Loading...
2019 10 22 PCPLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA 1 OCTOBER 22, 2019 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBER 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta REGULAR MEETING on TUESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2019 AT 6:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL: Commissioners Bettencourt, Currie, Libolt Varner, McCune, Nieto, Proctor and Chairperson Caldwell PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA 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. The Planning Commission values your comments; however, in accordance with State law, no action shall be taken on any item not appearing on the agenda unless it is an emergency item authorized by GC 54954.2(b). CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA ANNOUNCEMENTS, PRESENTATIONS AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None CONSENT CALENDAR NOTE: Consent Calendar items are routine in nature and can be approved by one motion. 1. APPROVE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 8, 2019 BUSINESS SESSION - None Planning Commission agendas and staff reports are now available on the City’s web page: www.laquintaca.gov PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA 2 OCTOBER 22, 2019 STUDY SESSION 1. DISCUSS PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 9 OF THE LA QUINTA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO MINIMUM LOT SIZES, FLAGPOLES, SPECIFIC PLAN REQUIREMENTS, AND GARAGE REQUIREMENTS PUBLIC HEARING – None REPORTS AND INFORMATIONAL ITEMS - None COMMISSIONERS’ ITEMS STAFF ITEMS - None ADJOURNMENT The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission will be held on November 12, 2019, commencing at 6:00 p.m. with the Call to Order, at the City Hall Council Chamber, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California. DECLARATION OF POSTING I, Wanda Wise-Latta, Commission Secretary, do hereby declare that the foregoing Agenda for the La Quinta Planning Commission meeting of October 22, 2019 was posted on the City’s website, near the entrance to the Council Chamber at 78-495 Calle Tampico, and the bulletin boards at the Stater Brothers Supermarket at 78- 630 Highway 111, and the La Quinta Cove Post Office at 51-321 Avenida Bermudas, on October 17, 2019. DATED: October 17, 2019 WANDA WISE-LATTA, Commission 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 Planning Division of the Design and Development Department at 777-7118, 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 Planning Division of the Design and Development Department at 777-7118. 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 Assistant 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 Design and Development Department’s counter at City Hall located at 78- 495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California, 92253, during normal business hours. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2019 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Vice Chairperson Proctor. PRESENT: Commissioners Bettencourt, Currie, Libolt Varner, McCune, Nieto and Proctor ABSENT: Chairperson Caldwell STAFF PRESENT: City Attorney William Ihrke, Design and Development Director Danny Castro, Planning Manager Cheri L. Flores, City Engineer Bryan McKinney, City Clerk Monika Radeva, Commission Secretary Wanda Wise-Latta and Administrative Assistant Mirta Lerma It was noted by staff that Chairperson Caldwell was absent and Vice Chairperson Proctor is serving as presiding officer of this meeting. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Nieto led the Planning Commission in the Pledge of Allegiance. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA – None CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA Commissioner Libolt Varner said she will recuse herself from discussion and vote on Public Hearing Item No. 1 regarding the Pavilion Palms commercial project due to a potential conflict of interest stemming from a business relationship between her employer, MSA Consulting, and the project developer, Lundin Development Company. Commissioner Bettencourt stated that his wife, who is affiliated with Bennion Deville Homes real estate company, has no business transactions pending within 500 feet of the proposed Pavilion Palms commercial project and said he has had no conversations with anyone regarding the proposed Pavilion Palms commercial project. Commission Secretary noted Public Hearing No. 1 was continued from the June 26, 2018 Planning Commission meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 1 3 Commissioner Nieto said that he was appointed to the Planning Commission on June 18, 2019 and thus did not participate in the previous two Planning Commission meetings regarding the proposed Pavilion Palms commercial project and did receive the agenda packets from the May 8 and June 26, 2018 public hearings, which he read and reviewed in preparation for this meeting. Commission concurred and the agenda was confirmed. ANNOUNCEMENTS, PRESENTATIONS AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATION - None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES DATED SEPTEMBER 24, 2019 MOTION – A motion was made and seconded by Commissioners Bettencourt/Currie to approve the Consent Calendar as submitted. AYES: Commissioners Bettencourt, Currie, Libolt