1985 04 09 PC Minutesli
MINUTE S
PLANNING COM~IISSION -CITY OF LA QUINTA
A Regular Meeting Held at the La Quinta
City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta,
California
April 9, 1985 7:00 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER
A. Chairman Thwrnburgh called the Planning Oannission meeting to order at 7:00
p.m. He called upon Camiissionex Klimkiewicz to lead the flag salute.
2. ROLL CALL
A. C4iaia[Nn Thornburgh requested the roll call. The Secretary called the roll:
Present: Commissioners Goetcheus, Klimkiewicz, bbran, Walling and Chaiatan
Thwrnburgh
Absent: None
Also present were Connnuiity Development Director Lawrence L. Stevens, Principal
Planner Sandra L. Bonner, Assistant Planner Tamara J. Camipbell, City Manager
flank M. Usher and Secretary Donna M. Velotta.
~a~**Nn ~ornburgh announced that he would turn the meeting over to Vice Qiairman
John Walling due to the fact that he owns property adjacent to the projects under
3iscussion at this meeting. He stated that after discussion with the City Attorney,
it Eras felt there may be a conflict of interest in this matter.
Vice Chairman Walling explained to all those present the procedures followed during a
aiblic hearing.
He continued by stating that there were four public hearings before the Commission at
this meeting that are directly related. He noted that the Commission world hear the
first two items separately and the third ani fourth items concurrently. He also
announced that the Sattd Pebble Country Club project is now known as Crystal Canyon of
[.a Quinta.
3. HEARINGS
A. Vice Chairman Walling introchxced the first item to be heard as Specific Plan
No. 83-001, Aireruhnent No. 1, a proposal to amend the previously approved
Specific Plan for Duna La Quinta reducing the acreage from 246 to 179 acres,
and reducirxJ the approved number of units fmn 1,277 to 979 for the area
generally bounded by Avenue 50 on the north, Calle Ta~ico and Avenue 52 on
the south, Avenida r3ar,m,rlas alignment on the west and Adams Street alignment
on the south; rarr3rnark Land Carq~any, Applicant. He called for the Staff Report.
1. Sandra Bonner, Principal Planner, advised that this Specific Plan had been
previously approved on May 15, 1984 by City Council Resolution No. 84-34.
The project area is bounded on the north by 50th Avenue, Washington Street
goes thrwgh the center, Avenida Tar~pico and Avenue 52 currently go through
the tap of Phase 9 of the project. The Applicant's original request was to
delete Phase 9 and 10 acres of Phase 8. This would reduce the total acreage
from 246 to 179 acres, and the total number of approved units from 1,277 to
979. Principal Planner Bonner stated, however, that on April B, 1985, Staff
received a request from the Applicant to change the proposed amendment from
deleting any property to just shaairxJ the proposed, realicmed Avenue 52 _
MIbA1'I'FS - PLADINING C(YVA7ISSION
April 9, 1985
Page 2.
Principal Planner Bonner turned the reminder of the Staff Report over
to (:amunity Development Director Lawrence L. Stevens.
Director Stevens explained that with the revised request received on
April 8, 1985, it is the Applicant's intention to maintain, in effect,
the extra units by simply accepting the fact that there will be a major
highway bisecting portions of Phase 9. He believes that the Applicant
is doing this in recognition of the fact that there will shortly be before
the Camussion a revised Specific Plan which will ultimately change the
densities in those areas, and in effect, delete the Phase 9 area fzun tY~
lluna La Quinta Plan and add it to the Oak Tree West Plan. 'lhe Applicant
as Director Stevens understarrls it, has sane concern that if sane problem
erupts during this interim period, that they have essentially last units.
7Y~at is the reason for the Applicant's revised request.
Director Stevens advised the Carcnission that the way the oonditions are
written on the Duna La Quinta Specific Plan leaves room for very little
modification of the conditions except for perhaps a couple of procedural
items. He noted that Staff does not abject to approving the Applicant's
revised request. Staff would, however, suggest that the portion of Phase
9, which would end up being south of the realigned Avenue 52, density be
established at the zaiing density rather than the Specific Plan density,
which would be three units per acre rather than 4.4. Director Stevens
noted that concluded the Staff Report.
Vice Chairman Walling asked far any questions fmn the Camiissioners.
Ca~nussiener Klimkiewicz asked Staff udZy they would suggest the density
in •this maruier.
