PCMIN 10 25 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
October 25, 1994 7:00 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. The meeting was called to order at 7:03 P.M. by Chairman Adolph.
Commissioner Gardner led the flag salute.
II. ROLL CALL
A. Chairman Adolph requested the roll call. Present: Commissioners Abels,
Anderson, Barrows, Butler, Gardner, Newkirk, and Chairman Adolph.
B. Staff Present: City Attorney Dawn Honeywell, Senior Engineer Steve Speer,
Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate Planner Greg Trousdell, and Department
_-- Secretary Betty Sawyer.
m. PUBLIC COMMENT- None
IV. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Continued - Zoning Ordinance'Amendment 94-044; a request of the City for
amendments to thc Hillside Conservation Zone and Chapter 9.146.
1. Staff requested that this item be continued to allow the City Attorney time
to research the issue.
2. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Anderson/Abels to
continue Zoning Ordinance Amendment 94-044 to November 8, 1994.
Unanimously approved.
B. Plot Plan 94-540: a request of Starlight Estates for approval of three new models
for construction in the Starlight Dunes Tract (Tract 23773).
1. Commissioner Anderson left the diocese due to a possible conflict of
interest.
2. Staff presented the information contained in the staff report. A copy of
which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff noted
the Vega unit included a three car garage but the third garage was only
18-feet deep. If approved, the garage should be required to be 20-feet.
PCI0-25 I
Planning Commission Minutes
October 25, 1994 -
3. There being no questions of staff, Chairman Adolph opened the public
hearing. Mr. Bill Watson spoke on behalf of the applicant. He stated he
was not aware the third garage was only 18-feet deep and he would be
willing to see that the garage was extended to 20-feet.
4. Commissioner Abels stated if the applicant addressed the issues presented
he had no objections. He asked if the driveways would be concrete and
include raised wire mesh inside the poured hardscape. Commissioner
Butler asked that this item be added'to the proposed conditions.
5. Chairman Adolph asked if the applicant agreed with the conditions. Mr.
Watson stated he had no problem with the draft conditions and he would
incorporate them into the project.
6. Chairman Adolph asked if the existing homes were compatibile with the
proposed units. Mr. Watson stated they would be as close as possible
with a modified floor plan. Chairman Adolph stated the concerned was
not in the floor plans but in the aesthetic value of the houses. Mr.
Watson stated he felt they exceeded the criteria of what was there.
7. Mr. E. W. Schumacker, President of Starlight Dunes Homeowners'
Association, stated the association supported and approved the proposed
units. Chairman Adolph asked if the homeowners' board had an
architectural committee. Mr. Schumaker stated the board did both.
8. There being no further public comment, Chahaxmn Adolph closed the
public hearing.
9. Commissioner Abels asked that Condition #11 be modified to state raised
reinforced wire mesh will be used on all future concrete driveways. Staff
stated that the Building Department does not require the raised wire mesh.
Discussion followed regarding the requirements of the Building
Department.
10. Following discussion, Commissioner Abels asked how they could
condition a project to exceed the requirements of the Building Code. City
Attorney Honeywell stated that the City cannot go beyond these
requirements unless the City amends the Building Code. She suggested
that the CommiSsion ask staff to add this to the list of things being
consider in the updating of City Zoning Code.
PC 10-25 2
Planning Commission Minu~s
October 25, 1994
11. Commissioner Abels withdrew his desire to have the condition amended.
He did ask that all rOll_uP' aoors facing south and west not have lite
inserts, but be solid and those units on the north and east be given the
option to have lites. In addition, a condition should be added requiring
the Vega unit to have a three car garage measuring 30.feet wide by 20-
feet in depth.
12. Commissioner Abels/Butler moved and seconded the motion to adopt
Minute Motion 94-034 approving Plot Plan 94°540 as modified.
Unanimously approved with Commissioner Anderson being absent.
Commissioner Anderson rejoined the Commission.
C. Tentative Tract 28034; a request of Neil Kleine to subdivide + 19 acres into 25
estate single family lots in a R-1-10,000 Zone District.
1. Staff presented the information contained in the staff report. A copy of
which is on file in the Community Development Department.
2. Commissioner Anderson asked how much fill would negate the need for
a archaeological monitor. Staff explained that 4-5 feet of fill might not
require a monitor, but the trenching for the sewer or electric would have
to have the monitor. Commissioner Anderson stated he felt the problem
was more with the infrastructure and not each building pad. Staff agreed,
but stated staff would want to verify this with the site archaeologist.
