Loading...
2012 06 26 PC MinutesMINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78 -495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA June 26, 2012 CALL TO ORDER 7:02 p.m. A. A regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Chairman Alderson. PRESENT: Commissioners Barrows, Wilkinson, Weber, Wright, and Chairman Alderson. ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Les Johnson, Planning Manager David Sawyer, Associate Planner Jay Wuu, and Executive Secretary Carolyn Walker. IV V PUBLIC COMMENT: None CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA The order of Business Items A and B were reversed, due to a request for continuation. CONSENT CALENDAR: There being no comments, or suggestions, it was moved by Commissioners Barrows /Wilkinson to approve the minutes of May 22, 2012, as submitted. Unanimously approved. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Conditional Use Permit 2011 -138 a request by Crown Castle — Susan Makinson - for consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for a Single Distributed Antenna System (DAS) at Eisenhower Park located on the southeast corner of Eisenhower Drive and Calle Colima. Planning Director Johnson referred to the staff report stating staff's recommendation that the public hearing be opened and the item be continued to the July 10, 2012 meeting. Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2012 Chairman Alderson opened- the public hearing and requested continuance to the July 10, 2012 meeting. There being no further questions or discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Wilkinson /Barrows to continue consideration of Conditional Use Permit 2011-138 to the meeting of July 10, 2012. Unanimously approved. VI. BUSINESS ITEM: A. Appeal 2012 -008 — Director's Determination; a request by Michael Pitts for consideration of appeal of the Director's Determination regarding the use of wood fencing along the front and side yards in the La Quinta Cove; specifically the site located at 51 -411 Avenida Villa (Behind the La Quinta Museum). Applicant submitted an e-mail (on file in the Planning Department) requesting a time extension for two weeks to the Planning Commission meeting of July 10, 2012. There being no further questions or discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Wright /Barrows to continue this item to July 10, 2012, as requested by the applicant. Unanimously approved. B. Appeal 2012 -007 — Director's Determination; a request by Robert and Jenny Ernest for consideration of appeal of the Director's Determination regarding a proposed tandem garage to be located at 52 -160 Avenida Montezuma. Associate Planner Wuu presented the staff report, .a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. Staff noted additional information was distributed to the Commission prior to the meeting, and on file in the Planning Department. Chairman Alderson asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Weber asked if any of the neighbors had commented on the project. Staff suggested the applicant would be able. to answer the question. -2- Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2012 Commissioner Barrows referred to a statement in staff report suggesting if the Planning Commission would like to consider alternative parking configurations; such as this tandem garage, that they could direct staff to review this issue. She then asked how that would work in the case of this particular applicant. Planning Director Johnson responded the first issue was making the determination whether or not the Director's determination was correct. If it is determined that it was correct, the Commission could then direct staff to consider an amendment to the Municipal Code to specifically allow this type of parking situation within the Residential Cove (RC) District and then staff would proceed accordingly. Commissioner Barrows said the staff report stated that the parking ordinance was soon to be updated and she asked about the timing of that update. Staff responded it was a comprehensive effort which did not actually look at residential per se; but more on the commercial side. However, staff had started a preliminary effort in that vein. Staff estimated it would probably take 90 to 120 days to have a hearing before the Planning Commission and City Council for an Ordinance which could then require a 30 -day approval process. Commissioner Barrows asked if that was for the entire Parking Ordinance. Staff responded yes. Chairman Alderson commented that has nothing to with, or bearing on, this particular decision here tonight. Staff said yes. Chairman Alderson requested clarification that would be a consideration for a future modification. Staff said that was correct. Commissioner Barrows requested clarification that if the Commission were to uphold the Director's determination that would be the possible next step. Chairman Alderson responded that was correct; that was a possibility. Mr. Bruce Maize, (Consultant Contractor) 48 -476 Stillwater Drive, introduced himself and said he was speaking on behalf, of Mr. and Mrs. Ernest. He stated he had been working with them for the last -3- Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2012 several months and his company; Empire West Development, was projected to build their-home. He gave some background on how long he had lived in the Valley and what this plan brought to the La Quinta Cove.. He commented on the evolution of the Cove and how the City had worked to improve it; e.g.; curb and gutter and a sewer system. He stated this design was a wonderful complement to the eclectic nature of the Cove. He continued stating the following points: e He understood a precedent had been established by interpreting the Code with two (side -by -side) car garages. e Background on the Ernest'sreasons