PCMIN 03 10 1998 MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
regular meeting held at the La Quinta City, Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico. La Quinta. CA
March 10 1998 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 Seaton 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. Senior Engineer Steve Speer,
Principal Planner Stan Sawa, and Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None
III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed.
IV. PRESENTATION:
A. Chairman Butler presented a resolution to past Planning Commissioner Elwin
Newkirk in appreciation of his time served as a Planning Commissioner. It was
moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Gardner to adopt Planning
Commission Resolution 98-008 in recognition of Mr. Newkirk's service to the City
of La Quinta.
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR:
A. Chairman Butler asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of February 24,
1998. Commissioner Tyler asked that the minutes be clarified on Page 7, Item 29 to
state "City Council" Minutes. Commissioner Seaton noted a spelling error on Page
2. Item 4, the word "effect" was to be corrected. Commissioner Woodard asked that
Page 6, Item 23, be corrected by changing the word "worse" to "hampered". He also
noted Page 9, Item 4 should be changed from "one percent grade" to "20%". There
being no other Corrections, it was moved and seconded by COmmissioners
Abels/Seaton to approve the minutes as corrected. Unanimously approved.
PC-3-10-98 1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 10. 1998
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Village on the Green - Environmental Assessment 97-349. Specific Plan 97-031.
General Plan Amendment 97-055. Tentative Tract 28601. and Site Development
Permit 97-618; a request of Catellus Residential Group and the La Quinta
Redevelopment Agency tbr approval and recommendation to the City Council for
certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, approval
and recommendation of a Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment. Tentative Tract,
and Site Development Permit for a 26 acre, 86 family residential lot subdivision, and
118 senior apartments with recreational amenities on ten acres, reduce several street
widths from the General Plan required 36-feet to 28- and 32-feet at the northwest
comer of Jefferson Street and 48~ Avenue.. The project is affordable from very low
through moderate income levels.
l. Staff noted this item was being taken off the agenda and would be re-
advertised for a new public hearing.
B. Specific Plan 96-028. Amendment #1 and Site Development Permit 96-059.
Amendment # 1; a request of Lapis Energy/Allstate Self Storage tbr amendments to
existing approvals to allow an increase in approved floor area tbr a self storage
facility, from approximately 67,000 square feet to 91,000 square feet and to allow
minor architectural, material, and color changes for new tenancies and other additions
to the project.
_
1. Chairman Butler opened the public hearing and 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 Abels asked the height of the gas tanks. Staff noted they
would be installed horizontally and would be approximately three or four feet
in height, but the applicant would know exactly.
3. Commissioner Seaton asked what material was to be used on the roof. Staff
stated it would be metal and explained the construction.
4. Commissioner Woodard asked if a wall would be installed at the property
line to hide the tanks from the adjacent property owner. Staff stated there
would be no wall and went on to explain the site plan. Commissioner
Woodard asked if anything would hide the view of the tanks. Staff noted
only the landscaping after it matured.
PC-3- I O-98 2
-- Planning Commission Meeting
March 10. 1998
5. Commissioner Woodard stated the managers unit had been changed and he
preferred the original plan. Staff explained the developer had changed
architects and the design had changed.
6. Commissioner Woodard noted that other changes such as the setback and
undulation between the buildings had also been changed. He then asked staff
what the original square footage was of the project. Staff stated it had
increased from 6&810 square feet to 90,936 square feet. or an increase of
30%. Commissioner Woodard noted that the wall openings on the street had
been removed and the building area had been increased. Staff noted this was
the reason for reducing the east property line setbacks and reducing the extent
of the staggers that were shown.
7. Commissioner Woodard commented on the new drawing tbr the manager's
unit and noted all of the elevations did not appear to be included in his
packet. It is difficult for the Commission to evaluate a project when all the
elevations are not presented. Staff stated that in the past, since the interior
portion of the project did not open up to anything except the storage unit, it
was not necessary to show this elevation. The south elevation is obscured by
Building "E' and the north elevation is included. Commissioner Woodard
noted that for future reference he would like the Commission to have the
revisions drawn to scale of all elevations.
