Loading...
2007 09 11 PC cew, of ""~ 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 '" SEPTEMBER 11, 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 2007-038 Beginning Minute Motion 2007-015 . I. CALL TO ORDER A. Flag Salute B. Pledge of Allegiance C. Roll Call II. PUBLIC COMMENT This is the tirne set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled for public hearing. Please complete a "Request 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 August 28, 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 thatitem. 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. A. Item................ Applicant....... .. Location........... Request ........... Action......... ..... B. Item................ Applicant:.....;. . Location........... Request .....:..... Action.........;... . C. Item................ Applicant......... Location........... Request ........... Action......... ..... G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\1 AgendaW.doc VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2006-035 Dan Cline, Forward Architecture and Design, Inc. Northeast corner of Calle Tampico and Desert Club Drive Consideration of architecture and landscaping plans for three retail commercial buildings located on 3.39 acres Request to continue ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 2007-091 City of La Guinta City-wide. Consideration of an Amendment to the time periods allowed between lot line adjustments on the same parcel Resolution 2007- ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 2007-090 City of La Guinta City-wide. Consideration of an Amendment to establish policies and standards for' residential second units; allow apartments in the Medium Density Residential Zone; eliminate mini- storage facilities in all zones; and add language defining and describing Image Corridors in Special Purpose Districts. Resolution 2007- - VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Item................ Applicant........ . Location........... Request......... .. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY FINDING Coachella Valley Water District Various locations throughout the City Consideration of a General Plan conformity for 19 CVWD capital projects pursuant to California Government Code Section 65401 Minute Motion 2007- Action.............. VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Discussion regarding CVWD's new Landscape' and Irrigation System Design Criteria Ordinance B. Review of City Council me.eting of September 4, 2007 IX. ADJOURNMENT: This rneeting of the Planning Commission will be adjourned to a Regular Meeting to be held on September 25,2007, at 7:00 p.m. 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, September 11, 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, September 7, 2007. DA TED: September 7, 2007 )-' J. AWYER, Executive Secretary a Guinta, California G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\ 1 AgendaW.doc - - MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA August 28, 2007 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Alderson who asked Commissioner Barrows to lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Katie Barrows, Rick Daniels, Paul Quill, and Chairman Ed Alderson. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Barrows/Quill to excuse Commissioner Engle. Unanimously approved. C. Staff present: Planning Director Les Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston, Principal Engineer Ed Wimmer, Principal Planners Wallace Nesbit and Andrew Mogensen, Associate Planner Jay Wuu, Assistant Planner Eric Ceja, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: A. Chairman Alderson asked that a presentation on the City Hall expansion be added to the agenda. It was moved and seconded by Commissioner Barrows/Quill to add Item D-a presentation on the City Hall expansion to the agenda. Unanimously approved. IV. CONSENT ITEMS: A. Chairman Alderson asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of July 2( 2007. There being no changes, it was 11l0ved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Barrows to approve the minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved. Vi. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Sign Application 2007-1158; a request of Coronel Enterprises, Inc. for consideration of an Amendment to an existing Sign Program for the Durango Building to allow an increase in sign agenda, change in sign color and to allow for gator foam lettering for the property located at 51- 105 Avenida Villa. P:\Reports - PC\2007\9-1'-07\8-28-07 Minutes.doc I ... Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 2007 1 . Chairman Alderson opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Assistant Planner Eric Ceja presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. 2. Chairman Alderson asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Daniels asked the durability of the material proposed. Staff explained it had been used previously in the City and there have been no maintenance issues to date. Commissioner Daniels asked if maintenance of the sign could be addressed if it became a problem. Staff stated it would be required to be maintained and Code Compliance would be called if there were problems. 3. Chairman Alderson asked if all the requirements for the sign are met per the Zoning Code, why is this application before the Commission? Staff clarified the Zoning Code requires any revisions to an existing Sign Program be agendized as a public hearing before the Commission. 