Loading...
PCMIN 11 22 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 NOVEMBER 22, 1994 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER A. The meeting was called to order at 7:04 P.M. by Chairman Adolph. Commissioner Anderson 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: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Dawn Honeywell, Public Works Director Dave Cosper, Senior Engineer Steve Speer, Principal Planner Stan Saws, and Department Secretary Betty Sawyer III. PUBLIC COMMENT: None IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Tentative Tract 27854 (Revised) and Specific Plan 93-023 (Amendment #1); a request of Jascorp for approval to 1.) revise an approved tentative tract map to reduce the number of buildable lots from 116 to 106; and 2.) to revise the adopted Conditions of Approval for the project's specific plan. 1. Community Development Deparunent Director Jerry Herman informed the commission the applicant had requested a continuance. 2. Chairman Adolph opened the public hearing and as no one wished to address the Commission, Commissioners Abels/Gardner moved to continue the hearing to December 13, 1994. B. Plot Plan 94-541; a request of Vintage Homes, a Division of Century Homes, for approval of four new house plans for construction on 102 lots within Lake La Quinta. 1. Principal Planner Start Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Commissioner Butler asked if staff had checked to see if the existing project had three car garages and what was offered by the Avante project. Staff stated the two smaller units have 2-car garage and the third has a 2-car garage with extra workshop area, but no second door. The Marquessa units, part of the original project on the lake, had three- car garages. 3. Chairman Adolph asked if staff knew how many units were to be built in proportion to the other two models. Staff stated Only two production units of the Avante unit are under production and staff does not know the size of those units. Staff further stated that percentage were not relative as there were only a few. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated these units were approved prior to the Compatibility Ordinance and it did not relate to this project. 4. There being no further comments of staff, Chairman Adolph opened the public hearing. Mr. Arthur Levine spoke on behalf of the applicant and stated they had no problem with adding the additional treatment on the elevations as requested by staff. He went on to state that it was the intention of the developer to have a two.car garage with a golf cart space. This would allow the homeowner the golf cart space or the additional storage space. The garage sizes are per the City requirements and Building Code. Mr. Levine questioned Condition #12 and stated he was offering the circular driveway as an option and asked that the Commission allow a 20-foot setback instead of requiring, the 25-foot. He would install a berm to give relief to the amount of concrete on the circular driveways. 5. Commissioner Gardner asked about the number of curb cuts that are already existing. Mr LeVine stated the circular driveway was being offered as an option and if a homeowner does not want the circular driveway on a lot with two cuts; they will reconstruct the curb.' Commissioner Gardner asked that this be added to the conditions. 6. Chairman Adolph stated his concern about the amount of concrete and asked that if the applicant would agree to a certain number of circular driveways and no two in a row. Mr. Levine stated he understood the Commission was looking for the best streetscape possible but he would prefer to have the opportunity to see if they could landscape the area to reduce the amount of concrete rather than being limited to a number or location. He would prefer to present an alternative to mitigate the problem. Chairman Adolph asked Mr. Levine to submit a design for the Commission to approve upon approval of a final landscape plan. Mr. Levine stated they would. 7. Commissioner Anderson suggested that the apPlicant present several options for the Commission to consider. He stated he felt the berm was an excellent idea and a suggestion might be to give variations to the 8. Chairman Adolph asked what the price range was going to be for the homes. Mr. Levine stated the prices would range from $160-$215,000. 9. Commissioner Butler asked about the number of garages with four bedroom houses and where do the extra cars would be parked. Mr. Levine stated he did not believe there would be a "sea of cars" problem and he felt that providing the space for two cars and a space for the storage so the cars are still allowed enough space to park two cars in the garage and if there was a third car it could be parked in the driveway. Commissioner Butler stated he felt the price range would dictate people not wanting their cars parked all over the street. 