The URL can be used to link to this page

2006 03 28 PC MinutesMINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA March 28, 2006 CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Vice Chairman Quill who asked Commissioner Barrows to lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Ed Alderson, Katie Barrows, Richard Daniels, Kay Ladner and Vice-Chairman Paul Quill. C. Staff present: Community Development Director Doug Evans, City Attorney Kathy Jenson, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, and Secretary Carolyn Walker PUBLIC COMMENT: A. Tim Jonasson introduced Ed Wimmer, the Interim Principal Engineer for the newly reorganized division of Development Services within the Public Works Department. The Commission welcomed him. IV V CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed. CONSENT ITEMS: None PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Continued - Environmental Assessment 2005-550, General Plan Amendment 2005-106, Zone Change 2005-126, Specific Plan 83-002, Amendment #5, and Tentative Parcel Map 32752; a request of Ray Shaffer for consideration of: 1) Negative Declaration of environmental impact; 2) Specific Plan; and 3) Review of a Parcel Map to subdivide 2.3 + aces into three single-family lots for the property located between Weiskopf and Jack Nicklaus Golf Courses, immediately south of PGA Boulevard, within PGA West. P:\CAROLYN1PIanning Com\PC Minutes\3-28-O6PC.doc Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2006 1. Commissioner Ladner informed the Commission she had a potential conflict of interest due to her job and withdrew from the dais. 2. Commissioner Daniels informed the Commission he belongs to the Master Homeowners' Association (HOA) for PGA West, but not the HOA for this subdivision. He does not believe it is a conflict of interest and will participate in the meeting. 3. City Attorney Kathy Jenson advised the Commission that Commissioner Barrows could comment on this item if she had reviewed the tapes of the previous meetings. Commissioner Barrows confirmed she had. 4. Vice Chairman Quill opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 5. Commissioner Daniels was interested in the conclusion that until Amendment No. 3 of the Specific Plan of 1996, the property was designated as "Resort Core". He could not find a map or reference to that effect. Staff replied they did have a document available for the Commission to review. 6. Commissioner-Daniels had a question regarding a conflict in zoning designations on Page 65. He was concerned about the zoning shown on the Stadium and Palmer Courses where the golf course was designated "G" and the residential areas were designated "LDR" in the area in question. He asked if the whole Weiskopf course, in it's entirety, was a separate parcel designated as "LDR". Staff replied yes. 7. Commissioner Daniels referenced a letter on Page 82 of the staff report from the applicant's attorney which indicated the reference to Loveladys Harbor vs US which was decided in 1994. The letter mentioned a requirement that the parcel be maintained by the owner in perpetuity as open space amenities for the adjoining properties. This would not only destroy the property owners' reasonable expectation of beneficial use but, would impose an uncompensated maintenance burden. Commissioner Daniels then asked Legal Counsel if the Commission were to choose not to approve the development of this property would this constitute a P:\CAROLYN1PIanning Com\PC Minutes\3-28-O6PC.doc 2 Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2006 taking. City Attorney Kathy Jenson replied she did not believe so. This area was subdivided in 1997 and the developer designated this geographic area as lettered lots that were not intended for residential development. She further explained that when you are looking at the takings issue you're going to look at the property being subdivided in 1997 and the developer certainly received economic/development rights out of that map approval. And in addition, that property is available for a use. The constitution does not require that every single inch of a subdivision be put to the most economically beneficial use. Right now that property, as demonstrated by one of the earlier provisions, is providing a use. It is part of the golf course, has pathways on it, and is part of a putting green so it is a property that is subject to use. So there is no takings issue here at all. 8. Commissioner Daniels had a question about the original Landmark offices shown as Tourist Commercial and asked if the designation used was because there were offices on the site at that time. He further commented that on Page 65 it shows Tourist Commercial on the hotel site and some commercial on the south side where PGA Boulevard curves around and goes towards the clubhouse. He asked if this was another piece of property that would be similarly situated as a leftover piece of property that may come before the Commission for change of designation. Community Development Director Doug Evans replied you've heard testimony to that effect from a property owner within PGA West. They've not sat down and discussed any other properties with staff other than the Tourist Commercial parcel to the north of this particular site. 9. Commissioner Daniels said earlier in the staff report there's mention that the staff determined, on some original document, that this property was designated as Resort Core. Staff replied yes and explained there have been multiple Specific Plan Amendments through this project's life and the diagrams have gone from specific to generic. The key consideration is the way this polygon was designated Low Density Residential when it was an acreage piece. The Specific Plan was set up for future planning and would allow the applicant to propose, through a subdivision map, to carve out the golf course, subdivide the lots and that would be the implementation tool of the Specific Plan to set in place and lock in the land use that was approved. In this case the subdivision map that staff went over was proposed by the P:\CAROLYN\Planning Cam\PC Minutes\3-28-06PC.doc 3 Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2006 applicant with the restrictions on the final map. Staff could find no evidence that the City came in and said this area needs to be zoned Recreation and Open Space. That was the applicant's proposal. The City in making its findings, said this was consistent with the General Plan and Specific Plan and basically is the locking in of the development permit for the site. Now the applicant is requesting you look at the lettered lot and change the previous approval back and re-designate the site for three single family homes. 10. Commissioner Daniels asked if it was Amendment No. 3 in 1996 that created the authorization for the development of the Weiskopf Golf Course and the residential lots around it. Staff said yes, they believed that was the time frame. Commissioner Daniels asked if it was normal, usual, and customary when doing plats that lettered lots are designated non-residential lots. Staff replied you could quite often have open space or recreational lots that were lettered lots. Commissioner Daniels asked if, on this particular plan that was approved, there was a reference to this lot to designate what it was or was not. Staff replied yes, it was Open Space. 1 1. Commissioner Alderson asked if the bottom line was whether or not this could be legally divided into three parcels. If so, there was no need to consider the General Plan or Specific Plan Amendments. Staff replied yes. The Commission could make that finding based upon the Specific Plan and General Plan. 12. Vice Chairman Quill asked about a reference on Page 7 regarding the recommendations of the staff where it made reference to the fact that the Homeowners' Association had no objection at this time but, reserved the right to review the final plans in order to make the final decision. He asked if that was relating to this Parcel Map. Staff replied they would ask the Commissioner to direct that question to the applicant. Staff added that was what was stated in correspondence received but, they have not been able to get any other communication from the Homeowners' Association. 13. Commissioner Daniels said on Page 5 of the staff report there is discussion about the relocation of the golf cart path and the practice green. The statement was from the applicant's engineer commenting that this could be done without major issues. He asked for clarification of the major issues before them. Staff P:\CAROLYN\Planning Com\PC Minutes\3-26-O6PC.doc 4 Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2006 replied if you look at the exhibit, it showed the cart path would generally stay in the same area, but they would cut the practice green back so there was adequate room and topography. They do not have significant concerns. When staff visited the site there did not seem to be a problem in reconfiguring this area to move the golf facility and adjust the golf cart path. 14. Commissioner Daniels said while he applauded the applicant for doing the viewshed analysis, the format given to the Commission was not of a scale to come to the conclusions the applicant desired. He asked if there were any architectural drawings of the three homes they planned to build and did staff know if they were one- or two-story homes. Staff said they had not received any plans and the applicant had not made any indications. Commissioner Daniels mentioned the slide show depicted single- story homes. 15. Commissioner Alderson asked if there was a golf cart path that crossed Weiskopf from the east that would have to be incorporated into the drive access of Parcels 2 and 3. Staff replied no. 16. Vice Chairman Quill said he believed the previous discussion mentioned the golf cart path would be located around the practice green and in front of the three lots. Staff said this was the applicant's conceptual site plan and described where the cart path would be placed. 17. Commissioner Daniels stated when this matter first came before the Commission a number of people testified and a number of letters were received. The Commission asked the applicant to meet with the homeowners and wanted to know if staff had any information on whether the meeting occurred. Staff replied the applicant informed them a meeting had been held and several homeowners attended. 18. Commissioner Barrows asked for clarification on Page 8 of the staff report that referenced the option the Commission had for denial. She asked if it was a reasonable assumption when concerned citizens include in their letters they have referenced inspecting documents and maps showing the current status of that project that they are referring to the Tract Map. Staff replied yes, they are referring to the Tract Map and the General Plan Map. P:\CAROLYN\Planning Com\PC Minutes\3-28-O6PC.doc 5 Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2006 They are the exhibits shown on the wall that the staff has used as a working General Plan document to show entitlements and what the on-the-ground land use is that was approved. It is not the official General Plan Map. 19. Vice Chairman Quill stated the City has an existing General Plan document which still reflects this property as Tourist Commercial and the last Specific Plan Amendment for the Weiskopf course labeled all of this property Low Density Residential. This was within a few lettered lots in that area. The last entitlement approval obtained on the property was the Tentative Tract Map and the final Tract Map recordation which specifically designated this property as lettered lots and Open Space/Golf Course. So, the last approval on the property was Open Space/Golf Course. He said he was not trying to find fault but, the correct zoning should have been processed through all of the General Plan Amendmerits and a Change of Zone to the Specific Plan. Golf and Open Space are allowable uses within the LDR zone therefore that's why they reflected it that way and didn't call it out that way initially. He asked if the Tract Map approval would have locked in the correct designations. Staff replied that is exactly what occurred. The implementation permit or entitlement is the Subdivision Map and PGA West has been developed in the fashion described. The General Plan contains very general conceptual land uses which in this case is LDR. The Specific Plan has evolved over time and currently is Tourist Commercial which allows commercial, residential, open space, and recreation. 20. Vice Chairman Quill stated he thought it was the other way around; the zoning as LDR in the Specific Plan and Tourist Commercial as part of the General Plan. Staff replied the Tourist Commercial was in the Specific Plan. The implementation tool is the Subdivision Map approval process. Very few cities would implement a General Plan starting with a large polygon of 200 acres of LDR showing only single-family residential. You might see some commercial and you might see a golf course but, at the time the City approved the Specific Plan and the General Plan for this area they didn't know what the design was. The intent was the Tentative Subdivision Map and then the final map would carve out the actual final language. And in this case that's the way PGA West has been developed. P:ICAROLYN\Planning Com\PC Minutes\3-28-O6PC.doc Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2006 21. Commissioner Daniels pointed out that when you look at the General Plan document, on the golf courses and homes in existence in 2002 the designations were very clear. It appears that process had never officially occurred for this area. 22. There being no further questions of staff, Vice Chairman Quill opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. 