for choosing that particular lot and home design. e The language in the Code 'gives the Director some discretion and he chose not to choose that latitude in his decision. e He asked the Commission to choose to give the applicant that latitude by approving their appeal. e He pointed out how many different designs there were in the Cove and the fact that the Ernest's design certainly complements and fits into the Cove Design Guidelines, including the fact that there would be a two car garage. He then mentioned the various garage configurations throughout the Cove. e The Cove is so unique in its own character and the small lot configuration lends itself to a variety of different garage designs, and not just two car garages; side -by -side. Mrs. Jenny Ernest, 5281 East Fourth Street, Long Beach CA 90814 — introduced herself and then gave some background on their choice of this area; including comments on family members and their friends, Sharon and Wayne Rice; who would were in attendance to speak on their behalf. She explained how they immediately fell in love with the area and wanted to pursue, their_ dream of building a home close to their friends and family. They found and purchased this particular lot in 2008 because of the view and bike /walking amenities close by. She explained this was her husband's dream and gave some background on the time. he had spent with a model of their proposed home as well as his work- on light and view studies for the site. She expressed her concern about the fact they had read the Code and thought they were following it and their surprise at not having the plans approved. She added that was why they have continued with the appeal process and were hopeful the plans would be approved and they could realize their dream. She then offered to answer any questions. -4- Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2012 Chairman Alderson asked Mrs. Ernest if they had a design consultant, or architect, working with them from the inception of this project. Mrs. Ernest said not when it was conceptualized, but then soon afterwards. Mr. Roger Ernest - 5281 East Fourth Street, Long Beach CA 90814 - introduced himself and commented on how breathtaking their first view of the Santa Rosas was when they first came out here, in 2005. He commented on the flora and fauna of the area as well as the heat; which they now love. They immediately started looking at the Cove because of its close proximity to the mountains, and the properties on Montezuma in particular, due to the varied views and landscapes in that area. They felt very fortunate when they were actually able to find /buy a lot on Montezuma; especially one right up against the mountain. He commented on the vistas and amenities of living in that area. He then stated they started thinking about the design and the whole concept of the house which revolved around embracing the view of the mountain. He explained his research utilizing Google Earth to assist in the layout of the each room in the home; e.g. shifting the whole building further south to accommodate the master bedroom and sensitivity to the neighbor's social activities. That meant minimizing the garage to take advantage of such an unbelievable view. They then got together with Stan Paley, the architect, and started laying out and designing the home; while being very conscious of the Code. He stated he read through the Code and was very familiar with the sections cited. He tried to express exactly, since he is an English teacher, what his analysis and thinking was in terms of the Code sections. He felt he was in full compliance and said it really came down to common sense and being able to enjoy the view, as well as embrace and participate in the desert community. He then offered to answer any questions. Mrs. Ernest returned to the podium to respond to Commissioner Weber's earlier question about the neighbors. She said the house, south of their property, was a rental and when they come out; which was frequently, they had never seen anyone at that house. They were very familiar with the neighbors on the north; which were homeowners and had shown their support with a letter (included in the packet). They had never met the neighbor in the back of the property. Everyone they met had been very supportive. -5- Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2012' Commissioner Weber commented he visited the site and could see the orientation of their proposed home design was to complement the proximity of the home to the north side, on a lower elevation and then the south side on a higher elevation. He commented on the views which would be seen from the neighboring lots and wondered if the applicant had had any communication with them. Mr. Ernest responded they would be putting a block wall on the back side of the property and replacing the neighbor's wooden fence. He then explained about the problems they had with a tree root on the property. Commissioner Weber asked if they had spoken with the neighbors in the back about the wooden fence. Mr. Ernest said they had not, but it was the intent to do so. He explained they had to remove a tree which was in close proximity to the telephone pole and the foundation Commissioner Weber asked if the driveway into the tandem garage was single width. Mr. Ernest said yes, that the total off - street parking then would be three. There being no further questions of staff, or comments from the applicant, Chairman Alderson asked if.there was any public comment. Wayne and Sharon Rice — 54625 Avenida Diaz — introduced themselves. and said they were permanent residents of the Cove and friends of the Ernest's. They explained the history of what brought them to La Quinta. They had looked everywhere, and ended up choosing the Cove. They are very happy there and enjoy the beauty