Loading...
PCMIN 06 14 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 June 14, 1994 7:00 P.M. I.. CALL TO ORI)ER A. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairwoman Barrows. Commissioner Abels led the flag salute. II. ROLL CALL A. Chairwoman Barrows requested the roll call. Present: Commissioners Adolph, Ellson, Abels, and Chairwoman Barrows. B. Commissioners Adolph/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 Start Sawa, Associate Planners Greg Trousdell and Leslie Mouriquand-Cherry, and Department Secretary Betty Sawyer. Ill. PUBLIC HE~GS - Commissioner Abels withdrew from the meeting during consideration of Item A due to a possible conflict of interest. A. CONTINUED - 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. Amociate Planner Oreg Trousdell presented the information contained in tl~ staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. ~ioner Ellson asked staff what the radius was to turn a car around in a parking lot. Slaff stated the two-way drive aisle width would be 26- fex't and went on to explain the on-site parking program. 3. Chairwoman Barrows and Commissioner Ellson asked that the windows be recessed three inches for shade. PC6-14 I Pla~nin~ Commission Minutes June 14, 1994 - 4. There being no further questions of staff, Chairwoman Barrows opened the public hearing. The applicant, Dan Featheringill stated he had tried to address all the conditions as requested by the Planning Commission but the economics of the project wouldn't allow him to do all of them. Discussion followed regarding recessing the windows and the thickness of the roof parapet. 5. Commissioner Ellson questioned why so many windows were needed on the front of the building (Calle Estado) where there would be so much sun light. Mr. Featheringill stated this was the front of the building and the energy issues would be solved with the Title 24 (U.B.C.) requirements. 6. Chairwoman Barrows asked what the effect would be to recess the windows 6 to 8-inches. Mr. Featheringill explained the added construction costs of widening the building walls. 7. Commissioner Ellson asked how the applicant proposed to retain nuisance water. The applicant stated that had not been determined as of yet, but would solve the problem to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department and it would be on-site. 8. Commissioner Adolph asked how the log columns where it meets the beam would be treated. The applicant stated they were a flat surface, not rounded, and would be bolted through. 9. Commissioner Adolph asked about the Desert Club Drive screen wall and would he comply with the Art in Public Places conditions. The applicant stated he would do what the City required. 10. Commissioner Ellson asked how the sign that is proposed to be painted on the wall will be maintained. Mr. Featheringill stated that all signs fade with time, but it will hold up as well as any other sign and there would be a water sealer applied to it. 11. There being no further public comment, Chairwoman Barrows closed the public hearing and opened the matter for Commission discussion. 12. Commissioners discussed the four foot passageway between the building and determined that there was no need to have one at this point. Commissioner Adolph stated the building would have a different look once physically built. 13. Commissioner Ellson stated her concern for the building being top heavy. Discussion followed regarding window recessing, overhangs, and the parapet being 8-inches thick instead of 18-inches. It was' stated the PC6-14 2 Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 1994 windows could have pop outs of +4-inches. Staff stated the conditions would be amended to show the parapet would be a minimum of 8-inches and the windows would be recessed 8-inches. 14. Commissioner Ellson questioned the amount of space the French doors would take up on the interior and whether the header over the window would project out from the building. The applicant stated it would, but not past the stucco. Staff stated the French doors could be changed to slider French doors if the tenants desired. 15. Chairwoman Barrows asked if there was an alternate light source than the incandescent that was more energy efficient (e.g, metal Halide or fluorescent). 16. There being no further discussion, Commissioners Adolph/Barrows moved and seconded a motion to adopt Minute Motion 94-016 approving Plot Plan 94-522, subject to the amended conditions. The motion carried with Commissioners Adolph and Chairwoman voting AYE, Commissioner Ellson voting NO, Commissioner Abels abstaining, and Commissioner Marrs absent. 17. Commissioners Adolph/Barrows moved and seconded a motion to adopt Resolution 94-011 approving Variance 94-025. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Adolph, and Chairwoman Barrows. NOES: Commissioner Ellson. ABSENT: Commissioner Marrs. ABSTAIN: Commissioner Abels. Commissioner Abels rejoined the Commission. B. CONTINUED - 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. 