8. Commissioner Woodard asked about the original Mobile/Mini-Mart design
that had a canopy on the side facing Dune Palms Road. Staff noted the last
amendment changed the layout of Parcel 1. A trellis is no longer shown as
this is no longer a delivery area. Commissioner Woodard asked if the west
elevation thced Dune Palms Road. He commented that this elevation, facing
a main street, is now a monolithic block with two small sloping roofs on each
side, with no window openings and no change in the roof pattern.
9. Commissioner Gardner asked if the southerly exposure would be adjacent to
the Desert Sands Unified School District. Staff stated this was true and they
would share a rear access for the fueling of the school buses.
10. Commissioner Gardner noted that on both ends of the project, there appeared
to be a large access for the Fire Department between Buildings "E" and "F".
Staff noted that on the west side of the property there is a secondary access
onto Dune Palms Road. The main entry is on the north side adjacent to the
- ~ parking area. Commissioner Gardner stated there appeared to be very little
access.
PC-3-10-98 3
Plannin$ Commission Meeting
March 10. 1995
11. Commissioner Woodard asked if the fire gate was a solid gate. Staff noted
it would be similar to the customer's gate. The applicant had been
conditioned to make it consistent with the project entry gate.
12. Commissioner Woodard stated he was concerned that it was not known
where the retention area would be located. Staff stated the retention area
would be located at the far south end. Building "F" was shifted off the
property line and the retention basin would surround the semi-circular drive
access to the facility. Commissioner Woodard noted that the back wall of
Building "F" would be about two feet below the pad to accommodate the
depression of the retention area. Staff stated the Engineering Department
would have to address this question. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated that
according to the plans this was true.
13. Commissioner Kirk noted that on the plans there was a cross section showing
the relationship between Building "F" and the retaining wall/retention basin.
14. Commissioner Kirk asked if the "daylight" portion of the plans showed the
daylight extending offsite to the east of the fueling parcel. Senior Engineer
Steve Speer stated the grading does go back onto the adjacent property and
the applicant would have to obtain a letter giving authorization from the
adjacent property owner before they would be allowed to do this.
15. There being no further questions of staff. Chairman Butler asked if the
applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Bruce Jordan, architect
for the self storage facility, stated he would confine his comments to the
storage area only. He went on to explain the history of the project and how
they had arrived at these building elevations. The major change was to
enclose the open recreational vehicle storage area. This increased the scope
and size of the project to over 90,000 square feet. On Dune Palms Road they
increased the setback to a 20-foot minimum and increased the off-sets. Most
of the off-sets are four feet laterally. The changes made were due to concerns
that were raised by the Commission specifically removing the retention
basins and replacing them with berms along Dtme Palms Road. They did
redesign the manager's office to address security problems and the manager's
view of the storage area. In addition, the building on the east property line
was moved to a zero setback. This was to solve a maintenance problem and
prevent littering. The Fire Department access came in at the last moment and
the Fire Department has approved the layout.
PC-3-10-98 4
Planning Commission Meeting
March 10. 1998
16. Commissioner Tvler asked how many RV storage units would be left after the
redesign. Mr. Jordan stated that due to the redesign of the RV storage area,
they did not know exactly how many spaces they would have, but it is
approximately the same.
17. Commissioner Woodard stated that when the applicant had first brought this
project to the Commission. the Commission was in the middle of a rewriting
of the Zoning Code regarding recreational vehicles. Discussion followed
regarding the original design of the buildings and the retention basins.
18. Commissioner Woodard stated he had a problem with the roof line of the
manager's unit. Mr. Jordan stated they would be willing to re-look at the
design if they could get a conceptual approval to be able to move forward
with the project.
