Loading...
2001 06 26 PC Minutes MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA June 26, 2001 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 Robbins who asked Commissioner Kirk to lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Jacques Abels, Richard Butler, Tom Kirk, Robert Tyler, and Chairman Steve Robbins. C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Kathy Jenson, Planning Manager Christine di Iorio, Senior Engineer Steve Speer, Associate Planner Michele Rambo, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed IV. CONSENT ITEMS: A. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of June 12, 2001. Commissioner Tyler asked that Page 2, Item 4 be corrected to read "36-feet wide". City Attorney Kathy Jenson asked that the minutes be corrected to state that she was present at the meeting and not Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez. There being no further corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Kirk to approve the minutes as corrected. Unanimously approved. B. Department Report: None. V. PRESENTATIONS: None. VI. PUBLIC HEARING: A. Village Use Permit 2001-009; a request of Starlight Management, Inc. for approval of architectural, landscaping, site plans, lighting plans, and sign program for a multi-tenant office building located at 78-099 Calle Estado. G :\WPDO CS\PC 6-2 6-01. wpd ]- Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2001 1. Commissioner Kirk excused himself and left the dias due to a possible conflict of interest due to the proximity of his residence to the project. 2. Chairman Robbins opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Associate Planner Michele Rambo presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 3. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Abels commended staff on the presentation. 4. Commissioner Tyler stated he would like to act on this project even though there was no General Plan Amendment application submitted to not hold the developer up. Staff stated it was being prepared and the Commission could not act until an application was submitted. Commissioner Tyler asked if the parking plan could be enforced as presented. Staff stated it was up to the Commission. 5. Chairman Robbins asked if there was on-street parking and how many spaces were available. Staff stated there were parking spaces on Calle Estado as well as being provided in their parking plan. 6. Commissioner Tyler question Condition //1 8 in regard to the size of the trees. Staff stated this condition could be eliminated as the trees were already planted. Commissioner Tyler asked that Condition #23 be changed. Staff stated it would be changed to read, "...from the centerline in the travel lane..." 7. Commissioner Butler asked about the color exhibit and if the applicant had agreed with the Architecture and Landscaping Committee's (ALRC) conditions. Staff stated the applicant had concurred with the ALRC's recommendation and presented the color board. 8. Chairman Robbins stated his concern was the rear of the building as it was extremely plain. He would like to see more architectural detail. In regard to Condition #25 he questioned the configuration of the building as it did not provide a place to install the fire riser and detector check except in the sidewalk. Senior Engineer Steve G:\WPDOCS\PC6-26-01 .wpd 2 Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2001 Speer suggested it be placed under the stairwell on the front of the building. Staff would add a condition requiring the applicant to work with staff on the location. 9. Chairman Robbins asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Skip Lench, representing the applicant and who prepared the preliminary plans for the project, stated they could address Chairman Robbins concerns on the rear elevation and the fire equipment. 10. Commissioner Butler asked if elevators would be added to accommodate the handicapped on the second story at any time. Mr. Lench stated it depends on the scale of the project. It is not economically feasible unless the business is of size to off-set the cost. 11. Commissioner Tyler asked if there would be any street .addresses on the building. Mr. Lench stated signage is discouraged, but they could add the address. Commissioner Tyler asked if there were any requirements for commercial buildings to have an address on the building. Staff stated the would require the applicant to work with the fire department in regard to this requirement. 1 2. Chairman Robbins asked if there was any other public comment. There being no further public comment, Chairman Robbins closed the public hearing and opened the project for Commission discussion. 13. Commissioner Tyler asked if they could address Condition #37. Staff stated it was in the process. 14. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-089, approving Village Use Permit 2001-009, as amended. a. Condition 18 deleted b. Condition 23 "centerline of the travel lane" c. Condition #25: Staff will work with the applicant for a non- obtrusive location of the fire equipment. d. Condition #38: Prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant shall redesign the rear of the building to include design articulation. G:\WPDOCS\PC6-26-O1.wpd 3 Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2001 ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Tyler, and Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Kirk. Commissioner Kirk rejoined the Commission. B. Environmental Assessment 2001-418. General Plan Amendment 2001- 077. and Zone Change 2001-100; a request of NRI, La Quinta Limited Partnership for certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, approval of a pre-annexation General Plan designation from County designation 2B to Low Density Residential and a Zone Change from County designation A-1-20 to Low Density Residential for the property bounded on the north by Avenue 52, on the east by Monroe Street, on the south by Avenue 53, and on the east by the existing City limits. 