23. The applicant's representative, Forrest Haag, 1254 North Coast Highway, Laguna Beach, California, made his presentation. He explained he had been involved in the PGA West Master Plan since the acquisition of the land in the early 1980's and there had been a lot of flexible interpretation of the intent of the Master Plan and subsequent Specific Plan Amendments. He had previous Specific Plans that evolved from either very specific concepts with defined land uses to very non-specific plans which allowed for flexible interpretation. This is a case, in his experience, from the very early 80's and in the routing of this course that both the lot lines and all of those things being ratified by CNL's purchase of the golf course versus that land. He then discussed the impact of putting three homes in the area and how it would not directly impact the viewshed. He said it was totally consistent architecturally, height- wise, and neighborhood-wise. These homes should prove to be a welcome addition to the potential development outcome of a tourist-commercial designated area which allows for multi-family on the property. The applicant, Mr. Shaffer, lives in PGA West and wants to be a good neighbor to the other residents. Mr. Haag summarized the changes: 1) the cart path does relocate to the south of the existing putting green; 21 the existing portion of the cart path that attaches to Jack Nicklaus is unchanged in the current configuration in this application; and 3) the. tees, the approach to the green, and any of the golf course regulation play areas are not touched by this application. There is no perceived impact whatsoever in terms of the golf experience with the implementation of this application. He went on to say it would be valuable to have the map issue addressed in terms of the layering of the approvals and what KSL's intent was, from a legal standpoint, in setting aside those lots for their reservation into those lettered lot designations in the evolution of the Plan. From the planner's standpoint, it was a logical placeholder knowing the P:\CAROLYN1PIanning Com\PC Minutes\3-28-O6PC.doc ~ Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2006 Specific Plan allowed these uses to eventually be used and were always in the companion exhibits on file with the City that showed that area as everything from having sectioned lots on them. He had the exhibits with him and would present them if necessary. He stated at no time was that area ever designated Golf and Open Space in terms of the land use planning effort. 24. David J. Erwin, 74-760 Highway 111, Suite 200, Indian Wells, California 92210, attorney representing Mr. Shaffer stated Mr. Hargreaves, who sent a letter to the Commission, is a partner of Mr. Erwin. This appeared to be a relatively straight forward application. What the Commission has here, regardless of whether it is a lettered lot or a numbered lot, is a separate parcel. That separate parcel has the appropriate General Plan designation. It has the appropriate zoning designation to allow the approval of a Tentative Map. You have a Tentative Tract Map before you as well as the Environmental Assessment and he believed those two things were the only things necessary for the Commission to act upon. Clearly the General Plan issue has been cleared up by the staff as well as the zoning issue and the Specific Plan Amendment. It would appear that the lack of any economical use of this property, at least, on the surface appears to be a taking. He has known the City Attorney for many years and respects her opinion, but in this instance he disagrees with her in that there at least has the appearance there is no beneficial, economic use in open space. When you look at the legend condition under Tract 28444, which was one of the original subdivision maps in this area, that lot was reserved by the developer. It was not dedicated to the City, and was not accepted by the City as Open Space. It was reserved by the developer for Open Space and Recreational purposes. It was merely a holding pattern, if you will, and it is not unusual to have that done in that manner. 25. Commissioner Daniels said he had a question of Forrest Haag and referenced Mr. Erwin's reply that it is usual and customary to designate a piece of property as Open Space on a Tract Map as a placeholder. He asked if this was Mr. Haag's experience. Mr. Haag replied the short answer is yes. The longer answer is that it varies. In a Specific Plan where there is a larger series of components of land use interacting with other adjacencies to 1,000 room resort hotel approval he said it was not very common, but common. P:\CAROLYN\Planning Com\PC Minutes\8-28-O6PC.doc 8 Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2006 26. Commissioner Daniels asked if Mr. Haag had seen the residents' letters and heard the earlier testimony about the concern on viewshed and not being able to adequately view the scale of the viewshed analysis. He also asked if it was Mr. Haag's testimony those houses would not impede the view of the mountains from those lots, particularly those along Weiskopf. Mr. Haag replied yes. There is an effective purpose to that scale as well in that you can see the adjacent homes. The distant shot, from the first lot on the northeastern side has the applicant superimposed in the picture to give a basis for scaling the homes to the correct height. As you back up to the middle lots you can see the mountain backdrop and 40-foot palms towering over that site, which relate to a 28-foot ridgepole height limitation in PGA West which is what the homes along that area are built to. The viewshed, in his estimation, is less impacting than looking directly across the fairway because the viewshed down fairway is so long in most cases. In the meeting, with the homeowners, the exhibits were all there and the focus was on that issue. He commented several people said the impact was less than they expected and in some cases there was no impact. The fact is that these three compatible, consistent homes are solidifying the neighborhood with a known element of design, tastefully done, consistent with what's around it. 27. Commissioner Daniels asked how many other pieces of property might have been labeled Letter "H" or "Open Space" around the area. Mr. Haag replied he did not know. He said the Civil Engineer was in attendance and might be able to quantify that question. He did know there were additional remnant lots. 28. Vice Chairman Quill stated that since the basis for the discussion is whether a lettered lot that is a place holder is labeled Open Space and Recreation on the Tentative Map means the letter lot that is the Golf Course Lot which is zoned as Low Density Residential as a pfaceholder for what could potentially be future homes, will be treated in the same manner. He could not see the difference between these tots and the entire golf course since the entire golf course is presently zoned Low Density Residential. He asked for Mr. Haag's position on that. Mr. Haag deferred to Dave Erwin. He added this area is not playable, usable for anything other than residential, and in the master planning it's never been seen that way. The old exhibits show this. They show lot lines that show consistent lots with the ones shown there. P:\CAROLYN\Planning Com\PC Minutesl3-28-O6PC.doc 9 Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2006 29. Commissioner Daniels said he agreed with much of what was said except that the practice green is being changed. 30. Commissioner Barrows asked if there was currently a practice green on that piece of property. Mr. Haag replied about ten feet of the northern edge is not on CNL's property. It's encroaching on another property owner's property and so is the cart path. When CNL bought the golf course, they did not buy these lots. 31. Commissioner Alderson said the concern here is about setting a precedent in similar situations. On the left side of Jack Nicklaus there is a similar piece of property and what was there to prevent the same discussion coming up on that piece of property. Mr. Haag replied the honest answer is nothing. The process allows a private property owner the right to request a change of zoning if it's a reasonable undertaking. This seems to be as reasonable as you could possibly hope for on that property. 32. Commissioner Daniels stated the applicant has seen the letters and heard the questions, why shouldn't the Commission assume that in the whole scene of development of the Weiskopf course and similar properties, this was part of the density transfer and there were benefits derived from the transfer. That's the question we would have to ask; were there other benefits derived from this transfer. Therefore, there either is or is not a taking by leaving this property as open space. He asked for Mr. Haag's position on the benefits derived from this transfer. Mr. Haag replied that in the normal course of events there are pieces of property held back for future development. That strip of land south of PGA Blvd was never designated as Golf Course. Every routing started and finished shy of that piece of property so that it could be developed with views down that huge green golf course area. The frontage property is very valuable land and the developer would not give that up. That was the whole land concept for spending millions of dollars on that golf course was to get that frontage because that's the value return on it and this is a three-lot sliver of that value. 33. Commissioner Daniels stated that if a property was going to be developed as a lettered lot and not open space it should not have been labeled as such. Mr. Haag replied if you look at the exhibits overlaid on the technical exhibits like the Tentative Map, they could show this area was always retained as Low Density Residential or Tourist Commercial for the purpose of development. P:\CAROLYN\Planning Com\PC Minutes\3-28-O6PC.doc 10 Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2006 34. Vice Chairman Quill asked staff to comment. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated they have been doing Forensic Planning. Looking backwards at the Tentative Subdivision Map that included this property and it very clearly displayed it as Open Space, as a lettered lot, and had a separate color in the exhibit that was presented to the City. The benefit the developer received clearly was the subdivision of the land and construction of the golf course. This property clearly had a note not imposed by the City but, proposed by the developer for the Open Space recreation. And in the areas around this property, not a part of the map, they were labeled as future development. Clearly, the exhibit that was before the Commission and City Council called out where the future buildings were to be located. The applicant did not indicate that the subject property, in traditional subdivision terms, was not going to be developed. If you're going to leave a piece of property for future development you would label it as "Not a Part", leave it in acreage, and usually note the area as "Future Development", but somebody very carefully constructed a map that called out all those things. So, when we took a look at it from the perspective of what the intent of the approval was, because you cannot tell what the intent of the developer was, but the intent that was just described isn't reflected on the map they gave the City and asked the City to approve. So, traditionally you would label future development lots something other than Open Space and normally you would not call them lettered lots. Normally, that is a lot that you would traditionally label as open space, recreation, landscaping, parkway, things of that nature. Typically you don't have lettered lots called out for future development. So, when we looked at the history, we came to the conclusion there was a conscious decision on both the part of the applicant and the City to approve this property as Open Space and Recreation and not future development. 35. Vice Chairman Quill asked City Attorney Kathy Jenson, if she had anything to add to staff's comments. Ms. Jenson replied she would like to point out two things: 11 when you are looking at a takings issue you don't look parcel-by-parcel, you have to look at the entirety of the map. This map created 69 parcels and a small amount of open space. If you were to accept the proposition that every single parcel created on this map would have to have the maximum development rights you would never have open space parcels created. So, the idea is you look at the overall issue and if P:ICAROLYN\Planning Com\PC Minutesl3-28-O6PC.doc 11 Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2006 there was a problem with that being designated as open space, it should have come up at that point in time. 2). It clearly specifies future residential. This was never dedicated to the City so it is not truly open space. There is not a square inch, except a Fire Station in PGA West, that has ever been dedicated to the City. It was not as if it was dedicated as open space for a park and would go to the City. 36. Commissioner Alderson had questions regarding the physical aspects of the project and wanted to know about access to lots 2 and 3 and the storm drain easement. 