Loading...
2007 02 27 PC ~4~~ , Planning Commission Agendas are now available on the City's Web Page @ www.la-quinta.org PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Guinta City Hall Council Chamber 78-495 Calle Tampico La Guinta, California FEBRUARY 27, 2007 7:00 P.M. **NOTE** ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11 :00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING Beginning Resolution 2007-009 Beginning Minute Motion 2007-006 I. CALL TO ORDER A. Flag Salute B. Pledge of Allegiance C. Roll Call II. PUBLIC COMMENT This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled for public hearing. Please complete a "Requ'est to Speak" form and limit your comments to three minutes. III. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 13, 2007. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\1 AgendaW.doc V. PUBLIC HEARING: For all Public Hearings on the Agenda, a completed "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Executive Secretary prior to the start of the Planning Commission consideration of that item. The Chairman will invite individuals who have requested the opportunity to speak. to come forward at the appropriate time. Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before a public hearing, may appear and be heard in support of, or in opposition to, the approval of the project!s) at the time of the hearing. If you challenge any project!s) in court. you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City at. or prior to the public hearing. Request ...........' SIGN APPLICATION 2003-720. AMENDMENT NO.1 Old Town La Guinta, LLC Main Street, Old Town La Guinta; west of Desert Club Drive, east of Avenida Bermudas, south of Calle Tampico. Consideration of an Amendment to an existing Sign Program allowing the placement of special event banners. Minute Motion 2007- A. Item................ Applicant... ...... Location........... Action............. . B. Item.................. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2006-575 AND ZONE CHANGE 2006-129 Applicant............ City of La Guinta Location.............. South of Avenida La Fonda, north of Avenida Nuestra, west of Washington Street, and east of Calle Guatamala Request .............. Consideration to certify a Negative Declaration and a zone ,change from RM/12/1 Medium Density Residential, 17 foot height, single story to RM(20/5/1 0) 1711 in order to reduce the existing 15 foot rear yard setback to ten feet. Action................. Minute Motion 2007- VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Discussion regarding the League of California Cities Planners Institute to be held in San Diego, March 21-23, 2007. B. Review of City Council meeting of February 6, 2007 IX. ADJOURNMENT: This meeting of the Planning Commission will be adjourned to a Regular Meeting to be held on March 13, 2007, at 7:00 p.m. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\1 AgendaW.doc ------- - DECLARATION OF POSTING I, Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary of the City of La Guinta, do hereby declare that the foregoing Agenda for the La Guinta Planning Commission meeting of Tuesday, February 27, 2007, was posted on the outside entry to the Council Chamber, 78-495 Calle Tampico and the bulletin board at the La Guinta Cove Post Office, on Friday, February 23, 2007. DA TED: February 23, 2007 Public Notices The La Guinta City Council Chamber is handicapped accessible. If special equipment is needed for the hearing impaired, please call the City Clerk's office at 777 -7123, twenty-four (24) hours in advance of the meeting and accommodations will be made. If special electronic equipment is needed to make presentations to the Planning Commission, arrangements should be made in advance by contacting the City Clerk's office at 777-7123. A one (1) week notice is required. If background material is to be presented to the Planning Commission during a Planning ,Commission meeting, please be advised that eight (8) copies of all documents, exhibits, etc., must be supplied to the Executive Secretary for distribution. It is requested that this take place prior to the beginning of the 7:00 p.m. meeting. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\l AgendaW,doc -.- -- MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA February 13, 2007 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER A. This m\leting of the Planning Commission was reconvened at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Quill who asked Commissioner Alderson to lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Ed Alderson, Katie Barrows, Jim Engle, and Chairman Paul Quill. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Alderson/Barrows to excuse Commissioner Daniels. C. Staff present: Community Development Director Doug Evans, City Attorney Kathy Jenson, Planning Manager Les Johnson, Principal Engineer Ed Wimmer, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Assistant Planner Yvonne Franco, Senior Code Compliance Officer Anthony Moreno, 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 January 23, 2007. There being no changes, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Alderson/Barrows to approve the minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Environmental Assessment 2006-579 and Site Development Permit 2006-865; a request of CNL Desert Resorts, L. P. for consideration of architectural and landscaping plans for a signature pool facility, for the property located on the west side of Avenida Obregon, approximately 150-feet south of Avenida Fernando, within the La Quinta Resort. 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 is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff reviewed the G:IWPDOCSIPC MinutesI200712-13-07 .doc - Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2007 revised Public Works Department conditions. Mr. Tony Locacciato, Impact Sciences, the City's'CEQA consultant, gave a presentation on the EIR Addendum. Community Development Director Doug Evans gave a history of the Resort, traffic reports and parking. Staff noted each time there has been a change to the Resort the City has evaluated the environmental impacts. 2. Chairman Quill asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Alderson asked if in the analysis of the grading would there be any import or export or soil. Staff stated there will be some export for the excavation of the proposed pools. The applicant will have the accurate export amount. Commissioner Alderson asked the timeframe is for the construction. Staff suggested the applicant would need to answer that question. Commissioner Alderson asked what future use the Morgan House would have and would it be related to this pool. Staff stated the Morgan House is technical issue. Under California law it needs to be renovated and re- enforced or demolished over time. At this time there is no proposed use associated with this project and no impact from this project on the House. Staff will be working with the applicant on all historic buildings on the property. 3. Commissioner Barrows asked staff to clarify the parking that would be eliminated and outline the entry gate turnaround area. Staff indicated the changes to the parking spaces at the entry that would be eliminated on the site plan. Commissioner Barrows asked if the rock mountain structures for the pool had any height constraints in regard to the City's height limits. Staff stated they are within the City's height limits. Commissioner Barrows asked the City's height limitations for Tourist Commercial areas. Staff stated they are allowed up to 40~feet. 4.. Commissioner Engle asked the height of the southern rock feature. Staff stated it is 28 feet. Commissioner Engle asked the height of the buildings to the north of the rock features. Staff stated they are approximately 26 feet and the shorter rock is 18.5 feet in height. Commissioner Engle asked if the pool would primarily be a summer use. Staff stated yes. 5. Chairman Quill asked what the finish grade would be for the I,azy river and pool. Staff stated in this case they were referring to the deck area at the base of the rock feature. It is not the 2 Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2007 water level which is approximately six inches lower. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated the splash pool for water slide feature is approximately four feet below grade. 6. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Quill asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. John Per:Ja, consultant for the La Quinta Resort, gave a presentation on the history of the Hotel. Mr. Paul McCormick, General Manager of the La Quinta Hotel,gave a presentation on the effects of the Hotel in the community and the proposed . project. 7. Commissioner Alderson asked the applicant the estimated time of construction, how much dirt would be exported and how many gallons water will be flushed out of the system into the water table. Mr. McCormick stated the construction should . take between ten and 12 month. Mr. David Urban, CNL Hospitality Corporation and Mr. Chris Bergh, MDS Consulting, stated the export of dirt should be 12-15,000 yards from the construction of the pools. The backflush of water should be 13,500 gallons every four days going through a septic system, into percolation pits and ultimately recharge the groundwater. It is domestic water that refills the pools. 8. Commissioner Barrows asked the applicant to identify the public meetings they had held with the local residents. Mr. McCormick stated they held meetings on June 28th and September 7th at the Resort. Notices were mailed to everyone within 500 feet within the property boundaries. They have also met with Homeowners' Association Board (HOA) board, opposing counsel, and the HOA from Santa Rosa Cove. Commissioner Barrows asked what measures they were taking to incorporate water and energy conservation into the project. Mr. McCormick spoke to the landscaping plans and how energy conservations measures would be taken in regard to the plant material. Mr. Urban stated water conservation is a concern and cost issue for the Resort. The pools operate on a closed loop system. They recharge from the splash pool area. It is not new water that is constantly being discharged out. Most of the area is hardscape and will continue to be. They do not have a lot of high water plant users. They will be centralizing the mechanical equipment and they will be at higher elevations to minimize pump sizes which will reduce noise as well as being energy 3 Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2007 efficient. They can also segregate the active pool area from the formal pool area. Commissioner Barrovvs asked if the pump system would be state-of-the-art with respect to energy conservation. Mr. Urban stated that was the focal point of their design. 