19. Commissioner Woodard asked why they eliminated all the building openings
along Dune Palms Road. Mr. Jordan stated that from their position, the view
frOm the street has not changed. Commissioner Woodard asked why the wall
_ could not be broken up. Mr. Jordan stated that if you started at one end of the
project and walked through all of the offsets, the offsets would match the
original ones with the exception at Dune Palms Road which increased the
setback five feet for additional landscaping. The degree, or differential, in the
offset from the maximum to the narrowest point of the building has remained
the same with the exception that the starting point is further back. It was their
opinion that the slots, that are the connections between the buildings, has not
changed.
20. Commissioner Woodard stated that to the right of the manager's unit, there
were two areas where, if the bay were removed and ten feet of interruption
were installed, that as you drive down Dune Palms Road, you would have a
sense of individual buildings. Mr. Jordan stated they would have no
objection to changing the design to accommodate this. Chairman Butler
asked if this would create a security situation. Mr. Jordan explained the
separation would be a common wall between structures. Further discussion
ensued.
21. Commissioner Gardner asked if the Commission was approving a plan that
would accommodate recreational vehicles as the plans did not appear to show
this. Mr. Jordan stated the design was to allow them to meet market demand.
- The demand will dictate the size of their RV storage area. Commissioner
Gardner stated his concem was that the plan does not show this. Community
Development Director Jerry Herman stated the Commission was not
approving the interior design of the building, only the architectural elevations
and the configuration of the buildings.
PC-3-10-98 5.
Planning Commission Meeting
March 10. 1998
22. Commissioner Kirk stated he understood the design had changed to make it
more functional. Mr. Jordan stated the buildings were originally broken into
small pieces and this created a tremendous cost and did not serve any
purpose. A long linear building is more functional and not as costly.
23. Commissioner Kirk asked whether Building "B", if placed at the zero lot line,
would have any affect on the adjacent property owner. Planning Manager
Christine di Iorio noted that the Zoning Code allows zero lot lines.
Commissioner Kirk asked if staff had any concerns about the rear of this
building. Staff stated it did not.
24. Mr. Jordan stated that in regard to the question about the daylight line, he
wanted the Commission to know he had obtained a Letter of Agreement from
the adjoining property owner.
25. Chairman Butler stated he would like to see more indentation on the west
facing wall to create a different view line. On the retention basin, where
Building "F" appears to need a two or three fbot footing below grade; will
this create a problem? Mr. Jordan stated that in discussing this with the
engineers, they stated it would be no problem. Discussion followed regarding
the water that would flow into the retention basin.
26. Commissioner Woodard asked if staff approved of the landscaping plan.
Staff noted the added conditions that must be met by the applicant before the
landscaping could be approved.
27. Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit displayed the exterior colors to be used on
the project and discussion followed.
28. Chairman Butler asked if the applicant for Lapis Energy would like to address
the Commission. Mr. Dale Leopard stated he was available to answer
questions.
29. Commissioner Tyler noted that the north and south elevations were drawn
incorrectly and asked why they were proposing to remove the hip roof from
the fuel island. Mr. Leopard stated it was changed due to structural reasons
and to match the Mobil facility decor. Discussion followed regarding the
changes.
30. Commissioner' Tyler asked why the trellis was taken off the west wall to
create the large monolithic wall. Mr. Leopard stated they could add it back
to the wall.
PC-3-10-98 6
Planning Commission Meeting
March 10, 1998
31. Commissioner Tyler stated he did not like having such a plain structure next
to the new school district buildings. Mr. Leopard explained why the structure
had been designed in this manner.
32. Commissioner Seaton asked if Desert Sands Unified School District had any
input into the design of the plans. Mr. Leopard stated they had a joint access
tbr the school buses and they had approved the plan.
33. Commissioner Seaton asked if there were any safety issues in regard to the
fueling. Mr. Leopard stated they had a similar system at the previous school
site and explained the safety procedures.
