PCMIN 01 28 1997 MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California
January 28, 1997 7:00 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:03 P.M. by
Chairman Abels who asked Planning Manager Christine di Iorio to lead the flag
salute.
B. Chairman Abels requested the roll call: Present: Commissioners Butler, Gardner,
Newkirk, Seaton, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Abels.
C. StaffPresent: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Dawn
Honeywell, Planning Manager, Christine di Iorio, Senior Engineer Steve Speer,
Principal Planner Start Sawa, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer.
II. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA - Confirmed
III. PUBLIC COMMENT: None
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Chairman Abels asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of January 14, 1997.
Commissioner Tyler asked that the minutes be amended on Page 4, Item 9 to state
"...asked why there wasn't a warrant number that ..... "; Item 10 add the word "...not
conditioning..."; Page 5, Item 15 be changed to state that Lot 105 was an example;
Page 13, Item 18 was to be reworded. There being no further changes to the minutes,
it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Gardner/Tyler to approve the minutes
as amended.
B. Department Report: None
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
--- A. California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines; a request of the City for
consideration of an Amendment to the CEQA Guidelines for the City of La Quinta
i in compliance with State requirements concerning environmental procedures.
PC1-28-97 1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 28, 1997
1. Chairman Abels stated that a request had been received by staff to table this
issue until further notice. The item was tabled until further notice and would
be re-advertised for a new hearing date.
B. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 96-054; a request of the City for consideration of
Amendments to the La Quinta Municipal Code, by revising Title 9 (Zoning,
Regulations) relating to various chapters dealing with such items as height
limitations, setbacks, Hillside Conservation, Bed and Breakfast regulations, and Cove
Residential Development Standards.
1. Chairman Abels opened the public heating and asked for the staff report.
Community Development Director Jerry Herman presented the information
contained within the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community
Development Department.
2. Mr. Chris Canaday, stated he was an architect who was developing homes for
property owners within the Lake La Quinta project. They were looking to
develop the remaining 150 lots and he was anticipating submitting plans for
plan check for the waterfront homes. Their concern was with the proposed
rearyard setbacks. There were certain lots that had disadvantages and he was
working on a courtyard design to minimize those disadvantages. Based on
the Compatibility Standards, the footprints for the remaining lots on the
southeasterly comer of the property along the easterly boundary, would not
work and allow room for pools. Along the easterly boundary there are high
tension power lines along the property line and the property owners are
wanting pools and spas. With the power lines in the rear, 20-foot setbacks,
and the constraints of the minimum house size, it is difficult to make the
footprint work and have room for a pool. In addition, there are lots that have
upsloping rear yards (Lots 103-110) with five foot rear fences making a total
height of ten feet from the street elevation. This would block the
homeowners' view. They are proposing to design a courtyard with front yard
pools and requesting a ten foot setback instead.
2. Commissioner Woodard asked where the view was for Lots 103-111 as it
appears the houses across the street would block their view. Mr. Canaday
stated the problem with Lots 103-113 was not the front view, but rather the
rear yard with the 5-foot upslope and additional 5-feet of fence, there was no
view. They are trying to design a courtyard home that has a frontyard
orientation.
PC1-28-97 2
Planning Commission Meeting
January 28, 1997
3. Mr. Billy Watson, Watson Company, stated he was designing and hoping to
build a home in Lake La Quinta for one of his clients. He had received
approval from the Design Review Board of the Homeowners' Association.
He submitted the plans to staff and was informed that the ordinance had
changed. Even though this plan conforms to the style and colors of the
existing homes, it would have to be submitted to the Planning Commission
for compatibility review during a public hearing. The proposed home is to
be constructed on Lot 273 and will be approximately 3,200-3,300 square feet.