9. Commissioner Engle asked if the landscaping plans complied with CVWD requirements. Mr. McCormick stated yes. Commissioner Engle asked about security issues. Mr. McCormick explained their security system as to who is patrolling which streets/areas. Commissioner Engle asked if the pools/slides could be seen from Eisenhower Drive. Mr. McCormick stated they would not be seen' from Eisenhower Drive or Avenida Obregon. 10. Chairman Quill asked about noise attenuation from the pumps especially from the wave actuator. Mr. McCormick explained how the pumps would be under-ground and insulated to reduce the noise. Mr. Bob Robby, noise consultant, stated the mechanical equipment is located inside the mountain to provide a lot of attenuation. The wave generator,the venture which creates the wave is below the surface of the water so there will be no audible noise. Chairman Quill asked about the length of the construction phase in particular how they would handle the parking and noise. Mr. McCormick stated the Hotel will be operating during the construction phase so they will be sensitive to the length of time it will take to construct the project as well . as any noise issues. Chairman Quill asked about the complaints they had received regarding the traffic problems along Avenida Obregon. Mr. McCormick stated their on-site security has been increased and they will continue to ticket those who are violating the parking requirements. They are also trying to improve their reaction time to remove the violators. Chairman Quill asked if the lack of tennis courts will be addressed. Mr. McCormick stated the tennis program is a viable part of their business, but the play has decreased over time. Their plans are to enhance the remaining existing courts as well as adding courts elsewhere on their property. Chairman Quill asked about the finish water surface elevation of the pool and lazy river at 43 feet; how does this relate to the rock mountain structure. The finish floor elevations of the adjacent tennis villas at about 49.5 feet which makes the water surface approximately 5.5 feet below the two-story tennis villas to the north. He is trying to understand the height of the 28 foot mountain as it relates to 4 Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2007 the tennis villas. Mr. McCormick stated they measured them and the tennis villas to the top of the chimneys is about 29.5 feet. Chairman Quill asked how that 28 foot elevation relates to the 43 foot water surface elevation. Ms. Anne Guillebeaux, EDSA, landscape architect for the site, stated that in the southwestern corner of the tennis villa site, the' adjacent grade . at the base of the Villas is 46 feet and the adjacent grade at the pool deck is 46 feet. Chairman Quill stated the plans show the finish floor of the first floor of the Villas is 49.5 feet. Mr. Barret Bruchhauser, MDS Engineering, stated they would be at an elevation of 49.5. Chairman Quill asked what does the 28 foot height elevation of the mountain relate to is it related to the 46- feet or the water elevation. Mr. Bruchhauser stated the top of the mountain is actually 75 feet above sea level. Chairman Quill stated that therefore, the top of the buildings will be the same as the top of the mountain peak. Mr. Bruchhauser stated that was true. Chairman Quill asked how the rocks would be treated to appear real. Ms. Guillebeaux stated they have drafted contracts with detailed specifications that the contractor will be held to. Chairman Quill asked if the intention is to mimic what is in the Cove. Ms. Guillebeaux .stated yes. Chairman Quill asked about the requirement of the Fire Department for a rear access to the pool equipment. Mr. Urban stated it will be taken care of on site and they have asked for an alternate site. Chairman Quill asked how the pool users would be identified. Mr. McCormick explained how people would gain entrance to the pool and how they would be screened to ensure only those who have access are allowed in. They must have proof of r'egistration or membership before entering. 11 . Chairman Alderson asked how guests of a member would be allowed. Mr. Urban stated they have not identified how this will be handled yet. The member cannot pay a fee to have their guest attend. If they are a registered guest, they would have access. Mr. McCormick clarified that when he stated earlier that tennis courts would be added to their property, he was referring to the Citrus Course property. 12. Commissioner Barrows asked about the trees shown on top of the rock mountain that are probably 12 feet high and how this would blend with the local landscaping. Mr. Urban stated a recommendation was to incorporate some planting elements to illustrate a realistic landscape to create a lush desert oasis feel and not just have bare rocks. Commissioner Barrows stated her 5 Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2007 concern is that if they are trying to blend these that to add 12 + feet on top of the mountain may affect the views of the neighbors and may not be the best way to go. Mr. Urban stated it is not their intent to add 12-foot trees. They do not intend to obstruct any views. Commissioner Barrows stated there is a residential environment surrounding the resort and this is a typical resort; how has it worked in other areas. Mr. McCormick stated that one of the benefits of being a part of Hilton is that they have a lot of properties that operate in different environments. He went on to describe how a pool with a slides works in their other facilities. Commissioner Barrows asked about special event purposes such as weddings; how often would these occur and would there a cut off time. Mr. McCormick stated the cutoff time for the water feature is 6:00 p.m. They currently utilize space within the hotel for special events without complaints. 13. There being no further questions of the applicant, Chairman Quill asked if there was any other public comment. Roger and Madeline Lolley, 77-317 Avenida Fernando, stated they live at the Tennis Villas and were not notified correctly of the meetings. As they were not notified in a timely manner. This project will affect their property values. They will be losing rental fees during the construction time; will they be compensated for the lack of rentals during the construction of the project? This is a water park, not a signature pool. It is foolish to think people will come here because of a water slide. This project will detract from the full time people who come here for a quiet environment. Even though the numbers are right does not mean it is morally right to do it. 14. Mr. Wayne Guralinick, Corporate Counsel for the Enclave, Tennis Villas, and Los Estados, which surround the proposed project. He reviewed an aerial of the site. Staff would not have brought this project forward to the Commission if it was a stand-alone project with 14-foot setbacks from residential homes. There is no doubt this is a water park that belongs in an industrial area. They want to be good neighbors. At a minimum there should be substantial continuance to have the applicant meet with the HOAs to come up with substantial mitigation and less of the intensity. They recognize the Hotel might need to renovate some of the tennis courts and add some water features, but not a water slide at this scale. 6 Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2007 15. Ms. Marie Mack, Esq., attorney for the surrounding residential homeowners, stated the technical studies provided by the applicant are grossly inadequate. This project should be denied and reanalyzed due to the close proximity to the residences. Ms. Mack went over the issues stated in her letter of February 12, 2007. 16. Ms. Kay Wollf, 77-227 Calle Ensenada, representing the Cove Association, raised issues regarding landscaping on the west side of Eisenhower Drive between Calle Tampico and the bridge, property owned by the La Quinta Resort. The City has cited the Resort in order to have this landscaping restored to its original condition. It is still inadequate and not fixed. They would like to request that if this project is approved they should be required to upgrade the landscape including the chain link fence with a living fence, and trees for shade that would create an inviting image to the Cove residents. 17. Mr. Jack McDonald, 49-035 Calle Flora, stated they want the hotel to continue to be successful. They support the amenities of the hotel but also want the community to be a good place to live. Second they are concerned that the proposed water park will hurt the hotel and nearby communities. The noise study inadequately addresses the actual noise' that, will be generated from the park. Third, there has been inadequate time to evaluate the impact of this water park. More time is needed to evaluate it properly. He has only had ten days to review the noise study and if they had adequate time, they would probably find the same issues with the traffic study. Fourth, they request the Site Development Permit be denied. 18. Ms. Judy Ely, 76-972 Calle Mazatlan, stated they bought their property as a tennis resort. Imagine their disappointment when they found out that the tennis courts would be reduced by 40% as well as the addition of a water park right in the middle. The current recreation uses can be divided into two parts; pool and tennis uses. These uses are located away from the residential uses. To understand the density she counted the number of lounge chairs shown around the pool and it came out eleven times the population density of the tennis courts. Eleven times the people means significantly more noise. The two rock ,mountains are the same height as the tennis villas which means their views will be obstructed. A water park in a residential area is not tolerable. 7 Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2007 19. Mr. William McCane, 79-205 Fox Run, moved to this location out of Santa Rosa Cove due to the amount of noise coming from the Hotel activities. The notice sent out regarding this hearing was confusing and incorrect in its definition. It sounds like the use has already been approved. He also does not understand how the notice can state there will be no new significant environmental impacts. He does not understand how the Community Development Department can come to this conclusion. This is a major redevelopment involving the demolition of about half of the available tennis courts, large swimming pools as well as walkways and parking totaling 195 square feet of demolition. It also includes six months of construction noise and fumes in an area that already has problems with traffic and safety. Once completed this will be a full scale waterpark in the middle of a pre-established residential district generating traffic, parking, noise, and light impacts. The issues of compatibility with adjoining uses and the right to a 'quiet environment as well as reduction of property values. There has been an evolution of a Hotel, but there has also been an evolution of the residential uses adjoining the Hotel that has not been mentioned in the findings. This project does not belong in this location. 