PCMIN 01 10 1995 MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California
JANUARY 10, 1995 7:00 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Adolph at 7:03 P.M.
Commissioner Barrows 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, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate Planner Leslie
Mouriquand-Cherry, and Department Secretary Betty Sawyer.
III. PUBLIC COMMENT
A. Chairman Adolph informed the audience that this was the time for public comment.
Should anyone wish to address the Commission regarding any item on, or not on,
the agenda, this was the time to do so. No one requested to speak.
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Continued - Conditional Use Permit 94-015; a request of J. L. Jarnagin for
approval of a full-service runnel carwash and detail shop located on the east side
of Washington Street, approximately 100-feet south of Highway 111.
1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff
report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department.
2. Chairman Adolph informed the audience that the public speaking portion
of the public hearing had been closed and this was a time of discussion
between the Commissioners.
PCl-10 1
3. Start informed the Commissioners that Condition//68 has been added and
dealt with storm water as recommended by the California Regional Water
Quality Board, Colorado River Basin, Region 7, regarding Best
Management Practices being implemented.
4. Commissioner Gardner stated he felt this was a law and should not have to
be a condition. Staff explained the condition was added to be ,sure the
applicant was aware of it.
5. Commissioner Abels stated he felt that due to the layout of the property, it
would be difficult to utilized. He further stated the City was trying to
encourage businesses to come to La Quinta and the Commission was faced
with another developer in opposition to the project. He stated this was a
difficult decision.
6. Commissioner Gardner stated he was relatively new to the Commission and
it was a lot of material to digest. He was in agreement with some and in
disagreement with other parts of the project. His concern was for what the
project will look like in two to ten years. There could be a maintenance
problem down the road that could make it unsightly. This has happened in
-- other cities and therefore he could not be in favor of this project at this
location.
7. Commissioner Newkirk stated his appreciation for the amount of work that
had gone into the project but, he too felt the location was not appropriate.
Setback variances would have to be granted and since this is the Gateway
to the City, this project would not be appropriate this site. He further
stated he would definitely like to see the carwash in La Quinta but, not in
this location.
8. Commissioner Barrows stated her agreement with the comments that had
been made and the applicants had made an excellent effort but, there are
concerns. Even though it is a beautiful carwash and she would like to see
it built, this location may not be the best location. Concerns she had were
with this particular parcel in that it may not be compatible with the
Washington Street Specific Plan and that it may constrain the development
of the remainder of the parcel. Would like to see another location.
9. Commissioner Anderson agreed with Commissioner Barrows concerns
regarding the compatibility of the use with anything that would be coming
in on adjacent property. The parcel must be looked at on its own merits
but, this project must be looked at as it relates to the rest of the City. This
is an extremely visible corner and the project would be giving the citizens
of La Quinta a wall that is a great deal of length and even though it is
mitigated with landscaping, it is still a wall. Based on these concerns, he
could not approve the location for this project.
PCI-10 2
_ 10. Commissioner Butler stated that he agrees with his colleagues and since
seeing the Washington Street Specific Plan, he feels that this is not the
appropriate site. Would def'mitely like to see the carwash in the City and
hopes the applicant will select another site in the City.
11. Chairman Adolph stated his concern for the way the project is laid out.
The setbacks were not honored properly, the sidewalk changes were made
but, no further changes were made to help soften the look to make it more
compatible with the surrounding area.
12. Commissioner Abels stated that in as much as this is a piece of property
that is difficult to develop, he would like to see if the site is' feasible to have
the City purchase the property to make it a green belt with a fountain to
make a great entrance into the City.
13. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Barrows/Butler to adopt Resolution 95-001 denying the
mitigated Environmental Impact. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell
explained that it was not necessary to adopt a resolution denying the
Environmental Assessment if the Commission was going to deny the
conditional use permit. Commissioners Barrows/Butler withdrew their
motion and moved to adopt Minute Motion 95-001 denying Conditional
Use Permit 94-015 based on the Findings as follows:
a. The proposed carwash at the location of the southeast comer of
Washington Street and Highway 111 does not conform to the logical
developmem within the City in terms of this Gateway location; and
b. Is not in conformance with the original intent of the Washington
Street Specific Plan to create an image corridor along Washington
Street.
14. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell explained that the Commission needed to
make a fmding that the project is detrimental to the public health, safety,
and welfare. Commissioner Barrows/Butler so amended their motion.
Unanimously approved.
B. Plot Plan 94-541 (Amendment #1); a request of Vintage Homes, a division of
Century Homes (Mr. Arthur Levine) for approval to an amendment to a previously
approved plot plan for four single family residence models on 102 single family
lots at Lake La Quinta,
1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff
report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department.
PCI-10 3
_~ 2. There being no questions of staff, Chairman Adolph asked if the applicant
wished to address the Commission.
3. Mr. Arthur Levin, applicant, addressed the Commission and stated his
concern regarding Page 2 of the staff report. He apologized for not having
the information required for the landscaping. He stated the plants will
reach a 4-5 foot height at maturity with a foot and half berm to mitigate the
circular driveways. There would be a minimal amount of turf area as the
rest would be shrubs or groundcover. There are no sidewalks as these are
private streets. Mr. Levine further stated they did not propose to have a
circular driveway on every lot, but were offering it as an option. About
20 % of the lots could not take the circular driveway. The reason they were
requesting the 20-foot setback was to give more area in the backyard for a
pool with an appropriate amount of landscaping. He proposed that rather
than requesting all 102 lots have circular driveways, that on the initial 16
lots they look to see what the streetscape would look like on this cul-de-sac
and if after looking at the proposed landscaping, staff and the Planning
Commission still think the setback should be 25-feet then the remainder of
the lots would be 25-feet. As to the color in the concrete, following the
hearing of December 13, 1994, he found that Marquessa and Avante had
not been required to have colored concrete. The lots that currently have
-- colored concrete were upgraded by the individual property owners. The
cost for the integral color would vary due to the amount of color wanted.
On an average it Could cost for a three car garage, approximately $300.
Mr. Levine requested that instead of requiring the colored concrete, he
would like to offer it as an option to all homeowners and not just those with
circular driveways.
4. Commissioner Anderson asked how many of the initial 16 would have the
circular driveways. Mr. Levin stated there were about 12 lots that could
not have circular driveways and four that could. He proposed that they
build one street as proposed and then make an evaluation.
5. Commissioner Butler, having reviewed the area with the setback in mind,
stated he felt the area needed more treatment and with the 25-foot setback
and the circular driveway, there was more area for the landscaping which
~ softens the streetscape. Otherwise there was too much concrete. Mr.
Levine stated they were proposing to berm with shrubbery the island area
to eliminate the look of a flat plane. Elevations make it difficult to see the
dimension of the landscaping. Commissioner Butler stated he was still in
favor of the 25-foot landscaping to give the frontyard relief. He felt the
~ - rear yards would still have enough room for pools. The project does not
have any stereotype development at present and if 16 houses are built they
will still exist even if the Planning Commission does not agree with the
look. They should be scattered to break up the look.
PCI-10 4
-- 6. Chairman Adolph stated his concern regarding the lack of on-street parking
where there is a circular driveway. He questioned how the parking would
be handled if someone has a party, etc. Mr. Levine stated that with a
circular driveway they could park in the driveway. If there were a large
party, people will park everywhere no matter what. Chairman Adolph
stated there was no room provided for additional parking. Even though this
is an option, there could still be a significant number of circular driveways
in a row. Mr. Levine stated they had no governing as to where people will
park. They will park where they want. Discussion followed regarding the
parking.
7. Commissioner Anderson stated that the issue tonight was for the setback for
lots with circular driveways and colored driveways. City Attorney Dawn
Honeywell stated this was true. The circular driveways were already
approved. Commissioner Anderson stated he agreed with the staff's
recommendation regarding the setbacks, but had no issue with deleting the
colored concrete.
