Loading...
1983 07 12 PC Minutes ~ APPROVED ~ · ~ f' I.A QU[NTA PI~NNII~ COMMISSIO~ PLANNING COMMISSION A regular n~eting held at the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California July 12, 1983 7: 00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER A. Chairman ~nornburgh called the Planning ~ssion mccting to order at - 7:00 p.m. He then called upon ~ssioner Lmkamp to lead the flag salute. 2. OATH OF OFFICE A.The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office to Planning ~ssioner Juan Salas. A.Chairman Thornburgh requested the roll call. The Secretary called the roll: Present: Cc~m~ssioners. Salas, Goetcheus, Klimkiewicz, Imkamp and Chairman Thornburgh Absent: None Also present were City Manager Frank Usher, Principal Planner Sandra Bonner and Secretary Donna Velotta 4. HEARINGS A. Chairman Thornburgh introduced the first hearing as Variance No. 83-001, - a request for a variance of the 1,200 square foot minimum dwelling size requirement for a lot located on Avenida Rubio, 75 feet south of Calle Madrid; Mary Chapin, Applicant. He then called for the staff report. 1. Principal Planner Sandra Bonner explained to those present that a variance is used as a means for modifying property develo~_nt standards, such as setback and dwelling size requirements, when the strict application of the zoning requirements would deprive a property of privileges enjoyed by similarly zoned property in the area. She further explained that the Planning Cc~mission may grant a variance only if it finds that this loss of privileges is due to special cir- cumstances applicable to the parcel, including size, shape, topography, location and surroundings. A variance cannot be granted where it con- stitutes the grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limita- tions which the zoning places on other similarly zoned property in the vicinity of the subject parcel. Ms. Bonner explained that the Applicant is requesting a variance of the R-l*** Zone development standard which requires a minimum 1,200 square foot dwelling size. The special circumstances cited by the Applicant is that construction of the required size house on the lot would result in the removal of mature vegetation. The removal of MINUTES - PLANNING CC~4MISSION Page Two. this vegetation w~uld deprive her of the enjoyment of her property. The variance is also being requested in order to bring an existing dwelling on the site into cc~pliance with the zoning. The Principal Planner explained that the Applicant recently purchased a 75 x 100 foot lot located along the ~est side of Avenida Rubio, 75 feet scuth of Calle Madrid. There is an existing 610 square foot _ dwelling on the lot. This building was originally a detached garage for the adjacent M~rgan/Murray residence, but at scme time in the past, it was converted into a dwelling. No building permits were issued for this conversion and the dwelling is not in compliance with the zoning. The dwelling is connected to the water and septic tank systems of the Mmrgan/Murray residence. Ms Bonner went on to state that staff opposes the approval of this Variance because of the following: 1. There is a question as to whether the existing landscaping constitutes a valid "special circumstance" applicable to the lot which would result in the loss of privileges if the zoning w~re imposed. The circumstances identified in the ordinance, namely size, shape, topography, location and surroundings, are all physical characteristics of the lot itself which cannot be altered by the owner. Landscaping can be altered either by lack of maintenance or by removal by the owner. If the variance was granted on the basis of the landscaping, the City would have no legal means for requiring the Applicant to water and care for the landscaping nor grounds for denying the Applicant the right to remove vegetation to install a pool or other accessory structure. 2. Other than the Applicant's desire to retain the landscaping and house as they currently exist, there are no facts presented which - would contradict the belief that a house could be designed for the lot which would both preserve the large trees and provide for the relocation of the smaller trees and shrubs. In addition, the above average size of the lot indicates that this may be a viable possibility. 3. Lastly, approval of the variance may constitute the grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations which the zoning places on other similarly zoned property in the vicinity of the Applicant's parcel. All the lots in the Cove area have the same 1,200 square foot minimum dwelling size requir~nent as the subject property. In addition, since the majority of the hcmes are constructed on single, 50 x 100 foot lots, the dwelling size requirement places a greater limitation on these adjacent smaller lots than on the Applicant's 75 x 100 foot lot. Ms. Bonner stated that an environmental assessment has been prepared by staff and it has been tentatively determined that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment and a negative declaration has been prepared. Staff is therefore recc~mending that the Planning Ounnission deny Variance No. 83-001, based on the above findings and adopt the nega- tive declaration for the enwironmental assessment. MINUTES - PLANNING CC~MISSION July 12, 1983 Page Three. Chairman