Loading...
2001 03 13 PC Minutes MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA- March 13, 2001 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 Abels to lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Jacques Abels, Richard Butler, Tom Kirk, Robert Tyler, and Chairman Robbins.-. C. Staff present: Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez, Planning Manager Christine di Iorio, Senior Engineer Steve Speer, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: A. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to move Business Item B to the first item on the agenda. Unanimously approved. IV. CONSENT ITEMS: A. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of February 27, 2001. Commissioner Kirk asked that Page 7, Item /123 be corrected to read "...then the Image Corridor does exactly...". Commissioner Tyler asked that Page 4, Item #9 be corrected to read, "...restaurants are also included.". There being no further corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Butler to approve the minutes as corrected. Unanimously approved. B. Department Report: None. V. PRESENTATIONS: None. VI. BUSINESS ITEM: B. Sign Approval 2001-528. Amendment #1; a request of Riofine Neon for Jiffy Lube for an amendment to a sign program to allow a time and temperature 'display unit located within the One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center, immediately north of La Quinta Car Wash. 1 Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2001 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 Tyler stated that at the previous public hearing when signs were approved the applicant was requested to remove the temporary sign, which has been done, but the two 4X4 posts that held it up are still there and he would like to see them removed. Secondly, how long will the temporary banners stay up. Staff noted there was a time limit and they would check and take care of it. 3. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioner Kirk/Butler to adopt Minute Motion 2001-004 approving Sign Approval 2001-528, Amendment #1, as recommended. Unanimously approved. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: - A. Village Use Permit 2001-008; a request of Joseph Rounaghi for review of remodeling plans for an existing commercial building changing the use from a restaurant to an art gallery/studio located at 51-230 Eisenhower Drive. 1. Chairman Robbins opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Staff requested this item be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of March 27, 2001, as requested by the applicant. 2. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Butler to continue this item to March 27, 2001. Unanimously approved.' B. Environmental Assessment 2000-410, and Conditional Use Permit 2001- 0,54; a request of Nextel Communications for certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and installation of a 70 foot high wireless communication antenna and ground mounted equipment for cellular telephone service at 77-865 Avenida Montezuma. 1. Chairman Robbins opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. 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. ~.\~Mpnn~.~\p~..~- 1 .".I-C) 1 .wnd 2 Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2001 2. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Abels asked what type of pole had been approved at the hotel. Staff stated it was a monopalm just like the one at the school administration building. 3. Commissioner Butler asked if there was a chain link fence running adjacent to the property. Staff stated there was chain link fencing around the ball field. Commissioner Butler stated the pole would be painted brown and there was the option of additional light users. His question was why the pole could not be used for more than one service. Staff clarified there were other light poles that potentially could have antennas on them. 4. Commissioner Butler asked why staff did not want to use the monopalm design. Staff stated it was discussed with the applicant and given the height of the pole and other palm trees in the park and as there were no buildings to break it up, it was determined the light pole would fit in better. Discussion followed regarding potential alternatives. 5. Commissioner Tyler questioned the color proposed and whether the other poles were painted. If you paint one, they should all be painted. Staff stated they did not know whether the other poles were painted or not, but it could be addressed in the Master Plan for the park. Commissioner Tyler stated he had a concern about approving this without a Master Plan for the park. 6. Chairman Robbins asked staff to identify where the chain link fencing would be replaced with wrought iron. Staff identified the area on the site plan. 7. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Robbins asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Ms. Barbara Saito, representing Nextel, gave a presentation on the project and stated they concurred with staff's recommendation. She further stated they had no objection to either the monopalm or light pole. 8. Commissioner Abels asked if a ball hit the pole could it affect the transmission. Ms. Saito stated it could, but the pole is 75 feet in height. G:\WPDOCS\PC3-13-01 .wpd :~ Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2001 9. Commissioner Butler asked if they wanted the monopalm could they still use the light. Ms. Saito explained they would leave the ball field light where it is and move the monopalm to where the row of palm trees exists, if the Commission preferred that design. Commissioner Butler questioned why the applicant would shut the pole down for maintenance. Ms. Sidel stated the antennas are ten feet above the light because if you touch it, it will burn you as the antennas do get hot. 10. Commissioner Tyler questioned the extra 10 feet in height for safety and what would happen if the City determines to lower the lights; would they lower their antenna. Ms. Saito stated that once it is installed, unless it is causing interference with other sites, they do not take 'it down. They are finding that as technology improves they are able to lower the height of their poles. They do know however, that they cannot come below the baseball field lights. Commissioner Tyler asked if this was for cell phones only. Ms. Saito stated it is to support Nextel communications. 11. Commissioner Butler asked Ms. Saito to identify where they would locate a monopalm if the Commission determined they would rather have the monopalm. Ms. Saito did so. 12. Chairman Robbins asked if there was any other public comment on this project. 13. ' There being no further public comment, Chairman Robbins closed the public participation portion of the hearing and asked if there was any Commission discussion. 14. Commissioner Kirk asked staff to clarify the applicants original proposal versus what staff was recommending. Staff clarified what the original application consisted of and how they arrived at staff's recommendation. Commissioner Kirk asked if this would fit in with the Master Plan for the park and whether the row of palms would still exist after that Plan is completed. Staff stated it was their understanding that the Plan is to retrofit existing facilities. Commissioner Kirk stated he would like to see a shorter pole with the tree. 15. Chairman Robbins stated there seems to be a discrepancy between the applicant's proposed height of 60 feet and staff's statement that it would be 75 feet. Ms. Saito stated that they originally G:\WPDOCS\PC3-13-01 .wpd 4 Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2001 submitted a request for a palm tree 75 feet high. If they relocate it with no lights they could lower the pole to 60 feet with either design. However, since the ballfield lights are at 60 feet they would have to go up the additional ten feet to 70 feet. 1 6. Commissioner Butler stated there appears to be the possibility of more poles being placed in the park. Staff stated yes. Commissioner Butler asked if these future poles could also be monopalms, or are they absorbing too much of the space for the support facilities. He does not want to fill this park up with monopalms. 1 7. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-026 recommending Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 2001-41 O, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 18. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Abels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-027 recommending approval of Conditional Use Permit 2001-054, as amended. a. Condition 7.C.: The monopole and its antennas shall be a 60 foot high monopalm. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. C. Environmental Assessment 2001-412, Specific Plan 2001-052, Conditional Use Permit 2001-056, and Site Development Permit 2001- 690; a request of Omri Sikla for Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and development plans for a commercial building consisting of a restaurant and office located at the northeast corner of Washington Street and Lake La Quinta Drive. 1. Chairman Robbins opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. 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\PC3-13-01 .wpd 5 Planning Commission Minutes - March 13, 2001 2. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Kirk asked if changes were made based on the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee (ALRC) recommendations regarding lighting.' Staff stated no changes were required by the ALRC and the applicant stated they did not see any problems with the lights as proposed. Commissioner Kirk questioned whether or not the Thomas Bros. Map pages could be copied into a document that would become a City document without their permission. Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez stated he concurred that it would not be the preferred method. Commissioner Kirk stated it seemed strange and excessive to have a Specific Plan on this size of project, so he assumed the Zoning Code requires it in the CR district. Staff stated that was correct as well as the General Plan requirement. Commissioner Kirk asked how the mitigation monitoring document would be used. It is staff's perspective to have a mitigation measure prepared with every item that is identified as potentially significant unless mitigated. Staff stated that was correct. Commissioner Kirk stated he thought it was unusual to identify mitigation measures when we identify it as less than significant impact. When you look at this Mitigation Monitoring Plan, most of the mitigation measures are associated with actions we deemed as less than significant impact. One of them is a mitigation measure associated with