Loading...
2008 04 22 PC MinutesMINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA April 22, 2008 CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:03 p.m. by Chairman Ed Alderson who led the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Katie Barrows, Paul Quill, Robert Wilkinson, and Chairman Ed Alderson. Absent: None. C. Staff present: Planning Director Les Johnson, Planning Manager David Sawyer, Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston, Principal Engineer Ed Wimmer, Principal Planner Andy Mogensen, and Executive Secretary Carolyn Walker. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: Mr. Matthew V. Johnson, 45-445 Portola Avenue, Suite 5, Palm Desert spoke about the fact that he, and his neighbors, would like to see a gas station at Avenue 50 and Jefferson Street. III. PRESENTATION: None. IV. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed. V. CONSENT ITEMS: A. Chairman Ed Alderson asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of April 8, 2008. There being none, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Wilkinson to approve the minutes as submitted. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Quill, Wilkinson, and Vice Chairman Alderson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: Commissioner Barrows. P:\Reports - PC\2006\5-27-08\PC Minutes 422-OS.doc Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 2008 VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Tentative Parcel Map 35900 and Village Use Permit 2007-039; a request of Prest Vuksic Architects for consideration of 1) the Subdivision of one parcel into three parcels and, 2) Architecture and Landscaping Plans for two 7,045 square toot, single-story office buildings located on the northeast corner of Avenue 52 and Desert Club Drive. Chairman Alderson opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Andy Mogensen presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. Chairman Alderson asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Quill asked if there were more parking spaces included in this application than the previous one. Principal Planner Mogensen said yes. He stated the applicant has agreed to a shared parking agreement with a Covenant. They were only four spaces short of the spaces required by the Municipal Code if the restaurant and offices were open at the same time. Because they are so close to the minimum required, Staff has agreed to both office and medical buildings if they have a shared use with a covenant. The restaurant would be permitted to be open during the evening and the office use would be limited to daytime hours only. If the applicants want to add lunchtime operations, at the restaurant, the Conditions of Approval states they would have to come back with a parking study stating those operations would not create a parking problem. The Planning Director would then have to approve the change in order to remove the Covenant. Chairman Alderson asked if the Planning Commission would have an opportunity to review it. Staff said if the Planning Director deemed it was necessary. Currently the applicant is only planning for general office use, not medical. Commissioner Quill asked if this was reciprocal parking for the two uses. Staff replied Building A had its own small parking area, which accommodated the weekday operations for offices. Commissioner Barrows noted comments made by the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee (ALRC) regarding the desert-friendly landscaping; specifically the bench areas. Staff replied the landscaping plans showed those benches as well as a flat stone walkway. Staff 2 Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 2008 added if you were to walk in from Desert Club Drive there would be some seating outside of the restaurant. Commissioner Barrows said the ALRC asked about walkability and the use of the Village Design Guidelines. She wanted to know if this project met those guidelines. Staff said the features were consistent with the Guidelines. Chairman Alderson asked what a "minimalist" parking structure was. Principal Planner Mogensen said it consisted of a flat roof and no special design features. Chairman Alderson asked if the buildings matched the existing structures. Staff said there was currently no office usage, only the Arnold Palmer Restaurant which had some similar design features. Chairman Alderson asked if the office buildings were mirror images. Staff replied they were very similar, essentially having mirror image layouts. Chairman Alderson asked what the additional parking requirements would be if the applicant wanted to use these buildings as medical offices. Staff was unsure what the requirements would be if both buildings were designated as medical offices. Staff said the medical office parking requirement is based on a slightly higher square footage ratio than general office, but it would not be a substantial increase because the office buildings were not very large. There could be an additional ten or fifteen spaces required. Chairman Alderson asked about the traffic study and asked if the layout was going to be reconfigured to accommodate parking and the movement of traffic. Staff said it could be reconfigured. Chairman Alderson said a deceleration lane might be required if the restaurant opened for lunch. Staff said the threshold, for Public Works' deceleration lane requirement, would be 50 trips per hour. That was why the studies were being required in advance of the uses, in order to give the applicant a yes or no answer on the lane requirement. The calculations had not been done yet. Chairman Alderson asked if the new landscape was to be done in a desert landscape motif, was the applicant going to replace the current landscape in kind. Staff replied most of the landscape was currently in 3 Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 2008 turf, but much of the area would be changed to desert landscaping. Chairman Alderson suggested when the turf was being replaced the applicant might consider using artificial turf. Staff said it had not been discussed as the turf would not be replaced. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Alderson asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. David Prest of Prest-Vuksic Architects, 44-530 San Pablo Avenue, Suite 200, Palm Desert, introduced himself and said he was available to answer any questions. Commissioner Quill complimented Mr. Prest on addressing every issue of concern from the previous submittal and the building and facility were very good looking. Commissioner Barrows referenced comments from the ALRC about the use of deep eaves in dealing with the issue of heat retention on the west and south sides of the buildings. She went on to say she was concerned about the reduction of turf and didn't see any reason to retain the small patch of grass. She suggested it would be better to eliminate that portion of turf in favor of more trees to help shield the buildings. Even with the eaves it will get pretty hot in the afternoon. Mr. Prest replied the overhang was fairly deep and the south side was pretty well protected. There was not much they could do with the west, but the proper placement of trees would help. Commissioner Barrows suggested Palo Verde be added on the west side to create some additional screening. Chairman Alderson asked Mr. Prest if he was okay with the Conditions of Approval as recommended. Mr. Prest replied he was. Chairman Alderson asked Mr. Prest if the application was approved would construction begin as quickly as possible. Mr. Prest replied it would. Commissioner Quill said the turf identified behind Building B was currently a putting green. He wanted to know if that use would remain. Mr. Prest said yes it would remain, but be downsized. He added they have worked on a lot of office complexes and there usually was very little 4 Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 2008 landscaping left. This complex has a lot of landscaping and you could easily maneuver around this project. Chairman Alderson asked if there would be a problem with shielding all the parking lot lights. Mr. Prest said they had already planned to do that. Chairman Alderson asked if there were any more applicant representatives/comments. There being none, he asked if there was any public comment. Mr. A.P. "Skip" Lench, 78-285 Calle Cadiz, and 78-215 Calle Cadiz, said he was representing the neighborhood of single-family homes in the area. He, and another gentleman, met with David Chapman at his home and over the phone, trying to reach a consensus with the concerns of the neighbors as well as Mr. Chapman. Mr. Lench was happy to report they were pleased overall with the project. There were, however, still some outstanding issues: 1) When Mr. Chapman originally proposed the project he advised them a portion of the property along Desert Club Drive was zoned Village Commercial and the balance was zoned residential. At that time, the neighbors had qualms about a restaurant backing up to residential. Mr. Chapman convinced them the view could also have been blocked by large homes since single-family residences were also allowed. Several residents were upset because they agreed to a restaurant, and were now facing the addition of office buildings. 2) They met with Mr. Chapman, to come to an agreement about the addition of his buildings while the neighbors could maintain the residential feeling of their neighborhood. One of the items they agreed to was a deed restriction so there would be no further development on the property, i.e. buildings. They are requesting the Planning Commission place a deed restriction on the property preventing further development on the property. Mr. Lench stated another unresolved issue was the light shining in their back yards. Mr. Lench referenced the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee (ALRC) action, Item No. 3 of the report where it states: "Exterior lighting shall be consistent with Section 9.100.150 (Outdoor Lighting) of the La Quinta Municipal Code. A bulb refractor or dimmer shall be utilized with the proposed lantern fixtures if deemed necessary by staff. All relocated freestanding lighting within the parking lot shall not exceed the height of existing fixtures and shall be fitted with a visor if deemed necessary by staff." He had concerns about the statement "..fitted with a visor...". He said the prior Village Use Permit very 5 Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 2008 specifically requested all the parking lot lighting be shielded and he wanted that condition to continue. Chairman Alderson asked if the lighting recommendations from the previous meeting requested the shielding should be on the northerly property line only. Mr. Lench said no, it was for the whole property. Mr. Lench said he was pleased to see the carports were very minimal, and said the neighbors wanted to make sure the lighting on the carports would adhere to minimalism as well. He commented briefly on where the parking structures were proposed; in the center of