Loading...
1988 03 01 CC Minutes LA QUINTA CITY COUNCIL MI?tfTES MARCH 1, 1988 Regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council was called to order at the hour of 7:30 P.M., Mayor Hoyle presiding, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. PRESENT: Council Members Bohnenberger, Cox, Pena, Sniff, Mayor Hoyle ABSENT: None CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA Council Member Pena noted that the addendum to the agenda should be considered after Item No. 5. PUBLIC C?ENT COMMENT BY COUNCIL MEMBERS COUNCIL MEMBER BOHNENBERGER noted that there are two public meetings scheduled Thursday, March 3rd at 7:00 P.M. in the Council Chamber regarding the neighborhood park being planned and one on Thursday, March 17th at the Community Center regarding the improvements being planned in the Cove. PUBLIC HEARINGS WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS a. Letter from Palmer Cablevision extending cable service to the La Quinta Senior Center. Mr. Kiedrowski read this letter in which Palmer Cablevision advises that that they have provided cable service to the Senior Center. A letter of appreciation will be sent. BIB] 02-23-96-U01 10:41:49AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 01-U02 1988-U02 City Council Minutes Page 2 March 1, 1988 BUSINESS SESSION 1. CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL PLAN ANENDMENT NO. 86-016 MEISTERLIN FROM LOW AND MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FOR THE AREA IN THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF MILES AVENUE MID WASHINGTON STREET. Mr. Crump, Planning Director, reviewed staff's report advising that this matter has been carried over to permit review 0 the information contained in the pro forma. An evaluation has been prepared by a consulting economist, Agajanian Associates. Based upon their review of the documents they found insufficient information for the City to reasonably assess the project's feasibility and fiscal impact. Specifically: 1. There is insufficient information on the pro-forma analysis to reasonably assess the project's financial performance over the project's development period. 2. The market analyses for apartments, senior apartments and congregate care units do not present sufficient evidence to convince us that the proposed project absorption can be achieved. 3. These studies do not address the fiscal impact of the project upon the City. Mr. Crump added that the Planning Commission has recommended denial of the request. RESOLUTION NO. 88-15 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 86-016, A REQUEST TO AMEND THE LA QUINTA GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM LOW AND MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FOR THE AREA IN THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF MILES AVENUE AND WASHINGTON STREET. It was moved by Council Member Pena, seconded by Council Member Cox that Resolution No. 88-15 be adopted, denying General Plan Amendment No. 86-016. Council Member Pena stated that he has not seen any additional information that would change his mind and saw no alternative but to deny the request. Council Member Sniff wanted to see the matter continued until the General Plan review process is completed. Council Member Bohnenberger agreed stating that this is a potentially attractive project, particularly in the area of BIB] 02-23-96-U01 10:41:49AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 01-U02 1988-U02 City Council Minutes Page 3 March 1, 1988 senior housing and congregate care. It's a unique project for the desert and felt there is a growing need for it with our aging population and with the senior population moving into the valley. He didn't wish to see it denied at this time, but agreed that the timeliness of a General Plan Amendment on this specific project is too soon, given the fact that we are presently re-evaluating our entire General Plan in regards to medium and high density residential. He felt that the review process should address the need for senior housing. Council Member Cox felt strongly about senior housing and was very concerned about issues addressed in the report of Agajanian & Associates. She could support continuing it until after the General Plan review, but could not approve it at this point. DAVE SCHEY, 712 No. Diamond Bar Blvd., Diamond Bar, California, representing the applicant, addressed the Council stating that the issues the consultant raised are good, but they are premature for the status of the project at this point. It is a well conceived project and meets a need in the cor?unity. He noted that if the General Plan is amended, there are many other approval processes ahead in which the Council would have an opportunity approve or deny. In answer to questions by Council, Mr. Crump advised that if the Council denies the request, and the General Plan review shows this to be an appropriate land use, then the applicant can re-file his application. If the application is continued, it should be continued for at least three months in order to complete the review of the General Plan. In further answer to questions by Council, Mr. Kiedrowski advised that senior housing and congregate care facilities can be looked at in the housing element" of the General Plan. JOHN WALLING, Chairman of the Planning Commission, stated that basically, their objection amounted to the proposal not being consistent with land use policies, even though they felt that it is a good project. Mayor Hoyle stated that he was going to vote against the motion as he felt that the issue should be continued until the General Plan review is completed. Motion carried on the following vote: AYES: Council Members