The URL can be used to link to this page

2006 11 28 PC-WA I Planning Commission Agendas are now available on the City's Web Page @ www.la-guinta.org PLANNING COMMISSION A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California NOVEMBER 28, 2006 7:00 P.M. **NOTE** ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING Beginning Resolution 2006-044 Beginning Minute Motion 2006-030 CALL TO ORDER A. Flag Salute B. Pledge of Allegiance II. PUBLIC COMMENT This is the time 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 November 14, 2006. 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. A. Item ................ ZONING CHANGE 2006-129, Applicant ......... City of La Quinta Location .......... City-wide Request ........... Consideration of a reduction of the existing 15-foot rear setback to ten feet Action ............. Resolution 2006- B. Item ................ ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 2006-085 Applicant ......... City of La Quinta Location .......... City-wide Request ......,..... Consideration of an Amendment to the La Quinta Municipal Code Section 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. Action ............. Resolution 2006- VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: None VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None Vlll. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Review of City Council meeting of November 21, 2006 IX. ADJOURNMENT: This meeting of the Planning Commission will be adjourned to a Regular Meeting to be held on December 12, 2006, 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 Quinta, do hereby declare that the foregoing Agenda for the La Quinta Planning Commission meeting of Tuesday, November 28, 2006, was posted on the outside entry to the Council Chamber, 78-495 Calle Tampico and the bulletin board at the La Quinta Cove Post Office, on Wednesday, November 22, 2006. DATED: November 22, 2006 BE AWYER, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California Public Notices The La Quinta 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\1 AgendaW.doc MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA November 14, 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 Mr. Chuck Shephardson to lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Ed Alderson, Katie Barrows, and Chairman Paul Quill. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Barrows/Alderson to excuse Commissioners Daniels and Engle. C. Staff present:. Community Development Director Doug Evans, Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston, Planning Manager Les Johnson, Development Services Principal Engineer Ed Wimmer, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate Planner Andrew Mogensen, Assistant Planners Jay Wuu and Eric Ceja, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed. A. Chairman Quill asked if there were any corrections to the minutes of October 24, 2006. There being none, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Alderson/Barrows to approve the minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None. A. Sign Application 2006-1015; a request of Prest/Vuksic Architects for consideration of a Sign Program to serve Caleo 'Bay, for the property located on the west side of Caleo Bay, north of Avenue 48. 1. Chairman Quill reopened the public hearing and askedfor the staff report. Assistant Planner Eric Ceja presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. (,-\wPnnrq%Pr Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 2006 2. Chairman Quill asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Alderson asked if the sign approval was for location and size restrictions and not for particular tenants. Staff stated yes. 3. Commissioner Barrows asked if the landscaping lighting would remain on all night. Staff stated no, it would be turned off at 10:00 p.m. Staff has recommended the signage be off at 9:00 p.m. and landscaping lighting be turned off at 10:00 p.m. 4. Commissioner Alderson asked if the revised sign program submitted by the applicant at this meeting, had any major changes to the program they received in their packet. Staff explained the changes being proposed by the applicant. 5. Chairman Quill asked about the parking lot lighting. Staff stated the landscape lighting included the parking lot lighting. Chairman Quill asked if public safety had any concerns. Staff stated no comments had been received. 6. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Quill asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. John Vuksick, representing the applicant, gave a presentation on the program and reviewed the revisions they were proposing. 7. Commissioner Alderson asked if the applicant had any objections to the conditions. Mr. Vuksick stated yes. 8. Chairman Quill asked if they were objecting to the parking lot lights being turned off. Mr. Vuksick stated they did not consider parking lot lighting, by itself, in regard to when they would be turned off. It is their understanding that only the landscaping and signage lighting would be turned off. 9. Chairman Quill asked if there was any other public comment. Mr. Bill Ivy, 78-655 Descanso Lane, representing Rancho La Quinta Homeowners' Association (HOA), thanked the applicant for working with them in regard to this application. In regard to the parking lot lighting, they would like the same type of lighting as what is installed at Walgreens. They agree with the sign program as submitted. 10. There being no further public comment, Chairman Quill closed the public participation portion of the hearing. 2 Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 2006 11. Commissioner Alderson stated the address numbers on the building are the same color as the building making it difficult to read. There should be a contrast between the two. 12. Chairman Quill asked staff to verify the parking lot lighting was approved under the original approval for the center. Staff confirmed. 13. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioner Barrows/Alderson to adopt Minute Motion 2006-027 approving Sign Application 2006-1015, as recommended and amended: a. Condition added: the revised sign program submitted by the applicant was approved. Unanimously approved. B. Site Development Permit 2006-876; a request of Trans West Housing, Inc. for consideration of typical landscaping' plans for residential production units within Griffin Ranch located within proposed Tentative Tract Map 32879 and 34642, south of Avenue 54, east of Madison Street, west of Monroe Street, and north of the Greg Norman Course. 