PCMIN 12 10 1996 MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
· 78-495 Calle Tampico, CA
December 10, 1996 7:00 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:05 P.M. by Vice
Chairman Butler who asked Commissioner Woodard to lead the flag salute.
B. Vice Chairman Butler requested the roll call: Present: Commissioners Newkirk,
Seaton, Tyler, Woodard, and Vice Chairman Butler.
C. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Newkirk to excuse Commissioners
Abels and Gardner.
A D. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Dawn
Honeywell, Planning Manager Christine di Iorio, Senior Engineer Steve Speer,
Principal Planner Start Sawa, Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit, and Executive
Secretary Betty Sawyer.
II. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA - Confirmed
III. PUBLIC COMMENT:
A. Mr. Steve Robbins, 78-365 Via Caliente, an RV owner, stated that even though he
had chosen not to store his RV at his place of residence, he had some concerns
regarding the options. Option 1 is all right, but the requirements for the side or rear
yard are too restrictive. There would need to be more space allowed for the side yard
setback. Option 2 is impossible as there is no room to store an RV at any single
family residence. These options deny the residents their rights. He had paid a
premium price for his land that would allow him the oppommity to park his RV at
his place of residence. Option 2 takes away his right to do this. Option 3 is the same
as Option 2 with the exception of the time limits. Option 5 discriminates against
those RV owners who do not live in the Cove. Option 6 applies only to those lots in
the Cove that are 7,200 square feet. If he had known of these restrictions at the time
he purchased his RV, he would not have purchased the lot. The only option that
--
appears to be fair is to grandfather the existing RV's.
PC12-10 1
Planning Commission Minutes
December 10, 1996
B. Mr. Dan Corey, 77-671 Calle Potrero, stated his RV was a part of his earthquake
survival kit. In addition to it being for his family's use, he has provided services to
the City during earthquake drills. He stated he was concerned about the
Commission's awareness of the needs of those who live in the Cove, as none of the
Commissioners lived in the Cove and therefore they have no representation on the
Commission. When the City incorporated in 1982, they were told there would be no
changes in their cost of living. Even though the Commission has studied other cities
regulations, this is La Quinta and this is why the residents chose to live in La Quinta.
C. Mr. Joseph Hem, 53-201 Avenida Martinez, stated he was in opposition to all the
options presented. La Quinta has one of the strictest parking regulations in the
Valley and it is sufficient to handle the RV parking. Most of the people who own an
RV have the financial standing to own and operate their RVS. If these options are
passed, the Commission/Council is saying to those residents that they are not wanted
in La Quinta. The Commission will be upset at the reaction of the RV owners if this
is passed.
D. Mr. Paul McCulloch, 52-045 Avenida Martinez, stated his objection to the RV
regulations and if the City was going to notify the residents of new regulations, it
should be done in the City Newsletter not in the newspaper. La Quinta should not
be compared to any other city nor to the country clubs. The standard lot size in La
Quitna is 50-feet by 100-feet with a five foot sideyard setback. The average RV is
eight-feet wide and cannot be parked in the side yard. Therefore, the RV regulations
are restricting RV families from providing their recreational choice to their families.
Why was this brought to the Commission in the first place, and was this due to any
future developments currently being processed in the City.
E. Mr. Ronald Klinginsmith, 54-175 Avenicla Villa, stated he bought his property in the
Cove because it was a double lot and would accommodate his RV. He too, is unable
to meet the options as suggested. He would like to have a citizens group discuss the
options with staff to reach a compromise that would meet the residents needs. He
tries to keep his RV maintained and in good working condition. He had the
opportunity to live in a gated community and chose not to because of the RV
restrictions.
F. Mr. Eric Gruber, 52-130 Martinez, stated he liked La Quinta and this was why he
chose to live here. He would like to have the curbs, sidewalks, lights, and medians
taken care of as well as completing the park to give the residents more things to
enjoy. Currently his family looks forward to camping in their RV during the summer
months. Most RV owners leave during the summer months to enjoy their RVS. The
RV regulations need to be changed to allow RV owners to park and enjoy their RVS
as they deem necessary and appropriate.
~c12-1o 2
Planning Commission Minutes
December 10, 1996
G. Mr. Dan Bresnahan, 79-150 Camino Del Oro, stated that the public comment portion
of the public hearing was not closed as it was stated in the minutes. He went on to
state the problem with the RVS was more than just parking. There were issues from
the Vehicle Code and other codes plus CC&R's that impact the RV owner and make
it impossible to comply with the new regulations. The City had a problem with the
new homes being constructed in existing tracts and created the Compatibility
Ordinance to solve the problem. With the current setbacks, RV owners cannot meet
the setback requirements being proposed due to the City's right-of-way. The RV
cannot fit into the standard garage, nor parked in the driveway or sideyard. A six-
foot high wall will not screen the RV and most gated communities prohibit RV's.
This almost prohibits an RV owner from parking anywhere. He too, is totally
opposed to any RV being parked on the street, but to create an ordinance that now
prohibits an RV owner from enjoying his RV at his place of residence after they have
been allowed to do this since the City's incorporation, is not right. The City should
create districts within the City and allow RV parking according to districts.
H. Ms. Evie Gibson, 53-300 Montezuma, questioned whether or not she would be able
to have guests with an RV park and stay at her home for 72 hours. Community
Development Director Jerry Herman stated that as the ordinance is currently written,
there is a limitation of 24 hours for the parking of an RV on the street. Due to the
number of objections to the new regulations, Council, however, has instructed staff
to not enforce the regulations until a review is completed.
I. Mr. Keith Sellers, 53-810 Avenida Mendoza, stated he was against the ordinance and
any government intrusion on his personal freedom of choice. He stated to his wife
that if this ordinance is passed, the next thing will be a prohibition on changing car
parts in his driveway. He was informed by his wife that this was already prohibited.
J. Mr. John Cook, 54-900 Avenida Rubio, stated that he challenged whether or not the
public hearing was closed. He has lived in three different communities and has had
his RV adjacent to his residence at all three. He checked with the City and it was
determined that his RV complied with all the La Quinta laws. Now the Zoning Code
has been changed and he no longer complies. Other cities have found that it is very
difficult to make these changes and backed off. He agreed with the increase in hours
to 72, but the current regulations are impossible to live with. Screening is
impossible. If the RV owner has the room, he should not be penalized with
additional requirements. He does not agree with the block wall requirement and
believes that vegetation planted would function better to hide the RV. The grand
fathering clause is a workable solution, except for the recording of the RV. There
should be provisions to allow the owner to upgrade his RV if he desires to do so.
PC12-10 3
Planning Commission Minutes
December 10, 1996
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Vice Chairman Butler asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of
November 26, 1996. There being no corrections, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Tyler/Newkirk to approve the minutes as submitted. Unanimously
approved.
B. Department Report: None
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Continued - Zoning Ordinance Amendment 96-053, an Amendment to Municipal
Code. Section 9.60.130-Recreational Vehicles; a request of the City for an
Amendment to the current Zoning Code regarding recreational vehicles.
1. Vice Chairman Butler asked for the staff report. Community Development
Director Jerry Herman presented the information contained in the staff report,
a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department.
2. Commissioner Woodard expressed his concern about being able to hide an
object when it is impossible to do so. The height of an RV makes it a
problem to hide and landscaping is only an option. Community Development
Director Jerry Herman stated that Option 2 does not require the owner to
screen the RV. It can be either landscaped or walled. Staff went on to define
the options.
3. Commissioner Woodard stated that an 8-10 foot high RV would require an
8-10 foot tall plant. In addition, why should the City require the owner to
install concrete to park the RV? Staff explained the object was to make the
parking location of the RV a permanent parking space, not a temporary. The
concrete would keep the grass and landscaping in a groomed state and the RV
would not appear to be an abandoned vehicle.
4. Commissioner Woodard asked if Option 1 would require the driveway to be
extended to accommodate the RV. Also, how would the City be able to
monitor the RV when it is parked on the street to determine when it had been
there 72 hours. Staff stated this was govemed by the Vehicle Code and it was
up to the Sheriffs Department to enforce the regulation. Discussion followed
regarding the procedure by which this is accomplished.
5. Commissioner Woodard asked staff if establishing zoning districts would be
a solution. Staff explained that this option was presented to the Commission
at their meeting of November 26, 1996, and it was determined that you could
PC12-10 4
Planning Commission Minutes
December 10, 1996
have a zoning district with lots that were large enough to accommodate the
RV, but still could not meet the RV regulations due to the side and front yard
· setbacks, especially on a cul-de-sac. Staff was unable to divide the City in
such a way that it would accommodate an RV's.
6. Commissioner Woodard asked staff if Option 1 would give staff the latitude
to make a determination as to which RV's were in "good repair". Staff stated
that the obvious was that if the RV had flat tires or there was no current
registration, it provided the opportunity to at least speak with the owner to see
if the RV was meeting the regulations.
7. Commissioner Woodard asked if the option to grandfather the RV was
approved, how would the owner of the RV sold be able to purchase another.
Should there be a time limit included in the option to require the owner to
come into the City and submit an application? Staff stated this was a good
recommendation.
8. Commissioner Woodard suggested staff look into the possibility of
combining side yards to allow neighbors the opportunity to share the space.
Staff stated there are lots that would be able to do this and again there are
adjoining lots with different elevations which make this impossible. This
problem exists in both the Cove area as well as in the north section of the
City.
9. Commissioner Tyler stated he was not a stranger to the problems of an RV
owner as he had owned a number of them. When he moved to La Quinta he
chose to not live in a gated community. This problem is not exclusive to any
one area in La Quinta, but is City-wide. He has listened to all the public
comment over the last two years and it appears that most of the comments
can be categorized. He went on to state the comments. There are many lots
in the City that will accommodate the parking of an RV and it is impossible
to screen an RV. Gated communities are a separate issue as they set their
own mles governing RVs. It is also tree that an RV is a sizeable investment
for families to make, but because of the size of an RV they become a traffic
problem and can obstruct pedestrian travel. He has taken the time to drive
through the non-gated areas of La Quinta and believes there are fewer than
10% of the residents who own an RV and therefore there is no demand on the
City to make accommodations for the RV. He is opposed to parking an RV
on a public street for more than 72 hours as well as allowing an RV owner to
be allowed to use the RV for the purposes of housekeeping. In his opinion,
Options 1 A and B are the best solutions. In addition, he suggested that in
Option 1.-C.l.a. the word "carport be changed to "garage"; C.l.a. 1. the
following wording be added, "vehicles must be parked perpendicular to the
PC12-10 5
Planning Commission Minutes
December 10, 1996
front property line"; C. 1 .a.2. add the following wording, "....subject to the
screening provisions of paragraph C.2."; C. 1.b. be deleted entirely; C.2 at the
· end of the third line add the following word "vegetation"; D and E should be
left as is; F the last phrase should be made a separate letter and should read,
"Nor shall any such RV at any time be used for living purposes within the
City."; letter H should be modified to state '~...72 consecutive hours to
conform to the Vehicle Code."
10. Commissioner Newkirk stated he agreed with Commissioner Tyler's
comments. He too has driven around the City and the Cove area has changed
significantly to become more of a pristine area of the City. But there are
RV's that appear to be deteriorating and would reduce the property values for
the neighbors. The number of people he spoke with did not want RV's
parked in the neighborhoods. Grand fathering the existing RV would appear
to be an option for those who currently own an RV and moved to the City for
this reason. He would favor this option for a certain period of time, but not
for forever.
11. Commissioner Woodard stated that although those present in the audience
feel the Commission is an elitist group who do not understand the desire of
those who may live in areas that are not gated communities, he would like
them to be informed that the Commissioners spend in excess of 20-30 hours
a month conducting City business. Each Commissioner has make this
decision because of their love of La Quinta. This issue is a difficult problem
to solve and they are trying to reach a solution that will accommodate the
majority of the residents. He too has spent a considerable amount of time
driving up and down the streets of La Quinta plus reading as much material
as he could on the subject. He reached the conclusion that it is difficult to
solve a problem that is a concern to the RV owner and an aesthetic concern
of the neighbors. There is a price to be paid during any transition in a City.
Some people will be hurt by whatever decision is made. It was his opinion
that an RV parked on the streets was not a beautiful addition to the City. He
would be in favor of the option that allowed grandfathering.
12. Commissioner Seaton stated that she lived in the northem portion of the City
and her neighborhood is governed by CC&R's. She has however, spoken
with several people in the northern portion and they do want the RV parking
restricted. She agrees that the time limit should be increased to 72 hours. In
reviewing the options, it appears that Option 2 would be a nightmare for staff
to regulate. If an RV owner sells his RV, he is not allowed to purchase
another, and this does not appear to be fair, and grandfathering could create
additional problems.
PCI2-10 6
Planning Commission Minutes
December 10, 1996
13. Vice Chairman Butler stated he had listened to the comments made at
previous meetings and he too had driven through the streets of the City. He
· had seen examples of both good and bad RV's. There are those who are
obviously doing all they can to enjoy and maintain their RV, and there are
those who are obvious irritants to their neighbors. In reviewing the options
as presented by staff, it appears that Option 2 would be the best solution with
the modification of the restriction regarding the sale and purchase of a new
RV. It would be his personal preference to stay with Option 1.
14. Commissioner Woodard asked if the Commission could add the grand-
fathering clause to Option 1. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell asked
Commissioner Woodard to clarify his question. Community Development
Director Jerry Herman stated that the Commission has the ability to modify
and make any changes to any of the options presented.
15. Vice Chairman Butler stated his concern that if Options 1 and 2 were
combined, they would be dissecting it to a point it would have no affect.
16. There being no further discussion, it was moved by Commissioners Woodard
that Option 1 be approved with the modifications as suggested by
Commissioner Tyler, Option 2.D be added to Option 1 with a 90-day
limitation, and with the addition of the grandfather clause be recommended
to the City Council by virtue of Planning Commission Resolution 96-039.
17. The motion died for a lack of a second.
18. Commissioners discussed the modifications as stated by Commissioner Tyler.
19. It was moved Commissioner Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution
96-039 recommending to the City Council approval of Option 1, with the
modifications as he stated earlier.
20. Commissioner Newkirk asked if the grandfathering clause would be added.
Commissioner Tyler stated not in his motion. The motion died for a lack of
a second.
21. Vice Chairman Butler asked what the Commission's options were at this
point. Community Development Director Jerry Herman asked if there were
any other motions.
22. It was moved by Commissioners Seaton to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 96-039 recommending to the City Council approval of Option 1
as originally written by staff (leaving C. 1.b. and with the modifications as
PC12-10 7
Planning Commission Minutes
December 10, 1996
stated by Commissioner Tyler. Commissioner Woodard stated he would
second the motion, but asked Commissioner Tyler what his reasoning was to
· remove C. 1.b. Commissioner Tyler stated he believed if it were left in an RV
owner would feel he did not have to do anything as he could leave it as it is.
It comes down to an RV owner being a good neighbor. If they want to violate
the intent of the law, the RV owner can move the RV every 72 hours and still
conform to the law. It is difficult to change human nature. Commissioner
Woodard stated that what it comes down to is that if there is no way an RV
owner can meet the standards, the owner must store the RV at an RV storage
place.
23. Vice Chairman Butler stated that Item E does restrict this and only allows the
parking of an RV only if it does not go over the public sidewalk or travelway.
Discussion followed regarding different versions of the options.
24. Vice Chairman Butler stated there was a motion and a second.
Commissioner Woodard withdrew his second. Commissioner Tyler
seconded the motion.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Seaton and Tyler. NOES: Commissioners
Butler, Newkirk, Woodard and Vice Chairman Butler. ABSENT:
Commissioners Abels and Gardner. ABSTAIN: None.
25. The motion was not passed on a 2-yes and 3-no vote.
26. Commissioner Woodard stated that although there were a lot of people in
attendance at this meeting regarding the RV regulations, in traveling around
the City he did not believe there were that many RV owners throughout the
City to make the negative visual impact on a large scale. In his opinion, it is
unfair to not allow an RV owner who sells his RV to purchase a new one.
The grandfathefing clause would at least offer a reprieve to the RV owners.
Discussion followed regarding the impact on the entire community by the
number of RV's that can be visually seen.
27. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Woodard/Newkirk to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution 96-039 recommending approval of Option
1 with Commissioner Tyler's modifications and the grand fathering clause
(from Option 2) and staff's comments be approved.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Newkirk, Woodard, and Vice Chairman
Butler. NOES: Commissioners Seaton and Tyler. ABSENT:
Commissioners Abels and Gardner. ABSTAIN: None.
PCI2-10 8
Planning Commission Minutes
December 10, 1996
28. The motion carded on a 3-yes and 2-no vote.
Vice Chairman Butler called a break at 8:48 p.m. and reconvened at 8:53 p.m.
B. Vesting Tentative Tract 28458, Site Development Permit 96-594, and Variance 96-
027; a request of EZ Okie for approval of a 28.8 acre subdivision consisting of 115
single family and other lettered public streets and well site lots; approval of house
plans; and deviation in the rear yard setback to not less than 10 feet on cul-de-sac and
knuckle lots.
1. Vice Chairman Butler opened the public hearing and stated that the applicant
had requested the application be continued to January 14, 1997.
2. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Newkirk to continue the
request to January 14, 1997. Unanimously approved.
C. Vesting Tentative Tract 28457. Site Development Permit 96-593, and Variance 96-
028; a request ofEZ Okie for approval of a 33.1 acre subdivision consisting of 116
single family and other lettered public streets and retention basin lots; approval of
house plans; and deviation in the rear yard setback to not less than 10 feet on cul-de-
sac and knuckle lots.
1. Vice Chairman Butler opened the public hearing and stated that the applicant
had requested the application be continued to January 14, 1997.
2. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Newkirk to continue the
request to January 14, 1997. Unanimously approved.
D. Site Development Permit 96-598 and Variance 96-029; a request of The William
Warren Group for certification ora Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impact; approval of a variance of the maximum 600 square foot caretakers trait size
and requirement to landscape 5% of the interior parking area; and approval to allow
construction of an 86,000 square foot self storage facility on a four acre site.
1. Vice Chairman Butler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in
he staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department. Staff recommended modifications to the approved Conditions
for ~4b. 1. and #45. In addition, staff is recommending that the Commission
not approve the variance.
2. Commissioner Tyler if the caretaker issue was unable to be resolved. Staff
stated some of the findings could not be made and staff would not feel legally
PCI2-10 9
Planning Commission Minutes
December 10, 1996
comfortable to recommend approval of a variance. The Zoning Code was in
the process of being amended and this would resolve the problem. This was
'discussed with the applicant and they believed this would fit into their
scheduling of the project.
3. Commissioner Woodard asked if the Commission could have additional
information regarding what uses surround the proposed project. Staff stated
that on furore projects they would include this information in the staff report.
4. Commissioner Woodard asked staff to define a "pop-om". Staff stated they
were architectural features that extends beyond the wall of the main building.
5. Commissioner Woodard asked if staff had any concern about revisiting the
requirements for landscaping contained in the Zoning Code. Staff stated it
was possible for an amendment to be added to not require interior
landscaping for private areas. Commissioner Woodard asked about the
parking requirement being excessive. Staff stated the Commission would be
reviewing this during the Zoning Code update.
6. Commissioner Woodard stated that on the site plan for Adams Street
elevation the main entrance has a landscaped area when viewing into the
interior of the facility. However, as traveling north on Adams Street, the
emergency gate is not landscaped. Staff clarified that the gate is proposed to
be solid.
7. Commissioner Seaton asked staff to clarify that there were eight parking
spaces. Staff showed where the eight parking spaces were proposed.
8. As there were no further questions of staff, Vice Chairman Butler asked if
there was any public comment.
9. Mr. Bil Hobin, the applicant, stated they believed their project to be
aesthetically pleasing to anyone traveling by.
10. Mr. Bruce Jordan, Jordan-Valli Architects, architects for the project, stated
they had been working with staff regarding a series of adjustments that have
resulted in a community responsive facility. The facility is designed with
new state-of-the-art equipment to make it more user friendly. He then went
on to describe the alarm setup and monitoring services. The purpose behind
the design is to screen the loading areas from the street view. They have
reviewed the conditions as written by staff and they have no objections. In
addition, if the Zoning Ordinance is to be amended to accommodate the issue
of the caretakers unit, they have no objection to the deletion of the variance.
Planning Commission Minutes
December 10, 1996
11. Commissioner Tyler commended the applicant on the project and stated he
believed the project would meet a need within the City of La Quinta. He
· went on to ask the applicant what the hours of operation would be. Mr.
Jordan stated they would be open seven days a week from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00
p.m. and went on to explain the operational procedures.
12. Commissioner Tyler asked if the applicant would be doing anything about
providing any type of air-conditioning to the storage units. Mr. Jordan stated
they would be installing climate control for those users who requested it. The
remaining units would have fans that would provide a 3% decrease in the
temperature from the outside temperature.
13. Commissioner Tyler asked why the applicant was using Jacaranda trees. Mr.
Jordan stated it was because they were a lacy tree that would frame the entry
and create a soft look.
14. Commissioner Tyler asked about the huge expanse of the exterior walls that
could cause a graffiti problem. Could the surface be treated to prevent this.
Mr. Jordan stated that on the south and north there would be an articulation
as well as landscaping to prevent this and break up the surface. In addition,
they would be using an anti-graffiti paint. Commissioner Tyler stated his
concern regarding the wall on the Channel side for the residents to the north.
He asked if the applicant would consider putting more trees, perhaps 25-foot
on center, to fill in the blank areas. Mr. Jordan stated they did add additional
wall articulation to help and they would be willing to add additional
landscaping. Discussion followed regarding the architectural treatment on
the north elevation.
15. Commissioner Woodard asked the applicant to explain the additional
articulation that would be added to the north and south wall. Discussion
followed regarding the proposed changes.
16. Commissioner Newkirk stated his approval of the project and commended
the applicant on his proposal.
17. Vice Chairman Butler stated his concem regarding the oppommity for graffiti
and asked if the security camera would have visual access to the exterior
walls. Mr. Jordan stated the security camera was designed to provide
surveillance for the interior only. Vice Chairman Butler asked if there would
be exterior lighting. Mr. Jordan stated interior only with minimal on the
street. Vice Chairman Butler asked if there would be an area designated for
RV storage parking and would the economics of the project allow for such.
Mr. Jordan explained there were state laws governing RV storage facilities.
Due to the excessive requirements, it was not economically viable for this
project to include the RV storage..
Planning Commission Minutes
December 10, 1996 -
18. Commissioner Seaton agreed with the architecture of the project and
· commended the architect on the design of the caretakers unit and for
increasing the size of the unit. In addition, she stated she had no objection to
the parking.
19. Commissioner Woodard also commended the applicant on the design of the
project. He then asked the staff why a ten foot setback was required when
there are no openings. It appeared to be a waste of space. Staff clarified this
was a requirement of the Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Woodard stated
he understood the need to have zoning requirements for certain purposes, but
common sense has to be allowed to prevail to enable the applicant to produce
a quality project. To allow this amount of land devoted to landscaping with
a ten foot setback is a waste of land. It is a very unimaginative use of the
land; if they are allowed to vary the setbacks, the aesthetics of the perimeter
could be enhanced.. He applauded the use of landscaping but not the ten foot
setback. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated it is unknown as to the
uses that would developed around this project. Commissioner Woodard
stated that they would be commercial uses and therefore each would be
required to have the same ten foot setback which would create a ten foot
setback for each developer which is a tremendous waste of land. Can't the
City provide a way for the applicant to acquire the land back to enable him
to create an aesthetically pleasing project. Staff stated this could require the
applicant to apply for a specific plan which would add time to the processing
of the project. Following discussion, staff stated this requirement could be
reviewed during the updating of the Zoning Ordinance and the applicant
could apply for an amendment at that time.
20. Commissioner Woodard asked if the monument sign would be the only sign.
Mr. Jordan stated yes, with the addition of the directional signs.
Commissioner Woodard stated he understood the economics of a commercial
project, but the distance between the pop-outs was too superficial and he
would like to see a couple storage units reduced in size to allow for more
articulation on the exterior elevation on Adams Street. Mr. Jordan explained
the pop-outs and the roof treatment dictated the distance between the units.
Commissioner Woodard stated that the distance of that wall should still have
more articulation, especially in the center of the wall. Discussion followed
regarding possible articulation solutions.
21. Mr. Tom McKay, 79-305 Desert Rock Court, stated he had no objection to
the project, but not on the main road through La Quinta. Storage units can
be constructed anywhere, but should not be on the main access road into the
City.
PC12-10 12
Planning Commission Minutes
December 10, 1996
22. There being no further public comment or discussion, Vice Chairman Butler
· closed the public hearing.
23. it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Woodard/Newkirk to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution 96-040 certifying a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of environmental impact for Site Development Permit 96-598.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Newkirk, Seaton, Tyler, Woodard, and Vice
Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioners Abels
and Gardner. ABSTAIN: None.
24. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Woodard/Tyler to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution 96-041 approving Site Development
Permit 96-598 with the modifications to Conditions ~44 and #45 and adding
that the size of the caretakers unit will meet the development standards, add
additional articulation to the Adams Street elevation reducing the dimensions
of the units from front to back to accommodate the additional articulation in
the wall on a couple of the storage units, additional landscaping, and trees
-- would be required on the north and south walls including clustering of the
trees with 36-inch box trees.
25. Commissioner Tyler asked if the condition to require a retention basin was
needed. Senior Engineer Steve Speer clarified that until Coachella Valley
Water District agrees to accept the water it is needed. If the District does not
accept the water, the applicant will be required to provide the retention basin.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Newkirk, Seaton, Tyler, Wood, and Vice
Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioners Abels
and Gardner. ABSTAIN: None.
E. Municipal Code Amendment 96-051, Subdivision Ordinance; a request of the City
for an amendment to the La Quinta Municipal Code by revising Title 13 (Subdivision
Regulations), relating to various Chapters.
1. Vice Chairman Butler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community
Development Department.
2. Commissioner Tyler asked staff to give an example of an "approved
emergency access route" on a cul-de-sac. Staff explained it would depend on
the subdivision design. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated that typically it
is found on a golf course development and would be used for emergency use
only.
Planning Commission Minutes _
December 10, 1996
3. Commissioner Woodard asked why grading improvements require a
restriction on the different heights of pads. Senior Engineer Steve Speer
· explained that this became an issue on a particular tract where new lots were
higher than the wall of the adjacent tract. Since that time, a condition has
been required and now it is being written into the ordinance itself.
Commissioner Woodard stated his concern that this restriction would require
mass grading. Senior Engineer Steve Speer explained that an exception is
provided where it is economically feasible. The purpose is to try and protect
the viewsheds.
4. Commissioner Woodard asked why the City required 38-feet width for
private streets and 45-feet for public streets. Senior Engineer Steve Speer
explained this was a compromise that came about in regard to the old
ordinance. At that time the property line of a public cul-de-sac was 45-feet
and 38-feet for private. The Fire Department consistently requesting 45-feet
and the City would not agree to this. The City continued to put the curb at
38-feet and the property line at 45-feet for public streets, while private streets
have the curb at the property line or 38-feet.
5. There being no further public comment the public hearing was closed.
6. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Seaton to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution 96-042, recommending to the City Council
approval of Municipal Code Amendment 95-051, amending the Subdivision
Ordinance Amendment, as proposed.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Newkirk, Seaton, Tyler, Woodard, and Vice
Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioners Abels
and Gardner. ABSTAIN: None.
VI. BUSINESS SESSION:
A. Temporary Use Permit 96-135; a request of Lexus Challenge-Mr. Terrance Hislop,
Manager of Operations, for approval of a four-day golf tournament and sign program
to be held on December 18-21, 1996, pursuant to provisions of Zoning Code Section
9.100.140 and 9.100.180.
1. Commissioner Woodard withdrew due to a possible conflict of interest and
left the dias.
2. Vice Chairman Butler asked for the staff report. 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.
Planning Commission Minutes
December 10, 1996
~ 3. Commissioner Seaton stated her concern about receiving the application on
November 20, 1996, and staff having the time to prepare it for the
· Commission.
4. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Tyler/Seaton to adopt Minute Motion 96-041 approving
Temporary Use Permit 96-135, subject to the findings and conditions.
Unanimously approved.
Commissioner Woodard rejoined the Commission.
B. Semi Permanent Downtown Villai, e Directional Signs; a request of the La Quinta
Chamber of Commerce for approval of signs and their locations.
1. Vice Chairman Butler asked for the staff report. Community Development
Director Jerry Herman presented the information contained in the staff report,
a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department.
2. Commissioner Woodard asked staff to clarify why no sign permit is required.
-- Staff explained that the La Quinta Chamber of Commerce would be required
to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the City
regarding the scope of services. Once the sign program is agreed upon and
signed, the Chamber would be resPonsible for the sign program and would
not be required to file any further application as long as they meet the
requirements of the Code per the MOU.
3. Commissioner Tyler asked where the signs would be located. Staff stated it
would be determined by the Directors of Public Works and Community
Development. They may be in the medians or right-of-way but, the intent is
to keep them out of the traffic and not block visibility.
4. Community Development Director clarified that the MOU would be before
the City Council some time in the future.
5. Commissioner Woodard asked who was paying for the signs. Staff stated the
Chamber is paying for the program and therefore they are responsible for the
maintenance, installation, liability, etc. The program is the responsibility of
the Chamber, not the City.
-- 6. Commissioner Seaton asked how the signs would be rotated. Staff explained
this was yet to be determined.
Planning Commission Minutes
December 10, 1996
7. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Tyler/Seaton to adopt Minute Motion 96-042 to approve the
· Semi-Permanent Downtown Village Directional Signs, as submitted.
8. Commissioner Woodard asked what the duration of the MOU would be.
Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated it would probably
have a one year renewal stipulation. Commissioner Woodard expressed his
concern that the quality of the sign structure was inferior and had no sense of
design and should be addressed.
9. There being no further discussion, the motion was passed with Commissioner
Woodard voting no.
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None
VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS
A. Discussion relative to application submittals.
1. Community Development Director Jerry Herman explained that the
Commission had asked staff to provide them with the requirements for a
submittal project. Before the Commission was the minimum submittal
requirements.
2. Vice Chairman Butler asked why an applicant is required to submit 25 copies
of the plans and there are several items on the list that do not, or do not need
to, come before the Commission. Is there a way to streamline this process.
Staff explained that all items do not reach the Commission, such as grading
plans, but they may be required by another Department that needs the items
to prepare their recommendation to the Community Development Department
to enable the project planner to prepare the Commission report.
3. Vice Chairman Butler stated the requirement for photographs was a good
idea, and yet the Commission does not receive many. Staff stated they would
be receiving more as staff finds a way to duplicate them for the Commission.
4. Commissioner Woodard asked if the plot plan is required to have a scale with
it. Staff stated it was required.
5. Commissioner Woodard asked why staff required a dimensioned floor plan
for a commercial project for the interior of a building. Staff stated it helps
staff to determine the number of parking spaces that will be required based
on the leasable interior space. If the required parking is not provided, the
PC12-10 16
Planning Commission Minutes
December 10, 1996
project cannot be approved. Dimensioned floor plans are needed in order to
make the calculations to determine the number of parking spaces that will be
· required for the use.
6. Commissioner Woodard asked why staff was requiring the applicant to
provide the exterior elevations of a courtyard. Staff stated the submittal
requirements were determined by a previous Commission. If the
Commission wishes to revise the requirements, staff can revise the form. It
was suggested that Commissioner Woodard meet with staff to review the
form.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Newkirk to
adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a meeting on January 14, 1997. This
meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 10:24 p.m. on December 10, 1996.
PCI2-10 17