Director Stevens replied that it was simply because you cannot put public
roads through these types of projects with the Specific Plan density noted.
~e zoning density would physically divorce this portion fran how the
Applicant proposed to develop the ramming project and as a result, the
density transfer that you get from being part of a Specific Plan really
should rrot apply to that area. He noted that because there will be a major
highway going through it (Avenue 52), it really changes its relationship to
the Specific Plan. You may note that Washingtaz Street goes through the
Aura La Quinta project, but that project is being developed in phases which
are not as small as this 18-acre section we are referring to here. Zherefore,
Staff feels it is more typical of the surrounding residential rather than
the density allowed in the Specific Plan. Director Stevens advised the
Caimission that if they were not comfortable with that condition, they have
the option of letting the Applicant retain the Specific Plan density in that
area.
Vice Chaimm~ Walling asked Staff if the Carmission did take the third
option and modify the densities, would not there be a need for an actual
plan fran the Applicant.
Director Stevens replied that Staff could condition it and follow the
Comnissia~'s direction in modifying the exhibits appropriately.
Vice Chairman Walling asked about the future extension of Calle Tampion.
n:.a...~.... Ct .......... ......1 :...i H~e4 C4~FF esa.1A .~...~ .._a ,,, ...
MINUTFS -PLANNING CQ~IISSZON
April 9, 1985
Page 3.
the City. He stated that La; ~k was submitting their request with
reg.3rd to the realignment of Avenue 52 at this time instead of with the
Oak Tree West Specific Plan simply to accamodate the Crystal Canyon
project and the City. He noted they would not have submitted the original
request i.n the first place if they would have realized it meant down zoning
the property. He stated that the Applicant would like the Commission to
act strictly on the realigrmient of Avenue 52 and delete any reference to
reducing the densities in the portion of Duna La Quinta Specific Plan
referred to at this meeting.
As iw one else wished to be heard, Vice Chairman Walling closed the public
hearing at 7:25 p.m.
Aftet a short discussion period, Vice Chairman Walling called for a motion.
2. Cacmissioner Goetcheus made a motion based on the findings in the Staff
Report to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. P.C. 85-006, with
attached conditions, as amended. Camiissioner Klimkie!wicz seconded the
motion. Unanirrotrsly Adopted with one abstention.
B. Vice Chairman Walling introduced the second item of hearing to be Specific
Plans Nos. 85-OOSA and 85-OOSB, proposals to am~.nd an existing specific plan
of alignment for Avenue 52 between Jefferson Street and Desert Club Drive;
William Young and 7--~---k Land ~gaany, Applicants. He called for the Staff
Report.
1. Assistant Planner Tamara J. Cattybell advised that additional information
has been received since this hearing was last presented at the March 26,
198!i, Planning Commission meeting, This information is regarding wise
impacts and traffic concerns. The acoustical study received concluded
that increased noise would impact residents north of the proposed alignment.
The immediate impact would be approximately three times greater than e~cisting
raise levels. Over the years, wise levels would gradually increase in that
the final noise levels may be approximately seven times the current wise
level. She advised that it should be noted that the area would expexience
increased traffic wise over the caniixJ years regardless of wtrether Avenue
52 is realigned or not. 'Ihe acoustical study provided several scenarios
for several methods of mitigation. The most effective of these methods
would be to construct a 12' wall between Avenida Nuestra and the proposed
Avenue 52, and also to r~lace the previously proposed perimeter wall of
(7ystal Canyon with a berm so that noise would not bounce back to residents
on Avenida Nuestra. With these two barriers, the acoustical engineer deter
mirrad that the existing raise levels would be replicated. Assistant Planner
Carn;abell stated that the 12' wall presented same aesthetic problems, there-
fore, Staff consulted with the acoustical engineer regarding a canbination
b' berm and a 6' wall, which would have the same effective acoustical
dualities as the 12' wall, but provides a more pleasant appearance. 'fie
Applicant has agreed to this canbination on a 35' parkway between the two
streets. She identified this 35' parkway on a rendering displayed for the
Cbrttmission. Assistant Planner Campbell went on to state that there is a
10' setback along Avenida Nuestra so the nearest resident would probably
be 77' from the curb of the proposed Avenue 52 and approximately 47' from
the wall.
