Loading...
1988 01 12 PCAGENDA GF J� y OF TNT PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California January 12, 1988 - 7:00 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER Flag Salute: II. ROLL CALL III. HEARINGS - None IV. PUBLIC COMMENT This is the time set aside for citizens to address the Planning Commission on matters relating to City planning and zoning which are not Public Hearing items. Persons wishing to address the Planning Commission should use the form provided. Please complete one form for each item you intend to address and submit the form to the Planning Secretary prior to the beginning of the meeting. Your name will be called at the appropriate time. When addressing the Planning Commission, please state your name and address. The proceedings of the Planning Commission meeting are recorded on tape and comments of each person shall be limited. V. CONSENT CALENDAR Minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting of December 22, 1987. MR/AGENDA.112 1 VI. BUSINESS A. Item: Appeal No. 88-001 Applicant: Rocco and Colleen Balsamo - Moonlight Limousine Service Location: 78-455 Calle Felipe Project: Appeal of the decision denying the establishment of a limousine service as a home occupation. 1. Staff Report 2. Commission Discussion 3. Motion for Commission Action B. Any action relating to Study Session items. VII. OTHER - None VIII. ADJOURNMENT ITEMS FOR JANUARY 11, 1988, 4:00 P.M. STUDY SESSION ** DISCUSSION ONLY ** 1. Policy Question: Whether to Include in the New Zoning Ordinance a Provision for a "Design Review Board" 2. Identification of Future Commission Agenda Items 3. All Other Agenda Items MR/AGENDA.112 0 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California December 22, 1987 II. 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER A. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Walling. The Flag Salute was led by Commissioner Steding. ROLL CALL A. Chairman Walling requested the roll call. Present: Commissioners Steding, Bund, Zelles, Moran, and Chairman Walling. B. Staff Present: Planning Director Murrel Crump, Principal Planner Jerry Herman, and Department Secretary Mariellen Ratowski. HEARINGS Chairman Walling introduced the Public Hearing items as follows: A. Plot Plan No. 87-387, Expansion of the La Quinta Hotel; a request by Landmark Land Company to expand the La Quinta Hotel pursuant to Specific Plan 121-E, which includes demolition of five existing structures to make room for 336 hotel units, ancillary hotel uses, and associated parking; located on the east side of Eisenhower Drive, between Avenida Fernando and the hotel entrance. 1. Principal Planner Jerry Herman presented the information contained in the Staff Report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. Chairman Walling opened the hearing to public comment. Mr. Alejandro Martinez, representing Landmark Land Company, addressed the Commission regarding the expressed concerns of two residents. Mr. Martinez assured the Commission that these concerns had been studied by Landmark to MR/MIN12-22.DFT 1 ® 0 reach satisfactory resolution for all concerns. Mrs. Carl Loeb, one of the above -mentioned residents, addressed the Commission, expressing acceptance of the compromise offered by Landmark in satisfaction of her concern over location of the hotel service entrance. Mr. Mark Curney, representing the La Quinta Hotel, spoke to the Commission in response to questions regarding use of the service road. 3. There being no further public comment, Chairman Walling closed the public hearing and opened the matter for Commission discussion. It was the consensus of the Commission that the Plot Plan be revised to show the new location of the service entrance. 4. A motion was made by Commissioner Zelles and seconded by Commissioner Moran to approve Plot Plan No. 87-387 as revised and with attached conditions; and, that a Negative Declaration be filed in conjunction with this project. Unanimously approved. B. Specific Plan No. 86-007, Amendment #2, Washington Street; a City -initiated request to amend the Specific Plan to preserve the existing horizontal curve on Washington Street rather than straightening the curve, for that portion of Washington Street south of Eisenhower Drive and north of Avenue 50. ].. Planning Director Murrel Crump presented the information contained in the Staff Report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. Chairman Walling opened the hearing for public comment. Mr. Robert Whitney addressed the Commission, asking for clarification regarding the future widening of Washington Street. 