Loading...
1984 07 10 PC MinutesMINUTES PLANNING CaiMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA A Regular Meeting Held at the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California July 10, 1984 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m. APPROVED UTA PUINNIN OMMISSION BY B�Tt,16� A. Chairman Klimkiewicz called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. He then called upon Commissioner Salas to lead the flag salute. 2. ROLL CALL A. Chairman Klimkiewicz requested the roll call. The Secretary called the roll: Present: Commissioners Goetcheus, Salas, Thornburgh, Walling and Chairman Klimkiewicz Absent: None Also present were Planning Director Lawrence L. Stevens, Principal Planner Sandra L. Bonner and Secretary Donna Velotta. Before the hearings began, Chairman Klimkiewicz announced that the elections for a new Chairman and Vice Chairman for the 1984/85 term would take place. Chairman Klimkiewicz opened nominations for the office of Chairman of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Goetcheus nominated Ton Thornburgh for this off ice . Chairman Klimkiewicz called for any further nominations and as there were none, he closed the nominations. for office of Chairman. Chairman Klimkiewicz then called for a vote. By voice vote, there were five (5) ayes, unanimously electing Ton Thornburgh as Planning Commission Chairman for the 1984/85 term. Chairman Klimkiewicz opened nominations for the office of Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission. Chairman Klimkiewicz nominated Juan Salas for this office. He then called for any further nominations, and as there were none, he closed the nominations for the office of Vice Chairman. Chairman Klimkiewicz then called for a vote. By voice vote, there were five (5) ayes, unanimously electing Juan Salas as Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission for the 1984/85 term. At this point, past Chairman Klimkiewicz turned the meeting over to our new Chairman, Ton Thornburgh. 3. HEARINGS Chairman Thornburgh advised all present that the first two hearings were regarding the same planned residential development project and therefore would be heard concurrently as follows: A. Tentative Tract Map No. 20158, Amended No. 1, a request for approval of a 54-unit, planned residential development on 8.69 acres, located at the northwest corner of Washington Street and. the La Quinta Stormwater Channel; Jack L. Clark Enterprises, Applicant. B. Variance Case No. 84-002, a request to allow patio covers to encroach into the 10-foot required rear yard in a planned residential development, located at the northwest corner of Washington Street and the La Quinta Stozmwater Channel; Jack L. Clark Enterprises, Applicant. Chairman Thornburgh then called for the staff report. MINUTES PLANNING CUIMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA A Regular Meeting Held at the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California July 10, 1984 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m. APPROVED U1 QU A PUINNIN OMMISSION BY ��. D AT Q A. Chairman Klimkiewicz called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. He then called upon Commissioner Salas to lead the flag salute. 2. ROLL CALL A. Chairman Klimkiewicz requested the roll call. The Secretary called the roll: Present: Commissioners Goetcheus, Salas, Thornburgh, Walling and Chairman Klimkiewicz Absent: None Also present were Planning Director Lawrence L. Stevens, Principal Planner Sandra L. Bonner and Secretary Donna Velotta. Before the hearings began, Chairman Klimkiewicz announced that the elections for a new Chairman and Vice Chairman for the 1984/85 term would take place. Chairman Klimkiewicz opened nominations for the office of Chairman of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Goetcheus nominated Tom Thornburgh for this office. Chairman Klimkiewicz called for any further nominations and as there were none, he closed the noninations.for office of Chairman. Chairman Klimkiewicz then called for a vote. By voice vote, there were five (5) ayes, unanimously electing Toms Thornburgh as Planning Commission Chairman for the 1984/85 tern. Chairman Klimkiewicz opened nominations for the office of Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission. Chairman Klimkiewicz nominated Juan Salas for this office. He then called for any further nominations, and as there were none, he closed the nominations for the office of Vice Chairman. Chairman Klimkiewicz then called for a vote. By voice vote, there were five (5) ayes, unanimously electing Juan Salas as Vice Chairman of the Planning Conuuission for the 1984/85 tern. At this point, past Chairman Klimkiewicz turned the meeting over to our new Chairman, Ton Thornburgh. 3. HEARINGS Chairman Thornburgh advised all present that the first two hearings were regarding the same planned residential development project and therefore would be heard concurrently as follows: A. Tentative Tract Map No. 20158, Amended No. 1, a request for approval of a 54-unit, planned residential development on 8.69 acres, located at the northwest corner of Washington Street and. the La Quinta Stormwrater Channel; Jack L. Clark Enterprises, Applicant. B. Variance Case No. 84-002, a request to allow patio covers to encroach into the 10-foot required rear yard in a planned residential development, located at the northwest corner of Washington Street and the La Quinta Stommater Channel; Jack L. Clark Enterprises, Applicant. Chairman Thornburgh then called for the staff report. MINUTES - PLANNING CCHMISSION July 10, 1984. Page 2. 