Loading...
PCMIN 04 11 1995 CC MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 75-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA April 11, 1995 3:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 3:00 P.M. by Chairman Adolph. Commissioner Butler led the flag salute. II. ROLL CALL A. Chairman Adolph requested the roll call: Present: Commissioners Abels, Anderson, Butler, Gardner, Newkirk, and Chairman Adolph. B. Commissioner Butler moved to excuse Commissioner Barrows. Commissioner Abels seconded the motion and it was unanimous. C. Staff Present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Dawn Honeywell, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate Planners Greg Trousdell and Leslie Mouriquand, and Department Secretary Betty Sawyer. HI. PUBLIC COMMENT - None IV. WORKSHOP A. Zoning Ordinnnce Update: a request of staff for Planning Commission review of proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on fie in the Community Development Department. In addition, corrections that were made at the prior meeting were reviewed and the sections to be discussed were stated. PC4-11 Pl~nninE Commission Minutes April 11, 1995 2. Following a brief summary by the Larry Lawrence, Lawrence Associates, consultants preparing the Zoning Ordinance Update, Commissioners discussed the changes with staff and the consultants. The following changes were made: a. Section 9.60.030 Fences and Walls: reword the definition, add "finish grade at the base of the fence" to measurement of fence height, and clarify opening railings and fences less than 30- inches. Under setback areas add City "or state" required, add "c' to visibility at intersections. Eliminate "D" regarding Adjustments for Height Increases. Revise and add to E.2-wood fencing, E.4-Masonry Fencing, E.5-Material Combinations, and E.6-Gates. Add to F-Fence Landscaping and Maintenance. Edit and add to G-Prohibited Fence Materials. b. Section 9.60.040. Patio Covers, Decks, and Play Equipment. Add "uncovered decks and other structures less than 18- inches...'' to A-Applicability. Change 3-feet to "3-1/2 feet from any property line" to B.4. Eliminate C-Adjustments. c. Section 9.60.050. Storage and Other Accessory Buildings. Eliminate E-Adjustments. d. Section 9.60.060. Garages and Carports. Add reference to circular driveways and add the maximum height of detached garages. e. Section 9.60.070. Swimming Pools. B.1-Location revise to allow "0" setback for pools within a gated community. f. Section 9.60.100. Guest Houses. D.l-add detached guest houses, and eliminate g. Section 9.60.120. Pets and Other Animals. Add "other than dog runs" to first sentence. h. Section 9.60.130. Recreational Vehicle Parking. Eliminate "vehicle designed and used for temporary inhabitation" from B.Definitions. Edit C.1 regarding uses permitted in which zones, and add screening requirements to C.6. 3. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell asked that Page 21 under Definitions PC4-11 Pl~nninE Commission Minutes April 11, I~)S the words "hedge or thick growth of trees" should be deleted and add thick growth or shrubs of trees. 4. Commissioner Butler asked that the def'mitions on pedestrian and auto access gates be expanded and clarified. 5. Commissioners Butler and Gardner discussed the pros and cons of wood fencing and the burden of the expense of concrete fences. 6. Commissioner Anderson stated he was comfortable with improving, the standard of wood fences. Commissioners discussed the problems that could still be incurred. 7. Discussion followed regarding how to provide for vehicle access and pedestrian gates. 8. Commissioner Anderson stated he did not think access gates should be allowed in a sideyard less than 12-feet. 9. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell asked that verbiage be added to Section 9.60.030(C)(3)(e) to include the word City "and State". In addition, Section 9.60.030(D) would require a variance and should be deleted. Discussion followed regarding reasons for and against the section and possible changes. 10. Chairman Adolph asked that on Page 24 - Masonry fences a statement should be added that requires both sides of a masonry wall must be stuccoed. 11. Commissioner Butler asked if there was a material that could be utilized for patio covers that would not warp after the first smnmer - Section 9.60.040 - Patio Covers. 12. Commissioner Anderson stated there should be no lumber smaller than 3 X 3. Commissioner Butler stated they should be required to be treated as well. Commissioner Gardner stated there were treated materials that could be used. -- 13. Community Development Director Jerry Herman asked that additional verbiage be added regarding the height of a detached garages. Discussion followed regarding the height of the garage - should it be as high or higher than a single story (28') residential unit. Following PC4-11 3 Pl~nning Commission Minutes April 11, 1995 discussion it was determined that detached garages shah be no higher than 17-feet. 14. Commissioner Adels what the distance was from the property line for swimming pools. Commissioner Anderson stated no pool could be built closer than five feet from any power pole. Discussion, already covered by staff. Consultant Larry Lawrence stated the three feet was there to allow an area for walking around the pool. Principal Planner Stan Sawa asked that verbiage be added to clarify location encroachments 15. Chairman Adolph asked if a property owner could have a second residential unit on a single lot. Staff stated it would require a conditional use permit and the City has approved one or two. 16. Commissioner Abels asked why the City did not allow cooking facilities in a 1200 sq. ft. second unit. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated it was to discourage duplexes on a single lot. Commissioners discussed kitchens as they related to granny fiat or guest houses. 17. Due to the hour, Chairman Adolph continued the Workshop to the April 25, 1995. The discussion would start with Page 35-Screening. 18. Commissioners Anderson and Abels moved to continue the study. Unanimously approved. 19. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated her concern regarding the sensitivity expressed about the EIR and the fact that it was prepared by the developer. State law allowed for the developer to prepare the EIR but the City must adopt it as your own. She asked that during the next meeting the Commissioners address their questions to City staff. All discussion will be between the Commission and staff. Chairman Adolph recessed the Planing Commission meeting until 7:00 P.M. and reconvened the meeting at 7:05 P.M. PUBLIC COMMENT: None PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued - Specific Plan 94-09.6 - Travertine Specific Plan, General Plan PC4-11 4 PlanninE Commission Minutes April 11, 1995 Amendment 94-049, Environmental A~e~.~nent 94-9.87. 1. Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on f'de in the Community Development Department. Commi~ioner Anderson questioned Condition//29.C as to why the condition was changed. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated the City should have 110-feet wide arterial streets north of 62nd Avenue. He clarified that the intent of the condition was to only revise the 110 feet north of 62nd Avenue, adjacent to the project. That part of the condition that states "to the north end of the facility ....... Avenue 62 to the south end of the maintenance facility should be" be deleted. 3. Commissioner Abels asked if this condition related to the condition on Page 13. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated the same language should be deleted regarding the area north of 62nd Avenue. 4. Commissioner Anderson expressed his concern, that the revised map contained in Attachment 9, that the area of primary concern was the trail that is shown running through the southwestern portion of the Travertine project and along the slope 'of the' Martinez Slide. Condition//36 is requiring the 100-foot corridor buffer to be the new golf course. His concern was that these are conflicting uses or at least overlaid, and not functional. Commissioner Anderson would be in favor of increasing the buffer at the Martinez Slide location to 400-feet to the nearest built structure if possible in order to allow 100-feet of buffer zone for hiking trails, and then 300-feet for the golf course. He felt it was important to maintain access to the trail as well as the development. 5. Chairman Adolph introduced Mr. Berkey's letter regarding Travertine purchasing the land and giving it to the BLM as part of the iandswap. Chairman Adolph asked staff to identify where the land was located. Staff explained the property was located in the upper portion of the Santa Rosa Mountains and that the BLM did retain ownership of the Martinez Slide. 6. Community Development Director Jerry Herman explained it was the intent of the applicant to have the access (or trail head) to the Slide on Jefferson Street. PC~-II :5 PlanninE Commission Minutes April 11, 1995 7. Commissioner Anderson stated it was important to maintain the buffer and extend the distance in Conditions #26 and #35. He would like to see the area maintained. Commissioner Newkirk agreed. 8. Commissioner Gardner asked who would provide signage to the trails to make the public aware of the Boo Hoff Trail. Staff explained there was a sign at the true entrance to the Boo Hoff Trail. Staff showed the location of the sign on the map and stated the City would eventually mark the trail at the time Jefferson Street is completed. 9. Commissioner Anderson asked if the trail was closed at certain times of the year or during the lambing season. Staff stated they had no knowledge of this and he did not believe they would want to have the lambing season publicly known because hikers might explore the area more to review this seasonal occurrence. 