Loading...
2012 07 10 PCo� City of La Quinta Planning Commission Agendas are now available on the City's Web Page ice. n, @ www.la-guinta.orn �c< OF ft�9 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California JULY 10, 2012 7:00 P.M. **NOTE** ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING Beginning Resolution 2012-014 Beginning Minute Motion 2012-005 CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call C. Election of Chair and Vice -Chair II. PUBLIC COMMENT This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled for public hearing.' Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your comments to three minutes. III. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA IV. CONSENT CALENDAR Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 26, 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 ................... CONTINUED - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2011-138 Applicant........... Crown Castle - Susan Makinson Location............ Eisenhower Park - Southeast Corner of Eisenhower Drive and Calle Colima. Request ............. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for a Single Distributed Antenna System (DAS) at Eisenhower Park. Action ................. Request for Continuation to July 24, 2012. VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Item ................... CONTINUED - APPEAL 2012-008 - DIRECTOR'S DETERMINATION 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 meeting of July 3, 2012. B. Commissioner Wilkinson is scheduled to attend the July 17, 2012, City Council meeting. IX. DIRECTOR ITEMS: X. ADJOURNMENT: This meeting of the Planning Commission will be adjourned to a Regular Meeting to be held on July 24, 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, July 10, 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, July 5, 2012. DATED: July 5, 2012 7, CAROLYNWI/ALKER, 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. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA June 26, 2012 I. CALL TO ORDER A. A regular meeting of the La Quinta order at 7:02 p.m. by Chairman Ali PRESENT: Commissioners B N E Chairman Alder ., mrj' ABSENT: None' STAFF PRESENT: PI _ ing Director 7:02 p.m. was called to and Planning Manager ier Jay Wuu, and ker. II. PUBLIC COMMENT.None III. CONFIRMA F AGENDA: The order of Business Items A and B a � r re reversed, due to a request for continuation. IV. C DA e being no menu" r suggestions, it was moved by Commissioners Be s/Wilkinso = ap ove the minutes of May 22, 2012, as submitted. Oo- Unan sly appr d. V. PUBLIC H A. Conditfnal 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 201 1-138 to the meeting of July 10, 2012. Unanimously approved. VI. BUSINESS ITEM: A. Appeal 2012-008 — Director's Det 1'°' tion; "-quest by Michael Pitts for consideration of appe Ohe Direc *Is Determination regarding the use of wood fen,,.,' g along the front `.Ride yards in the La Quinta Cove; speclfl m: e sitcated at 5Avenida Villa (Behind theta Quinta Muse Applicant submitted e-mail (on fl"a. R P the Planning Department) requesting a time ion for t "'y eks to the Planning Commission meeting of Nv, 012. There bein no further qs ' s ssion, it was moved and seconde missioner right/B ows to continue this item to July 1 2012; equested the applicant. Unanimously approved. B. A eal -0 rector's ' "termination: a request by Robert and Ern `y' fo ation of appeal of the Director's twn rding a proposed tandem garage to be located at O 5216 lda tg4uuma. ite _ ner Vuu presented the staff report, a copy of which is in th ; lanning Department. Staff noted additional information strib d to the Commission prior to the meeting, and on file in 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 determination whether or not the Director's If it is determined that it was correct, A direct staff to consider an amendmea" specifically allow this type of parkin s` Cove (RC) District and then staff . rd Commissioner Barrows said ordinance was soon to be u that update. Staff responded it we `"i look at residential per s staff had started a preliAi would probably take 90 Plannin A? , .,. sion and then r ''Fire a ay appi Staff this on the Counci je was making the nation was correct. mission could then Municipal Code to gain the Residential stated th ` ;; parking ;ked about ` e timing of Eein. hich did not actually rcial side. However, i Staff estimated it lave a hearing before the an Ordinance which could that was for the entire Parking n`/ommented that has nothing to with, or bearing decision here tonight. Staff said yes. derson requested clarification that would be a 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. Z Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2012 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 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 gutted a sewer system. He stated this design was a wonderful co T em`ort to the eclectic nature of the Cove. He continued stating glowing points: • He understood a precedent ha b the Code with two (side -by • Background on the Ernes reaso lot and home design • The language in the Cod ' u. es and he chose not to choose t • He asked the mission to c _. latitude by appro air appeal. for by interpreting discretion Je in his decision. to give the applicant that • He pointed out h -! different ns there were in the Cove and the ct a est's design certainly com ants and fi i the esign