34. Commissioner Woodard stated that in regard to the revisions to the
Mobil/Mini-Mart building he would not accept the big, blank wall without
sloped roots. Mr. Leopard stated the roof design was in the original plans.
Commissioner Woodard noted that the original plan also had a better
elevation. Discussion followed regarding alternatives to soften the elevation.
Mr. Leopard stated he would go back to the original design with the windows
and trellis on the west elevation.
35. Commissioner Woodard stated his concern with Parcel 4 was that the two
metal shed roofs at the outer end were unattractive and asked if the applicant
had any suggestions. Mr. Leopard stated the metal would not be seen as it is
an overhang. Mr. Jordan stated they could use landscaping to hide it.
36. Commissioner Abels asked for clarification on the siting of the CNG tanks
and whether any noise would be associated with the compressors. Mr.
Leopard stated there would be none.
37. Commissioner Woodard stated that the original site plan had an art piece and
asked where it would be placed. Staff stated it would be located in a large
landscape planter area behind the Mini-Mart in Parcel 2.
38. There being no further public comment, Chairman Butler closed the public
comment portion of the heating.
39. Commissioner Kirk stated he supported staff's recommendation with the
requirement of adding more horizontal/vertical articulation to the storage
units on the Mobil facility; some sort of architectural treatment was needed
on the west elevation. In regard to the Lapis site, minor landscaping for the
CNG gas facility was needed. He would be comfortable allowing staff to
monitor these changes.
PC-3o10-98 7
Planning Commission Meeting
March 10. 1998
40. Commissioner Gardner stated his major concern was the building on the west
elevation.
41. Commissioner Abels stated he concurred with Commissioners Woodard and
Kirk.
42. Chairman Butler stated he would like to have staff determine where the
indentations should be placed, so the applicant is aware of what is being
asked of him. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio suggested adding a
Condition//85 to require additional articulation be added along the west
elevation of the storage facility to be approved by the Community
Development Director prior to issuance of a building permit. Condition//86
be added to require a window and trellis treatment be added to the west
elevation of the Mini-Mart adjacent to Dune Palms Road prior to issuance of
a building permit. Chairman Butler stated the applicant had agreed to go
back to the original drawing which had additional articulation. Discussion
followed as to what was originally approved. It was determined that the roof
would have to be re-designed in addition to the window and trellis being
added and reviewed by staff. Condition #87 would require additional
landscaping to the perimeter of the fueling facility pad area. Commissioner
Woodard asked that the applicant be required to redesign the roof silhouette
of the manager' s unit.
43. Commissioner Seaton had no further comment and concurred with the other
Commissioners.
44. Commissioner Tyler stated he thought the quality of the project had
deteriorated and noted changes that needed to be made to the staff report and
Conditions of Approval to add consistency and clarity:
a. Add "as amended" to Condition//1 of the Specific Plan 96-028.
b. Revise the landscaping plans to show emergency fire access.
c. Use consistent reference to the fire access
d. Condition//83 needs to clarity what it is to be east of.
e. Clarify that the signs as shown on the plans are not approved at this
time.
45. Chairman Butler stated the only other condition is to require a roof over the
gas pumps. Staff asked if the Commission wanted a full pitched roof over the
pumps. Chairman Butler stated yes.
PC-3-10-98 8
Planning Commission Meeting
March 10. 1998
46. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated the Engineering Department was
asking that a condition be added requiting the applicant to secure written
permission from the adjacent property owners tbr the proposed off-site
grading work prior to obtaining the grading permit.
47. Commissioner Kirk stated he would like to request that the Mobil Oil facility
come back to the Commission for their approval. Chairman Butler asked if
the two issues could be separated. Staff stated Condition #89 and #86 could
be re-worded to state, "subject to Planning Commission approval".
46. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Gardner to recommend
to the City Council approval of Specific Plan 96-028, Amendment # 1, subject
to the amended Conditions of Approval, by adoption of Planmng
Commission Resolution 98-009.
