PCMIN 08 12 1997 MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California
August 12, 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 Butler who asked Commissioner Kirk to lead the flag salute.
B. Chairman Abels requested the roll call: 'Present: Commissioners Abels, Gardner,
Kirk, Seaton, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Butler..
C. StaffPresent: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Dawn
Honeywell, Planning Manager Christine di Iorio, Associate Planners Wallace Nesbit
and Leslie Moufiquand, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None
III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA:
A. Staff requested that Temporary Use Permit 97-146 be added to the Agenda as an
emergency item that was submitted after the Agenda was posted and the event will
take place before the next Planning Commission meeting. It was moved and
seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Woodard to add Temporary Use Permit 97-146
to the Agenda as Business Item C. Unanimously approved.
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR:
A. Chairman Butler asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of July 8, 1997.
Commissioner Tyler asked that the Minutes be amended on Page 10, to note the
opening of the Public Comment portion of the hearing; Page 20, Item 62 he had
stated, "He too takes offense with those who complain that the City deliberately
scheduled these hearings when the winter residents are away. As a full time resident
of the Desert he objects to the idea that the business of the City should be restricted
PC8-12-97 1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 12, 1997
to the winter months. He additionally expressed concern that changes are submitted
to the Plannirig Commission at the last minute; Page 21, Item 69 and 70 he voted
AYE; Page 30, Item 30, "Commissioner Tyler asked if the traffic signal at La Quinta
Centre Drive would be operational for Phase 1."; Page 34, Item 38, "...Jefferson
Street to mitigate an imagined emissions hot spot .... ". There being no further
corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Seaton to approve
the minutes as corrected. Unanimously approved.
B. Chairman Butler asked if there was a Department Report. Staff stated there was
none.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. CONDITIONAIJ USE PERMIT 95-099.; a request of Tom Suitt for approval ora one
year time extension for a used vehicle sales lot.
1. Commissioner Seaton withdrew due to a possible conflict of interest.
2. Chairman Butler 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.
3. Commissioner Abels asked staff to explain why the Commission was
approving a one year extension instead of a two year. Staff stated the Zoning
Code allows the Commission to set whatever time is deemed appropriate and
it was staffs determination that due to the zone change along Highway 111,
a one year-extension was appropriate. In addition, staff would like the
applicant to have an annual review. Commissioner Abels asked if the
applicant could come back in a year and ask for an additional extension.
Staff stated that at the end of a one year extension, the applicant would not
be able to obtain any further extensions as the use would not be consistent
with the Zoning Code. Commissioner Abels reminded the Commission that
when they were reviewing the Zoning Code change for Highway 111, this
applicant addressed the Commission regarding his use and ability to continue.
Commissioner Abels stated that due to the expense of establishing the
business and due to the sales tax provided to the City from this business, in
his opinion it would be worth it to the City to approve a two year extension.
4. Commissioner Abels asked if the applicant would be able to meet the
PC8-12-97 2
Planning Commission Meeting
August 12, 1997
conditions by the September 1st deadline. Staff stated the violations had been
in existence for a long time and needed to be addressed. In regard to the time
extension, the Commission can approve a two year, if that is their desire.
5. Commissioner Tyler noted that the applicant had not asked for a two year
extension. Commissioner Abels stated that was due to staff's
recommendation for a one year extension.
6. Commissioner Gardner asked if the applicant met all the conditions and was
granted a one year extension, what would he have to go through to get a
second extension? Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated
the two issues were not tied together. The new ordinance will be in effect 30-
days after the second reading and at that time no new used car lots will be
allowed on .Highway 111. If Mr. Suitt waits to the end of a one year
extension to request a second, he will not be allowed to do so as the
ordinance will then be in effect. It is up to the Commission to grant whatever
time limit they believe is appropriate.
7. Commissioner Gardner asked if the Planning Commission could give a two.
year extension. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that the regular
conditional use permit does not allow latitude in approving a time extension.
This conditional use permit is for a temporary use and there are no specific
regulations governing temporary conditional use permits. As there is no way
to determine when the auto mall will be operational and as the intent of the
new ordinance was to prohibit used ear lots not associated with a new ear
dealership, from the Highway 111 area,.staff made the determination to grant
a one year extension.
8. Commissioner Kirk asked if the time extension could be conditioned to the
opening of the auto mall. Staff noted that this was possible except it was an
open ended extension as it was unknown when the auto mall would open.
