Loading...
PCMIN 09 23 1997 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A Regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California September 23, 1997 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman Butler who asked Commissioner Gardner to lead the flag salute. B. Chairman Butler requested the roll call: Present: Commissioners Abels, Gardner, Kirk, Seaton, Tyler Woodard, and Chairman Butler. C. Staff'Present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Dawn Honeywell, Planning Manager Christine di Iorio, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Chfiirman Butler asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of September 15, 1997. Commissioner Gardner asked that the minutes be amended on Page 5, Business Item A.2 to read: "Staff stated that 'in' this case ..... ". Commissioner Woodard asked that the minutes be amended to state that a motion was made and seconded excusing Commissioners Seaton and Tyler from the September 15th meeting. There being no further corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Gardner to approve the Minutes of September 15, 1997, as amended. Unanimously approved with Commissioners Seaton and Tyler abstaining. I3. Chairman Butler asked if there was a Department Report. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that as directed by the Commission at the previous meeting, she PC9-23-97 1 Planning Commission Meeting . September 23, 1997 had researched the issue of whether or not a Planning Commissioner could contribute to the campaign of Council Members. She then read from the Brown Act and stated that as she interprets it, Commissioners are not allowed to contribute to any Council Member's campaign who was seated when they were appointed. It does not prohibit a spouse from contributing, only the Commissioner. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-613; a request of Marvin Investments, Inc. for a compatibility approval of a modification to the Heritage and Master collections units approved in January, 1997. 1. Commissioner Gardner withdrew due to a possible conflict of interest. 2. Chairman Butler opened the public heating and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Start Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Depadment. 3. Commissioner Woodard noted that on the floor plans of the Heritage plan, - the detached guest suite has a bar, sink, and refrigerator. He then asked staff to define when a unit has a kitchen. Staff stated that when there is a stove, i.e., cooking facility. 4. Commissioner Seaton questioned the front setback requirement. Staff clarified that Condition #6 had been added to require the setback. 5. Mr. Peter Jacobs, stated he did not have any questions but was available to answer any questions. Commissioner Woodard asked why the plans for Lot 8 show the house to be 11 feet away from the side property line when they could be oriented to have a better view. Mr. Jacobs stated this was to allow : as much southwest exposure as possible. It is a tough comer and during the design layout this was determined to be the best orientation. Commissioner Woodard asked if this was the same reason for Lots l, 3, 5, and 7. Discussion followed as to the orientation of the different plans. 6. Comrriissioner Woodard showed two elevations and asked the applicant to clarify which plans they were. Mr. Jacobs stated they were the 3771 square foot plan (Heritage) and each plan had two elevations. Commissioner Woodard stated that one set of the elevations showed cosmetic changes and PC9-23-97 2 .' Planning Commission Meeting September 23, 1997 one architectural changes. His concern was that there will be six plans with only cosmetic changes and there should be more of a structural change. Mr. Jacobs stated the changes had been made to the existing approved PGA West plan, the Heritage Plan 3 unit. The floor plan was widened and square footage added. In addition, a tower feature was added at the entry. Commissioner Woodard asked Mr. Jacobs why the one plan showed a series of broken-up hip roofs. Staff clarified that the issue before the Commission was not a review of the entire plan, but only the changes that were being proposed for the approved plan. 7. Commissioner Tyler stated it would have been easier to review the plans if street names had been included to identify the location. He then asked the applicant to identify where the duplex lots were that the sign at the entrance was advertising. Mr. Jacobs stated he was unfamiliar with the sign he was referring to. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated that parts of this tract had been approved for duplexes. Mr. Chevis Hosea, KSL, stated the signs were directional signs for the construction crews. 8. There being no further public comment, Chairman Butler closed the public hearing and opened the issue for Commission discussion. 9. Chairman Butler clarified that the comments made by Commissioner Woodard were important and interesting, but should be discussed at a more appropriate time as they did not pertain to the request before the Commission. Commissioner Woodard stated his concern was that the changes proposed will only be superficial changes and the Commission needs to look at each project in the overall planning of the City. 10. Chairman Butler asked that this issue be discussed at a later date. In addition, he asked if the Commission could determine the plotting of the houses. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the City currently does not have any development standards to allow this type of review by the Commission. As long as the developer meets the setback standards, etc., the City has no prerogative to review plotting. If the Commission wants to have that much detail review, the Zoning Code would have to be amended. Commissioner Woodard asked that this item be added to the Commission's agenda for review at the appropriate time. PC9-23-97 3 Planning Commission Meeting September 23, 1997 · 11. Commissioner Tyler stated that in conjunction with Commissioner's Woodard's request, the Commission should also be requiring the caliper size of trees to be consistent. Staff stated there presently are no development standards as to what the Commission has been requesting. Staff then read what was being required of Home Depot and asked if the Commission wanted the same size trees for all projects. Commissioner Woodard stated the Commission should be consistent. Staff stated they would add these items to the Zoning Code Amendments being reviewed by staff. 12. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Kirk to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97- 066, approving Site Development Permit 97-613, subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval as amended to require the caliper of trees in Condition #2 be 2.5 to 3 inches in diameter at six inches above the grade. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Seaton, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Gardner. ABSTAINING: None. Commissioner Gardner rejoined the Commission. VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Street Name Change 97-008; a request of the City and TD Desert Development for consideration of a street name change for a portion of Rio Seco to Via Ventana. 1. Chairman Butler asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the s.taff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Commissioner Tyler stated he lives at the comer of Viletta Drive and Viletta ' Drive and he does not have any problems. 3. Commissioner Woodard asked if there was any cost to the City to change the name and why was Sagebrush Avenue not used. Community Development Director Jerry Herman explained there is no cost to the City and by calling the street Sagebrush it would create the same problem as the streets run in different directions. PC9-23-97 4 Planning Commission Meeting September 23, 1997 4. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Abels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97- 067 recommending to the City Council approval of Street Name Change 97- 008. ROLL CALL:AYES: Commissioners Abels, Gardner, Kirk, Seaton, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAINING: None. VII. CORRI~SPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None · VIII. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS: A. Chairman Butler asked if the Commissioners had any questions or changes on the drafted letter to Home Depot regarding the landscaping. 1. Commissioner Woodard asked if the City had any enforcement options should Home Depot not meet its obligation regarding the landscaping. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell explained the procedures for the Development Agreement and the procedure for any breech of the agreement. Any resolution of the violations would have to be instigated by the City Council. The Planning Commission can make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the issue, but could take no action themselves. Commissioner Woodard asked if the City could hold up the processing of any of the other projects on the site. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that as long as they were meeting the zoning requirements, there were no options available to the City to stop the project. 2. Chairman Butler pointed out that the only option available was to hold up the Certifi'cate of Occupancy. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell clarified that this again, was not an issue for discussion by the Commission. 3. Commissioner Gardner asked how the Commission could know which conditions would be met when. Staff clarified that the conditions each have a time frame in which they must be completed. In regard to the trees, the problem was with the availability of the trees and not noncompliance with the conditions, therefore a temporary Certificate of Occupancy was issued. Letters had been written by the City and Home Depot tracking this series of events. PC9-23-97 5 Planning Commission Meeting September 23, 1997 4. Mr. Doug Cooper, Greenburg Farrow, architect for Home Depot, asked when bermifig became an issue. It was their understanding that this would not be required until the second phase. To his knowledge there was nothing in their conditions to require berming. Staff clarified that Condition #61 of the Specific Plan calls out for berms, walls, or landscaping to provide parking lot screening. 5. Commissioner Woodard asked staff to clarify why the site was approved without berming. Staff stated that in April and March of this year, mounding was discussed, but this was prior to the approval of the Highway 111 Guidelines. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that the purpose of a Development Agreement is to freeze all requirements in place at the time the Development Agreement is approved. Discussion followed as to the timing of the landscaping requirement. Staff stated that they were working with Home Depot to reach a solution to the requirement that the parking lot be screened. Home Depot has agreed to include some berming and replace the landscaping as required. 