Loading...
2002 09 24 PC Minutes MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA September 24, 2002 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 Butler who asked Commissioner Abels to lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Jacques Abels, Tom Kirk, Steve Robbins, Robert Tyler, and Chairman Richard Butler. C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Kathy Jenson, Assistant City 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 Butler asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of September 3, 2002. Commissioner Robbins asked that Page 1, under Roll Call be corrected to show Commissioner Tyler's name only once. Commissioner Tyler asked that Page 1, under Roll Call also be corrected to remove "unanimously approved"; Page 1, under Consent Items corrected to show, "Chairman Butler asked if there were any corrections..." and show that Chairman Butler abstained from voting on Page 2; Page 8, Item 6 correct the spelling of "toe". There being no further corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Robbins/Tyler to approve the minutes as corrected. Unanimously approved. B. Department Report: None V. PRESENTATIONS: None VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-24-02.wpd ] Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 2002 A. ~pecific Plan Amendment 2000-043 Amendment //2 and Sign _Application 2002-629; a request of Madison/P.T.M La Quinta, L.L.C. for consideration of a request to delete the Sign Program provisions from the Specific Plan for Point Happy Commercial Center and review of a Sign Program for Point Happy Commercial Center for the property located at the northwest corner of Washington Street and Highway 111. 1. Chairman Butler 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 Butler asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Robbins asked why conditions not pertaining to the sign program were included. Staff explained that when a Specific Plan is brought back before the Commission all conditions are subject to review by the Commission. Commissioner Robbins asked why there was a difference between the staff report and specific plan in regard to who would be approving signs. Staff explained the sign program and any modifications to that program will be approved by the Planning Commission. Individual building signs as currently contained in the Specific Plan can be approved by the Community Development Director. 3. Commissioner Tyler asked if the purpose of the Specific Plan is to authorize deviations from the Zoning Code. At the moment the Specific Plan has a reference to a sign program, so if the sign program is deleted from the Specific Plan, the Commission then has the authority to grant changes that are no longer in the Specific Plan. Staff stated the Specific Plan does identify sign types that are not allowed by the Zoning Code. Standards and specifications, the size of the sign, type of letters, where they are to be mounted, are in the sign program. By adopting the Specific Plan the Commission is authorizing the specific sign types and their configuration is contained in the sign program. The text for the provisions of a sign program is being removed, but the specifications will remain. 4. Commissioner Kirk asked if neon tubing was allowed in the City. Staff stated not under the Zoning Code, that is why it is included in the Specific Plan. Commissioner Kirk asked how would it be determined whether or not neon would be allowed. Staff stated the sign program would identify how the sign would be mounted, G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-24-O2.wpd Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 2002 the size, color and type of the letters, not the Specific Plan. Commissioner Kirk asked why neon tubing, but not allowed in the City. Staff stated it was too flashy, bright and with the current technology it can be toned down and more acceptable to the City. 5. Chairman Butler asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Rick Wilkerson, representing the development, stated he was available to answer questions. 6. Commissioner Tyler stated there currently are two monument signs, and asked if the blank monument signs would have the signs of future tenants. Mr. Wilkerson stated the one at the corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street is specifically for "Point Happy" only. Their Specific Plan allows them two tenant signs with three signs on each monument at the entrance off Washington Street and the right in/out entrance by the Falls Steakhouse. 7. There being no further questions of the applicant and no other public comment, Chairman Butler closed the public participation portion of the hearing and opened the matter up for Commission discussion. 8. Commissioner Tyler noted some corrections in the sign program and asked who would be monitoring the temporary banners, etc. Staff stated temporary signs would still require the applicant to apply for a use permit. The developer is wanting to have preapproval of the signs before submitting them to the City for approval. Commissioner Tyler asked about the signage control inside the store. Staff noted the developer will maintain control over all signs. 