Loading...
2010 07 27 PCCity of La Quinta o� f" Planning Commission Agendas are now V g available on the City's Web Page @ www.la-guinta.org y c�N OF PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber 78-495 Calle Tampico. La Quinta, California JULY 27, 2010 7:00 P.M. **NOTE** ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING Beginning Resolution 2010-019 Beginning Minute Motion 2010-004 CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call C. Election of Chair D. Election of Vice Chair 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 June 8, 2010. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: For all Public Hearings on the Agenda, a completed "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Executive Secretary prior to the start of the Planning Commission consideration of that item. The Chairman will invite individuals who have requested the opportunity to speak, to come forward at the appropriate time. Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before a public hearing, may appear and be heard in support of, or in opposition to, the approval of the project(s) at the time of the hearing. If you challenge any project(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to the public hearing. A. Item ................... CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2009-127, AMENDMENT 1, Applicant........... Royal Street Communications Location............ 78-136 Francis Hack Lane Request ............. Consideration To Allow For The Co -location Of Six Panel Antennas For An Existing Telecommunication Monopalm Tower And Equipment Shelter Action ................. Staff Recommendation for Adoption of Resolution Recommending Approval, with Conditions - Resolution 2010- 191ki1*1411194iTiA A. Item .................. CONTINUED - CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATE FENCING MATERIALS Applicant........... City of La Quinta - Planning Department Location............ City-wide Request ............. Consideration Of Whether To Allow Sheet Metal Fencing As An Alternate Material for Residential Fences. Action ................. Staff Recommendation for Adoption of Minute Motion, with Conditions - Minute Motion 2010- B. Item .................. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Applicant........... City of La Quinta Location............ City-wide Request ............. Consideration of Goals, Vision and Guiding Principles for the General Plan Update. Action ................. Staff Recommendation for Adoption of Minute Motion Recommending Approval - Minute Motion 2010-_ VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: Vill. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Report on City Council meetings: June 15, 2010, by Commissioner Quill July 6, 2010, by Commissioner Weber July 20, 2010, by Commissioner Wilkinson B. Chairman Alderson is scheduled to attend the August 3, 2010, City Council meeting. The Council will be dark for the meetings of August 17, and September 7, 2010. IX. DIRECTOR ITEMS: X. ADJOURNMENT: This meeting of the Planning Commission will be adjourned to a Regular Meeting to be held on August 10, 2010, 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, July 27, 2010 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 Thursday July 22, 2010. DATED: July 22, 2010 CAROLYA 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 June 8, 2010 7:03 P.M. CALL TO ORDER A. A regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission was called to order at 7:03 p.m. by Chairman Alderson. PRESENT: Commissioners Barrows, Weber (delayed arrival), Wilkinson, and Chairman Alderson. ABSENT: Commissioner Quill. STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Les Johnson, Planning Manager David Sawyer, Principal Engineer Ed Wimmer, Assistant Planner Eric Ceja, and Executive Secretary.:Carolyn Walker. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: confirmed IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: There being no comments, or suggestions, it was moved by Commissioners Barrows/Wilkinson to approve the minutes of May 25, 2010 as submitted. Unanimously approved. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None VI, BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Right -Of -Way Vacation 2010-018; a request by City of La Quinta- Public Works - for consideration of a proposed Right -Of -Way Vacation of a 2,426 square foot portion of Avenida Ultimo located East of Washington Street. Principal Engineer Ed Wimmer presented the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 2010 Chairman Alderson asked if there were any questions of staff. There being no questions of staff, and the applicant being the City of La Quinta, Chairman Alderson asked if there was any public comment. Mr. Leo Knasiak, 78515 Avenida Ultimo, La Quinta — stated he was in favor of the vacation of the property. He had given Chairman Alderson a packet of information, prior to the meeting (a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department) and wanted to be assured that the information he provided was taken into consideration regarding what happens to the property once the vacation was completed. He pointed out Council Resolution 91-115, Condition of Approval No. 6, which mentions the addition of a gate at the west end of Avenida Ultimo, if the City vacates the last 70 to 90 feet of the street. He also commented on the addition :of a block wall and expressed the necessity for its inclusion. Chairman Alderson asked for clarification of the location. Mr. Knasiak pointed to the area he was referring to and added there is currently a gate on the south side of that area, but he recently obtained the Council Resolution information which addressed additional issues. Chairman Alderson asked if the area was newly paved. Mr. Knasiak said no, but it needed to be paved as there has been a sinkhole there which flooded each Spring. He stated he was just asking that the whole area be cleaned up and made safe for the residents living in the area. He then suggested motion detector lights could be put on the existing fence and explained his concerns about safety in the area. (Commissioner Weber entered the meeting at 7:14 p.m.). Chairman Alderson asked where the driveways were for both the properties to the right and left, which staff pointed out. Commissioner Wilkinson asked 1) if the Resort was the owner of the property, 2) had they had any conversations with the City about using that property as a storage yard, and 3) did they have plans for adding a gate. 2- Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 2010 Principal Engineer Wimmer responded that the preliminary title report they received did not clearly show the current ownership, though it was assumed the owner was the Resort. However, they were still waiting for confirmation of the ownership from the title company. He added that, on the assumption the Resort was the owner, the Public Works Director had previously communicated with them several times, requesting that they correct some of the items mentioned by Mr. Knasiak. Chairman Alderson re -stated the present issue before the Commission and noted the conditions presented by Mr. Knasiak were placed by a previous Planning Commission. He commented on them and said they could continue the item to investigate them further. Mr. Knasiak said he was in favor of the vacation and did not want it continued. Chairman Alderson referenced staff's previous comments on working with the Resort on the earlier conditions and suggested the Commission discuss and vote on the Street Vacation currently before them. Planning, Director. Johnson followed up on Principal Engineer Wimmer's comments on ownership stating there had been a myriad of ownerships, but they expected the property would be transferred fully to the Resort. There being no further questions, or public comment, Chairman Alderson opened the matter for Commission discussion and closed the public hearing. Commissioner Barrows expressed her concern about adding some landscaping just to screen off the area a