Commissioner Kirk suggested a two year extension or the opening of the auto
mall, whichever came fu-st.
9'. Commissioner Kirk asked staff what steps had been taken by the City to see
that the conditions had been met. Staff stated they would have to review the
Code Enforcement files to see what had been done. Staff did know that the
Code Enforcement Department had not been aggressively trying to resolve
the problems.
PC8-12-97 3
Planning Commission Meeting
August 12, 1997
10. There being no further 'questions, Chairman Butler asked if the applicant
would, like to address the Commission. Mr. Tom Suitt, applicant/owner,
stated that when he originally applied for this conditional use permit, it took
12-months to meet all the Conditions of Approval. He was concerned as he
had not been notified of the violations and therefore was not aware of any
violations. He will see that they are corrected immediately. His concern was
that the business had only been in operation for nine months even though they
had been approved two years prior. He realized this was an interim use, but
to allow him only a one year extension is a "drop dead" situation with no
opportunity to recoup his expenses to open the business originally. In his
opinion, it was a reasonable request to ask for a two year extension and he
would appreciate the Commission's consideration in approving a two year
extension.
11. Commissioner Woodard asked if the applicant was aware of the Conditions
of Approval at the time of the original approval. Mr. Suitt stated he was
aware of them at the time of approval. Commissioner Woodard asked staff
to identify what the violations the application had not met. Planning
Manager Christine di Iorio stated it was primarily their signs and parking lot
lights. Commissioner Woodard asked if these violations had occurred since
the on~ginal approval. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated it was the
business owners responsibility to know the City's code regarding his
operation.
12. Commissioner Gardner asked if the applicant could meet all the conditions
as mentioned by staff. Mr. Suitt stated they would be corrected as soon as
possible. The lights do not appear to be obtrusive, but if they are in violation,
he will take them down. He would like to have them due to security
problems.
13. Mr. Greg Shannon, speaking on behalf of the applicant, stated he was
assisting the applicant in his efforts to sell the property. He requested the
applicant be granted the two year extension to enable him the time necessary
to recoup his financial costs in getting the operation started. He has stated he
will resolve all the violations 'and has already met City requirements by
dedicating the land necessary for street improvements.
PC8-12-97 4
Planning Commission Meeting
August 12, 1997
14. Commissioner Kirk stated he was supportive of staff's general
recommendation. He would support a one year extension with up to a two
year extension or the opening of the auto mall.
15. Commissioner Gardner stated that granting the approval predicated upon the
opening of the auto mall had not occurred to him, but it was an excellem idea.
In his opinion the applicant should have a reasonable length of time to
recover his costs.
16. Commissioner Abels stated he concurred with both of those comments.
Commissioner Woodard also agreed.
17. There being no further, discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Comniissioners Tyler/Abels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97-
056 approving Conditional Use Permit 97-022, subject to the Findings and
Conditions of Approval, as amended:
a. The outstanding conditions are to .be met by October 1, 1997;
b. The extension be for two years or the opening of the first dealership
of the auto mall.
c. Arrangements were to be made for the applicant to meet with the City
Engineer to go over the conditions.
18. Commissioner Gardner asked how the applicant would be notified of the auto
mall opening and what time frame would he be given to close his operation
once they were open.
19. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated that once the first
dealership is issued its Certificate of Occupancy, staff will notify the
applicant of the time he has to close his business. Discussion followed as to
how many days the applicant would have after the notification and
alternatives should the auto mall open in less than one year.
20. Commissioner Kirk asked that the motion be amended to state the extension
would be for a minimum of one year, regardless of when the-auto mall
opened.
21. Commissioner Tyler amended his motion to state the extension would be
granted for a minimum of one year but not to exceed two years or, 45-days
after a Certificate of Occupancy is issued for the first car dealership.
PC8-12-97 5
Planning Commission Meeting
August 12, 1997
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Gardner, Kirk, Tyler, Woodard, and
Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Seaton.
ABSTAIN: None.
Commissioner Seaton rejoined the Commission.
VI. BUSINESS ITEMS:
A. Sign Application 97-387; a request of Beer Hunter Sports Pub & Grill for approval
of new identification signs on Washington Street and Highway 111.
1. Chairman Butler asked for the staff report. Planning Manager Christine di
Iofio presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which
is on file in the Community Development Department.
