Loading...
1983 03 22 PC2 A G E N D A PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTi, A regular meeting to be held at the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California March 22, 1983 1. CALL TO ORDER A. Flag Salute 2. ROLL CALL 3. HEARINGS 7:00 p.m. A public hearing regarding Tentative Tract Map No. 19203 and the related negative declaration regarding environmental impact, a request for a 61-unit statutory condominium project on 15.8 acres located at the northeast corner of Avenida Bermudas and Avenue 52, The Dese;t Club of La Quinta, Applicant. 1. Report from Associate Planner. 2. Motion for Adoption. A public hearing regarding Conditional Use Case No. 83-002, a request for an off -site sign advertising a subdivision, to be located 500 feet north of the intersection of Eisenhower Drive Il�/cf and Washington Street, Anden Corporation, Applicant. 1. Report from Associate Planner. 2. Motion for Adoption. C. A public hearing regarding a proposed amendment to the Municipal Land Use Ordinance No. 348 regarding height and setback requirements for walls and fences. 1. Report from Associate Planner. 2. Motion for Adoption. A public hearing regarding a proposed amendment to Section 21.36 of the Municipal Land Use Ordinance No. 348 regarding home occupations. 1. Report from Associate Planner. 2. Motion for Adoption. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of February 8, 1983. Alk PLANNING CommiSSION AGENDA - Regular Meeting of March 22, 1983 5. BUSINESS A. Review of Plot Plan No. 83-009, a request to construct a single-family house on a lot located on the west side of Avenida Madero, 50 feet south of Calle Ensenada, Mike Head, Applicant. 1. Report from Associate Planner. 2. Motion for Adoption. ITEM NO. / DATE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MOTION BY: GOETCHEUS I?iKAIiA / KLIMKIEWICZ REILLY THORNBURGH SECOND BY: GOETCHEUS IMKAMP KLIMKIEWICZ REILLY THORNBURGH DISCUSSION: ROLL CALL VOTE: CO^!MISSIONERS: AYE NO ABSTAIN ABSENT PRESENT GOETCHEUS IMKAMP KLIMKIEWICZ REILLY THORNBURGH UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED: YES NO ITEM NO. DATE 3 2-L 2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING RE: MOTION BY: GOETCHEUS IMKAMP KLIMKIEWICZ REILLY THORNBURGH SECOND BY: GOETCHEUS IMKAMP (--KLIMKIEWICZ --------------- /KLIMKIEWICZ 'REILLY THORNBURGH DISCUSSION: �� U ROLL CALL VOTE: CON24ISSIONERS: AYE NO ABSTAIN ABSENT PRESENT GOETCHEUS - IMKAMP KLIMKIEWICZ - REILLY THORNBURGH I l - UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED: YES NO ITEM NO. DATE ,2-� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING RE: TllsLx L 6x� MOTION BY: GOETCHEUS IMKAMP KLIMKIEWICZ REILLY THORNBURGH SECOND BY: GOETCHEUS IMKAMP KLIMKIEWICZ REILLY THORNBURGH DISCUSSION: ROLL CALL VOTE: CON94I S S IONERS : GOETCHEUS IMKAMP KLIMKIEWICZ REILLY THORNBURGH AYE NO ABSTAIN ABSENT PRESENT UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED: YES NO ITEM NO. DATE 3 2L g-5 PLANNING /COMMISSION MEETING RE: MOTION BY: GOETCHEUS IMKAMP KLIMKIEWICZ REILLY THORNBURGH SECOND BY: GOETCHEUS IMKAMP KI.IIMIKIEWI� REILLY THORNBURGH DISCUSSION: ROLL CALL VOTE: COMMISSIONERS: AYE NO ABSTAIN ABSENT PRESENT GOETCHEUS - IMKAPMP - KLIMKIEWICZ - REILLY - THORNBURGH - UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED: YES NO .O' MEMORANDUM 3 i l CITY OF LA OUINTA To: The Honorable Chairman Pro Tan and Members of the Planning Commission From: Sandra L. Bonner, Associate Planner Date: March 22, 1983 Subject: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 19203, A Request To Divide 13.5 Acres Into Two Lots For the Purpose of Constructing 61 Statutory Condominium Units On Lot 1, The Desert Club of La Quinta, Applicant. RE 27Wwu 4 9u9_ � Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue consideration of Tentative Tract Map No. 19203 to the meeting of April 12, 1983 to provide the applicant with additional time to provide necessary documentation. Project Description The applicant is requesting approval to divide 15.8 gross acres into two lots, with 61 statutory condominium units proposed on Lot 1 and the existing Desert Club development on Lot 2. A statutory condominium project is the type of development in which a person buys either that portion of the building containing his dwelling or the "airspace" enclosed within the walls of the dwelling, without owning the property on which the unit stands. The state law requires that a tract map be approved for all condominium projects. In addition, the municipal Land Use Ordinance No. 348 requires corrpliance with certain standards as stated in Section 18.5 of that ordinance (see attached Exhibit "D"). The applicant is proposing to construct six one-story buildings containing a total of 45 units, and two two-story buildings containing a total of 