PCMIN 04 14 1998 MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
April 14, 1998 7:00 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:04 P.M. by
Chairman Butler who asked Commissioner Abels 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 Attomey Dawn
Honeywell, Planning Manager Christine di Iorio, Senior Engineer Steve Speer,
Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate Planners Leslie Mouriquand and Wallace
-- Nesbit, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None
III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed.
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR:
A. Chairman Butler asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of March 10, 1998.
Commissioner Tyler asked that Page 2, Item B.2. the tanks were "would be installed
horizontally"; Page 4, Item 14 the reference to the word "daylight" was questioned.
Commissioner Kirk reatTmned this was correct; Page 5, Item 16. needed to have the
word "'RV' added to how many storage units would be left after redesign"; Page 6,
Item 29 at the end of the first sentence add, "from the fuel island"; Page 8 Item 44.e.,
should state "plans are not approved at this time". Chairman Butler asked if there
were any other changes to the Minutes of March 10, 1998. There being no other
changes, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to approve the
minutes as amended. Unanimously approved.
B. Chairman Butler asked if there were any changes to the minutes of March 24, 1998.
--- Commissioner Kirk asked that Page 8, Item 6 be corrected to read, "Commissioner
Kirk stated he did not agree, but noted that exclusive communities like La Quinta
tend to have stricter requirements. There being no other corrections, it was moved
and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Seaton to approve the minutes as corrected.
Unanimously approved.
C. Department Report: None.
PC-4-14-98 1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 14, 1998
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Environmental Assessment 98-355 and Conditional Use Permit 98-039 a request of
Kathryn Carlson, DVM for consideration of a conditional use permit and
environmental assessment for the proposed adaptive reuse of a historic structure as
a small-animal veterinary clinic with accessory residence in The Village Park Zoning
District.
1. Chairman Butler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report.
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. Chairman Butler asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner
Tyler asked what days the clinic would be open. The applicant, Kathryn
Carlson, stated it would be open from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through
Friday and 9:00 a.m. to noon on Saturday. Commissioner Tyler asked if the
perimeter chain link fence would remain and be grandfathered. Staff stated
the fence is nonconforming and the applicant intended to plant a screening-
type vine that would grow to cover the fence. Commissioner Tyler stated the
Noise issue contained in the Environmental Assessment CEA) did not address
the issue of barking dogs. Although the proposed clinic is not located in a
residential area, the EA should have addressed it.
3. Commissioner Seaton asked if the alleyway behind the clinic, served any
other businesses and whether or not there would be any traffic problems in
the future. Staff stated there are other properties that back up to the alleyway,
but the Public Works Department should address any potential traffic
problems. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated the alleyway would be
improved at some point in the future and the traffic from this use would not
be a negative impact.
4. Commissioner Woodard stated he too was concerned with the chain link
fence, but did not want to see a hardship placed on the applicant as approval
of this project was in the interest of the City. He then asked about the trash
enclosure; would it be a block wall. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio
stated yes, and as it was new construction, the trash enclosure would be
stuccoed to match the entry wall and not the historic building. Commissioner
Woodard stated that in regard to the sign, he would agree with the graphics
on the street address. Staff stated their objection was that the sign should be
for identification and not advertising.
PC-4-14-98 2
Planning Commission Meeting
April 14, 1998
5. Commissioner Abels asked what impacts the proposed changes to the Village
Specific Plan would have on this project. Staff stated the proposed project
is recommended for approval as it does comply with the current zoning for
the Village.
6. Commissioner Gardner stated he would like to commend whoever started the
idea of saving the lumber yard and asked if the sign would be visible from the
street. Staff stated it would be installed at an angle to be visible as you travel
down the street. Commissioner Gardner asked staff to clarify how the
rehabilitation work was to be done prior to the issuance of a building permit
under the Summary of Mitigation Measures. Staff stated that the seismic
retrofit work was being required to be done prior to any other tenant
improvements. The condition could be reworded to require both
improvements done concurrently.
7. Commissioner Kirk asked if the hanging sign would include the street
number and name. Staff stated they were uncertain as to whether or not the
street name was included in the sign. Commissioner Kirk stated he too liked
--
the graphics on the sign and suggested the graphic not depict the use of the
building. He questioned the "Regional Environmental Setting"issue in the
EA as it stated the median home price as $112,000. This appears to be very
low. Staff would check into it.