Moving on to the traffic concerns, Assistant Planner Campbell advised that
MINU4ES - PI.ANIIVING CON~IiSSION
April 9, 1985
Page 9,
City Engineer, he recnrm~ends that the radius of the easterly curve of
prq~osed Avenue 52 be increased to 2000', based on the California Highway
Design Manual Standards for anticipated speed limit of 55 mph. Due to
the anticipated lower speed limit for the westerly portion of proposed
Avenue 52, the proposed 1200' curve radius is adequate. Staff is recannending
that the proposed realigra~nt be revised according to the City Engineer's
reccxtmendation.
Assistant Planner Campbell stated there were concerns raised by local
residents, the Planning Caimission aril Staff regardirx3 the aesthetic
i~3cts. These concerns included the height of the wall, the design and
materials of the wall and the proposed landscaping along the south side of
Avenida Nuestra. Essentially, there is a traderoff between constructing
a barrier to mitigate noise while still maintaining a low profile, all to
retain the view of the mountains to the south. Even though the canbination
bean and wall will be a total of 12' high (it is set back 47' from the
nearest property line), this should allow for a view of the mountains to
even those closest to the barrier. Die inpact on the southerly view
decreases as the distance of the barrier increases.
As i~cplained earlier, Assistant Planner Campbell stated the Applicant is
proposing a 25' wide, 6' high bean, with a 6' high block wall om top.
There will be a 12' wide, landscaped berm with parkway between Avenida
Nuestra and the wall. This will be fully landscaped. In addition to the
trees planted aloes Avenida Nuestra, the trees planted along Avenue 52
parkways and center median will also be visible from the subdivision. The
use of both the berm and extensive landscapi~ will serve to minimize the
height and soften the appearance of this noise barrier. All landscaping
and wall plans shall be approved by the City prior to installation.
With regard to light and glare, Assistant Planner Campbell stated that the
proposed noise barrier should screen direct light and glare. Along the
south side of Avenue 52, the Applicant proposes to install wrought irm
fencing with extensive landscaping in order to minimize light and glare
affecting the Crystal Canyon project.
She went on to note other points which should be noted such as the fact
that Avenida Nuestra will only be improved from Celle Faondo to Washington
Street. Also, the intent of the proposal is to cc~ensate for changes in
oamunity flood control. Assistant Planner Campbell turned the Staff
]Report wer to Director Stevens for the flood control report.
Director Stevens stated that at the Study Session on April 8, the Camiissiesi
had indicated a desire to see if a representative of the Coachella Valley
Water District could be requested to attend the meeting this date (4/9/85)
to discuss sane of the rationale that went into the flood control design
that necessitated these changes. Unfortunately, no one from CVWD could
atte~ at such short notice due to other cortmitments. Director Stevens
stated he spoke with a couple of CVWD representatives, however, and would
try to relate what they told him. He stated, however, that the i~ortant
think to point out is that Staff peroeives, in our support for the Applicant's
request, that the flood control is really this caRCauuty's highest priority
cmoern and actions which will facilitate the implanentation of that flood
corvtrol program in the most cost effective fashion are reasonable and
appropriate.
MINUTES - PIANNII3G COMMISSION
April 9, 1985
Page 5.
needed to ensure that the design of this project could accamodate those
flows. So, the engineers worked out an analysis of the 100-year flood,
which would impact those streets and detsnnined how much capacity they
needed for retention to make the hydrolics of the systsn work. You must
remer~ber that, ultimately, there is a ccsrurection between the Bear Creek
system and the east Cove drainage system at the evacuation charuael, so
you ar+e really talking about basins that have storage and then oontivl the
tiro: of flow to ultimately move all the water out. 7trerefore, large areas
are needed for storage. 'That necessitated more than the 39 acres we saw
in the tentative tract, and when we finally ended up working out the details,
we weeded 82 acres of lard area to store, and yet still allow some reasonable
use of that land area as part of the golf cause develc~atwsrt, which has been
a ecmron design approval in the valley. Therefore, we had to increase the
area substantially to allow cac~liance with the Cove drainage system we
ultimately e~q~ect to be installed there, and we needed the land area now.
the second major reason that the flood control necessitated changes related
to differences in elevation between the area ultimately receiving the safer,
which is the Ta Quinta Ston[~rater Evacuation (}kuurel, and the site itself.
You crust be equal to or higher than the elevation uihere you are sniffing
the water to the evacuation charurel arri, when you look at the wlume that
required store and the depths you wand be required to have t:o store that
water, you are getting to the point where the bottom of the storage areas
would be lower than the evacuation channel. As a result, you have to make
sure yw have an appropriate relationship between those elevations and that
is what resulted, essentially, in this design.