4. There being no further questions of staff, the applicant not being present, and no other public comment, the public hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 5. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Barrows to adopt Minute Motion 2007-014 approving Sign Application 2007-1158, as recommended. Unanimously approved B. Tentative Tract Map 34968, Site Development Permit 2007-888 and Conditional Use Permit 2007-104; a request of East of Madison, LLC, for consideration to subdivide 14.5 acres into 19 numbered lots and one lettered lot ("The Madison Club Villas"); approval of special product types; and architectural and landscaping plans to construct the villa units, located at the southwest corner of Monroe Street and Avenue 52, within The Madison Club. 1. Chairman Alderson opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Associate Planner Jay Wuu presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department 2. Chairman Alderson asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Quill asked for clarification on the use of the lake. 2 -- Planning Commission Minutes August 28. 2007 Staff asked that the applicant answer that question. Commissioner Quill asked the width of the flag lot shared driveway. Staff stated it was 20 feet wide and is a common use or reciprocal easement. 3. Commissioner Daniels asked if the project would be phased. Staff stated it will be phased starting at the southern end of the property, near the Clubhouse. Commissioner Daniels asked staff to identify, on the adjacent tracts, where the existing houses were located and where the lots were vacant. Also, why is the Commission concerned about lots that are vacant. Planning Director Les Johnson stated the homes on the north half of the . Carmela project are constructed and occupied as well as most of Rancho Santana. Commissioner Daniels asked how many of the adjacent lots to the east are built. Staff indicated the location on the map. Discussion followed regarding what currently exists at the site and site distances between the tracts. Commissioner Daniels asked why the perimeter landscaping was being required prior to building permits being issued. . Planning Director Les Johnson stated the perimeter landscaping. is not a direct part of this application. It is independent and staff recognized that it . needs to be installed and mature before occupancy to help soften the impact on the adjacent tracts. Commissioner Daniels asked what views the current homeowners in the adjacent tracts have. Staff stated the City's position has not been to address views, but the impact of the Villa units on the adjacent homes. 4. Commissioner Quill asked if any of the Carmela homes were approved for two-story homes. Staff stated they have a second story outdoor sky-deck with a height limitation of approximately 28 feet. 5. Commissioner Daniels asked if Carmela could come back and request two-story homes. Staff stated yes, they could apply. Staff's opinion was that by requiring the perimeter landscaping to be installed prior to building permit issuance, the landscaping would soften the differential in the heights between the two projects. 6. Chairman Alderson asked if any meetings had taken place between the developer and the adjacent tracts and if there were any issues. Staff stated it was their understanding the meeting went well. Chairman Alderson asked if the lake was part of the storm drain system. Principal Engineer Ed Wimmer stated yes. Chairman 3 - Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 2007 Alderson asked if the Fire Department had reviewed the project and had any concerns. Staff stated their comments were included in the conditions of approval. Chairman Alderson asked if the clustered units would have one central trash area for trash pick-up. Staff stated the applicant would need to address this. Chairman Alderson stated the biggest concern does seem to be the site line between the tracts. To him it is important to see the landscaping . installed early to help shield the adjacent property owners. 7. There being no further questions of the staff, Chairman Alderson asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. John Gamlin, the applicant, gave a presentation on the project. He explained how the trash disposal would be handled. In regard to the lake it is part of the golf course irrigation. In regard to the conditions, they would like to ask that Condition No. 40 of the Tract Map, where it references storm water falling on-site within . the development, that it be clarified to refer to The Madison Club and not the Villas. Condition No.6 of the Site Development Permit should be deleted. This tree is already in use throughout the overall project and they would like to continue using this species. In regard to Condition No.7, they would request it be deleted. He went through a slide presentation on the perimeter landscaping as it related to the adjacent tract lots directly affected, 8. Commissioner Daniels asked if they wanted the landscaping condition changed to require the perimeter landscaping on the b.erm as each phase was constructed. Mr. Gamlin stated they would prefer to have all the landscaping installed prior to a Certificate of Occupancy being issued. 