8. Chairman Butler asked if there would be any security lighting? Staff stated
the existing wall lights would be replaced, but no additional lighting would
be installed.
9. Commissioner Abels commended the applicant on her proposed business and
stated this is a use he would like to see in the Village area.
10. Chairman Butler closed the public comment portion of the heating and
opened the discussion to the Commission.
11. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Kirk/Abels to adopt Planing Commission Resolution 98-012
certifying a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for
Environmental Assessment 98-355, subject to the mitigation measures
contained in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Gardner, Kirk, Seaton, Tyler,
Woodard, and Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT:
None. ABSTAIN: None.
PC-4-14-98 3
Planning Commission Meeting
April 14, 1998
12. It was moved and seconded by Commissioner Gardner/Tyler moved to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution 98-012-A, approving Conditional Use
Permit 98-039, subject to the amended conditions as follows:
a. The trash enclosure and entry stucco walls shall be compatible, but
not match the stucco of the historic structures.
b. The hanging address sign to be approved as presented by the
applicant (delete Condition #4).
ROLL CALL:AYES: Commissioners Abels, Gardner, Kirk, Seaton, Tyler,
Woodard, and Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
B. Tentative Tract 26855. First Time Extension; a request of Sumbad and Sharron
Kanlian for a recommendation to certify an amended environmental assessment and
approval of a first time extension for a tract map which creates 73 single family lots
on 23+ acres in the Low Density Residential Zone on the east side of Jefferson Street
approximately 660 feet south of 50th Avenue.
1. Chairman Butler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report.
Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand presented the information contained in
the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department. Staff stated they would like the following added to the
Conditions of Approval: Condition #14 requires the applicant to obtain an
easement from the property owner to the south for shared street access. Staff
is asking for this to be done within 90-days of the approval of the first time
extension. Condition #23.A., staff is requesting to add to the end of the
condition: "if access is ultimately acquired at Pomelo". Condition #71
correct to read "a two and half foot berm". Condition #74.B., remove the last
sentence. Condition #75.F., needs to be deleted as it is already in another
condition.
2. Chairman Butler asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner
Kirk thanked staff for drawing attention to the condition changes. In regard
to Condition #14, he asked if this was normal. Staff stated they had placed
similar conditions on tracts to be sure that issues of concern are addressed.
3. Commissioner Gardner questioned Condition #23.a., as to whether or not
another street would be added later on. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated
the ultimate plan is for the access street into the Citrus Course to have a full
turn and ultimately a signal. Unfortunately, the ten acres are not a part of
either tract, but is the key to this access of the two tracts being. It is just a
plan for the future when the ten acres are developed. Commissioner Gardner
asked who would pay the costs for the improvements. Staff stated it would
PC-4-14-98 4
-- Planning Commission Meeting
April 14, 1998
be shared by all the developments at this location. Commissioner Gardner
asked why staff was asking for the deletion of the requirement regarding the
shading of glass. Staff stated it is a requirement of Title 24 and it is
redundant to have it in the conditions.
4. Commissioner Woodard asked the location of the Reese Ranch and what it
was zoned. Staff stated it was zoned RL with the Equestrian Overlay (EO).
Commissioner Woodard asked what properties have the EO and how long
have the adjacent properties been zoned RL. Staff stated the area was zoned
RL when it was annexed into the City. Commissioner Woodard stated the
RL zoning has been known for ten years. Staff stated that since the
annexation in 1991. Commissioner Woodard stated this tract is dependent
upon the access through the ten acre parcel, but there is no guarantee when,
or if the ten acres will be developed. Therefore, there is only one way in and
out. Is this acceptable to the Fire Marshall? Senior Engineer Steve Speer
stated a condition had been placed on the tract that the second access must be
provided before the 41st home is built. This is based upon the Fire
Department's recommendation. Commissioner Woodard asked why Lots 1
and 73 were restricted to one story. Staff stated the condition is based on the
--
General Plan requirement for Jefferson Street. Commissioner Woodard
asked that Condition #74.C be changed to have the design guidelines
approved by the Planning Commission. Staff pointed out this condition
refers to the CC&R's and Section "A" refers to the design guidelines. Staff
suggested modifying Conditions "C" to read "the applicant shall establish
within the CC & R's Site Development Standards and Design Standards as
approved by the Planning Commission." Commissioner Woodard asked that
Condition #55 also be changed to require approval by the Planning
Commission. Commissioner Woodard asked if Lot I had been designated as
open space? Staff stated it was. Commissioner Woodard asked if this would
be maintained by the homeowners' association and if this was true of Lot G.
