Loading...
2006 05 09 PC MinutesMINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA May 9, 2006 CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Chairman Quill who asked Commissioner Barrows to lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Ed Alderson, Katie Barrows, Rick Daniels, Kay Ladner and Chairman Paul Quill. Unanimously approved. C. Staff present: Community Development Director Doug Evans, Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston, Planning Manager Les Johnson, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate Planners Wallace Nesbit and Andrew Mogensen, Assistant Planner Jay Wuu, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed. IV. CONSENT ITEMS: A. Chairman Quill asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of the April 1 1, 2006 regular meeting. There being no changes to the minutes, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Barrows to approve the minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None. A. Continued -Tentative Parcel Map 34416 and Village Use Permit 2006- 033; arequest of David Chapman Investments, LLC for consideration of the subdivision of 4 t acres into two parcels to allow a 13,171 square foot two story office building for the property located at the northeast corner of Avenue 52 and Desert Club Drive. 1. Chairman Quill opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Associate Planner Andrew Mogensen presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which was on file in the Community Development Department. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2006\5-9-O6PC.doc Planning Commission Minutes May 9, 2006 2. Chairman Quill asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Daniels clarified the zoning on the three adjoining properties was Village Commercial before the restaurant was approved. Staff gave a history of the zoning on the lots up to the restaurants approval. 3. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Quill asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Andres Cervantes, representing David Chapman Investments, LLC, gave a presentation on the project. 4. Commissioner Alderson asked the height of the building. The applicant stated it was 35 feet at the highest point of the rotunda. 5. Mr. Art Gardner, civil engineer for the project, questioned Condition No. 27. Public Works Director Tim Jonasson stated the second sentence of Conditions No. 27 and 28 of the Tentative Parcel Map and Conditions No. 31 and 32 of the Village Use Permit should be deleted. Mr. Gardner also questioned the condition regarding retaining the drainage on site; it was his understanding this was not true for other lots in the Village. Staff stated it depends on which side of Desert Club Drive the project is located. This side does require the on-site retention. Mr. Gardner questioned the off-site requirements when they are already built; Condition No. 40.B. Staff stated it is template condition for situations when they are not completed. If the work is completed the condition is not required. 6. Commissioner Alderson asked if the City was requiring the retention basin to be upsized. Mr. Gardner clarified the condition. 7. Chairman Quill asked if anyone else wanted to speak on this project. Ms. Audrey Ostrowsky, P. O. Box 351, La Quinta, stated her objection to the project regarding the lack of parking and amount of traffic it would generate. 8. Mr. Skip Lench, 78-215 Calle Cadiz, adjacent to this project on the north, explained his objections to the project. He distributed a Resolution of the City Council confirming that the fight standards are to be 12 feet in height. In addition, what is to prevent the applicant from coming back at a later date and wanting to develop more of the site. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2006\5-9-06PC.doc 2 Planning Commission Minutes May 9, 2006 9. Mr. Bill Guyagos, 78-195 Calle Cadiz, stated his objections to the project were lighting, parking, noise, the clock, and expansion of the site. 10. Mr. Azziz Tadros, 78- 170 Calle Cadiz, stated they have lived through all the mistakes that have occurred during the development of this area. The problem with all the light pollution from all the development that is happening. This is an invasion into his lifestyle. There is now parking all the way down Desert Club Drive causing additional impact on the residents. Car alarms and car lights are also adding to the problems. 11. Commissioner Barrows asked if the line of site made any difference to Mr. Tadros in regard to the height of the building. Mr. Tadros stated no. 12. Commissioner Daniels asked where Mr. Tadros house was located in relation to the building. Mr. Tadros explained his property was located north of the project. 13. Mr. Kelly Williams, 78-175 Calle Cadiz stated his objection to the project is the noise, car alarms always going off, staff getting off work at 2;00 a.m. and then at 5:00 a.m, leaf blowers are starting. He has complained to the restaurant management staff and nothing has been done. If a parking structure is constructed it will be seen from his house. 14. Commissioner Ladner commended the developer for a beautiful building and planning, but in her opinion, this is not compatible to the community. 