9. Commissioner Quill asked if they could accept a condition that the landscaping be installed prior to a Certificate of Occupancy for Lots 1-4. 10. Commissioner Quill asked the water source. Mr. Gamlin stated they have two allocations from the canal and one for ground water. 11. Chairman Alderson asked the source of the fountains in the courtyards. Mr. Gamlin stated he is unsure, but it should be a common area meter. 4 Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 2007 12. Chairman Quill asked if there was any other public comment. Ms. Kathleen Fitzpatrick, 81-824 Contento Street, within the Carmela project, noted she did not receive notification of the public hearing even though they are within the noticing area. Her concern is the height and massing of the 1 9 homes with each home being two stories in height and significantly higher than their development and Rancho Santana. The proposed landscaping appears to be more of a forest planting rather than a desert landscaping. It is her belief that the massing of the units and proposed plant palette will . adversely affect their home. Lastly, what will happen behind the wall next to the CVWD well site. Will the wall be eight feet or six feet and how will the accesses be addressed. 13. Mr. Tom Berry, 81-609 Hidden Valley Road, stated he did not see any problem with the project. He did buy his home in Rancho Santana for the view, but this project is very attractive. 14. Chairman Alderson asked if Mr. Gamlin would like to address the concerns raised. Mr. Gamlin stated that the density of this project and how it is laid out is offset by how far it is set back from the adjacent tracts; this will reduce any impact on the adjacent tracts. Relative to the berm and landscaping, they have spent an exhaustive amount of time on their perimeter landscaping. Their landscape budget is based on what their water allotment is from CVWD and their requirements are very restrictive. In regard to the well site, CVWD has required them to provide an access on both ends of the site. 15. Commissioner Quill stated the pads adjacent to the well site are at an elevation of 84 and the well site is 88 which is a four foot difference. The well site elevation should be reduced to allow the wall to be eight feet. He would recommend the pad elevation of the well site shall not exceed 84 feet. 16. There being no further questions of the applicant and no other public comment, the public hearing was closed and open for Commissiori discussion. 17. Commissioner Quill stated that in other project approvals, the Commission has restricted adjacent single-story homes to not have two-story homes abutting them. In this instance there is an extensive setback to buffer the height differential. The landscaping is not typically what he would like to see in the desert, but as long as the landscaping along Humboldt is installed 5 -- Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 2007 prior to occupancy of the first house, it is acceptable. He does have a concern about the 32 foot height of the units. 18. Commissioner Daniels stated they have' previously addressed height differences between projects by increasing the setbacks and he does believe this will address the concerns here. The Madison Club has built nothing but excellent products and he believes it is an asset to the community. 19. Commissioner Barrows stated she is concerned about the water usage and believes that putting a bunch of trees in between the . two projects is not a solution. 20. Chairman Alderson stated the problem of two-story units next to 'one-story units has been and will be a continual problem. He does believe the setback is sufficient to offset the concern. This is a double-edged sword; the landscaping is not what is typical to the desert, but it does buffer the site line between the adjacent tracts. In regard to staff's recommendation for the removal of the Pepper trees he has no concern. 21 . Commissioner Quill noted this project is a single-loaded product on the street. Staff needs to make sure that disclosures are being made by the developers that a development could be built adjacent to their project and their view of the mountains could be lost. 22. Chairman Alderson asked if staff could explain why the Fitzpatricks were not notified of the public hearing. Staff stated the standard protocol was followed and a~the Fitzpatricks were a new resident, it could be a timing issue with the County records. 23. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Quill to adopt; Planning Commission Resolution 2007-035 recommending approval of Tentative Tract Map 34968 as recommended and amenqed: ! a. Condition added: The well site pad! shall not exceed 84 feet in elevation adjacent to the Carmela pads. b. Condition 40; Amended to state that the drain water shall come from the Madison Club c. Condition 57: Amended to state prior to a Certificate of Occupancy of the first building." 6 - -- Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 2007 ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Daniels, Quill, and Chairman Alderson. NOES: Commissioner .Barrows. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Engle. 24. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Quill to adopt Planning Commission Resolution' 2007-036 approving Conditional Use Permit 2007-104 as recommended. ROLLCALL: AYES: Commissioners Daniels, Quill, and Alderson. NOES: Commissioner Barrows. None. ABSENT: Commissioner Engle. Chairman ABSTAIN: 25. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2007-037 approving Site Development Permit 2007-888 as recommended and amended: A. Condition No.5: Amended to prior to a Certificate of Occupancy of the first building. B. Condition No.6: Deleted . ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Daniels, Quill. and Chairman Alderson. NOES: Commissioner Barrows. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Engle. BUSINESS ITEMS: None CORRESPONDENCEAND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Discussion of landscaping policies in regard to water features and turf usage. Principal Planner Andrew Mogensen gave a staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development ,Department. 1 . . Commissioner Quill stated he has no objection to reducing the City's coefficient to be equal to what the City of Palm Desert is requiring. He would highly support moving this recommendation to the City Council. 2. Chairman Alderson asked if we moved forward with this requirement, could the landscaping proposed by The Madison Club be approved. 7 Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 2007 3. Commissioner Quill stated no, it would not be allowed, but they could achieve the same affect with a different plant palette. 4. Commissioner Daniels stated he believes we are reaching or limit on bringing the "Oregon" environment to the desert. He would like to see further evaluation for golf courses and sited examples . where water usage has been decreased and been very affective. The lack of turf does not equate to the lack of quality on a course. 5. Planning Director Les Johnson explained that the staff report was- focused on a response to the Commission's request to re-evaluate the water standards. Staff is looking for direction as to how much more aggressive the Commission would like staff to be in evaluating landscaping plans. 6. Commissioner Daniels stated the policy direction in the staff report is a good direction to start. He would continue developing the policies, but get it moving forward to get it adopted. 7. . Planning Director Les Johnson stated that during the General Plan Update, these issues as well as other issues will be addressed. 8. Commissioner Quill asked if the points brought forward by staff were sufficient or should it be taken even further to reduce the .5 co-efficient. If it were changed to .5 it could require the City to hire a staff member to do landscaping calculations. It is under discussion by CVWD, but it is very early in the process. In his opinion, it would not pass Council. He would recommend taking the five water feature issues and the four policy points at this time to work toward a stricter water ordinance. The turf use for open space areas would have a dual purpose. 9. Commissioner Barrows stated she thought the "no turf" option was already a policy. She would also like to move forward with the .5 co-efficient requirement, even recognizing that this would require changes, but to move forward to begin the process. She would also like to have a statement that water features should not be overused. She would hope that when this is presented to the Council the visual presentation is included to show how a project can be successful with a .5 co-efficient requirement. 10. .Commissioner Alderson asked if the plant palette could be more restrictive. 8 Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 2007 11 . Commissioner Daniels stated there should be some flexibility to allow landscape architects to achieve their design purposes. He would recommend that it be brought to the local architects, and the community as well as the City's Architecture and Landscape Review Committee, Planning Commission, and City Council. 12. Chairman Alderson asked about the PM 10 requirements. Staff stated it was being discussed and staff will bring it back to the Commission as well as addressing the water feature and turf issues. B. Discussion of a multi-use trail on Madison Street between Avenue 58 and Avenue 62. 1 . Principal Planner Wallace Nesbit presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. 2. Commissioner Quill stated he believes this is important to make sure the access can be made to have this trail connection. When the next development is up for approval a multi-purpose trail should be required on the west side of Madison Street. 3. Chairman Alderson asked if this was within the right-of-way. 4. Commissioner Quill stated it is within the required setback and the developer is not required to dedicate any land. 5. Staff stated discussions had been held with the Travertine developers that could result in a loop around that project via Avenue 62 to tie back into the trail. 6. Commissioners directed staff to prepare a General Plan Amendment amending Exhibit 3.10 requiring a multi-purpose trail from Avenue 58 to Avenue 62 on the 'west side of Madison Street, across the levy and westerly back to Jefferson Street. C. Staff gave a review of the City Council meeting of August 7, 2007. D. Review of the City Hall expansion. Planning Director Les Johnson reviewed the City Hall expansion plans with the Commission. 