PCMIN 06 13 1995 MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, CA
June 13, 1995 3:00 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 3:13 P.M. by Chairman Adolph.
Commissioner Barrows led the flag salute.
II. ROLL CALL
A. Chairman Adolph requested the roll call: Present: Commissioners Abels, Barrows, Butler,
Gardner, Newkirk, and Chairman Adolph. Commissioner Anderson arrived late.
III. PUBLIC COMMENT:
A. There being no public comment, Chairman Adolph asked City Attorney Dawn Honeywell to
update the Commission regarding the status of the Adult Entertainment Ordinance. City
Attorney Dawn Honeywell explained the status of the Ordinance and the proposed changes that
would be presented to the City Council.
IV. WORKSHOP
A. Continued- Zoning Code Update; a request of the City for review and approval of the Zoning
Code Update.
1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented an update on what material had been covered
and what was to be discussed.
2. Page 5
Section 9.150.040.A.2.b. - Define what "reasonable walking distance" into feet. (Not
to exceed 300 feet).
3. Page 6
B.5.- Add "other than approved car sales".
4. Section 9.140.050.A. - Delete the sentence, "In the interests of the public health,
safety and welfare, the City's decision-making authority shall be the final judge on how
many off-street parking spaces a use or a combination of uses may require." Staff was
PC6-13
Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 1995
requested to correct the wording in following sentence.
5. A.3 and A.5 (Page 7)- Delete both.
6. Page 7 & 8
D.- Staff to review and offer suggestions (a 10% reduction shall apply to the
commercial requirements only).
7. D.3. Add "to a City-created assessment/benefit for parking improvements, or parking
improvement district..."
8. Page 9
Table 9- Define where the driveway length should be from and to.
9. Page 13
Table 9- Staff to review section on Automobile Service Stations
10. Page 19
Section 9.150.080.A.4 - "Individual wheel stops shall be permitted."
, 11. A.8. - Define what a "sufficient throat" is.
A.IO. - Encourage them to use a common easement use.
-.
12. Page 21
B.7.- staff to check with Engineering Department for driveway width.
13. Page 022
D.4.- add "...and speed bumps and signage shall be used ....
14. Page 25
F.2.- Add "to allow pavers".
15. Page 27
J.7. - Add verbiage "...to include screening by a wall or landscaping, berm or any
combination of the three."
J.7.- Make reference to refer them to Section "L".
16. Page 28
K.lO and 11.-add "above finish grade".
17. Page 29
3.b.- Remove "decision- making authority" and replace with "City".
PC6-13
Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 1995
18. Page 30
M.5.- minimum 15 gallon size tree with a 2" diameter trunk. Create a canopy tree
palette.
M.5.- 10% to 15% of overall landscaping should be required.
Add native or drought tolerant plants.
19. Page 31
Table 9- Minimum required parking spaces 5-24 and 25-49 change the amount of
shading required to 50%.
29. Page 32
10.- add "in like kind and size".
12.- Eliminate.
30. Page 33
Table 9- verify it conforms with the American Disabilities Act (ADA) or state "refer to
the ADA requirements".
Chairman Adolph recessed the meeting at 5:29 P.M. and reconvened at 7:04 P.M.
V. PUBLIC COMMENT
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
';
A. Continued- Street Name Change 95-00§; a request of the La Quinta Volunteer Fire Department
to change the name of a portion of Old 52nd Avenue 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. There being no questions of staff and no public comment, Chairman Adolph closed the
public hearing.
3. Commissioner Abels stated that since the Coachella Valley Recreation and Park District
had passed a resolution renaming the downtown Community Park to "Frances Hack
Park", he felt this was more appropriate than renaming the street.
4. Staff informed the Commissioners that even though the Park had been renamed, the
__ Volunteer Fire Department still wanted to name Old 52nd Avenue to Frances Hack Lane.
Commissioners discussed the request
PC6-13 3
Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 1995
5. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Abels/Anderson to adopt Resolution 95-020, approving the renaming a portion of Old
§2nd Avenue to Frances Hack Lane as requested.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Anderson, Barrows, Butler, Gardner, Newkirk,
and Chairman Adolph. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAINING: None.
