2000 04 11 PC Minutes MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
April 11, 2000 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 Vice Chairman Robbins who asked Commissioner Abels to lead
the flag salute.
B. Present: Commissioners Jacques Abels, Richard Butler, Robert Tyler, and
Vice Chairman Steve Robbins. It was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Butler/Abels to excuse Chairman Tom Kirk. Unanimously
approved.
C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City
--- Attorney Dawn Honeywell, Planning Manager Christine di Iorio, Senior
Engineer Steve Speer, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, and Executive
Secretary Betty Sawyer.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT:
A. Mr. William Lee, 80-130 Palm Circle Drive, stated his concern was
regarding the Westward Isle, a development of 28 condos with CC&R's.
These homes have an individual value of approximately $120,000. In
addition there are eight homes on Jefferson Street, also worth
approximately $120,000 each, that are not a part of .Westward Isle, but
will be affected by the elimination of three golf holes due to the
rearrangement of the Indian Springs Golf Course. His concern is that
currently three .holes, 10,. 11, and 1 2, are located behind the Westward
Isle homes. Renovation of Indian Springs Golf Course is proposed to
eliminate these three holes which would hurt their property values.
When they purchased their'homes it was with these golf holes. If they
were to sell their home, they must abide by the CC&R's and holes 10,
11, and 12 will no longer be a part of the golf course. The developers
are proposing to donate them to the Desert Sands Unified School District.
He does not think this is legal and they have never been notified of this.
He asked how the City of Indio could vote a plan in and hurt property
values without the City of La Quinta being notified. He questioned who
would be responsible for maintaining this property now. He asked that
the City look into this. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated CC&R's
are private agreements enforceable by the private owners. The City does
C:~Vly Documents\WPDOCS\PC4-11-20.wpd 1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 11, 2000
not get involved in the enforcement of them. These holes are zoned and
approved for a golf course or open space. The City of La Quinta would
have no jurisdiction over the transaction of private entities. Mr. Lee
stated he was not asking for any action on the CC&R's, but as a public
golf course, which gave its word that it would maintain the golf course
and now is proposing to get rid of this section. Vice Chairman Robbins
stated the City would look into the issue as it pertains to the City of La
Quinta. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated there is
no development occurring within the City of La Quinta. The entire
project is within the City of Indio. The three holes are designated and
zoned as golf course. If the developer tries to change this designation,
then they would have' to apply to the City of La Quinta. Mr. Lee stated
that if this area is not maintained, it would drastically affect them as
homeowners. He asked if the City could obtain a copy of the CC&R's for
them. Staff stated it is a private, civil matter and he would have to
obtain the copies on his'own.
III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA:
A. Vice Chairman Robbins stated a request had been received to rearrange
the Agenda to move Business Item A to the first item. There being no
discussion it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Butler
to rearrange the Agenda taking Business Item A first. Unanimously
approved.
IV. CONSENT ITEMS:
A. Vice Chairman Robbins asked if there were any corrections to the
Minutes of March 28, 2000. Commissioner Tyler asked that Page 16,
Item 38 be amended as follows: "The Small group of ten new homes wll
have their own HOA and will thus have more power to enforce their
CC&R's than other communities without an HOA."; Page 17, Item 41 be
amended to read, "Commissioner Tyler stated that he too, had been
somewhat surprised to see the name Quinterra being used. In view of
the numerous public comments about this, he asked if the applicant
might consider using another name for this project." There being no
further changes, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Tyler/Butler to approve the minutes as amended. Unanimously
approved.
B. Department Report: Staff informed the Commission of the joint meeting
with City Council, Planning Commission, and Architecture and
Landscaping Review Committee would be May. 10th at 7:00 p.m.
C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC4-11-20.wpd 2
Planning Commission Meeting
April 11, 2000
V. BUSINESS ITEMS:
A. Site Development Permit 2000-674; a request of T.D. Desert
Development for approval of architectural plans for two new prototype
residential units within Rancho La Quinta CountrY Club.
1. Vice Chairman Robbins requested the staff report. Principal
Planner Start Sawa presented the information contained in the
staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community
Development DePartment.
2. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Abels/Butler to adopt Minute Motion 2000-008
approving Site Development Permit 2000-674 as recommended.
Unanimously approved.
