2011 04 26 PC MinutesMINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at theta Quinta City Hall
78 -495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
April 26, 2011
CALL TO ORDER
7:03 P.M.
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, Wilkinson, and Chairman
Alderson. Commissioner Quill had informed staff he
would be late.
ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Les Johnson, Planning Manager
David Sawyer, Associate Planner Jay Wuu, and
Executive Secretary Carolyn Walker.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT:
III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA:
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR:
There being no comments, or suggestions, it was moved by Commissioners
Weber /Barrows to approve the minutes of March 8, 2011 as submitted.
Unanimously approved.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Final Landscaping Plan 2010 -053 a request by Levitan Development
for consideration of final landscaping plans for the Desert Express Car
Wash located on the east side of Washington Street, approximately
780 feet north of Fred Waring Drive.
Associate Planner Jay Wuu 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.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 26, 2011
Commissioner Wilkinson asked staff to point out the center access
point from the neighboring property as it did not show on the Power
Point slide. Staff responded the plans given to the Commission were
showed the access and were the correct plans.
Commissioner Wilkinson commented on sustainability and walkability
yet there was no connection shown. He wondered why it was not
included.
Planning Director Johnson said it had been staff's recommendation to
have that access point established, but there was strong objection
from the neighboring property to the south. They were not in support
of that connection.
General discussion followed on the reasons for this connection.
Commissioner Wilkinson commented on the photometric study and the
inconsistency of lighting throughout the project.
Planning Director Johnson responded it was quite bright in a few
places and suggested the Commission could recommend re-
consideration of the lighting plan by directing staff to go over it with
the applicant and make any necessary corrections.
Commissioner Wilkinson had concerns about the possible monetary
consequences, to the applicant, if the electrical had already been
pulled, and then changes were made. He added it appeared the plan
needed a few more light poles with less intense lights.
Staff said that the site was not yet paved and explained why staff
was bringing this before the Planning Commission at this particular
time.
Commissioner Quill joined the Commission at 7:18 p.m.
Chairman Alderson asked staff, if the project was approved, would it
be possible for staff to convey Commissioner Wilkinson's concerns to
the electrical engineers.
Planning Director Johnson suggested that a condition be added
directing staff to re -visit this to ensure better distribution of lighting
throughout the site.
-2-
Planning Commission Minutes
April 26, 2011
Chairman Alderson suggested they set it aside, momentarily, and
possibly come back with a motion later in the meeting:
Commissioner Barrows asked for clarification on the comment that the
480 watt lighting was not desirable.
Planning Director Johnson said in this sized project it was a pretty
powerful individual light fixture and that was why the photometric
showed readings at 20 in certain locations.
Commissioner Barrows asked if there would likely be any concerns,
about the lighting, from the residents in the vicinity.
Planning Director Johnson said no, and explained the photometric plan
showed the light dropping off very quickly, going west, and fixtures
no higher than 20 feet with the throw of the light having a minimal
effect on the adjacent residential community to the west.
Commissioner Weber asked about the north side wall and the
landscaping changes proposed. He commented on the fencing that
was preventing egress to that area, as well as the maintenance
arrangements.
Staff responded there would be wrought iron gates and decomposed
granite (dg), or other ground cover, to fill in the planter area.
Commissioner Weber commented on the lack of space to do anything
meaningful, but the trees next to it provided some softening.
General discussion followed on the subject of ingress /egress to the
site, the Council's decision, and the applicant's position on the
possibility of a future connection if the opportunity became available.
Planning Director Johnson said the Council did not support making a
connection between this and. the Mayer Villa Capri project, and the
condition was removed. Subsequently, this applicant has removed
that connection and designed the project accordingly; since the
adjacent property owner was not under any obligation to require the
connection.
-3-
Planning Commission Minutes
April 26, 2011
Chairman Alderson had concerns about a maintenance program being
required for elimination of any debris that collected behind the
wrought iron gates.
Chairman Alderson asked Commissioner Barrows if she had concerns
about the placement of the barrel cactus.