16 units. The proposed development will be located adjacent to the northern boundary of the existing Club development, with the two-story buildings oriented towards the Club's pool area and the one-story units oriented around a green open area with ponds, a swinming pool and hot pool. The overall density of the entire tract is 4.5 dwellings per acre with Lot 1 having a density of 10.85 units per acre. ANALYSIS Consistency With The Zoning The property is currently zoned R-3-4000, General Residential, requiring 4,000 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit with a minimum dwelling size of 1,200 square feet. Regarding the density of the project, the proposed development is consistent with the zoning requirement. However, the proposed unit sizes are inconsistent with the minimum dwelling size requirement. As currently planned, the one -bedroom unit will have 750 square feet, the two --bedroom unit will have 1,059 square feet and the three - bedroom unit will have 1,344 square feet. No information has been submitted by the applicant regarding the location or the number of each type of unit; however, he has stated that the proposed two-story buildings will contain only one -bedroom units. -or f III hOCRANDUM - The Honorable Chairman Pro Tem and Members of the Planning Commission March 22, 1983 Page Two. The Planning Commission has two options regarding the proposed project's inconsistency with the zoning dwelling size requirement. First, if the Commission determines that the unit sizes as proposed would be consistent with the City's policies and compatible with the surrounding development, it may condition the approval of tentative tract map to require the approval of a Change of Zone to R-3-4000 (minimum dwelling size 750 square feet) prior to recordation of a final map. Secondly, the Commission may request that a Change of Zone be approved prior to making a decision on the map. If the Change of Zone request is denied or amended in either of the first two options, a revised or amended tract map would be required to be submitted to the City for review and approval. This is due to the fact that increased size of units would affect the size of the building pads shown on Exhibit "A", the calculations of the open space and building areas, and perhaps the location of the buildings and the parking requirements. Property Ownership A second concern of staff is that a separate parcel belonging to Southern California Water Company has been included within the tract map boundaries without being shown on the exhibit or the owners authorization included on the application. (See Exhibit "E") Although the state law may not require written authorization of all the owners whose property is involved in a land division, staff is concerned that since this parcel extends into the common area, the City should require written authorization from the property owner or an easement agreement permitting the future residents of the development to have unlimited access across the strip of property and an agreement regarding the maintenance of that area. In addition, the developer shall be required to camply with the setback requirements for buildings located adjacent to the Southern California Water Company property. In addition, the applicant has not provided ownership information on parcel 769-154-001 located in the northeast corner of Lot 1. This is of concern to staff for the same reasons as stated above. Building Design The elevations and floor plans of the proposed one-story building were submitted on March 16, 1983. Staff has not had sufficient time to review the plans. In addition, no floor plans or elevations have been submitted for the proposed two-story structures. Since these two-story buildings are separated from the other buildings, and therefore will be more noticeable, with one setback only 15 feet from the Avenida Bermudas right of way, the elevations for the two-story units are needed in order for the staff to determine that they are compatible with the adjacent single-family residential area. Concerns Regarding Streets As shown on Exhibit "E", Desert Club Drive, a dedicated roadway, extends approximately one -hundred feet into the proposed Lot 1. Since this portion of the street will be vacated, the applicant must obtain the approval of other property owners having access onto his portion of the existing road. A final point is concerning the realignment of the existing Avenue 52 to bring it into alignment with Calle Durango. The City Engineer has approved this idea on the basis that the applicant obtain the needed land from the adjacent owner, and provide engineering of the street. This will III MUURANDUM - The Honorable Chairman Pro Tern and Meziibers of the Planning Commission March 22, 1983 Page Three. provide a benefit to the community