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
-- A. Tentative Tract Map 29709; a request of KSL Casitas Corporation for
approval to subdivide 3.17 acres into 30 resort residential and
miscellaneous lots on the east side of Avenida Obregon, south of Avenida
Fernando within the La Quinta Resort and Club grounds.
1. Vice Chairman Robbins opened the Public Hearing and asked for
the staff report. Principal Planner Start Sawa stated the applicant
had requested a continuance of this application to allow time to
resolve issues.
2. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Butler/Abels to continue Tentative Tract Map
29702 to April 25, 2000. Unanimously approved.
B. Continued - Site Development Permit 200-667; a request of M & H
Realty Partners for approval of development plans for a 6,600 square
foot commercial pad building and addition to Von's Supermarket located
at the southwest corner of Washington Street and Highway 11, within
Plaza La Quinta.
-- 1. Vice Chairman Robbins opened the continued 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. Staff stated that
per the City's Zoning Code Section 9.1 50.060(d)(1 ) does require
C :LMy Documents\WPDOCSLPC4-11-20.wpd 3
Planning Commission Meeting
--
April 11, 2000
that adequate off-street parkin§ be provided for uses even if that
use is providing parking at the minimum required level and
therefore, 'additional parking can be required if it is deemed
necessary. Staff noted an additional Condition #24 should
therefore be added stating: "The final proposed parking program
for Plaza La Quinta employees be implemented prior to issuance of
a building permit for construction authorized by this permit." In
regard to the Von's Supermarket expansion, staff is not
recommending it at this time as staff does not have adequate
plans to understand what that addition will look like.
2. Vice Chairman Robbins asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Tyler asked for clarification on the number of
parking spaces. Staff stated the figure noted in the staff report
includes the five extra parking spaces proposed with the
implementation of the new plan. Commissioner Tyler stated he
likes the parking program especially the employee parking, but
asked if it was under the Commission's purview. City Attorney
Dawn Honeywell stated that it does so long as the critical issue _
being looked at is trying to deal with the parking on this site and
in order to approve the environmental and find under the Zoning
Code that adequate parking is being provided, it is reasonable to
include that type of a parking condition on this site. Otherwise if
the Commission did not know the parking plan was to be in place,
the Commission would not be able to make the findings that are
necessary.
3. Commissioner Butler asked if this is increasing the number of
spaces for employee parking in the back of the building. Staff
stated there is an area behind Von's where there can be spaces,
but it has been re-stripped which eliminated some of the spaces.
They could add seven spaces in this area. Commissioner Butler
asked if they could realign the parking to one way to get more
spaces. Staff stated they did not believe it would help.
4. Commissioner Abels asked if the 'traffic was two-way with the
parking spaces. Staff stated, it is an odd shape area which follows
the back of the building. Commissioner Abels asked if parking
could be increased if the traffic was one way. Staff stated parking
already exists and is a truck loading are as well. Community
Development Director Jerry Herman stated that by reducing the
traffic to one lane they would not gain any additional spaces.
C:\My Documents\WPDOCSLPC4-11-20.wpd 4
Planning Commission Meeting
April 11, 2000
With implementation of proposed employee.parking these spaces
would then be used. Commissioner Abels commended the
developer for trying to meet the Commission's request.
5. Vice Chairman Robbins asked if the new building would use the
hanging wooden signs. Staff stated there is some provision for
wall signs, but the signage would be required to .match the
existing sign program. The applicant does have the option to
come back for a revision to the sign program.
6. Commissioner Abels stated the proposed expansion for Von's
shows the expansion going down to the Fred Sand building with
the front exterior being the same. Staff stated that is true, but if
you look at the site, the area to be added onto is immediately
adjacent to the tower over the Fred Sands offices. Their proposed
plans do not show how the expansion will fit in with the tower.
7. Commissioner Tyler stated that at the last meeting, a question
was raised about underground parking; has this been looked at and
is it totally out of the question. Staff stated they did not consider
it and is not aware whether or not the applicant has.
8. Vice Chairman Robbins asked if the applicant would like to address
the Commission. Mr. David Geiser, M & H Realty asked to speak
after the others had spoken.
