PCMIN 12 14 1999 MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta city Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
December 14, 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 Commissioner Robbins to lead the flag salute.
B. Present: Commissioners Jacques Abels, Richard Butler, Steve Robbins, Robert Tyler,
and Chairman Tom Kirk.
C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Dawn
Honeywell, Pl.anning Manager Christine di Iorio, Senior Engineer Steve Speer,
Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Planning Consultant Nicole Criste, and Executive
Secretary Betty'Sawyer.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
III. ' CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed.
IV. CONSENT ITEMS:
A. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of November 23,
1999. Commissioner Tyler asked that Page 3, Item #3 be amended to state he asked
if the lots as drawn were above the minimum square footage allowed; Page 5, Item
#5 be amended to state he asked if Plan 3 could be built with an additional garage.
There being no further changes, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
' Butler/Abels to approve the minutes as corrected. Unanimously approved.
B. Department Report: None.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS:.
A. Conditional Us~ Permit 99-046 and Site Development Permit 99-657; a request of
RHL Design Group for USA Petroleum for approval of the. use and development
plans for a gasoline facility with mini-market and automated tunnel car wash located
at the northwest comer of Highway 111 and Dune Palms Road within La Quinta
corPorate Centre.
C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC 12-14-99.wpd 1
Planning Commission Minutes
December 14, 1999
1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report.
Planning Manager Christine di Iorio presented the information contained in
the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department.
2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioners
asked staff to explain the circulation pattern.
·
3. Commissioner BUtler asked if the berm would hide the building. Staff
explained that as conditioned, the building pad would be lowered, but not the
berming or landscaping.
4. Commissioner Tyler asked if the towers had any purpose or use. Staff stated
they were decorative. Commissioner Tyler asked about the entrance/exit into
the car wash.
5. Commissioner R°bbins asked what the concem was with the flag Pole being
in the landscape setback. Staff stated that a flag pole is defined as a structure
and therefore, cannot be in the landscape setback area. Commissioner
Robbins stated he did not agree with staff's concern. He then asked why turf
was being required for both sides of the sidewalk along Highway 111. Staff
stated the requirement is dictated by the Highway 111 Guidelines.
Commissioner Robbins stated the wording in Condition//79 needed to be
fixed.
6. Commissioner Butler stated he agreed with Commissioner Robbins in regard
to the flag pole. He also concurred with the agreement reached regarding the
lowering of the. tower elements. ThiS project has some character and he is
glad to see some design. He agreed with staff's recommendation regarding
the rear elevation and asked where the glass block treatment was to be used.
7. Commissioner Tyler stated his concern about the noise generated by car wash
being open 24-hours. He then asked about the required parking spaces and
if additional parking spaces would be provided by the Corporate Centre
nearby. Staff stated the number of required parking spaces was dictated by
the Specific Plan and Zoning Code. Commissioner Tyler stated he concurred
with the revised tower elevations and wished someone could come up with
a new design for the flat roof of the canopy. He asked how the flag pole at
22 feet compared with the one at the comer of Fred Waring and Highway 111
in Palm Desert. He cannot understand how a flag pole could be defined as
a structure and would like to see it prominently displayed at the comer and
illuminated. In regard to the pad elevation, he asked how the proposed
elevation compared with the grading plan for the entire center. He agrees
with staff's recommendation for the sign on Dune Palms Road.
·
C:\My Documents\WPDOCSXPC 12-14-99.wpd 2
· -- __
Planning Commission Minutes
December 14, 1999 ·
8. Chairman Kirk stated the 22 parking space requirement seemed excessive for
this type of use and was the number based upon the car wash being added?
Staff stated that was correct and that was why it was not necessary to have
the 22 parking spaces on site. Chairman Kirk and Commissioner Tyler asked
what the relevancy was of the sight study to this project. Senior Engineer
Steve Speer stated Dune Palms Road will be a Secondary Arterial with no
median. Dune Palms Road has a slight rise and the crest of the hill is located
at the entrance to this project. The issue of stopping sight distance has to do
with how far a person trying to exit the project can see down Dune Palms
Road and how fast and how far away is the car going south on Dune Palms
Road. In this particular case it was 400+ feet. So a car traveling at 49 mph
could stop if it had to, if the car exiting pulled out in front of' the car going
south on Dune Palms Road. If the car traveling south was traveling over 49½
mph it would not be able to fully stop. Therefore, this entrance is acceptable
to staff.
9. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Kirk asked if the
_ applica0, t would like to address the Commission. Mr Jim Shivley of RHL
Design Group, representing the applicant, stated they have no objection to
most of the conditions, but needs some clarification on the following:
a. SDP Condition # 21: they have no problem.
b. SDP Condition #36: in regard to the Bike Path, they believe it is more
in reference to the Specific Plan and not their project as they are not
adjacent to the Whitewater Storm Channel and should be a condition
of the Specific Plan.
c. SDP Condition g44: he questioned the footage and stated the 378
feet should be 370, and the 386 feet should be 380.
d. SDP Condition #67: in regard to the architecture they are requesting
to keep the towers at their requested height. Once lowered it is a
continuation of the roofs. In regard to the canopy over the gas pumps
they would like to add a tile roof to tie it to the building roof.
e. SDP Condition #72: regarding the flag pole they are requesting it be
as prominent as possible in the landscape setback and illuminated.
f. SDP Condition #73 & 74: they agree with staff's recommendation
regarding the changes to the sign program except they Would like to
retain the Java Jon sign, but are willing to compromise.
..
10. Commissioner Buffer asked the applicant if the Commission reconsidered the
height of the towers, would they be adding some additional treatment to the
rear elevation. Mr. Shivley stated that at the Architectural and Landscaping
Committee meeting they agreed to add embellishment to the rear elevation.
It was not clear whether it would be glass block at the car wash, opaque
C :XMy Documents\WPDOCSXPC 12-14-99.wpd 3
Planning Commission Minutes
December 14, 1999
window, but they would work with staff to accomplish this. By adding
windows and score joints it would give some definition to this elevation.
Commissioner Butler asked if a compromise could be reached in regard to the
height. Mr. Shivley went over the drawings and stated that by lowering th~
towers it ties in too much with the other roof.
11. Commissioner Tyler asked if the station would be selling Compressed
Natural Gas (CNG). The applicant stated no. Commissioner Tyler asked the
applicant to indicate on the plans where they propose to locate the flag pole.
Discussion followed regarding the location of the flag pole. Commissioner
Tyler asked the applicant to explain the egress/ingress of the fuel tracks. Mr
Kurt Buehler, representing USA Petroleum Corporation, stated they would
arrive on Highway 111, make a right mm into the site, and park along the
curvature where the underground tanks are located, empty their tanks, and
pull out onto to Dune Palms and proceed down the highway. The site is more
than large enough to accommodate the macks.
12. Commissioner Abels asked why so many signs were needed to advertise gas.
He would rather see one on the comer of Dune Palms Road and Highway 111
and eliminate the other two. Staff stated the Centre Specific Plan requires a
center identification at the comer. Discussion followed regarding the signs
approved for the La Quinta Corporate Centre and gas station.
13. Commissioner Tyler asked about the lighting adjacent to Dune Palms Road
and suggested a low bollard light be used instead of what is proposed. Mr.
~ Shivley stated they could be shielded and adjusted to shine into the interior
of the project. He further stated they are required by State Law to show their
pricing .on both frontages if they can't have the comer sign.
14. Mr. Scott Gaynor, representing the La Quinta Corporate Centre, stated he
believes the applicant has gone beyond the normal to accommodate the
architectural features to make this more than just a gas station. The only
issue appears to be the height of the towers. There is some sensitivity relative
to lowering the towers and in their opinion, they will lose the effect they are
trying to create. They support their proposal as submitted.
15. There being no further discussion, Chairman Kirk closed the public
participation portion of the hearing and opened the issue for Commission
discussion.
16. Commissioner Abels stated it was a good project and would set the tone for
the CorpOrate Centre. He is inclined to go along with the height as requested
as long as the flag is left where it is proposed.
C:LMy Documents\WPDOCS\PC 12-14-99.wpd 4
·
Planning Commission Minutes
December 14, 1999
17. Chairman Kirk asked staff about the corner monument sign; can they delete
the two .proposed gas station signs and only have the corner monument sign?
