2003 06 10 PC Minutes MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
June 10, 2003 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 Tyler to lead the flag
salute.
B. Present: Commissioners Jacques Abels, Tom Kirk, Steve Robbins, Robert
Tyler and Chairman Butler.
C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, Assistant
City Attorney Michael Houston, Planning Manager Oscar Orci, Assistant
City Engineer Steve Speer, Principal Planner Fred Baker, Associate
Planner Greg Trousdell, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA:
IV. CONSENT ITEMS:
1. Chairman Butler asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of
May 27, 2003. There being no corrections, it was moved and seconded
by Commissioners Abels/Kirk to approve the minutes as 'submitted.
Unanimously approved.
2. Department Report: None
V. PRESENTATIONS: None
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None
A. Site Development 2003-770; a request of Michael Shovlin for
consideration of development plans for a 10,558 square foot commercial
building located on the north side of Highway 111, 375 feet west of
Adams Street within the One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 10, 2003
1. Chairman Butler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Planning Manager Oscar Orci 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 about the Architecture and
Landscaping Review Committee's (ALRC) comments regarding the
parking lot islands. Staff indicated the ALRC wanted the islands
to be shorter at the entrance and staff had added a condition
requiring the reduction.
3. Commissioner Tyler stated Condition//35 should be more specific
as to what and where it is to be shortened and by how much.
Staff stated the condition would be modified to make that
clarification. Commissioner Tyler asked that Item 7 of the
Resolution be amended to state the "approved" sign program..
Condition //49 corrected to state "...which is allowed to be...".
He asked that the site plan be corrected to read water and sewer
would be provided by Coachella Valley Water District.
4. Commissioner Kirk asked if the applicant had responded to the
ALRC's request for "people places" on the site plan. Staff stated
they had not. Commissioner Kirk asked that Condition //29 be'
cleaned up to eliminate any reference to "homes". Staff stated it
would be deleted.
5. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Butler asked if
the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Dave
Smalley, representing the project, stated they had no objections to
any of the conditions, and were available to answer questions.
6. Commissioner Kirk asked if they had any design ideas on the
"people places" area. Mr. Smalley stated they intended to
possibly install a fountain, some benches, and maybe a depressed
area using landscaping to define separate areas.
7. Commissioner Tyler asked if they had any objection to shortening
the parking islands. Mr. Smalley stated they had no objection to
reducing the length; He did ask that Condition//34 be modified to
require a pocket for a tree at the end of the compact car space, or
a diamond planter. Commissioner Tyler expressed his concern
about how the condition was written. Following discussion, it
was determined to delete the condition.
G :\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6-10-27-03WD.doc
Planning Commission Minutes
June 10, 2003
8. There being no other public participation, Chairman Butler closed
the public participation portion of the hearing and opened the
matter up for Commission discussion.
9. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Abels/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2003-031 approving Site Development Permit 2003-
770, as amended:
a. Conditions//29 & #34: deleted
b. Condition #35: modified to read, "Two parking islands, as
shown on Exhibit "A" shall be shortened by two feet.
c. Condition #49: correct the spelling of the word "allowed".
d. Item 7 of the Resolution would be corrected to read,
"approved sign program."
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and'
Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
Site Development Permit 2002-751; a request of Washington 111, Ltd.
For consideration of an amendment to Condition of Approval No. 40
regarding the Target elevations for the property bounded by Highway
111, Avenue 47, Washington Street and Adams Street.
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 Tyler asked that Condition #40 be amended to state
the developer will work with staff.
3. There being no further questions of staff, the applicant having no
questions, and no other public participation, Chairman Butler
closed the public participation portion of the hearing and opened
the matter up for Commission discussion.
4. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Kirk/Robbins to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2003-032, approving Site Development Permit 2003-
751, as recommended.
