2004 11 09 PC Minutes
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
November 9, 2004
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 Kirk who asked Commissioner Daniels to lead the flag
salute.
B. Present: Commissioners Rick Daniels, Kay Ladner, Ken Krieger, Paul Quill,
and Chairman Tom Kirk.
C. Staff present: Oscar Orci, Interim Community Development Director,
Assistant City Attorney Michaél Houston, Associate Engineer Paul Goble,
Principal Planner. Stan Sawa, Associate Planners Wallace Nesbit, and
Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer.
II. . PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
III. tONFIRMA TION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed.
IV. CONSENT ITEMS:
A. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of the
regular meeting of October 26,2004. There being no corrections, it was
moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Ladner to approve the
minutes as submitted.
B. Department Report.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Environmental Assessment 2004-526, General Plan Amendment 2004-
103, Zone Change 2004-122, Specific Plan 2004-074, and Tentative
Tract Map 32879; a request for c,onsideration of a·subdivision of ± 199
acres into 303 single-family residential lots located at the southeast
corner of Avenue 54 and ·Madison Street.
1 . Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Staff requested a continuance of the project to the
meeting of November 23, 2004.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\ 11-9-04.doc
Planning Commission Minutes
November 9 I 2004
2. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Krieger to
continue the project to November 23, 2004, as requested.
Unanimously approved.
B. Environmental Assessment 2004-525 and Site Development Permit
2004-814; a request of Entin Family Trust for consideration of
development plans for construction of a ± 23,760 square foot, two-story
office building located on the east side of Washington Street, ± 960 feet
north of Fred Waring Drive.
1 . Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit presented the
information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file
in the Community Development Department.
2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff.
Com·missioner Daniels asked if the plans before the Commission
reflected the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee
conditions. Staff stated yes.
3. Commissioner Krieger asked if the height was within the 40 foot
limit. Staff explained the height dimensions and how they met the
requirements.
4. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant was requested to supply
smaller scaled drawings for the projects. Staff stated they are
requested, but not appropriate in every case.
5. Commissioner Quill asked if the Public Works Department had
reviewed the site in regard to the grading plan as the site is very
high where the old parking lot was for the medical building where
the pad elevation is five feet above the curb and the building will
be 36 feet to the top of the building. Associate Planner Paul Goble
stated there is no relative problems in regard to the grading. They
will meet the City's requirements in regard to grading .
Commissioner Quill asked about the retention. Staff stated the
retention is on site and underground.
6. Chairman Kirk asked if there would be covered parking. Staff
noted the location of the covered parking stalls.
7. Commissioner Daniels asked what the land was across
Washington Street. Staff stated it is Desert Breezes and Sedona
Homes development.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\ 11-9-04.doc
2
Planning Commission Minutes
November 9, 2004
8. Commissioner Ladner asked how the pad elevation would relate to
the street. Associate Engineer Goble stated it could be quite
varied in relation to the pad. In this case, the pad could be lower
if the Commission desires. Discussion followed
9. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. Cesar Romero, representing the applicant, gave
a presentation on the project and explained the grade elevations.
10. Commissioner Quill asked about the scored detail above the
window. Mr. Romero stated it was a painted score or tile.
Commissioner Quill asked about the second story window on. the
south and west elevation above the window. Mr. Romero stated it
is a foam applied band that will be colored the dark brown.
11 . Chairman Kirk noted he had become aware that he may have a
potential conflict of interest in regard to this project and excused
himself and left the dais.
1 2. Vice Chairman Quill asked if there were any other questions of the
applicant. There being none, he asked if anyone else would like to
address the Commission on this matter . There being none, the
public participation portion of the hearing was closed and opened
for Commission discussion.
13. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Ladner/Daniels to
adopt Planning Commissioner Resolution 2004-083 certifying a
Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact for
Environmental Assessment 2004-525, as recommended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Daniels, Ladner, Krieger, Vice
Chairman Quill, NOES: None. ABSENT: Chairman Kirk.
