Loading...
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-