Loading...
PCMIN 07 27 1999 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA July 27, 1999 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 Kirk who asked for the roll call. B. Chairman Kirk requested the roll call. Present: Commissioners Jacques Abels, Richard Butler, Steve Robbins, Robert Tyler and Chairman Tom Kirk. Chairman Kirk asked Commissioner Robbins to lead the flag salute C. Staff present: City Attorney Dawn Honeywell, Planning Manager Christine di Iorio, Senior Engineer Steve Speer, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: A. Commissioner Butler passed out a bulletin from Guralnick & Gilliland, Attorneys at Law, regarding "Notice to Homeowners and Residents". Discussion followed regarding it content. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed. IV. CONSENT ITEMS: A. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of June 22, 1999. Commissioner Robbins asked that on Page 1 under Consent Items A, the spelling of the word "the" should be corrected; Page 6, Item #3 correct the statement to read, " .... 60,000 trips per day or 5,000 per hour at peak flow..."; Page 7, Item #13 corrected to read, "Mr. Doctors stated that if there was heavy traffic in the right turn later on, the exclusive fight mm lane would go away and they would flair it out more." Page 8, Item #21 change the word "experience" to "experiment". Commissioner Tyler asked that on Page 1, under Roll Call, the words "unanimously approved" should be removed. There being no further corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Robbins/Tyler to approve the minutes as corrected. Unanimously approved. B. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of July 13, 1999. Commissioner Robbins asked that Page 1, under Roll call City Attorney Dawn Honeywell was not listed as being present and she was present. Commissioner Tyler C:XMy Documents\WPDOC SLPC7-27-99.wpd 1 Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1999 asked that on Page 1, under roll call, the words "unanimously approved" should be removed; he asked that between Items B and C the statement he made concerning the reappointment of Commissioners Butler and Robbins by the City Council should be added; Page 2, Item 7, where it references Condition//44, it should state it was for Tentative Tract 29306; Page 9, correct the numbering order; Page 11, Item//5 correct it to read "Chairman Kirk". Commissioner' Abels asked that the lettering under "Call to Order" be corrected. There being no further corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Robbins/Tyler to approve the minutes as corrected. Unanimously approved. C. Department Report: None. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Environmental Assessment 99-384 and Conditional Use Permit 99-045; a request of Nextel Communications for approval to install a 50 foot tall wireless radio communications monopole with up to 15 panel antennas designed to resemble a palm tree and related equipment shelter located at 47-950 Dune Palms Road. 1. Chairman Kirk opened the public heating and asked for the staff report. Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand presented the information contained in the staff report, copies of which are on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler asked if Desert Sands Unified School District had approved the plan. Staff stated a letter had been received from DSUSD approving the installation. 3. Commissioner Robbins asked if there was a potential for one of the real palm trees to interfere with the radio signals. Staff referred the question to the applicant. 4. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Ms. Barbara Saito, representing Nextel Communications, stated that since this is such a new product there is no history on how it will hold up. If, in the furore, they find the trees do interfere with the transmission, they will remove them and replace with smaller trees. They would not object to a condition being added requiting them to do so. 5. Commissioner Butler stated he had been to their site on Cook Street and was very impressed. His concern is who maintains the pole in perpetuity. Even though he is very impressed with the example, he does not want a shabby C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC7-27-99.wpd 2 Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1999 tower in the furore. He asked if there was any type of a maintenance agreement to maintain the structure. Ms. Saito stated they would accept a condition requiring them to maintain it as it is when installed. As this is a new product, there is no way of knowing the life span of the materials, but they will accept a condition regarding the maintenance. 6. Commissioner Tyler asked the applicant about the operating frequency. Ms. Saito stated it was an 850 band. Commissioner Tyler stated he had never seen a square palm tree trunk and asked if' it could be rounded. Ms. Saito stated the designers are working to round the edges. Their point is to make it appear to be invisible, but if it can be rounded and not affect the structurally capability, they have no objection. 7. Commissioner Abels asked if this tower was for Nextel customers only. Ms. Saito stated yes, because of its design it lends itself to only one carder. They would make their site available to other carders, but they would have to apply to the City for a different design. 8. There being no further questions of the applicant, Chairman Kirk asked if anyone else would like to address the Commission on this project. 