Bohnenberger, Cox, Pena NOES: Council Member Sniff, Mayor Hoyle ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None BIB] 02-23-96-U01 10:41:49AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 01-U02 1988-U02 City Council Miuites Page 4 March 1, 1988 2. CONSIDERATI? OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, CYCLE I: a. General Plan Amendment 87-017 David Howerton/Robert Lamb Hart end Land Use Designation From Low Density Residential to Tourist Commercial South Side of Avenue 48, 1/2 Way etween Washington Street and Jefferson Street. b. General Plan Amendment 88-018 Landmark Land Co., Inc. Amend Land Use Designation from Medium Density to General Commercial Southwest corner of Avenue 50 and Adams Street Alignment Right of Way to be Vacated). GENERAL PLAII AMENDMENT 88-018. Mayor Hoyle abstained from this issue because of a conflict of interest. Mr. Crump reviewed staffs report advising that the request is to amend the land use designation from Medium Density Residential to General Commercial on approximately 4.3 acres located on a portion of the southwest corner of Avenue 50 and Adams Street alignment to be vacated). The applicant is anticipatinq that convenience and service commercial will be needed for the anticipated residential development and to serve the school and public park/sports complex on the north side of Avenue 50. The Planning Commission identified three major concerns needing further analysis: 1) access; 2) location; and 3) need. In response to Council Member Sniff, Mr. Crump advised that Adams Street has not been vacated because it was predicated on developer action to tie Tampico into Avenue 50. Council Meimber Bohnenberger advised that the County abandoned the Adams Street right of way between Avenue 48 and Avenue 50. They did not abandon the right of way from Avenue 50 to Avenue 52. The City then approved the abandonment between Avenue 50 and 52 as p?rt of the Oak Tree West Project. JOHN WALLIIIG, Planning Commission Chairman addressed the Council, advising that the Planning Commission requested two things a physical diagram of how traffic will be handled and compatibility with the adjacent school. MOTION It was moved by Council Member Cox, seconded by Council Member Bohnenberger that the Council concur with the concerns identified by the Planning Commission and direct staff to proceed with processing General Plan Amendment No. 88-018. In response to questions by Council, Mr. Crump believed that the only alternative land use is no change". A no" vote would suspend the application. An affirmative vote does not preclude voting against the amendment later in the process. BIB] 02-23-96-U01 10:41:49AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 01-U02 1988-U02 City Council Minutes Page 5 March 1, 1966 Motion carried unanimously with Mayor Hoyle abstaining. MINUTE ORDER NO. 68-37. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 87-017 Mr. Crump reviewed staff's report advising that the request is to amend the land use designation from Low Density Residential to Tourist commercial on the south side of Avenue 48, half-way between Washington and Jefferson Streets, which is a portion of the The Grove project property. The applicant is envisioning a resort hotel use having between 1,200 and 1,500 rooms as an optional development course for the 1The Grove'1 project. The Planning Commission identified traffic generation with vehicular access and circulation) as the only concern. They also requested cumulative information on all approved/developed hotel projects within the City. Council Member Bohnenberger felt that the economic impact should be addressed insofar as the impact on City services and including revenue to be generated. MOTION It was moved by Council Member Cox, seconded by Council Member Pena that the Council concur with the concerns identified by the Planning Commission with the additional request for an economic impact report and direct staff to proceed with the processing of General Plan Amendment No. 87--017. Motion carried unanimously. MINUTE ORDER NO. 88-38. 3. CONSIDERATION OF PETITION OF PROPERTY OWNERS FOR ANNEXATION PROPERTIES LOCATED ON AVENUE 58 APN NUM?ERS 761-090-017; 761-090-018; 761-090-019; 761-090-021; 761-090-022; 761-090-023. Mr. Crump advised that the owners of property along Avenue 58 are interested in Council's comments regarding annexation prior to proceeding with the process. There are approximately 70 acres involved. One issue the Council may consider is whether or not to include other properties in an annexation application. The subject property is within the City's Sphere of Influence. There would be no conflicts with the agreements with Coachella or Indio. GORDON PAULIS, 37711 Peacock Circle, Rancho Mirage, a Planning Consultant representing the property owners, addressed the Council stating that they are aware of the development proposed in their area. These property owners have no specific plans in mind for use of their property. They are not seeking a high density designation. They are looking at 2 to 4 units per acre. Mr. Gautier who owns the single largest parcel was in the process of preparing to appear before the County to subdivide BIB] 02-23-96-U01 10:41:49AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 01-U02 1988-U02 City Council Minutes Page 6 March 1, 1988 int? 18 single family lots. He has no intention of changing his pl?s upon annexation. MOTION It was moved by Council Member Bohnenberger, seconded by Council Member Sniff that staff be directed to proceed with the annexation as requested and to contact other property owners in the area to see if they are interested in annexation. Motion carried unanimously. MINUTE ORDER NO. 88-39. 