Loading...
2006 12 12 PC MinutesMINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA December 12, 2006 I. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was reconvened at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Quill who asked Commissioner Engle to lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Ed Alderson, Katie Barrows, Rick Daniels, Jim Engle, and Chairman Paul Quill. C. Staff present: Community Development Director Doug Evans, Planning Manager Les Johnson II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed. IV. CONSENT ITEMS: A. Chairman Quill asked if there were any corrections to the minutes of November 28, 2006. There being none, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Alderson/Barrows to approve the minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None VI. BUSINESS ITEM: None VII. STUDY SESSION ITEMS: A. Vista Santa Rosa Sphere of Influence Strategic Plan -Community Outreach Process. 1. Planning Manager Les Johnson presented the information contained in the staff report and the powerpoint presentation, which included an overview of the recent community meeting, 1 P:\Reports - PC\2006\72-12-06\Caroly_PC Min_12-72-O6.doc Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2006 review of the Riverside County land use plan, and explained that the community meeting was a joint effort with Riverside County. 2. Commissioner Daniels asked about the boundaries of the VSR Strategic Plan. Staff defined the boundaries. 3. Commissioner Daniels asked Staff to explain the lifestyle corridors. Staff further explained the proposal, which focuses upon trail amenities, such as an equestrian trail and a non- motorized trail. The corridor could be up to 250 to 300 feet in width. Park amenities within the corridor have also been discussed. 4. Community Development Director Evans stated that City staff had expressed concern about looking at the viability of such a corridor. He said the County had not discussed the maintenance obligation for the corridor. He mentioned neighborhood, or pocket parks as being alternatives. He commented that a lot of refinement is still necessary. Staff has also suggested to the County that there is a need to create a more localized trail system and explained how that system would work. 5. Chairman Quill asked staff if this was a policy plan or a first graphic illustration on what was gleaned from the Task Force and not policy from the County. Staff commented that this is heading towards becoming a policy document and explained the County's review process. Staff also provided their viewpoint of the policy, which included concerns of the Task Force and the public. Residents have expressed concern regarding design standards. The City will need to work more with the County on these standards and density as well. 6. Commissioner Alderson asked about the lifestyle corridors and the size and design of those corridors. He said it seemed to involve a very large area. He asked if the lifestyle corridors would be a requirement for developers. Staff commented that the corridors will be developed in accordance with future development in the area. 2 Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2006 7. Community Development Director Doug Evans said they have received subdivision maps with the corridors included in the plans. He said the County already has a 180 foot parkway setback. One of the challenges that will be faced is the affordability of the Homeowners' Associations to handle the maintenance of the parkways. He gave an example of how costly it could be to use various materials and said logistically the City would need to see how this can be done. He said they have asked the County how to deal with traffic. They have not come back with an answer as yet. The issue of trails/parkways needs more aggressive and careful study and there is a lot of work yet to be done. 8. Commissioner Barrows asked staff about the Lifestyle Corridors and Trails. She asked where do the trails go and where do they take people to. 9. Community Development Director Evans said they would be directed towards the Vista Santa Rosa Mountains and probably directed towards Lake Cahuilla on Avenue 58, as well as Avenues 60 and 62. He mentioned there could be a problem with running the trails over the dike. They will have to work with the County once you get past Avenue 62. They are hoping to have a riding loop without getting out on a major highway. 10. Planning Manager Johnson continued with an explanation of the City of La Quinta Land Use Map - SOI Area. He identified each land use area as well as a neighborhood commercial area. 11. Community Development Director Evans said they have not launched a General Plan study as yet. He said the volume of 0-4 units per acre, does not lend itself to the most efficient land use. He said they believe there will be a need for some affordable housing and under the redevelopment program they have an obligation of 1900 units. Currently they have plans for approximately 1300 units. The County does have an obligation to build some affordable housing units. The County wants the big picture looked out and then come back and look at affordable housing opportunities. 