Loading...
2012 04 10 PCCity of La Quinta Planning Commission Agendas are now available on the City's Web Page @ www.la-guinta.org PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California APRIL 10, 2012 7:00 P.M. **NOTE** ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING Beginning Resolution 2012-009 Beginning Minute Motion 2012-002 CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call II. PUBLIC COMMENT This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled for public hearing. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your comments to three minutes. III. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA Iv. CONSENT CALENDAR Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 28, 2012. 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. There are no Public Hearing items scheduled for this meeting. VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Item ................... APPEAL 2012-006 Applicant........... Christine Clarke, President of Kestam Corp., General Partner of Stamko Development Co. Location............ APN: 600-340-048; Southeast Corner of Auto Center Drive and Adams Street. Request ............. Consideration of Appeal of Public Nuisance Code Determination Regarding the Maintenance of a 22 Acre Regional Commercial Zoned Site. Action ................. Staff Recommendation for Adoption of Minute Motion Upholding the Determination that a Public Nuisance Exists at the Aforementioned Parcel/Address with Reference to Case No. 12-1340 - Minute Motion 2012-_ VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: Vill. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Report on City Council meetings of March 6, March 20, and April 3, 2012. B. Commissioner Weber is scheduled to attend the April 17, 2012, City Council meeting. IX. DIRECTOR ITEMS: X. ADJOURNMENT: This meeting of the Planning Commission will be adjourned to a Regular Meeting to be held on April 24, 2012, at 7:00 p.m. DECLARATION OF POSTING I, Carolyn Walker, Executive Secretary of the City of La Quints, do hereby declare that the foregoing Agenda for the La Quinta Planning Commission meeting of Tuesday, April 10, 2012 was posted on the outside entry to the Council Chamber, 78-495 Calle Tampico and the bulletin board at the La Quints Cove Post Office, 51-321 Avenida Bermudas, on Thursday, April 5, 2012. DATED: April 5, 2012 &e V fiZ161tJ , CAROLYN WALKER, Executive Secretary City of La Quints, California Public Notices The La Quints 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 February 28, 2012 CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m. A. A regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Alderson. PRESENT: Commissioners Barrows, Weber, Wilkinson, Wright, and Chairman Alderson. STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Les Johnson, City Attorney Kathy Jenson, Planning Manager David Sawyer, Principal Engineer Ed Wimmer, Associate Planner Jay Wuu, 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 Wright/Barrows to approve the minutes of February 14, 2012, as submitted. AYES: Commissioners Barrows, Wilkinson, Wright, and Chairman Alderson. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Weber. ABSTAIN: None. Commissioner Weber arrived at 7:05 p.m. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Conditional Use Permit 2011-132 and Site Development Permit 2011- 919: a request by the Lenity Group for consideration of development plans for the La Quinta Memory Care facility located on Washington Street, north of Avenue 48. Associate Planner Wuu presented the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2012 Chairman Alderson asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Wilkinson asked if the roof element on Page A.6.d. was there to hide the air conditioning units. Staff responded it was a parapet for the HVAC and mechanical equipment. Commissioner Wilkinson asked if shared parking agreement with th did they meet the City's parking s Staff responded they were ,... _ a shared did meet City standards. ; Commissioner W color, and lands they were shown Staff wall Staff ng if Ilklnson asked= would t} I tos of IN the dig robust:" He . s (PTA tended irt,:ore �t Ik view I'�, '! was participating in a neighbor next door and agreement and they `conditioning nits, building on the La Quinn project as ona project. r but the landscaping Package Terminal Air to match the exterior additional bushes could be included could be provided to request landscape asked where the example project was located. Staff rem in Arizona. Commissioner Barrows said the landscaping looked really sparse around the building and referenced the ALRC comments on the issue of the trees. She asked staff for a little more background on what sorts of landscape enhancements were made after this was reviewed by the ALRC. -2- Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2012 Associate Planner Wuu said after ALRC review, the applicant came back and said they would not be able to add more landscaping, specifically along the northern section of the building. He then said the applicant would elaborate further. Commissioner Barrows asked if there was a particular access or were people just going across the parking lot to access the walking path. Associate Planner Wuu said yes, there _ ",;,,an access. General discussion followed on " Iking path, location of the access and the inclusion of aA i ing designation, such as striping in the parking lot, .V` _.'y `. l Planning Director Johnson, the Commissionhere was a chance that the landscaping and p ,ay mig not be b", He added that the northern property was su 5ere was a once it could T. either be subdi off or th ouId be a potehtial lot line adjustment with t t prope to the north to enlarge that particular property of of t were to occur prior to occupanc .._. f the bw a ` ` ion h"' ;been included that would not re to he o d "i s m s was not their original plan inten but st thine ': a created because it would have Ji�, been a',.-.