PCMIN 09 13 1994 MINI. rrES
PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California
September 13, 1994 7:00 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. The meeting was called to order at 7:01 P.M. by Chairman Adolph.
Commissioner Barrows led the flag salute.
II. ROLL CALL
A. Chairman Adolph requested the roll call. Present: Commissioners Abels,
Anderson, Barrows, Butler, Garclmr, Newkirk, and Chairman Adolph.
B. Staff Present: Planning Director Jerry Herman, Principal Plantar Start Sawa,
City Attorney Dawn Honeywell, Associate Planner Greg Trousdell, and
Department Secretary Betty Sawyer.
m. PUBLIC COMMENT- None
IV. PUBLIC HE~G
A. PLOT PLAN 94-530; a request of Roger Snellenberger for approval of a two car
garage in lieu of three car garages for future homes at Cactus Flower (Tract
24208).
1. Staff presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of
which is on file in the Community Development Department.
2. There being no questions of staff, Chairman Adolph opened the public
hearing. Mr. Snellenberger addressed the Commiasion and stated his
reasons for his request.
3. Commissioner Buffer asked Mr. Snellcnbergcr how many homes had been
converted to date. Mr. Snellenberger stated five had been converted after
escrow had closed with three under construction.
4. Commissioner Barrows aslaxl what percentage this was of the total homes.
Mr. Snellenberger stated that there weren't very many left. At present 28
homes are under construction and nine left to start. Of the 28 homes only
two homes want the bonus room.
PC9-13 I
Planning Commission Minutes
Sepu~mb~r 13, 1994
5. Commissioner Newkirk asked what happened to the driveway and front
of the house architecturally when you build the bonus room instead of the
garage. Mr Snellenberger stated a column is placed on both sides of
where the garage was with a window. The driveway is cut out two feet
across the ten foot section and a planter is placed in front of the bonus
room. Mr. Snellenberger stated he felt the bonus room added value to the
homes.
6. Commissioner Anderson asked if only two homes had been requested to
have the bonus room. Mr. Snellenberger stated yes but did not want to
be limited to that if future sales demanded it. Discussion followed
regarding the bonus room.
7. Chairman Adolph asked if the Homeowners' Association for Cactus
Flower had any comment regarding the three car garages. Mr.
Snellenberger stated they had not responded to the conversion.
8. Chairman Adolph asked if the conversion is for the four bedroom homes
only. Mr. Snellenberger stated that they were on the three bedroom
homes and one four bedroom home. Chairman Adolph stated his concern
that the four bedroom plan (Plan 4) needed to have the three car garage.
Discussion followed regarding the different plans and which plans should
have the conversion of a bonus room.
9. Commissioner Abels asked how many of the remaining homes to be built
were Plan 3 and how many were Plan 4. Mr. Snellenberger stated there
were about 35 % left. He further stated that Plans 1 and 2 were the bigger
sellers and basically the Plan 4 had not been requested to have the bonus
room.
10. Mr. Norris Bernard, Cactus Flower resident, stated his opposition to the
request. His concern was there there would be a parking problem in the
tract if two-car garages were permitted.
11. There being no further public comment, Chairman Adolph closed the
public hearing.
12. Commissioner Butler asked for clarification as to which plans would be
allowed to have the bonus room. It was stated that the conditions stated
that no more than 50% of the remaining houses would be allowed.
13. Commissioner Abels stated that Plans 2, 3, and 4 should keep the three
car garage but, Plan 1 should be allowed to have the two car garage.
Discussion followed regarding the different plans.
PC9-13 2
Planning Commission Minutes
September 13, 1994
14. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Abels/Butler to adopt Minute Motion 94025 approving
Plot Plan 94-530 allowing Plan 1 to have a two car garage and Plans 2
through 8 would remain with the three car garage. The motion passed on
a 5-2 vote with Commissioners Anderson and Newkirk voting no.
BUSINESS SESSION:
A. Plot Plan 94-529; a request of Century/Crowell Communities for approval of
circular driveways and other related matters for the Rancho Ocotillo project.
