1987 12 08 PCo` Z
L ¢4 AGENDA
�f
OF'FNtv�?
PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA
A Regular Meeting to be Held at the
La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado,
La Quinta, California
December 8, 1987 - 7:00 p.m.
I. CALL TO ORDER
Flag Salute
II. ROLL CALL
III. HEARINGS
A. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE #87-005
APPLICANT: RICK JOHNSON CONSTRUCTION -
PARKSIDE PLAZA
LOCATION: 77-836 AVENIDA MONTEZUMA
PROJECT: REDUCE NUMBER OF ON -SITE
PARKING SPACES REQUIRED FOR
PROPOSED ADDITION (CHAPTER
9.160 LQMC)
1. Staff Report
2. Public Comment
3. Commission Discussion
4. Hearing Closed
5. Motion for Commission Action
IV. 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 Public Hearing items.
]Persons wishing to address the Planning Commission should
use the form provided. Please complete one form for each
:item you intend to address and submit the form to the
Planning Secretary prior to the beginning of the meeting.
'Your name will be called at the appropriate time.
MR/AGENDA12.08
E
When addressing the Planning Commission, please state your
name and address. The proceedings of the Planning
Commission meeting are recorded on tape and comments of
each person shall be limited.
V. CONSENT CALENDAR - None
VI. BUSINESS
A. Item: Amendment to Plot Plan 87-375
Applicant: La Quinta Arts Foundation
Location: 78-080 Avenida La Fonda
Project: Construct a covered unenclosed
patio and entry for an existing
building.
1. Staff Report
2. Commission Discussion
3. Commission Comments
B. Any action relating to Study Session items.
VII.OTHER
Discussion Items:
A. Home Occupation Criteria - dispatching of vehicles.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
ITEMS FOR December 7, 1987, 3:00 P.M. STUDY SESSION
"DISCUSSION ONLY"
1. Report from Highway ill Specific Plan
Sub -Committee.
2. Discussion regarding joint City
Council/Planning Commission study session for
the Village Specific Plan.
3. Identification of future Commission Agenda
items.
4. All other Agenda items.
MR/AGENDA12.08
DATE:
APPLICANT:
PROJECT
LOCATION:
PROJECT
PROPOSAL:
ZONING
DESIGNATION:
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATIONS:
BACKGROUND:
® 0
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
DECEMBER 8, 1987
RICK JOHNSON CONSTRUCTION-PARKSIDE PLAZA
77-836 AVENIDA MONTEZUMA
VARIANCE #87-005 - REDUCE NUMBER OF ON -SITE
PARKING SPACES REQUIRED FOR PROPOSED ADDITION
(CHAPTER 9.160 LQMC).
SCENIC HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL (C-P-S ZONE)
VILLAGE COMMERCIAL
PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
On October 13, 1987, the Applicant's request (Plot Plan #87-383)
to enclose the existing covered walking area to be used as a
walkway/pedestrian corridor was approved subject to conditions
(attached).
During discussion of the plot plan request, the Applicant
indicated that, should the area be used for office/retail space,
the parking requirements could then be addressed.
The Applicant is now before the Commission seeking a parking
variance. The enclosure consists of 360 square feet for retail
use, 208 square feet for office use, and 198 square feet for
public corridor. This additional area generates the need for
three additional parking spaces, or a total of 15 parking spaces
for the existing building and proposed addition. The site
currently provides 12 parking spaces.
ANALYSIS
1. Additional parking could be provided by 1) purchase of an
adjacent lot, 2) eliminate the existing garage and
construct additional parking along the building's west
MR/STAFFRPT.020 1
side, or 3) seek a parking variance. The Applicant
proposes to not provide the three additional required
parking spaces and seeks a variance.
2. Variances may be granted when special circumstances
applicable to a parcel of property, such a3 size, shape,
topography, location or surroundings, exist and the strict
application of the regulation deprives the property of
development privileges enjoyed by other property in the
vicinity that is within the same zoning district.
Therefore, basically, a variance is used to cure an
inequity.