3. There being no further public comment, Chairman Walling closed the public hearing and opened the matter for Commission discussion. .4. Following brief discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner Steding and seconded by Commissioner Zelles to adopt Planning MR/MIN12-22.DF'r 2 0 IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. Commission Resolution No. 87-019, recommending to the City Council approval of Specific Plan No. 86-007, Amendment No. 2, including attached Exhibit "A". Upon roll call vote, the motion was unanimously approved. PUBLIC COMMENT No one wished to address the Commission. CONSENT CALENDAR A motion was made by Commissioner seconded by Commissioner Zelles to minutes of November 24, 1987, and 1987. Unanimously approved. BUSINESS - None OTHER - None ADJOURNMENT Moran and approve the December 8, A. motion was made by Commissioner Steding and seconded by Commissioner Moran to adjourn to a regular meeting on January 12, 1988, at 7:00 p.m., in the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California. This meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission was adjourned at 7:35 p.m., December 22, 1987. MR/MIN12-22.DFT 3 V.A. STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: APPLICANT/OWNER: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: PROJECT LOCATION: BACKGROUND JANUARY 12, 1988 ROCCO AND COLLEEN BALSAMO MOONLIGHT LIMOUSINE SERVICE APPEAL #88-001; APPEAL OF THE DECISION DENYING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A LIMOUSINE SERVICE AS A HOME OCCUPATION (APPLICATION NO. 4) 78-455 CALLE FELIPE The Applicants request to establish a limousine service within a residence was reviewed using the information provided on the application and the Home Occupation review criteria of the Municipal Code. Based upon this material, the application was administratively denied (refer to denial letter, attached). REQUEST The Applicant is appealing the denial of the request to the Planning Commission. The application, review criteria/conditions of the Home Occupation Ordinance (Section 9.20.020 La Quinta Municipal Code), and the appeal request are attached for the Commission's review. REVIEW PROCESS This application is being brought to the Commission for a de novo review. Appeal consideration should be limited to the information provided by the Applicant and the review criteria/conditions contained in the Home Occupation regulations. Since this is the first application of this type, the decision on this case will be precedent -setting and used for subsequent review of other similar applications. The decision of the Commission is final and not subject to further appeal to the City Council. MR/STAFFRPT.025 1 COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission, in taking their action, should determine whether or not the conditions and criteria set forth in Section 9.208.020 are met. After such review and evaluation, the Commission may act to: A. Approve the application as requested; B. Approve the application subject to meeting any reasonable special conditions as may be deemed necessary to carry out the intent of the subject regulations; C. Deny the application based on noncompliance with the criteria and conditions for establishment of home occupations; D. Continue the item, as may be necessary, for any further considerations related to this matter. Commission action may be taken by minute motion. attachments: 1. Application 2. Denial Letter 3. Home Occupation Review Criteria 4. Applicant's Letter Dated 9/29/87 MR/STAFFRPT.025 2 CITY OF LA QUINPA Department of Community Development 78-105 Calls Estado La Quints, CA 92253 ktCt1VtU CITY OF LA QUINTA PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPT. APPLICATION FOR APPEAL OF FINDINGS OR CONDITIONS Appellant'a Name ��.� , r Date F Mailing Addr4i�s-.= .. J 41V- �J-S Phone No. S L V - -/0 7 �— s RE: Case No. 4 Type of Appeal: Conditional Use Permit Outdoor Advertising Variance Consistency with General Plan Change of Zone Environmental Assessment Public Use Permit Setback Adjustments Surface Mining and Reclamation Permit Temporary Use Permit Plot Plan state basis for appeal and include any supportive evidence. If applicable, e/the (�numbe�%� tpe�j��cifi"ndition ich is protested. Use additional sheets if necessary. j I / i -: HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT APPLICATION#oy 684-2246 CITY OF LAOU 18-105 Celle Eele P.O. YOX 1304 Le Oulnfe,CA.921 KOM etc-Htee o- aacn conaition listed on the revers de s de o Regulations. 6 8 7 the proposed activity can comply with the CitV a Homeoccupation ia7o—rm- —to —aee TYPE OR PRIN— T—IN INK PLANNING DIVISION APPLICANT'S NAM l _� 5�O73 PROPERTY OWN ER• PHONE SCE PROPERTY ADDRESS _ `' PHONE _t�, ci (Street) 1, Type of residence (Single, Multiple, mo a home, etc.) c Type of business _1 iM,� 1� - ��� r . ion 0 11 ttq businesy will operate Number of persons involved in business List names of persons emolevee /Xnn +,� Square footage of usable floor area house (exclude garage) Location and square footage of area of business activity in home (example: bedroo s; 125 quare feet) Description of machiner Validation Stamp ��: ti • °� :-n2-d7 rill i 35.001 business o y•.equipmegt, a d supplies being used in the Aeration _LF?1S /_. /., � __._ g h ftame o read on unders a and agree with the conditions by which a home ccupe i6is a ov d (Conditions on reverse side). i APPLICANT SIGMA If Applicant is other than property owner, authorization of owner or agent required. OWNER OR AGENT SIGNATURE DATE IMPORTANT: False or misleading information shall be grounds for denying Your Home Occupation, or failure to Comply with conditions listed on reverse shall be grounds for revocation of permit. APPROVED -�_ Initials ���� CO�NNDITIONS ATTACHED DENIED 'y221.!