MOTION CARRIED.
Commissioners Anderson and Gardner withdrew due to a possible conflict of interest regarding Tentative Tract
28150.
B. Tentative Tract 281§0; a request of KSL Land Corporation for approval to resubdivide 3.6 acres
into 14 single family residential lots and four common lots.
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 Abels asked to see the letter from Monarch (representing the PGA West
Homeowners').
_
3. Commissioner Butler asked staff how Condition//36 would be addressed. Staff
explained that the issue was addressed in the letter from Monarch. Discussion
followed as to whether KSL had the right to go ahead with their project.
..
4. Commissioner Newkirk asked where the nearest pool to this proposed tract was
located. Staff explained the history of the different pool locations in PGA West.
Sunrise built the pools.
5. Chairman Adolph reminded the Commission that KSL had agreed that if condominiums
were built across the street, pools would be installed.
6. Commissioner Abels asked whose responsibility the entrance gate was 58th Avenue.
Staff stated they believed the gate improvements had never been accepted by the HOA;
it remained a responsibility of Landmark Land or KSL.
7. Commissioner Newkirk asked if there were enough homes in the area to warrant a gate.
Staff displayed the area on the aerial and discussion followed. Staff felt it was not
necessary at this time.
8. Chairman Adolph asked if KSL had received a copy of the letter from Monarch. Staff
stated they had personally given a copy of the letter to Mr. Haag in hopes he would
forward a copy to KSL. Chairman Adolph asked if a response had been received from
KSL regarding the letter. Staff stated they had not.
PC6-13 4
Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 1995
9. Commissioner Barrows asked staff if the undeveloped graded areas were being
maintained and were they addressed adequately in the Conditions of Approval. Staff
stated that all tracts are required to have a dust control maintenance program. Code
Enforcement would investigate any complaints.
10. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Adolph opened the public hearing.
Mr. Forrest Haag, representing the applicant, addressed the concerns raised by the
Commission. He stated they were askino the Commission to approve the project as it
was originally approved on April 25th. Mr. Haag stated that KSL was working with
The Monarch Group to reach a solution. They had met with and discussed the points
raised in their letter with the homeowners.
11. Commissioner Newkirk asked what type of homes were built by Sunrise across the
street from this tract. Mr. Haag stated they were the Trophy units.
12. Commissioner Butler stated that he did not believe KSL, should be required to satisfy
the conditions that were placed on the tract when owned by Sunrise Company, as the
tract had changed from the original design and was not the same product line. Mr.
-- Haag stated that the amenity mix under Sunrise was lacking, but with the new product
line the amenities had improved. As to the location of the pool referred to in the prior
Planning Commission meeting, KSL did not believe this was the best location. It should
not be addressed in this tract approval. Discussion followed as to the history of the
.: area, the gate, pools and what responsibility should the new owner have to assume
from the previous owner.
13. Commissioner Butler stated he was not certain that the Planning Commission should be
addressing these issues. Chairman Adolph stated that he felt the Planning Commission
should hear both sides and make a decision to be sure that the prior conditions are met.
14. Commissioner Abels asked City Attorney Dawn Honeywell to clarify. City Attorney
Dawn Honeywell stated that the Conditions of Approval run with the land. When a
developer submits a new tract the Conditions are brought before the Planning
Commission for review and to make a determination as to which conditions are
applicable and reasonable. It is difficult to review each of the tracts individually when
they.are a part of the overall PGA West Specific Plan. She sugoested that the Council,
in the near future, review the existing specific plan to bring all the tracts into
conformance. This, however, is not the issue before the Commission. The Planning
Commission is to review the request before them. The Commission cannot put any
conditions on this project that do not relate to the change that is requested. She was
unsure whether the pools were conditions of the prior map or just shown as locations
by the prior developers.
