Loading...
PCMIN 02 13 1996 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA February 13, 1996 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:07 P.M. by Chairman Abels who asked Commissioner Butler to lead the flag salute. II. ROLL CALL A. Chairman Abels requested the roll call: Present: Commissioners Anderson, Barrows, Butler, Gardner, Newkirk, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Dawn Honeywell, Senior Engineer Steve Speer, Planning Manager Christine di Iorio, Principal Planner Start Sawa, Associate Planners Greg Trousdell and Wallace Nesbit, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. III. PUBLIC COMMENT: A. Ms. Karen Ralke Kuenzler, 44-450 Camino La Vanda, stated she and her husband are new property owners at the Rancho Ocotillo development, and her concern that two story houses could be constructed behind their home (i.e., Quinterra). They purchased their home, the lot had premium price because of its location and view. They were told by Century Homes that no two story homes would be built behind them. Based on their good faith representation, they purchased the home. They visited the Quinterra models (the tract of homes being constructed behind theirs) and a two story model was planned for the lot directly behind their house. This would diminish the value of their home and reduce their outdoor privacy. She would like to request that the City prohibit the construction of any two story houses adjacent to the Rancho Ocotillo development. She submitted a petition containing signatures that she had obtained of those who were in objection to the proposed two story houses. -- B. Ms. Barbara Irwin, 44-065 Camino La Cresta, stated she supported the petition. She was concerned that the present builder was not building within the 5% rule of the : Compatibility Ordinance.. It would be detrimental if two story houses were built on the perimeter of their tract. She thought that Ordinance 242 should be interpreted to maintain the integrity of the tract. PC2-13 1 Planning Commission Meeting February 13, 1996 C. Karen Ralke Kuenzler, 44-450 Camino Lavanda, stated she had a problem with the La Quinta Palms development as they had a raised parkway on their side of the wall behind her house. A resident of the La Quinta Palms could stand on the parkway and have a direct view into their backyard. The wall is easily climbed making their yard a thoroughfare to the local school children. Their pool had even been used while they were not home. The wall height has created security and liability problems because they own a pool. They had requested Century Homes to raise the wall, but Century denied the request as the wall belonged to La Quinta Palms. Both Century Homes and La Quinta Palms share this responsibility. She was requesting guidance from the Planning Commission to solve this problem. Chairman Abels informed Ms. Kuenzler that the Planning Commission had no authority to render any comment. It was the responsibility of the Code Compliance Department and referred the matter to staff. · D. Mr. Craig M. Wright, 44-420 Camino La Vanda, stated he too was concerned about the height of the existing block wall. The fence height is inadequate and with the construction of a pool, accidents could be a problem. Chairman Abels again referred the matter to Staff. WORKSHOP: A. Zoning COde Revision for IncorPoration into Zoning Code Amendment 96-050 - Re- evaluation of Chapter 9.117: Equestrian Overlay Zone. I. Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit presented the information contained in the staff report a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff stated this was not a public hearing and no action would be taken by the Commission. 2. Chairman Abels opened the matter for public discussion. 3. Mr. John Benoit, 39-740 St. Michael Place, Palm Desert, stating he was speaking as an individual in support of the Reese/Reeske Ranch. He was not aware of all the allegations that had been made, but his daughter has ridden at the ranch for five years and on every visit he found it to be a very wholesome and positive environment for the kids. The site is well maintained and a positive influence for the kids and he would like to see this operation continue. 4. Ms. Sarah Benoit, 39-740 St. Michaels Place, Palm Desert, stated she had been riding at Rancho del Sol for five years. It has been a positive experience. She strives to keep her grade point average up in order to continue this sport. She has only ridden on the Reese property and has never seen anyone leave the property or do any damage. PC2-13 2 Planning Commission Meeting February 13, 1996 5. Mrs. Sharon Garcia, employee of the Desert Feed Bag, stated she has known the Reese family for the last fourteen years and found them to be very responsible, business people. The Reeses have put a lot of time and effort into the ranch. The horses are cleaned twice a day and fed three times a day. It is a positive environment for the kids and the landscaping has been increased to enhance the beauty of this equestrian center. There are so very few equestrian centers at this end of the Valley for children. Her children have maintained straight A's and high scholastic goals and would never vandalize. In addition, the children are always supervised. The equestrian environment is decreasing due to the development of the area. To rezone this area for more tract homes is discouraging. As to the complaints about the manure, it is chopped up and worked into the soil and is therefore good for the environment. As a special feature, this year a Christmas Party was given to show the parents what had been accomplished by their children. A demonstration was given for the parents and a public address system was used for this occasion. 