Varner, McCune, Nieto, and Vice Chairperson Proctor. NOES: None. ABSENT: Chairperson Caldwell. ABSTAIN: None. Motion passed. BUSINESS SESSION - None STUDY SESSION – None PUBLIC HEARING DECLARATIONS REGARDING COMMISSION PUBLIC CONTACTS COMMISSIONER LIBOLT VARNER RECUSED HERSELF FROM DISCUSSION AND VOTE ON PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 1 DUE TO A POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST STEMMING FROM A BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HER EMPLOYER, MSA CONSULTING, AND THE PROJECT DEVELOPER, LUNDIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY AND LEFT THE DAIS AT 6:07 P.M. Commissioner Currie stated that on April 26, 2018 she and former Planning Commissioner Paul Quill met with Mr. Greg Bever to hear a presentation regarding the proposed project. Commissioner Nieto reiterated that he did not participate in the previous public hearings regarding the Pavilion Palms commercial project as his appointment to the Planning Commission (Commission) occurred on June 18, 2019 and noted that he had reviewed the information provided to him pertaining to the proposed project. No other public contact to report. 4 1. CONTINUED FROM JUNE 26, 2018 - SPECIFIC PLAN 2017-0002, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 2017-0003, SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2017-0009 AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2017-0006 SUBMITTED BY LUNDIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY PROPOSING A 125,000 SQUARE-FOOT SHOPPING CENTER WITH THREE DRIVE-THROUGH BUILDINGS AND A 63,000 SQUARE- FOOT SUPERMARKET WITH ASSOCIATED VEHICLE FUEL CENTER, AND A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. PROJECT: PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER. CEQA: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2017-0006 WAS PREPARED FOR THIS PROJECT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND IT WAS DETERMINED THAT ALTHOUGH THE PROPOSED PROJECT COULD HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT, THERE WILL NOT BE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT BECAUSE MITIGATION MEASURES HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT. LOCATION: NORTHWEST CORNER OF AVENUE 50 AND JEFFERSON STREET. Vice Chairperson Proctor explained the public hearing process. City Clerk Monika Radeva stated that the item was heard by the Commission in May and June of 2018 as a public hearing and was continued, not to a date specific, to allow time for the applicant to revise their traffic study and include an analysis of other intersections in the area and is now ready for reconsideration. She said this public hearing had been advertised in accordance with state law. Planning Manager Cheri L. Flores presented the staff report, which is on file in the Design and Development Department. Staff responded to the Commission’s inquiries regarding: • Coachella Valley Water District well site and retention basin for the Renaissance development to the west of the proposed Pavilion Palm commercial project– staff provided information regarding use and access. • Expansion of the Citrus Plaza commercial center to the north of the Ralph’s grocery store - staff confirmed that the City of Indio has an application under review for the expansion which is proposed to include fueling station, small hotel and small retail shops. • Phasing plan for Pavilion Palms commercial project – staff said that a phasing plan was not available, but the applicant may be able to provide phasing information. • Economic feasibility study – staff stated it would be up to the applicant to provide such a study. • Landscape buffer and sidewalks adjacent to the project along Avenue 50 and Jefferson Street – staff noted that the City had installed the curb adjacent sidewalk along Jefferson Street as part of the City’s Capital Improvement Projects. 5 • Undergrounding of power poles – staff said power poles of a certain size can be undergrounded but noted that the poles at the site may be over 92 KV and may not be able to be undergrounded. • Signalization of Jefferson Street – staff noted that the traffic study determined that a signal was not necessary and there is no condition of approval for any type of signal and said that if there was an interest on the part of the Cities of La Quinta and Indio, they could discuss a possible signal and its location. • Possible California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) mitigation measures resulting from this hearing – City Attorney William Ihrke noted that the CEQA determination was based upon the project as it was defined and the CEQA analysis would be sufficient. • Further oversight by the Commission of drive through restaurants proposed for the project – staff stated that no tenants have been determined at this time; the traffic study would have analyzed a worst-case scenario related to the drive through locations; and if there is a mitigation measure limiting the hours of the drive through restaurants, 24-hour drive through restaurants would not be allowed. • Phasing of building construction – staff clarified that the Pavilions grocery store, fueling station and Retail 1 are before the Commission for approval and noted that per Site Development Permit 2017-0009 Condition of Approval No. 3, Building Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, and 9 will require, prior