2001 09 11 PC Minutes MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
September 11, 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 Butler to lead the flag
salute.
B. Present: Commissioners Richard Butler, Tom Kirk, Steve Robbins, Robert
Tyler, and Chairman Jacques Abels.
C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, Assistant
City Attorney John Ramirez, Planning Manager Christine di Iorio, Senior
Engineer Steve Speer, Principal Planners Fred Baker, Associate Planner
-- Michele Rambo, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT:
III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed
IV. CONSENT ITEMS:
A. Chairman Abels asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of
August 28, 2001. Commissioner Tyler asked that Page 4, Item C be
corrected to read, "...on the north and west sides..."; Page 11, Item #8
to note the motion was made by Commissioners Tyler/Butler. 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. Site Development Permit 2001-713; a request of Rancho Capistrano
Development Corporation for review of architectural and landscaping
plans for three new prototype residential units located north of Avenue
54 and east of Jefferson Street, within Country Club of the Desert.
G:\WPDOCS\PC9-11-01 ,wpd
Planning Commission Minutes
August 28, 2001
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 Tyler stated there were only two facades per plan
and yet the report states that only Plan One can be built on
Avenue 52 and there are 32 houses on Avenue 52 which will limit
the number of facades on this street. It should have more variety.
3. Commissioner Butler asked if the Architecture and Landscape
Review Committee (ALRC) comments were added to the
conditions. Staff clarified they were comments which were not an
issue, only something the ALRC wanted the applicant to consider.
4. Commissioner Kirk asked how the applicant will be handling the
zero lot line/landscaping lot on the adjoining property. One
property owner would be responsible for maintaining the
landscaping of the adjoining property owner. Staff stated there
would be an easement to allow this. This is typical of most
common areas within a country club such as Rancho La Quinta
and Miraflores. It is handled in the CC&R's. Commissioner Kirk
stated that under the phototypical landscape plan it appears there
are wall fountains. Would these be handled by the adjacent
property owner, but the water would be connected to the adjacent
property owner. Staff stated the applicant could address this.
5. Commissioner Robbins asked why the lot lines could not be moved
to the edge of the building so this issue could go away. Staff
stated it is approved under their Specific Plan.
6. Commissioners Robbins and Kirk stated they did not understand
the reasoning for this.
7. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. Robert Wilkenson stated that regarding the zero
lot lines, they were trying to stay within what had been approved
for their specific guidelines. The way it is handled neighbor to
neighbor is through an access, or use easement. It is
G:\WPDOCS\PC9-11-01 .wpd 2
Planning Commission Minutes
August 28, 2001
acknowledged prior to purchase so an individual can use the
sideyard for decorating with landscaping or fountains without
getting permission from the neighbor. This would also be
acknowledged in the CC&R's.
8. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of the
applicant. Commissioner Kirk asked if they would rather change
the Specific Plan and not have these easements. Mr. Wilkenson
stated it did not matter. It is just a use easement between the
two properties. Discussion followed regarding the easement and
property owner's use.
9. Commissioner Tyler asked what he thought of requiring the
additional facade. Mr. Wilkenson stated he thought there were
able to alternate all three plans and two facades each for a total
of six different elevations. The renderings show six different color
schemes, so he has two different elevations per three plans plus
six different color schemes for each one which creates a better
- mix. Commissioner Tyler stated he agreed on the interior, but if
he is limited to what the Zoning Code requires in regard to a
smaller one story house, less than 22 feet in height along Avenue
52 there is only one plan that fits. Mr. Wilkenson stated he is
unaware of the requirement and did not believe he was within the
22 foot requirement. Staff stated there is a potential for some of
the homes to be within the 150 feet right of way of the property
line limiting the height to 22 feet.
10. Commissioner Butler stated this was confusing. Avenue 52 has
a berm; are there homes on the other side of the berm. Mr.