6. Mr. Michael Neatherton, 44-060 Dalae Circle, Cactus Flower, Administrator of Betty Ford Center, stated he was here in support of Rancho Del Sol and the only complaints he knew about were those that had been stated. His oldest daughter was involved in riding lessons and in the year she has been taking lessons, everything he has seen is evidence that this is a well nm operation. He stated this was the exact type of operation needed in this community. The impact on his daughter has created a greater respect for the environment, animals, and authority. As a community, the City should be doing anything and everything possible to retain these types of operations. The City has talked about ways to make it more livable and inviting to those with young families, and this is what is being offered. He would oppose anything that will change this operation. 7. Mr. Bo Ford, 78-659 Avenida La Fonda, stated he was uncertain as to the affect of the ordinance on Rancho Del Sol, but if it affects the operation of the ranch, it would be to the detriment of the community. Rancho Del Sol is well kept and is a positive influence for his daughter. It is a safe activity and something she can do that is a positive influence on her life. He has always found the ranch to be clean and well maintained. 8. Ms. DeeDee Vicknair, speaking on behalf of Southwest Landscape, 79-900 Horseshoe Road, La Quinta, stated her purpose for attending this meeting was to support Rancho Del Sol, as they have purchased large amounts of supplies to control the dust and beautify the property. The property to the rear of the Reeses' has not been maintained and is overgrown with weeds; PC2-13 3 Planning Commission Meeting February 13, 1996 fencing material to the rear is not in accordance with the City's standards. The Reese's and Reeskes are meeting all the Municipal Code requirements of the City. 9. Mr. Mike Reeske, 54-415 Avenida Vallejo, stated he was here to support his in-laws and wife. He has spent three or four years before the Planning Commission and City Council regarding this same issue. They have met all requirements placed on them by the City Council and he is concerned that these issues are being repeated over and over again. Code enforcement has had to send out their officers numerous times and never has the ranch been cited. All accusations have never been substantiated and it is difficult to hear such things stated in an open forum especially when they have invested so much work into this ranch. He and his wife have bought a new home in La Quinta, and have been recognized twice by the La Quinta Chamber for their home. Property values have decreased due to the economy not because of anything caused by local people. Rancho Del Sol is a positive influence on the community and it would be a detriment to make any changes in the operation. Changes would be a punishment for abiding by the rules to date. 10. Ms. Peg Ray, 78-441 Orcabessa Drive, Bermuda Dunes, sent a letter to the Council and Mayor and would like to read a portion of that letter. She was here on behalf of Rancho del Sol as her daughter was taking lessons. She and other parents were outraged that these things were happening to this Ranch. The horses are always maintained and cared for. This gives the City of La Quinta a good reputation due to its look and gives nothing but good values to the children attending. Their daughter too has been taking lessons for one year. This has been the niche their daughter has needed and she has learned the value of a hard work. It is a detriment to see the Ranch threatened for any reason. 11. Ms. Lora Cathcart, 78-947 Darby Road, Bermuda Dunes, stated she was here as a teacher speaking on behalf of her students. Many students ride at the ranch and it is a positive influence on them. It is a wonderful experience for her daughter. They live on the border of La Quinta and have been considered for incorporation by the City. She and her family have always considered having horses and, if they were annexed into La Quinta theses new regulations and setbacks suggested, if adopted, she would not be allowed to have horses. Their daughter has stated she likes the facility and it means a lot to her. It is making an outstanding impact on her life. As the Planning Commission is making a decision, they should consider the entire Overlay District and the impact the change will have on the entire zone PC2-13 4 Planning Commission Meeting February 13, 1996 12. Mrs. Wanda Reese, 80-209 Avenue 50, La Quinta, stated that their students and customers have stated all that is needed to be said. She was concerned that she has never been cited for any violations, nothing has every been found wrong, and she resents what has been stated about her. They have invested a lot of money in the horses and the facility and they would never jeopardize the operation by allowing insects that cause diseases or smells to jeopardize this facility. She thought she was being penalized for doing the right thing. This should not have to be gone over again and again. She did not understand why this has to be repeatedly brought back to the Planning Commission and City Council. This is all being caused by one person. 13. Ms. Kathy Cole, 80-041 Avenue 50, lives next door to the Reese ranch and they purchased their home here to keep the lifestyle the area provided. The lifestyle is the best thing for their family. To have someone question what you believe is fight for your family, is not right. They were all striving to keep this lifestyle going. 