PCMIN 01 11 1994 - MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California
January 11, 1994 7:00 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. The meeting was called to order at 7:02 P.M. by Chairwoman Barrows and
Commissioner Abels lead the flag salute.
II. ROLL CALL
A. Chairwoman Barrows requested the roll call. Present: Commissioners Adolph,
Ellson, Marrs, Abels, and Chairwoman Barrows.
B. Staff Present: Planning Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Dawn Honeywell,
Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand-Cherry, and Department Secretary Betty
Sawyer.
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS-
A. Tentative Tract 27899 (Formerly TT 23519); a request of Santa Rosa Developers
for approval of a subdivision of approximately 30 acres into 111 single family
residential lots with a public street system.
1. Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand-Cherry presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning
and Development Department. She further informed the Commission that
an additional condition (Condition//62) had been added.
2. Commissioner Adolph asked staff if the removal of the emergency access
on Miles was any problem for the Fire Department and were the cul-de-
sacs wide enough. Staff stated that the access was planned for the original
tract and not for this one and the Fire Department has stated no objection.
Further the way the tract is laid out there is access to Miles.
PCl-ll 1
Planning Commission Minutes _
January 11, 1994
3. Commissioner Adolph asked about the retention basin. Staff explained the
location and drainage for the basin and stated that since the tracts were
sold, this tract has been conditioned to provide the same written agreement
to be provided by these property owners to accept the water or provide
on-site water retention.
4. Commissioner Ellson asked where the existing roads in Topaz were. Staff
reviewed the streets on the map with the Commissioners. Discussion
followed regarding the tracts that are built out and the streets that
interconnect.
5. There being no further questions of staff, Chairwoman Barrows opened
the public hearing. Mr. Brian Esgate, engineer for the project addressed
the Commission regarding the project.
6. Commissioner Ellson asked how the water flows to the retention basin.
Mr. Esgate explained the drainage route for the water.
7. Commissioner Ellson asked what the "remainder" portions were on the
tract. Mr. Esgate stated that little remainder portions had been added into _
the other tracts. As the tracts develop, lot line adjustments would be done
to make the necessary changes. As one developer owned all the land,
there would be no problem. Discussion followed regarding the
construction of the streets. '
8. Commissioner Adolph asked if Adams Street drained onto Victoria Drive
and would the retention basin hold all that water. Mr. Esgate stated it
would and that all the drainage work had been approved by City with the
previous tract and it would be designed according to those specifications.
9. Mr. Esgate stated he had an objection with Condition #55. He stated it
would be a hardship to build just one model and requested that he be
granted 25 % of the dwelling units be two story along Miles Avenue and
that houses along the adjacent tracts be allowed to have two stories.
10. Commissioner Adolph stated he concern that the developer provide enough
parking for the cul-de-sacs. Mr. Esgate stated it would be easier to have
a two story house with a three car garage than with a one story and he
would make sure this was taken into consideration.
11. There being on further public comment, Chairwoman Barrows closed the
public hearing.
PCl-ll 2
Planning Commission Minutes
January ~1, 1994
12. Commissioner Ellson stated her objection to having any two story units
along Miles Avenue. Staff stated that the condition was stated this way
as the Acacia tract had been conditioned the same and it set the precedent.
Commissioner Ellson stated she had no problem with the two story units
being permitted abutting the adjacent tracts. Following the discussion, it
was determined to delete the last sentence of Condition/955.
13. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Adolph/Abels to adopt Resolution 94-001 recommending
approval of Tentative Tract 27899 as amended and with the addition of
Condition//62.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Adolph, Ellson, Man's,
Abels, Chairwoman Barrows. NOES: None.
ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None.
B. Continued - Plot Plan 93-495; a request of Simon Plaza for approval to amend
Condition #36 regarding dedication of the Washington Street right-of-way.
_ 1. Planning Director Jerry Herman stated the applicant had requested a
continuance to February 22, 1994.
2. There being no questions, Commissioners Marrs/Ellson moved and
seconded a motion to continue Plot Plan 93-495 to February 22, 1994.
Unanimously approved.
IV. PUBLIC COMMENT: - None
IV. BUSINESS SESSION
A. Sign Application 93-235; a request of Palm Royale Country Club/Mr. Dave
Evans for approval of a freestanding golf course and restaurant sign.
1. Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand-Cherry presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning
and Development Department.
2. Commissioner Abels asked for clarification on the size of the letters.
Commissioner Ellson stated she felt the letters were too small.
' 3. Ms. Millington, representing the applicant, explained the size of the letters
and stated that it was the same dimensional size as the original logo for
PCl-ll 3
Planning Commission Minutes
January ~1, 1994
the entire project. She further stated that she was told by her sign
contractor that the size is able to be seen from 50 feet and they felt this
was ample distance to advertise. Discussion followed regarding the size
of the letters.
4. Commissioner Abels asked if the entry sign was the same size. Ms.
Millington stated it was close.
5. Commissioners expressed their concern for the size of the sign and the
letters and felt the sign should be a more attractive sign. They approved
of the location and hoped the sign would make more of a design statement
than just be a square stuck on the corner.
6. Commissioner Ellson asked why the sign was reduced. Ms. Millington
stated that the cost had required them to reduce the size.
7. Commissioner Adolph stated he had a problem with the number of signs
at the corner. He stated his concern that the corner could not handle four
signs. Discussion followed regarding the existing signs. Commissioners
Adolph and Abels asked if the existing signs (BIA City signs) could be
moved to the northeast corner of Miles Avenue and Washington Street.
Staff stated they would contact the BIA and see if the signs could be
moved.
