2000 11 14 PC Minutes MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
November 14, 2000 7:00 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00
p.m. by Chairman Robbins who asked Commissioner Tyler to lead the
flag salute.
B. Present: Commissioners Richard Butler, Tom Kirk, Robert Tyler, and
Chairman Robbins. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Butler/Tyler to excuse Vice Chairman Abels. Unanimously approved.
C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, Assistant
City Attorney John Ramirez, Planning Manager Christine di Iorio, Senior
Engineer Steve Speer, Principal Planners Stan Sawa and Fred Baker, and
Secretary Carolyn Walker.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT:
A. Mr. Forrest Haag asked to address the Commission on the feasibility of
understanding the water use and compliance with the Water Efficiency
Ordinance early in planning process of projects. The purpose of this
presentation and workshops prepared in conjunction with staff and
CVWD was to give everyone a way to gauge whether or not projects
from a planning perspective are making general sense with the way the
Ordinance is written in terms of water use compliance. The RJT project
at 50th Avenue and Jefferson Street, was used as an example of a
method of developing this compliance strategy as it was conditioned to
do so. He introduced Jean Hamlim, a landscape architect in his office,
who worked on the technical issues. To summarize what they did was
to take the 72 acre site, move a three acre circle over the project area in
AutoCAD until it located an area that fundamentally has in that area the
sample area of three acres, the same relative acreage of water, front yard
landscape area, streets, green space, etc. Elements that have to be
gauged within that formula. Once that area was isolated as a 2.88 acre
area of land within the plan area, they found that the percentages of
streetscape, residential lots, common area landscape and lake, all areas
that have to be gauged into this formula were within a percentage point
or two of the total of the project, so they had a representative sample of
G:\WPDOCS\PC 1 1-14-O0.wpd ]
Planning Commission Minutes
November 14., 2000
the project. They also looked at typical residential lot land use and how
in this particular program, frontyard landscape areas to the common area
wall was included in this calculation. The rear yard areas are going to be
landscaped by the homeowners and the way the Ordinance is written,
they are exempt from the Ordinance. Within some reasonable design
parameters, at this early stage, they did a landscape schematic design
with street trees, frontyard trees, shrubs and ground¢over areas, turf
area, lake and common area turf as well. From that, using the plant
pallette that is within range of anticipated landscape guidelines, this
landscape sample area was extrapolated over the project. In this
formula, they are determining by project area, the maximum amount of
water that is allowed to be spread on the project. It use a number of
issues in the formula that deals with evapotranspiration, total landscape
area, conversion factors of plant materials to their water usage. This is
a given, so the project area for the RJT Homes total project comes up
with a water allowance of 60,626 cubic feet annually allowed for the
project in landscape areas, lake evaporation, frontyards, turf, etc. Then
moving to the estimated water use formula, this is the total water use for
the entire landscape area and all of the hydrozones in that landscape
area, based on a fairly finite landscape area. Again, based on a fairly
finite plan that is extrapolated over the whole project by taking a
representative sample area and what happens is that they are now down
to plant factors from the list of given amount of water usage that
different types of plants use, you are looking at how much area you have
in shrub massing, turf, trees; every plant material has a different plant
factor and they tried to do averaging of what plant factors are. Basically,
they come up with the total water use for the area typical of this
landscape design. There are three seasons that have to be considered
and different water usages. Then you have plant factors figured into
these for trees, shrubs, groundcover, and turf grass areas and then water
areas as a separate calculations. What they concluded from this was
that if well water was used to fill the blue area on the plan, it would be
difficult to comply with the Ordinance as written. When calculating
filling all the lakes with well water, or a blend of well water and canal
water, the project did not comply. They were coming up with a total
estimated use, with the lake area, of 65,1 53.58 ccf. They are allowed
60,000 ¢cf. In meeting with Dave Harbison of CVWD, it was determined
that if they used canal water to the 'lakes, and there is access from the
Citrus course irrigation system, this area falls out of the calculatiOn area.
Without the lake area in the calculation they are at 34,449 ccf.
