2001 01 09 PC Minutes MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
January 9, 2001 7:00 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:03
p.m. by Chairman Robbins who asked Commissioner Kirk to lead the flag
salute.
B. Present: Commissioners Richard Butler, Tom Kirk, Robert Tyler, and
Chairman Robbins. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Tyler/Kirk to excuse Commissioner Abels. Unanimously approved.
C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, Assistant
City Attorney John Ramirez, Planning Manager Christine di Iorio,
Associate Engineer Brian Downs, Principal Planner Start Sawa, and
Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT:
A. Chairman Robbins informed that at the Planning Commission meeting of
November 14, 2000, Environmental Assessment 2000-396, General Plan
Amendment 2000-067, Zone Change 2000-09.3, Specific Plan 2000-
045, and Site Development Permit 2000-677; a request of Evergreen
Devco-Walgreens was continued to this meeting. Inadvertently, this
matter was left off the agenda. The Planning Commission will therefore
take no action at this time. The item will be re-advertised and re-noticed
to all appropriate property owners as required by law, prior to the public
hearing before the Planning Commission and City Council
Ill. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed.
IV. CONSENT ITEMS:
A. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of
December 12, 2000. Commissioners Tyler asked that Page 3, Item #10,
-- be corrected to read "Assistant City Attorney"; Page 8, Item #4 be
corrected to read, "Commissioner Tyler noted that a water main is to be
installed along Washington Street, between Delaware Street and Fred
G:\WPDOCS\PC 1-9-O1 .wpd ]
Planning Commission Minutes
January 9, 2001
Waring Drive .... and the City declined the opportunity". There being no
further corrections, it was mcvcd and seconded by Commissioners
Butler/Kirk to approve the minutes as corrected. Unanimously approved.
B. Department Report: None.
C. Planning Manager Christie di Iorio introduced Associate Engineer Brian
Downs, who would be representing the Public Works Department on
various cases.
V. PRESENTATIONS: None.
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Site Development Permit 2000-687; a request of Lyons, Warren and
Associates, Inc. for review of plans for a one story Jack in the Box
restaurant with a drive-thru located at the northwest corner of Highway
111 and Depot Way in the Jefferson Plaza Shopping Center.
1. Chairman Robbins 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 Robbins asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Tyler asked if modifications would be made to
Depot Way for access to the drive-thru. Staff explained the
circulation pattern and discussion followed.
3. Chairman Robbins stated the plans does. not show what the limits
of their improvements will be. Associate Engineer Brian Downs
stated they have been conditioned to go off-site to make the
improvements necessary. Depot Way is currently paved and is
used as a permanent access to the site.
4. Chairman Robbins asked what method the City has to ensure that
the developer maintains the landscaping around the restaurants.
Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated this is an on-going issue
with this development and staff has been working with the Code
Enforcement Department to resolve this issue, but other problems
have taken Precedent. Some improvements have bene made to
the Home Depot frontage. As projects are proposed the site, it is
G:\WPDOCS\PC 1-9-01 .wpd 2
Planning Commission Minutes
January 9, 2001
an opportunity to bring these issues to light and place conditions
........... ...... on the projects to-bring the landscaping into compliance with th~
Conditions of Approval. Chairman Robbins noted the problem
existed at other centers as well. Staff stated this is an on-going
issue with Code Enforcement.
5. Commissioner Kirk asked if the Planning Commission could use
Code Enforcement concerns as a rationale for rejecting or
significantly modifying a subsequent approval. Assistant City
Attorney John Ramirez stated they could use it to modify an
approval particularly when it sounds like this is an on-going issue
that has arisen contrary to prior conditions of approval imposed.
His recommendation would be in respect to this application, that
the Commission take this option .rather than denying the project
because this applicant is not contributing to the problems.
6. Commissioner Tyler asked which document took precedent in
_ regard to conditions being met. Staff stated the Specific Plan, and
Home Depot is the property owner and responsible for meeting the
conditions.