3. The regulations regarding the granting of variances
further state that any variance granted shall be subject
to conditions so that the adjustment does not constitute a
granting of special privileges that is inconsistent with
the limitations upon other property in the vicinity and
zone.
4. Granting the Applicant's variance request cannot be
justified by any special circumstances associated with the
parcel.
COMMISSION ACTION
Should the Commission make a finding to grant this variance,
there would need to be mitigating measures adopted to assure
that it does not constitute a granting of special privilege.
One means in which to do this is to have the Applicant pay a
mitigation fee to the City and enter into an irrevocable offer
to join a future parking district.
A draft resolution has been prepared for Commission action.
MR/STAFFRPT.020 2
u
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 87-018
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, ANNOUNCING FINDINGS AND
(DENYING/GRANTING) A VARIANCE FROM PARKING
CASE NO. VAR 87-005
RICK JOHNSON CONSTRUCTION/MARGARET R. MEILE
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La
Quinta, California, did on the 8th day of December, 1987, hold
duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Rick
Johnson Construction and Margaret R. Meile for a variance to
Section 9.160.040 of the La Quinta Municipal Code (LQMC),
permitting 12 permanent on -site parking spaces where 15 are
required, for property generally located at the northwest corner
of Avenida Montezuma and Avenida Mendoza, more particularly
described as:
Lot 1, 2 & 3 of Block 128, Santa Ca.rmelita
at Vale La Quinta, Unit 414, in M.B.18,
pages 82 and 83 of Maps.
WHEREAS, said variance request has complied with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (County of Riverside,
Resolution No. 82-213, adopted by reference in City of La Quinta
Ordinance No. 5), in that the Planning Director has conducted an
initial study and has determined that the proposed variance will
not have a significant effect on the environment; 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 and
reasons to justify the (approval/denial) of said variance:
1. The strict application of parking requirements to
the subject property (will/does not) deprive it of
privileges enjoyed by other similarly zoned property
in the area, since the purpose and intent of the
parking requirements may be reasonably attained (by
special conditions of approval/other means
available).
2. Approval of the variance (as conditioned will
not/will) constitute the granting of a special
privilege inconsistent with limitations on other
similarly zoned property in the area.
MR/RESODRFT.018 1
N
3. a. The conditions of approval will assure that
the purpose and intent of the parking
requirements are satisfied without adversely
affecting adjacent parcels; or
b. Granting the variance will adversely affect
adjacent parcels.
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 confirm the conclusion of
Environmental Assessment No. 87-082, which indicated
that the variance would not constitute a significant
impact on the environment.
3. That it does hereby (grant/deny) said Variance Case
No. 87-005 for the reasons set forth (and subject to
the conditions labeled Exhibit A, attached hereto).
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of
the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this day of
_, 1987, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Chairman
ATTEST:
Planning Director
MR/RESODRFT.018 2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (DRAFT/RECOMMENDED) EXHIBIT A
VAR 87-005
DECEMBER 8, 1987
1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Property
Owner must either provide: a) 15 permanent parking spaces
as required by the La Quinta Municipal Code; or, b) pay a
cash mitigation payment in the amount -per -space as
determined by the Planning and Development and Public
Works :Departments, plus an inflation factor which is to be
calculated at the time of agreement execution, for the
construction of three permanent paved parking spaces and
enter into an irrevocable offer to participate in any
future parking improvement district that may be formed. A
payment schedule may be established, provided the period
does not exceed four years, and except that if an
assessment/benefit or other parking improvement district
is created the obligation of the property owner shall
become due and payable under the terms of said district or
other parking improvement entity.
The money collected may be released to a City -created
parking district, or, the money collected may be used in
the furtherance of general parking improvements in the
Village Commercial area, at the option of the City; and,
further, any financial obligation issued against said
property will be reduced accordingly to the amount of
mitigation money paid at the time.
