Loading...
2009 09 08 PC MinutesMINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA September 8, 2009 7:03 P.M. CALL TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:03 p.m. by Chairman Ed Alderson who asked Commissioner Barrows to lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Katie Barrows, Paul Quill, Mark Weber, Robert Wilkinson, and Chairman Ed Alderson. Staff present: Planning Director Les Johnson, City Attorney Kathy Jenson, Planning Manager David Sawyer, Assistant Planner Yvonne Franco, Assistant Planner Eric Ceja, and Executive Secretary Carolyn Walker. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: None IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: Chairman Alderson asked if there were any changes to the minutes of July 28, 2009. There being no comments or corrections it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Barrows/Quill to approve the minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Site Development Permit 2007-879 Time Extension No. 1; a request by The Foundation Group for consideration of a one-year time extension fora 6,200 square foot retail building located within the La Quinta Village Shopping Center located on the northwest corner of Washington Street and Calle Tampico. P:\Reports- PC\2009\9-22-09\PC MIN_9-5-09_Approved.doc Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 2009 Chairman Alderson opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Assistant Planner Eric Ceja presented 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 Weber commented on the staff report notation that the applicant was working with the adjacent property owners regarding the fountain. He asked if anything new had developed. Staff said the applicant had been working with the property owner on landscaping of the retention basin. Commissioner Weber asked if that included landscaping around the fountain. Staff said yes. Commissioner Weber asked for clarification of the location of the waste receptacles. Staff responded it was just off to the west and noted the location on the exhibit. Commissioner Weber said he wanted to make sure the trash receptacle would not be placed near the bus stop that was a part of this parcel. Commissioner Weber asked if the parcel was actually larger than the drawing the Commission received IA-51. Staff said yes. Commissioner Weber commented on the parking and asked if it was sufficient for the project. Staff replied it was. Chairman Alderson asked if the highlighted items were new conditions and primarily procedural issues and with nothing major having to do with construction of the building and/or any grade elevation changes. Staff said it was correct. Chairman Alderson asked if the applicant was there. Staff responded the applicant was not present. Chairman Alderson asked if the applicant had agreed to all the Conditions of Approval. Staff said they had. Commissioner Weber had several comments on the parking lot lighting. He was specifically concerned about two items; 11• Some of the existing lighting is placed close to the bus stop and buried in a tree, causing the standard to be visibly moved and creating a hazard, which could be a Code Enforcement issue, and, 21• other lights are P:\Reports - PC\2009',9-22-091PC MIN_9-8-09_Approved.doc 2 Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 2009 also buried in the overgrown mesquite trees, particularly one west of the corner of the building, near the bus stop, on that site. Chairman Alderson asked if Commissioner Weber was suggesting that, in the interest of public safety, Code Enforcement should look into these situations. Commissioner Weber said yes. Commissioner Weber said he assumed the other parcel owner was taking care of all the parking lot lighting, including this parcel since the lighting was already there. He wondered if there were any issues, with that, since it was a separate ownership. Planning Director Johnson responded it was a separate ownership but he understood there was a reciprocal agreement with regards to the use of the parking lot; including the lighting and the trash receptacles. He gave a brief background on the history of the site and how it became separate from the rest of the parcel, as well as the information on the reciprocal agreement. He then said staff would make sure Code Enforcement addressed the issue of the proper maintenance of the trees with both property owners. Commissioner Weber thanked staff and encouraged them to take care of this as soon as possible because it was definitely a problem. There being no further questions of the staff, Chairman Alderson asked if the applicant was available and would like to address the Commission. The applicant was not present and Chairman Alderson asked if there was any public comment. There being no public comment, Chairman Alderson closed the public participation portion of the meeting and opened the matter for Commission discussion. There being no further discussion it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Weber to approve Resolution 2009-023 approving Site Development Permit 2007-879, Time Extension No. 1 as submitted. Unanimously approved. P:\ReUOrts - PC12009',9-22-09\PC MIN_9-8-09_Approved.doc 3 Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 2009 B. Conditional Use Permit 2009-085, Amendment No. 1; a request by Royal Street Communications for consideration to allow for the co- location of six panel antennas on an existing telecommunication monopalm tower located at 54-001 Madison Street; Riverside County Fire Station #70. Chairman Alderson opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Assistant Planner Eric Ceja presented 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 commented on the Fire Station being owned by the City of La Quinta, and asked if any additional ground leases or equipment from another company provided revenue to the City of La Quinta. Staff said yes. Commissioner Weber asked if there was a picture, or any other detailed renderings of the actual array, provided. Staff said no. The applicant was not doing additional antenna arrays. The new antennas would be attached in the radius around the pole. Commissioner Weber said he was hoping to see an actual picture of what was already approved since there was an existing tower, and a pending tower that was proposed at 55 feet. Commissioner Weber commented on the pending ground lease and the fact that it would have been helpful to actually see the final plans since this was such a prominent corner and a real visual issue. Planning Director Johnson responded by explaining what was being placed at that site; including how the arrays would be placed. He also said one of the conditions of approval included the possibility of some screening options that staff would work on, with the applicant. He went over the possible options and their impact. He said the Code encourages the use of co-location sites and staff felt that, at a P:\Reports - PC\2009'9-22-091PC MIN_ 9-8-09_Approved.doc 4 Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 2009 minimum, the cables should be painted to match and, since they were tightly placed against the pole, there was no need for a full rendering to be submitted. Commissioner Weber asked if the color was going to be the same as the base so it would blend in with the trunk. Staff said yes. Commissioner Weber asked if this was going to be similar to sornething proposed recently at another location. Planning Director Johnson responded there was a similar proposal in North La Quinta, north of Corporate Center and Adams. Commissioner Barrows asked for confirmation of the language regarding screening in condition #33 where it identified that the proposed equipment on the ground would not "be visible above the surrounding wall". Assistant Planner Ceja said that was correct. Commissioner Barrows asked if staff was suggesting that an additional condition, or statement, be added to that. Staff said no. It was just referencing the fact that they would not be visible, since the plans show they are visible. Staff recommended this condition so that the equipment would be completely screened from view. Commissioner Barrows just wanted to clarify that where the condition states "shall not be visible above the surrounding wall"; the intent was it could include screening. Staff said yes. Chairman Alderson commented on the fact there would have to be a lease in place, signed, and activated prior to this becoming a functional tower. Planning Director Johnson responded that the property owner (City of La Quinta) had given consent to allow this to be presented to the Commission and, if it is approved, the City would then enter into negotiations to secure a lease prior to a building permit being granted. There being no further questions of the staff, Chairman Alderson asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Ms. Veronica Arvizu, 29-504 Masters Drive, Murrieta CA 92563 introduced herself and gave some background information on condition #36, where it mentions the cables need to be placed inside PaReports - PC12009',9-22-09\PC MIN_9-8-09_ApUroved.doc 5 Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 2009 the tower. She said she had a structural analysis of the tower performed, by TowerCo, which is the owner of the tower and the analysis showed that the cables cannot fit inside the tower due to the tower's width,. She gave anecdotal information on a similar situation regarding a tower in the City of Riverside and how they resolved it. She said the outcome looked really good and offered to bring samples of the materials used to the Planning Director. She was requesting that the condition be changed to read "to be disguised" or words to that effect. Commissioner Weber asked if the cable was 7/8's diameter. Ms. Arvizu said yes. Commissioner Weber asked why they could not fit three such cables in the tower. Ms. Arvizu said that was what the structural report stated. Chairman Alderson asked if she meant the cables would not physically fit. She said that was correct because there were currently 12 cables in the trunk, and the additional three would not fit inside. They would have to be placed on the outside per the structural calculations.. Chairman Alderson asked if placing the cables on the outside of the tower was a