bit more. Staff responded if the property was not going to be absorbed into the storage yard, and would remain open, there could be discussion about including some low maintenance landscape. However, they would first have to research the condition Mr. Knasiak had mentioned. Principal Engineer Wimmer said they had contacted the Coachella Valley Water District, regarding interest in keeping their easement. They were very concerned about the possibility of planting an overabundance of landscaping. -3- Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 2010 Commissioner Weber asked about a clarification on reserving the utility easement and staff commented the utilities are already there and all they wanted was to have an easement there to protect their utilities. Commissioner Weber asked about moving the access point and the possibility of a gate structure being added to deter graffiti and other security issues. Planning Director Johnson responded that, if the Resort expanded operations, the addition of a gate and proper screening would have to be discussed. General discussion followed on ownership, types of gates, fencing, screening, inclusion of a wall, and reserving the easement. Chairman Alderson reminded the Commissioners that the matter -at - hand was to decide whether to recommend vacation or not and not discussion of future possibilities. Council could impose conditions, if they so desired. Staff said they would certainly talk further with the owner to find out more clearly what their intentiohs were, prior to this being introduced to City Council Chairman Alderson asked if those discussions might dovetail with Mr. Knasiak's concerns. Principal Engineer Wimmer said yes and also clarified that the Planning Commission would not be the body that actually vacated the property. They would be approving a General Plan Conformance and providing a recommendation to the Council. There being no further questions or discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Wilkinson/Barrows to adopt Resolution 2010-018 recommending approval of Right -Of -Way Vacation 2010- 018 as submitted. AYES: Commissioners Barrows, Weber, Wilkinson, and Chairman Alderson. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Quill. ABSTAIN: None. B. Consideration of Alternate Fencing Materials; a request by City of La Quinta- Planning Department - for consideration as to whether to allow sheet metal fencing as an alternate material for residential fences located City-wide. Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 2010 Planning Director David Sawyer presented the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. Chairman Alderson asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Weber had a question about whether the examples shown had been permitted. Staff responded they had not had an opportunity to check on the examples, but would do a follow-up once the Commission decided whether the material was acceptable or not. Discussion followed regarding the examples shown, where they were located, and which pictured the particular metal fencing currently under discussion. There being no further questions of staff', and the applicant being the City of La Quinta, Chairman Alderson asked if there was any public comment. Mr. Leo Knasiak — 78-515 Avenida Ultimo, La Quinta — had some questions on the alternate types of fencing. He asked about the combination of materials; i.e.; metal and wood together. He said he did not have a problem with metal fencing if it was installed by a fencing company. He was concerned about the residents, next to these fences, being contacted. He said he hoped the neighbors' concerns would be considered due to the amount of heat which would be reflecting off this metal and into their yards. He then gave examples of what happens when mixed media deteriorates; e.g., wood/metal. He asked the Commission to be very specific about how this was worded. Mr. Glen Chapman - 46-700 Cameo Palms Drive, La Quinta — stated he was the resident cited for having a metal fence and the fencing material he used was not a sheet metal material, but corrugated steel; a galvanized material. He said it was actually used for siding, in structural situations, and in roofing, with a lifespan of 50 years or more. He gave examples of other cities allowing this metal for residential use and said in some situations they do different techniques of either painting or adding a patina effect to it. It is supportive and structurally more sound than any kind of wood fencing, without the drawbacks; i.e., sprinkler staining. He added it is used on a lot of architectural restaurants; not just in Palm Springs, but also in La Quinta (Amore Restaurant). 3 Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 2010 Chairman Alderson asked which photo showed his fence. Mr. Chapman pointed it out. Mr. Chapman then distributed some photos of permitted fences in other cities. (A copy is on file in the Planning Department.) Commissioner Barrows asked Mr. Chapman to describe the vertical post structure. Mr. Chapman said the posts were 4 x 4 and 6 x 6 and were imbedded two feet down. He added they were treated before they were cemented in place. Commissioner Barrows asked if the posts were made of wood. Mr. Chapman said they were stained wood posts. Commissioner Barrows asked if there was a finish on the steel. Mr. Chapman said it was a galvanized finish with a sealer on it. Commissioner Weber commented on the structural soundness of the siding material secured with wooden posts. Mr. Chapman then described the height of the fence (four feet) and the construction methods used to build it. Commissioner Wilkinson asked about the rail material behind the fence. Mr. Chapman respondedthere were two stained and sealed two-by-four wood rails (on end); one at the bottom and one at the top. Commissioner Wilkinson asked if this was 26 gauge material. Mr. Chapman said yes. Discussion followed regarding the compatibility of metal with the fence (and home) design, as well as further comment of metal fences with wood posts. There being no further questions, or public comment, Chairman Alderson opened the matter for Commission discussion. Commission discussion followed regarding the gauge, and how the material affects the neighboring properties. Staff advised the Commission they were to focus on two primary questions: 1) did they find this material aesthetically acceptable, and Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 2010 2) if so, (with Commission guidance and direction) staff could address the issue of how the Code should be written with regards to gauge or construction. Staff also commented that the Commission could direct staff to re -visit the issue and bring something back at a later date. Commissioner Wilkinson commented on Mr. Chapman's fence being already built, and if guidelines were adopted which specifically did not allow metal fencing, could the Commission include an exception to the rule. Staff responded if the direction was given that it was not allowed then Mr. Chapman would have to modify the fence accordingly. The Municipal Code was actually quite definitive as to the type of fencing that could be used and this one was not identified. Staff felt there was a need to bring this forward to the Commission for consideration; similar to the submission of vinyl fencing; which was approved as allowable. Staff would move forward according to the Commission's directive. Commissioner Barrows stated she did not have any problems with the aesthetics of this material. She did, however want to make sure that some standards were provided; i.e.,- gauges and types of materials. She remarked on Mr. Knasiak`s comments on combining materials. Commissioner Weber asked if staff was aware of any studies by neighboring cities and their handling of this material. Staff had not had an opportunity to check on any studies, had seen these fencing materials used in several locations at residences in Palm Springs, but did not know if they were permitted. Staff stated they could check if it was the. Commission's