Loading...
2009 11 24 PCT C.�a�`'"o City of La Quinta �^ Planning Commission Agendas are now C 9 � available on the City's Web Page @ www.la-guinta.org 5 o�'M oF'�9ti PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California NOVEMBER 24, 2009 7:00 P.M. **NOTE** ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING Beginning Resolution 2009-032 Beginning Minute Motion 2009-009 CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call II. PUBLIC COMMENT This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled for public hearing. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your comments to three minutes. III. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA IV. CONSENT CALENDAR Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 10, 2009. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None VI. BUSINESS ITEM: A. Item .................. MODIFICATIONS BY APPLICANT 2009-025 Applicant........... Stephen Judice Location............ 51-350 Desert Club Drive Request ............. Consideration of a Request to Permit Medical Office Uses in an Existing Office Building Approved for General Office Only Located at 51-350 Desert Club Drive. Action ............... Resolution 2009- VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: A. Letter from La Quinta Resort & Club Vill. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Report on City Council meeting of November 17, 2009, by Commissioner Weber. B. Commissioner Wilkinson is scheduled to attend the December 1, 2009, City Council meeting. IX. DIRECTOR ITEMS: A. Interpretation of Allowable Uses in the Community and Regional Commercial Zones X. ADJOURNMENT: This meeting of the Planning Commission will be adjourned to a Regular Meeting to be held on December 8, 2009, at 7:00 p.m. DECLARATION OF POSTING I, Carolyn Walker, Executive Secretary of the City of La Quinta, do hereby declare that the foregoing Agenda for the La Quinta Planning Commission meeting of Tuesday, November 24, 2009 was posted on the outside entry to the Council Chamber, 78-495 Calle Tampico and the bulletin board at the La Quinta Cove Post Office, 51-321 Avenida Bermudas, on Friday, November 20, 2009. DATED: November 20, 2009 #' � CAROLYN WALKER, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California Public Notices The La Quinta City Council Chamber is handicapped accessible. If special equipment is needed for the hearing impaired, please call the City Clerk's office at 777-7123, twenty- four (24) hours in advance of the meeting and accommodations will be made. If special electronic equipment is needed to make presentations to the Planning Commission, arrangements should be made in advance by contacting the City Clerk's office at 777-7123. A one (1) week notice is required. If background material is to be presented to the Planning Commission during a Planning Commission meeting, please be advised that eight (8) copies of all documents, exhibits, etc., must be supplied to the Executive Secretary for distribution. It is requested that this take place prior to the beginning of the 7:00 p.m. meeting. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA November 10, 2009 7:02 P.M. CALL TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Chairman Ed Alderson who asked Commissioner Wilkinson to led the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Katie Barrows, Mark Weber, Robert Wilkinson, and Chairman Ed Alderson. Commissioner Quill joined the meeting at 7:19 p.m. Staff present: Planning Director Les Johnson, City Attorney Kathy Jenson, Planning Manager David Sawyer, Principal Planner Andrew Mogensen, and Executive Secretary Carolyn Walker. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Planning Director Johnson requested Item B be presented first, as the applicant was present. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: Chairman Alderson asked if there were any changes to the minutes of October 27, 2009. There being no comments or corrections it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Barrows/Weber to approve the minutes as corrected. AYES: Commissioners Barrows, Weber, Wilkinson and Chairman Alderson. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Quill. ABSTAIN: None. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Sign Program 1997-383 Amendment No. 1; a request by Kerr Project Services, Inc. for consideration of a proposed Sign Program Amendment to increase the permissible sign area for Smart & Final, located in the Jefferson Plaza at the northwest corner of Jefferson Street and Highway 111. PAReports - PC\2009\11-24-09\PC MIN_11-10-09_Draft.doc Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 2009 Planning Manager David Sawyer presented the staff report on file in the Planning Department. Chairman Alderson asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Weber asked if the grand re -opening banner and temporary signs were handled through the proper channels. Staff said they were; showed what was currently on the building and explained what procedures were followed. Commissioner Weber asked if the temporary "extra" was to scale. Staff said the applicant was present and would provide more detail. Commissioner Weber referenced Attachment No. 1 showing the sign monument panel and asked if that panel will remain the same as the existing standards. Staff said yes. There being no further questions of the staff, Chairman Alderson asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. George Adams, 16267 Crescent Moon Court, Riverside — introduced himself and stated he was not with Kerr Project Services who had been relieved of their responsibilities on this project. He stated he was Smart & Final's Account Manager and representative. He then responded to the question regarding scale and said the current extra' banner was not the same scale as the planned permanent sign. This banner had been borrowed from another store just for the grand re -opening. The permanent sign would be the same as the one proposed and the temporary banner would removed after the 30-day permit period. The monument sign would also be the same size as before. Mr. Adams then explained how the company was changing, the need for updating signs, and the choice of this variation of the word "extra". Chairman Alderson re -confirmed that the company was changing their product line and needed the word "extra" in their signage. Mr. Adams said yes. ?,PC`,20J9n 11-2.1-00•PCMIN II i009) Drnft.doc 2 Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 2009 Commissioner Wilkinson asked Mr. Adams if he had heard him say the letters were smaller than those on the existing sign, when referring to the examples. Mr. Adams replied the letters on the building would be a little larger. He referred to the letters on the monument panel as being smaller to accommodate the word "extra". He added the building letter style had also been changed and went over some of the changes. Commissioner Wilkinson commented it not only looked better but was more proportionate than the current sign. Chairman Alderson asked if the word "extra" was going to be illuminated. Mr. Adams said it would be illuminated with white leds. Commissioner Weber asked about the illumination of the current sign and the specifications on the leds for the proposed sign. Mr. Adams said they were proposed to be low voltage leds and added the old sign had probably been illuminated by neon. He did not have the specifications on the leds, but he could get them. Chairman Alderson asked if there was any public comment. There being no public comment, he closed the public participation portion of the meeting and opened the matter for Commission discussion. Commissioners Barrows and Webers commented this sign was an improvement on the current signs and more to scale. Chairman Alderson said there were two arguments on behalf of approval of this sign. One was doubling the size of the sign for a building which was 400 feet from Highway 111. Two was the encumbrance of a future building to be placed in front of this site. He said making the sign larger would help the visibility of the building, as well as the inclusion of the word "extra" fit better in scale and scope. He stated this was a good idea and he supported it. There was no further discussion and it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Weber/Barrows to approve Minute Motion 2009-008 approving Sign Program 1997-383, Amendment No. 1 as submitted. AYES: Commissioners Barrows, Weber, Wilkinson and Chairman Alderson. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Quill. ABSTAIN: None. P:iNcport, PC12009`11-24-09"PC MIN. 11 10M r.raft.doc 3 Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 2009 B. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2009-099; a request by the City of La Quinta for consideration of an amendment to La Quinta Municipal Code Title 8, Chapter 13, updating the City's Water -Efficient Landscaping Ordinance affecting all locations City-wide. Principal Planner Andrew Mogensen presented the staff report on file in the Planning Department. Chairman Alderson asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Barrows commented on her involvement with a landscape ordinance she was working on with Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) and Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) and stated this Ordinance would be going to the CVWD for their consideration. She referenced Page 9, 8.13.030 A. 1. which stated: '...all new construction and rehabilitated landscapes for public and private development projects with a landscape area equal or greater than 2,500 square feet." She said CVWD staff had determined they were going to remove the 2500 square foot minimum, necessitating any project that has to obtain a permit be subject to the Ordinance. That would be the recommendation they would be forwarding to their board for consideration. Commissioner Barrows further commented that the CVWD ordinance was 30% more water -conservative than the State Model and spoke well for the direction of the Coachella Valley. Commissioner Weber said it would appear the staff review time would be increased and asked what kind of impact that would have. He said La Quinta and CVWD have done a fine job in protecting resources but was concerned about unfunded mandates, the use of additional resources, and the costs involved. Staff responded that was something that still needed to be addressed as the issue of rehabilitated landscapes was a new item. There were a lot of homeowners' associations looking at reduction of interior and PCA200f:, 11-2h 09',PC MIN 11 10 09. Draft doc 4 Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 2009 exterior turf areas and conversion to desertscape. The City's current concern was with the perimeter of these projects because of the publicly visibility. So, that would be the initial focus though the City would also be interested in the interior conversions. Staff was already talking about this prior to the State Model Ordinance matter coming up. Currently there is a fee schedule for final landscape review and staff has talked about utilizing that as well as the fact we are currently going through a major review of the fee schedule for both the Planning and Public Works Departments fees. The City does not want to be a deterrent to rehabilitation but there is a cost associated with review of these items. It will take some time to clearly define fees and propose them to the Council. Commissioner Weber asked if the typical home in the Cove, or North La Quinta would fall under the 2500 square foot limit. Staff responded there was a provision noted on Page 9, Item 3.a. which included an exemption for landscaping of single family residential projects with a total project landscape area of less than 5,000 square feet. As an example, the typical single family home front yard conversion to a desertscape design would be exempt from review. However, all non-residential rehabilitation projects as well as larger homeowner association perimeter, and other community areas, would have to go through the review process. Commissioner Weber said he was pleased to see the definition of mulch included decomposed granite. Commissioner Weber asked for more information on the turf slope issue. Staff responded this is an issue because turf is occasionally used as stabilization to help prevent erosion. The current standard is a 3:1 slope. The State Model Water Ordinance limits it to a 4:1 slope. Commissioner Weber used the example of the slopes on the north side of Avenue 48 and said there were going to have to be some significant remediation efforts to occur to meet standards. Planning Director Johnson said certainly that example had a lot of issues with it and the rehabilitation of erosion -related matters are going to be an interest of staff as they review those plans. Chairman Alderson asked if the Planning Department staff would be doing the landscape plan checks. Principal Planner Mogensen P rieg�>r¢s- KM2009;11-24-09TC MIN_ 11-10-09 _prt�k. Jkm 5 Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 2009 responded they currently do landscape plan checks for all new projects, but this will mean they will be doing rehabilitated projects as well. Chairman Alderson asked if the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee (ALRC) would be reviewing any of these projects. Planning Director Johnson said they would not be reviewing rehabilitated projects as that would only require administrative review. Staff also pointed out that plan check review requires CVWD review and approval. Chairman Alderson referenced the soils analysis as mentioned on Page 29, 8.C.iv. "The soil analysis report shall be submitted to the City as part of the Final Landscaping Plan." He said he looked upon this analysis as having the same importance as a soils report does to the structural aspects of the building which is submitted with the initial plans. He asked why staff would not want to see the soils analysis initially so the developer could design accordingly. He felt it was untimely to be part of the final landscape plans. Staff responded the landscape architect should be looking at that very early in the process. Staff then explained the difference between the soils report and the soil analysis and mentioned this language was taken directly from the State Model Ordinance. Staff would anticipate and expect that a landscape architect would be considering that soils report early in the process to make sure they are planting the proper plants to survive in that environment or if they need to make modifications to ensure a high succession rate that they are taking that into account. Chairman Alderson commented on the City codes coordinating with the CVWD requirements and asked if CVWD ever took into consideration any of the City's suggestions. He then gave the examples of the requirement of the option of alternative desertscape landscape plans, and the 18-inch sprinkler setback to eliminate nuisance runoff. Staff responded the first items was unique to La Quinta, by requiring a desertscape option to be available with model home complexes. The second item was in the previous Ordinance that the Commission considered, and was a CVWD-initiated matter which f Rep(,ns 1-24-01!PC WN„_11 1009.,, DfaOt doc 6 Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 2009 the City followed. Principal Planner Mogensen added it was a State Model requirement which was 24-inches from the curb instead of 18. Commissioner Barrows commented on Page 17, item iv. Which stated: "Turf areas irrigated with spray/rotor systems must be set back at least 24 inches from curbs, driveways, sidewalks or any other area that may result in runoff of water onto streets..." She said water that runs off onto any hardscape was a problem whether it was a street or pavement and wanted to modify this section to read "...may result in runoff of water onto a hardscape, or paved surface...." or something as appropriate. Staff responded the text shown was taken out of the State Model Water Ordinance and there is a caveat that allows a wick irrigation system closer than 24 inches to the curb. The exception is an irrigation system that is actually underneath the turf. Commissioner Barrows wanted to point out that whether the water ran off onto the street, sidewalk, or other pavement, it was still nuisance water. She did not want the qualification of "onto streets" and wanted to change it to say "any other area that may result in runoff of water onto a hardscape" or words to that effect. Planning Director Johnson said they could certainly make that recommendation to the Council if directed. Staff gave an example and noted, for clarification, that the issue is that we don't want to be creating, be it onto a street or otherwise, any runoff -related matters relevant to overspray or nuisance water creation. Commissioner Barrows said that was right and this Ordinance references runoff. `Staff said there was an existing wastewater prevention clause, on Page 33 B, that was approved by Council in 2008. That clause allows Code Enforcement to