Loading...
1983 04 12 PC Minutes LA QUINTA PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting held at the La Quinta DATE City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California April 12, 1983 7:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER A. Chairman Thornburgh called the Planning Cc~Tmissicn meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. He then called upon Cc~missi~er Pat Reilly to lead the flag salute. 2. ROLL CALL A. Chairman Thornburgh requested tbs roll call. The Secretary called the roll: Present: CcmTnissioners Reilly, Goetcheus, Imkamp, Klimkiewicz and Chairman Thornburgh. Absent: None. Also present were City Manager Frank Usher, Associate Planner Sandra Bonner, Building Official Phil Coggins 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 condcnzinium project on 15.8 acres located at the northeast corner of Avenida Benmadas and Avenue 52, The Desert Club of La Quinta, Applicant. This item had been continued frc~ the March 22nd meeting. Chairman Thornburgh advised all those present that this request would be once again continued to the next regular meeting of the Planning Cc~ssion on May 10, 1983. He then asked staff if they had anything further to report on this agenda item. 1. City Manager Frank Usher stated that staff had no further information to report regarding this request and requested that the Planning Ccrm%ission move to continue Tentative Tract Map No. 19203 and the related negative declaration regarding enviro~tal impact to the next regular meeting to be held May 10, 1983. 2. Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion to continue this request. Cc~ssioner Goetcheus moved that this hearing be continued to Tuesday, May 10, 1983 at 7:00 p.m., a regular meeting of the Planning CcmTnission. Motion was seconded by Ccrmlissioner Reilly. Unanimously adopted. B. The second item on the agenda was a public hearing regarding Conditional Use 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. This item had been continued frc~ the March 22nd meeting. Chairman Thornburgh advised all those present that this request has been with- drawn by the applicant. MINUTES - PLANNING CCb~4ISSION April 12, 1983 Page T~o. 1. Chairman Thornburgh explained that this withdrawal by the Applicant is due to the Planning Cc~mission's support of joint advertising signs for the subdivisions in La Quinta. He explained that Michael O' Rourke, Vice President of Anden Corporation, has stated that he will work with the City in developing such a sign system. - C. The 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 require- ments for walls and fences. This item was continued frcm the March 22nd m~eting. Chairman Thornburgh called upon staff for their report. 1. Associate Planner Sandra Bonner stated that the current zoning ordinance is ambiguous about requirements for fences constructed for single family dwellings. She noted that Riverside County's policy has been to allow 6-foot fences on property lines. It has been staff's policy since January 1983 to limit the height of fences in front yards. Ms. Bonner then presented exhibits in the form of diagrams to denonstrate the reasons for the height limitations in front yard setbacks and on corner lots. She stated that staff is reccnm~_nding that behind the 20-foot setback, the fence height be limited to 3½ feet. The purpose for this front yard restriction is visibility when backing out of a driveway so that the driver can see other cars and/or pedestrians that may be moving along the street and also to provide security by providing police and neighbors a view of the house at all times. Ms. Bonner noted that this was staff ' s reccnm~ndation for inside lots. Associate Planner Bonner w~nt on to discuss corner lots. She stated that it is hard to be fair with regard to corner lots due to the way the houses are sited and whatnot. Ms. Bonner stated staff is reccnm~nding the same require- ments be applied to corner lots. Staff is recc~nending that a 6-foot fence be limited to behind the front setback and behind the side setback and that fencing in any area in the front adjacent to the road be limited to 3½ feet. - Again, the concern here is visibility. Another concern brought up by the Planning Cxmmtission and applicants with regard to fence height limitations and setback requirements were small lot sizes in the cove area. They felt there should be scme variations here because the 3½-foot height limitation within the front yard setback may be too stringent. Ms. Bonner ~ reported a caller's concerns to the Planning Ccmnission as he was unable to attend this hearing. The caller felt that 6-foot fences should be allowed on property lines where there were existing 6-foot fences to either side. Ms. Bonner then stated that staff is reccnm~_nding that the Planning Con~nission adopt this proposed ordinance amendment or amend it