and is supported by staff. However, since this realignment is not a requirement of the City, the existing property line should be used as the boundary line for the tract map, with the proposed street alignment labeled as such. 17:ZA�,u'ul That the Planning Commission continue consideration of Tentative Tract Map No. 19203 to the April 21, 1983 hearing. ITEM NO. DATE 3 '2Z- �3 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING RE: MOTION BY: GOETCHEUS INKAMP �LIMKIEWICZ----XEILLY THORNBURGH SECOND BY: GOETCHEUS IMKAMP KLIMKIEWICZ 'REILLY THORNBURGH DISCUSSION: ----- ) ROLL CALL VOTE: COMMISSIONERS: AYE NO ABSTAIN ABSENT PRESENT GOETCHEUS - INKAMP - KLIMKIEWICZ - REILLY - THORNBURGH - UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED: YES NO MEMORANDUM CITY OF LA QUINTA To: The Honorable Chairnen and Members of the Planning Cc mussion From: Sandra L. Bonner, Associate Planner Date: March 22, 1983 Subject: CONDITIONAL USE CASE NO. 83-002, A Request By Anden Corporation For An Off -site Sign Advertising A Subdivision To Be Located Along Washington Street, 500 Feet North Of Eisenhower Drive ra •uwi�u�_ • Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue consideration of this item to April 11, 1983 hearing to allow the applicant and staff additional time to determine the feasibility of a joint sign advertising several developrents rather than individual signs for each development. ITEM NO. l� DATE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MOTION BY: GOETCHEUS IMKAMP KLIMKIEWICZ REILLY SECOND BY: GOETCHEUS IMKAMP KLIMKIEWICZ REILLY DISCUSSION: ROLL CALL VOTE: COP!MISSIONERS : GOETCHEUS IMKAMP KLIMKIEWICZ REILLY THORNBURGH THORNBURGH THORNBURGH AYE NO ABSTAIN ABSENT PRESENT UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED: YES NO MEMORANDUM CITY OF LA QUINTA 3 . e, To: The Honorable Chairman and Manbers of the Planning Camri.ssion From: Sandra L. Bonner, Associate Planner Date: March 22, 1983 Subject: PROPOSED ORDINANCE REGARDING STANDARDS FOR VUJ LS AND FENCES That the Planning Commission reco miend to the City Council adoption of the proposed ordinance amendment concerning standards for walls and fences for residential uses, as stated on Exhibit "A" and in accordance with the findings. Pose This ordinance is intended to provide clarification of the regulations pertaining to the location and height of walls, fences and landscaping so as to protect the health and safety of pedestrians and motorists using the sidewalks and streets. Background The current Municipal land Use Ordinance limits the scope of its direct discussion of walls and fences to their mandatory use for the screening of parking lots and the separation or screening of specific land uses (e.g., planned residential developments) Thus, the regulation of fences constructed for other purposes, such as to enclose the yard of a single-family house for privacy, have been based on the interpretation of the intent of the ordinance. Differences of opinion have arisen regarding the permitted height of fences built in the front yard (and also the side yard for corner lots) of single-family hares. Therefore, this proposed ordinance is needed to provide clear standards for fences constructed in residential areas. Current City Requirements for Fences As mentioned above, the regulation of walls and fences for residential uses has been based on the interpretation of the ordinance. A result of this has been a change in those standards used by Riverside County prior to incorporation due to a different interpretation of the following sections of the ordinance. Section 21.75 defines "yard" as follows: "An open and unoccupied space on a lot on which a building is situated and, except where otherwise provided in this ordinance, open and unobstructed from the ground to the sky." The ordinance does not specifically state whether fences and walls for single-family houses are permitted in this area. Because the ordinance currently excludes walls and fences 6 feet or less in height from its definition of "structure" (Section 21_69), Riverside County Department of Building and Safety interpreted the ordinance to mean that fences were excluded from the yard setback requirements. Therefore, it permitted the construction of fences up to 6 feet high along all property boundaries including the front and corner cut- back or• setback areas. it f, M]WRANDW - The Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Omission March 22, 1983 Page Two. The City Planning staff has interpreted the ordinance to mean that the height of fences located within the front yard is restricted. Because no specific standards were established for fences on residential property, staff followed the criteria set forth in Section 18.12 pertaining to parking and landscaping requirements, which states