2012 06 26 PCCity of La Quinta
Planning Commission Agendas are now
available on the City's Web Page
�j @ www.la-guinta.org
OF its
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
A Regular Meeting to be Held at the
La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California
JUNE 26, 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 2012-014
Beginning Minute Motion 2012-004
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. Pledge of Allegiance
B. Roll Call
11. 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 May 22, 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.
A. Item ................... CUP 2011-138
Applicant........... Crown Castle — Susan Makinson
Location............ Eisenhower Park — Southeast Corner of Eisenhower Drive
and Calle Colima
Request ............. Consideration of a Condition Use Permit for a Single
Distributed Antenna System (DAS) at Eisenhower Park.
Action ................ Request for Continuation to July 10, 2012.
VI. BUSINESS ITEMS:
A. Item ................... APPEAL 2012-007
Applicant........... Robert and Jenny Ernest
Location............ 52-160 Avenida Montezuma
Request ............. Consideration of Appeal of Director's Determination
Regarding a Proposed Tandem Garage.
Action ................. Staff Recommendation for Adoption of Minute Motion to
Uphold the Director's Determination — Minute Motion
2012-
B. Item ................... DIRECTOR'S DETERMINATION — NOTICE OF VIOLATION
2012-00001808 - APPEAL 2012-008
Applicant........... Michael Pitts
Location............ Parcel 773-102-007, 51-411 Avenida Villa (Behind the La
Quinta Museum
Request ............. Consideration of Appeal of Director's Determination
Regarding the Use of Wood Fencing Along the Front and
Side Yards in the La Quinta Cove.
Action ................. Staff Recommendation for Adoption of Minute Motion to
Uphold the Director's Determination — Minute Motion
2012-
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL:
Vill. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. Report on City Council meetings of June 5, 2012, and June 19, 2012.
B. Commissioner Weber is scheduled to attend the July 3, 2012, City
Council meeting.
C. City Council Meeting Attendance Schedule for Fiscal Year 2012/2013
D. Discussion of Summer Schedule
IX. DIRECTOR ITEMS:
X. ADJOURNMENT:
This meeting of the Planning Commission will be adjourned to a Regular Meeting to be
held on July 10, 2012, at 7:00 p.m.
DECLARATION OF POSTING
I, Carolyn Walker, Executive Secretary of the City of La Quinta, do hereby declare that
the foregoing Agenda for the La Quinta Planning Commission meeting of Tuesday, June
26, 2012 was posted on the outside entry to the Council Chamber, 78-495 Calle
Tampico and the bulletin board at the La Quinta Cove Post Office, 51-321 Avenida
Bermudas, on Thursday, June 21, 2012.
DATED: June 21, 2012
CAROLYN WALKER, Executive Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
Public Notices
The La Quinta City Council Chamber is handicapped accessible. If special equipment is
needed for the hearing impaired, please call the City Clerk's office at 777-7123, twenty-
four (24) hours in advance of the meeting and accommodations will be made.
If special electronic equipment is needed to make presentations to the Planning
Commission, arrangements should be made in advance by contacting the City Clerk's
office at 777-7123. A one (1) week notice is required.
If background material is to be presented to the Planning Commission during a Planning
Commission meeting, please be advised that eight (8) copies of all documents, exhibits,
etc., must be supplied to the Executive Secretary for distribution. It is requested that this
take place prior to the beginning of the 7:00 p.m. meeting.
May 22, 2012
\VA
V.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
CALL TO ORDER
A. A regular meeting of the La Quinta
order at 7:01 p.m. by Chairman Ali
PRESENT: Commissioners
Chairman Alder
ABSENT: Commissioner I
STAFF PRESENT: Planning Direc
D4 Sawyer,
PUBLIC COMMENT:
7:01 p.m.
mission was called to
Wright, and
Johnson, Planning Manager
Engineer Ed Wimmer, and
CONFIRMATI AGENDAS f
CONSENT ,h, DAR� ,
Ther _ o co nts,rot ` stions, it.was moved by Commissioners
t/ a to ve the minutes of May 8, 2012, as submitted.
ES: Comm" ners s, Wilkinson, Wright, and Chairman Alderson.
N S: None. A ' T: missioner Weber. ABSTAIN: None.
A. Con ` rUse Permit 2012-141: a request by Chris McFadden -
Archit >- for consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for site and
tenant` improvements for a VCA Animal Hospital within Plaza La
Quinta located at 78-267 Highway 111 - the southwest corner of
Plaza La Quinta and Highway 111.
Planning Director Johnson 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
May 22, 2012
Commissioner Wilkinson asked if the fencing was going to be installed
using a concrete footing.
Staff suggested he verify that with the applicant.
Commissioner Wilkinson asked if any responses had been received
from Vons. Staff said they have had no responses to the public
notice.
.._�.,..
Commissioner Barrows commented q�, hiNk ,, ware of Oncoming
Traffic" sign shown in the exhibits hbXasked�" 1;e new use of this
building would involve more pe traffic sing from the
parking lot and if there was a ne,tf'for additional signdg
Staff pointed out the effect on th Erkii�iot
` " .� not be any greater with
the new usage as it was with theLumpy's store. However, if
there was an issue, a .could be wolater. At this time there
was not proposed essing any t' '. of heightened pedestrian
t
safety awareness neede due standpoir %volume and activity.
General discussion follow pre `` d possible future signage;
conclude ttft`,staff's o to follcup on what signage was
curre in th inter; as I as the possibility of added signage to
ma le m aware of, estrian traffic in that part of the
Center. _s
There, g ri&�J, her que Lions of staff, Chairman Alderson asked if
there w @ny q ' .ions of the applicant.
Chris addeh, Architect, 75145 St. Charles Place, Suite 4,
Desert i troduced himself and offered the following comments:
4<AftePreviewing the staff report, they were fine with everything.
• y would certainly be willing to accommodate additional
-,Signage in response to Commissioner Barrows' comments.
• Animals in the enclosed play area would be accompanied by an
employee, and would be double -leashed.
• The fencing was a polymer resin, solid color, fencing with a
stile -and -rail type of construction.
-2-
Planning Commission Minutes
May 22, 2012
Commissioner Wright asked if there was going to be a 24-hour
emergency area at this facility.
Mr. Craig Lassen, Regional Operations Director, P 0 Box 1489
Idyllwild CA 92549 introduced himself and said they had a 24-hour
facility on Jefferson and Highway 111 at VCA Valley.
Commissioner Wilkinson asked if the fence
in concrete.
Mr. McFadden explained it was a
spanned between the stanchions. I
there was a concrete sidewalk arouf
Commissioner Wilkinson askgtw
building and plans for the clean-uj
area and surrounding the building.
Mr. Lassen respondeck
maximum of 15. He p
space and they were all
from the pets. He adc
they wef 466', Cher bu
followed o
would be installed
they eras set in and then
not beiaset in concrete, but
m oc` 'y of the
-ials boVin the play
ward for 10 animals with a
they ha �'" ;"staff in their current
rTwitor acid manage the bio debris
vere: ' sensitive to the fact that
*--,Allo eeWe l ,"'maximum number of pets - up to 20.
• was n " cleaned up "as needed".
tw;,,
• IJ and up of the area outside of the building.
• Anima are hikleft unattended.
n asked for an explanation of the inset on the
plan. .
Mr. M ad' den said that was the electrical room in the back, and there
were Iivo alternate versions of interior space usage. He then deferred
to Mr. Lassen who said they opted to use the version designed for
intensive care.
Chairman Alderson asked, in response to Commissioner Wright's
earlier question, if there was some provision to do emergency care.
3
Planning Commission Minutes
May 22, 2012
Mr. Lassen said yes.
There being no further questions of the applicant, Chairman Alderson
asked if there was any public comment.
There being none, Chairman Alderson closed the public hearing portion
of the meeting and opened the matter for Commission discussion.
Chairman Alderson expressed his concerns -put the Center's parking
but concluded it would be relieved becaus"ff5 .the building's location.
There being no further questions o . di cussi6n 'k, was moved and
WO seconded by Commissioners B , right toy,\adopt Resolution
2012-011 recommending approV61 of Conditional Use "Permit 2012-
141 as submitted. AYES. loners farrows, WilkiniqWWright,
and Chairman Alderson. NOorPBSENT: commissioner
Weber. ABSTAIN: None.
B. General Plan Amendm 12-124 and`ing Change 2012-141; a
request by the City of for consifon of an Amendment
to the La Quinta Gener Planjl�hangisvg Two Properties from
Village Commercial to Mai Co iimt`."cilities and an Amendment
71,
to the L Zoning <,m M changing, the same two properties from
Vlllag omme to Major ommunity Facilities. The properties are
located 77 8 Avenlda f'�ko, Mezuma and on the north side of
venlda Au ntitrna. betwe" Avenida Navarro and Avenida
Planninj*4 nage* J vi Sawyer presented the staff report, a copy of
which is '� je in thAa tanning Department.
asked if there were any questions of staff.
