Loading...
2002 07 23 PC Minutes MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA July 23, 2002 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:09 p.m. by Vice Chairman Tyler who asked Commissioner Abels to lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Jacques Abels, Tom Kirk, Steve Robbins, and Vice Chairman Robert Tyler. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Kirk to excuse Chairman Richard Butler. Unanimously approved. C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, Assistant City Attorney Marc Luesebrink, Senior Engineer Steve Speer, Principal Planners Stan Sawa and Fred Baker, Associate Planners Martin Maga~a and Greg TrouSdell, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed. IV. CONSENT ITEMS: A. Vice Chairman Tyler asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of July 9, 2002. There being no corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Kirk to approve the minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved. B. Department Report: None V. PRESENTATIONS: None VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Site Development Permit 2002-746: a request of Toll Brothers, Inc. for review of architectural and landscaping plans for the Golf Course Maintenance Facility, Gatehouse, Clubhouse and Spa Facility for Mountain View Country Club located at the northeast corner of Jefferson Street and Avenue 52. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\7-23-02.wpd 1_ Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 2002 1. Vice Chairman Tyler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Associate Planner Martin Maga~a presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Vice Chairman Tyler asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Abels asked about the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee's (ALRC) recommendation to have a black vinyl fabric covering on the chain link fence. Staff explained it could be any color. Commissioner Abels suggested using a green fabric rather than black. 3. Commissioner Robbins questioned why the screening was needed as it would be for the purpose of separating two parking lots within the maintenance compound that would not be seen by anyone except the workers. Staff explained the ALRC wanted to hide the chain link fence. 4. Vice Chairman Tyler asked staff to indicate on the plans the area that was to have the enhanced landscaping. Staff showed it was to be along the All American Canal, but they are proposing is a six foot high block wall along the entire boundary. 5. Commissioner Kirk asked if the maintenance building was a metal building. Staff stated yes. Commissioner Kirk asked how many maintenance buildings in the City had been approved with the corrugated metal material. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated two. 6. Vice Chairman Tyler asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Forrest Haag, representing Toll Brothers, stated he was available to answer questions. In regard to the maintenance building, they are enhancing the landscaping on the All American Canal side where the ALRC thought the view on the westerly bound traffic along Avenue 52 would be able to see the maintenance building. He explained the purpose of the chain link fence was to separate the employees of the homeowners association and those for the Country Club. The homeowners' association employees would have a place to park and stage without having access to the Country Club maintenance facility. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\7-23-O2.wpd 2 Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 2002 7. There being no further questions of the applicant and no other public comment, Vice Chairman Tyler closed the public participation portion of the hearing and opened the matter up for Commission discussion. 8. Commissioners concurred that it was a good project and the landscaping enhancement along the Canal was the only area of concern. 9. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Robbins/Kirk to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-077 approving Site Development Permit 2002- 746, as amended. a. Delete any condition regarding fabric for the chain link fence ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, and Vice Chairman Tyler. NOES: None. ABSENT: Chairman Butler. ABSTAIN: None. B. Site Development Permit 2002-747: a request of Peter Jacobs Homes for compatibility review of architectural plans for two new prototype residential units that are 3,422 square feet and 3,949 square feet and not exceeding 20 feet in height to be constructed adjacent to the Greg Norman Signature Golf Course on the south side of Brown Deer Park, west of Turnberry Way. 1. Vice Chairman Tyler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Vice Chairman Tyler asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Robbins asked staff to clarify why the windows on the garage doors were being eliminated. Staff stated the ALRC made a recommendation that they be deleted from the garage doors. Staff did make a site visit and there are other homes in the vicinity that do have the windows in the garage doors. 3. The applicant not being present, and no other public comment, Vice Chairman Tyler closed the public participation portion of the hearing and opened the matter up for Commission discussion. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\7-23-02.wpd ~ Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 2002 4. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Kirk to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-078 approving Site Development Permit 2002- 747, amended. a. Condition #4: Deleted. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, and Vice Chairman Tyler. NOES: None. ABSENT: Chairman Butler. ABSTAIN: None. C. Site Development Permit 2002-745; a request of Marvin Investments for review of architectural and landscaping plans for Phase I and a sign program for Old Town La Quinta consisting of three commercial buildings located on the south side of Calle Tampico, between Avenida Bermudas and Desert Club Drive. 1. Vice Chairman Tyler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. There being no questions of staff, Vice Chairman Tyler asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Ms. Margo Thibeault, representing Mainiero Smith & Associates, engineers for the project, asked for clarification on Condition #53. Staff stated the ALRC wanted to see a more 'detailed landscaping plan. Ms. Thibeault asked about. Condition #64, the light poles. Mr. Wells Marvin, the applicant, stated they could submit a more detail landscaping plan, but this is a very urban project, very intensive project on a relatively small piece of land. There is very little scope for landscaping when it is built out and they would like to have the condition eliminated. In regard to the condition concerning street lights there seems to be a desire to require them to use the existing light fixtures along Calle Estado. He believes there can be diversity in the City to create interest. The height suggested by staff of 12 feet is not practical. There are trucks that exceed this height and can cause trouble. They need the bottom of light to be not less than 13 feet in height. If they are required to keep the same style, they will do so, but they would like to request more height. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\7-23-02.wpd 4 Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 2002 3. Commissioner Abels stated he agrees with the applicant's request for different street lights. His concern is with the Arts Foundation building being left in the middle of the project. Mr. Marvin stated he is negotiating to purchase the building, but no determination has been made. If he is successful, he will remodel the building to achieve an eclectic look. Discussion followed regarding the building facing the Arts Foundation building. 4. Commissioner Kirk asked if the lighting condition was required by the City Council. Staff stated the perimeter street lights are to match those on Calle Estado and other streets in The Village area. The parking lot poles can be a different style, but cannot exceed 12 feet in height. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated that on the public streets the light standards have to match the City's light standard. The interior lights can be at the applicant's discretion. The height of the light fixture is to be 12 feet unless the Specific Plan is amended. 5. Commissioner Kirk asked if there were any design elements of the existing Village area that will tie in with the rest of The Village. Mr. Marvin stated it would be similar to the La Quinta Hotel, El Ranchito Restaurant, the Public Library building, etc. Commissioner Kirk asked if the Arts Foundation building structure would change. Mr. Marvin stated they would be changing the stucco and type of roof to make it similar. The wall would be removed and there would be a walkway. Commissioner Kirk asked about the vertical height and horizontal length on the major streets; is this enough of an enclosure to create the urban feel. Mr. Marvin stated this is a minimal height. It might even be more attractive if it had a third story, but there has been some controversy about the height of buildings in the area. They have a 50-foot corridor along the street, and narrower between the palm trees which creates an exterior room by the palm trees. 6. Vice Chairman Tyler asked about if the second floor tenant signs were wall mounted or would there be some blade type signs. Mr. Marvin stated he did not believe there would be any blade signs on the second floor. The signs would be similar in design to what is at the La Quinta Hotel. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\7-23-02.wpd 5 Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 2002 7. There being no further questions of the applicant and no other public comment, Vice Chairman Tyler closed the public participation portion of the hearing and opened the matter up for Commission discussion. 8. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-079 approving Site Development Permit 2002-745, as amended. a. Condition //53: Eliminate landscape plan review by ALRC. b. Condition//63: Clarify street lights to match City lights only on public streets. c. Condition//64: Clarify the street lights and the height shall be 12 feet at the bottom of the light fixture. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, and Vice Chairman Tyler. NOES: None. ABSENT: Chairman Butler. ABSTAIN: None. D. Tentative Tract Map 29436. Extension //1: a request of Transwest Housing Inc., Inc. for a one year extension of time for a tract map which creates 169 single family lots on 75.86 acres located on the north side of Eisenhower Drive and one half mile west of Washington Street. 1. Vice Chairman Tyler 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. There being no questions of staff, Vice Chairman Tyler asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Ms. Margo Thibeault stated they agreed with the conditions as written. 3. There being no further questions of the applicant and no other public comment, Vice Chairman Tyler closed the public participation portion of the hearing and opened the matter up for Commission discussion. 4. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Kirk to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-080 approving a one year extension of time for Tentative Tract Map 29436, as submitted. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\7-23-O2.wpd 6 Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 2002 ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, and Vice Chairman Tyler. NOES: None. ABSENT: Chairman Butler. ABSTAIN: None. E. Environmental Assessment 2001-435 Addendum and Tentative Tract Map 30331 Amendment #1: a request of Santa Properties and Development LLC for certification of an Environmental Assessment and review of a subdivision of 5.1 acres into 12 single family and other common lots located west of Jefferson Street on the north side of Avenue 50. 1. Vice Chairman Tyler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Vice Chairman Tyler asked if the entryway was in the same location opposite the Palmillia development. Staff stated it was. Vice Chairman Tyler asked if there was a substantial amount of dirt that would need to be imported to the site. Staff stated they have worked with the adjacent properties to obtain the needed dirt. 3. There being no further questions of staff, Vice Chairman Tyler asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Mick Santa, Santa Properties, requested relief from Condition #37. Moving the road to create 12 lots changes the lot elevations. The elevation of the road is due to the noise study which determined their walls needed to be at the subgrade elevation of 42 feet which creates the problem of meeting the condition for a one foot pad elevation requirement. They would like to request some latitude in regard to the elevations in order to meet the noise study requirements. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated the development to the west, Transwest, had higher pad elevations approved. They came to staff after the public hearing and asked for lower lots under a substantial conformance. Staff approved the lower lots which has left this applicant with the old conditions which do not work for him. Staff suggests that if the Planning Commission concurs that this is a hardship for this applicant, staff would rewrite the condition to allow the pad elevations as shown on the tentative map. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\7-23-02.wpd Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 2002 4. Commissioner Robbins stated it appears to only be one lot that this would affect. Mr. Santa stated it is two lots, but they are still required to meet the City's standards. 5. Senior Engineer Steve Speer informed the Commission that this entrance street does not align with the Palmillia development and should be conditioned to have a right in and right out. 6. There being no further questions of the applicant and no other public comment, Vice Chairman Tyler closed the public participation portion of the hearing and opened the matter up for Commission discussion. 7. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Abels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-081 recommending certification of an Addendum to Environmental Assessment 2001-435, as submitted. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, and Vice Chairman Tyler. NOES: None. ABSENT: Chairman Butler. ABSTAIN: None. 8. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Robbins/Kirk to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-082 recommending approval of Tentative Tract Map 30331 Amendment //1, as amended. a. Condition //37: Pad elevations shall be as shown on the tentative tract grading map. b. Add Condition: Right turn in and right turn out. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, and Vice Chairman Tyler. NOES: None. ABSENT: Chairman Butler. ABSTAIN: None. Vice Chairman Tyler recessed the meeting at 8:27 p.m. and reconvened at 8:34 p.m. F. Environmental Assessment 2002-454. General Plan Amendment 2002- 080, Zone Change 2002-109. Specific Plan 2002-059, Tentative Tract Map 30550~ and Site Development Permit 2002-740: a request of Mark Carpenter & The Casey Group/Dutch Parent for certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact; a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to remove 26.12 acres of Office · G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\7-23-O2.wpd 8 Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 2002 Commercial and add 20.14 acres to High Density Residential, add 1.75 acres to Community Commercial, and add 4.23 