-, _ cant fa 1segment of the property and staff was not sup ve at.Th' wanted the Commission to be aware __ was a la Gaped area might not be developed. Chalrm deri'0 sked if , was prior to occupancy. Hit xaff said yThe ition referenced was number 74 of the Site fslelopment jsmit Conditions of Approval. Com"°" on ,Weber asked staff if the comments that were made by the %L _ ( incorporated in the January 26`" attachment 1 or was that attac ant relatively the same as what the ALRC saw when they made their comments. Associate Planner Wuu said a little bit of both. It was the same exhibits with the ALRC's comments amended when possible. Commissioner Weber asked for a summary of the differences. 392 Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2012 Staff referenced Page 5 - attachment 1, which contained a list of all of ALRC's comments and the applicant's response and said that attachment was exactly what ALRC saw. Commissioner Weber noted the renderings/photos presented were of a comparable site in Arizona. He commented that they didn't necessarily match up with some of the changes the ALRC had asked for, but were included in the written document the applicant submitted to staff. /!,.N Associate Planner Wuu concurred. General discussion followed a type be provided on the property" � me north. Chairman Alderson asked the 1 Washington Street would remah ,,, Staff responded if cover that would existing",#41m trees along Caleo Bay would be a where, bus stops and bike racks Planning for on said there was an existing bus stop in front the prop { and ycle racks were required per the Municipal Therms g 0, urther questions of staff, Chairman Alderson asked if the app'' mould like to speak. Mr. Greg Elmore, Lenity Group, 471 High Street SE, Suite 10, Salem OR 97301, introduced himself and stated they were in partnership with JEA Senior Living, who would be owner and manager of the facility. He then offered to answer the Commissioners' questions. 9EE Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2012 Commissioner Weber asked for the applicant's response on some of the ALRC comments made regarding the lack of architectural significance in the overall concept. Mr. Elmore said this is a standard building shape. Their client, JEA Corp., operates using this type of building, all over the country. So they were kind of tied to this type of building shape. The buildings in the photographs were taken in Surprise, Arizona and shows our desert, Southwest style. We believe it . in with the neighborhood including the shopping center behin project. He felt they had done a good job of breaking u iTong fagade using different materials and pointed out that o was actually broken up pretty well, especially on the Bay anshington facades. Commissioner Weber other locations. Mr. Elmore said color palette that Commissioner Weber the choice of c6f had been used in see in�thotographs is tfid exact same posing WIhis facility as well. ndscaping. Mr a sai a buil ivn i photos, was just built and the p` ` t was even 'yet The landscape plan for the La Qumta " votes much re intense than what was provided in a in t hotos shown, the boxes under the wi or Cs ( rminal Air Conditioning Units), had not bee c lnte `l:, } Elmore dftnue&Okthe following points: The tretliiOs had been increased to a depth of five feet and will ve growing on them as requested by the ALRC. • tided out the locations of the trees and shrubs and added GTI the andscape architect told them they couldn't put in any more trees and explained why. Commissioner. Weber commented on making the entry points more visible due to safety concerns. Mr. Elmore said that made sense, but did note that the residents would not be going over there without family or staff assisting. -5- Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2012 Commissioner Weber asked if the carports were structurally able to have solar added at some future date. Mr. Elmore said yes. Commissioner Barrows asked why there were carports on some of the parking areas and not others. Mr. Elmore said they weren't requi, 'Fioil 11 cover any of them and explained that they wanted to cov ; _ tlon of each of the standard, and handicapped, stalls. He said r had asked that the stalls along Washington Street not vered. Commissioner Wilkinson d about one of,elevation and site drawings; showing what ap ed to b.�,a fence a4> steel gate. He asked Mr. Elmore to clarify wh8kN2,1, psA0,14Wn. Mr. Elmore said th ed their ed entrance with Walgreen's. The fence shown h64 kets _ were so close together it looked like_a solid fend ' follow s I... " gn of perimeter fencing and issio w om ted on the fact that the Commission did ve i1i;, curat'' ni of the project from the Washington Street ' ecti'" s well a ' is concern about the constant roof line behind a on ost visible side. He added that the Caleo Bay ode looked 1, bu ," was concerned about the landscaping on the n S t side. Mr. 8 e roX pipnded it would not take long to obtain a rendering if 4 the Co m , ers so desired. He also responded there was a large berm alon"'''m� ashington Street and they didn't take a photo on that side because from either a car or person's view you would not even be able to see the building due to the landscape planned. General discussion followed regarding the Washington Street berm, the landscaping depicted, the tree varieties, and the final landscaping plan. moll Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2012 Chairman Alderson asked staff if it would be possible to have the applicant bring in a drawing further delineating what the entry was going to look like. Planning Director Johnson said yes. He added staff typically asked for multiple perspectives from different angles and the applicant tried to provide a perspective as if you were entering in the driveway off of Washington Street right next to Walgreens. Commissioner Wilkinson asked if an on the northern portion of the prop* Staff responded it could or t vacant parcel between this Yy building. � General discussion followed N parcel versus the _ y care Commissioner were adequate building could be allowed, etime in the future. d couldup absorbed into another and the°t-story medical office border` -of' -=the northern felt the 55 parking stalls Mr.a sai�%was ark, ed they operated some of their facili " arith on, 5 2 parks „Malls and tFia same number of beds. this project met the parking Staff resp "°;*d it't the Municipal Code requirements. ght said this is a good landscape plan and asked if going to be building right away or allowing it to stay