ABSTAIN: None
14. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Ladner to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-084, approving Site
Development Permit 2004-814, as recommended by staff.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Daniels, Ladner, Krieger, and Vice
Chairman Quill. NOES: None. ABSENT: Chairman Kirk.
ABSTAIN: None.
Chairman Kirk rejoined the Commission.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\ 11-9-04.doc
3
Planning Commission Minutes
November 9, 2004
C. Sign Application 2004-825, Amendment #1; a request óf Santa Rosa
Plaza for consideration of a Master Sign Program Amendment for Santa
Rosa Plaza, located north of Calle Tampico, east of Avenida Bermudas,
and west of Desert Club Drive.
1 . Commissioner Ladner excused herself due to a potential conflict of
interest and left the dais.
2. Chairman Kirk 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.
3. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Daniels asked for clarification on the number of
days in a year the banners could be up. Staff clarified the
applicant requested 60 days per event, staff recommends 30 days
per event. The sizes vary depending on their location.· Discussion
followed as to where banners existed in the City.
4. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. Gilbert Fraide, architect for the project, gave a
presentation on the project. Ms. Shirlee Worrall stated the liE" on
the monument sign would be of the same material and style as the
art work for the horses.
5. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of the applicant.
Commissioner Quill asked if they knew the size of the banners.
Ms. Worrall gave their dimensions and stated they would like to
keep all the banners they are requesting and proceeded to explain
the location and purpose of the banners.
6. Chairman Kirk asked if anyone else would like to address the
Commission on this matter. There being none, the public
participation portion of the hearing was closed and open for
Commission discussion.
7. Commissioner Quill asked if anyone had an objection to the
banners.
8. Chairman Kirk stated the banners are internal to the project instead
of representing advertising, so he supports staff's
recommendation.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\ 11-9-04.doc
4
Planning Commission Minutes
November 9, 2004
9. Commissioner Daniels stated that if it is on their property, he has·
no issue. He would leave the one at the entrance.
10. Commissioner Krieger stated he would agree with staff's
recommendation.
11 . Commissioner Quill asked about the "E" and "Embassy Suites"
signs on the side of the building.
12. Chairman Kirk stated he would prefer the "E", but they agree with
staff's recommendation.
13. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Krieger to
adopt Minute Motion 2004-016, approving Sign Application 2004-
825, Amendment # 1, as recommended by staff.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Daniels, Krieger; Quill, and Chairman
Kirk. NOES: None. ASSENT: Commissioner Ladner.
ABSTAIN: None
Commissioner Ladner rejoined the Commission..
D.Environmental Assessment 2003-470, General Plan Amendment 2003-
091, Zone Change 2003-112, Conditional Use Permit 2003~074, Specific
Plan 204-071, and Site Development Permit 2003-762; a request of
Pacific Retirement Services and Westport La Quinta, LP. for consideration
of: 1) Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact; 2 & 3)
General Plan Amendment and Zone Change from Low Density Residential
to Medium High Residential at the northeast corner of Washington Street
and Avenue 50 and Office Commercial to Medium Density Residential at
the southeast corners of Washington Street and Avenue 50; 4) design
principles and guidelines for a senior retirement community; 5)
Conditional use permit to allow a congregate care facility; and 6)
development plans to allow a senior retirement community, for the
properties located at the northeast and southeast corners of Washington
Street and Avenue 50.
1 . Chairman Kirk excUsed himself due to a potential conflict of
interest and left the.dais.
2. Vice Chairman Quill opened the public hearing and asked for the
staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\ 11-9-04.doc
5
Planning Commission Minutes
November 9, 2004
information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file
in the Community Development Department.
3. Vice Chairman Quill asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Ladner asked how many homes were previously
planned for the parcel to the north and would they be allowed two
story units. Staff stated none on the north parcel and they are
limited to one story at 1 7 feet.
4. Commissioner Krieger asked if there would be deceleration lanes at
the entrances. Staff stated they are conditioned to have a traffic
engineer prepare a report to determine if it is needed.