8. Commissioner Newldrk asked the applicant to clarify why the applicant was
requesting the setback change. Mr. Levin stated this was for the allowance
of an appropriate pool size and landscaping in the rear yard. Commissioner
-- Newkirk asked if these depths varied from lot to lot. Mr. Levin stated they
did.
10. Commissioner Ables asked what the maximum depth would be.
Commissioner Butler stated it was on Page 3 of the staff report.
Commissioner Abels asked the applicant to clarify his reasoning for the
rear yard setback.
11. Commissioner Newkirk suggested that as the rear yards vary, the applicant
should vary the frontyard setbacks. Commissioner Butler clarified that this
would not solve the problem.
12. There being no further public comment, Chairman Adolph closed the public
hearing.
13. Commissioner Anderson asked that if the option was offered to the
homebuyers, are these homes being presold and then built or built in
advance. Mr. Levin stated they were plotting certain homes on certain lots
and trying to plot so as to give as much rear yard as possible.
Commissioner Anderson stated that if the applicant were plotting the lots
-- this should give the applicant the opportunity to use the 25-foot setback if
the homes are being pre-built. The option is only being offered if the house
PCI-10 5
is not pre-built. Mr. Levin stated this could be a problem if the buyer
wants to build a pool at a later date. By allowing the setback the
homebuyer would be allowed to build a reasonable size pool.
Commissioner Anderson stated he was not convinced that the pool couldn't
be built with the 25-foot setback.
14. Community Development Jerry Herman clarified the rear yard dimensions
and with the smallest lot, the rear yard would be 24-feet which could
accommodate a pool.
15. Commissioner Adolph asked staff to provide him with the Minutes of the
previous meeting when the setbacks were granted.
16. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Abels/Butler to deny the request for the 20-foot setback.
City Attorney Dawn asked that both motions be made at one time.
Commissioners Abels/Butler withdrew the motion.
17. Commissioner Anderson/Newkirk moved to adopt Minute Motion 95-002
denying the request for a 20-foot setback and that Condition #7 regarding
colored concrete driveways be deleted. Unanimously approved.
IV. BUSINESS SESSION
A. Plot Plan 94-543; a request of La Quinta Village Limited Parmership for approval
of a free-standing restaurant in the La Quinta Village Center.
1. Commissioner Anderson withdrew due to a possible conflict of interest.
2. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff
report, a copy of which is on file .in the Community Development
Department. Would like to delete Conditions #7 and #19 and require the
applicant to come back with additional signage and possibly the use of a
free-standing sign.
3. Commissioner Gardner asked about the retention basin as to whether it was
square or rectangular and if it flowed down the side of the building. Staff
explained and showed the area that would be involved.
4. Commissioner Barrows asked that staff clarify which condition would be
affected by requiring the signage to come back to the Planning
-- Commission. Staff stated it would be Condition #19 and this would be the
time to give the applicant some direction as to what the Planning
Commission would like to see.
PCI-10 6
-- 5. Mr. John Koenig, The Koenig Companies, spoke on behalf of the applicant
and stated he was in agreement with all conditions as amended. The
potential conflict was in the signage and each two pads would share a
monument sign with a single monument on Washington Street and Calle
Tampico. He felt that Condition//22 would conflict with this as the bank
and the restaurant would be sharing the Calle Tampico monument sign and
this didn't seem fair. He objected to the matter being continued he needed
to move ahead with the project. They had tried to have everything
submitted at this time for the Commission's approval.
6. Chairman Adolph stated that continuing the signage would not hold up the
project. The Commission wanted to see the color and how it would be lite.
The sign company should be able to do this. The lack of signage approval
would not hold up any building permit issuance.
7. Chairman Adolph stated there was no problem With the monument sign.
8. Chairman Adolph-asked if there would be heating for the outdoor seating.
Mr. Koenig stated the outdoor seating was only for the summer and spring
months.
-- 9. Mr. Farzaneh addressed the Commission regarding the project. He stated
they would make sure the sign was constructed according to the Planning
Commission approval. At present, their plans were to be open in July
when the tourists are gone. He wanted the local people to evaluate the
restaurant. The outdoor dining feature would be added at a later date. A
small fountain would be placed in the center of the round outdoor seating
area for a dramatic effect. They plan to serve Mediterranean food and have
a 100-seat restaurant with a bar. Smoking would be allowed outside.
10. Chairman Adolph asked why the bar was so close to the from entrance.
Other members stated this is the way it was in other restaurants owned by
Mr. Farzaneh and it was no problem. Mr. Farzaneh stated there would be
a partition to separate the bar from the dining room.
11. Commissioner Ables will this be like the Continental restaurant. Mr.
Farzaneh stated it would be but, more Mediterranean in food. The price
range would be the same as the Cominental. Lunch would be under $10.00
and dinner $16-20.
12. Chairman Adolph asked Mr. Koenig about the section of the building
where the signage goes; would the equipment go up in the parapet and
would it be visible from the street. Mr. Koenig stated it would not be seen.
This was why the height is so high. Chairman Adolph stated his concern
for the look being so heavy. Mr. Koenig stated he would see if it could be
lowered but, it needs to be functional.
PCl-10 7
13. There being no further discussion, it was moved by Commissioner
Abels/Gardner to adopt Minute Motion 94-003 approving Plot Plan 94-543,
subject to the following: Condition g22 be deleted and signage will be
returned for approval by the Planning Commission.
B. Sign Application 95-7.75 - Tentative Tract 26188; a request of Century Homes for
approval of sign adjustment to allow two subdivision name signs.
1. Community Development Director Jerry Herman presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on f'fie in the Community
Development Department.
2. There being no questions of staff, Chairman Adolph asked if the applicant
wished to address the Commission. Mr. Dennis Cunningham stated he had
no comments and would answer any questions.
3. Commissioner Anderson questioned the screeds that were called out as to
whether they metal or plastic. Mr. Cunningham stated they were painted
metal, dry material pained over the block. However, they were
considering the plastic.
4. Chairman Adolph questioned whether the sign was parallel to the street.
Mr. Cunningham stated it was.
5. Commissioner Butler asked about something to protect against graffiti.
Mr. Cunningham stated they were made out of aluminum with enameled
paint so it would be a smooth finish and easily maintained. Discussion
followed regarding suggestions to prevent the graffiti.
6. Commissioner Ables stated the Coachella Valley Parks & Recreation
Department has a new product that will make it easier to clean. Mr.
Cunningham stated he would contact them regarding the material.
7. Commissioner Abels/Barrows moved to adopt Minute Motion 95-004 to
approve Sign Application 95-275 as recommended. Unanimously
approved.
C.' Sign Application 94-?.70; a request of Skip Berg for approval of a new building
sign for the Carl's Jr./Green Burrito business.
1. Jerry Herman, Community Development Director, stated that staff had
received a fax from the applicant requesting the application be tabled.
2. Commissioner Barrows/Abels moved and seconded to table Sign
Application 94-270 as requested by the applicant.
PCI-10 8
V. CONSENT CALENDAR
Chairman Adolph asked that the Minutes of December 13 be corrected to show that during the
public comment portion of the meeting, he stated that "no public hearing" had been held.
Commissioners Ables/Barrows moved and seconded a motion to approve the minutes as corrected.
Unanimously approved.
VI. OTHER
A. Chairman Adolph reported on the City Council meeting of January 3, 1995.
B. Commissioners discussed with staff the Planners Institute to be held at the
Doubletree/Marriott Conference Center in Monterey, March 22, 23, 24, 1995.
1. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated the information
provided was to inform the members that there was only enough money
for four members to attend. Commissioner Abels stated that his
understanding was that the budget had been increased to allow additional
members. This issue would be returned to the Planning Commission on the
31st.
C. Chairman Adolph clarified his intent regarding the Lake La Quinta issue on
circular driveways. His understanding was that the street layout would
accommodate the additional parking. Commissioner Anderson apologized and
stated that relative to what was on the agenda the Planning Commission was to
react only to the 25-foot setback and not the issue of the driveways.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Butler to
adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting on January 31,
1995. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 8:30 P.M., January 10, 1994.
Unanimously approved.
PCI-10 9