Loading...
APP 2009 004'Anydevelopment review action may be appealed pursuant to Section 9.220.120 of r� Please identify the type of application: Type of Appeal: Change of Zone Specific Plan x Conditional Use Permit Variance Minor Use Permit Public Nuisance (Code Violation.) City of La Quinta Planning Department .78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California 92253 (760) 777-7125 FAX: (760) .777-1233 - received 'MAY 12 2009 Application for City of La Quinta Appeal of .Findings And/Or Conditions Planning Department Appellants Name • Mayer villa Capri, L.P. • Date Mav 8, 2 0 0 9 ' OFFICE USE ONLY Case No. c/[— cJO DateRecvd. 5-1Z-09 Fee: `"t 75 t •(�v Logged in by: #t.- Mailing Address 6610 Newport Center. Drive, Suite -1 050 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 759-8091 Resolution # and Condition(s) of Approval being appealedRes o lut ion 2 0 0 9 - 0 1 5 ; Cond. #1nn07 [1 Gorimg o • e. CITY OF LA QUiNTA T Tentative Tract Map Tentative Parcel Map x 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. See attached. Use additional sheets if necessary. Signature of Appel C:\Documents and Settings\pnieto\Desktop\Appeal Findings-Cond,doc APPEAL OF RESOLUTION 2009-015, CONDITION 107 Mayer Villa Capri, L.P. ("Appellant") brings this appeal to the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission on the Desert Express Carwash which require the carwash project to provide a driveway throat along its southern property line for a potential future driveway connection with the Appellant's adjacent property, a project known as "Villa Capri". The Villa Capri project was submitted to the City nearly 4 years ago and includes the development of 104,000 square feet of retail space including a grocery store anchor, drug store and smaller retail shops and restaurants, and a 130,000 square foot medical office complex/assisted living facility. Villa Capri was approved by the City Council on March 17, 2009, and at that time, council members commented on the high quality of the architecture being introduced with this project. After having been in the City for several years, and shortly before the Villa Capri project was scheduled to go before Planning Commission, staff introduced the idea of a new driveway access point from the Villa Capri to the Express Carwash. Concerned about the impact of this new driveway, the Appellant met with the Carwash developer and both parties agreed that the proposed new driveway did not provide significant benefits to the operation of either site. Furthermore, the introduction of this proposed new driveway introduced numerous problems for the Villa Capri. As a result, the Appellant's representatives met with staff on February 6, 2009 to explain our concerns about this new access point and to request thatit be deleted. Staff heard our concerns and agreed that the new access point should be deleted. The Villa Capri project was therefore approved by both the Planning Commission and the City Council without the new driveway between the site and the carwash site to the north. After the Council's approval of the Villa Capri project, the Planning Commission took up consideration of the Desert Express Carwash site immediately north of Villa Capri. On April 28, 2009, the Planning Commission approved the site development permit and conditional use permit for the carwash with the condition that it provide a driveway throat along the south property line for the potential of a future driveway connection. with Villa Capri. The Planning Commission established this condition on the carwash with the idea that should Villa Capri request any entitlement to further its development, the Commission would take that opportunity to impose the new condition for the driveway linkage with the carwash, even though the Villa Capri was approved without such a condition. Appellant therefore brings this appeal requesting that the City,Council delete from the approval of the Desert Express Carwash the requirement that they install a driveway throat along the south property line for a potential future driveway connection to Villa Capri. The bases for this appeal are as follows: 1. Circulation Issues: Circulation within the carwash site, even in the absence of the disputed driveway throat, is confusing and problematic. The circulation plan as approved already creates numerous locations where there can be conflict between vehicles, and the introduction of the new driveway creates yet another area of conflict. Use of the proposed driveway requires cars to cut across three lines of vehicles waiting for a car wash, thereby disrupting stacking within the three "wait" lanes for the carwash and potentially backing cars up on the site near the vacuum stations. If a customer wants to access the carwash site from Villa Capri, they enter the queue of cars waiting for a carwash at its center, not at its beginning, thereby delaying service to those cars waiting near the end of the queue. If