2. Chairman Butler asked how the sign on the east facing wall, that will now
have the new sign, compared to the existing sign in size? Staff stated the
applicant could best explain this. The current sign size is 14-feet in length
and 12-inches in height. ·
3. Mr. Gary Wright, "Architectural Neon", 74-990 Joni Drive, #3C, Palm
Desert, representing the applicant, stated the existing sign consisted of letters
that are 12-inches high, centered in the opening, for a total sign size of 4-feet
wide by 20-feet long. The new sign will have the words "Beer Hunter" in 12-
inch elongated letters within a ten inch high cabinet.
4. Chairman Butler asked if the new sign was to be illuminated whereas, the
current sign was not. Mr. Wright stated this was true, but it would help to
identify the building. The current sign is dark and difficult to see. Chairman
Butler asked if the north elevation sign was existing and illuminated. Mr.
Wright stated there is a three foot by four foot illuminated cabinet sign that
sits under the eaves and is very dark.
5. Commissioner Gardner stated his concern was with the light and size of the
sign and the applicant's desire to draw more patrons. Why are the signs
'needed when the business is packed every night. Mr. Wright stated that their
purpose was not to draw on the local patrons but the out-of-town customers
PC8-12-97 ' 6
Planning Commission Meeting
August 12, 1997
who have a hard time locating the building. The applicant owns three
businesses in the Valley, as well as one out of town, and would like their
signs to be consistent.
6. Commissioner Abels stated that when the signs were originally approved, the
Commission had discussed at length the signs. In addition, he did not believe
it was hard to f'md the building. He would agree with a small new sign on the
north elevation along with a monument, but not on the east Or south
elevations.
7. Commissioner Woodard asked if the signs proposed meet the City's
standards. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated the sign for the east
elevation meets the City's standards, if the Commission can make the
finding. The illumination is allowed. The lower sign can only be approved
if the Commission makes the finding that the applicant has a disadvantage
due to the construction of the building and therefore does not have enough
sign visibility onto Highway 111. Commissioner Woodard asked how small
the sign would have to be to conform to the sign regulations, if the
Commission could not make the finding. Staff stated it would have to be a
wall sign 50 square feet, and it could be illuminated. Commissioner
Woodard clarified that the Commission was to determine whether the
disadvantage was a hardship that entitled them to the additional signs. Staff
stated that was tree except for the monument sign. Discussion followed
regarding the applicant's request.
8. Commissioner Seaton clarified the location of the signs with staff, and stated
she had a problem with the monument sign. In addition, she would, like to
have something done to take care of the trash disposal area. Mr. Wright
stated the side wall varies in height from three to four feet and is very limiting
to signage. This elevation is crucial for the truffle on Highway 111. Without
this sign they are reduced to a three by four foot sign on the wall. They
would like to have their name and identification logo on the sign.
9. Comnlissioner Tyler asked the applicant to identify the locations of the other
businesses. Mr. Wright stated one was in Cathedral City, Palm Desert, and
La Quinta. In addition, there is one in Orange County.
10. Commissioner Tyler stated this intersection has been upgraded by the City
and Caltrans and is one of the busiest intersections in the Valley. Signs
therefore, need to be discreet. This Beer Hunter has more signage than any
PC8-12-97 7
Planning Commission Meeting
August 12, 1997
of their other establishments. The east-facing sign is currently blocked by the
City's street improvement sign, but will be readily visible after the sign is
removed. The building was configured as it is before they acquired the
building and the applicant saw no need to change the building sign and now
the community is accustomed to it. He would not like to see the freestanding
sign at this location. Rather than clutter up the area with two signs, he would
suggest one sign that stated "Beer Hunter" and leave off "Sports Pub'. and
Grill". If they want further visibility on the existing monument signs for the
shopping center, they need to pursue this with the Center. He is strongly
opposed to another monument sign.
11. Commissioner Seaton stated she concurred with most of what Commissioner
Tyler stated, but does believe the applicant should have the east elevation
sign as presented.
12. Commissioner Woodard stated he thought the east facing sign, if modified
to contain just the logo with the wording "Beer Hunter", would be attractive.
He concurs with staff regarding the reduction in size for the free standing sign
on the north. It is well known that it is a sports pub. He would support a
reduction of the east elevation freestanding sign and staff's recommendation
for the north elevation sign.
13. Commissioner Abels stated he agreed with Commissioner Woodard's
comments.
14. C0nmiissioner Gardner stated he could agree with the sign on the north
elevation, but could not agree with the monument sign.