Staff stated they probably could with a larger monument sign that includes
the gasoline prices.
18'. Commissioner Abels stated they should have something more appropriate as
that could take away from the corporate signage.
19. Commissioner Robbins stated he does not like to alter the architectural design
as this is what the architect is hired for as long as it is designed to meet City
standards. He would therefore, support the proposal as submitted. Condition
#31 of Site Development Permit does need to be modified to delete any
reference to the applicant being able to have the effluent water run into the
Stormwater Channel. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated the condition was
intended to address the drainage water and not the effluent water. Condition
#32 needed to be clarified as well. Commissioner Robbins stated he did not
understand Condition #36.A.3; how can the applicant be required to do
something on someone else's property. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell
stated the condition would be deleted. The City does not normally make such
a requirement. Commissioner Robbins agrees that the flagpole should be left
as proposed. He takes issue with the mandate of the use of turf on both sides
of the sidewalk. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated the turf is not
continuous on both sides of the sidewalk on the south side of Highway 111.
It is a continuous design with small areas of turf'following the meandering
sidewalk.
20.. Commissioner Butler stated he concurs with leaving the towers alone and not
modifying them as they do add some character to the building. He also
agrees with the location of the flag pole. He asked if the flagpole could be
lit and not be in violation of the Dark Sky Ordinance. Staff stated it is not a
violation if the right type of lighting is used. Commissioner Butler stated that
in regard to signs the only one he would object to is the number of signs on
the car wash. He is looking forward to seeing the completion of this project
as soon as possible.
21. Commissioner Tyler asked for clarification of the location of the Java Jon
sign identified in Condition #74. Staff stated it refers to the sign on the
building. Commissioner Tyler stated he would prefer to see the flagpole fight
on the 'point, fight behind the corporate sign, and not set back in the
landscape setback area.
22. Chairman Kirk thanked staff and the applicant for being persistent and
making this project work. He agrees with the other Commissioners, that
some things are better left alone and as the ALRC recommended the towers
CSMy Documents\WPDOCSLPC 12-14-99.wpd 5
Planning Commission 'Minutes
December 14, 1999
remain as proposed by the applicant. He too believes the applicant did a nice.
job with the building articulation, and with staff's recommendation on the
rear elevation it will be an excellent project. The only area he differs with the
Commissioners is on the signs. There are two monument signs and the flag
will serve as an additional sign as it is an advertisement. Therefore, he does
not agree with the other Commissioners in regard to the number of signs. He
then reviewed the changes to the conditions.
23. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Abels/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 99-082 approving
Conditional Use Permit 99-046, subject to the Findings and Conditions of
Approval as recOmmended.
ROLL CALL: AYES' Commissioners Abels, Butler, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None.
24. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners.
Abels/Robbins to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 99-083 approving
Site Development Permit 99-657, subject to the Findings and Conditions of
Approval as amended.
a. Condition: #31' delete all words after the word "Channel" and correct
the name of the Coachella Stormwater Channel.
b. Condition #32' correct the name of the channel to Coachella
Stormwater Channel and remove any reference to effluent.
c. Condition #36.A.3' delete.
d. Condition #67: delete.
e. Condition #72: delete.
f. Conditions #73.1 & #75 shall be incorporated into one condition.
g. Condition #74 shall be reworded to state the Java Jon sign as
proposed on the building is not a part of the approval.
h. Condition #81 shall be added and state, "Prior to issuance of a
building permit the design of the canopy shall include a mansard roof
subject to the approval of the Community Development Department."
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Robbins, Tyler, and ~Chairman
Kirk. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None.
Chairman Kirk recessed the meeting at 8:18 and reconvened at 8:23 p.m.
B. Tentative Tract Map 29457; a request of TD Desert Development for approval to
subdivide 277.9 acres into 262 residential and other common/miscellaneous lots
located at the southwest comer of 48th Avenue and Jefferson Street within Rancho
La Quinta Country Club.
C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC 12-14-99.wpd 6
Planning Commission Minutes
December 14, 1999
1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report.
Princip .al Planner Start Sawa presented the informatiOn contained in the staff
report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department.
2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner
Tyler asked if Rancho La Quinta's improvements along Jefferson Street
would tie in with the City's ultimate design for Jefferson Street. Senior
Engineer Steve Speer stated the improvementi would be completed per the
City's design.
3. There being no further discussion, Chairman Kirk closed the public
participation portion of the hearing and opened the issue for Commission
discussion.
4. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Butler/Robbins to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 99-084
recommending to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map 29457, '
-- subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval as recommended.
5. Commissioner Tyler asked about Condition #35, regarding the
undergrounding of the utility lines. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated the
bottom flxree lines on Jefferson Street and maybe six of the bottom lines
along Avenue 48, may be undergrounded. Any utility lines below the cross
members are able to be undergrounded and will be required to do so.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman
Kirk. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None.
C. Site Development Permit 99-661; a request of Canaday & Company for approval of
architectural and landscaping plans for three new prototype residential types located
on the north side of 48~ Avenue east of Calco Bay Drive within Lake La Quinta.
1. Chairman Kirk opened the public heating 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. Chairman Kirk asked staff to explain the clipped gable issue raised by the
ALRC.. Staff stated that since there are many houses in the tract with the
clipped gable, its use would make the design more compatible.
C :LMy Documents\WPDOC S~PC 12-14-99.wpd 7
Planning Commission Minutes
December 14, 1999
3. Commissioner Butler asked staff where they would want a clipped gable
added. Staff stated that instead of having a hip roof, the gable roof would
continue out and be clipped on the ends on one of the plans. Commissioner
Butler stated he was opposed to the clipped gable roof and thought there was
enough detail as proposed.
4. Mr. Roger Moore, with Canady and Company., stated he had nothing to add
and concurred with staff' s recommendation.
5. Commissioner Tyler asked if the Homeowners' Association had reviewed
and approved the plans. Mr. Moore stated they had approved the plans.
6. There being no further discussion, Chairman Kirk closed the public
participation portion of the hearing and opened the issue for Commission
discussion.
7. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Abels/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 99-085 approving
Site Development Permit 99-661, subject to the Findings and Conditions of
Approval as recommended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman
Kirk. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None.
D. ' Site Development Permit 99-653. Amendment #1; a request ofForrest Haag for KSL
Land Corporation for approval of revised site, architectural and landscaping plans for
golf course maintenance facility for the property located on the north side of Airport
Boulevard, between Madison Street and Monroe Street within the Norman Golf
Course.
1. Staff i.nformed the Commission that the applicant had requested a
continuance to January 11, 2000, to allow them time to redesign the building
and the gite configuration.
2. It was moved and secOnded by Commissioners Robbins/Tyler to continue
this item to January 11, 2000. Unanimously approved.
E. Environmental Assessment 99-389, General Plan Amendment 99-064, Zone Change
99-092, Specific Plan 99-040, and Tentative Tract Map 29323; a request of Wade
Ellis/Warner Engineering requesting Certification of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact, approval of a Pre-Annexation General Plan
Designation from County Designation 2b (2-5 units per acre) to Low Density
Residential (24 units per acre), Zone Change from County Designation of r-l-9000
to Low Density Residential, a Specific Plan for development standards and design
C:LMy Documents\WPDOCSLPC 12-14-99.wpd 8
Planning Commission Minutes
December 14, 1.999
guidelines for a residential development; and Tentative Tract Map to allow 379
residential units on 117 acres, to be located on the northwest comer of Fred Waring
Drive and Jefferson Street.
1. Chairm.an Kirk opened the public heating and asked for the staff report.
Planning Manager Christine di Iorio presented the information contained in
the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department.
2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner
Robbins asked about the condition for a north boundary wall..Staff stated the
condition should be Condition #70 of the Specific Plan.
3. Commissioner Abels stated the lots appear to be 4,500 square feet on the map
and not 4,800 as stated in the staff report. Planning Consultant Nicole Criste
stated there are some lots that are larger which create a higher average, but
the majority are 4,500 square feet.
4. Commissioner Butler stated he agrees that the average lot size is 4,800 square
feet is misleading as most of the lots are 4,500 square feet.
