Loading...
2002 03 26 PC Minutes MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the'La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle'Tampico, La Quinta, CA March 26, 2002 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:04 p.m. by Chairman Abels who lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Richard Butler, Tom Kirk, Robert Tyler, and Chairman Jacques Abels. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Butler to excuse Commissioner Robbins. Unanimously approved. C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez, Senior Engineer Steve Speer, Principal Planner Fred Baker, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed. IV. CONSENT ITEMS: A. Chairman Abels asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of March 12, 2002. Commissioner Tyler asked that Page 7, Item //18 be corrected. There being no further corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Tyler to approve the minutes as corrected. Unanimously approved. B. Department Report: None V. PRESENTATIONS: None. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Environmental Assessment 2000-395 Addendum and SPecific Plan 2000- 043 Amendment //1; a request of Madison/P.T.M. La Quinta, L.L.C. a recommendation for certification of an Addendum to a previously certified Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact and review of revised design guidelines and development standards for an 81,407 square foot commercial center located at the northwest corner of Highway I 11 and Washington Street. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-26-O2.wpd ] Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 2002 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. 3. Chairman Abels asked if there Were any questions of staff. Commissioner Kirk asked if the parking analysis should be included in the Specific Plan. Staff stated a parking analysis would be required at the time a site development permit or conditional use permit are submitted and uses identified. At that time the amount of parking needed would be defined. 4. Commissioner Butler asked if the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee reviewed the changes. Staff stated they review projects and not specific plans. 5. Commissioner Tyler asked staff who was requiring the stone materials on the Circle K building. Staff stated the Specific Plan only allows the Cantera stone. This Amendment allows for variation. 6. Commissioner Tyler asked if the updated General Plan adopted by the City Council was in affect at this time. Staff stated yes. Commissioner Tyler then questioned why a street name did not require a General Plan Amendment. Staff stated the General Plan policy is to have the same street name carried throughout a project. In this case the access at both entrances already have different names. Their request is to have the same name. 7. Commissioner Kirk asked if the Specific Plan allows for simulated Cantera stone patterns. Staff stated yes. 8. Commissioner Butler asked if a hotel was proposed, would the parking analysis be brought forward again. Staff stated they would have to prepare a parking plan to accommodate the use proposed. At this time they are only asking to have the use approved. Commissioner Butler asked if the City, at the time the parking analysis was reviewed, be able to control the valet parking. Staff stated projects have been conditioned to provide a valet parking program, but staff's primarily purpose is to look at the number of spaces. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-26-O2.wpd 2 Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 2002 9. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr.'Rick Wilkerson, representing the applicant, stated his concern with the Point Happy Street sign. When the project was proposed they were told they had to use the existing street names. At that time they were unaware of the significant importance of the site and name "Point Happy". In regard to staff's recommendations, he asked where the light bollards were to be placed. Staff clarified they were requesting the bollard type be identified in the final Specific Plan. Mr. Wilkerson stated he t would like to retain the use of the Red Fountain Grass. He further questioned the condition requiring them to supply power to the bus stop and asked that it be removed. He voiced an objection to the design of the bus stop as the users do not use the seating, but stand in their landscaping to be in the shade, which has required them to replaced the landscaping three times so far. They are willing to plant some sizeable trees and ground cover to help solve the problem. 10. Chairman Abels asked is there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Tyler noted the bus stop on Washington Street was not on the Specific Plan and needed to be added and he thought it would be difficult to change the street names at this time. 1 1. Commissioner Kirk asked the applicant to explain the reasoning for the change in the sign program. Mr. Wilkerson stated that in looking at other projects in the Valley, they determined the halo backlit letters are a better looking sign. The box lights are a preference. Commissioner Kirk asked staff to clarify the letter received from Sunline. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated this particular bus shelter on Washington Street is owned by Sunline. The bus shelter on Highway 1 1 1 is owned by the City. According to the letter from Sunline they will maintain the shelter on Highway 1 1 1 at the City's expense. The one on Washington Street they will maintain at their expense. This was not known until it became an issue recently when staff was trying to remove the bus stop on the south side of Highway 1 1 1 on Washington Street. Sunline stated they would move the service as soon as someone gave them power to the new bus shelter. Staff understood Sunline did not want their own meter, but they would tie into the property owners meter and pay them a flat fee. This is not their policy. Staff therefore, asked for a clarification on their G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-26-O2.wpd ~ Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 2002 policy and this letter is the result. If they own the shelter they will provide their own power, but if it is a developer installed shelter, they consider it the developer's responsibility to pay for ongoing maintenance. This is a public facility and once it is turned over to the public agency, the agency maintains it. Sunline does not do the same. Now we need lighting and no one wants to pay for it. In most instances they use solar power, but it has been a problem with vandalism. Commissioner Kirk asked who was receiving the revenue from the advertising. Staff stated it was to be split 50%. Commissioner Kirk stated that if they are receiving 50% of the revenue, they should be responsible for 50% of the power. If the shelter was owned by the developer, they could earn the revenue. 12. Mr. Michael Shovlin, owner of One Eleven La Quinta Center, gave a history of the Point Happy. He stated he had no objection to continuing the street name "Point Happy Drive" on the east side of Washington Street into the One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center. Commissioner Kirk suggested the owners of the Von's Shopping Center be contacted to see if they would accept the name change as well. 13. There being no further public participation, the public comment portion of the public hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 14. Commissioner Tyler noted minor changes to the staff report. His only concern was solving the issue of the street name. 1 5. Commissioner Kirk suggested changing the name on Washington Street all the way across and if a letter is received from the Von's Shopping Center to allow the name change to occur, they do so at the Highway 111 entrance. He agrees with allowing the Red Fountain Grass. In regard to the bus stop, whoever is receiving revenue from the advertising, should be responsible for paying for the power. In regard to the design of the bus stop, he concurs with allowing staff to work with the developer within the Highway 111 Design Guidelines, to provide the shelter and necessary modifications on the design of the bus shelters. 16. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Kirk to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-035 recommending certification of an Addendum to Environmental Assessment 2000- 395, as recommended. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-26-O2.wpd 4 Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 2002 ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Robbins. ABSTAIN: None. 1 7. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-036 recommending approval of Specific Plan 2000-043 Amendment No. 1, subject to the findings and conditions as amended: A. Condition #:40: Electrical power is to be supplied to and maintained by the entity who receives revenue from the advertising on the bus shelter on Washington Street. The applicant shall be allowed to work with staff to make modifications to the landscaping at the rear of the bus shelter to accommodate the bus stop users. B. Condition #55: Delete C. Condition #60: A street name change to "Point Happy Drive" shall be allowed on the east side of the property on Washington Street into the One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center. A street name change to "Point Happy Drive" shall be allowed when and if written permission is obtained from the La Quinta Plaza Shopping Center owners to said change. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Robbins. ABSTAIN: None. D. Environmental Assessment 20002-443, General Plan Amendment 2002- 084. Zone Change 2002-1 06, and Site Development Permit 2002-730; a request of Clubhouse Associates, L.L.C. for a recommendation for certification of an Environmental Assessment; change the General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designation from Low Density Residential to High Density Residential; and approval of development plans for a 149 unit apartment complex and ancillary facilities located on a 10.75 acre triangular parcel on the south side of Avenue 52, east of Jefferson Street. 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. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-26-O2.wpd ~ Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 2002 2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Kirk asked about the results of the water analysis in regard to the Water Efficient Ordinance. Staff stated the results of the calculations were on the landscape plans and stated the maximum allowable is 4,400,000 gallons per year and the actual use is approximately 2,900,000 gallons per year. Commissioner Kirk asked where the additional parking spaces would be located and asked for an explanation of how the fabric roofs would hold up in the deserts temperatures. He also asked if the three access t points are appropriate for this kind of project. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated it met the General Plan requirements. He explained and went on to explain the circulation pattern. Commissioner Kirk asked if the access point and the one to the east met the 240 foot separation. Staff stated the new General Plan requires 250 feet between driveways measured between the curb returns. On the plan there is not enough room for the third driveway access, it would need to be moved. 