15. Commissioner Woodard asked if Commissioner Gardner agreed that there
should be signage on the north side. Commissioner Gardner stated he agreed
with the sign that is currently there and the addition of the logo under the
eave.
16. Commissioner Kirk asked Commissioner Abels to elaborate on the issues that
were discussed when the original sign program was approved. CommisSioner
Abels stated he did not remember the exact details, only that the Commission
spent a lot of time discussing the signs. He was originally opposed to a
PC8-12-97 8
·
·
Planning Commission Meeting
August 12, 1997
monument sign, but if it were reduced in size, it would be appropriate.
Commissioner Kirk asked if the reduced monument sign is the one depicted
on the plans. Commissioners discussed the size of the signs.
17. Mr. Wright stated he would be willing to reduce the mounding to
accommodate the requested signs. Commissioner Woodard asked how far
the mound would be lowered. Mr. Wright stated approximately 12-inches
lower than the existing. Commissioner Woodard asked if the sign would be
12-inches lower than what was shown on the plans. Mr. Wright stated he did
not measure it according to the landscaping, so he was not positive as to
where the sign would fall in relation to the roof overhang. Commissioners
discussed altematives with the applicant.
18. Commissioner Woodard asked if the applicant would be willing to come back
with a revision after noting the changes suggested by the Commission?.
Chairman Butler stated the options before the Commission were to approve
the request as recommended, modify the request, or continue the project and
ask the applicant to make modifications as noted by the Commission and
come back. He was however, uncertain whether the monument sign would
be approved even if it were revised and brought back.
19. Commissioner Kirk stated he concurred with Commissioner Woodard's
statements and supported staff's recommendation to reduce the size of the
sign. The applicant may want to consider coming back with revisions
keeping in mind the suggestions made by Commissioner Woodard; using the
wording "Beer Hunter" with the logo. If the monument sign is reduced, all
the proposed changes may be confusing.
20. Commissioner Tyler stated the building has been there for years with the
existing landscaping. If the landscaping is lowered to accommodate the sign,
it is going to'change the nature of the comer and he was not sure that would
be an improvement.
21. Commissioner Abels asked the applicant how much of the landscaping area
would be removed. Mr. Wright stated it would have to be blended to work
into the existing landscaping. Commissioner Abels stated he would be in
favor of continuing the request to the Commission's next meeting.
PC8-12-97 9
Planning Commission Meeting
August 12, 1997
22. Chairman. Butler informed the applicant that he was not sure as to how the
Commission would vote if a vote were taken at this time. He then asked if
the applicant would prefer to make revisions to the submittal and come back
in September. Mr. Wright asked what the Commission wanted him to bring
back. Chairman Butler discussed the alternatives that had been suggested.
23. Staff suggested the Commission make a motion to give the applicant some
direction as to what the Commission was wanted.
24. Mr. Wright reminded the Commission that the buildings across the street had
illuminated signs (AAA, Green Burrito, etc.). Chairman Butler stated they
were reviewing the proposal that was brought to the Commission at this time.
25. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Woodard/Kirk to adopt Minute Motion 97-010 approving
Sign Application 97-387, subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval
as recommended by staff and modified as follows:
a. The east elevation sign would consist of the logo and "Beer Hunter".
b. The height of the north elevation monument sign shall not exceed the
height of the building eave which can be accomplished by
modification of the berm. The maximum height of letters shall not
exceed 12-inches.
26. Commissioner Gardner asked what options were left to the applicant after the
vote was taken. Staff stated it would depend on the outcome of the vote. The
Commission could move to continue, approve, approve with modification,
or deny the request. The motion failed on a three-four vote.
27. Commissioner Tyler suggested eliminating the freestanding monument sign,
keeping the existing sign, or adding "Beer Hunter" to enhance it. Community
Development Director Jerry Herman asked the Commissioner to clarify what
was meant by "enhancement". Commissioner Tyler stated it was to make it
bigger, brighter, or both. Staff stated there needed to be a determination as
to what that means and does it require going back to the Commission for their
approval. Discussion followed as to possible alternatives.
PC8-12-97 10
Planning Commission Meeting
August 12, 1997
28. Mr. Wright stated that the north elevation by Code, is allowed 50 square feet.
If the monument and additional sign is not approved, he is still allowed to
have up to 50 square feet for a sign. Staff stated that was tree only if the sign
is in scale with the building wall.