standard of the industry. Ms. Arvizu said if they were renting from, or co-locating, with Sprint they were not allowed to place any cables on the inside of the towers. However, this tower is owned by TowerCo and they intended to place the cables inside until they saw the structural report and realized it was not possible. Commissioner Weber asked about the diameter of the tower and said his sketch showed the cables would fit. He wondered why they wouldn't fit and if it was based on being attached in the interior. Ms. Arvizu responded the cables did not have to be attached, as they would be "free-hanging". She added the tower is tapered and it gets smaller at the top; therefore they could not get to the exit port, at the 50-foot mark, because the diameter gets too skinny up at the top. They have their cables pulled all the way up to the palm fronds. So, at the 50-foot height, which is where they would have to be pulled out, there's just not enough space to actually pull them through. P~.1Reports - PC1200919-2 2-0 9\PC fv11N_9-8-09_Approved.doc 6 Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 2009 Commissioner Weber asked if there was a punch out, or a way to bore into that, would the structure be compromised. Ms. Arvizu said yes. Commissioner Wilkinson asked how far up the column they could go before they lost their space. Ms. Arvizu said she believed it was about half-way, or approximately 25 feet. Commissioner Wilkinson suggested it might be less obtrusive if the cables could be inside half-way up and then outside from that point on. He commented that, from a visual standpoint, the farther away it was from people looking at it the less obtrusive it would be. Ms. Arvizu said they had to cut portholes at the 25 foot height and she was not sure, structurally, if that was possible but she would look into it. Chairman Alderson said there was an existing tower there and asked how it was wired. Ms. Arvizu said this tower has had several owners with their cables still present which was why there was not adequate space to add new cables. Chairman Alderson asked if these were coaxial cables. Ms. Arvizu said yes. Commissioner Wilkinson asked if she knew of a location where this had been done so the Commission, or staff, could see it. Ms. Arvizu referenced back to the previous discussion about the tower in the City of Riverside. Planning Director Johnson asked if the structural report stated that all three cables could not fit inside, or was there the potential that two of the three could possibly be placed inside the tower. Ms. Arvizu said the report stated they have to be outside, but she would check into that possibility. Planning Director Johnson said one option, to help from an aesthetic standpoint and minimize the affect, would be to place as many cables as possible inside the tower. If the Commission was supportive of this, staff could work with the applicant on the placement. He suggested they be placed more towards the south west side. Even though there were homes there, the views would be very limited from P:\Heports - PC\200919-2 2-09\PC MIN_ 9-8-09.Approved.doc Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 2009 those residences as well as what would be seen from either Madison or Avenue 54. At a minimum, they should be required to put as many cables as possible inside the tower. Ms. Arvizu said there was also a cluster of trees in that area and they could put them facing the trees so they would not be seen from the residential side. Discussion followed of what was located in the area and the advantages to staff's suggestions. Chairman Alderson asked if there was any public comment. There being no public comment, Chairman Alderson closed the public participation portion of the meeting and opened the matter for Commission discussion. Chairman Alderson asked if the Commissioners wanted to discuss staff's suggestions. Commissioner Weber wanted to comment on Commissioner Wilkinson's comment regarding approving the application and leaving it up to staff and the Planning Director to come up with a solution. He thought the solutions that needed to be explored were to 11. keeping the cables interior as far up as possible, 21• going up 20 feet or so and then popping out, if possible, and 3). putting as many as possible in the interior and then minimizing what had to be placed on the exterior. There was no further discussion and it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Weber/Wilkinson to approve Resolution 2009-024 recommending approval of Conditional Use Permit 2009-085, Amendment No. 1, with the following suggestion: Condition number 36 will be left to the discretion of the Planning Director with the strong recommendation to find a way to minimize the coaxial cables being viewed from the exterior and having them go interior for as long as they can up the pole and then popping out, or getting the cables interior and minimizing the amount of cables that have to be place on the exterior. Unanimously approved. P.1Reports - PC\2009'~9-22-09\PC MIN_9-8-09_Approved.doc g Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 2009 VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Street