Plan0i .11 actor Johnson pointed out a correction in the map shown:
where was noted as VC; it was actually Benjamin Franklin
Elemeriiary which was classified as a Major Community Facility. That
was changed, by Council, a year ago. There were also other Major
Community Facility. zoned properties in proximity to the two being
proposed for consideration.
General discussion followed on clarifying the designations on the map
and what properties and zoning designations were involved.
sE
Planning Commission Minutes
May 22, 2012
There being no further questions of staff, and the City being the
applicant, Chairman Alderson asked if there was any public comment.
There being none, Chairman Alderson closed the public hearing portion
of the meeting and opened the matter for Commission discussion.
There being no further questions or discussion, it was moved and
seconded by Commissioners Wright/Wilkinson to adopt Resolution
2012-012 recommending approval of General P Amendment 2012-
124 as submitted. AYES: Commissioners B ws"ilkinson, Wright,
and Chairman Alderson. NOES: None�`�SENT- Commissioner
Weber. ABSTAIN: None. f `fr=,
There being no further questions.i sc�ussion, `i 'was moved and
seconded by Commissioners 1A I:ght/Wilkinson to a t Resolution
2012-013 recommending ap I", Y'aI of Zoning ChangeOV2-141 as
submitted. AYES: Commissione 1arr4 Wilkinson, ,Wright, and
Chairman Alderson. NOES: None. ,`SENT: Commissioner Weber.
ABSTAIN: None.•;
VI. BUSINESS ITEM:
A. General Plan Update; ar' \._e st 1v� tie City of La Quinta for
consider _proposed id use anal circulation elements of the
Genelan U' LL e, located' ity wide.
�0 rw
Planning t son pre x ted the staff report, a copy of which
its q�Rfi e in P P, rtment. He then introduced John and
f "Iqi� nste Terra Nova Planning & Research who would be
f t discussi Gel. ,I Plan Update.
Ms. NicoleY_ ''ste, 4rerra Nova Planning & Research, 42-635 Melanie
%*14HP
Suit 101, Palm Desert, introduced herself and said, as
tantst ey were there to discuss two broad concepts: one in
Lantf 4e� d the other in Circulation. She would present the Land
Use p a n and John Criste would handle the Circulation portion. She
notedAe General Plan Update had no major changes from the current
General Plan, but there were some minor changes in land use
designations. The general distribution of land uses was staying the
same City-wide.
Ms. Criste went over the changes that were occurring from the 2002
General Plan. She pointed out the report included Table 2 which
-5-
Planning Commission Minutes
May 22, 2012
compared the land use allocations. She stated there were about 2000
more acres .in the City Limits than at the time of the 2002 update;
which was primarily due to the annexation of lands at the
southeastern corner of the City which are developed properties now.
Ms. Criste then discussed the consolidation of land use designations in
all of the categories at the general plan level. She pointed out (as
noted in Table 1) the zoning designations w&Id not change, but
would be grouped together under a brFe
fined name for a land
use designation. She then went into nn how they would be
grouped and what the changes were as,_'' °tk]e Table.
Ms. Criste said in the General.-:�'
broadened to combine the verya� w
the current General Plan into.. d
fik 'the definitions have been
and low density,,r6aidential from
ensjlzy category ariA,tll.0`medium,
medium high, and high density i e m high category. All of
the density breakdowns would � the same in the Zoning
Ordinance. The diff once in acreage m current to the proposed
General Plan, falls u .,several bro&d[i 'categories; some of the
changes were becausek # had lairs':"hat were designated
vacant, at the time of ff 20i srleraI P#en that have since been
developed as Golf Course - ter` PIS Communities. Thus, the
residenti b come opeli space anctAere is less residential on the
map 4n ther#15J as with t 2002 General Plan. There were also
A
Gen&aien amfhdments dun a life of the plan that changed both
commerc and@ density ii esidential for specific projects and
fore cavfp
a C 'Oland use designations. There have also
b ral hases by conservation organizations in Section 5 and
those aw ref etin the map. Those in the current General Plan
which w. low desity residential lands are now proposed to be
;designated f ope6'space in the Draft General Plan because they are
owned by cervation organizations for preservation under the Multi-
S bies He ' t Conservation Plan (MSHCP).
pp::gxf.
Ms. C J' said the City was required to look at long-range planning for
the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and automobile vehicle
trips due to two State laws; AB 32 and SB 375. Those mandates led
them to look at a sustainable community element for this Update
which would be a separate element in the General Plan that currently
does not exist. It addresses the full range of lifestyle and
environmental preservation issues including: 1) the quality and type of
development, 2) ways that the City can preserve resources such as
l�
Planning Commission Minutes
May 22, 2012
water and air resources, and 3) energy resources for future projects by
building and proposing better projects. This led to mixed use as a
potential future development concept to address some of these issues.
There were lengthy discussions on whether it should be a mixed use
General Plan land use designation, or whether it should be addressed
in the Zoning Ordinance. Because the market will steer future
development rather than imposing specific sites in the General Plan for
mixed use it was more constructive and allow.ed,greater flexibility to
/ —,
propose a zoning overlay and so you'll see mi*€ed use is a requirement
for zoning that will be placed on co rcial properties of all
designations. So that the development mu€ty and the market can
look at the appropriate locations for tba evelopi l8nt and make those
decisions based on community, ap rket needs —a available land
currently designated commercial'
Ms. Criste then described ways
the forms it could take; both in i
said mixed use can t#ke many
dictate those forms, allo
r,
community to think abi v
shopping opportunities, nsrt;'
automobile and, by exten on Ala
life as a F ., She the h e
Mr.
E
the trans
only the I
� r Iity of
&,hiclt. ed use could occur and
I and commercial areas. She
ns p the general plan does hot
the `` at and the development
ways to t prove access to jobs,
°,reductqdn of dependence on the
sv Alt quality and the quality of
,d o John Criste to present the
Circul#10n portion o the report.
l.eNova Plihning and Research, 42 635 Melanie
eeit, introduced himself and said he would
tg.portation or traffic analysis, both of which were
thin ' t motor vehicle transportation. He added if
n m was not working well it could affect not
orvt my, because of tourists and visitors, but also the
residents.
Mr sig aid with the General Plan concurrent with the development
of the` `o'nd Use Plan we initiated a very detailed traffic modeling
exerci;e. Circumstances have changed quite a bit since the 2002
General Plan Update. Since that time new legislation has mandated
regional transportation planning. The City occurs within the SCAG
region and the CVAG regional government agencies that have been
involved in a Regional Transportation Plan which has been led primarily
by Riverside County and has resulted in what's called the Riverside
Transportation Analysis Model (RivTam Model). And, we are obligated
-7-
Planning Commission Minutes
May 22, 2012
to do traffic analysis that is consistent with and a logical extension, of
that modeling effort, so they worked with the traffic engineers to
develop a very refined version of the Riverside County Model. He
explained how they derived their traffic analysis figures by utilizing
transportation analysis zones as well as the land uses in each of the
Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZs) through the modeling process to
generate the number of trips and where they were to/from. He went
on to explain that when the County develop the model and had
provided the latest run of the model on a Coalella Valley wide basis,
they had made some land use assumpt0.-s#hat were not actually
embodied in the County's General Plan,r'1'And,specifically, there were
two planning areas, one was the So : whalley Implementation Project
Area which was centered around a 62 andi other was the
Vista Santa Rosa Planning Areo, in order to hav real picture,
based on land use, the my n1.6as adjusted outside} Qf our own
� yo
planning area to bring it back int6 r ?lity vaith the assign,ied land uses
in the County General Plan..,' ,
Mr. Criste said this da#ife4 analysis w fiery complicated and had
been pretty fruitful Thy moulted in a i le of things; one the
realization that the impri {erne grarnlrud in the 2002 General
Plan would not meet all they w train rtation needs to have the
- V;, .
roadway xs� ': k. One% bf the bibgest changes made was
Was ,,,i #on Strut_ was brou it. back into reality with the addition of
whaf 1d be d . e so Washihoton Street could continue to be a six -
lane diva o .. The cur ° nt General Plan calls out eight lanes,
was a nimilikil was not feasible. Some intersection
pr �r ass li '' d with Washington Street have been solved, but
there all forateections and six roadway segments identified
that have es re`M iiiing and those are being worked on as noted in
the exhibit u redived. In addition the physical improvements that
possible ' ong the whole network, widening streets, adding lane,
t like °' at we're also both by necessity and by a desire to
imp quality of life is to try to encourage the development and
use o 'er modes of travel. Transit is not yet used well in the area
and t re's plenty
of opportunity to expand transit use. In the staff
report there is discussion about transportation -oriented developments
that put housing and job centers in proximity to transit so it can be
used much more readily. Also transportation demand management
strategies will be implemented in the General Plan. They include some
complementary land use and also transportation systems management
which would make the current roadway systems more efficient. Also
-8-
Planning Commission Minutes
May 22, 2012
State law requires implementation of complete streets which gets
communities to broaden the definition of transportation and to use
street and other transportation infrastructure to accommodate other
modes of travel. The effort is to take sidewalks, or multi -purpose
paths, and bike lanes and make them carry more traffic. Thus
encouraging the use of bike lanes, also for NEVs and golf carts with
certain design requirements. The end result will be a system, a plan,
and an approach that not only will address` capacity issues and
diversify the different modes of travel, bu1,✓will also preserve the
quality of life in the community and keep trf down to a level where
it can be controlled and managed So' of areas to emphasize
this multi -modal and complementaryA use lopment would be
along Highway 111 and in the.' " area. a staff report
references some of the mandated legislation and'Ah is a very
complete and broad set of, iJr ias aid programs i t I'ddresses
everything from the general netWO rig -down to corripiete streets
and much more specific issues.