to construction, a site development permit be reviewed and approved at a Commission public hearing. • Traffic Studies – City Engineer McKinney explained that the first traffic study analyzed the adjacent intersection and interior circulation of the site and staff requested that they further analyze the impact of the project to adjacent intersections including Madison Street at Avenue 50, Jefferson Street at Avenues 48 and 52, and Washington Street at Avenue 50; and noted that no additional mitigations were required at those intersections due to the project. He said that the first traffic study anticipated a possible second left-turn lane from Avenue 50 to Jefferson Street and if it becomes necessary in the future, a bond would be required from the applicant. Staff provided information found in the new traffic study that provided a summary of trip distribution for the proposed project. Vice Chairperson Proctor declared the PUBLIC HEARING OPEN at 6:36 p.m. PUBLIC SPEAKER: Greg Bever, Lundin Development Company, Rancho Mirage, CA – introduced himself and clarified that the applicant is asking the Commission to recommend approval of a modification to a pre-existing specific plan. He stated that improvements were made to the configuration of the project, parking, turning angles, addition of Pavilions grocery store, and access to the development from the community. He noted that based upon community concerns the access to Pavilion Palms commercial center from Derek Allen Drive was eliminated; modifications were made to the height of parking lot light standards to reduce the height from 6 40 feet to 30 feet and reduced the height of the light standards at the southwest corner of the site to 20 feet; eliminated the convenience store and replaced it with a 815 square-foot kiosk that would not allow the sale of beer, wine or alcoholic beverages; agreed to maintenance standards as well as Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) with the Renaissance and Palmilla homeowners associations; addressed concerns regarding maintenance condition of other shopping centers owned by the applicant in the Coachella Valley; heard concerns regarding the ability of the left turn lane from Avenue 50 to Jefferson Street to accommodate traffic and agreed with staff to bond for second left turn from Avenue 50 to Jefferson Street should staff feel it is necessary; modified entry into drive through location at the north end of the proposed project; and spoke about building construction phasing. PUBLIC SPEAKER: Steve Cenicola, La Quinta, CA –inquired about when the fueling station was originally approved; noted that no other retail business has been identified by the applicant as being part of the Pavilion Palms commercial project; noted that the applicant reduced the light standard height from 40 feet to 30 feet, but would like to see the light standard height reduced to 20 feet so as to be no taller than the shortest part of the proposed buildings’ rooflines; fueling station kiosk was reduced from 3,000 square feet to 600 square feet in 2018, but is shown as 815 square feet in the staff report; fueling station kiosk hours of operation; and appreciated that no liquor, beer or wine would be sold at the kiosk. He expressed concern regarding drive through restaurant hours and the traffic study. PUBLIC SPEAKER: Judith Young, La Quinta, CA – submitted a Public Speaker Form upon which she noted that she was undecided regarding the Pavilion Palms commercial project and requested to donate her allotted speaker time to Mr. Dick Mills. PUBLIC SPEAKER: Dick Mills, La Quinta, CA – spoke in opposition to the Pavilion Palms commercial project due to the location of the proposed project; the fueling station; drive through businesses; and the project’s impact on quality of life. PUBLIC SPEAKER: Yolanda Mills, La Quinta, CA – spoke in opposition to the Pavilion Palms commercial project due to the fueling station; drive through businesses; and traffic. PUBLIC SPEAKER: Andrew Grant, La Quinta, CA – noted the proximity of the Pavilion Palms commercial project to his home and spoke in opposition to the project due to its impact on his quality of life; proximity to surrounding residential developments; commercial projects that did not come to fruition; commercial vacancies; location of project; and impact on property values. PUBLIC SPEAKER: Ken Hulbert, La Quinta, CA – said he is the President of the Palmilla Homeowners Association and thanked the Commission and staff for allowing him to speak and for the assistance in viewing the information regarding the Pavilion Palms commercial project. He requested on behalf of Palmilla homeowners not in attendance that the Commission reconsider making any 7 decision regarding the Pavilion Palms commercial project as most of the Palmilla homeowners will not return until November. He spoke in opposition to the Pavilion Palms commercial project due to the modern architectural design; location; lack of leased spaces in proposed project; and appreciated the changes made by the applicant PUBLIC SPEAKER: Jerry Cantarini, La Quinta, CA - said he would like the Commission to put off the vote on the proposed project until it is known what the proposed expansion of the Citrus Plaza commercial center located east of the Pavilion Palms commercial project site in the City of Indio will entail. PUBLIC SPEAKER: Jim