Loading...
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