5. Commissioner Tyler asked for clarification on the entrances as staff had
stated they would be allowed a right out and the staff report states it will have
a left mm in at both driveways. Planning Consultant Nicole Criste .stated the
Public Works Department has indicated a left mm in would be allowed at
both entrances. Commissioner Tyler suggested Condition #55.A. contain the
same wording as Condition #55.B relative to the right turn out. Senior
Engineer Steve Speer stated that on Jefferson Street the City will only have
a half median as the City only controls half of the street. On Fred Waring
Drive the City can construct a full median. That is why the right directed
egress drive is not required. The City will be able to get the hook mm in the
median and it will be a positive barrier in that regard. Whereas on Jefferson
Street there is a need to get the cars going right far enough as the City will
only have a half median. Discussion followed as to how the City would build
a half median. Commissioner Tyler asked if there was an opportunity to
recover some of the cost (Condition #46.A.) of the signals at Fred Waxing
Drive and Jefferson Street. Staff stated there was none.
-- 6. Chairman Kirk asked if this area was within the City's Sphere of Influence.
Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated it was not.
7. Chairm~ Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission.
Mr. Mike Smith, Warner Engineering representing the applicant, stated the
only concern they were heating from the Commission was in regard to the
C:\My Documents\WPDOCSLPC 12-14-99.wpd 9
Planning Commission Minutes
December 14, 1999
smaller lot sizes. The first project layout for this site had been for a
commercial comer and staff rejected this plan. The lot sizes were determined
from a market study. The tract was previously approved with over 400 lots
of the same size and they could not find a builder to build it so they
conducted a survey to see what the demand was and this was the result. In
regard to the amenities, the developer would rather wait to let the builders
determine what they want. They would like to request deletion of Condition
#72 and allow the Homeowners' Association to decide what they want and
what they want to pay for.
8. Commissioner Tyler asked what the strip of land was between their project
and Jefferson Street. Mr. Smith stated it belonged to Christine Clarke and it
was not economically possible to purchase the property for the few lots that
could be developed on it. It could be used as an open space retention basin
for the property to the north. Commissioner Tyler stated there would be a
sidewalk to nowhere until the property to the north is developed. He then
asked for an explanation of the emergency exits. Mr. Smith stated there is an
existing road at the west end that dead ends. They will put their road through
and construct a Fire Marshal crash gate as an extra gate and on the well site
--
there is an opportunity to gate both ends and the Fire Marshal could go
through the well site. Commissioner Tyler stated that off Fred Waring Drive
at Port Maria, which is a gated entrance, it will. require approval from the
Bermuda Dunes Country Club. Mr. Smith stated the road exists and Should
not require any approval from the Bermuda Dunes Country Club.
9. Commissioner Buffer stated that in Planning Area 1, the City's minimum lot
size is 7,200 square feet and he does not like the smaller lot size. He does
like the project and the concept. If the lots were 7,200 square feet there
would be no issue. Commissioner Butler stated his concern was that once the
lot sizes are approved, the developer no longer has a concern or control, it is
then up to the individual merchant builders.
10. Mr. Chtick McKeown, 1782 The Woods Drive, San Diego, speaking for the
applicant, stated that when this project was initially put together it was when
the City was suffering under the depression of 1982. They had 400 lots all
the same size and could not obtain financing for so they had to come up with
an alternative plan. They designed the program for a number of users that
are not being satisfied by the current market. The lot size of 4,500 square
feet was selected to keep the homes small for people who are either single
men or women, who want security, ease of care, maintenance of the home as
well as for retirees. They are across the street from US Homes and less than
a mile from Sun City and many of the people they will attract do not want to
pay the high association fees and do not care about the recreational amenities
C :Wly Documents\WPDOCS~PC 12-14-99.wpd 10
Planning Commission Minutes
December 14, 1999
of a golf course. He went on to give a history of the development in the area.
.Finally, they will have CC& R's contained in their architectural guidelines
to control what is built.
11. Commissioner Abels stated a merchant developer could purchase the whole
project without any stipulations. Mr. McKeown stated the square footage and
architecharal standards will be stipulated. Commissioner Abels stated his
biggest concern is the small lots and the type of builder that will build on
them. Mr. McKeown stated they contemplated having a senior project and
found that most people do not want to be in a senior project only. They
would follow any conditions the City would like to place on the project to
maintain the guidelines desired. The starting price range for the zero lot
homes should be $150,000 up to about $185,000. The higher end houses
should start at about $225,000 up to $300,000 based on the market
projections today.
12. Commissioner Abels stated his concern was that with the smaller lots there
is nothing in place to prevent a builder from building a less than desirable
project. Mr. McKeown stated they originally thought about have a senior
project, but have since found out that projects that are senior restricted are
beginning to suffer because people do not want to be in an age restricted
project. They would appreciate any recommendations the Commission or
staff could give them regarding guidelines to keep the integrity of the project.
·
13. Mr. Warren Bachtel, 42-645 St. George Drive, Bermuda Dunes, a member
of the Annexation Committee for the Bermuda Dunes Council, stated they
were not opposed to the project, but are opposed to piece-meal annexing of
the area at the request of a property owner. The City needs to annex the
entire Bermuda Dunes area, or none of it. He thought they should appear at
this time and let the City know they are in the process of making application
to the County to remain a County Community of Interest.
14. Commissioner Tyler stated the City is not out soliciting annexation of this
area. It is responding to property owners for annexing..Mr. Bachtel stated
they are aware of this as they have maintained communication with the City.
They want to remain a viable area and be annexed as a whole and not piece-
meal.
15. Mr. Jay Steele, 79-745 Kingston Drive, which backs up to this project, stated
he had no objection to the project. He currently is serving on the Fact
Finding Committee for the Bermuda Dunes area to determine what the
residents of Bermuda Dunes want. The residents have made it clear that they
do not v0ant to be piece-mealed apart. They would therefore ask the Planning
C:WIy Documents\WPDOCS~PC 12-14-99.wpd 1 !
Planning Commission Minutes
December t4, 1999
Commission to postpone annexation of this area until such time as they have
an oppommity to finish their fact-finding study to determined what the will
of the residents is and then they can approach the appropriate city for
annexation.
16. Commissioner Abels stated this Commission has nothing to d° with the
annexation. The Planning Commission will only review the validity of this
project.
17. There being no further discussion, Chairman Kirk closed the public
participation portion of the hearing and opened the issue for Commission
discussion.
18. Commissioner Tyler stated he was disappointed by the quality, or lack
thereof,, of the Specific Plan document itself. Planning Area I does not
measure up to the lifestyle of La Quinta. He does not believe a lot of
consciofis effort went into the development of the document as some of the
information is outdated. He generally likes two-thirds of the plan, however
he does not believe they should lower the City's design standards for the
purpose of annexation of any parcel. The minimum requirement is
established by the RC Code which def'mes the lot sizes and setbacks and
should be applied to Planning Area I of this proposal. An area that should be
responded to is the safety of the City's school children to provide mmouts not
only for Sunline, but school buses and seniors. The reference to Coachella
Valley Water District should be changed to Myoma Dunes Water District.
He likes the open space and retention basins. Most gated communities have
a restriction regarding the parking of recreational vehicles, the Specific Plan.
states it will rely on the City's requirements. This will not work on the
smaller lots. He suggested they designate an area for "RV' parking.
19. Commissioner Butler stated he concurred with Commissioner Tyler's
statements as he too has a problem with the smaller lots and cannot agree that
zero lot lines for 132 units will make it any better of a project. The
absorption.on the smaller units has not proven to be tree on the projects he
is aware of. Zero lot lines does not make him feel any better about the
project. Having lots of 7,200 square feet does not detract from what they are
trying to achieve within their project. If the applicant would make these
corrections, he would have no objection.
20. Commissioner Robbins stated he concurred with what has been stated. He
can understand the developers plan, but as a Commissioner he is not here to
just approve something to sell, but to protect the community and what the
C:WIy Documents\WPDOCSXPC 12-14-99.wpd 12
Planning Commission Minutes
December 14, 1999
community stands for. Therefore, he cannot support the lots as designed. He
does not see enough controls written into the Specific Plan that would
guarantee the type of development they are proposing.
21. Commissioner Abels stated he too agrees with the statements made by the
other Commissioners.
·
22. Chairman Kirk stated he too agreed with the statements made, but also agrees
that one third of the project is not acceptable. He didn't review the remainder
of the project due to the concerns raised on the one third. A zero lot line
could be a good project if developed with agolf course or other recreational
amenities and that is not occurring here. He would like to hear from the
developer in regard to the two options that appear to be before the
Commission; rejecting the project as proposed and let the City Council
address it; or have the applicant come back and respond to the issues raised
by the Commission.
23. Commissioner Tyler asked if the applicant could also take into consideration
the contours of the site and develop the project to retain some of the contours.
24. Mr. Mike Smith stated they did try to retain some of the contours with the use
of the retention basins. They could also increase the size of the lots, but it
would defeat the purpose of the project as the market they are trying to reach
do not want that amount of yard to maintain.
25. Commissioner Tyler asked staff to verify that the RC Zone required 7,200
square feet. Staff stated that for Low Density Residential yes and for
Medium Density Residential it is 5,000 square foot lots. They are proposing
a Zone Change to Low Density Residential, but it is the Specific Plan that
allows them a certain density and they are within that density requirement.
The overall density fits the Low Density Residential averaged over the entire
site, but not by Planning Areas.
26. Chairman Kirk asked if the minimum lot requirement for Low Density
Residential was 7,200 square feet. Staff stated that was tree, but this project
is applying under a Specific Plan which gives them flexibility to have varying
lot sizes.
-- 27. Commissioner Butler asked if there was a method of approving the project
with a stipulation that Planning Area I meet the standards they are looking
for. Planning Consultant Nicole Criste stated Planning Area I could be
conditioned to be consistent with Planning Area II which would bring
Planning Area I to City standards in a Low Density Residential designation.
She then asked for clarification regarding the lot size, as to whether
c :~vly Documents\WPDOCSLPC 12-14-99.wpd 13
Planning Commission Minutes
December 14, 1999
Commissioner Butler found the other exceptions to City standards in
Planning Area I acceptable or should all of the City's standards for single
family development on 7,200 square foot lots be applied. Commissioner
' Butler stated that if they increase the lot sizes to 7,200 square feet, then the
Commission does not need to be concerned because the other issues become
mute. Planning Consultant Criste stated that was not true. If you raise the
lot size only, the Specific Plan still governs. The way the Specific Plan is
written, the recommendation needs to state that it meetS all City standards for
the RL District.
Chairman Kirk recessed the meeting at 9:35 p.m. and reconvened at 9:40 p.m.
28. Mr. Smith stated they would like to request a continuance, but at the same
time they would like to know what the objection is to the zero lot line and
smaller lot sizes. Can they work with staff to resolve the objections.
29. Chairmhn Kirk stated the lot size is the problem. The zero lot line is not an
issue; they should be paired with amenities of some kind.
30. Commissioner Tyler stated that the City started with 50 X 100 foot lots and
the Cove is an example of What can happen with the smaller lot sizes. The
City has progressed beyond this and now has a minimum 7,200 square foot
lot size and he would hesitate to go backwards.
31. Commissioner Butler stated that with the smaller lots and no amenities, the
developer has no control over what will happen down the road. To protect
the City he would propose staying with the minimum 7,200 square foot lot.
Mr. Smith stated they would have to give up the open space and incorporate
more houses.
32. Chairman Kirk stated that it would be better to weave medium density into
the community.
33. Commissioner Robbins stated that with some amenities he could be
convinc.ed to go with the smaller lots.
34. There being no further discussion, it Was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Tyler/Robbins to continue this application to January 25,
2000. Unanimously approved.
VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: None "
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL'
c :XaMy Documents\WPDOCSLPC 12-14-99.wpd 14
Planning Commission Minutes
December 14, 1999
VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. Commissioner Tyler gave a report on the City Council meeting of December 7, 1999
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Abels to
adjourn this regular meeting of~e Planning Commission to the next regular meeting of the Planning
Commission to be held January 11, 2000, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission
was adjourned at 9:48 P.M. on December 14, 1999.
Respectfully submitted,
~.__,~---~B~E. TT~_ J//SAWYER,C'Executive Secretary City 6f~a Quinta, California
C:XMy Documents\WPDOCSLPC 12-14-~}9.wpd 15