acres to Commercial Park; review of a Specific Plan to allow more units that the permitted density and a lesser square footage requirement for 24 studio apartments; review of a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide 77.44 acres into seven numbered lots and four lettered lots; and review of development plans for a 217 unit apartment complex on Lot 3 of the Tentative Tract Map. 1. Vice Chairman Tyler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Associate Planner Martin Maga~a presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Vice Chairman Tyler asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Robbins asked staff to clarify the zoning for Lot 4 is High Density Residential and under the current zoning, apartment buildings could be built adjacent to the Bella Vista development. Under the proposed development there would be no apartments for the distance of Lot 4. Staff stated yes. 3. Commissioner Robbins asked if Washington Street was built out to its ultimate limit. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated Riverside County, jointly with the City of Palm Desert, Indian Wells, and La Quinta built the street. North of La Quinta's city limits there was inadequate right of way and the County did not acquire any additional right of way therefore, they kept the same street cross section as it continued into La Quinta's jurisdiction. 4. Vice Chairman Tyler asked how this would affect the required setback for the right of way for Washington Street. Staff stated it would not; the ultimate right of way is still 120 feet. The sidewalk and bikeway would be combined into one eight feet wide meandering sidewalk. Until the area north of the City is built out, the sidewalk will end at the City limits. 5. Commissioner Robbins asked if the property north of Darby Road were to be developed would the County require the street to be widened. Senior Engineer Speer stated no; the east curb line is at its ultimate location in the County~ Staff is proposing to keep that portion of Washington Street in the City consistent with what is proposed in the County. .G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\7-23-O2.wpd ~) Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 2002 6. Commissioner Robbins asked for clarification on the density change as to what would be allowed and what is proposed. Staff stated the current density allowed is 207 and they are proposing 217 unit. 7. Vice Chairman Tyler asked staff what the distance was from the apartments to the single family homes on the east. Staff stated the eastern property line is 383 feet west of the Bella Vista development. 8. Staff requested an additional condition that if the applicant applied for density bonuses a conditional use permit would be required. Commissioner Robbins asked the purpose of the density bonus. Staff stated it is to provide a wide range of units for different income levels. Assistant City Attorney Marc Luesebrink clarified there is a provision in the Government Code that allows a density bonus to encourage the provision of Iow income housing. 9. Commissioner Robbins stated he had a concern about the southerly entrance to the project. It appears the gate is on the property line and may cause stacking issue. Staff stated the plan is conceptual and would have to be set back to accommodate the stacking. 10. Vice Chairman Tyler asked about the interim Palm Royale Street that was constructed for a back entrance for Bella Vista. Staff indicated the location on the map and showed a proposal by the Public Works Department for the ultimate design of road construction. It would be constructed as part of this tract map. 11. Commissioner Kirk asked staff to clarify whether under State Law and City Code, the density bonus is greater than what is being requested. Assistant City Attorney Marc Luesebrink stated it is up to 25%. Commissioner Kirk stated that if the applicant did not provide moderate and Iow income housing the project would be allowed 207 units and they are proposing 21 7, but they could have proposed 250-260. Assistant City Attorney Marc Luesebrink stated yes. The City Code allows up to 25% density bonuses provided the applicant meets the requirements of the City Code. Commissioner Kirk clarified Lot 4 could have been built with High Density housing at a similar scale with three stories. Staff stated they would be allowed under the current designations and could go to 40 feet in height. Commissioner Kirk stated their proposal G :\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\7-23-O2.wpd ] 0 Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 2002 is to move the higher density away from the existing homes to the east and closer to Washington Street. Staff stated yes. Commissioner Kirk asked why the City should accommodate what may, or may not occur in the County. Why not build our bike lane and see what happens. Senior Engineer Steve Speer clarified that if the bike lane were put in the street, when you get to the northern City limits you are automatically forced out into a 13 foot traffic lane. If the bike lane is in conjunction with the sidewalk, for the near term, when they get to the end of the sidewalk at the undeveloped land they will be in sand, but the problem will eventually go away as the site will be developed. 