G:\WPDOCS\PC MINUTES\6-10-27-O3WD.DOC 3
Planning Commission Minutes
June 10, 2003
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and
Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
C. Environmental Assessment 2003-473, General Plan Amendment 2003-
092, Zone Change 2003-114, Tentative'Tract Map 31289, and Site
Development Permit 2003-769; a request of Jim Hayhoe for
consideration of: 1) Certification of a Mitigated a Mitigated Negative
Declaration; 2) Change of the General Plan Land Use Category from
Community Commercial to Low Density Residential; 3) Change to the
Zoning District from Community Commercial to Low Density Residential;
4) Subdivision of three parcels into seven single family lots; and 5)
Review of architectural, landscape, and site plans for two single story
house plans ranging in size from 3,080 square feet to 3,362 square feet.
1. Chairman Butler 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. Chairman Butler asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Tyler asked staff who determines what the fair
share cost of the two-way left turn lane should be as referenced in
Condition 34.A. 1. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated the
City will have to take the lead and ask the developers to pay their
fair share. It is a two-way left turn lane in the center of the street
and it is yet to be determined what the fair share will be to each of
the developers. Commissioner Tyler asked staff to clarify
Condition 34.A.2. Staff stated the intent is that the applicant will
have to across the street to hook up to the utilities (7 utility
trenches). The intent is for the developer to grind off 1/10 of the
depth of the pavement for the entire width and length of the street
they are cutting, then overlay it back with smooth, new asphalt.
Commissioner Tyler asked if a condition could be added to require
the developer to provide a disclosure that a commercial
designation exists across the street. Staff stated a condition
would be added.
3. Commissioner Kirk asked if all commercial properties to the west
had been approved. Staff stated Lots 1, 2, part of 3, and 4 have
not yet been built out. Commissioner Kirk stated his concern was
that by only placing a requirement in the CC&R's, the people
purchasing will not have knowledge of it. Staff suggested it be
included in the sales agreement for each house as well.
G :\WPDOCS\PC MINUTES\6-10-27-03WD.DOC 4
Planning Commission Minutes
June 10, 2003
4. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Butler asked if
the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Jim
Hayhoe, developer, stated he has no objection to the conditions
and is available to answer any questions.
5. Commissioner Tyler asked about Plan 2A in regard to the location
of the air conditioning condenser being next to the guest bedroom.
He would suggest a different location.
There being no further questions of the applicant, Chairman Butler
asked if there was any other public comment o.n this project.
7. There being no other public participation, Chairman Butler closed
the public participation portion of the hearing and opened the
matter up for Commission discussion.
8. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Abels/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2003-033, recommending Certification of a Mitigated
a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment
2003-473, as recommended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and
Chairman Butler. NOES: 'None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
9. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Robbins to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-034, recommending
approval of General Plan Amendment 2003-092, as recommended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and
Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
10. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-035, recommending
approval of Zone Change 2003-114, as recommended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and
Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
11. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Robbins to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-036, recommending
approval of Tentative Tract Map 31 289, as amended:
G:\WPDOCS\PC MINUTES\6-10-27-O3WD.DOC 5
Planning Commission Minutes
June 10, 2003
a. Condition #34.A.2: clarify wording
b. Condition #44: amend to state front and rear yards
c. Condition #03; require a disclosure in the sales contract
regarding the commercial property to the west of the site.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and
Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
12. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-037, recommending
approval of Site Development Permit 2002-769, as
r eco m men d ed/amended:
a. Condition #3: add "final front and rear yards.'
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and
Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:'
None.
D. Environmental Assessment 2002-462, Specific Plan 2003-062, and Site
Development Permit 2002-754; a request of Marinita Development
Company for 1) ) Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration; 2)
review of development principles and design guidelines for a 50,000
square foot market, 23,000 square foot drug and retail store, and 20,970
square feet of retail shops.
1. Planning Manager Oscar Orci informed the Commission the
applicant had requested a continuance to the meeting of June 24,
2003.
2. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Kirk/Abels to continue project to June 24, 2003.
Unanimously approved.