1. Chairman Robbins opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Community Development Director Jerry Herman 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 Abels asked staff to confirm that the Ms. Waters would be able to maintain her agricultural operation as it now exists. Staff stated that is correct unless the operation ceases to operate for over a year. In that case it may not. If, however, the City adopts an Agricultural designation and zones this property as Agricultural, then the use can continue forever. 3. Commissioner Kirk asked what legal counsel's opinion on the letter received from Ms. Waters attorney in regard to the City's CEQA documentation and process. City Attorney Kathy Jenson stated that in regard to the allegations that they would not be able to change crops or replant, that is obviously incorrect under the City's Zoning Code. With regard to the issue of a proposed residential development, at this time there is no residential project application. At such time as an application is received and is being processed, it would be appropriate at that time to formulate mitigation measures that would provide notice to prospective property owners in this location. At this time it would be premature. In regard to the Agricultural issues, it is her understanding there are no Williamson Act contracts according to the environmental documents. Community Development Director G:\WPDOCS\PC6-26-O1.wpd 4 Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2001 Jerry Herman clarified that since the environmental document had been prepared, it had been learned that two parcels did have the Williamson Act contract, but applications have been applied for, for non-renewal. This has to be completed before the property can be annexed. Commissioner Kirk asked how the Williamson Act applies here in regard to Ms. Waters property. Staff stated he did not know if Ms. Waters property was under the Williamson Act. Commissioner Kirk asked if the statements in the letter in regard to the overdraft issue is it also not right. City Attorney Kathy Jenson stated that was correct. 4. Commissioner Butler stated that during the public hearing process of the Country Club of the Desert, these issues were addressed at that time by Ms. Waters. Staff noted that when the Country Club of the Desert was approved by Council it was conditioned to inform property owners of this use. There is no application on this site and therefore there is no way of conditioning it at this time as this is only a pre-zoning application only. 5. Commissioner Tyler asked staff to identify Ms. Waters parcel. Staff did so. Commissioner Tyler asked if the action being taken by the Commission at this meeting would place any restrictions on her property in regard to what she could do. Staff stated that it had been the direction of the City Council to preserve the agricultural and equestrian uses. Staff is'drafting language to do this in the General Plan update. Commissioner Tyler asked what would determine the zoning and her uses in the interim period. Staff stated this preannexation zoning and General Plan designation has no affect on Ms. Water's property until such time as LAFCO officially annexes the property. These applications have to go to the City Council for public hearing. The applications are then prepared and submitted to LAFCO with the appropriate fees. LAFCO normally takes four to six months to process an application and at the end of that time the zoning would be in place. This could take up to a year and a half before the overlay was in place. Until that time, the only restriction on her property would be that she could not add or enlarge any agricultural buildings. The residential units are not affected. If the Commission directed staff to do so, staff could'prepare an amendment to the Zoning Code in regard to nonconforming uses. 6. Chairman Robbins asked if the City had any a agricultural zoning. Staff stated that at this time there is no such zoning, and therefore could not annex this property in with an agricultural zoning designation. Chairman Robbins stated his concern was that this property owner was being asked to go on faith that the City will Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2OO1 do this. Is the entire area being considered for annexation under farming. Staff noted it is mostly sod farming, equestrian, or farming uses. Chairman Robbins noted that if the land is developed, the water usage would be the same whether it is being farmed or has residential uses. 7. Commissioner Kirk asked if Ms. Water's property could be removed from the annexation area. Staff stated it could be done, but LAFCO prefers an annexation area to have squared off boundaries, but the final decision is up to LAFCO. Staff noted that if this property is left out of the annexation and decides at a later date to annex into the City, the property owner at that time would be responsible for paying all the fees for the annexation. 8. Chairman Robbins asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Ms. Nancy Aaronson, representing NRI, La Quinta Limited Partnership, stated that they and Mr. Debonne own 80% of the annexation area. They currently do not have plans for the site, but do expect their use to be compatible with any agricultural uses. 9. Commissioner Butler asked how the applicant could address the issues raised by Ms. Waters. Ms. Aaronson stated she had briefly read the letter prepared by Ms. Water's attorney, but some of the issues sited as being unique to a farming operation are very much applicable to a golf course operation. They run heavy equipment, machinery, fertilizers, workers coming and going, the application of chemicals, pesticides, very much like a farming operation. In the event they were to develop this site with a golf course, they would be sensitive to the agricultural operation. 