Loading...
2013 02 12 PC11z''I it Planning Commission agendas and staff reports are now available on the City's web page. wwwde-quinta.org PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta REGULAR MEETING on TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2013 AT 7:00 P.M. Beginning Resolution No. 2013-001 Minute Motion No. 2013-001 CALL TO ORDER 1. Roll Call 2. Pledge of Allegiance PUBLIC COMMENT At this time members of the public may address the Planning Commission on any matter not listed on the agenda. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your comments to three minutes. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approval of the minutes of November 27, 2012 PUBLIC HEARINGS For all Public Hearings on the agenda, a completed "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Secretary prior to consideration of that item. A person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before a public hearing or appear in support or opposition to the approval of a projectls►. If PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA 1 FEBRUARY 12, 2013 you challenge a 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. 1. Consideration of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2013-112 — Certain Amendments to the La Quinta Municipal Code; Chapter 9.60.300, Compatibility Review for Partially Developed Subdivisions. Location: City- wide. BUSINESS SESSION CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL COMMISSIONER ITEMS 1. Report on City Council meetings of December 4 and 18, 2012, January 2 and 15, 2013, and February 5, 2013. 2. Commissioner Alderson is scheduled to attend the February 19, 2013, City Council meeting. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS ADJOURNMENT The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission will be held on February 26, 2013, commencing at 7:00 p.m. at the City Hall Council Chambers, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA 92253. DECLARATION OF POSTING I, Monika Radeva, Secretary of the City of La Quinta, do hereby declare that the foregoing Agenda for the La Quinta Planning Commission meeting was posted on the inside of the north entry to the La Quinta Civic Center at 78-495 Calle Tampico, and the bulletin boards at 78-630 Highway 111, and the La Quinta Cove Post Office at 51-321 Avenida Bermudas, on February 6, 2013. DATED: February 5, 2013 i MONIKA RADEVA, Secretary City of La Quinta, California PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA 2 FEBRUARY 12, 2013 r 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 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 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 meeting. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Commission regarding any item(s) on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the Planning Department's counter at City Hall located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California, 92253, during normal business hours. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA 3 FEBRUARY 12, 2013 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 2012 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission- was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Vice Chairman Wright. PRESENT ABSENT: Commissioners Alderson, Weber,: -Wilkinson, and Vice Chairman Wright. Chairwoman Barrows STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Les Johnson; Sawyer, Principal Engineer .Ed Wimi Nesbit, Assistant, Planner Eric Cej: Carolyn Walker.,v"-, Commissioner Wilkinson led the Corripiission in PUBLIC COMMENT - None CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA- Confirmed ` APPROVALn,01F..MINUTES anning Manager David r, Principal Planner Wally and Executive Secretary Allegiance. Motion —'A motion,was made,, by Commissioners Wilkinson/Weber to approve the Planning, Commission Minutes of' -October 23, 2012, as submitted. It was noted that the amendment to the September 25, 2012, minutes did not include the application and' case number information. Staff clarified that this was an amendment,to`a specific application. AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Weber, Wilkinson, and Vice Chairman Wright NOES: None ABSENT: Chairwoman Barrows ABSTAIN: None PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Continued - Consideration of Conditional Use Permit 2012-143 submitted by Crown Castle — Susan Makinson — for a Single Distributed Antenna System PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1 NOVEMBER 27, 2012 (DAS) within the Public Right -Of -Way at the Southeast Corner of Avenue 50 and Park Avenue. Assistant Planner Ceja presented the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. Vice Chairman Wright asked if there were any questions of staff. There being no questions of staff, Vice Chairman Wright,asked if the applicant would like to speak and opened the public hearing. Susan Makinson, representative of Crown 308, Chandler, AZ 85226 introduced hers( location. e1. Commissioner Weber commented on: • The applicant's cooperation in fir the Commission. Vice Chairman Wright concurred and ai applicant. There being none he asked if 5350 N. 481h Street, Suite gave background on the new location as directed by ,e were any questions of the any`:public comment. Mr. Ronald