PCMIN 03 26 1996 MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
March 26, 1996 7:00 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:04 P.M. by
Chairman Abels who asked Commissioner Newkirk 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.
B. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Dawn
Honeywell, Public Works Director Dave Cosper, Senior Engineer John Freeland,
Planning Manager Christine di Iorio, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate Planner
Wallace Nesbit, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer.
III. PUBLIC COMMENT: None
IV. WORKSHOP:
A. Zoning Code Revision for Incorporation into Zonint, Code Amendment 96-050 - Re-
evaluation of Chapter 9.117: Equestrian Overlay Zone.
1. Commissioner Tyler informed the Commission that he had personally visited
and spoken with Mr. & Mrs. Kanlian and Mrs. Reese and Mrs. Reeske.
Commissioners Gardner, Newkirk, and Barrows stated they had visited with
Mr. & Mrs. Kanlian only; Chairman Abels and Commissioner Butler stated
they had visited the Reese Ranch; and Chairman Abels stated he had also
visited the Kanlian Ranch. .
2. Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit presented the information contained in the
staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department.
3. Commissioner Anderson questioned why the time for loudspeaker systems
was an hour past the time allowed for lighting. Staff stated both times
should be the same and would see to the correction.
PC3-26 1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 26, 1996
4. Commissioner Anderson questioned why the manure and bedding could not
be spread if they were composted? Staff stated that when manure is spread
with the bedding material, the bedding is known as brown waste and manure
is green waste, and mixed together they degrade faster. Straw, when mixed
with the manure, become easily airborne and can scatter on adjacent
properties. Manure not mixed with bedding is more broken down and mixes
in the soil. Commissioner Anderson asked if the two materials were
composted together were they more of a problem, or was it a greater problem
separately. Staff stated that if the manure and bedding were composted
together it should be disposed of; only manure could be spread. Staff stated
they were trying to address the amount of manure to be retained on site by
determining if the land was adequate to retain the amount of nitrates the
manure would generate. Instead of detailing the ordinance to address this,
stafflefi it up to the operators of the business. Discussion followed regarding
the number of horses that could be accommodated on a parcel of land.
5. Mr. Walter Hansch, Jefferson Street, spoke regarding the amount of manure
that could be produced by the number of horses allowed and stated he
thought it would be best to remove the manure instead of spreading.
6. Mrs. Sharon Kanlian, 50-400 Jefferson Street, stated she had serious
questions about leapfrog zoning and reviewed the approved developments for
this area. She felt there should be equal rights and good planning for all
property owners in the area. All business must meet the same requirements.
She further objected to allowing lights in an arena located so close to her
home. Manure on small parcels so close to a domestic well should be
removed. All equestrian facilities must have an inner fence to protect their
neighbors from liability and this was not addressed in the proposed changes.
The notification area should be increased to one quarter of a mile. The
Planning Commission needs to provide an area where neighbors can co-exist
together.
7. Mr. Sonny Kanlian, 50-400 Jefferson Street, passed out a copy of the
Riverside County statements regarding domestic wells conditions and manure
buildup. He stated this was not an issue between the Kanlians and Reeses.
He checked with the City of Rancho Mirage on their requirements regarding
the horse property located on Clancy Lane. He stated his suggestions for an
equestrian facility, submitted earlier, would create a workable situation
between the two uses. The situation that was created by the City needs to be
corrected. The manure management, lights, loud speakers, and installation
of an inner fence are a must and he will accept no other requirements.
PC3-26 2
Planning Commission Meeting
March 26, 1996
8. Mr. Carl Garczynski, 44-728 Buckingham, Indio, stated he was at the
meeting at the request of the Kanlians to act as a facilitator to answer any
questions the Commission may have regarding the environmental conditions
or air pollutants and inversion effects.
9. Mr. Robert Kuhl, 54-721 Monroe Street, stated his property was annexed to
the City of La Quinta with the understanding that an equestrian facility would
not be an issue. He stated it has taken years for the horse community to
regain what had slowly been eroded away. He had designed his equestrian
facility according to the City's regulations. His manure maintenance is to
mix the manure with the soil in his arena and spread the excess on the
acreage adjoining his property at the request of that property owner. He
stated horse manure has no nitrate, no food value, but is an excellent soil
nutrient. As a farmer he would be happy to have the manure spread on his
soil. Once the manure is spread, there is no fly problem. The setbacks as
proposed are not workable on his property. A twenty foot easement around
the property would be a complete waste of land and would create a nuisance
for everyone. Mr. Kuhl invited the Commission to visit his property before
making a decision.