15. Commissioner Daniels asked if there was a packaging of the properties for the rezoning. Staff explained the history of the site in regard to zoning. Commissioner Daniels clarified that if the lights exceed the height limit, they can be required to be lowered and the noise issues can be addressed. Staff stated it was something Code Compliance could address. Commissioner Daniels asked if any further development of the site would require a permit of the City. Staff stated any development would require a Village Use Permit. Commissioner Daniels asked where the covered parking would be located. Staff identified a potential location. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2006\5-9-O6PC.doc 3 Planning Commission Minutes May 9, 2006 16. Commissioner Barrows asked if the lot to the north would allow an office complex. Staff stated it could, but would require a Village Use Permit. Commissioner Barrows stated there is currently a lot of parking along Desert Club Drive and with the growth there will be even more. Staff stated this is a concern staff is addressing in the Parking Study. Commissioner Barrows asked what the height of the lighting standards would be for the new building. Staff stated the conditions require 12 feet in height for free standing light fixtures, but there may not be any fixtures proposed for the office building. 17. Mr. Skip Lench stated the original application for Palmer's Restaurant contained the three lots along Desert Club Drive. 18. Mr. Tadros asked if the developer of the property along Desert Club Drive that adjoins this site, but is not a part, could build a two-story building. Chairman Quill stated yes, he could. 19. Commissioner Alderson asked if the covered parking were relocated to behind the building or northeast of the restaurant, would this alleviate some of the concerns. Also, if the parking lot lights exceed the height limits, they should be lowered. 20. There being no further public comment, the public participation portion of the hearing was closed and the matter was opened to Commission discussion. 21 . Commissioner Daniels stated the first question is whether or not the use is entitled on the property, as it appears to be an unanswered question. If the three outer parcels were a part of the original project, he would agree that this be considered open space. 22. Commissioner Alderson stated both the developer and residents have rights. The concerns regarding the lights and noise are Code Compliance issues. Traffic and site line problems that could cause traffic problems are an issue to be addressed. He too is opposed to the project. 23. Commissioner Barrows thanked the developer in regard to providing the line of site information. She is concerned about the massiveness of the building and the compatibility of the surrounding neighborhood. It is a significant increase on the original application. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2006\5-9-O6PC.doc 4 Planning Commission Minutes May 9, 2006 24. Chairman Quill stated most of the issues raised at the last meeting have been answered. He would still like to hear whether or not the proposed lot is to be considered open space. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated there is nothing in the record to answer this question definitively. Chairman Quill asked if this is legally designated an open space lot. City Attorney Kathy Jenson stated in terms of whether or not you are compelled to approve a building, you are not. You are essentially being asked to modify that space. Legally, she believes they can do that, but they are not compelled to approve it. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated that if the Commission is inclined to approve the project, the documents are there for them to do so. If they are considering denying, then the Commission should direct staff to bring back a Resolution for denial and list the reasons in the findings. This Resolution would then be brought back for adoption at the next meeting. The public hearing would be closed at this meeting and the Resolution for denial would be considered as a Business Item with no public comment. If the public hearing were not closed, public comment could be allowed. 25. Commissioner Daniels stated he believes converting a putting green to a two story building is just too much. This is based on a planned development for this site that was previously approved. It does not set a precedent for the adjacent vacant lots. 26. Chairman Quill reopened the public hearing. 27. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Ladner/Barrows to direct staff to bring back a Resolution of denial for the Tentative Parcel Map and Village Use Permit as not being compatible for the site. The motion carried with Commissioner Alderson and Chairman Quill voting no. Staff clarified this action could be appealed to the City Council once the Commission action is taken. B. Site Development Permit 2006-858; a request of Standard Pacific Coachella Valley for consideration of architectural and landscape plans for three prototypical residential plans for use in Tracts 32279 and 33336, for the property located on the north side of Avenue 58, west of Madison Street. 