O’Brien, La Quinta, CA – spoke about the closure of Vons and Pavilion stores in the valley and asked the Commission to wait on their decision until it is known what the proposed expansion of the Citrus Plaza commercial center will entail and to wait for snowbirds to return. PUBLIC SPEAKER: Dennis Burke, La Quinta, CA - submitted a Public Speaker Form opposed, but did not wish to speak. PUBLIC SPEAKER: Mark Montgomery, La Quinta, CA – spoke in opposition to the project due to public safety concerns. PUBLIC SPEAKER: Sandy Lox, La Quinta, CA - spoke in opposition to the Pavilion Palms commercial project due to traffic and safety concerns and the location of the proposed Pavilion Palms commercial project. PUBLIC SPEAKER: Claire Bruno, La Quinta, CA – spoke in opposition to the Pavilion Palms commercial project due to fueling station; light standard height; location; and empty commercial sites within the city. PUBLIC SPEAKER: Kathy Cole, La Quinta, CA - spoke in opposition to the Pavilion Palms commercial project due to the location and commercial vacancies in La Quinta; and noted corrections to Attachment No. 1 of the staff report. PUBLIC SPEAKER: Robert Lichter, La Quinta, CA - said he was neither for or against the Pavilion Palms commercial project; stated he owns Citrus Plaza shopping center to the east of the proposed Pavilion Palms commercial project; and shared information regarding the expansion of the Citrus Plaza which he said will include a fueling station. PUBLIC SPEAKER: Leila Namvar, La Quinta, CA - spoke in opposition to the proposed Pavilion Palms commercial project due to conflicts with the City of La Quinta’s General Plan; fueling station as a permitted use; lack of a feasibility study by the applicant for the fueling station; date of preparation of Initial Study used; CC&R’s; condition of other shopping centers owned by the applicant; and traffic study. 8 PUBLIC SPEAKER: Philip West, La Quinta, CA - submitted a Public Speaker Form opposed to the Pavilion Palms commercial project but did not wish to speak. He included a document that lists restaurants, fast food establishments, coffee shops, gas stations and grocery stores with 1.5 miles of Ave 50 and Jefferson not including Citrus Plaza and the number of vacancies in the Village/Old Town area. PUBLIC SPEAKER: Greg Bever, Lundin Development Company, Rancho Mirage, CA – confirmed lease with Pavilions; addressed height, line of site and spillover lighting of light standards; addressed concerns about the traffic study; and noted that their traffic engineer/consultant was available to answer questions from the Commission. PUBLIC SPEAKER: Herb Lundin, Lundin Development Company, Huntington Beach, CA – introduced himself and provided history and additional information about the proposed Pavilion Palms commercial project. The applicant responded to Commissioner Bettencourt’s inquiry confirming that the applicant accepted the Conditions of Approval as presented in the staff report including that the applicant will enter into a maintenance agreement with the Renaissance and Palmilla Homeowners Associations as long as the conditions are reasonable and do not exceed conditions that apply to other projects in the city. Commissioner McCune inquired if the use of 116 Washingtonian hybrid palms would meet the parking lot shade requirements; and commented on the photo metrics of the light fixtures. The applicant responded to Commissioner Currie’s inquiry about currently leased retail square footage space and phasing plan stating that the Pavilions market space and the fueling station are leased and represent approximately 50 percent of the total retail square footage. He stated their phasing plan would be to build the Pavilions fueling station and shops in the Retail 1 area first along with all the infrastructure, all the parking lots, storm water systems, curbs, gutters, landscape medians along Avenue 50 and Jefferson Street. The applicant noted that the pad buildings will be developed based on market conditions and that Pavilions would like to open in the first quarter of 2021. Vice Chairperson Proctor declared the PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED at 7:37 p.m. City Attorney Ihrke advised the Commission given that two Commissioners are not participating, pursuant to state law, and because there is a specific plan attached to this case, four votes of the current members on the dais are required to recommend approval for the entitlements to go forward. Commissioner Bettencourt stated that he is inclined to endorse the plan and recommend to the City Council approval of the Pavilion Palms commercial project as the applicant has substantial requirements imposed upon the project and responded to many of the concerns from residents. 