37. Victor Villaneuve, MDS Consulting, 79800 Avenue 47, La Quinta, was introduced. Commissioner Alderson asked if the proposed Parcel One had a 10 foot wide storm drain easement. He asked if it was a storm drain or an easement designated for storm drain use in the future. Mr. Villaneuve said it is an active storm drain and gave further details of the drainage system. 38. Commissioner Alderson asked if the storm drain was on site or off site. He also asked if the storm drain was taking water off of PGA Boulevard through that lot onto the Lake. Mr. Villaneuve said yes. He added if you look at the topography there the elevations show it is the lowest point of PGA Boulevard. 39. Commissioner Alderson asked if the house had to be designed around the storm drain. Mr. Villaneuve replied there would be no problem in relocating the storm drain. 40. Commissioner Alderson said his concern was access, especially lots 2 and 3. When you enter the development, you enter through the gate, it opens across the driveway. If someone is entering the facility the gate closes off that driveway. In the reverse of that the homeowners of parcels 2 and 3 are subject to intercepting traffic inbound and outbound in that knuckle. There is potential for traffic problems and there is no way to get a fire truck into that cul de sac. 41. Mr. Villaneuve replied the Commissioners may have the ingress/egress sites reversed. There is no gate on Weiskopf. 42. Vice Chairman Quill asked Mr. Villaneuve to reply to Commissioner Alderson's questions. P:ICAROLYN\Planning Com\PC Minutes\3-28-O6PC.doc ),2 Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2006 43. Mr. Villaneuve said parcel one would take access from Jack Nicklaus and lot D would be purchased from KSL so there would be access. There will be a T- intersection but there is no conflict with the gates. Lots 2 and 3 take access from Weiskopf which is on the east side. There is a gate further east on Spanish Bay and that may be what Commissioner Alderson was referring to. 44. Commissioner Alderson asked Mr. Villaneuve to come up to the dais and point out the area to which he was referring; which he did. 45. Commissioner Barrows asked Mr. Haag about a meeting held with the Homeowners. Mr. Haag said an open forum was held at the PGA West Clubhouse. Invitations to the forum were sent out as a letter addressed from form letters received by the City. The Clubhouse was packed with those concerned about the application. Presentation boards were shown and there was a question-and-answer period. Some folks had their minds made up and could not be swayed. Others disagreed but were willing to discuss the matter. Some attendees said they would not be impacted. He also met with the Fairways Association Board, made a formal presentation, and showed them the same materials. They also had questions but were more interested in how the project would affect their Association. He also made a presentation to the Masters and Fairways Groups. 46. Commissioner Barrows asked if there were other lots in PGA West that might be subject to the same treatment being addressed in this application. Mr. Haag said yes there were. He said there were probably 300 or 400 available remaining units to be developed within the vision of the Master Plan and allowed by Specific Plan. 47. Commissioner Daniels asked if Mr. Haag meant 300 or 400 parcels. Mr. Haag replied no. Commissioner Daniels asked if there was someone who could identify how many there were. Vice Chairman Quill asked if KSL would know how many of these types of parcels were available. Mr. Haag said we could ask them, but he did not have the answer since they hadn't been mapped from his office. P:\CAROLYN\Planning Com\PC Minutes\3-28-06PC.doc ),3 Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2006 48. Patrick Green, Attorney for KSL said he did not have the answer. He said the majority of the property has been sold by KSL. The answer probably could be obtained from them, but he didn't think there were very many parcels left. 49. Vice Chairman Quill stated there were several people who have asked to speak and requested they keep their comments to 3 minutes. 50. Mr. Larry Riggs, 80-720 Weiskopf, La Quinta, gave the perspective of a new resident to La Quinta. He purchased his home ayear-and-a-half ago. They bought their home because it was an older, established resort community. He checked as many documents as possible and they all showed the areas as Open Space. He walks two or three times a week and the open approach to the Weiskopf course is an important part of his walks. He is concerned about the fate of this piece of property and any other pieces of this type in PGA West. He is very much opposed to this project. 51. Brian Ford, 80-970 Spanish Bay, La Quinta, said he had the same concerns, but the other properties were his main concern. He was concerned, if this is approved, the same arguments would be used for the other properties. He joined the Architectural Committee of the Fairways Association with the main purpose of protecting the rights of the present versus the new property owners. Property owners, adjacent to this property, have paid a premium for the open space and he was afraid if this was approved other properties would be treated in the same way. He was afraid the developers would bring in CC& R's that say no view is guaranteed, and views may be blocked where people have paid a premium for them. 52. Mr. & Mrs. Myron Mintz, 80-355 Weiskopf, La Quinta, are owners of Lot 1 on Weiskopf. When they purchased their home in May of 2000 they did their due diligence and were told, by the City, the land was designated Open Space. Based on comments by the City, they purchased their home and paid a premium for the location. They assured the Commission the homes will indeed impede their view, and the planting of the trees would definitely impede the views of the nearby homes. They also had concerns P:\CAROLYN\Planning Com\PC Minutes\3-28-06PC.doc 14 Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2006 about the storm drain and what was going to be done about the retention basin. Mr. Mintz also commented on the fact he received the notification one night before the meeting. His wife attended the meeting and assured him it only lasted about 45 minutes and the room was not packed. He did not understand Mr. Haag's comments. He was concerned not only KSL, but CNL would try to develop other properties as well. 53. Commissioner Daniels asked Mr. Mintz to point out the drainage area. Staff circled the area on the presentation screen and Mr. Mintz agreed that was the area he was referring to. 54. Henry Eilers, 56-340 Jack Nicklaus Boulevard, La Quinta, said his home is the fourth house from the Nicklaus gate exit and has lived there since 1997. He was in the first group of homes built on the Weiskopf course. He chose his home because of the view and carefully checked plans prior to purchase. Nowhere was there an indication of homes being built on that property. At the last Commission meeting it was requested Mr. Haag meet with residents and concerned parties to address questions and concerns. A February 23rtl (2:00 p.m.) meeting was scheduled at the PGA West Resort Club courthouse. Unfortunately Mr. Eilers received the letter the day prior to the meeting. Many homeowners had to reschedule appointments in order to attend the meeting due to the lateness of the notices. Mr. Eilers is concerned, if this is approved by the Planning Commission, it will be just a matter of time before other areas of PGA West will face the same re-zoning predicament. He urged the Commission to vote no on this project. 55. Barbara Dondero, 56-190 Jack Nicklaus Boulevard, La Quinta, said she lives in the first house on the left as you enter the Nicklaus gate at PGA West. She purchased her home in December of 2000 and the Open Space designation played an important part in her decision. She paid a premium for her home because of its location. She believed the area had been fully developed and is now disappointed to find out KSL misrepresented the open space. At no time were she, or nearby homeowners, shown maps where additional homes would be built in the Open Space. Now she is concerned about the traffic on the cart paths and at the Nicklaus gate and said adding another cart path to that gate will create more congestion. The putting green which is currently very challenging would be downsized or taken away. Should this proposal be approved, in just a matter of time, there would be P:\CAROLYNIPIanning Com\PC Minutes\3-28-O6PC.doc ). $ Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2006 other areas of PGA West facing the same re-zoning. She urged the Commission to deny the request. She added she never received any notice of any meeting. 56. Donald Mann, 55-506 Pinehurst, La Quinta, thanked the Commission for providing notice of the meeting in a timely manner. He said Mr. Haag's notice was given when he knew PGA West members could not attend. Mr. Mann received his notice at 4:30 p.m. on February 22nd telling him there was a forum the next day. If the intent was for the residents to attend the meeting the notices should have been sent out earlier. Some of the folks there had invested and worked all their lives to live in a first class club and paid a lot of money to be there. When Mr. Mann first invested he was given a tour and liked what he saw. He then explained how the area was utilized by golfers. He added the area is also used for chipping and was also part of the golf course shown to him when he purchased his membership and now he is very upset because it seems KSL and CNL don't care about the homeowners. 57. Bob Eller, 80-558 Hermitage, La Quinta, said he had always lived in asingle-family home until he moved to PGA West about six years ago. He now lives in Residential #3 and the rules state "... until 85 percent of Residential #3 is built out, three of the Homeowners' Association seats will be held by the builder and two seats held by the public..." This situation would tend to give the builder the opportunity to obtain favorable decisions. In addition, one of the KSL employees is on the Board of Directors of the Masters' Association, and doesn't appear to represent the homeowners. He has spoken to many homeowners and they are opposed to this development and any future development. The Homeowners are very opposed to the development of this site, but if you go to the Homeowners' Association of Residential #3 they will favor the builders' projects. 58. Patrick Green, 515 South Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, Attorney for KSL land, said all documents in the City records show this property could be developed as residential from the very beginning. People who said they did due diligence did not look at the General Plan and Specific Plan because it is zoned Residential. As for the Tentative Tract Map 28444 there is no dedication of this property as Open Space. The Tract Map shows the first four or five paragraphs are things dedicated to the City as either easements or other access that the City would have over the property. There is P:\CAROLYN\Planning Com\PC Minutasl3-28-O6PC.doc 16 Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2006 no dedication here as Open Space. In fact KSL, at the time, reserved this to do what it wanted to later on. In addition, there are no map requirements as Open Space. If anybody did due diligence they would have seen the Specific Plan. Some of the people protesting had made a deal with the CC & R's and their purchase contracts said they were not entitled to protection of their view. If it's this Commission's intent to re-do contracts, it is important to understand the legal issues of this project. People coming in saying "I bought this" doesn't necessarily work. He gave an example of a portion of open land and the protection of that land. The lots have always been zoned residential and KSL is entitled to sell that land as residential. 59. Vice Chairman Quill asked Mr. Green if the property being purchased by Mr. Shaffer, is currently owned by CNL. Mr. Green replied the property is not owned by CNL. Vice Chairman Quill asked if the property was currently being maintained as golf property. Mr. Green said he did not know, and was not sure of any covenants for CNL to maintain it. Vice Chairman Quill asked about an easement or obligation to maintain the property. Mr. Green did not know. 60. Commissioner Daniels asked Mr. Green if he was describing how Open Space could be dedicated. Mr. Green said no and gave examples of a view corridor and how the view corridor could be changed. He added information regarding the property owners' legal rights. 61. Commissioner Daniels asked Mr. Green, if he could tell the Commission the magnitude of other properties that could be changed. Mr. Green did not know but he said he could find out. He did not think there were a lot of them left. 62. Commissioner Barrows asked Mr. Green what maps he was referring to. She referenced the Tract Map of 28444 showing lots K, H, and L as Open Space and added it does not say these lots are dedicated. It only says KSL reserves the right to do what it wants. There are a number of places where property is dedicated to the City, but there is no condition here requiring that property be put in Open Space. P:\CAROLVN\Planning Com\PC Minutes\3-28-O6PC.doc ).~ Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2006 63. Vice Chairman Quill asked City Attorney Kathy Jenson about the difference between a Tentative Tract Map and a Final Map and asked if there are notes on the Final Map that show those lots as Open Space. Ms. Jenson replied yes. They are designed as an Open Lot on the Final Map. Mr. Green was referring to designated not dedicated. He read part of it as reserved to KSL to do what they want in the future and that's not what it says. It is reserved for recreational golf course use. Mr. Green said it doesn't say that the City can do what it wants. And there are a lot of things that are incorrectly designated. When you look at it this is not the "designation" of the Parcel Map that controls, it is the General Plan, the Specific Plan and the Zoning. Designated does not have a legal consequence in the State of California. Maybe somebody wants to say it's going to be a certain designation, but the things that affect it are the General Plan and the Specific Plan. 64. Commissioner Barrows asked if she could just follow up for clarification. She asked if the map Mr. Green presented had showed the parcels as Open Space. She also asked if it was the Tract Map that was used prior to the Final Tract Map. Ms. Jenson said what Mr. Green was reading from was the Final Tract Map. Commissioner Barrows asked if Mr. Green was referring to the cover sheets where the various dedications were provided. Mr. Green replied that was correct. 65. Ms. Jenson explained the process of the General Plan, Specific Plan and Tract Map and referenced Community Development Director Doug Evans' comments. She explained in the Tract Map regulations in Chapter 13 of the Code it specifically requires maps designate Open Space. If it is going to be a space map with future development rights as part of that it should be noted on the map. Homeowners that look at a map would only have the Plot Plan or Site Development Permits as the next more precise thing they could look at. Homeowners coming in and looking at the Tentative Parcel or Final Parcel Maps are looking at the right document for what they should be expecting. It was suggested that somebody who owns a lot that was developed later and added on to their house would have difficulty doing that because people had gotten P:\CAROLYN\Planning Com\PC Minutes\3-28-O6PC.doc I8 Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2006 used to looking at that. The difference is they own the whole lot. The portion that they'd do something on is not designated as Open Space or as a Golf Course. It is designated as part of the lot they bought so that analogy does not carry any weight. 66. Mr. Forrest Haag asked to address the Commission on the issue of the retention basin as it was labeled. He said it was actually a depression, from a prior grading, when this was all being mass graded. There is a scoop that over time, a slough area formed which is lower than the surrounding area. It is it not a legal retention basin. It is not part of the hydrology. He gave further details of the drainage pattern. He also said time was of the essence when the letter went out. He apologized for the short time frame. They had asked formally, in a letter, for an April meeting. That was summarily dismissed by staff as being too excessive. They were given a shortened time frame and it turned out a quorum was not available, that evening, so it did get continued. This made the apparent time frame to have this meeting longer but the fact was when they were finally scheduled for the Planning Commission meeting they did not have enough time to prepare their exhibits, send out letters, take responses and listen to the concerns of the homeowners according to what was heard tonight. The essence of the unpacked room was the same as you've heard tonight. The putting green, in this scenario, is not being taken away, but being reconfigured and probably improved greatly. That putting green is not part of the golf course and currently is part of the regulation play at the golf course putting area. It is a staging element and an effective one. That's how it was designed, and that's why it's there. It can easily be reconfigured to address that in another area which is not the property of the golf course. 67. Mr. Joe Dondero, 56190 Jack Nicklaus Boulevard, La Quinta, said when he bought his property he thought it was Open Space. He couldn't believe the future homes were not designated on the original plan. He had concerns about traffic and asked the Commission to vote no. 68. Vice Chairman Quill then closed the public hearing. P:\CAROLVN1PIanning Com\PC Minutes\3-28-O6PC.doc 1.9 Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2006 69. Commissioner Alderson said this was a very difficult project. The Commission has spent two hours discussing the legality of the project, but has a realistic understanding of the development. The concern is with setting a precedent on future development. The homeowners' perception of this, and other areas, as Open Space has also been presented. The intention of Open Space was presented when they bought their property. The Commission has received well over 100 letters of opposition and absolutely none in favor of this project. It's a very difficult decision, but ultimately this Commission is duty bound to rule on this with the best interests of the Community as a whole and it seems the Community is better served if this is not approved. 70. Commissioner Barrows had no questions 71. Commissioner Daniels had no further questions 72. Vice Chairman Quill had a question about the ownership issue. The property is a lettered lot right now. It is owned by KSL and being maintained by CNL who probably doesn't have a covenant to maintain the property. Do the CC & R's, or the documents on the community, show KSL having a covenant, or does Mr. Shaffer have a covenant to maintain this property in its existing condition to the property line as turfed, and landscaped, with mowed greens as it looks today. Are they required to do that. Ms. Jenson replied she was sure all of the open area and common space lots held an obligation to maintain them, she assumed by the property owner or the HOA. She didn't know all the details but there would be an obligation to maintain that. As a standard condition of approval it would be surprising if it wasn't in the 1997 map that those areas be maintained. It is currently owned by KSL and they would be responsible for the maintenance as long as they own it. If they transfer ownership then it'll be someone else's responsibility. They may be accomplishing that with an arrangement with someone else. She didn't know if that was relevant to the question. 73. Vice Chairman Quill said the relevance is if nobody maintains the property will it be left to die. Ms. Jenson said it can not do that. She said she was assuming there was a condition of approval that required maintenance of the common areas by the HOA. It's pretty P:\CAROLVN\Planning Com\PC Minutes\3-28-O6PC.doc 2~ Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2006 standard for Conditions of Approval to require CC & R's be reviewed by the Planning Department to verify that the common areas are going to be maintained. Vice Chairman Quill said from an ownership perspective this was not a common area. Ms. Jensen said it was a preserved Open Space. So, presumably the company who made the reservation to own it as Open Space and Golf Course had the obligation to maintain it. The City has laws on the books requiring maintenance of the property. 74. Commissioner Daniels asked if it was safe for the Commission to assume the property was being maintained by a). either the golf course, CNL, or b). the HOA of which KSL, as the owner of the property, would be a member. Ms. Jenson said she assumed that was correct. 75. Vice Chairman Quill asked Commissioner Alderson if he had any additional comments. Commissioner Alderson replied no. 76. Commissioner Barrows said she appreciated the opportunity from the applicant, legal counsel, and staff to gain a better understanding of the issues. She was concerned about the existing landowners. It seemed clear, from looking at the map, these lots had been identified as Open Space and it concerned her that this was identified as Open Space and now it was going to be changed. She was concerned that Open Space be maintained. She said the City had taken a very proactive effort in regard to that, and it was her intent to oppose this application since it appeared this was an Open Space lot. 77. Commissioner Daniels said he came to the same conclusion but from a different angle. He said it isn't about the green size or location. It isn't about a referendum as to whether it's popular or not and how many people are in the room. It isn't about the views since the Council identified there were contracts and notices in the CC & R's to deal with views being guaranteed and as long as anything that is built there is within the architectural requirements of PGA West Homeowner's Association and within the guidelines of the Specific Plan they're not going to build anything that is going to block the views of the hillside. He said he looked at it from a different angle which dealt with designations on the property. He said a few months ago it was all under KSL ownership and so was the golf course. The documents submitted by the developer and approved by the City designated this P:\CAROLYN\Planning Com\PC Minutes\3-28-O6PC.doc 2)_ Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2006 property as Open Space as opposed to an area reserved for future development as the City code requires. We've heard in testimony tonight the property owners relied on those documents in making investments decisions on their homes. He joined with Commissioners Barrows and Alderson on the designation of the property. 78. Vice Chairman Quill said he had to agree with the comments that the last Tract Map to be recorded called out this property as Open Space. Obviously the Conditions of Approval, irrespective of who owns it and would probably follow suit. The Commission has been given three options. One option, if we do deny the project is to continue the project until the findings could be put together for the project. He asked staff if that was correct. Staff replied it was and the Commissioners could make a Minute Motion to deny the project. It was not recommended any action be taken on the environmental assessment. CEQA does not apply to projects that are denied. City Attorney Kathy Jenson clarified it would not be a Minute Motion to deny, but a Minute Motion to recommend denial. 79. Commissioner Daniels asked staff if, as a second component to the recommendation, they initiate a re-designation of the property. Then the administrative record would be very clear for future generations to refer to. Staff did not disagree. 80. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Barrow to adopt Minute Motion 2006-003 to recommend denial of the application. AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Barrows, Daniels and Vice Chairman Quill, NOES: None, ABSENT: Commissioner Lander, ABSTAIN: None B. Specific Plan 2006-078 and Site Development Permit 2006-857; a request of Coachella Valley Housing Coalition for consideration of 1) Review of "Dune Palms Neighborhood" Specific Plan Design Guidelines and Development Standards fora 250 unit apartment complex and, 2) Accessory buildings; and review of the Dune Palms Neighborhood 218 unit apartment complex elevations and landscaping plans. Located on a 14.8 acre parcel, north of Avenue 48, west of Dune Palms Road. 1. Principal Planner Fred Baker presented the staff report which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Commissioner Ladner rejoined the meeting. P:\CAROLYN\Planning Com\PC Minutes\3-28-O6PC.doc 22 Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2006 3. Reuel Young, President of Interactive Design and architect of record, 2494 Via Monte Vista, Palm Springs, was introduced. Mr. Young addressed the Commission and complimented the staff on their communication with the applicant. He proceeded to explain how the project combines compatibility and fits within the City. Mr. Fred Baker discussed the uses, scale, design and boundaries of the project, and explained why the applicant requested relief from the height and the overall design of the property. Mr. Young then explained one goal of non-profits is to design projects where a person of limited means will have the desire to live there. Their goal was to make the project memorable, livable, walkable, and safe. Their first step was to meet with the homeowners from Rancho La Quinta and address their concerns of privacy from the two-story buildings across the street. Secondly the issue came up about the project's impact on Watercolors. They met with the developer and representative of Watercolors and explained it was an asset to have the two story project on their side of the development. He referred to "eyes on the street" to provide safety and limit the amount of open space that is not supervised. Parking lots next to residents caused an inevitable discussion. The third boundary is next to Sam's. They have addressed the boundaries and the undulating green belt wall barrier Watercolors will have which places trees on their side of the fence. They then addressed the public realm in the development and described the amenities. Their intent was to provide a landscape which would reinforce a somewhat urban project. The last issue is a continuum of privacy. He showed a slide presentation which featured the architecture and amenities of the project. He then offered to answer any questions. 