7. Chairman Robbins stated that with no malice toward this
applicant, does the Commission have the ability to deny further
expansion of the project because the property owner has not met
his obligations. Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez stated he
was not prepared to render an opinion at this time. Certainly the
Commission has wide latitude and discretion with respect to
imposing conditions and certainly with respect to on-going code
enforcement matters that can always be a factor with respect to
how the Commission further tightens conditions. He would review
the matter and report back to the Commission shortly.
8. Commissioner Butler stated that before issuing final inspection on
this site, the Commission could require these prior conditions be
resolved. Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez stated yes, they
could. Commissioner Butler stated that way they were not
stopping the project, but allowing it to go forward and still
requiring the master developer to meet the prior conditions.
--_
9. Chairman Robbins asked if they wanted to go to the extreme to
have the entire Highway 1 1 1 landscaping replaced, they could do
this. Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez stated the extremes
are the difficult ones. He would have to review the issue further.
G:\WPDOCS\PC 1-9-01.wpd :~
Planning Commission Minutes
January 9, 2001
Some sort of nexus issue on that level may be needed and he does
not have the background to answer the question adequately. If
the Commission wants further advice on the issue at this meeting,
he could quickly review the issue to provide the Commission with
an answer before the end of the meeting. Chairman Robbins
pointed out that the Commission's purpose is to get the property
owners attention and have some mechanism to resolve the issues.
They do not want the developer to continue to expand if they are
not going to meet the conditions imposed on them regarding the
landscaping. Assistant City Attorney Ramirez stated this type of
anecdotal discussion is useful to the extent it is utilized in code
enforcement actions that may occur in the future. Staff noted
that Condition #32.A should be changed to make "A" Condition
#48 and state "...prior to final inspection".
10. Commissioner Butler asked staff to identify where the applicant
would be expanded the site for the street improvements.
Associate Engineer Brian Downs explained on the site plan the
location to be expanded onto.
·
1 1. Commissioner Tyler asked if the sign was a national logo. Staff
stated yes.
12. Commissioner Butler stated he had no objection to the second
menu board as it does assist in speeding up the ordering; why was
staff requesting the removal. Staff stated because there were too
many signs and other establishments have been restricted to one.
13. Chairman Robbins asked the size of the signs. Staff stated 5-feet
by 5-feet on the tower elements and staff would reword Condition
41.B. to allow the applicant to determine where he wanted to
place the two signs. Staff was also requesting the addition of a
condition requiring a monument base on the menu board sign.
14. Commissioner Tyler questioned Condition #32.B. as to why the
Olive trees were not being used and the only reason given was
that they do not match the trees being used by Home Depot; why
was staff denying the Olive trees. Staff stated for compatibility
throughout the parking lot. Commissioner Tyler suggested
removal of the Crape Myrtle as it grows so slowly. Staff stated
they would remove it. Discussion followed regarding the trees
recommended.
G:\WPDOCS\PC 1-9-01 .wpd 4
Planning Commission Minutes
January 9, 2OO1
15. Commissioner Kirk stated the sign program does allow national
te~'~ants, or is there some type of sign regiment for the center;
some sort of consistency in terms of colors, materials, etc. Staff
stated not in regard to colors, but materials and channel letters.
1 6. Chairman Robbins stated the first time this project was proposed
there was a problem with slope protection problem; has that
problem been resolved? Staff stated the entire phase had been
protected.
1 7. Assistant City Attorney Ramirez stated that in general they would
need to look at Phase II of the Specific Plan with the possibility of
amending and tighten up the conditions. There is also a
Development Agreement that may help to resolve the issue and he
and staff would be reviewing it to that end. Chairman Robbins
stated there must be a way to reach the developer to address this
issue.