10. Mrs. Wanda Reese, 80-209 Avenue 50, stated she was concerned with the
proposed changes regarding the maintenance of manure. The method in
which she removes her manure is standard throughout the nation. Manure
does mix with the soil to hold the moisture and promote vegetation growth.
Manure is not stored on site nor is any manure kept next to anyone's
domestic well. She had recently contacted a local farmer who is willing to
haul offher manure to use for vegetation purposes. If she.is required to haul
every particle of manure produced it would be too costly and a hardship to
their business.
11. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell clarified that the proposed changes be
recommended, on Page 26, Section 9.117.060, that existing uses be grand-
fathered. Paragraph "C" of this section would read, "Conditional uses shall
be required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit in accordance with
Chapter/Section __. All existing uses shall file a site plan of such use with
the Community Development Department ..... Any expansion or improvements
valued at $5,000 facilitating expansion of any existing facility, will require
filing of a CUP application." This will establish the extent of the use being
grandfathered. The filing of a plan shall be required within 30 days of the
effective date of the adopted ordinance.
PC3-26 3
Planning Commission Meeting
March 26, 1996
12. Commissioner Anderson asked why a CUP would be required for an existing
use and what costs were associated with the application. City Attorney Dawn
Honeywell clarified the City is not requiring the filing of an application so no
costs would be required. The City is only requiring a site plan be placed on
file to determine existing uses that are being grandfathered.
13. Chairman Abels asked the City Attorney to describe the purpose of a CUP.
City Attorney Dawn Honeywell explained the CUP application, how it would
be used, and when it would be required.
14. Chairman Abels reviewed the recommendations as proposed by staff.
Commissioner Anderson asked staff to clarify the section on "Definitions"
on Page 18, regarding "accessory building"; what would be classified as a
structure? Staff clarified a corral was not a structure or building, but a use of
the property.
15. Commissioner Anderson questioned Page 20 under Permitted Uses, if an
exercise area with a fence around it was a pasture and if so, how do the
setbacks on Page 21, Item B.2 apply. Staff clarified that an arena and fence
--
would be accessory uses and setback requirements would not apply.
Setbacks are determined by the use.
16. Commissioner Tyler asked staff to clarify language regarding what portion
of the property could be used for the keeping of horses. Staff stated the
proposed changes follow the original ordinance: one horse per acre and for
each additional acre you can have three horses. This is based on gross
acreage.
17. Commissioner Butler clarified that the existing conditions will be allowed to
continue and only if any new changes are made to the property would they
be required to meet the new conditions. Community Development Director
Jerry Herman stated that the existing uses are grandfathered, but if the facility
were expanded, that portion that is expanded would have to comply with the
proposed changes, as any new facility starting up would have to.
18. Commissioner Gardner stated that any changes to an existing facility would
require adhering to the new conditions. Staff clarified that any changes
beyond $5,000 would require the filing of a CUP. Staff stated this was based
on the building valuation.
19. Commissioner Tyler asked if this would require the existing structure to be
brought up to meet the new conditions. Discussion followed as to what
portion of the facility would have to be brought up to code when the
PC3-26 4
Planning Commission Meeting
March 26, 1996
improvements exceed $5,000. Staff clarified it would be up to the discretion
of the Planning Commission as to what should be brought up to code. City
Attorney Dawn Honeywell clarified that the way the ordinance is written, the
applicant would have to upgrade the entire facility.
20. Commissioner Gardner stated he thought the $5,000 limit was too low a
figure and this could cause a hardship on property owner. City Attorney
Dawn Honeywell stated the modifications might not cost much, but the use
would be greatly changed. The Planning Commission needs to determine an
amount they feel is fair.
21. Commissioner Tyler stated the new requirements should only require those
uses proposed to be changed to meet the new conditions, not the existing uses
that are not proposed to be changed. Everything else should be grand-
fathered in and the $5,000 threshold remain.
22. Commissioner Anderson stated staff has worked very hard to reach a
compromise to a conflicting use, and he is uncomfortable getting down to
extreme details that could require the installation of a fence to obtain a CUP.
23. Chairman Abels stated he had a problem with Sections "G" and "H" on Page
25. This would limit the activity due to the proposed time restraints.
Exceptions should be made and the use should not be limited.