4. Vice Chairman Quill thanked Mr. Young and complimented him on the project. 5. Marvin Roos, Mainiero Smith Associates Consulting , 34-200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, said it was a pleasure to work with Mr. Young because the livability and passion he brings to a project is impressive. He explained they would be taking 70,000 yards of dirt off the site and moving the dirt to a City site. The reason for the lowering of the site was in deference to the Watercolors project. He addressed the requirements of the entries on Dune Palms and Avenue 48, including the acceleration/deceleration lanes. He was concerned about the P:\CAROLYN\Planning Com\PC Minutes\3-28-O6PC.doc 2.3 Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2006 Dune Palms entrance as you are coming to Avenue 48, at the t- section. He asked if they could state "if necessary" on the decal/accel lanes so they could continue to talk to the staff about the design. He suggested the City Attorney might agree on number 77, in the effect of a conflict that the DDA would probably prevail. There may be some conflicts there. He offered to answer any questions the Commissioners might have on the site engineering. 6. John Mulie, Executive Director of the Coachella Valley Housing Coalition, 45701 Monroe Street, Indio, said CVHC is a local, non- profit organization that has been in the Valley for over 25 years and he explained some of their accomplishments. Has worked with Reuel Young and Mainiero Smith and has many national awards. He said this should be an award winner which will provide great housing for working families. 7. Vice Chairman Quill told Mr. Young he appreciated the comment about the parity of cars, people, and pedestrians. 8. Vice Chairman Quill then opened the meeting to the public. 9. Commissioner Lander had several questions regarding requests to deviate from zoning codes. She was overwhelmed with the project and how it would affect the people living in it. The first one she was curious about was the setback in the day care center. She asked if there was another way to design it so it could be behind the community center. 10. Mr. Reuel Young said the five foot setback came from an earlier design to have a bus stop right in front of the community building. When that was discussed they had decided there should be shade there, and it was designed to have an extension of shade covering the sidewalk. The ALRC then asked them to flip it to the north. They designed it so there was a gentle curve that jutted out and covered the sidewalk. The five feet is not critical, but they wanted to have it closer to the street rather than the 25 or 30 foot setback and include the shade in front. They did not want to undermine the whole intent of being a good neighbor. P:\CAROLYN\Plamm~g Com\PC Minutes\3-28-O6PC.doc 24 Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2006 1 1. Commissioner Lander asked if there was only afive-foot setback. Mr. Young said they actually had a significantly larger one. They are only asking for afive-foot relief. Commissioner Lander reiterated they were only asking for a five foot relief. Mr. Young said yes. 12. Commissioner Daniels asked Staff who and what was determining the drainage issue. Staff replied they are looking at an overall drainage plan for this area. Initially CVHC took a look at the site and came to the conclusion if they do on-site retention they will lose 10 to 15 units. So, the idea was somewhere along Dune Palms there would be storm drains put in, which would connect in and work with Stamko to look at what the possibility of a storm drain could do to the retention basin on the west side of Walmart to free up some very valuable land there. Mainero Smith contacted CVWD to see if they could discharge into the Evacuation Channel and CVWD replied that was why the Channel was built. A Condition was added, in the event there may be technical problems with going into the Channel and it becomes technically unfeasible when they get into final engineering the retention could be on-site. This may result in the loss of some units and the objective is to try to retain as many as possible. 13. Commissioner Daniels questioned day care out by the street, and asked if there will still be a bus stop there. Mr. Young said he was not sure. Commissioner Daniels then asked about the basketball court with late night lights. Mr. Young said the location was previously on the other side where the parking is, but the issue came up about noise and the court was moved. He said any abuse of amenities or disturbance of use will be manageable. 14. Commissioner Daniels asked if the CVWD site had been gifted to them already or was it still in play. He asked if the main access point by the child care center lined up with the Desert Sands site. Mr. Young said it did not. Commissioner Daniels said it would then seem natural to have the spine road that runs through come out directly east. Mr. Young replied when they did the configuration of the site they felt the cross access of the public ground was very important. They felt the loop road surrounding the community would not be the primary access but it congealed lots of stuff in the middle of the site. They wanted the entry to P:\CAROLYN\Planning Com\PC Minutes\3-28-O6PC.doc 2.5 Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2006 have a component that was like entering the Clubhouse or something of comparable shared amenities rather than most convenient for traffic. 15. Commissioner Daniels said the project seemed a little busy as you come off the north access road off of Dune Palms. He added he had a question dealing with the reduction in the parking pole setback. Mr. Young explained the layout of the project and said it was recommended by the structural engineer and parking consultants. 16. Commissioner Alderson said he applauded the applicant on his design, particularly the site line study, and appreciated their sensitivity in putting the higher buildings in the middle of the site. He said he wanted to see some benches in the common area walkway as well as bicycle racks. One of his concerns was the security in underground parking. Mr. Young said they will have security lighting and they have discussed cameras. It is not a gated area, has assigned parking. Commissioner Alderson asked about the walls in and around the pool, if you could through them, and would there be a railing. Mr. Young said the walls will be offset. 17. Commissioner Barrows asked if the all the windows were recessed. Mr. Young said not all of them. He also deferred to the architectural drawing showing the recessed windows as architectural features, as well as awnings for solar control. There are low-e windows to help control the heat factor, but not every window is blocked from the sun. Considerable attention has been given to addressing the heat factor. Commissioner Barrows complimented them on their project design, including energy efficiency, and asked about the height issues. She asked how the grading will fit with respect to the ground level. Mr. Young explained how the grading will blend with the surrounding areas as well as the Watercolors project where there will only be a three- and-a-half foot difference. One of the things they have discussed with staff is that the walls also need to be sensitive so they don't tower above, but does not block the site of the cars. 18. Commissioner Barrows said the applicant had done a nice job on pedestrian focus in the interior. She was concerned about the fact there may be a lot of children riding bikes especially outside of the project. She asked if this had been considered. Mr. Young said P:\CAROLYN\Planning Com\PC Minutes\3-28-O6PC.doc 26 Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2006 they will have to go to the intersection to cross Dune Palms. They pulled the sidewalks away from the curb on the interior of the project. They were unable to do that on the outside If the decal lane is required, they would propose the idea of putting a wall between the sidewalk and the decal lane. 19. Vice Chairman Quill asked Mr. Young about a wall pass-through to Walmart. There's no access to the commercial opportunities so that someboday could walk literally a block to get their groceries. They will have to go all the way out to Dune Palms. He asked if there was a way to provide that access. Mr. Young said the loading docks and the truck circulation were right there, and that made the area too dangerous. They looked at this very carefully with staff, but this is a truck corridor for Sam's and Walmart and does not have any security. One of the challenges is that this is an unsecured area. They do have a condition which concerns a connection point to direct the pedestrians. Mr. Young pointed it out on the map. 20. Commissioner Daniels suggested they make the pedestrian point off of CVWD. Mr. Young said there is a grade issue. Staff said they looked at it and had the Police Department look at it. 21. Vice Chairman Quill asked if they have deeded the CVWD well site to CVWD as yet. He suggested they give themselves ample parkway adjacent to it for comfortable pedestrian access to Dune Palms. 22. Vice Chairman Quill opened the Public Hearing again. 23. Mark Moran, P. O. Box 1305, La Quinta, introduced himself as the Chair of the Advisory Council on Aging for Riverside County. One of their issues is affordable housing. They are in support of this project and every project that brings quality affordable housing to any city. They were pleased to hear all the positive comments and of course, Reuel Young is an outstanding architect who really does think and care about the communities that he would be building. They are really pleased and hope the Commission votes in favor of it. 24. Commissioner Ladner asked a question about the parking post problem. Mr. Young explained the requirements of the parking garage and the burden on the structure. Parking structures are P:\CAROLYN\Planning Com\PC Minutes\3-28-06PC.doc 27 Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2006 tighter than service parking and pointed out how the parking spaces would work. Commissioner Lander said she loved the trees on the section by Watercolors and asked how they would be maintained. Mr. Young said he hadn't thought about it, but the Watercolors project should be in charge of the maintenance of the trees. Staff said the applicant will need to do a reciprocal access and maintenance agreement with Watercolors. 25. Commissioner Daniels said this was a tremendous project. He couldn't wait to see the next one. 26. Commissioner Barrows had no further comment. 27. Commissioner Alderson wanted to make sure the applicant had seen the conditions of approval and agreed to them. 28. Vice Chairman Quill said it was a fabulous project. 29. Commissioner Daniels said he was not willing to back off of the accel/decel lanes without hearing the views of the Public Works Director. Public Works Director, Tim Jonasson said the condition was written so it would make it easier for the applicant. The traffic engineer looked at the project and determined that it would trigger the threshold which is more than 50 vehicles in the peak hour going into those entrances for the decal lane. Staff was just trying to make it easier rather than having the applicant dedicate property after having to go through a traffic analysis. They wanted to make the applicant aware, up front, the 50 vehicle threshold had been met. 30. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Alderson to adopt Resolution 2006-011 recommending the Council approve Specific Plan 2006-078 as submitted. Unanimously approved. 31. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Alderson to adopt Resolution 2006-012 recommending the Council approve Site Development Permit 2006-857 as submitted. Unanimously approved. P:\CAROLYN\Planning Com\PC Minutes\3-28-06PC.doc 28 Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2006 C. Site Development Permit 2005-845; a request of KB Home Coastal for consideration of three prototypical floor plans, common areas, clubhouse, walls, entry gates, and landscaping plans fora 125 lot single-family home subdivision on 38.3± acres located on the northeast corner of Monroe Street and Avenue 61. 1. Associate Planner Andrew Mogensen presented the staff report for Site Development Permit 2005-845 which is on file in the Community Development Department and explained Site Development Permit 2005-842 was the northern portion of this project. 2. Vice Chairman Quill suggested staff could present both staff reports, the Commission would open the public hearing portion for both projects (SDP 05-845 and SDP 05-8421 but vote on the applications separately. 3. Vice Chairman Quill asked Principal Planner Stan Sawa to present his staff report on the southern portion of this development. Mr. Sawa presented the staff report for Site Development Permit 2005-842 which is on file in the Community Development Department. 