9. Vice Chairman Robbins asked if anyone else would like to address
the Commission on this issue. Mr. Rob Parker, owner of
Groomingdales, stated he may be going to the new building, or
somewhere due to the expansion of Von's and this is a major
concern to him. He is not opposed to the expansion of Von's, or
to whatever would be a benefit to M&H Realty Partners, but he is
concerned about tenants who are in partnership with M&H in this
entire project and its viability in the community. He would like to .
know where Von's freight vehicles will load and unload if this area
is to be for employee parking. He has 12 employees parking there
where there are 20 parking spaces that will be removed. This
whole area behind Von's that is stripped for parking is a problem
for parking because of the freight trucks are unloading. His other
concern is the corridor in front of the proposed building as it is
dangerous now and more so with the new construction. He
recollects this pad originally showed a development on this pad,
C:LMy Documents\WPDOCSXPC4-11-20.wpd 5
Planning Commission Meeting
April 11, 2000
but the Von's expansion of 4,000 feet is not a part of the original
plan for the Center. It seems to him 'that if the developer is
wanting an exception to the plan they should provide miti§ation
measures and the only place to mitigate is in this strip and that is
where it is drastically needed. He knows of three accidents this
year in this corridor in front of the proposed buildin§. This is one
of the main entrances/exits into the Center. The traffic conditions
and flow are a ni§htmam which concerns him. Two of his clients
have had accidents and he has heard of a third. There should be
some other way to miti§ate these problems. He is not opposed to
any of the proposed chart§es, but with the expansion of Von's,
there is more that could and should be done with this pad area as
it is the only other alternative to mitigate it. There will be a hi§h
volume fast food restaurant, currently there is a hi§hly successful
Beer Hunter restaurant, and the Beachside Cafe all located at one
end of the Center with their parking extending all the way down
to Von's parkin§ area now. Addin§ the new fast food business,
that is known to be very successful, will be a major ni§htmare on
that end of the Center. When you look at the parking the least
amount is at the east end and the most on the west end. If they
wanted to put the proposed building in the middle of the Von's
parking lot no one would care.
10. Commissioner Abels' asked if this proposed building was reduced
to two stores, would this help. Mr. Parker stated he suggested
this, that if spaces are needed for the Von's expansion and to
move the dry cleaners and his business, they needed to look at the
traffic flow and additional parking, for all the tenants. There is no
way to mitigate the problem once the changes are made. He is
not relocated to the new building yet and not involved in the
parking problems that exist, but if he does move to the new
location he is going to miss his current location.
11. Mr. Dan Held, General Manager and Partner in the Beer Hunter
restaurant, stated his concern is the parking problem. The parking
is tight as it is now and he is not sure the employee parking would
be of any great benefit. They are currently, asking their employees
to park on the west side of Downey Savings. Parking is not
adequate now and with the additional business, it will clog the
parking even more. He agrees that if it were constructed on the
west side of Downey Savings, it would not be of any concern.
C:\My Documents\WPDOCS~PC4-11-20.wpd 6
Planning Commission Meeting
April 11, 2000
12. Mr. Parker, Groomingdales, asked if the proposed expansion of
Von's could be conditioned to require 100% relocation of the dry
cleaners and his business prior to issuance of a building permit so
they would not lose any customers.
13. Mr. David Geiser, M&H Realty Partners, stated the option of
building anywhere else is not possible as they do not have any
control over Von's parking lot and they would not approve any
construction in that area. The issue of mitigation is valid. The
original approval for the Center allowed the construction of a
10,000 square foot building on Pad 5 and a 4,500 square foot
building on Pad 7 next to the Beer Hunter. They are proposing a
$,600 square building on Pad 5, which is a 3,400 square foot
reduction from what was originally proposed and approved and
parking instead of building on Pad 7. In their opinion, they are
voluntarily placing more restrictive mitigation measures, more than
goes to their desire to develop their property as well as address
the parking issue. As far as Von's expansion, the desire is to
increase the ability of Von's to maintain their market share with all
the new markets that have come into the area. This is a
requirement Von's has to keep them at this Center. Currently, the
plans across the street for development includes a Von's
SUpermarket. They need the expansion to keep Von's as an
anchor for this Center and he believes the tenants would agree
with this. The Von's expansion is more important than the pad
building as far as the success of the Center. This is a Successful
Center and the parking lot is full because of this. It is a tenant mix
problem they acquired with the purchase of the Center. They are
trying to address this parking problem with the parking program to
increase the amount of parking for the patrons. As all the tenants
observe the employee parking program, and as their manager on
site enforces this program, they should see a difference. As to
requiring them to implement this program before they obtain a
building permit, this is a draft program and the tenants have not
seen a copy of the parking program and theY need time for their
review and input. He asked that they tie it to the tenant
improvements. He then gave a clarification on parking count. The
11 parking spaces on Pad 7, next to Beer Hunter are not included
in the parking count of 599. The Von's expansion is 9,300 square
feet, but only adds 4,400 .square feet to the total building area.