1. Principal Planner Bonner explained that this 54-unit, statutory condcminitun project is phase two of the approved Duna La Quinta Specific Plan. The Applicant has redesigned the original plans to provide additional space between the units and has lowered the density to 6.2 units per acre. The specific plan allows 20 units per acre. The proposed unit designs comply with the City's adopted standards for single-family residences and with Ordinance No. 38 regulating unit sizes within planned residential develop- ments. The exterior design is compatible with existing and proposed development located to the north and west of the site. Regarding the variance, Principal Planner Bonner stated the Applicant is requesting approval to allow structures within the 10-foot rear setback area for Tentative Tract 20158. Staff is recoacmding denial based on the findings in the staff report which are as follows: a. The strict application of the rear yard setback requirements will not deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other similarly zoned property in the vicinity which do provide for rear yards in compliance with ordinance standards. b. No "special circumstances" with respect to the physical constraints of the lot prevent the Applicant from complying with the requirements of the ordinance. c. Approval of the request would constitute the granting of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations enforced on similarly zoned property and other developments within the vicinity. Principal Planner Bonner then turned the remainder of the staff report presentation over to Larry Stevens, Community Development Director. Mr. Stevens discussed the conditions of approval that were of some concern. Condition No. 13.a.(1) - Add the following sentence: "The Fire Marshal may approve equivalent, alternate fire protection." Condition No. 13.a.(5) - Delete. Mr. Stevens stated that the remainder of the conditions were necessary and appropriate. He stated that staff is recommending approval of the Tentative Tract Map No. 20158, Amended No. 1, and denial of Variance Case No. 84-002. Chairman Thornburgh then called upon the Applicant for his presentation. Mr. Jack Clark, Jr., 50-102 Avenida Vista Bonita, La Quinta, CA, Applicant, addressed the conditions of approval that were of concern to him. Condition No. 9.a. - Applicant would like the words "and approaches" added. Condition No. 9.e. - Applicant would like to work this out with staff. Condition No. 9.j. - Applicant wants clarification of this condition. Condition No. 10 - Applicant will work with the Fire Marshal and pro- vide what is necessary for compliance. Condition No. 12. - Applicant stated that staff has agreed this information could be put on the landscape plan rather than having to provide a new set of plans. Condition No. 16. - Applicant stated that Landmark Land Company is now negotiating with IID to satisfy their requirements. MI=S - PLANNING COMMISSION July 10, 1984 Page 3. Condition No. 18. - Applicant would like to address this condition with their attorney and would therefore like to reserve any cent at this time. Condition No. 19. - Applicant stated that Landmark Land Company has agreed to put up the wall as timely as possible. Condition No. 24. - Applicant stated he believes he understands this condition, but finds it hard to agree to pay fees deemed necessary not knowing what the fees are. Regarding the variance request, Mr. Clark stated that they would like the project to be uniform with those around it, which do have patio covers. He feels that the patio covers enhance the project. He reminded the Commission that later, after the homes are built, he felt positive that owners would want to erect patio covers and would have to apply for variances at that time. If the variance would be granted now, all patio covers would be uniform instead of having different styles should the owners have them constructed. Mr. Clark stated he felt there was a special circumstance here and requested that the variance be granted. Mr. Stevens, Community Development Director, responded to the conditions of concern noted by the Applicant. 9.a. Staff supports the generalized wording in the condition. If the Applicant feels that improvements required by the City Engineer in conjunction with the review of detailed improve- ment plans are inappropriate, he has the right to bring that back before the City for cent and to see if the requirements of staff are excessive. 9.e. Staff will work this out with the Applicant. 9.j. This condition does specifically pertain to the portions of Washington Street to be improved with the project. Tb clarify this condition, it does mean that there needs to be a striping plan, which is the Applicant's responsibility. 10. and 12. Staff is working with the Applicant on these two conditions. 16. Staff feels that this condition is the appropriate stand for the City to take. It is really necessary for the developers who need power from IID to work out appropriate solutions with them. 18. This condition regarding CC&R's is a standard one and Staff feels the Applicant will find no fault with it when he checks with his attorney. 19. Staff feels this can be worked out with the Applicant. 24. Staff feels no further cent need be made with regard to this condition. Chairman Thornburgh then asked if anyone else would like to speak regarding this project. Andy Vossler, Landmark Land Company, P. O. Box 1000, La Quintal CAr spoke in favor of the project. With regard to Condition No. 19, he advised that Landmark Lund Company would be constructing the wall referred to here, but due to the issues involved in putting in the deep sewer lines in that same area, it would be impossible to have the wall completed by the time Mr. Clark is ready to record his final map. However, Landmark Land Company sees no problem in bonding for the wall and felt they could then meet the December 31, 1984 date specified in Condition No. 19. (Mr. Stevens stated that bonding would be acceptable to staff.) MINUTES - PLANNING CODM'LISSION July 10, 1984 Page 4. Mr. Vossler continued on to discuss Condition No. 9 regarding the Washington Street improvements. He stated that in order for Landmark to bond for this type of improvement, it is almost essential that there be engineered drawings. 'There are no engineered drawings from the bridge to the bottom of the approach. That is another reason why Landmark believes this improvement be a City function and part of the exaction fees. Landmark has no problem in bonding for Washington Street improvements from the bottom of the approach to the intersection. They have a danger concern for the community if that decision were made, but if that decision was made and the liability was not theirs, they would improve the street; otherwise, they prefer to bond it. Mr. Stevens replied to this by stating he feels the approach of the bridge (at the change of elevation) is probably the appropriate place to relate the improvements to by his point of view. It really will be a matter of, when we get to the energy design, working out a plan between the Planning Department, City Engineer and affected Applicant and Landmark (based on their involvement) . If, at that point in time, the Applicant feels that what staff has requested is inappropriate, they can bring it back to the City for review. Mr. Stevens stated he feels the approach should be part of the bridge. He also feels this would be the best way to resolve this problem, rather than try to resolve it in the language of a condition. Mr. Vossler stated that this response was satisfactory to Landmark. As there were no further comments, Chairman Thornburgh closed the public hearing. Moving on to discussion of the variance, Chairman Thornburgh stated that he would not like to see variances come through, but it is a vehicle that is available. He noted that he sees staff's position and also the Applicant's side, but in looking at the entire picture, he also sees the homeowner's side. In this particular instance, he feels the variance acceptable. Commissioner Walling agreed with Chairman Thornburgh in feeling that the variance should be approved. He asked staff if there were any other way to allow the patio covers other than through the variance procedure. He felt that not allowing the patio covers would take away from the quality of the project. Mr. Stevens responded to Commissioner Walling's request by stating that the only other method would be to modify the language in the code to authorize some sort of structure in rear yards subject to some sort of conditions. The process for doing this would delay the project considerably. This method was discussed with the Applicant early on and because of the time frame involved, he opted for the variance. Mr. Stevens stated that staff recommends, should the Commission approve the variance based on the facts presented by the Applicant, they should direct staff to consider the modification of its planned residential development standards, so that supplicant applicants do not have to go the variance route. Commissioner Salas stated he could not vote for the variance. He felt that the patios were in the design of the project from the beginning and asked staff if they had knowledge of this. Mr. Stevens explained that there had been a lack of proper communi- cation between the Applicant and his people, who had told the Applicant there would be no problem getting a variance for the patio covers. Staff explained to the Applicant that they would have to request denial of the request in their staff report, but the Applicant opted to apply anyway. Commissioner Klimkiewicz stated he could not vote in favor of the variance. He could see no special circumstance to allow it. He stated he could agree to a modification of the code. MINU'T'ES - PLANNING COMMISSION July 10, 11984 Page 5. After same further discussion, Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion. 2. Commissioner Walling made a motion to approve Variance No. 84-002. Chairman Thornburgh seconded. By voice vote, there were two (2) ayes, two (2) nays, and one (1) abstention. C nudssioner Goetcheus stated that he feels he could not vote against staff's recommendations. He liked this project and wished someone could come up with a solution other than the variance. He asked if Mr. Vossler could comment on the suitability of a golf course that close to a patio. Mr. Vossler stated that if Landmark Land Cly could resolve this problem, they would do so immediately;, but as the channel is