Loading...
PCMIN 07 25 1995 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampieo, La Quinta, CA July 25, 1995 3:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 3:19 P.M. by Chairman Abels who asked Commissioner Adolph to lead the flag salute. II. ROLL CALL A. Chairman Abels requested the roll call: Present: Commissioners Adolph, Anderson, Barrows, Butler, Newkirk, atxd Chairman Abels. Absent: Commissioner Gardner. Commissioners Barrows/Newkirk moved and seconded a motion to excuse Commissioners Gardner. -- B. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attomey Dawn Honeywell, Senior Engineer Steve Speer, Principal Planner Start Sawa, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. III. PUBLIC COMMENT: None IV. WORKSHOP A. Continued - Zoning Ordinance Update; a request of the City for a review and approval of the Zoning Code Update. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa informed the Commissioners of the Chapters that had been reviewed and explained a request by the La Quinta Chamber of Commerce for review of a proposed temporary sign program. 2. Community Development Director Jerry Herman explained the proposed program would fall under the Permitted Temporary Sign regulations. He went on to explain the history behind the request and that it consisted,of a directional sign program for the Village. -- 3. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that because there are still concerns about opening, the issue of off-premise signs, if the Commission decides to add this sign. program to the Ordinance, they need to make findings that PC7-25 1 $ Planning Commission Meeting July 25, 1995 exceptions can be made in the Village District. Such fmdings would show it is difficult to fred business locations in the Village District and because of these peculiar situations, findings can be made for off-premise signs for these businesses. It would need to be called the Village Directional Sign Program and would be limited and applicable to the Village District only. In addition, the sign patrons would be rotated on a basis not related to content and must be open to everyone in this Zone. 4. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated that if the Commission agreed, staff would add this to the Permitted Temporary Sign section of the Sign Ordinance with the modifications as noted by the City Attorney. 5. Chairman Abels asked if the representatives of the Chamber would like to speak. Ms. Michelle Dallas, Executive Director of the La Quinta Chamber of Commerce, stated she was here to answer any questions the Commission may have. The program stems from their Business Development Task Force. She stated this would not be a revenue generator, but an asset to local businesses to held draw business. 6. Commissioner Butler asked what options were available to the City if the signs were not maintained; would there be any objection to adding a clause to the sign program that would allow the City to remove them if not maintained? Ms. Dallas agreed with the addition of the clause. It was the Chamber's intent that the money received would be for the installation and maintenance of the signs. 7. Ms. Dallas asked if the sign program had to be opened to all businesses and not just Chamber members. Commissioner Anderson stated that if it was limited to just Chamber members it would be discriminatory. Ms. Dallas then asked if they could provide a lower rental rate for members of the Chamber. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated this would be difficult as the only fees to be charged were those for the installation and maintenance of the signs. In addition, as the signs were to be installed in the public fight- of-way it would be a problem. The Chamber would need to determine a method of selecting businesses for the sign program that was not discriminatory. Commissioner Anderson asked if the signs used for Chamber members could be made differently. Community Development Director Jerry Herman suggested the Chamber dues reflect a discount for those who are members rather than discounting the sign program. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated this could be an incentive to join the Chamber. ; . PC7.25 2 Planning Commission Meeting July 25, 1995 8. Ms. Dallas asked about Conditions #5 and #6 regarding rotation of the panels, and asked if the Chamber could continue the contract for 11 months, rotated off for a month then continue on. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell clarified this was correct, but a mechanism needs to be put in place that if there are more businesses than panels, a method of rotating the signs that is fair to everyone is somehow put in place. 9. Community Development Director Jerry Herman clarified that the program was limited to only those businesses within the Village boundaries. Discussion followed regarding those businesses that were out of the boundaries. 10. Mr. Greg Shannon, Chamber President asked about placing a sign at 52nd Avenue and Bermudas to direct traffic. Mr. Herman stated this area was not within the Village. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that since the sign was for assistance to direct traffic to the Village, a sign would be needed at this location to direct the traffic to the Village. 11. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the size of the signs was not addressed in the memo. Community Development Director Jerry Herman clarified that the signs would be the same size and structure as the BIA sign program. 12. Commissioner Newkirk stated the current ordinance allows 12 square feet in size and questioned whether this sign would be larger. Community Development Director clarified that he was unsure whether or not the entire monument would be larger, but the individual signs were for the individual businesses. 13. commissioner Adolph asked if the Planning Commission would be approving the generic sign and staff approving the individual signs. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated it was up to the Planning Commission to determine whether or not they would want the signs to come back to the Commission for approval or just have the Planning Commission approve the locations and have staff approve the business signs. Discussion followed regarding the wording on. the signs and their locations. 14. Commissioner Adolph stated he felt the location and number of signs should be brought back to the Planning Commission for approval. PC7-25 ~ 3 Planning Commission Meeting July 25, 1995 15. Community Development Director Jerry Herman clarified the Planning Commissioners' direction: l) accept the amendments of the City Attorney; 2) a requirement added concerning the City's authority to remove deteriorating signs; 3) clarifying the use of the revenues; and 4) the program would be reviewed by the Planning Commission for the number and locations of the signs. Staff stated this would be a new section entitled "The Village Semi-Permanent Directional Sign Program" under Permitted Temporary Signs. Chairman Abels asked about the boundaries. Community Development Director Jerry Herman clarified the boundaries. 16. Chairman Abels stated his concern about sign pollution. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell commented that this was what the Commission was to be considering. 17. Commissioner Adolph asked if the Planning Commission was the final authority for approving the signs. Staff stated yes, but all projects go to the City Council if approved. Staff clarified the procedure the ordinance would go through for adoption. 18. Commissioner Anderson stated his concern that the number of signs to be allowed not become visual blights. One of the findings for approving the sign program could be the lack of development in the Village. At such time as the Village is developed, the Ordinance could then be reviewed for any changes needed. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated this would give credence to proving the sign program was temporary in nature. 19. Staff clarified they would send a draft copy of the Ordinance to the Chamber so they would be prepared to address any problems at the public hearing. 20. Commissioner Anderson stated the sign appeared to be constructed out of wood. He suggested the Chamber clarify with the sign company how the signs would be changed without deteriorating the sign frame. 21. Commissioner Butler questioned how the City could put some enforcement behind the Sign Ordinance to see that illegal signs are removed. He suggested that perhaps during the application process, the applicant could be informed that the City has the fight to remove any illegal signs that are not maintained. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the Ordinance now allows the City to remove any illegal sign and impose fines. Staff clarified this was the responsibility of the Code Enforcement Department. Discussion followed regarding the process. PC7-25 4 Planning Commission Meeting July 25, 1995 22. CHAPTER 9.160 - Signs Page 010, Section 9.160.060 D. Maximum Height. Add, "No higher than eave line or top of wall building or 8-feet whichever is less." 23. Page 014, G. Time Extensions. Add "maximum of a one time extension". 24. Page 016, 2. and 5.a. and 5.b. Remove reference to Design Review Board and replace with Community D~velopment Department. Chairman Gardner recessed the meeting at 5:17 P.M. and reconvened at 7:02 P.M. V. PUBLIC COMMENT: None VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Public Use Permit 95-016; a request of Desert Sands Unified School District for approval to construct their District Educational Services Center of approximately 164,000 square feet of floor space located northeast of the intersection of Dune Palms Road and 48th Avenue. 1. Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had requested a continuance to the 'Commission's August 8th meeting. 2. There being no questions of staff, Chairman Abels opened the public hearing. As no one wished to address the Commission, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Barrows/Adolph to continue this item to August 8, 1995. Unanimously approved. B Municil~al Code Amendment 95-045; a request of the City for an approval of an amendment to the La Quinta Municipal Code by revising Title 13-Subdivision Regulations. 