PCMIN 05 24 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
May 24, 1994 7:00 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairwoman Barrows.
Commissioner Adolph led the flag salute.
H. ROLL CALL
A. Chairwoman Barrows requested the roll call. Present: Commissioners Adolph,
Ellson, Abels, and Chairwoman Barrows.
B. Commissioners Abels/Ellson moved and seconded a motion to excuse
Commissioner Marrs. Unanimously approved.
C. Staff Present: Planning Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Dawn Honeywell,
Senior Engineer Steve Speer, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate Planner
Greg Trousdell, and Department Secretary Betty Sawyer.
D. Commissioners Ellson/Abels moved to amend the agenda to place Public Hearing
#3 (Plot Plan 93-495-Simon Plaza) as Item #1 and reorganize the agenda
accordingly. Unanimously approved.
Ill. PUBLIC HEARINGS -
A. PLOT PLAN 93-495; a request of Simon Plaza for a one year extension of time
for a commercial project at the southeast corner of Washington Street and
Highway 111.
1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in
the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and
Development Department.
2. Commissioner Adolph asked staff what the status of the street dedication
__ was. Staff stated the dedication had not taken place as of yet but the
street dedication would have to take place prior to any building permits
beingissued.
PC5 -24 1
Planning Commission Minutes
May 24, 1994
3. Commissioner Adolph asked if the restaurant planned for the comer was
still required to have the two copulas on the top of the building and if the
signage would remain the same. Staff stated ail the conditions originaily
approved would remain.
4. Commissioner Ellson asked if the project could be built in phases. Staff
stated it could as long as it met ail the conditions.
5. Commissioner Ellson asked if the upper level patio would have a trellis
cover. Staff stated the originai approvai did not require a trellis patio
cover.
6. There being no further questions of staff, Chairwoman Barrows opened
the public hearing. Mr. Mark Moran, representing the applicant,
addressed the Commission regarding the project and the concerns they had
with the modified conditions. In particular was an objection to Condition
#38, in place of Condition 39.
7. Mr. Paul Seltzer, co-owner in the project, elaborated on the objections to
Conditions #38, #40, #42, #43, and #44. Mr. Seltzer stated the project
did not cause the problem for the widening of the street. They had paid
to put the street in once and they should not be required to do it again.
8. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell explained the conditions were added to
the project as this was a new development that came after a circulation
specific plan was adopted by the City. She further stated that only the
City Council can waive any costs by entering into a Development
Agreement or Owner Participation Agreement with the Redevelopment
Agency.
9. Mr. Seltzer reiterated that the Planning Commission and City Council
approved Condition #39 last year and he can't understand why it cannot
be done again with this request. Discussion followed as to why the street
is being widened and who is responsible for that widening.
10. Mr. Fred Simon, co-owner, addressed the condition regarding the funding
of the street improvements as required by Condition #38. He stated that
if the additionai costs of the street improvements are placed on the project
he will be unable to fund the project and it will not be built.
11. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated that since the City had not been
able to widen Washington Street for two years and since Simon Plaza had
been unable to get their project started, staff went to the City Council to
discuss the widening of Washington Street in two phases. The City would
fund the first phase and Simon Plaza would incur the cost of the second
phase.
PC5 -24 2
Planning Commission Minutes
May 24, 1994
12. Commissioners Ellson and Abels asked staff to clarify what the difference
was between Conditions #38 and #39. Staff stated the difference was in
regard to how much of the street Simon Plaza would be required to
improve. Whether it would be all of the right-of-way east of the
centerline for Washington Street or, east of the curb and gutter
improvements and contiguous to the project site. Discussion followed
relative to those improvements.
13. There being no further public comment, Chairwoman Barrows closed the
public hearing and opened the matter for Commission discussion.
14. Following the discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Ellson/Barrows to adopt Minute Motion 94-015 to recommend a one year
extension of time for Plot Plan 93-495 as conditioned. The motion carried
with Commisisoner Adolph voting No.
Commissioner Abels withdrew from the Chambers due to a possible future conflict of interest
on the following item.
B. PLOT PLAN 94-522; a request of DoDco Construction Services for approval to
develop a two story retail/office building in the C-V-C Zone on a 0.37 acre site.
1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in
the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and
Development Department.
2. Commissioner Adolph asked what the sign program was for the project.
Staff explained the sign was to be painted on the southeast corner of the
upper floor of the building. Discussion followed regarding the lettering
and size of the sign.
3. There being no further comments of staff, Chairwoman Barrows opened
the public hearing. Mr. Dan Featheringill addressed the Commission
regarding the project and stated they were able to modify the sign if the
Commission so desired. He further stated his concern regarding the
condition to require French doors in the rear of the building as this would
be a security problem. Mr. Featheringill went on to explain his
development request.
4. Mr. Greg Butler, draftsman for the project, stated his objections to
requiring decorative ceramic tile around the door frames and display ·
windows on the north elevation. The Pueblo style architecture does not
PC5 -24 3
Planning Commission Minutes _
May 24, 1994
use decorative tile around the door openings. As they were an office
building and not a retail building, there would be no need for display
windows. He further stated his objection to the requirement for a
pedestrian access through the building as the building was only 75 feet
from Desert Club and the Specific Plan called for a mid-block accessway.