- Initials LQHOMOCC.PRT —'�`�— —�_ Date —1F 7 Date `ezf 446;QUM& 78-105 CALLE ESTADO LA OUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 (6191 564.2246 September 21, 1987 Rocco and Colleen Balsamo 78-455 Calle Felipe La Quinta, California 92253 SUBJECT: H0E4E OCCUPATION APPLICATION NO. 4, LIMOUSINE SERVICE PROPOSAL Dear Mr. and Mrs. Balsamo: Your dispatch operation of a limousine service, as indicated in your application, does not comply with the conditions and criteria of the Home Occupation Ordinance, and therefore has been denied by the Planning and Development Department. This denial is based upon Section 9.208.02(G) of the City of La Quinta Municipal Code, which states, " There shall be no dispatching of persons or equipment to or from the subject property, including the use of commercial vehicles which operate to and from the premises." At your option, you may appeal this decision of the Planning Director to the Planning Commission. Should you decide to appeal this determination, please complete the attached application and submit it to the Planning and Development Department within 10 days of the date of this letter. A $175.00 appeal processing fee is required. The appeal will then be scheduled for Planning Commission action. Should you have any questions or comments regarding this matter, please feel free to contact the undersigned. very truly ,yours, MURREL CRUMP PLANNING DIRECTORM` i J rry man rincipal Planner JH:GP/mr attachments: 1. Copy of Home Occupation Permit Application 2. Application for Appeal 3. Chapter 9.208 of the La Quinta Zoning Code cc: Roger Hirdler, Community Safety Director Finance Department, Business License Section MR/HMOCPTN.001 MAILING ADDRESS - P.O. BOX 1504 - LA OUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 L1 23 SEP 3 0 198"/ CITY OF LA QUINTA PLANNING & CEVELOPMENT DEFT September 29, 1987 City 04 La QuuLta POat OU-i-ce Box 1504 La Quinta, Cait-40znia 92253 Home Occupation 4AOtication No. 04 LtMOu,Jine Service Pzopo'JaL lo Whom it Mau ConceAn: Rocco and Colleen Liat4(zn0 Poet OUice Box 344 La Quinta, Ca.0 f_o uxi.a 92253 (HomeWe ,eceat-ty applied to the City oaf La Quinta toz a buJine�e ert�e iisic mOzd Occupation Permit) and ueae denied, due to the mzong cne4-J the d�pattched lo o helz emoJ ie going to be conducted " a htmband and wi, e operation, mith no other empiOyeQ�. l hi-i buj*neaa ui LL be A pool conducted much iihe a pool aezvice, 40z examp.Le: "7vice man zeceivej ca ,(4 at h" home fieom cLLentj I-oz a ae gob. He leave, fAOm hi, home to jezvice &A cLienti��nce man " thl'ough he zetunn-i back to &L4 home. , when the pOOi e Any coopezation you can pzovide u-4 with will be 94eQLy appzeciated. pest / C1oy iLeen BaCaamo MoonLi9/+t Limousine Service -- .w '-xiTERIA All irem nts. ns shall comply with the ollowing conditions and requirements. I• No one other than the resident of the dwelling shall be employed on the premises in the conduct of the home occupation. 2. The home occupation shall be conducted entirely within the enclosed area of the main building and shall not occupy more than 25 percent of the total area of the structure. 3• A home occupation shall not be conducted within an accessory structure. There may be storage of equipment or supplies in an accessory structure. Garage space may be used for the conduct of a home occupation only when it does not interfere with the use of such space for the off-street Parking of vehicles required by Section 18.12 toning ordinance. of this 4• There shall be no outdoor storage or display of equipment, machinery, supplies, materials or merchandise. S. There shall be no sales activity, either wholesale or retail, except mail order sales, nor shall there be the maintenance of an office open to the general public. 6. There shall be no more than a one-day'a dous supply of hazar materials stored on the premises at any Pool chlorine, paint thinner, etc.). given time azar 7• There shall be no dispatching of persons or equipment to or from the subject property, including the use of commercial vehicles which operate to and from'the premises. S. No vehicles or trailers except those normally incidental to residential use shall be stored or parked on the site. 9• for There shall not be involved the use of commercial vehicles other ethan ra vehicles y of lnot to exceedals or itemsta ratedoone-tonzemices, capacity. 10. There shall be no use of any mechanical equipment, appliance or motor outside of the enclosed building or which generates noise detectable f in which it is located. rom outside the building 11. There shall be no signs or other devices identifying or advertising the home occupation. 12. In no way shall the appearance of the building or lot be so altered, or the home occupation be so conducted, that the lot or building may be reasonably recognized as serving a nonresidential use (either by color, materials, construction, lighting, sounds, vibrations, etc..l. 23. No home occupation shall create a nuisance by reason of noise, odor, dust, vibration, fumes, smoke, electrical interference, traffic or other causes. 