Loading...
PCMIN 06 24 1997 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California June 24, 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 Gardner to lead the .flag salute. B. Chairman Abels requested the roll call: Present: Commissioners Gardner, Butler, Seaton, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Abels. It was moved and seconded by Commissioner Tyler/Gardner to excuse Commissioner Newkirk. Unanimously approved. C. Staff Present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, Planning Manager Christine di Iorio, City Attorney Dawn Honeywell, Principal Planner Start Sawa, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed III. PUBLIC COMMENT: None IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Department Report: None V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Zone Change 97-089; a request of the City of La Quinta to add special zoning limitations (lot size, building height in feet and stories, and lot width) to four identified areas. 1. Commissioner Gardner excused himself due to a possible conflict of interest. PC6-24-97 1 Planning Commission Meeting June 24, 1997 2. Chairman Abels opened the public heating and 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. 3. Commissioner Seaton asked why the square footage was not shown on all the areas. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated the minimum square foot for lots is 7,200. The area where Avenida La Fonda, Avenida Saguaro and Bottlebrush has lots of only 5,000 square feet. If the square footage was listed, these areas would be nonconforming. Therefore, the square footage is not listed to retain the existing zoning for these areas. 4. Commissioner Woodard asked staff to explain what the "zoning symbols" were. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated the symbols is the figure noted under the zoning designation. In this case "17-1" is the symbol denoting that the height limit as 17-feet and one story.. Commissioner Woodard asked staff to explain what the areas were within the district. Staff explained it was to make a zoning requirements particular to an area by modifying the development standards. 5. Commissioner Woodard asked if cul-de-sacs were any different. Staff stated only if they are in the affected area. 6. Commissioner Tyler asked if the Zoning Code documented these changes. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated that under Chapter 9.20 Section 9.20.030 "Special Zoning Symbols" these symbols are identified. 7. Commissioner Tyler asked if these changes were identical to the emergency ordinance that had been passed by the City Council. Staff stated they were with the exception that the lot size has been added in a couple of areas. 8. Chairman Abels opened the meeting for public comment. Mr. Dane Hooper, 78-620 Avenida Tujunga stated that prior to the adoption of the Zoning Code, his area was zoned separately from the Cove area with different height limits. With the adoption of the new Zoning Code his area was allowed to have two story homes. For those who invested in their homes and wanted to retain the single story height, this was a mistake that needed to be rectified and they would appreciate the Planning Commission adopting these standards to correct the problem. PC6-24-97 2 Planning Commission Meeting June 24, 1997 9. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the public hearing. 10. There being' no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioner Tyler/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97- 036 recommending approval of Zone Change 97-082 as submitted. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Seaton, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Gardner and Newkirk. ABSTAIN: None. · Commissioner Gardner rejoined the meeting. B. Site Development Permit 97-606; a request of Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc. for approval to construct a 2,816 square foot Jack in the Box restaurant with drive-through on Pad Site #3 within the Jefferson Plaza Shopping Center currently under construction. 1. Chairman Abels opened the public heating 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. Staff noted that a recommendation was being added'that menu boards on the drive-through, be limited to one menu board and the sign not exceed the 4-foot berm in height. 2. Chairman Abels asked if a signal was to be installed at the entrance next to the Jack in the Box. Staff stated that only the Highway 111 signal proposed is the signal near the west property line. Other driveways are right in/right out only. Discussion followed regarding the entrance locations. 3. Comn3. issioner Gardner asked if the south elevation which faces Highway 111, was the front of the building. Staff stated that the west elevation was the main access into the building. Commissioners discussed the building elevations with staff. Staff stated that the applicant was proposing two menu boards along the drive-through lane. Staff is recommending that there be only one menu board hidden behind a four foot berm. Commissioner Gardner asked if the other berms further west were four feet. Staff stated they varied from 18-inches to three feet. In addition, the area will be landscaped in accordance with Highway 111 Guidelines. PC6-24-97 3 Planning Commission Meeting June 24, 1997 4. Commissioner Tyler asked why a condition had not been added requiring the applicant to conform to the Highway 111 Design Guidelines. Staff stated that it was.initially added to their specific plan. 5. Commissioner Butler stated that some of the drive-throughs have a smaller menu board at the window in case you forget what you wanted. Staff stated they were concerned about the proliferation of signs due to its location on Highway 111. Commissioner Woodard stated they should be required to have the ordering done at the menu board. 