9 Commissioner McCune noted that the retention basin provides a buffer between the Renaissance development and the commercial development; Avenue 50 provides a buffer to the Palmilla development; noted that nowhere in the information provided are the drive through locations designated as fast food drive through restaurants; would like to see more outside café seating; retailtainment and places to visit; and inclusion of art in public places. Commissioner Nieto recognized the effort the applicant put into the proposed project; and expressed concerns about the scale and square footage of the proposed project with no real phasing plan; proximity to residential development; a plan which appears to be auto-driven given the drive through locations and fuel station; driveways that are aligned so as to not identify a main entrance; and truck routes within the commercial center. He stated he would like to see more attention to open spaces, plazas, shaded walkways, and seating to make it a more community-oriented and pedestrian-friendly center. Commissioner Currie shared concerns regarding an architectural design that is not compatible or harmonious with the adjacent surroundings; a gas station structure that is box-like and an abrupt change in scale compared to the surrounding areas; the Pavilions grocery store has a roof projection that is 42 feet high which is well- above the height of surrounding residential developments; shared concerns about density of the project given the number of separate structures and drive-through locations; the stacking of vehicles on premises at the drive through locations; traffic; noise; egress and ingress to and from the project; lack of shade trees or shade structures; no allowance for benches, fountains, patios, plazas, lack of roadway surfaces textures at the center’s entrances. She noted that there appears to be little focus on walkability and/or reducing heat from the parking lot pavement and was concerned that the project is a large-scale infill project with no phasing plan and being built in multiple steps. Vice Chairperson Proctor spoke about the visioning for the Highway 111 Corridor due to the current state of commercial areas along Highway 111 which includes vacant shops, storefronts, and restaurants; vast amounts of asphalt parking; acres of parking lot light standards all of which are not what the hopes and wishes for what we want La Quinta to look like. He noted that his impression of the Pavilion Palms commercial project in its present form drags the current state of deterioration along Highway 111 and down Jefferson Street to the corner of this site. He feels the project has certain merit but needs to be reconfigured and mirrored comments made by Commissioners to be more consistent with a neighborhood setting and function as a more suitable gateway to not only the expansions at PGA West and the SilverRock Resort. MOTION – A motion was made and seconded by Commissioners Bettencourt/Nieto to reopen the Public Hearing and continue Specific Plan 2017-0002, Amendment No. 2 to Specific Plan 1998-034; Site Development Permit 2017-0009; Tentative Parcel Map 2017-0009 (TPM 37370) and certification of Environmental Assessment 10 2017-0006 to the December 10, 2019 Planning Commission meeting. AYES: Commissioners Bettencourt, Currie, McCune, Nieto, and Vice Chairperson Proctor. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioners Libolt Varner and Chairperson Caldwell. ABSTAIN: None. Motion passed. COMMISSIONER LIBOLT VARNER RETURNED TO THE DAIS AT 8:04 P.M. REPORTS AND INFORMATIONAL ITEMS Planning Manager Flores provided information about a Planning Commissioners’ Workshop presented by the American Planning Association California Chapter Inland Empire Section on Thursday, November 7, 2019 in Fontana, California. COMMISSIONERS’ ITEMS - None STAFF ITEMS -None ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Bettencourt/Currie to adjourn this meeting at 8:08 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. Respectfully submitted, WANDA WISE-LATTA, Commission Secretary City of La Quinta, California 11 12 City of La Quinta PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: October 22, 2019 STAFF REPORT AGENDA TITLE: DISCUSS PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 9 OF THE LA QUINTA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO MINIMUM LOT SIZES, FLAGPOLES, SPECIFIC PLAN REQUIREMENTS, AND GARAGE REQUIREMENTS RECOMMENDATION Discuss and provide direction on proposed amendments to Title 9 of the La Quinta Municipal Code related to minimum lot sizes, flagpoles, specific plan requirements, and garage requirements to streamline development processes and standards. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Proposed modifications to La Quinta Municipal Code (Code) sections would • Remove 20,000 square feet minimum lot size requirement for subdivisions that are 10 acres or less, located south of Avenue 52 and west of Madison; • Amend standards for flagpoles; • Remove requirement for a Specific Plan for properties 10 acres or less in Regional Commercial (RC) zone (Highway 111 Corridor); and • Amend parking requirements for nonconforming single-family residences. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Council has adopted annual Code amendments in since 2016 to streamline the development review process and clarify development standards. This year, Staff has identified additional amendments to further streamline and clarify development standards. This study session provides an opportunity for the Commission to provide direction on several proposed amendments. Staff will then schedule the amendments for a Council study session and present the final proposed amendments for Commission and Council consideration. Attachment 1 presents a summary of the proposed amendments. Attachment 2 provides detail on the proposed text amendments, which are summarized below. STUDY SESSION ITEM NO. 1 13 Minimum lot size standards (Section 9.50.030 Table of development standards) In 2007, the City adopted Code updates requiring Residential Low Density (RL) subdivisions of 10 acres or less located south of Avenue 52 and west of Madison street to have 20,000 sf minimum lot sizes, which was larger than the 7,200-sf minimum requirement in the RL zone. This was implemented in order to require development of larger residential subdivisions in this area, and to prohibit multiple, smaller subdivisions which could provide more cohesiveness between the developments and provide more housing opportunities. Staff receives requests for land in this area to be subdivided into tracts with lot sizes less than 20,000 sf, but greater than the minimum 7,200 sf as required in the underlying RL zone standards. Staff proposes a Code revision to remove this footnote requirement and have all land in this area regulated by the underlying zone development standards. The alternative is to not amend the Code, thereby keeping this provision. Flagpoles (Section 9.60.340 Flagpoles) The City recently established standards for flagpoles in residential zoning districts, allowing them to be located within the front yard. The Council requested that this standard be revisited and to allow some flexibility. The proposed flexibility would allow flagpoles to be located within any yard that does not abut a residential lot. For example, a flagpole could be located on a residential property’s side or rear yard that faces a street. Flagpoles would still have a minimum ten-foot setback from any property line. The alternative is to not amend the Code and allow flagpoles only within front yards. CR Specific Plans (Section 9.70.030 CR Regional Commercial District) The City’s Code currently has a regulation that any development or land division greater than ten acres in the CR district (Highway 111 Corridor) requires approval of a specific plan. Staff is currently proposing removing this requirement in order to streamline development and be consistent with the City’s General Plan. This would allow development to be regulated by the City’s Code, to allow for greater ease in enforcing operational requirements, and to encourage more cohesiveness between developments. The Highway 111 Corridor currently has 11 separate Specific Plans. Any proposed modifications to the Specific plans require an extensive planning process and full environmental review. If we look at planning the future of the Corridor development more holistically, as envisioned in the Highway 111 Corridor Area Plan, requiring specific plans for each individual development would go against this vision. Applicants would still be able to propose a Specific Plan for projects in this district but would not be required, however, this will be an important planning/land use issue we will need to decide as we look at planning the future of the Corridor. 14 Nonconforming garage standards (Section 9.270.030 Nonconforming uses) The City’s current parking standards require single-family residences to have a fully enclosed, two-car garage. Staff currently receives requests from owners of homes with legally nonconforming parking to renovate their home without having to meet the City’s garage requirement. Renovation and remodeling of homes improves the value and extends their lives, and we would like to encourage this, however, some properties are constrained by the garage requirement by their lot sizes, house configuration, or a desire to retain historic features (i.e., casitas in the Cove). Staff is proposing the following: When a home with legally nonconforming parking proposes a building addition that exceeds 50% of the square feet of the existing living area, applicant shall construct a two-car garage. If it is less than 50%, applicant may satisfy parking with evidence of two off-street parking spaces via driveway, carport, or other legal parking space. The 50% threshold for additions applies to additions that are done either incrementally or cumulatively over a three-year period. Prepared by: Carlos Flores, Senior Planner Approved by: Cheri Flores, Planning Manager Attachments: 1. Matrix of proposed Code amendments 2. Title 9 proposed Code amendments (redline) 15 16 Affected Code Section(s)Existing Challenge/ Inefficiency Suggested Change to Code Section 9.50.030 Subdivisions of 10 acres or less in Low Density Residential (RL) subdivisions require minimum lot sizes to be 20,000 sf, making development of some parcels difficult Remove this requirement and alow for subdivisions to be regulated by underlying RL zone development standards. 9.60.340 Flagpole standards allow for flagpoles to be installed only within the front yard Allow flagpoles to be constructed within any yard that does not abut a residential lot. 9.70.030 Developments or land divisions greater than ten acres in the Regional Commercial (CR) district requires approval of a specific plan Remove this requirement to streamline development, be consistent with General Plan, and allow development to be regulated by CR standards. 