PCMIN 03 14 1995 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78~195 Calle Tampico, La Quinta~ CA
MARCH 14, 1995 4:00 P.M.
L CALL TO ORDER
A. This meeting of the Plannin~ CommLqsion was called to order at 4:03 P.lVL by Chairman
Adolpl~ 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, and Department Secretary Betty Sawyer
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS- None
IV. BUSINESS SESSION:
A. Workshop on the La 0.ulnta Zonin~r Ordinance Update: a request of the City for a review
of the Zoning Ordinance Update.
1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa gave a brief review of the sections that would be
reviewed and introduced Larry Lawrence, Lawrence Associates who gave an
opening statement as to why the update was taking place and an overview of
the Draft Ordinance.
. ?~ Commi~ioner Gardner asked why we were referrtn~ to the Update as a Code.
City Attorney Dawn Honeywell explained that the proper procedure was to
adopt a change to the Mnnicipal Code by Ordinance, but it is a part of the
Municipal Code.
--
3. Mr. Lawrence went thro~h the different sections and explained how the Draft
Zoning Ordinance was arrallged.
4. Commissioner Butler asked the consultant if the terms being used were the
current terms and the current terminology to be nsecL Mr. Lawrence stated it
would be.
PC3-14
Plstnninl~ Commission Meetin~
March 14, 1995
_ 5. CommLqsioner Butler asked if there would be a new zonin~ map showing these
changes. Staff stated there would be a new map with the adoption of the
Zoning Ordinance Update.
6. Commissioner Gardner asked if the document would be user-friendly and
would the language used be uniform throughout the State. Mr. Lawrence
stated zoning codes are different from City to City and each is unique.
However, most cities are going to this type of format. City Attorney Dawn
Honeywell explained that where an area is controlled by State Law, those
areas would be _~imilar. Zonin~ is completely under local control and. therefore
has its own uniqueness.
7. Commissioner Anderson stated that the overall format is not typical but the
information is similar and easily attainable. A laymen may have difficulty but
the professional should be able to understand it. Discussion followed.
8. Mr. Tom Davis, Tlerra Planning and Design, explained his firm was working
Jointly with Lawrence Associates on the Update and therefore should be as
close as possible to industry standards. Mr. Lawrence was f~tmtllar with
various zoning codes, and has dealt with development standards and together
they brought expertise in both areas. He further explained that this document
implements the General Plan.
9. Chairman Adolph asked if they would be required to update the General Plan
so they both agree. Staff stated they would not be necessary as the Zoning
Ordinance was written to implement the General Plan and therefore there
should be no conflicts.
10. CommLqsioner Gardner asked what the Commi.qsion would have to do if there
was an area in conflict. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell explained that public
hearings would have to be held to amend the General Plan. It is very likely
that as the City uses the Ordinance Update, there will be areas that may need
to change.
11. Commissioner Anderson stated he felt there should be a section that defines
what the lot coverage is including the garage, as well as livable floor space.
There needs to be very definite definitions as to what lot coverage is and what
livable floor space is.
12. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell asked that Section 9.10.060 be eliminated as it
was contained within another part of the Mnnicipal Code.
PC3-14 2
Plallntlll~ Commi~ion Meeting
March 14, 1995
- 13. Chairman Adolph stated that Section 9.10.010(C) did not mention anything
about traffic or infras~cture. Staff explained this will be handled in the
subdivision Ordinance. Chairman Adolph asked why it was not applicable to
this section. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell explained that it is included in the
General Plan and the General Plan has different elements such as the
Transportation Element. Discussion followed regarding Open Space definition
and whether or not it was adequately covered. Following discussion, the
consultants were instructed to add a #10 to Section 9.10.10(C) to add something
about the "natural beauty of the hillside".
14. Chairman Adolph questioned the verbiage of Section 9.10.020 and asked
whether the word *'control" shouldn*t be used. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell
explained what the proper usage would be. She further stated this was a
laymens statement of a legal statement.
15. Commissioner Anderson stated that Page 4 Section 9.10.080 was the logical
place to have a statement regarding lot coverage and livable space. Mr.
Lawrence stated there was a chapter on definitions and it was more
appropriate there.
16. Mr. Lawrence pointed out an editorial note on Page 6 and explained its
purpose.
17. Commissioner Newkirk stated, there was a PD Zoning on the map, but it was
not listed under 9.20.010. Staff stated it should be added.
18. Comm!ssioner Gardner asked what AB Zoning was? Staff explained it was
Adult Business and explained what it consisted of.
19. Chairman Adolph asked what Section B on Page 7 referred to. Community
Development Director Jerry Herman explained this was a safety valve for
areas where the zoning lines were not definitely defined. City Attorney Dawn
Honeywell explained that should someone not agree with staff, they could
appeal the decision to the Pl~tnninl~ Commission and City CounciL
20. Chairman Adolph asked if Section 9.20.030(A) could be written with more
clarity. It needed to be simplified. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell explained
what the section meant. Mr. Lawrence stated it was intended to give the
Planning Commission more flexibility in setting requirements within each
zoning district. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated that
along the toe of the mountain you want the setback to be more because of
slides, etc. This section would allow the City to require additional setbacks.
Discussion followed. Commissioners asked that the section be written in a
more simplified manner.
PC3-14 3 ·
Planning Commission Meeting
March 14, 1995
- 21. Chairman Adolph stated he felt that a sentence should be added to Page 8,
Section 9,20.040 stating "free of all encnmbrances". Community Development
Director Jerry Herman explained this section was used to give the Director
authority to deal with uses that were similar but not specifically mentioned.
Discussion followed.
22. Commissioner Abels asked if fiat roofs could be banned. City Attorney Dawn
HoneYWell stated this was addressed in the Building Code. Commi.~sioner
Anderson explained that typically there are no fiat roofs, they all have a slight
pitch.
23. Chairman Adolph asked that in Section 9.30.010(D) more verbiage could be
added regarding shade structures and give some flexibility to the applicant.
Chairman Adolph asked that a sentence be added regarding shade structures
being required on the south and west elevations for glass areas larger than
16 square feel City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated some flexibility could be
added., Principal Planner Stan Sawa stated the Planning Commission had
previously required overhangslshade structures for certain glass areas of a
certain size.
24. Commissioner Barrows stated this section was specifically addressing an eave
or window. If a sentence was added it would need to be consistent and have
flexibility. There should be overhangs on the entire building, in addition to the
south and west exposure and some type of alternate shading device for any
window over a certain size. Discussion followed.
27. Commissioners discussed setbacks and development standards.
Commissioners BarrowslAnderson moved to recess at 5:47 P.M. Unanimously approved.
The Planning Commi.~sion reconvened at 7:02 P.M. Chairman Adolph called the meeting to order.
There being no public comment nor any public hearings, Chairman Adolph introduced the Business
Session item.
BUSINESS SESSION:
-- A. Plot Plan 95-549. a request of Vintage Homes for approval of a plot plan application to
allow modification of a recreation lot at Lake La Quinta.
1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained within the
staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department.
PC3-14 4
Plamlixll[ Comnli~islon Meeting
March 14, 1995
2. There being no questions of staff, Chairman Adolph asked the applicant how
far his windows were recessed. Mr. Dennis I~nninl~ham, representing Vintage
Homes, stated they were l&20 inches. Chairman Adolph stated this was a lot
of glass and a trellis should be added on the south and west eleVations. Mr.
~lnni~,~tpm stated they would rather increase the thickness of the overhang
as the residents did not want any exposed wood or trellis. Further there was
an existing trellis which had a substantial wood structure. Mr. Cunnin~hanl
Stated they would look at a deeper setback and heavier tint on the windows.
He would take the Plannin~ Commission comments to the project architect.
3. Commissioners Anderson/Barrows moved to adopt Minute Motion 954114 as
recommend with a condition added requiring a minimum depth of no less than
24-inches for the roof overhangs for additional shading of the proposed
windows. Unanimously approved.
V. CONSENT CALENDAP~
-~ 1. There being no corrections to the Minutes of February 28, 1995, Commissioners
BarrowsIButler moved to accept the minutes as submitted. Un~'tnimously approved.
VI. OTHER
1. Commissioner Barrows reviewed the City Council meeting of March 7, 1995, for the
Commissioners.
·
VII. WORKSHOP. Continued
1. Commi~ioners discussed with staff clarification on the setbacks for the front yards
and garages for homes built in the RVL and RL Zoning Districts.
2. Commi~ioner Anderson questioned the validity of requiring the 20* house setback and
25' garage setback- He did not believe the City would gain anything and suggested
changing the setbacks to 15125'.
3. Commissioner Butler asked if on ten or more units, should the houses be setback a foot
~ or more extra to keep controL This would apply to low density and high density
apartments. Mr. Lawrence asked what if it was a lot sale subdlvision~ Commi~sioner
.... Butler stated this was a lot sale as it was referring to an actual tract. City Attorney
· Dawn Honeywell expressed her concern about exempting custom homes. Mr. Lawrence
asked how much variation was necessary. Commissioner Butler stated about a foot.
Commi~sioner Anderson stated there needed to be 4- feet minimum variation.
PC~-I4 5
Planning Commission Meeting
March 14, 1995
Following discussion, staff stated the consultants would work on the problem and
report back at next meeting.
4. Commissioner Anderson asked if Section 9.30.040(D) (Page 3) required an addition to a
house to comply with the Zoning Ordinance. What if they were rerooflng or adding a
room. Staff stated that a section would need to be .added requiring existing or
remodeled structures to be compatible with the existing structure.
5. Chairman Adolph asked for clarification as to where the restricted area for the height
of a building was measured from in Section 9.30.010(E~ Community Development
Director Jerry Herman stated it was measured from the right-of-way of the street.
Chairman Adolph stated this needed to be addecL
6. Commissioner Anderson asked for clarification on Section 9.30.060(C) regarding the
minimum project size for apartment projects. Mr. Lawrence clarified and stated he
would add verbiage to clarify.
7. Chairman Adolph asked what happens in the common open areas when the open space
abuts an existing residential area; how close can they be? Mr. Lawrence stated the
common open area has to be interior to the project and went on to explain.
8. Commissioner Adolph asked the consultant to explain what a **base district** was. Mr.
Lawrence stated this was the initial zoning placed on the land except for the PD
Zoning. The PD and RR are overlay zones and add additional requirements
opportunities. Mr. Davis, representing Tierra Pl~mnin~ and Design, went on to explain
the item.
9. Mr. Lawrence asked the Commissioners to correct the chart on Page 9 to show that the
approval process for large daycare centers would be done by the Director.
Commissioner Anderson questioned whether or not the application should come to the
Planning Commission. Principal Planner Stan Sawa explained that each case is
noticed to everyone within 100-feet of the project and if anyone objects, then it is
brought to the Planning Commission.
10. Commissioners discussed with the consultant and staff;
_4 a. Areas in which guest houses are allowed;
b. Mobilehome parks and subdivisions zoning;,
c. Setbacks for structures;
d. Revise the location of the Energy Conservation Design Requirements;
e. How close you could build up to an easement;
PC~*14 6
Planllinl~ Commi~qsion Meeting
March 14, 1995
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Anderson~Newkirk to
adjourn this meeting of the Planninl~ Commi~sion to a regular meeting on March 28, 1995. This
meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 8:24 P.M., March 14, 1995.
l~"&14 7