29. Chairman Butler asked how large the free standing sign was. Mr. Wright
stated it was three feet wide by 10 feet high.
30. Commissioner Woodard asked why Commissioner Tyler did not want the
new proposal.
31. Commissioner Tyler stated he had no objection to the existing logo sign on
the north side being relocated or enlarged up to 15 square feet and
illuminated. Following discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Tyler/Gardner to adopt Minute Motion 97-010 to leave the
existi~.g logo sign on the north elevation, or allowing it to be relocated or
enlarged up to 15 square feet and illuminated. The motion carried with
Commissioner Kirk voting No.
32. Mr. Wright asked ifhe could appeal this decision. Staff stated he had 15 days
to appeal the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council and gave
instructions on what had to be done.
B. SITE DEVEIJOPMENT PERMIT 96-590. AMENDMENT #1; a request of Jordan
Architects, Inc., Lapis Energy Organization Inc., for approval of a site and building area
revision for Parcel 3 of Tentative Parcel Map 28422, relating to the approved self-st0rage use
proposed by Lapis Energy.
1. Chairman Butler 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 repeat their recommendation in regards to
Building "C". Staff stated it was to approve the proposal as presented except
Building "C" as it would require a Specific Plan Amendmem. It would
requir$ the applicant keep the RV parking spaces, as originally approved, or
submit a Specific Plan Amendment to allow additional storage building
spaces.
PC8-12-97 11
Planning Commission Meeting
August 12, 1997 -
3. Commissioner Seaton asked why the applicant was requesting the change to
the RV parking. Staff stated the original buyer fell out of the purchase and
the new buyer is not interested in having the outdoor RV parking spaces.
Commissioner Seaton stated that due to the recent problems regarding RV
parking, she hated to see it go. Staff stated they had informed the applicant
that this is a sensitive issue to the City and the process they will have to go
through to change the project.
·
4. Commissioner Woodard asked what the walkway was that was adjacent to
the office manager's building on the right side of the building. Mr. Kenneth
Carrell, architect for the project stated it was the walkway leading into the
manager's residence to allow him a private entrance.
5. Commissioner Woodard asked what the zoning was to the east of this site.
Staff stated it was CR-Regional Commercial and Commercial Park.
Commissioner Woodard stated the site is roughly one football length in depth
and two football fields wide, and asked if the Fire Department had
determined whether or not they could get in or out of the site. Staff stated
that since it is similar to what was previously approved, it was not
resubmitted to the Fire Department. The Fire Department will have
transmitters to enter the security entrance gates that access north and south
adjacent to the office. Commissioner Woodard stated his concern that if
there were a fire or accident there is only one way out. Staff stated the
previous proposal had two gates. The applicant stated there were two gates
at the front only.
6. Commissioner Woodard stated the approved proposal had a break up of the
wall along Dune Palms Road and now the insets are being eliminated. Staff
stated this was a change of the new owner.
7. Commissioner Tyler stated that in the staff report it appeared that this project
was being tied into the Auto Mall project which was a great distance away.
Staff clarified that the reference in the staff report was not to the Auto Mall
project, but tp the uses contained within this Specific Plan for Parcel 2 which
is for auto repair/retail use. Discussion followed regarding the uses proposed
for the project.
PCS-12-97 12
Planning Commission Meeting
August 12, 1997 '
8. Chairman Butler asked if there was any other public comment. There being
none, Chairman Butler opened the meeting for Commission discussion.
Commissioner Tyler.stated his concern was that the City did enact an RV
Parking Ordinance to reduce the RV parking problem in the City. The
original proposal allowed relief of this problem. Mr. Carrell, speaking for the
applicant stated their intent was to have the vehicles parked inside the
building. Commissioner Tyler stated that if that is the intent, he would
support the project.
9. Commissioner Seaton asked how many RV's could be parked inside. Mr.
Carrell stated it would be determined by how many bays he could get into the
plan. It is not known yet how the unit mix will be distributed.
10. Commissioner Seaton asked if the number of RV's would be greatly reduced.
Mr. Carrell stated it should not be greatly reduced, but perhaps less than 10%.
11. Commissioner Woodard asked staff if Building "C" was an issue that should
even be discussed by the Commission at this time. Planning Manager
Christine di Iorio stated it would come back to the Commission under the
Specific Plan Amendment, if the applicant applied for the change.