--
1 8. Chairman Robbins asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. Steve Schneider, representing the applicant,
stated they would be closing escrow once the approvals have been
attained to build the building. In regard to how far they are going
to make street improvements, he explained on the site plan where
they would be making their improvements. On the two building
signs their preference would be to have them on the east and west
elevations. The final item, or the two menu boards, they would
like to request the second as it does improve the speed of the
drive-through. As the menu boards are on the interior to the
center and all the illumination is pointing interior to the center
which ultimately will be developed as a shopping center building
significantly behind them. The menu board staff is requesting to
be eliminated is completely screened from view by their trash
enclosure. So from the public right of way, it is virtually
impossible to be seen, but it does benefit them significantly from
an operational standpoint. In regard to the landscaping on the
street frontage, they have no control over this, but will be
maintaining their own landscaping. They will be addressing the
Commission's concerns with the property owner' of the center.
19. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any questions of the
applicant. Commissioner Kirk asked how much of the landscaping
would be in turf. Mr. Schneider stated it is minimal. Staff stated
it was in the rear of the building. Commissioner Kirk asked what
G:\WPDOCS\PC1-9-OI.wpd :5
Planning Commission Minutes
January 9, 2001
the purpose was for the turf. Mr. Schneider stated it adds color.
Commissioner Kirk ~tated it wa.~ an odd location for turf. Mr.
Schneider stated they would work with staff to use some other
material.
20. Commissioner Kirk asked if the applicant had any other concerns
regarding the conditions. Mr. Schneider stated no more than what
had been raised.
21. Commissioner Tyler stated that at the entrance to the drive-
through there is a 1 2-foot canopy; is there anything that can be
done to dress it up. Mr. Schneider stated it was a standard
canopy and a necessary evil. They would welcome any
suggestions.
22. There being no further discussion, the public participation portion
of the hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion.
23. Commissioner Tyler stated he had no objection to allowing the
applicant to determine where the signs would be located. In
regard to the menu boards he had no issue with having two.
24. Commissioner Butler stated he thought there were others that had
two menu boards and he had no objections to allowing two. Staff
noted they would survey the fast food restaurants to determine
the standard.
25. Commissioner Kirk stated he did not have any strong concerns
regarding the two menu boards. He did not like fast food
restaurants as they do cause sign clutter and an auto orientation.
They do however, need to stick with whatever the precedent is,
if there is one. Maybe the Commission could go with staff's
recommendation, but if the survey determines that other
restaurants have been approved with two signs, then give this
applicant the same opportunity. The other point is the suggestion
of the monument base for the menu boards whether one or two,
and the idea of sending the message to the master property owner
regarding the landscaping. Condition 32.A., in his opinion, does
not do the City justice. They need to see that the master
developer meets the conditions of the Specific Plan for the
landscaping along Highway 1 1 1. He would change the condition
to require all the landscaping on the project site and not just
Highway 111 Corridor. The applicant can work with staff to find
a less water demanding ground cover.
Planning Commission Minutes
January 9, 2001
26. Chairman Robbins stated he had mixed feelings regarding the two
menu boards, as he does not like sign proliferatio.n, either, but he
can understand the need for both. He wold agree with
Commissioner Kirk that if other restaurants have two, they let
them have two, if not leave it at one.
27. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Kirk/Tyler to adopt Resolution 2000-001,
approving Site Development Permit 2000-687, as conditioned with
the following changes:
a. Condition #32.A: Changed to Condition #48. Existing
landscaping in the Highway 111 parkway and on site shall
be repaired or replaced prior to final inspection.
b Condition 32.R.' One of the three building mounted signs
shall be deleted.
c. Condition #41.C.' Dependent upon other fast food
restaurants, only one freestanding menu board is permitted
and the sign(s) shall include a monument base.
d. Condition 37.H.' Replace the turf areas north of the
building with less demanding water use materials.
28. Commissioner Kirk asked if staff could get a report back to the
Commission letting them know that Home Depot has complied and
Jack in the Box has received their final inspection, just to keep
them informed of what has happened. Staff stated will keep the
Commission informed as to the progress. If the landscaping is
approved by some other means, prior to Jack in the Box final
inspection, staff will let the Commission know.