that any wall within 10 feet of any street or alley shall be 30 inches high. The purpose behind this restriction is to limit the height of walls and fences within those areas which may impede the motorist's view when entering the street from the property, thereby creating a safety hazard for other motorists and pedestrians. Survey of Fence Ordinances in Other Cities Staff conducted a phone survey of the other cities in this area to gather information on their ordinances regarding walls and fences, specifically for single-family homes. The results were as follows: Coachella: The required building setback is 20 feet. All solid fences or block walls in this area can have a maximum height of 3-1/2 feet, and non -solid fences (e.g., cyclone fences) can have a maximum height of 4 feet. Behind this front setback area, side and rear yard fences can be 6 feet high. Indio: The building setback for a single-family house is 12 feet, with anything within this setback area limited to 3-1/2 feet high. Beyond this front setback, the side and rear walls can be constructed along the property line to a maximum height of 7 feet. Palm Desert: The required building setbacks are 25 feet in the front, 15 feet along the sides and rear of the lot. Any fence constructed within these setback areas can have a maximum height of 4-1/2 feet, with the maximum height behind the setback area being 6 feet. Rancho Mirage: Fences located within the front 20 feet setback area can be a maximum height of 3-1/2 feet. Side fences behind the front setback and rear fences can be built along the property lines to a maximum height of 6 feet. Cathedral City: Fences located within the front 20 feet setback can be a maximum height of 3-1/2 feet, with all other fences permitted to be built along the property line to a height of 6 feet. Palm Springs: The requirements vary between the type of zoning and the location of the lot. In general, a maximum height of 4-1/2 feet is permitted in the front yard setback and 6 feet along the side and rear property lines. In addition, the ordinance limits the height of fences and plantings to 2-1/2 feet high within the corner cutback area. Desert Hot Springs: Fences located within the front 20 feet setback area can be a maximum height of 3-1/2 feet, with side and rear yard fences permitted to be 6 feet high. The Reasons for Fence Height Restrictions The results of the phone survey indicate that all the cities in our area place some restriction on fence height in the front setback area. The majority of the cities allow a maximum height of 3-1/2 feet, while Palm Desert and Palm Springs permit MEMORANDUM - The Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission March 22, 1983 Page Three. fences up to 4-1/2 feet high. Coachella permits solid fences up to 3-1/2 feet in height and non -solid fences (e.g., cyclone fences) up to 4 feet tall. The reasons for limiting the height of fences on residential lots include the following: loser fences do not block or impede the motorist's view of other cars and pedestrians when entering or backing onto the street; lower fences on corner lots do not obstruct the motorist's vision at intersections; lower fences permit police and neighbors to see the front of the house thereby increasing security; and lower fences are desired for aesthetic reasons, whereby the view from the street is of houses and yards rather than of just walls. The reasons for permitting higher walls within the front yard (and sideyard for corner lots) include the following: the small lot size in the Cove area, combined with the large house size, limits the amount of available yard space; the higher fence in the front yard provides additional private space for the resident's use; on corner lots, particularly if the house is sited facing the side street, height restrictions would significantly reduce the area which would be screened for privacy; and higher fences help prevent people from entering the property. Proposed Height Limits Staff recommends that the height of fences and walls be limited to a maximum height of 3-1/2 feet in the front yard and in the side yard of corner lots where the house faces the side street. A fence higher than this could obstruct the resident's view of cars and pedestrians in the street while he is backing out or entering the street from his hone, thereby creating a serious safety hazard. Lower fences on corner lots will not obstruct the motorist's view at intersections, which is a major safety concern in the Cove area with its large number of streets. In addition, lower fences may increase home security by allowing police surveillance. As shown by the results of the survey of the other cities, it is the accepted practice to limit the height of fences for safety reasons. Although some landowners will object to the regulation on the grounds that it limits their privacy, this must be balanced with the benefits gained by the corm mity as a whole from the added measure of safety provided for the motorists and pedestrians using the city's streets. Findings 1. The proposed ordinance will provide for the safety of motorists and pedestrians using City streets. 