9.270.030 A home with legally nonconforming parking is required to build a fully enclosed, two car garage if the home is increasing in intensity Create a threshold where the two-car garage requirement is only necessary if applicant proposes an addition that exceeds 50% of the square feet of existing living area. For additions 50% or less than existing living area, off-street parking for two cars can be satisfied by other means, such as a driveway or carport. Code Amendments Prepared for Planning Commission Meeting ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 117 18 9.50.030 Table of development standards. A. Definitions. See Chapter 9.280. B. Table of Standards. Table 9-2 and the illustrations in Section 9.50.040, following, set forth standards for the development of property within residential districts. However, standards different from those in Table 9-2 shall apply if special zoning symbols described in Section 9.20.030 are designated on the official zoning map. Table 9-2 Residential Development Standards Development Standard District RVL RL RC RM RMH RH Minimum lot size for single- family dwellings (sq. ft.) 20,000 7200*** 7200 5000 3600 2000 Minimum project size for multifamily projects (sq. ft.) n/a n/a n/a n/a 20,000 20,000 Minimum lot frontage for single-family dwellings (ft.)1 100 60 60 50 40 n/a Minimum frontage for multifamily projects (ft.) n/a n/a n/a n/a 100 100 Maximum structure height (ft.)2 28 28 17 28 28 40 Maximum number of stories 2 2 1 2 2 3 Minimum front yard setback (ft.)3 30 20 20 20 20 20 Minimum garage setback (ft.)4 30 25 25 25 25 25 Minimum interior/exterior side yard setback (ft.)5, 7 10/20 5/10 5/10 5/10 5/10 10/15 Minimum rear yard setback (ft.)7 30 20 for new lots and 10 for existing recorded lots8 10 15 15 20 Maximum lot coverage (% of net lot area) 40 50 60 60 60 60 19 *As shown on the approved specific plan for the project. ** As provided in the underlying base district. *** A minimum lot size of 20,000 sq. ft. shall be required of new lots created within subdivisions of 10 acres or less in size located south of Avenue 52 and west of Monroe Street. 1 Minimum lot frontage on cul-de-sacs and knuckles shall be 35 feet. Minimum lot frontage for flag lots shall be 15 feet. 2 Not including basements. Also, notwithstanding above table, the maximum structure height equals 22 feet for all buildings within 150 feet of any general plan-designated image corridor, except in the RC zone, which is 17 feet. 3 For non-garage portions of dwelling only. Also, projects with 5 or more adjacent single-family dwelling units facing the same street shall incorporate front setbacks varying between 20 feet and 25 feet or more in order to avoid streetscape monotony. 4 For all but RVL district, minimum garage setback shall be 20 feet if “roll-up” type garage door is used. Also, for side-entry type garages, the garage setback may be reduced to 20 feet in the RVL district and 15 feet in all other residential districts. 5 The following are exceptions to the minimum side setbacks shown: For interior side yards in the RL, RM and RMH districts, if the building is over 17 feet in height, the setback is 5 feet plus 1 foot for every foot over 17 feet in height or fraction thereof, to a maximum setback of 10 feet. The additional setback may be provided entirely at grade level or a combination of at grade and airspace above the 17-foot building. For RH, 5 feet minimum plus 1 foot additional setback for every foot of building height above 28 feet, or fraction thereof, up to a maximum setback of 15 feet when said height above 17 feet is located between 5 and 10 feet from said side yard property line. For interior setbacks, if the building is over 28 feet in height the setback is 10 feet plus 1 foot for Minimum livable area excluding garage (sq. ft.) 2500 1400 1200 1400 1400 (multifamily: 750) 750 for multifamily Minimum common open area6 n/a n/a n/a 30% 30% 30% Minimum/average perimeter landscape setbacks (ft.)6 10/20 10/20 n/a 10/20 10/20 10/20 Symbol Description of Special Zoning Symbols Used as per Section 9.20.030 60-RM-10,000 17/1 60-foot minimum lot frontage, medium density residential zoning, 10,000 square foot minimum lot size, 17-foot maximum building height at one story RL 10,000 17/1 Low density residential zoning, 10,000 square foot minimum lot size, 17-foot maximum building height at one story RM 17/1 Medium density residential zoning, 17-foot maximum building height at one story RL 17/1 Low density residential zoning, 17-foot maximum building height at one story 20 every foot over 28 feet in height or fraction thereof, to a maximum setback of 15 feet. The additional setback may be provided entirely at grade level or may be a combination of at grade and airspace above the 28-foot building height. 6 Common open area and perimeter landscape requirements do not apply to single-family detached projects unless a specific plan is required. Common open area equals percent of net project area. Perimeter landscape setbacks are adjacent to perimeter streets: first number equals minimum at any point; second number equals minimum average over entire frontage (thus, 10/20). See Section 9.60.240 and additional landscape/open area standards. 