Staff stated it was a retention basin.
5. Commissioner Seaton asked staffto explain the emergency exit. Staff stated
the emergency access will enter into the tract to the south and go west to
Jefferson Street.
6. Commissioner Woodard asked why this tract was not required to have an
emergency access. Staff stated he was allowed to build no more than 40
houses until the second access is provided.
--
7. Commissioner Tyler asked who owned the ten acres. Staff stated they did not
know at this time. Commissioner Tyler stated that in his opinion there are
potential problems if these two tracts are not built at the same time. He did
not understand the reason for the urgency for the easement. Senior Engineer
PC-4-14-98 5
Planning Commission Meeting
April 14, 1998
Steve Speer stated they initially were not going to bring it to the Commission
until it was obtained and only changed it to allow them 90-days to keep from
holding up the time extension. Commissioner Tyler asked staff to clarify
which School District was affected with this tract. Staff stated it is Coachella
Unified School District. Commissioner Woodard stated the EA requires an
eight foot wall or berm, but it is not clear if it is to be around the entire
perimeter or only on Jefferson Street. Staff stated it would only be on
Jefferson Street. Commissioner Tyler asked that this be clarified.
Commissioner Tyler asked staff to clarify what the percentage breakdown of
the signal improvements would be on each tract. He then asked if this was
the same for the bus turnout. Staff stated they do not bond for bus turnouts.
Commissioner Tyler stated the location of the bus shelter needs to be clarified
as whether it is to be on the east or west side of Jefferson Street. He stated
the entry lots were unusual and there appears to be a need for a greater
setbacks.
8. Commissioner Woodard asked the City Attomey to identify what changes the
Commission could make on an extension request. City Attorney Dawn
Honeywell stated the applicant could be required to comply with the current
Code requirements. Traditionally, the City has not made major changes on
a time extension request. Commissioner Woodard asked if this plan had to
come back for landscaping, etc., approval. Staff stated it is currently
conditioned for staff's approval. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the
Planning Commission could require this condition to be changed to require
the landscaping plans be approved by the Commission. Commissioner
Woodard asked if the Commission could require Lots 1 and 73 to come back
to the Commission. Staff stated that landscaping requirements for entries is
not included in the Zoning Code at this time and cannot be placed on this
tract as a condition. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated they could not
require changes that are not currently contained in the Zoning Code.
Discussion followed as to what changes were within the Commission's
purview.
9. Commissioner Kirk questioned whether or not all the proposed conditions
were contained in the current Zoning Code. Staff stated some of the
condition changes are proposed changes to the Zoning Code. City Attorney
Dawn Honeywell stated that in order to have a legal basis to uphold the
condition, all conditions should be based on the existing Zoning Code. This
is the City's authority to uphold conditions. Commissioner Kirk asked if
conditions could be established if they were consistent with General Plan
Policies. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that everything should be
consistent with the General Plan. The reason there are explicit zoning
requirements is to provide a certainty to the development community as to
what is required. Discussion followed.
PC-4-14-98 6
-- Planning Commission Meeting
April 14, 1998
10. Commissioner Woodard asked if a tract map is submitted, is there a
requirement in the present Zoning Code stating what the landscaping should
be or where a wall should be located.
11. Commissioner Tyler asked that Condition//79 be added requiring that Lots
A of this tract and Lot C of the adjoining tract have the same name. In
addition, with the impact of Proposition 218 on the Lighting and Landscaping
District, it has been a new policy to have the perimeter landscaping be the
responsibility of the developer or HOA. This condition needs to be added.
Is there a condition for bicycle and/or equestrian path. Staff stated there was
a condition.
12. Chairman Butler stated that if there are conditions on these tracts that are not
consistent with what was approved originally, then the Commission is
approving something they are not allowed to do, according to the City
Attorney. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that as long as the applicant
has no objection with the conditions, then they can become a final part of the
tract. Chairman Butler asked the City Attorney to clarify if she was saying
___
they cannot approve what has been recommended by staff. If this is true, it
is a real dilemma. City Attomey Dawn Honeywell stated she was unaware
staff was making these changes as a regular basis. In the past, the applicant
has not objected to the conditions and after a certain period of time, if the
applicant does not challenge them, they become defensible. Chairman Butler
stated that when this tract comes back in a year for another extension, the new
Code requirements could be imposed. The City Attorney stated that was true.
