2002 10 22 PC MinutesMINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
October 22, 2002 7:00 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00
p.m. by Chairman Butler who asked Commissioner Abels to lead the flag
salute.
B. Present: Commissioners Jacques Abels, Tom Kirk, Steve Robbins, Robert
Tyler, and Chairman Richard Butler.
C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City
Attorney Kathy Jenson, Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer, Planning
Manager Oscar Orci, Principal Planner Fred Baker, and Executive
Secretary Betty Sawyer.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed
IV. CONSENT ITEMS:
A. Chairman Butler asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of
October 8, 2002. Commissioner Tyler asked that Page 12, Item #6 and
#7 be corrected to state "...Condition 43.A...° There being no further
corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Bobbins
to approve the minutes as corrected. Unanimously approved.
B. Department Report: None
V. PRESENTATIONS: None
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A.
•a
request of Winchester Development for Quarry Ranch L.L.C., for
certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact
for Environmental Assessment 2002-548, consideration of a Specific
Plan to allow development on hillside property; a Conditional Use Permit
G:\WP000S\PC Minutesll0-22-02.wpd I
Planning Commission Minutes
October 22, 2002
not grade in the hillside above the 20%. The roads were graded
above the 20% slope. The City has never approved a building pad
above the 20°~ slope. Community Development Director Jerry
Herman stated that above the Enclave development within Specific
Plan 121-E, there was a condominium project proposed to be
developed on a knoll that was downsized and has been graded,
but not built on.
8. Commissioner Tyler asked if it was staff's position that the five
conditions required for development in the hillside had been
complied with. Staff stated yes at this point, but the applicant still
needs to submit a site development permit. Commissioner Tyler
stated the only real pertinent difference between the RL and RVL
is the density factor. Staff agreed that density was the key factor.
9. Chairman Butler asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. John Shaw, representing Winchester
Development and the applicant, gave a presentation on the project
and stated the only issue they had was in regard to the remainder
of lettered lettered Lot I being designated as Open Space. As long
as it could be developed as golf course, they would have na
objection Staff clarified that the entire lettered Lot I is zoned as
LDR. The tract map is approved which allowed lettered Lot I to be
developed as Golf Course, so there is a potential to develop this as
residential.
10. Commissioner Robbins asked if the remainder of lettered Lot I
could be conditioned to be Open Space. City Attorney Kathy
Jenson stated yes.
11. Commissioner Robbins asked if the applicant had any objection
with the designation as Open Space. Staff explained that a
designation of Open Space would not allow any golf course
development. It would have to be designated Golf CourselOpen
Space. Mr. Shaw stated the remainder of lettered Lot I is
intended to be developed as a golf course.
12. Commissioner Kirk asked where on the ridgeline would the daylight
line fall. Mr. Shaw indicated on the map its location.
13. Commissioner Robbins asked about the cul-de-sac adjacent to
lettered Lot I. Mr. Shaw indicated it was part of the tract map
previously approved.
G:IWPDOCS\PC Minutes\10-22-02.wpd 3
Planning Commission Minutes
October 22, 2002
14. Commissioner Tyler asked why they were asking for the RL versus
RVL zoning. Mr. Dave Dawson, Principal Planner for Keith
Companies, stated the RVL designation is required when
developing in the Hillside Conservation area. They wanted to use
the RL to remain consistent with the General Plan which is LDR
and the RL corresponding with 2-4 units allowed. Commissioner
Tyler stated his concern was that once it was changed to RL it
could create a °pandora's box".
15. Commissioner Kirk stated that under the current General Plan only
one house would be allowed. Mr. Dawson stated the entire
lettered Lot I is designated as Low Density Residential which
allows four units to the acre. If an alternate configuration could be
done, 58 units would be allowed. Lettered Lot I is 18.5 acres.
16. Commissioner Robbins stated that if it was restricted to one unit
per ten acres, it would not restrict any golf course development.
17. Chairman Butler stated that if it is restricted and the zoning is not
changed, the applicant has the opportunity to put golf holes in that
vicinity with more excavation to the slope to the north.
18. Commissioner Robbins stated the Ordinance currently allows one
unit to ten acres but does not restrict the developer from
developing other "things" on the ten acres. If we allow them to
develop golf courses, it does not change the intent of the
Ordinance.
19. Commissioner Tyler asked if the height of 'the houses could be
restricted to 22 feet. Mr. Shaw stated he had no objection. He
asked if the site development permit was required to be brought
back to the Planning Commission. Staff stated yes.
2.0. Chairman Butler asked if there was any other public comment.
There being no other public comment, Chairman Butler closed the
public participation portion of the hearing and opened the matter
up for Commission discussion.
21. Commissioner Tyler stated he had some concerns in regard to the
height restrictions, but if the applicant was willing to accept a
condition restricting the height to 22 feet, he had no objection. In
regard to re-vegetation of the area, it is not always successful. He
has concerns about violating the Hillside Conservation Ordinance
in general.