2. This Variance approval must be used within one year after
the date of approval by the La Quinta Planning Commission,
unless approved for an extension as provided in the La
Quinta Municipal Code. No extension shall be granted
unless Plot Plan 87-383 is also extended. The term "use"
shall mean the beginning of substantial construction of
the addition, which construction must thereafter be
diligently pursued to completion.
3. Any offsite parking contemplated in satisfaction of
Condition 1, above, shall secure City approval through the
plot plan review process.
MR/CONAPRVL.015
CASE MAP
ORTH
SCALE:
tgoNg
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
DATE: DECEMBER 8, 1987
APPLICANT: LA QUINTA ARTS FOUNDATION
PROJECT
LOCATION: 78-080 AVENIDA LA FONDA
PROJECT: AMENDMENT TO PLOT PLAN NO. 87-375; REQUEST TO
CONSTRUCT A COVERED UNENCLOSED PATIO AND ENTRY
FOR AN EXISTING BUILDING, TO BE USED BY THE LA
QUINTA ARTS FOUNDATION
ZONING
DESIGNATION:
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT:
DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS:
LOT SIZE:
COLOR/DESIGN:
SCENIC HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL (C-P-S)
VILLAGE COMMERCIAL
CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, UNDER SECTION 15301,
CLASS 1 (e)(i)
REQUIRED/PERMITTED
PROVIDED
SETBACKS Front
none
required
13.5
feet
Side
none
required
-0-
Rear
none
required
24.0
feet
BUILDING HEIGHT
35
feet
16.5
feet
BUILDING COVERAGE
100%
5.7
%
PARKING SPACES
3
3
NO MINIMUM - 75'
X 100'
= 7500
sq. ft.
THE ADDITION WILL CONFORM WITH THE EXISTING
BUILDING'S ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENT AND COLOR
SCHEME.
ANALYSIS:
1. The existing project approval on January 27, 1987 provided
conditions to address the required on and off -site
improvements for the Engineering, Fire and Planning
Departments. These existing conditions, with some minor
modifications, will be applied to this amendment request if
it is approved.
MR/STAFFRPT.019 1
2. The Applicant requests approval to construct a covered
patio and entry area with stuccoed columns, and retain the
previously approved restroom as the only enclosed addition
to the existing building as opposed to the originally
contemplated addition.
3. The Applicant has proposed
trees; the species shall
Specific Plan (Area #2) and
detailed landscape plan.
FINDINGS
seven additional landscaping
be consistent with the Village
will be reviewed as part of a
1. The proposed amendment to Plot Plan 87-375, as conditioned,
is consistent with the requirements of the C.P.S. zone and
goals and objectives of the General Plan.
2. The project is exempt for purposes of additional
environmental documentation.
RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the above information, approval of the amended Plot
Plan No. 87-375, is recommended subject to the following
conditions:
1. The development of the site shall be in conformance with
the Exhibits A and B contained in the file for Plot Plan
87-375, Amendment #1, unless otherwise amended by the
following conditions.
2. The approved Plot Plan shall be used within one (1) year of
the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void
and of no effect whatsoever. "Be used" means the beginning
of substantial construction, not including grading,
contemplated by this approval, which is begun within the
one-year period and is thereafter diligently pursued to
completion.
3. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the
Applicant shall install landscaping in accordance with an
approved landscape plan. All trees and plants shall be
maintained in a healthy condition for the life of the
approved use. Species types shall be consistent with the
Village at La Quinta Specific Plan.
4. The parcels must be merged using the parcel merger process
prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
5. The development must comply with the standards and
requirements of Coachella Valley Water District, the City
Engineer and Fire Marshal.
MR/STAFFRPT.019 2
® 0
An enclosed trash area shall be provided having six-foot
walls and a screening gate. The design and location is
subject to Planning and Development Department review and
approval, and shall also be approved on the site plan by
Palm Desert Disposal Company.