At the present time there is one possible tenant for the lower floor but, if
the accessway is required they would lose that tenant.
5. Commissioner Adolph questioned why the windows, doors, and columns
were not balanced on the second floor. Mr. Butler stated that this was an
orthographic view and on each floor the windows and doors were
symmetrical. The design was based on the leasable spaces inside the
building.
6. Commissioner Adolph questioned the building being offset from
Anchovie's Pizza to the west and the building did not tie together and was
not compatible with the neighboring buildings.
7. Commissioner Adolph inquired why peeled logs were being used. Mr.
Butler stated they were using the logs to keep with the Pueblo look.
Discussion followed as the style being a departure from what is there.
Commissioners asked for a site plan and street view elevation that showed
the neighboring building(s) in relation to the proposed building.
8. Commissioner Ellson stated this design was a complete departure from the
Village theme. The building was too much of a deviation from what is
there. The windows needed to be in balance along with the columns. She
further stated the vehicle access needed to be from the alley rather than
from Desert Club as there was no way to turn around without backing out
of the deadend parking lot. Commissioner Ellson further stated the
windows were all on the south side and provided no sun protection. In
addition, there were no windows on the north side. She questioned the
stairway as to the materials to be used and asked that more detail be
given. The columns on the north should be over each other and not in
front of the doorways. The plans call for Palo Verde trees as the shade
trees for the project but there doesn't appear to be enough space for the
tree at the southeast corner of the site. She stated her concern that the
two story overhang may not be earthquake proof. Mr. Butler explained
the landscaping plan and stated they had no objection to the staff
recommendation for a raised planter on Calle Estado. He went on to
address some of the issues raised.
PC5 -24 4
Planning Commission Minutes
May 24, 1994
9. Chairwoman Barrows stated her concern for window treatment on the
south elevation and encouraged windows on the north side as well. She
would like the windows recessed 12-inches into the Calle Estado facade.
Mr. Butler stated they had planned on recessing the windows 3-inches.
10. Mr. Dan Featheringill asked the Commission to give him an indication of
whether they would approve the variance before he went to the cost of
drawing new plans. Commissioners stated they had no objection to the
variance request but the building needed to be redrawn.
11. Commissioner Ellson again asked if the parking entrance could be from
the alley. Mr. Featheringill stated if he were to do this he would lose the
required number of parking spaces needed. Discussion followed regarding
the circulation pattern of the parking lot and whether the variance could
include the reduction in parking spaces.
12. Commissioner Adolph asked if the parking could be tied in with
Anchovies. Mr. Featheringill stated Anchovie's parking was angled and
would not be conducive to his needs.
13. Chairwoman Barrows asked that the applicant make the Pueblo design
match more with the existing buildings and align the windows, doors, and
columns on the buildings two floors.
14. Commissioner Adolph asked if staff had any objections to not requiring
the pedestrian access. Staff stated they had no objection. Discussion
followed regarding how to open the parking lot access to the alley.
15. Commissioner Adolph asked if the landscaping plan would come back
before the Commission. Staff stated it would.
16. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Ellson/Adolph to continue Plot Plan 94-522 and Variance
94-025 to the next meeting of June 14, 1994. Unanimously approved with
Commissioner Abels abstaining.
Commissioner Abels rejoined the Commission.
C. PRECISE PLAN 94-846 (THE CLASSICS AT TOPAZ); a request of
Century/Crowell Communities for compatibility review of new model homes for
the Topaz project (Tract 23935).
PC5-24 5
Planning Commission Minutes _
May 24, 1994
1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in
the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and
Development Department and showed a video of the area.
2. Commissioner Adolph asked who put the landscaping in on the existing
units. Staff stated the developer did.
3. Commissioner Ellson asked who installed the original building trellises on
the existing homes. Staff stated it was an option offered by the developer
but required by the City in 1991 and 1992.
4. There being no further questions of staff, Chairwoman Barrows opened
the public hearing. Mr. Dennis Cunningham, representing
Century/Crowell, gave a history of the project and noted they had been
working with the staff and homeowners in the area to come to a workable
solution for the development needs.
5. Mr. Ed Munson, Topaz resident, stated his objections to the new units.
He stressed the need to have the same architectural features as the existing
units. He further stated the smallest unit (Plan 2X) should be eliminated,
the gabeling was essential for the houses, the back elevation was flat with
no detailing, 3-car garages were needed and, the guest houses should be
continued as well as additional window detailing.
6. Mr. Lance Eldred, Topaz resident, stated he was in favor of growth for
the tract but wanted responsible compatible units. His concern was for
the product mix and allow the guest house as an option and consider a
sign to distinguish between the two homes such as "The Estates" (existing)
and "The Classics" (new).
7. Commissioner Adolph asked Mr. Eldred is there was a Homeowners'
Association. Mr. Eldred stated there was only an architectural committee
controlled by the developer until such time as they turn it over to the
homeowners. They do have CC & R's. Discussion followed regarding
Ordinance 242 and whether or not the original Plan 4 included or
excluded the guest cottage in the square footage sizing issue.