15. Commissioner Abels clarified that there were three issues before the Commission; the
new product type, pools, and the project access gate.
PC6-13 :~
Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 1995
16. Commissioner Barrows asked staff to clarify what public improvements the City could
require. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that due to the questions that were
arising, the City might want to re-examine the adopted specific plan. She was
uncertain whether the City could require the new owner to provide off-site amenity
improvements (pools) when the specific plan does not require it.
17. Chairman Adolph asked the City Attorney whether or not it was reasonable that a pool
was being required by the Conditions as it was illustrated on the previous tract map.
City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that it could be raised in an argument, but it is
not listed in the conditions specifically.
18. Chairman Adolph asked Mr. Haag to identify the four common lots. Mr. Haag stated
that there was only one common lot. It was noted that the Agenda listed four common
lots in error.
19. Chairman Adolph asked Mr. Haag how KSL hoped to resolve this issue regarding the
pool. Mr. Haag stated that if the amenities are over-provided, it becomes a burden on
the homeowners' association. When KSL looks at a new product line, it looks to solve
the problem, not create one. The problem should be addressed when the product
demands the amenities, not the tract development. Discussion followed as to potential
solutions to the problem.
: 20. Commissioner Barrows stated it appeared that the HOA was willing to accept the
burden of the pool and there appears to be a demand for the pool. She stated the City
was looking for some indication of how the problem would be addressed. Mr. Haag
stated he did not feel the homeowners would want to go to this area (of the new
product line) to use their pool, when the new area was to be single family homes and
not condominiums. He felt this market product did not demand a common pool facility.
21. Commissioner Butler asked which HOA would assume the responsibility for this pool.
Chairman Adolph stated that it would go to HOA Residential #1 or #2. The Master
Association takes care of the gates and perimeter landscaping Commissioner BUtler
asked who would maintain the pool and common lot area. Mr. Haag stated it was a
residential boundary and it would have to be integrated into one of the existing HOA's.
Commissioner Butler stated the new tract would be paying dues to maintain pools they
would not be using. Mr. Haag stated that irregardless, all HOA are required to
contribute to the overall cost of all the pools.
22. Mr. Bob Sardell, a resident on Interlachen, across from the proposed development,
stated he encouraged the development. However, if this new tract was to become a
part of Residential//1, it would be a conflict due to the size of the homes. The second
problem was the temporary toilet structure and the pool restrooms that would provide
the necessary restrooms facilities for the workers. Third there needed to be one HOA
for the entire street to maintain the pool.
PC6-13 6
Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 1995
23. Mr. Sardella stated that the property owners on Southern Hills use the common area
pools as the dues they pay support and maintain the pools. The gate was not a major
issue, but the wall that is nonexisting (58th Avenue)is a problem. The installation of
the wall was necessary for security purposes.
24. Mr. Sardella asked if the Commissioners had a copy of the Monarch letter. Staff stated
they had not distribute the letter to the Commission as some issues raised in the letter
did not apply to this tract request (the letter was submitted for Plot Plan 95-552). Mr.
Sardella passed out a copy of the Monarch letter to the Commissioners. Mr. Sardella
went over the issues raised in the letter and his concern that homes would be built, and
not sold, and who would be responsible for the HOA dues.
25. Mr. Forrest Haag stated that KSL was working with Monarch to resolve the issues and
would continue to work to reach a solution. The restroom facilities are now
conditioned to be provided and will be constructed.
26. There being no further public comment, Chairman Adolph closed the public hearing.
27. Commissioner Butler asked staff to clarify what issue was before the Commission for
approval. He felt the only issue they could address was the approval/denial of the
tract.
't
28. Commissioner Abels stated the pool and tract are before the Commission for approval.
29. Commissioner Newkirk asked if the security gate and wall were a part of this approval.
City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated it was not before the Commission. He felt that
KSL should not be required to provide a pool for the homes on Interlachen as there were
several individual pools.