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 questioned staff regarding Findings g2 concerning the mix. Staff stated it was an option but the Commission did not have to regulate the mix. Commissioner Adolph asked if the applicant agreed to the mix. Staff stated Condition g23 addresses the issue but staff did not believe the applicant agreed with the mixture requirement. PC6-14 3 Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 1994 -- 3. Chairwoman Barrows stated if there was a condition that requires the window treatment to be the same as the existing homes. Staff stated the revised plans show popouts and the applicant knows he has to provide additional window treatment on the infill lots. Discussion followed regarding the exterior treatment. 4. Commissioner Ellson asked staff what condition applied to the six homes in Phases I and II. Staff stated Conditions #22 and #30 applied. 5. Chairwoman Barrows explained that the public hearing portion of this item had been closed but the Commission had the option to move the Public Comment portion of the meeting to enable anyone to speak regarding the precise plan item at this time. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell explained what could-be said and the time limit allowed to speak. IV. PUBLIC COMMENT: A. Mr. J. J. Mulcahey, Desert Rock Court, addressed the Commission regarding the Topaz project. He stated he felt the use of the name "Topaz" was misleading and should not be used. B. Mr. Gerald Shea, Desert Eagle Drive, stated his concern that the streets were still not under the City's responsibility at this time (not dedicated). He asked that Century be required to dedicate the streets to the City. C. Mr. Ed Munson, Desert Rock Court, stated his concerns were; 1) the new elevations in that Century Homes did not make any effort to meet the architectural detailing of the existing Topaz units; and, 2) the mix should be a 50% limit; and 3) the rear of the houses need to have additional detailing as the existing homes. D. Mr. Dennis Cunningham, applicant, addressed the questions raised and explained his proposal. E. Mr. Robert Tyler, Villetta Drive (La Quinta Highlands), stated his disapproval of Century submitting their plans at the last minute. He stressed the need to plan ahead and require three car garages for the larger homes so the City did not face what Cathedral City was facing by not allowing any parking on the street at night. F. Ms. Jenny Plantz, Desert Rock Court, asked if the walls were going to match the existing. Staff stated they would be the same stuccoed wall as Phases I and II. G. There being no further public comment, Commissioners continued their discussion of the project. PC6-14 4 Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 1994 IH. PUBLIC HEARINGS CONTINUED: B. Precise Plan 94-846 - The Classics at Topaz 6. Commissioner Ellson stated that Condition #30 needed to be modified. Commissioner Adolph asked staff what the square footage of the plans in Exhibit "B" were. Discussion followed regarding the mix on the six homes closest to the existing homes. 7. Chairwoman Barrows. questioned Condition #26 and asked that the first sentence be deleted. Staff stated the boXed eaves it would resemble the existing homes. Discussion followed regarding window treatments. 8. Chairwoman Barrows questioned Condition g23 relative to the mix of the homes. Staff clarified that Condition g23 only deals with the 12% of the smaller units and doesn't state what percentage they have to have above the 1600 square foot. Discussion followed regarding the mix. Mr. Cunningham stated they were in agreement with the 1687 square foot as it puts 50% over that and gives them the mix on Plan 2 and allows flexibility to the developer. He further stated this would assure that 50% -- of the houses would be over the 2,000 square foot size as they proposed the mix to be. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the condition could be worded to state that 50% of the homes in each tract phase would be over 2,000 square feet or greater. 9. Commissioner Ellson asked if the Commission could condition the tract name. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the current Compatibility Ordinance as drafted does not address this issues. 10. Staff asked if the Commission wished to address Condition #25 regarding three car garages. Commissioner Adolph asked how many were planned now for three car garages. Mr. Cunningham stated 30% were planned. Commissioner Ellson asked what the market showed. Mr. Cunningham stated there hasn't been enough time to examine the market to make a determination. Discussion followed regarding three car garages. 11. Commissioner Adolph asked staff how big a difference there was on the rear elevations. Staff explained the differences and discussion followed regarding compatibility and the conditions that require additional treatment. 12. Staff asked that the Commission address Condition g25 regarding three car garages. Commissioner Adolph verified that the 30% that will have three car garages are the larger homes. Mr. Cunningham stated they would be the larger homes over 2,000 square feet. Chairwoman Barrows asked for PC6-14 5 Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 1994 clarification that the 50% of houses over 2,000 square feet would all have three car garages. Mr. Cunningham agreed. 