14. Mrs. Julie Reeske, 54-415 Avenida Vallejo, speaking on behalf of the ranch stated she was not sure why it has to be addressed again. They have been in accord with all the zoning regulations since the Overlay has been in place. It has been working for all ranches since it was adopted. She would like to enlighten the Commission about their facility and its use. They provide a number of services to the public including a riding school for children, teenagers, and adults. It is clean and immaculate. They have gone to a great expense to upgrade the ranch to please the City and Mr. Kanlian. T.o explain what is involved in training the children and horses would take too much time. They currently have the number one Hunter Hack horse in the nation, boarding at their facility. Students that are talented are focused to become world competitors. Olympic horse have been kept at this facility as well. They have achieved the requirements to maintain a horse of this quality to meet national requirements. They have been falsely accused by one neighbor and the only thing that will change is if the zone is removed. This is the lifestyle most people dream of, having horses, and that is what unique about this area. Please consider the request of the people this will directly effect. 15. Ms. Kay Menefee, 45-525 Aladdin, Indio, was there speaking on behalf of the Reeses and the Equestrian Overlay District. She attended the Council meeting three years ago when this Overlay was first adopted and the ranch has continued to be well maintained in a manner that is well kept. Her horse is in training at this ranch and it is the number one Hunter Hack in the nation and this id due to the hard work of Wanda Reese and Julie Reeske. PC2-13 5 Planning Commission Meeting _ February 13, 1996 16. Mrs. Sharon Kanlian, 50-400 Jefferson Street, La Quinta, stated they have been here for 30 years and are here regarding the Equestrian Overlay. The City approved these four parcels for the Overlay in 1993, and this mixed planning should not be considered, but segregated. The City approved the Overlay as a whole, and the surrounding property owners were concerned that horses could not be accommodated on this small of a parcel. The surrounding property owners are now suffering liability concerns because of the horses tiding on their property. They can't tide anywhere without impacting the surrounding property owners. The recommendations being requested are similar to those used by the City of Indio. The Conditional Use Permit, however does not address the use of lights and/or a public address system. These directly affect the surrounding neighbors. These must not be permitted. She also spoke regarding the manure as it pertains to small parcels and stated it must be removed from the premise. The commercial benefit of the ranch must submit to the same standards as all other businesses. She went on to list the studies that should be conducted before this type of business should be allowed. They are subject to farming inspections regularly. Testimony from boarders should not affect the development role of the taxpayers of the City of La Quinta. Rancho Del Sol is not a community activity, but a private business operated for private benefit. Equal fights and good planning should make sense for the City. You have to have laws that regulate the development of the City. The investment they have in their home is jeopardized if the current rules are not maintained. The proposed recommendations need to be adopted and you must consider what is best for all property, owners in the City. Mixed uses must have strict laws to maintain the whole area. 17. Mr. Walter Hansch, adjacent property owners to the Kanlians, stated he was against the Overlay at its inception. If you put two dozen homes together you will have a ton of manure and you have to find some way to get rid of it. There needs to be a method of removing the manure on a regular basis and reducing the smell. 18. Mr. Sonny Kanlian, 50400 Jefferson Street, La Quinta, stated he had given considerable time to making a recommendation for things he felt might be a solution to the problem. He went over the items he had proposed (on file in the Community Development Department). He too was against the Overlay Zone from its inception. A zone change must be made and the City needs to have an area for equestrian uses, but you need a larger area. This is a special case and it needs special zoning. Indio faced opposition to a five acre development as it was too small an area for equestrian uses. This ranch has too many homes for the size of the land. The Reese's now have 13 acres and, PC2-13 6 Planning Commission Meeting February 13, 1996 with the current zoning, they could accommodate 65 horses. Additionally, there is the problem of removing the manure. Thatching it into the ground does mix and separate it. He has no problem with the manure on the pasture, but the barns and stalls accumulate manure'and urine. When water is applied to the manure and mixed with the straw material after it is removed, it increases the smell as the sawdust holds the smell in. The manure needs to be removed weekly. Before the Equestrian Overlay Zone was implemented, it was a small breeding and riding ranch. With the school and added activities, the dust, smells, etc., have increased. The use of lights and loud speaker would have to be eliminated as they are a nuisance. There should be an inner fence holding animals apart bom his fence. He would hate to see a rider bucked off and land on his pasture fence. Sprinklers should be adjusted to keep water off adjoining properties. 19. Mr. Robert Kuhl, 54-721 Monroe Street, La Quinta, stated he also has a horse operation similar to Rancho Del Sol and raises Hunter Jumper horses. He was not aware of this meeting and he hoped no decision would be made tonight. He gets along well with his neighbors and they use his place as a sales tool. These changes need to be considered further before making a decision. 20. Mrs. Julie Reeske, clarified her opinion as to Mr. Kanlian's suggestions. The Polo fields disposal of manure is the same as theirs and the smell is not that intense after it is dried. In summer months when it is so hot, the only time to ride is at night. Mr. Kanlian's fence is not legal because it is made of hog wire and not allowed in the Residential Zone. If he is concerned about the danger that could be caused by his fence, he needs to change it. Of great concern to her family was what they could do with the land created by the proposed 50-feet setback, if these requirements are put into place. The turn out of horses is a practice by all horse owners. The arena is not used as a corral, it is a turn out area used to exercise the horses. All horses need to be turned out before riding if they have been in a corral for a week. She did not see any reason for the suggestions made by Mr. Kanlian. 