9. There being no further discussion, Chairman Kirk closed the public participation of the hearing and opened the issue for Commission discussion. 10. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 99- 056 recommending certification of Environmental Assessment 99-384. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 11. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 99-057 recommending approval of Conditional Use Permit 99-045, as modified: a. Condition #5: The monopole shall be maintained to the design standards as approved. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Robbins, Tyler and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. B. Environmental Assessment 99-385, Specific Plan 99-037 and Site Development Permit 99-654; a request of The Spanos Corporation for certification of an Initial Study/EIR Addendum for Environmental Assessment 99-385 and recommendation C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC7-27-99.wpd 3 Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1999 for approval of development standards and design guidelines for a 200 unit apartment complex on 14.1 acres in the Regional Commercial Zoning District, and building elevations and development plans located on the east side of Adams Street and north of 48th Avenue. 1. Commissioner Tyler stated that a project for this applicant across the street from this project, had been approved by the Planning Commission a few months ago and to date had not been approved by the City Council. To him it seemed strange that the Commission would be reviewing this project when the future of that project had not been resolved. 2. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that what is happening on an alternative site is not before the Commission. This is a separate project and is to be reviewed on its on merit. It has no bearing on what is happening before the City Council. 3. Commissioner Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. 4. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 5. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Abels asked if this was the same design as before. Staff stated the building elevations are similar. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell pointed out the density is 14 units per acre where the other project is 16 units per acre. 6. Commissioner Robbins asked if the open parking areas on the streets counted as open space. Staff stated no, it is passive and active recreational open areas only. It is not the drive aisles. 7. Commissioner Butler asked about the change from 160 units to 200 units, the addition of 10 percent affordable units, and if it counted towards the City's housing requirements. If so, why can't the condition be left at 10 percent for additional credit. Staff stated the applicant has requested 10 percent and there are covenants that will count toward the City's requirement. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the 20 traits will count toward the City's requirement to provide affordable housing. To require additional units would cost the City additional money. 8. Chairman Kirk asked if the previous application included a request to remove the requirement for affordable units. Staff stated that was correct, the old approval was prior to the City's Housing Element being adopted, there was C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC7-27-99.wpd 4 Planning Commission Minutes jUly 27, 1999 a stipulation requiting a certain amount of affordable housing be provided and the applicant was asking to have that stipulation removed as the Housing Element had been adopted. 9. Commissioner Tyler asked if this project abuts the southerly border of the Auto mall. Staff stated that is correct. 10. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Ms. Emily Hemphill, attorney for the applicant, stated there was a project previously approved for the other side of the street and as it was very a controversial, The Spanos. Corporation is working with City staff attempting to move the project to this new site. The project will be built at one of the two locations; it will be one or the other; not two projects. She went on to state this project was structured considering the concerns that had been raised by adjoining residents on the previous project. They have met with residents from Lake La Quinta and Rancho La Quinta to view this site plan and they offered comments which were very favorable. It is also correct that the original project did not have an affordable housing component. As this site is larger and less dense it will allow them to build more units which gives the oppommity to provide affordable units. She then raised their concerns regarding the Conditions of Approval: Page #33, Exhibits 5 & 9 is not correct, the actual difference between the grading of this site and what is projected on the auto mall site is only a two foot difference. They would like to suggest that the developer be required to work with staff so this site and the auto mall site are at compatible grade. The wall will be either six or eight feet above grade and they would deal with the differences in grade either by building a retaining wall of an appropriate height, or a slope easement depending upon what the level of difference is between the two sites. Condition #71, regarding the landscaping planters, their concern is that in order to pull into the garage you have to enter from the left of the planter which is the wrong side of the street. They would suggest the developer be required to work with staff to design a planter that is not going to cause a problem with the Fire Department, or tenant to drive on left side of the road to get into their garage. Condition #73: regarding them to build a bus turnout on Adams street, in their opinion this is sandwiching too much activity into the area. They would suggest a mm out further north on Adams Street. Condition #84: they meet this reqUirement everywhere on the site except at the entrance when you drive in the gate at the card reader where it is reduced to 15-feet. They would request the developer be required to work with the Fire Department to locate the card key in a location that works for the tenants and yet wide enough to allow the fire tmcks to enter. For clarification, the apartment count is 200 units, 72 are one bedrooms and 128 are two bedrooms. C:~ly Documents\WPDOCSXPC7-27-99.wpd 5 Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1999 11. Chairman Kirk asked staff to address the concerns raised by the applicant. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated that in regard to the elevation differential, he had conferred with the engineer for the auto mall and they are expecting to have a five foot differential at some points and a four to five foot elevation differential in other areas, and a two foot difference at the rear. 12. Chairman Kirk asked staff to address Condition//71. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated she agreed with applicant. 13. Chairman Kirk asked staff to address Condition//49: Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated Sunline Transit had made a recommendation in their letter for amenities for a future transit site. At the present time there is no service being provided to this location. 14. Chairman Kirk asked staff to address Condition//84. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated that if the Fire Department concurred, staff has no objection. 15. Commissioner Tyler asked if the traffic around the driveway was one way or two way. Ms. Hemphill stated it was two way. Commissioner Tyler asked _ about the recreation area at the front of the project; who is it to be used by. Ms. Hemphill stated it is for the residents of the facility and went on to explain the amenities. Commissioner Tyler stated his concern was three driveways on an Primary Arterial street. The General Plan encourages minimizing the number of direct access driveways. The previous project had only one driveway off Avenue 47. This project is suggesting three and one is only for access to the sales and recreational building. He is going to suggest eliminating the middle driveway to allow for a bus turnout. Ms. Hemphill stated their ability to loop around is as much for fire safety as well as convenience for tenants to have access to both sides of the project site. This is a gated community therefore access to the sales office needs to be in a manner that retains the security of the tenants. 16. There being no further questions of the applicant, Chairman Kirk asked if anyone else would like to speak on this issue. Ms. Christine Clarke, representing Stamko Development, developer for the adjacent auto mall, stated she had obtained the grading plan for this project and disagreed with its design. As she did not agree with the drainage she refused to allow them to do the grading they requested on her property. The drainage of the auto mall is to the southeast comer into the commercial site of the property. Their drainage is just the opposite because their retention is at the front of the project. She does not see a two foot difference, but a four feet differential at Adams Street. Their typical driveway cross section is confusing. There are three Section A's. They are only showing the driveway, they are not showing Section "A" running in from their property which, since she has told them C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC7-27-99.wpd 6 Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1999 they cannot grade on her property, she does not know how they are going to get there, so they are not showing the surrounding property coming into the driveway. It is not a compatible project. It is nice that they met with residents from Lake La Quinta and Rancho La Quinta, but they did not meet with her who directly abuts their property. The project setbacks are on Adams Street and Highway 111. If the Auto Mall stores cars in the rear of their property, they are going to be very concerned about this project's wall as they do not want vandalism from this project. At the present time, she is not comfortable with the submittal. 17. There being no further questions, Chairman Kirk closed the public participation portion of the hearing and opened it to Commission discussion. 18. Commissioner Robbins stated there were several places where the Specific Plan and conditions are in conflict. Page 13 of the Specific Plan, landscape plans, one statement says, "any incremental increase in storm water will be retained on the property" this is in conflict with the conditions that states all 100-year storm water will be retained on site. Page 17-flood control, states -- "development of property will include provisions to conduct storm water to these channels." This refers to moving storm water off-site where the next paragraph states the water will be retained on site. Page 21, the last paragraph refers to Palm Desert Waste and should be Waste Management of the Desert. His biggest concern is access. He concurs that three driveways are too many and something could be done to reconfigure this site and eliminate one of the access points. His concern is the left turn in for those going south on Adams Street. Most of the tenants will be coming from Highway 111 and it does not appear there will be enough stacking space. In Condition//28, why is phasing discussed as the project is to be built out with no phasing. This needs to be deleted. Condition//52, the last sentence does not make any sense and should be deleted. Condition//53, regarding access, the second sentence should be changed to left in, fight in, fight out. 19. Commissioner Butler asked if the plan called for only one left mm lane. Commissioner Robbins stated yes. Commissioner Butler asked if this was increased to accommodate more cars would that be sufficient. Commissioner Robbins stated it should be increased to accommodate the number of cars that would be traveling through there at peak times. 20. Commissioner Butler stated that in regard to the elimination of the middle driveway which gives access to the sales office and parking for the recreation building, he presumes this will also provide guest parking, as there are only two spaces per trait. He cannot see how it will work without creating a bigger C:\My Documents\WPDOCSXPC7-27-99.wpd 7 Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1999 problem. Commissioner Robbins stated guest parking is to be on-site. You may have to move the remaining driveway(s) or the retention basin, but they can retain the same amount of volume while deleting one driveway. 21. Commissioner Butler asked if the bus mmout could be moved if the applicant paid for it. Staff stated it is written as a recommendation for amenities, it is not a requirement as Sunline Transit has not identified a need for a bus turnout to be installed at this time. 22. Commissioner Tyler stated that in regard to the third driveway, the Commission is to uphold City documents that control development of the City; one being the General Plan and it specifically states the City shall restrict individual access on Major and Primary Arterials wherever possible. This section of Adams Street is a Primary Arterial and if the Commission is doing its job, he does not understand how they can approve three driveways for this one tract. The same situation applies to the southern driveway. The Circulation Plan states that for a Primary Arterial you will have a signalized intersection or right in/fight out only. It does not give an option. There may eliminate a signal, but can the Commission waive the General Plan requirements without a General Plan Amendment. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated she was not sure they were asking for them to be waived. There needs to be clarification as to what the General Plan requires. She assumes the staff report makes a finding for consistency with the General Plan requirements. Commissioner Tyler stated his position was that if they are in direct opposition to the General Plan, how can it be in compliance. 23. Commissioner Tyler stated that in the noise study it states mechanical ventilation shall be installed on the units facing Adams Street to meet City Noise Ordinance; what is a mechanical ventilation unit? Staff stated they would have to talk with the noise consultant. Ms. Hemphill stated this was written by a consultant and regardless of what it is, the units will all have central air conditioning. 24. Commissioner Tyler stated the 'staff report refers to the developer as being given relief from paying parkland fees and in the Specific Plan it states the developer will pay the fees. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated she assumes they are reading the City's Subdivision Ordinance which states that if they are not subdividing the property into more than five parcels they are not required to pay the fees. Commissioner Tyler stated it does not say this, it states generally which gives the City latitude to impose or not impose fees. Discussion followed regarding the parkland fees. C:WIy Documents\WPDOCS\PC7-27-99.wpd 8 Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1999 25. Commissioner Tyler questioned Page 18 of the Specific Plan regarding a statement that has to do .with the availability of electricity being run to support the CVWD well site and asked what would happen if the timing is such that this project needs electricity and CVWD has not gotten around to developing that site. Commissioner Robbins stated CVWD will install the power when a well is constructed. If the development goes first and CVWD has not, they will have to put it in or wait for CVWD to install it. The developer will work with power companies to meet the demand. 26. Commissioner Butler stated the property owner to the north has a valid point in regard to the grade differential and it needs to be resolved by all three parties: this applicant, the property owner to the north, and the City. 27. Chairman Kirk stated what may have been lost in the discussion so far, is that this is a good project on a better site and he applauds the applicant on the design. There are some significant issues to be resolved regarding traffic and grading and asked staff about the stacking issues; what are projections for a left mm in? Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated a traffic study has been completed and staff has an anticipation of what the turning movements will be going southbound and making the left mm in. There is enough .room to create a significant left mm pocket. He then went on to explain the traffic flow on Adams street. What staff is trying to do in the General Plan is to cut down on the number of signals that cause delays on Arterial streets to allow residents to get around in an efficient manner. The most dangerous movement on a site is the left mm out lane. They have to cross two or three lanes of traffic and enter the fast lane. By restricting the left mm out, you cut out the need for a signal. 28. Commissioner Tyler asked if Lake La Quinta had a full mm access. Staff stated it has. Commissioner Tyler asked if 47th Avenue will have a signal at this location. Staff stated it is a "T" intersection fight now but when the auto mall is built out it will extend the fourth leg to the intersection and it may be signalized in the furore. 29. Chairman Kirk asked about the number of entrances into the site as it appears to be an issue. 30. Commissioner Robbins stated it should be an easy design change for the applicant. 31. Commissioner Kirk noted the previous project on 47th Avenue had only one entrance and they were able to accommodate multiple purposes. He asked the applicant if staff were to eliminate the one entrance, would it cause them a problem? Ms. Hemphill stated they would rather have it, but if that is a concern of the Commission, they will accommodate it. C:WIy Documents\WPDOCSXPC7-27-99.wl~d 9 Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1999 32. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Abels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 99- 058 certifying an Initial Study/EIR Addendum for Environmental Assessment 99-385. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Robbins, Tyler and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 43. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Robbins to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 99-059 recommending approval of Specific Plan 99-037, as modified: a. Specific Plan Text Amendment Conditions of Approval changes: 1. Parkland fee shall be required for this project (deleted staff's comments). 2. Exhibits 5 and 9: If a grade differential between properties is less, the developer shall work with City staff to reduce the height of the retaining wall. 3. Page 13, Section 2.10.3: delete the second sentence. 4. Page 17, Section 2.40.3: delete the third sentence. 5. Page 21, Section 2.50.4: change Palm Desert Waste Management to Waste Management of the Desert. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Robbins, Tyler and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 6. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 99- 060 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 99-654, as modified: a. Condition #28 deleted. b. Condition #52 - delete the last sentence. c. Condition #53 - change left out to right in. d. Condition #71 - applicant to work with staff to provide appropriate size of landscaping planters to not conflict with turning movements into and out of garages at the northeast and southeast comers of the property. e. Condition #84 - the street width is subject to Fire Department approval. f. Add new condition: requiring the middle driveway to be eliminated. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Robbins, Tyler and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. C 5My Documents\WPDOCS\PC7-27-99.wl~d 1 0 Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1999 C. Specific Plan 94-026 - First Time Extension; a request of Travertine Corporation for approval of a time extension of development standards and design guidelines for a master planned community of 2,300 dwelling units, 500 room hotel and other commercial uses oriented around two 18-hole golf courses on 909.2 acres for the property located on the south side of 60th Avenue, north of 64th Avenue and west of Madison Street. 1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Start Sawa presented the information contained in the staff reports, copies of which are on file in the Community Development Department. Staff noted an additional condition was being recommended regarding golf cart access across Jefferson Street. 2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler questioned the numbering on Condition #3 on Page 7 of the staff report, Staff stated it would be corrected. Commissioner Tyler questioned Item #7 on Page 7 of the staff report in that all the areas suggest an addition of another condition for various types of homes and under the Villas -- development standard, #15 is added which pertains to any residential development shall be subject to review by the Planning Commission, but the Villas permitted use includes some nonresidential uses and he is wondering what review they will be' required to go through. Staff stated commercial uses would be added. Commissioner Tyler questioned Page III-9 and asked if the Villa development occurs only in the VR-1 and VR-2 areas. Staff stated this is their proposal. Commissioner Tyler questioned Page Ill-212 of the Specific Plan where it describes the permitted uses of the commercial zones. It lists 65 potential uses and none of which are applicable to this type of development and wouldn't it be better to delete this portion and refer only to what the Zoning Codes allows for commercial development. Staff stated this is recommended and contained in Condition #9, 3. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. John Shaw, Winchester Development Company, representing the applicant, stated they had received the proposed condition regarding the runnel and would like to request the additional wording "as necessary" and then they would have no objection. If a golf cart needs to cross Jefferson Street, they will provide the runnel; but, if they reroute the golf paths so they did not have to cross Jefferson Street, they do not want to be required to construct a runnel. 4. Mr. Shaw asked if the time extension was indefinite. Staff stated there is no time limit on the Specific Plan. 5. Commissioners commended the applicant on the project and stated they looked forward to seeing its development. C:~vly Documents\WPDOCS~PC7-27-99.wl~d 1 1 Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1999 6. There being no further questions of the applicant, Chairman Kirk asked if anyone else would like to speak on this issue. 7. There being no questions, Chairman Kirk closed the public participation portion of the heating and opened it to Commission discussion. 8. Commissioner~ Tyler stated that by taking out the long list of permitted uses and development standards for the commercial zones it alleviates most of his concerns. 9. Commissioner Robbins noted in the Specific Plan, Page 4-2 the first paragraph regarding water, the last sentence should be changed to "...per CVWD regulations and standards" not "City" for water lines and the same for paragraph C, the next to the last sentence should be changed to CVWD. Condition #46 is not necessary and should be deleted, but regardless the correct name for the channel should be Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel. Lastly, in the last sentence correct the wording to read: "...and methods of treatment." 10. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 99- 061 approving a one year time extension for Specific Plan 99-026 with the following modifications: a. Condition #7: add the word "nonresidential". b. Changing the wording in the Specific Plan regarding water and sewer service from City to CVWD. c. Condition ~46: Delete or corrected to read Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel. c. Add condition: A recreational amenities pedestrian/golf cart tunnel(s) shall be constructed under Jefferson Street to enhance access. 11. Commissioner Tyler asked legal counsel the difference between requiring a tunnel on this tract map application before them at the last meeting and the requirement for a runnel on this project. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the prior project was a tract map and this is a specific plan. In a specific plan you are providing the basis for the development and can require a runnel. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Robbins, Tyler and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC7-27-99.wpd 1 2 -- Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1999 'VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Master Design Guidelines 99-007; a request of Jack Clark, Jr. for approval of Master Design Guidelines. 1. Chairman Kirk asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Commissioner Robbins asked what the sketch with the setbacks, contained in the Guidelines, has to do with the project. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated it shows the varying setbacks for the homes to be constructed. 3. Commissioner Butler asked why the laundry facility could not be in the garage instead of on the back of the house. Mr. Jack Clark stated it was. The closet on the outside of the house is not a laundry room, but the FAU closet. 4. Commissioner Tyler asked why the air conditioning unit is placed next to the bedrooms. Mr. Clark stated it was the only place with enough space to allow the construction of a screen wall. 5. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Kirk asked if anyone else would like to speak. There was no further public comment. 6. Chairman Kirk stated he was concerned about the quality of the Guidelines being submitted. They appear to be one floor plan with three elevations and he is not even sure there is anything that can be done regarding this. 'He recommended staff prepare standards for the applicants to follow when submitted their Guidlines. 7. Commissioner Robbins stated the Guidelines need some type of text to give more information on what is being submitted. 8. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Robbins to adopt Minute Motion 99-018 approving Master Design Guidelines 99-007, subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval as submitted. Unanimously approved. VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Commissioners discussed the "Notice to Homeowners & Residents" distributed by Commissioner Butler at the beginning of the meeting. C :LMy Documents\WPDOCSLPC7-27-99.wi>d 13 Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1999 B. Commissioner Tyler gave a report on the City Council meetings of July 20, 1999. IX. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Robbins to adjourn this r~gular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held August 24, 1999, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:09 P.M. on July 27, 1999. ctfully submitted, J : ' ut~~ve Secretary ~ Ci~ fa~a~o Quinta, Califo'~Xmia . C:WIy Documents\WPDOCSXPC7-27-99.w13d 14