Director Stevens noted that at the Study Session, there was discussion of
the possibility of leaving the project as previously approved and usix3
that: portion of the boomerang parcel (sere the current bend is) for a
storage basin. his alternative created two major problems. 'The first
beirxJ the requirement of a large dike (similar to that at Eisenhower and
Tar[pico) all along that portion of Avenue 52 and in order to obtain the
necessary elevation difference between that area and the evacuation channel,
that: storage basin would have been sore 12 to 14' deep and ooartain sufficient
anent of acre-feet of water to subject the project to the requir~*+ts of
the California Bureau of Dam Safety. 4he California Bureau of Ck-~n Safety
r~uirements would have added apprnocimabely one million dollars, or there-
abouts, in cost to the flood control project and would have likely delayed
that: project as much as a year while the design was going thza~gh their
approval process. ~rerefore, we tried to find a design which would allow
the avoidance of tirre delays in going through the Bureau of Dam Safety.
'Thl:i led to the early rejection of a large basin on the north side of the
fornrer alignment of Avenue 52.
llirEactor Stevens stated that we are now able, with this design, to handle
all local street drainage with the Cove up to either Durango or Sinaloa.
All of that area would be able to use this east Cove drainage system. We
still need to find a solution for the area north of that, which is presently
in the works. One of our additional goals and also trying to work within
the project was that the cost of the flood control project was significantly
cheaper if the City did not have to pay for the land that ova were doing the
storage on or if the City did not have W at least acquire some type of an
easement right, if rnt outright fee purchase of the land. Trying to work
all of this into'the framework of a development plan, the City saved a _ __
_~ Ll ~ L i ~L li___ ~ .. _. ~..... ...
MINUi£S - PL?aNlI1NG CCkP7ISSI0N
April 9, 1965
Page 6.
c7amussioner Nbran oomnented that in looking at the plans, she only saw
a 36-inch drainage pipe going to the evacuation channel and wondered if
that was correct.
Director Stevens advised that it is not correct. It will be a 60-inch,
underground culvert that would go essentially along the alignment of
Despst Club Drive frnn the project to the evacuation channel.
Ceermissioner Goetcheus asked how many feet high the dike is at the north-
west corner of Avenida Tampico and Eisenhower Drive.
Director Stevens stated that Lloyd Watson (who was present at the m~tiu-gl
of '' ~ ~k Iard Cc1[g~any advised that the dike was 15' or more above the
street.
Ocamussioner Goetcheus went on to camient that lookirx3 at the corner of
Avenue 50 and Eisenhower Drive, ae have a beautiful view of *~ ~,:
property. He noted that he has always been after as good a view fran the
Dove side as there is from the other side. He stated he has always wanted
sidewalks, landscaping, etc., and the developer had good plans three or four
years ago, but it has not been improved to date. Catmi.SSloner C,oetcheus
stated he feels this is an exaaq~le of where we have not insisted that the
plans be what people in the Cove would like. He noted that it bothered him
that se might start wer on something else here that will be as bad as resat
we have dame already. He advised that he was referring to the two sides of
Aveniada Benrnu]as where there will be berms and walls because of flood coa-trol,
which, try as he will, he does not understand.
Assistant Planner Ca[u~abell continued her Staff Report by rating some changes
in the written report. On Page 9, under Findings, Item 4 should read:
"4. The project will not have a significant impact on the
error m*imant if adequate mitigation measures are required
as conditions of approval."
chi the first page of the Conditions of Approval, under Noise, Iten 14 should
read:
"14. The Applicant shall provide a 35-foot-wide, 6' to 8'
hick bean on the south side of Avenue 52 to mitigate
noise impaction. Any wall on the with side of Avenue
52 shall be subject to City approval.."
e~ Page 2 of the Conditions of Approval, under Miscellaneous, Item 16 should
react:
"16. 'Ihe Applicant shall provide a meandering, 6-foot~wide^
bicycle path on the north side of Avenue 52, and a
5-foot-wide, meandering pedestrian path on the south
side of Avenue 52."
Dise~tor Stevens followed by stating that Staff's recoimiendation to the
Mission is adoption of the Resolution with the modifications to the
c~xiitions.
l+......: ..na......- vl i..Yiv..i r.v ocLai Fnr o rrn.i au nF al+.. A:.-.....--t .--._ _~. n. _ --
MINU'I'FS - PIT~T~7ING C(]~MISSION
April 9, 1985
Page 7.