13. Staff clarified the changes required by the Planning Commission: 1) Condition g23 (add) 50% of the houses shall be over 2,000 square feet in each tract phase; 2) Condition g25 (modify) 50% of the houses will have three car garages; 3) Condition #26 .- strike the first sentence; 4) Condition #30- changed to refer to Exhibit "B" for homes in Phases I and II; 5) Condition 28 - clarified the building protection requirement. 14. There being no further discussion, Commissioners Adolph/Ellson moved to adopt Minute Motion 94417 approving Precise Plan 94-846, subject to conditions as modified. Unanimously approved. C. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 94-043; a request of the City for an amendment to allow Recreational Vehicle/Travel Trailer Resorts in the City. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell clarified for the Commissioners the modifications that had been made to the ordinance. 3. Commissioner Adolph asked that staff define what a Fifth Wheel trailer was and how it relates to a recreational vehicle. Staff explained. 4. Chairwoman Barrows asked staff what the difference would be in the ordinance regarding people who own their own lots. Staff stated that the ordinance was written to prevent long term stays and space ownership. 5. There being no further questions of staff, Chairwoman Barrows opened the public hearing. Mr. Robert Metkus, North La Quinta resident, stated his concern that a trailer would downgrade the living standards of the area as well as the lighted golf course with a driving range. 6. Mr. Joe Richards, applicant representative for Conditional Use Permit 94- 012 and 94-013, stated they would be providing a good baseline for regulations for developments of this type. He continued to explain his project and addressed sections in the ordinance that concerned him; setbacks, the requirement for a wall, the requirements for curbs, and a clarification of what the HCD approval was. 7. Commissioner Ellson asked if the berm and wall combination was used what would the residence on the other side see. Mr. Richards stated that PC6-14 6 Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 1994 it depended upon what was there, but in their project a berm would be seen from both sides. DiScussion followed regarding the berm/wall combination used as a fence. 8. Ms. Christine Clarke, (adjacent property owner for Inco Homes site), ~ted her concern that the Commission needed to address "line of sight" for all residential property owners. She felt the wall/berm combination would be the best solution to the sight problem. 9. There being no further public comment, Chairwoman Barrows closed the public hearing. 10. Commissioner Abels stated he had been concerned about the wall, but after the explanation of the additional height he had no objections. 11. Commissioner Ellson stated her concern was to make sure that the recreational vehicles are screened from all sides. 12. Chairwoman Barrows stated there was no provision to require vehicles to be screened from adjacent streets or residences from view. 13. Commissioner Abels asked if the applicant could require that only smaller vehicles be allowed next to the perimeter wall. Mr. Richards stated there were several options to deal with the problem in addition to the berm/wall combination, such as the bumper car stops to keep the vehicle back from the wall as well as landscaping. Discussion followed regarding alternatives. 14. Commissioner Adolph stated the question was whether the City wanted this type of development in the City. He did not object to recreational vehicle resorts in the City, but was concerned about having one on Washington Street. 15. Ms. Christine Clark, again stated her concern that the Commission address the line of sight issue. 16. Mr. Robert Tyler, Villetta Drive, stated there were no recreational vehicles twenty feet high or as high as a single story house. He felt that with appropriate landscaping and setbacks there would be no problem. 17. Mr. Robert Metkus, stated he was against any recreation vehicle ordinance -- in the City. 18. There being no further public comment, Chairwoman Barrows closed the public hearing. PC6-14 7 Planni~lg Commission Minutes Julle 14, 1994 19. Chairwoman Barrows stated she felt the setbacks provided a minimum standard and should not be reduced. 20. Commissioner Adolph stated there needed to be a greenbelt between the sidewalk and street. 21. Commissioner Ellson asked where the setback is measured to. Discussion followed regarding the proposed plans and the conditions relating to setbacks. 22. Chairwoman Barrows questioned Section #14.a. and stated she wanted adequate screening to block the view of the vehicles. Commissioner Abels stated he felt the berm/wall combination was attractive and should solve the line of sight problem. Commissioner Ellson questioned the amount of screening needed. Commissioner Adolph stated he felt the berm/wall would also solve the problem. Staff stated' they would add a condition to address the berm/wall combination. 23. Chairwoman Barrows asked if the Commission wished to address the request for rolled curbs. Commissioner Adolph stated he felt it was a __ better and safer solution. 