According to what they have read, they would be given an allowance for
using canal water. Chairman Robbins indicated the lakes were included
even if filled with canal water. If that is not the case, they would have
G:\WPDOCS\PC 11-14-O0.wpd 2 _
Planning Commission Minutes
November 14, 2000
to back off from 65,000 ccf to 60,000 or reduce the surface area of the
lake to bring the evapotranspiration down to that allowable rate. The
goal of the developer is to use the canal water where it is available to
reduce their costs. Now, they have to find the true interpretation of
what the canal usage is.
III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed.
IV. CONSENT ITEMS:
A. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of
joint meeting of October 24, 2000. Commissioner Tyler asked that Page
14, Item #5, correct the spelling of "hummock"; Page 16, Item #6,
should be corrected to read "Commissioner Tyler stated that he realized
a lot of people have their own golf carts, but wondered if there had been
any justification provided for the greater reduced number of automobile
parking spaces." Also, they were speaking about a 40 foot clubhouse,
not 44 feet; Page 17 it should be changed to 40 feet; Page 18, Item
-- #18, should be clarified to state he questioned what was intended by the
requirement for "conventional switching inside the home". Commissioner
Butler asked that Page 3, Item #3 and other statements where "water
suitability" was referenced, it should be changed to "water efficiency".
Commissioner Kirk asked that Page 4, Item #8 should be clarified to
show that Mr. Haag indicated his interpretation of the Ordinance
indicated that lakes were not a part of the landscape area for preparation
of the calculation. This was a key point made by Mr. Haag, and the
Community Development Director corrected him that lakes should be
included. There being no further corrections, it was moved and seconded
by Commissioners Kirk/Butler to approve the minutes as corrected with
Chairman Robbins abstaining.
B. Department Report: None.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Continued - Environmental Assessment 2000-396. General Plan
Amendment 2000-067. 7one Change 9000-093. Specific Plah .?000-
045. and Site Development Permit .~)000-677; a request of Evergreen-
-- Walgreens for a change in the land use designation from Commercial
Office to Neighborhood Commercial, design guidelines and development
for a 7.63 acre commercial/office complex, and development plans for a
one story 14,490 square foot drug store to be located at the
southwestern corner of Washington Street and 50TM Avenue.
G:\WPDOCS\PC 11-14-O0.wpd 3
Planning Commission Minutes
November 14, 2000
1. Staff informed the Commission that a request had been received
by the applicant to continue this item to January 9, 2001. It was
moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Butler to continue the
application to January 9, 2001. Unanimously approved.
B. Site Development Permit 2000-685; a request of Tait and Associates for
review of development plans for a 3,984 square foot convenience store
and gas station canopy to be located at the northwest corner of
Washington Street and Highway 111.
1. Chairman Robbins opened the public hearing and asked for the
staff report. Principal Planner Fred Baker presented the
information contained in the staff report, a copy of which 'is on file
· in the Community Development Department.
2. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Butler asked staff to identify where the base of the
hill would be located'in relation to the landscaping. Staff identified
the property line in relation to the slope of the hill and the slope
will dead end into a retaining wall so there would be no sluff from
the slope.
3. Commissioner Tyler stated the entrance to the gas station, from
the driveway near Highway 111 is dangerous and staff should
work on it to control it better. Staff stated there would be a signal
to help with the traffic flow. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated
it is a difficult situation as they do need the large openings to get
the gas tankers into the station. Locations close to signals are a
favorite location for service stations in general. Staff has included
a statement regarding the reconfiguring of the islands and he went
on to explain the background on how the islands were designed.
4. Chairman Robbins asked if the applicant would be building and
landscaping this independently of building the curb and
landscaping and widening Highway 111 for the entire project as
it seems "out of kilter". Senior Engineer Steve Speer explained this
was something to be addressed by the master developer, not this
applicant. The master developer will be responsible for the
perimeter landscaping, constructing the street, installing the signal,
and some of the basic circulation patterns. Eventually they will do
the entire parking lot, but it is not included in the first phase. As
they start selling the retailer pads they will add to the parking lot.
Chairman Robbins asked if the external work would be completed
prior to this being constructed. Staff stated they did not know the
timing for this part of the development. The master developer is
G:\WPDOCS\PC 11-14-00. wpd 4
Planning Commission Minutes
November 14, 2000
almost ready to pull their permits for the site improvements.