Kevin Manning, Planner for T, '.ark Iand Ca~any, Applicant, advised
the Commission that the Applicant had no prnblens with the Conditions
of Approval in the request for the realignment that pertained to then,
Specifically, Conditions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 12. However, they dD have
a problem with Condition No, 10. They had proposed a 1000' radius.
landmark feels that the 2000' radius is a safety hazard and wish to
canpxtmise by proposing a 1200' radius at the curve. FIe stated that
the Berryman & Stephenson report proposed a 900' radius, which was
ignored by Staff. The City Engineer proposed the 2000' radius c~hich
was pxomoted by Staff.
llirector Stevens replied to Mr. Morning's report that Berrynan &
Stephens did indeed shwa that a 900' radius could be adequate. But
because that was in conflict with the rec~ndation we received frrm
the City Engineer, who recaitnended the 2000' radius, Staff talked to both
parties. The City Engineer indicated he was trying to avoid a super
elevated road, which means a banking situation in order to maintain the
type of speed that will occur on Avenue 52 (55 ~h). In discussing this
point with Ber~ycn<vi s Stephenson, they stated they did not take into
cori5ideratlcn the impact of having to super elevate. Therefore, Staff
recrnmended the 2000' radius because it basically awids the need to do
the super elevaticar. He noted that the super elevati~ or banking procedure
is more of a highway design and we do not presently have any roads with
this type of design.
Ur. Sodikoff, Rt, 1, Boa 134, Del Mar, California, an Avenida Nuestra
property owner, spoke against the realignment.
Karen Sodikoff, Rt. 1, Box 134, Del Mar, California, an Avenida Nuestra
property owner, spoke against the realigmm~t.
Audrey Ostrowslcy, Ia Quinta, California, a La Quinta ProP~tY ~~',
spoke against the realignment aryl Staff.
Bill Yaurg, President of Crystal Canyon, Applicant, responded to the
concerns of area residents who had just spoken.
Vise Chairn[-3n Walling closed the public hearing at 8:30 p.m.
Caomi_ssioner Moran stated that she feels the resi~nts of Avenida Nuestra
are benefiting by the proposed plans for their street with regard to all
the landscaping and the fact that it will be closed from Washington Street
traffic, etc. She feels that the Applicant has also done a very good job
with regard to the noise mitigation measures they have proposed for Avenue
52.
Comnissioaier Cfletcheus stated he feels the Applicant has a very good project
and that everything on the inside of it is fine. He stated he does not like
the Avenue 52 realignment and felt the project was fine as developed
previously. He stated he does not like the Avenida Hezmudas development
with regard to the wall and berm. He further stated that if he wted yes
on this project that he hoped the City Council, in their wisdom, would say
that this project is worth it to the City by changing the water affairs to
gain a project. 13e noted he is not satisfied that the water has to be
handled in the way it has been given to the Cam~ission and even though
MIIV[Pi£S - PI,i1bINING CCFP1ISSZON
April 9, 1985
Page 8.
Vice Chairnt~un Walling stated he tends to agree with Cottmissioner
Klimkiewicz. He Hated that some people may not realize it, but if
Avenue 52 is not moved and there was a project to the south of Celle
Nuestra, the people there would prnb;'~bly still be subjected to a large
wall system, and perhaps not with such a thorough landscaping design as
this. this also provides for ample open space between Avenida Nuestra
and any buildings. This seems to be the most equitable means of obtaining
flax3 control for the City.
Vice Chaianan Walling called for a motion.
2. Ca[rtussioner Klimkiewicz made a motion to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution No. 85-005 with modifications to the Conditions of Approval
as recotanPnded by Staff. Commissioner Moran seconded the motion,
Uhan~.m,aly Adopted with one objection (with friendliness) and one
abstention.
Director Stevens made a oamient for the recrord. Staff disputes Mrs. Ostz'owsky's
recollecton of the facts reganiing the availability of information. He noted that you
cannot read a person's mind when they come in asking for the Staff Report and try and
understand that to mean the acoustical study. He noted that several of the residents
who spoke at the' last meeting and who are here Might had copies of the acoustical
study as soon a;> it was available to the public, which was eight days ago. Dr. Sodikoff
made arrangerents to receive a Dopy aid paid for it and Mrs. Higgs made arrangetpnts to
receive a Dopy. Wfe cannot read peoples' minds in terns of the information they want
and we do the best we can. He stated again for the record that the acoustical study was
available to anynaie who wished to receive a copy.