Guidelines, including t at there ould be two car garage. He then ntion _ he variou ;, garage configurations throughout the • Thy v a pique its own character and the small lot ,,confi ion to a variety of different garage designs a" "' no ' .two car garages; side -by -side. Mrs. Jenn ":.0 nest, 1 East Fourth Street, Long Beach CA 90814 — troduced self ind then gave some background on their choice of & area, i ding comments on family members and their friends, n and ayne Rice, who would were in attendance to speak on thei She explained how they immediately fell in love with the area a wanted to pursue their dream of building a home close to their lends 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 4- Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2012 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. 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 afterwards. Mr. Roger Ernest — 5281 East Fourt introduced himself and comment view of the Santa Rosas was w th He commented on the flora na which they now love. They im telyi because of its close proximity to th Montezuma in partic r, due to the that area. They felt rtunate find/buy a lot on Mo pspe mountain. He comment e on t area. He then stated the ;.st ed whole c f the hou 'which r"tolved around embracing the view he mo in. He a ained his research utilizing Google Earth to the I j` ut of the room in the home; e.g. shifting the whole b f i � outh to commodate the master bedroom and .. 'vity e n ocial activities. That meant minimizing i a to ire advantage of such an unbelievable view. They then g " ; y eth �tFStan Paley, the architect, and started laying out and ning home; while being very conscious of the Code. e stated read hrough the Code and was very familiar with the tions cit ' P He tried to express exactly, since he is an English t "` er, w his analysis and thinking was in terms of the Code seca felt he was in full compliance and said it really came down ommon sense and being able to enjoy the view, as well as embr a and participate in the desert community. He then offered to answer any questions. ad but then soon tt, Loiach o d views and landscapes in s an " CA 90814 — how bred king their first ey first came o, re, in 2005. f he heat; lookin���t the Cove ?a area as w rr ntains, and the properties on wh . , ey were actually able to cially � right up against the menities of living in that about the design and the 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 5- Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2012 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. 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 I r elevation and then the south side on a higher elevation. He meNttad on the views which would be seen from the neighbors a. _s and wondered if the applicant had had any communication ; th Mr. Ernest responded they would "` ting a blooft fall on the back side of the property and replac the neighbor's w fence. He then explained about the pr they ad with a treo't on the property._' Commissioner Weber ked if they�htoken with the neighbors in " ,:: , the back about the woq ,.#ence. `4 °_, Mr. Ernest said they he not wNPK as jfi'e intent to do so. He explained the had to re ve trewas in close proximity to hethe tele and the ndatio was three. asked ifs' driveway into the tandem garage that the total off-street parking then would be fufiher questions of staff, or comments from the an Alderson asked if there was any public comment. n Wa Sharon Rice — 54625 Avenida Diaz — introduced there � s and said they were permanent residents of the Cove and friend 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 -6- Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2012 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 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 gave his background as a real estate agent/ anecdotal evidence of working on othe C situations in the La Quinta Cove. Hey r d working as a positive activist tryin p i to explain how this type of d , n would terms of values and desirabili*'!q than r i a des than the garage -dominant design a the trend, towards Santa Fe homes, _ e developed; which ha of been pred 'Ym He said a modern, or t lry moder FOE diversity in the Cove. s opinion i in the Cove and comme`�Vty Ta pC Planning Commission annun and cod : ent. commorltec introduced himself and e Cove area and some e with unusual parking they as a long history ve the. He went on affect thOz;;ove, both in simply lookk',= . 'er rather tthe Cove l?mentioned late 1980's and how that it in the Cove previously. WId lead to a new type of f i het the current trend is '06ve difference an active make with good planning on: ion. A and the orl plating of the Cove to have been a m h 4 rk and division and the fact that the area was m e the garage -dominant environment that z..,, is t o n B6.