3. Commissioner Abels asked if a private owner puts in a basement or wine
cellar, would that 'require monitoring or a study. Staff stated it would.
Commissioner Anderson asked if this should be included in the conditions.
Staff stated it should be added to the CC & R's.
4. Commissioner Gardner asked if this would be required when a building
permit is applied for. Discussion followed regarding what items would
require monitoring/study and how staff would become aware of the need
for the monitoring/study. Staff suggested that it be included in both the
CC & R's and the Conditions of Approval.
5. Discussion followed regarding the rewording of Condition 21.B or the
need to add a new condition.
PC 10-25 3
Planning Conunission Minutes
October 25, 1994
6. Commissioner Butler asked who monitors the developer to see that the
buyers get a copy of the CC & R's. Staff stated the State of California
Real Estate Rules require disclosure to the buyer. Staff stated they would
review the CC & R's to be sure the conditions are included.
7. City Attorney Honeywell stated the developer is at great risk, as well as
the real estate community, to insure that the conditions and CC & R's are
followed.
8. Chairman Adolph stated the front property line shows a block wall, but
the plans do not show any for the side(s) or rear. Staff stated that the
conditions (#19) do require a perimeter wall. The Zoning Code doesn't
require it, but it can be added as part of a tract development requirements
and will be included in the new Zoning Ordinance Update.
9. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer explained the requirements of the
Engineering Department regarding 'the on-site retention basin(s). He
stated that private retention basins should be on one acre or larger sites.
Anything less would be too congested to have on-site retention basin on
the individual lots with the added amenities. Staff stated they agreed with
Engineering regarding the on-site retention basins.
10. Chairman Adolph asked what the water table was in this location. Staff
stated they did not know. Chairman Adolph stated his concern regarding
the percolation in this area. He felt the ground was too hard and on-site
retention might not be possible. Staff stated that percolation is more a
function of the type of soil and this area is silty and not given to
percolation; all properties south of 50th Avenue are required to size their
lots as if there was zero (0) percolation in terms of accumulating for storm
waters. The nuisance water that gathers from basic homeowner use is
best to get the water to a common retention basin, dry well, or sand
filters. Discussion followed regarding water percolation, etc.
11. Commissioner Abels asked if Condition #30 addressed this problem. Staff
stated there were several conditions addressing this problem.
12. Commissioner Gardner asked if this tract would have a sewer system.
Staff stated that CVWD does a calculation to determine whether sewers
would be required or not.
13. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Adolph opened the
public hearing.
PC10-25 4
Planning Commission Minum
October 2~, 1994
14. Mr. Nell Kleine spoke on behalf of the project. He clarified that there
had been chan~es to the pro~ect. The street width, as requested by staff,
had been changed to a 36-foot width with curb, gutter, with parking on
both sides. He stated that originally CVWD would not install sewers so
he went to the County to design septic tanks. During the process, CVWD
offered him a temporary lift station to allow the tract to have an off-site
sewer system.
15. Mr. Kleine stated a palentologolical study was done and they would do
any monitoring that is required. He further stated the majority of the dirt
work would be iimport fill and they have made arrangements for
monitoring for trenching and excavation. Mr. Kleine asked staff to clarify
what would require an individual owner to have a study. He suggested
that if a grading permit was required an on-site monitor should be
required, staff agreed.
16. Commissioner Anderson stated the project archaeologist should make this
determination. Mr. Kleine agreed to let the monitor make any
recommendations as the monitor he had been working with did not feel it
would be necessary as the property is low. Commissioner Anderson
agreed that the monitoring be addressed by the archaeologist during the
grading of the tract.
17. Mr. Kleine stated his concern for a central on-site retention basin
recommended by the Engineering Department. He felt that drainage is
designed to go to a certain location and that location can become a
nuisance and a liability to the future homeowners' association. The
advantage to an estate lot is that the retention basin can be located at each
home site. His engineer reports that individual retention basins will work.
Mr. Kleine asked that the Planning Commission leave the condition as it
is until they prove it cannot be done, or they can prove it will work to the
satisfaction of the Engineering Department. He would like to have private
on-site retention basins on each lot.