enforce water waste. Commissioner Barrows said she wanted to make the change so both sections would be consistent with this provision. Commissioner Weber asked if it was appropriate for the Planning Commission to make the adjustment. Staff said they would be making a recommendation to Council and could include the r 11R2pxli PC: ',20C°V11-2A-091i C MN 11 10 t1°_ I>UafL`(JC 7 Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 2009 modification. Staff would make sure it was reflected in the ordinance introduced to Council. Commissioner Weber pointed out Item e, on Page 31- Maintenance Schedules. The Item states: "A regular maintenance schedule satisfying the following conditions shall be submitted as part of the landscape documentation package". He asked if staff could provide a more detail on that item. Principal Planner Mogensen said that was part of the State Model Water Ordinance. It would be part of the application items when final landscaping plans are submitted for approval and would be required to obtain a Certificate of Completion. The job card would not be signed off unless this item was submitted. Commissioner Weber asked if the applicant would have to go into detail on day-to-day maintenance. Commissioner Barrows said the applicant would have to provide the maintenance schedule, but the Ordinance doesn't describe the enforcement. Commissioner Weber was concerned about how the enforcement, of this clause, would be handled. Planning Director Johnson said they would not be going to every site asking for a maintenance schedule. However, if there were an issue with a system either in response to a complaint, or by observation of Code Enforcement personnel, the City would have the ability to correct that problem. Additionally, if there continues to be an issue, the City can require a maintenance schedule to be reviewed and considered by staff. Chairman Alderson pointed out an item on Page 17.5.d.iii, referencing "...Landscape areas less than 8 feet in width shall not be designed with turf." He applauded the fact these small, confined, narrow areas would not include turf. There being no further questions of the staff, and with the applicant being the City, Chairman Alderson asked if there was any public comment. There being no further questions, or public comment, Chairman Alderson closed the public participation portion of the meeting and opened the matter for Commission discussion. P:1Hc 1.i+rts - N(. ?C20 i9,11-24 0919C MIN, 1 1 10-09 Df8tt,00c; 8 Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 2009 Commissioner Barrows complimented staff on their efforts to bring this forward after spending so much time on it. She said they did a great job and she appreciated it. There was no further discussion and it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Barrows/Wilkinson to approve Resolution 2009-031 recommending approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2009-099 with the following amendment: "Turf areas irrigated with spray/rotor systems must be set back at least 24 inches from curbs, driveways, sidewalks or any other area that may result in runoff of water onto hardscape." "As per" the provision identified in item 8.13.040 B regarding Waste Water Prevention - include recommendation to Council. Unanimously approved. VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: None VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: A. Letter from William L. Puget and response from Ralph Wick (Managing Director of the La Quinta Resort & Club and PGA West). Staff said that was provided as requested it be forwarded to you and no action was required. Vill. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Report on City Council Meeting of November 3, 2009, from Chairman Alderson, with comments on the following items: • Placement of the Wayfinding signs and a letter of concern from Las Casuelas restaurant. • Comments on the Consent Calendar • Review of Second Quarter Service Grants • Introduction of an ordinance for allowance of golf carts and discussion of the rules. r,=Red rs "C.',20C901-2h-091 C10IN.11 1009 D,Mt( toc 9 Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 2009 • Discussion of Councilwoman Henderson's term on the Santa Rosa/San Jacinto National Monument Advisory Committee and suggested that she not realign herself and question of future participation. • Discussion of Highway 111 and Washington artwork renovation and removal. • Time Extension request for consideration regarding the La Solana Boutique Hotel at Silverrock Resort. B. Commissioner Barrows reminded everyone of the La Quinta Trails Day on Saturday, November 21". C. Commissioner Weber commented on the former Dodge, now Hyndai, dealership, the Commission's part in helping this move forward, and his hope for the dealership's success. Staff commented on a recent visit, the number of people at the dealership and the owner's optimism about the future. D. Commissioner Weber he wanted to say thanks to staff for clarification on the housing element item relating to guest houses, second units, and casitas. E. Commissioner Weber commented that he my possibly submit an application for position on the Santa Rosa/San Jacinto National Monument Advisory Committee that Mayor Pro Tern Henderson may be vacating. He would not be an official La Quinta representative but the City would have representation. F. Commissioner Weber commented on the Art in Public Places program covering the painting of the utility boxes. He wanted to point out those were only the City utility boxes and not those owned by the various utilities. Those utility boxes are the property of the utility companies are not to be painted or defaced in any way. This may change in the future, but there are no changes to that right now. PC'..2009. 11Y24 09V111C PIlIN.11 10 (9_ Grait.dOC 10 Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 2009 IX: DIRECTOR ITEMS: A. Discussion of upcoming Holidays and their proximity to the Thanksgiving and Christmas meetings. Meeting dates of November 24 and December 22, 2009, were identified. Staff commented they did not currently have any agenda items for the November 241h meeting, but were working on a possible Business Item, with a bit of urgency. If that were to occur, staff would advise the Planning Commission as early as possible. Staff's concern was in finding out if there were any potential conflices with Commission members' holiday schedules. After discussion, it was decided to leave both meetings on calendar. 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 December 8, 2009. This regular meeting was adjourned at 7:59 p.m. on November 10, 2009. Respectfully submitted, Carolyn Walker, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California (' Rep its I'C i200 11 2,1 09 F'C: MIN. 11 10 09. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: NOVEMBER 24, 2009 CASE NUMBER: MODIFICATION BY APPLICANT 09-025 APPLICANT: STEPHEN JUDICE REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST TO PERMIT MEDICAL OFFICE USES IN AN EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING APPROVED FOR GENERAL OFFICE ONLY LOCATION: 51-350 DESERT CLUB DRIVE; NORTHEAST CORNER OF DESERT CLUB DRIVE AND CALLE CADIZ ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: VILLAGE USE PERMIT 03-019 WAS DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15332 (CLASS 32 INFILL DEVELOPMENT) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). THE LA QUINTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT NO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS ARE PROPOSED WHICH WOULD REQUIRE THE PREPARATION OF ANY SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION GENERAL PLAN:, VC (VILLAGE COMMERCIAL) ZONING: VC (VILLAGE COMMERCIAL) SURROUNDING LAND USES: NORTH: VACANT PROPERTY (VC) SOUTH: CALLE CADIZ; VACANT PROPERTY (VC) EAST: EXISTING RESIDENTIAL (RL) WEST: DESERT CLUB DR; VACANT PROPERTY (VC) BACKGROUND The subject office building, which is located on the northeast corner of Desert Club Drive and Calle Cadiz in the La Quinta Village, is an approximately 5,944 square foot office building situated on an approximately 0.4-acre lot (Attachment 1)• Originally, the project site consisted of a single residential unit. Village Use Permit 03-019 was approved by the Planning Commission on October 12, 2004 (Attachment 2). This approval permitted the remodel and conversion of the existing 1,450 square foot residence into a medical office and an expansion consisting of approximately 4,494 square feet of general office space (Attachment 