Name Change 2009-019; a request by East of Madison, LLC for consideration of adoption of a resolution of intention to change a street name from Fremont Way to Happy Place Lane, located north of Baffin Avenue, west of Pike Place; within the Madison Club. Chairman Alderson advised the Commissioners this was a business item, not a public hearing, for consideration of adoption of a Resolution of Intention to change a street name. He added the Commission was not ruling on the actual street name, but rather the minimal requirements for public hearing. He then asked staff for confirmation of that statement. Planning Manager David Sawyer responded it was correct. The action by the Commission was to set the hearing date. The item would then come back to the Planning Commission, as a public hearing, for recommendation and then would be forwarded to the City Council for their public hearing. Chairman Alderson then asked for Commissioner comments. Commissioner Wilkinson asked if there was any conflict with the names Happy Point and Happy Place. Chairman Alderson reaffirmed this was not the forum in which to discuss this as it would come back as a public hearing item. The intent of this meeting was to approve the passing of the resolution. Commissioner Weber said there were ten parcels with nine owners and only six signatures on the request. He asked if there was any issue with the signatures; especially since two of the parcels had one owner. He asked if there were any legalities they needed to be concerned about because of the 60% of signatures. Planning Manager Sawyer said they looked at this as 60% of the properties and not the individual owners, therefore, the multiple ownership would not be an issue. Commissioner Weber said he thought it would have been nice to see more property owners signing off on this and hoped the City could contact all the parcel owners for the public hearing. P:lneports - PC12009',9-22-09\PC MIN_9-8-09_Approved.doc 9 Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 2009 Chairman Alderson said he was sure staff had met all the legal requirements that allowed the Commission to go to the next level. The Commissioners would be able to address Commissioner Weber's comments at the public hearing. City Attorney Jenson said all the legal parcel owners would receive a copy of the hearing notice. She also clarified the previous statement of 60% of the properties, saying it is 60% of the lineal footage of property. There being no further discussion it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Weber to approve Resolution 2009-025 approving the Resolution of Intention to Change a Street Name Change 2009-019 as submitted. Unanimously approved. B. Architectural Design Review; a request by Mr. & Mrs. Doug Bogren for consideration to allow an architectural design that is not compatible with the Cove Architectural Design Guidelines for a residence to be located at 51-705 Avenida Madero; within the La Quinta Cove. Chairman Alderson opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Assistant Planner Yvonne Franco presented 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 commented on the Oriental and Feng Shui influences on the design of the house. He asked if this was going to be a the roof and if there was a color board available. Staff responded the color was shown on Exhibit Sheet Two and the tiles would be green. Commissioner Wilkinson asked staff to verify it would be the dark green color; because it looked blue in the lower picture and the dark green was also highlighted. Staff said the two lower pictures were just examples of existing roof tiles of what the applicant wanted to incorporate into his roof. The one on top is what he is proposing. P:\Reports - PC\200919-2 2-09\PC MIN_9-8-09_Approved.doc f 0 Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 2009 Commissioner Wilkinson asked if the tower element was a chimney. Staff said yes and that had been addressed in the plan check comments. It would have to be lowered to comply with the height requirements. Commissioner Weber asked if the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee (ALRC) had reviewed this application. Staff said no. Chairman Alderson asked if they were going to look at it. Staff responded no. Commissioner Weber added it was not required but the Planning Commission could direct that the ALRC review this application. Planning Director Johnson said it could be directed to them, but the architectural standards in the Cove Guidelines state significant variations go directly to the Planning Commission for consideration. Cammissioner Weber said there are guidelines and standards established, for single family homes in the Cove residential area. He drove the area and did not see anything like this architecture. Staff commented they were familiar with the area and did not know of any existing residence that had this type of roof design, either in the Cove or elsewhere in La Quinta. Commissioner Barrows asked if the height of the spark arrestors had been addressed. Staff said yes. Chairman Alderson said he did not believe there was any other home, in the