wish. Commissioner Weber said his concerns were 1) whether this was aesthetically appropriate, 2) the use of mixed media — wood supporting metal, 3) the fact that the combination of masonry and metal might work with specific limitations, and 4) he wanted more information on what neighboring cities were allowing. Commissioner Wilkinson was concerned about safety issues; i.e. nc cap on the top of the Chapman's fence, and the heat/reflective issues. Discussion followed regarding the cap, the sharp edge of the metal, and the heat, reflective, and safety issues. The result being, if the Commission was going to continue this item, staff would follow-up -7- Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 2010 with the research would be issued c decision was made. they had requested. A Code Enforcement stay n Mr. Chapman's fence, in the interim, until a Comments then followed about the Commissioners' concerns including glare, the need to have a finish on the metal, the aesthetics of the metal, the safety of the product because of the heat and sharpness, maintenance of the material, construction, mixed media, adding a color or stain to the material, the possibility of including this material in the "vinyl fencing" section of the code, and what will happen to existing fencing if this use is denied. Commissioner Weber then brought up the possibility of allowing this material in limited applications, such as gates or access ways; if it is not the primary material visible in a front yard. He referenced one of the photos which had a metal (fence material) gate providing access to a front yard. Commissioner Barrows asked for clarification as to whether the Commission's decision was for 1) either giving direction to staff or 2) whether the Commission should explore this further or not. Staff responded if the Commission chose not to explore it further that choice would be considered' as the Commission's direction that this material would not be allowed. Commissioner Wilkinson commented on the differences in styles and how this material could be mixed with other materials. He commented on some previous approvals for the Cove and asked Mr. Chapman where his residence was. Mr. Glen Chapman — 46-700 Cameo Palms Drive, La Quinta said he lived in the Highland Palms Community of about 80 homes. He then commented on his receipt of a citation and read the Municipal Code Section 96, regarding allowable fencing materials in a residential district. His objective in using a metal fencing material was to have something structurally sound and low in maintenance. He said this material was allowed in Palm Springs and Palm Desert. He mentioned he was a general contractor and then commented about visibility from the street, some of his neighbors who were non -compliant, the reason a cap was not included on his fence, and the potential of getting cut from climbing the fence. Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 2010 Chairman Alderson asked if he was a contractor, why he put up a fence without a permit. Mr. Chapman said, it was only four feet high and he thought a permit was not needed. He acknowledged he had made a mistake in assuming that. Commissioner Wilkinson said the fence, in the photo, looked taller than four feet. Chairman Alderson agreed. Mr. Chapman commented on the proper setbacks and explained the fence height and its construction. General discussion followed on various photos, the height of the fence, a secondary driveway, and the gate materials. Chairman Alderson said the Commission was not there to discuss individual circumstances within that neighborhood but to determine whether or not they should recommend the ability to use steel material as a fencing material; wherein before it was not allowed, and under what conditions would.it be allowed. Mr. Leo Knasiak 78515 Avenida Ultimo, La Quinta — commented on how hot the metal fencing could get during our desert summers. He gave an example of a small child getting burned on the metal fence and the decision of who would be held liable. Chairman Alderson declared the public hearing closed. Commissioner Weber suggested the correct procedure would be for staff to obtain any additional information needed. He also read the portion of the Code dealing with "non -conforming" fences and said he would consider making a motion having metal fencing be treated similar to wood or vinyl fencing as noted under the appropriate section of Code 9.60.030. The reference was noted on page 8 of the staff report, page 2 of the Code. He suggested it would be appropriate to consider pedestrian and driveway gates be made of metal. Discussion followed about the metal fencing being treated the same as vinyl fencing; being allowed in the rear and side yards, and in the front yard as architectural features and/or gates. Staff advised the Commission that the Code already permitted a metal material to be used for vehicular driveway gates, but not pedestrian gates. Staff then noted D1 (Page 8) - types of metal allowed. Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 2010 Discussion followed regarding the inclusion of pedestrian gates made of metal. Commissioner Wilkinson reiterated his concerns about the how hot a metal pedestrian gate could get. Staff pointed out that the Code already allowed for ornamental iron and tubular steel gates, and the risk would not be any greater with this type of material versus those types of gates; either way, they were both hot. There being no further questions or discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioner Weber/Chairman Alderson to recommend modification of La Quinta Municipal Code Section 9.60.030 - Fences and walls - as follows: Section D. Gates 1. Materials. Gates shall be constructed of ornamental iron/tubular steel, solid metal and/or wood-.." Section E. 1. Wood and Vinyl Fencing. a. '...wood, solid metal, and vinyl or similar recycled fencing materials are permitted in rear or interior side yards only, and only if not visible from the street. Gates may be of wood of solid metal in any location provided they comply with the standards of this section." AYES: Commissioner Weber and Chairman Alderson. NOES: Commissioners Barrows and Wilkinson. ABSENT: Commissioner Quill. ABSTAIN: None. Motion Failed. There being no further questions or discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Wilkinson/Barrows recommending continuation of this item to July 13, 2010 to allow staff time for further research. AYES: Commissioners Barrows, Weber, and Wilkinson. NOES: Chairman Alderson. ABSENT: Commissioner Quill. ABSTAIN: None. VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None -10- Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 2010 VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Commissioner Barrows gave a report on the City Council Meeting of June 1, 2010. (A brief summary of the meeting was given followed by discussion.) B. Chairman Alderson noted Commissioner Quill was scheduled to report back on the June 15, 2010, Council meeting and asked staff to inform him of same. C. Chairman Alderson noted the new Council Meeting Attendance List was included in the packet. D. Re -scheduled discussion regarding Commission Summer Meeting Schedule concluded with a vote to go dark August 24, 2010. IX: DIRECTOR ITEMS: A. Director gave update on appointment of ALRC and HPC Members; with discussion following. X. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved by Commissioners Wilkinson/Weber to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next regular meeting to be held on July 13, 2010. (NOTE: June 22, 2010 meeting has been cancelled). This regular meeting was adjourned at 8:37 p.m. on June 8; 2010. Respectfully submitted, Carolyn Walker, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California -11- PH # A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: JULY 27, 2010 CASE NO.: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2009-127 APPLICANT: ROYAL STREET COMMUNICATIONS REQUEST: CONSIDERATION TO ALLOW FOR THE CO -LOCATION OF SIX PANEL ANTENNAS FOR AN EXISTING TELECOMMUNICATION MONO -PALM TOWER AND EQUIPMENT SHELTER LOCATION: 78-136 FRANCIS HACK LANE; RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE STATION #32 — FRITZ BURNS PARK (ATTACHMENT 1) PROPERTY OWNER: CITY OF LA QUINTA GENERAL PLAN: MAJOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES (MC) ZONING: MAJOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES (MC) :f _LT WI Yo k7�1 q/I L t"i DETERMINATION: THE LA QUINTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THIS PROPOSAL IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15332 (CLASS 32) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA), IN THAT THIS IS AN IN -FILL PROJECT SURROUNDED BY URBAN SERVICES AND EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS SURROUNDING LAND USES: NORTH: PARKS AND RECREATION (PR) (FIRE STATION #32) SOUTH: RESIDENTIAL LOW / (TRADITIONS) EAST: RESIDENTIAL LOW / (TRADITIONS) WEST: COVE RESIDENTIAL (RC) GOLF COURSE (RL/GC) GOLF COURSE (RL/GC) BACKGROUND: Fritz Burns Park is located on the southeast corner of Avenida Bermudas and Avenue 52 (Attachment 1). The location also houses the City of La Quinta's City Yard, and the newly constructed Riverside County Fire Station #32 along Avenue 52. The existing Fire Station #32 fronts along Francis Hack Lane, and is adjacent to the existing monopalm tower (Attachment 1). In 2002, Riverside County and Sprint PCS approved a lease agreement for the establishment of a seventy-four (74) foot high monopalm tower and associated unmanned equipment shelter on the site. 77�711X�� Royal Street Communication is requesting to install and co -locate six (6) panel antennas on the existing seventy-four (74) foot tall monopalm tower (Attachment 2). The tower currently has three (3) antenna arrays, at a height of sixty-four (64) feet. The applicant is proposing to place an additional six (6) panel antenna below the existing monopalm fronds, at a height of fifty-four (54) feet. Each panel antenna is approximately five (5) feet in height, thirteen (13) inches in width and will be painted to match the existing monopalm towers' faux skin. The proposed panel antennas are approximately the same dimensions of the existing panel antennas. The proposed antennas will increase wireless service options in and around this portion of the City (Attachment 3). The existing monopalm tower and equipment shelter can accommodate the proposed improvements without a need for re -design or expansion of the facility. ANALYSIS: Chapters 9.170 of the Zoning Code, regulates the use of Communication Towers and Equipment. This section encourages the co -location of antennas on existing towers as a means of limiting the number of new towers within the City. The applicant has met the intent of this code section and has complied with the requirements set forth in this section. The existing equipment facility is approximately 530 square feet and can contain the proposed improvements without further expansion necessary. There are no functional impacts caused by the placement of additional equipment associated with the towers' improvements within the existing equipment facility. The placement of additional panel antennas on the existing monopalm will improve the current aesthetic and visual appearance of the tower, as the applicant has proposed replacing the current faux palm fronds and increasing the number of fronds that currently exist on the tower. 2 The panel antennas will be placed on the existing tower; just below the existing antennas, and will be painted to match the existing tower. Because the current tower is in such poor condition, the proposed tower improvements provide an opportunity for the tower to meet current city standards and designs. The proposed antennas will be attached securely below the existing screening material, and it is recommended that further screening of the antennas be established. In addition, the existing tower has inadequate screening of the existing antenna arrays. Further screening and tower improvements are necessary to improve the aesthetics of the tower and to ensure proper screening of all proposed improvements. The applicant has proposed to screen the existing and proposed antennas by placing additional palm fronds on the tower that extend above, below and beyond the antennas (Attachment 4). The proposed height for the attachment of the antennas will not cause significant radio frequency (RF) interference with existing and approved telecommunication services. The proposed co -location of antennas will increase wireless service options for customers within this portion of the community. Attachment 3 provides visual representation of how services are expected to increase; green areas show the greatest amount of service improvement, while red shows area expected to receive marginal service improvements. Riverside County approved a lease agreement with Spring PCS in 2002, for the establishment of the existing monopalm tower and equipment building. However, maintenance and overall appearance of the monopalm tower has diminished over the years. The existing tower's faux palm fronds are in poor condition and relatively few remain in place since the towers' installation (Attachment 5). Although Sprint PCS is responsible for maintenance of the existing site, Staff has addressed the tower's condition with the applicant and has placed a condition (Condition 15) to improve the tower's appearance as part of the proposal to improve the site. In order to ensure compatibility with the surrounding live palm trees staff has conditioned that the faux palm fronds resemble live palm fronds in color and appearance (Condition 15). Public Notice This request was published in the Desert Sun newspaper on July 1, 2010, and mailed to all affected property owners within 500 feet of site as required by Section 9.200.1 10 of the La Quinta Municipal Code. Public Agency Review A copy of this request has been sent to all applicable public agencies and City Departments on April 5, 2010. All written comments received are on file with the 3 Planning Department. Applicable comments received have been included in the recommended Conditions of Approval. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: Findings to approve this request per Section 9.210.020.F of the City of La Quinta Zoning Code can be made and are contained in the attached Resolution. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2010-_1 approving Conditional Use Permit 2009-127, for the co -location of six (6) panel antennas for an existing telecommunication tower for Royal Street Communications, subject to the attached Findings and Conditions of Approval. Prepared by: ERIC CEJA, A stant Planner Attachments: 1. Location 2. Improvement Plans 3. Coverage Map 4. Photo Simulations 5. Photos of Existing Tower 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2010- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE CO -LOCATION OF SIX PANEL ANTENNAS FOR AN EXISTING TELECOMMUNICATION MONO -PALM TOWER AND EQUIPMENT SHELTER CASE NO.: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2009-127 APPLICANT: ROYAL STREET COMMUNICATIONS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 27`h day of July, 2010, hold a noticed Public Hearing to consider a request by Royal Street Communications, to allow the co - location of six panel antennas for an existing telecommunication monopalm tower and equipment enclosure at Riverside County Fire Station #32, located at 78-136 Francis Hack Lane, in the PR (Parks and Recreation) district, more particularly described as: APN: 770-184-005 WHEREAS, the Planning Department published the public hearing notice in the Desert Sun newspaper on the 1' day of July, 2010, for the 27`h day of July, 2010, Planning Commission meeting as prescribed by Section 9.200.110 (Public Notice Procedure) of the Zoning Code, and by mailing a copy of said public hearing notice to all property owners and residents within 500 feet of the site; and WHEREAS, the co -location of panel antennas on the existing monopalm tower will minimize adverse