Vice ~~~*+~~ V~illing advised that the next two items of hearing would be heard
eoncuxx~ently.
C. Change of Zone Case No. 85-015, a proposal to change the zoning fmR R-1*,
R*++-1-10,000, R*-2-20,000, and N-A* to R*++-1-10,000, R*-2-20,000, and N-A*
on a 746-acre site easterly of Avenida Bennrdas and southerly of Avenida
Nuestra; Sazd Pebble Country Club, Applicant.
D. Tentative Tract Map No. 20328, Revised No. 1, a proposal to approve a planned
residential develoFment with 843 condominium units, 47 single-fancily lots, a
tennis and ceuntry club acd an 18-hole golf course on a 417-acre portion of
a 731-acre site easterly of Avenida Benrnndas and southerly of Avenida Nuestra;
Sand Pebble Country Club, Applicant.
Vice Chaianan Walling requested the Staff Report.
1. Principal Planner Bonner stated that this is the same Change of Zone Case
as presented at the previous Planning Commission meeting. Due to the
addition of 57 acres, the Applicant is requesting a Change of Zone fran
R-1* to R-2*20,000. That is the same zoning as placed on the remainder
of the project. The Applicant has made minor modifications to the single-
family lot area and, therefore, has adjusted that boundary for the R-1*
zoning. The southeast corner of the project has a 17' height limit, a
miniman 1200-square-foot duelling size and minummm 10,000-square-foot lot
size. The next change is due to more engineering information the Applicant
has received. He has made minor modifications on the boun&iry between the
mountains and the units and has actually lost a minor amount of land to
keep away fran the toes of the slopes. Staff is racamiendina_aDO.~oval.~f.
MINIJ'IFS - PI.ADIlVING CCN$~tISSION
April 9, 1985
Page 9.
were in regard to the height of the units, the fact that they were clustered
~~~g the P~'~terr the majority of the units were in larger buildings
having four units and, therefore, they had substantial bulk. Also, the fact
of the close spacing and clustering of units seemed to increase the mass of
them. At the last hearing, Planning amnission camients and cwm~.nts fran
the audience requested that the Applicant redesign or modify his plans to
modify these concerns. 'therefore, last Friday, the Applicant sulinitted a
revised plan showing different treatment for the perimeter units. He has
eliminated sore of the units ~ Avenida Bearedas, he has mixed units between
one and two-story units, he has decreased the building size by going fran
fourplexes to duplexes, he has removed sore units frrm the northwest corner
to allow a window into the project. Principal Planner Boruier pointed out
they areas where changes have occurred by use of colored renderings submitted
by the Applicant. Staff still has concerns with some of the two-story
buildings along Aveni-da Bexmidas and Avenue 52. On Avenida Bern¢idas, the
view from the single-family dwellings on the west side would allow the entire
second floor to be visible on the east side. Staff feels that the height
limit being 17 feet ai the west side, that the two-story structures on the
east side should be kept away fran this area, particularly in the interest of
ocmpatibility and not blocking the view fran adjacent residents. 'Therefore,
Staff is recotaner~di-ng that the units be dropped back appzvximztely 100' Ewan
the right-of~way line, the units inwlved would just be reduced to one story,
14ie Applicant has agreed to three things in regard to the tennis clubhouse.
First, he has agreed to set back the building an additional 20 feet; second,
he will modify the wall design and thinl, the Overall height of the building
wi1:1 be limited to 20 feet.
Regarding Avenue 52, Principal Planner Bonner stated it is a different
situation than on Avenida Bermudas, Right now, the distance from the PtY
lines on the west side of Avenida Bermadas to the wrap on the east side as
proposed by the Applicant is about 100 feet. ~ Avenue 52, when you take
into kxnsideration Avenida Nuestra, the extra setback for landscaping, etc.,
you are locking at approximately 200 feet to the wall (this is frmn property
line of Avenida Nuestra to perimeter wall of the project), Because they are
not adjacent to any other single-family units that are ot~story and will
not be imposing on anyone's privacy or viewscape, Staff feels that the units
on Avenue 52 would have the opportunity to mix one and two-story units more
than prroposed by the Applicant. Staff feels they can work with the Applicant
as far as revising the plan with this point in mind,
Prucipal Planner Bawer stated that oo~mpnts made at the previous meeting
tended toward the fact that we wanted more views into the project and Phis has
been a standard the City has tried to encourage in develogrents so that we
do not have a solid wall. As Assistant Planner Campbell mentioned earlier,
any requests for solid wraps are all going to be conditioned upon, Zhe
acoustical engineer wi-11 look at any of these plans to detexmine any
"bouncing" back of noise. Principal Planner Baines noted that Staff has
not shown these plans t,o the acoustical engineer at this point,
Regarding the maintenance building, the Applicant has set back the building
frori the Desert Club and the adjacent street. He has brakes up the roof
lines to be cartQatible with surrounding area and plans to recess the Parking
area. also.
