Loading...
PCMIN 12 13 1994 PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA 0.UINTA A re~ol~ meeOn~ held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California DECEMBER 13, 1994 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER A. The meeting was called to order at 7:04 P.M. by Chairman AdolplL Commissioner Butler led the flag salute. II. ROLL CALL A. Chairman Adolph requested the roll call Present~ Commi.qsioner Abels, Anderson, Barrows, Butler, Gardner, Newkirk, and Chairman AdolpiL B. Staff Present~ Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Dawn Honeywell, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, and Department Secretary Betty Sawyer. III. PUBLIC COMMENT Mr. Robert Tyler, 41-215 Valleta Drive, asked if there had been any public hearings before the Pl~tnning Commission or City Council regarding the Auto malL Chairman Adolph stated there had been no hearings before the Planninf~ CommLqsion nor the City CounciL Mr. Tyler questioned why the City of Indlo had been holding hearings regarding the Mall, and La Qulnta had not. Chairman Adolph stated the City had held no heatings regarding the subject. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CONTINUED - TENTATIVE TRACT 27854 AND SPECIFIC PLAN 93-023 (AMENDMENT ~ a request of Jascorp (Mr. Joseph Swain) for approval to 1) revise an approved tentative tract map to reduce the number of bulldable lots from 116 to 106; and 2) to revise the adopted Conditions of Approval for the project's approved specific plan. 1. Chairman Adolph stated the applicant had requested the issue be continued to January 24, 1995. Commi~sioners Abels/Butler moved and seconded a motion to continue the item to January 24, 1995. _ Unsnimonsly approved. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94.015: a request of J. I~ Jarnagin (La Qninta Carwash) for approval of a full service tunnel carwash and detail shop. PC12-13 ~. Planning Commission Meeting December 13, 1994 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff recommended two additional conditions regarding the access easement off Washington Street recommending a triangular island be installed to avoid illegal left turns onto Washington Street, and the closure of the Washington Street access in the future if alternate access can be provided. Staff then handed out additional letters to the Commissioners that had been received. Staff further stated that a setback variance will be needed if the conditional use permit is approved. 2~ Community Development Director Jerry Herman clarified the staff report regarding the findings for the conditional use permit (in the report it is written *'findings for the plot plan*'~ 3. Chairman Adolph asked if there were any questions of staff. There being no questions of staff, Chairman Adolph opened the public hearing. Mr. Jim Jarnagin, applicant, gave a presentation of the project. He gave a slide presentation showing examples of what the public can perceive as a carwash. Mr. Duane Yonker, applicant/designer, also spoke on behalf of the project. He asked that the Pl~nninff Commission not Judge the product on what is perceived of a carwash but judge it on the merits of what the applicants are presenting. 5. Commissioner Anderson asked if the study the applicants conducted, showed whether there was any other area or site in the City that would work as well for the project. Mr. Jarnagin stated that in their opinion this is the finest and most cost efficient site. 6. Mr. Fred Shannon, representing Pomona First Federal Savings and Loan, who is the property owner of the land for the proposed project, stated the land had dtmini.~hed over the years due to the easements that have been acquired or are needed for setbacks, etc. As owners they decided to sell the property to move it along. He further stated that Mr. Jarnagin's project was a viable commercial venture and a viable use of the property, and as owners of the property they would recommend the Planninl~ Commission approve the project. 7. Mr. Dan Shephardson, 54-839 Shoal Creek, La Quinta, stated he and his wife have been full time residents since 1989. Many people in La Qninta feel there should be a car wash closer to home than Palm DeserL He has known the applicant for a number of years and he knows him tO be of good character and will produce a beautiful facility. He would ask that the Planning Commi.qsion approve the project. PC12-13 P. Planning Commission Meeting -- December 13, 1994 8. Mr. Robert Tyler, volunteer driving instructor and resident of La Quinta, stated this corner has always been a traffic problem. He would not be in favor of in or out access onto Washington Street. Any access should be on Simon Drive. He further stated his concern that there had been a continuing dialog with Simon Plaza to deVelop their project and he felt the carwash people should be required to pay for the same items that Simon Plaza had been conditioned to pay. He pointed out to the Commissioners that a carwash was currently under construction on Ad~m.q Street north of Highway 111 as part of Wal-Mart Center and there was a sign at Country Club and Washington Street stating a carwash was to be constructed. He asked if the community could support three car washes. In addition, he was concerned about a carwash being located at the opening to La Quinta but, after seeing the pictures presented by the applicant, he had changed his mind and felt the project would not be an eyesore. 