12. Commissioner Tyler stated the previous wall was designed to give some
relief; now it is back to the "Great Wall of China" concept. He would hate
to see the wall regress. Mr. Carrell stated the gaps were removed for security
purposes. The buildings were stepped back at those locations so the gap
would still be there but would be a full building instead of the wall.
Commissioner Tyler suggested the applicant give a lot of thought to the
design of the wall and the landscaping. Mr. Carrell stated they have a
landscape architect dealing with this project specifically. The landscaping
and retention basin are their priorities.
13. Commissioner Woodard asked if there was a problem having berms in the
landscape setbacks when they are also being used as retention basins because
you cannot have a berm and a retention basin in the same location. Planning
Manager Christine di Iorio stated it was a problem. Staff is recommending
the Highway 111 Guidelines incorporate a guideline specifying that retention
basins for the project not be within the Highway 111 landscape setback.
Commissioner Woodard reminded the Commission that this project is two
PC8-12-97 13
Planning Commission Meeting
August 12, 1997
football fields wide and that is a lot of land. He then asked staff how they
could obtain the undulation if this is against retention basin requirements.
Staff stated that since the location of the retention basin is not specified
within the development standards, it would have to be a condition of the
project. At present the grading plan shows the entire retention area within the
Highway 111 setback. Discussion followed.
14. Commissioner Woodard asked how the Commission could condition this
project to not have the retention basin within the Highway 111 landscape
setback. Mr. Carrell stated it was their intention to undulate the retention
basin. Commissioner Woodard stated he .wanted this requirement added to
the conditions. 'Staff stated they were looking toward requiting the retention
within the landscape setbacks be specifically for the street runoff and the site
itself contain the retention area for the project so each will serve a different
purpose. This would limit the depth of the basins. Commissioner Woodard
stated that if this was true it would change the architecture, as the project is
built out to the landscape setback.
15. Commissioner Woodard commended the applicant on the design of the
managers quarters, but the treatment on Dune Palms Road is lacking.
Originally there were three openings, now the great wall. The original design
had different heights as well as the undulation. He would recommend that
the previous approvals be required to be brought into this application and
require additional roof elements on Dune Palms Road as this had deteriorated
drastically from what they approved.
16. Commissioner Gardner agreed with Commissioner Woodard.
17. Comn~ssioner Kirk agreed with the lack of articulation on Dune Palms Road
and the deterioration of the design on the project frontage.
18. Chairman Butler stated there were a lot of concerns that have been raised. As
Building "C" is not a part of this approval it will come back for consideration
at a later date. The architectural design on Dune Palms has been changed
enough to be an issue. The retention basin, as designed, is in conflict with
what the City is trying to do with berming in the landscape setback areas.
How does the Commission address the major design changes that could be
caused due to retention basins in the landscape setbacks? Planning Manager
Christine di Iofio stated that as they could affect the overall project, they
could be brought back with the Specific Plan Amendment.
PC8-12-97 14
Planning Commission Meeting
August 12, 1997
19. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Tyler/Gardner to continue this project to come back with the
Specific Plan and address all design and retention basin issues at that time.
Unanimously approved.
C. Minor Terr~orary Outdoor FJvent 97-146 - Mariachi Festival (PGA West TeNnis &
Fitness Center; a request of KSL Desert Resorts, Inc., for approval of a temporary use
permit to have the 7th Annual Mariachi Festival benefitting the VIVA Charities Boys
& Girls Club of the Coachella Valley.
1. Commissioner Gardner withdrew due to a possible conflict of interest.
2. 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.
3. Mr. Morey Mortinson, representing KSL, stated he submitted the plans as he
had in previous years. He then went on to explain the project.
4. Chairman Butler asked if Code Enforcement or outside agencies would have
to make an inspection before the event. Staff stated that if there were to be
any outdoor stages on the grounds they will need to have a building
inspection. Discussion followed regarding the project circulation and the
conditions. '
5. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Abels/Seaton to adopt Minute Motion 97-011 approving
Minor Temporary OutdoOr Event 97-146, subject to the conditions as
recommended by staff.
Commissioner Gardner rejoined the Commission.
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None
VIII. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS:
PC8-12-97 15
Planning Commission Meeting ~
August 12, 1997
A. Discussion regarding the Hillside Conservation Ordinance.
1. Chairman Butler commended staff on their report as it was very informative
and thorough. Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand presented the
information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department.
2. Commissioner Tyler asked if the City was obligated to comply with the
Department ofFish and Game's request. Staff stated the City is obligated to
comply with outside agencies as they have the right to review and comment
on any project.
