Loading...
PCMIN 05 27 1997 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California May 27, 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 Commissioner Woodard to lead the flag salute. B. Chairman Abels requested the roll call: Present: Commissioners Newkirk, Seaton, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Abels. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Seaton/Woodard to excuse Commissioners Butler and Gardner. Unanimously approved. C. Staff Present: Planning Manager Christine di Iorio, City Attorney Dawn Honeywell, -- Senior Engineer Steve Speer, Principal Planner Stan 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 May 13, 1997. There being no corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Seaton to approve the minutes as submitted. Commissioner Woodard abstained as h~ was absent from the meeting. B. Department Report: None. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 28489; an appeal by the Coachella Valley Unified School District for an appeal of the Acting Community Development Director's approval to allow the subdivision of 1.1 acres into four single family residential lots greater than 11,961 square feet in size by KSL Land Corporation. PC5-27-97 1 Planning Commission Meeting May 27, 1997 1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and 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. 2. There being no questions of staff, Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Chevis Hosea, speaking for KSL Land Corporation, stated he would be happy to answer any questions. He stated this was not an issue of KSL against the School District. They are not in opposition to the school system'and they are concerned how the issue is being presented publicly. To KSL, this is a matter of a contract that they purchased from Landmark. While they were in the process of buying the project from Landmark Land Company, they reviewed a number of agreements. It was KSL's understanding that this Agreement was purchased in tact. It is still their belief that the Agreement is valid. Unfortunately, its validity will need to be interpreted by a court of law. It is not their intention to drag the City into this disagreement. 3. Mr. Patrick Breem, attorney and outside counsel for KSL Land Corporation, stated he was available to answer any questions of the Commission. 4. Ms. Debra R. G. Cesario, attorney representing Coachella Valley Unified School District (CVUSD), distributed a letter to the Commissioners explaining the basis for their objection and reason for filing an appeal to the approvals for Tentative Parcel Map 28489 and Tentative Tract 28444. She then summarized the letter and asked that the letter and its contents be entered into the record. Explaining further, she stated initially the School District had voiced its concerns regarding the unmitigated significant school impacts for the proposed projects by way of correspondence to the City Council dated March 21, 1997 and April 25, 1997, and would like to have it made a part of the record for these proceedings. Additionally, representatives of the School District have appeared before the Community Development Director and City Council regarding the project and to elaborate on the issues that are unresolved. The main issue is whether Amendment #3 to the Specific Plan rescinded Condition #39 regarding mitigation requirements for school impacts. She then read Condition #39. It was their opinion that the approval for the Tentative Parcel Map can go forward only if Condition #39 is part of the conditions approving the tentative parcel map. If not, the Planning Commission should consider Mitigation Measure #30 to the Enviromental Impact Report (EIR). The concern of the District is the overcrowded existing school facilities. The reported change of the project by PC5-27-97 2 Planning Commission Meeting May 27, 1997 not addressing the fact that there needs to be a mitigation agreement entered into by the project applicant and the District for more than what has presumably already been determined by contract that is in pending litigation. As a result of the overcrowding conditions and the project that would create more problems, the School District is requesting that if the Commission does not see Condition #39 as not a part Specific Plan that, the Commission look at Mitigation Measure #30 of the EIR. The School District contends that Condition #39, by way of Amendments 1, 2, or 3, neither expressly or appliedly rescind Condition #39. If Condition #39 has been rescinded, as is the District's understanding and as argued by the City, it would be invalidated by the very terms of the resolution approving the Specific Plan by its terms. Assuming that Condition #39 has been rescinded, which the District does not believe has happened, Mitigation Measure #30 of the EIR remains in effect. TherelSy requiring KSL to pay per unit fees as outlined in the District's letter that is before the Commission. In addition, the District contends that any rescinding of Condition #39 is, in fact, invalid for several reasons: 1.) the way it was reported to be rescinded was not done by express or implied language by any of the public entities; and 2) the Notice of the Public Hearing relating to Amendment #3 was invalid in that it denied the District its fight to due process. If the City wants to approve TPM 28489 without Condition #39, it would constitute the approval of the project in the absence of an appropriate condition and would further be inconsistent with some of the Goals and Policies of the City's General Plan. She then stated the specific Goals and Policies. She thanked the Commission for their time and stated she would answer any questions of the Commission. 5. Chairman Abels thanked Ms. Cesario for her comments and asked if there were any other comments. 6. Mr. Breem, attorney for KSL Land Corporation, stated this issue has been explained and rejected by the Planning Commission and he would be willing to address any issues stated by CVUSD. It is their opinion that this is a last minut{/attempt of the District to get something they have been unable to get from any other forum and something which they are bringing up in an untimely manner before this Commission after sitting on their rights for four years. PC5-27-97 3 Planning Commission Meeting May 27, 1997 7. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the Public Heating and opened the issue up for discussion among the Commissioners. 