Loading...
2010 04 27 PC MinutesMINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA April 27, 2010 7:04 P.M. CALL TO ORDER A. A regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission was called to order at 7:04 p.m. by Vice Chairperson Barrows. PRESENT: Commissioners Quill, Weber, Wilkinson, and Vice Chairperson Barrows ABSENT: Chairman Alderson (Excused) STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Les Johnson, Planning Manager David Sawyer, Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston, Principal Engineer Ed Wimmer, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Assistant Planner Eric Ceja, and Executive Secretary Carolyn Walker. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: Vice Chairperson Barrows commented on Principal Planner Stan Sawa's upcoming retirement after 20 years with the City of La Quinta. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: Commissioner Weber asked staff to clarify the minutes on Page 10, Paragraphs 5 and 6. Corrections were made as follows: Paragraph 5, Sentence 3, shall be changed to read: He said what should have happened was a radio frequency (RF) expert should have been brought in to answer these questions. Paragraph 6, Sentence 1, shall be changed to read: Mr. Greenwood said he could bring in the RF expert but, (if that was the basis of the denial) the expert was going to come and tell you it does not work for the same reasons that I told you it does not work; so just deny my application now. Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 2010 There being no further comments, or suggestions, it was moved by Commissioners Wilkinson/Weber to approve the minutes of April 13, 2010 with amendments as noted. Unanimously approved. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Continued -Conditional Use Permit 2009-124; a request by T-Mobile West Corporation for consideration to allow the placement of a fifty- seven (57) foot tall monopalm tower and equipment enclosure within the Family Heritage Church parking lot located at 78-998 Miles Avenue. Assistant Planner Eric Ceja presented the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. Vice Chairperson Barrows asked if there were any questions of staff. There being no questions of staff, Vice Chairperson Barrows asked if the applicant would like to speak. Mr. Jay Greenwood, T-mobile representative, 1594 N. Batavia Street, Orange CA introduced Mr. James Wilkerson, RF Design Engineer, T- mobile, 3257 Guasti Road, Ontario CA, who gave a Power Point presentation. He then stated the presentation should clarify the Commission's questions and concerns on the need for the 57 foot tower site. Commissioner Wilkinson asked about provision of service by other carriers and the allocation of frequency bands. Mr. Wilkerson responded coverage had to do with frequencies assigned by the FCC and explained how it affected their operations. Commissioner Wilkinson then expanded his comments on 1) challenging the frequency band allotment, 2) alternative locations, and co-locations, and 3) percentage of coverage. Mr. Wilkerson commented on negotiation for lower band set, and gave a detailed explanation of calculations and terrain details for coverage percentile. Ms. Linda Paul, 3257 E. Guasti Road, Ontario CA, Real Estate and Zoning Manager for T-mobile, -introduced herself and explained when -2- Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 2070 and how the frequencies were allocated. She said there was always the possibility of certain entities vacating some frequencies, but at this time there was no opportunity to obtain a new allocation. Ms. Paul then addressed the criteria for site selection, said they look at a number of factors and went into detail of how the site was chosen as well as the due diligence that went into their cell tower site selection. Commissioner Wilkinson provided general review comments on accuracy of information, additional possible co-locations, and percentage of coverage. Commissioner Weber asked what prompted the change of height from 70 feet to 57 feet. Mr. Wilkerson responded the 70 foot height achieved the upper end for coverage and, at 57 feet the coverage was reduced to 63%; which was the minimum threshold. Commissioner Weber asked if the antenna would be focused in a specific direction. Mr. Wilkerson said yes. Commissioner Weber asked about the maximum tree height allowable for coverage as he was concerned about screening. Mr. Wilkerson responded if the trees were 15 or 20 feet below the antenna, and staggered, that would be sufficient to reduce any direct impact. Commissioner Weber expressed his concerns about maintenance of the landscape/screening. Ms. Paul said typically the landlord (the church) would be responsible for maintaining the irrigation, but the applicant will replace trees if they died. Commissioner Weber then asked if a condition could be included making both parties responsible. Staff responded this was a conditional use permit with the property owner and/or the current owner of the tower being responsible for vegetation and any other conditions imposed. If there was a significant issue it could be brought back before the Commission for reconsideration and/or revocation of the permit. Mr. Greenwood stated the carrier paid for the installation, the trees, and the irrigation system; as presented by Ms. Paul, and went over -3- Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 2010 the responsibilities of each portion of the landscape maintenance. Staff added that if the CUP was granted, the applicant was T-mobile not Family Heritage Church. Commissioner Weber said T-mobile's contractual agreement with the Family Heritage Church was not at issue. Staff added it was an agreement between the two of