Principal Planner Fred Baker stated they are required by the Fire
Department to construct two driveway accesses before they can
build. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated the master developer is
required to bond for the backbone improvements, utilities, and the
pavement to ensure they are completed.
5. Commissioner Tyler asked if the approved conditional use permit
indicated how many pump islands there could be. Senior Engineer
Steve Speer stated it showed three islands on the specific plan.
Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated-Conditions #38, and #39
address the curbline alignments and landscaped islands. The
pump islands were not addressed specifically. Planning Manager
Christine di Iorio stated Condition #40 asks for the traffic
circulation review for the fuel pumps. Chairman Robbins stated
that from an engineering standpoint, if the applicant cannot prove
they are not going to impede the traffic circulation, staff will not
allow the last island. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated that was
' -- correct.
6. Commissioner Butler noted the carwash was no longer a part of
the application and would help on the traffic flow. Senior Engineer
Steve Speer stated it does help to equal it out. Commissioner
Butler stated it looks like an ornamental island set out in the middle
of nowhere and if that is impeding the traffic, he would like staff
to define where the problem comes from. Staff stated it is not
impeding the traffic. Staff's concerns was that they were starting
to minimize the island that you were losing where the side of the
road was and where were the onsite parking; how or where do
you park if you are trying to get to the pumps? Principal Planner
Fred Baker explained the applicant's original submittal in relation
to new submittal and how the applicant was trying to addresses
staff's concerns.
7. Chairman Robbins stated he is still concerned that if you have a
car pulling in to get gas, with the front of the car facing the
mountain, and it pulls all the way up with the back of the car at
the last fuel pump at the westerly island, the front of the car will
be out in the traffic. Staff explained the cars would be facing
north and south, not east and west and therefore would not be in
the flow of traffic.
G:\WPDOCS\PC 11-14-O0.wpd 5
Planning Commission Minutes
_
November 14, 2000
8. Commissioner Kirk stated this may alleviate the stress expressed
by the Commissioners, but creates a new concern with the conflict
of pulling in and out from the closest pump. Senior Engineer Steve
Speer reviewed other gas stations in the City and how their traffic
circulation patterns work. Discussion followed regarding
circulation problems.
9. Commissioner Tyler asked if the Commission had the purview to
restrict the number of islands under the conditional use permit?
Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated that Condition //40
requires that the applicant show that the fuel pumps will not
interfere with the flow of traffic. Staff could add to the condition
that if they do, they will be removed.
10. Commissioner Kirk restated Commissioner Tyler's question, could
the Commission condition the project to have only six pumps
instead of eight would like to know if the Commission could
condition it to have only six pumps instead of eight. Assistant
City Attorney John Ramirez stated he saw no reason why they
could not.
11. Commissioner Kirk asked what the difference was between the
new Condition//68 and the old Condition//68. Principal Planner
Fred Baker stated the old required a channel letter "Circle K" with
a channel including the circle around the "K" as the sign. The new
condition is to allow a canister with their red and white logo as
one sign and staff has eliminated, based on the City's Ordinance,
that allows only one sign per building with the monument sign that
had already been approved under the specific plan. Staff is
recommending elimination of the right elevation sign and on the
canopy the applicant is requesting three "Union 76" signs and the
difference is staff is recommending only one and that has to be
24-inches and equal margins from the top to the bottom on the
fascia. Commissioner Kirk asked if the sign on the building was
also 24-inches. Staff stated that is correct. Commissioner Kirk
asked if the 24-inches was the letter or the entire sign? Staff
stated it would be 24-inches by 24-inch square sign.
12. Commissioner Butler asked if the monument sign on the street
contained the Union 76 and Circle K sign. Staff stated that was
correct. It was a five foot high sign with pricing.
13. Commissioner Tyler asked if staff had a colored rendering and was
there stone work on the pillars. Staff stated yes they would have
stone veneer on the pillars. Commissioner Tyler asked if the fascia
G:\WPDOCS\PC 11-14-O0.wpd 6
Planning Commission Minutes
November 14, 2000
would be painted metal. Staff stated that was correct.