His client has sold his home in anticipation of being able to move into this
one by the end of June. If he has to go through the public hearing process, he
will not be able to meet their deadline. Community Development Director
Jerry Herman stated this house is caught in the regulations of the revised
Zoning Ordinance- compatibility review. As the old ordinance allowed for
staff approval, the revised Ordinance requires a public hearing before the
Planning Commission. In this case, Mr. Watson owns a lot that is part of an
existing development and the only way to obtain the approval he needs to
construct the house is with a public hearing before the Planning Commission.
Staff went on to explain how the Ordinance had changed.
4. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the Public
Hearing and opened the item for discussion.
5. Commissioner Gardner asked what kind of advance notice is given to
builders when staff is proposing changes to the Zoning Code. Could this
contractor have submitted his application before the change occurred.
Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated staff has no way of
knowing when a contractor is going to submit their plans for plan check.
Therefore, staffhas no way of informing them. When changes are proposed
to the Planning Commission and City Council, there is no way of knowing
what changes will be approved by the Commission and Council until they are
approved. However, we do advise people who come to the counter about
potential changes.
6. Commissioner Gardner asked if in Mr. Watson's case, the Planning
Commission could grant a deviation. Community Development Director
Jerry Herman stated they could do so through a public hearing. However,
Mr. Watson does not need a deviation, his project is caught in the changes
that were made to the compatibility review process. If Mr. Watson were to
submit his plans for Commission review, staff would have to advertise and
this would require 20-25 days prior to the date of the hearing. If the
Commission determines to change the ordinance to alleviate this problem, the
change in the ordinance would not take affect until approximately April.
PC1-28-97 3
Planning Commission Meeting
January 28, 1997
7. Commissioner Woodard stated that it should be the responsibility of the
architects to monitor the cities they do business with for any proposed
changes to their zoning ordinances. This would enable them to be prepared.
Commissioners discussed alternatives to the processing procedures.
8. Following the discussion, staff went on to review all the proposed changes
to the Zoning Code that were being submitted to the Commission for their
review.
9. Page 30-3. Commissioner Butler stated his concern about lot coverage and
rear yard setbacks. Staff explained that due to the problems they were
experiencing, staff was requesting to make the rear yard setback 1 O-feet.
Staff went on to cite examples of how the 20-foot setback was causing
problems. Commissioner Butler stated he did not want this to change the lot
coverage; he did not want large houses on small lots. The 40% lot coverage
could be retained to address this.
10. Commissioner Tyler suggested that instead of making it a blanket 1 O-foot
setback for all lots, that the 1 O-foot setback be retained for existing recorded
lots and 20-feet for those recorded after the effective date of the Ordinance.
Staff stated that the 1 O-foot rear yard for existing recorded lots at the time of
the effective date of the Ordinance and all new lots created after the effective
date would be required to have the 20-foot setback with a 40% lot coverage.
11. Page 30-4 - Commissioner Tyler questioned the wording in Section F.2.
Staff would reword the section to clarify the minimum bathroom
requirements.
12. Page 30-8 - Commissioner Tyler asked why staff was deleting D.2. Staff
explained that it was changed due to the General Plan Amendment to
eliminate the RL District as the City does not have a Rural Residential
Overlay District in the RL District.
13. Page 60-4.F.1 - Commissioner Woodard asked if you have a meandering
sidewalk, how would you determine the dimension, from the sidewalk or
back of curb. Staff agreed that the dimension could not be determined when
a meandering sidewalk was used, therefore sidewalk would be eliminated and
the applicant would be responsible for the dimension at the back of the curb
only.
14. Page 60-3 - Commissioner Tyler questioned why staff changed the sideyard
setback from 12 to 8-feet for Section D.2. Staff stated this change will need
to be determined after the RV issue is resolved and will be kept as it is for
now.
PC1-28-97 4
Planning Commission Meeting
January 28, 1997
15. Page 60-5.B.3 - Commissioner Tyler asked that the words "or flag lot" be
added to the end of the sentence.