10. Commissioner Tyler stated he is aware of the noise issues of a golf course living in close proximity to one. He asked Ms. Aaronson to identify who NRI was in regard to the Country Club of the Desert. Ms. Aaronson stated this is a third partnership with related partners. They are all affiliated. 1 1. Chairman Robbins asked if there was any other public comment. Ms. Waters stated that she lives on a golf course and it is a different type of operations. Her operation involves a lot of machinery being operated during the middle of the night not just 5:00 or 6:00 in the morning. The chemicals they use are not the same as a golf course operation. In addition, she is concerned that they had to drill down an additional 700 feet to reach ground water as their water source had dried up. Therefore, she is _ G;\WPD(~CS~PC6-26-01 .wpd ..... i~ Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2001 concerned what will happen when the golf courses go in. Her concern is that the neighbors will eventually object to her farming use and she will have problems continuing her farming operation. She would suggest there be a 500-foot buffer between the two uses. She would like to be left out of the annexation. 12. Chairman Robbins stated the Country Club of the Desert will be using canal water which will have no affect on the ground water. They will have domestic wells for people uses. There are farmers who continue to use ground water for farming and this is one of the issues that need to be addressed. The overdraft of the water in this location of the Valley is due to the water for people to drink and for farmers who chose to use ground water for farming. In the overall picture, the site is better off with residential uses than farming. 1 3. Commissioner Butler explained that pre-annexation does not take away Ms. Water's rights to farm. Ms. Waters stated her concern is that when people do move in, they will be before the Council complaining about all the things that she is required to do to farm her property. 14. Commissioner Tyler asked if Ms. Water's concerns were with the impact her farming operation would have on the potential future residents. Ms. Waters stated yes, and those issues raised in the letter written by her attorney, Mr. Hargraves. COmmissioner Tyler stated that whether or not she is annexed, the project will be built, and the issues she is concerned with will still exist. 1 5. Ms. Gayle Cady, 82-831 Avenue 54, stated this is the first time she has heard any mention of the possibility of an agricultural zone in the City of La Quinta. The parcel in question is in a prime equestrian as well as agricultural area. She does not know if it is true or not that an agricultural use would use the same amount of water as a residential use. Due to the location of this site next to the polo clubs and Desert Horse Circuit, we have the largest conglomerate of horses west of the Mississippi. This needs to be taken into consideration because the smell of horse manure will become an issue to these residents. She is also concerned about the noise ordinance which would not allow tractors to operate at all hours of the night. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated that under City ordinances there are no ordinances regarding agricultural machinery. City Attorney Kathy Jenson stated there is a general noise ordinance in the Nuisance Section that says it is a nuisance for a person to make cause, or suffer, or G:\WPDOCS\PC6-26-01 .wpd 7 Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2001 permit to make unnecessary sounds which are physically annoying to persons of ordinary sensitivity, etc. There is a section that pertains to construction specific hours and days for construction noise, but the Code clearly anticipates that existing, nonconforming uses can continue in its intensity, so it is a good argument that the Code would allow the existing levels of noise. If there is an existing use that is established that may create nuisance effects, if there is residential development coming to that area, it will not be considered a nuisance because it is first in time. 16. Commissioner Tyler stated he was surprised to hear Ms. Cady state that this is the first time she has heard mention of an agricultural overlay. He has attended many of the annexation and General Plan hearings and at each meeting the discussion has been to leave agricultural as it is where it is until the property owner want to make the change. Staff noted this has been the City's direction since annexation first started. Ms. Cady stated she was addressing Chairman Robbins comment directly as she was not aware of a specific zone for agriculture and/or equestrian. In addition, the horse industry brings in approximately $2 million dollars annually to the community. 