General discussion
• Roundabouts andpecielj one located at Avenue 52 and
Jefferson Street. �,��
FOB,
• Saf it -stics of tr is signals ersus roundabouts.
Llti pure and equrian paths.
nateiii
golf cart patk
_ways.
• Th4lle Whrtewv er trail.
w�,The NI, e f golf cart path standards and
i " omrd ions.
�f3 i
• mo or NEV's and bike lanes.
• Cha g stagy'' s
• Numlu of trips a day at build -out of the City's General Plan;
includg traffic in and out -of -season and during major events.
,The fn Motorized Transportation Plan
Comm loner Barrows asked if the updated General Plan and
Prefer ed Land Use Maps were going to be available on-line now, or
after presentation to Council.
Planning Director Johnson said it would be available later and then he
gave a brief overview of the timelines/deadlines staff was targeting.
He added, it was not currently available on-line, or for public
distribution, but that would be coming shortly.
9-
Planning Commission Minutes
May 22, 2012
Commissioner Barrows asked if there were any changes to General
Plan Designations related to open space.
Ms. Criste said no, there were no changes. There was actually a little
bit more open space than in the previous General Plan, due to the
creation of golf courses, and the inclusion of land in Section 5.
General discussion followed on:
• The opportunity for a 5,000
enterprise in the Cove; e.g.,
• Paths between residential d
• Residential with commer i*
• ,The electric vehicle caT =00
Adams Street, Dune Palms;
Planning Director Johm
into the Classification"
would need to provid
usage.
Planr
as fo
nson
foot commercial
rrhood store.
on the ground floor
h as it) to the Hi v- 111,
and A ' i' 48 areas. ,
noted, on'tWast item, staff would look
11e Adams, a ',Dune Palms paths which
n_tg..,ram;
accom ions for electric cart
final comments on this item,
Plan No dramatic departures are being
gff;neral Plan There are certainly some
;ome of which are mandated by the State of
what we've read, heard, or have been
exation One thing that was not pointed out was the potential
a &ea was scaled back considerably from what was
pro x3r what was in the 2002 General Plan. That potential
annex°n area now matches our current spheres of influence. We
think this is the right direction for the future of La Quinta and the
issue was to focus on the quality of the community and to make sure
that La Quinta continues to be a quality city in the Coachella Valley
and the State.
Identification of Needs: Through the identification of the community's
needs we can make certain improvements to the infrastructure to add
10-
Planning Commission Minutes
May 22, 2012
future opportunities, a different style of housing in our community,
and to make sure the commercial sectors continue to be vibrant since
they are a pivotal part of the City's fiscal future. The Updated General
Plan seeks to make sure there are opportunities to accommodate
future needs while making sure the quality of the "Gem of the Desert"
is maintained in the future.
Road Intersection — Levels of Service: A considdrable amount of time
w
has been spent to make sure that the circulaso was properly
represented, but one thing was not menti and that was there are
ctt
a limited number of (build -out) intersens`er ^�,road segments that
cannot accommodate traffic at the Ciky'a 'norma14"' I of service (Level
Service D).,
An Ambitious Schedule: Ther*'` "be a Op Council Studer Session on
June 5, 2012, where this infor presented 1h6r Council's
feedback. There will then be a one ,community workshop on July
11, 2012 from 3:00'�- m to 5:00 p m,: d 6:00 p.m. to 8:00. The
Draft EIR is schedule fbr,,. release on 6, 2012, for a 45-day
comment period and sfd: &track before ,y, as a Public Hearing
item, on August 14, 201 Itreserd to the City Council on
__ d. .
September 18, 2012. Th1P """" ink fission will be receiving all
of the d well in "vance offmeeting to provide ample
time t6/ revie;Wy nd consid all the information. Staff and the
con '5t, teamt'j °drill be avail04W to answer any questions (one-on-
one) shoKhosepal
e up aftY'reviewing the documents, which are
Feedba Feedtkp, rom the Commission is certainly appreciated
and thank is in a"ance, for the amount of time you will be putting
in to revieW4,his i ormation and we look forward to the successful
rmpletion of ;the 2035 General Plan.
Cha Iderson thanked staff and the consultants for their time
and in ;. and added that, since this was a discussion item, there was
no off ial action needed.
Commissioner Barrows added a comment on electric vehicles and
charging stations. The CVAG (Coachella Valley Association of
Governments) received a grant from the California Energy Commission
for the Regional Plug -In Electric Vehicle Readiness Plan. The purpose
of the plan was to work as a Region to identify where charging
11-
Planning Commission Minutes
May 22, 2012
infrastructure for electric vehicles needed to go. At CVAG the Energy
and Environmental Resources Committee was being designated as the
Plug -In Electric Vehicle Coordinating Council and is also working with
some industry members as well as the Electric Utilities Council and
Councilmember Evans (serving on the Committee for the City). There
may be occasions where they will be asking for.input from the City as
well. One of the biggest components of this program is an education
and outreach element and there will be ctric Vehicle 101 "
Workshops as well as other types of educati, f outreach. .
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATE
A. None.
Vill. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: '
A. Report of the City Council Meeting
B. Chairman Alderson is ipfiod led to
City Council meeting.,,.,
IX: DIRECTOR ITEMS:
/_1
X. ADJOURNMI
T
rrows/Writ
next
m ,.,g was
Respectfully s
15, 2012.
the June 5, 2012,
business, it was moved by Commissioners
this regular meeting of the Planning Commission
Fto be held on June 12, 2012. This regular
:37 p.m. on May 22, 2012.
Carolyn Walker, Executive Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
-12-
BI # A
PLANNING COMMISSION - --
STAFF REPORT
DATE: JUNE 26, 2012
CASE NO.: APP 2012-007 (APPEAL OF FINDINGS AND/OR CONDITIONS)
APPELLANT: ROGER AND JENNY ERNEST
REQUEST: APPEAL OF DIRECTOR'S DETERMINATION REGARDING A
PROPOSED TANDEM GARAGE
LOCATION: 52-160 AVENIDA MONTEZUMA
BACKGROUND:
In accordance with Section 9.200.120 [8] of the La Quinta Municipal Code, the
Planning Commission is identified as the appeal body for decisions by the Planning
Director. The code provision does not authorize the Commission to allow any relief
from the code requirements. The Planning Commission's only authority is to
determine if the Director's determination has been correctly applied based upon the
facts presented in this report. The Commission may also direct staff to evaluate
any relevant municipal code sections and specify any potential revisions or
amendments.
In February of this year, Planning Department staff reviewed the appellant's
building plans for a new home located in the La Quinta Cove (Attachment 1). Staff
was unable to approve the plans, noting that the proposed tandem garage did not
comply with the La Quinta Municipal Code. In April, the appellant submitted a
letter to the Planning Director contesting the plan check comments regarding the
tandem garage (Attachment 2). The Planning Director reviewed the appellant's
letter, and subsequently made a Director's Determination that the Municipal Code
was properly applied, and that their floor plan incorporating a tandem garage could
not be approved as proposed (Attachment 3). The appellant appealed this
determination on May 11, 2012 (Attachment 4). A letter of support from a
neighboring property owner has been received and is attached (Attachment 5)
ANALYSIS:
Garage Dimensions
For single-family, detached homes, the La Quinta Municipal Code (LQMC) requires
as a minimum 2.0 spaces per unit in a garage. Per LQMC Section 9.150.080
[B.11 .1, the minimum interior dimensions of residential garages shall be ten feet in
width per car by twenty feet in depth (Attachment 6).
LQMC Section 9.150.080 [B. 11.1
Residential Garages. Minimum interior dimensions in residential garages and
carports shall be ten feet in width per car by twenty feet in depth. (For
example, a two -car garage sha0 be minimum twenty feet wide by twenty
feet deep.)
The proposed garage technically meets the interior dimension requirement for each
car; however, based on the example stated in the code for a two -car garage, the
exhibits shown in the Cove Residential Design Manual, and past practice and
precedence, a side -by -side two -car garage has been the standard garage design that
has been accepted by the Planning Department. The applicant is challenging this
interpretation of the code.