Thornburgh opened the hearing for public cc~nent. He called upon the Applicant for her statement. Mary Chapin, 54-273 Avenida Rnbio, La Quinta, Applicant. Mrs. Chapin stated that she did not look upon the vegetation in question as just landscaping, but felt it was of historical value. She noted _ that the palm trees were about 50 years old and were date bearing. Mrs. Chapin stated she bought the property because of the trees and not because of the building, as it really isn't worth nuch. She feels that the property gives a very unique setting. Because of these facts, Mrs. Chapin stated that we needn't worry that she would destroy or remove any of the vegetation. She felt that she was not depriving or disturbing the neighbors in any way. Mrs. Chapin further stated that in her lifetime she has lived in many different places and in many different ways and one thing she learned is that the quality of life is what is Lupo~t, not the square footage. She stated she realizes that she nust conform and she wants to do so. She wants to help with the Planning Conmission's aims for this ccnmunity. Audrey Marshman, 53-955 Avenida Velasco, La Quinta, stated she is opposed to the approval of this variance. She stated that she is absolutely appalled at the idea of the Ccmmtission even considering a variance for a garage. She felt that we would be opening a can of worms allowing one person to get away with this. Pretty soon others would cc~e in with similar requests. As ~e were no other public c~ts, Chairman Thornburgh closed the public hearing. - Chairman Thornburgh asked staff if the subject house meets code. Principal Planner Sandra Bonner stated that the house has not had a special inspection so we don' t know. Chairman Thornburgh asked if septic, water service, etc., w~re attached to the main house. Ms. Bonner stated that it was. Ccmmtissioner Goetcheus asked if the septic tank was on Mrs. Chapin's property. Ms. Bonner stated that we do not know. The seller, Mrs. Morgan, is out of state and we haven't had a chance to talk with her. Chainman Thornburgh stated that this property involves 1% lots and asked if a title report had ever been issued on them. MINUTES - PLANNING COMMISSION July 12, 1983 Page Four. Ms. Bonner stated that she looked at the Applicant's title this date. She noted that it was unusual in that the grand deed is for her lot and the next 50-foot lot. Then, what Mrs. Chapin did was cede back a portion of one lot to the seller. Ms. Bonner called the title cc~pany and info~ the~ that the house was built on the property line and generally in the county once you build on a property line, it ceases to exist. The person she spoke to at the title company stated that _ this was what the title report was for and Mrs. Morgan, who had drawn up the grant deed, was a Real Estate License Broker and wouldn't go into it any further. Ms. Bonner stated that it is an illegal land division. Chairman Thornburgh asked the Applicant how long ago she had purchased the property. Mrs. Chapin stated she purchased the property in April, 1983. She further stated that the "ceding" was done on official forms. MS. Bonner stated that the "ceding" did not go through the title cc~pany. The legal sale shows that Mrs. Chapin owns two lots - that she had the grant deed for them. Chairman Thornburgh stated that he felt if the Commission even "attempted" to approve this request, they would get entangled in a big legal mess. He further stated he felt the sale was illegal and that the house is illegal. What the Cc~nission would be doing is agreeing that everything illegal would be okay as far as the City is concerned which means problems. Cc~uissioner In~ stated that she would very nuch like to help Mrs. Chapin in her predicament, but it seems that the whole thing has a lot of loose ends which should be cleared up first. Cc~ntissioner Imkamp wondered if there was any way this could be continued to a later date - wherein the legality of it all could be rectified and then the Planning Cc~uission could take another look at the request. Cc~missioner Klimkiewicz felt that the ~ssion could not rule on this request due to the legalities, so there would be no reason for continuance. Chairman Thorr~h felt that the best course of action for the Appli- cant, rather than going through the Planning Cc~nission, would be to file a legal suit against the person who sold the property to her. Mrs. Chapin, the Applicant, stated that the building she lives in has been existing for scme time and this is a situation that she came into in good faith and with the understanding what she wanted to do. Chairman Thornburgh stated that the Cc~ntission w~s not considering the building as a garage, but as a house, even though it is a little on the illegal side. Mrs. Chapin further stated that she wanted a small house, that she had just moved out of a large house and spent her money here. She felt that she didn't want to spend money on sc~ething she did not want or need by adding 600 square feet to this existing structure. MINUTES - PLANNING CC~MISSION July 12, 1983 Page Five. Chairman Thornburgh explained that if she conformed to the footage requirement, she wouldn't need the Cc~mission. Mrs. Chapin stated that she is, however, asking for a variance and understood that if the lot was unique, she could apply for a variance and she noted that