1. Associate Engineer Fred Bouma introduced Mr. Jim Morrissey, of NBS Lowrey, who presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. · 2. Following the presentation, Commissioner Adolph asked what the public response had been. Mr. Morrissey stated it had been received very well and they felt they had achieved their purpose in the public meetings. · PC7-2§ 5 Planning Commission Meeting July 25, 1995 3. Commissioner Butler asked why the bond for labors and materials was increased to 100% of the contract price. Associate Engineer Fred Bouma stated that most of the cities contacted during the study were at 100% for security. Legal advice from the Ventura and Los Angeles County attorneys stated the City was at risk and exposed for labor and material claims that are closer to 100% of the improvements. These claims have been filed around the State and the City would be well advised to go to the 100%. Staff reviewed this in committee meetings and the response was that the bonding would not cost any more. 4. There being no further questions of staff', Chairman Abels opened the public hearing. Mr. Chevis Hosea, representing KSL, stated they were working with a bonding agent and if this policy was continued they would be penalized for supplying a form of collateral instead of a surety bond. The new ordinance would increase the amount of collateral. Discussion followed. 5. Commissioner Butler elaborated on the problems that have been encountered with bonds and Letters of Credit. Associate Engineer Fred Bouma stated the City could make a decision to make an exception when Letters of Credit are posted. The City is required by the Subdivision Map Act to have at least 50% labor and materials security. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated she would need to determine whether or not the City can discriminate between the different types of security offered. City is required under the Map Act to take a variety of types of security. It is not the City's choice but the developer's choice. 6. Commissioner Adolph stated it was a little high to post $2 million security for $1 million in work. 7. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the public hearing. 8. Commissioner Adolph stated he felt the Ordinance was well written with the exception of clarification on the bonding issue. He asked if the City Attorney could define in more detail what the developers would need to do in regards to bonding. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the issue is whether or not the City can have a different requirement level where one developer is putting up cash collateral or a Letter of Credit rather than posting a bond. 9. Chairman Abels asked if this was on an individual basis. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated it would have to be available to everyone. PC7-25 6 Planning Commission Meeting July 25, 1995 10. Following discussion, the City Attorney was asked to determine whether or not different methods of credit were available. l l. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioner Adolph/Barrows to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 95-030 recommending to the City Council certification of a Negative Declaration for the Subdivision Ordinance Update. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Anderson, Adolph, Barrows, Butler, Newkirk, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Gardner. ABSTAIN: None. 12. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Adolph/Barrows to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 95-031 recommending to the City Council approval of Municipal Code Amendment 95-045 amending the Subdivision Ordinance with review by the City Attorney to determine whether or not the City can have different requirements for Letters of Credit and cash securities as opposed to posting a bond. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Anderson, Adolph, Barrows, Butler, Newkirk, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Gardner. ABSTAIN: None. C. Vesting Tentative Tract ?7031 (Minor Chani, e. Amendment # l) - First F. xtension of Time; a request of Washington Square Property Owners for approval of a one year time extension. 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 Abels opened the public hearing. Mr. George Marzicola, one of the Washington Square Partners speaking on behalf of the applicant, stated they had no objection to the Conditions of Approval and he was there to answer any questions. 3. There being no questions of the applicant or any further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the public hearing. 4. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Anderson/Barrows to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 95-032 recommendir~g approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 2703 l, Amendment #1, Minor Change, first time extension, subject to the amended conditions. PC7-25 7 : ! Planning Commission Meeting July 25, 1995 ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Anderson, Adolph, Barrows, Butler, Newkirk, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Gardner. ABSTAIN: None. D. Conditional Use Permit 95-020; a request of Harold and Harriet Harris for approval of an 11 room Bed and Breakfast Inn. 1. Principal Planner Start 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 there was a sample of the stone represented in the elevations. Staff showed an example and gave an explanation. 3. There being no further questions of staff, Mr. Charles Martin, architect for the project, stated he would answer any questions. 4. Commissioner Butler asked for an explanation of the field stone to be used. Mr. Martin explained that it was a quarry, limestone rock of different sizes that has been hand cut and stacked up. He went on to explain the look and method of installing. 