1 4. Chairman Robbins asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. Richard Tait, Tait and Associates, stated their
primary concern was the traffic and canopy islands. They do need
eight pumps to have less stacking and to accommodate more
customers and asked if they could move the pump eight feet back,
or south, on the other side of the canopy column so they will not
encroach into the drive aisle.
1 5. Commissioner Butler asked if this would affect the other pump in
terms of vehicles coming in and going out on either side. Mr. Tait
stated they would like to have 18 feet between centerlines of the
dispensers. They have '35 feet between the dispensers and
adequate width for a pass through lane.. They cannot go down to
six dispensers as the economics will not allow it and with eight
dispensers there is less time waiting and stacking.
-- 16. Commissioner Butler asked if they were the typical dispensers
which would use the credit cards. Mr. Tait stated they would be
card readers with multi-product dispensers.
17. Chairman Robbins asked if it will accessible to the 40-foot RV as
this could cause a traffic problem. Mr. Tait stated that if an RV
were to fuel, it would have some encroachment into the aisle.
Chairman Robbins stated his concern is that the RV owner will
want to use the end island and this will cause the RV to extend
into Highway 111. and cause a traffic nightmare.
18. Commissioner Butler asked if diesel would be offered at all the
dispensers. Mr. Tait stated only at two dispensers.
19. Chairman Robbins asked if the traffic direction would be
controlled. Mr. Tait stated it will be free flow. They have not
planned to use any traffic arrows to direct the traffic.
20. Commissioner Tyler asked what the hours of operation would be.
Mr. Tait stated it would be 24-hours. Commissioner Tyler stated
- there appeared to be a lot of light spill-over onto Point Happy. Mr.
Steve Frank, Tait and Associates, stated that is for traffic safety
and went over the lighting plan. In regard to the changes
recommended by the Architecture and Landscape Review
G:\WPDOCS\PC 11-14-O0.wpd 7
Planning Commission Minutes
--
November 14, 2000
Committee (ALRC), they have made those changes. In regard to
signs, they concur with staff's recommendation and are requesting
additional signs on both structures, the canopy and building. They
would like the 24-inch Circle K sign on the front elevation and the
same size on the east elevation. In addition, they would like to
have another Union 76 sign on the canopy.
21. Commissioner Butler asked the applicant to identify where on
Highway 111 where the monument/pricing sign would be located.
22. Commissioner Kirk asked if the specific plan sign requirements
were the same as what is in the Zoning Ordinance. Planning
Manager Christine di Iorio stated the specific plan does not address
gas station signs. One gas station sign per building is allowed.
Commissioner Kirk asked if there was a two foot high sign
requirement in the Zoning Code. Staff stated there is a two foot
requirement for the sign program. Where it was silent was in the
regulation of gas station signs, not silent for size. Commissioner
Kirk asked what the total size allowed. Staff stated 50 square
feet. Commissioner Kirk stated they will install a four square foot
sign, where if the name were longer they could extend it to 50
feet. Staff stated that was correct.
23.. Mr. Frank asked if he could get some direction from the
Commission regarding the Circle K sign by allowing the word
"Circle" spelled out in channel letters and then the circle with the
"K" inside it. Chairman Robbins stated he did not think this was
in conformance with the Zoning Code. Planning Manager Christine
di Iorio stated it would fulfill the requirements of the specific plan.
They allow for channel letter signs which the "Circle" would
represent and the "K" would be their logo and they would have to
conform to the 50 square foot requirement and two foot in height.
24. Chairman 'Robbins asked if there was any other public comment.
There being no further public comment, the public participation
portion of the hearing was closed and opened the project for
Commission discussion.
25. Commissioner Kirk stated he concurs with staff's recommendation
and is agreeable to the additional Circle K sign on the building.
Whether they need an additional sign on the canopy he is not sure
as they do have the monument sign out front. He would prefer to '
have two four square foot "K" signs rather than the spelled out
Circle K and would be amendable to the second Union 76 sign on
G :\WPDOCS\PC 1 1-14-O0.wpd ~
Planning Commission Minutes
November 14, 2000
the canopy. On the circulation, it is difficult to design a pattern
when it is hard to determine how people will react when it is
actually built. He does like moving the dispenser eight feet to the
south. He would also suggest letting them build the project and
allow the City Engineer six or 12 months in the future to work
with 'the owner to change the circulation with signage or
landscaping as needed.