29. Chairman Robbins st'ated they did not want to put too much a
burden on this developer, but on the master property owner of the
center.
30. Commissioner Butler stated he would rather let them build it and
then not allow occupancy unless the landscaping is done. This is
a stronger message.
ROLL CALL: AYES' Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman
Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT' 'Commissioner Abels.
ABSTAIN: None.
G:\WPDOCS\PC1-9-01 .wpd
Planning Commission Minutes
January 9, 2001
VI. BUSINESS ITEMS:
A. Master Design Guidelines 2000-013; a request of DGH Development
Corporation for review of one prototypical floor plan for development in
the Cove Residential Development to be built on various 'lots in the Cove.
1. Chairman Robbins 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 Robbins asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Butler asked staff what they were asking for in
regard to Model A and B. Staff stated they were recommending
that front door, garage door and window designs be varied
between the two elevations. Commissioner Butler stated there
does seem to be a difference between the two and he did not see
the need.
3. Chairman Robbins asked if there were required to use roll up
doors. Staff stated no, but the setback would change regarding
which door they used.
4. Commissioner Tyler stated he would like to see the square footage
of the houses and the pages numbered on the submittal.
5. Commissioner Kirk stated he concurred with Commissioner Tyler
and asked if the applicant had been given a copy of previously
approved Guideline submittals and told what the Commission
wanted. Staff stated yes. Commissioner Kirk stated that if these
two elevations were shown to people and they were asked what
the difference was, the only obvious thing would be the vents.
These homes are almost identical and not consistent with the
intent of the Master Design Guidelines. If we are going to do this,
we should do this right or get it off the books as he is going to
continue to vote his conscience on this and the way he believes
the Ordinance is written. In his opinion, there is not nearly enough
variation in the design.
6. Chairman Robbins asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. Jeff Heusinkveld, representing DGH Developers,
stated that with variation on garage doors, there is a limited
G:\WPDOCS\PC 1-9-01.wpd 8
Planning Commission Minutes
January 9, 2001
amount they can change on the windows. They are looking to do
whatever is necessary to be able to pull their permits as they have
four in plan check and ready to go on six more in the next three
months.
7. Commissioner Kirk stated he would like to see variations in the
roofs, gable versus hip; variances in terms of floor plans, setbacks;
staggering front elevations; greater difference in terms of how the
surrounds and window elements are used; arches and other details
that really distinguish the plans. Mr. Heusinkveld stated that to
change roof lines it could require re-engineering the plans.
Commissioner Kirk stated he understands the costs involved, but
the City was concerned about exactly what he was suggesting;
that is one plan and put it in six or seven locations throughout the
City. This, however does not meet the intent of the Ordinance.
There has been some discussion regarding changing the Ordinance
and perhaps allowing this in the future, but as it is written
currently, it is not allowed.
8. Commissioner Tyler asked if the home in the picture in the
Guidelines was built. Mr. Heusinkveld stated yes on Avenida
Rubio, it was the second one built and there is currently one under
construction on Avenida Navarro.
9. Commissioner Kirk asked staff where the Zoning Code update
stood in regard to changing this. Staff stated the changes were
being drafted and this section Should be eliminated and ready for
public hearings in February. Staff went on to explain how the
Ordinance currently reads.
10. Chairman Robbins asked what would replace it. Community
Development Director Jerry Herman stated the current Code
requires that we review all building' elevations within a 200-foot
radius to ensure they are not similar.
11. Chairman Robbins asked with the proposed changed in the Zoning
Code would the variances in these two units be sufficient for staff
to approve them next door to each other. Staff stated they would
-- be allowed.
12. Commissioner Kirk asked if the changes to this Ordinance were
requested by the City Council, or staff initiated. Staff stated it is
being initiated by staff. Commissioner Kirk asked why. Staff
G:\WPDOCS\PC 1-9-01 .wpd 0
Planning Commission Minutes
January 9, 2001
stated four can be built before they are brought to the Commission
for review and approval before they can build any more. That
means there are already four of the units built in the Cove. What
is the difference if four are built? After their approval they can not
build as many as they like as long as the same plan is not within
200 feet of each other.