6. Commissioner Woodard stated his strong concern that they were reviewing a site plan for the remainder of the Home Depot site while they were not meeting the condition requirements for landscaping on the first phase. He asked if the Planning Commission could withhold any future building permits to force them to comply With the landscaping requirements. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell suggested the Planning Commission require they become current with the specific plan before they go forward with Phase 2. 7. Commissioner Woodard stated his concern that the Public Works Department would allow the drive-through exit for Pad #3, Jack in the Box, to be so close to the street entrance. Staff stated the applicant had been working with the Public Works Department to better accommodate the circulation plan. Comrfiissioner Woodard stated he also believed this would create a traffic problem. When the Planning Commission approved the overall site plan conceptually it was their understanding that there would be more of a landscaping buffer between the entrance road and the drive-through. In addition, now there are cars that will be backing out into the road as cars are entering. This Jack in the Box is a large building and will be located right at the entrance. Regarding the architectural aspect of the structure, Commissioner Woodard asked if the Planning Commission could request that an architectural dimension be added to the raised parapets. He stated the raised parapets needed to be integrated into the design of the building and not stand out by themselves. Staff stated the Commission could add a condition to the Conditions of Approval requiring any of his suggestions. 8. -Commissioner Woodard asked why Condition #29 was requiring a 3:1 slope instead of 4:1. Staff stated this was a typical standard requirement of the Engineering Department. 9. Commissioner Woodard asked why there were two entrances so close together. Staff explained this was one of the results of the negotiations with the pr6perty owner to the west. PC6-24-97 4 Planning Commission Meeting June 24, 1997 10. Commissioner Butler stated his dislike of the design features for the signs. One sign had a height of 23-feet, another 20-feet, and yet another at 17-feet. He had no objection with the advertising, but with the inconsistency of the sign heights. The sign on the west side facing the parking lot was 23-feet and that was too high. The sign facing Highway 111 was only 20-feet and the east elevation showed a sign of only 17-feet. It was his belief that they were getting enough exposure for their advertising, but the height of the signs needed to be more consistent with the other commercial businesses along Highway 111. 11. Commissioner Gardner stated his concern was also regarding the landscaping, and it had already been discussed. · 12. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated that Attachment 2 of the report was a drawing of the design that reflected the solution that had been worked out between the Engineering Department and the applicant regarding the location of the drive-through and entrance to the center. By requiring the changes to the restaurant layout it allowed the drive-through to be more flexible. Commissioners discussed the design revision with staff. 13. Commissioner Woodard stated that with this configuration, a person coming up to that intersection would be very confused. 14. Mr. Doug Cooper, Greenburg-Farrow, Architects, stated he agreed with Commissioner Woodard, that the landscaping for Phase One was thin and they would be investigating this. In regard to the height of the elements on the building, the parapet would be worked out with staff and brought down to a height of 20-feet 6-inches. In talking with representatives of Jack in the Box, they had requested four signs to be consistent with the remainder of the businesses down the street. Regarding the berm height, Mr. Cooper asked for clarification as to whether it was four feet to the berm or to the top of the landscaping. The landscaping island on the east side of the drive-through had been worked out to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department. It was originally ten feet, but had been increased to 13-feet and a bulb added at the end of the drive-through. Regarding the Commission's concerns about the west entrance being a major drive/entrance, Mr. Cooper stated this access was a secondary entry and would not have as much traffic. This entrance would be mostly for those traveling west or exiting from the project site. As far as the exit for the adjacent property, this is due to the negotiations with the adjoining property owner. PC6-24-97 5 Planning Commission Meeting June 24, 1997 15. Commissioner Tyler asked Mr. Cooper to identify the main circulation pattern for the center. Mr. Cooper went over the circulation pattern. 16. Commissioner Gardner expressed his concern about the sparseness of the landscaping. Mr. Cooper stated they would have the landscaping in place prior to opening and it would meet the requirements of the Conditions of Approval. Commissioner Gardner asked if the berm would be four feet with two feet of landscaping. Mr. Cooper stated he was asking for clarification regarding this issue as it was not specific in the Condition; Condition//35.D. Staff clarified 48-inches of screening was being required. 