Slegg, '50-04,5•;,,Mountain,. Shadows Road, owner of the house adjacent to the site, stated h,e was stfongly opposed to the project due to his belief there were'lm ,ong-terdetrimental`'n'ealth effects from microwaves coming off of these tow'er�s-�He,addetl tfiere-wouid be a degradation of property values Idr@, with a tower located h6f to his house.:'' Commissioner Alderson "asked Mr. Slegg if he was aware the equipment was being mounted on an,existina,'oole. Mr. Slegg said yes and stated his kitchen sink was 21 feet from his wall and the pole was another 30'feet from that wall on the outside. Commissioner Alderson commented that the previous request involved a stand- alone pole. Mr. Slegg asked why the applicants chose a residential area instead of locating this on a commercial site. Vice Chairman Wright said the applicant could address his specific questions. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2 NOVEMBER 27. 2012 Ms. Alexis Walker Skeoch - 79-145 Quail Crossing, expressed concern that she seemed to be the only property owner that received the hearing notice. She contacted her homeowners' association board, property management company, the school and the Boys and Girls Club and none of them were aware of the proposal. The Boys and Girls Club told her their concerns would run equal to any school concerns and they would be interested in having someone hear the proposal. She said there have been a lot of neighbors, in the area, with health issues and wanted that issue addressed. Vice Chairman Wright asked staff to respond to the method of notification. Assistant Planner Ceja said the notice of the^^public: hearing went out on November 14, 2012, to all property owners:within 500 feet"of the site, as well as being published in The Desert Sun and: no -notices were returned by the Post Office. Ms. Esther Gelineau - 79-120 Coyote ,Creek, said she was unaware of the project and the hearing until she received a call from her neighbor. She commented on previous health "issues with the two nearby schools and the addition of the location of thisstowei being 21 feet over Mr. Slegg's wall. She added there were several empty'Obts'6fiihaother end of Washington as well as a vacant lot across the street from this' ,location where the tower could be placed. There were also signal lights,thaV t couid�be attached to. She did not see why it had.:to be located immediately outside of a residential development and said the Planning Commission needed to seriously review this. Commissioner Alderson asked the applicant to comment on: • The unsafe,, microwave question, The process'f~or site selection Whether the first and second sites were noticed. Vice Chairman Wright called the applicant up to respond to comments. I &M • The notices were sent out to all residents within 625 feet of the site. The City only required 500 foot notification. • Notices were sent to all residents for the first and second sites, as well as the neighborhood associations, via U.S. Mail. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3 NOVEMBER 27, 2012 Ms. Makinson gave a brief summary of the difference between the proposed DAS System (which is a repeater system) versus a traditional macrocell; and noted there were no microwaves involved. The antenna itself would not even be 23 inches tall, with a diameter of 10 inches and minimal ground equipment. She offered to provide a comprehensive report done by a specialist in health and medical physics to those that were interested. General discussion followed on how far away the previous site had been proposed, the noticing policy, and the possibility of double. -noticing. Planning Director Johnson commented the noticed as the City was the owner of their k There being no further questions of the up Mary Walker. _ Mary Walker, CCAM, Rancho La Quinta"Ma: Quinta Drive commented that several homec was why she was in attendance So, notices Commissioner Weber asked Ms: WE Vice Chairman Wright' asked if the There being none, she stepped dow Vice Chairman Wright asked if th, Ms. Alexis Walker Skeoch listed t Girls Club had not been Vice Chairman Wright called V1&M0*1rE:M1T4T10W- did receive notices and that received. location; which she noted. questions of Ms. Walker. ny further public comment. ing concerns: • At what stage ofhearings was this project at? • After contacting 'the•_ perimeter property owners, and the Board >members, none of which received any information on this issue. They In 4 commented they did not want this antenna at this location. • It�is a,functional issue of property value and health concerns. Vice Chairman Wright explained the steps the project had gone through and said this was an action item to be voted on at this meeting. He added that Ms. Skeoch's concerns had been addressed and reiterated that this was a 21-inch tall antenna on an existing light pole. Ms. Walker Skeoch also expressed the following concerns: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 4 NOVEMBER 27, 2012 • Were the previous hearings attended by Estancias, or Painted Cove residents. • The Painted Cove community was not represented at this meeting. • Their Board and management company knew nothing about this proposal. • It appeared not everyone received a notice of the hearing. • How many calls were being processed through