the parking lot as opposed to the northern boundary with the parking structure next to residences. He was pleased with the final location. He added they would like to request a deed restriction on any future development of this property. Commissioner Quill asked Council how a deed restriction would be done. Assistant City Attorney, Michael Houston said he had a couple of observations. There would be a policy issue on whether the Planning Commission would want to impose a restriction on future development. This is an issue that imposes a condition but there are some legal problems with that. The first of which would be, who would have the enforcement right should the restriction be breached. He did not know if it should be proposed that the adjacent residences have the right to remedy the situation. That could eventually cause problems should an application proceed with the City when the City would, in fact, possibly incur liability or a third party would have the right to enforce that against the City. The example being a future owner of the property. That owner could go to the Council waving a deed restriction and then the City would have a lawsuit. The other alternative would be the City would have the right to enforce the deed restriction. This may not be within the purview of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Quill asked if the deed restriction would be in favor of the property owners, or the City. Mr. Houston replied typically a deed restriction, under California Law, has to have properties burdened and properties benefited. So the question would be who is the property that is benefited. It also would restrict the City in the future to some degree if they decide to change the use of that property either through General Plan or Zoning Changes. The final point being there was nothing preventing the developer and the adjacent property owners to do this on their own. In California Law there is a Nexus requirement that conditions imposed on a project have a rational relationship. As a practical matter if 6 Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 2008 there were lien holders they would be in a senior position to foreclose on this property and that sort of provision (deed restriction) would require the consent of the senior lien holders and they would probably not want that put on the property. Commissioner Quill asked if any future development plans required the developer to come back to the City and provide the adjacent property owners with an opportunity to voice their opinions. Staff replied yes. Chairman Alderson said for all practical purposes this property would be built out. Planning Director Les Johnson said it may be at the point of full development, but redevelopment could lead to a variety of opportunities. Chairman Alderson asked Mr. Lench if he had additional questions. Mr. Lench said since there seemed to be several legal issues regarding deed restrictions perhaps staff could come up with a way so that every two or three years the neighbors didn't have to come back to deal with further disruptions in the neighborhood. He added, Mr. Chapman is cognizant of the issue and expressed a willingness not to intrude further upon the adjacent residences. He asked if there was a way to avoid suddenly finding out there was going to be another structure overlooking their back yards and wanted to be assured they would retain the single- family neighborhood. Chairman Alderson asked staff if any future development would be subject to Planning Commission review and public notification since it would give the neighbors an opportunity to come back and comment on the application(s). Staff replied yes, they would be afforded an opportunity to respond, through the public hearing process. There being no further public comment, Chairman Alderson closed the public participation portion of the meeting and opened the matter for Commission discussion. Commissioner Quill said it was a good submittal and there was nothing he would change on this facility. He understood Commissioner Barrows' comments but he did like the retention of the putting green as it is a very active part of the Arnold Palmer restaurant. He was open for discussion on the turf in front of Building A. Otherwise he was pleased with what had been done to change the project. He proposed the Commission not involve themselves in any of the deed restrictions as that should be 7 Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 2008 between Mr. Chapman and the neighbors. Commissioner Barrows said she concurred with Commissioner Quill's comments and appreciated Mr. Lench's comments but didn't see any way to address his concern on the deed restriction. She suggested the turf in front be eliminated and put in artificial turf to save water usage. There is still a lot of turf on the project overall, but there is a need to get serious about water conservation. She suggested the developer could put in more trees and benches. Chairman Alderson said he supported the artificial turf issue. It was a good idea and would cut down on water usage. The only other comment he had was the occupation of the buildings. He had a problem with approving additional office buildings with surrounding buildings half vacant. This would create another situation where we have half vacant office inventory He didn't know who was going to occupy the space, but he stated in the current marketplace it is distasteful to build additional speculative office space in an area with unoccupied office space. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Wilkinson to approve Resolution 2008-013 approving Tentative Parcel Map 35900, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Barrows, Quill, Wilkinson, and Chairman Alderson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Barrows to adopt Resolution 2008-014 approving Village Use Permit 2007-039, as recommended and amended: a. Add a condition stating addition of turf in front of building A, at the corner of Avenue 52 and Desert Club Drive either be replaced with another appropriate landscape or an artificial turf-type of application with some additional trees and shading for the west facing side of that being provided as deemed appropriate and approved by the Planning Director. 8 Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 2008 ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Barrows, Quill, Wilkinson, and Chairman Alderson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. VII. BUSINESS ITEMS: None VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: Planning Director Les Johnson explained why Commissioner Engle was not present due to the requirements of attendance of the Commission as stated in the City of La Quinta Municipal Code, Section 2.06.020B. According to that Code section, Mr. Engle, is entitled to and has made a request to Council for reinstatement to complete his term which ends June 30, 2008. This item will go before City Council at the May 6, 2008, meeting. Staff will provide all the Commissioners with the appropriate Municipal Code section as well as a Commissioner attendance list. He stressed their need to make sure they understood the Code provision for advance notification to the Council if unable to attend a meeting. Chairman Alderson then stated he will be unable to attend the next meeting as he will be out of the country. Chairman Alderson then gave a review of the City Council meeting last week, which included the Eden Rock project. He said it was a very interesting meeting and asked staff to go over some of the pertinent details of the Eden Rock presentation. Planning Director Les Johnson explained the land use/entitlement side of the application. He pointed out highlights of the application/presentation which included: - Removal of the clubhouse and the clock tower, split pools and a variety of miscellaneous changes as a result of the application in January. The development team was responsive to those requests. 9 Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 2008 - The focus was on the development agreement and the fiscal side of the agreement addressing the financial difference on that piece of property as it had previously been designated as a hotel. - There were some concerns about an annual fee being paid by PGA west residents. There was discussion of the annual fee being imposed on those units causing future residents of Eden Rock to rent out the units. - Discussion of the resale percentage paid captured by the City. Estimates were a wash from the original proposal accepted by the City staff. - There was concern over the traffic study on Avenue 54 and Jefferson. There was a condition in the EIR requiring a signal being established. There was concern over the data collected. There was a modification made to the conditions staff introduced and that was approved requiring the payment the applicant would have to pay and including the improvements in a two-set process. - A signal would be added midway through the project, if warranted. If not warranted there would be a second traffic study done to see if it was needed. There would be a five-year limitation, if warranted, or money back to the developer. The key issue is with Madison Street now anticipating traffic patterns will change. Commissioner Quill gave an example of an early builder in the area and the transfer fee charged on a home sold in each of his developments. That was ultimately challenged and the developer lost in court. Commissioner Quill said it sounded like what the City was referring to was a transfer fee established on each home. There would be an initial fee and subsequent sales charged a transfer fee to help offset the T.O.T. He asked what made it possible for the City to do that when private developers and Homeowners' Associations could not. Assistant City Attorney, Michael Houston, replied if done correctly, you can get a transfer fee for a limited duration. The City will be doing a development agreement process. A contracted agreement through the City and a third party required us to be deed-restricted on the property which would be backfilled with CC & R's that effectively require the payment. A negotiated provision for a government entitlement to have it done that way. He also referenced the fact the City does something similar to that in other contexts with respect to the 10 Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 2008 affordable housing program. Through the City's Quiet Second Program affordable housing is offered to a homebuyer and restrictions are put on who they can sell to in the future. If they don't perform appropriately the City has the right to come back and strip the profit. X. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Barrows/Wilkinson to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next regular meeting to be held on May 13, 2008. This regular meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m. on April 22, 2008. Respectfully submitted, ~1~~ ~~~L ~C,~~ ~~~ Carolyn Walker, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California 11