Loading...
2001 07 24 PC Minutes MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA July 24, 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 Abels who asked Commissioner Robbins to lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Richard Butler, Tom Kirk, Steve Robbins, Robert Tyler, and Chairman Jacques Abels. C. Staff present: Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez, Planning Manager Christine di Iorio, Senior Engineer Steve Speer, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: A. Mr. Lee Osborn, 43671 Messina Court, La Quinta, stated he was moving his business to the new La Quinta Court complex and will leasing two and a half units, of this building. He was present to request that he be able to center his business sign over the area he will be leasing. Commissioner Butler asked if this was something they had to do or could it be handled by staff. Staff stated it would need to be agenized for the Commission to take action. Commissioner Kirk stated it was his understanding that the applicant requested the location of the signs. Discussion followed regarding the sign approval. Staff was directed to agenize this item for the next meeting upon receiving an aplication. B. Ms. Kim Bird, 52,360 Avenida Madero, stated that she had become aware that the Santa Rosa Plaza-Embassy Suites project had been scheduled for City Council on August 7, 2001. When their Referendum was denied by the Council they had agreed that this project would have to go back to the Planning Commission before going to the City Council due to the new design that would have to be done. She was present to ask why this was bypassing the Commission and going directly to the -~ City Council. In her opinion, this should come back to the Commission before going on to the City Council. She would also like to know if the applicant had permission to increase the size/width. Commissioner Kirk asked if they could know the process. Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez stated the Commission could take no action at this time but staff G:\WPDOCS\PC7-24-01 .wpd Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2001 could give a report on the process. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated it was the determination by the Community Development Director with regards to the processing in accordance with the Code sections for General Permitting Process and the reference is to modifications by the applicant and the director determining that the plan modifications would result in a significant change, referred the matter back to the original decision making authority, which is the City Council. C. Kay Wolff, 77-227 Calle Ensenada, thanked staff for placing the General Plan, Master Environmental Assessment, and Environmental Assessment at the library for review. It is an important document for the citizens of La Quinta and her concern is that there might not have as much distribution or circulation so the citizens can voice their opinion and make educated comments. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed IV. CONSENT ITEMS: A. Chairman Abels asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of July 10, 2001. Commissioner Robbins asked that Page 5, Item //2 be corrected to state "Chairman Abels"; Commissioner Kirk asked that Page 2, Item A be corrected to read" .... the issues are not ripe until...". Commissioner Tyler asked that Page 4, Item //10 be corrected to read, "...profile lighting in the parking lot."; Page 6, Item //11 be corrected to read, "Commissioner Tyler stated that that type..."; Page 10, Item//7 be corrected to state, "Commissioner Tyler...". There being no further corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Butler to approve the minutes as corrected. Unanimously approved. B. Department Report: None. V. PRESENTATIONS: None. VI. PUBLIC HEARING: A. Continued - Environmental Assessment 2001-425. Conditional Use Permit 2001-061. and Site Development Permit 2001-706; a request of AT&T Wireless Services. for certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and approval of the installation of a 65 foot high wireless antenna with m°nopalm prototype design and construction of a single story 1,002 square foot building for related equipment to be located west of Eisenhower Drive, north of Los Arboles and south of Avenida Fernando within the La Quinta Resort and Club. G:\WPDOCS\PC7-24-Ol.wad 2 Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2001 1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Planing 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 Abels asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Kirk questioned the mitigation monitoring program. The only impact deemed significant was groundshaking; was that appropriate? It is his understanding the mitigation monitoring program is only to address impacts, so there would be no mitigations for areas there are no impacts. As there are no impact on air quality, why would we have programs dealing with it. Staff stated that was something that needed to be resolved. Staff has been taking them out of mitigation measures as they are UBC requirements. Commissioner Kirk stated that if they are complying with City Codes why are they being addressed in the monitoring program. Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez stated that rather than continuing this discussion, staff will evaluate the form and make changes accordingly. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated a change should be made to the form. 3. Commissioner Kirk stated the only impact listed were related to seismic groundshaking and the mitigation measure is compliance with City standards. Projects have to comply with City standards regardless of mitigation measures and therefore, should not have to be a part of the mitigation measures. On the mitigation monitoring, if they are complying with City codes, the project as proposed, unless the project as proposed is not complying with City codes, it would not have an impact. If we are saying the City codes then we would have a new mitigation program to address it. Staff stated that in this instance, it would be easier to change the mark for that issue. 4. Commissioner Butler asked if this was the third communication tower at the La Quinta Hotel and Resort facility. Staff stated it was the second permanent facility; there were two temporary. Commissioner Butler asked if they were under the same groundshaking zone. Staff stated they would have to review the file. 5. Commissioner Tyler questioned a letter received by Mr. Jerry Swanger, Sr. stating his objection to the project, and whether the tower was constructed out of wrought iron. G:\WPDOCS\PC7-24-01 .wpd 3 Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2001 6. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Ms. Polly Johnson, representing AT & T Wireless Services, stated it is a metal pole clad in a synthetic bark to have the appearance of a palm tree. She was available to answer any other questions. 7. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Tyler asked if all the proposed equipment would meet current FCC standards. Ms. Johnson stated yes. 8. Chairman Abels asked if there was any radiation from the tower. Ms. Johnson stated their levels are Iow and they would have to conform to all FCC standards. 9. Chairman Abels asked if anyone else would like to speak on this item. There being no further discussion, the public participation portion of the hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 10. Commissioner Kirk asked that the Mitigation Monitoring Program reflect their changes. 11. Commissioner Robbins stated he has no problem with this project, but has an objection to the City of Indian Wells who will not accept any communication towers, which pushes all them to La Quinta and Palm Desert. 1 2. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-100 certifying a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 2001-426 as amended. a. Environmental Checklist VI.II be marked as no or less than significant impact. b. Delete the Mitigation Monitoring Program ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 1 3. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Kirk to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-1 01 approving Conditional Use Permit 2001-061, as recommended. G :\WPDOC S\PC 7-24-01. wpd 4 Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2001 ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 14. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Robbins to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-102 approving Site Development Permit 2001-706, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. B. Site Development Permit 2001-707; a request of PM La Quinta LLC, for review of architectural and landscaping plans for 4 prototype residential units with three to four facades each for the property located at the northeast corner of Orchard Lane and Avenue 50 within Tract 28964 (Talante). 1. Chairman Abels 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 Abels asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Butler stated he has reviewed the project and does like the project, but they did not receive any colored renderings to review. 3. Commissioner Robbins stated he too needed to have the colored renderings to make a determination. Mr. Geoff McComic, representing the applicant, presented colored elevations and stated he was available for any questions. 4. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Tyler asked why staff was asking for one inch caliper trees measured three feet from grade in the front yard. That is a smaller tree than normally required for a project of this size. Mr. McComic stated the two trees were 36-inch box trees. __ Staff stated 15 gallon trees are about one inch in diameter. The developers are having difficulty obtaining quality plant material. 5. Commissioner Butler asked what the City standards were regarding the caliper of the tree. Staff stated it was determined by the conditions. G :\WPDOCS\PC 7-24-01 .wpd Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2001 6. Commissioner Tyler asked if all the houses would be one story. Mr. McComic stated they were all one story. 7. Commissioner Robbins asked how many units in this subdivision. Mr. McComic stated 78. 8. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the public participation portion of the hearing and opened the project for Commission discussion. 9. Commissioner Robbins stated he was under the impression that the City's Landscape Ordinance required any subdivision over a certain number, would have to have one landscape option for a desertscape for front yards for the models. Also, why are the conditions requiring turf in the front yard. Staff stated they would have to review the Code. Under compatibility review, of which this is not, there is a requirement for 24-inch box trees with 1.5- 2" calipher and ten feet tall, but under residential tract developments, which is where this development falls, there is not a requirement for landscaping. 10. Commissioner Butler asked the applicant if water tolerant landscaping was going to be a problem. Mr. McComic stated they have gone to having 30% drought material. What they have found is that once the property owner takes ownership, they either have all turf, or no turf. 11. Commissioner Kirk asked why we were requiring turf if the Code does not. Mr. McComic states the 20-30% requirement works for them. He has no problem providing a drought tolerant option. Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez stated that Section 8.13.030(D)(2)-Public Education, of the Municipal Code states, "Model homes. At least one model home that is landscaped in each project consisting of eight or more homes shall demonstrate via signs and information, the principles of water efficient landscapes described in this chapter." 12. Commissioner Butler asked if the applicant had to actually construct the landscape 'plan. Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez stated as he interprets the Code section, it is their obligation to provide public education on the water efficient landscaping, perhaps drip irrigation, things of that nature. The G:\WPDOCS\PC7-24-01.wpd t~ Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2001 baseline appearing to be the standards of the Water Efficiency Ordinance. Commissioner Butler stated the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee should be made aware of this and made part of their review process. Discussion followed as to how this would be implemented on this project. 1 3. Commissioner Tyler asked if there was a Specific Plan for the tract map. Staff stated no. 14. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Robbins/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-103 approving Site Development Permit 2001- 707, subject to the findings and conditions as amended: a. Condition 2.A. Remove the requirement for turf in the front yard b. Add Condition: Requiring a model home be in compliance with Water Efficiency Ordinance in regard to the front yard landscaping. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Commissioners Tyler/Robbins moved to reorganize the Agenda taking Business Item "A" before Public Hearing Item "C". VII. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Sign Permit 98-415, Amendment //1; a request of Southwest Sign Company (Storage USA) for review of proposed sign plans for an additional identification sign for the property located at 46-600 Adams Street. 