those cars waiting in the queue refuse to allow the vehicle entering from Villa Capri to cut in, then that vehicle would back up onto the Villa Capri site thereby blocking mostly truck traffic using the perimeter service drive. The northern drive of the Villa Capri site has been designed to be the primary ingress/egress point for delivery trucks and trash removal trucks for the Villa Capri project. By introducing this proposed new cross traffic driveway between Villa Capri and the carwash, the City compromises this circulation plan by feintroducing cars into the flow of truck traffic on the site. 2. Drainage/Grading Issues. The requirement for the connecting driveway between the carwash and the Villa Capri sites presumes that the preliminary grading plans are final and workable grades for each property. Due to the recent City —sponsored improvements for Fred Waring Drive and the final construction of the adjacent school, the Villa Capri preliminary grading may have to adjust to fit those new edge conditions. As such, the final grades on the Villa Capri project may need to be significantly adjusted. The car wash applicant had contacted our engineer some months ago and received the elevations that were proposed at that time. Subsequently, due to other site plan issues on Villa Capri, our preliminary grading was revised to account for changes in the site plan thereby dropping the elevation proposed for the service drive in the area of the connection. Our approved Preliminary Grading Plan now shows a six foot grade difference between the two sites at the point of connection, which would result in a driveway gradient far steeper than can be allowed. Even if the car wash grading plan were adjusted downward by four feet +/- to better match our preliminary grades, there may yet be more changes needed by Villa Capri prior.to pulling a grading permit. It is unknown what impacts would surface from lowering the car wash grading to make the connection work. These could include export of dirt, retaining walls, drainage, etc. If the car wash builds first and constructs the throat of the connecting driveway, the grading of the 25 acre Villa Capri project would have to be forced to adjust to tie into this driveway. With only a limited distance (10' +/-) to make a smooth grading transition, the much larger and more complex Villa Capri project could find its options severely compromised by this unwanted and unneeded driveway. 3. Shared Maintenance Responsibility: The Villa Capri project is structured to provide that through conditions, covenants and restrictions ("CC&R's") recorded on Villa Capri, all tenants and property owners within the project will be required to pay a proportionateshare of the cost of maintaining the common area, including but not limited to the drive aisles throughout the project. By imposing the requirement that Villa Capri must provide access to the carwash, we are essentially being forced to give the carwash the benefit of the common area on our project without any responsibility to pay their fair -share for the use of that common area. Such a requirement is unfair to the tenants of Villa Capri and constitutes a taking of private property for the benefit of another private party. In addition to maintenance costs, the tenants and owners of Villa Capri will also be required to pay their share of insurance costs to provide liability coverage over the common area, including the drive aisles. Again, because the carwash is not part of the Villa Capri project, it will not share in the cost of that insurance, and yet, if the city forces the new access, the carwash will get the benefit of that insurance as a user of the Villa Capri site. This again works an injustice on the owners and tenants of the Villa Capri project. 4. Aesthetics: The Villa Capri project was put through rigorous analysis including but not limited to the requirement for architecture of the highest quality. During the council approval process, council members commented on the high quality of the architecture and the hard work that had been done by the Appellant in bringing that quality of project to the City. The carwash project has not been subject to that same level of scrutiny with respect to architectural review, and it does not match or meet the design standards of Villa Capri. Nonetheless, by forcing the driveway connection, the City makes the carwash a part of our project and yet this part of our project is not required to meet our design standards or pay its fair share of maintenance costs. This detracts from the architectural quality of our project as well as working a financial injustice on our project and its tenants. 