9 - Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 2007 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 to be held on September 11, 2007. This regular meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m. on August 28, 2007. Respectfully submitted, Betty Sawyer, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California 10 DATE: CASE NO. : REQUEST: LOCATION: APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: ZONING: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: SURROUNDING ZONING/LAND USE: PH#A . STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 ViLLAGE USE PERMIT 2006-035 CONSIDERATION OF ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPING. PLANS FOR THREE RETAIL COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS LOCATED ON 3.39 ACRES NORTHEAST CORNER OF CALLE TAMPICO AND DESERT CLUB DRIVE DAN CLINE, FORWARD ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN, INC. LA QUINTA ISLAND ASSOCIATES THE LA QUINTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THIS PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO SECTION 15332 (CLASS 32) OF THE. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT IN THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS LESS THAN FIVE ACRES AND is CONSISTENT WITH EXISTING GENERAL PLAN POLICIES AND ZONING REGULATIONS. VILLAGE COMMERCIAL (VCI VILLAGE COMMERCIAL (VCI NORTH: MAJOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES (MC) / ADAMS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL VILLAGE COMMERCIAL (VC) / VACANT VILLAGE COMMERCIAL (VCI / OFFICES VILLAGE COMMERCIAL (VC) / EMBASSY SUITES / CASITAS SANTA ROSA SOUTH: EAST: WEST: P:\Reports - PC\2007\9-11-07\PC staff rpt. VUP 06-035 Continued.doc 1 BACKGROUND: The proposed project site is zoned Village Commercial and is located within a retail commercial designated portion of Specific Plan 94-024 for the existing Duna La Quinta project. The site was intended to be a second phase of the adjacent existing office commercial center, approved under Plot Plan PP 85-217 Amendment #2 on February 21, 1989. The second phase of that project was mass graded, utility lines were installed, and landscaping was planted along Calle Tampico and Desert Club Drive, but the buildings were never constructed. In May of 2005, staff received a Village Use Permit application for a retail building at this location which was later withdrawn. The applicant has requested in writing, that this item be continued to the September 25, 2007 Planning Commission hearing to enable issues with the Public Work Department to be resolved. OVERVIEW: The applicant is proposing to construct three single-story retail commercial buildings, a parking lot, and landscaping on a :t 3.4 acre parcel in the Village District. All of the proposed buildings have a Spanish Contemporary architectural style, consisting of a smooth cement plaster finish painted white with Spanish tile highlights, sage green canopies, and Green Screen brand vertical plant trellises. The proposed commercial center will share internal access and parking with the adjacent existing office building. Major 1, located on the corner of Calle Tampico and Desert Club Drive, is proposed to be a 13,969 square foot specialty grocery store. Shop 1, located along Calle Tampico and east of Major 1, is proposed to be a 6,275 square foot building with up to four tenants. Shop 2, at the rear of the site, is proposed to be, a 12,025 square foot building with up to seven tenants. The applicant is also proposing to construct a landscaped pedestrian plaza with a water feature along Calle Tampico between Major 1 and Shop 1. PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENT: This project was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper and posted on September 1 , 2007. All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice. No comments concerning this item were received fro IT! either the members of the public or outside agencies. RECOMMENDATION: The applicant has requested this item be continued to the next Planning Commission meeting on September 25,2007. P:\Reports - PC\2007\9-11-07\PC staff rpt. VUP 06-035 Continued.doc 2 -- Attachments: 1 . Letter Requesting Continuation Prepared by: A rew J. Mogensen Principal Planner P:\Reports - PC\2007\9-11-07\PC staff rpt. VUP 06-0.35 Continued.doc 3 PHIS PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 CASE NO.: SUBDIVISION CODE AMENDMENT 2007-091 APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE TIME PERIODS ALLOWED BETWEEN LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS ON THE SAME . PARCEL. LOCATION: CITY-WIDE. PROPERTY OWNER: NOT APPLICABLE GENERAL PLANt ZONING DESIGNATIONS: NOT APPLICABLE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REVIEWED THE SUBDIVISION TEXT AMENDMENT UNDER THE ~ROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THE AMENDMENT IS .EXEMPT PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 2.6, SECTION 21080 OF THE PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE, CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT STATUTES, AND SECTION 15061 (B){3l, REVIEW FOR EXEMPTIONS OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES. SURROUNDING LAND USES: NOT APPLICABLE PROPOSAL: In the day-to-day processing of applications, City staff has .:encountered an issue within the existing Subdivision Ordinance, which is in need of modification. In order to modify these standards, staff has developed the following Amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance. Currently, the Subdivision Ordinance, Section 13.32.020(C), reads: "C. The applicant and/or owner of the property has not received approval of a lot line adjustment