3). Currently, as constructed, the site consists of an approximately 5,944 square foot one-story office building with five suites. Suite 1, which was the original building that was to be converted into a medical office, is currently occupied by an architect office. Suites 2 - 5, the expanded area, are currently vacant (Attachment 4). A total of seventeen (17) on -site parking spaces are provided. The original VUP approval included two noteworthy project -specific conditions of approval. Condition of Approval #2 set a permit expiration date at one year from the project's approval rather than the standard two-year period. Condition of Approval #44 permitted medical office use in the existing building, as proposed, but limited the expansion areas to general office use only. Both of these conditions of approval were incorporated as a result of the parking reduction and deviations from parking development standards allowed as part of the project's approval. Subsequently, in the time between the approval of the VUP in 2004 and early 2006, property ownership changed and the new owner was unable to secure building permits before the VUP expiration date. On June 13, 2006, the Planning Commission approved a time extension for the VUP, establishing a new expiration of October 12, 2006, thereby affording the owner time to complete the plan check and construction process (Attachment 5). However, as part of the time extension process, the Planning Commission expanded the aforementioned Condition of Approval #44 to limit the entire building (both existing and expansion) to general office use only. The condition of approval currently reads as follows: 44. This Village Use Permit allows the construction of a one-story, 4,494 square foot commercial office building addition on a 0.41- acre site with 17 on -site parking spaces. The entire building is limited to general office use, which excludes medical office and construction office uses, and any similar office uses that are more parking -intensive than general office uses as determined under Chapter 9.150. PROJECT REQUEST The applicant is proposing to modify Condition of Approval #44 to allow medical office uses in the expansion areas (Suites 2 - 5) of the office building (Attachment 6). The applicant/owner has received strong interest from a pediatrician that would like to locate to the La Quinta Village (Attachment 7). The medical office would include five (5) full-time staff members, two (2) of which would be either doctors or doctor's assistants, and two (2) part-time staff members. The patient load for this particular office is expected to be 5 — 6 patients per hour. In addition to the modification of the condition of approval, the applicant is also requesting that any in -lieu fee for parking deficiency be waived. ANALYSIS The primary issue with regards to this proposal and project site is parking. As mentioned in the project background, the original Village Use Permit approval granted a significant parking reduction and a number of deviations from parking development standards as part of the approval process. Per the City's parking code, the project required 26 parking spaces; 8 spaces for the medical office use in the existing building and 18 spaces for the general office uses in the expanded area. The project was approved by the Planning Commission with 17 reduced -sized on -site parking spaces. The current proposal, which requests the permitting of medical uses for the entire expanded area, would require 25 on -site spaces, not including the 6 spaces required for the currently -leased general office space. A total of 31 on -site parking spaces would be required for this proposal. Deviations from parking development standards may be approved in the Village, per LQMC Section 9.65.030: 3. Parking. Parking area requirements for permitted uses shall be determined by staff as set forth in Chapter 9.150 of the Zoning Code, with the following consideration: a. All current parking regulations shall be applicable, such as required number of stalls, space and aisle dimensions, location of parking areas, etc. However, in the VC zoning district, variations to any parking standards can be approved. Although deviations have been permitted for a number of Village projects, the policy direction has been that if a project were allowed a deviation in the total number of on - site parking spaces provided, the applicant shall pay an "in -lieu fee" per space that the project is deficient. The subject proposed medical office building would require payment for a deficiency of 14 parking spaces. The applicant is requesting that this in -lieu fee be waived. Parking standards in the Village have frequently been a point of focus and discussion in the public forum as well as throughout project entitlement processes. The issues of whether or not there is a parking problem in the Village and the validity and appropriateness of the parking standards in the La Quinta Municipal Code have always been a part of the Village review process. In order to address these concerns, the Planning Department will be examining the applicability of parking standards in the Village as part of the upcoming General Plan Update and Parking Ordinance update. These processes will appraise the current state of parking in the Village and consider public input, observations on actual parking demand, and research on alternative codes and methodologies. These items are anticipated to be completed within the next 18 months. With regards to the subject proposal, staff believes that the change of use from general office to medical office is an acceptable change while the Planning Department completes the Parking Ordinance review. The applicant and potential client have both stated that given the number of staff members and anticipated number of clients, and based on current observations of parking lot usage at the doctor's Yucca Valley location, the number of spaces available at the Desert Club building would be sufficient for the operation of a medical office. Staff agrees with this assessment that the doctor's office could presumably operate without significant detrimental impact to the surrounding residential neighborhood and adjacent businesses. However, the issues of modifying the condition of approval for the building as well as the in -lieu fee remain. Staff recommends that the applicant's request be approved, subject to the following modification to VUP 03-019 Condition of Approval #44, which also includes a deferral of payment of in -lieu fees: 44. This Village Use Permit allows the construction of a one-story, 4,494 square foot commercial office building addition on a 0.41- acre site with 17 on -site parking spaces. The original building area (Suite 1; approximately 1,450 square feet) shall consist only of general office uses. Medical office uses shall be permitted only in the additional expanded area of the building (Suites 2 — 5). Less intensive office uses (based on parking standards in LQMC Section 9.150.060) are also permitted in the expanded area. The permitting of medical uses at this site results in a deficiency of 14 on -site parking spaces (31 spaces required; 17 spaces provided)• This deficiency triggers the requirement of a Parking Agreement between the applicant/owner and the City, and an in - lieu fee payment for 14 deficient parking spaces. Said Parking Agreement shall be established in accordance with LQMC 9.150.050(D) in a form and content provided by the City Attorney and shall be recorded. This agreement and the payment of the in - lieu fees shall be deferred to two (2) years from the approval date of this Modification by Applicant. In the time between this MBA approval date and the two-year payment deferral date, the applicant/owner shall have a professional engineer prepare a parking study. The parking study shall observe and analyze actual usage characteristics of the proposed medical tenant with regards to parking and what effect the medical use has on the surrounding residential neighborhood and/or adjacent commercial district. The study shall include data collected in the months of January through March. Prior to the conclusion of the two-year payment deferral date, the Parking Agreement and in -lieu fee can be reduced or negated by the Planning Commission if this parking study demonstrates that the required number of parking spaces are not needed and provide an accurate alternative number of on -site spaces utilized. The Parking Agreement and in -lieu fee can also be reduced or negated by staff if an updated Parking Ordinance