Loading...
2006 08 08 PC MinutesMINUTES ~ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING w A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA August 8, 2006 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 Quill who asked Planning Manager Les Johnson to lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Ed Alderson, Katie Barrows, Rick Daniels, Jim Engle and Chairman Paul Quill. C. Staff present: Planning Manager Les Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston, Development Services Principal Engineer Ed Wimmer, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed. IV. CONSENT ITEMS: A. Chairman Quill asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of the July 25, 2006 regular meeting. There being no changes to the minutes, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Alderson to approve the minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None. A. Right-of-Way Closure 2005-013; a request of Borrego Resort Holdings, LLC for consideration of a finding that the proposed right-of-way vacation is consistent with the General Plan for the property located on a portion of Calle Tampico near Avenida Villa. 1. Chairman Quill opened the public hearing and asked for the staff. report. Development Resources Principal Engineer Ed Wimmer presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2006\8-8-06.doc Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 2006 2. Chairman Quill asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Alderson asked the purpose of vacating the parcel. Staff explained this site came up upon the process of development of an adjacent property owner. 3. Commissioner Daniels asked if the property goes back to the fee title holder. Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston clarified that State law provides that when a street is vacated the fee title holder receives the property back without the easement and it is assessed accordingly. 4. Chairman Quill asked for verification that the title shows this land is not an in fee to the City. Some street right-of-ways are in fee and some are not. Staff stated it has been checked and determined that it is an easement, but staff can check further. Chairman Quill stated that if the City owns it in-fee by virtue of its assignment by the County when the City incorporated, the City could sell it. Chairman Quill asked staff to verify before the project goes to the City Council. 5. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Quill asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Phillip Bonavek, Knitter and Associates, stated there only purpose in obtaining the land is to landscape the strip. 6. There being no further public comment, the public participation portion of the hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. Commissioner 7. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Barrows/Engle to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2006-028, recommending approval of Right-of-Way Closure 2005-013, as recommended. a. The ownership of the land will be confirmed before the project is heard before the City Council. t ~ ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Barrows, Daniels, Engle, and Chairman Quilt. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Planning Commission Minutes ~ August 8, 2006 B. Site Development Permit 2006-862; a request of Highland La Quinta, LLC for consideration of architectural and landscaping plans for three commercial buildings in Phase 2 of the Dunes Business Park located on the north side of Highway 1 1, between Jefferson Street and Dune Palms Road. 1. Chairman Quill opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented 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 Engle asked that a sign program be provided. His concern is that the landscaping not block the signs. Also, there is area for flush-mounted signs on the access points. 3. Commissioner Daniels asked if there was a driveway on the side of the building that is visible from Jack in the Box; what is on the east elevation that faces the east elevation. Staff explained it is j the drive-thru lane which has a wall and landscaping. In general most of the proposed building will be hidden by the wall and i landscaping on the Jack in the Box property. 4. Commissioner Engle asked if the architecture is similar to the other parts of the center. Staff stated it is very similar to Phase I. 5. Commissioner Barrows asked where the staff was asking for more architectural interest. Staff indicated the area on the architectural plans. 6. Commissioner Daniels asked if any landscaping was considered for the trellis area on the south elevations. Staff stated there are pockets for vines to grow on the building. Commissioner Daniels asked if the plan that was before them shows the berm as it will exist. Staff stated it does not show it at four feet, but the berm will soften the view. 7. Commissioner Alderson asked if the wall on the berm was four or five feet. Staff stated the berm is four feet and the drive-thru lane is lowered one foot below the base of the berm making the berm five feet adjacent to the store. Commissioner Alderson stated the plans do not show any engineering plans, but the finish floor Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 2006 i appears to be lower than the adjoining project when you are l driving down the street. If the street is as high as it appears on the plans, this building will be set very low. This leads him to believe there are some grade discrepancies. In addition, there are 30-foot high domes on the architectural projections which seem to exceed the City's height limit. Staff stated that is corrected and allowed. He questioned why they have access doors exiting onto the drive-thru lanes. Staff stated it was their understanding they are emergency accesses and are required by the Building Code. 8. Chairman Quill stated he too did not believe there was enough information provided in regard to the berming. There is not enough detailed engineering in the grading plan to get a sense of the curb elevation on Highway 1 11 in relation to the building pad elevation, berm and wall. 9. Chairman Quill asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Mark Giles, KKE Architects, stated he was available to answer questions. In regard to the grade elevations, it is their understanding they are nine inches below Highway 111. The finish floor will be consistent with Highway 1 1 1 for drainage purposes. What he is not certain of is whether or not it is top of curb, because the City has to drop all the drainage of the site north to the channel. 