18. Chairman Adolph stated his concern about the individual retention basins,
but if the studies by the developer provide proof it can work, then he
would be satisfied. Mr. Kleine stated that they would submit the test
results to the Engineering Deparunent before proceeding, and if the
Engineering Department did not agree, they would alter the plans.
Chairman Adolph stated he had no problem with this proposal.
PC 10-25
Plannin~ Commission Minutes
October 25, 1994
19. Commissioner Barrows asked where the conditions require this to take
place. City Attorney Honeywell asked staff if the conditions currently
require a separate off-site retention basin. Steve Speed stated that
Condition ff28 addressed the retention basin in addition to four other
conditions. Discussion followed regarding the retention basin issue. Mr.
Kleine asked that the conditions be changed to read "to the satisfaction of
the Engineering Department". Chairman Adolph asked that Mr. Kleine
would see that all water problems would be address. Mr. Kleine stated
he would.
20. Commissioner Anderson stated he felt it was reasonable to allow the
applicant the opportunity to prove his system could work and if staff still
felt it would not work, then they will be required to provide a common
retention basin(s). Discussion followed.
21. City Attorney Honeywell stated this could be added to the condition to
allow the developer an alternative for the developer to show to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer that a system could be design for each
site. This is an option that could be approved by the City Engineer. It
would create a policy issue that creates additional time for staff to review
each individual lot versus the one common lot and this may not be
something the Planning Commission wants to encourage.
22. Commissioner Anderson asked the applicant if the study will show what
percentage of the lot that will need to be set aside to retain the water on
the individual lots so not to create a problem for the retention basins by
having too many amenities constructed on the lot. Mr. Kleine stated it
could be accomplished by building a requirement into the CC & R's to
ensure that all lots conform. Commissioner Anderson stated his concern
that in 25-years this condition will be lost. Mr. Kleine stated the
homeowners' association will require an engineered retention basin before
it will be approved by the Building and Safety Department.
23.' Commissioner Butler asked who maintains the individual retention basins
until they are sold. Mr. Kleine stated that as the house is built the
retention basins are developed and the vacant lots will be graded so they
drain into a common source for each lot. The lots will be maintained
during the sales process to see that they do not drain onto adjacent lots.
24. Commissioner Anderson asked if a 6-foot high masonry wall will be
required. Mr. Kleine stated this was a new staff condition to him and his
plans only showed a wall on 58th Avenue. He stated he had recently been
told-it was a mandatory requirement and he thought it would be
determined by the noise study.
PC 10-25 6
Plannin~ Commi~ion Millull~s
October 25, 1994
25. There being no furth_ er~publi,¢~ comment, Chairman Adolph closed the
public hearing.
~26. Commissioner Anderson stated he did not wish to waste staff time in
regards to the retention basin, but if the applicant is willing to 'bear the
expense and he has the confidence in his professionals that they can do
this, then he should have an opportunity to prove his case. If he can
prove this, then staff time is well spent.
2'7. Steve Speer stated that staff time goes on 25 different times as each lot is
designed. Again at a later da~e as improvements are requested. The
homeowner (being the second or third, etc.) may not be aware, or
understand the purpose of the retention basin. It can become a drainage
problem to the City as well as the property owner.
28. Chairman Adolph asked if this could be included as part of each Grant
Deed so a prospective buyer is made aware at the time of purchase. Steve
stated it could. There are a number of ways to handle the problem, but
the Building and Safety Department does not require an engineering
review before permits are issued on some projects (e.g., pools, etc.). The
potential is there to create a processing problem for staff.
29. Commissioner Anderson stated it was the Planning Commission's intention
that if the developer can prove his point then each lot will have in its
recorded map an area provided for retention. This may be a way for staff
to maintain control of the retention basin. Could staff work this process
out with the applicant? Staff stated they would look into the matter.
30. Mr. Kleine stated that his proposal was supported by his studies and the
CC & R's will be enforced by the homeowners' association. No building
permit will be issued until the Building and Safety Department receives
the homeowners' association approval. The homeowners' association will
govern themselves in this matter.
31. Commissioner Barrows asked how the developer was going to handle the
basin on the individual lots. Mr. Klein stated that each retention basin
will be created with creative landscaping to create the basin.
32. Commissioner Butler asked if this was incorporated ~into the conditions
and CC & R's or was this a matter of fact. City Attorney Honeywell-
stated her concern that the Planning Commission was ignoring staff's
recommendation. The Planning Commission would have to add
requirements within the CC & R's that deal with the designation of
specific locations to be maintained as retention basins as approved by the
original lot design .incorporated in the conditions (Condition g28).
PC 10-25 ?
Planning Commission Minutes
October 25, 1994
33. Commissioner Buffer stated the applicant would need to provide staff with
the necessary documentation regarding the individual retention basins or
it will resort back to a single retention basin. Chairman Adolph stated.
a condition should be added that if all lots cannot maintain their own
retention basin then they will all resort back to a common retention basin.
City Attorney Honeywell stated'this was at the discretion of the City
Engineer that this was adequately addressed.
34. There being no further discussion it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Barrows/Gardner that the Planning Commission adopt
Resolution 94-024 concurring with the proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact be recommended to the City Council
for approval.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Anderson,
Barrows, Buffer, Gardner, Newkirk, Chairman
Adolph. NOES: None. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None
35. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Abels to adopt
Resolution 94-025 approving Tentative Tract 28034 subject to the
conditions being met to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the
incorporation into the CC & R's that the individual retention basins cannot
be altered in any way unless approved by the homeowners' association and
and submitted to the City Engineer for approval. This would be added to
Condition g28.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Anderson,
Barrows, Buffer, Gardner, Newkirk, Chairman
Adolph. NOES: None. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None
V. BUSINESS SESSION:
A. Interpretation of Definition of a Church Facility; a request of Rick Johnson
Companies for approval to allow a chapel/mortuary (non-cremation) in
conjunction with a church.
1. Staff provided the information contained in the staff report. A copy of
which is on file in the Community Development Department.
2. Commissioner Anderson asked staff what the area in question was zoned.
Staff stated it was zoned R-1 and there was a church site approved for this
'site but that approval has expired and a new application would have to be
applied for.
PC 10-25 8
Plannin~ Commission Minuges
October'25, 1994
3. Ms. Barbara Erwin, Camino La Cresta resident, stated her objection to the
request as the residents felt this location was' not appropriate for a
mortuary. The General Plan called for a church at this .location and a
mortuary is not a primary place of worship. It should be built in a
location for commercial uses.
4. Mr. Russell Robertson, Tortolla Circle, stated he agreed with Ms. Erwin's
comments. Many of the residents abutting this proposal are opposed to
this type of use. He read aloud advertising from a telephone book
regarding the services of other mortuaries in the Valley and these uses
were not appropriate-for a residential area.
5 Mr. Robert Tyler, Valletta Drive, stated it was "OK" for the Planning
Commission to say no. He felt this was a rapidly growing area with
homes, schools, parks, etc. and it was not appropriate for a mortuary in
this area.
6. There being no further public comment, Chairman Adolph asked if the
Commissioners had any comment.
7. Commissioner Anderson stated a mortuary was a commercial endeavor
and a chapel associated with a mortuary is adjunct facility enhancing the
commercial use and not a neighborhood church.
8. Chairman Adolph stated Miles Avenue has been designated as a residential
thoroughfare and he would not want to see that change. It is not the right
place for this commercial use.
9. Commissioner Abels stated he was in agreement. This was not the place
for a commercial project.
10. City Attorney Honeywell reminded the Commission that the motion must
state whether the Planning Commission agrees that the definition for
churches, temples, and other places of worship include mortuaries.
11. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Buffer that the
interpretation of churches, temples, and other places of worship should not
include mortuaries in any residential zone requiring a public use permit
by adoption of Minute Motion 94-035. Unanimously approved.
PC10-25 9
Planning Commission Minutes
_
October 25, 1994
VI. CONSENT CALENDAR:
A. Commissioner Gardner asked that the Minutes be corrected on Page 4, Item #6
that the wording be changed from "six feet" to "sixteen feet". There being no
further corrections to the Minutes of October 11, 1994, it was moved and
seconded by Commissioners Gardner/Barrows to approve the minutes as
corrected. Unanimously approved.
VII. OTHER -
A. .. Commissioner Gardner repor'~ed on the Council meeting of October 18, 1994.
B. Commissioner Anderson thanked staff for seeing to the require of the 'Q" on the
Civic Center sign.
.There being no further business, a motion was made and seconded by Commissioners
Abels/Barrows to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting
of the Planning Commission on November 8, 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 8:47
P.M., October 25, 1994.
PC 10-25 10