20. Mr. William Puget, 77-600 Avenida Fernando, stated he lives directly across from the conference center at'the Hotel. They have lived here for 20 years and strongly object to the water park. It is inconceivable that there are no significant impacts. The notion that the users of the pool will be limited to only guests of the hotel and membership is not true. They have heard that the Estates at Point Happy are also offering memberships with access'to the Hotel amenities. There may be other developments who also are offering memberships as well. Who is going to enforce the users of the pool? It is an illusion that there will be a controlled access. Heurges the Commission to vote against this project. 21. Mr. John Lissberger, 77-385 Lorna Vista in the Mountain Estates, stated he has lived here for 20 years and has been disappointed with the City. The people who live here are abused. This historic Hotel is slowly being eroded and/ encroached upon. They were promised that the Mountain Course would stay a private course. Since KSL bought the Hotel, now the course is not private. Avenida Fernando is a 8 Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2007 private road and multiple uses such as trucks have been using it. He would respectively ask that it be declined. 22. Ms. Mary Jane O'Connor, 77-343 Avenida Fernando, stated the hotel uses this area for most of their parties, weddings, bands. She has called the Hotel to complain on numerous times about the noise and has received no response. The pool is to have limited access with the gates locked and she knows there are numerous people that have been in there from outside the area. The parking spaces are taken by vendors and parking is not enforced. They state they will be planting trees on top of the mountain that will block their views. She has a great concern about the traffic that will be generated by the project. 23. Gloria Dodd, 48-690 Via Sierra, president of Mountain Estat~s HOA, stated that from where lives at the tennis villas she could stand on her deck and dive into the lazy river. Her concern is the number of trucks lined up to make their deliveries at 7:00 a.m. What about all the other condo projects that bought membership into the Hotel Club. How will they all get to the pool? How are they going to get to their homes with all this additional traffic? They already fight the traffic just to get home. 24. Mr. Rick Bylsk, 76-980 Avenida Fernando, President of the Los Estadoes HOA, stated he recognizes the benefits and successes' of the Hotel. Their properties are tied very closely to the success of the Hotel because of the amenities offered. They were concerned when they learned about the signature pool, as there isn't even a definition of a signature pool. This is a water park or a morphing of the Hotel's quiet ambiance. Looking at the pool area with over 200 lounge chairs that will be increased to 700 is a strong impact. He would strongly encourage the Commission to deny this project. 25. James Carley, 77-303 Mazatlan, stated he has been a homeowner for 1 5 years and is against the pool because of the impact of additional traffic and noise. He purchased his home for the tranquility. A 30-foot water slide is not below grade and not tranquil. 26. Jeff Nagelberg, 49-045 Calle Flora, stated his concern about the timeline of the project. They will not be able to complete this project in ten months. People in Santa Rosa Cove have 9 Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2007 already had water table issues. If this percolation system is , faulty in any way it will cause remarkable damage. Will he be forced to listen to a movie when he sits out at his pool. Living in the Cove you know how noise will rebound off the mountains. The idea that this project will not impede on them, is ridiculous. He urges the Commission to at least delay the project and ask CNL to move the project further back onto their own property. 27. Mr. Bram White, 77-631 Los Arboles, stated he too is concerned with property values, safety, security, traffic and noise. Hearing this project characterized as a water park, he has taken his children to Raging Waters and he would not want that located here. This is not a water park and will not be open to the general public. If it were he would be strongly opposed. In terms .of traffic, if it is open only to the Hotel guests and members, the Hotel is limited number of rooms and can only sell that number of rooms. He does not see all the noise concerns that are being expressed. He hears kids making noise in the pools in his neighborhood and they will make noise wherever they are. Construction is taking place all over the City as well as at the Hotel and it does go away. He would ask everyone to 'view this in the big picture that the concerns are a little overblown. 28. Mr. Bill Bresnaham, 78-420 Calle Felipe, stated he is a member of the Club. He has found that the, Hotel has been very reluctant to enforce their rules at the pools and tennis courts. They will need to change their system if they are going to improve this. How will they be forced to live up to what they state they are going to do? Will the City's Code Enforcement Department take care of the parking problems along Avenida Obregon and Avenida Fernando. 29. Mr. Tom Leverty, 48-805 Via Linda in the Mountain Estates. He has two issues. In the June 28th presentation they were told ,that the competition for this type of amusement park ranged from 2 to 2.5 acres. This is proposed on 4.7 acres. They want to work with the Hotel, but they need to work together. They have asked them to speak to their HOA. If all 3,000 of the people who live in the area would go to dinner one time a year at the Hotel it would cover the 15,000 covers they will get from the Hotel guests. 10 Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2007 30. Mr. Jay Green, Mountain Estates, stated the notice says the applicant is CNL and questions and answers have been addressed to CNL. If he understands it correctly, CNL has sold the Hotel to Morgan Stanley, and CNL will be gone. Who is the applicant when CNL is leaving town?, Is a corporate interest going to trump the interests of the 200 odd residents who are here tonight? 31. Mr. Paul Keye, 49-991 Mazatlan, stated he is impressed with the Hotel and is concerned with what they will bring in next. He is surprised that this development would not require any additional reports. The Tennis Tournaments were previously held at the Hotel. What drove the migration of the Tennis Tournament championships to Indian Wells? Would you buy a home next to a signature pool. He hopes he did not. 32. Mr. Steve Davis, 77-500 Avenida Fernando, stated the Resort does not own Avenida Fernando and it is not a public road. He and Mr. Puget own a portion of the road. Their portion goes to approximately to the middle of the road. The road is about 24- 25 feet wide. He displayed pictures of trucks that travel down Avenida Fernando and the problems that are incurred because of this traffic. The truck in the picture is 70 feet long. They deal with approximately 20-30 of these trucks a day. The truck is stopped because it hit his wall and got stuck in the driveway. The truck actually hit his wall twice' trying to deliver to the hotel. He informed the City that he is currently in litigation that the Resort owners have overburdened their easement rights on this road and they are asking for extinguishment of the easement. The City may want to consider that if they grant rights to this project, there is an act of litigation that is asking for extinguishment of their right of the road. He was never asked if they had any objection to use of the road. Staff 'referenced an EIR that was done in 1975. There were seven other means of access into the Resort at that time. If there are 6,000 cars a day going down Avenida Fernando is that still an adequate EIR. 33. . Mr. Thomas Harms 79-605 Cetrino, stated one of the reasons we have zoning, planning and environmental assessments is to ensure there consistency in compatibility between housing. What was true in 1975 is that staff was talking about what the environmental concerns were and that is not necessarily true today. This land has been extensively developed and as part of 11 Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2007 that development those same issues were addressed and satisfied. What is being asked at this meeting is a request to change that judgement that was made. In his opinion there are two questions that are appropriate to be raised. One is whether or not it is good for the applicant to make money if that is a change in the decision of the City at that time. Rather the question is, is the change being requested material. Here there is a proposal to change the density of use substantially; a proposal to change the noise significantly; and a proposal to change the lighting. Are those changes adverse to the existing property owners who were in the' prior environmental assessment promised one thing. The response would be that the change will be adverse and because there is a material adverse change, he does not believe that the finding that there is no adverse change is appropriate and this application should be denied. 34. Mr. Ron Olson, 77-905 Laredo Court, stated he is opposed to the water park for three reasons: traffic, the parking situation, and noise on Obregon. He is a member, of Tennis and Fitness Club at Resort and has found it is very tough to find a parking space. He therefore has resorted to different ways to travel to the Resort. Avenida Obregon is so narrow that two cars can hardly pass each other. Walking is another means of getting there, but you find that two cars cannot pass. The original EIR . did not consider the size of the vehicles that are now being driven. The golf cart is another option to travel to the site but there have been instances when they too have almost been hit , by a CVWD truck. What provisions have been made for golf carts and bicycles to travel to the Resort as well as park at the Resort? Noise is another issue as he can hear the band that plays every afternoon at his house which is % of a mile away. What happens if the water park fails? What will happen to this "white elephant"? Also, will it be open to the public? 