30. There being no further discussion, it as moved and seconded by Commissioners
NewkirklButler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 95-021 (as originally
conditioned).
31. Commissioner Barrows asked the City Attorney to clarify if there was an alternate site
the pool could be approved for or, does the Commission wait and see what KSL and the
HOA work out. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the Commission could wait and
see what the market demands and what was built out. The City's alternative is to look
·
at the entire specific plan and amend it to make it more detailed as to the amenities and
their locations. However, the Commission must look at the issue that is before them at
this time and if they so desired, asked staff to take the specific plan issue before the
City Council for review.
PC6-13 7
Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 1995
32. Chairman Adolph stated he was not in objection to the product being built, but to the
developer deciding whether or not pools will be constructed and where they will be built
was an issue. If they are going to reduce the density and change the product line, they
need to inform the residents as to where and when the pools and restroom facilities
would be installed.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, and Newkirk. NOES: Commissioner
Barrows and Chairman Adolph. ABSENT: Commissioners Anderson and
Gardner. ABSTAINING: None.
MOTION CARRIED.
33. Commissioner Abels requested that staff bring the specific plan issue before the Council
for their review and direction.
C. Plot Plan 95-554 and Environmental Assessment 95-301: a request of Caal Theaters for a
recommendation of approval to the City Council of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
environmental impact and approval of a plot plan to allow the construction of a 30,000 square
foot 8-plex theater.
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.
2. Chairman Adolph asked staff to identify the location of the Shangri-La restaurant in
relation to the theater location.
3. Commisioner Abels asked staff to identify the location of the other buildings in the
shopping center.
4. Commissioner Barrows asked staff to clarify the location of the landscaping staff was
requesting and why benches were being requested. Staff showed the location of the
landscaping and stated the benches were for the customers waiting to see a show or
be picked up.
5. Chairman Adolph asked about the amount of signage and whether it met the City
requirements. Staff stated that presently it did exceed it. Chairman Adolph asked if
the marquee sign was part of the sign program.
6. Commissioner Abels asked if this would be similar to the marquee at the Town Center
Theater. Staff assumed it would be and the sign program would have to come back
before the Commission for final approval.
PC6-13 g
Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 1995
7. Commissioner Anderson asked if staff had considered the amount of parking and how it
would affect the rest of the existing shopping center. Staff explained and stated the
parking issue was addressed when the center was first designed and approved.
8. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Adolph opened the public hearing.
Mr. Roger Thorpe, representing the Metropolitan Theaters, addressed the Commission
regarding the roof mechanical screens. He stated they were proposing to raise the
parapet walls to hide the mechanical equipment and do away with the proposed
mechanical screens. His concern was with the requirement to integrate the
downspouts into the building structure. They were trying to not have exposed
downspouts. He understood the importance of integrating the downspouts into the
design of the building and will do so on the north and east side, but due to the sound
quality and acoustics required. The drain pipes on the north could create a problem
with noise and could compromise the sound in the theaters. Regarding the signs,
traditionally they have used the neon lights to create interest and to draw attention to
them. He felt the signs had been tasteful in their design and they had utilized only one
color. They had gone to great expense to be sure the building blended with the rest of
the existing center. However, their building is so far back from the street, they request
_ to maintain the one color neon sign for exposure. In terms of the landscaping, it was
preliminary plan. They understood the need to provide shade, however, he questioned
the need for landscaping at the rear of the building. No other structure in the center
had landscaping in the rear and he would prefer to use that money to enhance the
: landscaping in the front.
9. Commisioner Abels asked Mr. Thorpe if he had any objection to the request of the
Sheriff's Department. Mr. Thorpe stated they had gone to great lengths to light the
building for protection and keep he preferred to keep the monitors at the ticket booth
and the lobby. Commisioner Abels stated that the monitoring in the parking lot was for
the Sheriff's Department.
10. Commissioner Barrows asked if the camera would be in the building or in the parking
lot. Mr. Thorpe stated they would be in the building.