Wilkenson stated there were homes on the other side of the berm
and they would not be seen from Avenue 52. Staff stated the
Code states that anything within 150 feet of the right of way, is
required to have a 22 foot height limitation, even if there is a
berm. The applicant could submit an additional elevation which
staff would review and approve for Plan 1, or reduce the height of
the Plan 2. Mr. Wilkenson stated he would prefer to have the
three different plans available and two different elevations and
address the height issue.
11. Commissioner Robbins asked if this would take a specific plan
amendment. Staff stated he can build Plan 1, or reduce the height
of Plan 2 below 22 feet. Discussion followed.
G:\WPDOCS\PCg- 11-01 .wpd 3
Planning Commission Minutes
August 28, 2001
12. Commissioner Kirk asked if there was a way out of this. Assistant
City Attorney John Ramirez stated he would be hesitant to reply
without having the Specific Plan before him. The Commission
could make a plausible argument, but he would be hesitant in the
absence of having the Specific Plan.
13. Commissioner Robbins asked what has been determined as Iow
profile as stated in the General Plan. Community Development
Director Jerry Herman stated 22 feet within 150 feet of the right
of way. Commissioner Robbins asked if that was a staff
determination, or part of the General Plan. Staff stated it was part
of the Zoning Ordinance which was approved by both the Planning
Commission and City Council. Discussion followed regarding the
tower element on Plan 2 to be approved by staff.
14. Commissioner Kirk asked if Plan 3 is next to a Plan 1 or 2
wouldn't the left side elevation include four windows that look out
into the neighbor's sideyard. Mr. Wilkinson stated they will be
glass block to let the light in, but not the view.
15. Chairman Abels asked if there was any other public comment.
There being none, the public participation portion of the hearing
was closed and open for Commission discussion.
16. Commissioner Butler asked if the applicant did an amendment to
the Specific Plan, would the berm be an issue. Staff stated that
anything could be addressed. Discussion followed.
17. Commissioner Kirk stated he likes the design. The side access for
the golf cart is a nice change. It will be a nice asset to the City.
18. Commissioner Butler asked how this issue had not be addressed
with the applicant before this point. Staff stated it was discussed
with other members of the development team during the Specific
Plan preparation. Commissioner Butler stated he liked the design
and colors.
19. Commissioner Tyler stated he also liked the plans.
G:\WPDOCS\PC9-11-01 .wpd 4
Planning Commission Minutes
August 28, 2001
20. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Robbins/Butler to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2001-113 approving Site Development Permit 2001-
713, subject to the findings and Conditions of Approval as
amended:
a. Condition //6: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the
applicant shall modify the Plan 2 roof height to a maximum
of 22 feet in height along Avenue 52 and provide a third
facade to Plan 1, subject to the Community Development
Department approval.
b. Condition //7: Glass block shall be required on the Plan 4
'elevation that faces the adjacent neighbor.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and
Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
-- B. Tentative Tract Map 30092; a request of Barton Properties for review of
conceptual parkway landscape plans for a 97-1ot residential subdivision
located at the northwest corner of Avenue 58 and. Monroe Street.
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 Tyler asked if this project abutted The Palms project
along Monroe Street. Community Development Director Jerry
Herman clarified the first forty acres at the intersection of Monroe
Street and Avenue 58 belongs to the applicants and then there
was another forty acre parcel before The Palms. Commissioner
Tyler stated his concern was the sidewalk.
3. Commissioner Kirk asked if the request for 40% turf was adequate
for staff. Staff clarified it was before the Commission for their
direction.
G:\WPDOCS\PCg-11-01 ,wpd 5
Planning Commission Minutes
August 28, 2001
4. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. The applicant not being present, 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.
5. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Kirk/Robbins to adopt Minute Motion 2001-016
approving Tentative Tract Map 30092, subject to the findings and
Conditions of Approval as amended:
a. Condition //7: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the
landscaping plan shall be revised to show that 25% of the
parkway will be turf, subject to Community Development
Department approval.
C. Site Development Permit 2001-710; a request of Cody & Brady,
Architects for review of development plans for a permanent maintenance
and construction gatehouse located on the south side of Avenue 52, east
of the intersection with Washington Street, within the Tradition.