Commissioner Krieger asked what the impact of traffic would be
on the intersections. Staff stated it was determined the level of
service for the streets would remain the same. This residential
project would generate less trips than a commercial project.
Commissioner Krieger asked if the· 16 foot light poles would be
visible from the surrounding tracts. Staff stated there will be
some visibility, but less than what a commercial project would
have. The carports lighting would be under the roofs and in areas
near the north property line they are using bollards.
5. Vice Chairman Quill asked if the applicant would like to address
the Commission. Mr. Marvin Roos, MSA Consulting, project
planners for the project, introduced the project team who gave a
presentation on the project.
6. Vice Chairman Quill asked if there were any questions of the
applicant. Commissioner Ladner asked how many of their
residents own a vehicle and drive. Mr. Brian McLemore, Pacific
Retirement Services stated that as they enter they may own a
vehicle, but as they grow older· they get rid of them. They
estimate one parking space per resident. Commissioner Ladner
·asked if the 21 6 living units are those that will have one car units.
Mr. McLemore stated yes.
7. Vice Chairman Quill asked if they have done any trip generations
on the 216 cars. Mr. McLemore stated a trip generation study has
shown that a retirement community has 30% less than a
residential community.
8. Commissioner Ladner asked if van services would be available.
. Mr. McLemore stated yes, and explained the services to be
provided.
G:\ WPDOCS\PC Minutes\ 11-9~04.doc
6
Planning Commission Minutes
November 9, 2004 .
9. Commissioner Daniels asked about the letter received in opposition
and one issue in particular was the containment of dementia
residents wandering into the community. Mr. McLemore stated
this specific portion of the facility is a lock down facility and
therefore, they will not be allowed to leave.
10. Commissioner Daniels asked if the other facilities they own were
of the same size. Mr. McLemore stated yes, and gave the sizes.
Commissioner Daniels asked if the split in the property was an
issue. Mr. McLemore stated this is the reason for the tunnel
where golf carts could be used to move between the two sites.
They will implement a transportation program to assist the
transportation problems. Commissioner Daniels asked if they
would be better planned to be constructed next to a medical
facility. Mr. McLemore stated they have not found this to be
necessarily true. They have registered nurses on call 24 hours a
day with an emergency call system in place. Mr Chris Dalengas,
architect for the project, gave a power point presentation on the
project elevations.
11. Commissioner Krieger asked if the light poles would have shields.
Mr. Dalengas stated yes, so there would be no light directed
toward the sky. Commissioner Krieger asked if the residents of
the two story units could look down into the neighboring
residential projects yards. Mr. Dalengas stated they did not
believe this would be possible, but if the neighbor thought they
could, they would build a masonry wall to block that view.
12. Commissioner Daniels asked if it was possible to put the single
story casitas on the northern property, reversing the two sites and
what implications would this cause. Mr. Dalengas stated the
southern site does not have enough acreage. Commissioner
Daniels asked what the implications would be if the two story
units were set back further. Mr. Dalengas stated they would lose
units on all three buildings, but he would not know how many.
1 3. Vice Chairman Quill asked if there is a front or back on the parking
structure to block views.. Mr. Dalengas stated no. They designed
it with flat roofs to reduce the visual impact. Vice Chairman Quill
asked how the 1 6 foot lights would affect the project. He also
asked if the roof tiles were clay or concrete. Mr. Dalengas st,ated
they are concrete. Vice Chairman Quill asked if the residents were
in favor of the undergrounding of the utilities. Mr. Dalengas stated
they were in support of the undergrounding.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\ 11-9-04.doc
7
Planning Commission Minutes
November 9, 2004
14. Mr. Rob Parker, representing RGA, gave a presentation on the
landscaping plan. Mr. Roos went over the conditions and
requested changes to conditions #8, #10, 54.B.1 . & 2, 54.A.1 .e,
54.A.1 .a., 54.B.2. & 2., #39, in addition to the deceleration lane
leading to the two sites access points on Avenue 50 be eliminated
and confirmation that the 1 50 foot setback to the two story
structures required will not have to be further offset due to the
deceleration lanes being conditioned on the project. .