2. The recommended wall height will not decrease hone security. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above findings, staff reccrmiends that the Planning Coinnission recommend to the City Council adoption of the proposed ordinance amendment by adding Section 18.40 titled "Fences, Walls and Hedges", to municipal Land Use Ordinance No. 348. STR:dmv TO MUNICIPAL LAND USE ORDINANCE NO. 348 SECTION 18.40. WALLS, FENCES AND LANDSCAPING. No Person shall erect a fence or wall, or permit the growth of a hedge on a residentially zoned lot which is in violation of the following provisions: 1. Protection of Intersection Visibility. The following regulations shall apply to the intersection of streets: A. There shall be no visual obstructions as herein defined within the corner cutback area. The corner cutback area is hereby defined as the triangular area created by a forty-five (45) degree angle line on a horizontal plane connecting two (2) points on intersection property lines, as shown on Exhibit "A". B. In the corner cutback area, visual obstructions are hereby defined as any wall, fence, obstacle, mature landscaping or thing allowed, installed, set out or maintained which exceeds a height of two and one-half WD feet above the joining top of curb at the applicable corner of the street intersection, or three (3) feet above the nearest pavement surface where there is no curb, or the existing traveled roadway where there is no curb or pavement. C. Exceptions: Visual obstructions shall not include existing or future permanent buildings, which are otherwise con- structed or maintained in accordance with applicable zoning and building regulations; public utility poles, trees trimmed at the trunk at least eight (8) feet above the level of the reference point as defined herein provided trees are spaced so that trunks do not create a visual barrier, and official traffic or other governmental signs. _*D. In residential zones, the corner cutback area shall consist of a triangular area created_ y the diagonal connection of " two (2) points measured ) feet back from the intersection of the prolongation of the front and side front property lines. 2. Height Standards A. walls and fences not exceeding six (6) feet in height shall be permissive in all side and rear yards and along side and rear lot lines. All walls and fences in any front yard and side front yard may not exceed three and one-half (3;) feet in height. In the corner cutback area of corner lots, the height of walls, fences and landscaping may not exceed two and one-half (2,) feet. PROPOSED ANUNDMENT TO MUNICIPAL LAND USE ORDINANCE NO. 348 Page Two. B. TAbere hcxnes on corner lots back up to each other, as shown on Exhibit "C", a six (6) foot high fence or wall may be constructed within five (5) feet of the street property line. The five (5) foot area between the wall and property line is to be landscaped and maintained. C. Method of Height Measurement: The height of walls, fences and landscaping, as permitted, shall be measured from the top of the existing curb grade or crown of abutting road. In the event that practical difficulties and hardships result fran the strict enforcement of these regulations due to grade problems of abutting street, slope of property, or other site conditions, the applicant requesting a building permit may apply for a Variance as provided for in Section 18.27 of this ordinance. D PERMITTED FENCES, !-SEDGES OR WALLS CORNER LOT cuP.D� STREET SIDE WALK PAOPE,ITY LIIIE LEGEND 000 2.51 MAX. HFIGH-1 WALL OR HEDGE y y 3,51 MAX. HEIGHT FEiNCE OR Y?ALL - 6' MAX. HEIGHT FENCE OR WALL I— t!J Ui y LL LO c 0 R H R 1-1NE EXA113/ T 'A"' PERMITTED FENCES OR WALLS INTERIOR LOT SIDEWALK STREET CURB SIDEWALK FRONT YARD �1f 1 POOL LEGEND XX 3.51 MAX. HEIGHT FENCE OR WALL --- 6' MAX. HEIGHI- FENCE OR WALL FXN/f3 /T ",6" I c�C►: TO �;'��,� �0i5 LO'i S STREET_ ....._. I i STREET LEGEND G' MAX. HE FENCE OR WALL Exr�iQ /?" "C 2 ITEM NO. ,3• - DATE Z Z PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING RE: MOTION BY: GOETCHEUS IMKAMP KLIMKIEWICZ FILLY THORNBURGH SECOND BY: GOETCHEUS IMKAMP�KLIMKIEWICZ REILLY THORNBURGH DISCUSSION: 1i ROLL CALL VOTE: COMMISSIONERS: AYE NO ABSTAIN ABSENT PRESENT GOETCHEUS - IMKAMP - KLIMKIEWICZ - REILLY - THORNBURGH -- - UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED: YES NO MOTION BY: GOETCHEUS SECOND BY: GOETCHEUS DISCUSSION: ITEM NO DATE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING IMKAMP