affecting any of the lots to be altered, or lots abutting any of the lots to be altered, for a period of 12 months immediately preceding the date of the current application." This Subdivision Code Amendment will modify this Section by reducing the time frame between lot line adjustments from twelve months to six months, except for properties zoned commercial, in which case there will be. no time limit. Section 13.32.020(C) would read: C. The applicant and/or owner of the property has not received approval of a lot line adjustment affecting any of the lots to be altered, or lots abutting any of the lots to be altered, for a period of twelvo six months immediately preceding the date of the current application, unless. the property is zoned Neighborhood Commercial, Community Commercial, Regional Commercial, Office or Business Park, in which case there shall be no time restriction between lot line adjustments. ANALYSIS: The proposed Amendment will eliminate unnecessary time delays for future developments. The change facilitates staff review procedures for lot line adjustments in the future. Staff has found that in its practical application, the demand for lot line adjustments is small and that in the case of commercially zoned parcels, a time restriction has sometimes been an issue. This is particularly the case in a developing commercial center, where the needs of a particular tenant require the adjustment of a,lot to accommodate the tenant's needs for floor space and parking. Since the need for such amendments is entirely tied to the market conditions at the time, staff does not believe that the imposition of time restrictions is practical. The proposed Amendment is consistent with the General Plan's goals and policies supporting high quality development in the City in general. Public Notice This request was published in the Desert Sun newspaper on August 31, 2007. To date, no letters have been received. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: Findings to recommend approval of this request can be made and are contained in the attached Resolution. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2007-_, recommending approval of Subdivision Code Amendment 2007-091 to the City Council. Attachments: 1. Municipal Code Section13.32.020 Applicability, Amended Prepared by: ~ . PH#C PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 CASE NO.: ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 2007-090 APPLICANT: . CITY OF LA QUINTA REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO ESTABLISH POLICIES AND STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL SECOND UNITS; ALLOW APARTMENTS IN THE MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONE; ELIMINATE MINI-STORAGE FACILITIES IN ALL ZONES; AND ADD LANGUAGE DEFINING . AND DESCRIBING IMAGE CORRIDORS IN SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICTS. LOCATION: CITY WIDE PROPERTY OWNER: NOT APPLICABLE GENERAL PLANI ZONING DESIGNATIONS: NOT APPLICABLE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REVIEWED THE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THE AMENDMENT IS EXEMPT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15061 (B)(3) AND SECTION 15282{H) OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES. SURROUNDING LAND USES: NOT APPLICABLE BACKGROUND: City staff has encountered a number of issues within the existing Zoning Code, which are in need .of modification. In order to clarify these standards, staff has developed an Amendment to the Zoning Code pertaining to second units on single- family lots, apartments in the Medium Density Residential zone, mini-storage facilities and the standards associated with Image Corridors in the Special Purpose Districts. PROPOSAL: The proposed Amendment will consist of four separate components. First is a text Amendment re-drafting provisions of the Residential Second Units section of the Cpde. The second adds apartments as a permitted use in the Medium Density Residential zone. The third removes mini-storage facilities from all zoning districts. The fourth clarifies the zoning standards of Image Corridors in the Special Purpose Districts. Residential Second Units Minor Use Permits. will no longer be required for approval of second units, casitas, guesthouses or similar facilities. The approval will now be administrative, and part of the building permit plan check process conducted by the Planning Department. This Amendment will also combine "2nd units" and "granny flats" together under a single new zoning category of "Second Residential Units." Section 9.60.090 has also been re-written to conform with California Government Code Section 65852.2, which regulates residential second units. The text Amendment is Attachment 1. Apartments in the Medium Density Residential Zone As currently drafted, the Medium Density Residential zone prohibits apartments. The proposed Amendment would add apartments as a permitted use in the zone by amending Section 9.80.040, Table of Permitted Uses. Mini-Storage Facilities: This Amendment would amend Section 9.80.040, Table of Permitted Uses, to remove mini-storage facilities from being permitted in any zoning district in the City. Only existing facilities will be allowed to remain, and these will not be allowed to expand, as will be considered legal non-conforming uses. The Table, with the Amendment shown, is attached to this staff report as Attachment 2. Image Corridors