something where we identify no impact. He does not like to see this document included with the report as it appears to be redundant, but if it is to be included it has to be consistent in some way. For example there is a mitigation measure for school impact fees where there is no impact. Most of the other measures are where the applicant is meeting the Code itself and not a special mitigation measurel In regard to parking he believes it is a good analysis as to why the parking should be reduced. What would happen if in five or ten years this owner sells to a tenant that would double the tables, there is nothing in the Specific Plan that would preclude this from happening. Staff stated that was correct. Commissioner Kirk stated that then the analysis would change and we should look at likely uses, but the use can change within the category and therefore the analysis becomes uncertain. Staff stated conditions could be added that would address more specifically what is approved. Commissioner Kirk asked if the project could be conditioned to the number of seats/tables proposed by this applicant so that if a different user were to come in they would be subject to the same conditions. Staff stated this could be done under the conditional use permit process. G:\WPDOCS\PC3-13-O1 .wpd {~ Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2001 3. Commissioner Butler asked if we are doing the monitoring programs for compliance with CEQA as an additional step.' He agrees with Commissioner Kirk that this is just additional work for staff. Staff stated they are prepared, but not always included in the staff report. Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez stated mitigation measures are generally required when you identify potentially significant impacts unless mitigated, hence the mitigation measure. They will continue to work with staff to see that a futile paperwork drill does not take place. In regard to this Mitigation Monitoring Program, assuming their is an Environmental Assessment that does in fact identify potentially significant impacts unless mitigated certainly CEQA requires under Public Resources Code 21081.6 requires that the Council adopt a monitoring program at the time that they adopt a negative declaration. There is an advantage to having the Commission approve the same document prior to the City Council. He will prepare a memorandum on the monitoring program issue prior to the Commission's next meeting. Commissioner Butler stated that unless there is an issue, he does not see the need to have the mitigation monitoring in the staff report. 4. Commissioner Tyler stated he concurs with Commissioner Kirks's comments. In regard to the parking he agrees that the parking analysis is based on some interesting concepts, but they are not controllable. The parking analysis needs to consider future uses. 5. Chairman Robbins asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Lew Bishop, architect for the project, gave a presentation on the project. In regard to any future use he believes it will have to be the same use. In regard to parking, they have analyzed it in regard to the use and hours of operation of all the uses. In reference to the lighting, the specific luminaires they have chosen for this project are specifically designed for Iow level lighting in parking lots. They have the ability to screen various directions so light is not directed off the site. 6. Commissioner Tyler stated he likes the lighting concept. He asked if the conditional use permit included the hours of operation for the restaurant and office uses and could it. Staff stated it was up to the Commission. Commissioner Tyler stated that since the only entrance was off Caleo Bay was there any advantage to a left turn lane off Washington Street. Mr. Bishop stated it would make it easy to enter the site and reduce the traffic on Caleo Bay. G:\WPDOCS\PC3-13-01 .wpd "7 Planning Commission Minutes - March 13, 2001 7. Commissioner Butler stated the building design is very dramatic and has a definite character, but there is nothing to match it in La Quinta. His only concern is that it is a single use building and what use could it have in the future if the restaurant was not there. Is the architectural design too much? Is this the place for it? It is a very dramatic change for Washington Street. Mr. Bishop stated the design architect and the owners have taken a great deal of time to design this unique building and there is a diversity in architecture in La Quinta in the way of quality of design. Discussion followed regarding the architectural design. 8. Commissioner Abels stated he concurs with Commissioner Butler. This is going to be a footprint for this area. 9. Commissioner Kirk asked what the large circular element that appears to look like a smoke stack was on the front elevation. Mr. Bishop stated all the kitchen equipment is hidden behind this screen wall. 10. Chairman Robbins asked if there was any other public comment. Mr. Larry Lichliter, KSL Development, stated he eats at this restaurant and it has excellent food. This will be an asset to the City and will make a statement that the City is progressive. 