determines that the site is no longer as deficient in on -site parking as the original approval dictates. A Parking Agreement with the City as well as the subsequent in - lieu fee payment is due at the conclusion of the two-year deferral period if the parking study indicates that the medical use operations result in a parking deficiency and the City parking requirements have not changed as part of the Parking Ordinance update. In event this condition is not satisfied within two (2) years of approval, the applicant understands and agrees that all approvals relevant to this modification shall be terminated and revoked and any subsequent ministerial approvals specific to allowing medical use at said location shall be terminated and revoked. Environmental Review Village Use Permit 03-019 was determined to be Categorically Exempt from environmental review pursuant to provisions of Section 15332 (Class 32 Infill Development) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The La Quinta Planning Department has determined that no changed circumstances or conditions are proposed which would require the preparation of any subsequent environmental evaluation. FINDINGS Findings to recommend approval of this request can be made and are contained in the attached Resolution. RECOMMENDATION Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2009 , approving Modification by Applicant 09-025, subject to the attached modified Condition of Approval. by: ociate Planner Attachments: 1 . Vicinity Map 2. Staff Report of October 12, 2004 Planning Commission meeting 3. Letter of Dispute from original building owner/VUP applicant 4. Existing Site Plan 5. Staff Report of June 13, 2006 Planning Commission meeting 6. Letter of Request from Applicant/Owner 7. Letter of Operational Characteristics from potential medical office client PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009- RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED CONDITION OF APPROVAL THAT WOULD PERMIT MEDICAL OFFICE USES IN AN EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING LOCATED IN THE LA QUINTA VILLAGE APPROVED FOR GENERAL OFFICE USES ONLY CASE: MODIFICATION BY APPLICANT 09-025 APPLICANT: STEPHEN JUDICE WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California did, on the 24`h day of November, 2009, hold a Business Item discussion to consider a request by Mr. Stephen Judice for approval of a modification to an approved condition of approval that would result in the permitting of medical office uses within an existing office building located on the east side of Desert Club Drive, north of Calle Cadiz, more particularly described as: APN: 770-155-010 WHEREAS, Village Use Permit 03-019 was approved by the Planning Commission on October 12, 2004 permitting the remodel and conversion of the existing 1,450 square foot residence into medical office space and an expansion consisting of approximately 4,494 square feet of general office space; and WHEREAS, a time extension for Village Use Permit 03-019 was approved by the Planning Commission on June 13, 2006 which included an amendment to Condition #44 limiting the entire building to general office use; and WHEREAS, the Planning Department has determined that Village Use Permit 03-019 was determined to be categorically exemptfrom environmental review pursuant to provisions of Section 15332 (Class 32 Infill Development) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and that no changed circumstances or conditions are proposed which would require the preparation of any subsequent environmental evaluation; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Department will be examining the appropriateness of parking standards throughout the City, including the Village, as part of the upcoming General Plan Update and Parking Ordinance update. These processes will appraise the City's current state of parking in light of current industry standards and local goals and policies, and will consider public input, observations on actual parking demand, and research on alternative codes and Planning Commission Resolution 2009- Modification by Applicant 09-025 Stephen Judice Page 2 methodologies. These items are anticipated to be completed within the next 18 months; and, WHEREAS, variations to parking standards can be granted in the Village Commercial District per LQMC Section 9.65.030 (3a) and 9.150.050 (D); and; WHEREAS, the intent of the original condition of approval, as well as the City's Parking Ordinance, is to minimize significant detrimental impacts caused by parking; and WHEREAS, Condition #44, as modified, fulfills the intent of the existing condition of approval; and WHEREAS, by allowing the opportunity for a parking study to be completed prior to the two-year in -lieu -of fee deferral date, the applicant has the option of providing the City with evidence that the existing general office and proposed medical uses are sufficiently served by the existing on -site parking spaces without or with a reduced level of participation in the in -lieu -of fee program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California finds as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of said Planning Commission in this case; and 2. That it does hereby approve Modification by Applicant 09-025 modifying Village Use Permit 03-019 Condition of Approval #44, for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached Modified Condition of Approval. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 241h day of November, 2009 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Planning Commission Resolution 2009- Modification by Applicant 09-025 Stephen Judice Page 3 ABSTAIN: ED ALDERSON, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: LES JOHNSON, Planning Director City of La Quinta, California PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009- MODIFIED CONDITION OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED MODIFICATION BY APPLICANT 09-025 (FOR VILLAGE USE PERMIT 03-019) STEPHEN JUDICE NOVEMBER 24, 2009 VUP 03-019 Condition of Approval #44 as approved on June 13, 2006 is hereby superseded by the following. 44. This Village Use Permit allows the construction of a one-story, 4,494 square foot commercial office building addition on a 0.41-acre site with 17 on -site parking spaces. The original building area (Suite 1; approximately 1,450 square feet) shall consist only of general office uses. Medical office uses shall be permitted only in the additional expanded area of the building (Suites 2 — 5). Less intensive office uses (based on parking standards in LQMC Section 9.150.060) are also permitted in the expanded area. The permitting of medical uses at this site results in a deficiency of 14 on -site parking spaces (31 spaces required; 17 spaces provided). This deficiency triggers the requirement of a Parking Agreement between the applicant/owner and the City, and an in -lieu -of fee payment for 14 deficient parking spaces. Said Parking Agreement shall be established in accordance with LQMC 9.150.050(D) in a form and content provided by the City Attorney and shall be recorded. This agreement and the payment of the in -lieu -of fees shall be deferred for two (2) years from the approval date of this Modification by Applicant. In the time between this MBA approval date and the two-year payment deferral date, the applicant/owner may have a professional engineer prepare a parking study. The parking study shall observe and analyze actual usage characteristics of the general office and proposed medical tenants with regards to the ability of the existing on -site parking spaces to sufficiently serve the on -site uses and what effect, if any, the allowance of the medical office use has on the surrounding residential and commercial uses. The study shall, at a minimum, include data collected in the months of January through March. Prior to the conclusion of the two-year payment deferral date, the Parking Agreement and in -lieu -of fee can be reduced or negated by the Planning Commission if a parking study, as noted, demonstrates that the required number of parking spaces are not needed and provides an accurate alternative number of spaces necessary to serve the on -site uses. The PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED MODIFICATION BY APPLICANT 09-025 (FOR VILLAGE USE PERMIT 03-019) STEPHEN JUDICE NOVEMBER 24, 2009 PAGE 2 Parking Agreement and in -lieu -of fee can also be reduced or negated by staff if an updated Parking Ordinance determines that the site is no longer as deficient in on -site parking as the original approval identifies. A Parking Agreement with the City as well as the subsequent in -lieu -of fee payment is due at the conclusion of the two-year deferral period if the parking study is not undertaken or the study indicates that the medical use operations result in a parking deficiency and the City parking requirements have not changed as part of the Parking Ordinance update. In event this condition is not satisfied within two (2) years of approval, the applicant understands and agrees that all approvals relevant to this modification shall be terminated and revoked and any subsequent ministerial approvals specific to allowing medical use at said location shall be terminated and revoked. TMENTS 1]_ �..4mm ATTACHMENT # 2 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 12, 2004 CASE NO: VILLAGE USE PERMIT (VUP) 2003-019 APPLICANT/OWNER: DR. JOHN DIXON REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 4,494 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO AN EXISTING ±1,450 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING, FOR GENERAL OFFICE USE LOCATION: NORTHEAST CORNER OF DESERT CLUB DRIVE AND CALLE CADIZ (ATTACHMENT #1) ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR HAS DETERMINED THAT THIS PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM CEQA REVIEW UNDER GUIDELINES SECTION 15301 (EXISTING FACILITIES) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: VC (VILLAGE COMMERCIAL)1 ZONING: VC (VILLAGE COMMERCIAL) BACKGROUND: Site Background The 0.41-acre project site is located on the easterly limits of the Village Commercial district, on the east side of Desert Club Drive at Calle Cadiz. The site is developed with a 1,450 square foot structure, originally built as a single-family residence, but now occupied as an office use for Dr. Dixon's medical practice. In November 2003, Dr. Dixon applied for a VUP to remodel and occupy the structure. During the processing of the VUP, the modifications were made to the structure and a temporary Certificate of Occupancy was issued, conditioned upon approval of the VUP. Subsequently, Dr. Dixon requested his application be placed on hold, to allow time to add the proposed additional building area to his plans for the VUP. The site is a corner parcel, with existing curb and gutter along its frontages on Calle Cadiz and Desert Club Drive; an existing five-foot sidewalk runs along the Desert Club Drive frontage. Properties adjacent to the site are developed with residential uses to the east, vacant commercial land to the north and south, and commercial uses to the west, across Desert Club Drive. Project Proposal The applicant proposes a one-story, ±4,494 square foot commercial office addition to the existing building (Attachment #2). The building is sited near the center of the property, with separate parking areas on the west and south portions of the site. The total project, with the addition, will provide 17 parking spaces, but- would require a total of 25.3 (26) spaces. The proposed parking lot does not comply with the minimum design requirements as stated in the Zoning Code, and therefore, the applicant is requesting deviations from the parking standards. The Village Commercial zoning district allows variations to any parking standard, in accordance with the provisions of Section 9.65.030.3.a. The building architecture uses Spanish -Colonial elements to integrate the existing structure with the new building area. The entire building will be covered in a stucco texture. The roof utilizes hip and gable end designs, and is covered with a barrel S- tile to replace the existing concrete tiles. The ridgelines of the roof structure will use a mudded tile treatment. The front and side building entries are flanked by a series of arched windows, with ornamental columns and pop -outs. The proposed one-story building height is 16.5 feet from finish grade. The Village Commercial (VC) district allows building heights of two stories, up to 35 feet. This project was originally scheduled for Planning Commission review on September 28, 2004. Staff requested a continuance from that meeting due to a concern that the proposed parking reductions may not be feasible in an as -built condition, and to allow the applicant to revise the parking area design. This involved changes to meet ADA requirements for handicapped parking access, and to increase aisle widths and stall sizes to a more workable and supportable condition. The Public Works Department has reviewed the revisions and is able to support the design for the parking areas. Architecture and Landscape Review Committee (ALRC) On September 8, 2004, the ALRC reviewed the project landscaping and building architecture (Attachment #3, minutes). After discussion of the project, the ALRC took action to recommend approval of the project, subject to the following conditions: Additional shade trees shall be provided within the parking lot areas. Design of hardscape within the parking lot areas shall incorporate the use of turf block, pavers and similar materials, in order to soften the appearance associated with standard parking areas. 2. The trash enclosure shall be relocated away from the property line, with landscaping incorporated around the trash enclosure. 3. An effective landscape screening material shall be located along the eastern property line, adjacent to residential properties. Said material shall be called out in final landscape .plans submitted to Community Development Department for plan checking. 4. The revised landscape plans shall include enhanced landscaping at the project's corner yard area at Desert Club and Calle Cadiz. A central landscape feature shall be considered. 5. Access to the rear of building areas shall be restricted by gating, which shall be designed and finished to complement the new building complex. 6. The lighting bollard design shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department and shall comply with the City's lighting requirements. These items have been incorporated into the recommended Conditions of Approval for this project. Public Notice This case was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on September 17, 2004. All property owners within 500-feet of the site were mailed a public hearing notice as required. No comments have been received to date. Any correspondence received before the meeting will be transmitted to the Planning Commission. Public Agency Review Staff transmitted the applicant's request to all responsible public agencies. All comments received are on file at the Community Development Department, and have been incorporated into the attached Conditions of Approval, as appropriate. STATEMENT OF ISSUES: 1. Consistency with Village at La Quinta Design Guidelines - In regard to site and building design, the Guidelines suggest that corner building sites `shall attempt to orient pedestrian entryways to the corner, providing an opportunity for a small entry court or plaza, water feature location, etc. This also allows for better intersection visibility." (Guidelines II.C.1.). The building siting appears consistent with this Guideline, as it is away from the corner, and with the ALRC recommendation, would be required to provide a landscape feature as an attractive focal point, which could incorporate a seating area to afford pedestrian accessibility. The ALRC also recommended enhanced landscaping to provide shade for pedestrian and parking areas; screening of parking and service areas, and relocating and screening the trash enclosure. 