12. Commissioner Robbins asked what is currently on Washington Street south of Fred Waring Drive. Staff stated the Palm Royale project which was originally approved under the County General Plan and the street is narrower than what the City's General Plan requires. The curb lane is at 43 feet. When you go south to the La Quinta Del Oro project the curblane goes out to 48 feet. Discussion followed regarding the sidewalk and street width. 13. Commissioner Kirk questioned the amendment to the Specific Plan. He asked why the Specific Plan would need to be amended to delete this portion of the Zoning Code variation. Staff stated a specific plan is required whenever an applicant wants any deviations in the Code. If they increase the density allowed they are required to apply for a specific plan. Commissioner Kirk asked if their Specific Plan provided the density thereby creating the zoning for the property. Staff stated yes, but if they do not provide the 217 units proposed they must revert back to the maximum allowable density of 207. Community Development Director Jerry Herman clarified that if they chose not to provide any units that meet the criteria for the density bonus, they have to revert back to the original density under the Zoning Code. Commissioner Kirk questioned whether or not they would be able to build the desired 217 units, whether affordable or not, under their Specific Plan. Assistant City Attorney Marc Luesebrink stated the specific plan creates essentially a different zoning category. As with the zoning classification, under the specific plan you are allowed to develop at a lower density than permitted under the zoning classification-. In this case, given the fact that the specific plan anticipates High Density Residential in conformance with the City's Zoning and State Code for Iow income housing, if they decline to provide Iow income housing, they decline to G:~WPDOCS\PC Minutes\7-23-O2.wpd ] ! Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 2002 provide Iow income housing, may require them to amend the Specific Plan. Commissioner Kirk asked if the Specific Plan could be written to allow the requested density whether or not they were proposing affordable units. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated the Code requires the Planning Commission and City Council to approve a conditional use permit in addition to the specific plan. Assistant City Attorney Marc Luesebrink stated no, as they would not be in conformance with the General Plan. You are allowed to deviate from the General Plan provided you fall within the Code requirement and the State housing requirements relating to Iow income housing. Commissioner Kirk asked if staff had spoken with the applicant to encourage them to use the specific plan more broadly than the one parcel they control. Staff stated they had not. Commissioner Kirk asked if staff was aware that the Commission had concerns about using a specific plan for a single parcel when multiple parcels are involved. Staff explained the applicant for Lot 3 was only involved with the one parcel. 14. Vice Chairman Tyler asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Mike Rowe, representing the applicant Dutch Parent, gave a presentation on the project. He asked for clarification on Condition //61.A.5.a., requesting they be responsible for only 50% of the cost of the signal at Palm Royale Drive and Fred Waring Drive. 15. Commissioner Robbins asked if the applicant agreed with staff's proposal to curve the extension of Palm Royale Drive instead of the left turn. Mr. Rowe stated that if they are conditioned to do so, they are comfortable. 16.. Commissioner Kirk asked if they would be willing to modify the Specific Plan to include some circulation plans for all the parcels and still give some flexibility. Mr. Rowe stated they are not going to develop the property, so they want to give the end users the maximum flexibility for whatever they want to propose based upon the zoning designations approved under the General Plan and Zone Change applications. 17. Vice Chairman Tyler asked what the rationale was for the easement for Lots 5, 6, and 7. Mr. Rowe stated there will be a connection between Palm Royale Drive to Washington Street through Lots 5, 6, and 7. The purpose of the easement is to allow G :\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\7-23-O2.wpd ! 2 Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 2002 flexibility for the end users to be sure there is an alignment there, but it works in conjunction with their planned projects. Vice Chairman Tyler asked why Palm Royale Drive is referenced as a private street. Mr. Rowe stated it is not public because it is an easement for the commercial development of Lots 5, 6, and 7. 18. Mr. Paul Casey, the architect for the apartment complex, gave a presentation on the complex. 1 9. Vice Chairman Tyler asked if there would be a full time residential manager in perpetuity for the apartments. Mr. Casey stated yes, as well as full time maintenance people. 