6. Commissioner Tyler stated that the Planning Commission is not in the Code Enforcement business, and if the letter is sent out, it must be approved by the City Council first as the Commission is only a recommending body. Further, at the City Council meeting of August 5th, Council Member Adolph directed staff to resolve the problem. Therefore, he did not see any need for the letter and he would suggest the letter not be sent. 7. Chairman Butler stated that the purpose of the letter was to acknowledge that there is a problem and make an attempt to start the process of resolving the issues. As the Commission has no ability to enforce this action, the letter is intended to form a working relationship to solve the problem. 8. Commissioner Abels stated that there had been enough discussion on this ' issue and the Commission should move on to the next item. The letter is appropriate, but as staff is already in the process of resolving the issue, the letter is no longer needed. 9. Commissioner Kirk asked staff if Commissioner Tyler's remarks were correct and was this type of action within the purview of the Commission. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that the primary function of the Planning Commission is to make a recommendation to the City Council concerning projects. However, certain actions of the Commission are final and do not go PC9-23-97 6 Planning Commission Meeting September 23, 1997 beyond the Commission, i.e., variances, site development permits, and conditional use permits. There is no stipulation that the Commission cannot send the letter, but she would caution the Commission in this endeavor. The Council has never prohibited the Commission from taking such action by sending out this type of letter. 10. Chairman Butler stated that he had been approached by a Council Member to become involved with this issue and this was why he had pursued the matter. However, if the letter is now after-the-fact, he sees no need to send it. 11. Commissioner Woodard asked Mr. Cooper if there were any issues they felt could not be worked out with staff. Mr. Dan Campbell of Home Depot clarified that the trees were in route and all issues raised by the Commission would be addressed. He went on to give the history of the different problems. In regard to the berming issue, Home Depot has agreed to do some, but they were not going to redesign the sidewalks. Therefore, some of the berming will not meet the three foot height requirements. Commissioner Woodard stated that as long as whatever is put in hides the cars, he will leave it to Home Depot to solve the problem. 12. Commissioner Kirk asked staff what Caltmns right-of-way was. Staff stated 12-feet and their requirements had been taken into consideration during the drafting of the Highway 111 Guidelines. Commissioner Kirk asked if staff considered taking over Highway 111. Staff stated it had been discussed, but determined that it would be too costly. B. Discussion of signs on Washington Street and Jefferson Street. 1. Commissioner Woodard stated his concern was the number of signs he sees as he 4tfives into town on these two streets. Community Development ~ Director Jerry Herman clarified they are in the Riverside County area or in other jurisdictions and showed the location of the City limits on Jefferson and Washington Streets. 2. Commissioner Woodard asked if it was possible for the City to come to an agreement with the surrounding entities to agree on landscaping plans. Staff stated some preliminary research had been done with the County as it related PC9-23-97 7 Planning Commission Meeting September 23, 1997 to the west side of Washington Street. In response to our inquiries, staff received a phone call that stated if the City would pay for their code enforcement officer, they would deal with the issue. 3. Commissioner Woodard asked staff what the enforcement procedure would be to remove the signs if they were put in La Quinta. Staff stated that Code Enforcement has the right to cite and fine any violator. 4. Commissioner Woodard stated that if a deal was made with the County to issue a fine for the signs they might go away. He then asked if there was a way to work with the City of Indio and Riverside County to see that the City of La Quinta can remove these signs. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated there would need to be an agreement in place, but it would have to be negotiated and both jurisdictions would have to agree to it. She then went on to explain examples of cooperative agreements the City currently has. She stated the idea is not impossible, but is something that would require initiative and funding from both entities. Discussion followed regarding the different Commissioners' opinions. 5. Commissioner Kirk asked if the City could enter into an agreement with the County and Indio that would allow the City to be the enforcement agent. 6. FolloWing discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Woodard/Kirk directing staff to forward a recommendation to the City Council asking that a cooperative agreement with Riverside County and the City of Indio be explored to eliminate the proliferation of signs on Jefferson Street and Washington Street. Unanimously approved. B. Commissioner Tyler gave a report of the City Council meeting of September 16, 1997. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held on October 14, 1997, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 8:10 P.M. on September 23, 1997. PC9-23-97 8