREETS The principal streets within the Project Area include Avenue 50, Avenue 52, Avenue 54, Avenue 58, Washington Street, Madison Street, and Jefferson Street. The layout of principal streets and those that may be developed in the future shall conform to the Circulation Element of the General Plan as currently adopted or as hereafter amended. Existing streets within the Project Area may be closed, widened or otherwise modified, and additional streets may be created as necessary for proper pedestrian and/or vehicular circulation provided they are consistent with the General Plan. laq—ta\pml-2 5 02/01/94 C. GENERAL, STATEMENT OF PROPOSED POPULATION DENSITIES Permitted densities within the Project Area shall conform to the General Plan as currently adopted or as hereafter amended, and applicable ordinances and local codes. D. GENERAL, STATEMENT OF PROPOSED BUILDING INTENSITIES Building intensity shall be controlled by limits on: (1) the percentage of the building site covered by the building (land coverage); (2) the ratio of the total floor area for all stories of the building to the area of the building site (floor area ratio); (3) the size and location of the buildable area on the building site; and (4) the heights of the building. The limits on building intensity shall be established in accordance with the provisions of the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and local codes and ordinances, as they now exist or are hereafter amended. The land coverage, sizes and location of the buildable areas will be limited, as is feasible and appropriate, to provide adequate open space and parking. E. GENERAL, STATEMENT OF PROPOSED BUILDING STANDARDS Building standards shall conform to the building requirements of applicable local codes and ordinances. The Agency may consider more restrictive requirements and may incorporate such requirements into the Amended Redevelopment Plan in the interest of the public health, safety and welfare. k,—ta\p-pl-2 6 02/01/94 IV. ATTAINMENT OF THE PURPOSES OF THE REDEVELOPMENT LAW The purposes of the Law are to protect and promote the sound development and redevelopment of economically, socially and physically deficient areas, and to protect the general welfare of the inhabitants of the communities in which they dwell. The Amendment would allow the Agency to more comprehensively attain these purposes by expanding the Agency's financial and statutory authority to alleviate conditions of blight, revitalize commercial areas, protect residential uses and neighborhoods, construct additional public improvement and facilities, and develop affordable housing. Through the Amendment, the Agency would address the following circumstances: Public Projects The Law requires that public facility and infrastructure projects must be listed in the redevelopment plan in order for an agency to fund their construction with tax increment revenue. As stated earlier, the existing public projects list is limited and does not accord with the broader statutory authority and enabling provisions of the Original Plan. Further, this list does not include public infrastructure and facilitates projects that are necessary to correct blight, accommodate economic development, and facilitate affordable housing construction. Further, language in the Original Plan frustrates the Agency's ability to gain outside financial support, or to provide needed funding to address particular public improvements. These improvements have been identified by the Agency as community development needs, which would alleviate blight resulting from poor traffic circulation, inadequate street improvements, flooding, and traffic safety. The Amendment would address this deficiency by adding infrastructure and public facility projects to the list of eligible projects. kq*ffi\;aw,-z 7 02i0v94 Tax Increment Revenue Limits and Bonded Indebtedness The Law states that a redevelopment plan shall include limits on the tax increment revenue an agency may receive and the total bond debt outstanding at one time. The Agency has achieved the current bond debt limit and, as such, cannot issue additional bonds to fund new economic development, infrastructure, or housing projects; the Agency does, however, have the tax increment revenue capacity to support additional bond debt service payments. The existing tax increment limit is projected to be reached prior to repayment of existing debt obligations. This will constrain the Agency's ability to fund projects needed to address blight, and promote affordable housing opportunities. This Amendment will modify these limitations, by increasing the tax increment revenue limit, and eliminating the bond debt limit, pursuant to the provisions of the Law. Extend Time Limits In order to provide the Agency with the capability of repaying future indebtedness and fund additional projects, the Amended Plan will extend the time frames within which the Agency may incur indebtedness, implement redevelopment activities and programs, and receive tax increment revenue. Because funds necessary to finance existing and proposed redevelopment are paid over time, projects extending the time limits will allow the Agency to more fully realize the objectives of the Original Plan. Finally, the Agency seeks to establish a new 12-year duration on the use of eminent domain, as a last resort for property acquisition. While eminent domain historically has been rarely used, it can be a necessary adjunct to negotiations on selective projects involving land assembly and consolidation. 1aqWnta\v*ep1an2 8 02/01/94 V. CONFORMANCE TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY This Preliminary Plan cortforms to the City of La Quinta General Plan, and proposes a consistent pattern of land uses and includes all highways and public facilities as indicated by the General Plan, as it now exists or is hereafter amended. VI. GENERAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT UPON THE RESIDENTS OF THE PROJECT AREA AND SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS The impact of the Project will generally be in the areas of improved public infrastructure, facilities and services, improved living environment, increased and improved supply of affordable housing, and enhanced employment and economic activity. Redevelopment activities within the Project Area will provide for the: improvement, development, replanning, redesign, reconstruction and rehabilitation of the area and the provision of commercial, industrial, public and other structures and open spaces in the interest of the general welfare of the community. It is also anticipated that redevelopment activities orchestrated by the Agency will provide additional employment opportunities and enhance: the environmental quality of the community. Thus, the benefits of the Project affect the immediate and long-range economic viability of the entire City. The Amended Plan will be implemented as sufficient financial resources are available. Redevelopment projects are intended to be phased over a period of time, with only a limited amount of direct activity at any one time. Redevelopment projects will be subject to future review and approval by the City Council, Agency, La Quinta Planning Commission and other appropriate bodies after input has been solicited from affected residents, property owners and other interested parties. 1aq—ta\pr*bn2 9 02/01/94 .: I DESERT HOT SPRINGS p RNERSIDE Rtrogald• County PALMINOS o LA oulr•r'p� -�- �- -/ EXHIBIT 1111' CITY OF LA OUINTA REGIONAL LOCATION JIM ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP INC. mmT7, = . Project Area Boundaries 4k- EXHIBIT 11211 PROJECT AREA NO. 1 MAP Ro IS ENOW S PEVACEK GROUP INC. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 94- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR THE LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AS PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED WHEREAS, the La Quinta Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency") has established boundaries and formulated a Redevelopment Plan for the La Quinta Redevelopment Project (the "Project" or "Project No. I") as approved by Ordinance 43 of the City of La Quinta (the "City"); and, WHEREAS, the Agency and the City desire to consider the amendment of the Redevelopment Plan (the "Original Plan") for the Project; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to such amendment (the "Proposed Amendment") it is contemplated that various provisions of the Original Plan would be amended, but that no change be made to the boundaries of the Project; and, WHEREAS, a draft Preliminary Plan has been formulated and has been received by the Planning Commission in the form submitted herewith; and, WHEREAS, the objectives of the Project, as well as the public health, safety, welfare, and morals, would be furthered by the Project Amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The Preliminary Plan formulated for the La Quinta Redevelopment Project as submitted herewith is hereby accepted and approved. SECTION 2. Staff is authorized and directed to transmit the Preliminary Plan together with a copy of this Resolution to the Agency. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 8th day of February, 1994, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RESOPC.128 Resolution 94- KATIE BARROWS, Chairwoman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Planning Director City of La Quinta, California RESOPC.128 t_jr ID • r 14-836-1 748 FEB 02'94 11.30 PNO.Cl0" r.'-I- DATE: February 8, 1994 TO; PLANP41NG CCMMISSION FROM; EXECUTIVE D ECTOR. PEDP.` ELOPMENT AGENCY SUBJECT: RESOLUTION APPROVING TITE PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR THE AMENDNIENT TO LA (?mNTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO, I California. Comraaunity Redevelopment Law, health and Safety Code Section 33000 91.