20. Commissioner Kirk asked for clarification on the term "courtyard". Mr. Casey stated each building is oriented around an open space area. Commissioner Kirk asked if the roof elements were in the Tuscany style. Mr. Casey stated yes. It is an evolving architecture. Commissioner Kirk asked if staff had given them any guidance on preparing a specific plan. Mr. Casey stated yes. Commissioner Kirk asked why an additional 43 parking spaces. Mr. Casey stated that in his experience an apartment complex never has enough parking. 21. Vice Chairman Tyler asked the target clientele for the project. Mr. Casey stated they were designed for market rate. Vice Chairman Tyler asked how they determined the number of people for the units. Mr. Casey stated it is primarily determined by HUD. Vice Chairman Tyler asked if the applicant had taken into consideration the heat in the area. Mr. Casey stated they had spent a lot of time reviewing projects in the area. He went on to explain the studio unit where they were asking for approval of a reduced size ranging between 594 to 606 square feet. 22. Mr. Mark Carpenter, developer of the apartment complex, gave a presentation on the project. 23. Vice Chairman Tyler asked if the commercial users were high density. Mr. Rowe stated they were both high density. The end user is trying to determine what would be compatible with what is in the neighborhood. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\7-23-O2.wpd ] 3 Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 2002 24. Mr. Lynn Gulick, 78-637 Camino Drive, stated her concerned about the Environmental Impact Report, which does not address the impact on the police, fire, schools or waste. Lot 4 could be developed as anything as it is not defined. This project abuts a single family community with homes valued from $250-350,000 and they are proposing Section 8 housing and small apartments that are not reflected in their neighborhood. This project will degrade their area. 25. Mr. Patricia Johnson, 78-195 Crimson, stated she is the President of Palm Royale Country Club Homeowners' Association and they would like to go on record as being opposed to the development due to the traffic, noise, and lights as well as the additional strain on police and fire and the negative impact it will have on their property values and quality of life. They would request the City retain the existing General Plan designation. 26. Commissioner Kirk asked if they prefer they stay with the existing General Plan designation, which would allow them to have high density next to Bella Vista. Ms. Johnson stated they would prefer the commercial. 27. Mr. Bruce Scott, 43-665 Milan Court, Lot 28 directly adjacent to Lot 4, stated their concern is that this is a piece meal approach to the overall approval of these parcels. Seven parcels being created in this tract and yet only one is being presented. They are very concerned about what the potential uses will be for the remainder of the lots. They would prefer this proposal be placed on hold and the entire site submitted at one time. They are also concerned about timetable of the completion of the entire project. Their property will be subject to problems with blow sand, potential increase of cars and people that could ultimately lead to vandalism. Another concern is the potential for any parcel to be rezoned for a different use in the future. The elevation change for the proposed road would cause headlights to shine directly into the adjacent properties. Their will be a considerable number of cars on the easement road and it will only be setback 20 feet from the adjacent properties. Congestion and traffic is already a problem at Fred Waring and Palm Royale Drive and at what stage of the project would the traffic light be constructed. The buffer created by Parcel 4 between his property and the proposed apartments G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\7-23-02.wpd ]4 Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 2002 would allow him greater privacy, but it depends on the ultimate use of Lot 4. Due to the uncertainty of the remainder parcels, he would like to request denial of the project untill it is better defined. 28. Ms. Sherry Trevor, 43-516 Via Magellan, Palm Desert, stated her concern is for density, traffic, crime, noise, property values. She requests the existing zoning be retained. 29. Mr. Anthony Moreno, 78-652 Sienna Court, inquired if a condition could be imposed to restrict the project to a total of 10 units for Section 8 housing. Assistant City Attorney Marc Luesebrink stated the exact number is yet to be determined. It would depend on whether they are very Iow, Iow, or moderate income. Based upon whatever category or conditions are placed on these units, it will determine the number of affordable units. It would be 10% or 20% based on whether it is very Iow, or Iow income. Mr. Moreno stated his opposition that this amount of Section 8 housing would have a detrimental affect on the existing housing. 30. Vice Chairman Tyler asked if Section 8 and affordable housing were the same. Assistant City Attorney Marc Luesebrink stated no, affordable housing is a requirement of State law. 31. Mr. Kevin Jauch, 78-737 Torino Drive, stated he and his wife are teachers in the area and they are first time homebuyers. Their biggest concern is the traffic and high density rentals that could be just a stepping stone to more. He is concerned about the increase of parking and safety of the schools. He would suggest the City buy the property and donate it to the community as a park for many different uses. 32. Mr. Richard Weaver, 43-592 Palermo Court, stated he was concerned that if the proposed storage facility for Lot 4 does not develop, the lot could be changed to an industrial use. He would request the zoning be left as it is currently zoned until the user is known. Industrial property adjacent to R-1 property does not make planning sense to him. 33. Ms. Celeste Shraft for Ruth Morse, 78-595 Naples Drive, stated this project does not serve their community as the majority of the people are retired. There is no provision for handicapped in a three story structure. 34. Mr. Raul Ramirez, 78-707 Torino Drive, asked if there was anyway G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\7~23-O2.wpd ] 5 Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 2002 to revisit this corner and not allow the mixed uses. The corner could be planned better. 35. Mr. David Hinkey, 78-585 Naples Drive, stated he was concerned about the whole project. He never envisioned his home would be next to a Iow income housing project. He is concerned about the safety of his family and home. The quality of children that will be going to school with his son. The quality/value of his property would be damaged. This is an inappropriate location for this type of development. 36. Mr. John Nelson, 43-755 Milan Court, asked why a residential development was not proposed for this site. 37. There being no further questions of the applicant and no other public comment, Vice Chairman Tyler closed the public participation portion of the hearing and opened the matter for Commission discussion. 38. Commissioner Abels explained that a 25 acre park has been planned by the City for this area. In regard to elevators they are a market driven issue. This is a difficult issue, but the distance provided by the developer from the single family homes is sufficient and in regard to Iow income housing, that is determined by the State. Studies have been made in regard to the traffic. 39. Commissioner Kirk stated the land use proposed by the applicant is better than the existing. He is concerned about the piecemeal approach and how the Specific Plan is used. A specific plan should not be used to circumvent portions of the Zoning Code. This is an opportunity to look at multiple properties and design infrastructure to accommodate multiple property locations and understand cumulative impacts of the multiple properties being developed over time. He does not approve using a specific plan in this nature. The project looks like it was thrown together fairly quickly to accommodate a specific need and does not give a good sense of circulation, and some of the other major issues. In terms of the Apartment complex itself, on the whole it is a positive project. The layout is good and he is encouraged to see, even though in his opinion it is over parked, parking does not dominate. The architect did a nice job incorporating garage structures into the design of the building. They are not overwhelming; it is appropriate. However the architect could have done more with G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\7-23-O2.wpd ] (~ Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 2002 respect to replicating the Tuscany look. He would like to have seen different materials used such as stone or stone veneers which is a Tuscany type that is used. He is also concerned about the roof lines and more amenities could have been provided. He would suggest reducing the amount of parking and give more landscaping. The City cannot reduce the number of Iow, or very iow income families as it is unknown at this time. On a site scale, improvements can be made. On a planning scale he is concerned about the use of a specific plan as a tool in this case. 40. Commissioner Robbins agreed with Commissioner Kirk on the parking issues. He is against over parking on any project. This project is very short on open space and needs to decrease the parking and have more open space and' amenities. He is against high density in the desert and even more opposed to density bonuses. Palm Royale Drive needs to curve and connect to the access street as opposed to the 90° angle shown. He does like the architecture of the units, however, the site planning is boring and unimaginative. He does not like the piecemeal planning. 41. Vice Chairman Tyler stated that if they were considering the apartment complex by itself, it would be salvagable. He cannot approve zoning that allows light industrial next to single family development. A storage unit would be better, but a CP zoning designation allows whatever use is zoned under the CP zoning district to be constructed. He has a strong concern about the circulation. The original project had access points off Washington Street that needed to be removed and now with this project we are adding more access points. He has difficulty increasing the density on a parcel of very few acres. The traffic would be a nightmare and the schools would be more overloaded than they are now. 42. Commissioner Robbins stated that although he was not in favor of this project, part of what is being proposed is better than what would be allowed currently. There could be a three story apartment project right next to the current single family homes in the area. 43. Vice Chairman Tyler asked if Lot 4 could be restricted to only a G:\WPDOCS~PC Minutes\7-23-O2.wpd ] ? Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 2002 storage center in perpetuity. Assistant City Attorney Marc Luesebrink stated no, because it would bind the future decisions of the city and not a condition of approval of this project. 44. Commissioner Kirk asked if the specific plan could be expanded to include some elements of the other parcel. In particular, circulation, condition future development along the eastern property boundary with performance standards that take into account compatibility of the neighboring residences. Can the Commission reject this specific plan and ask them to bring back a specific plan that addresses some aspects of the other parcels in the General Plan Amendment and condition the Specific Plan as to the types of uses that would be allowed along the eastern boundary. Assistant City Attorney Marc Luesebrink stated yes they could. Commissioner Kirk stated he would recommend approval of the Environmental Assessment, General Plan Amendment, Zone Change and ask that the Specific plan be brought back addressing the circulation and compatibility uses along the eastern boundary and then discuss the apartment building in more detail. 45. Vice Chairman Tyler asked if the Commission voted no on the General Plan Amendment, would that be the end of the project. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated it would go to the City Council with a no vote on the General Plan Amendment and no action taken on the other applications. 46. Commissioner Robbins asked if the project could be continued to allow the applicant time to address the concerns that had been raised. Staff stated they could, but they would need to provide the applicant with direction. Mr. Mike Rowe stated that in this project the uses are less intensive than what is existing. The use for Lot 4 is a storage facility. They agree with the curvilinear street, but they do not want a continuance of the project. They want to move forward as they believe they have a plan that gives the City the best use over what has been there previously. In regard to the street alignment, Palm Royale Drive currently intersects with Darby Road. 47. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\7-23-O2.wpd 1~ ~ Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 2002 Commissioners Kirk/Abels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-083 recommending certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact for Environmental Assessment 2002-454, subject to the findings, as submitted. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels and Kirk. NOES: Commissioner Robbins and Vice Chairman Tyler. ABSENT: Chairman Butler. ABSTAIN: None. 48. There being a tie vote, the motion dies. No further action was taken. VII. BUSINESS ITEMS: A Continued Site Development Permit 2002-744; a request of Jai Nettimi for compatibility review of a deck for a single family two story house located at 79-390 Paseo del Rey. 1. Vice Chairman Tyler asked if there was a motion to continue Site Development Permit 2002-744, as requested. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Robbins to continue Site Development Permit 2002-744 to September 3, 2002, as requested. Unanimously approved. B. Z.0J31Dg_lssuP~; a request of staff for review of Shade Structures, Gas Stations, and Drive Thrus. 1. Vice Chairman Tyler asked for the staff report. Community Development Director Jerry Herman presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Vice Chairman Tyler asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioners Robbins/Kirk stated they support leaving the Zoning Code as it is written for shade structures. 3. Staff asked if the Commission wanted to limit the number of gas stations and fast thru restaurants in the City. Staff is not requesting the prohibition of a restaurants, but rather the drive thru. G :\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\7-23-02.wpd ] ~) Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 2002 4. Commissioner Kirk questioned whether or not the City could adopt such an action. Assistant City Attorney Marc Luesebrink stated the Planning Commission can amend the Zoning Code and make a recommendation that allowing these uses is not good planning. 5. Following discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to continue this to a future meeting, directing staff to prepare an analysis as to how many gas stations and drive throughs there are and where they are located in La Quinta and potential locations. Unanimously approved. VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: A. Commissioners discussed the IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. No report was given on the City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. X. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Robbins to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a special meeting of the Planning Commission to be held September 3, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. on July 23, 2002. Respectfully submitted, /' City oZ La Quinta, California G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\7-23-O2.wpd 20