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 the applicant would like to address the Commission. Ms. Marty Butler, representing the applicant, introduced Mr. Chuck Shepardson, landscape architect, who stated they agreed with staff's recommendations and were available to answer any questions. Mr. Shepardson explained they were not providing .landscape options for the property owners in order to retain continuity throughout the development. 3. Commissioner Alderson asked if the equestrian trail landscaping would be different. Mr. Shepardson stated no, it would just have less turf. 3 Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 2006 4. Commissioner Barrows asked if the sprinkler heads would be set back from the road. Mr. Shepardson stated yes, 18-inches. Commissioner Barrows asked if, there was,a design to have turf next to the house. Mr. Shepardson stated it is not a preferred design due to problems that have come up. 5. Chairman Quill asked if there was curb and gutter. Mr. Shepardson stated there is a rolled curb. 6. Commissioner Alderson asked if the HOA could override the applicant in regard to the landscaping. Ms. Butler stated they are the HOA and the CC&R's will dictate the design. 7. Chairman Quill asked if there was any other public comment. There being none, the public participation portion of the public hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 8. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioner Alderson/Barrows to adopt Minute Motion 2006-028 approving Site Development Permit 2006-876, as recommended. Unanimously approved. C. Conditional Use Permit 2006-101; a request of La Quinta Playhouse for consideration of temporary structures to conduct seasonal live play productions, for the property located at 78-059 Calle Estado; between Desert Club Drive and Avenida Bermudas. 1. Chairman Quill opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Assistant Planner Jay Wuu 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 staff to explain the conflict between the Temporary Use Permit and Conditional Use Permit. Staff explained the reasoning for both permits. 3. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Quill asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Reg Sentell, representing the La Quinta Playhouse, gave a presentation on the project. He requested that when the 4 Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 2006 season terminates they have seven days to remove the tent and bring the lot back to its original condition. They are requesting 14 days instead of the seven required in the conditions. Second request is that the "crowd pleaser" portable toilets were unattainable and they are looking for other sources, therefore, they are requesting to be allowed to use the standard toilets until such time as they find a different source. Lastly, they are questioning whether or not they should have a re -inspection of the property and tent. Planning Manager Les Johnson stated the Building and Safety Department will not be requiring any for this season, but the Community Development Department may in regard to the aesthetics to all of the conditions. Mr. Sentell stated they would ask for the Fire Department to make a final inspection. They would also like to ask for Commission approval to install lattice work with a small gate to soften the look between the tent and the trailer. On the other side of the tent they would like to install a staggered lattice panel wall to soften this.side as well. 4. Chairman Quill asked if there. was any other public comment. There being none, the public participation portion of the public hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 5. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioner Barrows/Alderson to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2006-040 approving Conditional Use Permit 2006-101, as recommended and amended: a. Condition 24: Modified to 14 days b. Condition added: Additional lattice screening shall be allowed as requested by the applicant ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Barrows, and Chairman Quill. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Daniels and Engle. ABSTAIN: None. D. Site Development Permit 2006-870; a request of Craftsmen Homes for consideration of architectural and landscaping plans for three prototypical residential plan types for use in Tract 32751 located on the west side of Jefferson Street, south side of Pomelo in the Citrus Course project. 1. Chairman Quill opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information 5 Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 2006 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 casitas units in conjunction with the two-story homes will violate the height limitations. Staff stated they are subject to the 22-foot height limits and the two-story units will need to be placed on the lots furthest to the west. The lots adjacent to Jefferson Street are subject to the height limit. 3. Commissioner Barrows asked about the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee (ALRC) condition for a no -turf option for landscaping if the Homeowners' Association (HOA) will not allow it. Staff stated the HOA has stated they will not allow the no turf option, but staff left the condition in, however if the HOA CC&R's do not allow it and the HOA wants to enforce it, it was their option. The City would leave the condition. 4. Chairman Quill asked if the HOA was asked about the no -turf requirement. Staff stated the HOA was present and could answer this question. 5. Commissioner Alderson noted there were several different finishes to the landscape and hardscape as noted on the elevations; were these actually going to be constructed or was it artistic license. Staff .stated the applicant would need to answer these questions. 6. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Quill asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Scott Shaddix representing Craftsman Homes, stated the landscaping plans will have the artistic designs as noted on the plans. In regard to the casita units, it is an option to the property owner. They also want to allow landscape options to the property owners. In regard to the wall, it was originally required to be straightened, but through the process of working wit the different agencies they resolved the issues for the fire access. To resolve these issues they made the fire access within the project and the retention basins are a major part of the overall development. In order to move forward with the tract, the retention basins design is a major improvement for the entire community. To maintain this position the retention basins IJ Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 2006 basins need to remain as designed. This requires the wall to remain as it is currently constructed. This is also the desire of the HOA. Another condition is the requirement for an additional noise analysis to ensure the wall height meets to comply with outdoor noise requirements. This was not in the original conditions they reviewed. In regard to the wall, it was their I nderstanding that moving the wall does not allow the safety factor they need for the design. The staff reports states moving the wall is not a major issue. To them it is; it is a safety factor to them. Lastly, Attachment 3, paragraph 2 of the staff report, it was his understanding they could work with the City to allow for the wall relocation to be an administrative issue. Now, the report states it must be straightened out. 7. Commissioner Barrows asked staff to clarify where the conditions were in regard to the wall. . Staff stated the wall condition the applicant is referring to is part of the original tentative tract map approval. The Commission has no ability to change that at this time. The applicant can apply to change the conditions to the tract map if they chose to. 8. Chairman Quill stated the wall is inside the right-of-way of the existing Jefferson Street landscaping. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated the intent of the condition is to validate that the existing wall, as old as it is, will provide enough sound attenuation to comply with State law. If the units do not meet the criteria, and the property owners will be asking the City to build the wall the applicant should have built. It is a mitigation measure. It is not something that staff would or could adjust. Mr. Shaddix stated his request was for that portion of the wall that jets out only. It is also his understanding, that this portion of the wall was under the ownership of the HOA. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated the original condition was discussed at the original public hearings for approval of the tentative tract map. 9. Chairman Quill stated the City will make sure that the wall meets the noise condition and the need for the wall to jet out no longer exists. 10. Chairman Quill asked if there was any other public comment. Mr. Robert Crowell, 79-890 Citrus Street, current President of HOA, for the Citrus Course, stated that in regard to the wall relocation, he does not understand why there is a need to move 7 Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 2006 it. It is his understanding that the applicant will need to do a noise study to determine noise levels. Why does that affect the moving of the wall? Chairman Quill stated one concern is the aesthetics and the setbacks the City wants along its Arterial streets. It is the City's desire to have a parkway that is consistent with the remainder Jefferson Street. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated it is a community design standards, and it was debated during the public hearing when the tract was approved and decided it should be moved back. Chairman Quill stated the retention basin is in a position that it could drain into the street if it exceeds its design capacity. Development Services Principal Engineer Ed Wimmer stated that in discussions with the applicant's engineer for the project, he stated the retention could comply, it would just require a redesign. Mr. Crowell stated the HOA objected was because the landscaping did not comply with the architectural standards for Citrus Course. Having turf would be consistent with the rest of the community. They went to CVWD and they stated that since there was a grandfather condition, they would allow limited turf. Chairman Quill asked if anyone came to the HOA requesting front yard desert landscaping they would be denied. Mr. Crowell stated they would deny the request. 11. Mr. Cary Smith 50-965 Mandarina, stated this developer has done a very good job on this project to date. However, in his opinion not enough attention has been given to the traffic impact to Mandarina. He would request the City take a look at the traffic concerns that these 49 homes will create on this street. 12. Mr. Mark Mandella, 51-055 Mandarina, stated he concurred with Mr. Smith's concern. This area was originally to be a golf hole. The traffic will be an awkward as well as dangerous. In addition, he does not understand the house plans with the granny flat do not qualify for a two-story home. This is inconsistent with every home in the Citrus. 13. Mr. Scott Shaddix stated that if you review the plans you will see that the plan is not a two-story unit. 14. There being no further public comment, the public participation portion of the' public hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 3 Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 2006 15. Commissioner Alderson stated the traffic concerns would have been debated during the tract map approval. Staff stated that was correct. In regard to the casitas unit, it is only an option. Staff noted they are allowed to have this design. 16. Commissioner Barrows stated she was unsure why we were requiring a no turf option that will have no validity. Staff stated the applicant will have to accept the condition if it is placed on the project. 