E. Environmental Assessment 2003-472, Specific Plan 2003-064, and
Tentative Tract Map 31202; a request of Desert Elite for: 1) Certification
of a Mitigated Negative Declaration; 2) development principals and design
guidelines for a residential development; and 3) the subdivision of 79.21
acres into 202 single family homes, for the property located at the
southwest corner of Monroe Street and Avenue 52.
G:\WPDOCS\PC MINUTES\6-10-27-03WD.DOC 6
Planning Commission Minutes
June 10, 2003
1. Chairman Butler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Planning Manager Oscar Orci 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 Tyler stated there was a difference in the staff
report and Specific Plan as to whether the houses will be one story
or two. Staff noted they are all single story and will be corrected
to reflect this. Commissioner Tyler asked that Condition #52.A.2.
be rewritten for more clarity. Also, Condition #56, two car
stacking does not seem like enough. Assistant City Engineer
Steve Speer stated the two car stack would be sufficient as they
would only be stacking guests and not residents. Commissioner
Tyler asked about the secondary access as it is not mentioned in
the Specific Plan. Staff stated this is an emergency access only
and they would be required to note this on the tract map and
Specific Plan. He suggested the last sentence of Condition #85
be deleted. Commissioner Tyler asked about the height of the
canopy trees and how much clearance would be needed for the
horse riders. Staff stated this would be reviewed' when the
landscape plan was submitted. Commissioner Tyler asked
whether or not any consideration had been given to having a horse
crossing at the entrance on Avenue 52. Assistant City Engineer
Steve Speer stated that due to the existing driveways on the north
· side of the street, there is no full turning movement at their main
entrance. The full turn is further to the west. Commissioner Tyler
noted changes that were to be made in the Specific Plan.
3. Commissioner Kirk asked if there was anything in the Specific Plan
that relaxed or significantly modified the existing Zoning Code
requirements. Staff noted the deviations were in the range of lot
sizes, the height of the houses, as well as setbacks. Staff also
asked that a condition be added to the Specific Plan on Pages 1 9-
46 to include the ranges of the proposed floor plans versus the
minimum Code requirement of 1,400 square feet. This gives a
range of 2,200 to 2,800 square feet as proposed by the
applicant's floor plans.
4. Commissioner Kirk asked that a condition be added to the Specific
Plan requiring 50 percent of the landscaping can be in turf.
G :\WPDOCS\PC MINUTES\6-10-27-03WD.DOC 7
Planning Commission Minutes
June 10, 2003
5. Commissioner Robbins stated a well site will be required and
should be shown on the plan. Staff noted it will be located
somewhere on Lot 9 or 10. Commissioner Robbins asked that the
adjoining properties be given notification of its location.
6. Commissioner Tyler asked if there was a condition that the front
yard setbacks be staggered. Staff stated there was.
7. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Butler asked if
the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. John
Pedalino, representing Desert Elite, stated that when the project
was designed, the General Plan and surrounding uses were taken
into consideration. The General Plan did call out 2-4 units per acre
with minimum lot sizes of 10,000 square feet. However, with the
existing setbacks and the way the General Plan was written, you
could pUt a 1,500 square foot home with a three car garage on the
lot. This wasthe reason for the deviation. If you take out the half
acre equestrian lots, you are averaging 10,600 square feet per lot.
If you include the half acre lots, it is 11.5. As to the minimum'
livable area, they would like to have 2,000 square feet. The
houses will be staggered 4-6 feet, should the depth of the lots
allows this with the setbacks. The main access will be on Avenue
52. The gate will be set back to allow stacking for 4-5 cars. The
map shows the well site will be in the northeast corner of the site.
He asked that a condition be added, that during the first phase of
development, the perimeter block wall will be required to be
installed on Monroe Street and Avenue 52 during the first phase of
development and not the landscaping.
8. Commissioner Tyler asked when the landscaping would be
installed. Staff stated a condition could be added that it be before
the final of the first house.
9. Commissioner Kirk asked if the retention areas that back up to the
homes, would be an amenity or will there be a block wall. Mr.