`° the minimum dimensions of 10 feet in width per'' by feet in depth followed by an example. He point out was an "example". His interpretation was you could ve a garage that was 10 feet in width by 40 feet in r , lengt ' as there were two ways to look at the interpretation. Com oner Weber asked Mr. Maize about his reference to the irec Dt rs 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 Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2012 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; 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 mission to make a final decision. ' `' 2. There is also the opportunity to &Ctp rate this into the RC Section of the La Quinta Municl,,as a component that would fit within the uniqueneofhe Co . There being no further public=fe ent, Chairman AI n closed the public hearing and opened thr formmission di on. Commissioner Wright said he ap ted everybody's comments, however the CommiWon has been di ' d to do one thing and that was to support or not " b the Direct`oera',ietermination on whether or not the codes had b either one of these Code at changing them. Howe to rule t e did. code ing this operty hav car q : 9e. He did noti,� 'any latitude at all on com " nted it was time to look DI ,...` .::mid not have any choice but i ask'if there was anything in the have a two car garage or could they fM"g Di r . ` there had to be an allowance for two ve #o be'''; hin a garage. He said you could have a situation where , haveM. si le car garages that would meet the minimum t,:�: dimension uirem "`s as identified with interior dimension of 10 feet f width b' 0 felt of depth. The challenge comes wan the otner vision th'"' clearly states that tandem parking is only permitted in e hom arks. ner 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. -8- Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2012 • He would support a future Code change but the Commission did not have that latitude at this meeting. Commissioner Wilkinson had the following comments: • He had a different interpretation of Section B.11 — and the "example". The "example" could be anytha; yNbecause it was just that; an example. • He referenced the minimum interior di ns and commented on the 10 foot wide by 40 foot deep tati ;. He read the section on tandem parking in a mobile rzmi�park VE', he didn't see anything that limited the dime. , • He was not interested in aking the applicant t through a process to delay approval?} • He did not see a problem w 1 t wide by foot deep garage. • He did not see thkinterpretatlon b t wrong or right; it was just a different way o at it, ther:possibly two or three different interpreteti i ;._ se rules. Commission Barrows had h ; ollo "mments: • S ad thee. a concert' about interpretation, but in the case of s al ga es she saw .. problem with the dimensions of 10 deep. feet �yy sta wort nically, that standard was met and she • She'sail he a n of the tandem parking described in the staff report a dif nt circumstance than a mobile home park which was a e -an circumstance since carports were allowed in a mobile h e park, but not in a single family residence. R.. • "" a ask staff if there was actually a place in the Code that s ou could not have a tandem garage. (Staff responded the as not.) • Sha 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 ty strictly. • He reiterated the two referenced sections the�tllunicipal Code. • He acknowledged the parenthetica kings, but said his interpretation of (for example) is to a kaI insight into what the intent is.Q ' • He acknowledged the examp tandem p g shown, but added all the examples s ad mtandem parkinkith two car garage entrances; not tan rking►tith a single car;;rance. • His interpretation of the int` f ode was avoid the possible scenario of having t �b "` ne car out to back the other car out; causing p __ntial traffic iss 00 • He acknowledged 1, was pro b time to take at those sections of the Code retf there "omething which could be done to update the it v% uld have to be done in a thoughtfULand diligeMLA ner ' following all the correct • HeAKen as __ staff for explanation of the intent behind the g Di r �riswered he could not respond on the on tent s the sections since he had not been involved with their p tin id express his hope that the Ernest's could become r nts he community and thought their house design areas beauti _ Ho ever, he had to make his determination based on Code a TY his interpretation of the Code; specifically the two . f'"' " s whi state what is permitted and the type of use. He added his on was also influenced by the fact that in other situations in the '"'de it says certain things are only allowed in certain locations, but it oes 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 Bible. • He wanted to make sure the applicant w -lea on the fact that if they were unsuccessful in overturnin 2 Director's decision, at this meeting, and they elected to w .: for Code change to allow this use, there were no guarantee ' ththat C�.de correction would be made, or approved. , `N • He suggested a reconfigur 11 n by moving the din� to the north, to accommodate IEro car garage andotain the view. • He could not find flexibility frOO), .