10. Commissioner Abels stated his concern about the water table. He referred to a document introduced by Mr. Joseph J. Brecher showing CVWD water table readings. Commissioner Abels stated he would like to have more information regarding the water situation in this area. He felt the document showed more drilling than the Commission was aware of. Staff stated the purveyor of the site is CVWD and they have stated in a letter to the City that they were able to provide the project with water and sewer services. Associate Planner Cherry stated this data was a portion of a larger report and could be used out of context. l 1. Commissioner Anderson stated he understood that the golf course and open space areas could be irrigated with the canal water but, in the response to concerns, CV~ND stated the Coacheila Canal District water would be used for these purposes. Staff stated that if the project falls within this District, it could use the Canal water. Commissioner Anderson asked if the project was within the District. Staff stated that part of the project was within the District. Commissioner Anderson stated there should be a condition requiring the applicant to use the Canal water. Staff read the condition that applied (Condition #53.F.) and stated they would amend it to read canal water as well. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell pointed out that the facilities would need to be built and the condition does not state who should build the facility. Staff would need to make it clear in the conditions that if it is needed the developer should be required to build it. 12. Commissioner Gardner asked about the Statement of Overriding PC4-11 6 Planning Commission Minutes April 11, 1995 Concerns and whether the improvements that are proposed would improve traffic. Senior Engineer Steve Speer clarified what streets would be affected. Commt~ioner Gardner asked if there would be an impact on the existing streets. Staff stated there was an infrastructure fee in place to handle this off-site problem. 13. Commissioner Gardner asked what the sales increase would be from a project .of this type and what the cost of servicing it would be. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated there were no records regarding such a projection. He estimated that with 100 new houses and if they all shop in La Quinta, the City would see an increase in revenue. Commissioner Gardner asked if there had ever been any studies taken to determine this. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated to his knowledge it had never been done. New homes always bring new people who have not shopped in La Quinta before. Commissioner Gardner asked if staff knew what the difference in the cost of services versus the revenue received for this area would be. Staff stated it is not known at this time.. 14. Commissioner Anderson noted in the traffic portion of the EIR, that the traffic impacts went all the' way to Highway 111 and in the graphics, Jefferson Street is shown as six lanes and could eventually look like a freeway. 15. Commissioner Anderson stated his concern about the impact on the Jefferson Street realignment. In addition, the impact the Green and Travertine project would have on the equestrian uses. He stated his concern for the heritage of the Valley and the equestrian uses. He felt the City needed to carefully protect the equestrian accesses to the mountains. 16. Commissioner Newkirk stated he agreed with Commissioner Anderson and wondered why a tunnel of some nature could not be provided for the horses to cross Jefferson Street. Staff explained that if a tunnel was provided the issue of whether a horse would enter the tunnel or not would need to be explored. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that a study should be done to determined these facts prior to grading of the tract map as to how the equestrian uses could be incorporated into the project. 17. Commissioner Gardner asked what provisions would be required to mitigate the amount of stormwater runoff from the mountains. PC4-11 Planning Commission Minutes April 11, 1995 Community Development Director Jerry Herman explained the developer would be required to provide protection to ensure that this will not happen. However, the issue of stormwater would be addressed during the tract map process. Commissioner Gardner asked if the 400- foot buffer was enough to ensure that no damage would occur to any life or structure. Staff stated that could not be determined at this time. 18. Chairman Adolph stated his concern about the buffer zone and the relocation of the golf course. He wondered how the housing would be affected as well as the school zone. In addition, he questioned the building heights, square footage, equestrian access across Jefferson Street, the golf course and irrigation issue, compatibility of the adjoining properties, and the EIR. However, he accepts the staff's recommendation that the EIR is adequate. He stated he was hesitant to jump in when it was unknown as to how the issues would be solved. Staff explained the details would be worked out as the project progresses through the other applications that would be necessary to build the project. 19. Commissioner Anderson expressed his concern about the issue of school mitigation fees and their admonishment that they would face a $7 million deficient at the time of buiidout. He asked why the School District did not charge fees relative to the construction in order to have the necessary funds. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated that the State allows the School District to charge a fee for each unit built for mitigation. However, the school is now asking for money above and beyond this fee as the State does allow them to negotiate their fee if legislative actions are proposed. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the condition does allow them to negotiate, but it does not require the developer to pay additional fees. 20. Commissioner Abels asked if the Planning Commission approved the project, would it come back for further review. Staff stated no as the Planning Commission is recommending approval of the EIR as it is now written to the City Council. Any opposition to the project must be challenged at this time or they lose the opportunity to challenge the EIR. 21. Commissioner Abels stated that a lot of concerns had been expressed and no answers had been reached. PC4-11 8 pl~nninE Commission Minutes April 11, 1995 22. Commissioner Anderson stated that on Conditions ~r26 and #35 he would recommend an increase in the bufferzone to 400-feet. (I.e., one hundred feet of natural trail buffer and 300 feet of golf course.) 23. Commissioner Abels asked where a condition for equestrian crossing would be added. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell suggested that a plan for equestrian/hiking trails be required and that plan be brought back to the Planning Commission for approval prior to any tract map approval. The plan should include appropriate detail including cross sections as well as provide a design and enough detail to show how the entire plan would function. 24. Commissioner Abels asked if a condition needed to be added to require the applicant to use canal water. Staff stated it would need to be added. In addition, a new condition would need to be added that would require the golf courses to use reclaimed water or canal water and require the developer to construct the necessary facilities. - 25. Community Development Director Jerry Herman clarified that Conditions ~26, #31, #35, #62, and #93 needed to be modified to read the same as the condition approved for the Green project. In addition, a new condition would be added requiring a plan for equestrian/hiking uses; Condition #66.A.3 would be modified per the Engineering Department rewording regarding Madison street; and Condition #83 would be amended to require canal water usage whenever possible. 26. Commissioner Anderson asked if Condition #66.A and #29.C should agree regarding the wording with respect to school mitigation. He asked if it would be feasible for the Planning Commission to require the project to reach an agreement with the School District. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that if the Planning Commission agreed that the fees collected will not meet the necessary school impact, they could require the developer to reach an agreement with the School District. Commissioner Anderson stated that if such a growth impact results on the school, the fees required at this time are less than adequate. 27. Chairman Adolph discussed the number of homes that were planned for this area and stated the impact on the schools had a potential of being substantial. He felt the developers needed to negotiate with the School District and agree on how to handle this impact. PC4-11 9 Planning Commission Minutes April 11, 1995 28. Commissioner Newkirk questioned whether this many homes would generate the number of students indicated by the School District. He understood the project would be similar to PGA West and they do not have 1.25 students per house. He felt there should be some sort of study to determine what figures would be correct and/or used. 29. Chairman Adolph stated that Jefferson Street is going to open this area up for development and not all of the developments would be resort- type developments. 30. There being no further discussion, Commissioners Abels/Butler moved and seconded a motion tO adopt Resolution 95-012, recommending to the City Council certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report for Specific Plan 94-026, in accordance with the findings as stated. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Anderson, Butler, Newkirk, and Chairman Adolph. NOES: Commissioner Gardner. ABSENT: Commissioner Barrows. ABSTAINING: None. 31. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Butler to adopt Resolution 95-013, recommending to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 94-049, as proposed. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Anderson, Butler, Newkirk, and Chairman Adolph. NOES: Commissioner Gardner. ABSENT: Commissioner Barrows. ABSTAINING: None. 32. Commissioners Abels/Butler moved to adopt Resolution 95-014, recommending to the City Council approval of Specific Plan 94-026, subject to conditions. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Anderson, Butler, Newkirk. NOES: Commissioner Gardner and Chairman Adolph. ABSENT: Commissioner Barrows. ABSTAINING: None. 33. Community Development Director Jerry Herman asked for clarification on the EIR adoption for the Specific Plan and read the recommendation in its entirety regarding the EIR certification. PC4-11 10 Pl~nninE Commission Minutes April 11, 1995 34. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell asked that the Specific Plan adoption be reconsidered. Commissioner Anderson moved to reconsider Resolution 95-014, and Commi~ioner Abels seconded the motion, and it was unanimously approved. 35. Commissioners Abels/Anderson moved and seconded a motion to adopt Resolution 95-014 recommending approval of Specific Plan 94-025, subject to the conditions contained in the staff report and as amended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Anderson, Butler, Newkirk, and Chairman Adolph. NOES: Commissioner Gardner. ABSENT: Commissioner Barrows. ABSTAINING: None. B. Street Name Change 95-006; a request of the La Quinta Fire Department to rename a portion of the Old Avenue 52 to Frances Hack Lane. 1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in the staff report, 'a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Commissioner Butler if there was any intention to connect the two portions of Old Avenue 52. Associate Planner Trousdell responded that all the previous applications received for this area have been for private gated communities with no access to this street. Commissioner Butler asked if the City had any policies regarding naming streets after people. Staff stated there was no policy for people alive or passed away, and the only policy he was aware of was a policy passed by the City Council for naming parks. 3. Staff clarified that previous streets name changes that had been applied for were denied because the streets crossed different jurisdictions. This street entire length was within La Quinta city limits. 4. Associate Planner Trousdell stated he had sent a letter of transmittal to the current tract owner of Tentative Tract 27613 south of 52nd Avenue (Temple Construction) and they never responded. 5. Chairman Adolph asked whether staff had spoken with the Fire Department about re-naming the street to Fritz Burns in conjunction with the Fritz Burns Park. Staff stated they had not spoken with them but, since there station fronts on the street, they would prefer to have Frances Hack Lane. PC4-11 11 Planning Commission Minutes April 11, 1995 - 6. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Adolph opened the public hearing. Mr. Robert Tyler of Velleta Drive, stated that the way "Francis" is spelled is not the way of spelling "Frances" for a woman. There being no further comment, Chairman Adolph closed the public hearing. 7. Commissioner Abels stated that Ms.' Hack had done a lot for the City and it would be more befitting to have the Community Park named after her rather than the street. He preferred not to see streets renamed within La Quinta. Staff stated that the City had no control over the park. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated that this lane must be changed as it cannot remain Old Avenue 52. 8. Commissioner Anderson stated he agreed with Commissioner Abels, but should the ability to rename the park fail there would be nothing to honor her. He suggested that this item be continued until a determination was made regarding the renaming of the Park. 9. Commissioner Gardner stated that he agreed with Commissioners Abels and Anderson but, the Planning Commission should be doing something to honor this Mrs. Hack. The chances of renaming the Park were slim to none and naming the street is available. Discussion followed relative to renaming the Park and how long the process would take. 10. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Anderson/Abels to continue the Street Name Change request to May 9, 1995, for the reasons of f'mding a more significant site. Chairman Adolph asked that this decision be conveyed to the applicant. Unanimously approved. BUSINESS SESSION: A. Specific Plan 90-017 (PGA West 5th Course Ex.oansion); a request of KSL for an annual review of an approved development plan that would allow 880 dwelling units on part of an 18-hole golf course on 220 acres. 1. Commissioners Gardner and Anderson withdrew due to a possible conflict of interest. 2. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained PC4-11 12 -- Pl~nninE Commission Minutes April 11, I~)S in the staff report, a copy of which is on ~e in the Community Development Department. 3. Chairman Adolph asked staff if the PM 10-dust clearing plan applied only to the clearing of the land or during the building process as well. Staff stated it applied to both and staff would see that it was monitored. 4. Chairman Adolph asked if there were any changes that should be noted in the conditions. Staff replied there was nothing that they were knew of. 5. Commissioner Butler asked staff if there was a process whereby older tracts that come back for review before the Planning Commission, that any changes necessary are caught at that time. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that in looking at the conditions there did not appear to be any conditions that were different from the regular zoning conditions. She further explained that a specific plan does not act as -- a vested tract map to freeze anything in place. 