ROLL CALL:AYES: Commissioners Abels, Gardner, Kirk, Seaton, Tyler,
Woodard, and Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
47. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to recommend
approval of Site Development Permit 96-590, Amendment #1 to the City
Council, subject to the amended Conditions of Approval by adoption of
Planning Commission Resolution 98-010.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels. Gardner. Kirk, Seaton, Tyler,
Woodard, and Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
C. Site Development Permit 98-619; a request of the PdT Development for a
compatibility approval to allow six new prototype single family houses within Tract
25389 ranging in size from 2,180 square feet to 2,610 square feet under Specific Plan
83-001.
1. Chairman Butler opened the public hearing and 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. Senior Engineer Steve Speer explained the only residential access to the site
is currently off Park Avenue. A temporary construction entrance is located
near the 90-degree turn at Park Avenue and Calle Tampico and the
PC-3- i 0-98 9
Planning Commission Meeting -
March 10. 1998
emergency access is located off Calle Rondo. When the original tract map
was proposed, the environmental assessment and traffic study findings
determined the access points at that time. In order to approve an additional
entrance the applicant would have to file a revised tentative tract map,
environmental study, traffic study, and General Plan Amendment designating
Calle Tampico as a Collector street. Currently Calle Tampico is designated
as a Residential street. The City cannot approve any project that allows the
traffic to increase over 3,000 cars per day.
3. Commissioner Tyler stated it was his understanding that the access is not
open for discussion during this meeting. The Commission was only to
discuss compatibility issues. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that was
true. The Commission is to review only those items that are concerned with
the compatibility of the umts being proposed. Any issue dealing with access
would have to be brought up by the property owner as the holder of the tract
map which would require the amendments as stated by staff.
4. Commissioner Woodard stated he did not understand. While looking at the
aerial map of the tract map, it showed another access. If this is an emergency
access the property owners should be able to utilize it. Senior Engineer Steve
Speer explained the history of the emergency access. Discussion followed
regarding the access.
- 5. Commissioner Woodard asked what the options were to the homeowners.
City Attorney Dawn Honeywell asked staff who owned the streets. Senior
Engineer Steve Speer stated the land was owned by RJT Development and
part of the common area had been turned over to the homeowners'
association. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated it is the owner of that
property that would have the right.
6. Commissioner Woodard stated the other owners north of this property have
no ability to determine if this access should be used. Staff stated that was
true.
7. Commissioner Kirk asked if the City and the property owners on both sides
of the fence decided to open the access, could it be done? City Attorney
Dawn Honeywell stated they would have to go through the entire public
heating process. Normally, the developer of a residential tract map has the
right to develop the tract as it was originally approved, without subsequent
conditions being placed on it. If a health or safety concern was raised and the
association owned the streets, they could request the change to an open access
and the City could look into it. The problem is you are environmentally
affecting the adjacent areas.
PC-3-10-98 10
Planning Commission Meeting
March 10, 1998
8. Commissioner Kirk stated his reason for raising the question was to inform
the property owners who were present in the audience what their options were
and how they should go about achieving the change they desire. City
Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated she did not have a clear understanding as
to how much of this tract had been built out. Senior Engineer Steve Speer
explained approximately one fourth of the tract had been developed.
9. Staff went on to give the remainder of the staff report on the compatibility
issues being proposed to the applicant.
10. Chairman Butler asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. Dennis Cunningham, representing RJT Development,
addressed the Commission on the proposed compatibility, issues.
11. Commissioner Tyler asked if 42 homes were to be constructed. Mr.
Cunningham stated that was correct for the first phase, but as they owned the
entire site, it was their desire to build out the project.
12. Commissioner Woodard stated he understood they had met with the
homeowners' association and they were in accord. Mr. Cunningham stated
1LIT's goal is to work with the association to resolve the issues, but this is a
long process and they do not want to be held up in the construction of the
new homes to solve the secondary access problem.