5. No Customer Relationship between.Car Wash and Villa Capri: The Planning Commission jumped to the conclusion that customers using both the shopping center and the car wash during the same trip would be inconvenienced by not being able to drive between properties during a single trip to both wash their car and to shop or visit the medical office complex. In as much as the car wash is a drive through car wash relying on customers to drive their cars through the wash facility, does it make any sense to conclude that shopping trips would be combined with car wash trips? Without a compelling likelihood of large percentage of dual-purpose trips, the utility for the connection certainly diminishes. 6. Forcing Renegotiations with Villa Capri's confirmed tenants. The Appellant has worked on the Villa Capri project for nearly four years, and during that time, has engaged in detailed negotiations with tenants which included discussion of the circulation system for the site. The major tenants of the project have approved the circulation system as approved by the City Council on March 17, 2009. That circulation system does not include the shared access with the carwash. If we are forced to provide such access, we would be forced to renegotiate the circulation system with planned tenants. Forcing such a renegotiation in today's difficult economy when tenants are difficult to,find and keep, places an unfair burden on the Appellant at this late date and creates no meaningful benefit forthe project. 7. The driveway unfairly shifts the burden of site access for the carwash to Villa Capri. The traffic study for the Villa Capri found the circulation system as approved by the City Council appropriate for the impacts of this project. That system does not include the proposed shared driveway. The shared driveway is therefore being imposed in order to solve a perceived circulation issue for the small carwash site, which has access on Washington. By forcing this driveway onto the Appellant after the fact, the City unfairly shifts the burden of access to the carwash to the neighboring property owner. 3 I LESLIE LI PPICH ARCHITECT AND ASSOCIATES 4766 PARK GRANADA SUITE 204, CALABASAS CALIFORNIA 91302 June 8, 2009 City of La Quinta Attn: City Council Members P.O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92247-1504 RE: Site Development Permit 2008-905 Conditional Use Permit 2008-112 Express Carwash, Washington Street Dear Council Members: I am the architect for the subject project and writing this letter in response to the two appeals submitted by Dr. J.E. Chandrashekar and Mayer Villa Capri L.P., our neighbors to the north and to the south respectively. After lengthy reviews and revisions requested by the Planning Department and the City Engineering/Public Works over the course of nearly ten months, we have received a Planning Commission Approval on April 28, 2009 for our project to have the carwash tunnel located along the north side of our property. We wish to maintain this location and we feel that our neighbors' concerns are well mitigated by our plan. Dr. Chandrashekar's concems about noise and pollution by the carwash affecting his partially medical office building have been addressed by our design in the following manner: 1. The carwash tunnel has no openings facing north. 2. We have provided a 6'-0" sound wall along a portion of the north and east property lines as requested by the Planning Commission. 3. The office building to the north is located near the easterly or rear property line with a sizeable parking lot facing Washington Street. The only equipment inside the tunnel creating any noise is the drying blowers which are located at the exit end of the tunnel approximately 80 feet from Washington Street. At this location, our northerly neighbor has a parking area/carports, not a building. 4. The Aero-dry System used to dry the cars has a sound rating of 79.4 DBA from a 20' distance —well below the allowable sound pollution levels of the city. TEL 81 8.591 .2655 FAX 818.591.2729 C HIT E T AND..ASSOCIATES i4. 4766 PARK GRANADA SUITE 204, CALABASAS CALIFORNIA 91302, • '••-57 Customer activity is concentrated on the southerly part of our project where carwash users can vacuum their vehicles.. The vacuum - •' cylinder is inside the building; vacuum hoses create about the same • noise level as a residential vacuum. By placing .our building along. the northerly property line, the building itself protects our neighbor to. the north from any noisy activity our customers may create. Reversing the project, that is, placing the building along the south , property line would increase the "potential" disturbance to the office building on the north. ' • Mayer Villa Capri L.P.'s appeal is mainly a concern about the connecting -drive access between the two projects. - _ • We agree with Mayer Villa Capri L.P.'s request to omit the connection. ' They are correct •assuming that if the stacking line for the carwash is full„ anyone trying to cut into the middle would create backup on the,southerly neighbor's exit driveway creating a hazardous condition. We provided an escape lane on our property should anyone decide not to wait any longer. A right turn from our stacking line to another property can create liability