6. Commissioner Abels asked if there was a conflict in requiring an annual review and yet the recommendation before the Commission was for a two year approval. Staff stated that with the activities that had occurred it would be best to have a one year review, but it was up to the Planning Commission. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated the City Attorney had informed the Planning Commission that a two year approval did not limit the Planning Commission from calling a specific plan back and making any changes that were needed. 7. There being no further questions of staff, the applicant, Mr. Chevis Hosea, representing KSL stated he would answer any questions of the Planning Commission. 8. Chairman Adolph asked about the construction time schedule for the golf course. Mr. Hosea stated they were trying to work through the inventory they currently have on the partially approved projects at PGA West before processing any new tentative tract maps. However, they expected to eliminate their present inventory within the next three to four years. But, as this is a private goff course, its completion would be determined by the amount of interest it would generated. 9. Chairman Adolph when the Tom Weiskopf Signature course would be PC4-11 13 Planning Commission Minutes April 11, 1995 opened. Mr. Hosea stated they hoped by January 1, 1996. 10. Commissioner Butler asked how the dust would be controlled after the grading was complete and before any homes were built. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated they were only grading the golf course, so none was needed. If the single family lots were being graded, they would be required to be stabilized. 11. There being no further discussion, Commissioners Abeis/Newkirk moved and seconded a motion to approve by Minute Motion 95-015 for a two year extension, subject to the existing conditions. The motion was unanimous with Commissioners Gardner, Anderson, and Barrows absent. Commissioners Gardner and Anderson rejoined the meeting. B. Sign Apl~lication 95-302-; a request of Imperial Sign Company for approval to modify the master sign program for the Plaza La Quinta Shopping center to allow an adjustment in the number of building signs allowed for the Beer Hunter restaurant at the southwest corner of Washington Street and Highway 111. 1. Associate Planer Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Commissioner Abels asked if the south side entrance had been closed. Staff stated it had been closed and the entrance was now on the northwest side of the building. 3. Commissioner Butler asked staff to clarify the location of sign //2. Staff displayed it on the screen. Staff discussed with the ° Commissioners the location of the different signs. Commissioner asked which signs would be illuminated. Staff gave the site locations for those to be illuminated (i.e., logo sings only). 4. Commissioner Anderson asked if any of the signs would be externally illuminated as he felt there were some existing bullet lights on the roof. Staff stated that he had informed the sign contractor that if the owner chooses to do so, it would have to be approved by staff. 5. Commissioner Anderson asked for clarification on the location of sign 3 and whether it was illmninated. Staff showed the location and stated no illumination was being requested as there was ground lighting from PC4-11 14 PLqnninE Commission Minutes April 11, 1995 the previous sign. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated the Commi~ion could determine whether or not they wished to allow illumination or not and the project would be condition that way. 6. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Adolph asked if the applicant wished to speak. Mr. Jim Engle, representing the sign company, clarified that the applicant would be using the ground lighting to illuminate the signs and there would not be any illumination of the signs themselves except for the graphics in the logo itself (the deer and antlers). Discussion followed regarding the sign and the materials to be used.' 7. Commissioner Butler asked what the Sign Ordinance allowed regarding the signs at the center across the street (One Eleven La Quinta Center). Staff stated that illuminated signs were allowed.. Discussion followed regarding the materials needed to do the illumination. 8. Chairman Adolph asked staff if the request met the standards of the Center. Staff stated the Center had no objections with the signage request. Chairman. Adolph stated he knew of several tenants that were unhappy with the existing sign program for the Center. Staff reviewed previous signage that had been approved for the Center. 9. Mr. Robert Tyler, Velleta Drive, stated he was happy to see the activity at this location as it had been empty for some time but, he did not believe the entrance to the City should be a sports bar. He asked if this was what the City wanted as the entrance to La Quinta. He inquired what the hours of illumination for the signage would be and that the Commission consider what affect this would have on the City. He felt the number of signs should be cut back. 10. Commissioner Anderson pointed out what the increase of the signage was and if the public objected, he felt they should reduce the signage back to the City requirements or 50 square feet. The north side would have two signs that would be seen from both directions and that was redundant. 