Tandem Parking
The appellant is also contesting the determination that tandem garage parking is
prohibited for single-family detached homes. Per LQMC Section 9.150.080 [A.3.1,
Tandem parking shall be permitted only in mobilehome parks/subdivisions, as
driveway guest parking for single-family detached, single-family attached and
duplex residential uses, and where valet parking is provided.
Single-family detached residential garages are not listed as a permitted location for
tandem parking. The appellant is questioning the applicability of the above code
section to single-family garage parking.
Although it is the staff's recommendation to uphold the ,Planning Director's
determination, if the Planning Commission would like to consider alternative parking
configurations, particularly tandem garage parking for single-family detached homes
in the Cove residential area, the Commission could direct staff to review this issue
as part of the upcoming Parking Ordinance update.
RECOMMENDATION:
The alternatives available to the Planning Commission include:
1. Adopt Minute Motion 2012-_, upholding the Director's Determination that
all single-family residential homes are required to have two off-street parking
spaces located within a garage having a minimum interior dimension of
20x20 feet, and that except for driveway guest parking, tandem garage
parking for single-family detached homes is expressly prohibited; or,
2
2. Provide staff/with alternative direction.
Planner
Attachments
1. Proposed Floor Plan and Elevations
2. Appellant's Letter dated April 16, 2012
3. Director's Determination Letter dated May 7, 2012
4. Application for Appeal Information and Documentation
5. Letter from Neighboring Property Owner
6. Applicable Code Section: LQMC Section 9.150.080
91
ATTACHMENT # 1
co
0
NEIGHBORS ��ST�NG FENCE
- LINE 55.74'
PROPERTY'
--� I.•I Ili
U
/LJ�
7i
L�
Om
N
1
wo
m.
F
U,l
cQ
G
LW
r
co
Or
O
0
4
3
w
ff
N
r
w
O
z
J
W
N
Z L
W
N
0
0 N
0
_
W Q
O
�Z
a4
oe
W O
ZJ
nWN
N
i-
W
Q
W (V�
U
O
�ag
m
�N-�EZUMP
Pv�N�oP M
Roger and Jenny Ernest
5281 E. 4 h Street
Long Beach, CA 90814
April 16, 2012
Les Johnson
Planning Director
City of La Quinta Planning Department
Ijohnson@la-quinta.org
Dear Mr. Johnson,
Pr416
City a
Planning �c,�c��rtmnt
ATTACHMENT # 2
Thank you for discussing the Planning Department's review of our building plans this past
Friday with us, our architect, and our general contractor. As we stated in the meeting, we have
been mindful of complying with the La Quinta Municipal Code, and for this reason, we were
very surprised and dismayed that our plans were not approved. We maintain that our plans are
not out of compliance with L.Q.M.C. 9.150.080 and should be approved.
In the memorandum regarding `Building Plans — 52-160 Avenida Montezuma," Assistant
Planner Eric Ceja offered the following comments for correction so that our plans would comply
with L.Q.M.C. Title 9 — Zoning:
"Per the City's Municipal Code (L.Q.M.C. 9.150.080) tandem garages are only permitted
in mobile home parks or as excess parking once the minimum parking standards ate met.
Therefore, the Planning Department cannot approve the plans as submitted."
2. "Per the City's Municipal Code (L.Q.M.C. 9.150.080) single-family homes must provide
two spaces of off-street parking within a garage. The minimum -standard set by the
Municipal Code for a single-family home garage is twenty feet by twenty feet (20'x20')
of interior space."
These comments are confusing to us because they reference specific language in L.Q.M.C.
9.150.080 we cannot find. Regarding Mr. Ceja's first comment above, there is no mention of
"tandem garages" in L.Q.M.C. 9.150.080 but rather only "tandem parking."
9.150.080 Parking facility design standards.
A. Parking Layout and Circulation.
3. Tandem parking shall be permitted only in mobile home parks/subdivisions, as
driveway guest parking for single-family detached, single-family attached and
duplex residential uses, and where valet parking is provided.
This standard pertains to "Parking Layout and Circulation" that is outside of a garage. The term
"driveway guest parking" is bold-faced above because "driveway guest parking" does not apply
to "garage resident parking." The L.Q.M.C. does not reference "tandem garages" for off-street
parking in a mobile home park, either, which per L.Q.M.C. 9.150.060 C. Table 9-11 requires "2
covered spaces/unit, which may be in tandem, plus 0.8 spaces per unit."
At the same time, per Table 9-11, the minimum off-street parking requirement for single-family
detached homes is "2 spaces per unit in a garage plus 0.5 guest spaces per unit if no on -street
parking is available." Important here, there is no restriction against tandem parking in a garage
for single-family detached homes.
The only other mention of tandem in Table 9-11 is for `Employee quarters," where the minimum
off-street parking requirement is "one covered or uncovered space" with the stipulation: "Phis
shall not be tandem." It is significant that the L.Q.M.C. is making explicit distinctions about
tandem parking, none of which apply to single-family detached home garages.
Mr. Ceja's second comment above is also confusing to us: "The minimum standard set by the
Municipal Code for a single-family home garage is twenty feet by twenty feet (20'x20') of
interior space." These dimensions are cited in the L.Q.M.C. as a parenthetical example, and it is
significant to note that parentheses in English are used to indicate non -essential information.
9.150.080 Parking facility design standards.
B. Parking Facility Design and Dimensions.
11. Residential Garages. Minimum interior dimensions in residential garages and
carports shall be fen feet in width per car by twentyfeet in depth. (For example, a
two -car garage shall be minimum twentyfeet wide by twentyfeet deep.)
Though we understand the L.Q.M.C. has been interpreted by the Planning Commission over the
years to define the minimum dimensions for a single-family home garage as twenty feet by
twenty feet of interior space, this is only one example of the requirement for "Parking Facility
Design and Dimensions/Residential Garages." The L.Q.M.C. requires only that the "Minimum
interior dimensions in residential garages and carports shall be ten feet in width per car
and twenty feet in depth."
Since this section dealing with design and dimensions does not say, "This is not tandem," it is
reasonable to conclude that interior dimensions for a two -car garage could also be minimum ten
feet wide by forty feet deep, as another example, which meets the 10'x20' requirement per car.
One of the concerns of the Planning Department that you raised is whether or not the tandem
garage would simply be used to park one car and the other space would be used by the
homeowner for storage. We recognize, of course, some homeowners are already violating that
requirement, even though their garage has side -by -side parking spaces: (1) "All required off-
street parking spaces shall be designed, located, constructed and maintained so as to be fully and
independently usable and accessible at all times," and (2) "Required off-street parking facilities
and driveways shall not be used for any purpose which at any time would preclude the use of the
area for the temporary storage of motor vehicles" (L.Q.M.C. 9.150.040 B.1. and 2.).
The answer to this concern is that any single-family detached home with a twQ-car tandem
garage must comply with the L.Q.M.C. With this in mind, we fail to understand a reason to
disallow two -car tandem garages. Granted, the tandem garage is not as convenient for parking
two cars, but this is a small price to pay for the benefit of being able to enjoy the mountain
panorama that homeowners and builders should expect with any property that affords a view.
And this is the reason for using a two -car tandem garage in the Cove. The lots are narrow and
the view is precious.
The overriding issues are aesthetic. Personally, our goal was to purchase a lot on Montezuma --
we spent four years waiting for the right property —then design a house that would take the
greatest advantage of the view. Though our property sits at the very base of the mountain, we
designed the house so that we could see blue sky above the Santa Rosas.
As we know, most of the houses in the Cove have a garage with side -by -side spaces for two cars,
taking up at least twenty feet in width of a buildable forty feet on a 50'x 100' lot. This means
that literally fifty percent of the view is taken by the garage.
The solution then is to minimize the garage by going tandem. For us, tandem was the only
solution. Our garage is 12' wide and the entire front of the house provides mountain views.
Also, the tandem garage permits us to design the house with a generous 12' setback from our
future neighbors on the north side of the property, so that our house would have the least impact
on their view of the mountain from their living room.
Since there is such a repetition of garages that look like garages in the Cove, we wanted to
design a garage for our home that was so integrated in style with the rest of the design that it did
not look like there was a garage door in front of the house. One of the important aesthetic
concerns of the Planning Commission for the Cove is the repetition of architectural style; the
Planning Commission does not want house after house looking the same. What becomes readily
apparent, however, is that house after house in the Cove has a two -car garage that is the major
architectural feature in front of the house. This has generally been a result of necessity, simply
the way it's been done in the past, and for many homeowners, this is not an issue.
However, by allowing builders the option of using either 20'x20' or the 10'x40'iayoutfor a two -
car tandem garage, more architectural variety would be available. Homebuyers would have
more options to discuss with builders. As our general contractor suggested in our meeting, this
could be a real benefit to the community as another option, a creative way of utilizing the narrow
lots of the Cove.
Please advise us of the next steps we need to take to get our plans approved.