11. Commissioner Gardner asked if the monitors would be backed up by video tape. Mr.
Thorpe stated they would be.
12. Commissioner Gardner stated that due to the limited amount of rain and the infrequency
of the rain, he did not feel the enclosure of the downspouts would be a detriment to the
sound quality. Mr. Thorpe stated it was not the amount or frequency of the rain, but
the type of storm. When the storm drains are installed in the middle of the sound walls,
it does create a problem with the sound quality in the theater.
PC6-13 9
Planning Commission Minutes '
June 13, 1995
13. Chairman Adolph suggested a false pilaster be constructed to hide the downspouts. Mr.
Thorpe agreed this would solve the problem.
14. Commissioner Butler stated his concern about the amount of parking and the problems
it could create for the surrounding tenants. The theater has been allocated 141 spaces
and 573 are required. Mr. Thorpe stated they have not been faced with the problem at
any of their other location and as it is unknown what will be developed in the remainder
of the center, it was difficult to project the parking needs. In addition, the theater will
generally be using the parking lot after the hours of closing for the majority of the retail
shops in the center. This is the way shared parking was intended to work.
Commissioner Butler asked if there were any specific documentation to support this
concept. Mr. Thorpe stated he did not have it with him, but would work with the
developer to provide this information to the Commission.
1§. Commissioner Anderson asked if matinees would be shown. Mr. Thorpe stated they
would be having matinees, but traditionally, the number of people attending is greatly
reduced. Commissioner Anderson stated his concern for the number of parking spaces
and the effect on the shopping center. He would like to see a running tally and the
effect on the existing center. He asked Mr. Thorpe to work with staff to show the
effect of the parking.
16. Commissioner Butler stated he was pleased to see the project and this was an excellent
location, but the Commission was expressing a concerned with the parking especially as
the center develops. Mr. Thorpe stated he was willing to work with staff to answer
the Commission's concern.
17. Commissioner Anderson stated he had a concern about the height of the structure and
massiveness. He would like to see it integrated more into the site and the building
lowered. In addition, more detailed drawings were necessary so he could respond to
the structure. Mr. Thorpe explained that the height of the theater could not be
controlled because they need a high ceiling to provide a quality show. The number of
access ramps is dictated by the American's With Disability Act. He went on to explain
the reasoning for the height of the building.
18. Chairman Adolph stated that the rear landscaping was needed due to the massive wall
viewed by the residents to the north. It would be nice to soften the wall with the
landscaping. Mr. Thorpe stated he understood, but the building is broken up into five
separate buildings, and would not be one massive wall, and no other building in the
center had been required to landscape the rear of the building. Chairman Adolph
suggested that some type of drought tolerant plants that would not require extensive
sprinkler systems and/or maintenance.
PC6-13 ]0
Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 1995
19. Chairman Adolph stated his concern about the side view "chimney" sticking up- the
marquee. He asked if the radius was a foot or 18" underneath the ridgeline of the gable.
If so, it appeared to be 2 ~/2 feet above the ridgeline. Mr. Thorpe stated it would only be
a foot in height.
20. Chairman Adolph asked about the "La Quinta 8" arch and if it would be wrapped around
the building slightly.
21. Commissioner Anderson stated he too was concerned with this as well. He would
rather see the element lowered. He could not see any reason for the height except to
position the sign up higher on the building. Mr. Thorpe stated he needed the height as
they were concerned about visibility being located so far back to the rear of the
property and behind some pad buildings on the street. This is why they were asking for
the small amount of neon to help bring attention to their theater.
22. Commissioner Barrows asked about the sign program. Mr. Thorpe stated they had
brought a preliminary sign program and asked if the Commission would like to see it.
Commissioner Barrows asked for clarification as to the location of the neon. Mr.
Thorpe stated he would bring a section detail of the sign to show all the details to the
next meeting.
23. Commissioner Abels asked when the developer anticipated the building to be completed.
Mr. Thorpe stated it would take seven months to build the structure. They were hoping
to submit construction drawings to the Building Department within the next three
weeks.