3 Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2006 12. Commissioner Daniels asked how much of the area is in the County Redevelopment District. Planning Manager Johnson said most of it and only two miles are out of it. 13. Commissioner Daniels asked about the percentage of funds needed to fulfill their redevelopment funds. Community Development Director Evans said about 20%. He said there was a lot of affordable housing in the area, but was in need of repair. 14. Chairman Quill asked about the logic or illogic of this plan with respect to one unit to two units per acre and then increasing the density. He heard a lot of comments on the distribution of density. There is already an urban center in Coachella and more urban opportunities on Harrison. 15. Planning Manager Johnson commented on Redevelopment Area Two, having more of an equestrian feel to it and that was the logic to having lower density in that area. It is close to the Polo Fields and Griffin Ranch. The Community is amenable to having equestrian uses in that area. 16. Community Development Director Evans said the map that was handed out was the base map created by the County. They are trying to maintain a fundamental land use pattern. From the County's standpoint they are building upon the amount of work that went into the first Task Force program. The Task Force is starting to understand the growth pressures differently than they did a few years ago. But if you take a look at the surrounding cities, the amount of traffic that is starting to show up, that starts to affect the character of the surrounding ranch properties and there is some discussion about whether or not just the roadways start to change the character of the area. Some people already feel the roadway noise is more than they expected in their rural areas. The County does not allow walls, but the residents are already noticing the increase in noise and traffic and probably could benefit from a wall being allowed. Some of the Task Force efforts that have been policy driven may move up to become more reality driven. It was apparent at the last Task Force meeting there was a really good experience and the group is starting to realize the hard issues have not been pushed up to the forefront. 4 Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2006 17. Commissioner Daniels asked if there has been any kind of fiscal analysis been done. Community Development Director Evans said they are going down multiple tracks. Certainly the land use is the one that has a long period of give and take discussion. The fiscal has had three different models for the SOI. Staff has been working with these; a one unit per acre, a two unit per acre and a three unit per acre. He explained the outcome of each of these densities and the fact that police, fire, and roads will pretty much remain the same. He said they were looking at the municipal revenue and expenditures. He said they were also looking at the redevelopment funds that could be used in the Vista Santa Rosa area. They are looking at breaking down the revenues and the County has been very helpful in base analysis. They have met with the County Supervisor and the City/County Fiscal relationship. They need to have that discussion candidly with the County before they can present anything to the Council or the Planning Commission. The County appears to be very cooperative at this time. There is a huge gap relative to our General Plan and they are looking at some creative solutions. 18. Community Development Director Evans said they will be going to the Council next week about the long term effect regarding roads. They will be doing some spot testing. 19. Commissioner Barrows commented on the examples in Arizona and the lack of geometry and said there were a lot of square corners and straight lines and suggested we could do a lot more interesting things. Planning Manager Johnson said most of all of the case studies that were done involved topography that differs from Vista Santa Rosa including hills. It creates a challenge but most of the property lines run north/south. 20. Commissioner Barrows asked if there were any opportunities to do something more creative. Community Development Director Evans said it was more up to the County and the opportunity to create density incentives. The objective is that you might be able to come in through a master plan and do some things that add character. What they may do in breaking up the grid system, are some local roadways that break the '/2 intervals of north/south roads that may be a little easier to design even though they may not be curvilinear. They are exploring that 5 Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2006 with some developers to get their feedback. It is going to take a lot of hard thought and work to make those types of things work if they really want to have a different type of community. 