-(1.1se "Law") rcquires tat the Planning Commission and the Redevelopment Agency cooperate in the selection of project areas and in the preparation of a preliminary plan. The Redevelopment Agency is requesting tllst the Planning Commission consider and adopt the attached Prelirninar-y Plan, which will initi-FIE the proceedings to amens the Redevelopment Plan for Project No ! . On April 13, 1993, *e Planning C:ommissiorapproved the PreHminary Plan for the merger of R.edevelopmenrt Project Taos. I and 2; this approval initiated proceedings to merge the Agency's two Projects into a single, consolidated project. Subsequent to the Planning Commission's action, Agency staff conducted a series of discussions with representatives of the taxing entitles that receive revenue from both Proivcts to assess the fiscal implications of the merger. As a res.rit of these discussions, Agency staff concluded that a merger would dcirimentat!y afl`Ect the fin;an6a; position of Project 1�0. 2. Further, a subsequent litigation settlement between the Agency and the County of Riverside rcgarding Project No. I tax increment supported this conclusion. However, the fiscal, project, any time constraints embodied in the Project No, 1 Redevelopment Plan continue to warrant an a.,nendrrment to modify these limitations which constrain the Agency's ability to implement a comprehensive redevOopment program,. in order to initiaU. an amendment involving only the Redevelopment flan for Project No. I (the "Amendment"), Agency %tzfF?nd consultants have prepared a nevi, Preliminary Plan for the Commission's consideration. I i1c FEB 02 ' 94 11 :.30 No . 00 : N . 03 Planning Commisslor. February 3, 1994 Page 2 Through the Amendment, the Agency will address the financial and time constraints, and expand the public infrastrilewre and facilities protect list. The proposed Amendment will not modify the boundaries, nor add territory, ofFrojea Area No. 1. The Redevelopment La)v prescribes that the Agency must follow the process set forgh for adopting or amergding ietlevelopment plans when undertaking this Amendment. As s;: ch, thy: Planning Commission is require: to formulate and approve a Preliminary flan for the proposed Amendment. The contents of the Preliminary flan are prescribed by the redevelopment Law. General,b" the Preli r.Wary Plan must inchude a &-wription of the boundaries oi`tl).e project Area, a general description of the existing, land uses, layout of principle streets, proposed population densities and Wilding intensities, the general objectives of the Preliminary Plan, a statement of conformity tc the General Plan, and a discussion of any potentiFJ impacts to surrounding neighborhoods. A public hearing is not required prior to the approval of a Preliminary flan. Further, approval of the Prelinnary Plan does not obligate the Planning Commission to give final approval to the Amendment, That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. _ Y approving the Preiilninary PIRA for the Amendment to La Quinta Redevelopment Project No. 1 and submitting the Preliminary Flan to the Redevelopment a 1gency for their Pcceptance. ;aq'untA%%MMm>4 IU:?14-835-1748 FEB 02'9L 11,29 No.005 F.ri py.� ►� �^I I I f � �i�;��f (36l.NOW SPGVACPK GROUP INC. ___. - -j ' ax number: ff roicct reference, a k. From; j.lC Date: ..19 A /2-1 Number of pages inc uJing cover: Our Fax number is 714/836.1748. If there are any problems with this transmission, please call 714/541-4585. oinm.ents: - Transrniitea by: � f - Time:,_ )ate: al 2' ,40 1Vartn t.oiden Circle, g,aitr 3o5, =aaita Ann, CA 92'/05-3914, 1'cicp6nnn 714/541-4586, Fax 714/836•1748, San Tying, 61Q/Qb7 n, -h4 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California January 15, 1994 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER A. The meeting was called to order at 7:03 P.M. by Chairwoman Barrows and Commissioner Abels lead the flag salute. II. ROLL CALL A. Chairwoman Barrows requested the roll call. Present: Commissioners Adolph, Ellson, Marrs, Abels, and Chairwoman Barrows. B. Staff Present: Planning Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Dawn Honeywell, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate Planner Greg Trousdell and Wallace Nesbit, and Department Secretary Betty Sawyer. III. PUBLIC HEARINGS - A. Plot Plan 91-456 Amendment #1: a request of the Koenig Companies for approval of Time Extension #2 for a commercial shopping center consisting of 85,650 square feet on 9.25 acres. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. Commissioner Adolph asked staff how many extensions could be requested. Staff stated it was not specified in the conditions. 