35. Mr. Scott Holmes, 77-490 Calle Cadiz, stated he owns two lots in the Enclave and Mountain Estates and asked that the application be denied and we all go home. His concern is that the extra traffic at the turn around area is going to cause the residents to the Mountain Estates to wait to enter their gate to get home. If the purpose is to increase occupancy during the summer, then why be open ,at Thanksgiving and Christmas? It is one thing to say noise levels meet standards and to live next door to it. How many of the Commissioners have been to Soak 12 .--- ------- - , Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2007 City and how many would like to live next door to this? 36. Mr. Ed Mittelbusher, 77-333 Calle Mazatlan, asked if the Hotel feels that noise and light are not an issue, why not move it closer to Rinker Pool where it would only affect or not affect their guests? Why put it in the middle cif a residential area. Yesterday there were at least six Morgan Stanley executives touring the facilities and there are none here at this meeting. Do they not want to hear what the people want to say? With . the removal of the tennis courts they asked if they would be receiving a reduction in their tennis dues. They were told no, they would be raised. 37. . Mr. Hayes O'brien, 48-840 Eisenhower Drive, stated he is member of the Club and is a real estate developer in Minnesota. He understand the right of a developer to develop their property, but he is concerned that this use of their property is tempered by the rights of surrounding property owners. The rights of the adjoining property owners are being trampled by the adjoining property owners. This is the wrong project in the wrong place at the wrong time. Please deny project. 38. Mr. Richard Fredericks, 49-875 Avenida Obregon, stated this is a safety disaster on the City's hands. He then gave pictures he had taken that were examples of the situation that currently exists along Avenida Obregon. Avenida Obregon is essentially blocked with bumper to bumper cars. Someone is going to get killed. This is the most ill advised proposal. The Resort does not keep its word. Tentative Tract Map 28545 showed that Avenida Obregon was to remain open and it was cut in half without public hearings. The parking on the tract map was reconfigured on Vista Flores from parallel parking to back out parking. There is no parking lot that meets the Zoning Code. Either the City cannot or will not enforce it. This water park will be bringing hundred or people to an area with no sidewalks. He is an abutting property owner and has an easement and his easement was cut in half from 40 feet to 20 feet without a public hearing or, asking him his rights. The Resort does not police itself. You would think several citations would have been issued and yet only five citations were issued. Emergency vehicles could never get through. The Police say it is private property, but a fire lane is a fire lane and should be patrolled. He submitted the Property Rights provision of TT 28545 that were not adhered to by the Resort. He then submitted the 13 Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2007 Counqil Minutes into the record. Avenida Obregon is a collector street and is to be 40 feet wide. When you do not comply with the Zoning Code you will have a disaster. 39. Mr. Joseph A. Broido, 77-5 i 0 Calle Nogales, stated he agrees with Kay Wolff in regard to the berm on Eisenhower Drive that has not been maintained for 20 years. The Resort has not been a good neighbor no matter who has owned it. He would urge that a condition be added to this project to require the Resort to fix and maintain the berm along Eisenhower Drive. 40. Ms. Gloria Dodd, 48-690 Via Sierra, questioned the season CNL says the park will be used. What do they determine to be the "season"? It is not just a summer time, it will be more than just . ' the summer months. People use their pools in the shoulder seasons as well. 41. Mr. Phil Motts, Santa Rosa Cove, stated there are 2500 members to this cove and everything stated here should be multiplied by that number. 42. Mr. Jay Vaden 77-471 Lorna Vista, stated he is concerned about Avenida Fernando because there are no sidewalk and very poor access. The triangle section crossing Avenida Obregon needs to be improved. He almost hit a lady walking in this area. There is also a new project that is being process across from the Tennis Villas. This is a, matter of promotional sales. He loves the Hotel but does not like the way it has been run. 43. Ms. Leslie Fredericks, 49-875 Avenida Obregon, stated the La Quinta Hotel does not own all the area on Avenida Obregon. If she heard correctly, they are proposing another new gate on Avenida Obregon and she would like to know if this is true. Chairman Quill stated there will be no gate unless there is an issue and if that issue cannot be resolved by first placing a guard at this location. Ms. Fredericks stated she is a single- family two acre residents trapped in tourist commercial. If this gate is built, she is cemented her future as being a part of the La Quinta Hotel. 44. Mr. John Duggen 48-770 Via Linda, stated Mr. McCormick has stated the access to, and use of, this water park will be restricted to guests of the hotel. He would like to have a clear 14 ------- --- Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2007 definition of what a hotel guest is. He is 'particularly concerned that guest passes will not be given on a day basis. Will the guests be defined as being occupants of the Hotel? Chairman Quill stated that is the understanding before the Commission. 45. Mr. Ted Newell 77-160 Avenida Fernando, stated the 2500 members that do not use the facility all that often. The parking studies overlook the significance of the members who do not use the membership. If they put a water park in, he would be taking his grandchildren to the park which, is another impact on the traffic. If you look at all those who will now be using the . pool, there is the traffic increase. 46. Mr. Paul McCormick, La Quinta Resorts, stated this has been a resort for eight years. All the residents know the Resort is there. Public notifications were addressed to everyone within five hundred feet. Construction inconveniences are considered by themselves in regard to their guests. They believe they can keep the charm of La Quinta with these changes. It will not degrade the community. The noise study has been extensively studied. The 'issues with the berm on Eisenhower Drive that was referred to will .be addressed. Their director has met with ,the City and they have received quotes to fix the area adding vegetation and decomposed granite. There is a potential acquisition of the Hotel; however, he is an employee of Hilton and not CNL and Hilton will continue to market the Hotel. The Hotel has many more resources to solve problems that CNL did not. In regard to property values, construction will have an affect. The elements they are constructing in the signature pool will enhance their guests stay. It does 'not have all the water park amenities and therefore is not a water park. Members and children will be allowed to use the pool if they are living at home~nd are under 23 years of age. In regard to police calls, there are more calls made in the neighborhoods by volume than at the Hotel. Every time they have received a call they do respond with a security follow-up. They have added additional security to address these problems. They try to be a good neighbor. In regard to lighting and landscaping issues, it will be low level lighting as compared to the tennis light that now exists. 47. Mr. Richard Zeilinga, Legal Counsel for La Quinta Resort, stated that with the threat of litigation it is ifnportant to make the record clear on some issues. With respect to the context it is 15 .---- ------- - Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2007 important to note that there is a Resort, a commercial operation, that is on-going and has been on-going for 70 years and mixed in are residences that are a more recent vintage. This is a conflict and is very common where this is this type of mix. Why isn't there pro-active plannjng to deal with this issue? In this particular case, there was. He displayed portions of an Agreement that was for the residents at 49-454 Avenida Obregon. This Agreement talks about.in great detail that the Hotel has the right to install any trees, landscaping or construct any improvements at any location within Tennis property which could be in near proximity to any lot within the project including the property. It also acknowledges that the buyer agrees that the seller makes no warranties, representations that the Tennis Club properties will be maintained and operated in the manner that existed or was contemplated at the time of purchase. It also states the buyer for himself, herself, or related parties hereby acknowledges the potential for nuisances created by or arising by the Hotel property including without limitation odors, noises, traffic, congestions and other nuisances arising from other operations, landscaping and maintenance of the Hotel property, early and late night events, etc., etc. The buyer assumes the risk of any creation of maintenance or trespass or nuisance created by or arising in connection with Hotel activities or any matters described above. This Agreement was ,signed by the buyer. This is a standard form agreement used for the purchase of new property. He, cannot represent that when properties are resold that every buyer shared with subsequent buyers that they had executed this type of agreement. It does show the planning and pro-thought that went into dealing with the issues raised tonight. They contend based on the studies they prepared, there isn't a problem when you compare what was originally approved in the EIR on the project in 1975 and all the updates with the increases in units and the changes that have occurred since then. There have been five updates and the City has been involved in all the environmental updates since then. In regard to the noticing, not only did the City notice the area within 500 feet they are required to, it was sent out to the, entire boundary of the Resort property. This is above and beyond what is required. In regard to noise, there were three areas that were studied. The study is overly conservative because when the study was completed, all of those factors and changes made in regard to the concerns raised by the neighbors, are not assumed in the study. The study did not assume that all these slides would be closed or 16 ----------- Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2007 open, or that the mass had been split and brought down. The study did not consider the lazy river was lowered to reduce the noise impact. On traffic as there are no Hotel room increases, they did not believe hard quantitative counts were necessary, but they did it anyway and on parking and capacity, there is excessive capacity. He presented a photo taking of the parking . area at 100% occupancy at 5:00 p.m. which showed no excessive parking. In regard to the Morgan House issue, the existing context is not a pristine context. The Morgan House is totally screened with an eight foot wall, and hedge. In regard to views they are not a significant impact by law. Finally, the City did not prepare a Negative Declaration, it prepared an Addendum to an EIR. This is an update to an existing EIR. 48. There being no further public comment Chairman Quill closed the public participation portion of the hearing and asked for Commission discussion. 