14. The use shall meet reasonable special conditions established by the Community Development Director and made of record in the home occupation permit, as may be deemed necessary to carry out the intent of this section. R TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT BACKGROUND ® 0 MEMORANDUM CITY OF LA OUINTA THE HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF COMMISSION PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT JANUARY 11, 1988 POLICY QUESTION: WHETHER TO ZONING ORDINANCE A PROVISION FOR BOARD". STUDY SESSION THE PLANNING INCLUDE IN THE NEW A "DESIGN REVIEW The new La Quinta Zoning Ordinance will be in a policy refinement and language -drafting phase between now and the end of May. A number of issues and subjects will be presented to the Planning Commission in Study Sessions for exploration. One issue to be resolved early (because it relates to, and sets the tone for, many other components of the new Zoning Ordinance) is whether to institute a formal (advisory) design review process. THE QUESTION The alternatives facing the City of La Quinta at this time are: a) include a design review process in the new Ordinance as it is drafted; or, b) postpone the creation of a design review process until some later date; or, c) reject indefinitely the concept of creating a design review process. THE CONCEPT Design review is the pre -approval technical review of proposed development plans and a report and recommendations with regard MR/MEMOCC.011 1 to site design, architecture, external facade treatments, materials, methods, landscaping, grading, hardscape and external furnishings, lighting, vistas and other external design concerns which have visual and functional impacts on adjacent properties, public use areas and the City as a whole. Development plans would be reviewed and judged as they relate to general design standards in the Zoning Ordinance and specific design standards which are spelled out in greater detail in various specific plans. Such review would be similar in timing and purpose to that of the staff Development Review Committee as a source of technical input for the Commission. The design review process operates best in the form of a Design Review Board composed of non -staff design professionals, plus a linking function to the Planning Commission. Membership might consist of three to five representatives of architecture, landscape architecture, engineering, and/or art or graphic design, plus a Planning Commission member who is assigned on a rotating basis (annual) to serve on (but not chair) the Design Review Board for the purpose of fostering communication. The Design Review Board could be set up with three spheres of responsibilities: a) on plot plans for multi -family projects up to 24 units, the Design Review Board would have authority for review and approval/denial, subject to appeal to the Planning Commission; b) for plot plans for multi -family projects of 25 or more units and for any non-residential projects, the Design Review Board would be charged with the responsibility to review, report and recommend (within a set time limit) to the Planning Commission as to whether the design aspects of the proposal should be accepted, rejected, or accepted with conditions. The Planning Commission could then adopt, decline to adopt, or adopt with modifications the recommendations of the Design Review Board (or continue for further study or plan modification) in the normal course of considering all input from all sources relating to a development proposal; c) after the Planning Commission makes its determinations relating to design, the Design Review Board would serve as the follow-through monitoring function (an example would be approval of final landscape plans or architectural detailing), subject again to appeal to the Planning Commission. Such items could be taken care of by the Design Review Board and placed on a Consent Calendar for the Planning Commission to formally adopt. The Planning and Development Department would serve as staff support to the Design Review Board. Meetings could be held in the daytime, say on the Tuesday one week prior to the Planning Commission meeting, to provide time for staff report preparation. MR/MEMOCC.011 2 DISCUSSION ON 'THE QUESTION The alternatives presented have both pros and cons. The issues boil down to the question of timing for design review: "soon", "later", "much later/never". Including a design review process in the new Zoning Ordinance as it is drafted would foster the necessary linkages and ensure that the function of design review was refined and implemented along with the rest of the Ordinance. Postponing the design review process until some later date may permit the growth of greater acceptance and support. But during the same period, many design guidance opportunities may have been lost and even some "design damage" may have taken place. In addition, a retrofit of design review into an adopted and operating Ordinance is more difficult and has a potential for greater disruption. RECOMMENDATION Consider including a design review process in the initial version of the Zoning Ordinance and direct Staff to present drafts for discussion in the course of drafting the new Zoning Ordinance. ]Because provisions for design review will be integrated into the text of the Zoning Ordinance in many ways, such an important provision should be previewed with the Council as a policy question in the near future, providing the Commission supports the concept enough to warrant Staff proceeding with refinement. MR/MEMOCC.011 3