26. Commissioner Tyler stated he concurred with Commissioner Kirk's
recommendation. He also agrees with the relocation of the
dispenser.
27. Commissioner Butler stated he agrees with moving the pump. In
regard to the signage, he agrees with reducing the size to 24
inches and having one located on the east side of the building. He
is not in favor of the Circle K on the front of the building. He
would prefer to retain staff's recommendation of 24-inch sign. As
to the additional signs on the east side of the canopy at 24 inches,
he would concur.
28. Commissioner Kirk stated he would like to applaud the applicant
on his willingness to work with staff. In regard to the
recommendation of the ALRC, this raises the question he brought
up before in that specific plans are not taken to the ALRC for
design review and now the Commission is caught where the ALRC
wants to change the specific plan requirements, and they were
never involved in determining the design rules to begin with. This
re-enforces his opinion that it is important to have the ALRC
involved early in the design. Even if they are not involved, the
Commission should be taking a real hard look at design issues
because they can end up with this situation where the project
complies, but maybe could have been required to take further
design steps in the right direction.
29. Commissioner Butler stated he thought the ALRC wanted this
design to capture what was represented in the design of the
Cliffhouse Restaurant and in his opinion they have done this by
upgrading the look of the gas station.
30. Chairman Robbins stated he agrees with the improved design and
they should also require the moving of the pump. In regard to the
sign he has no objection.
31. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated that in
G:\WPDOCS\PC 1 1-14-O0.wpd 0
Planning Commission Minutes
November 14, 2000
regard to the role of the ALRC, it was the intention of the City
Council to not create a long review process. Therefore, the ALRC
was formed to meet only one time on any given project. Their
recommendation shall be advisory only and not binding on the
Planning Commission.
32. Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez clarified that the Zoning
Ordinance allows for the Commission to approve an additional
number of signs above and beyond the one sign per building as
called out for prices and gas station, upon a finding that
inadequate visibility or to facilitate good design balance. These
findings can be made by referencing the ARCO across the street
with the two signs on the canopy would substantiate good design
balance and the fact that the signs are being reduced in size goes
to the issue of visibility.
33. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Butler/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2000-082 recommending to the City Council approval
of Site Development Permit 2000-685.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman
Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Abels.
ABSTAIN: None.
a. Condition #68: Change the one Circle K and one Union 76
logo cabinet sign to two Circle K and two Union 76 logo
cabinet signs.
b. Condition #69.' Prior to issuance of a building permit, the
site design shall be modified to move the western most gas
dispenser nearest the convenience store, eight feet to the
south.
c. Condition #70: Six months after receiving final building
approval, the City Engineer shall review the circulation
pattern in regard to corrective measures limited to signs and
striping and the Community Development Department shall
review the landscaping in regard to planting materials and
irrigation, and request modifications as necessary. Should
the applicant not agree with staff's recommendation, they
have the right to appeal to the Planning Commission. '
G:\WPDOCS\PC 11.14-O0.wpd ] 0
Planning Commission Minutes
November 14, 2000
ROLL CALL: AYES' Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman
Robbins. NOES' None. ABSENT' Commissioner Abels.
ABSTAIN' None.
VI. BUSINESS ITEMS:
A. Site Development Permit 99-664; a request of Tiburon Homes, LLC for
review of irrigation and landscape plans for 19 residential lots on the
north side of Airport Boulevard, east of Madison Street in the Norman
Golf Course,
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 Robbins asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Kirk asked what was the source conditioning the
review of the landscaping plans by the ALRC and Planning
Commission. Community Development Director Jerry Herman
stated the Commission requested it come back to the Commission
at the tract level after review by the ALRC. Commissioner Kirk
asked why the applicant was required to bring this back to the
Commission. The applicant stated it was because the landscaping
plans were not available at the time the architectural plans were
approved as part of 'the site development permit.
3. Chairman Robbins asked if anyone reviews the backyard
landscaping. Staff stated it is exempt from the Ordinance. The
City does not regulate rear yard landscaping.
4. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Butler/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Minute
Motion 2000-016 approving the landscaping plans for Site
Development Permit 99-664. Unanimously approved.