Mr. Elmoraid they would be building it as you see it right now unless there is an opportunity for the owner of this property to parcel off that piece of land. He said they met all of the open area and landscape requirements without that one acre. Commissioner Wright said he had one concern on the north side where the walking path was located. There was no landscape shown which was probably because there was a vacant lot on the other side. He -7- Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2012 was, however, very concerned about wind and dust. He then referenced the Arts Foundation property across the street and the dust problems associated with it. He stated he would like to see some kind of plan to at least buffer that property, landscape -wise and not too expensive, to help control the dust situation. He then commented on his recent trip to the property and the foot and vehicular traffic. The walking path has decomposed granite (d.g.), but the other lots do not. Mr. Elmore said if it becomes a pm I can guarantee you something will happen. Commissioner Wright said the Ci "ou1'' ve to deal with it, but he wanted to bring it to everyo attent10 tit is the only area in this whole property that is open and its s e most vulnerable to wind and dust. . a` Chairman Alderson asked if'q I "°` ape plan ')iovved planted material or grown fir. Mr. Elmore said tlfila e plan <j#jowed native grasses and perennial _Wd mix Gen"i 9iscu5" folio I�oWha `;-t shown on the landscape plan ata `,What w `,discuss , t the ALRe size of trees being planted. were 24" box trees. I.�,hairman A on rb nced a previously approved project on this 4Wand state#:ithe concerns, from people on Caleo Bay were 1) the sit6 6he woul 'be violated in terms of height and 2) they would lose their of,144'mountains. He then noted that the building height is far awa a maximum allowed. Associate Planner Wuu said the average was approximately 17' 7" Chairman Alderson noted every room exited onto a common hallway and it was protected from the outside by three doors. He asked if those were manned security doors. Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2012 Mr. Elmore said they were not manned, but they were secure doors. He explained about State licensing requirements and the safeguards they had in place. General discussion followed on safety concerns and included several scenarios of residents attempting to leave the building and the ensuing results. Chairman Alderson expressed his cone building, saying it looked like a mounted air conditioners. He felt architectural features, as well a ie conditioners to the roof to sc them applicant what he could do ake that Mr. Elmore said they couldrN f l? it was not feasible partially licensing required; 04 unit to I then explained the'with Elmore gave a mor , .et 1 since there were no fki with the aesthetics of the especially with the wall- 1g needed some color and pibility of moving the air cturally. He asked the ore interesting. the mphanical itlfts' on the roof, as a t ' t and also because State ifidividual heating control. He m those units to the roofs. Mr. Dian of the exhibits presented ibits .ded in the packet. Chai iri Aid" n said k its il* good job of conveying the type broduct,iut he uncomfortable with the design of the project ae ` did "La ita" to him. oner inso 4lka %and pointed out the lack of site specific to �lations was concerned that the Commission was not ga tic view of the project. in reiterated his comments on the exterior elevations, browns, and the introduction of color was needed to more aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Elmor6s'uggested they could look at different stucco and stone colors. General discussion followed on possible locations for the introduction of color in the project, color -match painting of the PTAC units, and landscaping improvements such as moving/coloring the trellises and adding vining to them. Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2012 General discussion followed on what renderings were currently available to the applicant, the possibility of them bringing back some renderings of architecture and landscape as suggested, the possibility of continuing the item, and differences in the Surprise, Arizona site versus the La Quinta site. Mr. Carl Sanders, Director of Development, JEA Senior Living, 12115 NE 991" Street, Suite 1800, Vancouver, Washington 98682 introduced himself and said they had been working ,this project for a long time and were hoping to create a commu = ` that was both beneficial for the seniors they took care of and hosts as low as possible. He said if the Commission could fi `` o move forward, without continuing the item, that w be their erence. If there were conditions that they could modate an =' ditional exhibits they could bring in, that woul Ip with their sch ales. He said they were willing to work on inc o ` sting color, where`ropriate, adding they took the appropriate ants ind'40re willing to 4 accommodate in may that th" d. He said they -had submitted construction draw dy and anxious to move forward if there was any way t**cc .,___date tl�t�, encountered in the Commistrarro)vs aske.,\for more information on how their wo E wal outside the property. She noted the wa1iC waown b s riot appear to go all the way around the bur an=' a aske there was a walking element to the outside pe ter t ;,, • building and was it continuous. W Sanders lained the type of residents they cared for were moderate and )'{�'rimarily) those in the severe stages of Alzheimer's. Many,,,.rerrtiwheel chairs and extended walking or leaving the building�be 100% staff -assisted. Most of the outdoor recreation`=' uld take place in a secured courtyard area and their communities did not have extended staff -assisted walking with the clients due to their advanced stage of Alzheimer's. Commissioner Barrows commented there was not a lot of demand for that sort of access. -10- Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2012 Mr. Sanders said it was a benefit, where appropriate. The program was designed 100% around meeting the individual resident's needs. General discussion followed regarding accessibility of the interior courtyard, the interior doors, the dining facilities, and safety precautions: Commissioner Barrows