7 Rear and side yard setbacks for residential units abutting the image corridor shall be a minimum of 25 feet with the exception of RVL zone district where it only applies to the side yard. 8 Existing recorded lots prior to May 1, 1997. (Ord. 562 § 1, 2017; Ord. 550 § 1, 2016) 9.60.340 Flagpoles. Flagpoles shall be allowed in all residential zoning districts subject to the following standards: A. Height of flagpoles shall not exceed twenty feet. B. Flagpoles are allowed within any yard not abutting another residential lot. the front yard only. The minimum front yard setback for flagpoles shall be ten feet from any property line. C. Installation of flagpoles shall require a building permit. D. Flagpoles that were installed on locations other than the front yard prior to February 14, 2019, but otherwise meet the height limitation in this section, shall be allowed to remain in place so long as a building permit is obtained if there was no building permit issued previously. Proof of installation or existence of flagpoles prior to February 14, 2019 may be required. (Ord. 580 § 1, 2019; Ord. 577 § 1, 2019) 9.70.030 CR Regional Commercial District. A. Purpose and Intent. To provide for the development and regulation of regionally oriented commercial areas located along the Highway 111 corridor as shown on the general plan. The CR district is intended to provide a broad range of goods and services serving the entire region. Representative land uses include corporate headquarters, regional service centers, research and development facilities, major community facilities, major medical facilities, overnight commercial lodging, entertainment, and automobile-oriented sales and services. B. Permitted Uses. Chapter 9.80 lists permitted land uses. C. Development Standards. Chapter 9.90 contains development standards and illustrations. Approval of a specific plan is required for any development or land division greater than ten acres in the CR district. (Ord. 550 § 1, 2016) 9.110.140 Southeast area overlay. A. Applicability. The following development standards shall apply to all subdivisions less than ten acres in size located in the RL district, south of Avenue 52, and west of Monroe. 21 B. Development Standards. 1.A minimum lot size of twenty thousand square feet shall be required, unless: a.The proposed subdivision establishes a minimum of twenty-five percent open space (exclusive of individual residential lots). Said open space shall include amenities and features such as passive open space, trails, play areas or equipment, picnic facilities, recreational amenities, clubhouse facilities and/or active use parks. Retention basins may be considered as part of the twenty-five percent open space requirement provided they are designed as an integral part of the project, fully landscaped, and accessible for passive and active use. b.The minimum lot size within the proposed subdivision is equal to or greater than the minimum lot size of the residential lots within the abutting subdivided properties; however, under no circumstances shall lots be less than ten thousand square feet in size. c.Driveway access should be consolidated with other neighboring properties. 2.All other development standards of the RL district, including, but not limited to, setbacks, building height and parking requirements, shall apply. (Ord. 550 § 1, 2016) 9.270.030 Nonconforming uses. A. Continuation of Nonconforming Use. A nonconforming use may be continued subject to the restrictions of this section. B. Discontinued Nonconforming Uses. If the nonconforming use is discontinued for a period of one year, it shall not be reestablished and any new use of the premises shall conform to the applicable district regulations of this code. C. Intensification of Nonconforming Uses. 1.A nonconforming nonresidential use shall not be increased in intensity. 2.A nonconforming residential use may be increased in intensity provided the intensification will not create or increase any nonconformity relating to setback, height or any other development standard. (For example, a “granny flat” may be added to a single-family detached dwelling in a district permitting only attached homes provided there is no new setback or other encroachment and all requirements pertaining to creation of second dwelling units are met.) 3. A single family dwelling unit with nonconforming parking per Section 9.150.070 shall conform with parking requirements when an addition exceeds 50% of the square feet of the original living area. For a building addition to a single family dwelling unit with nonconforming parking per Section 9.150.070 that is 50% or less of the original square feet of living area, the parking requirements may be satisfied without a garage if the applicant can provide evidence of two off-street parking spaces (e.g., driveway space, carport), to the satisfaction of the design 22 and development director or designee. The 50% threshold for additions described herein applies either incrementally or cumulatively over a three-year period. Design of additional parking shall also consider any historical significance of the house, including architectural features. D. Restoration of Nonconforming Use. A nonconforming use occupying a structure which is damaged or destroyed by fire, explosion, earthquake or other disaster may be reestablished provided: 1.Restoration of the structure will not create or increase any nonconformity relating to setback, height, or any other development standard; and 2.Application for a building permit is submitted within one year of the damage or destruction and construction is commenced and completed under that permit without any lapses of or extensions to the permit. E. Change of Ownership. Changes in ownership, tenancy, proprietorship or management of a nonconforming use shall not affect its nonconforming status provided that the use or the intensity of use does not change. (Ord. 550 § 1, 2016) 23 24