4. Mr. Ty Mangrum, Forward Planner for KB Homes, located at 77933 Las Montanas, Suite 100, Palm Desert, mentioned one of the issues brought up about the access on the second entrance was whether it would be card access or clicker and replied it would be a clicker. The main entrance would be on the northern tract (TT 31732) and would have a touch pad at the entry way. 5. Commissioner Alderson Ed asked if they would be guarded gates. Mr. Mangrum replied they would not. 6. Mr. Mangrum stated the cabanas are shade structures and they have no intention of putting any materials such as canvas which would be a maintenance issue. They will provide something similar to the parking structures at City Hall. This is only to provide shade for the people at the Recreation Center. Their main concern is the roof tile. They have a national contract with Moniere Life Tile. He showed examples of the which appears the same as clay tiles, but with more durability and less breakage. Maintenance P:\CAROLYN\Planning Com\PC Minutes\3-28-O6PC.doc 29 Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2006 issues are better and they are substantially less expensive since it is a national contract. It would be a cost issue as well as a maintenance issue, with the same effect as clay tile. They are not committed to the corner elements but thought the vertical element at the entryway lent balance to the perimeter of the community . They requested they be able to work with staff on an appropriate design on the corner monuments. 7. Gary Werner, Project Manager, 77933 Las Montanas, Suite 101, Palm Desert, said in addition to the comments by Ty Mangrum he wanted to get clarification on the tree or large shrub recommended by staff to be inserted in the planter adjoining the alleyway (service lane) on the northerly tract. He stated there isn't sufficient room or depth for a large tree and preferred a large shrub. He elaborated on the wall growing vines, other plantings, and the second half basketball court. They had their landscape designer show them on both plans initially because at that time our engineer happened to have done an analysis to determine whether one or the other or both would provide adequate percolation as well as retention. The one on the north side has qualified within the engineering analysis and they prefer to keep it on the north side recreation center because that recreation center was not oriented toward fitness and more active recreational use. They are okay with putting in something as an alternative to a basketball court, something that would allow more percolation as well as retention, in the southerly portion. 8. Commissioner Alderson asked about the southern site. He said it has a more circular design in the streets while the northern site has a straighter, more forward, rectangular layout. He asked if there could be some sort of traffic calming device installed in the middle of the drawing in the intersection. Mr. Mangrum replied there could be since there was a walking path in that area with a raised treatment in the street which causes the cars to slow down. They are not opposed to doing that in other areas as well. 9. Commissioner Barrows asked for clarification on the corner monuments. She wanted to clarify that the applicant said they were okay with reducing the height of the monuments to the four foot recommendation. Mr. Mangrum replied they requested leeway to work those details out with staff. They are concerned with the look of the corner monuments and asked to work that out with staff. P:\CAROLYN\Planning Com\PC Minutes\3-26-O6PC.doc 30 Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2006 10. Mr. Werner replied the wall will become a stepping stone if it is less than eight feet. Someone might gain access to the community by going over the wall. They would like to work with staff grid possibly put in a 45- degree angled wall with a marker on the wall. They asked for some flexibility to locate a monument either side of the front entry and be able to work with staff on the details. 11. Commissioner Barrows asked staff to explain the differences between the clay and concrete tiles. Staff gave an explanation of the differences between the double-barreled tiles, S-tiles and concrete roof tiles. Community Development Director, Doug Evans commented that the concrete tiles will make them look like production homes and the clay tiles will have the character of the actual design of the building. Staff did not disagree there is an increase in cost and labor. They added that the applicant is designing very nice buildings, and they should try to make them authentic through the use of clay tile. 12. Vice Chairman Quill wanted staff to clarify their recommendation on the tiles. Staff replied they recommended clay S-tile in this case. It was also pointed out this was only for the recreation building and not for the production houses. Mr. Mangrum said they took objection to this recommendation and asked the Commissioners to look at the handouts provided showing concrete roof S-tiles. The only difference was the material used; concrete versus clay. The concrete tiles are similar to the clay tiles. The concrete has the same look and effect as the clay tile. They felt this satisfied the roof the element. 13. Commissioner Daniels asked staff if they had a different recommendation, after hearing the explanation on the monument sign. They also asked how high the Palms Country Club monument sign was. Staff replied said their goal was to make something less significant. Community Development Director, Doug Evans added a four foot feature would not be visible once the landscape was established. Staff made some other suggestions on height. 14. Vice Chairman Quill asked what materials would be used for the split-rail, exterior fence along the horse trail. Mr. Mangrum replied it would be poly vinyl. Vice Chairman Quill asked about the large P:\CAROLYN\Planning Com\PC Minutes\3-28-O6PC.doc 31 Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2006 shrubs on the alley way. If not using trees, what type of shrub would be used. The applicant explained their plans for the types of shrubs and landscaping plans they would be using. 15. Vice Chairman Quill opened the public hearing. Seeing no one who wished to speak, he closed the public hearing. 16. Commissioner Alderson asked if these were the final landscape plans or would additional plans come before the Commission. Staff said these were the final plans the Commission will see. Commissioner Alderson asked if that included the houses. Staff said they would be reviewing both and they would not come back to the Commission. 17. Commissioner Daniels said he was not concerned about the 12' monument signs. They may create benchmarks or landmarks. 18. Commissioner Ladner said she was familiar with the tiles and didn't have an issue with it as long as they put some concrete under it to give it a textured feel. It should give it a boost from the standard. 19. Vice Chairman Quill said there were comments on the shrubs versus the trees on the alleyways, and the basketball court replacement with some other amenity. He suggested they leave those decisions to staff but wanted to ensure there was another amenity of recreational physical activity in that location. 20. Commissioner Alderson suggested something that will allow percolation. 21. There being no further public comment, the public participation portion of the hearing was closed and the matter was opened to Commission discussion. 23. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Alderson /Barrows to adopt Minute Motion 2006-004 to accept Site Development Permit 2005-845 as amended showing the concrete roof tiles with concrete boosting and the corner monument be accepted at a height of eight feet, or a suitable alternative, with design approval by the Director of the Community Development Department. Unanimously approved. P:\CAROLVN\Planning ComIPC Minutes\3-28-06PC.doc 32 Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2006 D. Site Development Permit 2005-842; a request of KB Home Coastal for consideration of -common areas, clubhouse, walls, entry gates, and landscaping plans fora 197 lot single-family home subdivision on 39.7 ±, acres located on the southeast corner of Monroe Street and Avenue 60. 1. There being no public comment, the public participation portion of the hearing was closed and the matter was opened to Commission discussion. 2. There being no further discussion it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Alderson /Barrows to adopt Minute Motion 2006- 005 approving Site Development Permit 2005-842 as amended to accept the concrete roof tiles with concrete boosting and the corner monument be accepted at a height of eight feet, or a suitable alternative, with design approval by the Director of the Community Development Department. Unanimously approved. E. Site Development Permit 2006-855; a request of Desert Elite, Inc. for consideration of architectural and landscaping plans for two prototypical residential plans for use in Tract 31202 (Rancho Santana) located at the southwest corner of Monroe Street and Avenue 52. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the staff report which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. John Pedalino 78-401 Highway 1 11, La Quinta, said these 13 lots were always intended to have larger homes on them. The only alteration I have which was indicated in the ALRC was the courtyard walls that had gates. The ALRC requested custom- designed gates as opposed to the standard-style wrought iron gates. We are trying to offset these homes from the production homes. 3. Commissioner Daniels asked staff if there were problems with the concrete tiles on this project. Staff said no. John Pedalino said they want to offset these homes from the production homes but don't want to make them substantially different and the roof materials need to blend in with the other 188 homes in the project. 4. Commissioner Barrows asked with the lawn areas, if there was the same setback in terms of the irrigation that is offstreet using CVWD standards that provide for the irrigation setback. Staff replied they were the same. P:\CAROLVN\Planning Com\PC Minutes\3-28-O6PC.doc 33 Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2006 5. Vice Chairman Quill asked if that applied to setting the sprinklers 18 inches from the curb. Staff replied yes. 6. There being no further public comment, the public participation portion of the hearing was closed and the matter was opened to Commission discussion. 7. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Ladner/Barrows to adopt Minute Motion 2006-006 accepting Site Development Permit 2006-855 as submitted. Unanimously approved. F. Environmental Assessment 2005-546 and Tentative Tract Map 33801; a request of Blake Jumper for consideration of the subdivision of ±2.58 acres into eight single-family lots and associated lettered lots located on the west side of Madison Street, 500 feet north of Avenue 60. 1. Associate Planner Andrew Mogensen presented the staff report a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department 2. Commissioner Alderson asked staff about sliding that street north as that 6-feet would encumber all the lots one through eight, they are still buildable lots, with the exception of lot number 1, and it would be detrimental to that lot. He asked if there was anyway the knuckle could be reconfigured so they didn't lose as much on lot 1. Staff said the cul-de-sac would remain the same, the street would be adjusted and not Lot number 1. 3. Commissioner Barrows had no comments. 4. Commissioner Daniels had no comments. 5. Bob Grabel D & D Consultants, 89254 Via San Diego Drive, San Diego, said Staff had given a good description of the project. He gave a brief overview of the landscaping and how the drainage would be affected. Vice Chairman Quill asked if he was okay with pushing the street. Applicant said they would like to leave it at the 28 foot level as is indicated now. 6. Commissioner Alderson commented on the front page reference which was regarding Lake Coachella and it should have been Lake Cahuilla. P:\CAROLYN\Planning Com\PC Minutes\3-26-06PC.doc 34 Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2006 7. Commissioner Barrows asked if the client could elaborate with regards to the 28 foot versus the 32 foot and what were the reasons for that suggestion. Client said they are only looking at 8 lots and with parking on the side this could be detrimental to the landscaping. 8. Ryan Decoster, 80900 Calle Conchita, La Quinta, said he bought property when it was zoned one house per 2-1 /2 acres. The property owner was told this area would remain rural density of two homes per acre. The density,proposed does not fit in with an area with an equestrian overlay. He said this density does not fit in with the semi-rural area. The lots are too small for the area. The staff has indicated there would be a horse trail down Madison and making the assumption that old Madison is abandoned, which it isn't. If this is a public street, why is it being made less than City standards. He wanted to point out the project that shares the property line with this was in the process of being submitted with lots in the 17,000 to 19,000 square foot range. 9. Vice Chairman Quill asked if that was the property to the South. Mr. Decoster replied it was the project to the north. The tract is being designed with approximately four 2-1 /2 acre lots. Vice Chairman Quill asked if the Tract was in the south part of Andalusia. Mr. Decoster said he didn't believe it was. Staff replied the Tract to the south was not Andalusia. It was a separate 25 lot Tentative Tract. Vice Chairman Quill said the north was not Andalusia either. Staff replied the north was Calle Conchita. 10. There being no further public comment, the public participation portion of the hearing was closed and the matter was opened to Commission discussion. 