15. Commissioner Krieger asked if there had been a traffic study. Mr
Roos stated Washington Street was done, but Avenue 50 was
only to determine the need for deceleration lane.
1 6. Chairman Kirk asked if anyone else would like to address the
Commission on this matter. Mr. Paul Cope, 78-766 Gorham Lane,
Palm Desert, signed up to live in the development. He has
investigated several of their other sites and was very impressed
with the developments.
17. Mr. Jack Nelson, 78-707 Saguaro, stated he was in opposition to
the project due to the change in density and the amount of traffic
it would generate. He does not want it in his back yard.
18. Mr. Bob Tayar, 79-.945 Rancho La Quinta Drive, stated he
supported the project and hoped to be a resident at this facility.
19. M. Karen Kirk, 78-585 Saguaro, stated her opposition to the
project as she believed it will lower her property values. She
submitted a petition of residents who were in opposition to the
project.
20. Mr. Les Webber, 160 Tomahawk Drive, Palm Desert, stated his
support of the facility.
21 . Ms. Helen Marie Nelson, 78-707 Saguaro, stated her opposition to
the project in regard to density, and· how it would devalue their
property.
22. Mr. Jack Harper, 50-6"65 Grand Traverse stated his support of the
project.
23. Ms. Sandra Hawk, 78-770 Spy Glass Hill, stated her support of
the project. Her concern was what could be developed here if this
was not being proposed.
G:\ WPDOCS\PC Minutes\ 11-9-04.doc
8
Planning Commission Minutes
November 9, 2004
24. Mr: John Sharn 78-650 Saguaro, stated his support of the project.
He works at a project. such as this and it is a progression of
individuals who move from the country club environment to· these
facilities.
25. . Mr. Bob Taher, 79-945 Rancho La Quinta Drive asked for those in
support of the project to stand. A majority of the audience stood
to show their support.
26. Dr. Neda Nealstron, 50-095 Doral what is going to be done with
the traffic noise that exists currently?
27. Mr. Tom Anderson, 78-731 Saguaro, questioned the ten foot
setback from the property line to the carport and he did not see
that in the rendering. Vice Chairman Quill stated it is being
provided. In addition, they will underground the power lines.
Staff then discussed with him where the light poles would be
located.
28. Ms. Norma Main 78-715 Saguaro Road asked how they could
build the wall higher when the City has a maximum six foot height
for the wall. Staff stated it could be done· in a combination of a
berm and wall. The Specific Plan does allow for a development to
deviate from City standards and guidelines to allow a wall higher
than the C·ode allóws. Ms. Main asked the height of the single
family home that was shown on the power point. Staff stated the
peak would be 1 7 feet. She stated she was opposed to the
project.
29. Ms. Patricia Duarte, 53-400 Avenida Forensa, asked how the
traffic on Avenue 50 would be affected by this project. Her
concern was the children traveling to school along Avenue 50.
Vice Chairman Quill stated the level of service will not be impacted
by this project. In other words the added traffic will not be that
much greater than what exists.
30. There being none, the public participation portion of the hearing
w~s closed and open for Commission discussion.
31 . Commissioner Daniels asked staff if they had any issues with the
condition changes as requested by the· applicant. Staff stated
items 1 and 2 the applicant will correct and the changes will be
made accordingly. Item 3 should be deferred to the Public Works
and Fire Department to make certain it is allowed; Item 4 must be
specific widths per the Code; Item 6 will be referred to Sunline and
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\ 11-9-04.doc
9
Planning Commission Minutes
November 9, 2004
the Public Works Department to determine if itis acceptable; Item
7 is a standard condition and should remain; Item 8 should be
referred to CVWD. Staff would prefer the berms be landscaped.
32. Mr. Marvin Roos, stated they have held community meetings to
resolve the remaining issues and most of the issues raised, they
believe, have been met.
33. Commissioner Daniels asked about the lights at night and the
carport. Mr. Roos stated there will be a berm and wall down to a
wall at the west end to block the glare.
34. There being no further public comment, the public participation
portion of the hearing was closed and open for Commission
discussion.
35. Commissioner Ladner stated she would welcome this project
behind her .
36. Commissioner Daniels agrees this is a great project but the real
challenge is to determine if this is the right place for it. He would
like to resolve the remaining four conditions.
37. Commissioner Krieger stated he supports the project.
38. Vice Chairman Quill does see a problem with the metal roof on the
parking structure as the lights under the roof will always be there.
The roof should be a tilè that could be low profile to block any
lights into any resident on the north. He would suggest they use a
single Mission S-clay tile. Their items #1, #2, #3 can be approved
subject to Public Works Department approval; Item #5 to reduce
the 8 foot sidewalk should remain on Washington Street and
Avenue 50; If they will eliminate any ingress into the project on
Washington Street north bound he would agree to removing the
south side deceleration; Item #6 would like to see the bus turnout
at this location, but it needs to be worked out with Sunline; Item
#39 he would not like to see the landscaping removed, but will
have to agree with CVWD requirements. With respect to raising
the wall at the request of the homeowners on Saguaro, it should
be allowed to go to an elevation of seven feet from the finish floor
elevation of their home. This is in addition to the tile roof of the
parking structure.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\ 11-9-04.doc
10
Planning Commission Minutes
November 9, 2004
39. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Krieger to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-085, recommending
certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental
impact for Environmental Assessment 2003-470, as
recommended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Daniels, Ladner, Krieger, and Vice
Chairman Quill. NOES: None. ABSENT: Chairman Kirk.
ABSTAIN: None
40. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Krieger to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-086, recommending
certification of General Plan Amendment 2003-091, as
recommended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Daniels, Ladner, Krieger, and Vice
Chairman Quill. NOES: None. ABSENT: Chairman Kirk.
ABSTAIN: None
41 . It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Krieger to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-087, recommending.
approval of Zone Change 2003-11 2, as recommended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Daniels, Ladner, Krieger, and Vice
Chairman Quill. NOES: None. ABSENT: Chairman Kirk.
ABSTAIN: None
42. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Krieger to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-088, recommending
approval of Conditional Use Permit 2003-074, as recommended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Daniels, Ladner, Krieger, Vice
Chairman Quill. NOES: None. ABSENT: Chairman Kirk.
ABSTAIN: None
43. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Krieger to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-089, recommending
approval of Specific Plan 2004-071, as recommended and revised.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Daniels, Ladner, Krieger, and Vice
Chairman Quill. NOES: None. ABSENT: Chairman Kirk.
ABSTAIN: None.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\ 11-9-04.doc
11
Planning Commission Minutes
November 9, 2004
44. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Ladner to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-090, recomm~nding
approval of Site Development Permit 2003-762, as recommended
and revised:
a. Condition added: The carport roofs adjacent to the north
property line shall use a single Mission 1'5 II clay tile that is
low profile to block any lights into any residences on the
north.
b. Condition #8.A.1: Shall be approved subject to Public
Works ,Department approval.
d. Condition #54.A.1.a.: Bus turnout may be deleted if
approved by Sunline Transit. If deleted the deceleration
lane shall be used for a bus stop;
c. Condition #39: The landscaping on the CVWD Evacuation
Channel face shall be subject to CVWD approval.
d. Condition #99: Is amended to refer to the first floor
windows at the ends of the independent living building.
d. Condition added: The perimeter wall along the north
property line of the north site may be a maximum seven
feet high as measured on the north side of the wall.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Daniels, Ladner~ Krieger, Vice
Chairman Quill. NOES: None. ABSENT: Chairman Kirk.
ABSTAIN: None
VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: None
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None.
VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Daniels/Krieger to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a
regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held on November 23, 2004, at
7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:53 p.m., on
November 9, 2004.
Respe9tfully subfllitted,
~y!~~secretarY
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\ 11-9-04.doc
12