13. Commissioner Butler stated these are cosmetic changes and we
need more design elements rather than popouts and vents and six
panel garage doors. In his opinion, there is a difference between
the two houses proposed, but does the Commission have any
discretion for the future to require different changes that makes a
bigger impact on the architectural design.
1 4. Commissioner Kirk stated more discretion is required now than the
future if staff's recommendation is approved. Staff stated staff
will review them in the future instead of the Commission.
Commissioner Kirk stated staff would approve these two units side
by side. Staff stated yes. Commissioner Kirk asked what is
wrong with the Master Design Guidelines process now. Staff
stated all the information is given to the builders who are required
to submit for Commission approval and staff still cannot always
get the information required before Commission. Commissioner
Kirk stated that the last one submitted was pretty good, after two
tries.
15. Chairman Robbins stated this presentation is better than some and
if the word gets out that the Commission is not going to approve
a poor Guidelines submittal, then they will get what they want.
Staff stated another problem is that once a company receives four
approvals, they will change their name and get four more houses,
and then change their name again. Another problem is that there
is one designer for all the builders, which limits the designs.
Chairman Robbins stated he understands there is only so much
you can do on a 50-foot by lO0-foot lot.
16. Commissioner Kirk stated they had approved one Guidelines that
had an excellent presentation with about six different elevations.
Staff stated not all developers build that many houses.
Commissioner Kirk asked if the process had increased the diversity
of the housing stock. Staff stated there is some diversity. It is
better now than before. The problem is that the builders are
finding ways around the system. Commissioner Kirk stated a
G:\WPDOCS\PC 1-9-01.wpd ] 0
Planning Commission Minutes
January 9, 2001
short term solution would be what they have done before, the
Comnlission could'approve this.plan for two or three homes and
require them to come back with a new set of elevations when they
reach four, five, or six homes. The Ordinance may change before
they come back for a second set of elevations and the developer
may be required to do something else.
1 7. Commissioner Tyler stated he did not think it appropriate to come
down on this developer as this Ordinance may be revised, or
eliminated.
1 8. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Kirk/Butler to adopt Minute Motion 2000-001,
approving Master Design Guidelines 2000-01 3, for the next four
homes and if the requirement is still there at the completion of
these four homes, the applicant is to submit new designs at that
time. Unanimously approved.
B. Sign Application 2000-526; a request of Mark and Dorothy Hastings for
review of a freestanding monument identification sign for the under
construction First School of the Desert located at the northeast corner of
Adams Street and Miles Avenue.
1. Chairman Robbins 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 Robbins asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Kirk asked how staff measured the square footage
with all the geometric shapes. Staff stated the sign area on the
rectangular block was measured.
3. Commissioner Butler stated that if the area was correct, he had no
objections.
4. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Tyler/Butler to adopt Minute Motion 2000-002,
approving Sign Application 2000-526, as recommended.
Unanimously approved.
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None.
G:\WPDOCS\PC 1-9-01 .wpd ]- ]-
Planning Commission Minutes
January 9, 2001
VIII. COMMISSlONERITEMS'
A. Staff informed the Commission about the League of California Cities
Planners Institute and asked that they let staff know what their plans
were in regard to travel arrangements, etc.
B. A video was shown to the Commission regarding livable streets using
traffic calming devices.
C. Commissioner Tyler gave a report of the City Council meeting of January
2, 2001.
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Butler/Kirk to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next
regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held January 23, 2001, at 7:00
p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:04 p.m. on
January 9, 2001.
Respectfully submitted,
E~_~y J~/y~y~r, Exe~ttive Secretary
City f~Lf~a/Quinta, California
G:\WPDOCS\PC 1-9-01.wpd ] 2
'.~