Cove, with this type of roof construction. Planning Director Johnson said, several staff members had driven throughout the Cove and had not seen this architectural style. He did not know if the applicant, or his architect, was aware of any other examples of this architecture within the Cove. He added there were other examples in other communities, but nothing that he could point to within the Cove, or anywhere else in the La Quinta community. There being no further questions of the staff, Chairman Alderson asked if the applicant was available and would like to address the Commission. P:IReports - PCA200919-22-091PC MIN. 9-8-09_Approveddoc f l Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 200f1 Mr. Bogren 51-705 Avenida Madero, La Quinta CA 92253, introduced himself and said one of the main purposes of this architecture was to do the arched ridges. He said they were a little bit dramatic (the flying eavesl, but they would be reduced to about half of what appeared on the exhibits. He added, the main focus was to do an arched ridgeline. He acknowledged that the house design reflected Asian influence and it was different from all the homes surrounding it. Commissioner Quill asked if Mr. Bogren was the builder. Mr. Bogren said yes. Commissioner Quill asked if Mr. Bogren would be the owner or was he building the house for someone in particular. Mr. Bogren said he and his wife would own the house. He said his wife was interested in Asian themes and this was the fifth house he'd built or remodeled. Commissioner Quill confirmed the Asian interest was Mr. and Mrs. Bogren's interest. Mr. Bogren said this was a Feng Shui-designed house. He said, if you looked at the pictures you would see the unusual front entrance and there was a large dragon in the courtyard as well as a waterfall and fountain. He also said their idea was to carry through on the Asian theme. Commissioner Quill asked for confirmation that the Commission was not being asked to approve any deviation of zoning setbacks or anything of that nature but deciding on a strictly aesthetic treatment type of issue. Staff said that was correct and the language in the design standards was specific in stating that significant variations required Planning Commission approval. Staff viewed this as a significant variation. Commissioner Quill asked if the roof-mounted equipment would be going away. Mr. Bogren said yes. Commissioner Weber asked if the second bedroom was actually 69 square feet as he was concerned when he saw a 69 square foot bedroom. P:ARaports - PCA2009`.&22-09APC MIN_9-8-09_Approved.doc 12~ Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 2009 Mr. Santiago Lopez, 52-608 Avenida Diaz, La Quinta, CA, the architect, introduced himself and responded that it was a 69-foot addition to the existing bedroom. Commissioner Weber then asked if that was the third, or second, bedroom noted on the drawing. Mr. Bogren said that was the front bedroom. Commissioner Weber commented to the applicant that he had indicated that the roof hip curvatures were not really intended to be as depicted in the drawing provided to the Commission and asked if about half of that was correct. Mr. Bogren said the flying eave part (the part that flies up when you come to the eave) is not as dramatic as that. Commissioner Weber asked if he had the updated drawings available for the Commission. The architect, Mr. Lopez, responded he did not. Commissioner Weber asked Mr. Bogren if he had any conversations with the neighbors. Mr. Bogren said no and pointed out how many vacant properties there were in the area, as well as rentals, and said he had a total of two neighbors. Commissioner Weber said he spoke to some of the people in the area and apparently there were a lot of rentals. He then commented on who/what was in the area. Mr. Bogren said there was only one homeowner and they were across the street. Commissioner Barrows asked the applicant to explain what the arched ridge feature was. Mr. Bogren gave an explanation of what the arched ridge feature was. Chairman Alderson asked if Mr. Bogren, as the owner/builder, was going to put up a concrete the roof on top of the existing roof. Mr. Bogren said he was putting ceramic tile. Chairman Alderson repeated the word "existing" and asked if there was any structural consideration because of the doubling of weight on the roof. Mr. Bogren said no, because the ceramic they were using was a lightweight tile. PoiReports - PC12009'~9-22-09\PC MIN_9-8-09- Approved.tloc 13 Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 2009 Chairman Alderson said the applicant had some new front entry work in an oriental design and asked if that had all been permitted. Mr. Bogren replied yes. Chairman Alderson said because of the type of application, it was not noticed to the public or to the neighbors. Mr. Bogren said that was correct. Chairman Alderson asked if Mr. Bogren was going to raise the roof any inordinate amount that would affect anyone's view. Mr. Bogren said no. Chairman Alderson commented the applicant was doubling the size of the house. Chairman Alderson asked if there was any public comment. There being no public