1. Chairman Quill opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which was on file in the Community Development Department. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2006\5-9-06PC.doc 5 Planning Commission Minutes May 9, 2006 2. Chairman Quill asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Alderson stated his concern about the size of the perimeter houses and asked about the placement of the home in conjunction to the adjacent tract. Staff stated the applicant could address this question. 3. There being no questions of staff, Chairman Quill asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Salim Rahemtulla, representing the applicant, gave a presentation on the project and stated they have no objection to the conditions. 4. Commissioner Alderson questioned the sequencing of the construction of the project. Mr. Rahemtulla explained the reasoning for the phasing. 5. Chairman Quill asked if anyone else wanted to speak on this project. There being no further public comment, the public participation portion of the hearing was closed and the matter was opened to Commission discussion. 6. Commissioner Daniels asked if there had been any conditions that were to be limited in regard to the number of stories the homes could have. Staff stated no. 7. Commissioner Ladner stated the architecture is somewhat plain for the size of the house. 8. Commissioner Alderson stated he too thinks Plan 3-B is too plain. 9. There being no further discussion, t was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Barrows to adopt Minute Motion 2006- 009, approving Site Development Permit 2006-858, as recommended. Unanimously approved. C. Sign Application 2005-932; a request of Chad Addington, Sign-A-Rama for Vista De Montana for consideration for a Sign Program to serve two office buildings in the Village Commercial District located on the north side of Calle Amigo and west of Desert Club Drive. 1. Chairman Quill opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Associate Planner Andrew Mogensen presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which was on file in the Community Development Department. G:IWPDOCS\PC Minutes\2006\5-9-06PC.dac 6 Planning Commission Minutes May 9, 2006 2. Chairman Quill asked if there were any questions of staff. There being no questions of staff, Chairman Quill asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Chad Addington, representing the applicant, asked if the PMAC sign was in conformance with staff's recommendation. Staff stated the letter size of the PMAC sign has not yet been determined as a dimensioned drawing has not been received. 3. Chairman Quill asked if anyone else wanted to speak on this project. There being no further public comment, the public participation portion of the hearing was closed and the matter was opened to Commission discussion. 4. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Ladner moved to continue Sign Application 2006-932 to May 23, 2006, to allow staff and the applicant time to provide additional information on the sign program. Unanimously approved. VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Sign Application 2005-976; a request of AKC Services for Bed Bath and Beyond for consideration of a request to approve a business identification sign for the property located on the north side of Highway 111, east of Adams Street, in the Pavilion Shopping Center. 1. Chairman Quill asked for the staff report. Assistant Planner Jay Wuu presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which was on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Quill asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Alderson clarified the size recommended by staff and what the applicant is requesting. 3. There being no questions of staff, Chairman Quill asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Norman Barrett, architect representing the applicant, gave a presentation on their request. 4. Commissioner Alderson stated the size of the sign requested is disproportionate to the size of the building. Mr. Barrett clarified their request. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2006\5-9-O6PC.doc 7 Planning Commission Minutes May 9, 2006 5. Chairman Quill asked if anyone else wanted to speak on this project. Mr. Kevin Jones, construction project manager for Bed Bath and Beyond, explained the further away you are from the building the letters tend to blend together. Mr. Chris Wilser, AKA Services, stated that the number of letters in the name of the store is a lot as compared to the other commercial signs which lends to the complexity of the sign as well as the landscaping in the center that blocks view of the project from the street. Mr. Burns Lambert, representing the owner of the center, stated his reasoning for requesting the larger sign. 6. There being no further public comment, the public participation portion was closed and the matter was opened to Commission discussion. 7. Mr. Barrett offered an alternate on the size of the sign at 196 square feet. 8. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Barrows/Daniels to adopt Minute Motion 2006-010 approving Sign Application 2006- 976, as recommended. Unanimously approved. VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Commissioner Daniels stated that if the Council believes there should not be any smoking businesses allowed in the City, then the Code should be revised to reflect this. Staff clarified that not all Council Members were opposed to smoking establishments. B. Commissioners discussed annexation questions with staff. C. Commissioners reviewed the City Council meeting of May 2, 2006. X. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Barrows to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held on May 23, 2006. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. on May 9, 2006. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2006\5-9-O6PC.doc $ Planning Commission Minutes May 9, 2006 Respectfully submitted, Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2006\5-9-06PC.doc LA QUINTA CITY COUNCIL LA QUINTA PLANNING COMMISSION JOINT MEETING MINUTES MAY 9, 2006 A joint meeting of the La Quinta City Council and Planning Commission was called to order at the hour of 5:07 p.m. by Mayor Adolph. CITY COUNCIL ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Council Members Henderson, Kirk, Osborne, Perkins, Sniff, and Mayor Adolph ABSENT: None PLANNING COMMISSION ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioners Alderson, Barrows, Daniels, Ladner and Chairman Quill ABSENT: Mayor Adolph led the Pledge of Allegiance. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA -Confirmed STUDY SESSION 1. DISCUSSION REGARDING SILVERROCK RESORT LOCATED SOUTH OF AVENUE 52 AND WEST OF JEFFERSON STREET. The Mayor declared the PUBLIC MEETING OPEN. Community Development Director Doug Evans gave a brief summary on the issues of concern. Mayor Adolph stated the Council is in an agreement that this is a dynamic development and in the future it will be something the residents of La Quinta can be proud of. 2. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE GENERAL PLAN ZONING AND OVERALL DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL FOR CURRENT CITY AREAS LOCATED SOUTH OF AVENUE 56. Community Development Director Doug Evans gave a summary of the issues that have been before the Planning Commission and City Council. Staff is looking for direction from the Council in regard to land uses. City Council/Planning Commission Joint Meeting May 9, 2006 Mayor Adolph asked if there were any questions of staff. Council Member Henderson stated she was surprised as to how little land is left to be developed. Planning Commission Daniels expressed his frustration over the long "bowling alley" lots that have been before the Commission. Anything that can be done to cause a consolidation of land to allow a better circulation and development of the land would be a benefit to the City. When they are before the Commission for approval they come in a piece-meal form as developers purchase the land. This does not allow the Commission the ability to approve projects that lend themselves to a better designed land masses. Staff stated a master plan that has incentives for consolidation of the land to allow joint driveways, joint access, better amenities and site design that would allow more units to the acre would help to develop better communities in this area. Commissioner Alderson noted there needs to be some commercial zoning somewhere for the residents in this area. Staff noted where commercial zoning currently exists. Council Member Kirk asked if the Council/Commission have the ability to reduce the density on a project even if it meets the zoning on the project. Staff stated specific findings would need to be made if the density is reduced from what the General Plan and Zoning Code allow. This has been done by both the Council and Commission, but findings were made to state why this was done. Commissioner Daniels stated another concern is land economics. There is an asking and negotiated price for the land. The Council/Commission needs to put into place information to notify the land sellers and land buyers what the City expects to see developed in this area. This way there is a reasonable expectation on the part of the seller and buyer. Staff stated this is true and the purchase price will dictate the number of units that need to be developed to allow a project to pencil out financially. Mayor Adolph stated that if the Commission believes a project is not in the best interest of the City, it should not be approved. Council Member Henderson asked that at the first presentation of a project to the Planning Commission how much is invested in the project. Staff stated that in regard to the larger projects, there is a substantial amount of money invested. On the smaller projects, five figures are probably invested. Sometimes staff sees the plans in the preliminary stages and staff is allowed an opportunity to work with the applicant to create a better project. On other occasions the project is designed and the applicant wants to proceed on to hearings. Council Member Henderson asked what the law states. Staff stated they have to 2 City Council/Planning Commission Joint Meeting May 9, 2006 submit a complete application and comply with all City ordinances and they have a right to a hearing. Staff tries to work with the applicants to bring the best plan to the Commission and Council if they have the ability to work with the applicant. Mayor Adolph asked staff to indicate the location of the land that would be affected by the Coachella Valley Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Staff indicated the land on the map. Council Member Kirk stated his support that the Commission should give consideration to compatibility when reviewing projects while staff is preparing the necessary changes to the Code to allow the Council/Commission to review projects based on what should be developed in this area. Council member Osborne asked that consistency be considered in the new development standards. The same rule should apply to all projects. 