1991 12 11 PCwilly a/ Ya 2"IDni(a
AGENDA
A Special Joint Meeting
of the
CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION
December 11, 1991
7:00 P.M.
LA QUINTA MIDDLE SCHOOL
MULTI -PURPOSE ROOM
78-900 50TH AVENUE
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253
CALL TO ORDER - Flag Salute
ROLL CALL
WORKSHOP OUTLINE
1. Introduction of Consultant Team and City Staff
2. Overview of General Plan Update Process
3. Presentation of General Plan Alternatives
4. Discussion of General Plan Alternatives
5. Announce Next Meeting Date/Time/Place
ADJOURNMENT
PC/AGENDA
5
MINUTES
JOINT MEETING OF THE CIZ°Ise, COUNCIL
AND
F'LAI�TNING COMMISSION
December 11, 1991
Mayor Pena called the joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission
together at 7:05 P.M.
ROLL CALL: Councilman Bohnenberger, Sniff, Rushworth, Franklin, and
Mayor Pena
Planning Commissioners Mosher, Ladner, Ellson, Marrs
Chairwoman Barrows
Principal Planner Fred Baker introduced the consultants for the General Plan
update, Mr. John McNamara, Mr. Tim Campbell and Mr. Jon Vlaming of BRW, Inc.
to the Council, Commission and audience.
Mr. McNamara reviewed the progress of the General Plan update process as to the
areas discussed at previous workshops. He stated this meeting would concentrate
on General Plan Update Alternatives. Following a presentation by BRW the following
comments were made by members of the audience.
1. Audrey Ostrowski:
Concern for downtown commercial
2. Joe Hammer:
Concern for downzoning in Alternative #2 as it
would affect his property.
3. Lucia Moran:
Asked that consideration be given to where low
income housing is placed so as not to create a slum
area by placing it all in one area.
4. Wally Reynolds:
Concern for traffic problem in Indian Springs area
with construction of new high school.
5. Joe Wassell:
Concern for low income housing location.
6. John Musial:
Concern for the financial impact of the different
projects at buildout .
7. Jack McGinty:
Was objecting to people speaking who do not live in
La Quinta .
8. Gary Avise:
Asked how the zoning at 50th and Jefferson was
determined and what the designated zoning is for a
golf course.
9. Marion Ellson:
Asked that the Palm Royale and Indian Springs golf
courses not be overlooked.
10. Craig Bryant:
Inquired what the location of public golf courses
would be and asked that an adjustment to the
number of dwelling units be made on Alternative #2.
11. Jim Batten:
Asked how the City compensates a landowner when
they rezone his property.
12. Hank Hohenstein:
Asked that the City develop policies that affect the
agriculture nonprofit trust and deal with trail
systems and open space. Need to establish a
cultural identity.
13. George Berkey: Asked that in the future goals of the City
consideration be given to development of the alluvial
fans.
14. Marion Ellson: Discussed the location of schools, churches, and
low income housing.
15. Rosalyn Davis: Need to look into the designation of schools.
16. Dale Bohnenberger: Brought up the issue of the area within Annexation
#5 and how it relates to the General Plan update.
17. Katie Barrows: The Planning Commission would like to see the
Annexation #5 area be low density.
18. Lindsey Lamberson: Concern for clients in the area being able to develop
their land with their desired land use.
19. Kristie Franklin: Wants to develop an equestrian trail in this area.
20. Mike Rowe: Expressed concern for his clients property in this
area.
21. Morgan Ward: Concern for clients property being able to obtain
the desired density.
22. Shirley McGinty: Property owners in the area want to maintain the
country informal environment.
23. Bruce Thorckmorton: Expressed his concern as a property owner in the
area.
Mr. McNamara reviewed the statements above and as they would apply to the General
Plan update.
1. The Village Commercial designation is the same on all three alternatives.
2. The High Density Residential areas near Highway 111 as illustrated on
Alternative #2 may affect current commercial development negotiations.
3. Be careful not to concentrate low-income persons in one area or in the same
type of housing.
4. Evaluate the traffic impact of the community park and high school on Westward
Ho Drive.
5. The evaluation phase will include an identification of the costs of community
facilities necessary to serve the three alternatives.
6. The Generals Plan should take into account adjacent land uses in other cities.
7. A General Plan amendment would be necessary to change the golf course
designations to other land use designations.
8. Develop along Westward Ho Drive and in the Palm Royale development existing
golf courses should be included and labeled accordingly.
9. Consider residential development on alluvial fans.
10. Address the loss of agricultural land and its loss/impact on agricultural
businesses.
11. Consider a local land trust as a mechanism to preserve open spaces areas.
12. There should be regional solutions to solid waste and hazardous waste
problems.
13. Are we encouraging cultural diversity in terms of ethnicity or arts and crafts?
14. High density housing should be located in the Village.
15. Should there be more Neighborhood Commercial nodes to reduce traffic.
16. Encourage residential clustering techniques to preserve land, such as more
open space, linear parks, retention, and more cost effective development.
17. Limit maximum residential density with bonuses.
PCJTM12-11
18. Include a General Plan policy on church and private school
locations / development standards.
19. Coordinate school locations in the Community Facilities Element.
20. What type of character is appropriate within each land use designation?
There being no further discussion, Mr. Campbell thanked everyone for their input
and turned the meeting back to Mayor Pena. Mayor Pena thanked everyone for their
attendance and stated a notice would be mailed notifying everyone of the next
meeting. This joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission was
adjourned at 9 :17 P.M.
PCJTM12-11