10. Commissioner Daniels asked if landscaping could be added to the south elevation of the larger retail buildings. Mr. Giles stated there is a trellis with landscaping and tree massing with the signs in the middle. Vine pockets could be added, but they believe with what is proposed there will be a fair amount of landscaping in this area. They are willing to add the vines. 11. Commissioner Barrows stated she does not see tree massing on the plans and asked if this was on the berm. Mr. Giles stated yes, the berm on the opposite site of the drive-thru. Commissioner Barrows stated she too was concerned with the berms that they would not be of sufficient height. Mr. Giles indicated on the renderings showing the cut through the building to show the height ratios. 12. Commissioner Alderson stated he too is concerned there is not enough screening along Highway 11 1. Mr. Giles stated that with Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 2006 ' the landscaping and grade differential, you will not be looking down at the cars. It all depends on the final drainage plans. 13. Commissioner Daniels asked the location of the trash receptacles. Mr. Giles noted their location on the site plan. 14. Commissioner Alderson asked if they had tenants. Mr. Giles stated they have one potential bank and one restaurant and they have not determined which tenant will be in which building. 15. Chairman Quill stated he is not comfortable with the renderings showing the grade adequately in relation to the berm. He does not want to see cars or headlights in the drive-thru as you drive along Highway 1 1 1. He is also concerned with the elevations that face the residents to the north. Mr. Giles stated Phase I, which is not a part of this project, faces the residents to the north. 16. Commissioner Barrows asked if there were any shading details on the west elevation. Mr. Giles stated that Building 3 has a nine j foot arcade and additional detail for shading. Most of the buildings i face north. 17. Chairman Quill asked how the 48-inch wall functions. Mr. Giles clarified they were asked by the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee to fan out the berm for better integration between their landscaping and the 50-foot setback. Therefore, on the landscape plan they feathered into the 50-foot setback for the berm to make it larger. By doing this they could build a four foot berm and not need the wall. Discussion followed regarding the location of the wall. Planning Manager Les Johnson clarified how staff had worked with the applicant to see the landscape plans would meet the Commission's concerns in regard to the berm height. Chairman Quill stated he wants to see plans that show contour lines so they could see the height of the berm in relation to the street and the drive-thru lane. Staff stated the ALRC will be reviewing the final landscaping plans. Staff is very aware of the Commission's concerns regarding screening of the drive-thru and believe the conditions will satisfy the Commission's concerns. Discussion continued regarding the screening of the drive-thru. Mr. Giles stated his concern with Condition No. 41 as they do not believe they are responsible for any street improvements along Highway 111. Principal Engineer Ed Wimmer stated this is a Planning. Commission Minutes August 8, 2006 ~ I standard condition. Mr. Giles stated this was a condition of the ~ ' developer of Phase I for him to construct the street improvements. This applicant is purchasing the land on the basis that the Phase 1 developer is dong this work. Staff stated they believe the improvements in Condition No. 41 have been bonded for by the master developer. Mr. Giles stated he has objections to a condition that does not allow them to receive a Certificate of Occupancy unless the improvements are completed. Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston stated these conditions were originally placed on the master plan itself. The current applicant, as a beneficiary of that plan would be receiving that property subject to the burden imposed by those conditions. While there may be bonding that has occurred, it would be within the purview of the Commission to impose this condition as well. If there is some other bonding by the master developer it will satisfy the condition. If the Commission wishes to retain this condition, the applicant can appeal the condition to the City Council. 18. There being no further public comment, the public participation portion of the hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 19. Commissioner Alderson asked that the landscaping plan for the berm and east elevation be brought back to the Commission. 20. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Barrows/Daniels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2006-029, approving Site Development Permit 2006-862, as recommended by staff and amended: a. Condition added: Additional landscaping shall be added to the trellis on the south, east, and west elevations for Retail Building 1 and 2. b. Condition Added: The final landscaping and berming plan for Highway 11 `I shall be approved by the Planning Commission. ~ ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Barrows, Daniels, Engle, and Chairman Quill. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: None. Planning Commission Minutes ~ August 8, 2006 ' VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Commissioner Alderson asked if the Commission would be involved in any of the design criteria for the SilverRock Resort. At the Council meeting o,f July 18, 2006, Council Member Henderson stated the need for the design criteria needed to be added to the Specific Plan. Is there a trend to establish an architectural format for SilverRock. Planning Manager Les Johnson stated the Redevelopment Agency has been working on some design criteria, but nothing has been finalized. It was his understand that a Council Member has asked about the architectural details and why they were not added to the Specific Plan. Commissioner Alderson asked if the Commission would be seeing the design criteria as a normal process. Planning Manager Les Johnson stated a site development permit would be processed through the normal process and would come before the Commission and Council. B. Staff reminded the Commissioners there would be no Council meeting on August 15 and no Commission meeting on August 22, 2006. C. Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston stated there will be a memo being distributed to the Commission regarding an ethics training that will be scheduled for the Commission before the end of the year. There is a self test available or "in-house" training could be provided. X. ADJOURNMENT: 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 September 12, 2006. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 8:09 p.m. on August 8, 2006. Respectfully submitted, awyer, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California