this equipment and what kind of emissions were they looking at; now and in the future. In response to her concerns, Planning Director Johnsoh explained the hearing notice mailing procedures which involved all parcels within 500 feet of the site. He added that staff did try to notify their management company, but according to the most recent tax records, they were listed with an out-of-state address. Vice Chairman Wright re -called the applicant to the podium 'to address Ms. Skeoch's additional concerns. Ms. Makinson responses were: • The Riverside County Assessor's property managers were loc had been notified. • Regarding emissions and RF actually non -,,id , hi;dnd'. The p and is basically like`a 110 or • Regarding,00verage and loci the antennas6coui"d!.be pla • . When completed& all that n M showed the Painted Cove emons, Michigan, and they — the`Distributed Antenna System (DAS) is )war used is theequivalent of house power any regular home outlet. tion they would be increasing the existing tain constrains in where, and how far apart, uld be visible was a traffic signal with a light attached and 6',.very small apparatus to the side which would be the antenna. • Studies were done irr various cities, by Tarantello & Associates, to show the effect on property values due to these installations, and it turned out to be very negligible; less than 1 % either way. Vice Chairman Wright asked if there was additional public comment. Ms. Esther Gelineau expressed the following: • What is this antenna enhancing in the community? • What company is being represented and what do they do? • What is the radius of this enhancement and why can't it be put on one end or another of Avenue 50, or in a nearby vacant lot? PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 5 NOVEMBER 27, 2012 • Commented on local carriers working in the area and suggested input be encouraged, from current carriers, before approving another carrier coming in. Ms. Makinson responded: • There is more and more demand on the wireless networks. • There is more strain on the networks due to the increase in data -intensive devices, and the applicant was trying to enhance the capacity and coverage. • The applicant was Crown Castle which, Is,` a' ylarge DAS and tower manufacturer. �. • The DAS system was like a hub -and spoke system"," all interdepending on one another, but there were some very specific constraints on how far apart these antennas can be placed. Mrs. Walker Skeoch expressed the following: v., • The address for the Pamted,Cove property., management company was - Desert Management, P!Y0 `Bbx­,799, Rancho Mirage, and they had no knowledge of these procedings u; • She sells real estate and; i#one, of heir>clients,` would even look at a property that had any type df;electromagnetic or radio frequency device anywhere near it. "Whether it W6s an aesthetic, environmental, or health issue,,it`would not sell: • Mr. Slegg has pretty:,vast experience with some pretty serious cancers and anything that ;can be done_,to'prevent any additional health issues shouitl•be taken into consideration for his sake as well as the children >attendin�school and those at the Boys and Girls Club. • She asked,the Commission to please consider the homeowners, for both the health andresale issues. Vice Chairman Wright asked if there was any further public comment. There being none, "he closed the public hearing portion of the meeting and opened the matter for COmml¢SIOn discussion. Commissioner Alderson commented on: • The Commission having reviewed this type of application before, with the same issues being brought up, and the fact he was convinced they are not severe enough to be an issue. • The Commission had asked this company to relocate their equipment from the previous request, which they have done. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 6 NOVEMBER 27, 2012 • Notification was done within the scope of the law. • The Public Hearing allowed everyone to be heard in a democratic and proper way. Commissioner Wilkinson commented on: • He was also previously skeptical on these types of towers, but had the opportunity to do research on a macro tower ,that was near to his personal property, but far enough away to allow his vote. • A macro tower has a bit more power than the DAS system. • Applicant cannot relocate from this site due:to the "circle of coverage". • He was not a fan of this system until;, he did ,his„ own research and concluded there aren't any health related issues to this,type of system. • He did personally understand Mr. Slegg`'s position and"didAhe research to satisfy himself. A Commissioner Weber commented on: • The fact the Commission has reviewed, -towers and their aesthetics more than once. • Visual landscapes (aesthetics) are=~important and the applicant has complied with the Commission's requestsk,on.aesthetics and location. at • The utility needs.to,;go in, at thlocation, to,make an effective coverage area. • An electric clock, owyour nightstand, has more radio frequency than you would get from this:device.A� • A low frequency "device like this,`on a public right-of-way, is one of the best solutions. • Pointed out high voltage power lines on the north side of Avenue 50 and the fact that this was"not in that league. •' Previously had a real-estate license and did