9. Commissioner Kirk asked if the developer was trying to'regulate every sign inside the store. Mr. Wilkerson stated they want strict control on any signs. Discussion followed as to the type of signs that would be regulated. 10. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Robbins to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-090 recommending approval of Point Happy Specific Plan Amendment//2, as recommended. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-24-O2.wpd 3 Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 2002 ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins; Tyler, and Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN' None. 11. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-091 recommending approval of the Point Happy Sign Program 2002-629, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. B. Environmental Assessment 2001-411 Revised. Specific Plan 2001-051 Amendment //1~ and Village Use Permit 2001-007 Amendment //1' a request of Cameo Homes and Landaq, Inc. for certification of a Revised Environmental Assessment, an Amendment to the Specific Plan design guidelines for a mixed land use development on 33+ acres including detachment of 12.72 acres for a future public school, and review of architectural and landscaping plans for a 200-unit apartment complex and two commercial pads in multiple story buildings on 12 acres located on the east side of Eisenhower Drive, north of Calle Tampico and west of Avenida Bermudas. 1. Chairman Butler opened the public hearing and 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. There being no questions of staff, Chairman Butler asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Victor Mahoney, representing Cameo Homes, gave a description of the project. 3. Commissioner Kirk asked the applicant what the view of the project would be from the street. Mr. Mahoney explained and discussion followed as to what would be seen from the street. Mr. Manny Gonzalez, architect for the project gave a further explanation of the project. 4. Commissioner Tyler asked the grade differential from the street to the project. Mr. Mahoney stated it was two feet at the entrance. G :\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-24-02.wpd 4 Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 2002 5. Commissioner Tyler noted items in the Specific Plan that needed to be deleted as it was carried over from the prior Specific Plan. He asked what the easterly boundary would be. Mr. Mahoney explained the location and stated it would have a wrought iron fence. Mr. Chris Bergh noted the location of the Hotel parking lot. 6. Commissioner Kirk questioned if the density complies with the current Zoning Code. Staff stated yes, under the Village zoning designation, the Planning Commission sets the density in the Village. The highest density the City has is 16. In addition, State law allows density bonuses for affordable units and staff is working with the developer to obtain 75 units of affordability. Commissioner Kirk asked if there was a cap. Staff stated there was. Commissioner Kirk asked how many units would fall below the minimum unit size. Mr. Mahoney stated 46 units at 670 square feet. Commissioner Kirk asked if they were able to address the changes recommended by the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee (ALRC). Mr. Mahoney stated they have made all the changes requested. Commissioner Kirk asked the location of where other recreational amenities were placed. Mr. Mahoney noted the common areas that contained barbeques, etc. 7. Commissioner Robbins asked for clarification as to whether this is an Amendment to the Specific Plan or a new Specific Plan; what happens to the KSL parking lot. Staff stated the Specific Plan covers the same parcels of dirt, but rather than preparing a new Specific Plan, staff requested the applicant to amend the Plan to show the new configuration of this parcel. Commissioner Robbins noted statements that needed to be deleted from the Specific Plan. Staff noted the Village Use Permit was submitted for the apartment complex; the specific plan is to accommodate the apartments or any other type of commercial projects. This was to give them flexibility with the project. 8. Commissioner Abels asked for more detail on the live-work commercial areas. Mr. Mahoney explained the units would be located below and the tenant would lives above the work area. Commissioner Abels asked what type of tenants they were looking for. Mr. Mahoney stated working professionals. 9. Commissioner Kirk asked the applicant for other locations where this type of project has been successful. Mr. Mahoney stated San Juan Capistrano for one, but it was not in conjunction with a G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-24-02.wpd 5 Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 2002 multi-family residential. Commissioner Kirk asked the location of the pedestrian access. Mr. Mahoney stated it is at Eisenhower Drive. They are working with KSL to obtain access at the east end of the project. 1 0. Commissioner Tyler noted the ALRC recommendation for a wall on the south and east perimeter; what will be done on the north side. Mr. Mahoney stated there is an existing wall on the east side and it will be a wrought iron on the south, but the units on the north would not have a wall to retain the view of the golf course. 