= a statement of "a two car garage shall be a imum of 20 febVde and 20 feet deep." • He asked staff if tl#' peal ended the ,Planning Commission or if it went on to Co Staff respo d this woul a wit I anning Commission unless there w _ al to Cou followed inte ' ,y aUort ° 'l: on 9.150.080 [B.11 ] as a side -by -side r ga versus a tandem garage. • The sion theses around the example. • The Corppliei ity-wide and not just in the Cove. 4 Whether" -A- a owance of a tandem garage, for this applicant, would se i precedent. • e ecle c nature of the Cove. • "parking is allowed as surplus parking and why, since the Co°'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 Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2012 to." He then continued by saying the Codes were put in place to 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 t a,to be changes and updates and the process to achieve that /, • The opportunity to make a decision to forward and changing the interpretation of the Code. • How delays can raise the costs of u :ng k • Eliminating "vagueness" when n'g and re Vtr#icing the Code. Chairman Alderson re -opened th#504W hearg portion of Mrs. Ernest said they had met the Co ; quirement by having covered parking in the garage foro cars becaus as 40 feet deep. Commissioner Wright acl was referring to suggesti garage. Mrs. the C being Ernest c nout o s A. added (for e they e by they her corrlit is and responded he on fey c"Id allow the single car f, lad the Code and their plan followed to eport. She said she felt they were is , terpretation of the Code versus their went into her background as a good illowed the Code. I nte the Code and the fact that the statement was ext. He gave an overview of what was written in 3B.11 and, as an English teacher, the interpretation of ith special emphasis on the use of parentheses. He There in the Code was there a provision for meeting the :► 20 foot by 20 foot requirement you would then be 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. -12- 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 tanden arage design. Mrs. Ernest said she did not recall that. anyone had come forth with that idea b novel idea, from staff's perspective, for a, Planning Director Johnson said required to follow the Code. Mrs. Ernest contended they had i according to Associate P*nner Wuu. she had asked if lerstood it was a the idea ofi`;t but he was requirements of the Code Planning Director Johnson 0 j clarify st `' 0 nts being made about what was said in the staff r ` I {.... p A by Associate Planner Wuu. He said statements kept being a ou 12, aff report. The report said the prop rage tec cally m ` is the interior dimension requirem s for a"" ,; , car." Th 'ssue was that technically there are two 10 fo " 0 too paces bein wired. That was what staff was saying, not it ally me a Code, as a whole. It was stated, friat aimensiq eta re are two 10 foot by 20 foot spaces e1fig tr$tJ,. d in ,, design, not that it technically meets the Code and staff was ' "' cretin hing different. cld§ed the public hearing and opened the matter for 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. -13- 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 the Director's determination and dire inconsistencies and lack of clarity in these, There being no further questions seconded by Commissioners Bari 2012-004 reversing the Direct90 tandem garage as noted in Appeal Barrows, Wright, and Chairman Aid ABSENT: None. ABST _•_ None. VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND A. None. Vill. COMMI ommission overturn to work on the ;ion, ifs `*as moved and to adoDt'A4inute Motion AYES: CoNnmissioners Commissioner Weber. A.. Report o m cil Mngs of June 5, 2012, and June 19, Commies r cheduled to report back on the July 3, 2012, ACity Coun eetm "dow Council, eating Attendance Schedule for Fiscal Year 2012 2013. =: .gm D. Dis " f Summer Schedule. (Note: The City Council has voted to go dar ; e meetings of August 21, and September 4, 2012.) Commission voted to go dark August 14, 2012. IX: DIRECTOR ITEMS: A. Discussion of several General Plan items: -14 Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2012 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 for. at an expedient pace, to clarify the specific Code language as a .. a motion for Appeal 2012-007. X. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, as ed by Cmmissioners Wright/Wilkinson to adjourn this regular m of the Planning Commission to the next regular meets , be held on 10, 2012. This regular meeting was adjourned at 9 1'to r . on June 2 6,.. 12' 12. Respectfully submitted, Carolyn Walker, E City of La Quinta, -15- PH A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: JULY 10, 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) 4k,kyjI;I91 0lul411fife 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 201 1-138 was previously continued from the June 26, 2012, Planning Commission meeting to the July 10, 2012 Planning Commission meeting. However, the City Council needs to review and approve lease terms for the proposed tower prior to a hearing by the Planning Commission. The City Council will consider lease terms at their July 17, 2012, meeting and therefore, this item needs to be continued to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission hearing on July 24, 2012. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission open the public hearing and immediately move to continue CUP 2011-138 to the July 24, 2012, meeting. Prepared by: L ERIC CEJA, ssi tant Planner PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: JULY 10, 2012 CASE No.: APPEAL 2012-008 - DIRECTOR'S DETERMINATION 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 MUSUEM (ATTACHMENT 1) PROPERTY OWNER: IRENE M. GARTNER TRUST BACKGROUND: In accordance with Section 9.200.120 (B) of the La Quints 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 as part of this action. 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 the 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). The appeal was originally scheduled for consideration at the June 24, 2012, Planning Commission meeting; however, the applicant requested a continuance of the item until July 10, 2012. 