G:IWPDOCS\PC Minutes\10-22-02.wpd 4
Planning Comrnission Minutes
October 22, 2002
22. Commissioner Kirk stated he has similar concerns. The applicant
has made some good points, but the Commission knows this will
set a precedent. He would prefer to see the Ordinance changed.
If it does not apply to this type of land, we should make some
adjustments in the Ordinance so this is not covered by the Hillside
Ordinance so we do not have to violate it. Phis would be a better
development instead of using a specific plan as a way to get out
the unpleasant aspects of the Zoning Code. If the Zoning Code
does not make sense, then it should be changed. He would
suggest a better solution would be to change the zoning on the
property.
23. Commissioner Robbins stated he too has concerns about
developing in the hillside, but does see that this project will not
have visual impacts. He would agree thiat the remainder of
lettered Lot I be restricted to only golf course development.
24. Chairman Butler stated it is the conditional use permit that allows
the development in the hillside. Approving a specific plan does not
affect the hillside, but the conditional use permit that dictates
what can be developed.
25. Commissioner Kirk clarified the conditional use permit is necessary
in any case you are in the Hillside Conservation Overlay District
and in this specific case, a specific plan is being used to get out of
some "nasty" components of the Overlay District. It is the
specific Plan that is being used to develop the site.
26. Commissioner Robbins asked if lettered Lot I could be conditioned
if it is not contained in the specific Plan. City Attorney Kathy
Jenson stated that if the applicant is agreeable, then yes.
27. Community Development Director explained that a specific plan
was prepared to deal with the issues of development of the land
that is zoned as LDR. Commissioner Kirk asked if there was any
20% slope on a parcel, it falls within the District. The 20%
requirement is the development requirement, so it is any 20%.
You fall within the District if you have property that is 20% or
more from the toe of the slope.
28. Commissioner Kirk stated it was his understanding that these
properties do not average over 20%. Mr, Shaw stated the average
slope for Parcel 1 is 9.41 %. Principal Planner Fred Baker stated
G:\WPDOCSIPC Minutes110-22-02.wpd 5
Planning Commission Minutes
October 22, 2002
you could take either the single lot or the entire site and say there
is an average of 20%. From what they have shown to staff they
have an average above 20%. Commissioner Kirk asked if they
could approve the subdivision and determine the two residential
lots are not within the Overlay District and consequently a specific
plan is not needed for their development. Community
Development Director Jerry Herman stated that by definition they
are caught in the Overlay District. Anything above the toe of the
slope is within the Overlay District. Discussion followed.
29. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Robbins/Abets to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2002-101 recommending certification of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of environmental impact for Environmental
Assessment 2002-548, as recommended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abets, Kirk, Robbins, and Chairman
Butler. NOES: Commissioner Tyler. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
30. It was moved and seconded by Commissioner Robbins/Abets to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-102 recommending
approval of Specific Plan 2002-061, subject to the findings.
31. Commissioner Kirk stated he did not feel comfortable voting for or
against this until the City Attorney renders an opinion on whether
or not the Overlay District applies, or could potentially apply to this
property.
Chairman Butler recessed the meeting at 8:04 to allow the City Attorney time to
review the Code and render a decision. The meeting was reconvened at 8:14 p.m.
32. City Attorney Kathy Jenson stated that if any part of the parcel
at issue is above the toe of the slope it drawn into the application.
Therefore, it a part of the Hillside Overlay District.
a. Condition added that lettered Lot I is within the Specific
Plan and allowed only two units with a 22 foot height, one
story limit, and the remainder of lettered Lot I be limited to
Golf Course/Open Space.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abets, Robbins, and Chairman Butler,
NOES: Commissioners Kirk and Tyler. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
G:IWPDOCSIPC Minutes\70-22-02,wpd 6
Planning Commission Minutes
October 22, 2D02
33. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Robbins/Abets to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-103 recommending
approval of Conditional Use Permit 2001-071, subject to the
findings and conditions as recommended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abets, Kirk, Robbins, and Chairman
Butler, NOES: Commissioners Kirk and Tyler. ABSENT:
None. ABSTAIN: None.
34. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Robbins/Abets to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-104 recommending
approval of Tentative Parcel Map 30586, subject to the findings
and conditions as recommended:
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abets, Kirk, Robbins, and Chairman
Butler, NOES: Commissioners Kirk and Tyler. ABSENT:
None. ABSTAIN: None.
VII. BUSINESS ITEMS: None.
VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None.
IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. Commissioner Tyler gave a report of the October 15, 2002 City Council
meeting.
B. Commissioners requested staff put Commission study sessions on the
next agenda.
X. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Abets/Tyler to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular
meeting of the Planning Commission to be held November 12, 2002, at 7:00 p.m.
This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 8:22 p.m. on October 22,
2002.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
G:IWPDOCS\PC Minutes\10-22-02.wpd 7