10. Commissioner Butler asked what the dimension of the golf cart space was. Mr. Levine stated the door was 7-foot. Commissioner Anderson stated a car garage door is 8-feet. Commissioner Butler pointed out that with the loft there is a potential for five bedrooms. Mr. Levine stated the loft is meant to be a recreational space not a bedroom, but it is impossible to dictate what a property owner will do once he owns the house. 11. Commissioner Anderson stated the Commission needed to look at all. the possible uses these rooms could have. Even though it is not being presented that way and is not the intended use, it could be made into a five bedroom house. Mr. Levine stated that once the home is purchased, it is theirs to do with as they please. A developer cannot address what will happen beyond the sale. 12. Commissioner Butler stated his concern that the homeowner is not given a choice if the space provided is for a golf cart instead of a third garage. Mr. Levine stated that was correct but not all the existing units have three car garages. Staff stated that Plan #4 could easily be widened to be made into a three car garage. Mr. Levine stated they had not done this. Staff stated that additionally, Plan #3 could be extended to accommodate a third car. Staff stated that Plans #1 and #2 would take some design changes. 13. Commissioner Butler stated his concern that with the larger homes, the need exists for a three car garage. Mr. Levine stated there is always the potential to have a host of cars with the larger homes but it depends on the family and in his experience he had not seen the problem. Discussion followed regarding three car garages. Chairman Adolph stated that the Commission had set a precedent by requiring a three car garage on larger homes. Mr. Levine asked if there were any existing requirements requiring the applicant to provide a three car garage. 14. Commissioner Anderson stated structural stability would require additional width between the doors and the single garage door would need to be six feet. He stated he shared the concern that five bedrooms could have two car garages, but there are no existing requirements requiring the developer to increase the garages. Commissioner Butler stated that there are existing three car garages in the community and it could be stressed as an issue of compatibility. 15. Mr. Levine stated that the compatibility ordinance was for the livable square footage, and the basic minimum size, and deals with the visual or architectural aspect of the house so that what is built is not wildly out of step with the existing. Other than the size the ordinance does not address the number of garages provided. Mr. Levine stated he felt they had complied with all the requirements. 16. Mr. John Pavilak, president of Vintage Homes, stated that he was beginning to feet the Commission was closing the door on his face on the units he was submitting. He was questioned regarding the number of possible bedroom changes, garages, etc. He stated that other projects that had been approved were not required to have the three car garages. He felt that they had tried to comply with all the requirements and he was now being scrutinized for everything he was building. Mr. Pavilak agreed to modify Plan 4 and Plan 3 to include three car garages. 17. Commissioner Anderson stated that the attempt was not to over scrutinize but comments are made to understand what the impacts of the Commission's decisions will be. It is the Commissions desire to fully understand the project. 18. There being no further public comment, Chairman Adolph closed the public hearing and opened the matter for Commission discussion. 19. Commissioner Newldrk stated he felt the Commission needed to look at what the neighbors are requesting. The Avante and Marquessa homeowners are in favor of the project and do not show any concern. 20. Commissioner Butler stated the Plan 3 and Plan 4 show that they could -- easily be converted to three car garages. He felt that the existing units now have two and three car garages and he felt the demand for the area was for three car garages on the larger homes. 21. Staff stated the Commission needed to add an extra condition regarding - the curb cuts and Planning Commission review of the final landscape plans with several options for the circular driveways. Commissioner Anderson asked if the approval of the circular driveways could be approved at the later date with the landscaping drawings. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that the Planning Commission could hold off approval to the landscaping plans and call out specific requirements or wait to see the options that were presented. This would require changing Condition #12 to be subject to Planning Commission approval with the landscape drawings. 22. Commissioner Butler asked that Plans #3 and #4 be required to be three car garages with a minimum width of 29-feet and door widths of 8-feet and 15-feet. 23. Chairman Adolph asked if Mr. Levine was in agreement to the conditions as submitted and as amended. Mr. Levine stated that he was in agreement. Commissioner Anderson stated Mr. Levine was in disagreement with the 25-setback, but that it might be a mute point depending on the landscaping options submitted. 