9. Mr. Dexter Barr, resident of Cathedral City, speaking for Mr. Jim Loggia, the land developer of Lake La Qulnta and Mr. Andrews, the land owner _ of Avante at Lake La Quinta who were the closest residential developers to the project. Mr. Barr stated Mr. Loggia and Mr. Andrews were not opposed to the carwash but to the location as this is the gateway into La Quinta. He further stated he did not believe the residents of La Quinta would want a carwash at this location. He felt that given the setbacks and land use proposed for this piece of property, that the land could not support a project as depicted in the slides. 10. Mr. Skip Berg, 55365 Firestone, La Quinta, stated he was well aware of what a carwash woUld look like as he had dealt with many in his sign business. He felt this location was considered to be the gateway to La Quinta and even though this is a very nice presentation it does not represent what should be located at the gateway to La Quinta~ 11. Mr. Michael Shultz, 78355 Crestview Terrace, stated this location was a pretty good location but it was not the right location for a carwash. A lot of effort had gone into making this entry a beautiful place and the PlanninE CommLqsion should keep it that way. 12. Mr. John DeLeo, 52990 Avenida Obregon, after researching the growth potential of the Coachella Valley, knew the Coachella Valley contained the necessary elements for growth and he, as a real estate broker, chose to move to this ares. He chose La Quinta because of its tract PC12-13 3 Planning Commission Meeting December 13, 1994 record of pro-growth and the elements of the General Plan that La Quinta stood out over all the other cities in the Valley. As a real estate broker he could not explain to his clients the inappropriate use of land at this location nor could he explain the traffic delays, problems, etc., that would be created due to the proposed use. La Qninta needs a carwash but not at this location. He further stated the applicants had presented a project that appears to be the type of carwash this City needs and wants but, not at this location. 13. Lucia Moran, P0B 1305, La Quinta, informed the Commissioners that she had served on Planninf.~ Commission during the adoption of the Washington Street Specific Plan. She then submitted a letter to the Commissioners stating her reasons why she felt the project was in nonconformance with the Specific Plan, did not meet the requirements for a conditional use permit, was in violation of the La Quinta Municipal Code, could not show hardship to allow a variance to be granted, and did not comply with the recorded CC & R's for the parcel of land. She further had contacted Mr. Jim Collins regarding the American's With Disabilities Act and he cited requirements for sidewalks that she felt the project could not meet. She further stated she supported the idea of a carwash but not at this location. In summary, she stated, the conditional use permit requirements, the Washington Street Specific Plan, the La Qninta Municipal Code violations, variance requirements, recorded CC & R's, and the American's with Disability Act compliance all do not allow for a carwash_ The project does not meet the requirements of the above noted. 14. Mr. Wallace Woods, who submitted a written request to speak, declined to speak. 15. Mr. Stephen Miller, who submitted a written request to speak, declined to speak, 16. Mr. John Sanborn, Sanborn Webb Engineers, Palm Springs, and one of the partners in the Simon Plaza project stated that after reviewing the staff report he felt the Plsnning CommLqsion must deny the request. He cited reasons for the denial as being setback requirements, landscape setbacks, and the Environmental Impacts. He felt a focused EIR should be required as the land use planning showed a definite conflict between the Washington Street specific plan ref~ardlng traffic congestion, safety hazards, and parking spaces. He further stated he felt the recommended Conditions of ApprOval were inconsistent with City policies PC12-13 ~: Planning Commi~sion Meeting December 13, 1994 regarding a variance, staff recommendation for deferred street improvements, and no on-site retention was shown~ The CC & R's for Lot 2-7 of the parcel map, Item B-1 states the uses that can be built on this parcel, and a carwash is not listed. He stated the Planninl~ CommLqsion must deny the conditional use permit as it does not meet the requirements as stated above. He further stated the applicant does have a beautiful product but it is not appropriate for this site. 17. Mr. Fred Simon, Simon Motors/Simon Plaza, 78-611 Highway 111, La Quinta submitted a letter to the Commission written by Mr. Paul Seizer, a partner in the Simon Plaza project, and asked that it be entered into the record. He then addressed items listed in a letter written to him by Pomona First Federal (Pomona) that he received at 3:00 P.1VL on Friday:. a. *'A rather significant taking of property has made the site unsuitable for a branch office.'