17. Commissioner Butler restated his concern about the height of the signs. The most visible exposure for the signs was facing the parking lot. As far as the applicant's request for four signs, he was not aware of any other business that had been allowed that many signs. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio clarified that the applicant was allowed one sign for each elevation. If the Commission wanted to add a condition giving them more latitude, staff could write a condition requiring the applicant to architecturally add the towers into the building and all signs be the same height. Mr. Cooper stated they had discussed this with staff and the signs had been reduced to 20-feet 6-inches for two of the signs and the east elevation would remain 17-feet. 18. Commissioner Woodard asked if he was the architect for the entire project. Mr. Cooper stated he was. Commissioner Woodard asked if plans had been submitted for the remaining pad sites in Phase Two. Mr. Cooper stated they had not been submitted. They were talking with prospective tenants, but to date none'had signed. Commissioner Woodard stated he had a strong objection to approving the parking layout without knowing the floor plans for the other two pads. If the Commission wanted any variations to the pad designs they would again have problems with the parking lot layout. It was his opinion.that more parking was needed on the north side to allow more landscaping. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated that if during the review process of the parking layout the Commission felt a change was needed, the parking could be required to be redrawn. Commissioner Woodard asked if the parking that is necessary for Jack in the Box could approved at this time, and the remainder of the parking for Phase Two be approved at later date, or at the time the other pads are approved. In his opinion, this would make for a better overall design. Staff stated if it was the desire of the Commission to approve Phase Two in that manner, it could be done. PC6-24-97 6 Planning Commission Meeting June 24, 1997 19. Commissioner Woodard stated the current plans showed too little landscaping. It was his opinion that the parking be relocated to the north to accommodate an appropriate amount of landscaping for the entrance. He asked if the applicant would be willing to accept approval for half of the parking and bring back the remainder at a different time. Mr. Cooper stated it was easier to sell a site when the parking lot is laid out. 20. Commissioner Tyler stated that having cars pulling in and backing out on the a main entrance street is not acceptable. Mr. Cooper asked if the parking would be acceptable if it were moved. Discussion followed regarding the parking plan. 21. Commissioner Woodard stated his concern that the Commission would be approving the plan on a piecemeal basis. Mr. Cooper stated they were trying to mee. t the parking requirements for each of the pad sites. 22. Commissioner Seaton reiterated her concern about the location of the drive- through exit and people backing out of the parking spaces when people were leaving. Mr. Cooper stated this was not the main entrance to the project site and this part of the parking layout had been previously approved by the Commission. 23. Chairman Abels stated he too was concerned about the piecemeal approvals of the project. There being no further comment, Chairman Abels closed the public heating. 24. Commissioner Woodard stated he would be voting to deny the project unless the applicant was willing to bring back a revised plan. 25. Commissioner Butler stated that since the Commission had approved the parking design for Phase One, the parking to the east of Pad #3, the Commission had no alternatives but to concentrate on the Phase Two parking. He then asked it would be acceptable to the developer to remove some o. fthe parking spaces in Phase One. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated the Commission would need to concentrate on the Phase Two as the parking for Phase One could not be manipulated as the applicant had already met the Conditions of Approval. PC6-24-97 7 Planning Commission Meeting June 24~ 1997 26. Commissioner Butler stated that when they approved this project, the Commission knew ~here would be negotiations with the adjoining property owner to work out a circulation plan. This design is the result of those negotiations. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated this was true. The Commission had directed the applicant to work out the problem with the adjoining property owner. Currently, however, there is nothing worked out regarding the parking for the second access. 27. Commissioner Butler stated his only concern with finding a solution to the circulation plan problem for Jack in the Box. 28. Commissioner Woodard stated he would ask that Jack in the Box move their building further to the west and provide more landscaping. Then the parking on the north of the shaded area would have people again backing out into the east/west traffic. Again, he was unsatisfied with approving a parking plan when there is no knowledge of what the floor plan will be for the other two pads. 29. Commissioner Gardner stated that he was in agreement with Commissioner Woodard. In addition, he would want the berm to .be four feet. However, he did note a request of the Sheriff's Department that the berm not be so high as to block their view into the restaurant. This creates a dilemma as he did not want to approve it the way it is designed. 