1 1. There being no further public comment, the public participation portion of the hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 12. Commissioner Kirk stated he has a problem with the parking, however if approved the conditional use permit could be conditioned to address those concerns if there was a change in the use of the building. The design will add to the image corridor of Washington Street and he would like to see more innovative designs like this in the City. 1 3. Commissioner Abels stated he is in favor of the project. 14. Commissioner Butler stated the picture of the different elevations showing the building in such a way that it is a stark structure that a picture with the landscaping probably would have softened the building itself. Mr. Bishop showed colored renderings of the buildings with the landscaping. G :\WPDOCS\PC3-13-01 .wpd 8 Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2001 1 5. Commissioner Tyler stated that when he first saw the project he was indecisive, but he thinks it will probably grow on us and it will make a statement. He would like the conditional use permit to be conditioned to require the hours of operation. 16. Chairman Robbins stated he was very concerned, not that the architecture was bad, but that it does not fit within the character of La Quinta. He conducted a very unofficial poll and showed the elevations to numerous residents and all agreed that it did not fit within what they thought was the image of La Quinta. He does not believe this architectural style fits within the City of La Quinta; at least what his image is. In regard to the lighting concept, he completely agrees. 1 7. Commissioner Abels stated he had spoken with the architect for the La Quinta Inn and after listening to him he agrees it will be an asset to La Quinta as it will bring diversity. 18. Commissioner Tyler stated he strongly approves of the sign program. 1 9. Commissioner Kirk stated they may disagree as to the architecture, but there are so many components to this project that are positive like the lighting and signage, but it will add to the City. He is strongly in support. 20. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Abels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-028, recommending Certification of an Addendum to a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 2001-41 2, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 21. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Abels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-029, recommending approval of Specific Plan 2001-052, as recommended. a. The location maps in the text shall be changed. G:\WPDOCS\PC3-13-01 .wpd ~) Planning Commission Minutes - March 13, 2001 ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, and Tyler. NOES: Chairman Robbins. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 22. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Kirk to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-030, recommending approval of Conditional Use Permit 2001-056, as amended. 23. Commissioner Kirk asked if this was where the seating would be addressed and whether or not the applicant would have any problem with limiting hours of operation. 24. Mr. & Mrs. Siklai stated they have no objection. a. Condition #5: The restaurant shall not exceed 142 seats as specified in the Specific Plan. b. Condition #6: The restaurant hours of operation shall be as stated in the Specific Plan; weekdays 5:30 to 11:00 p.m. and weekends with extended hours. _ ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, and Tyler. NOES: Chairman Robbins. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 25. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Abels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-031, recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2001-690, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, and Tyler. NOES: Chairman Robbins. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Chairman Robbins recessed the meeting at 8:35 p.m. and reconvened at 8:41 p.m. A. Zoning Code Amendment 2000-066; a request of the City for review of applicability and impact of the exist Water Efficient Ordinance on development proposals. 1. Chairman Robbins opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Senior Engineer Steve Speer 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 if staff was talking about water features on a particular piece of property, it doesn't take into consideration the depth of the water. The evaporation is from the G:\WPDOCS\PC3-13-01 .wpd ! 0 Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2001 surface, but isn't there any impact on the water itself and the growth that can occur in a water feature if the water heats up. If there is a water feature that is 12 inches deep and during the summer months it is heated by the sun, we have the same evaporation rate, but the same water feature at four feet deep it may be cooler and less impacted by the heat and you do not get the growth at the bottom of the water that cause other problems. Is this a plus or negative? Staff stated they did not know the answer to that question. Standing water has a fixed number and moving water does increase the water usage because it increases the evaporation rate. 3. Chairman Robbins stated deeper water stays cooler and evaporates less. 4. Commissioner Butler stated the formula presented by staff does not take into consideration the depth of the water that would reduce evaporation but takes more water to fill. 5. Commissioner Kirk stated that on Page 204-3, Item