17. Chairman Quill asked for clarification on the roof tile; is it a two piece mudded or clay tile. Staff stated it is a one-piece mudded clay tile. 18. Chairman Quill reopened the public hearing. Mr. Shaddix stated there will be five different landscape plans. These plans were worked out with the HOA and CVWD to have symmetry and balance. He is not sure a no turf option can be used. 19. Chairman Barrows stated that in the City's standards it is a requirement and an important consideration of the City and Valley as well. 20. There being. no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioner Barrows/Alderson to adopt Minute Motion 2006-029 'approving Site Development Permit 2006-870,, as recommended. Unanimously approved. E. Right -of -Way Vacation 2006-014 and Street Vacation 2006-042; a request of East of Madison, LLC for a report of finding under California Government Code Section 65402 that the proposed Right-of- Way/Street Vacation of a ±3,117-foot length of Avenue 53 is consistent with the General Plan. 1 . Chairman Quill opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Development Services Principal Engineer Ed Wimmer 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 remainder piece would remain to service the adjacent community. Staff stated the 9 Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 2006 remainder will remain a public street and the Carmella development will take access off of it. This is an approval needed for the applicant to go ahead with their tract approval. 3. Chairman Quill asked if there was any other public comment. There being none, 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 Barrows/Alderson to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2006-041 approving Right -of -Way Vacation 2006-014 and Street Vacation 2006-042, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Barrows, and Chairman Quill. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Daniels and Engle. ABSTAIN: None.. F. Zoning Code Amendment 2006-088; a request of the City for consideration of an Amendment to Chapter 9, Section 9.140.080- Supplemental Regulations of the La Quinta Municipal Code regulating the development and usage of future condominium hotel units in Tourist Commercial Districts. 1 . Chairman Quill opened the public hearing and asked for the staff. report. Community Development Director Doug Evans 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 other cities were dealing with the same issue. Staff noted other cities that were, or have been discussing how to handle the issue. Commissioner Alderson asked if you owned one of these units, can you legally dictate the use of the unit. Staff stated yes; the owner is not required to participate through the hotel. They can choose an independent agent, but the keys must be kept by the hotel. If they chose not to participate with the hotel, they would still be required to pay the resort fees for the expected Transient .Occupancy Tax (TOT) fees. 3. Commissioner Barrows asked if the revised Resolution contained the changes requested by staff. Staff stated these are refinements as dictated by the City Attorney. Commissioner 10 Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 2006 Barrows asked if this was an existing condition in other cities. Staff stated it is in Indian Wells Ordinance and other cities as well. The City would prefer they remain traditional hotels. In the City's research it was found that the gap financing to make a traditional hotel work would not be cost effective for the City. Staff reviewed a broad spectrum of financing options and believe this was the best solution. 4. Chairman Quill asked if the City has an ordinance for fractional time-share units in regard to TOT. Staff stated there are none currently in the City and this is the purpose of this ordinance. 5. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Quill asked if there was any other public comment. Mr. Rob Bernheimer, representing the Lake La Quinta Inn, stated he was also a Council Member for the City of Indian Wells and discussed how they were handling this issue. In regard to the Lake La Quinta Inn, this is a 12 unit Inn that has not been successful for the owner, or in regard to TOT for the City., They would ask that Section 1.1 be changed to "...all existing hotels in excess of 20 rooms". He does not want to explore what this hotel intends to do, they just want to preserve their right to do something. 6. Chairman Quill asked if the Council adopts this Ordinance as it is presented, is there any option for an applicant to ask for an ordinance to be waived in any situation that would be unique. Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston stated a variance would not be applicable in this instance. The mechanism would be to amend the ordinance. 7. There being no further public participation portion of the public hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 8. Commissioner Alderson asked if this was going to the Council. Staff stated yes. 9. Commissioner Barrows asked if the Lake La Quinta Inn was a hotel. Staff stated it is a hotel. Commissioner Barrows asked if Mr. Bernheimer's request was reasonable. Staff stated there are some fundamental difficulties to this site that make it challenging relative to the activities and intent. If a business plan does not work for the condo hotels, as it does not work for the current use, the owners will do things that do not comply with their permits to make it survive. There are some 11 Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 2006 challenges to this property to allow it to convert to a condominium hotel. 10. Commissioner Barrows asked if the Ordinance is approved as drafted, the Inn could come back asking it to be amended. 11. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioner Alderson/Barrows to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2006-042 approving Zoning Code Amendment 2006-088, as recommended with consideration explore the ramifications of allowing the less than 20 units. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Barrows, and Chairman Quill. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Daniels and Engle. ABSTAIN: None. G. Development Agreement 2006-012; a request of the City for consideration of a Development Agreement 'establishing the fees associated with condo -hotel occupancy at the proposed boutique hotel at SilverRock Resort located at the southwest corner of Jefferson Street and Avenue U. 1. Chairman Quill opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Community Development Director Doug Evans 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 Barrows asked what the water agreements entail. Staff clarified there is a Master Agreement on the site and this requires each developer to follow through with the Master Agreement with CVWD. 3. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Quill asked if there was any other public comment. There being none, 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 Barrows/Alderson to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2006-043 approving Development Agreement 2006-012, as recommended. 