49. Commissioner Alderson applauded Mr. McCormick's effort to take care of the landscape issues on Avenida Obregon. He recognizes not everyone is going to be happy. He had reviewed over 600 letters in regard to this project and a lot of consideration has been given to this project. The concerns raised are important and legal ramifications are important. He stands by staff and legal counsel in that the City is within its rights to review and act on this application, but he believes we are putting in jeopardy this grand Hotel of La Quinta. The business plan says it is a financially viable plan. If this were not ,successful the fall back is dire and it would cost the owners millions. It is an exchange of recreational uses. Taking it all into consideration, is it good for La Quinta? At this point he is not sure he could support the project. 50. Commissioner Barrows stated she wo'uld consider continuing the application. In looking at the conditions they relate to the physical aspect of the project. She asked if the park would be used from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Staff clarified that was the time the applicant stated the park would be open. Commissioner Barrows asked if there was a more minimal use discussed with the applicant as this appears to be the high end of the use. Staff stated discussions were not held on alternatives. Commissioner Barrows stated she too has seen the transition of the Hotel, and she would like to see some alternatives to the current design. 17 Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2007 51. Commissioner Engle stated he too believes this issue needs to be resolved at this meeting. Everyone is opposed to change, but he supports this project. People are coming and putting their money back into the community. The issue of the landscaping maintenance along Eisenhower Drive, however needs to be resolved and strong code enforcement needs to be in place to see that it does not happen again. He believes it is a good project. 52. Chairman Quill stated he appreciates everyone who came out to voice their opinion. He too has been a resident for a long time and has seen the transition of this Hotel. However, he believes not only does the Hotel have the right to change, but it has the obligation to do so. It is important to allow it to grow. If it fails, they have the right to tear it down and try something different; and this is their right. The development of the City . and the golf communities around the Hotel were developed as a result of the Hotel. In regard to this, conditions need to be added to address security and over parking concerns. The berm along Eisenhower Drive needs to be addressed and a full landscape design submitted for approval. From an operation perspective Eisenhower Drive and the bike path should be addressed. A specific written operating plan for the parking lot and security should be added as a condition to be approved by the City. This will be a beautiful plan and the impacts will not be significant. 53. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Engle/Alderson 'to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2007-007 recommending certification of an Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR No. 41), and subsequent CEQA compliance documents, for La Quinta Cove .Golf Club revised Specific Plan 121-E (1975). as amended, prepared for Site Development Permit 2006-865, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Barrows, Engle, and Chairman Quill. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Daniels. ABSTAIN: None. 54. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Engle/Chairman Quill to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2007-008 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2006-865, as recommended and amended: 18 , Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2007 a. Condition added: A written operations plan related to the pool and Avenida Fernando for security for parking shall be submitted and approved by staff. b. Condition added: A landscaping plan for Eisenhower Drive and the bike path to the maintenance facility shall be submitted and approved by staff. c. Condition added: The landscaping on top of the rock mountains features shall be restricted to a height limit. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Engle and Chairman Quill. NOES: Commissioners Alderson and Barrows. ABSENT: Commissioner Daniels. ABSTAIN: None. The motion faile'd. City Attorney Kathy Jenson stated the policy ofthe City is that in a tie vote, the application is automatically a continuance. The missing member would be required to listen to a recording of the meeting and review all the material prepared and submitted. . The options before the Commission are to continue the matter and allow the missing member to vote, or send the application to the City Council with the vote as taken: Discussion followed regarding the options before the Commission. 55. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Alderson/Engle to adopt Minute Motion 2007-move the application forward to the Council with the vote as taken, and with the added conditions. Unanimously approved. Chairman Quill recessed the meeting at 11 :04 p.m. and reconvened at 11 :09 p.m. B. Site Development Permit 2006-874; a request of Komar Investments, L.L.C. 'for consideration of architectural and landscaping plans for seven commercial buildings, for the property located south of Highway 111 at Depot Drive. 1. Chairman Quill opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Planning Manager Les Johnson presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 19 -.----- .... Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2007 2. Chairman Quill asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Alderson asked why the retention basins are not on the site plan. Staff stated they were temporary during the construction of the Costco building. They will go away. Commissioner Alderson stated Building" A" has a 33 foot high architectural element. Is this a legal elevation because it is set back 150 feet? Staff stated the height is consistent with the Specific Plan. 3. Commissioner Engle asked if the applicant was in agreement with all the conditions. Staff stated the applicant would respond to that condition. 4. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Quill asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Clint Knox, representing the applicant, stated they were available for questions. 5. Chairman Quill asked if there was a potential for an access that would cross over the Evacuation Channel. City Attorney Kathy Jenson stated her recollection was that we required an access on the easterly edge at a point to be determined in the future if it was feasible to get to Jefferson Street. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated it was not added to the Specific Plan. 6. Commissioner Barrows asked how the particular feature on Building "B" would provide shade. Mr. Knox stated it is an a'rchitectural element, but it would provide shade. 7. Chairman Quill asked if shading was provided on the plans. Staff noted the west elevations have 12-15 foot trellis covers; the east elevations have less. ,8. Mr. Knox stated they are requesting a change to three conditions in regard to the Costco driveway which the Public Works Department has agreed to. Staff stated that was correct. 9. Comm'issioner Alderson asked if the median allows someone to exit Parcel 4 and go left. Mr. Knox explained you can make a left turn, but it is not a dedicated left turn. It is a right in/right out. The median will be modified. 20 ---.----- Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2007 10. There being no further questions of staff and no other public comment, Chairman Quill closed the public participation portion of the hearing and asked for Commission discussion. 11. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioner Engle/Barrows to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2007-009 approving Site Development Permit 2006- 874, as recommended and amended: ., a. Condition 81. A linear hedge with low maintenance plants shall be installed. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Barrows, Engle, and Chairman Quill. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Daniels. ABSTAIN: None. C. Sign Application 2006-1078; a request of Imperial Sign Company, Inc. for consideration of a proposed sign program for permanent business identification signage and monument sign for Dunes Plaza, located at 79-6401700 Highway 111. 1 . Commissioner Engle noted he had a potential conflict of interest and left the dais. 2. Chairman Quill opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Assistant Planner Yvonne Franco presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 3. Chairman Quill asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Alderson asked what staff objected to on the monument sign. Staff explained the applicant did not provide enough detail and the end elevation did not indicate the width. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated it is just an image that does not give any detail. The Center is very detailed and the monument sign is very simple. Staff is recommending it be redesigned and approved by staff. 4. There being no further questions of staff, the applicant not being present, and no other public comment, Chairman Quill ,closed the public participation portion of the hearing and asked for Commission discussion. 21 ---...---- ... Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2007 5. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioner Alderson/Barrow to adopt Minute Motion 2007-003 approving Sign Application 2006-1078, as recommended. Unanimously adopted. Commissioner Engle rejoined the Commission. VI. BUSINESS ITEM: A. Continued - Notice of Public Nuisance Case No. 2006,5204; a request of Jeffrey S. and Ardis L. Manning for an appeal of a Public Nuisance regarding the violation of a recreational vehicle encroaching on the City right-of-way without a permit, parking in a location not zoned for vehicular parking, being improperly stored on a residential property, and a patio cover that violates the exterior side yard setback for the property located at 52-715 Avenida Navarro. 1. Chairman Quill asked for the staff report. Senior Code Compliance Officer Anthony Moreno presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Quill asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Alderson asked if the appellant had a permit for the spa cover. Staff stated none was ever obtained and the appellant stated the cover was there when they bought the house. 3. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Quill asked if the appellants would like to address the Commission. Mr. and Mrs. Jeffrey Manning, 52-715 Avenida Navarro, stated the patio cover had been removed and was no longer an issue. In regard to the RV, he believes he meets the Municipal Code in regard to the Code requirements. 4. Chairman Quill asked staff for clarification on what was read from the Code by the appellant. Planning Manager Les Johnson stated the location of the RV is not immediately adjacent to or parallel to the driveway as required by the Code'. 5. Ms. Kay Wolff, 77-227 Calle Ensenada, stated she thought the RV needed some kind of shading. What offended her was that it was in complete view of the public. 22 __.. .."'..__ ____...1_____ Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2007 6. Mr. Joe Broido, 77-510 Calle Nogales, stated he dislikes seeing the RV, and reported it to the City. It does not comply with the intent of the City's Ordinance. RVs need to be screened to not be in view of the street. 7. Ms. Ardis Maning, stated the Code does not require the RV to be screened or behind a wall. They offered to plant additional trees and were told by Code Compliance it was not necessary. 8. Commissioner Engle asked if this was within what the Code allows. Staff stated it is within inches. Mr. Maning stated when he parks the vehicle it can be within the one inch and yet another time he may be 1.5 inches over. 9. Commissioner Alderson stated the point is that it is unattractive and asked the definition of a "driveway". City Attorney Kathy Jenson read the definition of a driveway. 10. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Alderson/Barrows to adopt Minute Motion 2007-004 upholding the determination of Public Nuisance Case No. 2006-52. Unanimously approved. VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Report on the City Council meeting of February 6, 2007. X. ADJOURNMENT: ' There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Engle/Barrows to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held on February 27, 2007. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 12:09 a.m. on February 13, 2007. Respectfully submitted, Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California 23 ----- - .,..,_." _1_..1...._... PH#A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: FEBRUARY 27, 2007 CASE NO.: SIGN APPLICATION 2003-720 AMENDMENT 1 APPLICANT: OLD TOWN LA QUINTA, LLC REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE OLD TOWN LA QUINTA SIGN PROGRAM ALLOWING THE PLACEMENT OF SPECIAL EVENT BANNERS LOCATION: MAIN STREET, OLD TOWN LA QUINTA; WEST OF DESERT CLUB DRIVE; EAST OF AVENIDA BERMUDAS; SOUTH OF CALLE TAMPICO GENERAL PLAN: VC - VILLAGE COMMERCIAL ZONING: VC - VILLAGE COMMERCIAL ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THIS SIGN APPLICATION IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15311 (CLASS 11) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CECA) BACKGROUND: Old Town La Quinta is located in the La Quinta Village, bounded on the east by Desert Club Drive, on the west by Avenida Bermudas, and on the north by Calle Tampico (Attachment 1). The Planning Commission approved the Sign Program for Old Town La Quinta on September 24, 2003 (SA 2003-720). La Quinta Municipal Code Section 9.160.090 requires that adjustments to signs previously approved under a planned sign program receive Planning Commission approval. SIGN REQUEST: L The applicant requests that an amendment to the previously-approved sign program be approved for Old Town La Quinta allowing the placement of special event banners. With the exception of temporary banners for new businesses, the sign program for Old Town La Quinta currently prohibits all other signs that are not a part of the sign program. A total of three signs have been applied for as part of this proposed sign program amendment; two special event banners that span over Main Street, and one special event banner attached to two palm trees in the courtyard area adjacent to Main Street. Main Street Banners The street-spanning, double-sided special event banners are proposed at two locations on Main Street (Attachment 2). One banner is proposed to be placed qt the eastern entrance to Old Town La Quinta, at the intersection of Main Street and Desert Club Drive. The other banner is proposed to be placed on Main Street between the Los Altos Building and the Los Gatos Building, near the event lawn. Standard welcoming banners would occasionally be raised; however, date/event- specific banners would be the most utilized. For example, in the off-time between the "Art Under the Umbrellas~ event banner a "Rotary Club Wine Tasting" banner, an "Old Town La Quinta; More Stores Now Open" banner would be put up. Each banner is proposed to be approximately 5 feet in height and 45 feet in length, totaling approximately 225 square feet, and is at a minimum of 20 feet from the street (Attachment 3, Attachment 4). The banners are attached to two steel- braided cables, the top one 1/4" and the bottom 3/16", with snap-on banner clips. The cables are. attached to 3/8" x 7" eyebolts that were anchored into each building frame during construction. Additionally, the cables have turnbuckles which allow the tightening of the cables if necessary. Courtyard Banner The double-sided courtyard banner is proposed to be suspended approximately 10 feet above the ground using rope tied around two palm trees. The banner is approximately 3 feet in height, 8 feet in length, totaling approximately 24 square feet (Attachment 5). The banner would only be used in the days leading up to and during any special events held in Old Town La Quinta. Sign Program Text Addition The applicant proposes the following text be added to the existing sign program (Attachment 6): Event Banners: Old Town La Quinta will display two double-sided banners to promote special events. The event banners will run across Main Street at two locations. Event banners will 6e controlled and maintained by the Landlord and are subject to approval by the City of La Quinta Planning Department. ..------ ..-----.----- ANALYSIS: Municipal Code Compatibility The proposed special event banners for Old Town La Quinta are not specifically addressed in the La Quinta Municipal Codes. The LQMC sign ordinance addresses temporary signs and semi-permanent signs. The proposed banners, as modified by the attached Conditions of Approval, are for special events and are located entirely on private property. Comparatively, LQMC Section 9.160.060 Permitted Temporary Signs allows a maximum 32 square foot grand opening banner for new businesses, attached to the building for a period not to exceed thirty days. LQMC Section 9.160.090 Sign Permit Review gives Planning Commission the opportunity to allow adjustments to sign programs by granting additional sign area, additional numbers of signs, alternative sign locations, alternative types of signage, and new illumination or additional height. Proposal Analysis The following chart shows a comparison of the proposed banners to previously approved signs for major retail tenants along Highway 111 : Kohl's Stater Brothers Marshall's Tar et Bed Bath & Beyond Walmart Sam's Club 193 180 157 186 150 230 167 The banners spanning Main Street are proposed to be 225 square feet, which far exceed the 32 square foot maximum temporary banner size, and are of comparable size to business identification signs for major retail tenants along Highway 111, including Kohl's and Walmart. Additionally, the proposed banners will be utilized for much longer than the defined 30-day temporary time limit, and one of the banners is proposed to be suspended with the use of tree trunks. In other words, the banners are oversized, are not temporary, and are proposed to be placed at locations where temporary signs would be prohibited (between trees). --~---_._- .- Staff Conclusion Ultimately, staff concludes that the concept of special event banners would be beneficial to Old. Town La Quinta. The commercial development is the site of numerous special events, and the strategically-placed banners would be more of an aide than a nuisance to business-owners and constituents alike. However, the placement-duration .and size of the banners are inappropriate. Staff is concerned that allowance of the temporary event banners may result in banners being erected year-round, and is therefore recommending that the special event banners be put up no more than one week (7 days) prior. to each specific event, and taken down within two days of the conclusion of the event. Staff supports the use of a smaller street-spanning banner that only advertises special events. Staff cannot support the allowance of any other banners, including the Main Street Courtyard banner between trees, and the "More Stores Now Open" banners, as they are in direct violation of banner provisions in the La Quinta Municipal Code. Staff recommends that the applicant find an alternative to the tree- hanging Courtyard banner, such as a moveable, ground-mounted kiosk, as staff supports the proposed Courtyard location. Additionally, the use of the special event banners in Old Town La Quinta shall be limited to 180 days per year (365 days). The 225 square foot street-spanning banners are also unsuitable due to size and placement location. Although the submitted exhibits are not-to-scale, by using .the confirmed information (TPM 30850) that the width of Main Street at the eastern banner location is approximately 24 feet from curb to curb and 48 feet from building to building, and the width of Main Street at the western banner location is approximately 24 feet from curb to curb and 60 feet