21. Mrs. Cole stated she drove by the properties in question and she believes they are doing what is fight and the surrounding properties landscaping is all dead and dying and the owners are not maintaining them. She asked if the Commission was aware of other areas where equestrian uses are mixed with residential uses. This is not uncommon. Other cities tell them horse property is a sales tool used to sell their homes. PC2-13 7 Planning Commission Meeting February 13, 1996 22.' There being no further discussion, Chairman Abels stated the Commission would be making no decision on this issue but would refer the matter back to staff for 30-days to study and bring back to the Commission for a decision. 23. Commissioner Newkirk agreed that the Commission was not ready to make a recommendation at this time. They will need to review both sides and make a recommendation to the City Council. 24. Commissioner Barrows stated the Commission had received new information and she would not like to make any decision until this has been thought through. 25. Chairman Abels asked staff to research this further and remm to the Planning Commission in 30-days, March 12th. He thanked everyone for their comments and hopefully they would reach a solution to the benefit of everyone. Chairman Abels recessed the meeting at 8:24 P.M. and reconvened at 8:30 P.M. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued - Tentative Tract 24890; a request of KSL Recreation Corporation, Inc. for approval of a third one year time extension for Phase 9 to create 37 lots consisting of three single family, 37 duplexes, and five lettered lots on ten acres within Specific Plan 85-006. Commissioners Anderson and Gardner excused themselves due to a possible conflict of interest. 1. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that the City had been contacted by the applicant's attorney to continue this item to the meeting of February 27, 1996. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Barrows/Butler to continue Tentative Tract 24890 to February 27, 1996. Unanimously approved. Commissioners Gardner and Anderson rejoined the meeting. B. Plot Plan 95-558. Amendment #1 (Conlpatibilily Review); a request of Landau Development Company for approval to add a new single family housing prototype. 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. PC2-13 8 Planning Commission Meeting February 13, 1996 2. Commissioner Gardner asked what affect the needed lot line adjustment would have on the other lots. Staff stated the adjustment would only impact one lot to the south. There would be no problem with constructing on either lot with the lot line adjustment. Staff stated it would depend on what they build. Staff clarified that a lot line adjustment is only allowed when both resulting lots are buildable. 3. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Abels opened the public ' hearing. Mr. wendell Veith, architect for the project presented drawings showing the back of the house with metal awnings added. He stated this prototype with metal awnings, has been built in other areas of the United States. He went on to explain the proposed changes and stated they agreed with the conditions imposed and requests they be able to work out the location and design of the awnings with staff. 4..- Commissioner Anderson asked if the metal awning would be painted white or a contrasting color. Mr. Veith stated it would be as compatible with the house color so as not to draw attention to the secondary feature. Commissioner Anderson asked if the CC & R's for the other develoPments on the lake would prohibit awnings. Mr. Veith stated there are retractable awnings on existing homes. They could consider using vinyl, but would prefer to use the metal awnings as proposed. Commissioner Anderson stated that as long as the CC & R's do not prohibit awnings, he would agree to this design solution. 5. Chairman Abels asked if the other properties in Lake La Quinta were in agreement. Mr. Veith stated Mr. Loggia, representative for Lake La Quinta, was in agreement with their design. 6. Commissioner Tyler asked that the awnings not block the mountain view. Mr. Veith stated the awnings would be 7'6" to 9'6" high to the bottom of the awnings. 7. Commissioner Gardner stated that he agreed that the wood trellis would detract from the look of the homes and he had no problem with the metal awnings. He was concerned with the lot line adjustments and stated the lots should be split before the homes were purchased., Mr. Veith stated the lot line adjustments would be completed before any sales took place. There would be no surprises for the buyers. PC2-13 9 Planning Commission Meeting February 13, 1996 8. Mr. Irv Green, President of Landau Development Company, showed a picture. of the vinyl awning that could be used on the houses. Commissioner Anderson asked if the product would bleach out over time in the desert heat. Mr. Green, stated they received a limited five year warranty and they could use a blue anodized aluminum awning or the vinyl. Commissioner Anderson suggested that the metal product would give a long term maintenance free solution. 