11. Commissioner Alderson asked if the 32 foot street width would allow parking along one side. Staff replied that was the City policy. 12. Vice Chairman Quill asked if the lots to the south were significantly larger. Staff replied they are not and gave a description of the lot and tract sizes surrounding this project. 13. Commissioner Barrows addressed the comment that was made with regard to the equestrian trail and how it fits in. She asked P:\CAROLYN\Planning Com\PC Minutes\3-28-O6PC.doc 3$ Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 2006 were it was located. Staff replied this property was actually within an agricultural overlay which allowed construction of accessory structures related to the keeping of horses and that goes back to the fact this used to be a rural residential area. In regards to the equestrian trail it was not identified in the General Plan for Madison Street. 14. Vice Chairman Quill said the trail is on Madison to 58`", but then it isn't south of 58`". Staff said that was correct it was not on the General Plan and may have been part of the overall master planning for the Andalusia type project when they took a look at street alignments. 15. Vice Chairman Quill asked if the City allowed it to be removed on Madison somewhere in that process, for the approval of Andalusia. Staff said yes, but has not had a chance to research why it's not in the General Plan. 16. Commissioner Barrows asked if the equestrian trail that comes down Madison cuts across at Jefferson and 58`" is where the equestrian trail terminates. Staff replied it goes west at that point. Commission Barrows continued there's not a provision south of that area for an equestrian trail on Madison or Monroe. Staff replied correct. 17. Vice Chairman Quill said there is an equestrian trail on Monroe all the way to the dike. This is still equestrian overlay property but there is no access for a horse to leave this community and go and get on a bridle path. Staff replied that was correct and the real challenge to get into there was just south of this property where there was no requirement to put in an equestrian trail. The City may require it be put there but it doesn't connect to the south. Staff agreed Mr. DeCoster had a legitimate concern but unfortunately the subdivisions have been established. 18. Mr. DeCoster said there is no of accessing these trails that La Quinta has available. His wife rides to Madison, north of 58`", but then can go no further. They can't deal with ever-increasing traffic and feel this is a problem. They should be allowed to have access to equestrian trails without going five extra miles. 19. Vice Chairman Quill said he felt it was a legitimate issue but said Mr. DeCoster should approach the Planning Department on a P:\CAROLYN\Planning Com\PC Minutes\3-28-O6PC.doc 36 Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2006 separate matter not related to this subdivision because it's a bigger issue as this was not the appropriate time or place to discuss it. 20. Mr. Decoster replied he had contacted the Planning Department and had written letters stating his concerns. 21. Mr. Steve Kleeman, 54420 Vallejo, La Quinta, said he discussed the 32 foot right-of-way for the project when he first submitted the project. He showed this concept to both the Engineering and Planning Departments and they were both in agreement since this was a minor subdivision and with less lots the parking on one side should be acceptable. Vice Chairman Quill asked if he was referring to 32 feet or 28 feet. Mr. Kleeman said 32 feet. Vice Chairman Quill asked if he was okay with the 32 feet. Mr. Kleeman replied the owner said if it had to be 32 feet that would be fine. 22. Commissioner Daniels said he did not have a problem with 28 feet. Vice Chairman agreed with him. Commissioner Daniels asked if, without it being on the General Plan, the Commission had the ability to require horse trails in this area. He also asked if it was wise to go forward if this isn't acceptable and they miss the connections north and south. Vice Chairman Quill said he asked the question simply by virtue of the fact that Madison is not developed on the west side right now so if there is an opportunity we need to do it before construction starts on Andalusia on the west side. City Attorney Kathy Jenson said typically you don't require it if it's not on the map, however you could suggest that an amendment be considered and impose a requirement that if the plan is amended prior to some point in the process they will comply with the new General Plan requirement if that amendment could be put in place. Doing something like that would be appropriate. This is an issue that should be addressed at the General Plan stage and if an amendment is needed to make some connection then you could put in a placeholder for that. 23. Vice Chairman mill asked if there was any direction they could give staff. He asked if anybody would like to suggest they ask staff to come back with some kind of an opportunity to see what exists to see how they could conceivably extend the bridle path up Madison. Commissioner Barrows said she would very much support that effort because they need to take the opportunity before it's precluded. This is an area with an equestrian history P:\CAROLYN\Planning Com\PC Minutes\3-28-O6PC.doc 37 Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2006 and we need to make those opportunities available. Vice Chairman Quill agreed with that and he would like to see that happen on the west side of Madison. The other Commissioners agreed. 24. Community Development Director, Doug Evans said if the Commission would like to reserve the opportunity to try to get a horse trail they will need to add a condition back in. The staff had one drafted and the subdivision map shows that they were required to propose to install amulti-use trail subject to final review of the Public Works and Community Development Directors and connecting somewhere. He said the likelihood would be they would have to connect somewhere to the north and there are very large property owners that might object. 25. Vice Chairman Quill said the question he would ask then is now it looks like it is already reflected on the Tentative Map so there's nothing to do in terms of space requirements or anything right now. They simply need to add that as a condition to the motion. Staff said yes and put in the proviso that it could be deleted if the connection cannot be made. 26. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/ Barrows to adopt Resolution 2006-013 to accept Environmental Assessment 2005-546 as submitted. Unanimously approved. 27. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Barrows to adopt Resolution 2006-014 to accept Tentative Tract Map 33801 with amended conditions to shift the roadway and language added regarding the multi-use (equestrian) trails. 1. The roadway width be shifted to provide a six foot landscaped area on the south property line. The roadway be reduced to 28 feet and the language which was suggested by staff as related to the equestrian trail. Unanimously approved. G. Environmental Assessment 2005-557 and Tentative Tract Map 34243; a request of Innovative Communities Ifor Masque Development) for consideration of subdivision of 20± acres into 70 single-family and miscellaneous lots located on the north side of Avenue 58, 1,000 ± feet west of Madison Street. P:\CAROLYN\Planning Com\PC Minutes\3-28-06PC.doc 38 Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2006 1. Vice Chairman Quill opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department 2. Commissioner Daniels asked if the project was lower than the surrounding properties. Staff replied it was and gave comparison heights for the whole project. 3. Commissioner Daniels said it was not apparent to him that there were a lot of design options considering the shape of the property. He asked if staff had any alternatives. Staff replied they had and outlined them. 4. Commissioner Alderson asked if the problem with the design was street configuration. Staff replied it was one of the design concerns. 5. There being no further questions of staff, Vice Chairman Quill asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Dan Doughbron, Developer/Builder with Innovative Communities, 200 East Washington Avenue, Suite 100, Escondido, California 92725, representing the applicant, stated he would take comments. 6. Commissioner Daniels asked if the applicant had any objections to any of the conditions. Mr. Doughbron said they had an objection to Condition Number No. 76, page 18, regarding reduction of the turf area in the retention basin. The retention basin design was related to the homes abutting the greenbelt and was primarily for recreational use. They wanted to create an open space to be used as an entry and they preferred to maintain that corridor. They asked that condition 76 be deleted. 7. Vice Chairman Quill asked staff if this would be the final opportunity for the Commission to see the landscape plans. Staff replied it was unless the Commission revised the condition. Vice Chairman Quill said he would like to consider the fact that the Commission could see these plans again from a landscape perspective for this greenbelt. Mr. Doughbron said staff suggested they consider adding pockets of desertscape material and he thought the concern was for water conservation and turf 39 P:\CAFOLYN\Planning Com\PC Minutes\3-26-O6PC.doc Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2006 reduction. The applicant is open to creating pockets areas, but still wanted to maintain the greenbelt. They felt it was necessary for the integrity of the development. 8. Vice Chairman Quill said the City has a Water Conservation Ordinance and the applicant will have to comply with it as well as the Coachella Valley Water District requirements. Staff replied the applicant will comply with the condition. It may be necessary for the applicant to redesign the corridor to comply with the landscaping ordinance. 9. Commissioner Alderson said it would appear this entire site is being drained by way of the streets into this retention basin to the core of the site and none of the water is going off-site. He asked where the nuisance water and drainage were going. Vice Chairman Quill said that was one reason why he wanted to see the landscape plans come back since they had not proposed anything in terms of how to deal with the nuisance water and the drainage. 10. Vice Chairman Quill asked Public Works staff about the retaining walls and the retention basin in the project. Public Works staff replied it had to do with an aspect/ratio problem and they have to use the retaining wall to get the depth for the capacity. Vice Chairman Quill then asked about the slope and expressed his concern about drainage in the area. It was really important the Commission see the landscape plan again and his concern was that this would be designed as an amenity for the project but, proper drainage is the priority. The applicant replied they had no objection. 1 1. Vice Chairman Quill commented on the curvilinear streets and cul- de-sacs. The applicant pointed out some features they had added such as circular areas and additional landscaping included in several areas. They also added a common area in the center of the project and a connector bridge amenity. Vice Chairman Quill asked if there was access to the greenbelt from the east/west walkway. The applicant said no. Vice Chairman Quill was concerned about access to this amenity. Staff replied that was one of the items they identified as one of their concerns and expanded upon some of the conditions. 40 P:\CAROLYN\Planning Com\PC Minutes\3-26-O6PC.doc Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2006 12. Commissioner Alderson asked if the Commission could address staff's issues with the revised landscape plans. Staff said a revised landscape plan may resolve some of the problems but the final design will be squeezed. 13. Commissioner Barrows had a question regarding a revised design and using a more innovative concept. She asked if the applicant could defend the project in terms of what they saw as the innovative elements. The applicant said they were pinched between three existing developments and it's difficult to be creative under those conditions. When they purchased the land and looked at the design, the previous owner had done the designing without much forethought. They have used more creativity in designing the project to create more of an open field design. They had Chris Bergh, MDS Consulting, look at eight different design options, all of which were worse than the plan presented. Accessibility seems to be the main design problem. 14. Commissioner Alderson said if the landscaping ordinance does not allow for large areas of sod when that calculation is made then there is no longer the large sod area, but a desertscape, which is not conducive to a playground effect and then access to this area may become a moot point. No one is going to want to get into that area as it is not a playground. Vice Chairman Quill said a community of this size does need an area to walk their dogs and it's important that it be somewhere. 15. Commissioner Barrows said it could be attractively landscaped consistent with water efficiency guidelines and not necessarily 100% turfed. 