from building to building, staff can conclude that the proposed 45-foot wide, 5-foot tall banners are disproportional to the surrounding environment, which may result in a negative visual impact. This can be alleviated by reducing the size of the street-spanning banners to 18 feet wide by 5 feet in height, totaling 90 square feet each. Reducing the banner width to less than the street width minimizes visual impact and improves proportionality, while maintaining the ability to reasonably advertise special events. Public Notice This project was advertised in The Desert Sun newspaper on February 15, 2007, and mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the site. To date, no comments have been received from adjacent property owners. Any written comments received will be handed out at the meeting. ------- .,_____,._- - FINDINGS As required by LQMC Section 9.210.010 (Sign Programs). Findings to approve Sign Application 2003-720 Amendment 1 can be made and are as follows: A. Sign Application 2003-720 Amendment 1, as recommended, is consistent with the purpose and intent of Chapter 9.160, in that it does not conflict with the standards as set forth in said Chapter. B. Sign Application 2003-720 Amendment 1, as recommended, is harmonious with and visually related to all signs as proposed under the Sign Program, due to the common use of letter type and size, color and location of signs. C. Sign Application 2003-720 Amendment 1, as recommended, is harmonious with and visually related to the subject buildings as the scale of the signs and letter sizes used accentuate the building design. D. Sign Application 2003-720 Amendment 1 ,as recommended, is harmonious with and visually related to surrounding development,. as it .will not adversely affect surrounding land uses or obscure other adjacent conforming signs. RECOMMENDATION Adopt Minute Motion 2007-_, approving the requested signage, subject to the following Conditions of Approval: 1 . The total square footage for each of the banners that span across Main Street shall be no greater than 90 square feet. The applicant shall install the approved banners at the approved locations. The banners shall not extend past the face of curb located on the private street below the proposed banner locations. 2. The event-specific banners shall be erected no sooner than seven days. prior to the event (which shall have an approved Temporary Use Permit or Village Use Permit). and removed no later than two days after the conclusion of the event. Each special event signlbanner shall be applied for as part of the TUP/vUP application for the subject event 3. The use of the special event banners in Old Town La Quinta shall be limited to 180 days per year (365 days). --- -------- -- 4. Letters shall not be closer than 6 inches to the edge (top/bottom/sides) of banners. Maximum letter size shall be 18 inches in height. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Proposed Banner Locations 3. Eastern Banner 4. Western Banner 5. Courtyard Banner 6. Sign Program Text Addition \, PH #8 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: FEBRUARY 27, 2007 CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2006-575 AND ZONE CHANGE 2006-129 APPLICANT: CITY OF lA GUINTA REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM ,~~, MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, 17 FOOT HEIGHT, SINGLE STORY, TO RMI~~//~/101 IN ORDER TO REDUCE THE EXISTING 15 FOOT REAR SETBACK TO 10 FEET LOCATION: MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL,' 17 FOOT HEIGHT, SINGLE STORY, m1 ZONED PROPERTIES lOCATED SOUTH OF AVENIDA lA FONDA, NORTH OF AVENIDA NUESTRA, WEST OF WASHINGTON STREET, AND EAST OF CAllE GUA l:AMAlA. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: MDR (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONING: '~~1 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, 17 FOOT HEIGHT, SINGLE STORY SPECIAL ZONING SYMBOL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: THE lA GUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE BACKGROUND: During the June 13, 2006 public comment portion of the Planning Commission hearing, Mr. Skip lench, 78-120 Calle Estado, Suite 204, requested the Planning Commission consider taking action to reduce the rear yard setback from 15 to 10 feet among a portion of the City (Attachment 1) currently zoned Medium Density Residential with a special zoning symbol limiting homes to 17 feet and a single t RM S ory, 17/1 . This request primarily stemmed from building permits having previously been'issued in error allowing an estimated 20 to 22 new homes to . be constructed in this P:\Reports' PC\2007\2-27-07\ZC 06-' 29\ZC 06-' 29 s1l ,pt.rt! neighborhood with a 10 foot rear yard setback. Mr. Lench suggested this could be . accomplished by rezoning property from Medium Density Residential to Cove Residential. Although Staff recommended no changes to the' existing setback, the Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Lench during the November 28, 2006 public hearing (Attachment 2) and directed staff to prepare a Change of Zone from the current zoning to Cove Residential. Also during the November 28, 2006 meeting, the Planning Commission recommended approval of an ordinance which would cross-reference existing special zoning symbols within the Zoning Ordinance's Residential Table of Development Standards and would mandate their reference on the official zoning map. That item was approved by the City Council on February 20, 2007. ANALYSIS: Changing the zoning to Cove Residential' in order to achieve a reduced 10 foot setback would increase the minimum lot size to 7,200 square feet, increase the minimum lot frontage to 60 feet, and permit a reduced minimum livable floor area. Eighty total lots would be affected by the proposed change of zone. Although there are many similarities, there are some key differences (shaded) between Cove Residential zoning and the use of a Medium Density Residential special zoning symbol with a 10 foot rear setback: RMl20/5/101 17/1 RC Minimum lot size Minimum lot fronta e Maximum structure height 17 ft. Maximum number of stories 1 Minimum front yard setback (non- 20 ft. ara e ortions of dwellin ) Minimum garage setback. 25 ft. (20 ft. w/ roll up) Minimum interior/exterior side yard 5/10 ft. setbacks Minimum rear yard setback Maximum lot coverage Minimum livable floor area for single-family. detached (excluding garage) 000 s 17ft_ 1 20 ft. 25 ft. (20 ft. wi roll up) 5/10 ft. 10 ft. 60% 10 ft. 60% Although the existing Cove Residential zoning district was created after City incorporation, the underlying zoning standards originate from the County. By increasing the minimum lot size and frontage, all but two lots in the neighborhood would become legal non-conforming. Non-conforming lots can have difficulties in P:\Reports _ PC\2007\2-27-07\ZC 06-129\ZC 06-129 s1l ,pt,rt! --- securing insurance and financing for property owners because they are typically unable to rebuild if the house is destroyed by a fire or other disaster. This is one of the reasons why special zoning symbols were created. Special zoning symbols are tools which allow an additional degree of flexibility to existing development standards. Medium Density Residential development standards have a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet and a 15 foot rear yard setback, but also permit a 28 foot high, two story building height. The neighborhood in question matches all of the Medium Density Residential development standards, but includes a special zoning symbol in order to limit homes to 17 feet and a single story. Rather than change the neighborhood to Cove Residential, it is possible to modify the existing special zoning symbol in order to permit a reduced ten foot rear setback and still maintain conforming lot sizes. CONCLUSION: A zone change to Cove Residential is not recommended because it would result in the creation of 78 non-conforming lots which could result in an adverse impact upon the existing neighborhood in regards to potential difficulties with financing and insurance. A reduced rear setback can be achieved without unnecessarily modifying other development standards or creating non-conformities by modifying' the existing special zoning symbol. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2007-_ recommending to the City Council approval of Environmental Assessment 2006-575; and Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2007- recommending to the City Council approval of Zone Change 2006-129, to modify the existing special zoning symbol from: RM 17/1 to RM (20/5/10) 17/1 Prepared by: w J. Mogensen ociate Planner Attachments: 1 . Area Proposed for Rezoning 2. Planning Commission Minutes from November 28, 2006 P:\Reports _ PC\2007\2-27-07\ZC 06-129\ZC 06-129 stf rpt,rt! - ___. -"",,----__'___1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006-. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINT A, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE 2006-129, ADJUSTING THE EXISTING SPECIAL ZONING SYMBOL IN ORDER TO REDUCE THE EXISTING 15 FOOT REAR SETBACK TO 10 FEET ON PROPERTIES LOCATED. WEST OF WASHINGTON STREET, NORTH OF AVENIDA NUESTRA, SOUTH OF AVENIDA LA FONDA AND TO THE EAST OF A BOUNDARY LINE LOCATED 100 FEET WEST OF CALLE GUATEMALA. CASE NO.: ZONE CHANGE 2006-129 APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 27th of February, 2007, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing for a City-initiated request for a Zone Change from RM to RM(20/6/101 17/1 17/1' for certain single-family residential properties located south of Avenida La Fonda, west of Washington Street, north of Avenida Nuestra, and east of a boundary line located 100 feet west of Calle Guatemala, in order to provide for a reduction of the rear setback from fifteen to ten feet, on property more . particularly descri,bed as: Desert Club Tract Unit No.2 WHEREAS, said Zone Change has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63) in that the La Quinta Community Development Department has prepared Environmental Assessment 2006-575 for this Change of Zone in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended. The Community Development Director has determined that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and therefore, is recommending that a Negative Declaration of environmental impact be adopted. A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration was posted with the Riverside County Recorder's office as required by Section 15072 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) statutes.; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department published a public hearing notice in the Desert Sun newspaper on February 17, 2007, as prescribed by the Municipal Code. Public hearing notices were also mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the site; and t. ___..