PCMIN 02 28 1995 MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
FEBRUARY 28, 1995 7:00 P.M.
I. cALL TO ORDER
A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:02 P.M. by
Chairman Adolph. Commissioner Abels 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. Staffpresent: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Dawn
Honeywell, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate Planner Greg Trousdell, and
Department Secretary Betty Sawyer.
III. PUBLIC COMMENT
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS - None
V. BUSINESS ITEMS:
A. Special Advertising Device 95-064; a request for approval of temporary off-site
directional signage for Legends of Golf Tournament in April, 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
Department.
2. Commissioner Gardner suggested the number of signs be expanded to allow
the applicant to place additional directional signs along Washington Street.
3. Commissioner Abels suggested that 25 signs be allowed. Staff stated that the
Planning Commission was the approving agency and could approve any
number they so desire to. Staff would like to have a condition added to
require the applicant to provide the location of the signs and coordinated their
lo~:ation with the Public Works Department and obtain staff approval.
PC2-28
4. Commissioner Anderson suggested that they approve up to 25 signs subject
to staff approval for location. -
5. Commissioner Abels/Barrows to adopt Minute Motion 95-010 approving
Special Advertising Device 95-064, subject to conditions as noted in the staff
report and a limit of 25 signs, subject to approval of the Community
Development Department. Unanimously approved.
B. General Plan Consistency Findings for Coachella Valley Water District; a request of
CVWD for approval of a General Plan consistency finding for the construction of the
Cahuilla Zone Reservoir north of Lake Cahuilla.
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. Chairman Adolph asked how this would affect the City's Hillside
Conservation Ordinance regarding building on the hillside. Staff clad'fled
that the ordinance makes exceptions for public agency structures.
3. There being no further questions of staff, Mr. John Carella of CVWD gave
the background information for a 10 million gallon Reservoir. He then _
introduced Patty Schwartz, Project Engineer for the project, who went into
detail regarding the project and the areas it would serve.
4. Commissioner Ables asked if this would take care of furore development in
the area. Ms. Schwartz stated it would take care of the immediate needs.
5. Commissioner Barrows asked if the developments to the south of The Quarry
would be covered by this reservoir. Mr. Carella stated the new developments
are not within the zone and the Travertine and Green projects will have to
provide their own reservoir. However, the developer would be under the
guidelines of CVWD for the construction of the reservoirs.
6. Chairman Adolph asked where the Sheriffs shooting range was located in
relation to the reservoir. Ms. Schwartz explained the location of the range
and stated it would be about a mile away and the access road to the reservoir
would have a gate to prevent unauthorized vehicle access.
7. Chairman Adolph asked about the previously installed storage tanks above
the Cove and why they had not been required to be landscaped. Mr. Carella
stated these were installed under a different CVWD policy. They were
installed with the sole purpose of being useful. Since then the Water
District's policy had changed and the tanks installed had been installed at a
lower elevation so it would not be seen. This tank would have native
landscaping and berming. It was now the District's policy to provide
PC2-28
landscaping and berming on all new projects and hopefully to rectify the old
ones as repairs or modifications were needed.
8. Chairman Adoph expressed his concern that the Planning Commission had
requested landscaping at the installation of the last tank requested by the
District and the tank was not landscaped. Now they were asking to install
another tank. Chairman Adolph asked what guarantee does the City have that
the District will landscape the tank? Ms. Schwartz stated there was a
$200,000 landscaping budget for the designing and landscaping Of the site.
In addition, they will meet with all three PGA West Homeowner
Associations and KSL Recreation Corporation to inform them of the
District's plans.
9. Commissioner Barrows asked if the plants to be used would be native and
desert landscaping used. Ms. Schwartz stated they were being very specific
to be sure they were native to the extent some of the seeds were hand
gathered and replanted.
10. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Anderson/Abels to adopt Minute Motion 95-011 to fred that
the CVWD Cahuilla Zone Reservoir is consist with the General Plan.
Unanimously approved.
C. Sitna Apl~lication 95-791; a request of La Quinta Cliffhouse Restaurant for approval
to construct a new freestanding monument sign to supplement their existing sign
program.
1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in the
staff report, a copy of which is file in the Community Development
Department,.
2. Chairman Adolph asked if the applicant wished to address the Commission.
Mr. Richard Boudreau stated his reasons for requesting the additional
signage.
3. Commissioner Butler asked if the signage would give additional visibility to
the night traffic. Mr. Boudreau stated it would help.
4. Commissioner Abels asked if the applicant would have any objection to
removing the existing freestanding sign. Mr. Boudreau stated he would like
to keep the original sign as it added character to the building and mountain.
5. Chairman Adolph asked if the applicant didn't feel the additional signage
would be overkill. He understood the reason for a westbound traffic sign, but
the eastbound sign would be too much. Mr. Boudreau stated he did not think
it would be overkill. Commissioner Abels agreed that it would not be too
much.
PC2-28
6. Commissioner Gardner stated he agreed with Chairman Adolph that the
eastbound traffic would have two signs and that was unnecessary.
7. Commissioner Butler stated he felt the two signs were necessary because of
the amount of rocks used in the landscaping and visibility problems the
property has because of the Point Happy mountain.
8. Commissioners Barrows and Abels stated they agreed they would rather have
the added signage for safety and in addition the signs were not obtrusive and
blended in with the mountain and landscaping.
9. Chairman Adolph stated his concern that he did not want to set a precedent
by allowing too much signage. He understood the reasoning behind the
request. He addressed staff if this location had been determined to be the
best location for the signage. Staff stated they had worked with the applicant
to determine a new location. Mr. Boudreau thanked the Chairman for his
concem.
10. Commissioner Abels read from the staff report that the applicant could apply
for additional signage if certain findings could be made. Commissioner
Barrows stated the findings showed the request did comply.
11. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Barrows/Butler to adopt Minute Motion 95-012 approving
a sign adjustment (Sign Application 95-291) for a new freestanding
monument sign to supplement their existing sign program. Unanimously
approved.
D. Plot Plan 94-529; a request of Century Homes, Mr. Dennis Cunningham, for review
of the Conditions of Approval regarding fencing at the Rancho Ocotillo subdivision.
1. Commissioner Butler excused himself due to a possible conflict of interest.
2. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell 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 did
not agree with staffs recommendation requiting the installation of the return
stub walls on the fence. The walls being required had no impact regarding
compatibility. The existing walls were not an aid to the developer but to the
homeowner. They have found that as the property owner wishes to add a
pool or patio, they tear out the wall to gain the extra access and it becomes
an added expense to the property owner. He reviewed the existing
Compatibility Ordinance before installing the gates and felt that he was ih
compliance with it. The gate and panels are 40-feet back from the street and
PC2-28
painted white to be compatible with the existing fencing. They installed
pedestrian gates and the double gates can be added at an extra expense.
4. Commissioner Abels asked the applicant what he meant by "value
engineering". Mr. Cunningham stated it was how they could best satisfy the
needs of the property owner and create privacy. "Value engineering" would
mean the property owner would only have to dismantle the gate to gain
access to the rear yard without demolitioning a newly built slumpstone wall.
The cost therefore, would only be $100-200 instead of $1,600.
5. Commissioner Abels asked if a conveyor belt could be used to bring out the
dirt' from the backyard rather than tearing out the' wall and pedestrian gate.
Mr. Cunningham stated the cost was too high. He bad received complaints
from property owners because of the problems they were incurring building
swimming pools. Commissioner Abels stated that conveyor belts are used
widely in the industry to remove the dirt from unaccessible areas. Mr.
Cunningham stated he had not seen them used once in the desert and it would
be more costly than removing the gate and panel proposed by their company.
6. Commissioner Abels asked if the applicant felt the Polaroid picture shown of
_ the gate was consistent with what the City wanted. Mr. Cunningham stated
a. metal panel would be added to the wrought iron fence to screen the side
yard. Commissioner Abels stated concern that the gates are two different
types of gates. Discussion followed regarding the difference in the gates.
7. Commissioner Abels asked why the Commission should change the
conditions. Mr. Cunningham stated he was asking for a modification, for the
betterment of the community. The applicant went on to explain his
reasoning.
8. Commissioner Abels stated this was not consistent with the conditions.
Conditions #14 calls for six foot high walls and these walls do not appear to
be six feet high. Mr. Cunningham stated they were to be between 5'4" and
6'0". Commissioner Abels asked if this was consistent with the
requirements? Commissioner Abels stated what was the reason for the
Commission to give conditions if they were not going to' follow them. Mr.
Cunningham stated that in their estimation they do meet them.
9. Chairman Adolph asked how often homeowners approached the builder
regarding changes such as pools. Mr. Cunningham stated they have
_ approximately 30% of the homeowners request the pool before the wall is
constructed. Chairman Adolph stated that for those cases a double gate was
not needed. Mr. Cunningham stated they installed the single gate unless the
homeowner requests the double gates.
PC2-28
10. Chairman Adolph stated this was not approved by the Commission and for
the developer to do this was in violation of the Commissions approval. If the -
homeowner desires to change it after the close of escrow, that is their
prerogative, but the developer will follow the conditions as set forth by the
Commission.
11. Commissioner Abels stated he was not anti-development but he was in strong
support of seeing that the Commission passed conditions are followed and it
did not appear that Century was willing to following those conditions. The
Commission expects the developer to follow what is given them. Mr.
Cunningham stated he felt sometimes it is an interpretive decision that is not
'understood.
12. Commissioner Gardner stated this was the purpose of the Commission and
the reason they were here and it did not appear to be the way Century was
going. Mr. Cunningham stated he agreed that on some issues that was
correct. The sales department will do what is necessary to make the sale.
Commissioner Gardner stated yes, the sales department will give away the
farm to make a sale. If the sales people are selling these homes on the
condition that they can put an RV in the backyard they are wrong. Mr.
Cunningham stated they were not selling the double gate, only installing at
the request of the property owner supposedly before the close of escrow.
13. Commissioner Newkirk asked the applicant to clarified that the developer
was installing the gate only at the request of the homeowner. Mr.
Cunningham stated they had taken liberties to place a gate and panel at the
request of the homeowner. Most are single gates with a fixed panel.
14. Commissioner Abels stated this was a pattern with the developer to keep
coming back and back when the condition did not meet the developers needs.
This was upsetting to the Commission. The Commissioners stated they felt
it was up to the developer to tell the homeowner that the developer cannot
install the double gates. Thereafter, is the homeowner wishes to install the
double gates after close of escrow it is his option.
15. Chairman Adolph stated the Commission had discussed this far enough.
Commissioner Abels stated he did not want to beat the horse to death because
it had already died. Mr. Cunningham stated he was still limping.
16. Commissioner Anderson was concerned that with the wrought iron panels,
Century had not come to the Commission before they were installed. The
problem is the liberty being taken by Century. They were installing the gates
before asking the Commission and the design was not as appealing as the
existing front yard fencing.
PC2-28
-- 17. There being no further discussion with the applicant, Chairman Adolph asked
for further comment. Ms. Barbara Irwin, Raneh~ Ocotillo resident, addressed
the Commission regarding the fencing issue. She stated that she had spoken
to one of the new homeowners who had a home with a double gate and he
stated that he had not asked for the double gates. In addition, there is no
landscaping. Staff informed the applicant that'no Certificate of Occupancy
would be issued. At present there are four homeowners with the double gates
occupied and the homeowners are not aware of the problem with the gates.
She went on to cite other objections and situations that were in violation of
the conditions.
18. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Abels/Anderson tO adopt Minute Motion 95-013 to deny the
request of the applicant to install the wrought iron double gates with metal
panels. The applicant was to conform to the terms as stated in Conditions
#14 and #17 and with their determination of February 14. The
Commissioners stated this was their decision. Unanimously approved.
19. Commissioner Butler rejoined the meeting.
_ E. l.a Quinta Zoning, Ordinance Update; a request of s~ff for a work session on a
portion of the Zoning Ordinance update.
1. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated that the.
Commissioners did not have enough time to review the update, therefore,
staff will schedule this item for the March 14th Planning Commission
meeting as a workshop.
VI. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. There being no corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Anderson/Barrows to approve the Minutes of February 14, 1995, as submitted.
Commissioner Gardner asked that the names of the Commissioners be corrected.
There being on further corrections, the minutes were approved as corrected.
VII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS
A. Commissioner Anderson reported on the City Council meeting of February 21,
1995.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Gardner/Abels to
adjourn this meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting at 4:00 P.M. on March 14,
1995. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 8:22 P.M., February 28, 1995.
Unanimously approved.
PC2-28