5. Commissioner Anderson asked if it was a natural stone or cultural or fabricated, and grey in color. Mr. Martin stated it was grey in color and natural. Discussion followed regarding the placement of the stone. 6. Commissioner Adolph asked if the fireplaces were wood burning or gas. Mr. Martin stated they would be gas. 7. Commissioner Adolph asked why the architecture would be changed from French Normandy to Scandinavian for the units by the lake. Mr. Martin stated they were looking for a trellis effect, but he would study the application to have it blend in more. 8. Commissioner Adolph asked that since the pool would need to be fenced, would the lake also be required to be fenced and if so, what type of material was intended to be used. Mr. Martin stated he did not know at this time. 9. Commissioner Adolph asked what the diameter of the tree trunk to be installed would be. Mr. Martin stated that a growing contract has been made with one of the local nurseries to have the trees as large as possible before PC7-25 8 Planning Commission Meeting July 25, 1995 being installed. Mr. Martin asked if there was a specific size to be installed. Commissioner Adolph stated they would like to have full foliage or as they appeared on the plans. Discussion followed regarding tree sizes. 10. Mr. Hap Harris, the owner, addressed the Commission regarding his project. He clarified that full grown trees would be two-three years down the road. The trees installed would be mature trees, but the cost of installing full grown trees, was cost prohibitive. 11. Mrs. Harris addressed the Commission regarding their project. She thanked the Commission for their time and hoped the project would be an asset to La Quinta. 12. Mr. Charles Martin asked staff for clarification on Condition #6 regarding an archeologist. Their understanding was that they were purchasing a developable lot and these requirements had already been completed. Principal Planner Stan Sawa clarified that the grading and archaeological study had been completed, but this condition was to be sure that any remains discovered during site preparation would be recorded and an archaeologist contacted. 13. Mr. Martin questioned Condition #18 as this would requiting redrawing of some of their plans. Associate Engineer Fred Bouma stated it would have to be determined plan by plan, as it is a requirement that the City must retain the Mylar, they will have to be in the size as stated in the Conditions. Discussion followed. 14. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the public hearing. 15. Commissioner Butler asked if the waterfront would have to be fenced. Staff stated that if it is required it would be required by the State Health Department and staff would not need to address the issue. Commissioner Adolph stated the Homeowners' Association might want to address it for liability concerns. 16. Commissioners expressed their approval and anticipation of seeing the project completed. PC7-2§ 9 Planning Commission Meeting July 25, 1995 17. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Adolph/Barrows to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 95-033 approving a Negative Declaration of environmental impact. ROLL CALL:AYES: Commissioners Anderson, Adolph, Barrows, Butler, Newkirk, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Gardner. ABSTAIN: None. 18. It was moved and seconded bY Commissioners Adolph/Newkirk to adopt Minute Motion 95-029 approving Conditional Use Permit 95-020, subject to conditions. Unanimously approved with Commissioner Gardner being absent. E. Plot Plan 95-559; a request of Stonington Properties for approval to allow construction of a commercial building of approximately 6,960 square feet of floor space. 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 Adolph asked what would happen along the east property line in regards to the landscaping. Staff stated there were cross easements for parking but there was an aisle and a double row of parking with no bumper stops. Commissioner Adolph asked how the shade requirements would be met. Staff stated this was part of a Master Specific Plan and it was approved prior to that requirement. 3. commissioner Anderson stated there was a large difference in the size of the signs of the two uses. Staff stated the sizes of the signs and pointed out that the "Chief Auto Parts" was longer than the "Radio Shack". Discussion followed regarding the size of the two signs. 4. Mr. Gene Scarcello, developer for the project, stated he was there to answer any questions. 5. Commissioner Butler asked if the Bouganvilleas growing on the trellis' on the Highway 111 frontage, would be able to within ~~l~sert weather. Mr. Scarcello stated it would be maintained three times a week by their landscaper. PC7.25 l 0 Planning Commission Meeting July 25, 1995 6. Commissioner Anderson stated his concern about automotive maintenance occurring in the parking lot. Mr. Scarcello stated that the shopping center is swept a minimum of once a week. In addition, their lease with the tenant requires policing and maintaining of the parking lot on a daily basis. 7. Commissioner Adolph asked if the applicant intended to berm the east side with landscaping. Mr. Scacello stated they created their landscaping plans from the original plans and allowed for the growth. They would have no objection to additional landscaping being added to the easterly side. 8. Commissioner Barrows stated this could be added to Condition #13, to require additional landscaping to the easterly side and trash enclosure. 