8. Ms. Millington stated that their sign would be 27 feet back from the street
and would blend with the existing environment and additional landscaping
would be planted to soften the sign.
9. Commissioner Adolph asked what the overall height of the sign was. Ms.
Millington stated it was six feet tall, two feet of the six feet is the base,
and the sign panel was 4' X 6'.
10. Commissioner Ellson asked if Ms. Millington was the owner of the
restaurant or the owner of the project. Ms. Millington stated she was
representing Mr. Dave Evans, owner of the restaurant and this piece of
land.
11. Commissioners discussed with Ms. Millington the sign materials and the
landscaping to be placed around the sign.
PCl-ll 4
Planning Commission Minutes
January ~1, 1994
12. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Marrs/Abels to adopt Minute Motion 94-001 approving
Sign Approval 93-235, subject to conditions. Approved with
Commissioner Adolph voting no.
B. Conditional Use Permit 92-004; a request of Carl's Jr. Restaurant, Mr. Wade
Goding, for approval to allow the existing corporate sign for the newly built
Carl's Jr. Restaurant to remain instead of repainting the channel letter returns
matte black pursuant to the adopted sign program for the One Eleven La Quinta
Center.
1. Planning Director Jerry Herman presented the information contained in the
staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development
Department.
2. There being no questions of staff, the Commissioners stated their approval
of the sign as installed.
3. Commissioners Ellson/Marrs moved and seconded a motion to adopt
- Minute Motion 94-002 approving Conditional Use Permit 92-004 as
requested.
4. Commissioner Adolph asked what had been done regarding the
landscaping as they were conditioned. Staff stated they would check into
the matter. Following the question the motion was approved
unanimously.
VI. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Chairwoman Barrows asked if there were any additional corrections to the
Minutes of December 28, 1994, than Page 9 as had been corrected and submitted
to them. There being no additional corrections, Commissioners Marrs/Ellson
moved and seconded a motion to approve the Minutes as corrected. Unanimously
approved.
VII. OTHER
A. Discussion of the City Council's proposed action regarding the Design Review
Board; Chairwoman Barrows asked Commissioner Ellson if she wished to
explain her request. Commissioner Ellson stated that she had spoken with each
..
of the Council members and understood their reasoning behind the elimination of
the Board, but she felt they served a vital and useful function in the approval
process and she would like to see the Board remain. She asked if the
Commissioners wished to make any request of the Council for reconsideration.
PCl-ll 5
Planning Commission Minutes
January ~1, 1994
1. Commissioner Abels stated he felt it was the Council's prerogative to
appoint or dismiss any member or board as they saw fit and he stood on
neutral ground and with the expansion of the Planning Commission this
would serve the purpose.
2. Commissioner Marrs stated his agreement with Commissioner Ellson in
tt',at there was a lot of talent on the Board and it should not go to waste,
but he did not see how the Board had been effective and this elimination
of one more level of bureaucracy.
3. Commissioner Adolph stated he had no objection to the proposed changes
and even though the meetings would probably be extended, he did enjoy
getting more into the design aspect of the projects.
4. Chairwoman Barrows stated that she also felt concern regarding the
decision to eliminate the Board and felt they did serve a useful function
within the process. She could understand the Council's reasoning and
understood it was the Council's prerogative to do so.
5. Commissioner Adolph asked staff what other cities in the Valley had a
Design Review Board. Staff stated Palm Springs, Rancho Mirage, and
Palm Desert had a similar board.
B. Study Session meeting day and time; Commissioner Ables requested that the
Commission change the Study Session from Monday to Tuesday in order to allow
the City Attorney to meet with the Commission during the Study Session.
1. Commissioner Ellson asked if this would present a problem with staff or
the applicant to prepare additional information or clarification in time for
the meeting. Staff stated they would check the ordinance creating the
Commission and the Rules and Procedures under which the Commission
operates and see what steps would need to be taken to make this change.
Staff would report back to the Commission at their next meeting if formal
action is required. In regards to providing the information requested
during a Study Session, this could be a problem, but the Commission
could always be continued if they felt it was important.
2. Commissioner Ellson asked where the attendance of the City Attorney
came from and was she requested to attend the Study Sessions as well.
City Attorney Honeywell stated the direction came from the City Council
and no they had not requested her attendance at the Study Session as they
were on Monday.
3. Following discussion, Commissioners Abels/Ellson moved to instruct staff
to prepare the necessary documents if necessary to change the Study
PCl-ll 6
Planning Commission Minutes
January ~1, 1994
Session meeting day from Monday to Tuesday. Unanimously approved.
C. Discussion of Planning Commission Badges; Commissioner Abels asked the
Commissioners for their opinion of creating a badge for the Commissioners to
wear identifying them as Planning Commissioners of the City of La Quints to be
worn when attending functions for the City.
1. Following discussion regarding cost and design, it was determined that
Commissioner Adolph would prepare a design for the Commission's
consideration.
D. Commissioner Ellson asked staff what the ordinance requirements were for fence
heights. Staff stated from the property line to the first ten feet is four feet, the
next ten feet is five feet, and the next distance could be six feet. Commissioner
Ellson expressed her concern that several houses on Calle Tampico, between
Washington Street and Park Avenue, have block walls that come to the sidewalk,
are six feet tall. Staff stated they could have been constructed before the
ordinance went into effect.
_ E. Commissioner Adolph asked staff what was happening regarding the JM Peters
signs. Staff stated they were in the process of having them removed.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
A motion was made and seconded by Commissioners Ables/Marrs to adjourn this regular
meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on
January 25, 1994, at 7:00 P.M. at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chambers. This meeting
of the La Quinta Planning Commission was adjourned at 8:15 P.M., January 11, 1994.
PCl-ll 7