accordingly. Chairman Thornburgh then opened this hearing for public ccnm~_nt. The following persons were heard: MINUTES - PLANNING COMMISSION April 12, 1983 Page Three. * John Bund (John Robert Bund Associates), 54-865 Avenida Alvarado, La Quinta, presented the Planning Cc~missi~ and staff with diagrams displaying his c~ncerns on this subject. He felt that it is very important to people that they be able to use their entire lot to their advantage. He stated that fences were required for privacy and safety for those residents with ~g pools, etc. He noted that right now in most areas there is an existing paved 12-foot driveway ~n existing streets and frcm that paved driveway to the property line is a residual of 18 feet, which he felt more than adequate for the City's use. He stated that he had been informed by City Council that the streets, especially in the cove area were not going to get any wider than they are presently. Mr. Bund stated his point being that if property lines are 18 feet frc~n the street, he did not see how a 6-foot wall in the front would harm anyone with regard to visibility. City Manager Usher stated that reasonably speaking and looking ahead, we should plan on having a paved roadway width of 40 feet which would provide for t%~, 12-foot moving lanes and two, 8-foot wide parking lanes on the sides of the street. What is done with the r~aining 10 foot right of way on each side is another matter. There may be sidewalks or there may not, etc. He stated if we do not plan on the 40 foot roadway width, there will not be a provision for on-street parking which is generally needed in most R-l, single family lot areas. Mr. Bund then went on to say that he felt if we widened the streets, we would open ourselves to speeders. He felt the streets we have now keep driving s~ccls down. * Paul Morway, 77-395 Calle Durango, La Quinta, agreed with Mr. Bund' s cc~ments and referred to tw~ letters that he had suk~itted to the Planning Cc~mission regarding his concerns. He feels that 6-foot fences should be allowed in the front yard area. He went on to note that as a newly incorporated City we are attempting to create laws to protect our cc~x~nity and that the Cc~sion is attempting to upgrade La Quinta into a more than desirable area. Therefore, he is hopeful that with the Planning Cc~mission and the citizens working together this will eventually all fall into place. Mr. Morway feels that a very important factor in deten~ining fencing require- ments is the way the house is sited ~n the lot. He stated he has driven all through the cc[m~nity and counted 204 intersections and 880 corner lots, of which 589 corner lots are undeveloped. This gives La Quinta a lot of roc~ to direct builders and new hcme construction so that houses face the right direction on their lots. * Bill Green, Attorney, 9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Beverly Hills, CA 90212 asked if fences are to be built inside property lines and to what extent. Chain~an Thornburgh advised Mr. Green to stop in at the Planning Department office and staff would give him the information required to build a single family house. MINUTES - PLANNING CCM~iISSION April 12, 1983 Page Four. * Steve Mannebach, 53-605 Juarez, La Quinta, stated he agreed with the speakers prior to him, but had one note to add. He felt that cars parking on the street near driveways would also cause a lack of visibility as they are higher than the 3½-foot fences referred to. * Janet Demmr, 52-215 Madero, La Quinta, addressed the problem of children. She felt that children would be able to easily climb over a 3½-foot wall. She felt that a 6-foot wall should be allowed in the front yard in order to protect children frcm outside harm. * Dean Blackford, 77-770 Calle Temecula, La Quinta, w~nted to know the current restrictions for fencing around pools. There being no further public cc~nent, Chairman Thornburgh closed the hearing to the public at 7:55 p.m. Chairman Thornburgh ccn~nen~ that he felt if he owned an inside lot and owners to either side built 6-foot walls in their side yards all the way to to the property lines, it would make his 50-foot lot look smaller than it really was. He felt this to be unfair to lot owners who did not want 6-foot walls. Cc~missioner Goetcheus felt that after speaking and listening to many people in La Quinta on this subject, the majority of them want 6-foot walls. He felt that regardless of what the City feels on the aesthetic value, a lot of people will be disappointed if they cannot build their walls. Chairman Thornburgh stated that as a Planning Commission it is their job to do the best thing possible for the ccnmunity as a whole. They should look around at the effects on traffic, neighbors, safety, etc. and keep the security of all in mind. He felt that the Cc~nission should look at the possibility of variances for corner lots. Ccmmissioner Reilly