asked if the fence would be put up right away. Mr. Sanders said the fence would be the building as it was required as p General discussion followed "the orientation on the parcel an "" ' ccess General discussion portion of the lot, 1 appropriateness. Commissioner in. _. Mr. choice and d with the construction of State licensure. of the building, its ossibif ' ` of the northern this proj0'gVand the height the ern parcel would be fenced 4 the"' enges of that site. w. icing and open space versus a park. i s concern about City liability if there n space portion of the property. Attorne*,ensorVd it was not going to be a City liability as it not publl sR roperty. It was private property and that is not the pf�situati : hat would give rise to liability on the City's part. There t3` further questions of staff, or comments from the applicant, airman Alderson asked if there was any public comment. Mr. Jay Arnoldus, 47-935 Via Opera, introduced himself and said he was with the Lake La Quinta Homeowners' Association (HOA), but was speaking on his own behalf since their Association had not voted on this project. He said, after meeting with the applicant, they had two major concerns which he had not heard addressed during the Commission meeting. They are: -11- Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2012 1) The high volume of traffic that is currently on Caleo Bay and the addition of an entrance, close to the existing Walgreens parking lot entrance; which would increase traffic on a small road not intended for the high speed traffic it already has. He said they previously spoke with the City and were accommodated by the restriping of the road, last year, which has been successful so far. He then commented on his concern about vehicles exiting the Lake La Quinta rear gateway, located across,fr6 , the project driveway. 2). The HOA's other concern was "'Hess facility of the applicant .....;,, across from that driveway; a red to be a loading dock. (He indicated the area he eferring Mr. Elmore responded it , of a loading dock`'. Mr. Arnoldus continued that i t ` inly be the` Isce where the garbage will be p*# up and wi # bed facility we would guess that would happen ,..several a week. He then commented on the back-up sou the s. The residents who live across th treat are g to hat a' st twice a week, early in them a said y h F� t gauge facility would have beery ad f `{r awae r6b ial area. He added, on the other , of C'3f Bay, r'5oth sides are residences right on the roadway; y)rjth g ,* ,one sld 1 reeved by bushes and the other side o sc ZW a had by saying those were the two majt3r cernI _ ey hack` o'"`d they would be addressed. =gnin „ Chairman rso ' . ed staff it they were aware of these concerns �nd had the .;,x., an di ,, sed with anybody. Johnson said staff attended (as observers) the oper had with the Lake La Quinta Homeowners' those concerns were voiced. He then addressed them indiv ally: • Regarding Caleo Bay and access: The intent, when this property was subdivided, was to utilize Caleo Bay as a collector street to serve these properties. He noted the medical building and the nearby restaurant were designed that way, as were other properties along this roadway. The City does not believe that this proposed development will add additional trips to the -12- Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2012 point where it is beyond its capacity, and in fact, it is well under its designed capacity. • The issue of alignment of the driveways was an intentional matter to be lined up with the Lake La Quinta entrance. They were not offset because of concerns about accidents and safety. Whenever possible those connections are made right across from one another. So, that was an intentional design which we worked on with the applicant. • Regarding the trash; that is a m ifficult matter. There are existing trash enclosures serve 1commercial venture to the south and north. They hav ,associated with them which can certainly be a distur e t unfortunately with the design of the site and a it's to d, you will hear that on occasion. We did s s4v1 Burrtec they do utilize Caleo Bay as their route f [[action and we a their intent is to pick up three times 'a ek, wa the pot I for noise, on those occasl ns. Theo Qtb may to avold�ibat is to flip it all the way to the `ton Street sidii:`� We do not know if the losureGons, further to the north, are exactly the s e awa m residences, but they are in a proxlml :; o re " s asµ so we didn't see this as 14 � nconsl t p_._ d pment to what already General ` us followed � n Burrtec's pick up times and the ility x gmL; urrtec to consider more appropriate tlmd u c h, ,Iitd minl poi ib impacts to the adjacent residential irman A son at'" ented the previously approved project, for site, wa; commercial shopping center with a much greater "impact ,; this one. Staff re it was a retail center and prior to that a hotel; both with highe ' "Or impacts. Chairman Alderson said he did not see this particular usage generating an inordinate amount of traffic. He asked if anyone else would like to speak on the project. Ms. Judie Harrison, 47-145 Via Orvieto, introduced herself and said she lived on the north side of the complex, roughly across from her -13- Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2012 property was Louise's Pantry and then a huge open space. She stated the trash trucks come in as early as 7:00 a.m. She then described the types of noises they made and the fact that she had called Burrtec several times with no results. She said the homeowners were told that the northern portion of this parcel would not be developed as a landscaped area and she was very concerned because of the truck and pedestrian traffic commonly crossing there. She said she contacted the City about her concerns with the result that chains were put up. The amount of dust which her lot is dird tly in back of is incredible. She then commented on her concern "` h Washington Park; which were not relative to this project ,, said her concern with the project parcel was that there wo a �her big disturbed piece of ,., property. _ l��, Chairman Alderson said 1 He then asked if she still Ms. Harrison said ...,Oid as treatment down r completely surroun completes,` y if put in now, but it" been