in the Special Purpose Districts: This Amendment clarifies within Section 9.130.010 Table of Development Standards, for the Special Purpose Districts, the requirements for Primary Image Corridors. ANALYSIS: The proposed Amendment will result in improved development standards and minimize confusion. Residential Second Units As the Planning Commission is aware, a number of projects have been proposed which include "casitas", similar guest houses, or second units on single-family lots. In the past, a Min6r Use Permit was required for each of these units, unless a condition of approval for a Specific Plan or ,Site Development Permit specifically allowed a Master Minor Use Permit. This requirement, particularly when considering the number of casitas proposed within projects in recent times, has resulted in considerable work for staff. The proposed Amendment would eliminate Minor Use Permit requirements for the second units, and allow staff to simply review the units as part of the building permit process. At that time, staff will assure that minimum standards, such as setbacks, height and parking, are consistent with Section 9.60.090 and 9.60.100. This Amendment will reduce staff workload, and eliminate a bureaucratic hurdle for residential developers. In addition to the administrative Amendment, staff has also reviewed Section 9.60.090 (Second Residential Units), and found it to be inconsistent with Assembly Bill 1866, enacted in 2003, which amended two sections of the Government Code (65852.2, and 65583.1). These changes were designed to clearly define second units as all types of independent units (those including cooking and sanitary facilities) located on a single-family lot in addition to the primary residence, and to encourage the creation of second units as an affordable housing opportunity. The law eliminates distinctions in local ordinances between granny flats and second units, and prohibits restrictions such as rental prohibitions, which had been established in many jurisdictions. Attachment 2 is consistent with State law, and would replace the current text of Section 9.60.090 in the Zoning Code. The distinction between a "casita", "guest house" and a "second unit" is that the second unit has a kitchen or kitchenette. As with the previous Ordinance, the units can be up to 30 percent of the size of the primary unit (with a minimum size of 400 square feet, and a maximum of 1,200 square feet). A limitation of no more than two bedrooms has been added. The amendment. further defines that in the Cove Residential, Medium Density Residential, Medium High Density Residential and High Density Residential zones, only one guest house or second residential unit may be. permitted on a lot, in addition to the main residence. In the Very Low Density Residential and Low Density Residential zones, however, more than one guest house and/or second residential unit may be permitted, with approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Staff has previously had requests for some of the City's larger lots and larger homes to allow multiple guest houses or second units, which may be requested for both guests and household staff. If the lot is of sufficient size, and all the development standards can be met, staff believes that multiple units may be appropriate. The requirement for a Conditional Use Permit assures that the compatibility with the neighborhood will be, reviewed should such a request be made. At least one additional parking space per second unit will be required, over and above those parking $paces required for the primary unit. All units will still be' required to meet standard zoning setbacks and regulations for both the primary and secondary units. Finally, in order to eliminate an inconsistency in the Zoning Code, it is proposed that the definition of. Guest House found in Section 9.280.030: "Guest house means a detached unit which has sleeping and sanitary facilities but no cooking facilities and which is used primarily for sleeping purposes by members of the family occupying the main building, their nonpaying guests, and domestic employees. " be changed to be consistent with the definition of Guest House found. in the development standards for this use, Section 9.60.100: "Guest house" means a detached or attached unit which has sleeping and sanitary facilities but no cooking facilities and which is used primarily for sleeping purposes by members of the family occupying the main building, their nonpaying guests, and domestic employees. All proposed amendments are provided in Attachment 1. Apartments in Medium Density Residential Zone As currently drafted, the Zoning Code prohibits apartments in the Medium Density Residential (MDR) zone. The MDR zone has a density of 0 to 12 units per acre, which can easily accommodate apartments. In addition, the General Plan defines the MDR designation as being appropriate for "attached and detached units on small lots, condominiums, townhomes and apartments..." Therefore, the General Plan clearly envisioned that apartments would be allowed in the zone. The proposed Amendment changes Table 9.80.040 to allow apartments as a permitted use. As required by the Zoning Code, apartments would be subject to the requirements of the Site Development Permit process for. site and architectural design. Mini-Storage Facilities The proposed Amendment will prohibit mini-storage/self-storage facilities in all zones. The