stated that after thinking of every aspect (corners, inside lots, double lots, etc. ) because the lots are unusually small, she feels that there are circumstances that do not apply to larger lots. That being, the right to everyone for privacy and security. She feels that everyone has the right to use as much of their land as possible. Ccmm~ssioner Reilly would like the ~ssion to have the right of design review. She also felt that we should give individuals the right to appeal because of certain needs. She r~ded that where visibility is a problem, the use of wrought iron fencing should be considered. Cc~nissioner Judy Imkamp stated she was in favor of allowing 6-foot fences in front yards. She stated she felt sympathy for the property owners of these small lots and felt the 20-foot setback requirement in front yards was too much. Ccmmissioner In~ stated that w~ have a unique cc~nunity with unique people living in it and they should be allowed to work with as much of their lot as possible. MINUTES - PLANNING ~SSION April 12, 1983 Page Five. ~ssic~er John Klimkiewicz stated that he could not vote for scmething that would limit people from being allowed to put up 6-foot w~lls on their property lines. After a short discussion regarding the variance procedure, Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion. -- Cc~m~ssioner Klimkiewicz made a motion to recc~m~nd to the City Council adoption of the proposed ordinance amen~t to allow 6-foot fences or w~lls to be built on property lines. Cc~missi~ner Reilly seconded the motion. Motion to approve was adopted with Cc~missioners Goetcheus, Klimkiewicz and Reilly voting aye, and Cc~missioner Imkamp and Chairman Thornburgh voting nay. 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 Hc~e Occupations. Chairman Thornburgh called for the report frcm staff. 1. Associate Planner Bonner noted that staff had no further stat~nents to add to the staff report submitted to the Planning Cc~mission on this subject. She stated that staff recc~mended that the Planning ~ssion recc~m~_nd to City Council approval and adoption of the proposed ordinance amendment to Section 21.36 of the Municipal Land Use Ordinance No. 348 in accordance with the attached Exhibit "A". Cc~missioner Reilly asked if this ordinance, as presented, would cover the breeding of animals, the parking of buses or other cc~r~rcial vehicles overnight. Associate Planner Bc~ner explained that the brc~ing of animals is covered by Animal Control by which they limit the number of animals that can be allo~=d in a residential zone. Therefore, in ans~=_r to Cc~nissioner Reilly's question, this ordinance amendment does not address this topic as a hcme As far as parking conm~rcial vehicles at a residence overnight, this proposed sm~ndmant states in Exhibit "A", Item No. 7, that there shall be no dispatching of persons or equi~r~nnt to or frcm subject property, including the use of cc~nercial vehicles which operate to and fr~ the pr~mises. Also, It~ NO. 8 goes on to say no vehicles or trailers except those normally incidental to residential use shall be stored or parked on the site. After a short discussion, Chairman Thornburgh opened this to public cc~m~nt. There being none, he called for a motion. ~ssioner Reilly made a motion to recc~m~nd to the City Council approval and adoption of this proposed amendment to Section 21.36 of the Municipal Land Use Ordinance NO. 348 in accordance with the attached Exhibit "A". Cc~missioner Klimkiewicz seconded the motion. Unanimously adopted. MINUTES - PLANNING ~SSION April 12, 1983 Page Six. E. The fifth it~n om the agenda was a public hearing regarding a proposed amendment concerning the temporary use of recreational vehicles and trailers within the City. Chairman Thornburgh called for a report frcm staff. 1. Associate Planner Sandra Bonner explained that the reason this proposed am~qdment is being introduced is due to the fact that more and more people are bringing in RV's and parking th~n in their vacant lots and also bringing them in and parking them in connection with other residences. Our ordinance currently has no restrictic~s for this type of RV use. Ms. Bonner explained that the proposed ~t will provide for the public's health, safety and general welfare, it will provide standards for the temporary use of recrea- tional vehicles within the City and will provide effective and equitable means to enforce the ordinance. Therefore, staff receded that the Planning Commission reccnm~_nd approval and adoption of the amendment adding Secticm 18.41, "Recreational Vehicle, Temporary Use", to the Municipal Land Use Ordinance No. 348, in accordance with the attached Exhibit "A". After a short discussion regarding the contents of the proposed amen~t, the Cc~missic~ requested that Item a.1. in Exhibit "A" be added to as follows: a.1. This tempoz-ary accessory use is pennit~ only on a residentially