cleaned up. op#,em. `never put the `green chemical e done. She said they are buildings that are not tern, specific to this space was going to be Planning for nson explained the way the condition was ntten was`1 . ey h s of subdivided or done a boundary line, or lot .adjustm with the adjacent property to the north prior to oc ncy of i E:° building they would have to develop it. It would have Y,e i ed as identified in the information presented. If they were toff . i.g msubdivide or conduct a lot line adjustment with the property tb the north then it would remain vacant property in the condition it is in today and it would then be developed in accordance with whatever happens in the future. General discussion followed regarding the how long it would take to subdivide this parcel and what would happen if and when that occurred. -14- Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2012 Staff explained why the landscaped open space was included and general discussion followed on what could be done regarding Ms. Harrison's dust concerns. Ms. Harrison said she was not worried about the lots that weren't a part of their property; the section that is not going to be a walking path. They need to preserve that somehow because it will get disturbed during construction. Chairman Alderson said if it is problem and will become a Code Ms. Harrison said she just wi completed, someone walk and make sure that comet P'3`, Chairman Alderson noted her There being no fur c public hearing and o e Com 01 ber c ei pro bffy of , andsca comrriadts made the me addressed. regarding: be the new landowner's : issue. when the project is not been completed Alderson closed the on discussion. ]es of the site and the in. He then went over Safeft4 ith rds to the open area and fencing. y er ` ' Illses could include vines for additional ,UmRi I apu d color • The theta the entrance from Washington Street. • Align of t `i roject entry and that of the Lake La Quinta rear ga to Via Florence. A arbagck-up and working on solutions in cooperation with Commissiovir Weber also asked if the neighbors, from Rancho La Quinta, had been noticed and had we received any comments back. Staff responded a 500-foot property radius notice was sent out as required and no comments had been received. BRIB Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2012 Commissioner Barrows said she also thought the trellises should be colored, possibly brick red and suggested bougainvillea for the vining as it would add a lot of color. Commissioner Wilkinson commented on the possibility of the landscaped open space going in and said if the applicant did not plan on putting it in they should submit a plan that doesn't have it in there and just soil seal the thing with soil cement until it sells. If they can do a lot line adjustment in 60 or 90 da ';why would they go ahead and spend the money to landscape the City Attorney Jenson said the i condition of approval. She ain th because it wasn't shown of the pro had the authority to make a part of the with it as best they could` out mnl forever. Chairman Alderson` "!,sounsel the project until it w"AWW to City could require that as a the staff dealt with it �'"�-.,But the Commission r t,, Staff tried to deal it a"'p�at, of the project that it would be a part of -t of the project. Genera{ scussi 'Ifollowe�& ownership of the property due to a lot line ad1 " ent ;I r-Al.lbalvls soil treatments, dust control, and "loran,`0,4ith landscaping requirements. Comm made'Mhments on: • This ct ` the City's mixed use plan as noted in the Genera " n. n ele on plan prepared by the applicant's landscape itRM • S y to the potential PM 10 problems that exist across the eat and alert Code Enforcement that this is something we really need to watch with the PM 10 and the AQMD. • Landscape screening, or a buffer, to block blowing sand from entering into the front door of the building. Chairman Alderson stated he would like to see the following items included in any motion for approval: -16- Planning Commission Minutes 'February 28, 2012 • Reference to dust control for the concern of the neighbors. • That the applicant come to staff prior to the issuance of the building permit with additional elevations showing some color additions and architectural metal screenings, as mentioned by Commissioner Wright. • Some revised exterior elevations. • Add some paint on the outside of that building to get some color into it. • Ownership: if you own the erty to the north, you landscape it whether you sub(P. 4 it or not. General discussion then folio or1 ae parcel to the north, connection of the meandennewalk, a options available to the Commissioners in case of hip changes tart brat parcel. Chairman Alderson asked Commissions' options. City Attorney Jenso" the applicant to putt of use of Oat area develposal 01R, you f elingopen that feel is �' essai and fit b w' _ r property her hand hearino to Le She her , on the ,the Cora' r ion could simply require that vemen` bject to allowing a change ie in c ction with some future ie no re if I understand - if valkiri_ a component is something hake this overall project more desirable n s then it seems appropriate to require :o the latitude to allow them to do ty, if they want to combine it with idked the applicant's Counsel was raising suggested the Chairman reopen the public reopened the public hearing. Ms. Emifphill, Ealy, Hemphill & Blasdel, LLP, 71905 Highway 111, Suite , Rancho Mirage CA 92270, Attorney for the applicant, said we are fine with the idea that if we own it, we put it in and we maintain it. If we do a lot line adjustment, by definition, you're adding it to someone else's property and that will come to you as part of that future project anyway. -17- Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2012 Chairman Alderson said I understand what you're saying, but if we do that it could be three years before somebody else comes in with a project. Mr. Sanders said we are fine putting it in. It wasn't their goal when the property was purchased, but if we own the property and the landscaped area is there we would use ipq_,,owever, we would like the flexibility in the future, if a viable comes forward and goes through the process that it is pote ,allowed because commercial ground in that area is