CVWD' s property, they do not have the authority to do so. To get the approval through the water company would be too time consuming. He went on to state that there are many golf holes in the desert that are less than 250 feet in width from boundary to boundary. There are numerous holes at La Quinta Country Club, which is one of the top five courses in Coachella Valley. He noted that the Applicant and he actually went to the La Quinta Country Club and stepped off some dimensions. The second hole immediately behind a house that was formerly owned by Mr. Vossler's father in the Lagos is 210 feet from patio to patio. That house is worth approximately �275,000 and houses across the golf hole are worth approximately $350,000 to $450,000. Therefore, this would not diminish home values in any way. The dimensions for this project are even greater and should have absolutely no affect on the patios being constructed in the rear 10-foot setbacks. ConTnissioner Klimkiewicz made a motion to reconsider the request so they could vote again. Conmi_ssioner Walling seconded. Unanimously adopted. Chairman Thornburgh then called for another motion. Commissioner Klimkiewicz made a motion to approve the variance subject to the following findings and conditions: Findings 1. "Special Circumstances" due to the location of the subject property contiguous to a golf course facility and due to the long, narrow shape of the subject property indicate that the Variance warrants favorable consideration. 2. The strict application of rear yard setback requirements to the subject property will deprive it of privileges enjoyed by other similarly zoned property in the vicinity since the purpose and intent of rear yard setback require- ments can be reasonably attained due to the open and permanent land use. 3. Approval of the Variance would not constitute granting of a special privilege inconsistent with limitations on similarly zoned property in the vicinity since the zoning regulations governing planned residential developments adjacent to golf courses need to be modified. 4. Limitation of the rear yard setback encroachment to a covered, but not enclosed, patio will assure that the purpose and intent of setback requirements is satisfied without adversely affecting adjacent parcels. Conditions 1. The encroachment of covered patios into the required rear yard setback shall be limited as follows: a. Structures shall be limited to the area and design shown on plans submitted in conjunction with Tentative Tract Map No. 20158, Amended No. 1 MfI =S - PLANNING COMMISSION July 10, 1984 Page 6. b. No.future expansion or enclosure of the subject patio covers shall be allowed. c. Structures shall conform to minimum requirements of the Uniform Building Code. 2. This Variance approval shall expire two years after the date of approval by the La Quinta City Council unless approved for extension as provided for by the City of La Quinta Zoning Ordinance. No extension shall be granted unless Tentative Tract Map No. 20158, Amended No. 1, is also extended. Commissioner Goetcheus seconded the motion. Unanimously adopted with one no vote. Chairman Thornburgh then called for a motion on the tentative tract. Commissioner Klimkiewicz made a motion to approve Tentative Tract Map No. 20158, Amended No. 1, subject to the conditions in the staff report. Commissioner Salas seconded. Unanimously adopted. C. Chairman Thornburgh introduced the next hearing item as Tentative Tract Map No. 20218, a request for approval of a 16-unit, planned residential development on 4.32 acres, located at the southwest corner of Washington Street and 50th Avenue; William G. Young, Applicant. He then called for the staff report. 1. Principal Planner Bonner advised that this is a 16-unit, Planned Residential Development on 4.32 acres at the southwest corner of Washington Street and 50th Avenue. The density of the project is slightly over three units per acre, which is below the maximum, allowed under the specific plan (that maxinm being 5 units per acre). All units are facing the golf course and will be set back from Washington Street an average of approximately 65 feet. The project as designed is in total compliance with the requirements of the zoning ordinance. It is also in compliance with the minimum dwelling size and design of the units. Based on the findings and subject to the conditions in the staff report, staff is receding approval of this tentative tract. Mr. Stevens advised those present that Condition No. 13.a.(1) should have the following sentence addeded: "'The Fire Marshal may approve equivalent, alternate fire protection." He also advised that Condition No. 13.a.