3. Commissioner Ellson asked whether commercial projects had the automatic time extension (two years) as residential tracts. Staff stated they did not. 4. There being no further questions of staff, Chairwoman Barrows opened the public hearing. Mr. John Koenig, applicant, explained his project and stated his concern regarding Condition #16. He requested to have the option of doing a lot line adjustment or parcel map. Pcl-25 1 Planning Commission Minutes January 25, 1994 5. Commissioner Adolph asked Mr. Koenig if he understood the condition that required 50 % shading of the parking lot and at present he did not meet it. Mr. Koenig stated that this was a fairly common requirement that he had been required to meet in other locations and they have been able to do so with the date palms. Discussion followed regarding problems in the use of date palms. 6. Commissioner Marrs asked if Mr. Koenig was aware of the problems the La Quinta Hotel incurred with their palm trees (i.e., damage to cars through the loss of the palm head). Mr. Koenig stated he was aware, but the tree provided the landscape effect they preferred. Since they have used the palm tree so much in other areas, they have learned a great deal about how to plant and maintain a healthy tree. He further stated that no matter how many precautions were taken, maintenance of the trees would be a problem. 7. Chairwoman Barrows asked Mr. Koenig what percentage of coverage was achieved in Indian Wells. Mr. Koenig stated they had reached the 50 % shading. Chairwoman Barrows encouraged the applicant to accomplish the same with this project. 8. Commissioner Ellson asked about the deletion of the detention basin and how would the drainage would be handled. Mr. Koenig stated that he was working with staff and the adjacent property owner to the north, to design a detention basin that would pipe the on -site water to a common facility off -site utilizing a pumping station. 9. There being no further public comment, Chairwoman Barrows closed the public hearing. 10. Principal Planner Stan Sawa brought Condition 48.B. to the Commission's attention in that the condition needed to be modified to correspond with the recently approved Jascorp project. The driveway width requirement should be the same. 11. Commissioner Ellson asked if Conditions #14 and #61 were the same. Staff stated they would incorporate the two and delete #61. 12. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Adolph to adopt Minute Motion 94-003 approving Plot Plan 91-456, Extension of Time #2, subject to the amended conditions including modifying Condition #16 to allow the applicant the option of a parcel map or a lot line adjustment. Unanimously approved. PC1-25 2 Planning commission Minutes January 25, 1994 B. Si)ecific Plan 87-009, Amendment #3; a request of the City for text amendment to allow implementation of interim and permanent circulation alternatives around the Downtown Village Park. 1. Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. Staff informed the Commission of the proposed changes to the recommended specific plan language. 2. Commissioner Adolph asked if the proposed plans were done by staff or a consultant. Staff stated they had been done by the Engineering Department. Commissioner Adolph asked if there had been any thought to hiring a traffic consultant. Staff stated that as this was the initial study period, no thought had been given to hiring a consultant. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated that should the City Council direct staff to hire a consultant, staff would do so, but as these were interim alternatives staff felt they were workable and safe. He further stated that as the Phase V Assessment District was in process, the intersection of Eisenhower and Montezuma needed to be addressed and these alternatives were presented to be utilized until a permanent decision was made. There being no further questions for staff, Chairwoman Barrows opened the public hearing. Mr. Don Martin, District Manager of the Coachella Valley Parks and Recreation District, stated that they had originally preferred Attachment #3 as the first choice and second choice would be the Base Alternative. Since then the Board had changed their opinion and now prefer the Base Alternative as their first choice with Alternative A as their second choice. Discussion followed as to what each alternative consisted of and the District's preference. 4. Audrey Ostrowsky, La Quinta property owner, stated her concern that the Planning Commission represent the people and not consider themselves as staff. She further stated that the City needs a City Traffic Engineer. The streets need to be planned before they are constructed. 5. Mr. Rick Morris, La Quinta property owner, stated his appreciation for the work the City is putting into this area. 6. Mr. Rupert Yessayian, La Quinta property owner representing his family and other businesses in the area, asked that the Commission vote against this proposal as all of the property owners in the area are against this proposition. He further stated that most of the property owners around the park have all expressed their desire to have the two-way traffic He went on to give a history of the park circulation plan. PC1-25 3 Planning Commission Minutes January 25, 1994 7. There being no further public comment, Chairwoman Barrows closed the public hearing. 