KLIMKIEWICZ �REILLY THORNBURGH IMKAMP KLIMKIEWICZ £ILR LY THORNBURGH zf/a Z �� ROLL CALL VOTE: COMMISSIONERS: AYE NO ABSTAIN ABSENT PRESENT GOETCHEUS - IMKAMP -- - - KLIMKIEWICZ - REILLY - THORNBURGH - UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED: YES NO 0 MEMORANDUM CITY OF LA QUINTA To: The Honorable Chairman and Menbers of the Planning Carmission From: Sandra L. Bonner, Associate Planner Date: March 22, 1983 Subject: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TD SECTION 21.36 OF THE MUNICIPAL LAND USE ORDINANCE NO. 348 REGARDING HOME OCCUPATIONS Staff recaRnends that the Planning Cermission continue consideration of this item to the April 11, 1983 hearing to allow staff additional time to study the matter and prepare the ordinance. RIUMA ,3 L). ITEM NO. DATE j L 7✓ �� PLAIT?ING CO M SSION MEETING ff0 MOTION BY: GOETCHEUS INIKC m --KLIMKIETdICZ 'hEILLY THORNBURGH c— SECOND BY: GOETCHEUS IMKAMP KLRdkIEIdLCZ E SLY THOREBURGH DISCUSSION:__ ROLL CALL VOLE: co"NISSIONERS: GOETCHEUS I Y KA2`T KLI?O IF-WICZ REILLY THORNBURGH Uti3\I?'iOUSLY 'DOP"LED AYE NO BSTAIN '•3SENT No Nr,r;S:tiNT GII PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QU]NTA A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California March 8, 1983 1. CALL TO ORDER 7.00 p.m. _ ,41 A. Chairman Thornburgh called the Planning Commission Hearing to order at 7:00 p.m. He then called upon Commissioner Klimkiewicz to lead the flag salute. RAi eIhRind1me A. Chairman Thornburgh requested roll call. The Secretary called the roll: Present: Commissioners Reilly, Goetcheus, Klimkiewicz, Imkaffp and Chairman Thornburgh Absent: None A. The first item on the agenda was a public hearing regarding Change of Zone Case No. 83-001, for property located on the west side of Eisenhower Drive, southerly from Avenue 50, Landmark Land Company, Applicant. Chairman Thornburgh called upon Sandra Bonner, Associate Planner, to present the staff report explaining this request. 1. Sandra Bonner, Associate Planner, explained that the applicant has presented the Commission with a request to rezone the .51 acres described above from R-2 (Multiple Family Residential) to R-5 (Open Space Conbining Zone - Planned Developments). She stated that this is excess land from when the flood channel was constructed. The zoning had been recently changed, when the Specific Plan was revised, from W-1 (Water Course) to R-2 (Single Family Residence). Ms. Bonner explained that the applicant intends to sell this excess land to a party owning the adjacent condominium units located within the Santa Rosa Cove development. To accomplish this, Landmark land Company has filed Tentative Parcel Map No. 19168 in conjunction with this zoning request. The proposed purchaser plans to use the land for recreational purposes. Ms. Bonner stated that staff has requested and the applicant has agreed that the change of zone from R-2 to R-5 be done to guarantee that the property remains for recreational use and open space rather than be used for a single family residence. The reason for this concern is that there is no access to the site. Based upon the findings explained in the staff report, staff reccun ended that the Planning Commission approve Change of Zone Case No. 83-001. Commissioner Thornburgh invited convents from the Applicant. Kevin Manning, Planner for the Landmark Land Company, stated that the Associate Planner had succinctly presented their request and he therefore had no further comments other than to thank the Commission for processing this application. PLANNING camiSSION MINUTES - March 8; 1983' ' Page Two. Chairman Thornburgh then opened the hearing to public cournent. There being none, he closed the hearing at this time. 2. After a short discussion, Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion. Motion made by Comnissioner Reilly to recommend to the City Council approval of Change of Zone Case No. 83-001, and approval of a Negative Declaration regarding environmental in -pact. Commissioner Goetcheus seconded the motion. Unanimously adopted. B. The second item on the agenda was a public hearing regarding the following proposed Resolution: Proposed Resolution: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF I.A QUIN'PA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN FOR THE CITY. Chairman Thornburgh called upon Sandra Bonner, Associate Planner, to present staff's report on this item. 1. Ms. Bonner began by stating that staff recommended that the Planning Commission reccnnend to the City Council adoption of the Riverside County Cove Canmumities General Plan, Coachella -Thermal -Indio General Plan and Circulation Element, as amended, and adoption of the Negative Declaration. The reason for this recommendation is that the General Plan is needed as the first step toward our annexation