Loading...
2012 04 24 PC MinutesMINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78 -495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA April 24, 2012 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, Wright, and Chairman Alderson. ABSENT: None W STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Les Johnson, Planning Manager David Sawyer, Principal Planner Andrew Mogensen, and Executive Secretary Carolyn Walker., PUBLIC COMMENT: None. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed CONSENT CALENDAR: ' There being no comments, or suggestions, it was moved by Commissioners Wright /Weber to approve the minutes of April 10, 2012, as submitted. Unanimously approved. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2012 -107 a request by the City of La Quinta for consideration of the following amendments to the La Quinta Municipal Code: A provision to allow outdoor sales and display at retail stores greater than 100,000 GFA ( §9.100.120), modify the permitted frequency of sidewalk sales and commercial events 09.100.130) located City -wide. Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2012 Principal Planner Mogensen presented the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. He also noted staff had received e-mail comments from Lowe's after the packets had been distributed. The information was distributed to the Commissioners at the meeting. Chairman Alderson asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Weber asked if the letter from Lowe's, stating their position, was from the local store manager, or the Corporate Headquarters. Staff responded the representative from Lowe's that provided the letter, was in audience and could answer that Commissioner Weber asked what basis staff used for the language in the amendment; e.g., nearby cities or the American Planning Association (APA). Staff responded they started the research by looking at nearby, and regional, communities and did not base their research on any national APA standard. They took the best of all the ordinances they researched and came up with a hybrid of the best of those. Commissioner Weber said it appeared the amendment was a combination of staff's determination of best practices. Planning Director Johnson said they also took into consideration the City's existing retailers; most notably Home Depot and Lowe's. Staff looked at what other communities were doing but also wanted to find a fair and equitable balance to what was currently occurring at both of those establishments. Chairman Alderson asked staff if they had met with the store representatives when they were drafting this Amendment. Staff responded they had met with Lowe's representatives and gave some background information on Code Compliance's efforts on dealing with the outdoor display of merchandise; and the City's latest interaction with Lowe's on this matter: Staff did provide the staff report and the information to Costco, Wal -Mart, and Home Depot representatives, but no extended amount of time was spent -2- Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2012 interacting with them. Commissioner Barrows asked staff for clarification of the letter from Lowe's regarding the reference to outdoor storage yards being screened. Her comment was she assumed that a display of merchandise was not considered an outdoor storage yard. Staff responded the current code does reference the necessity of screening; unless it is for a sidewalk sale. ,Staff was not sure what the letter was referring to because this code amendment did not reference anywhere that the outdoor display and sales had to be screened. . Commissioner Barrows said she would wait for the public hearing portion of the meeting to hear the explanation from the Lowe's representatives. Commissioner Wilkinson asked for more clarification on the setback requirements; i.e., distance from the building and the street. Staff responded the Code Amendment identified outdoor sales and display areas were permitted within designated portions of sidewalk, patios and similar areas within proximity to the store front. The exact location would be reviewed by the Commission on a case -by -case basis. It was broadly written because not every store had the same layout. Commissioner Wilkinson commented on a previous approval allowing golf carts in close proximity to the street and wondered if this would cause an inconsistency wit other retailers' outdoor display of products. Planning Director Johnson responded they did not feel it was - imperative for staff to define that distance. It needed to be reviewed through the conditional use permit process on a case -by -case basis. If the conditional use permit was granted there would be a map or an exhibit identifying those display areas and the recipient of that permit would be required to stay within the perimeters of those specific areas. I Commissioner Wilkinson asked if the approval would be up to six -3- Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2012 times a year, or just one time when their area is defined and then the applicant would get over - the - counter approval from staff. Planning Director Johnson said there were two elements to this Amendment. The first part would be a permanent allowance where the, applicant would get a conditional use permit and be able to utilize those display areas; and secondly, the potential for seasonal sales to occur as well.. This Amendment addressed two items: permanent outdoor display areas and the allowance for greater flexibility for other displays that are currently being allowed through the temporary use permit process; which would