1. Commissioner Kirk excused himself due to a possible conflict of
interest and left the dias.
2. Chairman Abels 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. There being no questions of staff, Chairman Abels asked if the
applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Richard
Brady, representing the applicant, stated he was available for
questions. Mr. Brady asked that Conditions //36 and //37 be'
deleted as they are not relevant. Staff stated they could correct
this as it did not appear they would be adding any new landscape
areas. Staff wanted to be sure the trees would be relocated. Mr.
Brady stated they do have one small landscape area which is a
planter. Staff stated they would like the applicant to submit a
landscape plan for the area for staff approval.
G:\WPDOCS\PC9-11-01 .wpd {~
Planning Commission Minutes
August 28, 2001
4. Chairman Abels asked if anyone else would like to address the
Commission on this issue. There being no further public comment,
Chairman Abels closed the public participation portion of the
hearing and opened the project for Commission discussion.
5. Commissioner Tyler stated he had a concern with Condition//4 as
it seems to imply that if, at some time in the future they were to
install an entry rejection turning capability, then they could use it
for residential use and he does not believe that was ever the intent
of this gate. Therefore, he would like everything after "permitted"
deleted. Commissioner Tyler stated he was also concerned that
enough stacking room is available at the Avenue 52 entrance to
handle several delivery trucks at one time. Mr. Brady stated it
was designed to allow two 18 wheel semi trucks at a time.
Commissioner Tyler stated there has been a number of cars parked
along Avenue 52 which he assumed were employees and he
wondered why there wasn't enough room inside the development.
Mr. Brady stated he would bring it to the homeowners' association
attention.
6. There being no further public comment, the public participation,
the public comment portion of the hearing was closed and open
for Commission discussion.
7. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Butler/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2001-114 approving Site Development Permit 2001-
710, subject to the findings and conditions as amended:
a. Condition #4: delete everything after the word "not
permitted".
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman
Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Kirk.
ABSTAIN: None.
Commissioner Kirk rejoined the Commission.
D. Site Development Permit 2001-712; a request of Michael Shovlin for
review of development plans for a 23,492 square foot commercial center
(Staples) to be located on the north side of Highway 111, east of
Washington Street, within the One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center.
G:\WPDOCS\PC9-11-01 .wpd
Planning Commission Minutes
August 28, 2001
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 Robbins stated there was an inconsistency between
the colored elevation and the black and white version in regard to
the archway over the Staples entrace. The version in the black
and white is consistent with what is currently at the Center and
the other is different. Staff stated the arch proposed is on the
black and white elevation. The colored elevation is for the sign
submittal only, not the arch.
3. Commissioner Tyler asked if the arcade would project out to the
street to match up with the Stater Bros market. Staff stated it
was conditioned to match up with the existing shops.
Commissioner Tyler stated his concern was that the rear
landscaping would not be enough to hide the rear facade of the
building.
4. Commissioner Kirk asked if the right elevation would be attached
to a future building. Staff stated when a building is proposed it
will either be attached, or abutting. Commissioner Kirk asked how
the sign was measured. Staff stated it is the entire sign surface,
but in this instance, the background is painted so it could be
interpreted to just include the letters. If it were a cabinet sign and
illuminated the entire background would be included in the sign
size. The size allowed by a major tenant is up to 82 square feet.
5. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. Dave Smoley, project manager for the site,
stated he was available for any questions.
6. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of the
applicant. Commissioner Robbins stated he thought the rear
building elevation was unattractive and asked if the applicant
would be willing to improve it. Mr. Smoley stated this had been
discussed with staff and this was what the architects drew based
on those discussions, which they believe has enhanced the look.
The comments made at the ALRC meeting were about the rear
vegetation in regard to the fence. The fence parallels the truck
G:\WPDOCS\PC9-11-01 .wpd 8
_
_ .
Planning Commission Minutes
August 28, 2001
well and they thought the height of the Oleanders at the rear of
the property would suffice to mitigate any undesirable appearance
of the fence. They did not make any statement that the
landscaping would hide the building. They believe the rear
elevation is attractive with the recesses, shading, and color
variations.