12 Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 2006 ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Barrows, and Chairman Quill. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Daniels and Engle. ABSTAIN: None. BUSINESS ITEM: None VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. IX. 1:4 COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Staff asked if the Commission would prefer to go dark for the meeting of December 26, 2006. Commissioners unanimously voted to go dark for this meeting. B. Review of City Council meeting of November 7, 2006. C. Commissioner Barrows asked Program. Staff explained th considered. ADJOURNMENT: e about the Lighting Ordinance Work process that .was currently being There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Barrows/Alderson to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held on 'November 28, 2006. This meeting of the Planning Commission Was adjourned at 9:31 p.m. on November 14, 2006. Respectfully submitted, Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California 13 PH #A STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- NOVEMBER 28, 2006 CASE NO.- ZONE CHANGE 2006-129 APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF A REDUCTION OF THE EXISTING 15 FOOT REAR SETBACK TO 10 FEET LOCATION: MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL,. 17 FOOT HEIGHT, SINGLE STORY [RM 17/1 ] ZONED PROPERTIES LOCATED SOUTH OF AVENIDA LA FONDA, NORTH OF AVENIDA NUESTRA, WEST OF WASHINGTON STREET, AND EAST,OF CALLE GUATAMALA. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: MDR (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONING: RM (17/1) MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (17 FOOT HEIGHT, SINGLE STORY) ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15270(B), IN THAT THE ITEM IS BEING PRESENTED FOR AN INITIAL PUBLIC HEARING AND MAY BE RECOMMENDED FOR A DENIAL. BACKGROUND: On July 15, 1997, five portions of the City were rezoned with four different special zoning symbols under Ordinance No. 305, including the neighborhood in discussion. These neighborhoods were primarily older portions of the City which had been developed with standards somewhere "in-between" the existing zoning property development standards. Typically, the underlying zoning permitted two story homes, but the neighborhoods in question were primarily single story. Rather than creating all new zoning standards, special zoning symbols were applied as a compromise. This approach, in turn, ensures consistency with other properties in the same zoning district other than for.those geographic specific special standards. P:\Reports - PC\2006\11-28-06\ZC 06-129\ZC 06-129 stf rpt.rtf During the June .13, 2006 public comment portion of the. Planning Commission hearing, Mr. Skip Lench, 78-120 Calle Estado, Suite 204, requested Planning Commission consider taking action to amend the zoning for a neighborhood located south of City Hall from Medium Density Residential (RM 17/1) to Cove Residential (RC). As Mr. Lench explained at the meeting, the purpose of the request was to ultimately have the same 10 foot rear yard setback as allowed in the RC district, as opposed to the current 15 foot setback development standard required in the RM district. This request primarily stemmed from building permits having previously been issued in error allowing for a 10 foot rear yard setback in this neighborhood. This was recently corrected and the Building Department staff is now enforcing the required 15-foot rear yard setback. Among the reasons for the erroneous approval of building permits was confusion regarding the existing special zoning symbol and the area's proximity to the Cove Residential zoning district, which allows for a 10 foot rear yard setback. On July 11, 2006, staff presented a business item before the Planning Commission requesting direction regarding Mr. Lench's request. Mr. Lench had suggested that a reduced setback could be accomplished through a rezoning of the current RM 17/1 zoning, which utilizes a special zoning symbol, to RC, Cove Residential. Staff had pointed out that there were multiple methods to accomplish a reduced rear setback and recommended the rezone process be applied for by Mr. Lench. The Commission opted to have the City to prepare a zoning amendment report. As this was not a public hearing, no comment or discussion was made concerning the , request. ANALYSIS: Mr. Lench's request stems from the assumption of development standards related to the use of special zoning symbols. Although there are similarities, there are some key differences between Cove Residential zoning and the existing Medium Density Residential zoning with the special zoning symbols: RM 17/1 RC Minimum lot size 6000,4 ft, ;' 7200 s . #t . Minimum lot frontage 50 fit. ' 60 ft. Maximum structure` hei ht 17 ft. 17 ft. Maximum number of stories 1 1 Minimum front yard setback (non- garage portions of dwelling) 20 ft. 20 ft. Minimum garage setback 25 ft. (20 ft. w/ roll up) 25 ft. (20 ft. w/ roll up) Minimum interior/exterior side yard setbacks 5/10 ft. 5/10 ft. Minimum rear yard setback 15 ft: io ft. PAReports - PC\2006\1 1-28-06\ZC 06-129\ZC 06-129 stf rptrtf Maximum lot coverage 60% 60% Minimum livable floor area for 1406sq: ft. 1200:sq..ft.' single-family detached (excluding garage) 1 Special zoning symbols are tools which allow an additional degree of flexibility to existing development standards. Under certain circumstances, the existing zoning standards may not be appropriate for a particular neighborhood or district. Medium Density Residential development standards have a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet and a -15 foot rear 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 except for the 28 foot building height. Rather than creating a new zoning district, the use of a special zoning symbol limits building heights within this area to 17 feet and a single story. A similar situation occurs to the east of City Hall across Washington Street, where Low Density Residential zoning standards are applied except for building heights. Again, those homes also utilize a special zoning symbol to limit building heights to 17 feet and a single story. About 20 to 22 of the existing 72 homes within