24. Staff clarified that proposed Condition #14 would be deleted and Condition #12 amended regarding circular driveways. Commissioner Anderson stated his concern that the Commission could not require a three car garage if the ordinance did not contain the requirement. Commissioners Barrows and Newkirk stated their agreement with Commissioner Anderson. Staff clarified that the garage size for the Plan #4 was adequate but the single door would have to be widened. Mr. Pavilok stated they could make those changes. 25. Commissioner Anderson asked for clarification regarding Condition #4. Staff stated that Condition #14 for Plans #3 and #4 would be required to be a minimum width of 29-feet and with a 15-foot and 8-foot wide door. 26. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Butler to adopt Minute Motion 94-038 approving Plot Plan 94-541 as amended (amending Condition #12 and adding Conditions #13 and #14). Unanimously approved. BUSINESS SESSION: A. Continued - Plot Plan 94-529; a request of Century Homes for approval of circular driveways for homes at the Rancho Ocotillo subdivision. 1. Commissioner Butler withdrew 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. 3. There being no questions of staff, Chairman Adolph asked if the applicant wished to address the Commission. Mr. Dennis Cunningham stated he felt the revised exhibit submitted met with the Commissions request. Regarding percentages, Mr. Cunningham stated that circular driveways were an option and he would like to let market demand determine the percentages. 4. Commissioner Anderson stated that on the exhibit no two driveways are curbed together nor are they in the same direction. Commissioner Anderson asked what the separation would be between the two driveways. Mr. Cunningham stated it was an 8-feet with a planter. 5. Commissioner Anderson asked about the tree in the island as to whether this was a condition or was this an option. Mr. Cunningham stated they are required to supply two trees. The location was an option. Mr. Cunningham stated they would make variations so not to be repetitive. 6. Chairman Adolph questioned which lots could have the circular driveways and reminded Mr. Cunningham that he had stated he would only allow 50% of the homes to have circular driveways. Mr. Cunningham stated he did not remember making that statement, but if he did so then he was stuck with it. Chairman Adolph stated that on the exhibit the majority of the homes have.circular driveways and he was concerned for the number of circular driveways. He asked Mr. Cunning ham what he felt the numbers would be. Mr. Cunningham stated that he was hesitant to quote any numbers as he would prefer to let the market dictate, but there was not a large demand at this time for the circular driveway. 7. Commissioner. Abels stated his offense to being told the Commission was "micro managing" the projects. The Commission was concerned about the quality of homes in La Quinta and Mr. Cunningham had earlier agreed with the 50% maximum figure. He further stated he would be content with a statement that no circular driveways would be side by side and asked if Mr. Cunningham would be agreeable. Mr. Cunningham stated his problem was with the flexibility to build what the market demands. 'In regards to his comment on micro management,, he stated this was in regards to the entire process that he had been through. Mr. Cunningham stated he did not understand the objection to the driveways being next door to each other as he felt the plan submitted showing the driveways curving away from each other kept the amount of concrete down. 8. Commissioner Anderson asked what the building setback was. Mr.. Cunningham stated it was 7 to 8 feet and the City requires five feet. Commissioner Anderson stated that potentially the driveways could be ten feet apart and with the worse case scenario they would be 8-feet apart for circular driveways and ten feet for a regular driveway. The difference is not that great and the landscaping would make the difference. Discussion followed. 9. Commissioner Barrows stated that with the additional landscaping her fears were alleviated and she felt the applicant had done an excellent job. She further pointed out to Mr. Cunningham that the Planning Commission was now serving the capacity of the Design Review Board and therefore was reviewing the projects with additional criteria in mind. 10. Ms. Barbara Irwin, Rancho Ocotillo resident stated her concern with the density of the circular driveways. She felt no two circular driveways should be allowed side-by-side and the proposed landscaping was inadequate. She further stated that presently there were no circular driveways and this could potentially create gridlock. _ 11. There being no further public comment, Commissioners Barrows/Newkirk moved to adopt.Minute Motion 94-039, subject to the amended conditions with 50% of those on the submitted map being allowed to have circular driveways. City Attorney Honeywell pointed out that Condition//28 was still in affect. Motion is to accept landscaping plan and no more than 50% can have circular driveways per Exhibits #5 and #7 of the staff report and each lot would have a 24-inch box tree and a 15-gallon tree. The motion was unanimously approved with Commissioner Butler being absent. B. Plot Plan 91-456; a request of The Koenig Companies for approval of a flagpole at the La Quinta Village shopping center. 