Sincerely,
Roger and Jenny Ernest
(562) 986-1288 home
(562)818-8187 cell
ito]
ATTACHMENT # 3
644 Q
E
P.O. Box 1504
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92247-1504
78-495 CALLS TAMPICO (760) 777-7000
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 FAX (760) 777-7101
May 7, 2012
Roger and Jenny Ernest
5281 E. 4" Street
Long Beach, CA 90814
RE: Director's Determination Regarding a Proposed Tandem Garage at 52-160 Avenida
Montezuma
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Ernest,
I have received and reviewed your letter dated April 16, 2012, regarding your proposed
building plans and your request to construct a tandem garage at a new residence located
at 52-160 Avenida Montezuma in the La Quinta Cove.
It is my determination that, as per Section 9.150.080 of the La Quinta Municipal Code, all
single family residential homes are required to have two off-street parking spaces located
within a garage having a minimum interior clearance of 20x20 feet. Furthermore, it is my
determination that, except for driveway guest parking, tandem garage parking for single
family detached homes is expressly prohibited as per Section 9.150.080[A.31.
This decision may be appealed to the La Quinta Planning Commission, provided a formal
application for appeal and filing fee of $175.00 are submitted in person to the Planning
Department within 15 calendar days of this letter. Please contact our office should you
wish to file an appeal, and we will assist you in that regard.'
If you have any questions regarding this determination,' please contact me at (760) 777-
C: Greg Butler, Building & Safety Director
Burt Hanada, Plans Examiner
Eric Ceja, Assistant Planner
Mlil,jO�'Pj§
ATTACHMENT # 4
City of La Quinta t �` " r ; OMCE USE ONLY
k'R, ; case No. Of k �-` 0
Planning Department
78-495 Calle Tampico er;,: ` Date4--a-
La - t y
FFen1911 DeN I ."; Fee: Quinta, California 92253 me RelatedApps.:
(760) 777-7125 FAX: (760) 777-1233
Logged in by.
Application for
Appeal of Findings and/Or Conditions
Appellant's Name Roger and .fenny. Ernest Date May 2012
Mailing Address V2 I E. 4th St.
Lgng Peacti; CA 9081 1 Phone: (562 ) 9$6-1288;
moo) eta-6167 CELL
3F7. PSD3
Resolution # and Condition(s) of Approval being appealed Tandem Garage at 51AWAyenido Montezuma
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.)
I
_ Tentative Tract Mat L_
Tentative Parcel Min
Site Development Permit
Temporary Use Permit
Other
DMAY 112012 1 .
Please provide sufficient information so as to make clear the substance of each of the grounds for appeal. If
applicable; indicate the number of the specific condition which is being protested.
,vwv,r aywv„v,v�+yams+wNaa,y�arrnw�car�vrr�+r:Rearnnrynrayaray.-:.r�rGt4rwrfrHi!!ay-c.Fn`OYVOW
tt� '.,....
h,1tY>Cd0 space, pet car, per SeeGGstt g;160:itBE: A 7lle Grade offers an exa pie ( t1 x20! in pa1*4ht1*SSsj .fiat iY
I expressly prOb it tan!tender garage^ garcland "tandem gdrage'psrking° do not
in the'Code. 1?iE8513 see'attaced dvitmentatitrti riding Ccae cithti4C19 teing kartdam pacidng.
Use additional sheets if necessary.
StguaiMiv f Appellant 12
Roger and Jenny Ernest
5281 E. 4 b Street
Long Beach, CA 90814
Re: Appeal Addendum, "Tandem Garage at 52-160 Avenida Montezuma"
May 11, 2012
We appeal the Planning Director's determination regarding our proposed plans that include a
tandem garage for our single-family detached home.
We purchased our perimeter lot in the Cove because it provided a panoramic view of the Santa
Rosas. In this area, the lots are narrow and the view is precious. This is our reason for using a
tandem garage on our view lot. It reduces the parking footprint and provides us with a greater
panoramic view.
In a letter dated May 7, 2012, Planning Director Les Johnson's determination that "per Section
9.150.080 of the La Quinta Municipal Code, all single family residential homes are required to
have two off-street parking spaces located within a garage having a minimum interior clearance
of 20x20 feet" is unsupported and cited incorrectly.
Section 9.150.080 does not state the requirement for two off-street parking spaces within a
garage; instead, Section 9.150.060 C. Table 9-11 is the correct citation for the off-street parking
space requirement of single-family detached homes. The minimum off-street parking
requirement is explicitly stated: "2 spaces per unit in a garage plus 0.5 guest spaces per unit if no
on -street parking is available." There is no restriction against tandem parking in a garage for
single-family detached homes.
There are two references to tandem parking in Table 9-11. One is for "Employee quarters,"
where the minimum off-street parking requirement is "one covered or uncovered space" with the
stipulation: "This shall not be tandem." The second is for off-street parking in a mobile home
park, which is the following: "2 covered spacestunit, which may be in tandem, plus 0.8 spaces
per unit." It is significant that Table 9-11 makes explicit distinctions about tandem parking, none
of which apply to parking spaces in garages of single-family detached homes.
Furthermore, Mr. Johnson's determination that the garage for single-family residential homes
must have "a minimum interior clearance of 20x20 feet" is unsupported. The minimum interior
dimensions for residential garages, per Section 9.150.080 [B.11.1, is determined only as a
function of the parking space width and depth of a single car; the 20' x 20' dimensions are stated
only as an "example" for a two -car garage, which does not expressly disallow a tandem
configuration. The only standard is that the "minimum interior dimensions in residential garages
... shall be ten feet in width per car by twenty feet in depth," as stated in the following section:
13
Ernest Appeal Addendum
9.150.080 Parking facility design standards.
B. Parking Facility Design and Dimensions.
11. Residential Garages. Minimum interior dimensions in residential garages and
carports shall be ten feet in width per car by twenty feet in depth. (For example, a
two -car garage shall be minimum twentyfeet wide by twentyfeet deep.)
It is significant to note that parentheses in English are used to indicate non -essential information,
so the sentence --(For example, a two -car garage shall be minimum twenty feet wide by twenty
feet deep.} —provides only one "example" that adheres to the 10' x 20' dimensions required as
parking space for each car. Another example is a tandem garage with minimum interior
dimensions of 10' x 40', which also satisfies the standard to provide parking space "ten feet in
width per car by twenty feet in depth."
If the standard were restricted to only a 20' x 20' garage, the L.Q.M.C. should read: "Minimum
interior dimensions in residential garages and carports shall be twenty feet in width by twenty
feet in depth." There would be no parentheses or per car dimensions. As the L.Q.M.C. is
written, this is not the case. The section does not say, "This shall not be tandem."
Additionally, Planning Director Johnson's determination that "tandem garage parking for single-
family detached homes is expressly prohibited as per Section 9.150.080 [A.3.]" is also
unsupported. This section references specifically "Parking Layout and Circulation," and does
not "expressly prohibit" or even address garage parking, tandem or otherwise. In fact, the term
"tandem garage parking" is nowhere expressed in the L.Q.M.C. There is no mention of "tandem
garages" in Section 9.150.080 but rather only "tandem parking" as "driveway guest parking for
single-family detached ... residential uses."
9.150.080 Parking facility design standards.
A. Parking Layout and Circulation.
3. Tandem parking shall be permitted only in mobile home parks/subdivisions, as
driveway guest parking for single-family detached, single-family attached and
duplex residential uses, and where valet parking is provided.
This standard pertains to "Parking Layout and Circulation" that is outside of a garage. The term
"driveway guest parking" does not apply to residential garage design and dimensions, addressed
separately in Section 9.150.080 [B.I I j.
The two -car tandem garage provides more architectural variety for homeowners, particularly in
the Cove with its garage -dominant houses, and offers a creative way of utilizing narrow lots.
14
Jay Wuu ATTACHMENT # 5
From:
Steven Lachman <lachmanentertainment@earthlink.net>
Sent:
Saturday, June 09, 2012 1:29 PM
To:
Jay Wuu
Cc:
maize@empirewestdev.com; spowley@tbparchitecture.com
Subject:
Action on Appeal (app 12-007 tandem garage appeal
Dear Mr. Wuu,
My (hopefully soon) new neighbors, Jenny & Roger Ernest have shown their house plans to my husband and myself and
we loved them. We thought the idea of a tandem garage was genius. Not only is the design efficient it allows the eye to
focus on the beauty of the house and not on some large looming garage.
Sincerely,
Pat & Steve Lachman
52140 Avenida Montezuma
LQ
760-989-9940
15
6121112
La Quinta Municipal Code
9.150.080 Parking facility design standards.
ATTACHMENT # 6
Up Previous Next
Title 9 ZONING
Chapter 9.150 PARKING
Main `search Print No Frames
9.150.080 Parldng facility design standards.
A. Parking Layout and Circulation.
1. Except for single-family detached, single-family attached, duplex and townhome residential uses, no
parking facility shall be designed so that vehicles are required to back into a public street to exit the
facility.