actually be more accommodating to businesses. Commissioner Wright said this appeared to be pretty,much big box driven and asked if staff had received requests from small or medium - sized businesses such as those in the Village. Principal Planner Mogensen said staff had received inquiries from smaller businesses in the Village and that was why the sidewalk sale item had been expanded. He then explained those were two different types of retailers; which was, why there were two different sections of the ordinance -- the sidewalk sale -type of event and the permanent display. Planning Director Johnson added the Council had recently taken action on interim measures for a -board signs and outdoor display. He advised the Commissioner that issue might be coming for review within the next few months and may result in additional outdoor display provisions for the smaller retailers in the community. The focus, right now, was on the larger, big box retailers as well as allowing greater frequency for the seasonal sales. Commissioner Barrows said the issue of walls seemed to stand out when she was reviewing this, but on item D it stated an outdoor sale and display area needed to be fenced; which could include fence or wall. However, on page 7 item E there was a reference to outdoor display and sales for large commercial retail which was under the conditional use permit. Staff responded Section D referred to nursery /garden supply stores specifically. T:� Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2012 Commissioner Barrows commented that what would apply, as far as Lowe's was concerned, was item E; which was a conditional use permit which would be reviewed on a case -by -case recommendation from staff to the Planning Commission. Chairman Alderson commented on Page 6, under item 3.B.; walls and wall construction. He stated there was a reference to metal siding and said it or any other dangerous materials would obviously not be allowed and would probably be reviewed in the conditional use . process. However, if not he recommended language be added that excluded any metal siding, or any materials potentially injurious to the general public. He also recommended on page 11, item 3, the phrase be corrected to read "adequate and legal pedestrian access be maintained ". There being no further questions of staff, and the City being the applicant, Chairman Alderson asked if there was any public comment and invited the author of the Lowe's letter to address the Commission. Mr. Jim Manion, (Corporate Real Estate and Construction Department) Director of Design & Engineering, Lowe's HIW, Inc., 1530 Faraday Ave #140, Carlsbad CA 92008, and Jesus Uccles, Store Manager, Lowe's HIW, Inc. 78 -865 Highway 111, La Quinta CA introduced themselves and said they were available to answer any questions. Chairman Alderson asked the Lowe's representatives to state the concerns they had that prompted their letter. Mr. Manion said when they received the staff report; they may have misread it and needed some clarification. They understood that the display of merchandise in front of the store had to be in a designated area, but would additionally have to be screened by some kind of wall. Since they might have misinterpreted that they requested their letter be withdrawn because if that was not the intent they were okay with everything else. Staff stated exhibit E was a separate section that only applied to outdoor retail sales and display for stores of 100,000 square feet or greater and did not have a screening requirement. Mr. Manion responded they would withdraw their letter, but he did -5- Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2012 have another question about the contractor trailers being sold in the parking lot. They asked for clarification on how the City would treat the contractor trailers and shed. displays, with the proposed ordinance. Planning Director Johnson said those were really two different items. He commented on a conversation staff had -with Lowe's when they made application, due to a code enforcement matter prompting this change, because the current provisions were quite restrictive. One facet of the conversation focused on storage sheds out in the parking lots, within parking stalls that were defined and established for the purpose of parking customers. Staff's initial concern was if it's designated for parking it needs to be used for. parking and not for display of merchandise and that position has not changed. If it's going to be identified for merchandise display then it needs to be designated as such and not be confused with parking stalls with merchandise on them. The exception being if it is utilized for seasonal displays such as Christmas tree lots. Staff continued that would be something that would be reviewed through the conditional use permit process. The one unique anomaly staff is still grappling with is Lowe's sales of utility trailers utilizing parking stalls. Staff's position is neutral and they have acknowledged Lowe's concern, but no permanent solution has been reached as yet. Staff is concerned with the utilization of multiple parking spaces for the storage and permanent display of merchandise. But, the code provision before you shows that we are supportive of reviewing the seasonal use of the parking lot in certain areas, through the use of a temporary use permit Mr. Manion commented that could be discussed at a later date, since it is not being addressed in this Amendment. He suggested future discussion could possibly include the suggestion that if Lowe's could show, through a parking study, that designed areas could be