He has submitted new elevations based on what has been asked
by the Commission. They have not backed off their original sign
request to allow the channel letter signs for the new tenants. It
is important to pad building tenants that signs can been seen at
C:WIy Documents\WPDOCS\PC4-11-20.wpd 7
Planning Commission Meeting _
April 11, 2000
hi§hr. In addition, they will have revised landscape plans
consistin§ of the same plant material. They have added parkin§ on
the east side of the Pad §, which caused them to lose some of the
parking on south side of Pad §. A§ain, they would request Win§
the parkin§ study with final inspection rather than issuance of a
buildin§ permit to allow them time to work with a civil en§ineer
and the tenants.
1 4. Commissioner Abels asked about the relocation of the tenants.
Mr. Geiser stated the tenant would be relocated before any Von's
remodelin§ would take place. Commissioner Abels asked if the
tenants would incur any expense. Mr. Geiser stated it is all spelled
out in the lease before anything starts. Community Development
Director stated the tenant issue is not a purview of the
Commission.
1 5. Commissioner Tyler stated currently on the south side of Pad §,
there are a number of parking spaces including two handicapped
spaces, and he understands they may reduce the number of -
spaces in this area and he wanted to know why. Mr. Geiser
stated there were no handicapped spaces at this location. They
are in front of the building on the south side. They moved the
patio from the east side of the building on the drive isle of Pad 5,
which caused the elimination of two parking spaces to
accommodate moving the building to the west so they could add
the spaces on the east side of the building. Commissioner Tyler
asked if there was any thought to underground parking. Mr.
Geiser. stated underground parking is very expensive and not
feasible. It would require them to dig opening a hole the size of
the parking lot allowing for no parking during the construction and
would probably close the Center.
16. Commissioner Tyler asked if he would have any problem with
having two tenants instead of three. Mr. Geiser stated that with
6,600 square feet they may have one tenant, or could have up to
four tenants. Currently, it appears there will be three. They
design for the greatest flexibility for an undermined number of
tenants, over a period of time.
17. Commissioner Butler stated he had a concern with the maximizing
of the parking when looking at his map, showing employee parking
with no indication as to whether or not it Will be re-stripped, or is
C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC4-11-20.wpd 8
Planning Commission Meeting
April 11, 2000
that all that will be designated for employee parking. Second, is
there a problem with the parking behind Von's due to the loading
and unloading of trucks. Mr. Geiser stated that in the employee
parking agreement, it is not a re-striping or designation on the
parking stalls as to employee parking. Instead, the employees will
be educated to understand this is their area. Commissioner Butler
asked if the area could be re-striped to add more parking spaces.
Mr. Geiser stated they have looked at re-striping to gain more, but
because of the planted parking islands, they cannot gain any more
spaces. In regard to the parking in the rear behind Von's, they are
required to have a 24 foot wide fire access as well as truck
access. The trucks are not to be using this area except for their
loading/unloading area. If there is a problem, they will have to
address the issue with V on's.
18. Commissioner Butler asked if Mr. Geiser had a problem with
continuing the Von's expansion. Mr. Geiser stated all they were
looking for was approval of the site plan. The elevations would
come back to the Commission for review and approval.
1 9. Commissioner Butler stated that in regard to the signage and use
of illuminated channel letter, he was uncertain. Mr. Geiser stated
all the pads buildings had illuminated channel letters.
20. Commissioner Abels asked if there would be additional dialog with
tenants regarding the parking. Mr. Geiser stated that if the
Commission would hold the building final till there was an approval
of the parking plan. This would allow them the time to work a
solution with the tenants regarding the parking.
21. Commissioner Tyler asked if Von's could come back for review of
the elevations. Staff stated the conditions were written to require
the elevations to come back to the Commission.- In regard to the
sign program, only the major tenants have the individually
mounted illuminated signs and this is a multiple tenant building.
Mr. Geiser stated that is in keeping with the Center across the
street, such as Starbucks, Airtouch, etc.