of a premirjn is one of the few pieces left. General discussion folli improvements might cost. There being no Chairman Aldei said prior open be to iddi rtv line. on what nt, or ng. area comments, irrow% ske& ti54Wimeter on Condition 74. She if them' ere ad1 P ment that the applicant Ito idenft landscaping on what north b ary. Is that right? '' said die way that Condition 74 is written the c' boundary line adjustment were done Occupy (C of O) and they did not develop the t it would require them to revise their landscape a "y imeter landscape improvement along that then followed on the walking path. Chairman W- derson said if the applicant elects to put in a lot line adjustment there and create that as a separate lot on its own, they'd still own it, they'd still be obligated for those improvements. Commissioner Wilkinson said right. Condition 74 isn't written that way, but we'll condition it so that that's what happens. -18- Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2012 There being no further questions or discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Wilkinson/Wright to adopt Resolution 2012-007 recommending approval of Conditional Use Permit 2011- 132 as conditioned in the staff report. Unanimously approved. There being no further questions or discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Wilkinson/Wright to adopt Resolution 2012-008 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2011- 919 as conditioned in the staff rep°,��Ps well as the following changes: Add the following paragraph to The landscaped open sp< driveway shall be develo with the approved prelim alternative development Planning Commis m...; ,",, Add Condition No. ILS north of the 'pro maintained subs id sca plan unf ,f area is building and y consistent time as an rved by the Prior 1 `'y a of a` lldl�r t, fhW applicant shall submit pho hic lations f iew �", approval by the Planning Dlrec " .. The ulations II depict the La Quinta Memory Care Facility dt loc s; 1) Washington Street from the h west, ,. St "a. s from the southwest, and 3) Caleo $a fro a no a renderings shall include all existing and pr ' d p' ' , eter Ian aping (including the existing berm), all free stan h rchi ral elements (perimeter fence, trellis structures, Vic.), and 0 tlonaf� for enhancements to the exterior of the } r Posed bui Landscaping shall be shown at the estimated 5- Add Corti' moo. 100: A pedestrian walkway shall be installed to directly connect the ADA parking spaces on the west side of the north primary entrance of the facility with the walking path located in the landscaped open space area in the northern portion of the property. Unanimously approved. -19- Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2012 VI. BUSINESS ITEM: A. None. VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: A. None. Vill. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Report of the City Council Meeting `l' . ✓ 4'`L B. Commissioner Wright is sch to n 2012, City Council meetin . M . IX: DIRECTOR ITEMS: 4v� A. Discussion of Dese article r Commission stipends.Ze",'T,hem will meeting., " X. ADJOURNM a V.vY�` ' i yw . \ Si ' 21, 2012. back on the March 6, g Palm Deserf;s' handling of iscussed at a future Council There being� o furihi r bush it was moved by Commissioners Wilkinson/Wrigitf a this re meeting of the Planning Commission toy regufiC , r 'tom be Eton March 13, 2012. This regular fig amour t 9 3 ' W ._ . p ebruary 28, 2012. E Carolyn Walker, E City of La Quinta, -20- BI # A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: APRIL 10, 2012 CASE NO.: NOTICE OF PUBLIC NUISANCE CASE NO. 12-1340 APPELLANT: CHRISTINE CLARKE, PRESIDENT OF KESTAM CORP., GENERAL PARTNER OF STAMKO DEVELOPMENT CO. REQUEST: APPEAL OF PUBLIC NUISANCE DETERMINATION REGARDING THE MAINTENANCE OF A 22 ACRE REGIONAL COMMERCIAL ZONED SITE LOCATION: PARCEL 600-340-048, SOUTH EAST CORNER OF AUTO CENTER DR. AND ADAMS STREET (ATTACHMENT 1) PROPERTY OWNER: STAMKO DEVELOPMENT CO. BACKGROUND: In accordance with Section 11.72.050 (F) of the La Quinta Municipal Code, the Planning Commission is identified as the appeal body regarding a Notice of Public Nuisance and is charged with the responsibility of determining whether the public nuisance exists. The code provision does not authorize the Planning Commission to allow any relief from the code requirements. The Planning Commission's only authority is to determine if there is or is not a violation of the code based upon the facts presented in this report and at the public hearing. On January 10, 2012, representatives at a Lake La Quinta HOA Board Meeting raised concerns regarding PM-10, air -borne dust, at the site at the south east corner of Auto Center Dr. and Adams St. (to be referred to in future as "the site") and various other locations (Attachment 1). On March 9, 2012, City staff conducted an inspection at the site. City staff observed numerous violations of La Quinta Municipal Code and the Uniform Fire Code. A Notice of Public Nuisance was prepared and mailed regular and certified to the recorded owner of the property and posted on the lot. Photographs were taken (Attachments 2 & 3). On March 20, 2012, Christine Clarke submitted an Application for Appeal of Findings and/or Conditions to appeal Public Nuisance Case no. 12-1340 to the Planning Department. The application was received and a $175.00 fee was accepted (Attachment 4). On March 20, 2012, City staff conducted a re -inspection and additional pictures were taken. The tent, previously photographed on the March 9, 2012 inspection, with personal belongings including clothing and cooking facilities was gone upon arrival. A vagrant shown in the picture taken on February 29, 2012 had previously been directed to leave the location in close proximity to the site as shown in photographs (Attachment 3). ANALYSIS: The violation of Municipal Code is specific to Section 11.72.030 (T)(8) which states dead, decayed, diseased or hazardous trees, hedges, weeds, shrubs and overgrown vegetation likely to harbor rats or vermin or constitute an unsightly appearance or fire hazard is declared a public nuisance. The dense, dry brush in proximity to the Aventine Apartments, perimeter fencing and the right-of-way are a fire hazard (Attachment 3). The violation