Loading...
PCMIN 07 11 1995 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA July 11, 1995 3:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 3:12 P.M. by Vice Chairman Gardner who asked Commissioner Adolph to lead the flag salute. II. ROLL CALL A. Vice Chairman Gardner requested the roll call: Present: Commissioners Adolph, Anderson, Butler, Newkirk, and Vice Chairman Adolph. Absent: Commissioner Barrows and Chairman Abels. Commissioners Adolph/Butler moved and seconded a motion to excuse Commissioners Abels and Barrows. 13. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Dawn Honeywell, Senior Planner Steve Speer, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, and Department Secretary Betty Sawyer. '.. III. PUBLIC COMMENT: None IV. WORKSHOP A. Continued - Zoning Ordinance Update; a request of the City for a review and approval of the Zoning Code Update. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa informed the Commissioners of the Chapters that had been reviewed. 2. CHAPTER 9.160 - Signs Page 007, Table 9 Eliminate "Building-mounted" from apartment building ID signs and change "top of wall" to six feet. For multi-tenant buildings or complexes eliminate "top of wall or". For free-standing apartment rental change the maXimum area to six and eliminate "top of wall or", and require 15 or more units rental information. Change "Church and Institutional Uses" to "Other Residential Uses". PC7-11 1 Planning Commission Meeting July 11, 1995 Page 008, Table 9 Add to note: "Signs required by law shall be allowed at the minimum size specified." Eliminate "Permanent window signs". Add, "Free-standing center or complex ID sign". Add, "Building-mounted permanent window ID sign"; add under maximum area, "Under canopy sign maximum three square feet, one square lineal foot of lease frontage up to a maximum of 50 sq. ft., eliminate top of wall and add eight feet and second story in interior access no outside sign". For Building-mounted ID sign for individual commercial or office building for maximum number add "(one per side of building)". Eliminate Hotels and motels line. Page 009, Table 9 For Gas/service stations change the maximum area to 50 sq. ft., and eliminate 12 sq. ft. Vice Chairman Gardner recessed the meeting at 5:17 P.M. and reconvened at 7:02 P.M. V. PUBLIC COMMENT: None VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Public Use Permit 95-016; a request of Desert Sands Unified School District for approval to construct their District Educational Services Center of approximately 164,000 square feet of floor space located northeast of the intersection of Dune Palms Road and 48th Avenue. 1. Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had requested a continuance to the Commission's July 25th meeting. 2. There being no questions of staff, Vice Chairman Gardner opened the public hearing. As no one wished to address the Commission, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Adolph to continue this item to July 25, 1995. Unanimously approved. B Zoning Ordinance Amendment 95-046; a request of the City for an approval of an amendment to the. La Quinta Municipal Code by adding a new Chapter 5.80 and amending Chapter 9.154 relating to Adult Oriented Businesses (AE). PC7-11 2 Planning Commission Meeting July 11, 1995 1. Community Development Director Jerry Herman presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. In addition, staff informed the Commission of the necessary corrections to the draft Ordinance. 2. Commissioner Anderson asked if the Ordinance allowed the signage to be visible from the street. Staff clarified that signage would be dealt with as part of the Sign Regulations of the Zoning Code Update. 3. Commissioner Butler asked staff to clarify the locations where the AE businesses could be located and the location of the La Quinta High School and the proposed District Facility on 48th Avenue. Staff displayed the locations on the map and explained the distances from the proposed AE sites. 4. Commissioner Newkirk asked if a new businesses located on Highway 111 and sold alcoholic beverages, would this business reduce the areas that would allowed AE businesses. Staff stated it would. 5. Commissioner Adolph asked if the Red Robin restaurant, which sells alcoholic beverages, was within the distance of an AE business. Staff stated it was not within the distance limitations. 6. There being no further questions of staff, Vice Chairman Gardner opened the public hearing. 7. Mr. Robert Tyler, 44-215 Valletta Court, asked if the proposed Ordinance was as stringent as other cities in the Coachella Valley, and if not, why not? City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated in principal, it was as stringent, but the City is uniquely different in that it does not have any industrial zones. Therefore the City must address the issue in other ways that are defensible. In addition, a ban on nudity has been included as it was an area that the community was concerned about. The more uses and restrictions placed in the Ordinance the more challengeable to defend. It leaves more areas open to challenge. 8. Mr. Tyler asked why the City even allowed areas for AE businesses. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that in dealing with the areas of free speech - - and the First Amendment, it is not possible to completely prohibit an adult business. PC7-11 3 Planning Commission Meeting July 11, 1995 9. Mr. John Detlie, 48-546 Via Amistead, reviewed the ordinance and stated he wished all AE businesses could be eliminated in their entirely. 10. Ms. Karen Holgate, Indian Wells, distributed a letter and stated she had met with staff and they had included a number of their concems. Some areas that still remain to be addressed were: a. The Ordinance needs to be reworded as a "Sexually Oriented Ordinance" to agree with State law wording. b. Page 3 of the Ordinance, the 6th "Whereas" clause, is in conflict with Page 20, #Q and should read "two years for a misdemeanor and five years for a felony", or "five years for two or more misdemeanors", to be more consistent with court cases. c. Page 10, "his performances are not theatrical performances in theaters" the theatrical performance part leaves the City open to legal challenges. d. Page 10, the fourth paragraph, "Adult Motion Picture Theaters", add wording to address machines that now can take any denomination of money. e. Does not contain under definitions "Adult escorts, arcade, escort agency, massage parlors, nudity, state of nudity," etc. These need to : be defined in the Ordinance. f. Page 2, revocation, needs to be included in the ordinance, as well as suspension clauses. 11. Rev. Bracy Ball, 44-430 Buttercup, in the enforcement procedures, is it spelled out how the enforcement procedures are to be accomplished. There are guidelines, but how are they enforced? If it is a violation of the Code, is their license withdrawn or does an appeal period begin, what is the time factor? City Attorney Dawn Honeywell informed Mr. Ball that in the revocation part of the Ordinance the reasons and procedures can be found. She went on to explain the procedures. 12. Rev. Ball asked if on Page 19.D, if the 1500 foot distance limitation supersedes the 500 foot requirements in this portion. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell clarified the larger distance-1500 feet, only relates to schools; each is separate. Churches have a 500-foot distance provision. Rev. Ball asked that the larger distance be expanded to include churches. 13. Rev. Ball asked that if the Ordinance required a rear entrance only? If it did, he would recommend the Commission reverse this and require the patrons to enter through the front facing Highway 111. This would hopefully be a deterrent to the youth. PC7.11 4 Planning Commission Meeting July 11, 1995 14. Ms. Catherine Neneman, 78-805 Irwin Circle, as a new resident of La Quinta from Los Angeles, where this type of business is second nature, moved here to get away from that type of lifestyle. They live north of Highway 111 and the City wants to keep this type of business away the Cove, yet the City intend to allow them to locate near their homes. Isn't there an area that could be re-zoned that would be more conducive to this type of business? She stated her concern about the welfare of the children, not for protection only, but because this type of business always peaks the childrens' interest. 15. Ms. Connie Baty, 78-900 Sonesta Way, who formed Citizens for a Quality Community. Clarified a comment in the newspaper that stated the group was formed from a "worry" of hers. They are a group of people that have a deep concern for the community, and feel they can have some control, and were not formed "out of a worry". They are pleased with the amendments that are proposed. They felt the Ordinance would help to protect the children and deter the businesses from coming, but there needs to be more work done. By addressing the areas mentioned by Karen Holgate it would help to strengthen the ordinance. She then stated the four points that were of major concern to her: a. Why do all the other cities call this type of Ordinance a "Sexually Oriented Business Ordinance" and La Quinta wants "Adult Entertainment". This is too vague and needs to be changed. b. Zoning is a major concern. They understand there needs to be an area allotted for these businesses, but they are requesting to be shown other areas of the City that have been considered for re-zoning. c. Distances - can the City explain why there are inconsistencies in the distances being reqUired. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell explained the City did not want to allow the businesses in the entire City therefore, the Overlay Zone was created to restrict the areas it could be placed. The primary areas the City wanted to keep it from were schools and areas of high children activity. From there the City scaled down. The distances are arbitrary in that there are no hard lines. The City must show there are areas available for them to · locate. d. Inconsistency in the Ordinance such as on Page 17,#22 referring to items the applicant must submit. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell explained the City was asking the applicant to show what was located within 500 feet of the proposed business to indicate to the City what uses could potentially be affected. This would then bring to the City's attention what is located in the area, help to orient the location of the use, and determine if the use could be located at the proposed site. PC7-11 5 Planning Commission Meeting July 11, 1995 e. The Planning Commission should take their time to get this finalized as a good ordinance. 16. Ms. Lee Merryman, 51-345 Avenida Rubio, supported what had already been stated. Maybe rezoning could be considered further. Her concern is for the safety of the children as well as property values. 17. Mr. Joe Cook, 54-075 Avenida Juarez, stated that he had lived in La Quinta for six years and found it to be a nice community and felt this was a mistake and we are catering to the lust and wants of a small portion of the community. The City talks about distances from schools, distances from churches, parks, etc., when right across from the areas that allow AE businesses, are fast food restaurants with a high attendance of children. This should also be considered. The City of La Quinta doesn't need this type of business. The City needs to observe every legal restriction that can be considered to restrict such businesses. 18. Ms. Cheryl DePrew, 78-965 Sonesta Way, understood the City had conducted a poll of the businesses in La Quinta. She had spoken to some of these businesses that had received the survey and would like to have a questionnaire sent out to all the residents as well on this issue. 19. Mr. Paul Quill, 51-245 Avenida Rubio, agreed with what had been stated, reaffirms the comments of Karen Holgate and suggested the City Attorney be challenged to make the Ordinance even more restrictive. Stated his concern that the people looking to locate these businesses in our City, see our Ordinance as easier than the other cities to process through. The City needs to stretch the Ordinance to its limit to keep AE businesses out of the City. These uses could be very detrimental to the community. Supports the comments that have been made and would like to challenge the Planning Commission and City Council to tighten up the Ordinance as much as legally possible. 20. Mr. Brent Phillips, 78-820 West Harland, stated he supported the comments that had already been made, and asked that the distances be increased to the maximum to keep the allowable areas even smaller. He asked that the Planning Commission take their time to see that the Ordinance is done right. 21. Mr. Don Hay, 77-250 Femando, asked if there was anyone who wanted these businesses. Why isn't the City fighting this with everything they had. Fight it and write an Ordinance that keeps them out. 22. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell explained the reasons massage parlors are dealt with in a totally different section is that they are required to have a PC7-11 6 Planning Commission Meeting July 1 l, 1995 different type of licensing and therefore, are not considered under this Ordinance. She thanked Ms. Holgate for her input as her knowledge was more detailed about certain areas due to the length of time she had been fighting this cause. Staff will continue to consider her comments and input as the Ordinance is again revised for the City Council. 23. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell addressed the comment that "nobody wants these businesses and why doesn't the City just ban their existence". The real concern in doing this is, that the City could be left in a situation where the courts turnover the City's ban and the City is left in a situation of having to allow a businesses that is worse than what would have been allowed under the proposed Ordinance. The City wants to defend itself against the secondary effects. With the current limitations, the City is very close to the ultimate limits and is still defensible. Even though there are nine areas still available, two of the sites are too small. The number of locations will naturally be reduced as building occurs, to restrict AE businesses from being allowed. 24. Mr. Emie Brazell, 44400 Buttercup, stated the schools, churches, and parks, have many children in attendance, why do we need to have the distances different for each. Locate the AE businesses at Eagle Mountain. 25. Mr. Robert Metkus, La Quinta Highlands, asked why the City was in such a hma3r to pass this Ordinance. Don't hurry, we want the City Attomey and the Community Development Director to do their job. How were the distance circles reached? What is the purpose for these circles and why did he not address how these areas came to be. Why is the City using Palm Springs' Ordinance to draft ours after? Palm Springs has the most concentration of these businesses. Are we opening ourselves up to allowing as many as Palm Springs has? Why not use Indio's Ordinance who has a very restrictive Ordinance instead of Palm Springs that has an Ordinance that has allowed so many of these businesses. 26. There being no further comment, the public hearing was closed. 27. Community Development Director Jerry Herman explained that the City has an Urgency Ordinance in effect at this time and it is in place for 45-days only unless Council decides to extend it. If the City continues to rely on the Urgency Ordinance, then we must rely on the distances in that Ordinance to approve any proposed use submitted to the City. As to how the distances were arrived at, staff started at one end of the Highway and worked across measuring the distances. As to where in the City an Industrial Zone could be created, Mr. Herman went on to explain that most of the City is zoned PC7-11 7 Planning Commission Meeting July 11, 1995 Residential and a desirable location for these type businesses. The only alternative left was the Commercial area. Therefore, staff felt it was important to keep the AE businesses isolated in the commercial areas. If the City decreases these distances even further, the areas available are reduced and it makes the Ordinance less defensible. Staff went on to expand the distances and show the alternative distances that could be possible. 28. Commissioner Butler asked about re-zoning other areas in the City to Industrial. If the City started the process to re-zone, would this slow down the process of putting this Ordinance in place, or do we mn into a problem that while we re-zone the City, we take the chance of allowing the AE businesses to occur. Staff stated that to re-zone an area of the City, the General Plan must be amended. State law only allows the City to do this four times a year. This process could take a minimum of four months just to get the re-zoning before the Commission. The Urgency Ordinance is only in effect for 45-days to give the City time to put the strongest Ordinance that it can into effect. 29. Commissioner Butler, asked if the City did go through this process, if somebody applied during that time, could the City prevent him from coming in. City Attomey Dawn Honeywell stated the City could pass a moratorium to prevent it from happening, but this would complicate the issue and the : applicant could prove the City was trying to prevent the applicant from doing his business. Staff could take this recommendation to the City Council and they could continue to look into seeing if the Overlay Zone was in the proper place; or the Planning Commission could hold up the process until further review was completed to be sure of the zoning. This would require extending the existing Urgency Ordinance to allow time to see if there were any other areas that would be more beneficial to zone for these types of businesses. In addition, the Planning Commission could determine there was some merit in saying there might be some other area in the City more appropriate for the Overlay Zone, but did not want to hold up this Ordinance and therefore recommended approval of the Ordinance to the City Council to put this Ordinance in place. Another option to the Planning Commission, is to determine, that based upon the Commission's knowledge of the City at present, the City is predominately residential and has not wanted to have an Industrial Zone. Therefore, the Planning Commission could determine that it is not worthwhile to rezone any part of the City. 30. Commissioner Anderson stated that if the Planning Commission were to take the City's most intensive use and change it to Light Industrial, this would not relocate the AE businesses to any more desirable locatibns. There is no other PC7-11 8 Planning Commission Meeting July 11, 1995 place except the Highway 111 corridor to places these businesses. No area in the City would want to have this type of use any closer to their area. Commissioner Anderson stated he was not opposed to reducing some of the distances, but maybe staff could draw the map showing the different distances as options to determine if any other areas were possible. Options could be given to the Council to consider, by showing the selected areas with different distances. The City however, does not want to open itself up to court litigation. 31. Commissioner Adolph asked staff to explain Page 19, how these figures compare to other cities in the Valley, such as Indio. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the ordinances that were used to draft this Ordinance included ordinances from the City's of Palm Springs, Palm Desert and Indio, as well as personal input from the community. Due to the amount of input, the Ordinance has taken on a character of its own. By using the distance of 1,500 feet, the City is now requiring a distance that is further than any other City now requires. Each city has its own area of being more restrictive than other cities and this is due to the different needs of each. With La Quinta having seven to nine areas available for AE businesses, the Ordinance remains defensible. 32. Commissioner Adolph stated the distance from schools is just as important .: as parks and the distances should be increased. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated this could increase some of the other distances. Community Development Director Jerry Herman showed on the map, areas that could be increased and the results. He further stated that unless you increase the residential distances it will have no effect on the current AE areas. 33. Commissioner Newkirk asked if restaurants that cater to children were included, would this help to eliminate some of the areas. Community Development Director Jerry Herman explained there were two areas that could be affected, but due to the size of those parcels, it was unlikely any AE business could be located there anyway. 34. Commissioner Butler asked if the City Attorney had reviewed the areas of concern submitted by Ms. Holgate. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated she had not seen the list before this meeting, but some of the areas of concern had already been included in the Ordinance. She would be carefully reviewing the list while preparing the Ordinance for Council review. She had no objection to changing the name to "Sexually Oriented Businesses" if it would make it more consistent with State requirements. Discussion followed as to whether the Planning Commission should continue the public hearing or recommend the matter to the City Council. Of course the question still remains as to whether the City Council wants to consider it further. PC7-11 9 Planning Commission Meeting July 11, 1995 35. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated she would include a section on family- oriented restaurants and distances to be required. 36. Commissioner Butler stated he felt the Ordinance should be recommended to the City Council for approval to see some of these areas protected. 37. Commissioner Anderson stated he was prepared to recommend approval with the distances increased. He felt this Ordinance was stronger than the one currently in effect. In addition, he would like to recommend that a thorough and complete review of Mrs. Holgate's statement listed in her "areas of concern" be included in the Planning Commission recommendation. 38. Commissioner Newkirk asked if the Planning Commission could recommend continuance and instruct staff to review and evaluate the changes brought up at this meeting and bring those changes to the next Planning Commission meeting. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated this could be done however, it would only allow the Council one meeting to consider their recommendation. 39. Community Development Director Jerry Herman asked the Planning Commission to clarify whether or not they wanted to include family-oriented businesses in the Ordinance, was the entrance to the AE businesses to be a rear or front entrance from Highway 111, and did they want the distances measured from the property to the structure? 40. Commissioner Adolph asked if it would be appropriate to condition the Ordinance to contain the changes suggested by Ms. Holgate? City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated she did not feel it was necessary as she was quite sure Ms. Holgate would address her concerns at the Council meeting. 41. Commissioner Adolph stated he had a concern with the usage of the word "appropriate" on Page 2, F. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated it meant the Planning Commission felt these locations were the "most appropriate places of all the places the City has available". Discussion followed. 42. Commissioner Adolph questioned the wording used on Page 3, concerning the "conviction" that as soon as they are out of jail they could start again. It should state, "from the time released". City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated she was obtaining information from a law firm that has a great deal of knowledge on this subject as well as First Amendment cases. The Ordinance would be reviewed again and staff would be discussing the issue with the firm as to changing the wording. PC7.11 10 Planning Commission Meeting July 11, 1995 43. Commissioner Adolph stated he did not think AE businesses, as stated here, fall into the category of freedom of speech, but rather freedom of expression. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the courts would not agree with this. 44. Commissioner Butler asked if the City went to 1,000 feet for uses other than the ones listed, including the family-oriented restaurants, would it restrict the AE businesses further? City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated this would put La Quinta beyond other cities in the Valley and she would prefer adding family-oriented restaurants with a 500-foot limit and increase the church distance, even though it will not affect anything. In addition, the City could look into seeing if increasing the residential would cause any effect. 45. Commissioner Anderson stated he would like to see 750 feet from residential, 1,500 from recreation areas and public building, between businesses of like kind to 750 feet, and family-oriented restaurants to 750 feet. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated staff would need to map this out and see how many sites were left. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell asked staff to determine what effect the Desert Sands Unified School District Administration Center would have if the distance was increased to 1,500 feet. Community Development Director Jerry Herman made measurements on the map and stated this would decrease the number of sites available to about four. Staff could still increase .: the distance from liquor stores to 750. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that three to four areas allowing the AE businesses is barely defensible. If anY new use were to come in and knocked out any of the current sites, the City would have to come back and loosen up the other areas. 46. Commissioner Adolph stated he felt the City should worry about that at that time. If we are more restrictive than other cities, hopefully they would go to another city. 47. Commissioner Anderson stated he didn't want to open the floodgates by being too restrictive. The City needs to be at the edge of the defensibility of the ordinance. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated she felt that three to five a sites were enough locations to make it defensible. 48. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated she would increase public parks to 1500 feet and add family-oriented restaurants at 750 feet and give this to the Council for their review. 49. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Anderson to adopt Resolution 95-029 recommending to the City Council adoption of the Sexually Oriented Business Ordinance as drafted with the addition of the amendments as listed below: PC7-11 11 Planning Commission Meeting July 11, 1995 a. Add family-oriented restaurants with a distance of 750 feet. b. Staff review the prepared statement submitted by Karen Holgate and incorporate it into their recommendation to the City Council. c Relocate the entrance to the businesses to the front of the buildings. d. The distance from similar businesses be increased to 750 feet. e. Recreation and public buildings be increased to 1,500. f. Churches increased to 1,000 feet. g. The distance from any liquor stores increased to 750 feet. h. Change the name to "Sexually Oriented Businesses". I. As well as amendments recommended by staff. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Anderson, Adolph, Butler, Newkirk, and Vice Chairman Gardner. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioners Abels, Barrows. ABSTAIN: None. BUSINESS SESSION A. Specific Plan 90-015 and Specific Plan 90-016; a request of the KSL PGA West and KSL La Quinta Corporations for approval of a First Annual Review. 1. Staff informed the Commission that as two members of the Commission would have to withdraw due to a possible conflict of interest and as two .: members of the Commission were absent, this item would be continued to the Commission's next meeting of July 25, 1995. B. Conditional Use Permit 95-017; a request of Jim L. Jamagin, La Quinta Car Wash for approval of preliminary landscaping plans for a car wash. 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 Anderson asked if there was berming in the front area of the landscaping. Staff stated that none was indicated. 3. Commissioner Anderson asked if the signage had been reviewed. Staff stated that it had been reviewed and approved. 4. Commissioner Butler asked if there was going to be any berming/landscaping on Highway 111. Staff stated it was to be completed as the other property was developed. 5. Commissioner Anderson asked how far the landscaping was set back from Highway 111. Staff stated it was approximately 100 feet. PC7-11 12 Planning Commission Meeting July 11, 1995 6. Commissioner Adolph stated he felt it was an excellent job that addressed all the Planning Commission's concerns. 7. Commissioner Anderson thanked the applicant for his presentation. 8. There being no further discussion it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Adolph/Butler to adopt Minute Motion 95-028 approving Conditional Use Permit 95-017 subject to conditions. Unanimously approved. CONSENT CALENDAR A. There being no corrections to the Minutes of June 27, 1995, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Adolph/Anderson to approve the Minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved. COMMISSIONER ITEMS A. Commissioner Butler gave a review of the Council meeting of July 5, 1995. B. Distribution of Commission packets. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated the Planning Commission packets would be available by noon on the Friday prior to the Planning Commission for pick up. It was suggested that the Commissioners make arrangements to pick up their packets on Friday at City Hall. C. Vice Chairman Gardner stated he had received a letter from someone in the audience stating the screen was too difficult to see. Staff stated they would address the problem. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Adolph/Newkirk to adjourn this meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting on July 25, 1995. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:13 P.M., July 11, 1995. PC7.11 13