them. Commissioner Weber said he assumed T-mobile would like to reach the 100% coverage. Mr. Wilkerson said yes. Commissioner Weber asked if they were already considering any potential sites for additional towers in La Quinta's jurisdiction. Mr. Wilkerson said the other proposed locations were to the east and north, but were not in La Quinta. There being no further applicant comments, Vice Chairperson Barrows asked if there was any public comment. Mr. Alonzo Lugo, 594 N. Batavia, Orange CA and a representative of T-mobile -said he was there in support of T-mobile. He added that what was presented to the Commission was the most favorable location and design available for their cell tower. He pointed out Mr. Wilkerson's comments about the lower frequencies and added his own comments on their customer service versus other carriers. He said the applicant exercised due diligence in researching this facility to make sure it was the best location to support their customers and meet coverage objectives. He commented on the Family Heritage Church being in an area that was completely residential; and the best alternative. He added T-mobile had already made concessions, 1) in height, 2) by making sure there are live trees there, and 3) in the design of the pole being more favorable to the Commission. There being no further, or public comment, Vice Chairperson Barrows opened the matter for Commission discussion. Commissioner Wilkinson provided general review comments on cell locations, alternative locations for co-location, coverage of other carriers, height, decibels, sound, restricted frequencies, and the proliferation of cell towers throughout the City. -4- Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 2010 Commissioner Quill provided general comments on previous meetings, and noted T-mobile did bring in their team to respond to the Commissions' concerns. He also commented on building another tower, co-location, denial of the applicant's ability to compete, and the church's ability to maintain the trees. General discussion followed regarding regulation of utility poles versus cell towers. Commissioner Weber provided general review comments on the applicant's frustration in having to keep coming back, avoiding visual blight, proper planning, and impeding commerce, coverage, as well as T-mobile's due diligence and their willingness to provide experts to answer the Commissions' questions. He commented on requirements for future cell tower applications, and said he still had concerns about the palm trees and the tower blending in as much as possible. Vice Chairperson Barrows asked Commissioner Weber if he was satisfied with the applicant's proposal regarding the palm trees and the height. Commissioner Weber said he would prefer to see 35 to 40 foot trees blended in with the 57 foot tower. Commissioner Quill said the Commission could require three staggered trees with a minimum height of 35 feet and a maximum height of 45 feet. He suggested the use of Washingtonia Robusta variety as most likely to survive transplanting. General discussion followed regarding growth and survival rates, and tree replacement. Vice Chairperson Barrows asked for staff clarification on the maintenance issue. Staff responded the applicant is ultimately responsible and the responsibility would transfer over (to a succeeding company) regardless of what arrangements have been made with Family Heritage. -5- Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 2010 Commissioner Weber asked staff for clarification if the tower owner transfers or a palm tree dies, what recourse does the City have to have the situation remedied. Staff responded initially Code Enforcement would address the issue of the violation of the condition. If they were unsuccessful in remediating the matter, then it would come back to the Planning Commission for potential revocation of the Conditional Use Permit. If the Permit was revoked then they would have to cease-and-desist. Commissioner Quill said when they are ordered to cease-and-desist, and they do not comply what steps does the City take. Assistant City Attorney Houston responded if they do not cease-and-desist the City would then take them to court. Commissioner Wilkinson asked when this technology is extinct what could the City do to have these towers removed. Staff responded this is a Conditional Use Permit and the permit is being granted based on a project description identifying the type of use. If that were amended into something dramatically different, it would have to be re-visited and addressed. Vice Chairperson Barrows provided general review comments on the applicants' response to the Commissioners' questions and noted a desire to maximize co-location opportunities in the future. There being no further questions or discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Weber to adopt Resolution 2010- 013 recommending approval of Conditional Use Permit 2009-124 with the following amendment. Condition No. 38 shall read: The applicant shall make planting and irrigation improvements for the planting of three (3) Washingtonia robustas (Mexican Fan Palms) around the monopalm tower. The palm trees shall be a minimum height of thirty five (35) feet, measured from finished floor. The palm trees shall be planted along the east side of the tower in order to screen the tower from Adams Street. -6- Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 2010 AYES: Commissioners NOES: Commissioner ABSTAIN: None. Quill, Weber, and Vice Chairperson Barrows. Wilkinson. ABSENT: Chairman Alderson. B. Site Development Permit 2010-913; a request by Shea Homes for consideration of architectural and landscaping plans for three prototypical house plans and front yard and common area landscaping plans in Tract 35996 (Trilogy Annex) located east of the CVWD Dike #4, between Avenues 60 and 62. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. Vice Chairperson Barrows asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Weber asked for additional information on the underground irrigation system. Staff said it was installed underneath the lawn and was similar to a soaker hose and explained how it related to the whole irrigation system. Commissioner Weber asked staff to address the retention basin accessibility. Staff said currently there was no access proposed. Commissioner Quill asked why they did not include a no-turf alternative. Planning Director Johnson said these 36 lots represented the completion of a larger project on which staff, and the applicant, have worked very hard to minimize the turf. The applicant had not submitted a no-turf option. Principal Planner Sawa further commented the applicant has reduced the turf approximately 50% from the existing 1200 units that are currently there. They have made a definite effort to reduce turf, but do not wish to include a no-turf option. Vice Chairperson Barrows commented that the pathways and entry points to the homes looked very angular and thought it might look better if it included some curves. She added she thought the Commission had previously required other projects to include the no- turf option, and was concerned about treating this project differently. -7- Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 2010 Staff responded that the ALRC had also brought up the angularity and a condition was included requiring the applicant to re-study the sidewalks to improve the circulation; making it easier to maneuver from the driveway to the house. There being no further questions of the staff, Vice Chairperson Barrows opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant would like to speak. Mr. Perry Devlin, General Manager for Shea Homes -Trilogy La Quinta, 60-800 Trilogy Parkway, La Quinta - He said they were trying to accommodate Homeowners' Association (HOA) members' wishes of maintaining architectural consistency as well as compatible landscaping. They have worked very closely with the HOA and had a pretty well defined annexation agreement. He explained that when dry wells are not surrounded by some amount of vegetation they have maintenance problems because of silt build-up. He added the basins were designed primarily for retention and not necessarily designed to be accessible. He said the HOA had concerns about its possible use as a dog park and how that would impact the homeowners surrounding it. He explained several suggestions made by the HOA to block that area off, but said, from an aesthetic standpoint, the applicant would rather not have that. That was not to say the HOA would not consider the Commissions' recommendations, but he got the impression the HOA would prefer not to allow access. He then commented on the no turf issue; explaining that it had been presented at the HOA meeting, where the vast majority were against it. He added it came up briefly at the ALRC meeting, and it was noted that they have alrady eliminated a lot of the sod. He commented on the angularity of the layouts and the ALRC suggestions. Commissioner Quill asked who maintained the front yard landscapes. Mr. Devlin responded they were maintained by the Homeowners' Association and added they were connected to the Weathertrac system; which is a satellite governed system to keep water usage down. Commissioner Weber questioned the accessibility of the basin and said it actually looked like a good opportunity for a dog park. He then asked if there was currently a dog park within Trilogy's boundaries. Mr. Devlin said no, but the HOA had assigned a group to seek out -8- Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 2010 opportunities to include one. However, there did not appear to be any unless they were to acquire a piece of golf course property. Commissioner Weber said it would be great proactive stance as the City is always trying to find park space; including accommodation for dog parks. There will be a need for this type of activity and if that could be incorporated, it would be a real plus. Mr. Devlin responded that the Homeowners' Association has taken a proactive approach to analyze the opportunities that are available. Since this will be annexed into their Association, they will study the whole idea and the members will vote on the options available. They can then decide if they want to utilize the retention basin. Vice Chairperson Barrows commented on no turf landscaping of retention basins; using the example of the City's recent conversion of the retention basin on Avenue 52 from all turf to no turf. She asked about the applicant's comment on dry pump maintenance with turf and no turf options. She further noted if people are not welcome in the retention basin then maybe grass should not be there. Areas with turf should be used in some productive way. She was concerned about adding more turf into a project with no other purpose other than aesthetics; as that would not be in line with the City's Water Conservation Ordinance. She reiterated the City's example of retention without turf. Mr. Devlin said he could only speak of their own experience with the retention basins out there, which were equipped with the McGuckin systems of dry wells. He then explained they accumulated a lot of silt; and they had to change to sod around the wells, which eliminated complaints from the members who lived around the dry wells. Commissioner Quill asked if the applicant would be adverse to a condition ensuring access would never be prohibited to these turf areas; as the Commission has taken a position on utilization of available turf. He then commented on the positive aspects of why a green belt would be included in a project. He stated, grass just for aesthetic reasons, is not valid. Mr. Devlin said he did not have an issue with it, but thought the Homeowners' Association members would prefer not. He then -9- Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 2010 reiterated his comments on the sod being critical for the drainage in the retention basins. Commissioner Weber said we live in a desert, and if you are going to have a green belt area, there should be accessibility. If it is going to be watered and kept green, then there should be the opportunity to utilize it for other activities which could also include a dog park. A community of this type would likely demand those types of amenities and may ask the City to provide them if they are not available. He advised the applicant that the Commission's direction was, and would continue, to be good stewards of the City's resources. Mr. Devlin said the points were well taken and he would not mind, and would actually prefer, the Commission to make a recommendation as it was Homeowners' Association property. There being no further questions of the applicant, Vice Chairperson Barrows asked if there was any public comment. There being no additional questions, or public comment, Vice Chairperson Barrows opened the matter for Commission discussion. Commissioner Weber said it would be a shame to put a sign up that says no dogs allowed. It is the wrong direction to go in and he hoped that the Homeowners' Association would understand and think about their responsibilities and how they can also play a part in helping to resolve water issues. Commissioner Quill said he did not see any benefit to a no turf option since it was explained that the front yards were maintained by the Association; however, he would still like to see less turf. Vice Chairperson Barrows commented she would like to require a no turf option to be consistent. She also recommended no turf be placed in the retention basin, unless it had an alternative use. This is an active community and people should be encouraged to be out and about. She strongly suggested conditions to that effect; as well as encouraging that the hardscapes on the landscaping follow the ALRC recommendations. -10- Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 2010 There was no further discussion and it was moved and seconded by Commissioner Quill/Vice Chairperson Barrows to adopt Minute Motion 2010-003 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2010- 913 as submitted, with the following added conditions: 1. Pedestrian access within the front yard area of the residences shall be revised to improve and ease circulation. 2. A front yard no turf option shall be offered to home buyers. 3. If no public access is provided to the retention basins, the turf at the bottom shall be eliminated and replaced with decomposed granite and some drip irrigated planting Unanimously approved. C. Specific Plan 2008-085 and Environmental Assessment 2008-600; a request by the City of La Quinta for consideration of a Specific Plan for the development of up to 200 affordable residential dwelling units and 82,000 square feet of automobile sales and related uses to be located south of Highway 111 between Dune Palms Road and Costco Drive. Planning Manager David Sawyer presented the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. Vice Chairperson Barrows asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Weber asked staff for the status of items listed in the City of Indio's comments. Consultant Nicole Criste, Terra Nova, Terra Nova Planning & Research, 400 S. Farrell Drive, Suite B-205, Palm Springs, CA introduced herself and provided the Commission with an explanation of the response being provided to the City of Indio. She also explained the seasonal adjustment requirement the City has and how that results in a high traffic count as identified by the City of Indio. Commissioner Weber commented on traffic volume, during extreme levels of traffic from nearby festivals, and wondered if the 40% figure was too high. He also wanted to know if Polo Square had been included in that number. -11- Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 2010 Consultant Criste further explained the rationale for the seasonal adjustment and said it reflected a more accurate standard if it needed to come down. She added that the cumulative project analysis included a number of projects approved by both La Quinta and Indio which included Polo Square, that were not yet constructed. Commissioner Weber asked if there would be new signalization along Highway 111 and Dune Palms. Staff said there is a right-in right-out environment only for the commercial use along Highway 111 and a signal would be added at the southern entrance to Sam's Club, linking up with the proposed "A" Street. That would eliminate the most northerly driveway serving the Desert Sands School District Administration offices. Commissioner Weber provided general review comments on turf, energy efficiency, sustainability, and LEED design in reference to the RSG April 21st submittal. Commissioner Quill asked why the City decided to do a full draft environment impact report versus a typical negative declaration. Consultant Criste replied that the initial study triggered an EIR. Commissioner Quill asked if a Statement of Overriding Consideration was included. Consultant Criste responded one is included for the Council to decide upon. Commissioner Quill asked how many Overriding points there were to consider. Consultant Criste said two; traffic long-term and cumulative, which included other projects and named the areas of inclusion. Commissioner Quill was very pleased with the housing project and its walkability, but