proceedings. She went on to state that although the City has 30 months to adopt a General Plan, this is basically a requirement for annexation and it will not hinder or otherwise put off a decision to have a new General Plan done. With regard to the Circulation Element, Ms. Bonner stated that after review of Riverside County's Circulation Element, staff and the City Engineer concluded that the plan adequately addresses the needs of the City. She noted that staff is recammending two amendments to this plan and they are: (1) Calle Tampico, west of Eisenhower Drive, be reduced from a major street with a 100 foot wide right of way to a local street with a 60 foot right of way. The basis for this being that traffic along this portion does not warrant a 100-foot-wide street especially in light of the fact that its northern boundary will remain in golf course use and not be developed into residential lots. (2) The Avenue 48 bypass from Highway 111 be totally deleted or a request be made that Avenue 48 be included in the General Plan as a 100' wide major street between Jefferson and Washington Streets. Ms. Bonner explained that an original plan of the County was to funnel traffic from Highway ill via the Avenue 48 bypass. However, none of the property owners supported this and neither did Indio as they have their cammercial areas on Highway 111. Indio had then adopted a plan to abandon the bypass, but it never went through formal approval. Ms. Bonner went on to state that as the City is covered by both the Cove Canmumities General Plan Land Use Element and the Coachella -Thermal -Indio General Plan, staff recommends the consolidation of these two land use elements with the following amendments: PLANNING CCIvMSSION miniTES - March 8, 1983 Page Three. 1. For that area west of Washington between Fred Waring Drive and the Whitewater River Channel, change the designation from High, Medium and Low Density Residential to Low Density Residential. The purpose for this is to eliminate high density uses along Washington Street and to make La Quintals General Plan compatible with Indian Wells' General Plan. 2. For that area east of Washington Street to the midsection line (which is in line with Washington Street south of Highway 111), change the designation from High, and Very Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. Staff recommends that high density uses, which may include apartments, offices and hotels, be limited to the Highway 111 corridor area. 3. That the designation be amended from Very Low Density Residential to Low Density Residential for the following areas: Between Fred Waring Drive and Miles Avenue; from Adams Street alignment one-half mile to west; between Miles Avenue and the Whitewater River Channel; from Dune Palms Road one mile to the west; between Westward Ho Drive and the Whitewater River Channel; from Dune Palms Road east to the Indio City Limits. The purpose for this is to make the General Plan consistent with existing development within the area. 4. For that area between Fred Waring Drive and Westward Ho Drive from the Adams Street alignment to the TAbitewater River Channel, amend the designation from Very Low Density Residential to Very Low Density Residential/Planned Developments. The purpose for this is to ensure that future developments are consistent with the adjacent Bermuda Dunes Country Club and the Indian Springs Country Club areas. 5. For that area between Highway 111 and the TAbitewater River Channel, from Washington Street to Jefferson Street, from Medium Density Residential to General Commercial. The current designation allows quasi -commercial uses such as offices and hotels. In addition, Riverside County has approved commercial zoning within this area. The commercial designation would not be a substantial change from the previous plan and would provide a more logical and appropriate land use designation. This area will be included within the proposed "Highway 111 North Specific Plan Area". 6. For that area generally 1,000 feet south of Highway 111 between Washington Street and the Indio City Limits, amend the designation from Medium and Low Density Residential to General Commercial. The purpose for this is the same as mentioned in the above amendment. In addition, the wider area will allow for development other than strip commercial and aid in the development of a secondary road access system needed to concentrate and funnel traffic from Commercial businesses along Highway Ill in lieu of each lot having direct high- way access. This area will be included within the proposed "Highway ill - South Specific Plan". PLANNING cc)N ffSSION mDuT S - March 8, 1983 " Page Four. 7. For that area south of the above mentioned commercial area and the Avenue 48 alignment from Washington Street to Jefferson Street, from