13. Commissioner Abels asked that in view of this discussion, could a condition
be placed on the tract to require the landscaping to be upgraded at the
entrances? City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the Commission could
impose the condition as long as they know that if a challenge is made, the
condition is indefensible
14. Chairman Butler asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission
on this project. Mr. Sumbad Kanlian, applicant, stated the entrance is
designed as other tracts with landscaping and a wall.
15. Commissioner Woodard asked the applicant if he would accept all the
conditions as they are currently placed on the tract by staff. Mr. Kanlian
-- stated he would prefer to leave it as it is. Commissioner Woodard stated that
in accepting the conditions as they are recommended, it can be a hardship on
the developer. Mr. Kanlian stated this is a problem that the developer would
have to contend with. Commissioner Woodard asked if the applicant would
object to having the conditions placed on the tract regarding the entrance.
PC-4-14-98 7
Planning Commission Meeting
April 14, 1998
16. Commissioner Kirk stated the potential condition may be a condition that the
developer would not want as it would add another level of complexity. Mr.
Kanlian stated he would not want to put any conditions on the project that
might jeopardize the sale of the tract.
17. There being no other public comment, Chairman Butler closed the public
comment portion of the hearing and opened it up for Commission discussion.
18. Chairman Butler asked if the concems raised by the Reese' s letter regarding
the water access would be an issue of concern. Community Development
Director Jerry Herman stated this development cannot shut off the water
supply to an adjacent farming operation.
19. Commissioner Woodard asked where the water access was located. Staff
stated that it was a series of underground water pipes that transition the water
to the different properties. It is staff's understanding that CVWD would ask
that conditions be placed on the tract that would not interfere with their
irrigation pipes.
20. Commissioner Kirk stated the discretionary issue is still confusing and asked
if the City Attorney read the conditions prior to being submitted to the
Commission. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated she does not have the
time to read all the conditions. She only gets involved with staff's concerns
when questioned. Commissioner Kirk stated that if the Commission wants
to add conditions, they should review them in light of what is contained in the
Zoning Code. He suggested the Commission continue this to have staff
review the conditions in light of this discussion.
21. Commissioner Gardner stated there appears to be several issues that need to
be discussed and maybe this should be continued until they are resolved. City
Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated they could continue this if there are
conditions they feel need to be reviewed. Should the Commission decide to
continue this item for a length of time that length of time must be reasonable
to the issues that are raised.
22. Commissioner Kirk stated he needed clarification from staff. Is the applicant
under any time pressure to have this approved at this meeting. City Attorney
Dawn Honeywell stated that if the reason for continuing is to allow staff time
to review the Commission's concerns, then it was justifiable.
23. Community Development Director Jerry Herman asked the Commission to
identify their concerns. Chairman Butler stated their concern was
recommending approval of conditions that are not contained in the Zoning
Code. Staff stated some of the conditions are based on mitigation measures
that were raised in the Environmental Assessment.
PC-4-14-98 8
Planning Commission Meeting
April 14, 1998
24. Commissioner Gardner asked if based on the comments made, are the
conditions defensible. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that in order to
answer that, each condition would have to be reviewed.
25. City Attomey Dawn Honeywell suggested a condition be added requiring the
tract to comply with the landscaping requirements contained in the Zoning
Code before a grading permit is issued. Discussion followed.
26. Commissioner Woodard moved to continue this item to allow staff time to
review the conditions in light of the Zoning Code. Following discussion, the
motion was withdrawn. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell suggested Condition
#60 be modified to read "Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant
shall comply with the Zoning Code requirements enforced at that time
relating to landscaping and entryways and shall submit that plan to the
Planning Commission for approval." This allows the Planning Commission
the last opportunity to review the plan and make changes.
27. Commissioner Woodard stated his objection was the two entry lots that are
oversized and the space to accommodate the entryway and access to the lots
is very restricted.
28. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Woodard/Seaton to adopt Planning Commission Resolution
98-013 recommending certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
environmental impact for Amended Environmental Assessment 91-194.