MR/STAFFRPT.019
CALLE TAMPICO
55
57
58
59
j
:7[
V ENTUpA
N
Q
C
7
i
S
W
m
m AVENIDA LA FONDA
0 0
0
� s
H �
d y ♦ A IV �1 9 P m r m h f PI IV -� O
-� -� N N N lV IV -� -� -� -� ti -� -� ti H -� m m n C YI ♦ PI lV
1 2 1 3 1 1 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 116 11 12
M
CALLE
W
t
ESTADO
0
1 1 2 1 3 1 1 1 5 1 8 1 7 1 8 9 L 11 1 12
1 1 2 1 3 1 1 1 7 1 8
CASE MAP
CASE No. D p 8 1 - 3 � �-
81
7
J
U
f
W
w
W
O
orz�
i
c
62 63
ORTH
SCALE: /v7-s
f
4) n� ORIGINAL APPROVED SITE PLAN
Ii.
F
die LA [3UINTA ARTS FOUNDATION
�i� TMw a .o.v. w w Mo pl w.. r.e.uV .uee na
yt .v.w
21
4h�E
/I
Eac+ l s A
Nr
o
l
� reu.�
vu r•E. e`1
-SY
{ x t) L )
h
3
JP
'r
H{
COLUMNS-
PROPOSED
PATIO COVER
i
✓wnm avurcn
LEGAL ocuni P i �04J
O V M olNmn oo sEC �ou
�YUY61 nOu 5�44/.4C
r. tu5r�
tvEu�p.1
111ouy
�ji'
uOA�N
SITE PLANS
CITv 0, LAQUINTA
vunxixs a wsmvxen� ono
Jd 7iS 0�->`I
PROPOSED AMENDMENT
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF LA OUINTA
TO: THE HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DATE: DECEMBER 3, 1987
SUBJECT: HOME OCCUPATION SURVEY: VEHICLE DISPATCH REGULATION
The Planning and Development Department recently contacted cities in
the Coachella Valley, as well as the Riverside County Planning
Department, regarding the above subject. Although the ordinances and
regulations requested have not, as of yet, been received, basic
information relative to dispatching of vehicles was obtained during
telephone contact. Attached is a chart briefly outlining each
agency's procedure and highlighting aspects of the regulations which
relate to dispatching or vehicle generation.
The regulations surveyed generally do not address dispatch of
vehicles to and from a home occupation, and none of them actually
define "dispatching". For example, Desert Hot Springs has indicated
that they allow dispatching of vehicles for "professional
consultative services". Individual cases are interpreted as to what
actually comes under this category, so there is no stringent
definition. Recently, beauty operators have been interpreted as
being a professional consultative service, due to the fact that
beauticians are trained and licensed.
memown.121
® 0
COACHELLA VALLEY SURVEY
HOME OCCUPATION REGULATIONS
AGENCY HOME OCCUPATION GENERALLY REGULATION OF VEHICLE DISPATCH
Cathedral Handled through Code One 1 ton vehicle may travel to
City Enforcement Division and from premises; employees
Planning Department may not travel to or from the
is not involved. home occupation.
Coachella Does not address dispatching;
generally a home occupation
may not generate traffic or
disrupt the residential nature
of a neighborhood.
Desert Hot Permitted by the Conditional Dispatching is allowed for
Springs Use Process. "professional consultative
services" interpretation of
what constitutes such a service
is on a case -by -case basis.
Indian Wells Draft ordinance to go before Allows only office type uses;
Planning Commission and City provides that no vehicular
Council. traffic may be generated to
or from the home; dispatch of
vehicles not addressed.
Indio Home occupations generally No vehicular traffic may be
are permitted uses. generated by home occupation;
dispatching not addressed.
Palm Desert Generally addresses vehicle
traffic generation to and from
home occupation.
Palm Springs Handled as part of business Advertising which promotes
license review. vehicle traffic is prohibited;
use not permitted if it causes
additional vehicle/pedestrian
traffic.
memown.121
11
AGENCY HOME OCCUPATION REGULATION Of VEHICLE DISPATCH
Rancho Code Enforcement handles Generally addresses vehicle
Mirage applications through traffic generation.
business license review.
Riverside Not related to a specific Does not address traffic
County ordinance; defined within generation; storage of non -
zoning ordinance. residential vehicles
prohibited.