use is currently permitted only in the Commercial Park zone. The Commercial Park zone'is south of the Whitewater Channel, between Adams Street i and Dune Palms Road, and south of Avenue 47, east of Dune Palms to the eastern City limits. The land use has extremely limited benefits for the City economically, and has limited potential for development, given the limited amount of vacant Commercial Park lal'ld! remaining in the City. Existing self-storage facilities in and around the City appea~ to be filling the need for such facilities. Image Corridor Requirements in Special Purpose Districts For reasons unknown to staff, the landscaping setback requirements for projects in the Special Purpose Districts (Parks and Recreation, Golf Course, Equestrian Overlay, among others; please see Section 9.140 et. seq. for all districts included) as they relate to Primary Image Corridors are not provided in the development standards table (Section 9.130.010, Table 1301). The Amendment proposes to add these requirements, consistent with how they are shown in the commercial and residential districts. The change will simply clarify existing requirements, and facilitate land owners' and developers' understanding of the standards in these zones. Public Notice This request was published in the Desert Sun newspaper on September 1, 2007. To date, no letters have been received. Public Agency Review A copy of this request has been sent to all applicable public agencies and City Departments. All written comments received are on file :with the Department. Applicable comments have been included in the proposed Amendment. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: Findings to recommend! approval of this Amendment can be made and are contained in the attached Resolution. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2007- recommending approval. of Zoning Code Amendment 2007-090 to the City Council. Attachments: 1. Section 9.40.040, Table 9-1, Table of permitted uses (amending second units), Amendment text, Section 9.60.090, Residential Second Units and . Section 9.280, Definitions. 2. Section 9.80.040, Table 9-5,Table of permitted uses (deleting Mini-storage) 3. Section 9.130.010, Table 9-9, Table of development standards (image corridors) Prepared by: BI#A STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 REQUEST: FINDING OF GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY FOR 19 CVWD CAPITAL PROJECTS PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65401 LOCATION: VARIOUS LOCATIONS THROUGHOUT THE CITY APPLICANT: COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT/CITY OF LA QUINTA BACKGROUND California Government Code Section 65401 requires that any agency responsible for planning and construction of major public works projects, must submit a list of such projects for the ensuing fiscal year to the jurisdiction in which they are to be located. It also requires that the jurisdiction's planning agency review and report to the official agency (i.e. Planning Commission) on the conformity of said project(s) with the adopted General Plan. PROPOSED PROJECTS Nineteen Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) projects are proposed in their Capital Improvement- Projects in the next fiscal year for La Quinta (Attachment 1). Please note that not all projects are installations; some are pilot studies, acquisition and repair actions, and some are related to Valley-wide system maintenance. FINDINGS Several General Plan policies are applicable and are referred to for conformance determination, as follows: LAND USE ELEMENT . Policy 6 (General Land Use Goals, Policies, and Programs) ...identifies . the. encouragement of in-fill development by placing capital improvement projects in the developed areas of the City as top priorities. The proposed CVWD projects accommodate this policy in that such infrastructure projects are proposed within developed areas within the City. . TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT . Policy 8 (Traffic and Circulation Goal, Policies, and Programs) ...identifies that the City shall coordinate with the Coach ell a Valley Water District and its consultants to assure the provision of all-weather crossings along critic!,!1 roadways. The proposed CVWD projects accommodate this policy in that projects are proposed along critical roadways within the City. NATURAL RESOURCES ELEMENT . Several projects proposed by CVWD will address and implement many Policies of this element, such as the promotion of groundwater recharge efforts, and the coordination with CVWD related to review of projects which impact drainage channels. INFRASTRUCTURE AND PUBLIC SERVICES ELEMENT . Several projects proposed by CVWD will address and implement many Policies of this element, such as adequate supplies of potable and irrigation water sources and flood protection. ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS ELEMENT . Several projects proposed by CVWD will address and implement many Policies of this element, such as connections to CVWD sewage collection systems, waste water collection and treatment. RECOMMENDATION Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2007 - _, confirming a finding of conformity with the La Quinta General Plan for various Coachella Valley Water District capital improvemen projects to be, located throughout the City: Prepared by: JAY Associate Planner Attachments: 1. CVWD Project Listing