asked why part of it was designated as an auto center and what would happen if those plans changed. Staff explained there was long-standing interest from ahigh-end auto dealership and briefly explained what would happen if those plans changed. Commissioner Quill said he was glad there were no Statement of Overriding Considerations on the GHG issues and asked if there had been a study done to prove that the City was under the requirements of AB 32. Consultant Criste said yes. -12- Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 2010 Commissioner Wilkinson asked about gated access at the south end and security for the auto dealership. Staff said it had not been determined if the proposed access off of "A" Street would be opened for general retail activity and explained the proposed delivery traffic circulation patterns; pointing out the restricted emergency and service access point as well as the current driveway proposal. Commissioner Weber asked about possible locations where a truckload of automobiles could enter. Staff said access would be provided via the Komar site to the east or off of Dune Palms via "A" Street and enter the site from the southwest. Commissioner Weber asked about security for the automobile sales use. Staff said that would be an item to be determined as part of the Site Development Permit review. Discussion among Commissioners followed regarding walled versus pedestrian-friendly connected communities; including comments on how to design a friendly, safe, and comfortable sidewalk area. Discussion among Commissioners then followed on the delivery and emergency areas of the project as well as the possibility of more traffic being relocated to the "A" Street access. Staff responded by pointing out the following items: 1. The number of large truck deliveries would not be significant, if this becomes an auto center; with most deliveries being done by UPS-sized trucks; 2. "A" Street would be a realigned access point for the School District buses and other vehicles with potential of those vehicles, during peak hour movements being of greater impact than anything else; 3. The noise sensitivity issue between the residential and the School District would require mitigation measures to minimize the noise levels to an acceptable level; 4. It is not anticipated that "A" Street would become a truck route of significance, other than for auto deliveries; 5. Larger delivery trucks would be discouraged from crossing the Komar/Costco commercial site as it is already fairly heavily -13- Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 2010 used. The people visiting the Komar/Costco commercial site will have the ability to use "A" Street which should help alleviate trips off of Highway 111. Commissioner Wilkinson asked where the buses were entering and if that was taken into consideration during the traffic study. Consultant Criste pointed out the bus entrance, explained what had been included in the traffic study, and how the existing northern driveway would be eliminated. She then noted the new access and traffic flow pattern for the site. Staff added the importance of this access was that it would be a signalized intersection eliminating the problem of the buses waiting as they entered/exited the School District site. A signalized intersection would be a better long-term solution for the School District; as well as being a better, safer environment for everybody. Discussion followed regarding the effect of the bus trips, time of day and the possibility of potential traffic jams. Consultant Criste explained how the off-peak hours minimized any potential traffic problems. Commissioner Wilkinson said that noise was probably a bigger problem than the traffic issue. Staff responded that the greater issue was the unsignalized existing environment; creating a much needed safety improvement. Commissioner Quill asked why the layout was changed from the original design. Consultant Criste said the new design was more responsive to safety and connectivity issues. Commissioner Quill said there would be a fairly significant open-space lot to the north of the new road alignment and asked if that would be City-owned property. Staff said it would be and then discussed the potential of utilizing a portion of that for retention/detention purposes, and to encourage pedestrian connectivity, on the north side, out to Dune Palms. There being no further questions of the staff, Vice Chairperson Barrows asked if there was any public comment. -14- Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 2010 There being no additional questions, or public comment, Vice Chairperson Barrows opened the matter for Commission discussion. There was no further discussion and it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Weber/Wilkinson to adopt Resolution 2010-014 recommending approval to Council of Specific Plan 2008-085 and Environmental Assessment 2008-600 as submitted. Unanimously approved. VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: None VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Planning Director Johnson gave a report on City Council Meeting of April 20, 2010. IA brief summary of the meeting was given followed by discussion of several items.) B. Vice Chairperson Barrows noted Commissioner Wilkinson was scheduled to report back on the May 4, 2010, Council meeting. IX: DIRECTOR ITEMS: X. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Vice Chairperson Barrows/Quill to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next regular meeting to be held on May 1 1, 2010. This regular meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. on April 27, 2010. Respectfully submitted, ~' C~a%~~0,~-~ Caroly~r, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California -15-