9. Mr. Rob Sanford, Irvine, spoke on behalf of the applicant, and stated he would address the sign requirements of the applicants. He explained the problems that they faced to give both tenants sign visibility on Highway 111. 10. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the public hearing. 11. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Barrows/Adolph to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 95-034 approving a Negative Declaration of environmental impact. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Anderson, Adolph, Barrows, Butler, Newkirk, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Gardner. ABSTAIN: None. 12. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Barrows/Adolph to adopt Minute Motion 95-030 approving Plot Plan 95-559, subject to amended conditions. Condition #13 modified to require additional landscaping to screen the trash enclosure and the traffic at the southeast comer be provided and allowing the south facing sign for Radio Shack. Unanimously approved with Commissioner Gardner being absent. lqUSINESS SESSION A. Continued - Specific Plan 90-015; a request of KSL PGA West Corporation/Foster Land L.P. for approval of their fu-st Annual Review of an approved development plan that allowed 1,060 dwelling units and a neighborhood commercial project on 265 acres. ., PC7-2§ 11 Planning Commission Meeting July 25,. 1995 Commissioner Anderson withdrew to a possible conflict of interest for this and the next Specific Plan. 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. Commissioner Adolph asked if there had been any changes in the Specific Plan since it was originally brought before the Commission. Staff stated there had been no changes. 3. There being no further comment, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Barrows/Adolph to adopt Minute Motion 95-031 approving the First Annual Review of development plan for Specific Plan 90-015 for a two year extension of time. Unanimously approved with Commissioners Anderson and Gardner being absent. B. Continued Specific Plan 90-016; a request of KSL La Quinta Corporation/KSL Grove L.P. for a First Annual Review of an approved Development Plan that allows 1,208 dwelling units and a Neighborhood Commercial project on 327 acres. 1. Commtmity 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. Commissioner Adolph asked if the commercial comer was a viable portion of the project. Staff stated it was part of the Specific Plan but not owned by KSL and is still viable. 3. Commissioner Adolph asked if the applicant had any problems with the conditions. Mr. Chevis Hosea, representing the applicant, stated they had no objection to the conditions at this time, but they would bring the applications back for infrastructure review at a later date for a more feasible plan. Commission Adolph asked if they would update the Specific Plan at that time. Mr. Hosea stated they would update the Plan then. 4. There being no further comment, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Adolph/Barrows to adopt Minute Motion 95-032 approving the First Annual Review of a development plan for Specific Plan 90-016 for PC?-2§ . 12 Planning Commission Meeting July 25, 1995 a two year extension of time. Unanimously approved with Commissioners Anderson and Gardner being absent. Commissioner Anderson rejoined the meeting. C. Sl;n~cial Advertisini, Device 95-068 0,cf, ends of GolD; a request of Liberty Mutual - Paul Levandoski for approval of temporary off-site directional sign and flag bunting for the Legends of Golf Tournament at PGA West in March, 1996. 1. Community Development Director Jerry Herman presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is onfile in the Community Development Department. 2. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Adolph/Barrows to adopt Minute Motion 95-033 approving Special Advertising Device 95-068 for the Legends of Golf Tournament directional signs and flag bunting. Unanimously approved with Commissioner Gardner being absent. D. Plot Plan 95-554; a request of Caal Theatres Corporation for approval of a sign program and landscaping plan within the One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Cemer for an 8-plex movie 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. Commissioner Barrows asked for clarification on the height of the sign. Staff clarified. 3. Commissioner Adolph asked how many monument signs had been approved for Highway 111. Could the Commission anticipated another tenant applying for another monument signs? Staff' stated this request was in-lieu of one of the other monument signs. To date all of the monument signs that were approved have not been built. 4. Commissioner Adolph asked how many of the large monument signs are allowed per the approved Specific Plan. Staff stated that two were approved for Highway 111. 5. Commissioner Adolph asked about the six or eight poster signs that are requested. Staff stated that the previous plans that were approved, did show them and staff, included a condition to permit them. Commissioner Adolph PC7-2§ 13 Planning Commission Meeting July 25, 1995 asked how this would affect the total square footage allowed for signs. Staff stated the Commission has the fight to modify the amount of square footage and it can be approved as part of the Commission's decision. 