__..____j Planning Commission Resolution 2006- Zone Change 2006-1 29 City of La Quinta February 27, 2007 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings recommending approval: 1. Consistency with the General Plan: The proposed Zone Change is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan in that the Zone Change will not deviate from the existing Medium Density Residential land use identified in the General Plan. 2. Public Welfare: Approval of the proposed Zone Change will not create conditions materially detrimental to public health, safety and general welfare in that the proposed change will not result in a substantial change to the existing open space, nor will it have an effect on the conditions of the existing neighborhood. 3. Land Use Compatibility: The new zoning is compatible with existing and surrounding zoning designations in that it will have no effect on existing land use and will provide for continued single-family development in a manner consistent with the existing character of the neighborhood. 4. Change in Circumstances: Approval of the new zoning is warranted because the resulting setback reduction has been determined to have no impact on the existing residential conditions and will not result in a change to the character of the neighborhood, due to the fact that a significant number of homes have already been constructed with the reduced rear setback. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case. 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Zone Change 2006-129, modifying the special zoning symbol from RM to RM120/61101 in order to reduce the rear setback from fifteen to 1711 17/1' - ten feet, as contained in the attached Exhibit "A",'to the City Council for the reasons set forth in this Resolution. Planning Commission Resolution 2006- Zone Change 2006-1 29 . City of La Ouinta February 27, 2007 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on the 27th day of February, 2007, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PAUL QUILL, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: DOUGLAS R. EVANS Community Development Director City of La Quinta Attachment 2 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA November 28, 2006' 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was reconvened at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Quill who asked Commissioner Daniels to lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Ed Alderson, Katie Barrows, Rick Daniels, Jim Engle, and Chairman Paul Quill. C. Staff present: Planning Manager Les Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston, Associate Planner Andrew Mogensen, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: A. Ms. Signey Cook, 51-470 Calle Jacumba, spoke regarding a lot that was on, her street and was a public nuisance due to the number of large trees that were not being maintained. Chairman Quill informed Ms. Cook to call the Code Compliance Department to determine the status of the case. Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston reviewed the process the City has to go through to abate the nuisance. Ms. Cook then asked how many vehicles a homeowner can have parked on the street. Chairman Quill again suggested she contact the Code , Compliance Department. Ms. Cook then thanked the City for repairing the streets where she lives. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed. IV. CONSENT ITEMS: A. Chairman Quill asked if there were any corrections to the minutes of '. Nov~mber 14, 2006. There being none, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Alderson/Barrows to approve the minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: G:IWPDOCSIPC MinutesI2006111-28:06.doc - -- -------.-- Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2006 A. Zone Change 2006-129; a request of the City for consideration of a reduction of the existing 1 5-foot rear setback to ten feet in the Medium; Density Residential, 17 foot height~ single-story zoned properties located south of Avenida La Fonda, north of Avenida Nuestra, west of Washington Street, and east of Calle Guatamala. H ! J 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 is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Quill asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Daniels asked why one of the recommendations w,as to prepare an Environmental AssesslTlent. Staff explained that recommending denial did not require an environmental assessment. Should the Commission want to approve the change, it would require an environmental review before it could be approved. Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston explained there are a number of criteria that CEQA requires before the zone change can be considered. Anything other than a denial would require an Environmental Assessment. 3. Commissioner Alderson asked if there are any other areas of . concern the Commission should consider for safety such as fire. Staff stated not at this time, but an Environmental Assessment would make those determinations. 4. Commissioner Daniels asked how Public Hearing "B" would relate to this item. Staff stated they were requesting the zoning symbols be corrected to be consistent. It did not directly relate to this request. 5. There being no further questions of staff, 'Chairman Quill asked ,if there was any other public comment. Mr. Robert Ancker, 51- 340 Calle Hueneme, stated he supported the request for the ten foot setback. He has been unable to develop his 'property until this issue is resolved. 6. Mr. Skip Lench, 78-215 Calle Cadiz, gave a history on how this request came forward. He noted all the areas where the ten foot setback is allowed. Typically all 5,000 square foot lots have the ten foot setbacks except this section of the City. If 2 Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2006 the Commission approves the request it would allow them to create a larger front yard. He finds no harm in balancing the rear yard with a ten foot. In his opinion to allow this setback V\iould be fair as all the lots in the adjoining neighborhoods have the ten foot setback. 7. Ms. Sidney Cook, 51-470 Calle Jacumba, asked for an explanation of the request being consid~red. Chairman Quill explained this was a request to consider changing what the !,etback would be for the new homes. 8. Mr. Michael Nelson, 51-460 lIiolo, stated he concurred with Mr. . Lench's comments. ,He agrees this zoning designation should be changed to allow. them the same privilege as the adjoining neighborhoods. He too would like to build on his lot with the ten foot rear setback. He submitted plans to build on his lot and was told he could build with the teri, foot setback. Later, after his plans were completed, he was told it was a 15 foot setback and he would not be able to build the house as designed. 9. There being no further public, comment, Chairman Quill closed the public participation portion of the hearing. . 10. Commissioner Alderson noted that currently approximately 30 percent of the homes are in violation of the rear yard setback. What, costs would be involved in changing the zone. Staff noted the costs that would be involved "in the environmental review. Maximum lot coverage could become an issue and ,needs to be considered in the overall picture. 11 . Commissioner Daniels noted mistakes do happen, but it seems we have seen a rejuvenation of this neighborhood and he is not concerned with the five foot setback reduction. The mechanics of approving the change would not cause any inconsistency with the neighborhood and he would not object to the change. 12. Chairman Quill concurred that ten feet is' the norm for all the lots in the Cove. It does seem that since it works in the Cove, the simplest change would be to remove the RM designation and allow the RC designation. Therefore, the restrictions of the RC zone would then take place. If a lot was merged, you could 3 ------..-..... Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2006 not unmerge them. He would recommend proceeding with an 'environmental assessment to change this to a RC Zone. n 13. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded 'by Commissioner Daniels/Alderson directing staff to prepare an Environmental Assessment changing the zoning to Cove Residential designation. B. Zoning ,Code Amendment 2006-085; a request of the City for consideration of an Amendment to the La Quinta Municipal Code. Sectio,:!9.20.030 and Section 9.50.030 Table 9-2 in order to cross reference existing special zoning symbols in the residential development standards and to mandate their. identification on the Official Zoning Map. 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 is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. There being no questions of staff, Chairman Quill asked if there was any other public comment. 3. There being no further public comment, the public participation portion of the public hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 4. . There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioner Daniels/Barrows to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2006-044 approving Zoning Code Amendment 2006-085, as recommended. ' ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Barrows, Engle, and Chairman Quill. NOES: None. None. ABSTAIN: None. Daniels, ABSENT: VI. BUSINESS ITEM: None VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: 4 -~.__.- _._,.______..._..__1__ Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2006 A. Review of City Council meeting of November 21,2006. 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 December 12, 2006. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 7:58 p.m. on November 28, 2006. Respectfully submitted, Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California -.---....- 5 ._H__~ ___._..........__1 ~ of 4Q.tdMft TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DOUGLAS R. EVANS, COMMUNEY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FEBRUARY 27, 2007 Nftv ' DATE: SUBJECT: COMMUNITY ATTITUDE AND INTEREST CITIZEN SURVEY FINDINGS REPORT Attached please find the above-noted document for your review. This document is being provided in advance, of our Joint Meeting with the Community Services Commission on' March 13'h at 5:00 p.m. The City will provide a light dinner (sandwiches) at 4:00 p.m. in the Community Development Department's Conference Room. Due to the construction at City Hall the Session Room will not longer be available, therefore the Joint Meeting will be in the Council Chambers.