PCMIN 01 31 1995 MINUTES
PLq~N!Ng ~Or~-~IISSION
reg'ui~ ~c~ ~elO. ~ 'til,~ ~,~ Qninta City Hall
78*495 CaRe Tampico, La Quinta, CA
JANUARY 31, 1995 7:00 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. This meeting of the Plpnnin~ Commi~ion was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman
Adolph. Commi~sioner Anderson led the flag salute.
II. ROLL CALL
Chairman Adolph requested the roll cal~ Present: Commissioners Abels, Anderson,
Barrow, Butler, Newkirk, and Chairman Adolph.
B. Commi~sioners Abels~Barrows moved and seconded a motion to excuse Commissioner
Gardner. Un~nimouBly approved.
C. Staff Present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Dawn
Honeywell, Senior Engineer Steve Speer, Associate Planners Greg Trousdell and Leslie
Mouriquand-Cherry, and Department Secretary Betty Sawyer.
D. Consultant Present: Frank Spevacek, RSG
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Continued - Slleciflc Plan 93-023 ~lmendment #1~ Tentative Tract 27854. ~tnd
Conditional Use Permit 944)16: a request of Jascorp (Mr. Joseph Swain) for approval of
1) revise an approved tentative tract map to reduce the number of buildable lots from
116 to 106; 2) revise the adopted Conditions of Approval for the projects approved
specific plan; and 3) include some affordable units.
1. Staff informed the Commissioners that the request should be tabled because
the application was incomplete. It was moved and seconded by Commi~sioners
Abels~Barrows to table the issue. Unanimously approved.
PC1-31 1 .
Planning Commission Meeting
January 31, 1995
B. Plot Plan 94-545- Shan~rl La Restaurant: a request of Simon Chan for approval of a
Negative Declaration of Environmental impact and, 1) a plot plan to allow construction
of a +5,040 square foot sit-down restaurant; and 2) an amendment to the approved
sign program for the existing shopping center.
1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in the
staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department.
2. Chairman Adolph opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wished
to address the CommLqsion~ Mr. Robert A. Ricciardi representing the
applicant, stated the glass on the west elevation would be removed and
questioned staff as to why they had to have South Coast Air Quality (SCAQ)
approval before they could begin construction. Staff stated they were required
to make sure the applicant complied with SCAQ*s requirements but, the
proposed cooling equipment could be exempt.
3. Mr. Ricclardi also asked about being required to use Knox Lock boxes. He
asked if all stores were required to have these. Staff stated it was up to the
Fire MarshalL Mr. Ricclardi asked if his application would have to go the City -
Council for their approvaL Staff stated it would go to the City Council on
February 7th as a report of action if approved by the Planning CommLqsion
this evening. Mr. Ricciardi asked why the fee for the Fish and Game was
requlrecL Staff explained this was a Negative Declaration fee collected for
Fish and Game by the County. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell explained why
th[q was required. Community Development Director Jerry Herman explained
the City has no right to deviate from this requirement as it was a State
requirement.
4. Commissioner Anderson questioned staff*s objection to the west elevation
window. He stated he personally did not oppose the window but, he would like
to see that the future building to the west was required to setback so that the
window would not be lost. He was concerned that staff require the owner of
the building next to this project maintain the setback to create a richer
streetscape. Mr. Rlcciardi stated that the developers, TDC, explained to him
that it was on a property line and needed to be moved.
5. Chairman Adolph asked if the applicant, Mr. Chan, wished to address the
Commission. Mr. Chan stated he had no questions.
PC1-31 2 .
Planning Commission Meeting
January 31, 1995
6. Commi~sloner Butler asked about the Bougainvillaea plant being planted and
was it appropriate for this area. Mr. Ricciardi stated it was not appropriate but
any vine planted would grow and cover the building. He would not like to use
this plant but it was a requirement of staff.
7. Chairman Adolph asked if the colored elevations were compatible with the rest
of the center.. Mr. Ricciardl stated it would be an exact match. Chairman
Adolph asked if the cornices on the building would be the same as the existing.
Mr. Ricciardi stated they would be. Chairman Adolph asked if the wainscot
would be the same. Mr. Rlcciardl stated it would be. Chairman Adolph stated
he was concerned that by building the structure in the middle of the Center in
an open space it might not match when the buildings are connected. Mr.
Ricciardi stated they would match as the developer, TDC, required the exact
match. The aluminnm window frame may be the only item that would not
completely match. Chairman Adolph stated he had no problem with that.
8. Commi~ioner Anderson asked if there was a plan to ensure that the columns
would be symmetrical with the future buildings. Mr. Ricciardi stated they
would not be putting the columns right to the end and therefore did not need
to be concerned with matching. Commissioner Anderson asked if the
developer, TDC, would require it. Mr. Rlcciardi stated they did not* Discussion
followed regarding the rhythm of the columns between the buildings.
9. There being no further public comment, Chairman Adolph closed the public
hearing.
10. There being no questions from the Commissioners, Comminsioners
Abels/Barrows moved to adopt Resolution 95-001 certifying Environmental
Assessment 94-290 as written.
ROLL CALI~ AYES: Commissioners Abels, Anderson, Barrows, Butler,
Newklrk, and Chairman Adolph. NOES: None. ABSENT:
Commi~sioner Gardner. ABSTAIN: None.
11. Commissioners Abels/Barrows moved to adopt Minute Motion 954~5 approving
Plot Plan 94-545, subject to conditions. Unanimously approved.
PUSINi~,SS S~SSION
A. Redevelopment Plan Amendment; a request of the City for approval of the proposed
Redevelopment Plan for the La Qulnta Redevelolknent Project Area #1 (as amended)
making, its report and recommendation as to the conformity of the Amended
Redevelopment Plan (Area #1) with the City*s General Pran.
PCI-31 3
Planning Commission Meeting
January 31, 1995 -
1. Consultant Frank Spevacek, RSG, presented the information contained in the
staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department.
City Attorney Dawn Honeywell clarified that the new Planning Commission
members had filed with the secretary written disclosure of their financial
interest in Area #1 and they were being made a part of the record of this
meeting.
3. Chairman Adolph asked about the resurfacing of Jefferson Street beyond the
boundaries of the Project Area and ~l~o what happens when resurfacing
crosses over a City boundary. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated all
possible improvements were listed to ensure that they could be done if allowed.
She further stated that in order for the City to do the improvements, they must
be listed or the City cannot do them~ 'If the improvements extend beyond the
City boundaries the City can make findings determinin~ that the work is
necessary and will be beneficial to the City. The list is made as inclusive as
possible so as to include any possible improvements that could be included to
help the boundary area~
--
4. Community Development Director Jerry Herman explained that in order to do
the entire street, the City would have to enter into an agreement with the
neighboring city, or the County, in order to do the wort~ Chairman Adolph
asked if the Amendment had these provisions built into it so these
improvements could be made.
5. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that before any action could be taken,
the City Council/Redevelopment Agency would have to make the findings
necessary.
6. Chairman Adolph asked staff to explain what rehabilitation meant. Would the
plan include everything that was happening within the City boundaries?
Consultant Frank Spevacek stated it would. The Amendment would allow the
City the latitude to do this. He further stated the existing plan was too precise
and the amended plan expanded the definitions so the projects could be
implemented to meet the needs of the City. This would also put the plans into
effect for another 30 years and hopefully the plan had the projections for those
30-years.
7. Chairman Adolph asked if this Plan would affect the Simon Project, should it
ever be built. Community Development Dl~e~r Jerry Herman stated the area
where the Simon project was to be constructed was not included in this area~
The City Council would have to make necessary findings as mentioned by the
City Attorney earlier.
PC1-31 4
Planning Commission Meeting
January 31, 1995
8. Commissioner Anderson asked whether the total number of housing units the
City was required to have was included in the housing project portion. Mr.
Spevacek stated it would. They came up with the number by looking at the
number of units built in the project area since 1983 and projected the number
forward. The forecast was based on the build-out of the General Plan for the
year 2010. He went on to give more detail on how the numbers were arrived at.
9. ~There being no further questions Commissioners AbelslAnderson moved to
adopt Resolution 95-002 recommending approval to the City Council of the
proposed Redevelopment Plan for the La Ouinta Redevelopment Project No. 1
and making it's report and recommendation as to the conformity of the
amended Redevelopment Plan with the City's General Plan.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Anderson, Barrows, Butler,
Newkirk, and Chairman Adolph. NOES: None. ABSENT:
Commissioner Gardner. ABSTAINING: None.
B. Special Advertising Device 95-061; a request of Bob Hope Chrysler Classic for approval
of temporary off-site directional signage for an upcoming golf tournament at the La
Ouinta Country Club in February, 1995.
1. Associate' Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in the
staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Departnient.
2. Chairman Adolph asked if there was a time limit as to when the signs had to
come down. Staff stated that Condition #7 required they come down the
Tuesday after the event.
3. There being no further questions of .staff, Chairman Adolph asked if the
applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Jim Walker, representing
the applicant, spoke on behalf of the applicant and stated the signs would go
down on time.
4. There being no further questions, Commissioners Anderson/Barrows moved to
adopt Minute Motion 95-006, subject to conditions. Unanimously approved.
'-' C. Tract ;)6188; a request of Century Homes for approval of architectural plans.
1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in the
staff report, a copy of which 'is on file in the Community Development
Departn~ent.
PC1-31 5
Planning Commission Meeting
January 31, 1995
P~ There being no questions of staff, Chairman Adolph asked if the applicant
wished to address the CommlssiolL Mr. Dennis Cpnninghaln, representing the
applicant, stated he had no comments but, would answer any questions.
& Chairman Adolph asked how many units would be built. Mr. Cpnnln~ham
stated 20% in the first phase depending on the market demand.
4. Chairman Adolph asked if Century Homes was going to build out the entire
tracL Mr. Cpnnl~l~bam stated there were two tracts encompassing 114 (Le.,
Tracts 26188 and 25363) lots and Century Homes planned to build all in the
units in the Del Rey series.
5. Chairman Adolph asked if the applicant had any problems with any of the
conditions. Mr. Cpnningham if there were any further problems_, he would
· solve them with staff.
6. There being no further questions, Commissioners Abels/Barrows moved to
adopt Minute Motion 9M~07 to approve the architectural plans as submitted,
subject to the Conditions of ApprovaL Unanimously approved.
D. Precise Plan 94~846 0tmendment #1~ a request of Century Homes for approval of ~m~
architectural plans for Tract 23935 (Topaz]~
!
1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in the
staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department.
2. Commissioner Anderson asked if the garage was on the setback line. He
stated the elevations did not show any tile on one side of the garage. He asked
staff for clarification on the guest unit and the setback. Staff stated that if
the detached Unit was sold with one of the plans, then it shifts the house to the
back of the property line. Staff went'on to explain.
3. Chairman Adolph asked if there were guidelines for the ma between the
guest house and the house. Was 8-feet within the requirements of the City
Code. Staff stated it was and the applicant could request an aOminlstrative
review if there were.any problems. Staff stated they would like a 10-foot
separation as this is*~hat the Code requires. Chairman Adolph asked if staff
had a problem with the &fool Staff stated it depended on the roar yard but,
they would prefer 10-feet- Staff went on to explain the processing or ~ of
a covenant when a guest house is built-
4. Commissioner Anderson stated he had no problem with the 8-foot distance
Discussion followed regarding the distance bStween the house and guest
house.
ecl-31 6
Planning Commission Meeting
January 31, 1995
5. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Adolph asked If the
applicant wished to address the Commi.qsion. Mr. Dennis Cnnningham stated
that in the initial Conditions of Approval, the guest house was not a problem
until they started to design it. The original Topaz units were an elongated "L"
and allowed the guest room to be in the front yard without being in front of the
garage giving a small backyard- Wlth the new floor plan and bigger back
yard, the guest house would not fit the same way. He went on to explain in
more detaiL
6. Commissioner Anderson asked the applicant to explain the bonus room. Mr.
Cunningham stated the french doors were added for affect and went on to
explain.
7. Commissioner Butler asked about Plan 5L as to how many bedrooms there
were without the guest house or bonus room. Mr. Cunningham stated there
were three bedrooms. Commissioner Butler stated this could be expanded to
up to five bedroom and only a two car garage. Mr. C~jnntnEham stated that
was correct. Commissioner Butler asked if the guest house complied with the
Conditions of Approval and would be offered only as an option. Mr.
Cnnningh~tm stated it was not an item that was selling well but, they would
comply with the Conditions of ApprovaL
8. Commissioner Butler stated his concern that there was a potential for five
bedrooms and so few parking spaces. In this neighborhood there was a
potential for five cars and this will cause a problem and unfortunately there
was nothing the Planning Commission could do about this at this time but, it
was a concern for any future plans they would submitted. Mr. Cunningham
stated he did not believe it would be a big selling item and therefore the
problem would not exist.
9. Chairman Adolph asked if the side wall of the guest house that faced the
adjacent property was a blank wall and if they were abutting each other,
people will be looking at a blank walL He asked if an architectural treatment
could be placed on the walL Mr. CpnninEham stated the situation exists now
and was not an issue. It wasn*t as stark as it appeared. It was possible to put
a false dormer on one of the nntts.
10. Chairman Adolph asked how far the fencing protruded into the sideyard
fencing. Mr. Cnnningham stated it would start at the house line. The guest
house would protrude out. Mr. CnnnlnLrham explained the site plan and stated
he could install a dormer to create an architectural treatment to break up the
side wall of the guest house. Discussion followed regarding possible
treatments. '
PCI-31 7
Planning Commission Meeting
January 31, 1995
11. Commissioner Anderson asked that a condition #34 be added requiring the
architectural treatment. Staff stated it would be an amendment to #31
requiring any blank wall facing an adjoining house, some type of
architectural treatment would be added.
12. Commissioners Barrows and Abels asked if the minimum guest house size
should be 280 square feet or 300 square feet. Mr. Cnnningham stated this
would be a little tight. Chairman Adolph stated there were two areas the
applicant was asking for relief on. The eight feet between the nnits and a
reduction in square footage. Discussion followed regarding flexibility in the
footage required.
13. Commissioner Anderson asked what plans would offer the guest house. Mr.
Cunningham stated it would be offered on all the plans. Discussion followed
regarding the backyard setback problem. Following the discussion it was
decided that the minimum guest house size would be 288 square feet and
would be added to the Conditions of Approval~
14. Mr. Cnnninl~h_nm asked for clarification, would he have to bring anything back
to the Plsnning Commission for approval or would staff be approving the
remainder. Staff stated it would be staff approval only.
15. Commissioner Anderson asked staff to read the additional requirement. Staff
stated the condition would require that all detached guest houses would be a
mininlum of 288 square feet and architectural treatment would be added to the
blank building wall facing an opposite property.
16. There being no further discussion it was moved by Commissioners
Barrows/Abels to adopt Minute Motion 954)08 approving the architectural plans
for Tract 23935 as amended. Ullanimously approved.
CONS~,NT CAL~,ND~tR:
?L Commissioner Anderson asked that the minutes of January 10, 1995, be amended on
Page 8, Item B#3 to read "Screeds" instead of **Streets**. There being no further
changes, Commissioner Abels/Barrows moved to approve the minutes as amended.
Unsnimously approved.
0TH~,R
A. Commissioner Abels asked staff to clarify the l~rocedure for adding an item to the
agenda. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell clarified that only if an action was to be taken
should the item be added at the beginning of the agencht. She stated that instead of
the Agenda item being titled "other** it should be "Commissioner concerns or reports".
PCI-31 8
Planning Commission Meeting
January 31, 1995
B. Chairman Adolph gave a report of the City Council meeting of January 6, 1995.
C. Chairman Adolph asked the City Attorney to clarify why the council's Rules and
Procedures were being changed to conform moro closely with the Roberts Rules of
Order as long as they do not conflict with the Brown Act or any similar law.
D. Commi.~sioner Abels roported on the City/Chamber Workshop.
~nJOURNlVl~.NT:
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commi.~sioners Abels/Barrows to
adjourn this meeting of the Planning Comml.~sion to a regular meeting onFebruary 14, 1995. This
meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 8:37 P.M., January 31, 1995. Unanimously
approved.
PCl-31 9