B. Site Development Permit 99-665; a request of Steven Walker Homes f°r'
review of landscaping plans for model homes, prototype residential plans,
and common areas on the north side of Airport Boulevard, east of
Madison Street, in the Norman Golf Course.
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.
G:\WPDOCS\PC 1 1-14-O0.wpd ! ]
Planning Commission Minutes
November 14, 2000
2. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Kirk/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Minute
Motion 2000-017 approving the landscaping plans for Site
Development Permit 99-665. Unanimously approved.
C. Master Design Guidelines 2000-011; a request of Kristy Brady for review
of prototype house plans for two different facades located at 51-785 and
51-805 Avenida Villa.
1. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department.
2. Commissioner Kirk asked staff to explain the process for Master
Design Guidelines. Community Development Director Jerry
Herman stated the process is 'currently that when a person
submits application to build his fifth house, they have to prepare
Master Design Guidelines for Planning Commission review and
approval. After that they can continue to build according to those
approved guidelines. Commissioner Kirk asked if staff was
proposing to change these requirements. Staff stated they were
working on the process.
3. Commissioner Butler asked if the applicant was present. Noting
that they were not present, Commissioner Butler stated that when
he looks at a presentation like this, he sees a "cookie-cutter" look
in regard to the stucco colors, roof tiles, etc., that he has seen for
everyone. He questions .whether they are doing justice to the
Cove area by allowing another design without any real detail to
say they are acceptable. Based on this presentation, he would
reject this application. There is no architectural detail and he
would want to see this builder have a better attitude about what
they want to build in the Cove.
4. Commissioner Tyler questioned whether or not there were any
standards for what a builder is suppose to submit. There are no
page numbers, square footage of each house, etc. The consensus
each time they review these applications, it is the same problem.
5. Commissioner Kirk stated staff does give applicants guidelines as
to what they are to submit. Staff stated they are shown examples
of what is expected and has been approved in the past.
Commissioner Kirk stated his concern that these two homes would
G:\WPDOCS\PC 11-14-O0.wpd ]2
Planning Commission Minutes
November 14, 2000
be next to each other and they are too similar. In his opinion, the
designs do not meet the spirit and intent of the Ordinance. There
needs to be a variation in window treatments, elevations, etc.
6. Commissioner Tyler asked whether these designs had already been
built in the Cove. Community Development Director Jerry Herman
stated they have already built four in the Cove and they cannot get
their fifth permit until the Master Design Guidelines are approved
by the Commission. Commissioner Tyler asked if staff knows how
many of these designs have been built. Staff stated no.
7. Commissioner Butler asked if there were any pictures of the four
homes that are built. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated
that with the first four, staff did a field review to see that there
were no similar homes within the 200 feet of the proposed homes.
Commissioner Butler asked that the next presentation have
pictures.
8. Chairman Robbins stated the Commission has had discussions
with staff so they would not get presentations they did not like.
Staff informed the Commission this process would be eliminated
and they would not be coming to the Commission for review.
Obviously, this has not happened and the Commission is still not
happy with what has been submitted. On the exterior elevation it
states typical location for 3/8 plywood~ To him that says there
will be plywood on the exterior of the building which says this is
an ill-prepared plan. Community Development Director Jerry
Herman stated that as long as they vary the front elevation and
not the same within 200 feet of each other, staff approves it as
long as they have a tile roof and landscaping. Staff does not have
the latitude to require additional detail as long as they meet the
minimum requirements of the Code. The only reason they are
before the Commission is that this is the fifth house they are
building. Staff can only ask the application to provide the material
requested. If they do not provide everything, staff cannot sit on
the application so it is brought to the Commission for direction.
9. Commissioner Butler stated an elevation is needed that shows
color, texture, and design. If he has built other houses in the
Cove, a picture of those homes would have been better than what
is submitted. The process may not be wrong, but in this instance
a picture would have helped.
G :\WPDOCS\PC 11-14-O0.wpd ! :~
Planning Commission Minutes
November 14, 2000
10. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Kirk/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Minute
Motion 2000-018 denying Master Design Guidelines 2000-011.
Unanimously approved.