she w~uld still like to apply for a variance after all the other things were straightened out because if she had to add new construction, she would have to take out trees which was the reason she bought the property in the first place and if she had to do that, there w~uld be no reason for her to be there. She stated she would ask Mrs. Morgan to buy the property back or sc~ething and find another place to go. City Manager Frank Usher stated to Mrs. Chapin that she may have to use that as a recourse due to the fact that the law requires that certain findings be made in order to approve a variance. In this particular case, findings for approval do not exist. There is enough rocm on the lot to cc~ply with the square footage requirements. Therefore, you would not be able to meet the requirements for a variance later on any more than you can at this hearing. Actually, the former owner did not have the right to sell you this property with the idea that this was a legal hc~e. Chairman Thornburgh stated that the Conm~ssion is sorry that this thing happened, but thinks that the person who sold the property to Mrs. Chapin has created this problem for her and the City. He noted that one of the things the City is trying to do is create larger hc~s in the Cove area. He suggested that she contact a real estate attorney. Principal Planner Sandra Bonner stated that there has been a change in state law with regard to "Granny Flats" where in certain instances, a Conditional Use Peri, it can be granted for .a separate dwelling on a lot. In this case, if the lots were repurchased by Mrs. Morgan, Mrs. Chapin could get a long-term lease and retain the smaller house and all the landscaping. This state law technically went into effect on July 1, 1983 and after receiving our first application, we have 120 days to either go along with the state law or adopt our own. There being no further discussion, Cha~a~an Thornburgh called for a motion. Cc~nissioner Im~ made a motion to deny the request for Variance No. 83-001 based on findings noted above. Motion seconded by Conm~ssioner Klimkiewicz. Unanimously adopted. At this point, the meeting was turned over to Chairman Pro Tem Judy Imkamp due to the fact that Chairman Thornburgh had a conflict of interest regarding the next item on the agenda. B. City Manager Frank Usher introduced the next hearing as a proposed ~- m~nt to Municipal Land Use Ordinance No. 348, amending Sections 18.5 and 18.11 regarding minimum size of dwellings in Planned Residential Develo~nents; City Initiated. MINUTES - PLANNING COMMISSION July 12, 1983 Page Six. City Manager Usher explained that this ordinance establishes minimum dwelling unit sizes for Planned Residential Developments (condcminiums, townhcmes, etc. ). It also establishes maximum percentages relative to small units in any given develo~r~nt. It does establish that no more than 20% of the total number of dwelling units shall have less than 800 square feet in floor living area; no more than 40% of the total _ number of dwelling units shall have less than 1,000 square feet of floor living area and it also requires that the average floor living area of all units in any given develo~Ea~_nt shall not be less than 1,000 square feet. Mr. Usher stated that staff feels this is an ordinance that will be uses~le for condca~mium developments and will not be, in any way, detr~tal to the ccmmunity. Chairman Pro Tem Imkamp opened the hearing to any public c~t. James Rea, 53-805 Avenida Alvarado, La Quinta - wanted to know if the ordinance pertained to R-1 zones only. Joe Connors, 77-545 Calle Arroba, La Quinta - wondered if the City, making this ordinance change on their own, would not be losing money. As there was no further public ~t, Chairman Pro Tern .Imkamp closed the public hearing. After a short discussion among the Planning Cc~missioners and staff, Ccamtissioner Klimkiewicz made a motion to continue this item to the meeting of August 9, 1983, in order that staff may do further research of other cc~mmnities and developers to ascertain if the figures in our proposed ordinance change were consistent with others and with the needs of our ccnmmmity. Cc~mmissioner Juan Salas seconded the motion. Unanimously adopted. Chairman Pro Tern Judy Imkamp turned the meeting back to Chairman Thornburgh. 5. CONSENT CAT.~DAR Moved by Ccax~issioner Goetcheus, seconded by Cc~missioner Imkamp to adopt the consent calendar, approving the minutes of June 14, 1983 as sukatitted. A. The minutes of the regular meeting of June 14, 1983 were approved as submitted. Unanimously adopted. 6. BUSINESS A. Chaizman Thornburgh introduced the first item of business as a review of Plot Plan No. 83-023, a request to construct a single-family house on a lot located on the east side of San Vicente, 60 feet south of Eisenhower Drive; Jack and Kathy Healy, Applicants. He then called for the report frcm staff. MINUTES - PLANNING CC~MISSION July 12, 1983 Page Seven. 1. Principal Planner Bonner explained that the request for this single- family house is consistent with the zoning and it is cc~pa~le with the surrounding development. As far as the design is concerned, all is in cc~pliance with the City's adopted standards except the width of the eaves which vary frcm 3 feet to none. Therefore, staff is recc~ng that the roof eaves be brought into cc~pliance with the City's requirements for 18-inch eaves. Ms. Bonner further explained - that no street improvem~n~ will be required as a condition of approval since San Vicente is a private street without curbs and gutters. Chain~3n Thornburg then called for any cc~ments frc~ the Applicant. The Applicant not being present, he then called for cc~m~_nt frcm the Cc~missioners. There being none, he called for a motion. 