10. There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed. There being no further discussion by the Commission, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Anderson/Tyler to adopt Minute Motion 96-004, approving Plot Plan 95-558, Amendment gl, subject to conditions as revised to require the shading of the west side of the project with a metal awning as presented by the architect and approved by staff. Commissioner Gardner asked for clarification on Condition #2. Staff revised the last sentence and changed the wording "trellis or patio cover" to "metal awning". Staff asked for clarification on the cave overhang over the living room that should used on the back of the house. Six feet was determined. The motion was unanimously approved. C. Zoninl, Ordinance Amendment 96-049; a request of the City for consideration of a recommendation to the City Council for approval of the Sign Ordinance pertaining to sign regulations throughout the City. 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. There being no questions of staff, Chairman Abels opened the public hearing. Mr. Greg Shannon, speaking on behalf of the La Quinta Chamber, presented their proposed changes to the Village Sign Program. He went over each of his concerns regarding the Village directional sign program. 3. Commissioner Butler stated his concern that the comer of Calle Tampico and Washington Street would be overcrowded with signs. Mr. Shannon stated this was a big comer and a major comer for identification. Commissioner Butler stated there had been no discussion of what the cost would be and whether or not the Chamber would be maintaining the signs. 4. Staff clarified for Commissioner Anderson that the ordinance stipulates a non-profit organization would have jurisdiction over the signs. If it was the Chamber, the Planning Commission could grant the Chamber' s request. PC2-13 10 Planning CommisSion Meeting February 13, 1996 5. Commissioner Barrows asked if this was something the Planning Commission should be addressing. Staff stated the final decision was up to the Council and went on to explain the procedure for adoption. 6. Commissioner Anderson stated that since the Chamber has spearheaded this section, they should be given some leeway. 7. Community Development Director Jerry Herman asked for clarification as to why the Chamber wmated a two-sided sign on Calle Tampico at Washington Street. Mr. Featheringill stated they were asking the' sign be placed on Washington Street for people driving north from 50th Street. Discussion followed as to the location of the sign. 8. Community Development Director Jerry Herman asked for clarification on where the sign would be placed. Staff suggested the Chamber wait till the sign locations are identified, then decide whether or not it should be two- sided. Commissioner Anderson suggested that the locations be discussed when a final design was presented. Staff stated the section would be rewritten; "f. The five structures shall be allowed at locations to be determined by the Planning Commission." 9. COmmissioner Anderson asked about Item C., Maximum Time Periods. All businesses would be on a rotation system and he has no idea about the length of time for the sign. Mr. Featheringill stated multiple applications would be all right with a rotation method. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated rotation was required to keep it from being a permanent sign which is not allowed. This is a temporary sign program to stimulate business. The one month of vacancy keeps it from being permanent. 10. Commissioner Anderson asked if the businesses were requesting specific signs in specific locations. Mr. Featheringill stated the owners want the sign that will direct people to their business. Staff stated the concern of the City Attomey was that a specific business would not be frozen out of the program. Staff did not address whether the entity on the sign would be on all five signs thus having a monopoly. This would need to be addressed by the sign operator who would need to create their own policies. 11. Chairman Abels stated that the businesses in the Ralph's center were not included. Staff stated the Center was not a part of the Specific Plan area. Discussion followed regarding the location of genetic signs directing traffic to local restaurants. PC2-13 11 Planning Commission Meeting _ February 13, 1996 12. Commissioner Anderson stated he felt the rotation was good and agreed with the staff's recommendation. 13. Commissioner Anderson asked that the sign be more substantial than the BIA signs. It should not be in the right-of-way and the image should have a solid base that would be an enhancement to the businesses. 14. Commissioner Tyler asked about the longevity of the BIA signs. Staff stated that the signs do sometimes get hit. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated that requiring a solid monument base is consistent with the revised Sign Ordinance. 15. Community Development Director Jerry Herman questioned Item D.4. and stated that if the Chamber is given the flexibility, the Planning Commission should be allow the latitude. Commissioner Gardner stated it should read "City of La Quinta" somewhere on the sign. Commissioner Barrows stated that the sign copy would come back to the Planning Commission for consideration. 16. Commissioner Anderson stated he was in agreement with the staff's recommendation and the only change needed was that the locations be finalized at the time of implementation. 17. Community Development Director Jerry Herman questioned Item D.4. The last sentence should be deleted and add the word "text" to Item D6. 18. Commissioner Butler stated the process needed to be put on a fast track. Mr. Featheringill stated that the monument bases could put it out of the Chamber's price range. Mr. Shannon stated their initial bids were $5,000 for the initial outlay. Mr. Featheringill asked that the copy be stricken as it would be brought back. 19. The Commission consensus was to add wood to the materials that could be used for the base. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated this needed to be defined in the Ordinance. Discussion continued. 20. Commissioner Tyler stated his concern about the black and white colors chosen by the Chamber. Discussion followed regarding the colors. Commissioners decided they would like uniformity with the BIA signs. 21. Commissioner Barrows questioned the exclusion of the businesses in the La Quinta Village Shopping Center. Staff stated the intent of this sign program was to get traffic directed to the downtown Village area due to their unique location problems. ?c:-~ 12 ? Planning Commission Meeting February 13, 1996 22. Mr. Feathingill asked about businesses that are on the perimeter of the Village that would not be included in the sign program. Commissioner Anderson pointed out that businesses located on Eisenhower were on a very busy thoroughfare and did not suffer the same unique circumstances. 23. Staff asked about the signs being exempt from encroachment permits and stated they would check with the Public Works Department to see if the fees could be waived. 24. Ms. Michelle Dallas, Executive Director, La Quinta Chamber of Commerce, 78-371 Highway 111, La Quinta, informed the Commission that the Chambers's second office had been opened at the Von's Center on Highway 111 frontage to facilitate prospective businesses and residents. She indicated a need for directional sign to help people fred the new Chamber location. Discussion followed regarding the size of the signs and the maximum number of signs. 25. Commissioner Tyler asked about the location of the signs. Mr. Featheringill showed a map of the proposed signs on Highway 111 and Washington Street and discussion followed. 26. Chairman Abels asked if the Planning Commission was to approve the Sign Ordinance as drafted. Staff clarified that the Planing Commission was to approve the dm~ed Sign Ordinance, but clarified that the Chamber is requesting six signs and the way the ordinance is written if the Chamber does not agree with staff, they would have to appeal to the Planning Commission. Commissioners stated they had no problem with this. 27. S.taff stated that if they have to appeal, the ordinance could be changed to take the issue directly to the Planning Commission to eliminate the cost of the appeal. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that "non-public" needs to be added to eliminate this problem. Discussion followed. 28. Commissioners asked for clarification on Table 9:1, #16 in that 25% may be too much for temporary window signs. Discussion followed as to the amount that should be allowed. 29. Commissioner Tyler asked about Table 9-3 regarding the number of free- standing signs for shopping centers with wide long frontages. Staff clarified -- that review of sign programs would allow the Commission the latitude of the number allowed. Following discussion, it was determined that the ordinance should allow applicants flexibility to come to the Commission with justification for wanting a deviation from the ordinance regarding the number of monument signs. PC2-13 13 Planning Commission Meeting February 13, 1996 20. Commissioner Tyler questioned whether a tenant could have a sign facing the parking lot and Highway 111. Staff stated they would reword this to make it clear. Commissioner Tyler asked for clarification on Page 23, Item # 13. Staff stated they would change the wording from "radio equipment vehicle" to "emergency vehicle" only. 21. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the public hearing. 22. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Gardner to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 96-002 recommending approval to the City Council of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approval of Zoning Ordinance 96-049 for Sign Regulations. ROLL CALL AYES' Commissioners Anderson, Barrows, Butler, Gardner, Newkirk, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Chairman Abels recessed for a break at 10:04 P.M. and reconvened at 10:09 P.M. D. Tentative Tract 26148 (2nd Time Extension); a request of Mainiero, Smith and Associates, Inc. for approval of a second one year time extension for the subdivision of 14 acres into 54 single family lots with a retention basin. Commissioner Gardner withdrew due to a possible conflict of interest. 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 Abels opened the public hearing and Mr. Bob Mainiero spoke on behalf of the applicant indicating concurrence with the recommendation. There being no further comment, the public hearing was closed. 3. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Barrows/Anderson to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 96-003 recommending to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract 26148 (2nd Time Extension). ROLL CALL AYES: Commissioners Anderson, Barrows, Butler, Gardner, Newkirk, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Gardner. ABSTAIN: None. PC2-13 14 Planning Commission Meeting February 13, 1996 Commissioner Gardner rejoined the Commission. E. V, nvironmental Assessment 96-311. Conditional Use Permit 96-023. and Plot Plan 96-571; a request of Keith International, Inc. for certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; approval of the development of a 116 unit affordable apartment complex on 11.6 acres of property in an R-2 zoned area; approval of a deviation from the development standards to reduce the gross livable area from 1,400 square feet to a minimum of 750 square feet and larger; approval of a 25% density bonus to allow ten units per acre where eight units per acre are allowed in the medium density residential General Plan designation. Commissioner Butler excused himself due to a possible conflict of interest. 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. Staff stated they are recommending Conditions//6, #14, and //65 of the Plot Plan be modified. 2. Commissioner Anderson asked about the density and stated it was not in the conditions for the Plot Plan. Staff stated it was contained in Conditions//42 and//53. 