17. Ms. Ellen Lloyd Trover, 82-1 50 Avenue 54, noted there is no equestrian overlay mentioned in the draft EIR prepared for the General Plan update. She does not understand the agricultural overlay and she is a retired attorney and does have a little experience in reading legal documents. To her it is premature to define what these things say until they can see the final ordinance is writing. Therefore, she does not know what Ms. Waters would be able to do. It is her understanding in listening to the time table explained by staff, to bring the annexation to LAFCO, but obviously it is unknown what will happen during the hearings before it goes to LAFCO, nor do they know the exact process before LAFCO or disputes that may delay it. Therefore, they are considering an indefinite time that Ms. Waters may have to operate under a system where we do not know whether or not she would be able to change her current operation should she need to modify them to continue her business. Also, we do not know exactly what the overlays will allow. She is concerned about the ground water use in the Valley. If this area is rezoned for Low Density Residential then they are talking about at least a potential for four houses per acre. For Ms. Waters property that would mean four houses that would be using ground water which would be an increase in the demand for more ground water to be used Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2001 than her one residence uses. She is aware that CVWD has a Water Management Plan, but as she understands it the EIR is not prepared yet. It is a multi-agency plan so who knows how long it will take to get all the agencies into conformity and agreement with this plan or how long it will take to get it adopted and what modifications may take place during the public hearings. If the plan remains as it is written today, it will be the year 201 9 before we stabilize the ground water overdraft. She realizes this is not a huge project, but she does realize we have to start looking at every single project and assessing its impact on ground water, because we have to remember we live in the desert and without water we will have nothing here. She is unsure what she is objecting to except the "ifiness" of the project. 18. Commissioner Abels noted that the City is very concerned with water uses. 1 9. There being no further public comment, Chairman Robbins closed the public participation portion of the hearing and opened the project for Commission discussion. 20. Commissioner Tyler stated that most of what has been stated is probably beyond what can be decided at this time. 21. Commissioner Butler stated he knows CVWD has taken into consideration the ground'water problems in the Valley and are putting in ponds that will regenerate the sources. In considering the applications that are before the Commission, he does not have as many concerns as he will when an application for development is brought before the Commission. 22. Commissioner Abels stated there will be many issues both pro and con in regard to annexation and the Commission will have to address them as they come up. 23. Commissioner Kirk stated the issues are not right for consideration until a specific project is proposed. Ms. Water has shown a lot of good sense by addressing this at an early stage. Some of her concerns cannot be addressed at this time in regard to conditions which could mitigate those concerns, as there is no application before them for development. He reminded the Commission of another project that was considered by the Commission. There were different, conflicting land uses, but there the property owners of the Low Density Residential were given notice when R~\WPI30CS\PC6-26-01 .wDd ~) Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2OO1 they bought their property that there would be a condominium project with higher density next to them. They all received the notification and signed off on knowing it would be there. Yet, when that project came before the Commission, they protested the development of the project. Ms. Waters is right, the proposed project will be a wonderful project, and the people buying there will object to the equipment used in her farming operation. Therefore, he does agree that she has a right to be concerned. At the same time, he concurs with Commissioner Butler, development is going to occur whether or not it is in the City or County. There are three options before the Commission: 1) approve the request as proposed; 2) reject it; or 3) approve the request for everything except Ms. Waters property. Therefore, he would suggest that at this time they remove Ms. Waters property from the annexation area. He would caution Ms. Waters that there is an old saying about "being in the tent versus doing something out of the tent". She may want to reconsider this decision. From his perspective he would rather be in the City addressing his neighbors rather than being in another jurisdiction. When she has to come before the Council to request a setback for this project, she will be in the County rather than in the City. She needs to make some strategic decisions. She knows the project will be developed and should be looking at this in how best to approach it. 24. Chairman Robbins stated he has a lot of compassion for Ms. Waters, but what they are considering is an eventual annexation. An annexation in and of itself does not change the land use or any impact on what is currently there. He would agree that Ms. Waters would be better off as part of the City rather than outside the City limits. He would suggest they make a recommendation that the City move forward with the annexation directing staff to start the process of putting the equestrian/agricultural zoning in place. 25. Commissioner Butler asked staff if creating a new zoning would be contrary to what they are trying to achieve. Ms. Waters wants to retain her use and it has never been the City's desire to remove the use. Staff stated we do not have an agricultural zone or land use in General Plan or Zoning Code. In order to accomplish what Ms. Waters wants we would have to continue this public hearing and staff would have to create a land use designation and policy for agricultural. Staff would have to create a zoning text amendment for agricultural uses and then schedule those for public G:\WPDOCS\PC6-26-01 .wpd ]. 