13. Commissioner Woodard stated that in regard' to the compatibility issues, he
hoped the applicant would want to increase the variety of architectural
features.
14. Ms. Sandra Hawks, 78-770 Spyglass Hill Drive, representing the La Quinta
Fairways Homeowners' Association, stated she understood the additional
access was not a part of this hearing, but she would like to explain their
position. The association had met with the developer and gave them
preliminary annexation approvals with caveats on November 7, 1997. The
only issue pertinent to this public hearing is their request for an entrance/exit
on Calle Rondo. They have never referred to this entrance as an emergency
access as it is wide enough to accommodate two-way traffic. They currently
have 99 homes built and with the completion of the RJT Development they
will have a total of 254 homes sometime in the year 2001. Homeowners
voted unanimously in favor of including this annexation with the
understanding that the entrance/exit gate on Calle Rondo was a vital
consideration. RJT Development expressed to them that their original
PC-3- i 0-98 1 1
Planning Commission Meeting -
March 10. 1998
concern regarding the gate was giving up a unit lot tbr a gate location and
sacrificing the profit. However, when the board examined the plot map and
walked the perimeter, they discovered accommodations had been made by the
original developer. It cannot be seen due to the landscaping. An opening
already exists in the slump stone wall with pilasters at each end of the
opening on Calle Rondo and is currently blocked with a chain-link fence.
This opemng is located on a common area within their complex. When they
approached this location with RJT Development they were told the City was
adamantly opposed to this location and it was out of the question. They were
additionally told that the second gate could be a security risk to the models
and the cost of installation was a concem. Their answer to this is there is no
loss of a unit lot because the proposed gate location is a common area.
Security risks to the models are an issue until the models are sold. RJT will
be gone in three years and they will be left with the traffic problem. The gate
installation can wait until the last unit is built. The City of La Quinta has said
no to the construction of the gate and they feel this is an unacceptable answer
due to the traffic and speed on Calle Tampico and Park Avenue. The cost
issue has been addressed as their homeowners' association has told RJT they
will share in the cost. Their single entrance/exit gate location has a short
approach on both sides of the gate. When an exiting vehicle wants to enter
Park Avenue, they have to wait for the traffic to clear. Due to the short
approach, only three vehicles can wait in line before they block traffic inside
the gate. Entering the development could also be hazardous if an 18-wheel
truck, such as a moving van, wanted to enter the development. It would
block the gate and vehicles would be backed up on Park Avenue. The Bajada
and Painted Cove tracts are also building additional homes and all exit onto
Park Avenue. The new homes will generate additional traffic. Additionally,
traffic backs up each morning. Should the entrance be blocked, no
emergency service could enter. With build-out of this tract it could equate to
500 homes using this one access point. Their proposed location of the
additional access on Calle Rondo would only affect five homes and five
vacant lots. It would not face a home, but rather the intersection of Calle
Rondo and Tujunga.
15. Commissioner Tyler asked where the second access was located that is shown
on Park Avenue. Ms. Hawk stated it was a golf cart access constructed by
KSL Land Development. Commissioner Tyler asked if this were converted
into an access would it reduce the size of one or two lots. Ms. Hawk stated
it is a common area lot.
PC-3-10-98 12
Planning Commission Meeting
March 10. 1998
16. Commissioner Woodard asked if Ms. Hawk understood the process it would
take to solve this problem. Ms. Hawk stated she understood it very well, but
could not understand why a solution could not be reached. Commissioner
Woodard suggested that if they were serious they might want to hurry the
process because when Lots 242, 236, 247, and 252 are built on, they will
probably have a problem in that those homeowners may not want a gate at
that location.