of the Cove. They commented they were in favor of their friends building their home, but if they had not known them and had an opportunity to see the renderings, they would have been extremely impressed with the project. They felt this would be a real beautiful addition to the Cove and they were very. pleased to support their friends. Mrs. Rice commented on the general design of other houses in the Cove being three - quarters garage and one - quarter house, as seen from the street. She said the tandem garage was a much more N-V Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2012 intelligent and useful design so, for her, as a person who lives in the Cove, she hoped that the City would chose to continually improve their neighborhood by allowing this type of design. Mr. Fred Wilson — 77270 Calle Chihuahua — introduced himself and gave his background as a real estate agent in the Cove area and some anecdotal evidence of working on other projects with unusual parking situations in the La Quinta Cove. He added that he has a long history working as a positive activist trying to improve the Cove. He went on to explain how this type of design would affect the Cove, both in terms of values and desirability. The design simply looks better rather than the garage- dominant designs currently in the Cove. He mentioned the trend, towards Santa Fe homes, in the late 1980's and how that developed; which had not been predominant in the Cove previously. He said a modern, or mid - century modern could lead to a new type of diversity in the Cove. He gave his opinion of what the current trend is in the Cove and commented on what a positive difference an active Planning Commission and City Council could make with good planning and code enforcement. He then commented on: • Section A.3 and the original plating of the Cove to have been a mobile home park and subdivision and the fact that the area was never intended to be the garage- dominant environment that exists today. • Section B.1 1, and the minimum dimensions of 10 feet in width per car, by 20 feet in depth followed by an example. He pointed out it was an "example ". His interpretation was you could have a garage that was 10 feet in width by 40 feet in length; as there were two ways to look at the interpretation. Commissioner Weber asked Mr. Maize about his reference to the Director's having some latitude in the Code. Mr. Maize said he was referring to the interpretation within the Code. He said Mr. Wilson was very articulate about the variables which were not well defined within the Code. In one of the documents he read it stated that the Director had the ability to interpret the Code as opposed to the interpretation he made. He said there was some leniency there. He referenced a conversation with staff and the issue of setting a precedent and doing something that was unusual. He said there were two parts to this: I&M Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2012 1. If you were to overrule the decision by the Director, this would not set a precedent in a bad way. It would still allow the opportunity, if a plan came through similar to this, to be interpreted by staff and then go to the Commission to make a final decision. 2. There is also the opportunity to incorporate this into the RC Section of the La Quinta Municipal Code as 'a component that would fit within the uniqueness of the Cove. There being no further public comment, Chairman Alderson closed the public hearing and opened the matter for Commission discussion. Commissioner Wright said he appreciated everybody's comments, however the Commission has been directed to do one thing and that was to support or not support the Director's determination on whether or not the codes had been met. He did not see any latitude at all on either one of these Code sections, and commented it was time to look at changing them. However, the Director did not have any choice but to rule the way he did. He than asked if there was anything in the code stating the property had to have a two car garage or could they have a one car garage. Planning Director Johnson said there had to be an allowance for two vehicles to be within a garage. He said you could have a situation where you have two single car garages that would' meet the minimum dimension requirements as identified with interior dimension of 10 feet of width by 20 feet of depth. The challenge comes with the other provision that clearly states that tandem parking is only permitted in mobile home parks. Commissioner Wright had the following further comments: • Houses in the Cove were pretty much all garage. • In this particular situation the purpose of a tandem garage was to preserve the view and he would like to see consideration to allow this. He would support a future Code change but the Commission did not have that latitude at this meeting. -8- Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2012 Commissioner Wilkinson had the following comments: • He had a different interpretation of Section B.11 — and the "example ". The "example" could be anything because it was just that; an example. • He referenced the minimum interior dimensions and commented on the 10 foot wide by 40 foot deep limitation. He read the section on tandem parking in a mobile home park and said he didn't see anything that limited the dimensions. • He was not interested in making the applicant go through a process to delay approval. • He did not see a problem with a 10 foot wide by 40 foot deep garage. • He did not see the interpretation being wrong or right; it was just a different way of looking at it; there were possibly two or three different interpretations to these rules. Commissioner Barrows had the following comments: • She had the same concerns about interpretation, but in the case of residential garages she saw no problem