3. DISCUSSION OF THE CITY'S SPHERE OF INFLUENCE IN PLANNING AREAS I AND II, BOUNDED BY AVENUE 52, VAN BUREN STREET, HARRISON STREET, AVENUE 62, AND THE CURRENT CITY LIMITS. Community Development Director Doug Evans gave a report on the recently approved changes to the City's Sphere of Influence and asked for Council direction in regard to fiscal impacts and development standards for the area. Council Member Sniff stated this is a complex project. Does the County currently have projects they are processing in this area? Staff stated yes. They are processing some and have approved a few. Council Member Sniff asked if they were of a significant size and are they subdivisions. Staff stated yes; most are residential subdivisions. Currently, any project in this area is required to make a presentation to the Vista Santa Rosa Community Council (VSRCC) for their input. Council Member Sniff asked if the VSRCC would have validity when these parcels in this area are annexed into the City. Staff stated they are reviewing material from the County to make that determination as to the VSRCC existence. Council Member Sniff stated there are a number of complex issues to be addressed. Will the County work with the City in regard to projects that are proposed for this area so the Council can make intelligent decisions for this area. Staff stated the County is submitting to the City projects they are reviewing and staff is meeting with the Vista Santa Rosa Task Force as well to reach a common understanding between the two entities. Council Member Sniff stated his concern is that projects will be approved by the County that do not meet the City's standards. These are significant challenges when projects are being approved by the County and are in the process of being annexed into 3 City Council/Planning Commission Joint Meeting May 9, 2006 the City. Staff stated they are working with the County to achieve a process that will work for both in reviewing these projects to alleviate as many problems as can be. Council Member Sniff stated this needs to be done as quickly as possible to give these people some reasonable expectation of what and how they need to do. Staff stated they will be observing LAFCO's direction in regard to not annexing single parcels of property. Council Member Henderson asked if there were potential applicants who wanted to annex a single parcel, who would make application. Staff stated the City would have input into the approval process. Council Member Henderson stated there are people who live in this area who have a desire to see it developed a certain way. There are also people who have owned their property for several years and want to see it developed in a different way. Would it be fair to say that in the last five years, any project developed or proposed for development that has gone through the Couniy process has had significant involvement from the VSRCC. Staff stated the County requires all applicants to meet with the VSRCC and encourage them to come back with a positive recommendation. County staff has tried very hard to incorporate the VSRCC goals and desires into the planning process. That does not mean that is what will be approved by the County Board of Supervisors. Council Member Henderson stated then there is very little fear that the projects approved by the County would be inconsistent with the direction the City would want to take. Staff stated the key concerns is the infrastructure requirements work correctly, the County design guidelines for VSR have a different feel than what is traditionally approved by the City. This will need to be reviewed and considered by the Council. We do not have a lot of specific guidelines for policies in this area. We need to define what La Quinta's guidelines will be for this area to see if they can work with the VSR guidelines. Council Member Henderson stated there are two distinct groups who have an idea of what they want to see developed in this area and it cannot happen without some give and take on both sides. Council Member Sniff asked if a project is approved by the County, and when appropriate annexing into the City, are the standards significantly different, somewhat different, or essentially the same. Staff stated that if you compare them to existing developments in the City, they are fairly significant. We require a public parkway, a landscape setback of 20 feet and a wall and/or berm and define the perimeters very firmly. VSRC guidelines are exactly the opposite; very expansive setbacks, no walls, limited berms, and a clustered residential development that projects a lot of open space around the project both in interior and exterior. We will have a balancing act to blend the two guidelines and make them work for everyone. 