11. Commissioner Abels stated he agreed the signage was excessive but he felt it was in good taste. He did not feel the signs on the west side were too noticeable. 12. Mr. Engle stated that the applicant realized this was the entrance to La Quinta and that was why he did not want illmnination on all signs. The illuminated letter were only four inches in height in order to vc4-11 15 Plannin~ Commission Minutes April 11, 1995 reduce the sign impact on the building. 13. Chairman Adolph stated that he was very strongly against too much signage and he did not feel signs were needed on every side of the building. However, this building has no signs on the south side and the north is done tastefully as well as the sign facing the parking lot. He did question the east side sign as to how well the logo could be seen as compared to the "Sports Bar and Grill" sign. Discussion followed regarding the signs visibility. 14. There being no further discussion it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Anderson/Gardner to adopt Minute Motion 95-016 approving Sign Application 95-302, with the stipulation that the signage be in agreement with the City's allowable size and approved by Staff. 15. Commissioner Abels stated that in view of the signage only being on three sides, it should be left as submitted. Commissioners Butler and Newkirk agreed. 16.Chairman Adolph stated he agreed with Commissioner Anderson that the east building sign would not be seen from the street. 17. Commissioner Newkirk asked about the height of the letters on the sign. Discussion followed. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Anderson, Gardner, and Chairman Adolph NOES: Comgnissioners Newkirk, Abels, and Butler. ABSENT: Commissioner Barrows. ABSTAINING: None. MOTION FAILED 18. Commissioners Abels/Newkirk moved to adopt Minute Motion 95-016 approving Sign Application 95-302, as submitted. 19. Commissioner Butler asked how much illumination would be seen. Mr. Engle stated that from a distance you would see the logo and as you get closer the lettering. He stated they were trying to sell the logo. The lettering is smaller than wanted but, the logo is what you want to be visible. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Newkirk, Butler. NOES: Commissioners Anderson, Gardner, Chairman Adolph. l~4~ll 16 Planning Commission Minutes April 11, 1995 ABSENT: Commi~ioner Barrows. ABSTAINING: None. MOTION FAILED 20. Commissioner Anderson asked if the "Beer Hunter" letters on the north side of the building corner could be removed and the logo placed at this location. This will decrease the overall size and bring the logo down. Mr. Engle stated he felt the applicant would agree with this. Discussion followed. .21. Commissioner Anderson suggested that the east side logo be placed on the north elevation without the "Beer Hunter" letters. In addition he suggested the lettering be stretch out on the east side of the building (i.e., one line of copy). Mr. Engle agreed. 25. There being no further discussion, it was moved by Commissioners Anderson/Butler to adopt Minute Motion 95-016, approving Sign Application 95-302 as suggested above. Unanimously approved. CONSENT CALENDAR There being no discussion, Commissioners Gardner/Abels moved and seconded a motion to approve the Minutes of March 28, 1995, as submitted. Unanimously approved. COMMISSIONER ITEMS 1. Commissioner Butler gave a report of the City Council meeting. 2. Discussion relating to a newly constructed detached garage at 79-720 Iris Court. A. Community Development Director Jerry Herman presented the information, a copy of which is on f'de in the Community Development Department. 1. Commissioner Anderson asked if the garage addition was completed. Staff stated it was a completed garage. Chairman Adolph asked if anyone had seen the garage. Chairman Adolph stated the garage looked like a barn and was not compatible with the neighborhood, but .... he did not believe there was anything the Planning Commission could do about it. 2. Commi.~ioner Abels asked why this did not apply to the Compatibility Ordinance. Staff explained that the ordinance only applies to a developer and not an individual property owner. PC4-11 17 Pl~nninE Commission Minutes April 11, 1995 3. Chairman Adolph explained that the property owners' association had been disbanded and the property owners no longer had any alternatives. Commissioners suggested that staff be directed to write a letter to Mr. Norris explaining the position of the Planning Commission and suggest they form a homeowners' association to deal with these issues. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, this meeting of the Planning Commission, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Gardner to adjourn this meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting April 25, 1995. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:57 P.M. The motion was unanimously approved. PC4-11 18