8. Mr. Robert Tyler, Topaz resident, stated his objection to the proposed
units that they were not compatible with the existing units. He did not
understand why Acacia could build comparable units and make a profit
and Century could not. He stated that as the houses are laid out on the
lots in the La Quinta Vistas area, the headlights from passing cars created
a glare for the units in the cul-de-sac.
PC5-24 6
Planning Commission Minutes
May 24, 1994
9. Mr. Thomas Mulcahey, Topaz resident, stated he did not feel the homes
looked like the existing units. He asked if two story units would be built
behind or next to single story homes.
10. Mrs. Flannery, Topaz resident, stated her concern that a two story unit
would be allowed behind her one story home. Staff explained that as they
are conditioned they would not be able to build a two story behind her
house.
11. Mrs. Jeannie Plantz, Topaz resident, stated her concern that the proposed
units do not reflect the existing units. She also would like the signage to
show the existing homes are "The Estates" to help increase their property
values.
12. Ms. Christine Kutt, Topaz resident, stated that the existing two story units
are very imposing from the street and the proposed two story homes are
not comparable in size. She felt the name distinction would help. She
felt the developer should build what is existing.
13. Ms. Mary Black, Topaz resident, stated she felt the new units would
reduce her property values as her house will be next door to one of the
new units.
14. Mr. Dennis Cunningham, applicant representing Century/Crowell
addressed the Commission regarding the concerns raised by the
homeowners. He strongly objected to the Commission regulating the mix
as it needed to be dictated by buyer demand. He further stated his
objections to Conditions g24,//25, and g28 however, he would be willing
to utilize popout windows for the two story units on the rear elevation for
detail but, didn't feel it necessary on the one story design as they are not
seen from the street.
15. Mr. Ernest Vincent, legal representative for Century/Crowell, stated the
market has changed and they needed flexibility with the mix to handle the
market changes. He then stated the Compatibility Ordinance does give the
Planning Commission the right to set mix but it doesn't have to be the
same as the existing. He then asked the City Attorney to explain the
Ordinance. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell explained the purpose of the
Ordinance and stated the Ordinance is flexible as "compatible" is in the
eye of the beholder (i.e., Planning Commission). Discussion followed.
PC5-24 7
Planning Commission Minutes
May 24, 1994
16. Commissioner Ellson suggested sites to place the "The Estates" tract
signs. Mr. Cunningham stated it was difficult to come up with an
appropriate location based on the placement of the existing homes and
future homes.
17. Commissioner Ellson asked why the developer could not build the same
units as is existing. Mr. Cunningham stated he could build the same unit
but he would sell it for less than what the existing homeowners paid for
theirs and it would hurt their property values.
18. Commissioner Ellson questioned whether pivot garage doors versus
sectional doors would be used. Mr. Cunningham stated that studies
showed that there was no difference because the length of cars purchased
today are shorter.
19. Chairwoman Barrows asked that the developer use 24-inch box specimen
trees. Mr. Cunningham stated he should not be required to use the 24-
inch box trees for the homes north of the existing homes. Discussion
followed regarding trees sizes.
20. There being no further public comment, Chairwoman Barrows closed the
public hearing.
21. Chairwoman Barrows asked if Plans 5 and 5L meet the requirements of
Condition ff24. Staff noted Plan 5 would not since it is a one story home.
Discussion followed.
22. Commissioner Adolph expressed concern that the dramatic features on the
existing units are not present in the proposed units nor was the balance in
the mix what it should be. Mr. Cunningham stated he would built what
the market demanded. Commissioner Adolph stated the developer needed
to develop a unit mixture similar to the existing Topaz homes.
23. Commissioner Abels stated he sympathized with both sides but due to the
lateness of the meeting, the discussion should be continued. He further
stated the proposed units needed to be designed closer to the look of the
existing units. Discussion followed regarding market demand and unit
mix.
24. Commissioner Ellson stated her major concern was for the six lots closest
to the existing units. There needed to be more similarity between the
houses.
PC5-24 8
Planning Commission Minutes
May 24, 1994
25. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Abels/Adolph to continue Precise Plan 94-846 to June 14,
1994. Unanimously approved. It was further suggested that the developer
meet with staff and existing homeowners and try to come back with plans
that resembling the existing units. Mr. Cunningham asked for
clarification on the rear elevation. Commissioner Adolph suggested that
the developer add trellis work to give some additional depth. Staff
pointed out that the existing units have architectural detail on all four
sides.
IV. PUBLIC COMMENT: None
V. BUSINESS SESSION: None
VI. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. There being no corrections to the Minutes of May 10, 1994, it was moved and
seconded by Commissioners Abels/Ellson to adopt the minutes as submitted.
Unanimously approved.
VH. OTHER- None
VHI. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, a motion was made and seconded by Commissioners
Adolph/Abels to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting
of the Planning Commission on June 14, 1994, at 7:00 P.M. at the La Quinta City Hall Council
Chamber. This meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission was adjourned at 11:08 P.M.,
May 24, 1994.
PC5-24 9