6. Mr. Bill Hughes, representing Caal Theatres, stated that due to the location of the building in the rear of the Center, their marketing information has shown that by having a marque on the street, it eliminates a lot of traffic problems. People are able to read the movies showing without having to drive through the parking lot. Discussion followed as to the signs. 7. Commissioner Adolph expressed his concern that vehicles passing as fast as they are traveling would not be able to read the sign. Mr Hughes stated his experience shows they will. 8. Commissioner Anderson asked if the readers were in an open position. He asked if the lexan would close over the face. Mr. Hughes stated they would be closed. 9. Commissioner Butler stated that when the use was originally approved, the height of the building was reduced and the applicant, at that time, felt the City was taking away his advertising to the street. The Commission did not understand the applicant would be installing another sign on the street. If this had been known, their signs on the theater would have been reduced even further. Once it is known that the theater is in the Center, additional signs will not be needed on the street, especially this large. 10. Chairman Abels stated that from a business standpoint, it was necessary. 11. Commissioner Adolph asked how large the "La Quinta 8" sign is on the side. Staff stated it was 52 square feet. Commissioner Adolph stated this was a total of 69 square feet and is over the amount allowed. Discussion followed regarding the sign size. 12. Commissioner Barrows expressed her concern about the size of the sign being on Highway 111. Staff clarified this was the same height as the other monument sign. 13. Mr. Robert Tyler, resident, stated he was concerned about the traffic problems on Highway 111. In addition, the name of the complex lacked imagination and had nothing to do with the building. .' PC7-25 14 Planning Commission Meeting ' July 25, 1995 14. Commissioner Anderson stated he was opposed to the large signs on the front of the building, the signs on the side of the building, and the monumem sign. In addition, the type style was mundane and lacked character. 15. Commissioner Barrows stated she would like to see additional landscaping and seating provided. 16. Mr. Hughes stated they did not want to provide a lot of seating as this would encourage teens to hang around. In reference to the name, they were proud to be in the City of La Quinta and consequently named the theater after that and the "8" is the number of theaters. In addition, he had no objection to removing the east side sign. 17. There being no further discussion, i.t was moved and seconded by Commissioners Anderson/Barrows to adopt Minute Motion 95-034 approving Plot Plan 95-554 landscaping plans with the additional landscaping and benches, and deny the sign program for an 8-plex movie theater. Discussion followed by Commissioners Anderson/Barrows withdrawing their motions. 18. Commissioners Barrows/Adolph moved and seconded a motion to adopt Minute Motion 95-034 approving the landscaping plans with the addition of: a. Two additional trees and three benches (seating 34 people); b. Approval of the requested signs with the monument sign reduced to 11-feet 6-inches; c. The elimination of the eastern side sign; and, d. Reducing the entire large marque sign and making it one line "La Quinta 8". 19. Discussion followed among the Commissioners regarding various options of reducing the signs. Mr. Hughes stated the in-line wording would not work. Commissioner Barrows asked if the sign could be 36" and arched. Following the discussion, staff clarified the motion as follows: The motion was to approve the Plot Plan with the modification to the Conditions as follows: Conditions #1, 2, 3, 4, 6 as stated Condition #5 amended to require two additional trees and three benches with seating for 4-people per bench. ConditiOn #7 amended to prohibit any east wall sign. PC7.2§ 15 Planning Commission Meeting July 25, 1995 Condition #8 amended to require the "8" be reduced to three feet tall and the "La Quinta" arched the same as the parapet. The motion was approved unanimously with Commissioner Gardner being absent· CONSENT CALENDAR A. Commissioner Anderson asked that the Minutes of July 11, 1995, Page 11, Item ~47 be corrected to read "the City should be at the edge of defensibility of the Ordinance." There being no further corrections to the Minutes of July 11, 1995, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Anderson to approve the Minutes as amended. Unanimously approved with Commissioner Gardner being absent. COMMISSIONER ITEMS A. Commissioner Adolph gave a report of the City Council meeting of July 5, 1995. B. Commissioner Anderson stated his concern about reviewing a project without having complete elevations/plans. The applicant needs to submit complete sample boards with colored elevations before presentation to the Commission. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Barrows/Adolph to adjourn this meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting on August 8, 1995. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:39 P.M., July 25, 1995. PC7.25 16 o ·