J.J. the source that is referenced, is it subject to State law; can we chose any reference we like? Staff stated we adopted a model ordinance that had been initiated by the State as it is a State-wide issue. The reference in all the plant factors you find in referenced material use cool season grass as the standard. If you wanted to tighten it up you would change the reduction factor in the formula from 0.8 to something less than, say 0.7 or 0.65, etc.. 6. Commissioner Kirk stated he was surprised to learn that the cool season grass has a .6 factor. Staff explained the overall ETofactor is .6. That is the plant factor and you have to apply the irrigation efficiency factor and that causes the effective rate to move up. If you have a large landscape area such as a golf course where you can use the rotors, that concept has a more efficient landscape/irrigation mechanism. However, if you have turf and sidewalk and more confined areas where you have smaller spray heads and a lot of runoff, that irrigation system is not as efficient and the lake will not work in the landscaping concept if everything else is turf. Commissioner Kirk asked what the plant factor was for the warm season grass. Staff stated that overall for the year it is .6. Discussion followed regarding plant factors and the formula. G:\WPDOCS\PC3-13-01 .wpd ] ] Planning Commission Minutes - March 13, 2001 7. Commissioner Tyler asked if the preliminary calculation staff was proposing to have the developer prepare was in the ordinance now or is it proposed. Staff stated we are asking them to provide it now, but it is not formally in the ordinance. 8. Commissioner Kirk stated that according to the ordinance audits are required, but have we ever received one. Staff stated no. Commissioner Kirk stated that if we are going to meet the intent of the ordinance shouldn't we do this? Staff stated it would require additional staff which the City has not funded. Commissioner Kirk stated that all tracts are required to have a model home with an example of efficient landscaping, is this done? Staff stated it needs to evaluated to see what can be enforced. 9. Chairman Robbins asked if there was any other pub. lic comment on this project. Mr. Chevis Hosea, KSL Development Corporation, stated they hoped there was some room for improvement that would satisfy the goals of the ordinance and yet allow them and other developers to be competitive in the market. The process/calculations are cumbersome and far reaching to have to prepare at the time of a preliminary landscaping concept plan. They would like to be able to present their plans to the Commission and work out the formula with staff after the approval process. 10. Commissioner Butler stated the use of the word lush landscaping in the specific plan is an immediate flag and maybe a different word should be used. Mr. Hosea stated this is a "recreational playground" and people come here because of the weather. Therefore, they would request the City to take some moderation on this formula with consideration for grandfathering for existing developments. Aisc some consideration given for using canal water. 1 1. There being no further public comment, Chairman Robbins closed the public participation portion of the hearing and asked if there was any Commission discussion. 12. Commissioner Tyler thanked staff for the presentation. He would suggest no action be taken at this time due to the joint meeting being held with the City Council and the presentation being.given by CVWD. G :\WPDOCS\PC3-13-01 .wpd ]2 Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2001 13. Commissioner Butler complemented staff on their presentation. As new applications are brought in will the staff be giving them some alternatives to their plant palettes. Staff stated the developer needs to be aware of what the City's requirements are. They need to be looking at their plant palettes as to what they are proposing. They are not challenged unless they are proposing a lake. Commissioner Butler asked if the lake issue was something. that allowed a developer to use the lake as a retention basins as a feature that would solve two purposes and would be an acceptable alternative. Staff stated that as long as it is left as a dry retention basin it is fine until such time as it is made into a lake and becomes a use and it challenges them to look at their other landscaping features around the project. If their lake is more than 14 percent of the site they will have to start reducing the amount of turf in the landscaping concept. 14. Commissioner Kirk stated that if the ordinance allows these types of developments then why have it. Maybe if a lake is proposed maybe at that time the analysis becomes effective. If we are going to have this ordinance we shoUld do it right. Maybe there are better ways of doing this that could be considered. It appears that the model ordinance is inefficient and ineffective and a waste of time and isn't meeting the intent of what the State was trying to achieve. He finds it ludicrous that we are using 1.0 as the starting point and it is based on using Rye grass 100 percent of the year and yet the grass we use here is .6. What would desert landscaping be if Bermuda grass is .35 on its own, what is Verbana with a drip system? 