4 City Council/Planning Commission Joint Meeting May 9, 2006 Council Member Sniff stated that with the current situation prevailing, we may be confronted with annexations that has projects that are already approved with the County standards being implemented and when the property owner requests to be annexed into the City, they will be bringing in the County standards which will dilute our standards. This to him is awkward. Staff stated Trilogy and Coral Mountain projects are an example of a project being approved in the County and then annexed into the City. Staff is informing those who are looking at the area south of Avenue 54, the City will be recommending there is a pre-annexation development agreement and a fiscal mitigation program. If they have a subdivided occupied property it is going to be very difficult to annex into the City. The challenge for the Council to mitigate the fiscal on an existing project and there is no ability to obtain a fiscal mitigation, it will require a vote of the property owners. This could create projects where one project will have paid to be involved in the City services and the adjoining project will not. This is another balancing act that has to be considered. Council Member Osborne asked if the strategic development plan that staff is creating will be finalized before any annexations take place. Staff stated they would like to have it finalized or at least some sound direction from Council before any annexations take place. There are several developers that are asking to submit application now. It would be a more orderly process if the City had at least the initial part of the plan underway. Council Member Kirk stated he too would want an orderly process, but he is concerned about the timeframe it will take to put that process into place. He believes this Council should take some policy decisions as soon as possible while staff continues to put the process in place. He would like to hear more about what the County Task Force is actually doing. Perhaps we should formalize agreements with the County to create aCounty/City Task Force. Planning Commissioner Quill asked about the fiscal impacts that are on this area specifically. Second, people are looking to see how soon they will accept pre- annexation applications. Council Member Henderson stated that most of the property south of Avenue 54 is within the Thermal Economic Development Agency. The County created this Agency in about 1985 and when a Redevelopment Area is created it freezes the property taxes. So the property taxes prior to the Agency would be distributed to the appropriate government agency per the State-approved formula. In the case of the City, that was almost seven cents to the dollar in property tax. The County receives significantly more than that. Once you create a Redevelopment Agency the growth in property tax goes into the Agency. Upon annexation, the City would be eligible only for the seven cents to the dollar that it was worth in 1985. All the growth revenue would go to the County for the life time of the Agency. 5 City Council/Planning Commission Joint Meeting May 9, 2006 This does not give the City the amount of revenue needed to provide the services required. There is a perceived notion that the type of development would probably not be as intense and require the intense police and fire services, but that is not how the services are provided. There is a formula that is used to structure the services no matter what type of development exists. This is the major challenge the City faces. There have been instances where counties and cities have done a tax sharing agreement. The City will be pursuing this type of discussion with the County and the City does have a hope that this could possibly happen. This is all part of the strategic planning faced by the City. Council Member Alderson asked at what point of the process does the County stop issuing building permit and the City starts. Staff stated that is at the point of annexation. Commissioner Daniels asked if there was a scenario where the County could delegate to the City administration of its General Plan for a specific area so the developer/land owner would ultimately be working with the final jurisdiction. City Attorney Kathy Jenson stated they could not delegate their legislative action, but whether or not the issuance of building permits could be done, it would have to be looked into. The County could require the applicant to show compliance with the City's regulations. Commissioner Daniels stated there seems to be some opportunity with multiple jurisdictions where residents are caught in a situation of abuse. Council Member Sniff stated there is only one jurisdiction in control at any one time. Staff stated they had met with the County Planning Director to discuss these challenges not only in La Quinta, but in the Valley. He put together a meeting with Supervisor Wilson and all the Planning Directors in the Valley. During the meeting they discussed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that would basically establish a formal protocol that would require all developers within the Sphere of Influence, to submit to the cities and submit their plans then the city in the MOU would outline what level of review constituted a final review by the City. The County would not calendar the project until that official position is submitted by the City. This MOU would go along way to establish a formal process for the City relative to a review process. The Council would then need to decide what the appropriate level of review for each type of application should be. Council Member Sniff stated this sounds like a lot of time and there needs to be some level of expectation for the property/land owners, the County and the City as quick as possible. 