22. Mr. Jim Elmer, Beachside Cafe, stated his concern is parking
spaces. This new site will have only I 1 new spaces and those
will be taken up by the employees; where are the customers going
C :\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC4-11-20.wpd 9
Planning Commission Meeting _
April 11, 2000
to §O. His restaurant does not have enough for.their business as
well as the Beer Hunter. The need is for 50 more parking spaces.
If the new restaurant is going to seat 100 people, where are they
going to park.
23. Ms. Donna Corde, Lumpy's, stated her concern was the issue of
deliveries and whether the Parking spaces would be blocked with
the deliveries.
24. There being no further public comment, Vice Chairman Robbins
closed the public participation portion, of the hearing and opened
the hearing for Commission discussion.
25. Commissioner Butler stated that with some conditions, the
applicant has addressed the issue of the elevations, but the
parking is still not resolved. When you have a shared parking
policies, it is hard to resolve issues of this kind. He would feel
more comfortable having the applicant coming back with a parking
program. In regard to the Von's expansion, he has no problem
approving the expansion cOncept. In regard to the signs, he' still
has a problem with their proposal.
26. Commissioner Tyler stated he agreed with the redesign of the
building. The parking problem has improved, but is still a problem
and he is not sure there is any solution to the problem. Employee
parking program is viable, but may have an enforcement problem.
He is not sure about the Von's expansion, but if it comes back,
then he has no objection to approving the concept.
27. Commissioner Abels stated this is a situation where everyone wins
or loses. The applicant has done all he can do with its limitations.
In regard to Von's expansion, he has no objection to the concept.
Glad to see a viable center that is active all the time and the
applicant should be commended on such a successful center.
28. Vice Chairman Robbins agreed with the redesign of the building
and that the parking is a problem, but no real solution is available.
He asked staff if the parking problem could be tied to the issuance
of occupancy. Comomunity Development Director Jerry Herman
stated the problem with occupancy is that when you construct the
building, tenants move in. Now, we are saying the tenant cannot
be there and it becomes a problem with enforcement. City
Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated it is difficult because you affect
third party rights; the tenant who is ready to move in and
C:LMy Documents\WPDOCS\PC4-11-20.wpd 10
Planning Commission Meeting
April 11, 2000
economically, for reasons not in their control, the City says they
cannot-move in. The City prefers this be resolved before permits
are issued rather than before occupancy. It would be to the
applicant's advantage to resolve the parking, before constructing
a building that a tenant cannot move into. Vice Chairman Robbins
stated he did not want to put a stop to the applicant's ability to
continue developing.
29. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Abels/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2000-01 2 approving Site Development Permit 2000-
667, as amended.
a. Condition #1' The use of this site shall be in conformance
with the approved exhibits contained in Site Development
Permit 2000-667, unless otherwise amended by the
following conditions. The site plan expansion of Von's
Supermarket is conceptually approved. The elevation of the
expansion shall be submitted to the Planning Commission
for approval.
b. Condition #23' Add, "specify the parking area is referenced
as Attachment 5 on Pad 7".
c. Condition #24: .The final parking plan program for Plaza La
Quinta employees shall be submitted to the Community
Development Department and for approval and implemented
prior to issuance of first tenant improvement plan for
construction authorized by this permit. The building shell
can be built.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Tyler, and Vice
Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Chairman Kirk.
Vice Chairman recessed the meeting at 8:47 p.m. and resumed the meeting at 8:53
p.m.
C. Continued - Environmental Assessment 99-382, Tentative Tract Map
29624 Site Development Permit 99-675, a request of World
Development for approval to subdivide 2.44 acres into ten single family
residential lots, one street lot, three landscape lots, and approval of
architectural and landscape plans for four prototype residential units.
C:\My Documents\WPDOCSLPC4-11-20.wpd 11
Planning Commission Meeting
April 11, 2000
1. Vice Chairman Robbins informed everyone this was a continued
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. The applicant is proposing a unit size of 2,078
square feet of livable area for the smallest unit. Staff noted a
change to Condition #7.B. and 36.B. 1. to state that "for cul-de-sac
bulbs, a standard similar in form to Riverside County Standard 800
should be used; Condition #32 typographical error that should say
Tentative Parcel Map.
2. Vice Chairman RObbins asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Butler asked about, the minimum lot size. Staff
noted it was 7,303 square feet.
3. Commissioner Tyler asked if Condition #11 would be modified to
allow the temporary construction access off Adams Street.