3. Tandem parking shall be permitted only in mobilehome parks/subdivisions, as driveway guest }
parking for single-family detached, single-family attached and duplex residential uses, and where valet
4. wan the exception of single-family detached, single-family attached and duplex residential uses, all
parking bays shall be bordered by continuous curbs to serve as drainage channels and as wheel stops.
Individual wheel stops shall not be permitted in lieu of such curbs.
5. All driveways shall be designed for positive drainage. If an inverted crown is proposed for a
driveway, the center portion shall be a ribbon gutter of Portland cement concrete rather than asphaltic
concrete.
6. Parking lot layouts shall provide a clear hierarchy of major access drives (connecting the parking
area to the public street), fire lanes, loading areas, minor drives, parking bay maneuvering areas, etc.
Parking shall not be arranged to require backing out into major access drives.
7. In order to avoid dead-end aisles, parking bays with ten spaces or more shall connect with other
parking bays or drive aisles or shall provide a turnaround area at the end of the bay.
8. Parking accessways are those driveways that provide ingress or egress from a street to the parking
aisles, and those driveways providing interior circulation between parking aisles. No parking is permitted
on an accessway. Such accessways shall conform to the following standards:
a. All parking facilities taking access from a major, primary or secondary arterial highway shall
have a parking accessway between the arterial and the parking aisles.
b. Parking accessways from arterial highways shall not have parking spaces taking direct access
therefrom and shall not be intersected by a parking aisle or another parking accessway for a
minimum distance of thirty feet for projects with zero to two hundred parking spaces, fifty feet for
projects with two hundred one to three hundred fifty spaces, seventy feet for projects with three
hundred fifty-one to four hundred fifty spaces, and ninety feet for projects with four hundred fifty-
one spaces or more. All distances shall be measured from the curb face of the ultimate curbline of
the adjacent street.
c. Parking accessways from nonarterial streets and highways shall be not less than twenty feet
in length from the ultimate curbline of the adjacent street.
d. One-way accessways shall have a minimum width of fifteen feet, unless the accessway is a
fire lane, which requires a minimum of twenty feet.
e. Two-way accessways shall have a minimum width of twenty-eight feet.
9. Entry/exit driveways shall be placed where they result in the least interference with the flow of
traffic on the public street to which they connect.
10. Joint entry driveways are encouraged and shall be arranged to allow parking lot maneuvering Vbm
qcode.us/codesAaquintaNiew.php?topic=9-9_150-9_150_080&frames=on 1/10
6/21112 9.150.080 Parking facility design standards.
7. Space Marking. All parking spaces in a residential or nonresidential parking lot shall be clearly
marked with white or yellow paint or other easily distinguished material with each space marking
consisting of a double four inch wide hairpin stripe, twelve inches on -center.
8. Entry/Exit Driveways. Entry and exit driveways for commercial and multifamily parking lots shall
be a minimum of twenty-eight feet wide plus any median width (medians shall be a minimum of three
feet wide). Additional turning lanes, if required, shall be a minimum of twelve feet in width. One-way
entry or exit drives shall be a minimum of sateen feet in width. Maximum driveway width shall be
forty-eight feet plus median width properly radiused. Internal driveways shall conform to the minimum
widths, depending on the angle of parking in Table 9-13 of this section.
9. Curve Radii. Entry driveways shall have a minimum curb radius of five feet. Internal curb radii shall
be a minimum of three feet. Driveway curve radius shall be a minimum of sateen feet inside and
twenty-nine feet outside if confined by a curb or other construction.
10. Sight Distance. No parking space shall encroach on the obstruction -free zone provided for sight
distance at access points to major drives or streets. The obstruction -free zone shall be a six -foot -wide
linear strip adjacent to the curbline of the street or major drive and shall extend in both directions from
11. Residential Garages. Minimum interior dimensions in residential garages and carports shall be ten
feet in width per car by twenty feet in depth. (For example, a two -car garage shall be minimum twenty
feet wide by twenty feet deep.)
1. Fire lanes meeting fire department standards shall be provided to allow access to all structures
(both front and rear) for fire, law enforcement, and emergency medical purposes.
2. Five lanes shall be kept separate from loading or service areas and the overall parking layout shall
be configured so as to minimize possible obstruction of the fire lane.
3. Fire lanes shall be adequately marked and patrolled to prevent parking and other obstructions.
D. Pedestrian Circulation.
1. The purpose of a parking lot is to provide for the transition from vehicular to pedestrian movement.
All parking lot arrangements shall be designed to provide for the maximum safety and convenience of
pedestrians in their movement to and from the parking area.
2. Where possible, landscaped areas shall also contain paved pedestrian walks for the safe movement
of pedestrians.
3. On major driveways, crosswalks shall be provided to mark cross -vehicular pedestrian movement.
4. Textured surfaces, signs and speed bumps shall be used to keep vehicular speeds low.
E. Loading and Other Service Facilities.
1. Off -Street Loading Requirements.
a. Whenever the city determines that the normal operation of any use or development requires
that goods, merchandise or equipment to be routinely delivered to or shipped from that location,
sufficient off-street loading and unloading area must be provided in accordance with this
subsection to accommodate such activities in a safe and efficient manner. For purposes of this
chapter, the term "loading" means both loading and unloading.
b. Table 9-14 following shows the number and size of loading berths expected to satisfy the
standards set forth in this subsection. However, the planning commission may require more or less
loading area if it determines such change to be necessary to satisfy the purpose set forth in
subsection (E)(1)(a) of this section:
17
qcode.us/codesllaquintaMew.php9topic=9-9_150-9_150_080&frames=on 3110
PLANNING COMMISSION PH # A
STAFF REPORT
DATE: JUNE 26, 2012
CASE NO.: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2011-138
APPLICANT: CROWN CASTLE - SUSAN MAKINSON
REQUEST: CONSIDER ACTION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
A SINGLE -POLE DISTRIBUTED ANTENNA SYSTEM (DAS)
AT EISENHOWER PARK
LOCATION: 53-490 EISENHOWER DRIVE - EISENHOWER PARK
(ATTACHMENT 1)
PROPERTY
OWNER: CITY OF LA QUINTA
GENERAL PLAN: MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR)
ZONING: COVE RESIDENTIAL (RC)
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION: THE LA QUINTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAS
DETERMINED THAT THIS PROPOSAL IS CATEGORICALLY
EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15332 (CLASS 32) OF THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA), IN
THAT THIS IS AN IN -FILL PROJECT SURROUNDED BY
URBAN SERVICES AND EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS
SURROUNDING
LAND USES:
NORTH:
COVE RESIDENTIAL (RC)
SOUTH:
COVE RESIDENTIAL (RC)
EAST:
COVE RESIDENTIAL (RC)
WEST:
COVE RESIDENTIAL (RC)
BACKGROUND:
Conditional Use Permit 2011-138 is scheduled for public hearing before the
Planning Commission at tonight's meeting. However, the applicant has proposed
changes to their original request which requires additional staff review, and
therefore, it is necessary for this item to be continued to the next regularly
scheduled Planning Commission meeting of July 10, 2012. Therefore, staff
recommends that the Planning Commission open the public hearing and
immediately move to continue CUP 2011-138 to the July 10, 2012, meeting.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission continue this public hearing to
the July 10, 2012 Planning Commission date to allow staff additional time to
review the changes proposed by the application.
Prepared by:
a
ERIC CEJA, A i tant Planner
Attachments:
1. Susan Makinson Email request for Continuance to July 10, 2012
ATTACHMENT # 1
To: Les Johnson; Makinson, Susan (Contractor)
Cc: David Sawyer; Michael W. Shonafelt
Subject: RE: City of La Quinta - CUP 11-138
-----Original Message -----
From: Makinson, Susan (Contractor) lmailto:Susan Makinson Contractor@crowncastle coml
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 12:35 PM
To:LesJohnson
Cc: David Sawyer; Eric Ceja; Michael W. Shonafelt; Makinson, Susan (Contractor)
Subject: RE: City of La Quinta - CUP 11-138
Les,
As a followup to Michael's email, I want to confirm that in my conversation earlier today with Eric, he brought to my
attention that the Public Works department did not have an opportunity to review the Right -of -Way location that we
are proposing, as they did not need to be involved in reviewing the location when it was proposed in the City Park. They
will require a ten-day period in which to review our proposed project which means that we will be unable to stay on the
agenda for next Tuesday as there will not be sufficient time for them to review prior to the hearing. Therefore, it is my
understanding that our CUP application will need to be continued to the July loth hearing to accommodate for this.
To confirm, we will be sending out fifteen (15) copies of the Right -of -Way location zoning document packets to the City
via FedEx for delivery tomorrow. Additionally, we will provide you with five (5) copies of a confirmation letter from III)
as soon as we receive it, which we anticipate being included in the same delivery to you tomorrow, however, in the
event that our contact cannot provide it that quickly, we assure you that it will be sent before the end of the week and
hope that this will be acceptable in light of the new hearing date.