Commissioner Barrows suggested they wait to discuss that with the
landscape architect, as the placement could be part of a strategy to
keep people from walking in that area.
Commissioner Barrows then asked about the intensity of the lighting
and the hours of operation.
Staff suggested the applicant provide those answers.
Commissioner Barrows had concerns about the view heading north on
Washington. She asked how the landscaping would be modified in
terms of whether there were going to be some trees added to soften
the mass of the car wash and the office building behind it.
Planning Director Johnson explained the applicant's plans to achieve
softening of the direct view heading northbound on Washington; as
well as information on the aesthetics of the fabric canopies.
Commissioner Wilkinson asked what the canopy colors were.
Planning Director Johnson said they were to be beige and
complementary to the building colors.
Commissioner Quill asked if Condition No. 107 (having to do with
ingress /egress to the south) had been removed.
Planning Director Johnson said yes, from the standpoint of the project
to the south. Mayer Villa Capri was not conditioned to provide for
that access.
Discussion followed on:
• What was stated in Condition No. 107
• The effect of the Council's decision
• What the applicant planned
Planning Commission Minutes
April 26, 2011
• Possible modification of conditions
• Possible options if neighboring project ownership changed
Commissioner Quill said he was in favor of retaining condition no. 107
as the access was a very smart thing to do. He commented on the
City Council's decision of not conditioning the connection as a poor
planning choice for connectivity opportunities. He did not understand
why the condition was left in if the client was not required to do it.
Planning Director Johnson said staff could schedule a hearing for
consideration of removing the condition, if the Commission felt
strongly about it.
Discussion followed on:
• If the condition was not removed, was it required?
• Staff's position for not removing the condition.
• What was currently at the site?
• The Council's comments, and subsequent decision, on the
connection.
Commissioner Barrows said her understanding of retaining that
condition was that as long as it didn't create a problem for the
applicant and, if things changed with the design, it would not create a
huge impact to the applicant, then there's not a huge impact to the
applicant if it turns out that that access point could be developed in
the future.
Planning Director Johnson said that was correct, even though the
burden of responsibility to make that connection should rest with the
property to the south at a future date. He suggested the applicant
address this further as to how they feel about a future connection.
But staff is in full support of making that connection. We were
perplexed as to why the property owner to the south was in such
strong objection to provide a connection that would be a great benefit
to their retail establishments.
Chairman Alderson said any additional questions, on this matter, could
be asked of the applicant and suggested the Commissioners move on
to other topics.
-5-
Planning Commission Minutes
April 26, 2011
Discussion then followed on the various positive and negative points
of including acacia trees versus robustas in certain areas of the
landscaping.
There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Alderson opened
the public hearing portion of the meeting and asked if the applicant
would like to speak.
Mr. Richard Wasserman, representing the applicant (Levitan
Development), P O Box 5909, La Quinta 92248, introduced himself
and offered to answer the .Commissioners' questions. He gave some
background on the principals of the property to the south and added
he had tried communicating with them countless times and they
would not respond about shared interests on the two properties. He
commented on the lack of success he had on the possible mitigation
of mutual dust control issues. Out of the many times they had tried to
work with that owner, they had not had a lot of success.
Mr. Wasserman continued on the subject of the entrance to the south.
He said they had two issues; 1) the underground storage containment
system at that location, which would end up in the middle of the
drivable, road, and 2). the lack of good visibility when going from
south to the north. Those issues would probably mitigate that from
being practical, taken as after - the -fact.
Commissioner Weber asked the applicant if the connection could be of
benefit to their project and if they would be amenable to making that
connection if it made sense in the future.
Mr. Wasserman said yes, but then mentioned the disparities in the
elevation of the adjacent property which he believed to be in excess of
six feet.
Commissioner Weber said it did not appear there was a six foot
elevation difference there now.
Mr. Wasserman expanded upon the height differential.
Commissioner Weber asked if he was agreeable to looking at
solutions,
Planning Commission Minutes
April 26, 2011
Mr. Wasserman said yes; especially if they could mitigate the traffic
issues of crossing traffic onto the property.
Chairman Alderson asked about the hours of operation.