visual effects of the antennas and decrease the need for additional telecommunication towers and equipment on the surrounding area; and WHEREAS, the telecommunication facility will improve telecommunication service options within this portion of the City of La Quinta; and WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings pursuant to Section 9.210.020 of the Zoning Code to justify approval of said Conditional Use Permit: 1. Consistency with the General Plan: The design and improvements of the proposed co -location on the existing monopalm tower and 5 Planning Commission Resolution 2010- Conditional Use Permit 2009-127: Royal Street Communication July 27, 2010 equipment enclosure are consistent with La Quinta General Plan (Chapter 7) that requires utilities and communication facilities to blend in with the surrounding improvements and insures residents have access to reliable services such as wireless telephones. The co - location on the existing monopalm tower at this site will have a negligible impact on the surrounding public thoroughfares and land uses. 2. Consistency with the Zoning Code: The placement of the monopalm tower and equipment enclosure are consistent with current standards of the Zoning Code (Chapter 9.90 and 9.170) in that the potential adverse visual effects have been mitigated, and all perimeter setback requirements have been met. 3. Compliance with CEQA: The placement of new panel antennas for co - location on the existing monopalm tower and equipment enclosure have been determined to be exempt from CEQA, under Guidelines Section 15332 (Infill Development), in that the site is developed as a Riverside County fire station and City yard that is surrounded by urban infrastructure improvements (e.g., roads, water, sanitation, etc.). 4. Compatibility with Surrounding Uses: The proposed improvements are located on an existing built site. The proposed monopalm and equipment enclosure are consistent with the surrounding architectural theme and public facility improvements. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission for this Conditional Use Permit; 2. That it does hereby approve Conditional Use Permit 2009-127 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval; PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 271" day of July, 2010, by the following vote, to wit: n. Planning Commission Resolution 2010- Conditional Use Permit 2009-127: Royal Street Communication July 27, 2010 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ED ALDERSON, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: LES JOHNSON Planning Director City of La Quinta, California 7 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2010- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2009-127; ROYAL STREET COMMUNICATIONS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED July 27, 2010 GENERAI The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Conditional Use Permit. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense council. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. Prior to the issuance of a grading, construction or building permit, the applicant shall obtain applicable permits and/or clearances from the following agencies, if applicable or required: • Riverside County Fire Marshall • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) • Planning Department • Riverside County Environmental Health Department • Public Utilities Commission (PUC) • Federal Communication Commission (FCC) • Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) • Desert Recreation District The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits or clearances from the above listed agencies and departments. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the plans. IMPROVEMENT PLANS As used throughout these Conditions of Approval, professional titles such as "engineer," "surveyor," and "architect," refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their respective professions in the State of California. 3. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified engineers and/or architects, as appropriate, and shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.040 (Improvement Plans). E PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2010- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2009-127; ROYAL STREET COMMUNICATIONS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED July 27, 2010 4. The following plans shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Department for review and approval. The plans shall utilize the minimum scale specified, unless otherwise authorized by the Building and Safety Director in writing. Plans may be prepared at a larger scale if additional detail or plan clarity is desired. Note, the applicant may be required to prepare other improvement plans not listed here pursuant to improvements required by other agencies and utility purveyors. A. On -Site Non -Commercial Building and Precise Grading Plan (as required by the Building and Safety Department) 1 " = 30' Horizontal Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not listed above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to commencing plan preparation. 5. Upon completion of construction, and prior to record drawing submittal of the improvements by the City, the applicant shall furnish the City with reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were approved by the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawing" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy and completeness of the drawings. The applicant shall have all approved mylars previously submitted to the City, revised to reflect the as -built conditions. The applicant shall employ or retain the Engineer Of Record during the construction phase of the project so that the EOR. can make site visits in support of preparing Record Drawings. However, if subsequent approved revisions have been approved by the City Engineer and reflect said "As -Built" conditions, the Engineer Of Record may submit a letter attesting to said fact to the City Engineer in lieu of mylar submittal. PROPERTY RIGHTS 6. Prior to issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire or confer easements and other property rights necessary for the construction or proper functioning of the proposed installation. Conferred rights shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for emergency services and for maintenance, construction and reconstruction of essential improvements. Pursuant to this condition, the applicant shall comply with the applicable lease agreements entered upon with the City of La Quinta and/or Riverside County. 10 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2010- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2009-127; ROYAL STREET COMMUNICATIONS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED July 27, 2010 UTILITIES 7. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.110 (Utilities). 8. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all utility lines within the right of way and all above -ground utility structures including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electrical vaults, water valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes. PARKING/ACCESS POINTS 9. The applicant shall protect existing hardscape along the proposed Communication equipment building and monopole construction area to include but not limited to garden walls, landscaping, irrigation systems, curb and gutter, sidewalk and pavement. Restoration to any damaged hardscape shall be to the satisfaction of the City of La Quinta. QUALITY ASSURANCE 10. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer. 11. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were signed by the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawings," "As -Built" or "As -Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy of the drawings. The applicant shall revise the CAD or raster -image files previously submitted to the City to reflect as -constructed conditions. MAINTENANCE 12. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.160, and shall make provisions for continuous, perpetual maintenance of all on - site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks. The applicant shall maintain required public improvements until expressly released from its responsibility by the appropriate public agency. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2010- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2009-127; ROYAL STREET COMMUNICATIONS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED July 27, 2010 FEE AND DEPOSITS 13. The applicant shall pay the City's established fees for plan checking and construction inspection. Fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan checking and permits. MISCELLANEO 14. All conditions imposed by Riverside County for the original approval and lease agreement for the tower shall remain in effect unless superseded by conditions required as part of this approval. 15. The applicant shall replace all of the existing and deteriorated faux palm fronds with new faux palm fronds. The applicant is to install a minimum of eighty (80) faux palm fronds. Fronds shall extend to the lowest point of the new panel antennas. All faux fronds are to resemble live palm fronds in both color and appearance, as approved by the Planning Director. 16. The new panel antennas shall be painted to match the color of the existing monopalm tower and shall be flush mounted to the pole. 17. The entire facility shall be maintained in a condition consistent with the conditions of this approval and, if the facility is not so maintained this approval is subject to revocation or other correcting actions as determined appropriate by the City. 18. This permit shall expire on July 27, 2012, unless a one-year time extension is applied for and granted by the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 9.200.080 of the Zoning Code. 12 ATTACH"."�NT # 1 z 13 n O J f^ I I ,i '� •x ° � i Y -' FA S tt 1N�WHJdllb' STAFF REPORT BI # A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JULY 27, 2010 APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA REQUEST: CONSIDERATION AS TO WHETHER TO ALLOW SHEET METAL FENCING AS AN ALTERNATE MATERIAL FOR RESIDENTIAL FENCES. LOCATION: CITY-WIDE BACKGROUND: As it is currently provided for in Municipal Code Section 9.60.030E, fencing materials in the residential districts are limited to wood, vinyl, ornamental iron and tubular steel, and masonry. Interest has been expressed in allowing sheet metal fencing material as an alternative to wood fencing (Attachment 1). Homeowner interest in using metal sheet fencing as a possible fencing material has increased in the past few years. One homeowner, in the Highland Palms neighborhood, has installed metal sheet fencing within their front yards and several residences in the cove have used the material to screen their homes or add architectural interest (Attachment 2). This item was previously considered at the June 8, 2010 Planning Commission meeting, and was continued to the next Planning Commission meeting to allow staff to further research concerns raised by residents and the Commission. During the June 8 meeting concerns were raised with regard to the heat retention and light reflection of the metal material and the potential to combine metal fencing material with other materials, principally wood. ANALYSIS: Most new residential fencing is a masonry concrete block product. In fact virtually all of the new residential fencing installed in La Quinta over the past decade or so has been concrete block. In contrast, there are numerous residences in older neighborhoods with existing wood fences in the front, rear or side yards. Though it is the least expensive of the materials currently provided, wood fencing also has the highest maintenance cost and the shortest life span. As an alternative to wood fencing, metal sheet fencing has been suggested, and is in use at some locations in the City. Metal sheet fencing is a higher cost than wood, but requires less maintenance and has a much longer life span. In addition, Prepared by: Eric Ceja, s istant Planner Attachments: 1. Sheet Metal Samples 2. Sheet Metal Examples 3. Amore Restaurant Elevations 4. LQMC 9.60.030E r✓ S( 0 ... :1 0 • 0qp--0�� �� O IlA1���l=.Gb t 45 l 7 0 e 0 ATTACHMENT # I CAR-16 PANEL o 24 GA. ideaative Desicin Loads in PSF 1592 .. .ad HC0 Z� m -,,Design .ad 2.50 210.00 105.00 3.00 190.00 95.00 3.50 170.00 85.00 4.00 150.00 75.00 4.50 130.00 65.00. Notes: 1. Panel Description: HR-16, 24 ga., (2) #10-16 x 1" Pancake per connection. 2. The above loads were derived from uplift tests done in accordance with ASTM E-1592 by Force Engineering. 3. All values are interpolated andlor extrapolated from tests performed at spans of 2'-0" and 5 4'. 4. Test results are highlighted. 5. Design Load contains a 2.0 factor of safety in accordance with AISI'01. 1 HR-16 Panel Interlock ISODECURCI ONT)i to Furnish and instal Berridge HR-16 Panel as manufactured by Ber- ridge MarwfaMoin Co., Seguin. Texas. IE mFACTuRE: Panels shall be roll -timed in continuous lengths D��� n j - max. 4V-0". Panel Coverage to be 16-0" mrdh rib spaang of 4" an Berridge Manufacturing Company center and panel depth of 71W 6515 Fran Rd, San Antonio, TX 78218 I MATERIAL ARID FINISH See web site: www.benidge.cmn Local: 210-660-30601800-669-0009 I j CONSTRUCTION DETAILS www.berridge.com See web site: wwwberridge.corn 4_ . Y.ou.up rences ano waus. http://gcode.us/codes/laqu inta/view.php?topic=9-9_60-9_60_030&fr... La Quinta Municipal Code Up Previous Next Main Title 9 ZONING Chapter 9.60 SUPPLEMENTAL RESIDENTIAL REGULATIONS 9.60.030 Fences and walls. ATTACHMENT # 4 Search Print No Frames A. Definition. For purposes of this section, "fence" or "wall' means any type of fence, wall, retaining wall, sound attenuation wall, screen or windscreen. The terms "fence" and "wall' are used interchangeably in this section to mean any or all of the preceding structures. B. Measurement of Fence Height. Except as otherwise specified in this section, fence heights shall be measured from finish grade at the base of the fence to the highest point of the fence on the interior or exterior side, whichever is higher. Messuremcat of Fencc i%3oht In addition, the following provisions shall apply to the measurement of fence height: 1. Open railings, up to forty-eight inches high, placed on top of a retaining or other wall and required for pedestrian safety shall not be included in the height measurement. 2. Fences less than thirty inches apart (measured between adjoining faces) shall be considered one structure and fence height shall be measured from the base of the lower fence to the top of the higher fence. Fences thirty inches or more apart shall be considered separate structures and their heights shall be measured independently. The director may require that the area between such fences be provided with permanent landscaping and irrigation. C. Fence Heights. The construction and installation of fences shall be in compliance with the following standards: 1. Within Main Building Area. In the area of a lot where a main building may be constructed, the maximum freestanding fence height shall be twelve feet. 1 2. Setback Areas Not Bordering Streets. The maximum fence height shall be six feet within any required setback area not adjoining a street. Where the elevation of an adjoining building site is higher than the base of the fence within a side or rear setback area, the height of the fence may be measured from the elevation of the adjoining building site to the top of the fence. However, fence height shall not exceed eight feet measured from either side with the exception of the RC district (see Section 9.30.040). 