Pedalino stated there will be a block wall, but the south and west
facing homes will have an opening to the retention area. They are
considering various uses for the retention area, but will make a
decision at a later date.
G:\WPDOCS\PC MINUTES\6-10-27-03WD.DOC 8
Planning Commission Minutes
June 10, 2003
10. Commissioner Robbins asked the purpose of the easement on Lot
"M". Mr. Pedalino stated it is an easement for the irrigation lines.
Commissioner Robbins stated that if this is only a ten foot
easement to match what the existing easement is, it becomes
unworkable when you put block walls on either side. It turns into
a very narrow space that is unworkable to perform any
maintenance on and becomes an unmaintained area. The width
needs to be enlarged.
I 1. 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 issue for Commission
discussion.
1 2. Commissioner Robbins stated he liked the project overall, but the
Specific Plan needs to be clarified that if the developer is providing
front yard landscaping, then it should be reviewed in accordance
with the current landscaping standards.
13. Commissioner Kirk commended the applicant on the project. He
would like to have a condition added requiring the landscaping for
both the front yards and common areas be more drought resistant.
14. Commissioner Tyler stated he concurred with Commissioner
Robbin's statement about the easement and block wall on Lot
"M". Other than that it is a good project that he would support.
15. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Abels/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2003-038 recommending Certification of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of environmental impact for Environmental
Assessment 2003-472, as amended:
a. Environmental Assessment Addendem I.a.b.c.: amended to
state, "Homes will be no more than 22 feet high within the
150 image corridor setback..."
b. Addendum III.C.7 amended to state, "The perimeter block
wall shall be installed with the first phase of development
along Avenue 52 and Monroe Street.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and
Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
G:\WPDOCS\PC MINUTES\6-10-27-O3WD.DOC 9
Planning Commission Minutes
June 10, 2003
16. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Robbins to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-039 recommending
approval of Specific Plan 2003-064, as amended:
a. Pages 19-46 of the Specific Plan shall be amended to state
the size of the floor plans for the homes will be 2000 to
2800 square feet and all units shall be one story.
b. Condition added: Front yard landscaping shall consist of
two trees (minimum 1.5 inch caliper measured three feet up
from grade level after planting), ten five gallon shrubs and
groundcover. Palm trees may count as a shade tree if the
trunk is six feet tall. Double lodge poles (2 inch diameter)
shall be used to stake trees. All shrubs and trees shall be
irrigated by bubbler or emitters. To encourage water
conservation no more than 50% of the front yard
landscaping shall be deVoted to turf. Future I~ome buyers
shall be offered an option to have no turf areas in their front
yard through the use of desertscape materials.
c. Condition added: Use of lawn areas shall be minimized with
no lawn or spray irrigation being placed within 1 8 inches of
street curbs.
d. Condition added: Once the trees have been delivered to the
site for installation, a field inspection by the Community
Development Department is required before planting to
insure they meet minimum size and caliper requirements.
e. Condition added: Prior to issuance of the first Certificate of
Occupancy, the applicant shall complete the perimeter
walls, landscaping and gates.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and
Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
17. It was moved and.seconded by Commissioners Abels/Robbins to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-040, recommending
approval of Tentative Tract Map 31 202, as amended:
a. Condition D7.A. 1 .: amended to read, "Avenue 52 (primary
Arterial - A) - The standard 55 feet from the centerline'of
Avenue 52 for a total 110 foot ultimate developed right of
way except for an additional right of way dedication at the
Monroe Street intersection of 64 feet from the centerline
and 100 feet long plus a variable dedication of an additional
50 feet to accommodate improvements conditioned under
'STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS'."
G:\WPDOCS\PC MINUTES\6-10-27-O3WD.DOC 10
Planning Commission Minutes
June 10, 2003
b. Condition #9.A.1. and #55.B.1.: Add the following:
"Alternatively, the applicant may construct the narrower
street that is detailed on the tentative map if the applicant
records a no on-street parking requirement in the property
CC&R's. The no on-street parking requirement shall be
enforced by the HOA which may accommodate occasional
short interval parking via HOA issued permits and other
specific short term parking needs the HOA~ deems
appropriate to accommodate without a permit."
c. Condition #55.A.1.: Amend the third paragraph to read:
"Construct 66 foot roadway intersection improvements (4
foot median nose and travel lane widths to include two 10
foot left turn lanes, two 12 foot eastbound through lanes, 8
foot bike/golf cart lane and 10 foot deceleration/right turn
only lane, excluding curbs)."
d. Condition #55.A.2.: Add the following to the end of the
paragraph, "This condition will be waived by the City if the
developer submits a traffic signal warrant study that
demonstrates the subject intersection will not meet
warrants for a signal, under future community building-out
conditions, as a result of traffic generated by this
development."
e. Condition #59.A." Add to the end of the condition, "The
left turn out prohibition will be waived if the property owner
on the north side of Avenue 52 revises the onsite traffic
circulation system on the north side to eliminate the full turn
access located 1,950 feet west of Monroe Street, provided
the City of Indio consents to the revised circulation
system."
f. Condition #59.D.: Add, "In addition to the allowable
turning movements and restrictions noted in paragraphs A,
B, & D the Avenue 52 median shall accommodate the
following turning movements serving properties o the north
side of the street located in the City of Indio:
1 .) Full turn access serving the equestrian property
where it connects to Avenue 52, one thousand nine-
hundred fifty (1,950) feet west of Monroe Street;
and
2.) Left turn only in to the property (no left turn out)
where it connects to Avenue 52, seven hundred
twenty (720) feet west of Monroe Street.
g. Condition #85: Delete the last sentence.
h. Condition added: Lot L shall be switched with Lot 98 for
the retention basin.
G:\WPDOCS\PC MINUTES\6-10-27-O3WD.DOC 1 1
Planning Commission Minutes
June 10, 2003
i. Condition added: A disclosure shall be added to the sales
agreement regarding the location of the well. site.
j. Condition added: Applicant shall work with staff to obtain
an equestrian crossing for Avenue 52.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and
Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
·
Chairman Butler recessed the meeting at 8:39 p.m. and reconvened at 8:45 p.m.
F. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2003-076; a request of the City for
consideration of an amendment to the Zoning Code relating to Front and
Side Yard Setbacks and Lot Sizes: for Sections 9.30.020, .030, .040,
.050, .060,.070 - Residential Districts; Section 9.50.070.B- Residential
Development Standards; Section 9.60.060.B- Supplemental Residential
Regulations; Section 9.60.320.C - Resort Residential; Table 9.2 -
Residential Development Standards; Figure 9.1 - Development
Standards: RVL and RL Districts; Figure 9.2 - Development Standards:
RC Districts; Figure 9.3 - Development Standards: RM and RMH
Districts; Figure 9.4 - Development Standards: RH and RSP Districts
1. Chairman Butler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Planning Manager Oscar Orci presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department. Staff asked the Assistant
City Attorney to explain vesting rights and what the zoning
chang.es may cause to happen in regard to tract maps, vesting
tract maps, site development permits, and specific plans.
Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston stated Section
9.200.080.D. of the Zoning Code permits vesting rights when
permit applications are approved by the City. This is different than
some of the legal requirements the current California Law would
allow. So in some ways, the City does have some broader vesting
right provisions than other municipalities. However, the general
rule is that rights to do vest until building permits are issued and
substantial completion of the project is accrued, unless certain
limited agreements are entered into. One such agreement would
be a development agreement, under the California Statues in the
California Zoning Code. In addition, there are some provisions
with respect to vesting tentative maps which are not frequently
used.
G:\WPDOCS\PC MINUTES\6-10-27-O3WD.DOC 1 2
Planning Commission Minutes
June 10, 2003
2. Chairman Butler asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Robbins asked if the City had the right to
grandfather existing projects if the proposed changes were made.
Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston stated this could pose
some problems, but from a legal' perspective, it could be done.
Commissioner Robbins stated it is unfair to change requirements
on a tract that is in process. Either they are all under the current
codes, or fall under the new codes. There should also be some
reasonable time limit placed on the project that if no work, or
permits issued, has occurred on a project within a certain period of
time, the project will revert to the new codes.
3. Commissioner Kirk asked how you could vest for part of a Zoning
Code change. Can we vest in some area and not in others?
Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston stated you can, but from
a practical perspective it would be difficult to enforce. We already
have, with respect to permit approvals, vesting rights.
Front Yard Setbacks:
4. Staff reviewed the proposed changes. Commissioner Kirk
expressed his concern about a 1 5 foot front yard setback in
relation to a casitas. What would stop a developer from designing
all the homes with a casitas in the front yard with a 15 foot
setback. Staff stated this was an issue staff was discussing
currently in regard to what was currently being submitted by
property owners. They were considering requiring all casitas units
to go through the minor use permit process. We need to look into
is the definition of what a casitas is and what the requirements
should be including the deed restriction.
5. Mr. Allan Levin, 76-768 Bishop Place, Palm Desert, asked about
the setbacks for a side entry garage. Staff stated it is a uniform
setback. Mr. Levin asked that the Commission consider a variation
in the setbacks for a side entry. He also asked for an exception,
for those projects that already have an approval, with a
termination clause. He would prefer a 20 foot front yard setback.
Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated if you are
measuring from back of curb and there is a sidewalk, and you have
20 feet from the back of the curb and you park a vehicle there,
you may not be able to get onto the sidewalk. Mr. Levin stated he
would request that language be added that if a sidewalk is
proposed it be 25 feet; if no sidewalk is proposed 20 feet.
G:\WPDOCS\PC MINUTES\6-10-27-O3WD.DOC 1 3
Planning Commission Minutes
June 10, 2003
6. Mr. Mike Marix, 128 Vista Monte, Palm Desert, stated people are
buying homes for the rear yard privacy and this setback is taking
away from that privacy and this is not the right use of the land.
Commissioner Robbins stated on private streets this is correct, but
on public streets it gives more backyard. On a public street you
have a minimum of seven feet behind the curb, by moving it to 25
feet from the curb, rather than 20 feet from the property line, you
gain at least two feet. Mr. Marix questioned the definition of a
casitas or bedroom conversion and setbacks. He prefers the
setbacks remain 'as they are currently written. They have plans
that have three car garages, two cars are straight in and one is a
turn in. They have an option on the turn in to make it another
bedroom. Legally that can be 15 feet. He questioned why it
should be any different if they convert it to another bedroom and
bath as part of the house. These proposed changes are huge
issues in regard to land uses and it will vastly alter' the square
footage of the houses that are permissible on lots. He would
request this be discussed in detail and great length before making
the changes. He argued that the landscaping, as it matures, will
obscure the setbacks anyway.
7. Mr. Art Gardner, Coachella Valley Engineers, stated he has a
problem with the 25 foot setback from back of curb on a public
street. One of the issues has been that handicap access is
becoming an issue with cross driveway approaches. Typically on
a public street you will have a 10 foot right of way parkway from
the face of curb to the right of way, five foot sidewalk, and in
some instances a wrap around the driveway approach.
Commissioner Robbins suggested it go to 30 feet in this case.
Discussion followed regarding the different scenarios.
8. Mr. Marix stated the solution to the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) is to have wedge or rolled curbs which would mitigate
the problem. You are the top level of the curb which does away
with the off-set problem.
9. Mr. Craig Knight, 60-995 Monroe Street, Indio, stated he would
prefer to have the 20 foot setback remain and vary the distance
lot to lot.
. 10. Mr. John Gamlin, 81-100 Avenue 53, stated he has a concern
regarding the side-loaded garages. If the intent is to create a
variable edge on the streetscape he would recommend having a
requirement that a certain percentage of the setback exceed 20
feet of the homes.