7. Commissioner Tyler asked why they would rather have the fence
than a block wall. Mr. Smoley stated it was a Staples prototype
and their design request. It was a delivery area that was recessed
to serve as an additional screen for the trucks. Commissioner
Tyler stated he would prefer a Iow block wall versus a pipe or
chain link fence. Second, what is indicated by the bands at the
top of the building. It calls out stucco and he is uncertain what
the material will be. Mr. Smoley stated it is a stucco covered
foam trim that projects from the wall that is decorative and applied
to the block wall, plastered over and painted. Commissioner Tyler
asked if it had a geometrical shape. Mr. Smoley stated it did.
- Commissioner Tyler asked about the landscaping at the base of
each column. Mr. Smoley stated it would be consistent with the
remainder of the Center. They currently have bougainvillaeas at
the base of each column in the Center. Discussion followed
regarding the landscaping in the rear of the Center.
8. Commissioner Robbins asked that the applicant place the same
triangular shaped lighting accent that is on the front of the
building, on the rear of the building to break up the back. Mr.
Smoley stated they were wall sconces which are up-lights to wash
the wall with light at night. They saw no purpose having these in
the rear. Commissioner Robbins stated he was not concerned
with the lights, but rather the accent tiles to break up the look.
Mr. Michael Shovlin, owner of the Center, stated that in the back
of the building they have security lighting. Commissioner Robbins
stated he was not concerned that additional lighting be added only
that some type of tile inset be added that would mimick the look
of the front. Mr. Shovlin stated no other building in the Center
currently has that on the rear. Commissioner Robbins stated the
Commission should do whatever it can to improve the look of the
__~ rear of the Center. Discussion followed regarding the lighting
issues and the rear elevations.
G:\WPDOCS\PC9-11-01 .wpd ~)
Planning Commission Minutes
August 28, 2001
9. Chairman Abels stated he liked the entry vestibule facing the
south which will help to conserve energy. He also asked if this is
a typical size for a Staples store. Mr. Shovlin stated it was
approximately 24,000 square feet. In addition, there will be a
31,000 square foot Ross Dress for Less and later a Big 5 Sporting
Goods store.
10. Mr. Smoley asked that Condition //38 be changed to match the
rest of the Center. Staff stated this should be clarified to read the
rear elevation.
11. Chairman Abels asked if there was any other public comment.
There being no further public participation, Chairman Abels closed
the public participation portion of the hearing and opened the
meeting for Commission discussion.
12. Commissioner Tyler suggested a wrought iron fence be installed
instead of the chain link fence. In regard to the landscaping
Conditions, //24, //25, //26, and//27, they no longer apply to this
application, and except for the last sentence of //27, should be
deleted.
13. Commissioner Butler stated he would like to see the fence
anodized or painted to make it look better. As to the landscaping,
he agrees there should be something added.
14. Commissioner Kirk stated he thought the application was better
than when it was first reviewed and he supports the application.
If it needs to be improved on the rear elevation, he would support
the other Commissioners in that regard.
15. Commissioner Robbins stated that with the inset tiles similar to
what is on the front elevation, it would improve the appearance.
He disagrees that there is a way to improve the look of chain link
and he would like to see a condition added requiring either
wrought iron or some type of pipe that accomplishes the need for
security as well as improves the appearance. He asked staff if the
Commission had the authority to require them to improve the rear
landscaping for the length of the entire Center. Assistant City
Attorney John Ramirez stated he saw no problem with this. The
Commission has broad discretion in regard to their review.
Commissioner Robbins stated he would like to see some type of
G:\WPDOCS\PC9-11-01 .wpd ] 0
Planning Commission Minutes
August 28, 2001
requirement added that would improve the rear landscaping to hide
the building. Also, it should be something other than the
Oleanders. This could be left up to staff. Mr. Shovlin stated he
has one mile of Oleanders planted, from Washington Street to
Adams Street. If he were to increase the water to grow the
Oleanders higher, would that help/ When he built the Center he
had an approved landscape plan. To change this plan for one
store does not seem right. Commissioner Robbins stated that in
his opinion, there is no landscaping behind the building.