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 questioned the color of the pole and thought the dark color might make the pole stand out. He felt the silver would blend more. 3. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated the Commission needed to add a condition restricting the use of the pole to non- commercial uses only. -- 4. There being no further discussion, Commissioners Barrows/Anderson moved to adopt Minute Motion 94-040 approving Plot Plan 91-456 (Amendment #1) subject to the conditions and that no non-commercial uses would be allowed and proper lighting would be installed and used ac~rding to proper flag etiquette. Commissioner Abels questioned the color and stated he felt the dark color would be better. Commissioners Barrows/Anderson agreed to the amendment and changed the motion. Unanimously approved. C. Sign Application 94-265; a request of lnco Homes Corporation for approval of a sign adjustment to allow two subdivision name signs for "Reunion". 1. Staff presented the information contained in the staff report; a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Commissioner Barrows asked about graffiti-proofing the walls. Staff understood there was a compound that could be placed on to discourage graffiti. The applicant stated they were in favor of the compound use . and would check into it. 3. Mr. Fred Farr, spoke on behalf of the applicant and explained the request. 4. Commissioner Anderson asked if the pilasters were 24-inch square and if the sign was to be lit. Mr. Farr stated they were 24-inches and would not be lit. 5. Chairman Adolph asked Mr. Farr to explain the plan view drawing. Mr. Farr stated 'it was misleading. Chairman Adolph asked if the applicant considered any other type of lettering and paint color. Chairman Adolph stated that color on metal will not hold up unless it was baked in and assumed it was a raised letter. Mr. Farr stated it was a raised texture and it would be done by a professional sign company and. the paint being used was similar to car paint and this was a typical paint for this type of sign. Outdoor Dimensions would be constructing and installing the sign. 6. There being no further questions of the applicant, Commissioners Abels/Butler moved to adopt Minute Motion 94-041 to approve the sign as submitted, subject to conditions. Unanimously approved. CONSENT CALENDAR: Commissioners Gardner/Anderson moved and seconded a motion to adopt the minutes of November 8, 1994, as submitted. Unanimously approved. OTHER: 1. Commissioner report of City Council meeting. Chairman Adolph gave a report of the Council meeting. 2. Consideration of cancellation of December 27, 1994, Planning Commission meeting. Commissioners Abels/Newkirk moved and seconded a motion to cancel the meeting of December 27, 1994. 3. Consideration of representation on the Chamber of Commerce Workshop. Commissioner Barrows attended the City Council meeting where this was discussed and felt it was good idea to have a planning commissioner in attendance. The request was taken to the City Council and they agreed. Commissioner Abels volunteered to be the representative and Commissioners Barrows and Anderson volunteered to be the first and second alternates. Commissioner Gardner asked if the Planning Commission should be concerned with finding commercial entities to come to La Quinta. Chairman Adolph stated this was a function of the Chamber. 4. Consideration of representation on the Subdivision Update Review Committee. Staff stated that the Engineering Department had put together a list of organizations that might be considered as representatives for the Committee. Commissioner Butler asked if additional names could be added. Staff stated this was not a problem. Commissioner Butler asked that Desert Contractors Association might be included as they expressed an interest. Commissioner Anderson stated he would like to see a developer and a civil engineer added to the committee. The Commissioners agreed with the engineering list and had names added to the list. Commissioner Barrows asked if this list should be included with the Zoning Update as well. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated that as builders they are aware of the energy efficient requirements. Commissioner Newkirk stated that a landscape architect should be added. Dave Cosper stated that they tried to include those who would be directly affected by the Subdivision Ordinance on a day-to-day basis and would be most familiar with it. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioners Abels/Anderson moved and seconded a motion to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting on December 13, 1994. This regular meeting of the Planning Commission adjourned at 9:04 P.M., November 22, 1994. Unanimously approved.