the subject neighborhood have been developed with a rear setback of 10 feet. This includes both non -conforming patio covers and new homes. A specific number is not available since residential building permit plans are not kept on file longer than a few years and the potential exists that a few of the structures may not have been permitted to begin with. Eight vacant 50'x100' lots remain in the proposed rezoning area. Eighty total lots would be potentially affected by the proposed amendment. DISCUSSION: Changing the special zoning symbol to a 10 foot rear setback would accommodate the existing 20 to 22 homes which currently have a non -conforming setback, but would change the standards for approximately 50 additional existing homes that have already been legally constructed according to the code. The rear separation between structures would be reduced from 30 to 20 feet and the maximum lot coverage would potentially increase. Please note that in accordance with LQMC 9.20.020, the special symbol would combine all of the deviated standards with setbacks provided in order of front, side and rear yards placed over the maximum story and height provisions that would result in the following: RX (20/5/10) 17/1 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. All but two of the lots within this neighborhood are currently 5,000 square feet and P:\Reports - PC\2006\11-28-06\ZC 06-1292C 06-129stf rpt.rtf would become legal, non -conforming properties. Taking no action would mean that those buildings erroneously permitted for construction would be regarded as a legal, non -conforming use. Any future construction for the remaining eight vacant lots would be required to meet the existing 15 foot rear setback. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is concurrently proposing to cross-reference existing special zoning symbols within the table of development standards and mandate their clear identification on the official zoning map. By clarifying and better referencing special zoning symbols, staff believes that the past misinterpretations can be avoided in the future. Staff recommends the status quo be maintained and recommends denial of the proposal to amend the zoning ordinance and/or map. A zone change to Cove Residential is not recommended because it would increase both the minimum lot size and the required minimum lot frontage. Changing the existing special zoning symbol to permit a ,10 foot rear setback is also not recommended because it would have the result of increased building density in an already densely developed neighborhood and would affect the majority of existing homeowners who have already built their homes with a 15 foot rear setback. Staff believes that a change of zoning would not be in the public interest and would result in a potential significant adverse impact upon the existing neighborhood. Commission Options for Direction: Should the Commission elect to move forward with the change of zone, an environmental assessment shall be required for preparation and the item would need to be taken off calendar until completion. Staff would re -notify the surrounding property owners of the public hearing. 1. Deny request prior to initiation of further study and CEQA review; or 2. Take no action;or 2. Direct staff to prepare an Environmental Assessment and Resolution supporting a Change of Zone to permit a ten foot rear yard setback by modifying the existing special zoning symbol from: rur to RM (20/5/10) 17/1 17/1 In addition, the item shall be taken off calendar until completion of the environmental assessment; or, P:\Reports - PC\2006\11-28-06\ZC 06-129\ZC 06-129 stf rpt.rtf 3. Direct staff to prepare, an Environmental Assessment and Resolution supporting a Change of Zone to Cove Residential and take the item off calendar until completion of the environmental assessment, or 4. Provide alternative direction as deemed necessary. Prepared by; ,<ndrevV,r Mogensen 2 Associate Planner Attachments: 1. Area Proposed for Rezoning 2. Neighborhood Aerial Photograph PAReports - PC\2006\11.28-062C 06-1292C 06.129 stf rpt.rtf w ATTACHMENT #2 � as � N O a U N a i .to O Z co N V 3 0 0 N 0 U �] PH #B STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: NOVEMBER 28, 2006 CASE NO.: ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 2006-085 REQUEST: CONSIDER .AN AMENDMENT TO LA QUINTA MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 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 LOCATION: CITY WIDE APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION:, THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THE AMENDMENTS TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE ARE EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15061(B) (3) AND 15268(A) BACKGROUND: During the public comment portion of the June 13, 2006 Planning Commission hearing, Mr. Skip Lench, of 78-120 Calle Estado, requested the Commission consider reducing the 15 foot rear setback of a certain portion of the City zoned RM 17/1 to 10 feet. During that meeting, Mr. Lench explained that the purpose of his request was a result of building permits having been issued for homes in this neighborhood allowing a ten foot rear yard setback. This was corrected and the Building Department staff now enforces the required 15-foot rear yard setback. In light of this, staff identified a need to cross-reference the existing special zoning symbols in order to simplify and better identify their development standards and locations. ANALYSIS: Section 9.20.030 of the City's Municipal Code enables the use of special zoning symbols, alternative development standards that enable adjustment to the existing zoning for a particular geographic area. These special zoning symbols are a tool which allows for an alternative to any zoning district's particular development standards such as setbacks, lot sizes, frontage, and building height. PAReports - PC\2006\11-28-06\ZOA 06-08520A 06-085 stf rpt.doc Currently four different special zoning symbols are in use among six areas of the City. As these special zoning symbols result in different development standards from whichever underlying zone they are located in, development standards such as setbacks and building heights can be erroneously referenced. The most common, centralized reference point for development standards in the Zoning Ordinance' is Table 9-2 of Section 9.50.030. This table identifies