not believe this was going to degrade real estate values; as this was so minor. Vice Chairman Wright echoed his fellow Commissioners' comments and thanked all the residents for attending. There being no further questions or discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Weber/Wilkinson to adopt Resolution 2012-029 recommending approval of Conditional Use Permit 2012-143 as submitted. AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Weber, Wilkinson, and Vice Chairman Wright NOES: None ABSENT: Chairwoman Barrows ABSTAIN: None PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7 NOVEMBER 27, 2012 2. Consideration of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2012-111 — Certain Amendments to the La Quinta Municipal Code: Chapter 9.160, Signs, and Certain Sections Related Thereto. Location: City-wide. Principal Planner Nesbit presented the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. Planning Manager Sawyer pointed out the memo distributed with additional information with regards to two items; clarification of `the short term rental signage provisions and the Chamber of Commerce comments. He recommended the language, in the memo, be included in the approvaf of this application. Vice Chairman Wright asked if there were There being no further questions of Chairman Wright asked if there was There being no public comment, Vice Ch portion of the meeting and opened the m General discussion followed on: • Previous Commis' • Whether,.sectirity • The Chamber of C • Political sign depi Candidates t'o�rem re being no further q irman Wright asked if their d the City being the applicant, Vice is comment. an Wright closed the public hearing "'for Commission discussion. to which staff stated they were the Chamber's responsiveness. nuing need as encouragement for a timely manner. of staff, and the City being the applicant, Vice as any public comment. There being no public comment, Vice Chairman Wright closed the public hearing portion of Wl a meeting and opened the matter for Commission discussion. There being no further questions or discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Alderson/Weber to adopt Resolution 2012-030 recommending approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2012-11 1 as submitted and including the language in the memo provided to the Commission at the meeting. AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Weber, Wilkinson, and Vice Chairman Wright NOES: None ABSENT: Chairwoman Barrows ABSTAIN: None PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 8 NOVEMBER 27, 2012 BUSINESS SESSION - None CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL - None COMMISSIONER ITEMS 1 . Report on City Council meetings of November 6 and 20, 2012. 2. Upcoming Council meeting attendance: Commissioner Alderson — December 4, 2012, Chairwoman Barrows — December 18, 2012,; Commissioner Weber — Re- scheduled meeting date, January 2, 2013, and Commissioner Wilkinson — January 15, 2013 3. Commissioner Weber: • Thanked the City again for payment of a portion of this APA Conference Registration fees, as well as kudos to 'Plann,ing Director, Les Johnson, who was the Co -Chair of the Conference, held^at ;Rancho Las Palmas in Rancho Mirage. • Distributed materials regarding roundabouts. • Discussion of articles in The Desert=S,un regarding SilverRock and a San Antonio -like theme approach. 4. Commissioner Alderson: • Commented on the "Request to Speak" form and the procedure for allowing public comment. PLANNINW3tAFF ITEMS Janua 2. Discussion cancelled. oil Meeting,: Discussion of new format change which will include an the Status "of the City. The meeting will begin at 5:00 p.m. on 2013. If unable to attend please advise staff. ADJOURNMENT Schedule — December 25, 2012 meeting will be There being no further business, it was moved by Commissioners Alderson/Wilkinson to adjourn this meeting at 8:46 p.m. AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Weber, Wilkinson, and Vice Chairman Wright NOES: None ABSENT: Chairwoman Barrows ABSTAIN: None PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 9 NOVEMBER 27, 2012 Transcribed by Executive Secretary Carolyn Walker. Respectfully submitted, MONIKA RADEVA, Secretary City of La Quints CaGfnrnin PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10 NOVEMBER 27, 2012 PH # 1 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: FEBRUARY 12, 2013 CASE NUMBER: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2013-112 APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO TITLE 9 (ZONING) OF THE LA QUINTA MUNICIPAL CODE, AMENDING CHAPTER 9.60.300 (COMPATIBILITY REVIEW FOR PARTIALLY DEVELOPED SUBDIVISIONS) TO ALLOW MORE FLEXIBILITY REGARDING THE REVIEW PROCESS AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARD COMPLIANCE FOR COMPATIBILITY REVIEW FOR PARTIALLY -DEVELOPED SUBDIVISIONS LOCATION: CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: THE LA QUINTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS EXEMPT PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 2.6, SECTION 21080 OF THE PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE, CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT STATUTES, AND SECTION 15061(13)(3), REVIEW FOR EXEMPTIONS OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES. THIS DETERMINATION, ALONG WITH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT, WILL BE CONSIDERED AT THE HEARING. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2013 - _, recommending that the City Council certify the environmental determination, and adopt amendments to La Quinta Municipal Code Chapter 9.60.300, Compatibility Review for Partially Developed Subdivisions. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The proposed amendments to Chapter 9.60.300 of the Zoning Code are intended to: P:\Reports- PC\2013\PC 2-12-13\ZOA 13-112\01 REPORT.docx Page 1 of 4 • Clarify what development proposals are subject to compatibility review for partially -developed subdivisions • Provide for staff review and Director approval of Minor Design Deviation development proposals (less than 10% deviation in square footage) • Provide for Planning Commission review and approval of Major Design Deviation development proposals (10% or greater deviation in square footage) • Adjust development standards/findings necessary for Planning Commission approval of site development permits for compatibility review for partially - developed subdivisions BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: Westward Shadows (TR 31816) is a partially -completed tract consisting of 18 existing single-family homes, each approximately 3,000 square feet in size. In December of 2012, the Community Development Department received a proposal regarding completion of the unfinished tract. The proposal consists of construction of eight single-family detached homes on the remaining lots. Two new unit plans are being proposed, consisting of a 2,000 square foot single - story unit, and a 2,400 square.foot two-story unit. Per LQMC 9.60.300(I) Development Standards for Compatibility Review, the proposed units could not be approved as they did not comply with the following development standard/finding: • The single-family dwelling units proposed within a partially developed subdivision shall not deviate by more than ten percent from the square footage of the original units by the original developer which have either been approved or constructed. As currently written, the code does not allow the opportunity for a proposal beyond the ten percent threshold. The property owner requested staff explore the possibility of amending the subject code section. Staff reviewed the code language and determined that the potential existed for a code revision to be evaluated by the Planning Commission and City Council. Exhibit "A" of the proposed Planning Commission Resolution summarizes the proposed changes to La Quinta Municipal Code Section 9.60.300, which are intended to allow greater flexibility regarding the review process and PAReports - PC\2013\PC 2-12-13\ZOA 13-112\01 REPORT.docx Page 2 of 4 development standard compliance for compatibility review for partially -developed subdivisions. These revisions are briefly discussed below: • Clarify what development proposals are subject to compatibility review for partially -developed subdivisions For readability purposes and in order to clarify what proposals are and are not subject to compatibility review, staff proposes moving 9.60.300(L) Major and Minor Deviations to a subsection of 9.60.300(C) Applicability. • Provide for staff review and Director approval of Minor Design Deviation development proposals, which are defined as modified unit plans with less than a ten percent change in square footage of existing constructed or approved units, among other requirements The current code defines minor design deviations as modified unit plans with less than a five percent change in square footage of existing constructed or approved units. Staff proposes adjusting the maximum percentage from five percent to ten percent. This results in a more simplified review process for proposals with minor deviations. Provide for Planning Commission review and approval of Major Design Deviation development proposals, which are defined as modified unit plans with a ten percent or more change in square footage of existing constructed or approved units, and are subject to the provisions of the compatibility review for partially -developed subdivisions code section The current code defines major design deviations as modified unit plans with five percent or more change in square footage of existing constructed or approved units. Staff proposes adjusting the minimum percentage from five percent to ten percent. With the current code, there is no review process for proposals with a ten percent or more deviation in square footage. At a minimum, this code revision provides a review process of these types of proposals on a case -by -case basis as part of the site development permit process, with decisions appealable to the City Council. • Remove the required development standard/finding necessary for Planning Commission approval limiting deviations to no greater than ten percent from the square footage of the original units Staff proposes the removal of the development standard/finding in order to allow additional flexibility for property owners/developers. Given the P:\Reports - PC\2013\PC 2-12-13\ZOA 13-112\01 REPORT.docx Page 3 of 4 recent downturn in the economic/housing markets, there has been some interest in reduced dwelling sizes. Removal of the