24. There being no further questions, Commissioners Abels/Ellson moved to adopt Resolution 94-012 recommending approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 944343. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Adolph, Ellson, Abels, and Chairwoman Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Marrs. ABSTAIN: None. D. CHANGE OF ZONE 944376; a request of the City for a change of zone from C- P to R-3 for 7.6 acres to allow a 356 space Recreational Vehicle/Travel Trailer Resort and a night lit golf driving range. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on f'fle in the Planning and Development Department. 2. There being no questions of staff, Chairwoman Barrows opened the public hearing. As no one wished to speak, Chairwoman Barrows closed the public hearing. 3. Commissioners Ellson/Adolph moved to adopt Resolution 94-013 approving Change of Zone 94-076. PC6-14 8 Pl~m~n~ Commission Minutes June 14, 1~4 ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Adolph, Ellson, Abels, and Chairwoman Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT: CommissionerMarrs. ABSTAIN: None. Chairwoman Barrows dismissed the Commission for a five minute break. D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-012 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-013; a request of Thomas Bienek for approval to allow a 356 space Recreational Vehicle/Travel Trailer Resort and a night lit golf range. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. Staff noted the number of spaces is actually 356. 2. Commissioner Ellson asked if there was enough land available in the overflow parking area and were why was staff requiring a year to determine whether it was needed. Staff stated there was adequate space for the needed 84 spaces and staff felt that one year was enough time to determine whether additional parking was needed. -- 3. Commissioner Adolph asked what would happen if it was determined that the lights were a problem. Can the Planning Commission condition the project to eliminate this problem. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated it would need to be written in the Conditions of Approval. Staff indicated that a condition be added to so state the Planning Commission would review the lighting within one year of operation. 4. Commissioner Abels asked why the applicant changed the lighting from ground lighting. Staff stated that the applicant stated the ground lighting would cause a halo effect and would be detrimental to the project. 5. Commissioner Abels asked if there were palm trees on the south end of the driving range. Staff stated there were some palm trees but it was felt that no one could hit a ball to the rear of the range. Discussion followed regarding the location and number of trees. 6. Commissioner Adolph asked how extensive the traffic impact would be. Staff stated the property is zoned for high density and would meet the land use portion of the General Plan as it would be less than an apartment complex. Commissioner Adolph stated he was concerned with the _ congestion on Washington Street. Discussion followed regarding traffic conc~lllS. 7. Chairwoman Barrows asked if the project would meet the Dark Sky Ordina~,'e requirements. Staff stated it probably could ff it were pole lit. PC6-14 9 Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 1994 - 8. Commissioner Ellson asked if the clubhouse would be visible from the Washington Street bridge. Staff stated that by virtue of the grading and landscaping, it probably would not be visible. 9. Commissioner Ellson asked if the open fencing at the south end of the project would allow the recreational vehicles to be visible from Washington Street. Staff stated they would be visible until the landscaping matured to fill in the fencing. 10. There being no further questions of staff, Chairwoman Barrows opened the public hearing. Mr. Joe Richards, applicant representative described the project and introduced Mr. Thomas Bienek, the owner, who gave the background on the project and addressed some of the questioned raised by the Commissioners. 11. Commissioner Ellson asked if the two-tier driving range was the reason to have the netting so high. Mr. Bienek stated it was partially the reason. Commissioner Ellson asked if it was only one tier could the net be lowered. Mr. Bienek said it could be lowered approximately 10 feet. 12. Commissioner Adolph asked what the height of the dip in the netting would be. Mr. Richards stated they hoped there would be no dip because they hoped to keep the netting at 80-feet. Commissioner Adolph asked what the life expectancy of the netting would be. Mr. Richards stated it should last eight to ten years. Discussion followed regarding the netting and poles. 13. Mr. Richards, the applicant, asked questions regarding Conditions g20, //16, #14, and//27. He further requested that they be able to submit the lighting and netting plan when they submit their landscaping plans. Discussion followed regarding the conditions and the lighting plan. 14. Mr. Joe Irwin, North La Quinta resident, stated his support of the project and thanked Mr. Bienek and Mr. Richards for including them in early discussions regarding the project. 