21. Commissioner Daniels asked about traffic circles. He suggested there should be more consideration given to live/work areas. Community Development Director Evans replied it is absolutely imbalanced. The County is trying to create some opportunities in the Thermal Area as well as job creation in the area of the airport. He then discussed the pros and cons of development around an airport. He acknowledged there was a challenge with 7-8,000 dwelling units with residents having to travel out of the area will cause a strain on the traffic system. There is a very significant comment and a dilemma in looking at this. He added the difficulties and challenges that traffic engineers will have with the area. 22. Commissioner Daniels asked for an estimate of current population in that area. Community Development Director Evans said that would have to be researched. There could be upwards of 20,000 people in the area. 23. Commissioners Daniels said this is part of a larger area and traffic will be moving throughout this area. It will be significant strain on the roadway system. Community Development Director Evans said they are currently looking at a traffic study that shows the dramatic changes that will occur in this area. The City will embark on another noise study on Washington because the noise has increased from the time the walls were erected. This is a good example of how the noise will affect the Vista Santa Rosa area without walls. 24. Commissioner Daniels asked if there were any Indian Reservation lands included in this map. Community Development Director Evans said there were none included in the City's Sphere. 25. Chairman Quill commented on residents who want to be left alone. Community Development Director Evans said there were residents who did not show up at the last meeting, but felt 6 Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2006 eventually they would attend a meeting and include their opinions and comments on the changes projected in their area. He said you never get everyone's opinion even if you poll them. 26. Commission Alderson asked about the layout of the roads and if the east/west roads would remain. He commented the undulations would include the north/south roads. Community Development Director Evans said it was possible to produce some undulations on the > north/south roads. It is challenging because the land acquisition will be a bit more difficult in this area. 27. Commissioner Barrows commented on the Land Use Map and asked if there was much opportunity for a shift to take place in the land use of this map. Planning Manager Johnson said there were some locations would potentially accommodate mixed use activity and highlighted those areas on the map. 28. Community Development Director Evans said there was some discussion regarding the land use; particularly the airport corridor. There is a question about a little bit more diversification. There have been a lot of requests of re-zoning and the key issue is trying to define what the market will absorb. He discussed the recent market of residential versus commercial land uses. 29. Chairman Quill asked if the County moves forward with the plans as policy and it is adopted then any annexation we would do would we be in a hands off mode for two years. Planning Manager Johnson said this is the County's map. There is a City pre-zoning map. If it would annex today it would annex in under our pre-zoning designations, not the County's. There is no binding designation from the County. Community Development Director Evans said they would get suggestions if an area does annex that the pre-annexation development agreement should commit the land uses for longer than two years. The residents want longer term certainties. Critical to the success of annexation in most of the area is the fact that most of the annexations will be inhabited territories annexation. The voters will ultimately make the decisions. 7 Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2006 30. Chairman Quill said that was his point if the County moves forward without the City's input with a plan that the City does not like, the City will be stuck with it. The likelihood in the City making changes to the County's designation -would we be able to do piecemeal annexations. Community Development Director Evans said the Council has given them direction to do three small annexations. There is a group of property owners that advocate taking everything west of Jefferson. The Council was not in favor of that decision. Part of the Strategic Plan is to look at annexation strategies and will probably give the Council two or three alternatives. There is a property group that is looking at a larger annexation. That will be tough for the Council to deal with as well as LAFCO. 31. Planning Manager Johnson went back to discussion of the recent Public Outreach meeting. He explained there were separate discussion groups and there was a tremendous amount of discussion in each area. There was an individual exercise sheet handed out to each participant (a sample was included in the Planning Commissioners' packet. There was a sheet left at each table which was completed by the group. Following the presentations done by each of the groups, the sheets were laid out on the tables and the participants were given "dots". The participants were allowed to post their "dots" on the areas they felt most strongly about. 32. Planning Manager Johnson then went on to explain the Individual Summary Notes la slide was shown indicating the highlights of the most important amenitiesl. He said most comments supported increased in density for specific areas as longs as there were amenities and attributes provided. 33. Planning Manager Johnson explained the slide which discussed the "Results" of the Group Notes and Top concerns. 