8. Commissioner Marrs stated that he had not heard of any serious accidents in this area even though the area is an accident waiting to happen. He further stated he would like to see safety controls at all the intersections. Staff stated that all the alternatives create a four-way stop to allow safe pedestrian traffic. Commissioner Marrs stated he was referring to half- way down Montezuma between Eisenhower Drive and Avenida Bermudas. Staff stated this was an option the Commission might want to pass on to the Council. 9. Commissioner Ables stated the item before them was to give the Council the ability to make traffic circulation changes as deemed necessary. He further stated he did not see a need for a traffic engineer as these were only interim alternatives. 10. Chairwoman Barrows clarified that the Commission was only recommending approval of an amendment to allow the Council more flexibility to the adopted specific plan. 11. There being no further discussion; it was moved and seconded by Commissioner Abels/Ellson to adopt Resolution 94-002, confirming the Environmental Determination and recommending to the City Council adoption of Amendment #3 to Specific Plan 87-009 and in accordance with Exhibit "B" as revised and dated January 25, 1994. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Ellson, Marrs, Abels, Chairwoman Barrows. NOES: Commissioner Adolph. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. IV. PUBLIC COMMENT: - None IV. BUSINESS SESSION A. Precise Plan 93-840; a request of Richard and Ida Livingston to establish a large family day care operation at their home. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. PC1-25 4 Planning Commission Minutes January 25, 1994 2. Commissioner Abels asked staff to clarify which license came first, City or State and whether a City license was needed. Staff stated that once a precise plan has been approved by the City, the applicant will go to the County for their day care license. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that the City business licensing requirement may be pre-empted by State law and she would look into the matter. 3. Commissioner Adolph asked if large meant 7-12 children and a small day care would be 1-6. Staff stated that was correct, and the applicant has stated they only planned to have six children but wanted the large day care license to allow them the flexibility should there be a need for an occasionally extra child or two. 4. Commissioner Abels asked if the State law was different for the different sizes. Staff stated there were different requirements for each type of facility. 5. Commissioner Ellson asked if the City knew by prior day care facilities in the City, whether they required State and City licensing. Staff stated the City has only issued one license prior to this one. 6. Commissioner Adolph asked if the State takes precedent over the City. Staff stated that was correct. 7. Mrs. Ida Livingston, the applicant stated they were told by the State that they would have no problem obtaining a State license due to their experience and background, but to check with the City to see that they met the City requirements. They have completed all applications and are awaiting City approval. They have received clearances from the Sheriff's Department, Child Abuse Department, fire alarms are in and they have installed all the safety requirements that are needed. She went on to explain the operational requirements of their proposed day care operation. 8. Commissioner Abels asked if the home met the Social Services requirement for size. Mrs. Livingston stated they did and she went on to explain what the requirements were for their home. 9. Commissioner Adolph stated he parked by the site for a while and never saw a car on the street while he was there, but was concerned for the size of the backyard as a playground. Mrs. Livingston stated the State did not require a yard or even fencing. Their yard is fenced and is adequate for the number of children they will be caring for. They plan to add a slide PC1-25 Planning Commission Minutes January 25, 1994 and sandbox as the only equipment for the children. Commissioner Adolph asked if there was any way a child could get through the fence to the neighbor's pool. Mrs. Livingston stated no there was no access between her home and the neighbor to the rear. 10. Mr. Hans Kraker, neighbor and property owner, indicated his concerns about for the day care center. His major concern was for the safety of the children in the neighborhood and the increased traffic due to children being dropped off and picked up. He further stated he did not feel the house was large enough for 12 children. In addition, he felt the frontyard should be fenced. 11. Commissioners Ellson and Abels commended the Livingston for going through the proper channels to have this type of business as they felt La Quinta needed such a service. 