(4) should be deleted. Chairman Thornburgh called upon the Applicant for his presentation. Mike Smith of J. F. Davidson Associates spoke for the Applicant (48-190 Verde Way, Palm Desert). He stated that the Applicant has no problem with any of the condi- tions of approval except Condition No. 12. He noted that this project has no room to provide for a non -automotive means of transportation. Mr. Stevens advised him that the road would suffice as the pedestrian path, and staff will also look for some walkway around the tennis court and swimming pool. This response was satis- factory to the Applicant. Dave Ricker, Kansas City, KS, who stated he was working with Mr. Young, the Applicant, asked if the Conditions Nos. 9.g. and 19.needed to be addressed with this application. Mr. Stevens advised that these conditions had not been changed with regard to the previously discussed project. He advised Mr. Ricker that any improvements staff requires can be bonded. Staff would still like to see the wall up no later than December 31, 1984, or by the recordation date, whichever cores first. As there were no further comments, Chairman 'Thornburgh closed the public hearing. There was a short discussion regarding the lighting of the tennis courts and staff advised that this is all covered by our ordinances. MINUTES - PLANNING COMMISSION July 10, 1984 Page 7. Commissioner Walling questioned whether or not the mechanical equipment would be visible from the Washington Street bridge and if so, he felt it should be screened either architecturally or with trees, etc. Mr. Stevens advised that Condition No. 8 covers this situation, but staff would also work with the Applicant if this should be a problem. After a short discussion, Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion. 2. Commissioner Klimkiewicz made a motion to approve Tentative Tract Map No. 20218, subject to the findings and conditions in the staff report. Commissioner Walling seconded the motion. Unanimously adopted. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR Moved by Commissioner Goetcheus, seconded by Commissioner Klimkiewicz to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of June 12, 1984, and the minutes of the adjourned meeting of June 21, 1984. A. The minutes of the regular meeting of June 12, 1984 were approved as submitted. Unanimously adopted. B. The minutes of the adjourned meeting of June 21, 1984 were approved as submitted. Unanimously adopted. 5. BUSINESS A. Chairman Thornburgh introduced the first item of business as Plot Plan No. 84-059, a request to construct a single-family dwelling on the east side of Roudel Lane, 180 feet south of the end of the street; Chris Caras, Applicant. He called for the staff report. 1. Principal Planner Bonner recommended that the Planning Commission table this item and reschedule it at a later date after the Applicant has submitted revised house plans. Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion. Commissioner Goetcheus made a motion to table Plot Plan No. 84-059 until such time that the Applicant presents revised house plans. Commissioner Klimkiewicz seconded the motion. Unanimously adopted. At this point, Principal Planner Bonner requested that the Commission review items 5.B. through 5.F. as one item. These five houses are all of the same design. Chairman Thornburgh introduced those item of business as follows: B. Plot Plan No. 84-062, a request to construct a single-family house on the west side of Avenida Madero, 150 feet south of Calle Chillon; Rick Johnson Construction, Applicant. C. Plot Plan No. 84-063, a request to construct a single-family house on the east side of Avenida Diaz, 300 feet north of Calle Tecate, Rick Johnson Construction, Applicant. D. Plot Plan No. 84-064, a request to construct a single-family house on the east side of Eisenhower Drive, 250 feet north of Calle Monterey; Bob Monroe, Applicant. E. Plot Plan No. 84-065, a request to construct a single-family house on the west side of Avenida Obregon, 100 feet south of Calle Madrid; Bob Monroe, Applicant. F. Plot Plan No. 84-066, a request to construct a single-family house on the west side of Avenida Obregon, 150 feet south of Calle Madrid, Bob Monroe, Applicant. MINUMS - PLANNING COMMISSION July 10, 1984 Page 8. Chairman Thornburgh called for the staff report. 1. Principal Planner Bonner stated that staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve all five of these plot plan requests in accordance with the exhibits and conditions of approval for each case. Mr. Thornburgh called for a motion. 2. Ccmuissioner Salas made a motion to approve Plot Plan 84-062, Plot Plan 84-063, Plot Plan 84-064, Plot Plan 84-065 and Plot Plan 84-066 based upon the findings in the staff reports and in accordance with Exhibits A, B and C and subject to attached conditions. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Klimkiewicz. Unanimously adopted. Mr. Stevens advised that items 5.G. and 5.H. are items of information only so that the Commission is aware that the City Council, based upon the reccmrendation of the City Attorney, is no longer recommending phantom assessment districts on specific plans and tentative maps. Item 5.H. relates to single-family development standards with regard to dropping the curb and gutter requirements and clarifying the roof screening requirements. Mr. Stevens advised the Commission that the Study Session for the next regular meeting would be held on the morning of August 13, 1984. The Commission will be notified of the time as soon as possible and whether there will be a field trip involved with regard to the Sand Pebble Country Club project. There being no further items of agenda to come before the Planning Commission, Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Salas made a motion to adjourn to the next regular meeting of August 14, 1984, at 7:00 p.m., in La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California. The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, was adjourned at 8:45 p.m., July 10, 1984, at the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, CA.