2. Cc~ssicner Imkamp made a motion to approve Plot Plan No. 83-023 in accordance with the Exhibits A, B and C and subject to the attached conditions. The motion was seconded by Cc~missioner Klimkiewicz. Unanimously adopted. B. Chairman Thornburgh introduced the next item of business as a review of Plot Plan No. 83-024, a request to construct a single-family house on a lot located at the southeast corner of Avenida Diaz and Calle Sinaloa; Joseph and Shirley Carpini, Applicants. He then called for the staff report. 1. Ms. Bonner explained that the request for this single-family house is consistent with the general plan and zoning rec~ir~ments. With re- gard to the floor plan, the following changes are necessary to bring the house into ccmpliance with the City's adopted standards: o The clear dimensions of bedro~ #2 and #3 must be increased frcm 9'11" to 10'. -- o The carport must be changed to an enclosed garage and a pedestrian door must be added on the east side facing the house. The proposed floor plan does not accc~modate an attached garage. Therefore, stsff recc~mends that the Planning Cc~ssion make the finding that the detached garage conforms with the intent of the adopted standards. Ms. Bonner further advised the Cc~mission that the floor plan of the house has been reversed frcm that of the plan presented. Chairman Thornburgh then called for any ~ts frem the Applicant. Joseph Carpini, 406 Del ~bnte West, Fullerton, CA - The Applicant indicated to the Plann/ng Cc~mission that he had changed the site of his water heater fr~ the original plan. He pointed out the new location on the plans. The Cc~ssicn advised Mr. Carpini that he could not have the water heater within the setback area as he indicated. They advised him to discuss this matter with the building department. As there was no further cc~m~_nt, Chairman Thornburgh called for a mo%ion. MINUTES - PLANNING CC~MISSION July 12, 1983 Page Eight. 2. Cc~nissioner Juan Salas made a motion to approve Plot Plan No. 83-024 in accordance with the Exhibits A, B and C and subject to the attached conditions of approval. The motion was seconded by Cc~missic~er Klimkiewicz. Unanimously adopted. Chairman Thornburgh brought up the question to the Commissioners of electing a new Chairman, as his term w~uld be up next month. City Manager Frank Usher stated that the Cc~nission could vote for a new Chairman at this meeting or they could wait until the August meeting. Chainm3n Thornburgh stated that he thought a new Chairman was to be elected after June 30th. He then asked the Cc~x~issioners if they w~uld like to vote on a new Chairman at this m~eting. They agreed that they w~uld. City Clerk Frank Usher opened the office of Chairman of the Planning Cc~x~ission for nominations. ~ssioner Judy Imkamp and ~ssi~ner John Klimkiewicz both nc~ina~ th~n- selves for the office of Chairman. City Clerk Usher asked if there were any further ncminations and as there were none, he closed the ncminations for office of Chairman of the Planning Cc~m~ssion. The City Clerk then called for a vote of the Conm~ssioners in favor of Cc~m~ssioner Judy Imkamp for the office of Chairman. By a show of hands, there was one (1) aye in favor of Conm~ssioner Imkamp and one (1) abstention. The City Clerk then called for a vote of the Cc~missioners in favor of Cc~m~ssioner John Klimkiewicz for the office of Chairman. By a show of hands, there were three (3) ayes in favor of Cc~nissioner Klimkiewicz and one (1) abstention. - City Clerk Frank Usher announced that ~ssioner John Klimkiewicz would be the new Planning Commission Chairman for the follc~ing year by a majority vote. The City Clerk then opened ncminations for the office of Chairman Pro Tem. ~ssioner Paul Goetcheus nc~inated Cc~missioner Judy I~ to retain the office of Chairman Pro T~n which she now holds. The City Clerk then asked if there were any further ncminations and as there were none, he closed the ncminations for office of Chairman Pro Tem of the Planning Cc~mission. City Clerk Usher called for a vote of the Cc~x~issioners in favor of Cc~nissioner Imkamp retaining the office of Chairman Pro Tem. By a show of hands, there were three (3) ayes and one (1) abstention. City Clerk Frank Usher announced that Cc~m%issioner Judy Imkamp would retain the office of Chairman Pro Tern that she now holds for the following year by a majority vote. MINUTES - PLANNING COMMISSION July 12, 1983 Page Nine. There being no further items of agenda to come before the Cxam~ssion, Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion to adjourn. Czmm%fssioner Imkamp made a motion to adjourn to the meeting of August 9, 1983, _ at 7:00 p.m., in La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, CA. Seconded by Cc~nissioner Salas. Unanimously adopted. The regular meeting of the Planning Ounnission of the City of La Quinta, CA was adjourned at 8:30 p.m., July 12, 1983, at La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, CA.