3. Commissioner Woodard asked where the line is drawn as to when the Fish
and Game should to be notified. Staff stated that as a general role, whenever
a project is subject to CEQA in relation to General Plan and Change of Zone
projects they should be notified and given an oppommity to respond.
4. Commissioner Tyler asked if the Commission wasn't directed by the City
Council to review the Hillside Ordinance. Community Development Director
Jerry Herman stated that the City Council directed staff to review and bring
any recommendations back to the Council. Staff therefore, has brought it to
the Commission for their comment.
5. Commissioner Woodard questioned staff's regarding Discussion Item #2 of
the report and asked if a qualified geologist should be hired to determine the
toe of slope before the. toe of slope or average slopes guidelines are
determined for developable property? Doesn't the City make policy
decisions before hiring someone? Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated
that was true and it was an issue up for discussion. The City has the option
of hiring its own geologist to review any reports at any time. This is tentative
and there are other options, but the City has to discuss the toe of slope and
alluvial fan.
6. Commissioner Kirk stated he agrees with staff's direction; slope averaging
may not make sense for La Quinta and hiring a geologist may not make sense.
Generally he found that most liabilities have not come to fruition. He would
like to see risk assessment. His concern is with some legality issues. The
PC8-12-97 16
Planning Commission Meeting
August 12, 1997
Indian Wells Ordinance prohibits development on slopes with a 20% or
greater slope, but what if a parcel had all over 20% slopes, could that be a
taking, if we were to consider this on an area that was being cOnsidered for
annexation? Regarding the Rancho Mirage Ordinance which requires a vote
of the public, if La Quinta is considering this, he does not believe it makes
a lot of sense.
7. Commissioner Woodard stated he thought it would be a huge expense for the
City to hire a geologist to survey all the.mountains around the City. It would
seem more practical to have the' applicant do the survey.
8. Community Development Director Jerry Herman thanked the Commissioners
for their comments and staff would see that they are forwarded on to the City
Council.
B. Discussion Regarding the Responsibility of the Planning Commission.
1. Community Development Director Jerry Herman gave the staff report, a copy
of which is on file in the Community Development Department.
2. Chainlaan Butler asked staff to clarify that even though staff does do a design
review of projects, how could the design review function of the Commission
move along more smoothly. As the Commission reviews staff's
recommendation on their design review and makes their
modifications/changes, maybe the communication regarding this function
could be improved to create a better product.
3. Commissioner Woodard asked if it was possible for the applicant to supply
a vicinity map with his submittal. In addition, staff needs to define the scale
the applicant is to submit with their projects. Staff stated revisions would be
made. Commissioner Woodard complimented staff on the submission
package. He will try to be more specific during the review process in the
future as it is a very important part of the Commission's responsibilities.
4. Commissioner Tyler stated it is important for each of the Commissioners to
listen to a tape of their meetings periodically to get an understanding of how
the Commission appears to the audience.
PCS- 12-97 17
Planning Commission Meeting
August 12, 1997 -
5. Commissioner Kirk commented that Commissioner Woodard should
continue with his detailed design review o£the projects as it is an important
aspect of the Commission's responsibilities. He then read a portion of
Section 2.29.020 of the City's Code and suggested it would be worth the
Commission's time to consider appointing a subcommittee to review large
projects.
' .
6. Commissioner Woodard asked City Attorney Dawn Honeywell's opinion.
City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated she was surprised to hear that there is
still authority to appoint and affix membership of standing and temporary
committees. The purpose of the City Council adopting combined policies for
all the Commissions was to standardize them specifically. The City Council
dissol~,ed the Design Review Board to not create another layer for an
applicant to go through for approval.
7. Commissioner Woodard asked if the subcommittee would have to be
agendized and have to hold public hearings. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell
stated that if the committee was making a recommendation to the Planning
Commission, yes it would be subject to the Brown Act. Discussion followed
regarding alternatives. -
C. Commissioner Tyler's gave his report of the City Council meeting of August 5, 1997.
D. Commissioner Woodard asked staff about the lack of landscaping on the Home
Depot site. Specifically, why was it not bermed or hedged to hide the parking. Staff
stated it was a temporary situation that staff is resolving.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Woodard to
adjourn this meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting of the Planning Commission
to be held on September 23j 1997, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission. was
adjourned at 10:02 P.M. on August 12, 1997.
PCS- 12-97 18