With regard to concerns raised on the impact of the project to the wildlife
1. ~}.i~a1- i4- is r+nfai Fi~a* Rld anrcc nF f-hn m.inF~.:--~-- ---- -
MII9i7'I~SS -PLANNING CCl+A2ISSI0N
April 9, 1985
Page 10.
Prvlcipal Planner Bonner went over the Conditions of Approval that
were being added to or changed.
Add to Condition No. 9:
"9. (d) All two-story units will be set back a minimwn of 100 feet
from the right-of-wray line."
Add additional condition under "Building and Site Design":
"Staff recamiends that the maximum number of allowable units,
including single-family and oondaniniums, be x+eduoad fmn
889 to 850."
Principal Planner Bonner noted that this ooa~cluded her Staff Report to
the Camtission on the two items being heard concurrently.
Dinsctor Stevens noted that Staff is re~rmertding approval of tentative
Tract Map No. 20328, Revised No. 1, subject to the Conditions of Approval,
as amended, and based on the fitriings in the Staff Report.
Vice: Chairman Walling opened the public hearing at 9:13 p.m.
Bi11 Young, President of the Cxystal Canyon project (formerly known as
Sand Pebble Country Club), Applicant, reviewed the project as a whole,
spealcin4 in favor of same.
:J. ES. Gold, Vice President of Crystal Canyon, representative of the
Applicant, replied to srnie of the conrerns addressed along Avenida
Bern¢idas. He also spoke in favor of the project.
F3omer Davis, 52-211 Avenida Bermxias, La Quinta, questioned whether there
would be a bike lane, a gutter atxl a sidewalk cai the west side of Avenida
Bernudas.
Dirextor Stevens replied to this by noting that these type of improvanents
would be done by the Applicant on the east side of Avenida ~*+m+a~s only.
RabE:rt Craven, 53-125 Avenida Bernudas, La Quinta, questioned the height
of the two-story units on Avenida Bernnx]as, as to how much would be seen
by the haneowners on the west side.
Principal Planner Bonner explained to Mr. Craven that with the additie:~al
setback being requested, only the roof of the closest buildiruJ should be
seen by those residents on the west side of Avenida Bermudas.
Vice (haisnan Walling closed the public hearing at 9:25 p.m.
Camussioner Klimkiewicz stated that most of his concerns have been
satisfied, with the exception of the northeast corner density of units.
Director Stevens advised that Staff could add a condition that particularly
indicates the rartheast corner be evaluated to minimize the appearance of
bulk: to the exterior of the project. If Staff cannot work out the details
of this with the Applicant, they will bring it back to the Ccrnrdssion.
MIN[TPFS - PL}1NNING COMMISSION
April 9, 1985
Page 11.
Bill Young replied that there will be an easement where the water will come
through arr3 CVWD will take care of any bad damage in the easement area and
the developer will maintain the golf course.
Vice Chairman Walling felt that the two-story units on the northwest corner
and the northeast corner are too dense. He feels a 100' setback on the
east_ should be provided. His major concern is the two-stony units on the
highway. He also felt that anything on the golf course maintenance building
and the two-story units should cane back to the Planning Commission for
review.
Aft~:r a short discussion, it was decided to change Condition 9. (d) which
has been added previously in the meeting, as follows:
"9. (d) All two•-story units shall be set back 100' fran perimeter
roads as well as the crnmon property line along Desert
Club area."
'rile Commission would like to review final plans regarding the above.
With regard to the location of the golf course maintenance building,
Director Stevens stated he would attempt to discuss other options with
the Applicant when he gets to the point of final design.
After a brief discussion, Vice cha;rman Walling called for a motive:.