24. Commissioner Gardner stated his concern about the number of restrooms for the
number of seats provided. Mr. Thorpe stated this is what is required by the Building
Code.
25. Commissioner Barrows asked if there was any information on the capacity of people
attending at any one time. Mr. Thorpe stated that in today's movie market the
scheduling of the movie showing will control the number of people attending.
Commissioner Barrows asked if the theater capacity and scheduling would affect the
parking. Mr. Thorpe stated the theater operators stagger their shows to help control
the crowds. That the way the theaters were staggered and it would alleviate the
burden.
26. Chairman Adolph thanked Mr. Thorpe for this presentation and as no one else wished to
address the Commission, the public hearing was closed.
PC6-13 ] ]
Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 1995
27. Commissioner Butler stated he would like to see a study on the parking. Commissioner
Anderson stated he was looking forward to having a theater in town, but had a problem
with the architectural design of the building and would like to see it blended into the
center more. In addition, he was concerned about the amount of parking provided
throughout the center versus the amount of parking provided in front of the theater.
Perhaps with less seating it could solve some of these problems. He did not feel he
could support the design as it is submitted.
28. Chairman Adolph stated that the number of seating needed to support a theater was
not addressed.
29. Commissioner Abels stated he felt the entire area was sufficient to handle the parking.
This was a good development and a good tax base for the City. He felt the Commission
should take into consideration that there is an abundance of parking and must consider
that it will never be filled at any one time, and the parking should be adequate.
30. Commissioner Newkirk stated that when he leaves the center now, he will cut across
the parking lot as there are a number of vacant parking spaces. He has no problem
with the parkino.
31. Discussion followed regarding the concerns noted above. Commissioner Barrows
suggested that the parapet with the sign be brought back with the sign program.
32. Commissioner Anderson stated he understood the height of the building was needed for
the type of presentation proposed. He would still like to see detailed drawings (cross
section views) as he felt there could be some design work on the building to make it
more proportionally suitable for the site.
33. Commissioners Anderson moved to continue the item and requested the developer
provide additional drawings showing more detail. There being no second, it died for
lack of a second.
34. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the City does not have a copy of any reciprocal
agreement as it relates to the shared parking program. The City needs to have
assurance from the developer that the number of parking spaces being utilized are
covered.
35. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Anderson/Abels to continue this item to
allow the applicant time to address the concerns of the Planning Commission and that
staff and the Commission be given enough time to review the reciprocal agreements
reoarding the parking. In addition, review a study of the existing uses and their impact
on the overall parking in conjunction with this use, projected uses, and their impact on
PC6-13 12
Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 1995
parking to have a good understanding of the parking for this center. City Attorney
Dawn Honeywell asked that the item be continued to a date specific. Staff suggested
the item be continued to July 11th. Mr. Thorpe stated he would be jeopardizing the
project if continued to July. He would prefer two weeks to resolve the problem. Staff
stated it would be difficult, but if the Commission so desired, staff would have it ready
for the Commissions next meeting. The motion was amended to continue Plot Plan 95-
554 to the next Planning Commission meeting of June 27, 1995. Unanimously
approved.
36. Chairman Adolph asked for photographs of similar structures the applicant had built to
give the commission a feeling of the type of building.
VII. BUSINESS ITEMS
A. Sign Application 95-311 - Pizza Hut: a request of Signs and Services Company for approval of a
deviation from the sign program for the La Quinta Village Shopping Center to allow an illuminated
business sign for Pizza Hut.
-- 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.
2. Chairman Adolph asked if the City had deviated from the sign program before. Stated
· : they had not.
3. There being no further questions of staff, the applicant, Mr. Kevin McConnell, stated
his reasoning for the sign deviation request.
4. Commissioner Barrows asked for clarification on the size of the sign and asked if there
was a way to reduce the size.'Mr. McConnell stated it could be reduced, but they were
only asking for 2 ~/2 feet more than what is existing.