1 1. Commissioner Robbins noted there would be a request of CVWD for limited access to the levy on the north side. Mr. Mahoney stated they propose to work with the CVWD to have wrought iron with shepherd hooks on the top of the fence, at the toe of the levy to not block the view. 12. Chairman Butler asked if there was any other public comment. Mrs. Kay Wolff, 77-235 Calle Ensenada, stated she did not know anything about the project before tonight. Apartments normally get a bad reputation and La Quinta does need them. When considering apartments she thinks about density, quality, management, and placement of the neighboring population and traffic. The density of this project is a concern as they are asking for considerable change. Traffic will be a big concern including the school traffic. She is not sure what could be done to improve this, but the density and traffic should be addressed. 1 3. There being no other public comment, Chairman Butler closed the public participation portion of the hearing and opened the matter up for Commission discussion. 14. Commissioner Robbins stated he agrees with the concerns on the traffic and noted there was no traffic study included with the report. A project of this size next to a school is a concern. 15. Commissioner Tyler asked what improvements are planned for Eisenhower Drive. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated there has been a significant amount of planning for Eisenhower and it will be widened at this location as part of the Capital Improvement Program. With respect to the traffic generation, there is no study for this project because during the General Plan G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-24-O2.wpd (~ Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 2002 update there was no change of zoning proposed and therefore the General Plan had already took into consideration the amount of traffic that would be generated on this street. The City collects fees to provide for the traffic signals and off-site improvements. There will be a right in/right out and left-in to the site. 1 6. Commissioner Robbins stated he is still concerned that the traffic issues need to be address. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated there was a traffic study done and it agrees with the information obtained during the General Plan update. 17. Commissioner Kirk stated that multi-family housing has a place in La Quinta and he agrees with the density for this site. However, he also believes there needs to be more amenities on the site and if they need to reorientate the site to provide more open space, then so be it. He would rather have the balconies, vines and trellis work that was proposed in the original plan, but also he would prefer a more urban setting, pedestrian linkages, and additional amenities. 1 8. Commissioner Tyler stated he agrees with Commissioner Robbins on the errors in the staff report and Specific Plan. Also, there needs to be a well planned wall on the north property line. 1 9. Commissioner Abels suggested the project be continued to allow the applicant time to better define some of the concerns that have been raised. 20. Chairman Butler reopened the public hearing. Mr. Forrest Haag, landscape architect for the project, explained how the Specific Plan was amended. 21. There being no further comment, the public hearing was closed. 22. Commissioner Tyler stated he believes the Specific Plan does not give enough explanation of the site. 23. Chairman Butler asked if staff believed the project could be better defined if it were allowed to come back, or could the Commission refine the conditions at this meeting. Staff stated either way. G :\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-24-O2.wpd Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 2002 24. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Abels to continue the project to October 8, 2002, asking the applicant to better clarify the Specific Plan to know what is being approved, show additional amenities woven into the site plan, improved pedestrian access to the Village and shows the location of the perimeter walls. Unanimously approved. Chairman Butler recessed the meeting the meeting at 8.'44 p.m. and reconvened at 8:50 p.m. C. Zoning Code Amendment 2002-073; a request of the City for consideration of an amendment to Chapter 9.60, Section 9.60.030- Fences and Walls, of the La Quinta Municipal Code, to permit split rail fencing in the front yard within residential zones. 1. Chairman Butler opened the public hearing and 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. There being no questions of staff and no other public comment, Chairman Butler closed the public participation portion of the hearing and opened the matter up for Commission discussion. 3. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Abels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-092 recommending approval of Zoning Code Amendment 2002-073, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. VII. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Notice of Public Nuisance Citation//6559 a request of Bill and Jan Turner for an appeal of a Public Nuisance Citation regarding the violation of front/side yard setback, satellite .dish location, and construction without a permit. 