2. Caamissioner Gcetcheus made a motion based on findings in the Staff Report,
to approve Change of Zone Case No. BS-015, and Tentative Tract Map No. 20328,
Revised No. 1, subject to Conditions of Approval, as amended. Coimussioner
Klisilciewicz seconded the motion. Unanimously Adopted with one abstention.
At this point, Director Stevens advised those present that the City Council hearings
on these items is scheduled for next Tuesday, April 16, 1985, at 7:30 p.m., in these
d'~atobers.
4. CCN.SINP CALIIdY1R
5. BUSIMNEESS
A. Vice Chairman Walling introduced the first item of buisness as Street Vacations
Nos. 85-007A and 85-007B, a request to detennuie General Plan consistency of a
proposeii vacation of Avenue 52, generally between Jefferson street and Desert
Club Drive; William Young and Lar~nark Iarr3 Company, Applicants. He called for
the Staff Report.
1. Director Stevens advised that az mad vacations, the Planning Ca[mission's
responsibility is to determine whether or not they are consistent with the
General Plan and make a report to the City Council as to that consistency.
Regarding these requests, we essentially envision that the vacations will
occur, if they are approved, upon the cacpletion of the improvements on the
realigned rightrof~y. You can expect, across the frontage of the project,
that it will be a full-width right-ofwray and those azeas thmuc~ the :.a;,.,~ark
Ianci Company portion of the property, which would be to the east of this
nm-~a-r_ ...~,i r~ r.~ ro..>>~;.... ;~;rial lv that section .-`~ - --- ~-~:~_--
MINUTES - P1+z1I3dI1NG CCNMISSI~1
April 9, 1985
Page 12.
Change 3. (6) adding Avenida Nuestra after Avenue 52.
Vice (hairman 4~lling called for a motion.
2. C~nnissioner Klimkiewicz made a motion to adapt Planning Crnmission
Resolution No. P.C. 85-004 and recamierxied support of the attached
~niiitions. Coimtissianer 6bran seconded the motion. Unanimously
~f~ with one abstention.
Vice Cllaillndn Walllrig called upon Staff to report on the five plot plan requests for
constriction before the Planning Grnmission.
Director Steven:c stated that as these requests had been reviewed at the study session
the day prior, he would identify each request and the Planning Commission could rule
on then as a whale. He stated that Staff is recatmending approval of each of the
requests. Director Stevens identified each of the five requests as follows;
S. Plot Plan No. 85-137, a request to construct asingle-family dwelling on the
west side of Avenida Bermidas, 300' north of Calle Nogales; Desert Design
Development, Applicant.
C. Plot Plan No. 85-139, a request for approval of two classroan buildings in
conjunction with Public Use Permit No. 84-001 at the northwest corner of
Miles Avenue and Adams Street aligtmient; Family Heritage Church of the Valley,
Applicant.
D. Plot Plan No. 85-140, a request to cor~stnbct a single-family dwelling on the
west side of Avenida Diaz, 180' south of Calle Potrem; Rick Johnson
Constrvction, Applicant.
E. Plot Plan No. 85-141, a request to c~struct a single-family dwelling on the
east side of Avenida Qbregrn, 200' swth of Calle Chihuahua; Rick Johnson
Construction, Applicant.
F. Plot Plan No. 85-142, a r~uest to construct asingle-family dwelling on the
west side of Avenida Martinez, 150' south of Calle Madrid; Rick Johntisan
Construction, Applicant.
Vice Chaianan Walling called for a motion.
Ctsnni.ssioner Goetcheus made a motion based on the findings in the Staff Reports
to approve Plot Plan No. 85-137 and Plot Plans 85-139 through SS-142, subject
to the Conditions of Approval. Camiissioner Klimkiewicz seconded the motion.
Unanimously Adopted.
6. ADJOURAAgNT
These being no further items of agenda to Dome before the Commission, Vice Chairman
Walling called for a motion to adjourn.
Chairman 'IImornbuzgh made a motion to adjourn to the next regular meeting of
April 23, 1985, at 7:00 p.m., in Ia Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Fsta~, Ia Quinta,
California. Vice Chairn-sn Walling seconded the motion. Unanimusly Adopted.
The regular meeting of the Planning Comni.ssion of the City of Ia Quinta, California,
was adjourned at 10:1.5 n_m_ . Anri l 9. 1985. in the Ia Ouinta ~, ~-• ••_" -- ^^ '-^~ ~ "; -•=-~