§. Chairman Adolph asked if there were any other signs on the building. Mr. McConnell
stated that the south elevation would be an under canopy sign.
6. Chairman Adolph clarified that the reasoning was for visibility. Mr. McConnell stated
they would consider the alternative offered by staff.
7. Commissioner Barrows clarified that the applicant would be willing to place the sign in
_ the center archway and reduce the signage. Mr. McConnell stated they would be.
8. Commissioner Anderson stated his opposition to a sign being in the archway.
PC6.13 !3 i
Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 1995
9. Commissioner Barrows asked staff if the existing sign program would allow the signage
in the central archway. Staff stated it would.
10. Commissioner Anderson stated he felt using the archway for the sign took away from
the building's architecture.
11. Mr. John Koenig, The Koenig Companies (builders of the shopping center), stated the
deviations that had already been approved for the center. This was an unusual
situation and in order to sway the tenant, sign alternatives were offered. This proposal
was the best solution for all concerned.
12. Commissioner Anderson suggested the Pizza Hut logo be located under the tower and
illuminated in the archway. Mr. Koenig stated they had considered this, but did not feel
it would solve the problem.
13. Commissioners discussed alternatives for the applicant's consideration. Mr. Koenig
asked if the Commission would approve the sign in concept and let them work out the
details with staff.
14. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Abels/Butler to adopt Minute Motion 95-022 approving the sign deviation to allow the
sign in the arch as discussed, subject to staff's approval.
:
B. Specific Plan 84-004 (Rancho La I:luinta); a request of TD Desert Development for approval of a
new Casitas duplex unit.
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.
2. Commissioner Anderson asked if the applicant had submitted a color board and asked
for a clarification on the colors.
3. Commissioner Gardner asked if there were any problems with this product and the
Compatibility Ordinance. Staff stated the ordinance did not apply.
4. Chairman Adolph questioned the roof overhangs and whether pop outs were being
required to alleviate the problem.
5. Commissioner Barrows asked what the size of the overhangs would be. Staff clarified
there were different sizes on the different elevations, but the majority were two feet.
PC6.13 ]4
Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 1995
6. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Adolph asked if the applicant
wished to address the Commission. Mr. Tom Cullinan, representing the applicant,
clarified the project request and explained the polyurethan material being used.
Commissioner Anderson requested that the applicant submit the material with the
documentation supporting the findings.
7. Commisioner Barrows asked for clarification about the polyurethan foam. Mr. Cullinan
stated it was used for architectural relief and resembled wood texture.
8. Commissioner Butler asked if the south and west facing elevations would be a problem
regarding the shade. Commissioner Anderson stated that landscaping would aid in
relieving the problem, such as vines.
9. There being no further discussion, Commissioners Barrows/Abels moved and seconded a
motion to adopt Minute Motion 95-023 approving the new Casitas duplex unit design as
submitted. Unanimously approved.
VII. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. There being no corrections to the minutes of May 23, 1995, Commissioners Anderson/Abels
moved and seconded a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved.
.; VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS
A. Commissioner Newkirk gave a brief report of the Council meeting of May 16, 1995.
Commissioner Anderson gave a brief report of the Council meeting of June 6, 1995.
B. Chairman Adolph asked the Commissioners to consider going dark during the month of August.
This item would be brought before the Commission at their meeting in July.
C. Chairman Adolph asked City Attorney Dawn Honeywell for clarification on a letter from Ed
Kibbey of the BIA regarding his request to meet with the Commission. City Attorney Dawn
Honeywell stated she had great concern about the Commissioners meeting with the BIA
regarding an issue currently being considered before the Commission. Commissioner Abels
suggested that staff write a letter thanking Mr. Kibbey for his offer, but they would not be able
to attend.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Anderson to adjourn this
meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting on June 27, 1995. This meeting of the Planning
Commission was adjourned at 10:49 P.M., June 13, 1995. Unanimously approved.
PC6-13