11. Staff asked for clarification as to what the Commission was
wanting. Commissioner Kirk stated they need to see variation
similar to others they may be reviewing where there are multi-
product styles with different sorts of treatment and they need to
do a better job of presenting it.
1 2. Chairman Robbins stated these plans do not show enough detail.
Based on these drawings, none should have been allowed to be
built.
D. Master Design Guidelines 2000-017; a request of Robert and Sylvia
Kellogg for review of eight prototype house plans to be located
throughout the Cove.
1. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department.
2. Commissioner Butler commended the applicant on his
presentation.
3. Chairman Robbins asked why he voided some of the elevations as
he thought they were the better looking units. Mr. Kellogg stated
he could not get the floor plans in time to meet the deadline for
this meeting. It is his understanding that if the plans are not
contained in the Guidelines book, he is not allowed to build it.
Staff stated he could add to the Guidelines, but they would have
to come back to the Commission for approval.
4. Commissioner Kirk suggested the applicant be allowed to provide
the floor plans for the units crossed off, because the photos give
him the confidence to approve them and allow the applicant to
work with staff on the floor plans.
5. Commissioner Tyler suggested they show the square footage of
the homes, and include the colors and tile to be used, and a date
of submittal.
G:\WPDOCS\PC 11-14-00. wpd ]4
Planning Commission Minutes
November 14, 2000
2. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded .by
Commissioners Kirk/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Minute
Motion 2000-019 approving Master Design Guidelines 2000-012.
Unanimously approved.
E. Sign Application 9000-523; a request of Pomona First Federal Bank and
Trust for review of four internally illuminated identification signs including
two time and temperature signs to be located at 78-752 highway 111.
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 Butler asked staff to clarify the three changes.
Staff stated that under Statement of Issues "B" where the location
of the sign on the west elevation is discussed, staff is saying that
is acceptable. Only A and C and #2 are the recommended
conditions.
--
3. Commissioner Tyler noted that Condition B has the wrong
direction. It should be north and south, not east and west. What
is the objection of having the sign on the east facade protrude into
the archway. Staff stated the sign program shows all the signs on
the tower structures below the parapet and the main parapet is
lower than what they are showing. The other issue is that when
you put it above the parapet it becomes a roof sign. Staff is
therefore recommending that it be in line with the parapet that is
on the sides of the arch on the tower.
4. Commissioner Kirk stated that on the master sign program a single
tenant on a satellite pad would get one sign per facade, 50 square
feet and 24-inches high. If this was a local bank, for example,
would the applicant be allowed the same 'latitude? Could he have
a 40-square foot logo and 12-inch illuminated sign. Staff stated
he could request it if he had five or more branches. Commissioner
Kirk stated his disagreement that national, or multi-tenant large
companies get a competitive advantage over small, or locally
owned businesses. One thing we could do, is require that their
entire logo and name be no more than 1 2-inches high and no more
than 50 square feet. Staff noted it is 24-inches high. Community
Development Director Jerry Herman stated this requirement is part
of the master program for the One Eleven La Quinta Shopping
Center. Discussion followed regarding what the master sign
program allows.
G:\WPDOCS\PC1 1-14-O0.wpd ] 5
Planning Commission Minutes
November 14, 2000
5. Commissioner Butler asked if the time and temperature was
included in the square footage for the sign. Staff stated yes.
6. Chairman Robbins asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. Robert Rice, Pomona First Federal and Trust
clarified that the statement, "the proposed background stainless
steel is not illuminated". It is illuminated. He stated they agreed
with staff's recommendation.
7. Commissioner Tyler asked if they would retain the drive-through.
Mr. Rice stated yes.
2. There being' no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Butler/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Minute
Motion 2000-020 recommending to the City Council approval' of
Sign Application 2000-523. Unanimously approved.
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None.
VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners butler/Kirk to cancel the
regular meeting of the Planning Commission on December 26, 2000.
Unanimously approved.
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Butler/Kirk to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next
regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held November 28, 2000, at 7:00
p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:36 p.m. on
October 24, 2000.
Respectfully submitted,
, ive Secretary
City~ Quinta, California
G:\WPDOCS\PC 11-14-O0. wpd ] I~