2001 09 25 PC Minutes MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
September 25, 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 Kirk 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, Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit, and Executive
Secretary Betty Sawyer.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT'
III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA' Confirmed
.
I~/. CONSENT ITEMS'
A. Chairman Abels asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of
September 11, 2001. Commissioner Tyler asked that Page 3, Item 10
be corrected to read," .... for Plan 1 ..."; Item 11, "...reduce the height of
Plan 2..."; Page 8, Item 3, "...to match up with the Stater Bros.
Market."; Page 11, Item 18, "...requiring Mr. Shovlin to change..."; Page
14, Item 2, "...asked if the existing abandoned two story house..."; Page
19, Item 26.a. "With the removal of the 40 acre parcel at the southwest
corner of Madison Street and Avenue 60 from the application." There
being no further corrections, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Robbins/Butler to approve the minutes as corrected.
Unanimously approved.
B. Department Report' None.
V. PRESENTATIONS' None.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC9-25-01 .wpd ]
Planning Commission Minutes
September 25, 2001
VI. PUBLIC HEARING:
It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Butler to reorganize the Agenda
to take Public Hearing Item "C" and Business Item "A" before Public Hearing Item "B".
Unanimously approved.
A. 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.
1. Staff requested this item be continued to October 23, 2001.
2. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Tyler/Robbins to continue this application to
October 23, 2001. Unanimously approved.
B. Specific Plan 2000-048. Amendment//1; a request of Forrest K. Haag for
RJT Homes, Inc. to modify development standards and text information
for a private residential development on no more than 178 houses on
approximately 73 acres located at the southwest corner of Avenue 50
and Jefferson Street.
1. Staff informed the Commission that a request had been received
from the applicant requesting this item be continued to October 9,
2001.
2. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Butler to
continue this application to October 9, 2001. Unanimously
approved.
VII. BUSINESS ITEMS:
A. Street Name Change ~2001-012; a request of Lake La Quinta
Communities to set a public hearing date to initiate a street name change
for Via Trieste within Lake La Quinta.
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.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC9-25-01 .wpd 2
Planning Commission Minutes
September 25, 2001
2. There being no questions of staff or public comment, it was
moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Robbins to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-121 declaring the Planning
Commission's intention to hold a public hearing on Street Name
Change 2001-012 on November 13, 2001.
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS - CONTINUED
B. Environmental Assessment 96-328 Addendum, Specific Plan 96-028
Amendment //2 and Site Development Permit 2001-709; a request of
Bart Rinker for certification of an Addendum to Environmental
Assessment 96-328; Specific Plan Amendment to allow 23,184 square
feet of retail space on 1.88 acres currently approved for 11,010 square
feet of retail space and revising the total Specific Plan building area to
118,884 square feet; and consideration of development plans for a
23,184 square foot retail building.
1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
--- report. Associate Planner Wally Nesbit 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 stated he could not find where turf was
identified on the conceptual plan, but did find it in the text and he
assumes all the green on the conceptual plan is turf. Staff stated
the turf was not denoted on the conceptual plan, but they are
requesting to place their retention in the two areas identified.
There would be minimal retentio, n in the Dune Palms Road area.
The majority of the retention would be to the east side retention
basin to comply with the Zoning Code standards. Any further
explanation could be given by the application. Commissioner Kirk
asked about the Mitigation Monitoring Plan as to whether staff had
the Mitigation Monitoring Plan with the compliance check marks
for this project and the dates it was checked. Staff stated it
would be in the file. Commissioner Kirk asked who was
responsible for retaining the record and who was monitoring the
Mitigation Monitoring Plan. Staff noted it was the responsibility
of the case planner. It is not done on the forms, but the
information is kept in the case file. Planning Manager Christine di
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC9-25-01 .wpd ~
Planning Commission Minutes
September 25, 2001
Iorio stated they are used to monitor the project. Since 1996,
staff has simplified them and removed the standard Uniform
Building Code and Zoning Code conditions so they are specific to
the project.
3. Commissioner Butler asked what the difference was between the
two Specific Plans they received. Staff stated the updated
Specific Plan was in a legislative format to note the changes
made. Commissioner Butler asked if the parapet was to cover the
issue of the height and if they reduce the height of the building
and expose the mechanical equipment, is it being done by
structure or parapet? If it is being done by the parapet, then the
inside of the building roof will not have to be lowered and create
additional problems. He doesn't want to make an issue of one
foot if it means the building itself has to change to accommodate
this issue. Staff stated the applicant would address this issue.
4. Commissioner Tyler questioned whether this project would have
any impact on the empty gas station at the corner. Staff stated
it had no bearing. Commissioner Tyler stated that when this
project was originally reviewed, a lot of time was spent on the
interbal circulation pattern between the gas station and the other
retail buildings, plus access through the project site. He does not
see any of those issues being discussed at this time. Staff stated
the building layout is fairly simple. Other than having north/south
access at the driveways on either side of the buildings, there is no
other access. Staff showed the circulation pattern on the site
plan. Commissioner Tyler asked if area that appears to be a
retention basin would be graded out and the retention basin moved
to the landscape areas as shown. Staff stated the applicant could
better define what would be relocated and how the drainage
would be handled. Commissioner Tyler asked how many parking
spaces are required versus what is proposed. Staff stated they
were required to have 87 and the original use required 36 and they
had 56. They are required to supply 87 and they have 89 parking
spaces.
5. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. Bart Rinker, applicant, stated he has read the
staff report and conditions and concurs with all, but has a
question on two of them. The first issue is the height of the
building as they want it to remain at 23 feet. The storage unit to
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC9-25-01 .wpd 4
Planning Commission Minutes
September 25, 2001 ~
the south seems to have a height of 28 feet and the fuel bays of
the service station are equal to 20-25 feet. In trying to stay in
conformity with their neighbors they are trying to hide the
mechanical equipment. Second, is the lighting plan. Their initial
lighting plans had pole lights at 31 feet which is quite high. They
would like to have another light study completed and resubmit it
to staff and have the light standards come up to 22 feet.
6. 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.
7. Commissioner Butler asked the height of the originally proposed
building. Staff stated there was nothing in the Specific Plan text
and staff did not know what the original conceptual elevation
height.
-- 8. Commissioner Kirk stated he had question on two of the
conditions. First, is the lighting where staff is suggesting the
lighting be no greater than 18 feet. If he reads the Zoning Code
correctly, he would be allowed to have 22 foot high light pole.
Staff stated the Parking regulations does allow up to 25 feet.
Staff wanted to make it as Iow as possible because most of the
lighting is on the perimeter, especially along Dune Palms Road
where it is within 20-30 feet of the roadway and staff was trying
to prevent any light spillage onto the roadway. The applicant is
looking for some type of compromise in the height. Commissioner
Kirk stated the staff report states the Zoning Code requires the
lights to be no more than 18 feet in height or the maximum
building height of the zoning district, which he assumes is 22 feet
of the setback. Staff stated the 18 feet comes from the section
concerning lighting. There is also a standard that will allows them
to go up to 25 feet. Staff's concern was the spillage, not the
height.
9. Mr. Robert Ricciardi, landscape architect for the project, stated
that in regard to the amount of turf to be used, the drawings
before the Commission are presentation drawings only. The green
area represents planters only. The landscaping plans has been
submitted to the Commission. The landscape strip in front of
Dune Palms Road will have no retention. All the water will drain
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC9-25-01 .wpd ~
Planning Commission Minutes
September 25, 2001
to the strip in the rear of the property. In regard to the parking,
they do meet the requirements for Mixed Regional Commercial.
Where the parking is needed will depend upon what type of uses
go in.
10. Commissioner Tyler asked if the business would have open bays
or only open in the back. Mr. Ricciardi stated only in the back; no
overhead doors would be in the front. On the rear elevations, the
stepping out treatment along the edge will be added to carry it
throughout the building. All garage doors will be on the east side.
The amount of car parking is substantial.
11. Commissioner Butler asked if there would be any security fencing
in the rear. Mr. Ricciardi stated there are no plans at this time.
12. Mr. Rinker stated the uses proposed will be auto related retail
uses. There are no plans to have mechanical shops.
13. Ms. Lydia R. Shinohara, from Pacific Engineering, civil engineer for -
the project, stated she has a question regarding Condition #32 to
comply with NPDES provisions as it was her understanding this
was completed for the entire project for the storm water pollution
plan. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated he would request the
condition remain. If it is a mute issue, they would not require it to
be done.
14. Commissioner Kirk asked if the words "if applicable" could be
added. Staff stated there was no problem with adding the words.
15. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the
public hearing and open the project for Commission discussion.
Commissioner Tyler noted corrections that needed to be made in
the Specific Plan document.
16. Commissioner Butler stated his only issue was the height. He
would prefer they go to 23 feet and not have to reduce the roof
line in order to hide the mechanical equipment.
17. Commissioner Kirk stated it was a good project and his only issue
is that he did not want light standards higher than the building.
As long as the new study shows no spillage he has no issue.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC9-25-O 1.wpd l~
Planning Commission Minutes
September 25, 2001
18. Commissioner Robbins stated the rear or east side of the building
will be visible and is in need of something to break the building up
due to the length of the building. He would like t° see some
architectural detail added to break it up. Mr. Ri¢ciardi stated they
had a similar problem on another building in a different complex
and they solved this by alternating the height. The colors could go
darker to give the relief. They did add tile at the ends to bring
some detail around to the rear. They could pop out the bays six
inches. Commissioner Robbins stated that on the sign program
the letters appear to be hugely out of proportion. Staff stated the
sign program was integrated into what was approved last year.
There are some size standards. Commissioner Robbins stated that
if the size is limited to 50 square feet he is comfortable with the
proposal.
19. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Kirk/Butler to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2001-1 22 certifying an Addendum to Environmental
Assessment 96-328, as submitted:
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and
Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
20. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Robbins to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-123, approving
Specific Plan 96-028 Amendment #2, subject,to the findings and
Conditions of Approval as submitted.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and
Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
21. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Robbins to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-1 24, approving Site
Development Permit 2001-709, subject to the findings and
Conditions of Approval as amended:
a. Condition #56: All pole mounted light standards shall be
limited in height to 20 feet.
b. Condition #59: The building height shall not exceed 23 feet.
c. Condition 60: Add "Staff to work with the applicant to
increase the articulation on the east side of the facade."
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC9-25-01 ,wpd
Planning Commission Minutes
September 25, 2001
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and
Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None.
IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. Commissioner Tyler gave a report on the City Council meeting of
September 1 8, 2001.
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 October 9, 2001, at 7:00 p.m.
This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. on September
25, 2001.
Respectfully submitted,
City oF1..a Quinta, California
0 8
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC9-25-01 .wpd ~