3. Setback Areas Bordering Streets, Alleys and Other Accessway. a. Within all districts, the maximum fence height shall be five feet within the first ten feet of the required I of 3 5/26/2010 9:32 AM 9.60.030 Fences and walls. http://qcode.us/codes/laquinta/view.php?topic=9-9 60-960030&fr... front setback area (measured from the street right-of-way) and six feet within any rear or side setback area adjoining a public street. b. Notwithstanding other fence height restrictions, where, because of the orientation of the lots, a property line fence separates a front yard on one lot from a rear yard on an adjacent lot, the maximum fence height shall be six feet. c. Arches or trellises up to nine feet in overall height and five feet interior width may be constructed over a gate on a lot provided the arch/trellis is integrated into the fence/gate design. d. Any portion of a building site where vehicular access is taken shall conform to the access intersection requirements of subsection (C)(4) of this section. e. City- or state -required sound attenuation walls bordering freeways or arterial highways may exceed six feet in height if so recommended by a noise attenuation study and approved by the director. 4. Adjacent to a nonresidential zone or use. The maximum fence height between a residential zone or use and a nonresidential zone or use shall be eight feet. a. The height offences, trees, shrubs and other visual obstructions shall be limited to a maximum height of thirty inches within the triangular area formed by drawing a straight line: i. Between two points located on and twenty feet distant from the point of intersection of two ultimate street right-of-way lines. ii. Between two points located on and five feet distant from the point of intersection of an ultimate street or alley right-of-way on one hand and the edge of a driveway or another alley right-of-way on the other if parkway width is less than twelve feet wide. b. For purposes of this code, "point of intersection' means the intersection of the prolongation of the right-of-way lines, excluding any curved portion joining the two lines. c. The height restrictions of this subdivision shall apply to fences, walls, trees, shrubs, vegetation, or any other material which obstructs or may obstruct visibility. D. Gates. 1. Materials. Gates shall be constructed of ornamental iron/tubular steel and/or wood. Such gates may be placed in any location provided they meet the requirements of this section and provided any wood used is not less than a grade of construction heart or merchantable and better redwood or No. 2 and better (no holes) western red cedar, stained or painted to match or complement the adjacent wall or structure. Alternatively, if left in natural color, all wood shall be treated with a water -repellant material. Wood gates over thirty-six inches wide shall have a metal frame. Chain link gates are prohibited. Vehicular driveway gates shall be constructed of ornamental iron/tubular steel and metal if solid. If screening an RV, the gate shall be constructed of a solid opaque material. 2. Width. Pedestrian gates shall not exceed five feet in width, except that gates may be any width within sideyard setbacks of at least twelve feet. E. Fence Construction and Materials. All fencing in residential districts shall conform to the following construction and material standards: L . Wood and Vinyl Fencing. a. Except for gates, split two rail fencing, and for equestrian fencing regulated by Section 9.140.060, wood and vinyl or similar recycled fencing materials are permitted in rear or interior side yards only, and only if not visible from the street. Gates may be of wood in any location provided they comply with the standards of this section. b. All wood fencing shall be constructed of not less than a grade of construction heart or merchant#e and 9.60.Q30 Fences and walls. http://qcode.us/codes/laquinta/view.php?topic=9-9 60-960030&fr... better redwood or No. 2 and better (no holes) western red cedar, stained or painted to match or complement the adjacent wall or structure. Alternatively, if left in natural color, all wood shall be treated with a water -repellant material. c. All vinyl or similar recycled fencing material shall be constructed of an aluminum -reinforced non -reflective material that contains antistatic and UV -radiation inhibiting additives. d. Fence boards may be horizontal or vertical. Support posts shall be a minimum of nominal four inches by four inches redwood, pressure -treated lumber, tubular steel or block and installed per the Uniform Building Code. e. Split Rail Fencing. Split two rail fencing shall be allowed in the front yard or along the front property line with columns a maximum height of four feet and three feet for the top rail. All columns shall be cemented with footings. Materials for the columns shall be wood, brick, or block. The rails may be either wood or other non -wood products that have the appearance of split rail. A building permit shall be obtained prior to construction. 2. Ornamental Iron and Tubular Steel Fencing. Ornamental iron or tubular steel fencing may be used along the front or street side yards only. The iron or steel shall be painted to match or complement the adjacent wall or structure. 3. Masonry Fencing. Solid masonry fencing (i.e., block, rock, brick, with or without stucco covering) is permitted in any location on the lot provided the color of the masonry or stucco matches or complements the adjacent wall or structure. Precision concrete block shall not be used unless all exterior surfaces visible from outside the property are covered with stucco, paint, texture coating, or other comparable coating approved by the director. 4. Material Combinations. Combinations of two or more of the preceding materials may be used provided that the bottom one-half of the fence is constructed of a masonry material. Combinations incorporating wood materials shall only be used for the rear and interior side yards and only when not visible from the street. F. Fence Landscaping and Maintenance. 1. Landscaping. The area between the back of curb and any fencing shall be landscaped, have a suitable permanent irrigation system, and be continuously maintained by the property owner. 2. Maintenance. All walls and fences shall be continuously maintained in good repair. The property owner shall be provided thirty days after receiving notice from the city to repair a wall or fence. The building official may grant an extension to such time period not to exceed sixty days. G. Prohibited Fence Materials and Construction Fences. The use of barbed wire, razor wire, chain link, or similar materials in or on fences is prohibited in all residential districts. Chain link fencing is permitted for temporary construction fences when authorized by a minor use permit issued in accordance with Section 9.210.020. Said minor use permit shall not be approved until a permit for grading, or construction, has been filed for, whichever comes first. H. Equestrian Fencing. Notwithstanding any other requirements of this section, fencing shall be regulated by the provisions of Section 9.140.060 (Equestrian overlay regulations) where the keeping of horses is permitted. I I. Nonconforming Fences. Any fence which does not meet the standards of this section but which was legally established prior to the adoption of these standards may be maintained provided such fence is not expanded nor its nonconformance with these standards otherwise increased. Any fence which is destroyed or damaged to the extent of more than fifty percent of its total replacement value shall not be repaired, rebuilt, or reconstructed except in conformance with these standards. (Ord. 466 § 1, 2009; Ord. 378 § 1 (Exh. A), 2002; Ord. 361 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 2001; Ord. 325 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 1998; Ord. 299 § 1 (part), 1997; Ord. 284 § I (Exhs. A, B) (part), 1996) L 3 of 3 5/26/2010 9:32 AM I f 0 yp. _ 1 YS i .f� „ I j s / ATTACHMENT 8 3 o � �e /eNlffillA!