30. Commissioner Tyler stated that he too agreed that the Phasing Plan, approved in September, was not the same plan they are looking at tonight. As far as the traffic backing into the cars entering or leaving at this entrance to the site, he would hope this could be looked at again to solve the problem. Another issue was the fast food restaurants flying flags. The same restrictions need to be added as the other fast foot restaurants. He then asked what could be used to limit the volume on the order taking speakers, after the area had been built out. Also, it appeared that Condition #9 needed to state the American's for ' Disability Act requirements. He noted that the conditions regarding the retention basin did not need to be added again for one pad. Condition ~48.B. regarding the maximum sign space should be for each, or was the figure for the total? Staff noted it was for each sign and would be made more clear. 31. Chairman Abels stated that he concurred with all the comments stated. PC6-24-97 8 · Planning Commission Meeting June 24, 1997 32. Commissioner Woodard stated that the specific plan was approved conceptually and he understood this. But, what is being asked of the Commission at this time is backing the Commission into a comer due to the approval of the conceptual design. The Commission needs to look at the overall picture and respond to what happens as the plan develops. 33. Commissioner Tyler asked if the agreement with the adjoining neighbor were recorded. Mr. Cooper stated that the agreement is to be drawn up and held by the Community Development Department until the property to the east develops. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that normally you record a reciprocal agreement to see that it remains with the land to assure that it stays with the project. 34. Mr. Cooper stated that to move the building to the west and redesign the other pads, would have to be discussed with Home Depot. He could eliminate the parking backing into the east and west driveway for Phase Two and they would be willing to come up with an alternate parking plan. As far as being able to submit a final plan rather than a conceptual plan, in his opinion it was not possible. There were too many tenants to consider and each had its own requirements they had to meet. 35. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant had any objection to a continuance. Mr. Cooper stated they would have no objection. 36. Commissioner Woodard requested that the architectural details on the roof be extended into the building four feet. 37. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioner Tyler/Woodard to continue Site Development Permit 97-606 to the Planning Commission meeting of July 22, 1997. Unanimously approved. 38. Commissioner Gardner asked what site plan the Commission would receive. .Staff stated it would be the site plan as revised by the applicant. · VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Sit, n Permit 97-383; a request of Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc. for approval of a planned sign program for Phase Two of the Jefferson Plaza Shopping Center. PC6-24-97 9 Planning Commission Meeting June 24, 1997 1. Chairman Abels asked for the staff report. 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 noted some corrections to the staff report. 3. Commissioner Butler stated that each of the site plans in the staff report are different and this puts a burden on the Planning Commission and staff each time the parking plans are changed to accommodate the pad tenant. 4. Commissioner Woodard stated there appears to be eight signs in the sign program. Staff stated this was true if the pad is divided into multiple tenants. Commissioner Woodard asked if the pad had only one tenant, would it return to one sign. Staff stated it would allow one sign per side. 5. Commissioner Woodard clarified that Pad 4 has been reduced to three signs. Staff stated that was correct. 6. Commissioner Woodard asked if Pad 1 had multiple tenants would more signs be allowed. Staff stated that what the Commission was reviewing was an example of what would happen. If either Pad 1 or 2 had multiple tenants they would be reflected on the number of signs allowed. Discussion followed regarding the signs allowed for single vs. multiple tenants. Commissioner Woodard stated his concern that this sign program was again being approved and would not allow for changes as tenants were added to the development. Staff clarified that the submittal was a guideline for the sign program. Commission and staff agreed that the single tenant would be allowed three signs. 7. Commissioner Seaton asked how many tenants would be allowed on the free standing signs. Staff stated they would be allowed three and explained how the ordinance breaks it out. 8. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Gardner/Seaton to continue the Planned Sign Program for Phase Two of the Jefferson Plaza Shopping Center for Sign Permit 97-383. Unanimously approved. B. Plot Plan 95-5.54; a request of Caal Theatres Corporation for approval of a one year time extension for an eight-plex theater (La Quinta 8) located within the One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center. PC6-24-97 10 Planning Commission Meeting June 24, 1997 1. Commissioner Butler excused himself due to a possible conflict of interest. 2. Chairman Abels asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 3. Commissioner Tyler asked how many extensions could be granted. Staff stated this was their final extension. 