16. Community Development Director Jerry Herman reminded the
Commission that the City is conditioned to install a bike path from
Washington Street to Jefferson Street. The City has to work with
CVWD to install this and the City does not want to create a
landscaping plan that will block the view of the police while
patrolling the area. Commissioner Rolabins stated he was thinking
about some trees and bushes to break up the look. He does not
want a solid hedge. Mr. Shovlin stated he had dedicated an
-- easement for the bikepath.
17. Commissioner Kirk stated he thought it would be too much of a
burden to require the owner to replace a mile of Oleanders given
the investment he has already made in this Center. At the same
time it does not look as good as it should, and could. He would
suggest they require the applicant to hire an arborist, an expert in
trees, to go to the site and work with the applicant to determine
whether they need to increase their water use, change the
landscaping, add whatever it takes to improve the appearance and
have a report prepared for the Commission to be submitted with
his next application.
18. Commissioner Tyler asked if they were requiring Mr. Shovlin to
change the landscaping, would that not require a Specific Plan
Amendment. Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez stated that
when the question was originally asked of him, he did not realize
the question was posed in regard to the entire Center. He thought
the question related to this proposal only.
1 9. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Robbins/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2001-11 5 approving Site Development Permit 2001-
71 2, subject to the findings and conditions as amended:
G:\WPDOCS\PCg-11-01 ,wpd ! !
Planning Commission Minutes
August 28, 2001
a. Condition //35. Prior to issuance of a building permits,
revise the building elevations as follows:
1) Replace the chain link with an alternative material
such as tubular steel or wrought iron.
2) The rear elevation shall include inset tiles similar to
the light sconces along the building facade.
b. Condition//38. Modified to refer to the rear elevation.
c. Condition //40. Applicant to consult with an appropriate
landscape specialist as to the health of the existing
Oleanders and suggest improvements.
d. Remove all nonapplicable landscaping conditions.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Tyler, and Chairman Abels.
NOES: Commissioners Kirk and Robbins. ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
Chairman Abels recessed the meeting at 8:28 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at
8:34 p.m.
E. Site Development Permit 2001-705; a request of Mary T. Delgato, Kristi
Hanson, architect for review of development plans for Las Casuelas
restaurant located at the northwest corner of Washington Street and
Highway 1 1 1, within Point Happy Commercial Center
1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Principal Planner Fred Baker 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 Robbins asked the Assistant City Attorney the
meaning of the letter just handed them from the attorney
representing the site developer. Assistant City Attorney John
Ramirez stated it implies there are some conditions in the sale
agreements that require a preapproval by the developer, but at this
stage it has no impact on the Commission. It is a part of the
record in terms of it being received, but has no impact on the
Commission's decision.
3. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Ms. Chrisi Hansen, architect for the project, stated
that in regard to the letter received from Mr. Daniel Olivier of the
law firm Best BeSt & Krieger LLP, she has a letter of approval of
G:\WPDOCS\PC9-11-01 .wpd
Planning Commission Minutes
August 28, 2001
for the elevations in their original submittal to the developer,
should the Commission want to see it. The only item they have
not submitted to the developer for approval is the sign approval,
which they removed from this application. They originally
submitted plans including a basement for storage, but found out
that this space would be included in the overall square footage for
parking which puts them over the amount of square footage they
are allowed, so they are deleting the basement. The footprint of
the building and the elevations will remain the same. The square
footage of the floor space is 7,606 feet and the rear patio space
is 1,566 for a total of 9,1 72 square feet of actual building area,
which is within their development agreement.
4. Commissioner Kirk asked if the parking requirement was calculated
on seats, not square footage. Staff clarified as this is part of a
shopping center; therefore it is governed under the Specific Plan.
A restaurant is allowed so many parking spaces within the Specific
Plan.
5. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of the
applicant. Commissioner Tyler stated this was a marvelous
building and the architecture would make a strong statement at
a very important site in the City.
6. Chairman Abels asked if anyone else would like to address the
Commission on this issue. Mr. Dan Olivier, attorney for the
developer, stated they were requesting the application be
continued to allow them time to review the footprint and size of
the building.
7. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the
public participation portion of the hearing and opened the project
for Commission discussion.
8. Following discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Tyler/Kirk to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2001-1 16 approving Site Development Permit 2001-
705, subject to the findings and conditions as amended:
._
a. Conditions //51 and//52 deleted
b. Revise from the Resolution any reference to a sign program
c. Revise the Resolution to reflect the correct building size
G:\WPDOCS\PC9-11-O1 .wpd ] 3
Planning Commission Minutes
August 28, 2001
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and
Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT:
None.
F. Addendum to Riverside county Environmental Impact Report //232,
Environmental Assessment 2001-079, and Zone Change 2001-102; a
request of Coral MoUntain LLC for certification of an Addendum to
Riverside County EIR //232; certification of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact for 40 acres located at the
northwest corner of Madison Street and Avenue 60 not included in
Riverside County Specific Plan No. 218, Amendment No. 1; a
preannexation General Plan designation from County designation MR
(Medium Residential- 2-5 units per acre) and GC (Golf Course) as shown
in Riverside County Specific Plan No. 218 Amendment No. 1 to LDR
(Low Density Residential- 2-4 units per acre); a preannexation General
Plan designation from County designation 3A (00.4- 2 units per acre) to
LDR (Low Density Residential) on the 40 acres at the northwest corner
of Madison Street and Avenue 50 not included in Riverside County
Specific Plan No. 21 8, Amendment No. 1; a Zone Change from Riverside
County designation of SP (Specific Plan) as shown in Riverside County
Specific Plan No. 218 Amendment No. 1 to RL (Low Density Residential)
and GC (Golf Course); and a Zone Change from Riverside County
designation of RA (Residential Agriculture) and W-2 (Controlled
Development) to RL (Low Density Residential) and GC (Golf Course) on
the 40 acres at the northwest corner of Madison Street and Avenue 60
not included in Riverside County Specific Plan No. 218, Amendment No.
1, for the property located at the southwest corner of Madison Street
and Avenue 58.
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 Tyler asked if the existing abandoned two story
house had any historical significance to the City. Staff stated no.
3. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. Patrick O'Dowell, representing the appliCant,
stated he was available for any questions.
G:\WPDOCS\PC9-11-01 .wpd ]4
Planning Commission Minutes
August 28, 2001
4. There being no questions of staff, Chairman Abels asked if there
was any other public comment. Mr. Brian DeCoster, asked what
properties were involved in this annexation. Staff explained the
area. Mr. DeCoster stated he jointly owned property in this area
with Dr. Kathy Carlson and their concern was whether or not they
would be allowed to have horses. He would like to ask that their
property be withdrawn from the annexation until such time as the
equestrian issues were resolved. He was raising the question
because their Assessor Parcel Number was not included in the
Public Hearing Notice and should have been if their property was
included in the annexation area. They are not interested in an
Equestrian Overlay, but zoning that would include horses.
5. Commissioner Kirk asked if their property could be excluded from
the annexation until it is verified that all the property owners had
been contacted. Staff stated the applicant is desiring to annex his
property into the City as soon as possible to develop their project.
The Commission can make a recommendation to the City Council
--- that this portion be left in and let them deal with the equestrian
issue, or it can be removed and the City Council can determine
whether or not to take it out. Staff included it in the annexation
because it created a logical boundary for LAFCO to accept.
6. Commissioner Tyler asked how many property owners were
objecting to this annexation. Mr. DeCoster stated he was only
aware of eight properties that are on Calle Conchita and he does
not speak for anyone except himself.
7. Commissioner Robbins asked staff to address the issue of
equestrian uses. Staff stated the Residential Zone, R-1 does allow
horses on one acre in size. The issue of equestrian/agricultural
uses will be addressed during the General Plan Update public
hearings. Staff is proposing to eliminate the Equestrian Overlay
and create an Agricultural/Equestrian Zoning District.