development standard/finding, coupled with the adjusted Minor/Major Design Deviation requirements, gives property owners the ability to propose a smaller dwelling unit that meets all other compatibility requirements with Planning Commission review of the proposal through a public hearing process. AGENCY AND PUBLIC REVIEW: Public Notice: This request was published in the Desert Sun newspaper on February 1, 2013. To date, no comments have been received. Comments were not requested from any public agencies or City Departments due to the scope of the amendment and perceived unlikelihood, that these changes will affect any other departments or agencies. Ily Associate Planner P:\Reports - PC\2013\PC 2-12-13\ZOA 13-112\01 REPORT.docx Page 4 of 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2013 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2013-112; FOR AN AMENDMENT TO TITLE 9 (ZONING) OF THE LA QUINTA MUNICIPAL CODE, AMENDING CHAPTER 9.60.300 (COMPATIBILITY REVIEW FOR PARTIALLY DEVELOPED SUBDIVISIONS) TO ALLOW MORE FLEXIBILITY REGARDING THE REVIEW PROCESS AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARD COMPLIANCE FOR COMPATIBILITY REVIEW FOR PARTIALLY - DEVELOPED SUBDIVISIONS CASE NO.: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2013-112 APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 121h day of February, 2013, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing for review of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend certain Sections of the La Quinta Municipal Code as identified by Title of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, said Zoning Ordinance Amendment has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (CEQA) as amended (Resolution 83-63) in that the La Quinta Planning Department has reviewed the Amendment under the provisions of CEQA, and has determined that the Amendment is exempt pursuant to Section 15061(B) (3), Review for Exemptions of the CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Planning Department published the public hearing notice in the Desert Sun newspaper on February 1, 2013, as prescribed by the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings recommending approval of said Zoning Ordinance Amendment, to the City Council: 1. The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the.General Plan, particularly Goal 2 of the Residential Goals, Policies and Programs, in that the proposed code revision will facilitate a broader range of housing types, through greater flexibility in siting units on residential lots and design options for individual homes. 2. Approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, and will have no impacts on the public health, safety and welfare, as the amendments do not Planning Commission Resolution 2013 - Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2013-112 February 12, 2013 incorporate any changes that affect the regulation and/or provision of public services, utility systems, or other foreseeable health, safety and welfare considerations. 3. The Zoning Ordinance Amendment has been determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act in that the proposed changes to the Municipal Code will have no effect on the environment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case. 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2013-112, as set forth in attached Exhibit "A", to the City Council for the reasons set forth in this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on the 12"h day of February, 2013, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: KATIE BARROWS, Chairwoman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: LES JOHNSON, Planning Director City of La Quinta EXHIBIT "A" Amend 9.60.300 Compatibility review for partially developed subdivisions as follows: A. Purpose. Residential subdivisions are often developed in phases, either by the same or different developers or by individual owner -builders. This section imposes requirements to ensure that units in later phases of such projects are compatible in design and appearance with those already constructed. B. Definition. For purposes of this section, the term "compatible" means residential buildings which are similar in floor area and harmonious in architectural style, mass, scale, materials, colors, and overall appearance. C. Applicability. This section applies to all second story additions, and proposed major design deviations, and new residential units which are different from those originally constructed and/or approved"and which are proposed for construction within a partially developed subdivision, except for a custom home subdivision, project or phase. Proposed minor design deviations are not subject to this section. These requirements are in addition to other applicable regulations in this code. 1. Minor Design Deviation. A minor design deviation can be approved by the Community Development Department without a public hearing. Minor design deviation means a modification of an approved architectural unit within a subdivision that involves items such as, but not limited to, less than ten percent change in square footage of existing constructed or approved units; columns, dormer vents, window size changes, plant -on locations, color, and stucco texture changes. The Community Development Director may refer the minor design deviation to the planning commission as a business item under the site development permit process. 