zoned lot with an existing occupied dwelling or d%~lling under construction. Chairman Thornburgh opened this item to public ~t. There being none, he called for a motion. Cc~missioner Imkamp made a motion that the Planning Cc~mission rec~d to City Council approval and adoption of the amendment adding Section 18.41, "Recreational Vehicle, Temporary Use", to the Municipal Land Use Ordinance No. 348 in accordance with the attached Exhibit "A". Ccmmzissioner Klimkiewicz seconded the motion. UnanJ3nously adopted. F. The next item on the agenda was a public hearing regarding Tentative Tract Map No. 18766, a request to divide a 15.5+ acre parcel into three lots for the purpose of constructing 32 statutory condcminiums, Landmark Land ~y, Applicant. Chairman Thornburgh called for the report frcm staff. 1. Associate Planner Sandra Bonner explained that the applicant has requested this hearing be continued to the regular Planning Cc~m~ssion meeting of November 8, 1983, when seasonal residents have returned for their winter stay. Ms. Bonner explained that this request will be readvertised at the appropriate time for the No~ 8th n~eting. CONSENT CALENDAR M~ved by Ccxmzissioner Reilly, secc~ded by Cc~mzissioner Goetcheus to adopt the Consent Calendar, approving the minutes of March 22, 1983 as sukmitted. MINUTES - PLANNING CC~4v~ISSICN April 12, 1983 Page Seven. A. The minutes of the regular meeting of March 22, 1983 w~re approved as su~tted. Unanimously adopted. 5. BUSINESS A. ChaJna~3n Thornburgh explained the first agenda item under new business was a - review of Plot Plan No. 83-010, a request to construct a single family house on a lot located on the w~st side of Avenida Morales south of Calle Sinaloa, Nick Slowik of Si~ Homes, Applicant. He then requested staff's report. 1. Associate Planner Bonner stated that the house is consistent with the City's adopted standards, that it is ccmpatible with surrounding development and that it will not adversely affect the environment. Staff was therefore r~ding that the Planning Cc~missi~n approve Plot Plan No. 83-010 as shown on the Exhibits and in accordance with attached conditions. Chairman Thornburgh then invited ccnm~nts frcm the applicant. Bill Green, Attorney, 9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Beverly Hills, CA, spokesman for Silkwood Hemes, asked about the cost of the b~nd required for curb and gutter. Associate Planner Bonner advised Mr. Green that it is $1,000 (face amount) for 50 feet. Chairman Thornburgh then opened the hearing to public ~t. There being none, he closed the public hearing and called for a motion. 2. Chairman Thornburgh made a motion to approve Plot Plan No. 83-010 in accord_s_nce with Exhibits and attached conditions. Cc~missioner Goetcheus seconded the motion. Unanimously adopted. _ B. Chairman Thornburgh explained the next agenda item under new business was a review of Plot Plan No. 83-011, a request to construct a single family house on the east side of Avenida Qbregon south of Avenida Montezuma, Nick Slowik of Si~ Hcmes, Applicant. He then requested staff's report. 1. Associate Planner Bonner stated that the house is consistent with the City's adopted standards, that it is ccmpatible with surrounding develo~x~=_nt and that it will not adversely affect the environment. Staff was therefore r~ing that the Planning Cc~missi~n approve Plot Plan No. 83-011 as shown on the Exhibits and in accordance with attached conditions. In view of the fact that this house is the same plan as the prior request frcm Si~ Hcmes, Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion. 2. Chairman Thornburgh made a motion to approve Plot Plan No. 83-011 in accordance with Exhibits and attached conditions. Cc~ssioner Klimkiewicz seconded the motion. Unanimously adopted. MINUTES - PLANNING CCMMISSION April 12, 1983 Page Eight. C. Associate Planner Sandra Bonner explained that this item was a report regarding the Avenue 52 Specific Plan given to the Planning Commission for information only and therefore no action was necessary. D. Associate Planner Bonner explained that this item regarding a joint off-site advertising sign for subdivisions was a background report. She stated that the Conmtission's favorable response to same met with a happy response frcm Anden Corporation and Landmark Land CcnRoany. 6. ~ There being no further items of agenda to cc~e before the Planning Cc~mission, Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion to adjourn. Ccmnissioner Reilly moved and Cha~ Thornburgh seconded to adjourn to the next regular meeting of the Planning Cc~nission to be held on May 10, 1983 at 7:00 p.m. at La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, CA. The regular meeting of the Planning Ccnmti ss ion of the City of La Quinta, CA was adjourned at 10:10 p.m., April 12, 1983, at La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado,