PCMIN 10 24 1995,'
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, CA
October 24, 1995 3:00 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 4:01 P.M. by
Chairman Abels. Community Development Director Jerry Herman led the flag
salute.
II. ROLL CALL
A. Chairman Abels requested the roll call: Present: Commissioners Adolph, Butler,
_ Gardner, Newkirk, and Chairman Abels.
B. Chairman Abels stated both Commissioners Barrows and Newkirk had informed him
they would be late. He therefore, moved and Commissioner Adolph seconded a
motion to excuse Commissioners Barrows and Newkirk. Unanimously approved.
C. StaffPresent: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Dawn
Honeywell, Building and Safety Development Director Tom Hartung, Planning
Manager Christine di Iorio, Senior Engineer Steve Speer, Principal Planner Start
Sawa, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer.
III. CONFIRMATION OF T1-W~ AGENDA:
A. Chairman Abels asked if there were any changes to the Agenda. Community
Development Director Jerry Herman asked that Item 3 under Commissioner Items
be moved to the Workshop portion so that Building and Safety Director Tom
Hartung would be available to discuss the topic with the Commissioners.
IV. PUBI,IC COMMENT - None
V. WORKSHOP
A. Discussion re~,~din~, the Uniform Building Code Title 24 l:.ner~,y Standards; a
review of the Energy Standards in light of the Commission's request to include a
new section title "Energy Conservation Design Requirements" .in the Zoning Code.
PC10-24 1
Planning Commission Minutes
October 24, 1995
1. Community Development Director Jerry Herman informed the
Commissioners that the 1994 Uniform Building Code (UBC) would be on a
future Council agenda for adoption before the end of the year. As part of that
adoption process, if there are local amendments to be added to the UBC, they
must be taken care of during the public hearing process. This includes the
energy requirements requested by the Planning Commission in the Zoning
Code.
2. Building and Safety Director Tom Hartung informed the Commissioners this
aspect of the Building Code has already been addressed as part of the Title
24 Energy Requirements and to add more details may make an uneven
playing field for the developers. The Commissioners proposed amendments
that may make other Title 24 requirements less stringent.
3. Chairman Abels asked the Building and Safety Director to clarify what areas
of the Zoning Code were being affected. Staff stated it was only Section
9.50.020 of the Zoning Code.
4. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated that if patio covers
are mandated to be a minimum of 4-feet in depth, a 10-foot required rear yard
in the SR Zone, the actual building is 14-feet, because the City mandated a
14-foot setback rather than a 1 O-foot setback.
5. Commissioner Butler asked if there were any other areas of conflict. Staff
stated reiterated what the problems were in relation to the setbacks.
Discussion followed.
6. Building and Safety Director Tom Hammg stated the amendments are
excellent requirements, however the State has already taken these items under
consideration through the designated zone and each of the 16 zones is
designed to mitigate the worst case scenario. The City is in the Desert Zone,
which is the most restrictive. Therefore, the Code already addresses building
energy efficient dwellings.
7. Commissioner Anderson stated his concern was that these design standards
are only minimum requirements. Staff stated this was no longer the case as
they are required to design for the worst case scenario.
8. Chairman Abels asked staff for their recommendation. Staff requested
deletion of the entire Section from the proposed Zoning Code.
PC10o24 2
Planning Commission Minutes
October 24, 1995
9. Community Development Director Jerry Herman asked if the Commission
could remove the wording "Energy Conservation Design Requirements" and
substitute with "design requirements - every home shall have an 18-inch
overhang and 12-inch recessed window if it is a flat roof". City Attorney
Dawn Honeywell stated this would still be considered building standards
which are first controlled by the UBC.
10. Commissioner Newkirk asked if the section could remain until a
builder/developer comes back requesting modifications because the
requirements are too restrictive. Staff stated the UBC requirements are
already very restrictive.
11. Commissioner Butler asked if the requirement for a shade trellis was still in
the ordinance. Staff stated no. However under the Compatibility Ordinance
a precedent is already set in some existing tracts.
_ 12. Commissioner Butler asked if the requirement for recessed windows was
arbitrary or an energy concern. Staff stated the use of pop-outs is for
aesthetics reasons and the recess for 12-inches in depth is for energy
conservation.
13. Commissioner Adolph asked if the requirements the Commission added to
the draft Zoning Code are built into the Title 24 requirements. Staff stated
they were. Commissioner Adolph stated he had a concern about a developer
downgrading his air conditioner because Title 24 allows him to do so because
he has added glazing to his windows. Staff stated that Title 24 is Continually
changing to cover the energy aspects of the entire house. It does take into
consideration the air conditioning and the window glazing. To require
portions of the house design be modified for energy efficiency and mandate
it through the Zoning Code does not make it more efficient.
14. Commissioner Anderson stated he could see the effect of Items #2 and #3,
and the best scenario is to cover all windows with eaves, but the trellis is
important and not difficult for the developer to comply with. Staff stated the
shading co-efficiency takes into consideration the depth of the eave. It takes
into consideration the height of the window and the angle of the eave at
which it protects the glazing. It is specific to each individual home.
15. Chairman Abels asked if there was a concurrence with the Commissioners to
drop the energy requirements from the Zoning Ordinance. Unanimously
approved.
Chairman Abels excused himself due to a prior engagement at 4:15 P.M. Vice Chairman Gardner
assumed the Chair.
PC10-24 3
·
·
Planning Commission Minutes
October 24, 1995
B. Zoning Ordinance Update; a request of staff for a review of the Zoning Ordinance.
1. Page 3. Definitions. Automobile service station: leave the last sentence in
and add "...to the automotive use may or may not be included."
2. Page 10. Grade. Change the grade and finish grade to agree with the how the
height of a building is determined.
3. Page 18. Planned Unit Development. Make a correlation between planned
unit development and planned development assuming the terminology is the
same for single family dwellings as well.
Vice Chairman Gardner recessed the meeting at 4:28 P.M. and Chairman Abels reconvened at 7:03
P.M.
VI. PUBLIC COMMENT: None
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Continued Hearing on Conditional Use Permit 95-021. Plot Plan 95-564. and
Environmental Assessment 95-309; a request of The Keith Companies for
certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact; approval
of a deviation from the development standards to reduce the gross livable area; and
approval of a 35% density bonus to allow 11 units per acre, and a reduction in
parking spaces for affordable housing to allow a 128 unit apartment project on
Washington Street.
1. Chairman Abels explained this was a continued public hearing.
Commissioners Butler and Adolph excused themselves due to possible
conflicts of interest.
2. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell explained that the Commissioners withdrew,
but the City does not have an actual determination as to a conflict of interest.
There is a possibility of a financial impact to Commissioner Butler's wife's
employer under California Code of Regulations Section 18702.2 which may
exceed $10,000. Commissioner Adolph received information that a relative
of his campaign manager is one of the property owners which would be
selling the subject property to the applicant and therefore, even though there
would probably be no financial interest to either applicant directly, both have
withdrawn due to even the possibility of an appearance of a conflict of
interest.
PC10-24 4
Planning Commission Minutes
October 24, 1995
3. Mr. Mike Rowe, The Keith Companies, speaking on behalf of the applicant,
stated he would like to clarify the condition relative to the retention basin
they will look at the verbiage in the condition and will state that they can
reduce the retention basin to maximize the setbacks in between the houses.
Staff has recommended relocating the retention basin to the center of the
project. The applicant stated they would not like to do this, but would rather
reduce it in size and keep it at the northern end of the project. However, they
would follow the recommendation of staff and open up the landscape areas
between the buildings to show some undulation with the use of drainage
swales or other means of getting the water so as not to create other areas of
pockets of retention throughout the area, but do create the difference in
elevation and the look of open space.
4. Commissioner Anderson asked if the applicant had seen the new condition
distributed by staff. Staff read Condition #71, "That the preliminary plans
including design, color, materials, finishes, etc., for th~/carports and any other
structures, shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission as
a non;public hearing item." Mr. Rowe stated he had no problem with this.
Planning Manager di Iorio clarified that Condition #68 would read "the
retention/detention basin shall be reduced to a minimum size that holds a
100-year 24-hour storm with a maximum 3:1 side slope," deleting "the basin
shall be dispersed within the project site in more than one area," and add,
"The buildings, parking, recreation area, etc., shall be interspersed with other
depressed areas integral to the retention/detention basin to maximize setbacks
between buildings provided."
5. Mr. Rowe clarified that the retention basin is not sized for any particular
storm size. The current size of the project only requires only 4 acre feet of
retention storage and currently they have 16 acre feet. However, the goal
behind the retention basin is to generate fill necessary to develop the project.
Discussion followed regarding'the size and purpose of the retention basin.
6. Commissioner Anderson stated he understood the condition as recommended
by staff would create a greater separation of the buildings by reducing the
concentrated area of the basin. If the condition is written with no stipulation
as to the size of the basin, then the spacing between the buildings may be
compromised.
7. Chairman Abels asked staff to give their report and recommendation.
Planning Manager Christine di Iorio presented the information contained in
the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department. She went on to explain the changes the applicant requested and
staWs recommendations regarding those changes.
PC10-24 5
Planning Commission Minutes
October 24, 1995
8. Chairman Abels asked if the City has requirements for parking, why should
the Planning Commission even consider a deviation. Planning Manager
Christine di Iofio stated the Planning Commission can approve deviations if
findings can be made that the reduction will not have a parking impact on the
apartment complex. In addition, State law, Section 65915, allows the City
to make a concession for reduced parking in an affordable housing project.
It was noted that the applicant was requesting the City to reduce their
requirement for parking for their two bedroom units from 2.5 to 2 while the
three and four bedrooms meet City standards.
9. Chairman Abels stated the City however, is not bound by that requirement.
City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the City does have to allow the density
bonus, but whether the parking request is included is discretionary. However,
the density increase of 25% (the minimum) is the minimum the City must
allow if the developer meets certain criteria for the affordable housing.
10. Commissioner Anderson asked for clarification on the size of the units..Staff
stated the minimum size is 750 square feet.
_
11. Commissioner Gardner asked what kind of environmental mitigation studies
would be necessary. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated an
archaeological study would be required and other mitigation measures would
have to be reviewed to determine what else would be needed. Commissioner
Gardner asked what a "Culnwal Resources Managing finn" was? Staff stated
it is a firm that has a qualified archaeologist on staff.
12. Commissioner Gardner stated a noise study is required before issuance of a
building permit. What noise level would be necessary before a building
permit is not be issued? Community Development Director Jerry Herman
stated that the General Plan requires a noise study be completed for projects
on all Major Arterials. Outside areas within the complex must be less than
60 dBL to comply with requirements and the building interior must not
exceed 45 dBL. A mitigation measure may require a block wall or block
wall/berm combination to comply to these standards.
13. Mr. Mike Rowe stated that in regards to the retention basin, they were in
favor of reducing the retention/detention basin and distribute the remaining
depressed area between the buildings. He would recommend a 3.5 acre basin
and a combination of drainage swells between the buildings and balance out
the unit distribution. This would give a more open space feeling.
PCI0-24 6
Planning Commission Minutes
October 24, 1995
14. Mr. Rowe asked that the second sentence of Condition #68 be eliminated and
add "...shall be interspersed with the drainage swales to maximize the
setbacks between buildings...". Further, they would not like to pave the extra
area, but leave it as the turfed areas, unless the need arises for additional
parking.
15. Commissioner Anderson stated he too would like to see the area not paved.
He asked Engineering for the exact wording of the condition.
16. Commissioner Gardner asked if the number of handicapped parking spaces
was adequate for disabled people. Mr. Rowe stated that was difficult as this
is what the norm is and all units will be handicap adaptable and if the need'
for extra stalls is necessary they will provide them. Chairman Abels asked
what the State percentages are. Staff stated the project meets the State
requirements.
17. Commissioner Gardner stated the State standards are a minimm and usually
not adequate. Staff informed the Commission that they had the option to
-- increase the parking if they felt it was necessary. Mr. Rowe stated they were
willing to provide additional parking spaces. Discussion followed.
18. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated the requested revision by the applicant to
Condition #68 is too loose and subject to interpretation. The applicant is
asking for the retention basin to be reduced without stipulating the size. The
recommendation presented tonight was based on the Commission's desire to
have the housing spread out. That is why staff recommended to put the
depressed area in the center of the project and the water storage basin can be
put to the side. The other alternative is fill import the dirt and spread out the
houses.
19. Mr. John Koenig, Koenig Companies, stated he is seldom in objection to a
project. Initially he was in favor of the project. However, since he has
become better informed about the project' issues, he now feels that the
probable impact on his project will be negative because too many
concessions are being requested to accommodate the project. He was
concerned about the income level of the people. He felt that the parking
would be a problem and the northern portion of his development would be
utilized for overflow parking of the renters. This will require policing of their
parking areas and arranging for the removal of the vehicles. This could
potentially reduce the quality of his project. If the project cannot afford to
import the dirt what other amenities will go by the wayside.
PC10-24 7
Planning commission Minutes
October 24, 1995
20. Mr. Robert Tyler, 44-215 Valletta Drive, stated he had visited the applicant's
project in Cathedral City and parking is his major concern. He asked staff
how many spaces are required for the three and four bedroom units? Staff
stated it was provided according to Code requirements. Mr. Tyler stated that
2.5 parking spaces will not be enough. At the moment the Cathedral City
development is a very nice development. At the Cathedral City development
the manager lives off-site. The project needs a live-in manager. He obtained
a list of the rules each of the tenants must read and sign, but most of the items
are not enforceable. What happens after 15 years when the management team
is no longer responsible? Residents of La Quinta do not want the minimum
standards, but want to rise above them.
21. Mr. Richard Crockett, tenant of La Quinta Village Center, stated he deals
with the tenants of this Center and this would be a benefit to the tenants. Mr.
Crockett stated he had built several affordable housing projects in the City
and them is a need for this type of housing. The City needs to address it the
best we can within the law.
22. Mr. Steve Golff, USA Homes-applicant, stated he did not believe their-
project was a minimum type project. The number of parking spaces' is a
statistical figure based on past projects. They would have no objection to
increasing the number of regular or handicapped parking stalls. In regards
to Mr. Koenig's comments, he has never had a commercial project be a
opponent to their project. As it relates to what type of impact this could have
on his project, he would welcome Mr. Koenig to visit their other projects and
see what the impact has been. He felt the commercial neighbors would
respond that it has been a positive impact on the community and their
businesses. The project in Cathedral City has only 88 units, (20 units per
acre) and an on-site management staff, and the minimum number of years
they will manage the units is only the minimum.
23. Chairman Abels stated the 15 years they will be managing the units is a
requirement of the Federal Tax Credit Program. Mr. Golff stated that was
correct. The original owner must be there for the first 15 years.
24. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the public
hearing.
PC10-24 8 '
Planning Commission Minutes
October 24, 1995
25. Commissioner Gardner asked if the CC & R's could be required prior to
issuance of a building permit. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated she
had not seen the CC & R's and they do have something similar to the
covenants, coiaditions, and restrictions that relate to the affordability
requirements under their Federal program. The conditions should require that
the City Attorney review and approve that the CC & R's to assure that
affordability covenants are in place in order to grant the density benefits.
26. Chairman Abels stated he is not against this type of project, but the location
is a problem. From a mixed use stand point this is a single type. Next door
there is a mixed use. The Commission straggles with compatibility issues,
and feels the concems of Mr. Koenig should be addressed. Until these issues
can be addressed, he would be unable to support of the project.
27. Commissioner Newkirk stated his concern about the impact on the
commercial center as well as the impact on the Village area. He does not fell
sure this is a viable project for this area. He has spoken to the business
residents and they have mixed reactions. He understands the City is
compelled to provide affordable housing but not at this location.
28. Commissioner Anderson stated that beside the problem with the retention
basin, he sees no problem with the project. This is the best the City can get
in an affordable project. The Commission should not be concerned with
income levels, but react to the project as it conforms to the Zoning Code and
other regulations of the City.
29. Commissioner Barrows stated she has some concerns, but is not opposed to
the pioject. It is not an unsuitable project for this site, even though she has
concems regarding reduced parking standards. Commissioner Barrows asked
if there was a condition requiting on-site management. City Attorney Dawn
Honeywell stated that if the Commission wants to assure on-site
management, it would need to be added as a separate condition.
Commissioner Barrows asked how the project could be improved with
respect to parking? She does not feel this is the core of the Village and
therefore the project would not have an impact.
30. Chairman Abels stated he is not opposed to the use, but did not believe a
mixed use should be next to the single use.
31. Commissioner Gardner stated his concern about the noise of the street having
an impact on the project. He did not feel any wall would be able to deter the
noise. Mr. Mike Rowe stated that the sound wall will be six feet plus,
Washington Street is 15-feet above the project thereby reducing the noise
PC10o24 9
Planning Commission Minutes
October 24, 1995
levels. Commissioner Gardner stated his concern about the traffic egress
coming from one street; the density is very high and the Sheriff's Department
had expressed some concern. Concem was also raised about maintaining the
project over the time.
32. Chairman Abels stated his concerns about the uses and did not feel he could
support the project.
33. Commissioner Anderson stated he agreed with the City Engineer that the
wording on Condition #68 should be tightened up and would like to see staff
determine the size of the retention basin.
34. Commissioner Barrows asked if there is flexibility in regards to the
percentages of the income levels. Community Development Director Jerry
Herman stated tax credits are allocated to this project and therefore it would
be a low and very low income project. Mr. GoltT stated that 60% of the units
are restricted to households incomes not in excess of 60% of the median
income and 40% not in excess of 50% of the median income.
35. Chairman Abels stated that the request for a 35% density bonus is excessive
when the minimum is 25%. The compatible issue was brought before the
Commission last year regarding the surrounding development densities.
36. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Gardner/Newkirk to adopt Planning Commission Resolution
95-045 denying the mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact.
City Attomey Dawn Honeywell stated the findings for denying the project as
stated by the Commissioners were as follows:
a. The Planning Commission hereby finds that the General Plan Policy
2-1.1.9 criteria for allowing apartments in the Medium Density
Residential Land Use designation is not met in 'that the proposed
development does not meet the requirement in that it is not a part of
a mixed-use planned development and therefore, it is not consistent
with the General Plan.
b. A noise study must be completed before issuance of a building permit
and as a part of the EIR.
c. The reduced number of parking spaces proposed does not mitigate the
effects that parking will have for this project.
PC10-24 10
Planning Commission Minutes
October 24, 1995
d. The amount of density bonus requested for this project as proposed,
would have too great of an impact on the surrounding community and
must be reviewed as part of an environmental impact report.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Gardner, Newkirk, and Chairman Abels.
NOES: Commissioners Anderson and Barrows. ABSENT: Commissioners Adolph
and Butler. ABSTAIN: None.
The motion passed on a 3-2-2 vote. The project is denied.
Commissioners Adolph and Butler rejoined the meeting.
VIII. BUSINESS ITEMS
A. Plot Plan 95-552; a request of Rancho Capistrano Development Corporation for KSL
PGA West Corporation for approval of an amendment to a condition of ApProval
for the Ryder, Heritage, and Masters Collection units at PGA West.
1. Commissioners Anderson and Gardner asked to be excused due to a possible
conflict of interest.
2. Principal Planner Start Sawa presented the information contained in the staff
report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department.
3. Commissioner Butler asked if the pop-outs being reduced from 4-inches to
2-inches is more for aesthetics and not to meet Title 24 requirements; it
would not change any of the Title 24 requirements. Staff stated this was
correct.
4. Commissioner Butler asked if the paved roads met the Fire Department
requirements. Staff stated this had been approved.
5. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Adolph/Butler to adopt Minute Motion 95-044 approving an
amendmem to Plot Plan 95-552, as conditioned. Unanimously approved with
Commissioners Anderson and Gardner being absent.
Commissioners Anderson and Butler rejoined the meeting
B. Sl~ecial Advertising, Device 95-084; a request of Schatzi's Grill for approval of
temporary banners.
PC10-24 1 1
Planning Commission Minutes
October 24, 1995
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. Commissioner Adolph asked if these were the Octoberfest Banners. Staff
stated they were.
3. Commissioner Anderson commended staff on enforcing the Sign Ordinance;
he had no problem with the request.
4. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Adolph/Anderson to adopt Minute Motion 95-045 approving
Special Advertising Device 95-084 as conditioned. Unanimously approved.
X. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Commissioner Adolph stated he had visited the site of the used car lot and the left
mm lane was there and in addition he had spoken to Captain Dye of the Riverside
County Sheriff s Department and they had no concern.
G. Chairman Abels asked if there were any corrections or additions to the Minutes of
October 10, 1995. Commissioner Adolph asked that Page 14, Item #34 be corrected
to read "Mr. Rowe stated the problem with importing fill dirt". Conunissioner
Anderson asked that on Page 4, Item #3 "...Chairman Abels opened public..."
Commissioner Gardner asked that Page 9, Item 5 "...stated there would be a signal
on installed .... ". There being no further corrections, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Adolph/Gardner to approve the Minutes as corrected. Unanimously
approved.
IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS
A. Commissioner Gardner stated he had attended the meeting of the City Council
meeting of October 3, 1995, and gave a short report.
B. Community Development Director Jerry Herman gave a report of Department
activities and informed the Commission of the Public Forum for Council candidates
on October 26th, at the La Quinta High School.
X. 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 of November 14, 1995.
This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 8:19 P.M.
PC10o24 12