17. Commissioner Woodard asked staff if the gate were to be constructed, is
there enough of a stacking dimension considering the proximity of that road
to the property line, such that they could have a legal mm. Senior Engineer
Steve Speer stated he has not seen how wide the common area is, but it is
probably ten feet deep. From the curb line of Calle Rondo to the curb of the
furore street it is about 20 feet. By the time the gate is installed a car would
have to stop in the street to wait for the gate to open. Commissioner
Woodard stated the developer would probably have to lose some lots before
they would get the gate installed. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated it is
very unlikely they would ever get regular access at this site. The more likely
location is on Calle Tampico midway between Calle Rondo and Park
Avenue. Ms. Hawk stated those are unit lots and they would not want the
developer to lose the lots.
18. Commissioner Woodard stated to Ms. Hawk that staff is saying they cannot
approve an access point where they are requesting it because the distance of
the proposed road to their property line is not configured to allow the
construction of an access point. What staff is suggesting is that in order to
avoid the many applications that would need to be filed, they could come off
Lots 203, 218, 220 to create the access.
19. Mr. Bill Murray, 78-970 Del Monte Court, stated he was concerned about the
aesthetics of the project. La Quinta Fairways was started by Brock Homes
and it has a unique look. At their annual meeting, they were informed the
building codes of La Quinta would not allow them to continue building with
the same architectural style as what currently exists. The diversity of the
homes in this neighborhood is what makes this tm~t. special. The new homes
will have a Mediterranean look, but they will not have the height of the
existing units. The new units will only have a six inch difference in roof
lines. This will create a completely different neighborhood within this tract.
He further pointed out that the construction entrance might be a possible
location for an access. He described the different access points that had been
used by each of the different developers.
PC-3-10-98 13
Planning Commission Meeting
March I 0. 1998
20. There being no further public comment, the public comment portion of the
public hearing was closed.
21. Commissioner Kirk suggested a pedestrian access might be constructed in the
interim.
22. Commissioner Gardner stated that in his opinion the developer had presented
diversity in the homes proposed.
23. Commissioner Woodard stated the Commission could do nothing with the
access issue, but it is his hope the developer would try. to reach a solution for
the homeowners. In regard to the issues raised by Mr. Murray, he would like
to see the changes he is requesting, but until the Zoning Code is amended,
their hands are tied.
24. Commissioner Seaton stated she had no objection to the proposed
compatibility changes. The access onto Calle Tampico is very busy and is
probably not the right area to have an access gate. The alternative access is
smaller and would probably not accommodate enough cars.
25. Commissioner Tyler stated he agreed with his fellow Commissioners. He
had visited the site and wished there were more roof line variations in the
units proposed. The problem is acerbated in that PdT is building only single
story family homes. Planning Manger Christine di Iorio reminded the
Commission they could recommend the developer add a new prototype
having a two story element to go with the remaining homes.
26. Commissioner Woodard stated if they were looking for roof variation, they
could accommodate that by different ceiling heights and roof plans to cause
the variations. Staff stated the roof height could be raised. Discussion
followed regarding alternatives.
27. Mr. Dennis Cunningham stated he had spent seven or eight months working
with the developer, staff, and the homeowners' association to create this tract.
If he had been asked to build a two story unit, he could bet he would have
been told no because the homeowners' association would have objected. He
resented Planning Manager Christine di Iorio coming before the Commission
and leading this Commission into suggesting something that was presented
weeks ago and at no time was any mention made regarding these changes.
PC-3-10-98 14
Planning Commission Meeting
March 10. 1998
They and staff had met with the homeowners and discussed their concerns.
Now that one individual gets up and mentions that he would like to see two
story homes, staff is now taking a different direction. RJT has gone to a lot
of time and cost to develop these homes and has been working in good faith
with the homeowners and staff. They submitted one model that was 18-feet
and they were required to lower it one inch. He would ask that the
Commission approve the application that is before them tonight. It is his
understanding that the homeowners' association did not want two story units
constructed.