development standards such as setbacks, lot sizes, frontage, and building height. When used in conjunction with the Official Zoning Map, persons unfamiliar with the Zoning Code can quickly identify their property development 'standards. The purpose of these proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance is to codify a reference to the existing special zoning symbols within Table 9-2 of Section 9.50.030 and to mandate their identification on the Zoning Map. By citing the existing special zoning symbols within this table and a mandated codification for their identification on the Official Zoning Map, staff anticipates fewer errors and greater recognition of the existing special zoning symbols. These amendments will not result in any changes to any development standard and will not affect any existing procedures or policies. FINDINGS: The findings to support Zoning Code Amendment 2006-085 are contained in the attached Planning Commission Resolution. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2006-_ recommending to the City Council approval of Zoning Code Amendment 2006-085, as recommended. Prepared KndrevWJ. Mogensen Associate Planner PAReports - PC\2006\11-28-06\ZOA 06-085\ZOA 06-085 stf rpt.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTERS 9.20.030 AND 9.50.030 TABLE 9-2 OF TITLE 9, PLANNING, PERTAINING TO THE REFERENCING OF EXISTING SPECIAL ZONING SYMBOLS CASE NO. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2006-085 APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA WHEREAS, certain geographic areas within the City of La Quinta have a need for alternate development standards other than those set forth in the applicable sections of the Zoning Code because the normal standards may not be appropriate; and, WHEREAS, Section 9.20.030 enables the City to establish alternate development standards for a particular geographic area than those set forth for the zoning district covering the area by means of special zoning symbols; and, WHEREAS, Section 9.50.030, Table 9-2, which identifies the residential development standards, is commonly used as a quick reference but does not include references to the existing special zoning symbols used within the City of La Quinta; and, WHEREAS, the City has determined a need to cross-reference the existing special zoning symbols within the residential development standards; and, WHEREAS, the City has determined a need for a statutory reference regarding special zoning symbols between the Zoning Code and the official Zoning Map of the City of La Quinta; and, 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 of said Zoning Code Amendment: 1. The proposed Amendments are consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan, and the Land Use Map for the General Plan and land use designations, ensuring land use compatibility. 2. The proposed Amendments cross-reference existing codes and thus have no effect on the existing zoning, development standards, procedures, or policies. Planning Commission Resolution 2006- Zoning Code Amendment 2006-085 Special Zoning Districts 3. The proposed Amendments will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, as they have been determined to have no impact and conform to the City's existing standards and requirements. 4. The proposed Amendments support the orderly development of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: Section 1. That Chapter 9.20.030, Special Zoning Symbols, of the La Quinta Municipal Code, be amended as contained in the attached Exhibit "A." Section 2. That Chapter 9.50.030 Table 9-2, of the La Quinta Municipal Code, be amended as contained in the attached Exhibit "B." Section 3. Environmental Determination. This Ordinance has compiled with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" in that the Community Development Department has determined that the Amendments to the Municipal Code are exempt pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) and Section 15268(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 281" day of November, 2006, by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PAUL QUILL, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: P:\Reports - PC\2006\11-28-0620A 06-08520A 06-085 PC Res.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2006- Zoning Code Amendment 2006-085 Special Zoning Districts DOUGLAS R. EVANS, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California PAReports - PC\2006\11-28-06\ZOA 06-085\ZOA 06-085 PC Res.doc Exhibit "A" 9.20.030 Special zoning symbols. A. Purpose. In some cases, the city may determine that alternate development standards are required for a particular geographic area other than those set forth in applicable sections of this code with regard to minimum lot size, setbacks, lot frontage and maximum building height because the normal standards may not be appropriate for one or more of the following reasons: 1. Unusual topography or other natural features within the area. 2. The need to mitigate development impacts on vulnerable surrounding land uses. 3. The need to ensure adherence to a key general plan goal, objective or policy. 4. Other factors affecting the subject area not generally prevalent in the city. B. Use of Special Symbols. The city may establish alternate development standards for a particular geographic area than those set forth for the zoning district covering the area by means of special zoning symbols. Such alternate development standards shall supersede those in Chapters 9.50, 9.65, 9.90 and 9.130 and shall be specified by means of one or more of the following symbols on the official zoning map: 1. Lot Size. A number following the district designation and connected by a hyphen shall designate the minimum lot size. Where the number is greater than one hundred, it shall indicate the minimum size in square feet; where the number is less than one hundred, it shall indicate the minimum size in acres. Example: RM-500 or RL-2 2. Setbacks. A number following the district designation and enclosed by parentheses shall designate the minimum setbacks in feet. Within the parentheses, setbacks shall be separated by a slash (/) and shall be shown in the following order: front/side/rear. Example: RM (20/5/25) 3. Height and Number of Stories. A number shown below and separated by a line from the district designation shall designate the maximum height of building or structures