1983 03 22 PC Minutes.*.*' ~ '~ ~' *'"
~- LA QUI~TA PLANNING COMIYJlSSI. ON
PLANNING COMMIISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA ey i~,/~ /_/,~
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta DATE _,-
City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta,
California
March 22, 1983 7:00 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER
A. Chairman Pro Tern Imkamp called the Planning Commission meeting to order at
7:00 p.m. She then called upon Sandra Bonner, Associate Planner, to lead
the flag salute.
2. ROLL CALL
A. Chairman Pro Tern Imkamp requested the roll call. The Secretary called the roll:
Present: Cc~Tnissioners Reilly, Kl~.~.i~v~icz and Chairman Pro T~ Imkamp
Absent: Cc~Tnissioner Goetcheus and Chainm3n Thornburgh
Moved by Comnissioner Reilly, seconded by CcmTnissioner Klimkiewicz to excuse
OonTnissic~er Goetcheus and Chairman Thornburgh. Unanimously adopted.
Also present were City Manager Frank Usher, Associate Planner Sandra Bonner
and Secretary Donna Velotta.
3. HEARINGS
A. The first item on the agenda was a public hearing regarding Tentative Tract
Map No. 19203 and the related negative declaration regarding environmental
impact, a request for a 61-unit statutory condcmdnium project on a 15.8 acre
parcel located at the northeast corner of Avenida Bermudas and Avenue 52,
The Desert Club of La Quinta, Applicant.
Chairman Pro Tern Imkamp infonned all those present that the Applicant had
requested a continuance of this hearing to the next regular Planning C~ssion
meeting on April 12, 1983. She then requested staff to give their report on
this matter.
1. City ~nager Frank Usher stated staff had no further report to make regarding
this agenda item and requested that the Planning Cc~mission move to continue
Tentative Tract Map No. 19203 and the related negative declaration regarding
enviro~tal impact to the next regular meeting on April 12, 1983.
2. Chairman Pro T~n Imkamp then called for the motion to continue this request.
Co~T~issioner Reilly moved that the hearing be continued to Tuesday, April 12,
1983 at 7-00 p.m., a regular meeting of the Planning Cc~ssion. M~tion w~s
seconded by Ccmmissioner Klimkiewicz. Unanimously adopted.
B. The second item on the agenda was a public hearing regarding Conditional Use
Permit Case No. 83-002, a request for an off-site sign advertising a subdivision,
to be located 500 feet north of the intersection of Eisenhower Drive and
Washington Street, Anden Corporation, Applicant.
Chairman Pro Tem Imkamp info~ all those present that the Applicant had
requested a continuance of this hearing. She then requested a report from
staff.
MINUTES - PLANNING CC~b~SSICN
March 22, 1983
Page Tw~.
1. Associate Planner Sandra Bonner stated that the request for continuance
on this age _r~__a item to the next regular meeting in April is due to the
fact that staff is looking at the possibility of a joint sign being used
by a number of subdivisions. She stated that she is in the process of
investigating how the City of Rancho Mirage's joint sign system works
and will have a more detailed report by the April meeting. She further
- informed the Cc~aission that the Anden Corporation is in favor of this
type of sign and will withdraw further requests for advertising signs if
the Cc~xaission does, in fact, rule in favor of a joint sign advertising
system.
There being no further cc~m~_nts, Chairman Pro Tern Imkamp called for a
motion.
2. Ccmmkissioner Klimkiewicz moved that the public hearing regarding
Conditional Use Permit No. 83-002 be continued to the next regular
Planning Cc~xaission meeting on April 12, 1983 at 7: 00 p.m. Cc~nissioner
Reilly seconded the motion. Unanimously adopted.
C. Third item on the agenda was a public hearing regarding a proposed amendment
to the Municipal Land Use Ordinance No. 348 regarding height and setback
requirements for walls and fences.
Chairman Pro Tern Im~ called upon Sandra Bonner, Associate Planner, to
present staff's report on this item.
1. Associate Planner Sandra Bonner explained that right now Municipal Land Use
Ordinance No. 348 does not specifically denote setbacks for walls for residential
purposes. She stated that enforcement of the present ordinance is based
on interpretation rather than anything specific. The county allowed six-
foot fences along all property lines, including property lines on conm~rcial
- lots, which has resulted in problems of visibility at intersections,
residents pulling out of driveways unable to see traffic and/or pedestrians,
etc. Therefore, staff is recc~z~ending that the Planning Cc~m%ission adopt
this proposed amendment to the ordinance which specifically discusses
residential fences. The main point of the amendment is that fences within
the front 20 foot setback of residential houses be 3½ feet in height, that
there be corner cutbacks of 20 feet and fences, walls and hedges located
in that outback area be limited to 2½ feet in height. Ms. Bonner also
suggested to the Planning Cc~mission that they may want to add a section
to the amendment prc~ibiting barbed wire frcm being placed on top of fences.
After scme discussion regarding the lot sizes in the cove area with regard
to fence heights, visibility problems, road widths, curbs and gutters,
parking along roadways, etc., Chairman Pro Tern Imkamp opened the hearing
for public ccm~nt.
Audrey Ostrowski, 77-400 Calle Sinaloa, La Quinta, CA. requested staff to
define what they meant by "wall".
Associate Planner Bonner replied that the ordinance covers walls, fences
and landscaping which includes solid walls, w~oden fences, hedges, etc.
MINUTES - PLANNING CC~MISSION
March 22, 1983
Page Three.
Michael Head, 53-800 Avenida ~bntezuma, La Quinta, CA. questioned whether
a chainlink fence is legal to use in regard to the question of visibility
and safety.
Paul Morway, 77-395 Calle Durango, La Quinta, CA. stated he felt a chain-
link fence gave visibility to whatever may be in your backyard (swinnuing
- pool, etc. ) and a chainlink fence being climbable would not keep children
or whenever frcm getting inside. He went on to explain his situation with
regard to a block wall he is building around his hcme and the height
restrictions being imposed by ordinance. He felt that he should not have
to go through the steps of requesting a variance at this ~ due to the
fact that v~ had no specific requirements in our ordinance regarding set-
backs and height restrictions at the time he began his construction.
Frank Usher, City Manager, stated we should be sensitive to the problems
people have on their lots given the orientation of their house. He noted
that there are other areas which we nust also be sensitive to which are
public safety and use of the streets.
As there were no further public ccnm~_nts, Chairman Pro Tern Imkamp closed
the public hearing.
At this point, the Planning Cc~nission decided not to rule on this agenda
item at this hearing as they did not agree with the proposed amendment as
written. So that they may study this matter further, the Cc~nission agreed
to continue this request to the next regular meeting on April 12, 1983 at
7:00 p.m. M~mbers of the Cc~nission also agreed to meet on April 11, 1983
at 3:30 p.m. so they could take a tour of the cove area to visually see the
many existing problems in regard to fence heights and setbacks. Chairman
Pro Tern Imkamp called for a motion to this effect.
- Moved by Cc~nissioner Reilly, seconded by Cc~mtissioner Klimkiewicz to
continue the public hearing regarding the proposed amendment to the Municipal
Land Use Ordinance No. 348 with reference to height and setback requirements
for walls and fences to the April 12, 1983 meeting at 7:00 p.m. Unanimously
adopted.
D. The next item on the agenda was a public hearing regarding a proposed amendment
to Section 21.36 of the Municipal Land Use Ordinance No. 348 regarding hcme
occupations.
Chairman Pro Tern Imkamp informed all those present that staff had requested a
continuance for this agenda item to the April 12, 1983 meeting in order to
prepare a more thorough report. There being no further discussion, she called
for a motion.
Cc~mtissioner Klimkiewicz made a motion to continue the public hearing with
reference to Municipal Land Use Ordinance No. 348, Section 21.36, regarding
hcme occupations to the meeting of April 12, 1983 at 7:00 p.m. Ccnmtissioner
Reilly seconded the motion. Unanimously adopted.
MINUTES - PLANNING CC~MLISSION
March 22, 1983
Page Four.
4. CCNSENT CAT.~TDAR
Moved by Connissioner Klimkiewicz, seconded by Commissioner Reilly to adopt the
consent calendar, approving the minutes of March 8, 1983 as suhnitted.
--
A. The minutes of the regular meeting of March 8, 1983 were approved as sutmuit~.
Unanimously adopted.
5. BUSINESS
A. Chainm%n Pro Tem Imkamp explained the agenda item under new business was a
review of Plot Plan No. 83-009, a request to construct a single-family house
on a lot located on the west side of Avenida Madero, 50 feet south of Calle
Ensenada, Mike Head, Applicant. She then called upon staff to present their
report.
1. Sandra Bonner, Associate Planner, stated that this is a single-family
house which ccmplies with all requirements of our ordinance in regard to
square footage, clear dimensions of the bedrocks and the two-car garage.
She c~ted that this is a pueblo style home and although the houses
~iately next to it have peaked roofs, there are other hones in the
area similar to this one. Ms. Bonner therefore requested that the
Planning Ccn~ission approve Plot Plan No. 83-009 in accordance with
Exhibits A, B and C and subject to conditions listed in the staff report.
Chain~an Pro Tem Imkamp invited connents frcm the Applicant.
Michael Head, 53-800 Avenida Montezuma, La Quinta, spokesman for Afford__~ble
Hones, requested information regarding the construction of the hcme.
--
Staff advised him to contact the Building Department for advise in this
direction.
Chairman Pro Tem Imkamp then ~opened the hearing for public omment. There
being none, she requested the matter be closed.
After a short discussion regarding roof drainage, the question of ownership
was raised. The application shows that Michael Head is owner/builder, but
on the design maps the name of a Dr. Harmon appears. Therefore, the
Cc~mission questioned the Applicant as to who was to live in the house or
was it being built for resale. Mr. Head answered the Connission by stating
he ~Duld be living in the hume.
Ommissioner Reilly brought out the fact that on one page of the Plot Plan
it stated, "Hone for Dr. Harmon" and on another page the statement "Proposed
New Home for Dr. Harmon" was noted. Dr. Harmon then stated, "The man who
drew up the plans put those statements on the plot plans gratuitously and
did not charge me extra for it." Dr. Harmon then asked if there was a
restriction as to how many hcmes could be build for speculati°n purposes.
Associate Planner Bonner advised him that only five hones could be built
at any one time for speculation purposes.
MINUTES - PLANNING CC~MISSION
March 22, 1983
Page Four.
Cc~mzissioner Reilly asked the Associate Planner to explain the point in
staff report regarding the Applicant having to obtain an encroac~t
permit frcxn the C~munity Develotmnent Department before the issuance of
a building penmzit.
Associate Planner Bonner explained that the street right of way belongs
to the City and if the builder needs to work in the right of way, before
he can do so he must get an encroachment permit frcrn the City to assure
that any work he does in our right of way is up to our standards and to
also let us know what work is going on in the City right of ways.
City Manager Usher went on to explain that there are two utilities that
residents need to be connected to that have lines in the public right of
ways and scme places in the cove area only one utility. These are water
and gas. The encroachment permit is required to 'cut the street' on the
City right of way to connect these services to the residence.
There being no further ~ts, Chairman Pro Tem Imkamp called for a
motion.
2. Ccrmzissioner Klimkiewicz rode a motion to approve Plot Plan 83-009 in
accordance with Exhibits A, B and C and subject to conditions as noted
in the staff report. O~xaissioner Reilly seconded the motion.
Unanimously adopted.
B. At this point, City Manager Frank Usher passed among the Ccmnissioners a list
of goals and objectives that the City Council has adopted, which cover a broad
area of responsibilities that the City has. He pointed out a specific area on
this list regarding the goals of the City Council in regards to the General
Plan and the time frame attached to these goals.
Ccrmzissioner Reilly stated that previously the Planning Ccmrmission had
requested that a letter or memo be given to the City Council urging them to
proc~cd as rapidly as possible with regard to the General Plan. She stated
that this list was certainly acceptable to see that so tach thought had been
put into a plan of action. Ho~-=ver, she felt that Chairman Thornburgh still
felt, and she concurred with him, that a letter frcxn the Planning Ccrm%ission
supporting this plan of action would be appropriate and that followup be made.
City Manager Usher stated that this would be done.
ADJOURNM~T
There being no further items of agenda to ccme before the Planning Ccmmzission,
Cha~ Pro Tem Imkamp called for a motion of adjournment.
Ccxmnissioner Klimkiewicz moved and ~ssioner Reilly seconded the motion to
adjourn to the next regular meeting of the Planning Cc~nission to be held on
April 12, 1983 at 7:00 p.m. at La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, CA.
The regular meeting of the Planning Ccxmzission of the City of La Quinta, CA. was
adjourned at 8:40 p.m., March 22, 1983, at La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado,