Loading...
1986 09 23 PC Minutes APPROVED LA (~INTA Pi.~I,.NG COMMISSION] M I N U T E S l)kTIC' ~~! PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA OUINTA A Regular Meeting Held at the La (~uinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California September 23, 1986 7:00 p.m. -- 1. CALL TO ORDER A. Vice Chairman John Walling called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.; he called upon Commissioner Moran to lead the flag salute. 2. ROLL CALL A. Vice Chairman Walling requested the roll call; the Secretary called the Roll: Present:Commissioners Brandt, Moran, Steding, and Vice Chairman Walling Absent: Chairman Thomas Thornburgh Also present were Planning Director Murrel Crump, Principal Planner Jerry Herman, Secretary Donna Velotta, and City Manager Ron Kiedrowski. 3. HEARINGS Vice Chairman Walling introduced the hearing items, which were heard concurrently, as follows: A. CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 86-023, a request for approval of a zone change from R-l*++ (One Family Dwellings) to C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial) on 2.79 acres to allow for the establish- ment of a restaurant; Robert Cunard, Applicant. (CONTINUED FROM 7/22/86 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) B. PLOT PLAN NO. 86-343, a request for approval to convert existing residential structures to a dinner house restaurant on a 2.79-acre site; Robert Cunard, Applicant. (CONTINUED FROM 7/22/86 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) Vice Chairman Walling called for the Staff Report. 1. Planning Director Murrel Crump explained the two requests concurrently per information taken from the Staff Report, a copy of which is in the files maintained in the Planning Department. In conclusion, Director Crump advised the Commission that based upon the Findings in the Staff Report, it is recommended that the change of zone request be forwarded to the City Council with a recommendation of approval to the C-P-S Zone as illustrated in Exhibit "A"; and. that the plot plan request be approved in accordance with Exhibits A. B, and C. subject to the conditions of approval, Vice Chairman Walling called for any questions by the Commission of Staff, Commissioner Brandt queried Director Crump regarding the use - of existing cyclone fence and oleander hedge as being adequate for screening purposes in lieu of block wall screening, Director Crump responded that Staff anticipates the adjacent properties will be rezoned to commercial shortly, and is recommending, therefore, that other types of view obscuring fencing be permitted, Vice Chairman Walling questioned the use of shake roofing on the new construction, Director Crump responded that City codes do not require reroofing unless substantial additions are constructed; therefore, in this case. shake roofing can continue to be used, Vice Chairman Walling opened the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. The following persons spoke on these matters: 1. Robert Cunard (Applicant). 78-045 Calle Cadiz, La Quinta; spoke in favor of the proposal explaining that he intends to do something nice for the community in keeping with the "Village" concept theme. In response to Commissioner Brandt's question regarding the type of fencing being _ used, he explained that he plans to bring in some mature. Iow growing, citrus trees to plant around the perimeter as both a noise barrier and screening, Commissioner Moran quieried Mr, Cunard as to whether he planned to have outdoor dining, weather permitting, Mr, Cunard responded that they would like to do so in the future, explaining that the patio area does have room for approximately four tables, Vice Chairman Walling asked Mr, Cunard if there was enough room to expand the parking area in the future, -2 - Mr. Cunard replied that there was room for expansion of the parking area showing the Commission the area by use of the wall rendering. 2. Audrey Ostrowsky, P. O. Box 351, La Quinta; spoke in favor of the proposal, but had some concerns. First. she explained that the first public hearing regarding these matters was continued without any discussion; therefore, there was no public comment input. This. - then is the first open public hearing on these matters and no property owners were renotified of it. She felt the proposal will impact others in the area and they should be present to speak. Second, she felt the parking lot location should be changed. She noted that this meeting was the first time she found out where it would be located. Director Crump responded by advising Ms. Ostrowsky that the proposal for the parking area has been there since the application was made and has been highlighted since the first Staff Report. The case has always been open for public review. Commissioner Brandt queried whether Staff has received any written communications regarding these matters. Director Crump advised that there have been no written communications received. 3. Dr. George Fisher, 78-030 Calle Cadiz, La Quinta; spoke in favor of the project and stated that he could not see where anyone in the area of the proposal has not known about it since its inception, as Mr. Cunard has been keeping everyone updated. Dr. Fisher advised that he lives across the street -- from the proposed project and feels it will not create much of an impact at all. In rebuttal, Mr. Cunard stated that since the concept of this proposal some two years ago, he has contacted his neighbors and discussed every part of this project. There being no further public comment, Vice Chairman Walling closed the public hearing at 7:29 p.m. Planning Commission discussion regarding these matters: Commissioner Moran questioned how future road improve- ments will be done and the monies acquired. -3- Director Crbmp advised that suggested conditions of approval provide for irrevocable offer to dedicate street right-of-way based on the ultimate specific plan. Conditions of approval also provide for a map exercise, at which point, improvement requirements could be speci- fied such as participation in a general assessment district. Vice Chairman Walling asked if there is an assessment - district for the entire Village are under consideration. Director Crump responded that it is not defined, but there could be. Commissioner Moran asked if wood shake roofing is in violation of Condition No. 15(i). Director Crump replied that he would have to defer to the Fire Marshal as far as what retrofitting would be required. He stated that the Applicant might have to install fire sprinklers and other fire retardant systems that the code requires for this occupancy. Commissioner Moran stated she is glad to see this proposal getting off the ground and to see the City trying to keep the "flavor" of the area as it is. Commissioner Brandt agreed and stated she is excited about this proposal going forward. She also felt there has been adequate public notice given; throughout the General Plan process, commercial uses have been identi- fied for the area and having not received any written communications, she felt comfortable with the project tonight. -- Commissioner Steding stated she was in favor of the proposal. Vice Chairman Walling stated that this is really the culmination of our reasoning for redesignating the Land Use Element for this area from the beginning. He felt this to be a great project and hopes it will set the pace for the remainder of the downtown area. Vice Chairman Walling called for a motion. 2. Commissioner Moran made a motion, seconded by - Commissioner Steding, to recommend approval to the City Council for Change of Zone No. 86-023 to C-P-S for the lands described in the application and as illustrated on Exhibit A; and, to recommend approval to the City Council for Plot Plan No. 86-343 in accordance with the application Exhibits A, B and C, subject to the attached conditions of approval. Unanimously Adopted with a 4-0 vote (Chairman Thornburgh being absent). 4. CONSENT CALENDAR Vice Chairman Walling introduced the Consent Calendar which con- sisted of the Minutes for the regular meeting of September 9, 1986. There being no discussion, he called for a motion. Commissioner Moran made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Steding, to approve the Minutes of the regular meeting of the Planning Commission for September 9, 1986, as submitted. Unanimously Adopted. 5. BUSINESS - Vice Chairman Walling introduced the first item of Business as roi lows: A. Review of proposed conditions of approval regarding Tentative Tract Map No. 21555 referred to the Planning Commission by City Council. He then called for the report from Staff. 1. Planning Director Crump reiterated City Council action at their meeting of September 16, 1986, advising the Commission that they have approved Specific Plan 86-007, Amendment #1, and Change of Zone 86-021, but continued the Tentative Tract Map No. 21555 requesting a report from the Planning Commission concerning review and finalization of recommended conditions of approval. He briefly explained the major points that the Council believed -5 - needed further resolution through conditions of project approval. These major points included' - Perimeter building height limits - Grading and pad elevations - Interim access to Washington Street - Future signalization at Washington/Sagebrush - Access to easterly parcel (Dr. Marmor's property) - Floor plan/elevation designs - - Perimeter wall and setback detailing Director Crump noted that the conditions need to be reviewed by the Planning Commission and revised or added to to address these primary issues. This concluded Staff's report. Vice Chairman Walling reiterated that this is not a public hearing, but the Applicant in this matter (Drew Wright) had informed the Commission that he had further informa- tion to present to the Commission. Drew Wright, President of Drew Wright $ Associates, P. O. Box 1876. Indio, CA- presented the following information- a. Developing their half-width of Washington Street along their entire frontage and use it as a temporary frontage road; b. The pad heights will be built to the minimum prescribed standards; c. Dr. Marmor's property to the east will be provided with one access; however, Dr. Marmot prefers more; d. The floor plans have been revised to the minimum