with the dimensions of 10 feet wide by 40 feet deep. • The staff report said, technically, that standard was met and she thought that was correct • She felt the application of the tandem parking described in the staff report Was a different circumstance than a mobile home park which was a different circumstance since carports were allowed in a mobile home park, but not in a single family residence. • She asked staff if there was actually a place in the Code that stated you could not have a tandem garage. (Staff responded there was not.) • She commented this was a very attractive design and the one thing that made the Cove special was its diversity. • She was not recommending going against the Code, but there was room for interpretation; and she would be comfortable with the interpretation that the tandem garage was acceptable. -9- Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2012 - Commissioner Weber had the following comments: • He thought it was a beautiful design.. He has visited the lot and stated it was a great location for what the applicant was trying to do. • The single entry for the tandem parking might make sense but the problem was the Code which he interpreted pretty strictly. • He reiterated the two referenced sections of the Municipal Code. • He acknowledged the parenthetical markings, but said his interpretation of (for example) is to give additional insight into what the intent is. • He acknowledged the examples of tandem parking shown, but added all the examples showed tandem parking with two car garage entrances; not tandem parking with a single car entrance. • His interpretation of the intent of the Code was to avoid the possible scenario of having to back one car out to back the other car out; causing potential traffic issues. • He acknowledged that it was probably time to take at those sections of the Code and see if there was something which could be done to update them. However, it would have to be done in a thoughtful and diligent manner while following all the correct procedures. • He then asked staff for an explanation of the intent behind the Code sections. Planning Director Johnson answered he -could not respond on the original intent of the sections since he had not been involved with their preparation. He did express his hope that the Ernest's could become residents of the community and thought their house design was beautiful. However, he had to make his determination based on the Code and his interpretation of the Code; specifically the two factors which state what is permitted and the type of use. He added his conclusion was also influenced by the fact that.in other situations in the Code it says certain things are only allowed in certain locations, but it does not say they are prohibited in other locations. His decision was based on what the Code says and where the Code says it is permitted to go. -10- Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2012 Chairman Alderson had the following comments: • He had visited the lot and complimented the applicant on the design of the project, their diligence in checking the Codes, as well as their efforts in trying to preserve the view. • He commented on the Commission's duty and the fact they were willing to be flexible and compromise where possible. • He wanted to make sure the applicant was clear on the fact that if they were unsuccessful in overturning the Director's decision, at this meeting, and they elected to wait for a Code change to allow this use, there were no guarantees that that Code correction would be made, or approved. • He suggested a reconfiguration by moving the building to the north, to accommodate the two -car garage and still retain the view. • He could not find flexibility from the statement of "a two car garage shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide and 20 feet deep." • He asked staff if the appeal ended with the Planning Commission or if it went on to Council. Staff responded this would end with the Planning Commission unless there was an appeal to Council General discussion followed on: • The interpretation of Section 9.150.080 [B.11 ]. as a side -by -side two -car garage versus a tandem garage. • The inclusion of parentheses around the example. • The Code applied City -wide and not just in the Cove. • Whether the allowance of a tandem garage, for this applicant, would set a precedent. • The eclectic nature of the Cove. • Tandem parking is allowed as surplus parking and why, since the Code says "no tandem parking." Commissioner Wright commented on an e-mail he received (6/26/12) from Kay Wolff on behalf of the La Quinta Cove Homeowners' Association. He summarized her comments saying she had some concerns about the size of the tandem garages and she was kind of perplexed by the staff report. He paraphrased her final comment saying "if you're on the fence, stick to the law — the rest of us have to." He then continued by saying the Codes were put in place to -tt- Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2012 address a number of problems, but the Commission's duty, at this meeting, was to decide whether to agree or disagree with the Director's decision that this was a violation of code. General discussion followed on: • The age of the Code and the need. for there to be changes and updates and the process to achieve that. • The. opportunity to make a decision to move forward and changing the interpretation of the Code. • How delays can raise the costs of building. • Eliminating "vagueness" when reviewing and re- writing the Code. Chairman Alderson re- opened the public hearing portion of the meeting. Mrs. Ernest said they had met the Code requirement by having covered parking in the garage for two cars because it was 40 feet deep. Commissioner Wright acknowledged her comments and responded he was referring