29. Commissioner Tyler asked that the Addendum be given a number and date.
ROLL CALL:AYES: Commissioners Abels, Gardner, Kirk, Seaton, Tyler,
Woodard, and Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
30. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Woodard/Abels to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution 98-014, approving Tentative Tract Map
26855, Time Extension #1, subject to the amended Conditions of Approval.
a. Condition #23.a.: amended to include, "if access is ultimately
acquired at Pomelo", and reduce the percentage of street
improvements to 13.9%.
b. Condition #60. Add, "Prior to final map approval the applicant shall
submit landscaping drawings in conformance with the current Zoning
Code.
PC-4-14-98 9
Planning Commission Meeting
April 14, 1998
c. Condition #74.a.: "The Design Guidelines shall be reviewed and
approved by Planning Commission prior to final map.
d. Condition #74.b.: Remove that portion referring to "architectural
design shall provide shading of glass areas from the south, east, and
west exposures."
e. Condition #74.c.: The applicant shall establish within the CC&R'S
Site Development Standards and Design Standards as approved by
the Planning Commission.
f. Condition #79: "Lot A and C of each tract shall have the same street
name.
g. Condition #75.f. shall be removed.
h. Condition #71. The height of the berm shall be 2.5 feet.
i. Condition #5: Change to reference Coachella Valley Unified School
District.
31. Commissioner Kirk stated he would be voting against the project only
because it is still unknown to him what is discretionary and what is not in
regard to what the Commission is able to approve. He would like to request
staff bring back to the Planning Commission what conditions are rooted in
the Zoning Code and which are not. Commissioner Seaton stated she too
would like to see this.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Gardner, Tyler, Woodard, and
Chairman Abels. NOES: Commissioners Kirk and Seaton.
ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None.
32. Commissioner Woodard asked staff to address Commissioners Kirks
concems. Staff asked if the request was specifically for this tract. Chairman
Butler stated yes.
Chairman Butler recessed the meeting at 9:00 p.m. and reconvened at 9:08 p.m.
C. Tentative Tract 26718, First Time Extension; a request of Walter Hansch for a
recommendation to certify an amended environmental impact and approval of a first
time extension to create 125 single family lots on 40+ acres in the Low Density
Residential Zone on the east side of Jefferson Street approximately 1650 feet south
of 50th Avenue.
1. Chairman Butler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report.
Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand presented the information contained in
the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department. Staff noted the conditions would be modified the same as the
previous tract.
PC-4-14-98 1 0
Planning Commission Meeting
April 14, 1998
2. Commissioner Tyler noted that Condition//70 should be changed to reference
lot numbers 116-125 to be consistent. Condition//81 should reference the
property to the north.
3. Commissioner Seaton asked for clarification on Lot L. Staff stated it was a
retention basin.
4. Commissioner Kirk stated he would like to hear the applicant address the
issue of the conditions raised on the previous tract.
5. Chairman Butler asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. Walter Hansch, applicant, ' stated he did not understand the
question.
6. Commissioner Kirk clarified for Mr. Hansch that there were conditions that
staffhad recommended that he may not have to comply with and asked if he
was aware of this. Mr. Hansch stated he would agree with the same
conditions as those placed on Tentative Tract 26855.
7. There being no further public comment, Chairman Butler closed the public
comment portion of the heating and opened it for Commission discussion.
8. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Abels/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98-
015 recommending certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
environmental impact for Amended Environmental Assessment 91-193.
9. Commissioner Tyler asked that the Addendum be given a number and date.
ROLL CALL:AYES: Commissioners Abels, Gardner, Kirk, Seaton, Tyler,
Woodard, and Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
10. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Gardner/Abels to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution 98-016, approving Tentative Tract Map
26718, Time Extension #1, subject to the amended Conditions of Approval.
a. Condition //23.a.: amended to include, "if access is ultimately
acquired at Pomelo", and change the percentage of street
improvements to 24.1%.
b. Condition//60. Add, "Prior to final map approval the applicant shall
submit landscaping drawings in conformance with the current Zoning
Code.
PC-4-14-98 1 1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 14, 1998
c. Condition #74.a.: "The Design Guidelines shall be reviewed and
approved by Planning Commission prior to final map.
d. Condition #74.b.: Remove that portion referring to "architectural
design shall provide shading of glass areas from the south, east, and
west exposures."
e. Condition #74.c.: The applicant shall establish within the CC&R'S
Site Development Standards and Design Standards as approved by
the Planning Commission.
f. Condition #79: "Lot A and C of each tract shall have the same street
name.
g. Condition #75.f. shall be removed.
h. Condition #71. The height ofthe berm shall be 2.5 feet.
i. Condition #5: Change to reference Coachella Valley Unified School
District.
