Loading...
1986 04 22 PC Minutes .......... -~APPROV£D~,,~,~_ ~ U ~N~ PUNNING/?,OMM'IssioN PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA A Regular Meeting Held at the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California April 22, 1986 7:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER A. Chairman Thornburgh called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.; he called upon Commissioner De Gasperin to lead the flag salute. 2. ROLL CALL A.Chairman Thornburgh requested the Roll Call; the Secretary called the Roll: Present: Commissioners Brandt, De Gasperin, Moran, Walling and Chairman Thornburgh Also present were Community Development Director Lawrence L. Stevens and Secretary Donna M. Velotta. 3. HEARINGS Chairman Thornburgh introduced the first hearing as follows: A. Plot Plan No. 86-274, a request to construct three, two-story retail/office buildings totaling 10,216 sq.ft, on a .846-acre site; John Feld, La Quinta, Ltd., Partnership - Applicant. He _ then called for the Staff Report. 1. Director Stevens informed the Commission that this request is to construct the three retail/office buildings on the corner of Avenida Montezuma, Avenida Bermudas and Avenida Navarro. There are seven existing lots of record that have been combined for the purpose of this development. Bldgs. l&2 are identical except that they are reversed. The 3rd building is a different style. There will be a mixture of retail and office uses. All 3 buildings are two-story, with the third building being a partial 2-story for the office portion and one story for retail use. The exteriors are to be a medium-textured stucco and the roofs are to be a concrete, Mission Terra Cotta. Staff does not have color information on these items at this point and felt it was the discretion of the Planning Commission as to whether or not they wished to review the colors or leave it to staff's judgment. Director Stevens explained the site plan stating the buildings would be constructed in an L-shaped configuration. There are three driveways MINUTES - PLANNING COMMISSION April 22, 1986 Page 2. proposed - two on Bermudas and one on Navarro and due to the offset intersections at Montezuma and La Fonda, the amount of traffic anticipated, and the project's location at a major corner, Staff feels that only one driveway access should be allowed to Avenida Bermudas, located so - as to line up with the centerline of Avenida La Fonda. Director Stevens stated that Staff has some concerns relative to the parking layout. In general, however, it is felt that the project conforms with our require- ments and Staff recommends approval of Plot Plan No. 86-274, subject to the conditions of approval in the Staff Report. Referring to the conditions, he stated that in Condition No. 15.a. the fire flow of 500 GPM shown should be changed to read 1000 GPM. This concluded the Staff Report. Chairman Thornburgh requested any questions/comments from the Commission. There being none, he opened the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. John Feld, 2746 Denise, Orange, CA, Applicant - spoke in favor of the project and thanked Director Stevens for his efforts in this matter. Mr. Feld informed the Commission that a colored rendering is being prepared for their review. Chairman Thornburgh asked the Applicant if his schedule would be interrupted if the Commission continued this hearing to the next meeting on May 13, in order that they may review the rendering for this project. -- Mr. Feld replied that it did not. As there were no further comments from the public, Chairman Thornburgh closed the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. During the discussion period, the Commission made the following comments. Commissioner Moran - felt Building #2 should be pulled back some so that more landscaping could be added. She felt this being a major corner in La Quinta, it should be dressed up more. Commissioner Moran also felt this building should be moved to provide more visibility with regard to traffic safety at the intersection. Chairman Thornburgh - asked Staff if this project was being built on one parcel. MINUTES - PLANNING COMMISSION April 22, 1986 Page 3. Director Stevens replied that there are seven parcels being merged to provide the site for this project. He also advised the Commission that any effort in adjusting the location of the building would affect parking. _ Commissioner Moran - requested to know if the Commission could see landscaping plans along with the colored rendering at the May 13 meeting. Director Stevens stated what could be done is to delineate some landscaping perameters if that were the primary method to open up or enhance the appearance of the corner. Commissioner Brandt - requested to know if there would be landscaping along the buffer wall between the project and the residences in the area. Director Stevens advised that there was landscaping along the buffer wall and explained further how it would be planted in that area. Commissioner Brandt - requested to know if the parking lot would be night lighted. Director Stevens replied he was not aware of any lighting at this time, but this would be taken into consideration with regard to surrounding residences. Commissioner De Gasperin - felt that we should begin to seek some commonality in structure style for the Village concept, whatever - that might be. Commissioner Walling - felt we should develop some sort of guide- lines with regard to lighting to provide to developers, as this has become a very important issue over the past few years with regard to security, etc. Chairman Thornburgh reiterated his request to change the wording in Condition No. 21, which was made at the Study Session. Director Stevens advised that Condition No. 21 now reads as follows: "Prior to the issuance of a permit for signs..." There being no further questions/comments for discussion, Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion. MINUTES - PLANNING COMMISSION April 22, 1986 Page 4. 2. Commissioner Brandt made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Walling, to continue this matter to the next regular meeting to be held on 5/13/86, to allow the review of colors and to allow time for additional meetings between Staff/Applicant regarding discussion of options for opening up of the corner area by the use of landscaping or minor modifications of the site plan. Unanimously Adopted. Chairman Thornburgh introduced the next two hearings, be be heard concurrently, as follows: B. Amendment to Land Use Ordinance, "Special Residential" Zone, a request for approval to amend the text of the Municipal Land Use Ordinance No. 348, by adding the new zoning classification of "Special Residential" Zone; City Initiated. C. Change of Zone No. 86-022, a request for approval to rezone certain property located within the City as a "Special Residential" Zone in order to bring the zoning into compliance with the General Plan Land Use Plan; City Initiated. He called for the Staff Reports. 1. Director Stevens reviewed previous discussions by the Planning Commission regarding this matter. He also explained the relationship of this new zoning with regard to the Design Guidelines Manual and described the areas within the City that would be included in the Change of Zone. After a brief discussion, Chairman Thornburgh opened the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. The following persons spoke: * Virginia Garbutt, Indio, CA - stated she owns lots at Tampico and Desert Club Drive area on Buena Ventura. They were originally zoned R-2 which allowed more than one residence. Ms. Garbutt asked if that would be changed now to allow only single-family residences. Director Stevens advised Ms. Garbutt to come into the Community Development Department office and talk to the Planning Staff, who would be happy to explain the zoning to her, and also explain how this proposal might affect her property. Then, if she still had concerns or questions, she could attend the next public hearing to present them or submit them in writing prior to the meeting. MINUTES - PLANNING COMMISSION April 22, 1986 Page 5. * Audrey Ostrowsky, P. O. Box 351, La Quinta - stated she had a 100'x 100' lot on Avenida Obregon and asked if she would be able to split that lot to two, 50'x 100' lots if this proposal was approved. Director Stevens replied that under current R-1 Zoning regulations, the minimum lot size is 7200 sq.ft., so an existing 100'x 100' lot could not be slpit into two lots because you could not create two, 7200 sq.ft, lots. The current draft proposed 5000 sq.ft., so if it is adopted as submitted, a parcel map could be filed for and the 10,000 sq.ft, lot could then become two lots after approval of the parcel map. Therefore, the answer is, it would depend on what is determined as minimum lot size and that is one of the issues the Planning Commission has asked to be reviewed further. Ms. Ostrowsky also mentioned concern with the proposed requirement for fences alogn sides and rears of all single-family dwellings, reiterating statements made by law enforcement staff that high fences give criminals a hiding place. She added that she felt some fences did not add to the local decor and asked that the fencing require- ment be reconsidered. At this point, Chairman Thornburgh stated he did not realize there were 100' x 100' lots in the Cove area and requested Staff to bring back any stats they might have in this regard or to do some research on the matter if there was none on file currently. There being no further public comments, Chairman Thornburgh closed the public hearing at 7:46 p.m. Chairman Thornburgh then called for a motion. 2. Commissioner De Gasperin made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Moran, to continue the Amendment to the Land Use Ordinance, "Special Residential" Zone, and Change of Zone No. 86-022 to the next regular Planning Commission meeting to be held on May 13, 1986. Unanimously Adopted. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR Chairman Thornburgh introduced the first portion of the Consent Calendar consisting of 12, single-family dwelling requests for approval to construct. MINUTES - PLANNING COMMISSION April 22, 1986 Page 6. Chairman Thornburgh stated he had concerns with the single-family dwelling requests identified as items "H" through "L" on the Consent Calendar. After looking at the plans, there seemed to be no side nor rear design elevations in keeping with the front elevations. He called upon Staff for comments. _ Director Stevens stated that none of these designs show the sides or rear upgrades as asked for in the conditions of approval. The Applicant, Joel Colombo, has stated that he would make those upgrades in his discussion with Staff. If it is the Commission's desire to see those upgrades, then it is recommended that you table the five requests until such time as the Applicant resubmits the changes. These items would then be reintroduced to you as Business items on the agenda, rather than Consent Calendar. After a brief discussion, Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion. Commissioner Moran made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Walling, to approve Items "A" through "G" (Plot Plan Nos. 86-279, 86-280, 86-282, 86-283, 86-287, 86-288, 86-289) of the Consent Calendar, but moved to table Items "H" through "L" (Plot Plan Nos. 86-290, 86-291, 86-292, 86-293, 86-294) until such time as the Applicant resubmits revised plans. Unanimously Adopted. Commissioner Moran made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Walling, to approve the minutes from the regular meetings of March 25 and April 8, 1986, as submitted. Unanimously Adopted. _ 5. BUSINESS Chairman Thornburgh introduced the item of business as follows: A. Plot Plan No. 86-295, a request to construct a 3052 sq.ft. bank building at the northeast corner of Avenida Bermudas and Calle Estado; Dan Edgar, Applicant. He then called for the Staff Report. At this time, Commissioner Walling advised the Commission that he had a conflict of interest with this project so he would step down for the proceedings. 1. Director Stevens stated this is a request to construct a 3052 sq.ft, building which is intended for use as a bank, at the northeast corner of Avenida Bermudas and Calle Estado. The building is basically a Spanish Modern style. He turned the Commission's attention to the wall render- MINUTES - PLANNING COMMISSION April 22, 1986 Page 7. ings of the proposed bank building along side Mr. Monroe's newly constructed office building as a comparison. In reviewing the proposal, Staff's concerns relate primarily to circulation, parking, and associated access. The proposal calls for a driveway access from Avenida Bermudas to a parking area in front of the bank and from the public alley and, in addition, a 14-foot-wide, on-site connecting driveway from the front parking area to the alley. This design creates a number of conflicts due to the offset alignment of the Bermudas driveway with existing Avenida Montezuma, the close proximity of the Bermudas and alley driveways, and the movement between two separate parking areas on a relatively small site. The Bermudas-Estado-Montezuma intersection is an important part of the Village and Staff feels effort should be made to avoid major conflicts of the sort that would result from this plan as submitted, if approved. This problem is such that it will require substantial redesign. Director Stevens reiterated discussion from the Study Session regarding the FEMA regulations and the Applicant has agreed to work on the landscaping, parking, etc., so that the entire site would not be 3-feet higher than the crown of the street, as called out by the Federal Flood Rate Maps. Another matter discussed was the design of the building itself. Staff felt that the Planning Commission should review the architectural style to be sure it was a style that would be compatible to existing and future develop- ment in the area. The particular modern design of this building is different than what we've seen in this area, and since we do not have our Village standards completely adopted, Staff feels there is a need for reevaluation of the building design. Director Stevens advised that because of Staff's concerns, it is being recommended that this request be tabled so that the Applicant may prepare revised plans to consider the following: * Elimination of driveway access (other than the alley) to Bermudas. * Redesign of the on-site parking and circulation. * Reevaluation of the building design. However, Director Stevens stated that since the Study Session, Staff has done more work with the site plan. MINUTES - PLANNING COMMISSION April 22, 1986 Page 8. With this revision, it may be possible for Staff to alter their decision and support the project subject to some revisions in the design. Staff would still oppose any driveway access onto Bermudas other than the alley, but there may be an option where the remainder of the site design, with minor modifications, could survive at least for the purpose of Staff's support. Director Stevens advised the Commission that Staff has prepared a complete set of conditions should they feel the Applicant's design is appropriate for approval. Director Stevens addressed the additional revision Staff worked on since the Study Session. Using the Applicant's rendering, he used an overlay to show Staff's revised parking plan. He went on to explain the revision in detail. In short, nine parking spaces would be placed along the north side of the building in the alley area and parking spaces in front of the building eliminated, being replaced by landscaping. The parking area in the alley could be covered, if the Applicant desired. This concluded the Staff's report. Chairman Thornburgh advised that this being a business item, the public normally does not have an opportunity to speak unless the Commission feels it applicable. In this case, since there are so many persons present regarding this matter, we feel it applicable. Loren Lewis - stated he and his son are the principal owners of this proposed bank, and together with three directors, who are businessmen in the community, comprise the directorship of the bank. The three directors being Bob Monroe, Morgan Ward and Dr. Frederick, a physician in Indian Wells. He advised that this bank is somewhat different from most in that it is not borrowing money and is not soliciting from the general public selling shares or stock, etc. He stated they wanted to be in a position where they ran a conservative bank, being careful with their loans so as not to run into the problems so many banks have had recently. It will take awhile to make this bank a profitable venture and it is like any other marketing venture where you must be able to sell yourself. He noted that he has two very firm beliefs here that he has not deviated from since the day they started. No. 1 is he does not want people using their bank to have to walk up steps, and No. 2 is that he just cannot live, in his own mind, with spending $1.3 million dollars of his own money to have a facility that is entered from an alley. It doesn't make sense MINUTES - PLANNING COMMISSION April 22, 1986 Page 9. to him and he stated he cannot market the facility on that basis and can't live with it. Mr. Lewis went on to state they have looked at this plan very carefully for a long time and have not had any conversation with Mr. Stevens over this period of time (since last September). We have had our conversations with Sandy Bonner and assume she has passed on what was said to Mr. Stevens. But, up until Friday, when this report came out (which was written by Mr. Stevens), it was the first we had known in a number of months that there was opposition to coming off Bermudas. We knew that they (Staff) didn't like it, but we didn't know that there was any measured opposition to this. He advised that they originally looked at an entry off Estado, but not knowing how much traffic would be parked along the center median at any one time, the only way to use that entrance would be to drive all the way to the end and come back around. Mr. Lewis stated he could not see the difference in coming into the bank off Bermudas or off the alley. He stated he could see the possibility of a problem existing entering onto Bermudas, but advised they would be perfectly willing to sign the Bermudas driveway as "Entrance Only" and the alley as "Exit Only", along with a "Right Turn Only" at the alley exit. That was the conclusion of Mr. Lewis' statement and he expressed his appreciation to the Commission for the oppor- tunity to speak. Charlie White, P. O. Box 1030, La Quinta - read a letter from the Chamber of Commerce, signed by Andy Vossler, President, in support of the bank project. (The letter was given to the Secretary for the record.) Speaking on his own behalf as a businessman in the Community, Mr. White stated he would like to see the approval of the bank. He felt we needed the bank, that it might be a nucleus to getting other businesses growing. He felt the Bob Monroe building was a good start in getting some development in the downtown and the bank would be a definite asset. Morgan Ward, 48-800 San Pedro, La Quinta - stated he is a director of the proposed bank, a director of the Chamber of Commerce and also a local businessman, and feels in any down- town area there are certain keystone businesses which must happen before anything else happens, and a bank is just one of them. He stated, yes - there is a busy intersection at this site and he hoped there would be many more busy intersections as the town grows; but, unless we accommodate businesses such as this one, it will be very difficult to have the downtown area grow. Businesses need closeby financial institutions to MINUTES - PLANNING COMMISSION April 22, 1986 Page 10. bank at so they do not have to run into Palm Desert or down to Highway 111. Nothing is perfect and he could understand why Staff would want to point out things to be in a perfect way, but in this particular instance, where the offset driveway presents a problem, he felt Mr. Lewis' solution allowing a one-way ingress onto the site accommodated both parties. He appealed to the Commission to consider that approach since he felt this building is so important to the success of the Village at La Quinta. Louie Campagna, P. O. Box 1423, La Quinta, owner of the La Quinta Pharmacy, stated he wanted to extend his support to Mr.Lewis and this project, as he feels the community needs something like this. He stated he felt the longer it is prolonged, the longer other businesses might be delayed coming into the City. Chairman Thornburgh stated he felt he could speak for the other Commissioners in that there is no question about the fact that we are happy to have a bank like Mr. Lewis' and commended him for coming to our City. Chairman Thornburgh agreed with Staff, stating that he felt the alley entrance could be upgraded so as not to look like an alley, which would be in conjunction with the development of the Village concept. Also, he felt that the revisions of the parking area presented by Staff was more appropriate, allowing for more landscaping in the front of the building. **See Commissioner Moran stated she walked the area and felt there additional would not be enough room for the entryway and the alley and have tation it safe. She stated she felt the Applicant's original proposal last with the two entrances would be unsafe for the traffic flow. ge... She felt Staff's revised parking plan would give the Applicant a chance to move the building somewhat, if he so desired. Commissioner Brandt felt that if we were to upgrade the alley, that the property next to the deli/liquor store wall to the north should also be landscaped. She stated that the Village will be a pedestrian oriented community so that perhaps that extra area in the front of the bank could be enhanced as a pedestrian walkway. Commissioner De Gasperin agreed with Staff's revised parking plan. There being no further discussion, Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion. ~ MINUTES - PLANNING COMMISSION April 22, 1986 Page 11. 2. Commissioner De Gasperin made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Brandt, to approve Plot Plan No. 86-295, subject to conditions contained in the Staff Report, as amended, and subject to addi- tional conditions which would require the following: * Parking moved to the north side of the building * Deletion of parking immediately west of the building, which would be replaced with landscaping and give the Applicant, at his option, the ability to site the building further to the west; the ability to provide covered parking; and, would emphasize our efforts to create an environment in the alley access, through paving materials, landscaping and other related features to minimize the so-called "back way" approach. Unanimously Adopted with Commissioner Walling abstaining. Director Stevens advised the Applicant that if he wished to appeal the Planning Commission decision, asking City Council for a different decision, it is recommended that the appeal request be submitted to Planning Staff, in writing, either tomorrow or first thing Thursday morning because that would still allow the appeal hearing on May 6 because our deadline date is Friday. 6. ADJOURNMENT There being no further items of agenda to come before the Planning Commission, Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Moran made a motion, seconded by Commissioner De Gasperin, to adjourn to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held on May 13, 1986, at 7:00 p.m., in the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, CA. The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, was adjourned at 8:45 p.m., April 22, 1986, in the La Quinta city Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, CA. ** Commission Moran stated she would like the minutes to reflect that the Applicant did not have an opportunity to review Staff's revised parking plan prior to this meeting.