2. Parkin — Under the current parking standards, the site requires 25.3 total spaces (existing medical office use of 1,450 s.f. and 4,494 s.f. addition as general office). The applicant has provided 17 on -site parking spaces, and is requesting credit for on -street parking along the Desert Club Drive frontage. The applicant has not submitted a parking demand analysis. The applicant's parking area design also does not meet Code requirements for end stall width, parking stall depth/width and parking aisle widths. However, the VC district allows an applicant to submit such designs and receive consideration for them. The applicant, based on his redesigned site plan, is requesting the following deviations from the parking standards as follows: Development Standard Required Requested Parking aisles (Section 9.150.080.B.3) 26' wide 24' wide Parking stall width/depth (Section 9.150.080.B.1) 9'/17' 2' overhang 8.5'/18' 1' overhang Parking spaces required (per Table 9- 12 of Chapter 9.150) 25.3 17 End parking stall (stalls 10 and 12) (Section 9.150.080.B.3) 11' wide 8.5' wide Section 9.65.030 of the Village Commercial zoning district requires that projects comply with the City's parking requirements of Chapter 9.150. However, this section also grants authority to the Planning Commission to reduce parking requirements and their associated development standards through the Village Use Permit process. The intent of the Village zoning regulations is to allow for variable development standards based on the merits of a given project — this is why there is no setback, lot area, or other typical zoning requirements. There is no requirement for the applicant to justify a reduction in parking development standards. Chapter 9.150 requires general adherence to the parking standards. For the most part, the provisions of this Chapter would not apply to Village Commercial, for the reasons indicated above. In regard to a reduction in required spaces, other uses, such as Andrew's Bar & Grille, which have more intensive parking requirements, have been approved at lower parking ratios, and permitted use of on -street parking. Andrew's was granted a reduction from 26 to 6 spaces, allowing a 77% parking reduction. The Old Town project was permitted with a 34% parking reduction. The Coronel project has 58% parking reduction. Lori Abdelnour's insurance business, operating from a converted single family house, was allowed 100% of the required guest parking spaces to be off -site, on Calle Amigo. The project before you now would have a 32% reduction in parking. In consideration of this application, staff referred to information submitted for the Hanson -Kelly project (VUP 2004-024). According to the information submitted (Attachment 4), the most often quoted standard is one space per 333 sq. ft. of gross floor area. If applied to this project, which includes a total i.' 4 of 4,494 square feet as general office, and retaining the medical office standard for the existing floor area of 1,450 square feet, then a total of 21 spaces would be required. Based on this, 81 % of the required parking would be provided on site. There is on -street parking availability on Desert Club Drive for four cars along the site frontage, based on the required parallel parking stall length of 24 feet. However, there will also be daytime demand for this parking from Andrew's and Paula's Cafe during a.m. and lunch hours. Staff recommends that the proposed variations to parking requirements be accepted, with the exception of any handicapped spaces, due to their specific need to comply with ADA standards. This approval would be conditioned based on the new floor space of 4,494 being limited to general office use only. The City's parking standards also require that 30% of the required spaces for all office uses be covered by a trellis or carport structure. As the approval would require the 17 spaces, five covered spaces will be necessary. Staff is requiring that one of the two five -space rows, in the north parking area, be covered. The applicant may extend the proposed patio cover to achieve this. 3. Proposed Monument Sign - The applicant has requested review of a monument sign for tenant ID, although a sign program application has not been submitted. The existing sign includes Dr. Dixon's name, title and address on the upper south facing wall, within an area of about ten square feet. There is also a double-faced monument sign along Desert Club Drive, which is an irregular, routed -letter flagstone sign, with a six foot base and a peak height of four feet. It is approximately 15 square feet in area. As this will no longer be an individual office, the .freestanding ID sign is no longer permissible, as Dr. Dixon's office is now one of the tenant spaces and not a stand alone use. Staff recommends the sign not be reviewed as part of this application, and that the issue be addressed when a sign program in more detail is submitted for review. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: Based on the provisions of the General Plan, Zoning Code, and the Village at La Quinta Design Guidelines, findings necessary to approve this proposal can be made as noted in the attached draft Resolution to be adopted for this case. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004- , affirming the environmental determination of the Community Development Director, and granting approval of Village Use Permit 2003-019, subject to the conditions of approval as recommended. Prepared by: Wallace Nesbit, Associate Planner Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Project plans 3. ALRC minutes of September 8, 2004 4. Parking Demand Survey submitted for VUP 2004-024 ATTACHMENT #3 NATURAL MEDICINE GROUP JOHN R. DIXON, D.C., CCN, DIPL. Ac. 73955 HIGHWAY 111, SuirE B PALM DESERT, CA 92260 (760) 776-0022 FAX: (760) 776-8788 E M A I L: dr.dixon@naturalmedicinegroup.com www.naturalmedicinegroup.com November 13, 2009 TO: City of La Quinta, RIB: 51350 Desert Club Dr. In January of 2005 1 applied for and received permission to expand my medical facility at 51350 Desert Club Dr., La Quinta, CA. It was always my intention for the new facility to be medical in nature including the 4494 sq. ft. proposed addition. ']'his was understood by the people I worked with at the city planning and zoning offices. Dr. klin R. Dixon D1350 Desert"GIubI'Drive La Q:unnta, CFI ATTACHMENT #5 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 13, 2006 r CASE NO: VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2003 019 APPLICANT/OWNER: SKIP LENCH REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF . A TIME EXTENSION FOR -CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION OF 4,494 SQUARE FEET TO AN EXISTING ± 1,450 SQUARE FOOT ..BUILDING, FOR OFFICE USE LOCATION: NORTHEAST CORNER OF DESERT CLUB DRIVE AND.' CALLE CADIZ (ATTACHMENT #1) ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2003-019 WAS DETERMINED TO BE EXEMPT FROM CEQA REVIEW UNDER GUIDELINES "SECTION 15332 (INFILL DEVELOPMENT). NO FURTHER CEQA REVIEW IS APPLICABLE FOR THIS REQUEST GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: ZONING: BACKGROUND: VC (VILLAGE COMMERCIAL) VC (VILLAGE COMMERCIAL) Site Background In November 2003, Dr. John Dixon applied for a Village Use Permit (VUP) to remodel and occupy an existing 1,450 square 'foot residence as a medical office. While in process, Dr. Dixon amended the request, to include a major addition to the existing structure. Village Use Permit 2003-019 was originally approved on October 12, 2004 by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution 2004-077. The VUP __,proposes -a one-story,-+_5,944 total square -foot -off ice- building to -incorporate the existing structure as medical office (Attachment 2). The VUP approval allowed temporary occupancy of the existing structure for the change of use to medical office, to become permanent with completion of the improvements conditioned on the VUP. The site was subsequently sold, and the new owner would like to complete the ongoing plan check requirements and proceed with construction as approved. Project Proposal The current owner of the property desires to complete the original project. However, the approval expired on October 12, '2005, during the course of plan check activities. The original VUP approval was conditioned for a one-year period; however, the Code allows development review permits a two-year approval period. The applicant has requested the City enforce the general development review time limit of two years, extending the approval'period to October 12; 2006, to allow the project to proceed. The current status of the project has precise grading ready to be signed, and minor corrections to the building plans need to be made based on the approved grading plans. After researching the Code, staff determined it would be ;appropriate to forward the request to the Planning Commission. for review and policy determination. STATEMENT OF ISSUES: 1. In the past, staff has applied conditional time limitations to specific projects, particularly when reduced development standards are involved. This is a protective measure used to limit the approval window for projects which could become inconsistent with City policy or standards within a very short timeframe. The project approval allowed reduced parking standards (17 stalls vs. 26 required by code), at a time when a defined parking program had not been established and projects were reviewed for parking case -by -case. 2. The policy question before the Commission is whether the Code -based two- year development review permit approval period should be considered to govern as a Code requirement, versus a conditional time limitation that reduces the codified time allowance. In this case, the applicant has been working toward completion of the permit, with no extended inactivity during the process, and has provided a letter to support this (Attachment 3). It is likely that under a two-year approval, the permit would have been issued, with construction underway by this time. Staff is generally supportive of the request, with the recommendation that the entire building be limited to general office use only, excluding medical and construction offices which generally have more intensive parking needs. 