comment, Chairman Alderson closed the public participation portion of the meeting and opened the matter for Commission discussion. Commissioner Wilkinson said he would suggest this go to the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee (ALRC) since he did not see this fitting into the neighborhood. It was not like anything else the Commission had ever approved and nobody around them knew what was going on. He said this could not be done in a new development and if it went to architectural review then they could take a better look at it, since they are more technically versed in this. Chairman Alderson asked if Commissioner Wilkinson was suggesting this be sent to the ALRC. Commissioner Wilkinson said that would be his suggestion; yes. The suggestion was "so noted" by Chairman Alderson. Commissioner Quill said he probably lived within sight of this house, but not within 500 feet. He commented, as a long-time resident, the Cove was eclectic by its very nature. Those that live there like all forms of architecture. He then gave a little background on some of the many different forms of architecture, in the Cove; such as 70's F:1Repmts - PC',2009',9-22-09APC MIN_9-8-09_AUProved.doc 14 Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 2009 style, Tuscan, Spanish Colonial, and others. He commented this was an upgrade to the neighborhood and he didn't have a problem with it, even though it was a little different and unique. Commissioner Barrows said she would concur with Commissioner Quill's comments because she has lived in the Cove for 20-plus years and part of the reason that she liked it was because of the diversity and the willingness of the community to tolerate some of that diversity. The guidelines and standards of the Cove, that staff provided the Commission, gave the determination to the Planning Commission. The project was described as a significant variation from the style, but the neighborhood Commissioner Barrows lives in contains French chateaus, southwest style homes, and 50's block houses. It has a lot of diversity and looks very interesting. She did not think the applicant's design was radical in terms of design and thought if fit nicely with the neighborhood. She did not see any reason why the Planning Commission could not make a decision about it and was willing to make the decision without sending it to the AL.RC. Commissioner Weber said he was less radical and not convinced this design was appropriate for the neighborhood, as it was extremely divergent from the standards in the area. He respected those Commissioners that lived in the Cove, but the reason this came before the Planning Commission was that it was so radically different. He commented you could have a Feng Shui-style house without having the exterior look like this. He was also concerned that it had not been noticed to the neighbors and they did not have an opportunity to comment on it; whether they were absentee owners or not. He also had a concern that the architectural standards were not more compliant to a more homogenous design pattern for the area and was not in favor of it. Commissioner Quill interjected that homogenous was not what was wanted in the Cove. The Cove was not a tract. Commissioner Weber said maybe that was a bad word to use, but he did not see anything in the Cove that was similar to this design and questioned whether it was appropriate. F:1Reporis-PC120py',9-22-09\PC MW 9-8-09_APproved.doc t5 Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 2009 Chairman Alderson said he had seen the house and the neighbors and came prepared to take a negative look at it until the applicant said he was going to take the eaves down. If the eaves were taken down the "radical-Hess" of the project would be reduced and then he would be inclined to agree with Commissioners Quill and Barrows that it would be less of a severe architectural change. He asked for the applicant's assurance that the eave angles would be made less severe, then he would be included to support the request. Commissioner Weber said that was one reason why he specifically asked whether drawings were available. He said it was entirely appropriate for the Planning Commission to ask for a copy of those drawings. He said he had a problem with the Commission being presented with an application and a design that was not what was being approved. He assumed that the architectural design was going to be re-worked on this before construction and said it was entirely appropriate that it come back before the Planning Commission at that time to make the decision. Commissioner Wilkinson concurred with Commissioner Weber. He said if the design was going to change the Commissioners should have the opportunity to look at the design and to confirm the angle and pitch of what was going to be approved. Chairman Alderson asked if the applicant had his architect with him, which he did. Chairman Alderson addressed Mr. Lopez, the architect, saying you've seen and heard the dilemma that we're faced with. It's within our power to continue this and have you come back and bring revised architectural drawings showing this roof element altered per