in feet and the maximum number of stories. Height shall be given first followed by a "/" and number of stories. RM. Example: 28/2 4. Lot Frontage. A number preceding and connected to the district designation by a hyphen shall designate the minimum lot frontage in feet. Example: 1001-RL 5. Symbols Combined. The preceding symbols may be used in any combination to show minimum lot size, setbacks, frontage, and maximum height. Example: 100-RL-2 (20/5/25) 28/2 C. Location of Zoning Districts Utilizing Special Symbols. Special symbol districts located within the City of La Quinta shall be clearly identified on the Official Zoning Map and referenced in Section 9.50.030, Table of Development Standards. (Ord. 284 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 1996) Exhibit 'B" Table 9-2 Residential Development Standards Development Standard District RVL RL RC RM RMH RH RSP RR Overlay Overlay Minimum lot size for 20,000 7200 7200 5000 3600 2000 * ** single-family dwellings (sq. ft.) Minimum project size n/a n/a n/a n/a 20,000 20,000 * n/a for multifamily projects (sq. ft.) Minimum lot frontage 100 60 60 50 40 n/a * ** for single-family dwellings (ft.)' Minimum frontage for n/a n/a n/a n/a 100 100 * n/a multifamily projects (ft.) Maximum structure 28 28 17 28 28 40 * ** height (ft.)' Maximum number of 2 2 1 2 2 3 * ** stories Minimum front yard 30 20 20 20 20 20 * RVL:40 setback (ft.)' Minimum garage n/a 25 25 25 25 25 * ** setback4 (ft.) Minimum 10/20 5110 5110 5110 5110 10115 * ** interior/exterior side yard setback (ft.)"' Minimum rear yard - 30 20 for 10 15 15 20 setback (ft.)' new lots and 10 for existing recorded lots Maximum lot coverage 40 50 60 60 60 160 * ** (% of net lot area) Minimum livable area 2100 1400 1400 1410, 1400 750 for * ** excluding garage (sq. (multifamily: multifamily ft.) 750) Minimum common open n/a n/a n/a 30% 30% 30% 30% n/a 6 area Minimum/average 10/20 10/20 n/a 10/20 10/20 10/20 10/20 n/a perimeter landscape setbacks (ft.)6 Special Zoning Symbols Referenced on the Official Zoning Map Symbol Description of Special Zoning Symbols Used as per Section 9.20.030 60-RM-10,000 60 foot minimum lot frontage, Medium Density Residential zoning, 10,000 square foot minimum lot size, 17 foot maximum building height at one story 17/1 RL 10.000 Low Density Residential zoning,10,000 square foot minimum lot size, 17 foot maximum building height at one story 17/1 RM Medium Density Residential zoning, 17 foot maximum building height at one story 17/1 RL Low Density Residential zoning, 17/1 17 foot maximum building height at one story * As shown on the approved specific plan for the project. ** As provided in the underlying base district. Minimum lot frontage on cul-de-sacs and knuckles shall be 35 feet. Minimum lot frontage for flag lots shall be 15 feet. z Not including basements. Also, notwithstanding above table, the maximum structure height equals 22 feet for all buildings within 150 feet of any general plan -designated image corridor, except in the RC zone, which is 17 feet. 3 For non -garage portions of dwelling only. Also, projects with five or more adjacent single family dwelling units facing the same street shall incorporate front setbacks varying between 20 feet and 25 feet or more in order to avoid streetscape monotony. ° For all but RVL district, minimum garage setback shall be 20 feet if "roll -up" type garage door is used. Also, for side -entry type garages, the garage setback may be reduced to 20 feet in the RVL district and 15 feet in all other residential districts. 5 The following are exceptions to the minimum side setbacks shown:" For interior side yards in the RL, RM and RMH districts, if the building is over 17 feet in height, the setback is five feet plus one foot for every foot over 17 feet in height or fraction thereof, to a maximum setback of ten feet. The additional setback may be provided entirely at grade level or a combination of at grade and airspace above the 17- foot building. For RH, five feet minimum plus one foot additional setback for every foot of building height above 28 feet, or fraction thereof, up to a maximum setback of 15 feet when said height above 17 feet is located between five and ten feet from said side yard property line. For interior setbacks, if the building is over 28 feet in height the setback is ten feet plus one foot for every foot over 28 feet in height or fraction thereof, to a maximum setback of 15 feet. The additional setback may be provided entirely at grade level or may be a combination of at grade and airspace above the 28-foot building height. 6 Common open area and perimeter landscape requirements do not apply to single-family detached projects unless a specific plan is required. Common open area equals percent of net project area. Perimeter landscape setbacks are adjacent to perimeter streets: first number equals minimum at any point; second number equals minimum average over entire frontage (thus, 10/20). See Section 9.60.240 and additional landscape/open area standards. Rear and side yard setbacks for residential units abutting the image corridor shall be a minimum of 25 feet with the exception of RVL zone district where it only applies to the side yard. `N OF INTENT TO I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC COMMENTS: RE: /1 & f4 AGENDA ITEM NO.: RE: PUBLIC HEARING NO.: RE: I AM IN SUPPORT OF THIS ITEM I AM IN OPPOSITION TO THIS ITEM WRITTEN COMMENTS: FORM AGENDA ITEM: a ��z� PLEASE LIMIT YOUR COMMENTS TO THREE (3,) MINUTES WHEN SPEAKING!! DATE: �l'ZfGL' NAME: A ADDRESS: <7 RETURN THIS FORM TO THE RECORDING BEGINS. THE CHAIRMAN WILL CALL YOUR THANK YOU! ETARY BEFORE THE MEETING SAE AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME. PACAROLVMPlanning Com\INTENT TO SPEAK FORM.doc OF Tl� INTENT TO SPEAK FORM I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THE FOLLOWING AGENDA ITEM: PUBLIC COMMENTS: RE: -;�20%l d2 (�4�mG 704�7 AGENDA ITEM NO.: RE: PUBLIC HEARING NO.: RE: I AM IN SUPPORT OF THIS ITEM I AM IN OPPOSITION TO THIS ITEM . WRITTEN COMMENTS: (Optional) PLEASE LIMIT YOUR COMMENTS TO THREE (3) MINUTES WHEN SPEAKING!! DATE: NAME: 1— ADDRESS: 64"-cb, 6oph.'� I E-- RETURN THIS FORM TO THE RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE THE MEETING BEGINS. THE CHAIRMAN WILL CALL YOUR NAME AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME. THANK YOU! PACAROLYMPlanning Com\INTENT TO SPEAK FORM.doc