0 Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2001 hearings before the Commission and City Council. This is the only way her property and use could be made conforming. The other option is to remove her from this annexation and address it when the other annexation is brought forward which may be as much as a year to two years away. Commissioner Butler asked if her property was removed would it have any affect on the proposed annexation. Staff stated it would be submitted to LAFCO for their decision. 26. Chairman Robbins asked if Ms. Waters was the only property owner not included on the application. Staff stated that was correct. 27. Commissioner Abels asked staff to clarify what was before the Commission. Staff explained that what was before the Commission was preannexation zoning and land use. 28. Commissioner Tyler stated the Council has continually reiterated that the City is not actively pursuing annexation. We are reacting to those requesting to be annexed. 29. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-090, recommending to the City Council certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 2001-418, with the clarification on what properties are within the Williamson Act designation and have been noticed to discontinue. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 30. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Abels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-091 recommending to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 2001-077, subject to the findings and the elimination of APN 767-200-011. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. G:\WPDOCS\PC6-26-O 1.wpd ] ] Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2001 31. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Abels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-092 recommending to the City Council approval of Zone Change 2001-100, subject to the findings and the elimination of APN 767-200-011. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. VII. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Sign Application 20001-554; a request of Palm Royale Country Club for approval of a monument sign to be located at the southeast corner of Washington Street and Fred Waring Drive. 1. Chairman Robbins and Commissioner Tyler excused themselves and withdrew from the dias due to a possible conflict of interest due to the location of their residences in proXimity to the project. 1. Vice Chairman Abels asked for the staff report. Associate Planner Michele Rambo presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Vice Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Butler asked staff to clarify what they were recommending in regard to the size of the sign. Staff stated the face is six feet six inches and the base is an additional 1 8 inches. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated the Code defines the height as being at the grade of the sign. Commissioner Butler asked if lighting was being proposed. Staff stated it would be externally illuminated with flood lights. 3. Commissioner Kirk asked who approved the original sign. Staff stated the last sign was approved by the City. Commissioner Kirk asked what the rationale was for approving a sign that did not conform to the Code. Staff explained the applicant had requested an adjustment that was approved initially because of the distance of the entry from the corner. Staff went on to explain other developments that have the additional signs. 4. Commissioner Butler asked if the sign would have the phone number. Staff stated they are recommending the phone number be removed. Commissioner Butler asked if the restaurant sign, G :\WPDO CS\PC 6- 2 6-01. wpd ]. 2 Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2001 just before the entrance on Fred Waring Drive, would be allowed to remain. Staff stated off-site premise signs are not allowed and they would contact Code Compliance to check on the sign. 5. There being no further questions of staff, Vice Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Skip Berg, representing the applicant, asked who was responsible for asking his client to remove the sign for the street widening. Staff stated it was a CVAG project and included with the widening of Washington Street. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated encroachment permits were needed to widen the street which required the sign to be removed. The City probably requested the removal to complete the street widening. Mr. Berg stated the prior sign was larger than what they are requesting. Staff stated that based on the sign originally approved, it was 6- feet high from the base and six feet across. Mr. Berg asked if he could replace the sign as it was originally approved. Staff stated as long as it conformed to what was originally approved. Mr. Berg questioned the size of the sign in regard to the base as it fits on the berm. Why did the overall size include the base? They would agree to having a planter with the sign for an overall 24 square foot signage. 6. Vice Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Butler asked the applicant to explain the lighting. Mr. Berg explained the lighting and stated they do not want a bright light. 7. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Kirk to adopt Minute Motion 2001-012, approving Sign Application 2001-554, with an 18 inch base and six foot sign. Unanimously approved. Chairman Robbins and Commissioner Tyler rejoined the Commission. VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Commissioner Tyler gave a report of the City Council meeting of June 19, 2001. G:\WPDOCS\PC6-26-01 .wpd ] 3 Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2001 X. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Butler to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held July 10, 2001, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 8:57 p.m. on June 12, 2001. Respectfully submitted, ~wyer, Executive Secretary City hr'La Quinta, California G:\WPDOCS\PC6-26-01 .wpd ] 4