NOTE: None of the ordinances/regulations define "dispatch" or
"dispatching of vehicles".
memown.121
®0 STu-DV
MEMORANDUM SE55/W
�: Qm CITY OF LA QUINTA ()MLV
11
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
BACKGROUND
THE HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
SUB -COMMITTEE, HIGHWAY 111 SPECIFIC PLAN REVIEW
DECEMBER 2, 1987
COMMITTEE REPORT -- FUTURE ACTIONS REGARDING THE
SPECIFIC PLAN
The Planning Commission last considered the Highway 111 Specific Plan
draft at public hearing on March 24, 1987. Subsequent to that
hearing a sub -committee of the Commission was appointed to advise
regarding further Commission study of the draft. In sub -committee
deliberations it was determined that additional information was
needed regarding market potential for the study area.
City Staff arranged for the contractual services of an economist, and
in July of 1987, the City received a report entitled "Highway 111
Corridor Commercial Land Absorption Study".
After the two members of the sub -committee left the Commission, it
was reconstituted and began meeting again in October of this year
with Commissioner Zelles, Commissioner Moran and public member
Thornburgh.
DISCUSSION
In the course of the sub -committee meetings the implications of the
market study were discussed. Local market share land absorption in
the study area was estimated to involve between 74.66 acres and
104.68 acres to the year 2010. Realizing that the Specific Plan
provided for 700 (plus) acres of potential commercial, the
sub -committee first turned its attention to the definition of
"Mixed -Use Commercial".
The definition provided by the General Plan restricts development on
parcels containing less than 20 acres to General Commercial uses;
and, parcels of 20 acres and over 700 of their land area devoted to
Commercial uses. With a market potential for absorption of only
74-104 acres of land within the foreseeable future, this was believed
to effectively deny near term use of some properties, because market
demand would not exist to generate commercial development. The
sub -committee's first conclusion was that the definition of Mixed -Use
Commercial required re-evaluation.
The principal concern regarding the study area now focuses on land
use. It was the original charge of the sub -committee to steer the
Commission (as a whole) through the numerous topics dealt with by the
Specific Plan (i.e., circulation, infrastructure, financing,
development standards, etc.). The sub -committee arrived at an
approach, which it would like to recommend to the Commission, for the
conduct of further study area evaluation.
With the information from the market analysis the sub -committee
developed a land use scenario which depicts "desired" or "preferred"
uses which are to occur in distinct portions of the study area. In
the example (enclosed) there is also a sense of timing illustrated by
phasing designations. The first phase would suggest areas which are
appropriate, or which are most likely to develop by 2010.
The land use scenario constructed operates on the premise that the
70-30o split in the mixed -use designation has been dropped and that
any given property may be wholly or partially developed with
multi -family residential. The specific rational behind the
sub -committee's scenario may be reviewed further in the Commission's
discussion of this subject.
The sub -committee concluded that the other subjects to be dealt with
by a Specific Plan would follow in line after the land use strategy
was confirmed.
SUB -COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
It is the recommendation of the Sub -Committee that:
That the definition of Mixed -Use Commercial be amended in the
General Plan to allow all or any portion of property so
designated to be used for multi -family residential (without a
percentage required to be commercial).
That further Specific Plan work be based on a desired scenario
of land use arrangement (or choice among scenarios).
That any other textural amendments be made in the General Plan
to allow items No. 1 and 2 to occur.
At some point, the Specific Plan effort will need to be turned back
to Staff with directions for redrafting. There will be some choices
as to the level of effort which goes into that work, and the
resulting product. The minimum effort would be an in house patch -up
of the text as it had been originally presented, deferring much of
the real work to a subsequent implementation phase. In this instance
the attempt would only be to set the basic land use planning policy
framework. Another level of effort would be to involve a consulting
firm (as we did with the Village Plan) and produce a more precise
guideline document. It would be appropriate for the Commission to
memomc.121
consider what their aspirations are for Highway 111 planning and
forward any thoughts on the matter to the City Council.