16. There being no further questions or comments, Vice Chairman Quill asked if there was any other public comment. Mr. Frank Gresick, 57-025 Mountain View, La Quinta, stated he was there in his capacity as President of the Lion's Gate Homeowners' Association which represents 25 property owners in the community. They were happy to see development on the adjacent parcel, but very concerned about privacy and density issues. Their property sits two to three feet lower than this property, especially, at the entrance of Lion's Gate where there are homes worth two to two-and-a-half million dollars. The wall in some areas is only 41 P:\CAROLYN\Planning Com\PC Minutes\3-28-O6PC.doc Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2006 three to four feet high and with a twenty foot setback the neighboring homes will be staring right down our throats. They would appreciate the opportunity to work with staff and the developers to see if they can mitigate some of these issues. He gave the Commission several letters from homeowners. 17. Vice Chairman mill asked for the location of Lion's Gate project, which Mr. Gresick said was due east of this project. Vice Chairman O.uill asked if the elevation differences were the problem. Mr. Gresick explained the height of the wall versus their project. Vice Chairman Quill asked staff what they were proposing to do regarding the perimeter wall in terms of where the existing wall is located. Staff replied the applicant should address that. Mr. Doughbron said there was a suggestion to use the parcel near the entrance as part of a green belt. 18. Vice Chairman Quill asked the applicant's representative, Chris Bergh, MDS Consulting, 78-900 Avenue 47, La Quinta, to address the question regarding the wall. Mr. Bergh gave a technical explanation of the elevations on the project and the design of the wall. Vice Chairman Quill asked if he thought they had done their very best to design the wall so there was no significant difference between the lots on one side of the wall versus the other side of the wall. Mr. Bergh replied they had. Vice Chairman Quill asked if the wall was originally constructed by Lion's Gate development. Mr. Bergh replied it was. Vice Chairman Quill asked if the wall was on Lion's Gate property and who the wall belonged to. Mr. Bergh said the wall was right on the line and he wasn't sure who it belonged to, but assumed it was the property of the Lion's Gate development. 19. Commissioner Alderson asked if the homes, on the east side of the project, would be single story. Mr. Doughbron replied all the homes would be single story and they would be willing to work with the neighbors on the height. 20. Vice Chairman Quill asked Mr. Gresick if he had had any conversations with the Innovative group. Mr. Gresick replied no. They had only recently found out about the project. P:\CAROLYN\Planning Cam\PC Minutes\3-26-O6PC.doc 42 Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2006 21. Commissioner Daniels asked how long it would take to develop landscape details. Mr. Doughbron said he would anticipate the landscape drawings could be brought back to the Planning Commission some time in May. 22. Commissioner Alderson asked Chris Bergh if the elevations established on this site were done by using the street as his benchmark and then worked his way in at minimum grades. He asked if they were as low as they could go. Mr. Bergh replied a minimum pad elevation is based on an emergency overflow elevation at the existing street and gave a detailed explanation of how they arrived at their elevations. Staff clarified one of the conditions on Page 48, Item 1 1, A. 1)., is a Public Works recommendation fora 36 foot travel width for residential streets to allow parking on both sides and wanted to make sure the Commission understood it is a 29 foot street only on short cul-de- sac streets. 23. Commissioner Alderson made the suggestion to continue this approval until the landscaping plans could be made available and the landscaping and retention basin concerns evaluated. 24. Commissioner Daniels wanted to hear more discussion about the perspective on the grading in regards to the adjacent property. 25. Vice Chairman Quill said it appears as though the applicant has done their best to match the grades. He asked the applicant what the difference there was between Lion's Gate building pad elevations and this project's building pad elevations. Applicant's representative Chris Bergh gave an explanation of the difference between the two projects and how the difference was measured. He said the largest variation was 3.3 feet at Lot #1. 26. Vice Chairman Quill asked if the Lion's Gate wall, at Lot #1 is significantly higher than six feet. Mr. Berge said that was correct and went on to explain the height of the pads versus the wall heights. He added they were proposing no fill on their side of the wall. Vice Chairman Quill asked if there was to be no fill anywhere along the way. Mr. Bergh replied very little, but it varied. 43 P:\CAROLYN\Planning Com\PC Minutes\3-26-06PC.doc Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2006 27. Commissioner Alderson commented the site balances on the high end. He was also concerned that the Lion's Gate property owners should have an opportunity to discuss their concerns and provide input to the applicant. 28. Vice Chairman Quill asked staff if they had any engineering issues with the height differential. Public Works Director Tim Jonasson said the Municipal Code allows fora three foot maximum differential in proposed/existing developments. He was concerned that Lots #66 and #1 exceed that differential by a half foot and that would have to be addressed. The rest of the lots appeared as though they were within allowed tolerances. Vice Chairman Quill asked that Condition 76 be changed to require the landscape plans be returned to the Commission and include more access to the greenbelt for walking and from the center parkway down to the bottom. Staff commented the current conditions state the Commission will not see the landscaping plans and after approval of the final map and asked if the Commission wanted this condition to read "prior" to approval of final map. Vice Chairman Quill said it should absolutely be changed to "prior to issuance of any grading permits." 29. Commissioner Alderson asked if this was tentative to continuing this application. Staff stated it was not continuing the project, it meant the applicant would have to get their landscape details done so they are incorporated into the grading plan and that plan would be brought back to the Commission for approval. Commissioner Alderson stated the applicant would probably not want to go ahead with the design until he was confident of the approval. Staff told the Commissioners if they approved the subdivision it would mean the Commission was encouraging the applicant to go forward. 30. Vice Chairman Quill said he was willing to approve the Tentative Tract Map so they could keep moving forward but he was not "warmed up" to the basic design. 31. Commissioner Barrows asked if the Commission needed elaboration on the recommendation for project re-design. Staff stated the grid system design was not as creative as the project could be and wanted to see something with smaller loop streets and culs de sac incorporation. Staff added the landscape corridor, P:\CAROLYN\Planning Com\PC Minutes\3-26-O6PC.doc 44 Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2006 in the final design, is going to be a design challenge. It will get narrower and tighter in all likelihood with final design. It will not really be active open space nor recreational. It will not function well due to the size/shape of the project parcel. It may require a very expensive design to fix the interior so it is something more than a fairly straight sidewalk down the middle of a channel with limited access. 32. Vice Chairman Quill said outside of a wholesale denial and going back to the drawing board, what were the Commission's options. Staff replied they had talked to the applicant about wholesale re- design of the project and the applicant said it was not something they wanted to do. They tried to include everything suggested by staff and the changes made were pointed out by staff. 33. Commissioner Alderson asked if the lots were wide enough to introduce some additional intersecting sidewalks in the north/south direction. 34. Vice Chairman Quill said there were no additional sidewalks proposed at this time, but he agreed with Commissioner Alderson's suggestions. He asked if the Commission wished to ask the applicant to go back and revise the plans or give them some suggestions to improve the current Tentative Map provided they come back with a more elaborate, detailed landscape and amenity plan for the greenbelt, primarily with better access. 35. Commissioner Daniels said he would prefer they give approval to the submitted Tentative Tract but Condition 76 be changed to have the landscaping plans come back to the Commission for approval prior to granting of grading permits. 36. Commissioner Alderson asked if Vice Chairman Quill was discussing the two considerations he was recommending were adding another cross sidewalk and having them all have access to the retention basin/recreation area. 37. Commissioner Daniels said they need to address their ideas in the landscape review and move forward to approve the Tentative Tract with the landscape plans coming back for review. P:\CAROLYN\Planning Com\PC Minutes\3-28-O6PC.doc 45 Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2006 38. Commissioner Barrows said another suggestion would be to flip the placement of the homes on those lots in order to widen the areas. 39. Vice Chairman Quill said they need to give extra space to the lots that abut the east/west crosswalk. Staff said it was already in the recommendations. 40. Vice Chairman Quill stated there would also need to be east/west access to the greenbelt walkway and it should be addressed in a landscape review. He said the Commission should give the applicant their ideas, so when they bring back the map they know what the Commission is looking for. He said the Commission should move forward, approve the Tentative Map, and amend Condition 76 to have detailed landscape drawings come back to the Commission prior to issuance of a grading permit. 41. Commissioner Barrows asked if the Commissioners were satisfied the needs of the neighbors had been addressed. 42. Commissioner Alderson stated he would like to see the Lion's Gate homeowners have the opportunity to meet with the applicant so their concerns could be addressed. 43. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Alderson to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2006-015 recommending approval of the Environmental Assessment 2005-557, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Daniels, Ladner, and Vice Chairman Quill. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 44. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Alderson/Daniels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2006-016 recommending approval of Tentative Tract Map 34243, as recommended and amended: a. Condition added: The applicant shall create sidewalk crossings so there is better pedestrian access to the retention basin/greenbelt floor. P:\CAROLVN\Planning Cam\PC Minutes\3-28-O6PC.doc 46 Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2006 b. Condition added: The applicant shall provide an opportunity for the Lion's Gate Homeowners' Association to meet with the design staff of Innovative Communities. c. Add to Condition 76: The revised landscaping plans shall be brought back to the Planning Commission for review and approval before issuance of grading permits. d. Condition added: The applicant shall remit Quimby Park Fees prior to recordation of the Final Tract Map. VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Minor Use Permit 2006-763; a request of Mark Ladeda for consideration of the placement of a manufactured home on a residentially-zoned 4.19 acre parcel located at 55-075 Monroe Street. 1. Assistant Planner Jay Wuu presented the staff report on file with the Community Development Department. 2. Vice Chairman Quill asked where the access to the driveway was discussed. Commissioner Alderson replied it is straight down the dirt road from Monroe. 3 Commissioner Alderson asked for an explanation of Condition number 27 regarding a 24-inch roof overhang on all sides of the home and solar control overhang on the ends. Staff replied this condition referred to the need to have a specific type of overhang that is not a clip design. Staff explained solar control means they need to put some type of overhang on the end of the building to assist with solar control. 4. Commissioner Alderson made an observation that the applicant is doing a wonderful job of cleaning up and removing debris. In his accessway there has been a security problem and his residence will bring security back there. He has no problem with the application. 8. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Alderson/Barrows to adopt Minute Motion 2006-007 accepting Minor Use Permit 2006-763 as submitted. Unanimously approved. VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: P:\CAROLVN\Planning Com\PC Minutes\3-28-O6PC.doc 47 Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2006 X. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Alderson/Daniels to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held on April 1 1, 2006. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 12:27 a.m. on March 29, 2006. Respectfully submitted, Carolyn Walker, Secretary City of La Quinta, California P:\CAROLYN\Planning Com\PC Minutesl3-28-O6PC.doc 48