1. Chairman Abels 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 Abels asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler stated the drawing of the sign states 50 square feet and the staff report states 58 square feet. Staff stated their analysis, per the sign regulations, showed a total of 58 square feet. G:\WPDOCS\PC7-24-01,wpd Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2001 3. Commissioner Robbins asked if the "Self Storage" were removed, could they increase the size of "Storage USA". Staff stated that was correct. 4. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Jack Fovell, Southwest Sign Company representing the applicant, stated that the discrepancies in the square footage was due to the white space between the lines. He calculated the sign area by calculating each letter and not the entire sign face. Of the three conditions they only have a concern in regard to the removal of the "trademark" wording, "Self Storage". They are trying to obtain information from the corporate · offices to determine whether or not it is part of their trademark, as requested by staff. Second is the wire-way on the front of the sign. This is a concrete wall building that has no parapet and the space immediately behind the sign is part of a rented storage unit. This is locked and inaccessible during a normal business day. Therefore, from a service and safety point of view having the wire- way on the front of the building allows them accessibility to the wiring. 5. Commissioner Kirk asked how he addresses the wiring on the existing sign. Mr. Fovell stated the existing sign is constructed on a pop-out, architectural soffit over the entryway. There is actUal attic space on the Adams Street side of the building. 6. Commissioner Butler asked how they would handle the exposed wiring. Mr. Fovell explained the construction of the sign. No exposed wiring would be seen. 7. Commissioner Tyler commended the applicant on the look and upkeep of the building. 8. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the public participation portion and opened the item for Commission discussion. 9. There being no further discussion it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Butler to adopt Minute Motion 2001-013 approving Site Development Permit 98-415, Amendment //1, subject to the findings and conditions as recommended. a. Condition //2 deleted. 1 0. Unanimously approved. Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2001 PUBLIC HEARINGS - CONTINUED C.- Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2001-070; a request of the City for consideration of miscellaneous amendments to Title 9-Zoning Code and Title 13-Subdivision Ordinance of the La Quinta Municipal Code. 1. Chairman Abels 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. a. Section 9.50.090 (A)(B) and (C). Commissioner Kirk asked if the site inspection was after the fact. Staff clarified that the inspection was prior to a building permit being issued. Approved as recommended by staff. b. Section 9.50.090(B). COmmissioner Tyler asked that it be changed to "require" a conditional use permit. c. Section 9.60.030(C)(4): Commissioner Tyler asked if the developments with private streets, which are narrow, would be affected, Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated private streets were not considered in regard to this section. Staff recommended this be for public streets only and a separate section be added for private streets. d. Section 9.60.030(C)(1)(c): Commissioner Tyler questioned how other trellis' would be addressed. Staff stated they are not considered a permanent structure. Approved as recommended. e. Section 9.60.045: Commissioners questioned what the problem was attaching to a wall. Staff explained the basic reason was structural requirements. Delete "B" and replace with "B" 1) with the removal of "except freestanding" fireplaces, and 2) delete 2-4. f. Section 9.60,070(B)(2): Commissioner Robbins stated he does not understand why his pool equipment cannot be placed next to his house or fence. He has a 15-foot sideyard and the pool equipment has to be placed right in the middle of this setback instead of to either side to keep it clear which now blocks the setback. Commissioner Butler stated that when a pool is in the frontyard the property owner is very limited to where he can put the pool G:\WPDOCS\PC7-24-01 .wpd ~) Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2001 equipment. Commissioner Tyler questioned enclosing the equipment in the frontyard. Section a. add "immediately" before enclosed in the second sentence; as recommended. Section c. Add a section, "when there is no wall". g. Section 9.60.075: Section a. On a 5,000 square foot lot, a condenser is allowed in the front yard where there is a wall around the yard or it is screened by a masonry wall, remove the last sentence and change "compressors" to "condensers"; Section b. as recommended. Section c. Add a section "where there is no wall". h. Section 9.60.1 60(3): as recommended. i. Section 9.60.240(E)(i)(ii)(b)(c): as recommended. j. Section 9.60.250(E): as recommended. k. Section 9.60.300(I)(1): as recommended. I. Section 9.65.030(A)(1)(a)(b)(c)(d): add language to prohibit a utility vault in the sidewalks. Sections (b) and (c) should be made options of design. Consider allowing upper stories to extend out to the property line with no setback. Retain setbacks and move design details into guidelines. m. Section 9.65.030(A)(3)(a): as recommended n. Section 9.65.040(D): Commissioner Kirk stated they wanted more discretion than interpretation. As recommended. o. Section 9.65.040: as recommended, p. Section 9.100.1 50(G): as recommended. q. Section 9.150.060 Table 9-11: encourage tandem and side-loaded garages. Leave the Table 9-11 for minimum off street parking as it is currently written. r. Section 9.150.080(B)(1): leave the length at 19-feet, not 1 8 feet as recommended. s. Section 9.1 50.080(B)(7): as recommended. G:\WPDOCS\PC7-24-01.wpd ] 0 Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2001 t. Section 9.150.100: as recommended. u. Section 9.200.110(D): as recommended. 2. Chairman Abels asked if anyone else would like to speak on this item. 3. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the public participation portion of the hearing and opened the project for Commission discussion. 4. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Robbins to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-104 approving Zoning Code Amendment 2001- 070, as amended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Commissioner Tyler gave a report of the City Council meeting of July 19, 2001. X. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Butler to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held August 28, 2001, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. on July 24, 2001. Respectfully submitted, City of'T_a Ouinta, California G :\WPDOCS\PC7-24-O 1.wpd ] !