Very Low and Lau Density Residential to Low Density Residential. This designation would provide for a suitable buffer between the commercial area and the lower density Figgie Corporation development to the south while still being consistent with existing area development. Ms. Bonner further advised the Planning Commission that, tying in with what they would be doing at the joint meeting with the City Council on March 15, 1983, there will be a prezoning of the area we are looking at for our Sphere of Influence which is a way to implement this General Plan. This means that although we are requesting coo ercial zoning on both sides of Highway 111, the zoning will say that it is a Specific Plan area and no development can occur in that area until the City does an overall area plan and looks at traffic, access, etc. After discussing items such as building height limitations, setbacks, densities, topography, zoning, etc., with the Planning Commission, Ms. Bonner restated staffs recommendation to adopt the Riverside County Cove Ccny=ities General Plan, Coachella -Thermal -Indio General Plan and the County Circulation Element, as amended, and adoption of the Negative Declaration. chaimmkan Thornburgh then opened the hearing to public comment. As there was none, he closed the hearing at this time. 2. Chaimman Thornburg called for a motion. Commissioner Imkamp made the motion to adopt Resolution No. P.C. 83-1, A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, approving a General Plan for the City. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Klimkiewicz. At this point, Commissioner Reilly stated that she understood that this General Plan adoption is a temporary thing, but she still had a lot of concerns based primarily on the Cove Coiamities General Plan document itself published over 10 years ago and wherein they grossly underestimated the population growth in Coachella Valley. Therefore, she wished to strongly urge that the Planning Commission add a recommendation to the passage of this to go to the City Council requesting they begin the work of revising the adopted General Plan as soon as possible. After some discussion on haw to process such a request, the Planning Cattmission requested that staff develop a written resolution to the City Council relaying the above request to them in a positive manner. ROLL CALL AYES: Condssioners Imkamp, Reilly, Goetcheus, Klimkiewicz and Chairman Thornburgh NOES: None A13SENT: None ABSTAIN: None Resolution No. P.C. 83-1 was unanimously adopted. PLANNING oDMNIISSICN MINUTES - March 8, 1983 Page Five. •�� �M� Dub : Moved by commissioner Goetcheus, seconded by Coinaissioner Klirkiewicz to adopt the Consent Calendar, subject to correction of the minutes of February 8, 1983, indicating an additional statement be added to Paragraph 5.C. stating the study sessions to be held the Monday prior to each regular Planning Camuission meeting were to be held to discuss the agenda for the regular meeting and also to discuss future planning concerns for the City. A. The minutes of the regular meeting of February 8, 1983 were approved as corrected. Unanimously adopted. 5. BUSINESS A. There being no business to discuss, Chairman Thornburgh closed this agenda item. C. • - uuiahin There being no further items of agenda to come before the Planning Corm ssion, Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Goetcheus moved and Commissioner Klimkiewicz seconded the motion to adjourn to the study session of March 14, 1983 at 11:00 a.m. at the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California. The next regular meeting of the Planning Conmission will be a joint session with the City Council to be held in the La Cita Roan at the La Quinta Hotel, 49-999 Eisenhower Drive, La Quinta, California at 7:30 p.m. on March 15, 1983. The regular meeting of the Planning Cannission of the City of La Quinta, California, was adjourned at 9:15 p.m., March 8, 1983, at La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California ITEM NO. DATE �✓� 83 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MOTION BY: GOETCHEUS IMKAMP KLIMKIEWICZ REILLY SECOND BY: GOETCHEUS IMKAMP KLIMKIEWICZ REILLY DISCUSSION THORNBURGH THORNBURGH ROLL CALL VOTE: CO^!MISSIONERS: AYE NO ABSTAIN ABSENT PRESENT GOETCHEUS - IMKAMP KLIMKIEWICZ - REILLY -- - THORNBURGH - UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED: YES NO ITEM NO. A- 02 . DATE ✓3�7- 2- PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING RE: MOTION BY: GOETCHEUS IMKAMP KLIMKIEWICZ REILLY THORNBURGH SECOND BY: GOETCHEUS IMKAMP KLIMKIEWICZ RE ILLY THORNBURGH DISCUSSION: Z L ROLL CALL VOTE: COMMISSIONERS: AYE NO ABSTAIN ABSENT PRESENT GOETCHEUS - IMKAMP - KLIMKIEWICZ -- - REILLY - THORNBURGH --- - UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED: YES NO