24. Commissioner Barrows stated her concem regarding Item G and asked if
there are existing uses where lighting occurs, or will occur with a temporary
event. Staff stated it is to address the entire area. Staff is not aware of any
activity that is currently regulated by the light control ordinance. There will
be residential uses next door to the equestrian uses.
25. Commissioner Anderson stated he did not feel it was unreasonable to have
a 9:00 P.M. deadline. Staff stated that with a use permit process, it would
allow staff to determine the impact to an area to be more flexible to some of
the development standards. At the time the permit is issued, conditions can
be added on a case-by-case basis.
26. Commissioner Tyler questioned the temporary event use of a loud speaker as
sounds can travel a long distance at night.
27. Commissioner Gardner asked if standards are established for this Equestrian
Overlay District, would the Planning Commission have to look at other areas
in the City where light and sound are currently involved and equate one
PC3-26 5
Planning Commission Meeting
March 26, 1996
against another. If this is allowed in one neighborhood would it not be
allowed in another? City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the purpose of an
overlay zone is to have standards that are unique to a specific area.
28. Chairman Abels directed staff to make the changes as discussed and bring
them back to the Commission on April 23rd for review of the entire Zoning
Ordinance.
29. Commissioner Anderson stated in the interim he would like to visit other
horse facilities in the City. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated staff
would continue to work on the Ordinance. and Commissioners who so chose
to, could visit other sites and discuss it again at the April 23rd public hearing.
30. Commissioner Barrows stated the proposed changes would apply to any
parcel located within the Equestrian Overlay Zone. Planning Manager
Christine di Iorio stated it would apply to any property that the regulations
currently apply to.
31. Chairman Abels clarified that staff was to proceed with the changes and bring
them back on April 23rd for the public hearing.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Continued - Conditional Use Permit 96-024, Variance 96-024. and Environmental
Assessment 96-313; a request of KSL Recreation Corporation, Inc. for certification
of the Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact; approval to expand
the existing La Quinta Resort & Club Golf Course Maintenance Facility onto the
adjoining lot to the east; and approval of a variance from the development standards
,of the Special Residential Zone District to allow a six-foot high wall instead of a
four-foot high wall along Avenida Carranza.
Commissioners Anderson and Gardner withdrew due to a possible conflict of interest.
1. Chairman Abels stated the applicant requested a continuance of this item to
the Planning Commission meeting of April 9, 1996.
2. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Barrows/Tyler to continue the
item to April 9, 1996. Unanimously approved.
Commissioners Anderson and Gardner rejoined the meeting.
PC3-26 6
Planning Commission Meeting
March 26, 1996
VI. BUSINESS ITEMS
A. Cove Area Urban Forestation Project No. 95-10; a request of the City for approval
of a conceptual reforestation design plan adjacent to the Bear Creek Bike Path.
1. Senior Engineer John Freeland presented the information contained in the
staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department. He presented additional visual aids provided by the Arts
Foundation showing the art project to be incorporated into the Bike Path. He
went on to describe the entire path regarding the plants to be used.
2. Commissioner Barrows stated that if the intent was to highlight the native
cultural, the project should use native local species.
3. Commissioner Barrows discussed with staff the proposed trees and asked if
this was the correct list of trees for this zone or period in time. Mr. Ray
Lopez clarified this was a plant list that would become a working drawing
and went on to explain how the plant list was developed. The Plan for the
Bike Path consisted of incorporating proposed plant material with the
existing vegetation.
4. Commissioner Butler asked if there had been any provision for the
maintenance of the landscaping. Senior Engineer John Freeland stated the
maintenance would be addressed by the Lighting and Landscaping District
plans. Public Works Director Dave Cosper stated that when the Lighting and
Landscaping District was approved, the dollars were budgeted for the
maintenance at that time.
5. Commissioner Tyler asked if additional dollars would be needed. Public
Works Director Dave Cosper stated the design was created to be simple to
keep maintenance costs at a minimum.
6. Commissioner Butler stated he thought he had seen a memorandum stating
the homeowners would be watering the trees. Senior Engineer John Freeland
stated that as a part of the tree reforestation program, if a tree were to be
planted in front of someone's house they would be responsible for watering
it. These trees however, are not a part of the Bike Path design. They are to
be planted throughout the cove.
7. Commissioner Butler asked if a safety problem existed without lighting the
path and would this cause additional costs due to the park concept. Public
Works Director Dave Cosper clarified that the overall scheme was to enhance
a facility that is already there. Commissioner Butler stated that by enhancing
this the City would be bring more people thereby increasing the City's
PC3-26 7
Planning Commission Meeting
March 26, 1996
responsibility. Public Works Director Dave Cosper stated that hopefully,
more people would use the trail. It is currently open and staff did not believe
the planting of the trees would create any more of a liability problem.
8. Commissioner Tyler questioned who the work would be performed by.
Senior Engineer John Freeland stated the Grant would pay for the irrigation
system and installation. The City would go out to bid to have it installed by
a licensed contractor. Commissioner Tyler asked if the water feature was
being approved by the Planning Commission. Staff stated they were asking
the Planning Commission to approve the entire design. Commissioner Tyler
stated that if the water feature was included he would not be in favor of it as
he was concerned about the danger of attracting wild animals to an urbanized
area.
9. Commissioner Gardner commended staff on the obtaining the Grant. Public
Works Director Dave Cosper clarified the process was started by the previous
Parks and Recreation Director Clint Bohlen. Upon his leaving Senior
Engineer John Freeland assumed the responsibility. Commissioner Gardner
asked staff to clarify which four trees were required under the Grant. Mr.
Ray Lopez noted the trees that had been required.
·
10. Chairman Abels commended staff on their work on the plan.
11. Commissioner Barrows asked that the plant species used in the upper Zone
1 be native to the area. She stated her concern about the location of the
ornamental plants. Senior Engineer John Freeland explained that due to the
evolution of time, people went from natural to' ornamental and back to the
native which is used presently. She stated this is a great theme, but it does
not belong in this location.
12. There being no further discussion it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Gardner/Newkirk to adopt Minute Motion 96-010 to
recommend approval to the City Council of the Cove Area Urban Forestry
Project No. 95-10 as submitted. Approved on a 5-2 vote with Commissioners
Barrows and Tyler voting no.
B Plot Plan 94-522 - Revised (Bogan Villas); a request of Dan Featheringill, DODCO
Construction for an interpretation of Condition # 16.S.
1. 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.
PC3-26 8
Planning Commission Meeting
March 26, 1996
2. Commissioner Anderson stated he was aware of the problem and he agreed
that a landscape hedge would be the only solution.
3. Commissioner Gardner stated he thought the walls could go around the
planter areas. Staff went on to explain the site limitations.
4. Mr. Dan Featheringill addressed the Commission regarding the problem and
showed a drawing of the site. Commissioner Anderson asked if solid
continuous landscaping would be used. Mr. Featheringill stated yes.
5. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Butler/Barrows to adopt Minute Motion 96-011 approving
the substitution of a wall with a continuous three foot high hedge along the
east property line of the parking lot. Unanimously approved.
C. Tentative Tract 25363; a request of Century-Cromwell Homes for approval of five
new prototype single family residences.
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. Staff pointed out that Condition #9 should be deleted. Staff
suggested this be replaced with "the model home complex for this tract shall
be on Lots 1, 2, 3, within Tract 26188. No model home complex for this tract
located outside of this project shall be used."
2. Commissioner Anderson asked if the exterior materials would remain the
same as Tract 26188. Staff stated it would be the same and a sample was on
file. In addition, the homes to the north already have the existing colors and
materials.
3. Commissioner Tyler asked if this tract falls under the Compatibility
Ordinance. Staff stated no as there were no prior homes approved for this
tract..
4. Mr. Dennis Cunningham, Century Homes, addressed the Commission
regarding a problem they had with Condition #2.b. The trellis units required
on the rear of the south and west facing units are costly and they would like
to offer it as an option to the buyer. He had spoken with the Building and
Safety Department regarding Title 24 requirements. They concurred that the
trellis may not be needed to meet Title 24 requirements.
PC3-26 9
Planning Commission Meeting
_
March 26, 1996
5. Commissioner Tyler asked Mr. Cunningham how many people who have
purchased homes in this area opt for the bonus room. Mr. Cunningham stated
it was about 50% of those purchasing.
6. Commissioner Anderson asked about the floor plan for the 2X Plan; a three
bedroom house with optional master bath. He questioned why a home buyer
would want the master bath as an option. Mr. Cunningham stated it was a
market driven product and the unit was being received well.
7. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio explained that Title 24 homes have
adequate shading and would be addressed on all elevations Commissioner
Anderson stated that when the trellis was originally required by the Planning
Commission, under the requirements of Title 24, you were able to average the
units, which meant the trellis helped the lowest insulated units. The new
Title 24 would address this problem as each trait would is evaluated in a
worst case scenario. What was required before is no longer needed.
8. Commissioner Barrows asked if this was something the property owner
would install at a later date. Mr. Cunningham stated this was why they would
_
like to offer it as an option. Their experience showed that where they had
installed them they were either being removed or modified by the
homeowners to meet their needs.
9. Commissioner Anderson stated the four-foot trellis was to small to be of
much use. Commissioner Newkirk agreed.
10. Commissioner Butler asked if the concrete stoop was still being required.
Staff stated it was a standard requirement of the UBC under doors. Mr.
Cunningham stated that when a pool is installed it is generally removed.
11. Following discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Tyler/Newkirk to adopt Minute Motion 96-012 approving the five prototype
single family residences for construction, subject to the conditions with the
deletion of Condition #2.b. and the addition of Condition #9: "the model
home complex for this tract shall be on Lots 1, 2, 3, within Tract 26188. No
model home complex for this tract located outside of this project shall be
used." Unanimously approved.
D. Sign Application 96-336 and Plot Plan 94-543; a request of Alibaba Farzaneh - Skip
Berg, DGI, for approval of a deviation to the sign program for the La Quinta Village
Shopping Center to allow wall mounted restaurant signs and approval of a minor
amendment regarding the exterior trim color for a free-standing restaurant.
PC3-26 10
Planning Commission Meeting
March 26, 1996
Commissioner Anderson withdrew due to a possible conflict of interest.
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 Tyler suggested that the logo be eliminated or relocated to the
north face for better visibility as well as to mitigate the glare of lighting on
the neighboring residents. The applicant's other restaurant in Palm Desert,
"Club 74", has no such logo, therefore this is not a corporate logo.
3. Commissioner Butler asked if an exterior illuminated sign on the awning,
would create more glare. Staff stated it would not if it were angled down.
Discussion followed regarding the lighting source and how the awning was
to be illuminated.
4. Mr. Skip Berg, DGI, speaking on behalf of the applicant stated he was unsure
as to whether or not you could illuminate the awning externally. This
__ requirement would require hood type lighting and would be unattractive.
Regarding the affect on the neighbors, the awning could be opaqued to
~ reduce the glare by only illuminating the letters. He stated that if they were
not allowed to internally illuminate the sign, they would rather not light it.
Regarding the size reduction for the east and north elevation, they would
prefer to keep the size requested. Regarding the logo, he would agree to
removing the logo to keep the size of the "Sesame" sign on the east elevation.
5. Commissioner Tyler stated that during the daytime the large sign canister
would be seen. Mr. Berg stated this type of sign construction has never been
done in the desert and went on to explain the procedure and how the mass
would be reduced due to the procedure.
6. Commissioner Gardner asked if the north elevation would be obscured by the
pad to be constructed in the future. Staff stated there was no pad at the sign
location, but rather a pad is located to the north of the Taqueria restaurant and
Video Depot.
7. There being no questions of staff or discussion, it was moved and seconded
by Commissioners Barrows/Butler to adopt Minute Motion 96-013 approving
a deviation to a sign program for the La Quinta Village Shopping Center to
allow the restaurant signs and approval of a minor amendment regarding the
exterior trim color for a free-standing restaurant with the following
~ conditions:
PC3-26 11
Planning Commission Meeting
March 26, 1996 -
1. A building permit shall be obtained for the five signs with the
following modifications:
a. The logo on the east building elevation shall be deleted.
b. The brown vinyl awning material shall be opaque.
c. The sign on the north side of the building shall be reduced to
22-square feet to match the size of the south side sign.
2. The final plans showing the required changes as well as trim to be
painted, shall be reviewed and approved by the Community
Development Department.
Unanimously approved.
Commissioner Anderson rejoined the meeting.
VI. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. There being no corrections to the Minutes of March 12, 1996, it was moved and
_
seconded by Commissioners Gardner/Newkirk to approve the Minutes as submitted
Unanimously approved.
VII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS
A. Commissioners reviewed the Expense Travel Policy with staff and discussed the
different sessions each Commissioner had attended at the League of California Cities
Conference.
B. Staff stated a copy of the Urban Sprawl article had been passed out for the
Commissioners information.
C. Commissioner Gardner reported on the City Council meeting of March 19, 1996.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Barrows to
adjourn this meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting on April 9, 1996. This
meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:44 P.M. Unanimously approved.
PC3-26 12