ROLL CALL:AYES: Commissioners Abels, Gardner, Tyler, Woodard, and
Chairman Abels. NOES: Commissioners Kirk and Seaton.
ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. moved on the EA Unanimously
approved.
D. Site Development Permit 98-621; a request of Peters-Hover Company for a
compatibility review approval to allow six new prototype plans for the Citrus
Country Club in compliance with the adopted Specific Plan and Tracts 24890-6 and
28719 on portions ofLiga, Pomo, Cetrino, Cidra, and Baya Streets.
1. Commissioner Gardner excused himself due to a possible conflict of interest
and withdrew from the dias.
2. 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.
3. Commissioner Steward stated that if the guest suite on Plan 3 is a bedroom
the house would then be a 4 bedroom house with a two car garage. Staff
stated a condition had been placed on the tract that any houses with the guest
suite must provide a three car garage. Commissioner Woodard asked that an
additional condition be placed on the tract requiring those elevations to come
back to the Commission. Commissioner Woodard stated that at least half of
the existing homes were Mediterranean. The remainder were contemporary
to something else. Staff stated they would modify the condition.
Commissioner Woodard stated that in the staff report under Compatibility
PC-4-14-98 12
__ Planning Commission Meeting
April 14, 1998
Review, it mentions "To accentuate the street views of the houses, roof lines
are varied by using hip and gable design elements and standard 4:12 roof
trusses." In his opinion he did not see much variation in the plans. The
Citrus is a custom home project and now a tract is being proposed with
production homes.
4. Commissioner Kirk asked if the Planning Commission could address the
location of the house on the lot. Staff stated Condition #7 requires the
variation in setbacks. Commissioner Kirk stated that the narrow lots and 3-
car garages could create a wall of development along the street fronts. Are
there any other treatments or greater setback variations to accommodate this?
Staff stated only if the applicant wanted to bring it back and offer a
modification. Discussion followed regarding the guest house orientation.
· 5. Chairman Butler asked if there was any other public comment regarding this
issue. There being none, the public comment portion of the public hearing
was closed and opened for Commission discussion.
6. Commissioner Tyler asked that Condition #9 be amended to have the last
word changed to "all garage bays." Other than this, it is a nice design.
7. Commissioner Seaton also commended the applicant on his presentation.
8. Commissioner Woodard stated that on Product A, Plan 1 the variation of the
facade on the home is excellent, but it has the same elevation/roof line. All
the Plan 1 rear elevations are the same. Product B has the same
elevation/facade with the same problem on the rear of the house. On the
units with the guest suite, the developer should vary the location of the suite
so it is not one continuous row down the street. Plan C, the front elevation
and facades are again wonderful, the roof and rear are the same. The roof's
should be modified and the homes with the guest suite varied and the
elevations be required to be brought back to the Commission on all homes
with three car garages.
9. Chairman Butler asked if the suggested changes were required to the roof
lines would create a new tress arrangement. Commissioner Woodard stated
it would require a redesign. Chairman Butler asked if the Commission could
make the suggested changes if the applicant was not present. City Attorney
Dawn Honeywell stated the Commission has the right to impose any
conditions it believes are warranted. The applicant can appeal the
Commission's decision to the City Council if they do not agree with the
Commission.
PC-4-14-98 13
Planning Commission Meeting
April 14, 1998
10. Commissioner Tyler stated he agreed with the direction of the Commission
regarding design review on what faces the street; but how far should the
Commission go in regards to redesign of the entire house. Chairman Butler
stated that what the Commission is trying to accomplish is to cause more
imagination in what is developed in the City; to eliminate square boxes from
being developed in the City.
11. Commissioner Tyler questioned this redesign as the tract had already been
approved have the same rear elevations. Commissioner Woodard stated that
on the site plan, all the homes would have the same setback and the guest
suite at the same position causing a streetscape of walls. Discussion followed
regarding how elevations could be changed.
12. Commissioner Abels stated it was important to upgrade the projects as they
come before the Commission.
13. Commissioner Kirk stated he would rather have these issues addressed in the
Zoning Code than based on personal appeal. He was concerned about the
developer having to go back and redesign a project when this is a
compatibility review. In his opinion, the proposed elevations are no worse
or better than the existing homes. In that regard, this proposed design is
compatible. They may not be compatible with the custom homes. It should
be the purpose of the City/Commission to provide developers with guidelines
of what is expected of them when they propose their project.