2. Major Design Deviation. A major design deviation is subject to the compatibility review for partially developed subdivisions. A major design deviationmeans a ten percent or more change in square footage of existing constructed or approved units; any exterior architectural modification not defined as a minor design deviation. D. Site Development .Permit Required. Residential units subject to this section are subject to approval of a site development permit by the planning commission per Section 9.210.010. Applications for such permits shall be filed with the planning Community Development Department on forms prescribed by the director together with: (1) all maps, plans, documents and other materials required by the director, and (2) all required fees per Chapter 9.260. The director shall provide the necessary forms plus written filing instructions specifying all materials and fees required to any requesting person at no charge. PAReports - PC\2013\PC 2-12-1320A 13-112\03 EXHIBIT A.docx Page 1 of 4 EXHIBIT "A" E. Acceptance of Applications as Complete. Within thirty days of receipt of a permit application, the director shall determine whether the application is complete and shall transmit such determination to the applicant. If the application is determined not to be complete, the director shall specify in writing those parts of the application which are incomplete and shall indicate the manner in which they can be made complete. No application shall be processed until all required materials have been submitted and the application deemed complete. F. Public Hearing Required. A public hearing shall be noticed and held per Section 9.200.110 prior to planning commission approval or denial of any site development permit consisting of the construction of a total of five houses within a tract under the compatibility review provisions of this section. Construction of a total of five or less units shall require review and approval of the planning commission as a business item. The planning Community Development Director may require that additional notice be given by enlarging the notification radius or by other means determined by the director. G. Precise Development Plan. A site development permit approved under the compatibility review provisions of this section constitutes a precise development plan. Therefore, the residential development authorized under the site development shall be in compliance with the plans, specifications and conditions of approval shown on and/or attached to the approved permit. H. Required Findings. In addition to the findings required for approval of a site development permit, the following findings shall be made by the decision -making authority prior to the approval of any site development permit under the compatibility review provisions of this section: 1. The development standards of subsection I of this section have been satisfied. 2. The architectural and other design elements of the new residential unit(s) will be compatible with and not detrimental to other existing units in the project. I. Development Standards for Compatibility Review. No residential unit shall be approved under compatibility review unless the planning commission determines that it complies with the following development standards: 1. A two-story house shall not be constructed adjacent to or abutting a lot line of an existing single -story home constructed in the same subdivision. 2. If lot fencing has been provided in the subdivision, the new developer shall provide the same or better type of fencing for the new dwelling(s), as P:\Reports - PC\2013\PC 2-12-13\ZOA 13-112\03 EXHIBIT A.docx Page 2 of 4 EXHIBIT "A" determined by the planning commission, including any perimeter subdivision fencing. 3. Proposed single-family dwellings shall be compatible to existing dwellings in the project or to dwellings which are approved for construction as shown on the plans and materials board, unless otherwise approved by the planning commission, with respect to the following design elements: a. Architectural material such as roof material, window treatment and garage door style; b. Colors; C. Roof lines; d. Lot area; and e. Building mass and scale. 4. At least one specimen tree (i.e., minimum of a 24-inch box size (1.5-inch to 2-inch caliper) and minimum ten -foot tall, measured from top of box) shall be provided in the front yard and street side yard with the total number of trees on each lot to be the same as that provided for on the original units. 6. Residential units with identical, or similar, front elevations shall not be placed on adjacent lots or directly across the street from one another. J. Commission Discretion on Unit Types. The planning commission, in reviewing dwelling units under this section, may limit the type and the number of a particular unit to be constructed within a subdivision. K. Appeals. The applicant or another aggrieved party may appeal decisions of the planning commission in accordance with the provisions of Section 9.200.120. PAReports - PC\2013\PC 2-12-13\ZOA 13-112\03 EXHIBIT A.docx Page 3 of 4 EXHIBIT "A" P:\Reports- PC\2013\PC 2-12-13\ZOA 13-112\03 EXHIBIT A.docx Page 4 of 4