of Municipal Code is specific to Section 6.16.040 (C)(2) which requires the owner to uniformly apply and maintain surface gravel or chemical dust suppressants such that a stabilized surface is formed. The chemical stabilization has degraded over the years and complaints about air -borne dust coming from the site continue. Additionally, the fencing installed facing Adams St. immediately east of the entry to Lake La Quinta is depressed and leaves a flat plateau where the wind carries dust with no fence obstructing its path (Attachment 3). The violation of Municipal Code is specific to Section 11.72.030 (T)(1) allowing the following to exist on property: lumber, junk refuse and waste matter or abandoned, discarded or unused objects or equipment such as furniture, appliances, and play equipment which is visible from the public right-of-way. The photographs depict various materials discarded on the site including tires, shopping carts, concrete rings, pvc, lumber, a mattress, dead vegetation and miscellaneous debris. The discarded items are in public view, visible from two story apartments and where the screening is missing, shredded, and is so sheer the discarded materials are visible through the fabric that is intact (Attachment 3). The violation of Municipal Code is specific to Section 11.72.030 (T)(7) which states any tree, shrubbery or plant growing onto or over the public right-of-way which impairs pedestrian or vehicular traffic or prevents drivers from clearly observing safety signs and signals is prohibited. The January 12, 2012, picture shows the vegetation growing under the fencing and blocking about 50% of the pedestrian sidewalk. The March 9, 2012 picture shows improvement, however, the shrubs still impact the sidewalk and appear unsightly (Attachment 3). The violation of Municipal Code is specific to Section 11.72.030 Q which states the use of any spray paint, dye, chalk or similar substance to mark or deface any building, structure, hillside, rock(s), storm channel, or any other surface open to public view which is commonly known as graffiti. There is graffiti on the green fabric attached to the chain link perimeter fencing and block wall. Once the tattered fencing is replaced, any remaining fencing or fencing marked with graffiti in the future can be painted with a green paint to blend in with the existing color for an improved appearance (Attachment 3). The violation of Municipal Code is specific to Section 9.160.30 (1) which states any sign displayed within the city ... shall be maintained in good physical condition, including the replacement of defective parts. The pictures show the PM-10 signs lying face down in the dirt that require maintenance (Attachment 3). The violation of The Uniform Fire Code is specific to Section 1110.3 Maintenance of Vacant Buildings and Properties which states vacant buildings and properties shall be maintained, securely locked or barricaded to prevent entry by unauthorized persons. The fencing at the corner of Adams St. and Auto Center Dr. is in disrepair and has collapsed requiring repair (Attachment 3). RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Planning Commission Minute Motion 2012- upholding the determination that a Public Nuisance exists at the aforementioned parcel/address with reference to Case No. 12-1340. Prepared by: y� ANTHONY'MORENO, Senior Code Compliance Officer Submitted by: DAVID SAWYER, Planning Vanager Attachments: 1% Site/Parcel Map 2. March 9, 2012 Notice of Public Nuisance/Case 12-1340 3. Photographs depicting violations 4. Application for Appeal of Findings and/or Conditions received March 20, 2012 ATTACHMENT # 1 Page l of 1 Y �I ^ ' tiTI. RIRiIOB@IO�QCOA 4ti. :� h1�;An. i i'eJ�cs,ii i 3DS tt CityGIS CWO,gtt AO ftft Reserved. The vvrnmalimcorrteaLedhw=stne WoMdwywww29dfs ccr&blwsuppfedumb Asa WId ma9aiot be:appnwed exeg as Isaisea 2H Dk PW Map Drodta ts. hitp-f;map&digdgmVcmtral.com/pDdL=oiVCiVGI&NO7_G3 4DOlAndc p4.i.aspa 3112) 32 P.O. Box 1504 78-495 CALLS TAMPICO LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 March 09, 2012 STAMKO DEVELOPMENT CO 3856 VIA DOLCE MARINA DEL REY, CA 90292 Dear Owner(s): , ATTACHMENT # 2 COMMUNITY SAFETY DIVISION (760) 777-7050 FAX (760) 777-7011 Re: 47425 LA QUINTA DR Parcel # 600-340-048 Case # 12-00001340 Officer: Anthony Moreno THIS NOTICE is hereby submitted to you as owner(s) of the above referenced property. A recent inspection of your property revealed conditions that constitute a public nuisance in violation of the La Quinta Municipal Code. The conditions of the property are in violation of La Quinta Municipal Code 11.72.030. Please correct these conditions within thirty (30) days , or be subject to City abatement, under LQMC 11.72.050. CE N2 NOTICE OF PUBLIC NUISANCE Case Number: 12-00001340 Page z of .5" Failure to correct the listed violation(s) within the time frame indicated will result in the City initiating abatement proceedings and/or criminal prosecution to correct the violation(s), All contractor abatement costs and a 25 % administrative fee shall be charged to the property owner(s) as a lien upon the property and shall become a personal obligation of the owner(s) of record. By acting immediately to correct the violation(s) referenced, you will avoid these and any future costs. If you object to the determination of cited violation(s), you must file a written protest to the Planning Commission no later than ten (10) days from the date of this notice. The appeal shall be in writing and filed with the City Clerk. If you have any questions, please contact Anthony Moreno at (760) 777-7034. Please provide the case number 12-00001340 and the property address. Your assistance in supporting the Code Compliance Division to maintain the safety and appearance of our city is greatly appreciated. You may contact me at the above referenced phone number if you require assistance. Sincerely, Anthony Morerb Code Compliance Officer CC: All Parties via Certified and First Class Mail CE N2 NOTICE OF PUBLIC NUISANCE Case Number: 12-00001340 Page 3 Of> PUBLIC NUISANCES Violation Description PUBLIC NUISANCE DECLARED: 11.72.030 (1'8): Allowing the following to exist on property: Dead, decayed, diseased or hazardous trees, hedges, weeds, shrubs and overgrown vegetation likely to harbor rats or vermin or constitute an unsightly appearance or fire hazard. Violation Corrective Action Remove hazardous trees or other vegetation that creates a health and safety issue, a habitat for rats, vermin, or an unsightly appearance and a fire hazard. Violation Description 6.16.040(C)(2) Control Requirements In the event that implementation of subsection (C)(I) of this section is not effective in establishing a stabilized surface within forty-five days of restricting access, the owner shall implement at least one of the following long term stabilization techniques within an additional fifteen days,tmless the city has determined that the land has been restabilized: a. Uniformly apply and maintain surface gravel or chemical dist suppressants suchthat a stabilized surface is formed; or b. Begin restoring disturbed surfaces such that the vegetative cover and soil characteristics are similar to adjacent or nearby undisturbed native conditions. Such restoration control measure(s) must be maintained and reapplied, if necessary, such that a stabilized surface is formed within eight months of the initial application. Violation Corrective Action Soil stabilization required immediately. Violation Description PUBLIC NUISANCE DECLARED: 1 L72.030 ('I'1): Allowing the following to exist on property: Lumber, junk, refuse and waste matter or abandoned, discarded or unused objects or equipment such as furniture, appliances, and play equipment which is visible from the public right-of-way. Violation Corrective Action Remove from public view all items/refuse, abandoned materials, or unused objects or equipment. CE N2 NOTICE OF PUBLIC NUISANCE Case Number: 12-00001340 Page a of S- Violation Description PUBLIC NUISANCE DECLARED: 11.72.030 (T7): Allowing the following to exist on property: Any tree, shrubbery or, plant growing onto or over the public right-of-way which impairs pedestrian or vehicular traffic or prevents drivers from clearly observing safety signs and signals. Violation Corrective Action Trim back all trees, shrubs or plant growth that impairs or obstructs the pedestrian or vehicle traffic right-of-way, including visual clearance and height clearance for emergency vehicles. Violation Description PUBLIC NUISANCE DECLARED: 11.72.030 (L): The use of any spray, paint, dye, chalk or similar substance to mark or deface any building, structure, hillside, rock(s), storm channel, or any other surface open to public view which is commonly known as graffiti. Violation Corrective Action Remove prohibited graffiti. Violation Description 9.160.030 (1) 1. Maintenance. Any sign displayed within the city, together with supports, braces, guys, anchors, and electrical components, shall be maintained in good physical condition, including the replacement of defective parts. Exposed surfaces shall be kept clean, in good repair and painted where paint is required. The community development director may request the director of building and safety to order the repair or removal of any sign determined by the director to be unsafe, defective, damaged or substantially deteriorated. Violation Corrective Action Repair or replace damaged and or vandalized signs. Violation Description UPC 1110.3 - MAINTENANCE OF VACANT BUILDINGS AND PROPERTIES - Vacant buildings and properties shall be maintained, securely locked or barricaded to prevent entry by _ unauthorized persons. Violation Corrective Action The property owner must inspect property to ensure that it is locked/boarded to prevent unauthorized entry and that CE N2 NOTICE OF PUBLIC NUISANCE Case Number: 12-00001340 Page s of 5- property is free of trash, overgrown vegetation or anything that causes an unsightly condition(s). CE N2 C REMOVE ALL BRUSH WITHIN 30' OF FENCING CREATING AFIRE HAZARD IN VIOLATION OF LA QUINTA MUNICIPAL CODE 11.72.030(T)(B) # , Morer7o 1'SCMV V C HLL UC61'SL7 rl'SVIVI JI I C - - 4 Y_ . ,ems, t a. € �'°�`• ,�=`!�. - -'4`'.5�� .a VIOLATION: LA QUINTA MUNICIPAL CODE 11.72.030(T)(8) xkr� I fj{ J J t t � l x J X 1. 4 4 d� S . P` Y a I t ` r. b � y t �•� at w � Y -� y �J _ � to A M1 m n � N 4.. a �;_ Yt .. Tr };.. �.. nC�7I VnC VVIYJ I "%JV I IVIY I r%LJ"IV r%IVLJ rC1YVIIV� �s 8 • yr }.: .. '� t�i..•- No--c�,n CD Y i e • • O O O I �11 ol � p � } 0 try dot ya �` t.r+ "ty wt • x1'i�il �, n "� rr yy�,w t� r i, '4 ��..".�''.��:_ �s,.�� :tip' x�ri�'`'i"i'zT" it�� �:� � i}•�-�r4t _, � �'. lz �rsrxIfIt ' A �i,'�4*�=. Ct r F�a r'�L e •fisq ;i ' �' i fT '2 Yyr edead&, I.Q VA • j. . i .i' �I k � a i -'_+ le Qiy�i dr". �� � •�i� t ! � eft '; i �( � � x 5�$i� �.. ' ems.. r;`^ . r r }i t•Y` .! h ftY t 7i q `fib .�� yr; qz ..fir �xfFvI i"' '•�wj�( '.Y. ,�j lei• 'li �y fy�^. ��'T�,� f�� �� .' S x # �y l r ' 4ri r � ei l r y`$�%fit.. (�y •'! � � . �' t � 4 4i . # lei Yak. t i 7.{r i�yJ�vi� •y,r l'�7. it �"Ta cd ,. te, :k •. n��' ' #�^pt -r,�, �„'•' <i- ate,, �: y ; . i. 'aa'' I � ``1h, � �j�y fit' ;}e.,'�L#yTR � #y - � '6 •..tt ti w.&' .'", TO N C0 C Z G) Z T V^3 rr0 / T�T N Z_ 1\ m v m _• Z �' m 1 1 1. Y f ,f '.r Ii ATTACHMENT # 4 03/19/2012 NON 17:47 FM 76C 777 7107 La Qainta City Clerk 0003/005_ _ _..__- Ir Y Cio of La nulnta I OFFICE USE ONLY Case No __fib Planning Department 1 4 ,� Date Reed" �e� 78-495 Calle Tampico a, La Quinta, California 92253 MGrr+ `r,FkaFr .Q Related Apps.!_®T^ (760) 7774125 FAX: (760) 777-1233 �Jj__�_,_ Logged in by! -S,��J- Application for Appeal of Findings andlOr Conditions Appellai Mailing Resolution # and Condition(s) of Approval being Any development review action may be appealed pursuant to Section 9.220.120 of the Zoning Code. Please identify the type of application: Type of Appeal: _ Change of Zone _ Specific Plan _ Conditional Use Permit Variance _ Minor Use Permit _ Public Nuisance (Code Violation) = Tentative Traqt Tentative Par _ Site Develops is Temporary Use Other MAIL' 2 0 2012' ' Please provide sufficient information so as to make clear the substance of each of the grounds for appeal. If annlicable. indicate the number of the specific condition which is beine protested. f Use additional sheets if necessary. Signature of 4�-IW 1 T-2 Ql� 03/19/2012 NON 17147 FAX 760 777 7107 La Quint& City Clerk 10002/005 RECEIVFD ("RR9 1 15 V& fi*V'r- 0�0)1/�7T--)Zlle,)-17 CITY OF LA. UINTA JIM '/'?o c I X X- .......... 411