* Mr. Simon stated the property was originally bought by Pomona for a branch office early in 1980, and the decision not to build was made before the Washington Street Specific Plan. b. **Pomona First Federal Savings and Loan does not have an alternative source for the sale of their property." He stated it was Pomona that decided not to extend their proposed sale and took the $25,000 they had put up as a deposit for the land purchase. He then presented to the Commi~qsion a letter on the history of the financing to develop the Simon Plaza project. He went on to state that Simon Plaza had made every effort to meet all the requirements put on them by the City and this required the project to be changed four times. c. He stated that Pomona was very aware of what the City wants to see on that corner to the point they made the allowable uses a. part of the CC & R's. d. In the beginninl~, Pomona delayed the purchase of the property by holding out for more money. He believed the bank had reduced the land cost for the carwash. At the study session he had heard the comment **put up or shut up". This was in reference to a letter that he had received from Pomona on December 9th at 3:45 P.M. making an offer to sell the land to Simon Plaza if they could come up with a $100,000 deposit by 5:00 P.M. on PC12-13 5 Planning Commission Meeting December 13, 1994 Monday. As Mr. Seizer, a co-applicant, was out of the City and he did not have the time to put the escrow together, he asked Pomona for ten days to put the escrow together. He told Pomona they would accept the offer as stated in their letter if Pomona would allow him ten days to put the deal together. Pomona refused to do so. Pomona then stated they would give the ten days if Simon Plaza would not object to the carwash if Simon Plaza was unable to complete the deaL Mr. Simon stated he was unwilling tO do this. Mr. Simon then stated he was agsinst the carwash at this location as it is not commensurate with the City's goals for this corner. 18. Mr. Mark Moran, 52-385 Avenlda Madero, La Quinta, stated the PlAnning Commi.qsion had received the inside story on this site. He felt the carwash project located at another location is a very beautiful project. In 1980 this was not a city and La Qninta was at the mercy of the county. It was the County's idea to create a community that was more of a ghetto than a community. The residents decided this was not fair. They created a city and put standards in place so that La Quinta would not have a ghetto and not a carwash at the entry to La Quinta~ This carwash is not consistent with the Washington Street Specific Plan. If the PlAnning Commission sets a precedent to deviate from the Specific Plan then it is a dangerous step and developers .will take advantage of thl~ deviation~ Mr. Moran stated he was proud of La Quinta and the Commission needs to continue to retain the beauty that is La Qninta~ He informed the CommLqsion that the Chamber of Commerce had received a presentation on the carwash, and they felt it should be located at a different location~ They are standing behind the Washington Street Specific Plan. He than presented the CommLqsioners with 94 letters from residents objecting to the project. 19.~ Mr. John DeLeo stated the Mr. IL Crockett had to leave but that he agreed with the statements that had been made in opposition and he apologized for having to leave. 20. Mr. Jarnagin stated his concern about subjects he was not aware of. Some of the codes stated have no relevance to his project. The traffic generation is only 1.5% of the total traffic. He stated he was confused as to what he was to mitigate. He stated it was difficult to understand what he was being asked to do and no one was offering a suggestiolL He had presented the City with the required information and applications necessary to receive approval for his project. PC12-13 6 Phmning Commission Meeting December 13, 1994 21; Mr. Duane Yonker, stated he had been keeping score on the bn~ words that had been used such as **Gateway to the Community** and he felt they did not need to be mitigated. This is a piece of property that has a lot of problems and this project has complied with all the requirements they were asked to do. Staff has reviewed the project and agrees with approving the project* He stated he was sympathetic with Mr. Simon but, they also have their problems and he would ask that the Plannin~ Commission only consider the project on the merits of the project and not on what has happened in the past. They were willing to meet all the requirements of the City, but did not feel it was fair to ask them to deal with the problems of the past. The economic study they had done showed there is not a commercial project that can Justify the cost of developing that corner, as their project could. 22. Mr. Fred Shannon, Pomona First Federal, stated he had come to the heartn~ for the purpose of supporting the project and did not want to address past projects. He further stated he does not agree with Mr. Simon's interpretation of the CC&R's. Mr. Simon's relationship with Pomona has taken a long time with extension after extension and their CEO instructed them to divest themselves of their project as it was going on too long and they needed to move on~ Mr. Shannon stated the Planning Commission should consider what is before them tonight only. 23. There being no further comment, Chairman Adolph closed the public hearing. 24. Commissioner Anderson asked staff about the findings relative to the Washington Street Specific Plan and the setbacks. He asked if there was a request to vary from the setbacks as stated in the Washington Street Specific Plan. Community Development Director Jerry Herman clarified by stating that setbacks were not mentioned in the Specific Plan. The Plan only addresses the fight-of-way. The variance was necessary .because a 5(~foot landscaping setback is required along Highway 111 and a a 20-foot landscaping setback along Washington Street. The project as proposed would encroach into the setback as required in the parking requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. 25. Commissioner Anderson asked if the variance was for parking. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated it was for an encroachment into the landscape setback as required in the parking - standards. PC12-13 '~ Planning Commission Meeting December 13, 1994 26. Commissioner Barrows questioned staff as to whether the Simon Project had been given the same setbacks. Mr. Herman stated that they complied with the required landscaping setbacks. 27. Commissioner Butler asked if it would it be appropriate, due to the new information the Commission had Just received, to continue the project as he would like to review the information before ruling. Commissioner Barrows agreed that she would like to review the environmental reporL Commissioner Gardner also agreed. 28. Chairman Adolph stated he still had a problem with the building wall along Washington Street as he did not feel the setback was adequate. The corner needed to be more open, the traffic flow was not what it could be nor was the landscaping. Chairman Adolph stated he felt this could be resolved but he did not feel it was adequate as it was laid out. The setbacks that exist create a nice green belt but, the wall being so close to the street is too close. The applicant needed to change the wall and open up the corner. 29. Commissioners Abels stated that in view of the remarks made by the commissioners he was inclined to go along with continuing the proJecL 30. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Barrows to continue Conditional Use Permit 94.015 to January 10, 1995. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell clarified that the public hearing portion of the hearing was closed and the continuance was for Planning Commission discussion and their vote. 31. Commissioner Barrows expressed her concern that this would be an attractive addition to La Qninta but the location was a problem. She was ~er concerned about the landscaping and setbacks on Washington Street. Also, the plant materials proposed to be used, Pampas Grass and Purple Fountain Grass, were too invasive and needed to be replaced. The project calls for walls and berms yet the conditions do not require them and should be added to help screen the facility. 32. Commissioner Gardner asked that the minutes state the reason for the continuance. The motion to continued was based on the following reasons as stated by the Commission: PC12-13 8 Planning Commis~on Meeting December 13, 1994 Time needed to review new information submitted during the meeting;, b.. Time needed to review the environmental information; c. Setbacks on structures; d. Landscaping;, e. On-site traffic flow and circulation; and, f. More openness at the corner of Washington Street and Highway 111. 33. There being no further comment, the motion carded un~nimonsly. BUSINESS SESSION: Si~n ADDlication 94-270; a request of Skip Berg for approval of a corporate sign program for both Carl's Jr. and The Green Burrito. 1. Community Development Director Jerry Herman presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. There being no questions of staff, Chairman Adolph asked if the applicant wished to address the CommLqsion. 3. Mr. Skip Berg spoke on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Berg stated that his client had to close his facility down for a week in order to remodel the building. He could no afford to wait until January to receive Plannin~ Commission approvaL Mr. Berg went on to explain their request. He then introduced Mr. Carl L. Karcher, Jr., Rancho Mirage, owner Carl's Jr. Mr. Karcher stated that Carl's Jr. and the Green Burrito were in the process of conducting a test of the Joint use at three locations and if successful, they would be extending to 15 locations. 4. Commissioner Abels, asked if there were any other Carl's Jr. restaurants in the Valley that had been changed. Mr. Karcher stated there were none in the Valley. The other two were located in Dana Point and Carson. 5. CommLqsioner Newkirk asked if this was the corporate logo. Mr. Berg stated it was. 6. Commissioner Butler stated he was having a hard time picturing what the signs would look like from the drawing. It appeared to be too busy. He felt the CommLqsioners needed to know whether or not this would interfere with what was going on in the center. Mr. Berg stated there was only one more color added and he realized it was difficult on this small scale. He went on to explain the signs. CommLqsioner Butler PC12-13 9 Planning Comm1881on Meeting December 13, 1994 asked if it was an urgency to have the signs up for a grand opening. Mr. Berg stated it was already open. He went on to state that if they waited for the January Planninf~ CommLqsion meeting, it would mean they would not be able to have their signs installed until February. The business would be there for almost three months without signage. 7. CommLqsioner Anderson asked if there was a hierarchy between the two business or were they completely equaL Could the Carl's Jr. sign remain and the Green Burrito sign be lower. Mr. Berg explained and showed the Commissioners a picture that showed the wall would not support two signs designed as the Carl's Jr. sign is now. 8. Commissioner Barrows asked if they were the same operation. Mr. Berg stated they were. 9. Chairman Adolph asked if the signs would be the same on all four sides. Mr. Berg stated they would. 10. Commissioner Anderson asked if one of the Carl's Jr. signs would remain as is. Mr. Berg explained that the signage on the drive-thru would go to another elevation and one would be relocated. 