Regards,
Susan Makinson
Contractor, DAS Land Use
Crown Castle
susan.makinson.contractorCcDcrowncastle com<mailto•susan makinson contractor(a)crowncastle com>
480.430.3682
BI#B
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: JUNE 26, 2012
CASE No.: DIRECTOR'S DETERMINATION — NOTICE OF VIOLATION
2012-00001808
APPELLANT: MICHAEL PITTS
REQUEST: APPEAL OF DIRECTOR'S DETERMINATION REGARDING THE
USE OF WOOD FENCING ALONG THE FRONT AND SIDE
YARDS IN THE LA QUINTA COVE
LOCATION: PARCEL 773-102-007, 51-411 AVENIDA VILLA (BEHIND THE
LA QUINTA MUSEUM (ATTACHMENT 1)
PROPERTY
OWNER: IRENE M. GARTNER TRUST
BACKGROUND:
In accordance with Section 9.200.120 (B) of the La Quinta Municipal Code, the
Planning Commission is identified as the appeal body for decisions by the Planning
Director. 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 the Director's determination has been correctly applied based upon the
facts presented in this report.
On April 2, 2012, Code Compliance Officers observed a new wood fence at 51-411
Avenida Villa, in the La Quinta Cove. The wood fence was constructed along the side
and front yards of the property and was visible from the surrounding streets. A 10-day
Courtesy Notice was issued to the renter informing them to contact the Planning and
Building Departments for permits on the fence (Attachment 2).
In early May Mr. Michael Pitts, renter at 51-411 Avenida Villa, met with Planning
Department staff over the counter to discuss his fence material. Staff informed him of
the Municipal Code provisions as they relate to fence materials and informed him that
he could request a Directors Determination if he thought the code was not accurately
being interpreted. Mr. Pitts indicated that he would like the Director to review the
fence and to make a determination.
On May 14, 2012, the Planning Director issued a letter to Mr. Michael Pitts informing
him of his determination regarding the use of wood fencing materials on residentially
zoned properties (Attachment 3). The letter cites L.Q.M.0 Section 9.60.030 E (1)a -
"Fences and Walls" as stating that "wood and vinyl or similar recycled fencing
materials are permitted in rear or interior side yards only, and only if not visible from
the street". The letter further explained that fence was in violation of the Municipal
Code and that Mr. Pitts could appeal the Director's Determination to the Planning
Commission.
On May 29, 2012, Mr. Michael Pitts submitted an Application for Appeal of a
Director's Determination to the Planning Department. The application was received
and a $175.00 fee was accepted (Attachment 4).
ANALYSIS:
Section 9.60.030 of the La Quinta Municipal Code addresses fences and walls for
residentially zoned properties. This code section provides specifics for wall placement,
height restrictions, and permissible materials (Attachment 8). Per Section 9.60.030 E-
1 a "Wood and Vinyl Fencing" - "wood and vinyl or similar recycled fencing materials
are permitted in rear or interior side yards only, and only if not visible from the street".
This section permits new wood fencing only when not visible from surrounding streets
and therefore, new wood fencing is typically limited to interior side yards and rear yard
property lines. Nearly all new fencing which obtains a building permit is reviewed by
the Planning Department. Consistent with the code and past practice, the Planning
Department has not permitted new wood fencing along the street in any neighborhood.
Based upon site visits, aerial and site photos the newly constructed wood fence is
visible from surrounding streets including, Avenida Villa and an unnamed alleyway
along the north property line (Attachment 5). Because of the wall's location and
visibility from surrounding streets the wall does not comply with Section 9.60.030 E-
1 a.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Planning Commission Minute Motion 2012-_, upholding the Director's
Determination that Section 9.60.030 has been correctly applied and that as
identified in the staff report the existing wood fence does not comply with
L.Q.M.0 Section 9.60.030.
Submitted by:
r�4.
ERIC CEJA, istant Planner
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. April 2, 2012 Notice of Public Nuisance (Case 12-00001808)
3. Director's Determination (May 14, 2012)
4. Appeal 2012-008 application
5. L.Q.M.0 Section 9.60.030
6. Photographs depicting violations
ATTACHMENT 1
A 1 1 AUMMCIN I G
p
3
gym.. o
aE
�
g
egg$
9
F!
U
\ATTACHMENT3
Tjtv/ 4 4 a"
P.O. Box 1504
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92247-1504
78-495 CALLe TAMPICO (760) 7 7 7 - 7 0 0 0
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 FAX (760) 777-7101
May 14, 2012
Mike Pitts
P.O. Box 801
La Quinta, CA 92247
RE: Director's Determination Regarding Proposed Wooden Fencing along a Side Yard at
51-411 Avenida Villa
Dear Mr. Pitts,
I have received and reviewed your request for a Director's Determination regarding the
construction of a wooden fence along a side yard at 51-411 Avenida Villa in the La Quinta
Cove. Your residence is located at the corner of Avenida Villa, a public street, and an un-
named alley which has been identified as a 20' wide dedicated public right-of-way.
Section 9.60:030 of the La Quinta Municipal Code states that "wood and vinyl or similar
recycled fencing materials are permitted in rear or interior side yards only, and only if not
visible from the street."
Based upon my review of your property, existing public rights -of -way, and site photos, it is
my determination that your wooden fencehas been constructed along an exterior side
setback, is currently visible from the street, and is therefore not in compliance with Section
9.60.030 of the La Quinta Municipal Code.
This decision may be appealed to the, La Quinta Planning Commission, provided a formal
application for appeal and Ailing fee of 8175.00 are submitted in person to the Planning
Department within 15 calendar days of this letter. Please contact our office should you
wish to file an appeal, and we will assist you in that regard. If you have any questions
regarding this determination, please contact me at (760) 777-7125.
ees JoI jAson,
Planning Director
C: Greg Butler, Building & Safety Director
Debra Conrad, Community Safety Manager
Moises Rodarte, Code Compliance Officer 11
Etury
ATTACHMENT 4
City of La Quinta
Planning Department
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California 92253
(760) 777-7125 FAX: (760) 777-1233
Finance Codes: PC — 29/CC - 30
Appellant's
Mailing Address
L4 Q(111VrA U 12-2 V 7- Phone:--(7&Y)) V/Z 6001
OFFICE USE ONLY
Case No. IZ_pp$
nateRecvd:_� 2A' 2
Fee: *1-15
Related Apps.:
Logged in by: �-
Application for
Anneal of Findings And/Or Conditions
-
Resolution # and Condition(s) of Approval being appealed n/ I-c1-7 ir�/�9f?°i
�-MA, e. of Qra\atto C.e t( Iz-00001609
Any development review action may be a . tWt to Section 9:200.120 of the zoning Code.
e . -- __
Please identify the type of application �� kZ i±j,-----ti'S
Type of Appeal: c r_, : ; if
rtdre4 t
Change of Zone Tentative Tra MalrF�„NA vt F �r !
Specific Plan Tentative Parcel Map
Conditional Use Permit Site Development Permit
Variance Temporary Use Permit
Minor Use Permit Other
Please provide sufficient information so as to make clear the substance of each of the grounds for appeal. If
applicable, indicate the number of the specific condition which is being protested.
/" � l /JCNC-P
Use additional sheets if necessary.
of Appellant
,�c-\ 6ko;5.> (L"bP,4v
P:\Annlicatinns\Anneal Findin¢s-Cand.dnc
! of 1371 A
La Quinta Municipal Code (La Quinta, California)
La Quinta Municipal Code
Up Previous Next Main Search
ATTACHMENT 5
Print No Frames
Title 9 ZONING
Chapter 9.60 SUPPLEMENTAL RESIDENTIAL REGULATIONS
9.60.030 Fences and wags.
A. Definition. For purposes of this section, "fence" or `wall" means any type offence, wall, retaining wall,
sound attenuation wall, screen or windscreen. The terms "fence" and "wall" are used interchangeably in this
section to mean any or all of the preceding structures.
B. Measurement of Fence Height. Except as otherwise specified in this section, fence heights shall be
measured from finish grade at the base of the fence to the highest point of the fence on the interior or
exterior side, whichever is higher.
Atcasarement of Fence Height
In addition, the following provisions shall apply to the measurement of fence height:
1. Open railings, up to forty-eight inches high, placed on top of a retaining or other wall and required
for pedestrian safety shall not be included in the height measurement.
2. Fences less than thirty inches apart (measured between adjoining faces) shall be considered one
structure and fence height shall be measured from the base of the lower fence to the top of the higher
fence. Fences thirty inches or more apart shall be considered separate structures and their heights shall
be measured independently. The director may require that the area between such fences be provided
with permanent landscaping and irrigation.
C. Fence Heights. The construction and installation offences shallbe in compliance with the following
standards:
1. Within Main Building Area. In the area of a lot where a main building may be constructed, the
maximum freestanding fence height shall be twelve feet.