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". As this section states wood fencing is only permitted in rear and interior side yards. Staff's interpretation is, and has been, that wood fencing is consequently not permitted in front yards and street side yards. Additionally, the code qualifies this allowance stating that wood fencing is only permitted in rear and interior side yards if it is not visible from the street. Thus, staff cannot a permit for construction of a new wood fence that is located in a front or street side yard or anywhere on a property where the fence is visible from a public 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.The Planning Department has consistently upheld the code to only allow new wood fencing when not visible from the street. 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: 1. 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: A ERIC CEJA, Ass s ant Plarmer 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 ATTACHMENT 2 M 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 g 6 C W m y � a„ a 9 5 •$ a, n `o a .0 R C a .; 5 � •� m >• u 9 � C s$ a C C .>'e d d p C d N 9 � � 'O p %•. � � w as o �• o � e p O� o � •a � e popi� 'S 6 o c u o o „Sy O O d y 0 O e o cs e o 16 OO O O O O 0 a e a L a ATTACHMENT Tit�t 4 4 a" P.O. Box 1504 LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92247-1504 78-495 CALLE TAMPICO (760) 777-7000 LA QUINTA'� CALIFORNIA 92253 FAX (760) 777-7101 May 14, 2012 Mike Pitts P.O. Box 801 La Quints, 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 Quints 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. Sebtioh 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 it 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 Quints Planning Commission, provided a formal application for appeal and filing fee of 0175.00 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. Planning Director C: Greg Butler, Building & Safety Director Debra Conrad, Community Safety Manager Moises Rodarte, Code Compliance Officer II M ATTACHMENT 4 City of La Quinta Planning Department s, 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California 92253 (760) 777-7125 FAX: (760) 777-1233 Finance Codes: PC - 29/CC - 30 OFFICE USE ONLY Case No. 12- 00$ Datcacicva. 5 2G 2- Fee: `T 17s (fink^ Related Apps.: Logged in by:%' Application for Appeal of Findings And/Or Conditions Appellant'sName- Mailing Address P ' 601 q)p / ,4 &(111V A CA Phone: (( )) V/7 0061/ Resolution # and Condition(s) of Approval being appealed Dlfi,6 '00S m4t'ce. of Uc�\alZ`o C �e i� 1 L-nnoo18�9 Any development review action may be ag led;pufsu�nt to Section 9.200.120 of the Zoning Code. Please identify the type of application Type of Appeal: Change of Zone Specific Plan Conditional Use Pennit - Variance Minor Use Permit I N1 iC Tentative TraelMap Tentative Parcel Map Site Development Permit Temporary 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. OHeH leN<'/of(, L9 -/z-W •, Cr')ei 1' Use additional sheets if necessary. of Appellant ccA\ vA06 ,, (L"a'' �� N1Ann1ications\Anneal Findinvs-Cnnd.dnc 6113/12 La Quinta Municipal Code (La Quinta, Califomia) dl; Prevou, Search ATTACHMENT 5 ?IN;it Phio Farnes Title 9 ZONING Chapter 9.60 SUPPLEMENTAL RESIDENTIAL REGULATIONS 9.60.030 Fences and A. Definition. For purposes of this section, "fence" or `waif' means any type of fence, 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. bleuvrement of Frace 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 of fences shall be in compliance with the following standards: 1. Within Main Building Area. In the area of a lot where amain building maybe constructed, the maximum freestanding fence height shall be twelve feet. 2. Setback Areas Not Bordering Streets. The maximum fence height shall be 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 shall be 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. gcode.us/codes/laquinta/ 113 61131I: La Quinta Municipal Cade (La Quinta, Califomia) b. Notwithstanding other fence height restrictions, where, because of the orientation of the lots, a property time 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 maybe 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 offences, 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 Imes. 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 Imes, 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 -sic 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 anv width wnnm slacyard setbacks of at least twelve feet. E. Pence Uonstruction 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. 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 al uninum-reinforced goode.uslcodes/lacluinta/ 213 6113112 La Quinta Municipal Code (La Quinta, California) non -reflective material that contains antistatic and UV -radiation inhibiting additives. d. Fence boards may be 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. All 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 maybe 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 (Le., 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 wire, 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 untila 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 § I (Exh. A) (part), 1998; Ord. 299 § 1 (part), 1997; Ord. 284 § I (Exhs. A, B) (part), 1996) geode.us/codes/laquintal 3l3 ATTACHMENT 6 View from Avenida Villa View from unnamed alley