1. Chairman Butler 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. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-24-02.wpd 8 Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 2002 8. Commissioner Abels asked if the company they purchased it from informed them as to whether or not these structures were allowed. Ms. Turner stated no. American Awning was subsequently informed and they have put all future sales on hold. 9. Commissioner Tyler asked when the house was built. Ms. Turner stated 1990. Commissioner Tyler asked if the size of the garage is the same now. Staff stated yes; 20 feet by 20 feet. Commissioner Tyler asked why they did not park in the garage. Ms. Turner stated they have motorcycles and other vehicles in the garage. In regard to the satellite dish, they can remove it, but it can only be seen when looking down the sideyard. 10. Commissioner Robbins stated he commends them on installing a nice looking awning in comparison to some of the others shown in the examples submitted. He is concerned that the retail stores are not informing the public where they can and cannot be installed. 11. Commissioner Kirk stated he too is concerned as to how you approve one and not the others. He asked staff how they make a determination as to what meets the Code and what can create trouble for staff. Staff stated it becomes subjective and it is not their desire to be treating people unequal. 12.' Commissioner Robbins asked why this structure was the only one given a citation. Staff noted this was not the first one, this is the first that appealed the citation. 13. Commissioner Kirk stated the Cove does have some special circumstances in regard to the size of the lots. Some specific requirements could be placed on the shade structures to permit their use. He would support flexibility in the Ordinance to allow them. 14. Chairman Butler stated this is a nice installation, but he does not want to approve them as it could open the door for it to be allowed anywhere. 15. Commissioner Tyler stated the City does recognize there are special circumstances with the Cove lots. He does have a problem supporting them as it will allow all types and styles that could be unattractive. G :\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-24-O2.wpd ] 0 Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 2002 2. Chairman Butler asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Robbins stated the report submitted by Code Compliance shows a multitude of canopies/structures, and asked if other residents had received citations. Staff stated they will be cited depending on the outcome of this meeting. 3.' Commissioner Tyler noted there were three portions to the citation. Staff stated that was correct. 4. Commissioner Robbins asked if this type of structure were located in the sideyard, or back yard, and a vehicle be allowed to drive back and park under it.' would a building permit be allowed. Community Safety Manager John Hardcastle stated the Building Code calls out the square footage for when a permit is allowed. It depends on the amount of area under the canopy to determine if a permit would required. 5. Commissioner Abels stated it is important to keep in mind the look of the streetscape. 6. Commissioner Kirk stated that if this is an illegal structure, you cannot have a building permit. Staff stated that it is not a buildable structure because of the setback. Community Development Director Jerry Herman recited the Code requirements for shade structures. 7. Chairman Butler asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. and Mrs. Bill Turner, 53-750 Avenida Obregon, stated the purpose of putting up the shade structure. They did drive up and down the Cove before determining what type of canopy to purchase and to see what had been allowed. They chose the one currently installed as it was a much sturdier one than what they had seen in the Cove. They have addressed the company they bought the shade structure from and they have corrected their information. They have a corner lot and do not have any options due to the setbacks, to provide shade for their driveway. They are trying to enhance the landscaping as well. It is not a permanent structure and is not attached to their home. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-24-O2.wpd ~) Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 2002 16. Commissioner Abels stated the streetscape is important and unfortunately the applicants have been taken advantage of. 17. There being no further discussion, Chairman Butler closed the public participation portion of the meeting and opened the meeting for Commission discussion. 18. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Abels to adopt Minute Motion 2002-016, denying appeal of Public Nuisance Citation //6559, as recommended. Motion carried with Commissioner Kirk opposed. VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. No report of the September 17, 2002, City Council meeting, was given. X. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held October 8, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:39 p.m. on September 24, 2002. Respectfully submitted, Bet~y ~,.~av)/yer, Executive Secretary City ol~'-La~Quinta, California G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-24-O2.wpd ] !