34. Commissioner Daniels asked what was meant by "Density vs Water". Planning Manager Johnson said there was not enough information provided to explain what was meant. There appeared to be concern over the availability of water for a higher density and it's effect on the water table. 8 Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2006 35. Planning Manager Johnson gave a presentation of the VSR Strategic Plan Public Outreach which included the following items: o Small Groups ^ Individual Exercise ^ Group Discussions and Presentations ^ Weighting Small Group Results o Results ^ Individual Summary Notes • Represent comments received Top amenities/attributes * Neighborhood/Community Parks * Housing for Families * Tree-Lined Streets * Multi-use Trails Most supported increases in density for specific areas with amenities and attributes provided. o Results ^ Group Notes • Information provided on group sheets * Top 3 concerns * Top 3 amenities * Support density increase w/amenities * Additional comments • Includes dot tally • Top concerns * More vs. Less Density * Density vs. Water * Density Bonuses * Affordable Housing * Adequate Density to support amenities and infrastructure Too Amenities * Community Parks * No Golf Courses * Underground Power Lines * Cohesive Design Guidelines * Youth Recreation Area 9 Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2006 Additional Notes/Comments * H2O = Life * Aggressive Code Enforcement * Compromise * Clarify and Certainty of Zoning Densities & Approvals. 36. Community Development Director Evans said he has heard that people are tired of coming to meetings every week and they feel this is something they need to obtain closure on and going on with their lives. They have been going to every meeting to protect their interests. The Council would like to see this move quick and we would like to see it close quickly. Otherwise the County and City will be forced to deal with a full Council Chambers with people arguing complete and opposite differing positions. Our purpose was to begin dialogue on this plan. The Council would like to see things starting in January. That's a hard time frame, but that is what the Council is aiming for. 37. Commissioner Barrows said it was a great presentation. 38. Commissioner Alderson apologized for missing the meeting. It was important but he was unable to attend. He asked about the 40-day deadline. He asked how the Planning Commission could help in that process. Community Development Director Evans said eventually they would be back asking for guidance on policy issues. Currently it is important for the Commissions to bring back feedback from the Community. Mr. Evans said they will be going back to the Council and asking for guidance as well as the community and Planning Commission input. 39. Chairman Quill stated this was a Study Session item and there would be no policy decisions made. 40. Charles Rekin, 82-480 Avenue 54, commented on the Task Force meetings, but he had a few serious points. He gave his opinion of the plans. 41. John Corrella, 790785 Chadwell Circle, wanted to point out some answers to some questions. There are approximately 1200 people in the Santa Rosa area. He commented on the 10 Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2006 curvilinear streets. He emphasized on the VSR Task Force he appreciated what they were trying to achieve. He felt the challenge was in the dollars with infrastructure costs raising with regard to well levels lowering, etc. He said he appreciated the City looking at the dollars and cents of the plan. 42. John Powell, Peter Rabbit Farms commented. He was on the original and current Task Force. The process is a refreshing dose of reality. 43. Kay Wolff, 77 27 Calle Ensenada gave the perspective of a current resident of the City of La Quinta she said it was going to be a very expensive proposition for the current taxpayers. Her feeling is the hurry in all of those is being driven by the developers who will make money from the property. This is a very expensive process and she hoped that the Planning Commission and the Council take their time to do the proper planning and investigation on this annexation. 44. Les Anders, 59-777 Calhoun Street in Vista Santa Rosa, would like to take the opportunity to thank Community Development Director Doug Evans and Planning Manager Les Johnson for doing an outstanding job. There was good discussion at the table. He pointed out there was not sufficient notification of all the residents in the Village area. They are interested in the costs. There is concern over what the amenities will cost. That northern area was part of the compromise on the original Task Force and the residents of the area would really like to have that remain less dense. They need more open spaces in that area. 45. Commissioner Alderson said it was very nice to have people come up and compliment staff. VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Review of City Council meeting of December 5, 2006. An overview was given by Ed Alderson. 11 Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2006 X. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Barrows to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held on January 9, 2007. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. on December 12, 2006. Respectfully submitted, Carolyn Walker, Secretary City of La Quinta, California 12