6 City Council/Planning Commission Joint Meeting May 9, 2006 Commissioner Barrows stated she would also encourage communication between the Council and the Task Force to gain an understanding of what they are expecting. Mr. Joe Hammer, 74-757 Orange Grove, Indian Wells, stated that for him the frustration is great. He owns property in the City and right across the street the remainder of his property is in the County. He has been waiting for five years to annex his property so he is not processing one property through the City and the other in the County. LAFCO has been supportive of his request. The money and time invested for everyone has been substantial. He would encourage the Council to consider annexation of his property as soon as possible. 4. DISCUSSION OF LA nUINTA VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES AND PRELIMINARY PARKING STUDY. Community Development Director Doug Evans presented the concerns staff has been trying to address including the Parking Study. Commissioner Quill asked what issues were brought up at the Council level in regard to the condominium project recently reviewed in the Village. Staff stated the height, streetscape, and parking were the major concerns. Mayor Adolph stated the Code currently allows a maximum height of 35 feet in the Village. Where do you draw the line when you go over this when policies have been established. If a developer wants to exceed this height where do you set the precedent. We are allowing two-story buildings right on the street and they are not shops. If we allow everything to be built up to 35 feet right on the curb, what is the Village going to look like when it is built out. Council Member Sniff stated that in the Village it is a small area and will be highly concentrated. Parking is the biggest issue and we need to determine where it will be put. Rules are sometimes modified and if we require parking beneath a structure would that justify a modest increase in the height of the building. This should be considered. Mayor Adolph stated then the ordinances need to be changed. Council Member Henderson stated that the Parking Ordinance was not followed in regard to the Old Town development. It was unrealistic to expect that developer to be able to meet the Code in regard to parking. 7 City Council/Planning Commission Joint Meeting May 9, 2006 Commissioner Quill stated the developer who was providing parking under the building was allowed the deviation because he was providing all the required parking on site. Council Member Kirk stated he too supported the additional height on this building because he provided his own parking. He noted several other projects where the parking requirements were deviated from. Mayor Adolph reiterated that if the City's ordinances do not meet the demand, then they need to be changed. Council Member Henderson reminded everyone they had created a prototypical street design and for whatever reason, the brick work has not been going forward and it needs to be addressed for future development. 5. DISCUSSION OF CITY ZONING AND MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND RELATED LAND USES. Community Development Director Evans gave a brief review of the subject. Council Member Sniff stated he was concerned when the Planning Commission approved a Hookah Bar use in the City. He believes this is a great injustice to the City and he would like to see the City take a very firm stand against smoking in all public places. City Attorney Kathy Jenson stated that in regard to the County permitting issue that will be becoming before the Council at some point. It was her understanding the County is promoting the County permitting process as a means to better enforce the prohibitation of sale to minors. Currently, there is a State permit but it takes four violations before a suspension is given. Between four and seven violations the State allows suspension of the right to sell cigarettes. However at the eighth violation it requires a suspension. This is for a 12 month period. There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Council Members HendersonlOsborne to adjourn the City Council meeting at 6:57 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Alderson to recess the Planning Commission to its regular meeting at 7:00 p.m. Unanimously approved. This joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission was adjourned at 6:57 p.m. 8 City Council/Planning Commission Joint Meeting May 9, 2006 Respectfully submitted by, Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta