Loading...
2004 06 08 PC Minutes 'r'" , MINUTES r ' "., "PLANNING COMMISSiON ~EETING A regular meeting'held at the~La,'Quinta City Hall 78-495 Galle Tampico, La Quinta, CA " June 8, 20.0.4 7:0.0. P.M. " " """"',~' I. CALL TO ORDER, '. A. " This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00. p.m. by Chairman Kirk who asked Commissioner Abels to lead the flag salute. " B. Present: Commissioners Jacques" Abels, Rick Daniels, Paul Quill, Robert , Tyler; and Chairman Tom, Kirk. " " C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, Assistant, 0 City Attorney Michael Houston, Planning Manager Oscar Orci, Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer, AssQciate Planners Wallace Nesbit and G.reg TroUsde'll, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. " 0, r' II. PUBLIC COMMENT: NOne, , ' III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed.' IV~ CONSENT ITEMS:' , ' A. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of the regular ry¡eeting, of May 11. 200.4. There being no corrections, ,it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Daniels to approve the minutes as submitted. B. Department Report: None. , V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Tentative Tract Map 310.87; a request of Tahiti Partners V, LLC for consideration of a "subdivision of :f: 5 acres into 19 single-family lots for the property located on the south' side of Darby Road, east of Washington Street. r'. 1. Chairman Kirk informed everyone that a request had been received . to continue this item to the regular meeting of July 13, 20.04. . G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6-22-04.doc , Planning Commission Minutes . . June 8,2004 "L: 2. It was moved and seconded by commissio~ers Daniels/Abels to' ' .' :- continue Tentative Tract Map 31087 to July 13, 20.04. Unanimously approved. ' : 1 . . B. Tentative Tract Map 31852; a request of Ehline Company ,for' consideration of a subdivision of :t: 8.5 acres into 14 single';'family lots for ,,1 the property located at the northwest corner of Avenue 52 and Madison Street. 1 . Chairman Kirk informed everyone that a request had been received to continue this item to the regular meeting of July 13, 2004: 2. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to,' continue Tentative Tract Map 31852 to July 13, 2o.o.4;! Unanimously approved. C. Site Development Permit 20.0.4-80.7; a request of Thomas Enterprisesfo~' , I consideration of development plans and sign program for Phase lof the Pavilion at La Ouinta located at the northeast corrler of Highway 11'; '~nd , . Adams Street. ", L If, ' 1 . Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the st~ff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the report a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions' of staff. Commissioner Daniels asked if the post office was included in t~e area of. the Specific Plan, or did they decide where they wanted'to be located. Staff stated the land was part of the original Specific Plan, but when the land was sold to the post office it was no longer a part of the Specific Plan. Commissioner Daniels asked if the parking for the post office was calculated into the overall Specific Plan. Staff stated no, and there will be no access from this development to the post office. Commissioner Daniels asked if the property to the east was part of this development. Staff stated no, but there is a provision for the circúlation to tie the two together to give access to the signal at Highway 111. 3. Commissioner Tyler noted the minor changes that had, been ma, de ,J' in the Specific Plan and asked why the Commission was not approving an amendment to the Specific Plan. Community Development Director Jerry Herman noted that the provisions of G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6-22-04.doc 2 , ,-- Planning Commission Minutes ,. 1 June 8, 2004 . the Specifi'c, Plan allow the Community Development Director ,t,o approve minor changes and in this instance staff approved those changes. Commissioner Tyler noted he had not received the,~sign , prograr:n in his packet. He then a'sked for clar~fication a~ to whether or not a full turn movement, or asignal,will b,e permi:tted at the Adams Street access across from the car wash entrance. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated that instead of a signal, , a median island'"would be required to prevent a left turn movement out. Rather than signals so closely spaced, the left turn restric~ion works better. Commissioner Tyler stated Condition #2.b. applies to ,the sign program,. but is not specific as .to what may be allowed. It needs' to be more specific. Staff stated it, was: reworded, but the condition was written this way because even' though a business may be allowed a certain sign size, the sign may overpower the area and this condition .gives staff the flexibility to work with the applicant. Commissioner Tyler not~d Condition #2.d. should be worded to, state, one of the three tenant identification monLim~nt signs along Highway 111 shall be eliminated. ' He then asked about the pads in the first phase as to whether any were, intended to have fast food restaurants. Staff " " noted those pads that were intended to have a drive through. , , 4. Chairman Kirk asked abut the first entry north of Highway 1'11 as to whether the, restrictors could be installed early In the ,development stage. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated yes', it could be ,required; however, It, has been' the consensus of , " ,. the City Co~ncil to wait and see if they ,were needed as it will have an impact on the entire, area. Chairman Kirk asked if staff was comfort'able with the two right-in lanes along Highway111. Staff stated they, as well as Caltrans, were fine with,them. Discussion followed, regarding circulation issues. Chairman Kirk asked about the'sign program as to hC?w the signs can exceed the maximum size. Staff noted there were instances where major tenants have been allowed larger signs.. Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston stated the size, is not a trade mark issue and' can 'be regulated by the Commission. 'Chairman Kirk asked staff if they have reviewed the sign program to determine what part of the sign program is less restrictive than ,the City'~ sign program., Staff stated not'specifically. Chairman Kirk asked if the City~s Ordinance allows for a free standing pad structure to have four signs, one on each façade? Staff stated the Ordinance does not differentiate between a pad, or inlinebuilding. .It allows a sign per frontage. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6-22-04.doc 3 . Planning Commission, Minutes June 8, 2004 I f I "' .' 5. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Kirk asked if --" , the 'applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. .Norman Barrett, architect for theproj~ct, gave a presentation on the project. . , , 6. Chairman Kírk asked if there were any questiol1&of the 'applicant. CQmmi~sioner Daniels asked if the applicant concurred with the conditions. I Mr. Barrett stated they have no issues with the conditions, . but would request consideration regarding the new conditions just imposed. ,At a previous ,meðting the width was established by' Caltrans and they have enough room for a deceleration right tu'rn lane, off Highway 111 . The Adams Street , issues were resolved. They would like to request these conditions. be looked at 'again~ ,This is a c.altrans issue and they have resolved it with ,them. In regard to the restrictor, Mr. M-el Kuhnel,the ow,ner of the proJect" stated they would also ,like to object to the restrictor on Adams Street. The 70':'foot right-of-way off Highway 111 is also a hardship and they would like to object to this , ' .', , . condition. . , I 7. . Chairman Kirk asked if the tenants were inform,ed they might not . have full turn movement. 'Mr. KLJhnel, stated yes. They were told however, they would have full have for at least five years. 8. There being no further questions of the applicant and no other I public comment, Chairman Kirk closed the public participation portion of the hearing. ' 9. Commissioner Tyler sugges'ted Condition 50,.8.1 remain as it is written. 10. Commissioner Daniel~ asked staff why they were amending the condition. As he understa'nds it, he concurs with the amendment, , , but has a problem receiving it at the last minute. Assistant City Engineer 'Steve $peerclarified why staff had made the change. It was not the requirement to, add the right turn lane that had been' added; that condition already exists. What is being changed is the amount of right-of-way,' the City is requesting. There is a possibility Caltrans may agree to a slightly less stringent right-of- way dedication as there is already an eight foot shoulder. If the City had a choice they would only push the curb back four feet, . but it is up to Caltrans who wants 1 2 feet. When the deceleration lane policy was presented to the Council, staff understood the G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6-22-04.doc 4 , ,,' .. - Planning Commission Minutes ' June 8, 2004 ( I , .' hardship this ,could cause th,e developer, so staff asked Council if they wantedto push the setback back onto the developer's site to keep the landscaping. the same or pushing the landscape setback, into the parkjng. Staff asked,Council whether they would want to keep the landscaping or reduce'theparking. The Council did not take' a hard ~tance, but in that instance asked that th~y retain as much landscaping as possible. In this pa~icul~r case, we have a lot of landscaping and this could be a' hardship on this developer, so Council may have grace in this instance. ' Lastly, this is, the second development that has come before the Commissiqn where they have a specific plan and 'staff has added this condition as part , of the site development permit. As a matter of consistency between developers, he ,would recommend staying consistent. 11 . Chairman Kirk asked, if we are losing the amount of landscaping setback; what was staff's recommendation? Staff stated We ~ould maintain the landséapin,g and reduce the parking" 1'2. :Commissioner Tyler stated that in . reference to Condition "#49 .A.1.b., it is his understanding that a right turn deceleration ,lane will be constructed and the cjeveloper will give'up 60 feet. So the change is a ten' foot change in the amount of right-of-way given. up. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer clarified, this condition addresses the curb face, the other condition on Page 15, ~ staff is' asking for the additional right-of-way. The 'curb line was the iss,ue. Commissioner Tyler asked if the Commission wa~ being asked to :approve the extra, ten f~et and could it come out of the , 5o.-foot I'andscape setback. Staff stated that was correct. 13. Commissioner, Quill stated he likes the project and if the deceleration lanes can be done without removing any parking, he would agr~e as there is ample landscaping along the parkway to install the deceleration I'ane. We should strive to minimize the impact on'the developer whether' in the right-of~way or width of the d~celeration lane. . , ' . . 14. 'Chairman Kirk commended the applicant on his project and 'stated he does want to maintain the entire landscape setback along -,-- Highway 111 and encouraged staff to work with Caltrans to minimize the .impact of the deceleration lane. He would suggest adding a, clarification to Condition #50.b.1 that the restrictor be in- lieu of a signal and the applicant notify in writing, all the tenants that this access may not be a full turning movement in five years. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6-22-04.doc 5 Planning Commission Minutes . . June 8, 2004 " 1 Also an elimination, of sign program Condition 1.e as it is'. redundant. ',1 1 5. Commissioner Tyler asked, whether or. not the Commission ,was going to allow the removal of the ten foot landscape setback. , , , 16. Commissioner Quill stated that as this is something that is being required of them at the last moment, t~ey 'should be allowed to take it from the landsc,aped parkway., By doing this there is no change in the engineering for the parking or buildings. If we require ~he landscape setback to, be maintained, this will require . them to shift their buildings. This could also be a loss 'of 12 parking spaces. , 17. Commis~ioner Tyler stated he would like 'a maximum of ten feet and it shòuld come from the City portion, not the develope~. " 18. Commissioner Daniels stated anywhere except Higtiway 111. I , .,'. 19.. Chairman K,ii'k ,agreed. . . ' '. 1 20. Commissioner Daniels asked the likelihood of them needing the . curb face moved back. Assistant City Engineer Steve ,stated this is a good size shopping center, and when it originally went'to Caltrans they asked for a continuous right turn lane for the length of the project. The developer was able to remove this requirement. . The deceleration lane will probably be '15Q-20o.feet and hopefully, only push the sidewal'k back four feet. It is very likely the primary entrance deceleration lane will be required as it will meet the threshold of 50. miles per hour. Adams Street will require a study to see if it meets the threshold. 2-1. Commissioner Kirk asked if the Commissioners would be in favor of reducing the parking requirement. Perhaps the developer could move the building on 'the east to the north of the primary entrance and, potentially 'lose eight stalls on the north side of the building. 22. Commissioner Tyler noted they have already lost 70. parking spaced when they revised the Specific plan. Staff noted they also reduced the size of the buildings by 15,0.00 square feet. The current 'configuration complies with the City's Ordinance. Mr. Kuhnkle stated they have expended a lot of money getting the project to this point and they would like to request the area be G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6-22-04.doc 6 , ',' , ~-- Planning Commission Minutes ' " June 8, 20.04 f I . ' , . .' taken from the landscape bùffer, but reducing the, parking' requirement will help. , 23.' It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Daniels to adopt Planning Co,mmission Res'olution 2004-034, approving Site D~velopment Pèrmit2004-807, a~ amended: , a. Condition added: landscaping from' the curb to the parking lot of the 'structures shall be reduced by four feet., If Caltransincreases that size' to eight feet or greater, adjustm,ents to the,~,ite plan and landscaping are required. , . ROLL CALL: AYES: Commisßioners Abels; Daniels,. Quill, Tyler, and . Chairman Kirk. NO'ES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. . 24,. It, was, moved and seconded by Commissioners to ad~pt Minute Motion 20.04-0'11 approving, Sign Permit 2004- 786 as recommended. Unanimously approved. . ,. D. Tentative Tract Map 31 681; a request of Coral 'Option I, LLC for consideration of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact and the subdivision ,of :f: 548 acres into 492 single-'Jamily lots, a lot for 80. casitas,golf course lots and miscellaneous lots for the property located at ~outhwestcorner of Madison Street and Avenue 58. . 1 . Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. ' Associate Planner Martin Magaña presented the , information contained in the report a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff noted a change to Condition #8.a.3 and 4 and that the number of lots is 472. 2. Chairman' Kir,kasked if there, were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler noted a chantleto the staff' report. .. ' ' 3. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commiss'iön. Mr. Patrick O'Dowd gave a presentation on the project. He raised an issue regarding the requirement, for an eight foot sidewalk. They would like to request six feet. Condition #17 noted there will be well site on the perimeter and they Would like to retain access to the well . site from the perimeter. In addition, there will be two emergency accesses f9r the well site on the perimeter. They would request G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6-22-04.doc 7 Planning Commission Minutes . June 8, 2004 .. 1 those accesses be allowed. Condition #53 needs to be clarified as 'H- ~ Avenue S8' was constructed in various'stages on the north. This design caused the, centerlilne to, meanders. Therefore, the centerline and section line are not the same. The street design is to the General Plan standards, but ,thß centerline meanders to , . conform to th~ 'County standards. Also, on, sp1it rail, fences for'the I' multi-purpose trail, their concern is that the split råil fence is inconsistent with their theme. They vvould like the latitude to consider alternative fencing that' would be more in keeping with the theme of the project. ' They, have no objection to Condition #56 in regard to the' dual entry at primary entries, but secondary , entrances this would be unwarranted. Lastly, in, regard to 'street sections (Condition #10.) the City calls for the m~asurement to be. flow line to flow line. They would like this measured from back of I guttertQ' back of gutter. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated that in regard to the measurement between the flow Hnes, staff ,agrees there can be a reduction. Staff has no problem wit,li' the access to the well sites as requested. In regara ,to sidewalk widths, staff has no'issues with a reduction to six feet as different widths have been approved throughout the City. Planning , Manager Oscar Orci stated that in regard to 'the split rail fencing, ---- " I these are the minimum requirements, staff will work with the applicant to determine the appropriate material arid fencing for the split rail fencing.' " 4. Commissioner Quill asked for .clarification on the, location of ,the , ' main entries. Mr.: O'Dowd stated the main entrances were on Monroe Street and Madison Street. These entrances would have the two lanes entering and one leaving. ". 5. There being no further questions of. the applicant and no other pubHc comment,' Chairman Kirk closed the public participation portion of the. hearing. 6. It was moved, and sèconded by ,Commissioners Tyler/Daniels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 200.4-0.35, approving Tentative Tract Map 31681, as amended: a. Conditions amended: . 1.) The. measurement' between flow lines can be reduced; 2.) Access' to the well sites is granted; 3.) 'Sidewalks shall be six feet in width; and G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6-22-04.doc ' 8 .~ Planning Commission ,Minutes I ---- , June 8, 2004 f I . , . . 1 4.) The applicant shall submit an alternative design and- ,måterials list for the multi-use trail 'for staff approval. I ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Daniels, Quill, Tyler, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: N,one...ABSTAtN: None. 1 , , VI., BUSINESS ITEMS: I A. Street Name Change -2004-0.17; a request, of Larry Sherman for consideration of adoption of a Resolution of Intent setting July 13, 2004 as a. Public Hearing date to cof1~i.dera 'Street name changefrorn Simon Driv~ to Deputy Lea Drive. . 1 . Chairman Kirk asked for the staff report. Planning Manager Oscar . \ Orci presented the information contained in the report a copy of whi,ch is on file in the Community Developmènt Department. 2 . Chairman Kirk àsked,if there were any questions of staff. . ;Commissioner Abels noted the achievements of Fred Simon to the , , "City and even though he agreed with the recognition of Deputy Lee, he would not like to see this street renamed., He noted the 'reèognition the c.ity' was giving'Deputy Lee on the Civic Center , Campus., ' 3. . There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would 'like to address the Commission. Mr. Larry Sherm'an, statedhew'as available to answer any questions. 4. . Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Tyler asked if the Commission could not set the hearing date. Planning Manager Oscar stated that if the. Cómmlssiòn finds that the applicant has met the intent of the Code, which is to obtain approval from 60 percent of the property owners adjacent to the street, the public hearing date shall be set. 5. There being' no further questions of the applicant and no other public comment, Chairman Kirk closed the public participation portion .,' ' ---- 6. Commissioner Abels asked why the,applicant had chosen Simon Drive to be renamed. Mr. Sherman stated because of the location and since the dealership has moved, it seems an appropriate location ,for a peace officer to be recognized for giving' his life. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6-22-04.doc 9 Planning' Commission Minutes . June 8, 2004 " . 1 7. Commissioner Tyler stated he finds. it unfortunate the City does not have a procedure for the naming of streets. He woukl recommend the staff come up with a procedure. . . 8. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners, DanielsAbels to I adopt Planning, Commission Resolution ,200.4-0.36, approving a Resolution of Intent to consider Street Name Change 20.04-017', as recommended. ROLL CALL: A YES: Commissioners Abels, Daniels,. Quill, Tyler, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABST AIN:None. C,. Minor Use Permit 20.04-483; a- request of Jack Duke fo'r consideration of: placement of a mobile home on residentially zoned property located at 58-007 Monroe Street. .1 . Chairman Kirk asked for the staff report. Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit presented the information contained in the report a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. ' I I, 2. ' Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Daniels asked if this approval would resolve ,the Code enforcement problems. Staff stated yes. 3. Commissioner Tyler stated he did not ,agree with Finding liD" and did ,not believe it was appropriate. Staff stated this finding was originally made to regulate mobile, homes i"the Cove. In this instance there are mobile homes in the area of, this proposed mobile home and therefore, in staff's opinion, it was an appropriate finding to include. Commissioner Tyler asked if the foundation for the mobile home was up to Code. Staff stated that is unknown at this time as there have not been any inspections. Planning Manager Oscar Orci stäted approval of this application would allow the City to'ìnspect the footings. ,Commissioner Tyler stated that if this applicatidtr- is granted, h,~ would request it apply only to the current owner, as the property išcurrently listed for sale. Staff stated the approval. would' have' 'to runwit~ the property. Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston clarified the approval would run with the property. 4. Commissioner Quill asked the purpose of the other trailers. Staff G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6-22-04.doc 10 'I Planning Commission Minutes I - , June 8, 2004 i r , , . ' , stated it is thought that other family members live there., 5. There' being no further questions of staff, Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would ,like to address the Commission. Mr. Jack Duke,. 58-0.07 Monroe Street, explained the purpose of the' request. '..,...... 6. There being I no questions of the applicant and no other public comment, Chairman Kirk closed the public 'participation portion of the hearing. 7. It was moved and seconded by, Commissioners Daniels/Quill to adoþtMinute ' Motion 2004-012, approving M'inor Use Permit, 2004-483, ås amended: . . a. ,Condition #5 amended: Any extension of time shaH be approved by the Planning Co'mmission" ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissionets, Abels, Daniels, Quill, Tyler, and - I' Chairman. Kirk. 'NOES: None. ABSENT: None. " ABSTAIN: None. . VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MA Ti:RIAL: None.. VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: . A. A report was given on the City Council of June 1, 2004. IX. ADJOURNMENT: There being. no further business, ,it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abelsl/Daniels to adjourn this regular meeting of the Plannìng Commission to a regular' meeting of the Planning Commission to be held on June 22, 2004, at 7:0.0 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned 8:30 p.m., on June 8¡ 2004. Respectfully submitted, . . G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6-22-04.doc 11