Mr. Wasserman said 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., in the winter, and 7:00
a.m. to 10:00 p.m., in the summer as they changed seasonally.
General discussion followed regarding the drainage plan; including the
applicant's comment that the drainage plan was included in the civil,
and not the landscaping plans.
Planning Director Johnson said staff had not provided the Commission
with the civil plans, but if there was a concern, staff could work with
Public Works to re -visit this issue, when the civil plans were reviewed,
and make sure that adequate drainage was provided in those areas.
Chairman Alderson brought up the issue of the four trees on the north
side and said he would like to discuss the matter with the landscape
architect.
Mr. Wasserman said the landscape architect was available to address
the Commissioners' issues.
Chairman Alderson said the Commissioners had commented on re-
introducing the four trees that had been removed as a vehicle to
soften the elevations of the two buildings from the south heading
north. He suggested putting a slender tree, with a canopy on it that
would stand above the car wash and not have a ball on it so big that it
would be confined by the footing of the adjacent fences. A tree like
that might be advantageous to soften the elevation of the building.
Commissioner Quill suggested a robusta palm tree.
Mr. Wasserman said he understood conceptually, but they were in a
hole relative to the northern property which would almost make this
impossible; especially with the existing trees and walls, to have any
trees in that area.
Discussion followed regarding:
-7-
Planning Commission Minutes
April 26, 2011
• Height differences between the properties
• The neighboring wall
• The garden wall
• Concerns about the footings if trees were planted
• The softening effect of adding more trees
Mr. Wasserman suggested the Commissioners visit the site to look at
the situation as it might resolve some of their concerns.
Chairman Alderson asked Mr. Wasserman to confirm there would be
wrought iron fence (gates), on either end, with ground cover between
the north wall and the building.
Mr. Wasserman said they were probably going to put in a large
aggregate to maintain a nice fresh look. He added this would allow
the water to flow through properly and they would be able to maintain
the drainage system that runs through there. The gates, on both
sides, are there to help mitigate any problems of people going through
there. He said they would love to include plants there, but it is an
extremely small area and does not receive any light throughout the
day.
Chairman Alderson and Commissioner Barrows agreed that it would be
difficult to grow anything in there.
General discussion followed on the ground cover and maintenance of
that area.
Commissioner Barrows said she had a question for the landscape
architect.
Chairman Alderson thanked Mr. Wasserman. .
Mr. Wasserman asked if he could return to the podium, after the
Commissions' discussion with the landscape architect, as he had
additional issues to address.
Chairman Alderson said he would be brought back.
Mr. Paul Sturwold, 43 -310 Alabama Street, Palm Desert, landscape
architect, introduced himself and offered to answer any questions.
-8-
Planning Commission Minutes
April 26, 2011
Commissioner Barrows said she could not tell, by the legend, if the
trees on the south side of the building were Mediterranean Fan Palm
or Washingtonia.
Mr. Sturwold said they are somewhat similar, but they were both
palms. He then described the layout and plant palette.
Commissioner Barrows asked if one of the conditions of approval
recommended the two Mediterranean Fan Palms on the south side of
the building be replaced with Washingtonias.
Staff said yes.
Commissioner Barrows then commented on softening the southern
exposure by including some taller trees, possibly palms.
Mr. Sturwold said they were also after that effect; however, there
was a fine line between hiding the building and softening the view.
General discussion followed on the possibility of adding more palm
trees.
Mr. Sturwold commented that once the Acacia salicinas got going
they would help soften the view.
Commissioner Barrows said she did not think they would have enough
height to achieve the proper effect since it would be hard for a tree to
grow in the five foot stretch between the building and the wall.
Mr. Sturwold said yes it would be hard to do, but palms would be a
good substitution. He added he did not think they were necessary
since the project would derive a lot of benefit from the adjacent
property and their huge mesquite trees.
Mr. Sturwold added that the barrel cactus were meant to be a desert
statement and were basically to be kept in the island area, away from
traffic. So, with that placement he didn't know if it was a concern.
He added most people try to stay away from barrel cactus.
Commissioner Barrows said the golden barrel is a little better than
some, but possibly those could be relocated. She then asked if the
Texas Ranger and oleanders could be replaced with more native
MIR
Planning Commission Minutes
April 26, 2011
materials and commented on the lack of use of native flora.
Mr. Sturwold said there was always room for substitutions, but he
made those plant choices because of maintenance issues. He has
been in the desert for 26 year and had a pretty good feel for what
worked and what didn't.
Commissioner Barrows said that was a fair point.
Mr. Sturwold said if there was the possibility of bringing in a good
native plant that works, he would welcome bringing it in.
Chairman Alderson asked if there
Sturwold. Hearing none he asked
podium.
were any -other questions of Mr.
Mr. Wasserman to return to the
Mr. Wasserman returned to address the lighting issue. He explained
where the lighting would be and where /why there were hot spots on
the photometric study.
General discussion followed on the lighting plan, specific lighting
areas, type and height of light fixtures and off -site spillover.
Chairman Alderson asked if there were any more questions of the
applicant.
There being none he asked if there was any public comment. There
being none, Chairman Alderson closed the public hearing and opened
the matter for Commission discussion.
Commissioner Quill commented that he appreciated the fact that the
applicant had flipped the building, as previously requested by the
Commission, and that they had worked very hard to put in the
additional access to the south of this project. He agreed with
Commissioner Barrow's comment on utilizing native plants and added
this was a nice looking car wash, but he did not feel it was in the right
location.
General discussion then followed on addressing each Commissioner's
concerns, in the conditions, and the proper framing of the motion.
There being no further questions or discussion, it was moved and
-10-
Planning Commission Minutes
April 26, 2011
seconded by Commissioners Barrows /Weber to adopt Minute Motion
2011 -001 recommending approval of Final Landscaping Plan 2010-
053 as conditioned in the staff report with the following revisions:
a. Whenever possible, native Colorado desert species be
incorporated into the landscaping.
b. Planning Staff will revisit the Drainage Plan to ensure proper
drainage will occur.
C. Planning Staff will revisit the photometric study and lighting
plan to ensure that the lighting is appropriate and balanced for
the project.
d. Condition No. 107 shall remain as is.
Unanimously approved.
VI. BUSINESS ITEMS:
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL:
A. Thank you letter submitted to Council, by Ed Alderson, on behalf of the
Commissioners who attended the Planners' Institute. General discussion
of the Conference followed.
B. Invitation from the Coachella Valley Water District for their Water
Awareness Tour on May 20, 2011. Chairman Alderson commented that
the tour was very worthwhile and encouraged other Commissioners to
attend.
VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. Report of the City Council Meetings of March 15, 2011, April 5,
2011, and April 19, 2011. General comment on pertinent agenda
items from the various meetings. Staff advised the Commission of a
Special Meeting on June 14, 2011, at 3:00 p.m., for interview and
appointment of new commissioners. (Two Planning Commissioners
are up for consideration.)
B. Commissioner Barrows is scheduled to attend the May 3, 2011, City
Council meeting.
-11-
Planning Commission Minutes
April 26, 2011
C. Commissioner Weber commented on
Commission's recommendation for
Motorsports project -and its impact o
Valley
IX: DIRECTOR ITEMS:
the Riverside County Planning
approval of the Thermal
n La Quinta and the Coachella
A. Planning Director Johnson advised the Commissioners of the following
items being heard by the City Council in May: 1). Mayer Villa Capri
time extension on May 3, 2011, and 2 ►. Eden Rock second time
extension on May 17, 2011.
B. Planning Director Johnson advised the Commissioners that SCAG, for
the third consecutive year, will have their annual meeting here at the
La Quinta Resort, on May 5 and 6, 2011. He added that it was quite
an honor to have that large of an event in our community. He
encouraged the Commissioners to attend.
X. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it was moved by Commissioners
Weber /Wilkinson to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission
to the next meeting to be held on May 10, 2011. This meeting was
adjourned at 8:37 p.m. on April 26, 2011.
Respectfully submitted,
Carolyn alker, Executive Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
-12-