14. Commissioner Woodard asked for legal counsels opinion in regard to
compatibility and changing the design. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell
stated they should be reviewing the design for what is compatible with the
existing built out subdivision. Staff has indicated that this area has always
been intended to be tract homes. Therefore, it would appear the relevant
comparison would be to the tract homes. Commissioner Woodard questioned
whether they could address the issues of variability. City Attorney Dawn
Honeywell stated that if the existing does not, then no.
15. Chairman Butler stated that in order to address this problem, it would have
to be addressed in the Zoning Code.
16. Commissioner Tyler stated they are again trying to address issues that are not
contained in the Zoning Code.
17. Commissioner Woodard asked if they could require a percentage of the
homes be varied. City Attorney Dawn Honey stated that if it is based on the
existing units.
PC-4-14-98 14
Planning Commission Meeting
April 14, 1998
18. Commissioner Tyler stated that when Tract 28719 was before the
Commission for approval, it was another problem. This tract is an
improvement over that. The impact on the existing homes, whether custom
or tract, these are isolated streets and the homes will not be side by side.
They will either be separated by streets or a golf fairway.
19. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Woodard/Abels to continue this item to allow staff an
oppommity to present to the Commission, examples of other existing houses
in the vicinity, to review these prototypes against, for compatibility.
20. Commissioner Kirk asked if the five development standards raised under
Compatibility Review contained in the staff report, were the only
development standards that can be considered under a compatibility review,
or are they selected. Staff stated that development standards were used to
make the findings for approval. Commissioner Kirk stated it would help if
staff would provide the Commission with pictures and/or examples of what
they are to be compatible with.
21. There being no other discussion, it was moved and seconded to continue Site
Development Permit 98-621 to April 28, 1998. Unanimously approved.
Commissioner Gardner rejoined the Commission.
E. Environmental Assessment 98-353, Repeal of Specific Plan 87-009. Village at La
Quinta. Zoning Code Amendment 98-060. Change of Zone 98-085, and Design
Review Guidelines; a request of the City for consideration and recommendation to
the City Council to Repeal the Village at La Quinta Specific Plan, and replace it with
Design Review Guidelines and revised "Village Commercial" Zoning text. Rezoning
of the "Village Residential" area east of Desert Club Drive from Village Residential
to Low Density Residential.
1. Chairman Butler open the public hearing and asked if there was any public
comment.
2. Mr. Don Gittleson, Prelude Development Company, stated his purpose in
speaking regarding this issue was to clarify the zoning of the four acre parcel
of land east of Desert Club Drive. He would like to request the four acres fall
into the Village Commercial Zoning.
3. Commissioner Kirk asked for the current zoning. Staff stated it is low
density and staff is not proposing any additional area be added to the Village
Commercial. Mr. Gettleson stated this is his point, if you look at the map, it
should be included.
PC-4-14-98 15
Planning Commission Meeting _
April 14, 1998
4. Commissioner Woodard asked that the Commissioners review the Village
area and visualize what they would like it to look like. It is going to be
difficult and the Commission should have a clear idea.
5. There being no further comment, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Woodard/Kirk to continue this item to April 28, 1998.
F. Zoning Code Amendment 97-061; a request of the City for consideration of
miscellaneous amendments to Title 9-Zoning Code of the La Quinta Municipal Code.
1. Chairman Butler opened the public hearing and asked for public comment.
2. There being no public comment, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Abels/Tyler to continue this item to April 28, 1998.
Unanimously approved.
VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL:
VII. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS.
A. Commissioner Tyler asked if the sign being built by Family Heritage Church had a
sign permit. Staff stated they had been issued a sign permit. He then informed the
Commission and staff he would not be at the next meeting and would not be able to
attend the next City Council meeting
B. Commissioner Tyler gave a report of the City Council meeting of April 7, 1998. He
suggested copies of the goals which were reviewed by the Council be distributed to
the Commission.
C. Commissioner Seaton encouraged the Commissioners to attend "The Second Annual
Day of Discussion-The Future of the Coachella Valley". Commissioners were to
inform staff if they were wanting to attend.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Abels to
adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next regular meeting of the Planning
Commission to be held on April 28, 1998, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission
was adjourned at 10:07 P.M. on April 14, 1998.
PC-4-14-98 16