1. Commissioner Butler abstained due to a possible conflict of interest and
left the dais.
2. Staff presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of
which is on file in the Community Development Department.
3. There being no questions of staff, Chainnan Adolph asked if the applicant
wished to address the Commission.
__ 4. Mr. Dennis Cunningham, representing the applicant, asked for
clarification on Conditions g28 and//18.
5. Commissioner Anderson asked Mr. Cunningham to explain how the height
of the loft plan compared to the height of the single story units. Mr.
Ctmnin~ stated the height was about 18-feet for the single story unit
and 22-feet for the loft plan. Commissioner Anderson stated this still
created a four foot difference in the ridge line and a problem to the
neighboring La Quinta Palms homeowners. Mr. Ctmningham stated that
the line of sight would not be affected when the projection was out
because of the difference in site grades between each development.
Discussion followed.
6. Commissioner Anderson questioned Mr. Cunningham regarding the raised
planter to be used with the circular driveways. Mr. Cunningham stated
that the raised planter would draw emphasis on the driveways and he
would rather have the driveway blend in with the landscaping. Discussion
followed regarding the planter, setbacks, the driveway, landscaping, and
setbacks.
7. Commissioners discussed changing the condition to clarify what should be
-- planted in the planter.' City Attorney Dawn Honeywell staled that' since
this was not advertised as a public hearing, the Planning Commission can
not alter any of the conditions. They can only tell the applicant whether
or not he has complied with the condition.
PC9-13 3
Planning Commission Minutes
September 13. 1994 -
8. Chairman Adolph asked for clarification as to which lots can have the
circular driveway. Mr. Cunningham stated the condition allowed 50% as
long as they are not on corner lots, nor in cul-de-sacs, not adjacent to
each other, and not across the street from each other.
9. Commissioner Anderson asked legal counsel if the Commission could
establish the number of circular driveways. City Attorney Dawn
Honeywell stated that according to Condition //28(4) the Commission
could determine the number of circular driveways.
10. Chairman Adolph asked if the wrought iron fence along the east tract
boundary met the State requirements for fencing ,for pools. Mr.
Cunningham stated it did (Condition #36).
11. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Anderson/BarroWs to adopt Minute Motion 94-026
approving Plot Plan 94-529 with the exception that the items of
Conditions #28 would come back before the Commission for approval.
The motion passed 6-0 with Commissioner Butler absent.
Commissioner Butler rejoined the Commission.
B. Precise Plan 94-848; a request of Louis and Kathleen Olson for compatibility
review of a two story home in the Acacia subdivision (Phase 1I).
1. Staff presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of
which is on file in the Community Development Department.
2. There being no questions of staff, Chairman Adolph asked if the applicant
wished to address the Commission.
3. Mr. Louis Olson explained his house plans to the Commission.
4. Commissioner Butler questioned Mr. Olson as to why his garage was so
large. Mr. Olson stated he would be storing his personal tools and
equipment in the garage.
5. Commissioner Anderson questioned Mr. Olson on the roof pitch. Mr.
Olson stated his reasons for the 8:12 pitch being designed as it was (i.e.,
vaulted living room). Discussion followed regarding alternatives to
maintain the open living room yet changing the pitch to conform with the
existing Acacia homes.
6. Commissioner Newkirk asked if the applicant had any problem with a
condition requiring a masonry block wall. Mr. Olson stated he had no
.objection.
PC9-13 4
Planning Commiasion Minutes
September 13, 1994
7. Chairman Adolph s~ hia~objection to the various roof lines on the front
building elevation,' 'Mr. Oison again stated his reason for the 8:12 roof
pitch.
8. Commissioner Anderson offered suggestions as to how the roof line could
be altered to a 4:12 pitch.
9. Following discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Abels/Newkirk to continue Precise Plan 94-848 to September 27, 1994,
to give the applicant an opportunity to redesign the roof pitch.
Unanimously approved.