12. Commissioner Adolph asked if the City could place any stipulation on the number of children the home could have. Staff stated they could not. 13. Chairwoman Barrows stated that she lived in an area with a day care but she never noticed any increase in traffic and felt the parents were even more attentive to children playing than the average driver. 14. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Ellson/Abels to adopt Minute Motion 94-004 approving Precise Plan 93-840, subject to the attached conditions. Unanimously approved. B. Tentative Tract 23269 - La Quinta Highlands; a request of Mr. Jimmy Crowell, Century Crowell Communities, for approval of final site/landscaping plans for Lots #173, #175, #177, and #185 of Phase VII. 1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. Commissioner Abels asked the City Attorney to clarify whether the request to change a two story to a single could be discussed as it was not agendized. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that since the project was on the agenda all items could be discussed as people were notified that this tract was on the agenda. PC1-25 6 Planning Commission Minutes January 25, 1994 3. There being no further questions, Chairwoman Barrows asked if the applicant wished to address the Commission. 4. Mr. Jimmy Crowell, applicant, stated his request that Lot #181 be allowed to be a single story rather than the planned two story. This was at the request of the buyer of the home. He further requested clarification on the front yard setback. He did not want to lose any additional backyard if it was possible. In addition, he asked for clarification of Condition #6 of the staff report and asked that he not be required to return to the Planning Commission for approval, but be able to work these items out with staff. Discussion followed Mr. Crowell's request. 5. Commissioner Marrs asked about the changing of one of the models from a two story to a single story. He stated that any time the applicant wants to go from a single to a two story, the Commission would want to review it, but from a two story to a single story should be handled through staff. 6. Commissioner Ellson asked if this would cause a problem of similarity of front exteriors. Mr. Crowell stated it would not as they did not want any similarity either. 7. Commissioner Adolph questioned how the applicant could get three cars on Lot #185 based on his proposed driveway design and its abrupt angles. Mr. Crowell stated he would look at it again and if necessary he would widen the driveway. Discussion followed as to possible alternatives. Mr. Crowell stated he would work the problem out with staff. 8. Commissioner Ellson stated her concern of getting three cars on Lot #177. Mr. Crowell stated that he would get all three cars on all the required lots and he would work this out with staff to the Commission's satisfaction. 9. There being no further no further comment, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Marrs/Abels to adopt Minute Motion 94-005 to approve the site plan/landscape plans for Century Crowell Communities for Lots #1173, #175, #177, and #185 of Phase VII, subject to the Conditions of Approval. The Planning Commission stated the applicant was to work with staff to refine the final construction drawings. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Chairwoman Barrows asked if there were any additional corrections to the Minutes of January 11, 1994. Commissioner Ellson asked that on Page 4, Item PC1-25 7 Planning Commission Minutes January 25, 1994 #5 be eliminated and on Page 7 the wording be changed from line 4 to delete "off of Park Avenue" and add after Tampico, "between Washington Street and Park Avenue ". There being no further corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Ellson to adopt the minutes as corrected. Unanimously approved. VII. OTHER A. Planning and Development Director Jerry Herman informed the Commissioners that there were enough funds available for the entire Commission to attend the League of California Cities Planners Institute. He further stated that the badges for the Commissioners was still being designed. B. Commissioners were informed that staff was writing letters to the J.M. Peters company notifying them of their illegal tract signs and the matter would be turned over to Code Enforcement. C. Commissioner Ellson asked if staff could answer the question regarding the walls on Calle Tampico east of Washington Street. Staff stated they were constructed prior to the height restrictions of the SR Zone. VIII. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made and seconded by Commissioners Adolph/Marrs to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on February 8, 1994, at 7:00 P.M. at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chambers. This meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission was adjourned at 8:36 P.M., January 25, 1994. PC1-25