removed from the overall parking and still leave adequate parking for customers; then it would be possible for them to apply for, through the conditional use permit process, an allowance for the sheds and the contractor trailers to remain in the parking lot. Staff said yes that could be considered, noting that Lowe's, Home Depot, and Costco currently had more parking than the minimum requirements. The City is certainly willing to work with those businesses. However, if it became permanent storage, whether trailers WE Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2072 or sheds, it really needs to be taken out of the. equation as being parking spaces. They should be designated for merchandise display and addressed accordingly through the conditional use permit process. Mr. Manion said, with those clarifications, he was satisfied with the code as it was proposed d. Mr. Manion then -commented that this Amendment had also addressed his concern regarding the garden center screening. Principal Planner Mogensen explained that, under the proposed code, they would be allowed to have garden center materials out in the display area, in addition to their current garden center, and that would be covered by a different section of this same chapter which is not being edited at this meeting. Commissioner Weber asked the Lowe's representatives if they had any statistics, or anecdotal evidence of how parking lot displays, of these selected products, affect their sales. Mr. Uccles described their experience with customers not wanting to purchase these items from catalogs. He said customers want to see the sheds and visualize how they will fit in with their homes and landscaping., The same things would apply for the trailers. People want to see and touch the product and walk around it. Sometimes there are different sizes or materials, they're made of, and the customers want to see them displayed. He also added the amount of trailers varies since they are replenished as the customers purchase them. Permanent placement of the trailers would be designated in an area where they would not interfere with traffic. Mr. Manion added that if they could not display the sheds their sales of sheds would be cut 75% or more. Unless the customer can see the particular product they are not going to purchase it. General discussion followed on where Lowe's currently has their sheds displayed. The public hearing portion of the meeting was still open and Chairman Alderson asked if there was anyone else who would to speak on the matter. Mr. Kyle Goodsell, Assistant Store Manager, Home Depot, 79 -900 NO Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2012 Highway 111, La Quinta CA, said they had previously submitted sales figures on their sheds and outdoor merchandise display (in reference to Commissioner Weber's earlier question). Commissioner Barrows asked if he had any concerns with what was being proposed. Mr. Goodsell said they were attending because they needed to hear the interpretation regarding the screening of garden products, but that was clarified. Commissioner Weber asked Mr. Goodsell about their utilization of a large part of the parking area which impacted egress into the shopping center and cut down that area from two lanes to one to get over to the traffic signal for exiting onto Jefferson Street. Mr. Goodsell said that area is in their map for temporary seasonal use. He added that they applied for, and have been granted, temporary permits for this use. General discussion followed on the definition of temporary use, the time frame, seasonal items, when the area in question would be cleared. Mr. Goodsell added they also had the same questions about sheds as the Lowe's representatives. They have sheds displayed in their parking lot right in front of their garden center and were attending the meeting to find out whether those sheds would be allowed in the future. General discussion followed on outdoor display items and rotation of product. There being no further public comment, Chairman Alderson closed the public hearing and opened the matter for Commission discussion. Commissioner Weber commented on the direction the City was going, how the stores appeared to be doing well, egress to the facilities, health, safety, ADA issues, abundance of parking spaces available at these locations, and how the City and the retailers were moving forward. Commissioner Barrows commented that if a nursery /garden supply -8- Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2012 store were to locate in La Quinta they would not be afforded the same opportunity as the big box retailers with regard to outdoor displays of plant materials; due to the requirement to have a wall or fence around those materials. She was concerned that this did not seem quite consistent. Staff then explained why they did not change Item D; and gave a further explanation of how the big boxes and nursery /garden supply stores were affected by this Amendment. Staff added they could revisit Item D if it was the Commissioner's wish. It could be brought back at a later date, but the staff focus for this meeting was to address the current situation in the community and not a future nursery /garden supply situation. Commissioner Barrows said she did want to see that fixed, at the appropriate time, in the future. She had an additional question about the parking lots as noted in item 2.13. where it said "you can't impede the flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic or obstruct access to any parking space." She was concerned that the inclusion of the outdoor display could cause them to be out of