4. REPORT ON FIRE PROTECTION PLANNING FEES. Mr. Hirdler, advised that the Riverside County Fire Department is now charging developers plan check fees which will be collected by the County. With the cessation of the augmented Fire Marshal services, which the City contracted for, the City received the same service as the unincorporated areas of the County. Developers in unincorporated area are currently paying these fees. No action was required information item only. 5. STATUS OF FENCING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY DURING A SPECIAL EVENT. Mr. Hirdler noted that both the Arts Festival and the Jazz Festival are coming up and both are being held at the Community Park. Public parking on private property has become a problem. Both organizations have tried to work with Mrs. Ostrowsky, one of the property owners, with little success. She has given the Arts Foundation permission to rope of f her property to prevent the public from parking there. He noted that there is a section in the City Code prohibiting parking on private property without the owners permission. In answer to Council, the City Attorney advised that the City has an obligation to ticket if the property owner files a co?laint. Discussion ensued with Mr. Hirdler reviewing the properties being used for parking and the property owner's liability. Also, the precedent in roping of f one property and not others in the area and the possibility of posting all areas that are not designated parking areas. AUDREY OSTROWSKY stated that there is insufficient parking areas in the downtown area. LUIS CAMPAGNA, P.O. box 1286, La Quinta, suggested that the City post no parking" signs along properties not designated for parking. He added that he had offered his property to be used with the stipulation that liability insurance be provided, which has not been done. BIB] 02-23-96-U01 10:41:49AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 01-U02 1988-U02 City Council Minutes Page 7 March 1, 1988 Council concurred that the City has no responsibility to fence of f private property and asked that the City Attorney prepare an amendment to the City Code in this regard. 6. ACCEPTANCE OF DEED TO LOT l5, BLOCK *119, UNIT *12 AS A DONATION TO THE CITY OF LA QUINTA. Mr. Kiedrowski advised that he recently received a letter from the Hartz Mountain Corporaion offering to donate a lot to the City which is located on Avenida Mendoza just north of Calle Durango. He indicated the Citys willingness to accept the lot. Consequently, we have received a deed to it. The City Attorney recommended obtaining a preliminary title report prior to accepting the lot. MOTION It was moved by Council Member Cox, seconded by Council Member Bohnenberger that the City accept the lot contingent upon obtaining a preliminary title report. Motion carried unanimously. MINUTE ORDER NO. 88-40. CONSENT ITEMS 7. RELEASE OF SURVEY MONUMENT BONDS FOR PARCEL MAP 21055 PGA WEST. 8. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 16, 1988. 9. APPROVAL OF DEMAND REGISTER NOTION It was moved by Council Member Pena, seconded by Council Member Cox that Consent Items be approved as recommended with Item 9 being approved by RESOLUTION NO. 88-16. Motion carried by the following vote: MINUTE ORDER NO. 88-41. AYES: Council Members Bohnenberger, Cox, Pena, Sniff, Mayor Hoyle NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None COMMISSION/COMMITTEE REPORTS a. Receipt of Planning Commission Minutes of February 9, 1988. Noted and filed. BIB] 02-23-96-U01 10:41:49AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 01-U02 1988-U02 City Council Minutes Page 8 March 1, 1988 b. Sunline Report. Council Member Pena advised that Sunline Transit Agency is currently looking at the design of the bus shelters and will be providing cities with various options on the design we wish for our area. C. CVAG RepQrt. Council Member Cox advised that CVAG Executive Committee took action to oppose Senator Presley's Bill regarding Indian Wells' looking for legislation to allow cities to use their 20% set aside other than within their own city limits. The vote was 5 1 to oppose with La Quinta, Cathedral City, County of Riverside, and Palm Springs not being in attendance. Since La Quinta has not had an opportunity to study the issue, she did not sign the letter as chairman, instead, Walt Snyder Temporary Chairman signed it. She stated that she will let them know of this Cities dissatisfaction with the way in which it was handled if the Council agrees. Council concurred. STUDY SESSION ITEMS All study session items were discussed in study session on February 29th. 1. Presentation by Mr. Meisterlin Regarding proposed General Plan Amendment. 2. Status Report on Mini-Park. 3. Discussion of Code Enforcement Process. Council Member Pena stated that he would like to see code enforcement go forward as discussed in study session. 4. Discussion of Ad Hoc Committee for Implementation of the Village plan. 5. Report on Cable Television. 6. Discussion of Santa Rosa Wilderness Additions. 7. Discussion of the 1987 Young American Medals for Bravery an Service. 8. Discussion of the Senior Advocacy Annual Awards. BIB] 02-23-96-U01 10:41:49AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 01-U02 1988-U02 * City Council Minutes Page 9 March 1, 1988 DEPARTMENT REPORTS Presented in Study Session. There being no further business, the Council adjourned at 9:32 P.M. to Closed Session to discuss litigation upon motion by Council Member Cox, seconded by Council Member Bohnenbeyger. Respe,*ctfullY submitted, SAUNDRA L. JUHOLA; ity Clerk City of La Quinta, California BIB] 02-23-96-U01 10:41:49AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 01-U02 1988-U02