4. Vice Chairman Robbins asked if sidewalks were proposed. Staff -
noted they would not be on a private street. Vice Chairman
Robbins stated he did not like the idea of forcing people to walk in
the streets and would like to see' sidewalks required of all
developments. He noted the street width was decreased to 28
. feet, and he assumes no parking would be allowed on the street.
Street stated that was correct, additional parking would have to be
provided on site and the applicant has proposed three car garages
as well as the ability to park three cars in front of the garage
spaces.
5. Commissioner Tyler asked if a condition should be added requiring
the HOA to enforce the no parking on the street. Staff stated a
condition Would be added.
6. Vice Chairman Robbins asked if the Commission had any objection
to reopening the public comment. There being no objection, Vice
Chairman Robbins re-opened the Public Hearing.
7. Mr. Kim Job, 79-100 Ladera, stated he liked most of the proposed
changes, but asked if the plans were still the Wildflower homes
with the exception of the new Plan 1 .. Staff stated yes. Mr. Job
stated the Wildflower homes are being advertised as selling for
$170,'000 and Mr. Snellenberger stated at the last meeting the
homes would be sold at $230,000. He can not believe the houses
can go from $170,000 to $230,000 with only the addition of a
gate and being a private community.
-- Planning Commission Meeting
April 11, 2000
8. Mr. Tom Hanes 79-180 Ladera, stated he is glad to hear their
comments were considered by the applicant. His only concern is
that their home value included the cost of the retention basin.
Now another developer with a completely different project does
not have to supply his own retention basin. If he has to save
costs, this is not a very nice way of doing it.
9. There being no further public comment, Vice Chairman Robbins
closed the public participation portion of the hearing and opened
the hearing for Commission discussion.
10. COmmissioner Butler asked if the retention basin can be utilized by
another developer. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated the City
has a duty to protect property from the 100 year storm. This
retention basin is designed to have what is known as a foot of
freeboard. That is when the 1OO year storm is contained in the
retention basin, there is still a foot of room to hold additional
water. When the Parcel Map for the First School of the Desert
split this property, the City asked the engineers to look at whether
or not the retention basin had the capacity to hold an additional
four acres of drainage. The engineers confirmed it would increase
the 100 year storm water surface elevation by six inches, so it is
still protecting the homes at the 100 year storm level. The
retention basin is maintained by the City through tWo funding
sources: the Lighting and Landscaping District and the General
Fund. Rather than create an additional retention basin for the City
to maintain, staff found it appropriate to send the drainage from
this development to this retention basin as it would only raise it 6
inches.
11. Commissioner Butler asked'if the water run off from Miles Avenue
would also go into this basin. Staff stated yes.
12. Commissioner Tyler asked about the additional information he had
just received. Staff stated a survey had been Submitted and
signed by residents in the community stating they supported the
Desert Flower development based on the criteria contained in the
survey. The survey was distributed by the developer and is being
submitted for Commission review and information, as well as their
proposed sign. Commissioner Tyler asked about the signature
page that referred to the design for the project's east perimeter
wall. Staff stated it referred to a condition that allows the
developer the option of doing a retaining wall or adding two
courses to the existing block wall depending upon what the
Planning Commission Meeting
April 11, 2000
neighbors were in favor of. The developer did contact each of the
neighbors that are adjacent to this tract and explain that they have
options. Mr. Stittsworth, representing World Development, stated
they went out and met with the homeowners of Quinterra. They
contacted 75 homes and those that did not sign were people not
home and they were unable to reach. Of all the signatures
acquired, there was not a homeowner that did not agree with the
project. The four signatures acquired tonight are homes abutting
the project both on the north and east side. The other two were
not home and one home had been sold and no one was home.
1 3. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Abels/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2000-013 certifying a subsequent Mitigated Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental
Assessment 99-382.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Tyler, and Vice
Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Chairman Kirk.
14. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000-014 recommending
approval of Tentative Tract Map 29624, subject to the Findings
and Conditions as amended:
a. Condition 7.B. 1 .: "...similar to Riverside County Standard
800..."
b. Condition 11: Add "except for temporary construction
access."
c. Condition 36.B. 1 .: "...similar to Riverside County Standard
800..."
d. Condition #55: At locations where the proposed
development shares a common property line where an
existing wall encloses properties in an adjacent
development, the applicant shall accomplish the Zoning
Code required five foot minimum wall height in accordance
with one of the following methods: a) If permission from
the adjacent property owner is received, and the additional
wall height can be structurally achieved, add additional
course(s) of matching block to the existing wall. This
alternative shall be rejected by the adjacent, landowner
before the utilizing the second alternative, b) If the adjacent
property owner does not consent to the first alternative, the
C :\My Documents\WPDOC S\PC4-11-20.wpd 14
Planning Commission Meeting
April 11, 2000
applicant shall achieve the five foot minimum wall height by
constructing a new wall with matching block, as close as
physically possible, adjacent to the existing wall, and fill the
empty space between the two walls with pea gravel and
slurry cap. The two walls shall be structurally bound
together with tie rods.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Tyler, and Vice
Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Chairman Kirk.
15. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Butler to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000-01 5 approving Site
Development Permit 20000-675, subject to the Findings and
Conditions as recommended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Tyler, and Vice
Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Chairman Kirk.
D. Site Development Permit 2000-673; a request of Bill Hobin, c/o La Quinta
- SPC, LLC., for approval of architectural and landscaping plans for a
storage facility within La Quinta Corporate Center located on the
northeast corner of Adams Street and Corporate Centre Drive.
1. Vice Chairman Robbins opened the Public Hearing and asked for
the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the
information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file
in the Community Development Department.
2. Vice Chairman Robbins asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Tyler asked about Condition #36.C regarding
channel lining. Senior Engineer Steve Speer explained the channel
lining is approved by Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) and
the applicant's engineer must have this approved and corrected.
3. Vice Chairman Robbins asked if the applicant would like to address
the Commission. Mr. Rick Bolli$, Valli Architectural Group, stated
he had a question regarding Condition #36.C., can they do both
concurrently. Also, could Condition #58 be concurrent with fire
hydrants as the building is all steel and masonry with no wood, so
there is no fire hazard.
C:hMy Documents\WPDOCS\PC4-11-20.wpd 15
Planning Commission Meeting
April 11, 2000
4. Commissioner Tyler commended the applicant on the existing
building and stated that if this building was to look the same, he
is all in favor.
5. Commissioner Butler stated he was not sure the Commission could
overrule the Fire Department. He then questioned the number of
RV storage spaces. Mr. Bollis stated they anticipate part of the
RV area would be covered. Building 3 in Phase 3 would be
covered and about 12 feet high. Commissioner Butler asked if it
could be conditioned to be covered. Staff stated it could be. Mr.
Bollis asked if it could be an option, depending on a market study.
6. Commissioner Tyler asked if any of these units would be air
conditioned. Mr. Bollis stated Building D would be. Commissioner
Tyler asked if there was any problem with vandalism. Mr. Bollis
stated none. Commissioner Tyler asked about survalience camera
on the additional gate. Mr. Bollis stated it was an option.
7. Vice Chairman Robbins asked about the view of the back of
Building "C". Staff noted it would have popouts as the existing
building. The inset areas would have landscaping as well.
8. There being no further public comment, Vice Chairman Robbins
closed the public participation and opened the issue for
Commission discussion.
9. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Abels/Butler to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2000-016 approving Site Development Permit 2000-
673, as amended.
a. Condition #72: Add an option for covered parking
b. Condition #36.C.: Delete prior to obtaining on site building
and replace with on site paving and driveway work.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Tyler, and Vice
Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Chairman Kirk.
VI. BUSINESS ITEMS:
B. Site Development Permit 2000-671; a request of Toll .Brothers for
approval of architectural plans for eight new prototype residential units
to be constructed adjacent to the Greg Norman Signature Golf Course,
on the north side of Airport Boulevard, east of Madison Street.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 11, 2000
1. Vice Chairman Robbins requested 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. Vice Chairman Robbins asked if Plan 6 would have a three car
garage. Staff stated it was a typo in the staff report and it was a
full three car garage.
3. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Abels/Tyler to adopt Minute Motion 2000-009
approving Site Development Permit 2000-671. as recommended.
Unanimously approved.
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None.
VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
,A A. Commissioner Tyler gave a report of the Council meeting of April 4,
2000.
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioner
Butler/abels to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next
regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held-April 25, 2000, at 7:00 p.m.
This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:43 P.M. on April 11,
2000.
Respectfully submitted,
~~y~ ,~~Executive Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC4-11-20.wpd 17