2. Setback Areas Not Bordering Streets. The maximum fence height shallbe six feet within any
required setback area not adjoining a street. Where the elevation of an adjoining building site is higher
than the base of the fence within a side or rear setback area, the height of the fence may be measured
from the elevation of the adjoining building site to the top of the fence. However, fence height shall not
exceed eight feet measured from either side with the exception of the RC district (see Section
9.30.040).
3. Setback Areas Bordering Streets, Alleys and Other Accessway.
a. Within all districts, the maximum fence height shallbe five feet within the first ten feet of the
required front setback area (measured from the street right-of-way) and six feet within any rear
or side setback area adjoining a public street.
qoode.us/codes/laquinta/ 1/3
j 6n3/liti La Quinta Municipal Code (La Quinta, California)
b. Notwithstanding other fence height restrictions, where, because of the orientation of the lots, a
property line fence separates a front yard on one lot from a rear yard on an adjacent lot, the
maximum fence height shall be six feet.
c. Arches or trellises up to nine feet in overall height and five feet interior width may be
constructed over a gate on a lot provided the arch/trellis is integrated into the fence/gate design.
d. Any portion of a building site where vehicular access is taken shall conform to the access
intersection requirements of subsection (C)(4) of this section.
e. City- or state -required sound attenuation walls bordering freeways or arterial highways may
exceed six feet in height if so recommended by a noise attenuation study and approved by the
director.
4. Adjacent to a Nonresidential Zone or Use. The maximum fence height between a residential zone
or use and a nonresidential zone or use shall be eight feet.
a. The height of fences, trees, shrubs and other visual obstructions shall be limited to a maximum
height of thirty inches within the triangular area formed by drawing a straight line:
i Between two points located on and twenty feet distant from the point of intersection of
two ultimate street right-of-way lies.
ii Between two points located on and five feet distant from the point of intersection of an
ultimate street or alley right-of-way on one hand and the edge of a driveway or another alley
right-of-way on the other if parkway width is less than twelve feet wide.
b. For purposes of this code, "point of intersection" means the intersection of the prolongation of
the right-of-way lines, excluding any curved portion joining the two lines.
c. The height restrictions of this subdivision shall apply to fences, walls, trees, shrubs, vegetation,
or any other material which obstructs or may obstruct visibility.
D. Gates.
1. Materials. Gates shall be constructed of ornamental iron/tubular steel and/or wood. Such gates may
be placed in any location provided they meet the requirements of this section and provided any wood
used is not less than a grade of construction heart or merchantable and better redwood or No. 2 and
better (no holes) western red cedar, stained or painted to match or complement the adjacent wall or
structure. Alternatively, if left in natural color, all wood shall be treated with a water -repellant material.
Wood gates over thirty-six inches wide shall have a metal frame. Chain link gates are prohibited
Vehicular driveway gates shall be constructed of ornamental iron/tubular steel and metal if solid. If
screening an RV, the gate shall be constructed of a solid opaque material.
2. Width. Pedestrian gates shall not exceed five feet in width, except that gates may be any width
within sideyard setbacks of at least twelve feet.
1 . rence Construction and Materials. All fencing in residential districts shall conform to the following
construction and material standards:
1. Wood and Vinyl Fencing.
a. Except for gates, split two rail fencing, and for equestrian fencing regulated by Section
9.140.060, wood and vinyl or similar recycled fencing materials are permitted in rear or interior
side yards only, and only if not visible from the street. Gates may be of wood in any location
provided they comply with the standards of this section.
V. �u wvvu ivil :air btwu ua uutmu ut;teu u1 iivt less clan a grace oI construclion near or
merchantable and better redwood or No. 2 and better (no holes) western red cedar, stained or
painted to match or complement the adjacent wall or structure. Alternatively, if left in natural
color, all wood shall be treated with a water -repellant material.
c. All vinyl or similar recycled fencing material shall be constructed of an aluminum -reinforced
qcode.us/codes/laquinta/ 213
tins/l7„ La Quinta Municipal Code (La Quinta, California)
non -reflective material that contains antistatic and UV -radiation intubiting additives.
d Fence boards maybe horizontal or vertical. Support posts shall be a minimum of nominal four
inches by four inches redwood, pressure -treated lumber, tubular steel or block and installed per
the Uniform Building Code.
e. Split Rail Fencing. Split two rail fencing shall be allowed in the front yard or along the front
property line with columns a maximum height of four feet and three feet for the top rail Ail
columns shall be cemented with footings. Materials for the columns shall be wood, brick, or block
The rails may be either wood or other non -wood products that have the appearance of split rail. A
building permit shall be obtained prior to construction.
2. Ornamental Iron and Tubular Steel Fencing. Ornamental iron or tubular steel fencing may be used
along the front or street side yards only. The iron or steel shall be painted to match or complement the
adjacent wall or structure.
3. Masonry Fencing. Solid masonry fencing (i.e., block, rock, brick, with or without stucco covering) is
permitted in any location on the lot provided the color of the masonry or stucco matches or
complements the adjacent wall or structure. Precision concrete block shall not be used unless all
exterior surfaces visible from outside the property are covered with stucco, paint, texture coating, or
other comparable coating approved by the director.
4. Material Combinations. Combinations of two or more of the preceding materials may be used
provided that the bottom one-half of the fence is constructed of a masonry material, Combinations
incorporating wood materials shall only be used for the rear and interior side yards and only when not
visible from the street.
F. Fence Landscaping and Maintenance.
1. Landscaping. The area between the back of curb and any fencing shall be landscaped, have a
suitable permanent irrigation system, and be continuously maintained by the property owner.
2. Maintenance. All walls and fences shall be continuously maintained in good repair. The property
owner shall be provided thirty days after receiving notice from the city to repair a wall or fence. The
building official may grant an extension to such time period not to exceed sixty days.
G. Prohibited Fence Materials and Construction Fences. The use of barbed wise, razor wire, chain link, or
similar materials in or on fences is prohibited in all residential districts. Chain link fencing is permitted for
temporary construction fences when authorized by a minor use permit issued in accordance with Section
9.210.020. Said minor use permit shall not be approved until a permit for grading, or construction, has been
filed for, whichever comes first.
H. Equestrian Fencing. Notwithstanding any other requirements of this section, fencing shall be regulated by
the provisions of Section 9.140.060 (Equestrian overlay regulations) where the keeping of horses is
permitted
I. Nonconforming Fences. Any fence which does not meet the standards of this section but which was
legally established prior to the adoption of these standards may be maintained provided such fence is not
expanded nor its nonconformance with these standards otherwise increased. Any fence which is destroyed
or damaged to the extent of more than fifty percent of its total replacement value shall not be repaired,
rebuilt, or reconstructed except in conformance with these standards. (Ord 466 § 1, 2009; Ord. 378 § 1
(Exh. A), 2002; Ord 361 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 2001; Ord. 325 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 1998; Ord 299 § 1 (part),
1997; Ord. 284 § 1 (Exhs. A, B) (part), 1996)
qcode.us/codes/laquinta/ 3/3
CI # C
PLANNING COMMISSIONER ATTENDANCE
AT CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
JULY 3, 2012 THROUGH JUNE 17, 2013
` 4VA
July
3
Mark Weber
17
Robert Wilkinson
August
7
Robert Wright
21
Council Dark
September
4
Council Dark
18
Ed Alderson
October
2
Katie Barrows
16
Mark Weber
November
6
Robert Wilkinson
20
Robert Wright
December
4
Ed Alderson
18
Katie Barrows
2013
January
2
Mark Weber (Date to be verified - prior to Jan 15` Holiday)
15
Robert Wilkinson
February
5
Robert Wright
19
Ed Alderson
March
5
Katie Barrows
19
Mark Weber
April
2
Robert Wilkinson
16
Robert Wright
May
7
Ed Alderson
21
Katie Barrows
June
4
Mark Weber
18
Robert Wilkinson
P:\Reports - PC\2012\PC_6-26-12\COUNCIL ATTENDANCE LIST.docx
T'af ot 4 a"
MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Les Johnson, Planning Directo
DATE: June 26, 2012
SUBJECT: APPEAL 2012-008
The Planning Department received a request for continuance from the appellant due
to illness and inability to attend tonight's meeting (Attached). Therefore, staff
recommends that the Planning Commission continue Appeal 2012-008 to the July
10, 2012, meeting.
Attachments:
1) Michael Pitts (Appellant) email request for continuance
Eric Ceia
From: Michael Pitts <mrmikepitts@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 1:20 PM
To: Eric Ceja
Subject: 06/26/2012 planning commission meeting /51-411 Avenida Villa
Eric can we please postpone the hearing tonight in regards to 51-411 Avenida Villa for 2 weeks until the next
metting of the planning Commission ?
I am very ill with the Flu and hesitate to attend . i am not feeeling well at all and do not want to infect others
Please let e know ASAP if this is possible and if so when it would be but back on the calender for ?
Thank You For your Consideration
Michael Pitts
51 - 411 Avenida Villa
La Quinta CA 92253
760 699 3040
mrmikepitts@gmail.com