8. Commissioner Woodard asked the City Attorney to address the comments that had been made. 9. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated she would not address every issue raised, but there were specific issues she would point out to the Commission. Most of the complaints in this appeal are addressed in a Specific Plan that was approved last summer and the District is completely late in their appeal and beyond the statutory limitations that would apply to most of the EIR or due process issues raised. Putting aside the fact that they are time barred by raising any of these issues, if the Commission was to focus on the Mitigation Measure that was in the original EIR which required a payment of fees to the district. The EIR did not require a separate mitigation agreement be entered into, but that the school fees be paid and the City looks to the Planning Commission's conditions for this particular approval which is what is before the Commission at this time. Condition #17 states, "Prior to building permit issuance, school mitigation fees shall be paid by the developer." Even though the District is untimely in raising their argument, the Commission's requirement does meet the EIR requirement, even though it did not require a specific type of agreement. As far as what is before the Commission, you have a Specific Plan that has been approved by the Planning Commission and City Council last summer. Those conditions are what the Commission decided made that the Parcel Map consistent with the General Plan. In upholding the Acting Community Development Director's approval, the Commission is making the determination whether to uphold or deny the appeal. It was her opinion that the Commission has no other choice but to review the Specific Plan as being current, in place, and valid at this point. 10. Chairman Abels stated that after listening to the staff report and presentations from CVUSD and KSL representatives, it is apparent that the dispute regarding, the school mitigation fees does not directly involve this appointed Planning Commission, and in fact, may not even involve the City of La Quinta. It seems to be a dispute between CVUSD and KSL and should be resolved elsewhere. PC5-27-97 ' 4 , Planning Commission Meeting May 27, 1997 11. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioner Tyler/Woodard to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 96- 031 confirming the Acting Community Development Director's approval of Tentative Parcel Map 28489, subject to the Findings and Conditions. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Newkirk, Seaton, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioners Butler and Gardner. ABSTAIN: None. VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. CONTINUED - HIGHWAY 111 I,ANDSCAPE AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN .GUIDEI,INES; a request of the City for approval of landscaping, entry signs, bus stops and building deSign guidelines. 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. It was further stated that a meeting would be held on June 12, 1997, between the staff and the Highway 111 property owners and the Commissioners were invited to attend. 2. Chairman Abels suggested that the Commissioners review each section of the Guidelines one at a time. 3. Commissioner Woodard asked staff to explain what was meant by, "traditional building designs ....... between historical and contemporary structures." Planning Manager Christine di Iorio explained that the architectural features should be integral to the building. 4. Commissioner Woodard stated he was confused that the sentence stating "traditional building designs may be difficult to accomplish due. to the differences in scale and mass between historical and contemporary structures" suggests this is only in the case where there is that kind of historigal structure/traditional building; they are really two separate issues. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated it could be looked at that the design of the warehouses are different than trying to design something similar to the La Quinta Hotel. PC5-27-97 5 Planning Commission Meeting May 27, 1997 5. Commissioner Woodard stated what was bothering him was that it comes across that the traditional building design is what they are looking for and it may be in conflict when you apply that traditional design to a box or tilt up building. Staff suggested the sentence be changed to state that the City is trying to say that contemporary buildings take on a different mass and scale becaus, e you are putting in warehouses and you can't necessarily provide a more pedestrian scale. Discussion followed regarding potential language that ' could be used. Staff would reword the sentence. 6. Commissioner Woodard stated he had a problem with the Guidelines in that they were not guidelines, but were a vision statement. 7. Chairman Abels suggested that Commissioner Woodard work with staff to create Guidelines that he determined would work. Discussion followed as to the Commissioners opinions of the Guidelines. 8. Commissioner Tyler stated he too agreed that the Guidelines were not specific and should be. Staff pointed out that Council's direction to staff was that the Guidelines not be specific. Following discussion, it was determined that if the Council deemed the Guidelines to be nonspecific, then the Commission would review them as guidelines and staff has written a document that meets the Council's direction. 9. Chairman Abels stated he thought the Commission should be more definitive in this document. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio asked Chairman Abels to def~ae what was meant by definitive; was the Planning Commission saying they wanted to list the materials that could be used as well as the colors, architectural style, etc.? 10. Commissioner Woodard stated that if the City Council asked for the Guidelines to be general, then staff has completed their directive. As an architect, however, it does not give any specific direction. 11. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio asked if the Commission wanted staff to list the type of materials that could be used. Commissioner Woodard stated that diversity is a necessity to make the City viable. Following discussion, it was suggested that "diverse" be added to sentence 1. PC5-27-97 6 · Planning Commission Meeting May 27, 1997 Discussion followed as to whether it should be "required" or "encouraged". City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that from a legal perspective is that the Commission is asking them to do it, but they cannot require them to do it. Even though there are not a lot of generalities it is subjective and there aren't a lot of objectives, if you want to say encouraged, it isn't really worth saying it. Commissioner Woodard would prefer "required" instead of"encouraged". City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated she would concur. 12. Commissioner Woodard questioned the wording "standard design of franchises..." is good for the City. Why is this needed at all. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated Boston Market as an example. They presented the City with their standard design, similar to their design at Desert Crossing. in Palm Desert, and it was completely different than what is compatible with the One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center. 13. Commissioner Tyler stated that all fast food establishments are the same. Staff stated that Jack-in-the-Box has a uniform design and they are working with staff to alter their design to be compatible in color, materials, and design of Home Depot. 14. Commissioner Seaton asked if a unified theme is the City's goal, does the City have any control over the developments to see that the landscaping, etc., is maintained. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated that under the City's Public Nuisance Ordinance, the Code Enforcement Department can require them to replace the landscaping or whatever is needed. 15. Commissioner Woodard stated his concern about the wording requiting a "desert setting" is the City's theme for Highway 111. The landscaping on Highway 111, east of Washington Street is not a "desert setting". Staff stated that wording could be taken out, or changed. Commissioner Woodard stated it needed to state what the City wants. Discussion followed regarding the landscaping theme that is currently existing. Commissioner Woodard suggested verbiage be added to see that what is existing be maintained by the future developments. 16. Cornnlissioner Woodard asked the City Attorney if a project did not meet what the Commission determined to "reduce massive aesthetic effects" that the Commission could deny the project. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell PC5-27-97 7 Planning Commission Meeting May 27, 1997 stated that if this was one of the City's standards, to require more detail, it would give support for some of the things the City wants. It can only be attacked because it is not specific and leaves some things open for individual interpretation. Discussion followed regarding different scenarios of how this could be used. Staff stated it would help to have this requirement in place when they review a project with a developer before it is taken to the Commission. Commissioner Woodard suggested that the last sentence in #4 be changed. Following discussion, everything after "...building fabric .... " would be deleted. 17. Commissioner Tyler asked if #5 wasn't a conflict with # 1. Staff stated some of guidelines were a duplication and could be removed. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that even though you want to have diversity, you don't want to have it so different that you are not comfortable with the change. 18. Commissioner Woodard - didn't understand what the "City's identify and character and scale" is. Staff stated this would be deleted. 19. Commissioner Woodard asked how a building could provide "attractive pedestrian-scale, features ..... ". Staff explained the first sentence could be removed if it is repetitious. 20. Commissioner Tyler suggested that #7 and #8 be combined. 21. Commissioner Woodard asked staff to explain what entryway was staff referring to in #9. Staff stated it was the building entryway. · 22. Commissioner Woodard stated he did not believe Home Depot would be able to meet # 11 requirement. Discussion followed regarding possible solution. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated it should be to the degree possible. 23. Commissioner Tyler asked staff to clarify # 12 as to what "parking lights" meant. Staff stated it was a typo and should be "lots". 24. Commissioner Tyler asked staff to explain #13 in relation to the Von's Shopping Center. Staff stated it should be qualified as usually the major tenants are listed and not the minor tenants. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated it is the intent to not list all the tenants. PC5-27-97 8- Planning Commission Meeting May 27, 1997 · 25. Commissioner Tyler stated that //14 was a duplication and should be integrated into the section that deals with buildings. 26. Staff suggested that the last sentence of # 15 be deleted as it may not work. Chairman Abels stated that it is a pandora's box. Staff stated the last sentence would be removed. 27. Commissioner Woodard stated he would like to have the word "discouraged" in # 16 be changed to "not allowed". 28. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Newkirk to adopt Minute Motion 97-007 recommending approval of the Highway 111 Architectural Guidelines, as modified. Unanimously approved. VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: · A. Chairman Abels reviewed the heating notices that had been distributed to the Commissioners.. VIII. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS: A. Commissioner Tyler reported on the City Council meeting of May 6, 1997. B. Chairman Abels asked staff if there was anything the Commission should be aware of that the staff is working on. Staff stated they were working with KSL to add 50 condos to the LQ Hotel, Jack in the Box, and the Auto Dealerships were still on their time line. C. Commissioner Tyler asked if the City was suing the County about the Indio car dealership.? City Attorney Dawn Honeywell clarified that a notice was given to the County that the City does intend to sue. D. Commissioner Woodard asked if there were any provisions in the current ordinances for creative land planning. Staff stated this could be accomplished under a specific plan. . PC5-27-97 9 Planning Commission Meeting May 27, 1997 IX. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Woodard to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting to be held on June 10, 1997, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 8:04 p.m. on May 27, 1997. PC5-27-97 10