3. Commissioner Tyler asked about Condition #2 (bedroom size) regarding the Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Staff stated it needed to be clarified that this is the minimum bedroom size allowed but that this provision could be exceeded. 4. Commissioner Gardner asked for clarification on the time line for the CUP, specifically Condition g4 of the CUP. Staff clarified when the CUP would have to come back to the Planning Commission for review/extension in the year if the project is not under construction. 5. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Abels opened the public hearing. Ms. Emily Hemphill, attorney for the project, asked that the approval period be for a period of more than one year. She also stated the project size was reduced from 128 to 116 which meets the State requirements for affordable housing. They had reduced the density as requested by the Commission. She then addressed the Commission's concern about the mixed uses, the parking requirements, and stated this project not only meets, but exceeds the City's parking requirements. The applicant is asking for the density bonus, but not any financial assistance from the City Redevelopment PC2-13 15 Planning Commission Meeting February 13, 1996 Agency. The developer is financing the project with private money and the Tax Credit Program which requires a long term investment by their investors. The noise study has addressed traffic noise from Washington Street. The changes proposed reflect what is drawn on the plan. 6. Commissioner Gardner stated his concern about the Washington Street traffic signal.' Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated that this traffic signal will be installed when it is warranted.. The traffic engineer who completed the traffic study stated in the report, that a signal may never be warranted. Commissioner Gardner asked staff to further explain this provision and asked what factors determine if a signal should be installed. Staff explained. Commissioner Gardner expressed his concern that without the signal there isn't ample space for people to stop to enter the project. Mr. Rowe, Keith International, stated that they will be bonding for the traffic signal. 7. Commissioner Gardner asked, if the developer would cease to exist, is there any type of bonding tO require anyone to take over the project. Ms. Hemphill stated it was a valid concern and that the debt to equity ratio is 50 to 50. In the unlikely event something should happen to the developer, the investors will have the first trust deed on the property and if the developer does not meet the debt, they can foreclose on the first trustee and they will still be under all the requirements placed on the developer by the City and the State. 8. Commissioner Tyler asked Mr. Bob Kahn, Kahn and Associates, if the slope of Washington Street helps the acoustical analysis. Mr. Kahn stated it would and went on to explain what was considered in the calculations for the study. Commissioner Tyler asked if five foot barriers would be placed on the balconies facing Washington' Street. Mr. Kahn stated that the buildings are reoriented so the balconies would be shielded. Commissioner Tyler asked if the windows facing Washington Street would be fixed. Mr. Kahn stated they could be opened and explained the Uniform Building Code requires this type of window for residential units. Commissioner Tyler asked about the height oft he wall reducing the noise on Washington Street. Mr. Kahn stated it was six feet and would meet the requirements of the noise study. 9. Chairman Abels asked Mr. Mike Rowe about his prior statement that if this project was not approved, the project would be dead. Mr. Rowe explained they had hoped to have an approval before the end of 1995. Since this did not occur, the applicant purchased the site. Chairman Abels asked if the day care was eliminated. Mr. Rowe stated it would not be included. PC2-13 16 Planning Commission Meeting February 13, 1996 10. Chairman Abels stated his concern about not having a mixed use project. Mr. Rowe stated that originally the commercial element was moving forward with the residential element. However, the commercial area was developed and the proposed residential project was sold. 11. Commissioner Tyler asked if any attempt had been made along the west wall to reduce the houses to single story so they would not be looking into the baCk yards of the Season's houses. Mr. Rowe stated they had all been reduced to single story buildings. 12. Commissioner Anderson stated his original concerns were density, site excavation, fill dirt, and the limited amount of open space between the buildings. His concerns had now been addressed and stated how this was accomplished. However, a shared driveway does not make this project a mixed use development. 13. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Anderson/Gardner to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 96-004 approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact (EA 96-31 l) according to the findings set forth in the Resolution. ROLL CALL AYES: Commissioners Anderson, Barrows, Gardner, and Tyler. NOES: Commissioners Newkirk and Chairman Abels. ABSENT: Commissioner Butler. ABSTAIN: None. 14. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Anderson/Gardner to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 96-005 recommending approval of Conditional Use Permit 96-023 and Plot Plan 96-571 to allow a 116-unit affordable apartment complex with a 25% density bonus and to allow a reduction in the gross livable area to permit units less than 1,400 square feet, subject to the Conditions of Approval. ROLL CALL AYES: Commissioners Anderson, Barrows, Gardner. NOES: Commissioners Newkirk, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. ABSENT: Commissioner Butler. ABSTAIN: None. MOTION FAILED. 15. Commissioner Barrows stated a new motion would be needed to address the concerns of those voting no. Chairman Abels asked if the Commission wanted to let the vote stand and let the applicant appeal to the City Council. There was no response from the Commission. PC2-13 17 Planning Commission Meeting _ February 13, 1996 16. Mr. Mike Rowe stated he would like to believe that whatever concerns the Commission has, they could be worked out. 17. Commissioner Newkirk stated his concern that no garages were proposed and even though there was covered parking, there was no place for storage. Mr. Rowe stated that there is storage on all the balconies as a three by five foot cube locked storage cabinet would be installed. Mr. Rowe stated they would agree to a certain percentage of the parking spaces being garages. Discussion followed regarding on-site storage facilities. 18. Commissioner Tyler stated his concern was the number of parking spaces. Mr. Rowe stated that if there was a party, this being a rarity, cars could possibly spill over into the Center's parking lot, but this was not the norm. If the Planning Commission wanted more parking, they could reduce the amount of open space and provide additional parking areas. Discussion followed regarding where additional parking could be added. 19. Commissioner Gardner clarified that in the rental agreement it would stipulate no boats could be stored on the premises. Mr. Rowe stated that all tenants would have to register vehicles they would be parking on site and that they could be restricted. 20. Chairman Abels asked if Mr. Rowe could convince him that this is a mixed use development. Ms. Hemphill stated that this property and the adjoining property were originally proposed to be developed at the same time. Because of financial considerations, the residential units were not built. It was proposed and designed as a singular project with one single access on Washington Street. The f'mancing caused the project to change hands several times, but the design elements have not changed. To utilize the inability of an individual to complete his project is a mistake to prohibit this type of housing. The State demands that the cities do their best to provide affordable housing. Chairman Abels stated he did feel the Seasons project was a mixed use development. Mr. Rowe went on to explain further how the joint access was developed. 21. Commissioner Anderson clarified that a mixed use development is a blending of two different uses rather than two like uses. He went on to explain the project is not the optimum blending of uses, but it is not possible to have the different solution based on the past history of this site. Planning Commission Meeting February 13, 1996 22. Commissioner Tyler asked for clarification on the original map submitted if it called for the same immber of units. Mr. Rowe stated it was the same. 23. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio asked if the Planning Commission wanted to add any conditions requiring storage and parking. It was determined that 20 additional storage spaces shall be provided for the use of the tenants and shall be reviewed at the same time the landscaping plans are reviewed. 24. Commissioner Gardner stated this project does not specify any age restrictions. Mr. Rowe stated that was true. 25. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated that Condition//68 would be modified to add: "additional storage units shall be provided and reviewed at the time of landscaping review"; and "if parking spaces are removed to accommodate storage, the parking spaces must be replaced on a one for one basis plus an additional ten spaces. 26. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Anderson/Gardner to adopt Planing Commission Resolution 96-005, recommending approval of Conditional Use Permit 96-023 and Plot Plan 96-571 to the City Council, subject to the attached conditions as modified by staff, and with the additional language added to Condition//68 regarding additional storage and parking spaces. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Anderson, Barrows, Gardner, Newkirk, and Tyler. NOES: Chairman Abels. ABSENT: Commissioner Butler. ABSTAIN: None. Commissioner Butler rejoined the Commission. V. BUSINESS ITEMS A. Sign Application 95-306; a request of The Lube Shop-Imperial Sign Company for approval to increase the sign size from eight square feet to 18 square feet and change the non-illuminated individual letters to internally illuminated individually mounted channel letters on the east elevation. 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. PC2-13 19 Planning Commission Meeting February 13, 1996 - 2. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Gardner/Barrows to adopt Minute Motion 96-005 approving Sign Application 95-306, subject to conditions. Unanimously approved. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Chairman Abels asked that the Minutes of January 23, 1996, be amended to show the Commissioners attended the Conference in Long Beach not in Redlands. Commissioner Anderson stated he had not made the motion pertaining to the continuance of' Tentative Tract 24890. There being no further corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Gardner/Barrows to approve the Minutes as corrected. Unanimously approved. VII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS A. Building Industry Association of Southern California-Desert Chapter - discussion pertaining to the Public Officials Luncheon. The Commission determined that they did not want to attend the luncheon as it could be perceived as giving special interest to one group. Staff would address a letter stating their concern. -- B. Commissioner Abels gave a report of the City Council meeting of February 6, 1996. C. Department update - staff stated there was nothing new to report. VIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Gardner/Anderson to adjourn this meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting on February 27, 1996. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 11:20 P.M. Unanimously approved. PC2-13 20 !