required; and, - e. The lots along the perimeter should be specified for one or two-story units. Discussion regarding the information provided by Mr. Wright' Vice Chairman Walling asked the Applicant if the entire median, along Washington Street, would be on the Applicant's property. Mr. Wright stated it would have to be determined by a survey. He noted that they are dedicating 65' and their half-width is only 60'. Vice Chairman Walling asked the Applicant if they plan to develop the entire median at this time (both sides). -6- Mr. Wright responded that they would be developing the median to the satisfaction of the City, which may require development of both sides. Vice Chairman Walling asked Staff if this could become a potential problem and how it could be resolved. Director Crump responded that he felt it a matter of what interim improvement will function and he did not know if - that has been thoroughly worked out. Vice Chairman Walling stated that what he understood Director Crump to say then is that if it is the Commission's intention to require this as a condition to develop that area, including the median, the City should go ahead with acquisition of that piece of land. Director Crump responded affirmatively. Vice Chairman Walling asked Director Crump if, at such time that this comes back for the final tract, the Commission will have review of it in terms of pad heights. etc. Director Crump responded that the Commission would not see a final tract map. it would just go to Council. The Commission may, however, request this information prior to the approval of the final map. Vice Chairman Walling queried the Commission whether they wished to address any other than the issues raised by the City Council. There being none, he opened discussion to the first issue _ which related to perimeter building height limits. Commissioner Steding stated she felt the recommendations should be consistent with those previously approved for "The (3rove" project; she preferred to have Washington Street corridor kept clean of two-story structures; and permit multi-story structures along the east and south perimeters as long as they are under 30' in height. story structures along the east and south perimeters as long as they are under 30' in height. Commissioner Moran felt that the Commission has made strong statements in the past on the Washington Street Corridor. Therefore. she had some mixed emotions regarding this matter, especially if the public was to look at the rear elevations of the homes along Washington. -7- Commissioner Brandt stated she was interested in the Applicant's comments making height limits applicable to lots as opposed to a 75' setback (or 200' setback). She agreed with Commissioner Steding regarding allowing multi-story homes along the east and south perimeters. Commissioner Moran reiterated her earlier statement that the Washington Street corridor should not be fronted with multi-story homes. Vice Chairman Walling felt no multi-story should be built along Washington Street, as it is our Image Corridor. He suggested that a condition requiring review of those lots on a lot-by-lot basis, when there is more information available. Commissioner Brandt asked Staff if a corner of the lot should be within the 75' setback, does that mean that no building on that lot can exceed two stories. Director Crump responded no, that the way it is structured is a lot could occur within 75' and that portion of the lot within the 75' could not have a building. Vice Chairman clarified that this means the setback is to the building rather than the lot. After substantial discussion, it was the Commission's consensus to revise Condition #19 to generally reflect the intent of the following: "Dwelling units in excess of 21' (one story) shall not be located within 75' from the tract boundary wall along Washington; dwelling units with heights of up to 28' (two story) may be permitted along the north, east, and south boundaries subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission." At this point, Director Crump advised the Commission some of these issues could be addressed, as stated earlier, to a generalized condition advising that prior to approval of a final tract map, the Applicant shall submit for Commission review and recommendation, the following items, etc. It was the consensus of the Commission, therefore, to add a condition stating something similar to the following: "Prior to approval of a final tract map, the Applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Planning Commission, the following items' -8- a. Dwelling unit floor plans, elevation designs in final form. b. Tract grading and final building pad elevations showing cross sections through the tract. c. Individual dwelling unit setbacks along with lot fencing/wall enclosures and landscaping on indi- vidual lots. _ d. Tract boundary wall and landscape details. e. Revised map to provide for a minimum of one emergency access point along eastern tract boundary or through street access to eastern property arranged by private agreement. f. A final siting plan delineating all setbacks, unit mix and other applicable information." Vice Chairman Walling requested comments regarding the interim access to Washington Street. Commissioner Steding was in favor of the Applicant's proposal of creating a frontage road to Sagebrush. Commissioner Moran stated that they were told previously that this sliver of land was not going to be a problem. Now it looks like it will be a problem. City Manager Ron Kiedrowski spoke to the Commission stating the Council was concerned as to whether it is the City's responsibility to purchase this parcel, or is it this project's property owner and the adjoining - property owner to somehow purchase that sliver to create the ultimate right-of-way, The Council did not come up with a solution, but wanted him to bring this concern back to the Planning Commission, He stated some of the options available are' 1, Require one or the other project to purchase it or to make sure it gets into public domain with the Planning Commission saying that they would pay their share and the other would get their share back as you would recondition the second one, 2, City acquires the parcel and that they pay their appropriate share on acquisition, City Manager Kiedrowski stated that the concern that the Council had is that if you go forward ignoring this sliver of land, then how does the design engineer of this - 9 - project, The Grove project, and the City Engineer for the rest, design this ultimate road without having control of the additional parcel. We want this to be part of the ultimate 130' with the landscaped median. Commissioner Steding asked if it was not the Washington Street Specific Plan which straightened the bow, thereby creating this parcel, and thereby causing the problem to have been created by the City. -- City Manager Kiedrowski replied that you could look at it in this way or you could look at it so that in order to develop those parcels, they would have to obtain that bow or they would never have direct access to the existing Washington Street. Commissioner Steding commented that the City, as the condemnor, would be able to buy the property at a lessor fee than the other property owners who would then have to dedicate the land back to the City. To summarize, Director Crump stated what we see here is a sliver of privately owned land and we could say that its public acquisition would benefit this property, The Grove property, and the general public in that it would allow the Washington Street Plan to be implemented. Commissioner Steding preferred that the City condemn and thus acquire the property at the lowest market value and then seek contribution from The Grove and Drew Wright at a minimum of one-third each. Commissioner Moran asked if we could do this to The Grove project, as it has already been approved and this was not - an issue at that time. Director Crump advised that The Grove has a development agreement, so it may be a little more difficult. He advised that he did not know if the Commission could require another condition of The Grove. Commissioner Brandt stated she would like to see a recommendation go forth saying that they want the City to exercise its eminent domain powers to condemn this sliver of property and to have the City participate in one-third of the acquisition cost and the remaining developers to participate in the remaining two-thirds to be divided proportionately as to the amount of land fronting their properties. There was a consensus for this recommendation. - 10- The Commission additionally added that they did not want this acquisition credited toward the Infrastructure Fees. Discussion regarding the signalization of Sagebrush: The Commission reiterated that previous developers have been required to provide signalization which was over and above Infrastructure Fees. - Commissioner Moran questioned whether, when discussing the initial adoption of Infrastructure Fees. this signal was under consideration. Director Crump responded that this signal, if there is to be one. is a product of amending the Washington Street Specific Plan. Commissioner Steding queried if any development which may occur on Dr. Marmor's property would also participate in the cost of such signalization. Vice Chairman Walling stated he felt there should be an equitable participation over and above Infrastructure Fees. Discussion regarding access to Dr. Marmor's property to the east of this proposed project: Commissioner Steding stated her basis premise is. and apparently the City Council generally agreed with her, that there is adequate public access. Particularly, if Sagebrush is extended around to create an internal loop into Dr. Marmor's property and back out again onto Sagebrush. -- Commissioner Moran stated the Commission did grant this Applicant the right-turn access to Washington and she felt not to allow development on Dr. Marmor's property access through that access way was not quite fair. But, not knowing what the agreement is between the Applicant and Dr. Marmot, it is difficult to make a decision. She went on to state she did not feel two accesses to the Marmot property were necessary. But, if Dr. Marmot is willing to pay a percentage of the upkeep, through a homeowners' association for private roads for one access, she felt they should grant him that. Director Crump addressed the Commission stating they could compromise between the two positions here by providing for a minimum situation, which is to be an emergency access and allowing for a private agreement to be reached that allows a full access between properties. So, the new -11 - condition would provide one emergency access and then, by agreement between owners, that the emergency access could be opened to a project-to-project access. The Commission agreed to Director Crump's statement. Commission discussion regarding perimeter wall and setback detailing: - Vice Chairman Walling stated he felt the 20' setback for the wall should be changed to a 20' average so the Applicant could have more design flexibility. There was a consensus in this regard. After further discussion regarding this matter, the Commission agreed to request review of this matter and others mentioned previously prior to the final map rather than require a plot plan review. Commissioner Moran asked if there was going to be any sort of grade at the entrance to Sagebrush as far as the landscaping area was concerned. Director Crump advised that it was not discussed, but that the Commission could specify a maximum 33% grade for any berm occurring in the landscaped area. The Commission was agreeable to this suggestion. Vice Chairman Walling called for a motion. 2. Commissioner Steding made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Moran. to recommend to the City Council that _ they approve the conditions of approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 21555, prepared August 12. 1986, subject to the appropriate changes and additions made by the Planning Commission this date. Unanimously Adopted. Vice Chairman Walling introduced the next items of business to be heard concurrently as follows: B. Review of the Coachella Valley Water District's Capital Improvement Program for the City of La Quinta for Fiscal Year 1986-87; and. C. Review for General Plan consistency a proposed project by the Coachella Valley Water District to construct a force main to transport sewage through the City of La Qulnta via Washington Street. - 12 - He then called for the report from Staff. 1. Director Crump addressed these matters per information provided in the Staff Reports. He advised the Commission that as far as a formal response, Staff recommends that the Commission, by a minute motion, determine that these matters are consistent with the City of La Quinta General Plan. - There being no questions or comments, Vice Chairman Walling called for a motion. 2. Commissioner Moran made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Brandt, that the Coachella Valley Water District's Capital Improvement Program for the City of La Quinta for Fiscal Year 1986-87. and their construction of a force main to transport sewage through the City of La Quinta via Washington Street are consistent with the La Quinta General Plan. Unanimously adopted. Vice Chairman Walling introduced the last item of business as follows' D. Consideration and adoption of Resolution No. P.C. 86-003 amending the Planning Commission Rules and Procedures con- cerning the order of business and the inclusion of a Public Comment section. Director Crump addressed the Commission explaining this is a resolution amending the Planning Commission Rules and Procedures by adding a Public Comment section, which thereby also amends the order of business. Commissioner Steding queried the remark that public comment _ is encouraged on items other than on the agenda. Does this include discouragement of public comment on things that are on the Business or Consent Calendar sections of the Agenda. Director Crump stated this would be at the discretion of the Commission. He suggested the public could use the comment time for matters other than public hearings. The Commission agreed to this suggestion. Commissioner Steding asked if the Commission should limit the time allotted for the public comments. Director Crump suggested that the Chairman set time limits at the meeting. Vice Chairman Walling called for a motion. - 13- Commissioner Moran made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Steding, to adopt Resolution No. P.C. 86-003. Unanimously adopted by a 4-0 roll call vote (Chairman Thornburgh being absent). At this point, there was a brief discussion regarding items discussed at the Study Session regarding City-wide identification signs and the concept for an amphitheatre at Lake Cahuilla. These items were not a part of the Agenda for this meeting. 6. ADJOURNMENT There being no further items of agenda to come before the Planning Commission, Vice Chairman Walling called for a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Moran made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Stealing, to adjourn to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held on October 14, 1986, at 7:00 p.m., in the 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 9'00 p.m., September 23, 1986, in the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California.