� ` -,dtiMlllCr�� /.AI(AlIiV6Y' FCE`y OF T'9� TO: Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Les Johnson, Planning � Directq DATE: July 27, 2010 C SUBJECT: Department Report - General Plan Vision and Guiding Principles As you are aware, the La Quinta General Plan update effort is now well underway. This task is a significant undertaking as the evolution of La Quinta over the next 25 years is contemplated. The update effort is a comprehensive process that involves interaction and feedback from residents, community groups, staff, consultants and City leaders. Updating a General Plan requires conducting a comprehensive assessment of the City including its existing built environment, conditions and trends, opportunities and constraints, as well as having a vision for the future. The update effort has now reached the point of addressing a principle foundation of our General Plan — its goals, policies and programs. This task considers reviewing existing, and contemplating, new goals, policies and programs that will provide policy direction for the future development of La Quinta. A community vision provides valuable guidance and direction when reviewing goals, policies and programs. Since the existing 2002 General Plan does not include a vision, planning staff recently initiated the effort of creating a vision that is accompanied by eight guiding principles. Planning staff collaborated with the consultant team in creating the vision and guiding principles. Careful consideration was given from the comments received from the three community meetings held to date. Once drafted, the vision was then presented to, and feedback was solicited from, the General Plan Technical Advisory Committee (City department staff). Staff is now soliciting feedback from the Planning Commission and City Council. We hope that you find the attached to not only be representative of what La Quinta is today but also what we hope for in its future. Following review by the Planning Commission and City Council, staff will rely upon the vision and guiding principles in drafting the new La Quinta General Plan goals, policies and programs. We look forward to receiving any comments you might have during the July 27, 2010, Planning Commission meeting. City of La Quinta General Plan 2035 COMMUNITY VISION: La Quinta is a great place to live, work and play. La Quinta is made up of well planned and desirable neighborhoods, a diversified economic base, excellent schools, exceptional recreational and cultural opportunities, and a variety of community services and facilities. As our community continues to mature, we will strive to preserve these desirable qualities by maintaining and, where necessary, improving upon a safe and convenient circulation system that includes alternative transportation opportunities as well as bike/pedestrian trails and golf cart routes; by providing additional recreational opportunities and cultural facilities for the health and well-being of our residents; by preserving our natural and historic resources, focusing on sustainable existing and future use of water and energy resources; and, by ensuring that La Quinta remains a safe and desirable place for both residents and visitors. We will continue to emphasize the importance of community participation. We will work with regional and other local government entities to solve common problems and coordinate our shared interests. La Quinta's future depends on maintaining a balanced budget and the conservative management of our financial resources, and continuing efforts to promote our community as a premier place to live, work and play. GUIDING PRINCIPLES: In order to achieve and support our Community Vision, the following eight guiding principles will shape the La Quinta General Plan: • A Neighborhood Oriented Community — Strive to ensure that existing and future housing for all residents continues to be diverse in type and of high quality. Establish and maintain existing and future neighborhoods, including existing housing stock and associated infrastructure. • A Healthy, Vibrant and Heritage Minded Community — Ensure parks, public facilities and open spaces are appropriately sized and designed to meet the needs and interests of all segments of the community. Continue to ensure that all land uses cohesively exist with the area's cultural and historical heritage. • A Fiscally Sound Community — Capitalize on our unique development opportunities, especially within the Highway 111 Corridor and the Village area by focusing on shopping, dining, entertainment, and mixed use options while improving the aesthetics of the community. • A Safe Community — Continue to enforce development standards that promote safe indoor and outdoor spaces and provide emergency services that are adequately funded, staffed, and equipped to provide timely response. • A Full Service Community — Ensure that streets, water and sewer systems, storm drains, and other infrastructure is maintained in good working order and of adequate service level to address existing and future needs. • A Resort Oriented Community — Maintain and improve the opportunities for La Quinta to be recognized, both nationally and internationally, as a top resort and recreation destination. • A Circulation Minded Community — Promote and encourage a broad range of transportation opportunities, especially those that reduce the impact to our environment, as well as effectively moving people and goods. Continue to work closely with neighboring communities and regional agencies to address regional transportation issues. • A Sustainability Focused Community — Strive to reduce our overall carbon footprint locally by promoting and encouraging the efficient use of energy and water; minimizing air and water pollution; reducing noise and light pollution; reducing litter; and increasing recycling programs. MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission n FROM: Les Johnson, Planning Direct V �/ DATE: 7/27/2010 RE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2009-127, AMENDMENT 1 The Building and Safety Department has requested to include a new condition not previously mentioned in the Staff Report Conditions of Approval. The new condition reflects recent site improvements at the existing County Fire Station and City Yard: 19. The Applicant shall stucco and paint the exterior of the equipment wall enclosure. The applicant shall stucco and paint the wall enclosure to match the existing walls at the site. V4 �: i �_ �.,��. va=(To ) 0 5aw�,p 0 , A4 o Q S) 4e�v/-\&L a svew�gA wB05 I , �74M va, ,:,y, :,w..� C":;DFO In fo r M. NO =M�a 0 ° g ° o a G� e ' I . =�Ak oq 0 �W�a O�Qg 0 4;bn vpr& m /OR vm G �s�OC^,r'� III D m. ._ r Cy n G7� c� I - o t ' 0 vU p O�Aorp 40pQ I } w , =3 =2 =1 =11 - I� e ME ace I 5 AS o av ; " gom °A7{ < �6 a CORRESPONDENCE "'wo WRITTEN MATERIAL July 23, 2010 City Of La Quinta Planning Commission La Quinta, California My fellow Commissioners: Regrettably, I will not be able to attend the upcoming meeting of the 27`" due to unavoidable circumstances. As you all know it is the meeting wherein the election of the Chairman and Vice Chair of our Commission is to take place. I do not believe it would be inappropriate to delay the function a meeting in time but if you should choose to go forward with this election, I would like to be considered for the Chairmanship for this coming year. I have the time, desire and willingness to continue. I will give my proxy vote to Vice Chair Barrows for use in selecting the Vice Chair. In any event I look forward to continuing our work as a team of professional planners and count myself lucky to be part of the group. Looking forward to a great year for us and the City Of La Quinta. Aloha Ed Alderson Planning Commissioner Les: In the Board packet? What do you think? Ed Twr^FtaQaba MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission n FROM: Les Johnson, Planning Direct / DATE: 7/27/2010 RE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2009-127, AMENDMENT 1 The Building and Safety Department has requested to include a new condition not previously mentioned in the Staff Report Conditions of Approval. The new condition reflects recent site improvements at the existing County Fire Station and City Yard: 19. The Applicant shall stucco and paint the exterior of the equipment wall enclosure. The applicant shall stucco and paint the wall enclosure to match the existing walls at the site.