15. Mr. Robert Tyler, Villetta Drive, stated his concern that the residents did not understand the type of facility was being planned. He further stated that most recreational vehicles are priced from $15,000 to $500,000 and very few have children. Therefore, there would be no impact on the school system or the post office as there would be if an apartment complex were constructed. 16. Mr. Fred Far, representing Inco Homes to the east, stated his support of the project. PC6-14 10 Planning Commissi~ Minutes June 14, 1994 17. There being no further public comment, Chairwoman Barrows closed the public hearing. 18. Commissioner Adolph stated his concern that the rear of the recreational vehicles would show over the perimeter wall. 19. Commissioner Ellson asked what the consequences would be if a block wall was required along the channel. Mr. Richards stated it would block the view corridor. 20. Staff asked if there were any plans for phasing the project. Mr. Bienek stated they did not plan on phasing the project. They hoped to have the range open by November, 1994 and the remainder open by September, 1995. 21. Commissioner Ellson stated she had no objections to the project but did have a concern about the lighting, netting, and line of sight. 22. Chairwoman Barrows stated she had the same concerns but she would need to review the landscaping plans before she could say it was _ adequately screened. 23. Commissioner Ellson stated she felt the channel side of the project needed a block wall. Commissioner Abels stated he felt landscaping would conceal the interior of the project. 24. Commissioner Abels asked what type of fence was being planned for the perimeter. Mr. Richards stated it would be a block masonry wall with vines. 25. Commissioner Adolph asked how the applicant could protect the course from the channel waters. Mr. Richards stated they would work with the Coachella Valley Water District. 26. There being no further questions, Commissioners Abels/Ellson moved to adopt Resolution 94-014 approving Conditional Use Permit 94-012, a 356 space Recreational Vehicle/Travel Trailer Resort. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Adolph, Ellson, and Abels. NOES: Chairwoman Barrows. ABSENT: Commissioner Marts. ABSTAIN: None. 27. Commissioners Abels/Adolph moved to adopt Resolution 94-015 approving Conditional Use Permit 94-013, for a night lit golf driving range. PC6-14 11 Planning Comm/ssion Minutes June 14, 1994 ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Adolph, Ellson, and Abels. NOES: Chairwoman Barrows. ABSENT: Commissioner Marrs. ABSTAIN: None. F. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-014; a request of thc City Redevelopment Agency and Williams I)cvclopmcnt Company for approval of a 91 senior citizen apartment complex (including a manager's unit) and recreational/management building on 9.23 acres. 1. Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand-Chcrry presented thc information contained in thc staff .repori, a copy of which is on file in thc Planning and Development Department. 2. Commissioner E11son asked about thc trash enclosures. Staff stated there would be eight randomly scat~red throughout thc project with centralized recycling. Commissioner Ellson questioned thc usc of metal doors and they could be too heavy for the seniors. Staff stated this would be up to waste company. 3. There being no further questions of staff, Chairwoman Barrows opened the public hearing. Ms. Betty Williams, Williams Development Corporation (applicant), gave a brief description of the project and stated her concern that she would be required to have two parking spaces per unit. Staff stated they were recommending 1.5 units per unit instead of two spaces per unit. Discussion followed regarding the parking requirements. 4. Commissioner Abels stated visitors always have a hard time finding parking spaces. 5. Commissioner Adolph asked how the age of the tenants would be controlled. Staff stated it was State mandated for 62 year of age and older. 6. Commissioner Adolph asked what the applicant would do if the tenant did have two cars. Ms. Williams stated they would give them an additional parking space. 7. There being no further public comment, Chairwoman Barrows closed the public hearing. Commissioners Ellson/Abels moved to adopt Resolution 94-016 approving Conditional Use Permit 94-014, subject to conditions. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Adolph, Ellson, Abels, and Chairwoman Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Marrs. ABSTAIN: None. PC6-14 12 Phuming Commission Minutes June 14, 1994 V. BUSINESS SESSION: None VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Commissioner Adolph asked that the Minutes of May 24, 1994, be amended on page 3, Item 14, to show that he voted No on Plot plan 93-495. There being no further corrections to the minutes, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Adolph to adopt the minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved. VII. OTHER- None 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 28, 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 11:30 P.M., June 14, 1994. PC6-14 13