11. Chairman Adolph asked how important the portion of the logo with the thatched roof and palm tree were. Mr. Berg stated it was part of the corporate logo. Chairman Adolph stated he felt it looked too busy with the **Star", "Thatched Roof*', and "Palm Tree*'. Commissioners discussed with the'applicant the amount of signage that was currently on the building and the possibility of not having The Green Burrlto on. the gable ends. 'Mr. Karcher stated how important it was to have the signage for visibility now that they were reducing it and he wondered how viable the Commission request was. Mr. Berg stated he would like to see both signs with 24~inch sets. Chairman Adolph asked if there was another place that was not as congested that the signage could be placed. Keep the Green Burrito in Just two locations so not to clutter up all four sides. 12. Commissioner Barrows stated she felt the north and west sides seems to be the busiest. She had no problem with the linear signage but, maybe they could place the Carl's Jr. sign on the north and west sides only. Mr. Berg stated the gable areas are the entry and this is where the people will look. 13. Mr. Karcher stated the building had only two windows that could be seen from Highway 111 and he felt that hl~ signage was not as busy as the other fast-food stores in the Center. The only visible signage is what was on the bnilding, as no windows could be seen. PC12~13 ~L 0 Planning Commission Meeting December 13, 1994 14. Commissioner Abels asked if they could be granted a temporary banner so the Planning Commission could continue this over to January. Mr. Berg asked if the Planning Commission wanted to see the photos to see what the two elevations would look like so they could approve two of the elevations tonight and they would come back for the other two in January. 15. Commissioner Anderson stated he had little concern for the linear facias, Items C & D, on the south and east where the two signs are and not over each other. He would support those elevations. The gable ends are the ones in question~ Commissioner Anderson asked if the applicant could bring those back. Discussion followed. 16. Commissioner Newklrk asked what the Planning Commission would do if they were to come back and then the Pl~mninf~ Commission did not like the redesign~ 19. Commissioner Anderson stated the Plannirtf~ Commission was concerned about the appearance of the signs as there seems to be a lot more signage and information than before even though the letters are reduced in size. 20. Commissioner Barrows stated that with the two corporate logos it was very busy. 21. Commissioner Anderson stated the Corporate lol~o was important. 22. Commissioner Newkirk stated the Commissioner needed to approve or disapprove the project as they are not going to change the signage. 23. Mr. Berg stated that on Items A & B, on the facia board where it is blank, they could put The Green Burrlto sign there. Commissioner Anderson stated he would rather see the signs together than all over. Mr. Berg stated he could place The Green Burrlto on Item B and reduce the Carl's Jr. sign. Discussion followed about alternatives. 24. Commissioner Anderson suggested that The Green Burrlto sign go between Item A & B on the plan, and that The Green Burrito may be on the new facia so it could be seen on both sides. 25. Chairman Adolph stated that when the Planninf~ Commission approved the signage, the building, and the flag pole, they were conditioned that the only flags that could be flown were the American or California flag. At that time a logo flag was deemed to be a SiglL Carl's Jr. flag is now flying and that is signage. Mr. Karcher stated he was unaware of this and would take the corporate flag dow~ PC12-13 ~.~. Planning Commission Meeting December 13, 1994 26. Mr. Robert Tyler, La Quinta resident stated his senses were irritated by the searchlights that were being used to advertise the business. He wanted to know why the City would approve such a searchlight when there was a Dark Sky Ordinance prohibiting their use. Community. Development Director Jerry Herman stated that the only people that could approve searchlights and banners was the City Council and none had been approved. Staff can only approve banners for **Grand Opening" or '*Under New Management'*. 27. There being no further comment, Commissioner Anderson moved to approve Sign Application 94-270 with following conditions: a. On Signs A & B, on the gable ends over the entries, the Carl's Jr. sign lettering would be reduced in size and no new Green Burrito signs would be allowed. On the facia, as discused, on the north elevation between Signs A & B, a Green Burrito sign as shown in the ~Thibit would be allowed on the buildings eave. Signs C & D would be approved as submitted. 28. Community Development Director Jerry Herman asked if the Commission wanted a condition added to require the removal of the flag and searchlight City Attorney Dawn Honeywell pointed out that as they are illegal a condition is not needed. 29. Commissioner Barrows seconded the motion and it passed tlD~tnimonsly. CONSENT CALENDAR: There being no changes to the minutes, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Barrows/Ables to approve the Minutes of November 22, 1994, as submitted. UnJtnimously approved. OTHER: Commissioner Abels reported on the City Council meeting of December 6, 1994~ ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business it was moved and seconded by Commissioners GardnerlAbels to adjourn this regular meetln~ of the Plannin~ Commission to a regular meeting on January 10, 1995. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:.10 P.M., December 13, 1994. Unanlmonsly approved. PC12-13 l~.