3. If an extension for the project is not granted, the applicant would be required to go back through the review process from the beginning. Under current procedures and staff direction, a development agreement would be required, and the applicant would need to comply with the full number of required parking spaces through a combination of on -site parking provisions and an associated funding mechanism. The applicant has stated that the project will not likely be pursued further if an extension cannot be granted. z RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Minute Motion 2006- confirming i determination by the Planning Commission that the time limitations set forth.in Section 9.200.080 are applicable to Village Use Permit 2003-019, thereby establishing an expiration date of October 12, 2006, subject to the'following: 1 Condition.44 is hereby expanded to include the entire building as limited to -general office use, which excludes medical office and construction office uses, and any similar office uses that are more parking -intensive than general office uses as determined under Chapter 9.150. Prepared by: Wallace Nesbit Principal, Planner Attachments: 1. Location map 2. Approved site plan/elevations 3. Applicant request letter 4.VUP 2003-019 adopted conditions ATTACHMENT #6 November 11, 2009 City of La Quinta Planning Department 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Modifications by Applicant, addendum one (1). 1/2 Below is an outline of the grounds for modification of VUP — 03-019 COA #44: Dear Planning Commission, My name is Stephen Judice and I purchased 51-350 Desert Club Drive in La Quinta on June 06, 2005 from John Dixon, M.D.. Doctor Dixon was a friend of mine and had the building fully permitted for an expansion. The entire project was zoned medical at the time of purchase as I had the full intent of utilizing it as a medical rental property. Once I closed Escrow and proceeded forward to start the building process, the city of La Quinta (under the demands of the current boom in the market) delayed my ability to start construction by requiring numerous changes and several delays. Finally when the plans were ready and I was about to start construction, the planning department informed me that my plans had expired and that I would need to apply for an extension. I then paid additional fees for the said extension; the city then granted my extension ONLY if I removed the medical and retail use from the site, stating that the site was under parked for these uses. Not understanding the market (as this was my first commercial venture) I unhappily agreed and proceeded forward with the construction. For the next three -years my building sat vacant as I spend thousands and thousands of dollars on marketing costs, taxes and maintenance of the building. Over this period several doctors have approached me on leasing the premise and due to my further research on their use, these "high load" doctors had a parking requirement that was outside of the on -site parking ability and thus I was forced to turn them down as tenants within my failing project. As the months turned into years I slowly dropped by asking rental rate from $3.00 psf. to as now $0.95 psf., eliminating my ability to make any profit on the site. Over a month ago, Dr. Fraschetti offered to lease by building and stated that historically he could work within the parking allocated on -site for his use. Dr. Fraschetti is eager to proceed forward with the site and has been very patient with my efforts to get this issue resolved. As you will see per his attached letter, Dr. Fraschetti has a historical use load at his current location in Yucca Valley, CA that is in -line with the parking allocated at my site. Based on his employee load and five to six patients per hour... he and I expect to not only have enough parking but will have excess parking on -site for his use. I have worked closely with Les Johnson and Jay Wuu in planning for the past several weeks on various options to allow his use and unfortunately purchasing additional parking stalls from the city is both unnecessary and financially unfeasible for me to proceed forward on. Both the doctor and I are confident that the on -site parking will be sufficient for their use and I am in hopes that the council will feel the same and grant us this approval. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTENMATERIAL MSveatliei• 6,2009 Mr. William L,Pv.t M. Box 975 77-00D AVOW4 Fernando Ia Ughet dDkited 11 /2/09 Dear -BA Ce. WOK ft fwm4WI �ok"// elk At" FtAAA( Wal, 7h AInk you'fbt.retutt rig My phone, call. yesterday;'It was Pleasure talking to, you. First let me 'thank * YOU f& .bjin9mg, this: poocego.tu our attention, Please know that I fully appreciate the annoyatme of sustained noise and,tgbratiori that You 'ape dericed Saturday, October 31 At: discus;4 this is e4t1isuvand one that we Have'math: 4"Vety, p j for.handling m more suitable hshi m -leg 949COPPIMble that the bin djivers did not follow the direction they WftV''v miui�d the follow-up by our security d I epatment was disappoint I i I ng. I We I have takenCGMIPDX; xetiort �th ensure this situation does not. or=,. again, especially - -the extended durations. Uy with "idlingr over OurvIons 4610.tm ,P=:3 for flie- -s,andwe.atdve.ro l0blitYciflife fthefims t`hA_S uX V99ccute YOU �Cbhtem and would' encourage you, to cab tic directly or any other-issucs'v6th the re4orr"in tfie&tum. '0 actor� I Co JB9 AND P OA W ,4,M'Tm COLLECTIONS WWWA4qU!-1"tMJt: IWWAX%44111 Fv-160,5CA.5118 DI #A Tffit 4 4 Q" MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Les Johnson, Planning Directo ,) DATE: November 24, 2009 RE: Interpretation of Permitted Uses — Golf Carts, NEV's and Scooters in CC, CP and CR Zoning Districts Golf cart, neighborhood electric vehicles (NEV) and scooter sales are not specifically identified uses in the Table of Permitted Uses (Section 9.80.040) of the Zoning Code. Due to the recent increased interest in golf cart sales, inquiries have been received asking if these uses are permitted in the Community Commercial (CC), Commercial Park (CP) and Regional Commercial (CR) zoning districts. In response, it is requested of the Planning Commission to determine the validity of these uses in the aforementioned zoning districts. Community Commercial zoned properties are located along major streets such as Highway 111, Washington Street and Jefferson Street. Commercial Park and Regional Commercial zoned properties are essentially located along Highway 111, the City's major east -west commercial corridor. The closest use listed in the Zoning Code to these types of businesses is new automobile and motorcycle sales, which are permitted with a Conditional Use Permit in the CR and CP districts but not permitted in the CC district. Automobile uses are restricted generally due to the larger acreage requirement to accommodate outdoor storage and display of the vehicles as well as vehicle servicing which can create nuisances. When golf cart, neighborhood electric vehicles and scooter sales restricted only to indoor display of their vehicles and minor indoor servicing, Staff believes that the impact of such a use is no different than any other retail sales business which is permitted without restriction in the aforementioned districts. If the Planning Commission concurs, these uses will be outright permitted in the CC, CP and CR zones. There may be some situations where outdoor display of merchandise during the hours of operation may be acceptable. Staff believes a Conditional Use Permit requirement for such display would be appropriate. During the next Zoning Code update, Staff will amend the Table of Permitted Uses to specifically allow these uses in these zones with the restrictions noted above. P:\Reports - PC\2009\11-24-09\Golf cart interpretation Memo.doc (PJ.