the testimony tonight, we can approve it as is, or we can disapprove it. City Attorney Jenson told the Commission they could conditionally approve it, just carrying out the representation that the angle is going to be reduced a certain amount. Chairman Alderson responded that Commissioner Weber would like to see that. Mr. Lopez said, at this time, you could see the elevations on the screen, but the total part of the corner was just one foot. P:~Reports - PC,2009t9-22-09\PC MIN_9-8-09_Approvetl.doc f6 Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 2009 Chairman Alderson asked if the kick-up was one foot. Mr. Lopez said the fascia, the higher part, was one foot. Commissioner Wilkinson asked if the exhibits shown represented what the applicant was going to do. Mr. Lopez said that was what was represented. Commissioner Quill asked for confirmation that this was less than what was depicted in the example pictures but was, in fact, the correct scale of what was going to be built. Mr. Lopez said yes. Mr. Lopez said the photographs were just examples of what the applicant wanted. Commissioner Quill said he was prepared to approve it as submitted. He said the applicant was not suggesting that they want to change it, he was okay with it and ready to make a motion to approve it as submitted. Commissioner Weber said he heard something different than Commissioner Quill. What he heard was the photographs did not depict the correct dimensions. He also heard that the architectural submittal did not depict what was going to be built either. Also that the eave was going to be a foot on the outside and the architectural plans submitted did not correctly depict the scale. He asked if that was correct. Mr. Lopez said it was in scale and it was one foot at the corner. Commissioner Weber asked if the renderings, provided to the Commission, were going to be revised to reflect a foot on the corner, not what was currently being shown. Commissioner Quill said they currently reflect one foot and that was what was going to be built. He said typical fascia was six inches and this was basically six inches taller, at the corners, than the typical fascia. At the corner the fascia goes up, with that curve to it, twelve inches. Chairman Alderson said it was asix-inch kick-up. Commissioner Weber wanted to make a clarification and said he was looking at the rendering and did not think it was to scale. He saw a six-inch reveal on the fascia and the corner was more than double of what he was seeing. He said the drawings they had were not P:\Reports- PC\2009\9-22-09\PC MIN_9-8-09_Approved.doc 1~ Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 2009 correctly reflecting the actual dimensions and scale. He then pointed out the corner appeared to be more than six inches. There being no further discussion it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Barrows to approve Minute Motion 2009-007 allowing the architectural design as submitted; understanding that the change at the corner of the eaves will not exceed 12-inches in height. AYES: Commissioners Barrows, Quill, and Chairman Alderson. NOES: Commissioners Weber, and Wilkinson. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Report on City Council Meeting of August 4, 2009, from Commissioner Weber. He gave a brief rundown of items for that meeting and commented on the discussion of speed postings. Chairman Alderson was unable to attend the meeting of September 1, 2009; however Commissioner Wilkinson was in attendance and gave a brief rundown of the meeting. He commented on several items, including: 1. The fact that several dust control fences, around the City, were looking tattered and torn. He said one resident commented on actually taking down the fences. 2. Stan Ford (CV Parks & Recreation) gave a presentation of coming events in the City. 3. The date of the Joint Council Meeting; which is scheduled for October 27, 2009. (Staff commented they would confirm the starting time and advise the Commissioners at their next meeting.) B. Chairman Alderson noted Commissioner Wilkinson was scheduled to report on the City Council Meeting of September 15, 2009, but since he attended the September 15S meeting, Chairman Alderson offered to attend that meeting. P:1Reports - PC\2009\°-22-09tPC MIN_9-8-09_Approved.doc 18 Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 2009 IX: DIRECTOR ITEMS: A. Housing Element Update Planning Director Johnson gave an update on the progress of the Housing Element update and said he hoped to have the matter before the Commission in October or November. B. General Plan Update Planning Director Johnson reported on where staff was with the General Plan Update. General discussion followed. X. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Chairman Alderson/Commissioner Wilkinson to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next regular meeting to be held on September 22, 2009. This regular meeting was adjourned at 8:17 p.m. on September 8, 2009. Respectfully submitted, ~~~~ ~~ Carolyn Walker, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California I':AReports - PCA2009A°-22-09tPC MIN. 9-8-09_Approved.doc f 9