and maintenance problems between the two property owners. Finally, the Express Carwash is a permitted use of the property —the interior traffic pattern is acceptable to the Planning Department, Traffic. ,Engineers and the owner/operator of the carwash. The driveway connection would only complicate the traffic issues' Based on the foregoing, we request the City Council to uphold the Planning Commission's decision to allow the carwash to be in its approved location and omit the conditions related to the driveway connection to the south. • Thank you, LESLIE LIPPICH ARCHITECT & ASSOCIATES, INC. Leslie Lippich President TEL 818:591.2655. FAX •818.591.2729 'LESLI E LIPPICH ARCHITECT AND ASSOCIATES 4766 PARK GRANADA SUITE 204, CALABASAS CALIFORNIA 91302 Letter of Transmittal TO: City of La Quints . P.O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92247-1504 ATTN: Stan Sawa DATE: 06-08-09 RE: Desert Express Carwash JOB NO.: 2648 HEREWITH TRANSMITTED: THE FOLLOWING: X By Mail Original Tracings _ As Requested _ By Carrier _ Prints X For Your Use By Telecopy X Correspondence X For Review _ In Person _ Invoice _ For Approval _ Other _ To Be Returned with Comments No. Of Pages: 3 Including Transmittal. CONTENTS:. REMARKS: Please find enclosed a letter of response to the appeals. Kind regards, Leslie Lippich LL;. TEL 818.591.2655 FAX 818.591.2729 P.O. Box 1504 LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92247-1504 • 78-495 CALLE TAMPICO LA QUINTA, CALIFO.RNIA 92253 May 14, 2009 Mr. Robert Mayer Mayer Villa Capri 660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1050 Newport Beach, CA 92660 (760) 777-7000 FAX (760) 777-7101 Subject: Your Appeal of the Planning Commission Action on Site Development Permit 2008-905 and Conditional Use Permit 2008- 1 12 for Desert Express Car Wash Dear Mr. Mayer: We have received your appeal of the April 28 Planning Commission approval of a car wash on Washington Street south of your property. We have scheduled the appeal for City Council review on June 16, 2009 starting at 7 pm. Prior to the meeting we will send you a copy .of the staff report for your use. Your concerns as presented in your appeal will be included in the staff report. You may attend the meeting to discuss your concerns. We have also received an appeal from Dr. Chandrashekar (Archna LLC), the property owner to the north of the car wash site. His concern is primarily the noise and pollution the car wash will generate with the •structure next to his property line. Both appeals will be presented in the staff report. Should you have any questions, please contact me at 760 777-7064 or ssawa@Ia-quinta.org. Sincerely, STAN SAWA Principal Planner cc: David Sawyer,Planning Manager P•\stan\srin\srin 7nf$-911d\Itr annaal arnhna_rinc Tali/ at eicAtdittu P.O. Box 1504 LA QUINTA, CA 92247-1504 \\Q\ tL J lip`' . wcE[NED JUN 9 2009 CITY OF LA QU NTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT C• • 63746006f Rodney & Teri Jessen 2606 109th P1 Ne 38 les SAP R ., • 0 zd.. l 7 ® PITNEY FlON 02 1A $ 00.4 0004624271 JUN 01 MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 9 .?r, y.v.w .ReD DE ,i OD t3a,Ofi RETURN 70 SENDER NOT. DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED UNABLE TO .FORIJARO II7I,;7;I)l1SI7l lnl ,,,lm 111TI)11,�,�!„Il m,ln:InIijI P.O. Box 1504, LA •QuINTA, CA 92247-1504 l v L JUN 8 2009 Ems• ' 7 ® PITNEY B 02 1A $ ®® 14 00046242 71 JUN 0 MAILED FROM ZIP CODE PLANNINGCITY F LA OUINTA 1637460094 21 Michele R Rose 7 17nn7Q Rl ,, l,Iairn lave w /4-ETURN TO :SENDER itdtUP OaEid�- ADDRESS UNABLE . TO .FORWARD Be : 92247150404 `2,W77 - 05476-01 F.••i0i W I,TT.lTJ)717:l1)!7!7lillliliS.il11iT�1�f,�7Jf i1177 �I1T1I11 T7l1il1!) P.O.-Box 1504. JINTA, CA 92247-1504 P.O. INTA, s. •4 0 ®7 ® PITNET BONY€$ Q 2 1 A • $' 00.44° 0004624271 . JUN 01 2009 MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 92253 art of LA °`v`T� NN9 ��NG DEPAN 637460004 ; Guy M & Helen K Miller41 X. 923 N FE 1 3DZx 00 OS/ O2l 09 .fiORWARD TIME EXP ' RTN TO SEND MILLER 43541 'alIA MAGELLAN DR PALM DESERT CA 92211—B240 RETURN To SENDER F )l,l,;,,a,)`,:,J LJ,,i ,A J.I,I.,i,)i,,,:,1,,))I;,.,,i;,)uldl •x 150.4: CA 9SIN 7-S521)8 CITY OF LA QUINTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT D 637460050 R.-.r n Chu NIXIE 7 ® P.TNEV BOVHf$ % •. 02 1A $ 00.44� 0004624271 JUN01 2009 lig MAILED FROM ZIPCODE 92253 27, 923 • DE 1 .00 05/ 03J D9 RETURN TO SENDER ATTEMPTED — NOT •KNOWN UNABLE TO FORWARD MMC: 92247150404 *2577-0545s-01-41, ' \ IJ,i,,,,).,l„T,;);)„FLI,i,.,, I l,J,il,,,,i„)J ,,,,l,,l„ldl \' 1 P.O. Box 1504 JINTA, CA:92247-1504 ECElITE JUN 5 2009 CITY OF LA ()UINTA .PLANNING DEPARTMENT F 3O 4' � ® PITNEY BOWES 02 1 A $ 00.44 0004624271 JUN 01 2009 MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 92253 609070050 7 NIXIE 9.23 ,..DE i OD 0 /03J09 :RETURN TO SENDER NOT DE:LIVERAGLE AS ADDRESSED LJNADLE TO FORWARD . SO: 9.2.247150404I II,i, iIT,1,.1,.1I Jia„1A, 1i,11l,Jl.,,,,I„11.1„I,I.,,I,.,IliJ