16. Page 60-8.4 - Commissioner Tyler asked how staff determined that 24-feet
was an appropriate size for a satellite dish. Staff stated it was determined by
the size of the antennas that are currently in existence.
17. Page 60-9.D.4. - Commissioner Woodard asked why staff determined to draw
the line at 10 acres. Staff stated that it was an arbitrary number determined
by staff. Commissioner Woodard stated that ten acres could hurt the
development of a compound and five acres would be better. It was
determined to change the acreage to five.
18. Page 60-11 .B.3. - Commissioner Tyler asked that the last sentence be deleted
as this was a matter of law, and how would staff police this. Isn't this
governed by Section 7. Staff agreed and the last sentence would be deleted.
19, Page 60-15.B.5 - Commissioner Woodard asked for clarification as to why
this was subject to the Community Development Director instead of the
Commission. Staff stated it was for minor changes only.
20. Page 60-35 - Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated this was
the section that was brought up at the beginning of the meeting regarding
compatibility review. He then read the current code requirements and
explained that Lake La Quinta is not a custom lot subdivision but a tract
subdivision with different phases. He cited examples of custom lot
subdivisions. Staff distributed copies of the original OrdinanCe and the
revised Ordinance. What staff was proposing was to add to Section F, "A
public hearing shall be noticed and held for Section 9.200.110 prior to
Planning Commission approval or denial of any Site Development Permit
consisting of four units or less under the Compatibility Review provision of
this section. Therefore .... four units or less would be reviewed by the
Planning Commission as a Business Item." He went on to explain that under
the original Ordinance, staff was allowed to make a decision on any minor
design deviation that was under 5% change in square footage and staff felt the
construction of the product was similar to the original design. If staff did not
want to make the determination, it was referred to the Planning Commission.
With the revisions to the Zoning Ordinance, staff is no longer able to make
these determinations. Commissioner Gardner asked if this authority was
given back to staff how many lots are involved. Mr. Watson stated
approximately 25 lots could be custom homes. Staff stated this change will
not affect Mr. Watson as his house is more than a 5% change. The intent of
the ordinance is not to go around the public hearing process for four units or
less. Commissioner Gardner asked if there are 25 lots that could be approved
PC1-28-97 5
Planning Commission Meeting
January 28, 1997
as custom lots and a total of 300 lots that were previously approved, how
could the 25 homes be separated out as custom homes. At PGA West there
are a number of lots on the Stadium Course that were designated as custom
home lots by the Specific Plan. A developer does a tract development or he
does a lot for sale development and creates custom lots. City Attorney Dawn
Honeywell stated the purpose of the Compatibility Ordinance was to keep
consistency throughout the entire development of the tract. Discussion
followed regarding how the Compatibility Ordinance was created and how
Mr. Watson's problem could be resolved. It was determined that Mr.
Watson's project would be scheduled for review before the Planning
Commission at their meeting of February 25th. This would solve his
immediate problem and staff was to revise the Zoning Ordinance to add the
minor deviation approval by the Community Development Director for four
units or less. Over four units would require a public hearing before the
Planning Commission.
21. Page 60.37. Section 9.60.300 - Commissioner Tyler explained that the
Starlight Dunes project wanted to build along the northern boundary of the
project which also was a City boundary, but on the other side of the boundary
there were single residential lots that back up to it but the houses were 300-
feet away. This was not a privacy invasion, but as the Ordinance was written,
the Starlight Dunes project would not be able to build any two story units
along these lots. This was a way to allow relief to the developer.
22. Page 60-29-29.C.2 - Commissioner Seaton questioned 8 guests in four rooms
plus the owner, it appeared to be a lot of guests and parking concerns.
Commissioner Woodard stated this would be at least a five bedroom home
and probably a newly constructed facility. Staff explained that anything up
to four-five bedrooms could be converted provided the residents lived there.