3. Commissioner Butler asked if an elevator was required on a three story building. Staff stated only if the Building Code required it and Building and Safety did not require it. The applicant is providing handicapped accessible units. 4. Commissioner Tyler questioned why there was no supporting text given for Item XVlI(b) Mandatory Findings of Significance in the Environmental Assessment. Staff explained there were none are required for this section. Commissioner Tyler asked staff why the staff reports states a General Plan Amendment is not required under the updated General Plan, yet there is a General Plan Amendment Resolution is before them for approval. Staff explained that since the updated General Plan is within the 30-day protest period, and the applicant asked for a General Plan Amendment, staff is processing the General Plan Amendment in anticipation of the updated General Plan being in affect by the time this application reaches the City Council. At that time it will no longer be needed. Commissioner Tyler stated he not concur with the Site Development Permit findings in regard to the architecture. In Condition//48, Commissioner Tyler asked staff to explain what the word "option" meant. Senior Engineer Steve Speer clarified there were two options the applicant could chose from. Commissioner Tyler asked staff the location of the mounding as discussed in Condition //60. Staff clarified they were recommending four foot mounding in the street landscaping in G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-26-O2.wpd (~ Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 2002 conjunction with the sound wall. Commissioner Tyler asked if there was to be a block wall on the perimeter of the project. Staff clarified they were required to provide a sound wall with mounding along Avenue 52. The applicant was asking for a chainlink fence on the rear of the site. Commissioner Tyler asked the location of the retention basin and staff identified them. Staff clarified that a condition would be added requiring a parcel map to be approved · prior to building permits being issued. 5. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Chuck Crookrall, representing the applicant, stated they have no problem with relocating the third access point. They will hopefully be installing a living fence along the Canal. The remainder of the site will have a block wall. 6. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Tyler asked about the lack of elevators as it seemed to be a marketing issue. Mr. Crookrall stated there are only four buildings that have three stories, or 20 units. 7. Commissioner Kirk asked if there was any problem having two access points instead of three. Mr. Crookrall stated he did not see any objection. 8. Mr. Robert Kraft, architect for the project, stated that in regard to the 250 foot distance on the access point, it would not be an issue. Their purpose was to not create a dead-end aisle for the internal circulation. They have no problem with the perimeter block wall. The Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee was in favor of a living fence. He went on to explain the site and the elevations. 9. Commissioner Tyler asked if the garages would be visible from the east side of the Canal. Mr. Kraft stated they would be below the visual site line. 10. Chairman Abels asked about the material to be used on the carports. Mr. Kraft stated it was the same material as what is used at the Palm Springs Airport. It is guaranteed for 30-years. Discussion followed regarding the material to be used for the carports. 11. Commissioner Kirk asked the applicant to explain what would be G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-26-O2.wpd 7 Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 2002 seen from the other side of the Canal. Mr. Kraft gave a demonstration. Commissioner Kirk asked about the location of the extra 39 parking spaces. Mr. Kraft clarified the request was for 39 additional covered spaces not additional spaces. Commissioner Kirk asked if there was a target demographic for the project. Mr. Kraft stated he did not have that information. Mr. Crookrall stated their market study showed a need for upscale apartments in the age group of 40 +. Commissioner Kirk asked about active activities. Mr. Kraft explained the amenities. Commissioner Kirk asked about the north side elevations being typical and how many would have the blank wall. Mr. Kraft stated not all the buildings would be the same; only three of the buildings would look at the blank wall. 12. Commissioner Tyler asked about the long term energy cost analysis for the units. Mr. Kraft stated none had been done at this time. They will be as cost effective as they can make them. 13. There being no further public participation, the public comment portion of the public hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 14. Commissioner Butler stated that on the three story buildings he is uncomfortable not having elevators as the project will be targeting the older generation. This project will need additional amenities to draw people to the site. He would want the project conditioned to have elevators for the three story units. 15. Commissioner Kirk stated he was in support of ~he General Plan Amendment. In terms of the design, he has concerns with the asphalt mote around the perimeter. It needs to be broken up with landscaping and design to create interest. 16. Commissioner Tyler stated he agrees this is a good location for the high density project. There needs to be more amenities to off-set the density. His main concern is the external appearance driving around it and being highly visible from Avenue 52 and the shopping center adjacent to it. 17. Commissioner Kirk suggested the architect review the plans in light of the suggestions made by the Commission. Mr. Crookrall explained this was not the first design, but it was based on meeting all the Agency requirements. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-26-O2.wpd ~ Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 2002 18. Following discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Tyler to continue the project to April 23, 2002 allowing the applicant to work with staff on the following items: A. Work with staff on the access points to be consistent with the General Plan. B. Architecture relief on the end buildings. C. Landscape relief, greenery or detailing along the carports and asphalt to break up the asphalt. D. Provide additional amenities Unanimously approved. Chairman Abels recessed the meeting at 9:1 6 p.m. and reconvened at 9:21 p.m. VII. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Village Use Permit 2000-040 Amendment #1; a request of Chapman Golf Development, LLC for review of lighting and landscaping plans for a restaurant to be located on the northeast corner of Avenue 52 and Desert Club Drive. 1. Commissioner Kirk stated he had a possible conflict of interest and withdrew from the dias. 2. Chairman Abels 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. 3. There being no questions of staff, Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Ms. Christina Dores, representing the applicant, stated they had met with the adjacent residents and have made modifications based on their concerns. She is available to answer any questions. 4. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Tyler stated he would like to hear from the lighting consultant. Mr. Ralph Reyna, lighting consultant, reviewed the lighting plan. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-26-O2.wpd ~) Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 2002 5. Chairman Abels asked if there was any other public comment. Mr. Brauckmann, 78-175 Calle Cadiz, thanked Chapman Golf for working with them, but lighting issues still remain. In the staff report, it was suggested the lighting plan be consistent with the Zoning Code and he would like to ask for an interpretation of the Section 9.150.080.K.5. and 6 of the Zoning Code. In addition, he would like to be assured they are in compliance with Waste Management requirements. t 6. Mr. Skip Lench, 43-040 Port Maria, Bermuda Dunes, owner of the lot at 78-215 Calle Cadiz, thanked the applicant for meeting with them and working to resolve the landscaping issues. One issue remaining is the six foot wall on the northern property line. The wall starts out at six feet and goes down to four feet. He asks that they all be built at six feet for the full length of the site. In regard to the lighting he does not think there is a solution to the problem. They started out with 18-foot lights and are now down to 14 feet. If they are not willing to lower the lights, he would like to hire a lighting consultant to see what alternatives are available. 7. There being no further public participation, the public comment portion was closed and open for Commission discussion. 8. Chairman Abels asked about the height of the existing wall. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated that when the wall was originally constructed some of the property owners requested a lower wall height and therefore the City lowered the height. 9. Commissioner Tyler asked if the wall could be conditioned to be at six feet for the entire length. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated it could be conditioned. Commissioner Tyler asked the distance from the north wall to the proposed location of the light standards. Principal Planner Fred Baker stated there is 18 feet of landscaping, ten feet of parking area, 26 foot drive aisle and another 20 feet of parking for a total of 74 feet. 10. Commissioner Butler stated that this light fixture shines down and there has to be a certain height to make it affective in the area in which it is shining. If you lower the light, you have to change the type of light being used. Community Development Director Jerry G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-26-O2,wpd ] 0 Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 2002 Herman stated the lower the lights, the more light poles are needed. Mr. Reyna stated the principal of the light is to meet the Dark Sky Ordinance. The light pyramids down from the light source. In order to minimize hot spots you add poles. The City Council has established a criteria for lighting as exemplified by the La Quinta Arts Foundation site. In order to meet the Ordinance more poles need to be added. This site requires more lighting due to the use and time the restaurant will be used. Jt is coming down to a safety issue to go any further. 11. Commissioner Tyler stated he is comfortable with the good faith effort the developer has made. 12. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Butler to adopt Minute Motion 2002-007, approving Village Use Permit 2000-040, Amendment //1, as amended: A. With the north perimeter wall being constructed to six feet the entire length of the northern property line. Unanimously approved. VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: B. Commissioner Tyler gave a report on the City Council meeting of March 19, 2002. X. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Robbins to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held April 9, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:57 p.m. on March 26, 2002. Respectfully submitted, Be~ty/J.'S~a4Nyer, Execi~tive Secretary City o~l-~Quinta, California G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-26-02.wpd ! ]