G:\WPDOCS\PC MINUTES\6-10-27-O3WD.DOC 1 4
Planning Commission Minutes
June 10, 2003
11. Commissioners discussed the various options and issues created
by the different setbacks.
· ,
Side Yard Setbacks:
12. Staff reviewed the proposed changes. Commissioner Robbins
clarified that the proposed change was to have a 15 foot clear
setback and the house can slide anywhere within that envelope
with a minimum of five feet clear on one side yard.
13. Commissioner Tyler asked that the word "clear" be added between
"minimum" and "distance" to make sure there is at least five feet
clear. He stated it should say, "a minimum clear distance of at
,
least five shall be provided on one side."
14. Chairman Butler asked what the Fire Department and Building
Department thought about having the pool and/or air conditioning"
equipment in the five foot side yard setback. Staff stated they
expressed no concern as long as there is at least one side yard
that is capable of providing access.
Lot Size Minimums:
15. Staff reviewed the proposed changes. Chairman Butler opened the
public participation of the hearing.
16. Commissioner Tyler asked how the ADA requirements compared
on public or private streets. Assistant City Attorney Michael
Houston stated there is no difference.
17. Mr. Allan Levin, asked for clarification on what is the required
sideyard; is the five foot clear accessible. To him a gate should be
installed somewhere on the clear side and there is a need to define
what is a "side yard".
18. Mr. Mike Marix, asked if a window trim is an encroachment. Staff
clarified those items that are projections.
19. Mr. Ed Kibbey, 77-570 Springfield, Palm Desert, BIA
representative, asks that the staff and BIA work through these
items before any action is taken by the Commission/Council.
G :\WPDOCS\PC MINUTES\6-10-27-03WD.DOC 1 5
Planning Commission Minutes
June 10, 2003
20. Mr. Art Gardner, asked where the side yard is measured from.
Staff stated it is currently measured from the outside wall to the
property line.
21. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Butler asked if
there was any other public comment on this project. There being
no further public comment, Chairman Butler closed the public
hearing and asked staff to summarize the discussion on each of
the following items'
Front yard setbacks:
Side-loaded garages and casitas units shall have a 15 foot
setback from the back of curb in the RL, RC, RM, RMH and
RH Zoning Districts. Casitas units shall be designed so the
driveway is not part of casitas unit. On all front entering
garages, the setback shall be 25 feet.
Side yard setbacks:
Staff was directed to define the side yard and determine
where you measure from.
A minimum 15 foot total aggregate side yard setback shall
be provided in the RL, RC, RM, RMH and RH Zoning
Districts. A minimum clear distance of a,t,/leaSt five feet
shall be provided on at least one side yard with a. gate. In
no case shall the side yard be less than'five feet. '
Mechanical equipment, including pool equipment, may be
located adjacent to a side yard property line with a block
wall in the side and/or rear yard property line, in accordance
with all applicable building regulations.
Eaves shall not be considered as being a part of the side
yard.
Architectural projections, accessory structures, and
accessory buildings are permitted within the required side
yard as long as five feet is clearly maintained.
22. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Robbins/Tyler to continue Zoning Ordinance
Amendment 2003-076 to June 24, 2003. Unanimously approved.
VII. BUSINESS ITEMS' None.
G:\WPDOCS\PC MINUTES\6-10-27-O3WD.DOC 1 6
Planning Commission Minutes
June 10, 2003
VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None.
IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
1. Community Development Director Jerry Herman informed the
Commission that the regular meetings of the Planning Commission for the
month of July would be July 8th and 29th.
2. Commissioner Tyler gave a report of the City Council meeting of June 3,
2003.
X. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Robbins/Abels to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular
meeting of the Planning Commission to be held on June 24, 2003, at 7:00 p.m. This
meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 10:54 p.m. on June 1 O, 2003.
Respectfully submitted,
~cretary
citY of La Quinta, California
G:\WPDOCS\PC MINUTES\6-10-27-O3WD.DOC 1 7