8. Commissioner Butler stated that in approving the application, they
were in a sense speaking for homeowners that are not
represented. Staff stated there could be a potential of 1 1 property
- owners. Discussion followed regarding the property involved in
the annexation area.
G:\WPDOCS\PCg- 11-01 .wpd ! 5
Planning Commission Minutes
August 28, 2001
9. Commissioner Robbins asked if the annexation went ahead as
proposed, how does it affect any current, or future property owner
from have horses. Staff stated the current Code states that if
there is an existing land use activity that is not permitted under
the Code you are allowed to continue that activity as long as you
do not abandon it for a year, or more. The issue that has been
raised with other property owners in the planning area to the east,
is that if they were to stop their activity for more than a year, they
cannot get it back. Staff is trying to change this during the
General Plan Update. Mr. DeCoster stated he thought his rights
were at risk. Commissioner Robbins stated that if Mr. DeCoster
were to move onto his property after it was annexed he would not
be able to have horses. Staff stated the current Code will allow
one horse if there is an acre or more. If there are no horses there,
there is no use established. Staff stated that under the current
City zoning they would be allowed one horse for each 2.5 acres.
Mr. DeCoster stated that under the current County zoning they are
allowed more horses than this. If the City wants to continue the
annexation with this zoning, the other owners should be
contacted.
10. Commissioner Kirk asked if staff was confident that all the
property owners had been contacted. Staff stated they were
contacted. Mr. DeCoster stated he did receive the public hearing
notice but it did not include his parcel and that is why the others
are not at the meeting.
1 1. Dr. Kathryn Carlson, joint property owner with Mr. DeCoster,
stated she was concerned as to when this zoning would take
place. If they did not currently have horses on their 2.5 acres, and
their property was annexed and they were to move onto their
property, they would only be allowed one horse.
12. Commissioner Robbins asked what the County zoning allowed.
Staff stated five horses per acre for A-1-20 zoning. Staff stated
the County zoning for this acreage is R-A Residential Agricultural.
1 3. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the
public participation portion of the hearing and opened the project
for Commission discussion.
G:\WPDOCS\PC9-11-01 .wpd ]. 6
Planning Commission Minutes
August 28, 2001
14. Commissioner Tyler stated their options were to exclude this
property and approve Coral Mountain's request, approve the entire
request as submitted, or deny the entire request. Staff stated that
is basically the options before the Commission. If the Commission
keeps the boundaries as recommended by staff and it goes to the
Council and they approve the same boundary, then it would be
submitted to LAFCO who would conduct their own public
hearings. Before it would even be sent to LAFCO a petition would
have to be circulated to all the property owners accepting the
zoning designations. If the City does not get all the signatures of
all the property owners, then it is based on assessed value and
percentages. The hearing notices for the City Council public
hearing did include all the Assessor Parcel Numbers for all
properties affected.
15. Commissioner Kirk asked why the hearing notice for the City
Council public hearing was more comprehensive and precise than
the Planning Commission hearing. Staff stated the map and
description were correct, but not all the Assessor Parcel Numbers
were listed. Commissioner Kirk stated that as the Planning
Commission was not the final approval, but a recommending body,
the property owners would have an opportunity to speak again
before the City Council. This would give time for staff to work
with these individuals regarding their zoning. Staff stated the
proposed Equestrian/Agricultural zoning would be available for
public review and comment on September 1 9, 2001.
i6. Mr. DeCoster stated this was a very diplomatic response and
certainly sensitive to the concerns raised, although he did not
understand how they could approve something that was not
correctly noticed. Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez stated
that as he understands the facts, the notice was provided to
property owners. The issue is that the notice received did not
include the Assessor Parcel Numbers but did include the accurate
legal description. Assuming that is the case, that is adequate
notice. Obviously, one of the property owner did in fact appear
and as Commissioner Kirk has stated, there will be ample
opportunity to be heard at the City Council hearing.