to suggestions on ways they could allow the single car garage. Mrs. Ernest commented they had read the Code. and their plan followed the Code as acknowledge by staff's report. She said she felt they were being penalized by the Director's interpretation of the Code versus their interpretation'. Mrs. Ernest then went into her background as a good citizen and the fact that they followed the Code. Mr. Ernest commented on the Code and the fact that the statement was taken out of context. He gave. an overview of what was written in Sections A.3 and B.11 and, as an English teacher, the interpretation of those Sections; with special emphasis on the use of parentheses. He added that nowhere in the Code was there a provision for meeting the (for example) 20 foot by 20 foot requirement you would then be permitted to build tandem parking. Mrs. Ernest.. said they had a meeting with staff that included their architect and contractor. At that meeting, she specifically asked if anyone had ever come forth and asked for a single family tandem garage and.was told they had not. IPM Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2012 Planning Director Johnson responded what he had mentioned to Mrs. Ernest was that they had received a plan. Mrs. Ernest had asked staff if a building plan had come forward and his response was that we had not processed a plan that allowed for, or considered, a tandem garage. He asked Mrs. Ernest why their architect had not asked staff to clarify any specific issues he had. Staff does get a lot of clarification requests made regarding this, and other, design matters. His specific response to her question was relevant to plans coming in for tandem garage design. Mrs. Ernest said she did not recall that. She thought she had asked if anyone had come forth with that idea before. She understood it was a novel idea, from staff's perspective, for a single - family residence. Planning Director Johnson said he supported the idea of it, but he was required to follow the Code. Mrs. Ernest contended they had met the requirements of the Code according to Associate Planner Wuu. Planning Director Johnson wanted to clarify statements being made about what was said in the staff report prepared by Associate Planner Wuu. He said statements kept being made about the staff report. The report said "the proposed garage technically meets the interior dimension requirements for each car." The issue was that technically there are two 10 foot by 20 foot spaces being required. That was what staff was saying; not that it technically met the Code, as a whole. It was stated, from a dimension standpoint, there are two 10 foot by 20 foot spaces being provided in the design, not that it technically meets the Code and staff was interpreting something different. Chairman Alderson closed the public hearing and opened the matter for further Commission discussion. General discussion followed on: • The possibility of approving the applicant's request and then directing staff to clarify and amend the Zoning section involved. • The setting of an open provision to allow tandem garages in any residential district. • A precedent being set for the entire City; not just for the applicant. • The effect of overturning the Director's interpretation of the Zoning Code. Elgin Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2012 • Lack of clarity and ambiguity in these sections of the Zoning Code. • The effect of continuing the item. • Denial of appeal and directing staff to clarify the wording in these sections of the Zoning Code: • Tandem parking allowed under selective circumstances. • City Council's review of this appeal. • Clearing up the inconsistencies in the two Municipal Code sections. Commissioner Barrows suggested that the Planning Commission overturn the Director's determination and direct staff to work on the inconsistencies and lack of clarity in these Code sections. There being no further questions or discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Barrows /Wright to adopt Minute Motion 2012 -004 reversing the Director's Determination regarding a proposed tandem garage as noted in Appeal 2012 -007. AYES: Commissioners Barrows, Wright, and Chairman Alderson. NOES: Commissioner Weber. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: A. None. VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Report of the City Council Meetings of June 5, 2012, and June 19, 2012. B. Commissioner Weber is scheduled to report back on the July 3, 2012, City Council meeting. C. City Council Meeting Attendance Schedule for Fiscal Year 201.2 -2013. D. Discussion of Summer Schedule. (Note: The City Council has voted to go dark the meetings of August 21, and September 4, 2012.) Commission voted to go dark August 14, 2012. -14- Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2012 IX: DIRECTOR ITEMS: A. Discussion of several General Plan items: a. July 11, 2012 General Plan Update Community Workshop in the Study Session room. Two sessions will be provided; 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. All Commissioners were invited to attend. b. The comment review period, for the General Plan's Draft Environmental Report, would start on July 11, 2012. c. Advised Commissioners the General Plan document would be given to them for their review. B. Director noted staff would be moving forward, at an expedient pace, to clarify the specific Code language as noted in the motion for Appeal 2012 -007. X. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved by Commissioners Wright /Wilkinson to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next regular meeting to be held on July 10, 2012. This regular meeting was adjourned at 9:21 p.m. on June 26, 2012. Respectfully submitted, Carolyn Walker, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California 15-