4. Comn].issioner Woodard asked why the Commission was approving the sign program at this time when the applicant was only asking for a time extension. Staff stated this was the last extension and if changes were needed, the Commission would need to do it at this time. 5. Commissioner Woodard stated that the issue before the Commission is whether or not the Commission wanted to require the applicant to make any changes now, or leave it as it is because of the work that had akeady been done by the applicant. 6. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Abels asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. Mr. Bill Hughes, applicant, stated they were working with a different developer and hoped to have their plans completed before the end of their extension. 7. Commissioner Tyler asked if they were planning to expand their theaters into Palm Springs. The newspaper stated this theater was going to progress within 60-days. Mr. Hughes stated that is correct, if the financing is in place. 8. Commissioner Woodard asked what the difference would be between what was originally approved and if the applicant was required to met the requirements of the updated Zoning Code. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated the entry sign on the facade would be reduced and the marquee reader board would be smaller. The neon sign is not addressed in the sign ordinance. 9. Commissioner Woodard asked if the applicant would be required to required to make any changes to the Highway 111 landscaping. Staff stated the only m item being considered is the theater itself. PC6-24-97 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting June 24, 1997 10. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Seaton to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97- 037 alSproving a one year time extension for Plot Plan 95-554, subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Gardner, Seaton, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioners Butler and Newkirk. ABSTAIN: None. Commissioner Butler rejoined the Commission. C. Site Development Permit 97-609; a request of Mr. Marvin Johnson, for Platinum Development for approval of a new single family house plan for Lot 182 of Tract 23269 (La Quinta Vistas). I. Chairman Abels asked for the staff report. Planning Manger Christine di Iorio presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Commissioner Woodard asked if the six foot high concrete wall is to be exposed or what. C- ordinance requires a treatment. · 3. Commissioner Woodard asked who would be responsible for maintaining the landscaping for that portion of Estello Court where the wall separates the comer lot. Staff stated that it would need to be addressed with the applicant. 4. Commissioner Woodard asked if a landscape architect was required. Staff stated one was not. 5. Commissioner Seaton asked in relation to Condition 3, if the property owner would have a choice as to what type of garage door they wanted and also the setback. Staff stated they would be given the choice. 6. Commissioner Tyler stated that for compatibility it would need to be a roll up door. 7. Commissioner Gardner asked if this design meets all the energy requirements and if the Commission asks that a window be added, would that mess up their energy calculations. Commissioner Woodard stated the calculations would not be effected. · PC6-24-97 12 Planning Commission Meeting June 24, 1997 8. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Tom Hernandez, architect for the project, stated he would maintain the entire area with sprinklers, and the block wall could be extended. The area will be completely landscaped along the parkway. The location being requested for the window is behind the block wall. Staff showed the area being discussed. Mr. Hernandez stated he would add the window. 9. Commissioner Woodard stated he agreed the wall would be better if it was set back with landscaping, but who would be responsible for maintaining it. The applicant stated the developer would plant it and have the sprinkler system include this area. · 10. Commissioner Woodard stated the wall would be right up against the sidewalk. Mr. Hernandez stated that five feet of landscaping would be between the two. Commissioner Woodard asked if the applicant would object to extending the roof overhang on the sides similar to the front. Mr. Hernandez stated he would do so. 11. Commissioner Tyler asked if this was a custom built home or is it being built for speculation. Mr. Marvin Johnson, contractor, stated the house has been presold but they have had a problem getting the house started. When the title report showed a homeowner's association, they investigated and found out that it no longer existed. 12. Commissioner Tyler stated that he is aware of the lot and it is a large lot. An 1800 square foot house does not seem to fit in this location. Mr. Johnson stated it is a single woman and this is the size of home that she desires. All elevations will match the neighborhood. 13. Commissioner Tyler stated there is an extra driveway cut shown and apparontly will not be used, therefore it should be restored to a curb. Staff stated this would be added to the Conditions of Approval as Condition # 14. 14. Commissioner Tyler stated the plan shows the air conditioning condenser is located behind the garage which puts it next to the adjoining house. Can the condenser be moved to the street side. Staff stated it could be conditioned to do so. PC6-24-97 13 Planning Commission Meeting June 24, 1997 15. Commissioner Tyler expressed his concem about the tremendous amount of wall that will face the neighbor. Commissioner Woodard stated this is a cul- de-sac with no landscaping and trees. This is a disservice to the neighbors to not re~tuire the wall be setback four or five feet and have the landscaping. Discussion followed regarding altematives. Staff reminded the Commission of what is normally required in this area. Staff could add a condition requiring the additional landscaping as this is a unique lot. 16. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Seaton to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97- 038 approving Site Development Permit 97-609, subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval as amended: a. Curbs be restored where the extra curb cut exists. b. Relocate the air conditioning unit to the street side. c. Additional landscaping be provided along the northwest side of the perimeter wall adjacent to the cul-de-sac. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Gardner, Seaton, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Newkirk. ABSTAIN: None. D. Tentative Tra. ct Map 28409 (The Adobes of lJa Quinta); a request of Mr. Charles Murphy and Mr. Lynn R. Kunkle for approval of the perimeter landscaping and Avenida Montezuma screen wall design features. 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. Staff added that they were recommending removal of the turf and annual color as it more lush than what has been recommended for the Bear Creek Chanel. Need to use the materials recommended for the bike path. 2. Commissioner Tyler asked if the bike path wasn't done in segments to coincide with the different eras of La Quinta. If so, what area is this supposed to be. Staff stated it was to be the drought tolerant plants. The bike path is already landscaped and staff is only asking that the entry of this project match. PC6-24-97 14 Planning Commission Meeting June 24, 1997 3. Commissioner Woodard stated that in the minutes for this project, reference is made to Lot A now it shows Lot 16. Where is Lot A. Staff clarified the location. Commissioner Woodward asked what the dimension was of the landscaped space from the wall to the landscaping. Staff stated it is required to be 12-feet. Commissioner Woodward asked what the functional reasons was for the left side island being offset, how large was Lot 16, and finally how far from the property line can there be a building. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated the offset was part of the figure eight entry treatment and to accommodate the visitor lane. The applicant could better explain this configuration. Lot 16 is 15,000 square feet and the house can be five feet from the wall (property line) and 17 feet in height Staff stated it goes up to the frontyard setback. Commissioner Woodard asked if the adobe pilaster was the frontyard setback. Staff stated it has to be ten feet away from the fight 6f way line. 4. Commissioner Seaton stated she wanted to be sure that the concerns raised at the prior meeting are addressed. 5. Commissioner Woodard asked if there was to be a sign on the wall. Staff said none is proposed at this time. 6. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. The applicant did not wish to. Chairman Abels asked if there was any further discussion from the Commission. 7. Commissioner Woodard stated it was a better design than what was originally proposed. However, the berms needed to be a minimum of three feet and the wall should be symmetrical with no jog on the left wall and the plan changed to reflect the landscape materials for the Bear Creek Channel. Staff noted the recommendation and noted that the landscaping materials would be changed to match those of the Bear Creek Channel. 8. There' being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Gardner/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Minute Motion 97-008 approving the perimeter landscaping and Avenida Montezuma screen wall design features for Tentative Tract Map 28409, subject to the Conditions of Approval as amended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Gardner, 'Seaton, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Newkirk. ABSTAIN: None. PC6-24-97 15 Planning Commission Meeting June 24, 1997 VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: A. Chairman Abels reviewed the invitation to the Ritz Carlton. B. Commissioner Woodard stated it is unfair to have Mr. Johnson come in to get an approval of his building designs and others do not; such as the houses constructed at the Tradition. He asked if there was anything be done to changed this? City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated there has always been a distinction between a subdivision and custom homes in the Compatibility Ordinance. Staff noted that if the Commission wanted to address this, they could ask to have it agendized for a meeting of the Planning Commission. VIII. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS: A. Chairman Abels reported on the City Council meeting of June 17, 1997. B. Chairman Abels noted that the Commissioners would be, or had been, contacted by KSL for a private meeting. He reminded the Commissioners of the Commissioners' handbook and stated it is a person choice. C. Commissioner Seaton stated she had attended the Future of the Coachella Valley Conference and she was very impressed with what was presented. D. Commissioner Tyler stated that the Highway 111 Property owners meeting and it was sad that no one attended. E. Staff informed the Commission that staff was distributing documents on the proposed Auto Mall specific plan and development agreement to allow the Commission time to review the material. IX. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Seaton to adjoum this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting to be held on July 8, 1997, at 4:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:26 p.m. on June 24, 1997. ?c6-24-97 ' 16