28. Chairman Butler asked the applicant if they would be reversing any of the
floor plans. Mr. Cunningham stated they would. They submitted plans they
believed would be approved by the homeowners as well as the City. As any
tract develops, the first 30 homes start the tract, then you start changing some
of the elevations to allow for a variation in the streetscape.
29. Commissioner Woodard stated that if an identification of varied roof heights
were made, this would give the applicant the right to have two story houses
if he chose to. It would also give him the right to have higher plate heights
and roofs at different parts of the homes. Mr. Cunningham stated that if he
understood the current ordinance, they were allowed to build up to 17-feet
with a single story and to go to a two story there wouldn't be enough room
in-between.
30. Commissioner Tyler suggested that Condition #13 be deleted as it was a
statement of fact and not a condition. Further if he lived in this tract he
would be very interested in having a second access. He has no record
showing how many formal applications had been made to make this a legal
access, but according to what they have been told, he would suggest they
pursue this process.
31. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Tyler/Abels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98-
011 approving Site Development Permit 98-619 as conditioned.
32. Commissioner Gardner asked for clarification as to whether they were
requiring a variety of roof heights. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the
Commission was approving the plans as submitted to assure they were
compatible with the existing homes. To have different elevations, the
-- developer would have to come back with additional plans.
PC-3-10-98 15
Planning Commission Meeting
March 10. 1998
33. Commissioner Woodard asked if the Commission approved floor plan "A".
and wanted to ask tbr additional elevations to be submitted at a later date for
review: could the developer move forward and allow the market to determine
what they will build. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated
they always have the right to bring back new elevations tbr compatibility
review. Was Commissioner Woodard suggesting the Commission approve
two of the proposed plans tonight and condition the developer to come back
with another elevation per plan, for Commission's review in the future, at the
developers discretion? City Attorney Dawn Honeywell asked if they were
going to require this after a certain number had been built. Commissioner
Woodard stated the market should dictate this. It should be at the developer's
discretion.
34. Commissioner Woodard stated it was the desire of the Commission to have
variations in roof design and roof heights on a single story. Mr. Cunningham
asked if he could go over 17-feet. Ms. Jan Kohler of RJT stated that
originally their architect designed units with higher roof lines. They were told
by the City they had to bring them down to 17-feet 11-inches. To have their
architect redesign the units cost them. -
35. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated that in the RM
District, the height limit is 28-feet. The Specific Plan for this tract does
require that any houses adjacent to Calle Rondo be no higher than 17-feet to
be compatible with the adjacent homes. It is not certain that the interior lots
have this height restriction.
36. Commissioner Woodard stated he supported the plans with the condition that
the applicant come back with additional elevations showing various roof
heights, or silhouettes, added to their housing plans. They may never be
used, but the option is there.
37. Ms. Hawk stated that in the meeting they had held with RJT Development,
the homeowners overwhelmingly approved the plans proposed. If this is a
done deal'with the homeowners, then why is the Commission discussing this?
38. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Tyler/Abels to approve Site Development Permit 98-619,
subject to the amended conditions.
PC-3-10-98 16
Planning Commission Meeting
March 10. 1998
ROLL CALL' AYES' Commissioners Abels~ Gardner, Kirk. Seaton, Tyler,
Woodar& and Chairman Butler. NOES' None. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
V. BUSINESS ITEMS' None
VII CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None.
VII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS
A. Commissioner Gardner asked why searchlights were allowed in the parking lot at
Simon Motors over the weekend. Staff stated they are not allowed and citations had
been issued.
B. Planmng Manager Christine di Iorio informed the Commission that the illegal fence
at the corner of Avenida Juarez and Avenida Montezuma had been removed.
C. Commissioner Woodard asked if the City Attorney could give her report on design
_ issues and design review structuring at the next meeting of the Commission.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Gardner/Tyler to
adjourn this meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting on March 24, 1998, at 7:00
p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:47 P.M. Unanimously approved.
PC-3-10-98 17