17. Dr. Carlson stated this does not sit right with her that it would be
approved. Even though this is not the final judgement body, it is
setting a precedent of five peoples opinion, putting it on paper in
G:\WPDOCS\PC9-1'I-OI.wpd ]'7
Planning Commission Minutes
August 28, 2001
writing. There are people who trust each one of the
Commissioner's opinion and make governing decisions based upon
their opinions.
18. Commissioner Butler asked staff what would happen if they
approved this excluding this portion; what kind of a problem are
they creating. Staff stated all the property owners were mailed a
notice. The Commission could make any decision they wanted to
and staff would take that recommendation to the City Council;
however, staff will reiterate their initial recommendation.
1 9. Commissioner Robbins stated he did not believe it was appropriate
to move forward without this property being included in the
annexation as it creates an island and LAFCO would not approve
that. With there being a questions as to how this was noticed, it
should be re-noticed with a notice that accurately portrays what
the area is and lists the correct Assessor Parcel Numbers and then
brought back to the Planning Commission.
20. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Robbins/Abels to continue the application to
October 9, 2001.
21. Commissioner Kirk asked the applicant, Mr. O'Dowell for his
opinion on continuing the application. Mr. O'Dowell stated this
was a time sensitive project and a 30-day delay would affect their
future plans for the project. He understands the issues being
discussed and appreciates their deliberation over them. These
parcels were included with their annexation because it was the
proper way to complete the boundaries for the annexation. It is
appropriate to move forward and approve this application rather
than continue the process which does not void anyone's rights.
22. Commissioner Butler asked what the options were if the owners
did not want to be a part of the annexation. Staff stated that
depending upon what the percentages showed, they could be
forced into the annexation regardless of their objection.
23. Chairman Abels withdrew his second and the motion died.
24. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Tyler to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-117 certifying an
Addendum to Riverside County Environmental Impact Report No.
232.
G:\WPDOCS\PC9-11-01 .wpd ] 8
Planning Commission Minutes
August 28, 2001
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman Abels.
NOES: Commissioners Butler and Robbins. ABSTAIN:
None. ABSENT: None.
25. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Tyler to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-118 certifying a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for the 40 acres
located at the northwest corner of Madison Street and Avenue 60
not included in Riverside County Specific Plan No. 218
Amendment No. 1.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman Abels.
NOES: Commissioners Butler and Robbins. ABSTAIN:
None. ABSENT: None.
26. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Tyler to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-119 recommending
approval of General Plan Amendment 2001-079, subject to
findings and Conditions of Approval as amended:
a. With the removal of the 40-acre parcel at the southwest
corner of Mdison Street and Avenue 60 from the
application.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman Abels.
NOES: Commissioners Butler and Robbins. ABSTAIN:
None. ABSENT: None.
27. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Tyler to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-120 recommending
approval of Zone Change 2001-102, subject to the findings as
amended.
a. With the removal of the 11 or 12 lots from the application.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman Abels.
NOES: Butler and Robbins. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT:
None.
G. Capital Improvement Project 2001-694; a request of the City for review
of building elevations and landscape plans for the La Quinta Community
Park to be located at the northwest corner of Westward Ho Drive and
Adams Street.
G:\WPDOCS\PC9-11-01 .wpd ! ~)
Planning Commission Minutes
August 28, 2001
1. Staff requested this item be continued to September 25, 2001.
2. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Robbins/Tyler to continue this issue as requested.
VII. BUSINESS ITEMS: None
VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None.
IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. Staff reminded the Commission of the Joint Meeting with City Council
on the General Plan to be held on September 19, 2001, at 7:00 p.m.
There is also a Joint meeting with the City Council on September 25,
2001 at 5:30 p.m.
X. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Butler/Robbins to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next
regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held September 25, 2001, at 7:00
p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. on
September 11, 2001.
Respectfully submitted,
~~~y~er, ~xecutive Secretary Cityr-o'f La Quinta, California
G:\WPDOCS\PC9-11-01 .wpd 20