It is a conditional use permit process that would be brought to the Planning
Commission for a public hearing. At that time the Commission could review
the site plan and if they cannot meet the parking requirements, or if it does
not meet the character of the existing neighborhood, it can be denied.
Anything above four rooms is a motel and has to be included in a
Commercial Zone. Commissioner Tyler asked that E. 1 also be changed to
read, "A minimum of 100 square feet is required for each of the sleeping
rooms and not more than 25% of the structure can be used for rentals."
23. Page 100-9 - Commissioner Tyler asked how staff would enforce this. Staff
stated it was an attempt to control the selling of outside produce.
PC1-28-97 6
Planning Commission Meeting
January 28, 1997
24. Page 140-4 - Commissioner Seaton pointed out grammatical mistakes and
Commissioner Tyler asked what prompted staff to make this change. Senior
Engineer Steve Speer explained that the Tradition development had a couple
of areas that were steeper than the 20% slope that are scarred and the desire
is to put golf facilities on these locations.
25. Page 150-8 - Commissioner Tyler asked that under Bed and Breakfast Inns
it should read, "One space per guest room plus parking for residence as
required by this section.
26. Page 200-7 - Commissioner Tyler asked staff to explain the change. Staff
explained that the 20-day noticing requirement is a CEQA requirement.
When a project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act you
must provide a 20-day noticing period for environmental determination.
Some items are exempt from CEQA and staff is trying to reduce their
noticing requirement down to ten days to expedite the processing.
27. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded' by
Commissioners Tyler/Gardner to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97-
006 recommending approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 96-054, with
the amendments as discussed.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Gardner, Newkirk, Seaton, Tyler,
Woodard, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
VI. BUSINESS ITEMS - None
VII. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS.
A. Commissioner Seaton informed the Commission that she had attended the Planning
Commission Forum in Riverside and found it very informative and stated the issues
that were discussed. She thanked the Commission for the oppommity to attend.
B. Commission Tyler stated his concern about a newspaper article concerning the lack
of school facilities in the northern portion of the City. Although there is nothing the
Commission, Council, or staff can do regarding it, it is unfommate that the situation
exists.
C. Commissioner Gardner stated he had an occasion to be in Florida the previous week.
While looking at an area that had been developed, he traveled numerous times down
a street called International Drive. It was his determination that it was most
singularly unattractive location he has ever seen. It brought to mind that as
Commissioners they each have own idea of what is beautiful. He asked if funds
PCI-28-97 7
Planning Commission Meeting
January 28, 1997
could be made available to the Commissioners for transportation to allow the
Commission to travel to other cities to see what is being developed in order to avoid
this type of thing happening to La Quinta. Chairman Abels stated that this had been
discussed at previous meetings and he felt that both the Commission and Council
should visit cities that the City could pattern itself after, such as Rancho Cucamonga
and Alta Loma. Commissioner Woodard suggested that in order to save on costs, he
would suggest inviting the top five residential architects listed in Orange County to
make a presentation to the Commission/Council. Orange County has a world of
resources for new concepts and information. Chairman Abels stated that from the
visual standpoint of actually seeing the areas as to how they have developed would
be more beneficial. Commissioner Tyler stated that at last years' League of
California Cities Conference a presentation was made regarding this.
D. Commissioner Butler stated that he too had read the article regarding the schools in
northern La Quinta, and it was his opinion that if there was an impact on a school the
Planning Commission should be informed of the potential risk during their review
of a project. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the difficulty is with the
exception of reviewing General Plan Amendments or legislative decisions, the City
is not allowed to take the impact on the school into consideration. Schools have their
sole remedy in their mitigation fees and this was put into place by the State. -
E. Chairman Abels stated he was trying to schedule a joint meeting with City Council.
F. Commissioner Tyler gave a report on the Council meeting of January 21, 1997.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Gardner/Butler to
adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a meeting of February 11, 1997. This
meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:44 P.M. on January 28, 1997.
PC1-28-97 8