compliance right from the start. Staff responded they would have to propose improvements to make sure that it was a safe connection and would not "...impede the flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic,... etc." If they wanted to create a permanent display area, they would have to make sure that there was a means. of access that was an accepted means. General discussion followed regarding a safe and compliant environment for placement of outdoor merchandise; e.g., trailers /sheds, the process of review of use permits by several departments, and designated routes to /from the displays. Commissioner Wright complimented the City on its willingness to work with retailers, in this tough economic environment, as it continued to strive for an aesthetically - pleasing environment while keeping public safety a priority. Chairman Alderson concurred with Commissioner Wright's comments and added that he applauded the level of cooperation from both the retail community and the City. There being no further questions or discussion, it was moved and i� Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2012 seconded by Commissioners Barrows/Wilkinson to adopt Resolution 2012 -009 recommending approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2012 -107 as submitted; with the following amendment: Exhibit B, Section C.3 shall be amended to read: Adequate and legal pedestrian access, shall be maintained around merchandise or displays placed on a sidewalk or walkway. Unanimously approved B. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2012 -108 a request by the City of La Quinta for consideration of the following amendment to the La Quinta Municipal Code: A provision to require a Specific Plan for any new development on a lot that is %2 acre or greater in size and located within the Village Commercial District ( §9.65). Planner Manager 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 asked if the owner was the housing authority or the subsequent, successor agency. Commissioner Wright responded it was the housing authority. General discussion followed on acquisition of the land, ownership, zoning of the properties, Council directives and language provisions for exceptions. Commissioner Weber asked if this strategy would be utilized in other areas within the City., Staff responded not at this time. Chairman Alderson commented on how this might first appear to a developer as more bureaucracy, but then added if the developer stayed very close to the village guidelines, code requirements, and standard terms of construction, he could ask for the specific plan to be waived. The Council has it within their power to waive it. He then commented further on additional savings in both money and time due -10- Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2012 to this new procedure; which could include requesting of variances. Staff stated that one of the main reasons specific plans were brought forward for Planning Commission and Council consideration was they were requesting for relief or deviations from the City's development standards; and the specific plan process allowed for that. So this would certainly be an opportunity for the developer to contemplate as they were proposing a project. There being no further questions of staff, and the City being the applicant, Chairman Alderson asked if there was any public comment. There being no public comment, Chairman Alderson closed the public hearing and opened the matter for Commission discussion. There being no further questions or discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Wright/Weber to'adopt Resolution 2012- 010 recommending approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2012- 108 as submitted. Unanimously approved. VI. BUSINESS ITEM: A. None. VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: A. CVWD VIP Water Awareness Tour, May 11, 2012 invitation. Chairman Alderson commented it was worthwhile and educational and recommended the others considering attending the tour. VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Report of the City Council Meeting of April 17, 2012, given by Chairman Alderson. B. Commissioner Wilkinson is scheduled to report back on the May 1, 2012, City Council meeting; however he will be unable to attend the May 8, 2012, meeting and asked if one of the other members could attend on his behalf. Chairman Alderson volunteered. -11- Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2012 C. Commissioner Wright gave a brief review of his observance of the property walk- through with Code Enforcement and Mr. Moran in reference to the appeal (APP 2012 -006) presented at the April 10, 2012, meeting. D. Chairman Alderson had a question about the project scheduled for review at the May 8, 2012, meeting. Staff gave a brief synopsis of the item. IX: DIRECTOR ITEMS: A. City Council Report — Update on Green and Sustainable La Quinta Program, dated April 17, 2012. General discussion on continuing receipt of these reports, whether the City is, receiving full credit for all events, if containers, are available for recycling fluorescent bulbs and batteries, and amount of rebates versus dollars collected. Staff offered to look into these matters and respond back at a later date. X. ADJOURNMENT:. There being no further business, it was moved by Commissioners Weber /Barrows to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next regular meeting to be held on May 8, 2012. This regular meeting was adjourned at 8:19 p.m. on April 24, 2012. Respectfully submitted, Carolyn alker, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California -12-