C. Tract 26188; a request of Dennis Cunningham for Century/Crowell for approval
of architectural plans.
1. Staff presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of
which is on file in the Community Development Department.
2. There being no questions of staff, Chairman Adolph asked if the applicant
wished to address the Commission.
3. Mr. Cunnin~ stated his concern for Condition #18 as it would add a
· financial burden to the project. He further stated he would like to have
Condition #15 changed to allow a lift-up garage door. He stated his
reasons for these changes.
4. Commissioner Butler stated his objection to the applicant using the
existing "Del Rey" plans and the models from the La Quinta Highlands
project. He felt the applicant should submit different elevations and not
inundate the area with the same "Del Rey" units. Mr. Cunning~ stated
it was not directly across the street and it was not uncommon for
developers to build upward of 100 to 150 of the same production homes.
Discussion followed.
5. Commissioner Anderson stated his concern that the two story units that
faced the street had small bedrooms with a continual roof pitch. He stated
some suggestions that might slightly alter the elevation.
6. Commissioner Butler stated that Condition #18, objected to by the
applicant, only applied to the units facing east and west and he did not
think this was enough units to create an economic hardship. Mr.
-- Cunnin~ stated he felt it was still a hardship.
PC9-13 5
Planning Commission Minutes
September 13, 1994 .-
7. Commissioner Anderson felt the applicant misunderstood Condition #18,
as it applied to the patio doors only. Discussion followed with the
applicant regarding the trellis and patios. Following discussion, it was
determined that the minimum depth of the trellis or patio cover would be
four feet instead of eight feet.
8. Chairman Adolph asked if the City required a specimen tree be planted.
Staff stated this was only a requirement for "compatibility" tracts and not
a requirement for new tracts.
9. Chairman Adolph asked if the wood fencing requirement was being met.
Staff stated it was.
10. Commissioner Newkirk stated he did not feel the 20-foot driveway
clearance in front of the garage door was enough. The applicant stated
the pivot door only needed 12-inches to swing open. Discussion followed
regarding the garage door.
11. There being no further questions, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Abels/Gardner to adopt Minute Motion 94-027 approving
the architectural plans for Tract 26188, subject to conditions and with the
change to Condition #18, the patio trellis would only be required to be a
minimum of four feet versus eight feet and the last sentence of the
conditionwould read "A concrete porch shall be provided under the door".
12. Commissioner Anderson asked for clarification on when the eight foot is
reduced does this apply to everywhere on the house that it is required. He
felt the patio at the door should remain at eight feet.
13. Following the discussion the motion passed on a 6-1 vote with
Commissioner Butler voting no.
D. Tract 23995; a request of Inco Homes for approval of modification to a condition
requiring roll-up garage doors for single family tract.
1. Staff presented the information contained in the staff report recommending
denial of the modification, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and
Development Department.
2. There being no questions of staff, Chairman Adolph asked if the applicant
wished to address the Commission.
3. Mr. Fred Farr, representing Inco Homes stated the reasons for their
request.
PC9-13 6
Planning Commission Minutes
September 13, 1994
4. Commissioner Abels stated that as in the previous discussion for Tract
26188, the Commission strongly believes the one piece pivot garage doors
take too much space when opening and the problems associated with them
do not make them desirable. Therefore, the requirement for sectional
roll-up doors should remain.
5. There being no furttzr discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Abels/Barrows to adopt Minute Motion 94-028 to deny the
request by Inco Homes for Tract 23995. The motion carried
unanimously.
VI. CONSENT CALENDAR:
A. There being no corrections to the Minutes of July 26, 1994, it was moved and
seconded by Commissioners Gardner/Abels to adopt the minutes as submitted.
Unanimously approved.
VII. OTHER -
A. Commissioner Barrows reported on the Council meeting of September 2, 1994.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, a motion was made and seconded by Commissioners
Newkirk/Abels to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting
of the Planning Commission on sePtember 26, 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 9:24
P.M., September 13, 1994.
PC9-13 7