If the desired product is more typified by the Village Plan (or even
more extensive than that effort), then the subject would probably
need to be addressed by the City Council in 1988-89 fiscal year
budget considerations which will occur in the spring.
PREPARED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
memomc.121
Siu
MEMORANDUM SESSIO/J
m^ CITY OF LA OUINTA 00
CCfAI of C SSE.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DECEMBER 2, 1987
SUBJECT: JOINT COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION REGARDING
THE VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN
The City Council desires to meet with the Planning Commission in
joint study session on December 21, 1987, to receive input from the
Commission regarding their deliberations and recommendation on the
Village Plan. This would occur during the Commission's normal study
session.
In preparation for that session, Staff will transmit a report to
Council containing the Commission's recommendation. Attached is an
excerpt from the draft of that report which summarizes the major
points from the Commission's discussion. Please review the
attachment to see that all items are adequately covered and provide
any comment at the study session on December 7.
Attachment: Report excerpt
EXCERPT - VILLAGE PLAN DRAFT
The Planning Commission in their discussion of the draft Plan,
identified items which they wished to highlight and underscore as
important concepts, areas that might be appropriate for further
evaluation, and particular changes or additions to the draft which
they concurred to recommend to the City Council. These matters are
summarized and forwarded to the City Council for it's deliberation:
* The Commission underscored the need to retain existing foliage,
as presently noted in the draft text reference to the eucalyptus
along Calle Cadiz and Barcellona, and the palm trees which ring
the park site.
* Further study of Avenida Bermudas in terms of a more specific
design theme, incorporation of a landscape median islands, etc.,
was recommended to be included in the Plan. Discussion
concerned a treatment along Bermudas more specific than has
memomc.122
been delineated in
of paving materials
the intersections.
the draft, addressing median islands, change
in the pedestrian crosswalks and perhaps in
There was general concurrence that the right of way width for
Avenida Bermudas between Tampico and Avenue 52 could be
reduced from 88 feet to 64 feet, allowing for wider intersection
"bulbs" as necessary to accommodate turn lanes. (Additional
precising and technical evaluation should follow to determine
feasibility vis-a-vis anticipated traffic volumes and
circulation patterns within the Village.)
* Additional attention to a design theme and design elements was
mentioned with regard to the other streets in the Village Plan.
The Commission expressed it's pleasure with the detailing of
Estado and La Fonda and looked to see elements of that
approach repeated elsewhere. The particular areas the
Commission pointed to for enhancement were:
- The parking lot on the south leg of Montezuma.
The rear street/alley parking areas on both sides of the
park site; specifically, the parking areas adjacent to the
residential district south of the park (recommended as a
plan policy).
- The entrance way to alleys (i.e., behind Estado and La
Fonda), to be enhanced with special paving texture,
landscape features/design features).
The Commission concurred with the use of tree planting
themes within each of the district areas, but information
was communicated regarding local availability of the
prospsis gladiolus, with a suggestion that it be eliminated
from the listing. (Supplies of this tree species may
improve over time, therefore, it could be retained in the
listing.)
The Commission recommended that Avenida Estado and La
Fonda be implemented "now", and build other improvements
around those streets.
The suggestion was advanced that key facilities or areas in
proximity to the Village should be developed in sympathy to
the design objectives stated in the plan. Specific
reference was made to the Civic Center site.
Referring to the above noted items and discussion, the Planning
Commission, recommended to the City Council approval of the Specific
Plan (as revised), by a 4-1 vote.
In response to a letter dated November 25, 1987, from the La Quinta
Chamber of Commerce, Village at La Quinta Specific Plan Committee,
the Commission asked the minutes to reflect a consensus that the idea
memomc.122
,. ® 0
proposed to form a committee to examine implementation of the
adopted project is an excellent idea. (The letter had suggested
that the Plan be sent to a committee prior to adoption -- the
Commission believed the committee referral to be appropriate, but
after there was an adopted policy framework, to investigate
implementation strategies and costs.)
memomc.122