1 5. Chairman Robbins stated the State-wide ordinance was developed mostly for coastal California. It was not intended to be used in the desert environment. He agrees With Mr. Hosea that green is what makes the homes attractive and keeps them selling and we do need to continue to keep it green. In contrary to what has been stated, there is not an endless supply of canal water. We do have to look at how canal water is used and the thought of allowing an exemption because a developer uses canal water does not make any sense at all. One of the things that could be changed in the ordinance is that there is a minimum efficiency that lets you use 62 percent. That is an inefficient irrigation system, so one of the things that could be looked at is not allowing an irrigation that is 62 percent. Move the minimum efficiency to 70 or 75 percent. On Page 206, Item C allows you to use turf to use more water whereas in staff's analysis shows that using turf you have no G:\WPDOCS\PC3-13-01 .wpd ]- ~ Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2001 problem meeting the standard. This needs to be looked at as to its practicality. On Page 204, Item 4 it states that using 50 percent recycled water are exempted from the maximum water allowance and audit. Just because a site uses recycled water does not mean that it can use as much water as it wants. Recycled water is needed everywhere and this will limit what they are able to do on other sites in this City or throughout the Valley. Audits are a must for the large projects to ensure they are staying efficient. He agrees that this is an unfunded mandate for the City and perhaps the City should talk with the Water District to see if they can be given the responsibility of making sure they comply with the ordinance at the plan check process. Maybe the Water District could also handle the audits and enforcement issues. A look should be given to the size of a lot that is exempted and maybe that should be lowered. The 0.8 reduction factor should be evaluated as to its effectiveness. 16. Commissioner Kirk suggested staff look at ordinances in other states. 17. Chairman Robbins stated that some of the other states do not have strict landscaping ordinances but do have very, very expensive water with a tiered system. The more you use the more it costs. 18. Commissioner Kirk stated the process needs to be made more simple. If we are suggesting a change to the ordinance, make sure there is some grandfathering. 1 9. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioner Abels/Tyler to continue this to May 8, 2001. Unanimously approved. VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: B. Sign Approval 2001-536; a request of M & H Realty Partners for an amendment to a sign program for commercial pad buildings located at the southwest corner of Washington Street and highway 111 within Plaza La Quinta. 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\PC3-13-01 .wpd Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2001 2. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Kirk asked staff to clarify when a cabinet box sign was allowed. Staff stated that if they are part of a registered trademark logo staff has been allowing them. Commissioner Kirk asked why a cabinet box sign would be allowed in conjunction with a registered trade mark as to allowing any company to have one. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated that a cabinet sign has the background lit along with the letters as opposed to having individual channel letters where only the letters are lit. Commissioner Kirk stated his concern was that the City was treating corporate entities different than we treat local merchants. Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez stated that in regard to a registered trade mark, you cannot change their color, size or display. He is not certain as to how a cabinet box sign would be applied. Commissioner Kirk stated his concern is treating those with a registered trade mark differently that the "mom and pop" business. Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez stated he cannot imagine where the law would be restrictive as to the box. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated that maybe staff is not describing it properly. There are two different things. There is the logo for some such as Starbucks. That is a cabinet sign that is a circle that is their logo and then they have the "Starbucks" which are their channel letters. Second, is that with Jiffy Lube they submitted a proposal with uni-channel letters, which was the red background with the white letters which is actually a cabinet sign because it is all one box with the background lit up instead of individually mounted channel letters. The recommended condition was that they be individual channel letters and they said no, it is part of their trademark. Staff asked for verification of their trademark and found that it was not a part of the trademark, so they are required to have individual channel letters. Discussion followed regarding examples. 3. Commissioner Butler stated that if we allow this we are discriminating against the other tenants in the center. How did we change our sign program for one building? 4. Commissioner Tyler asked staff to explain a halo sign. Staff explained. 5. Commissioner Butler asked if this was approved could other tenants come back and request this type of sign. Staff clarified this would be for the satellite pads only. G:\WPDOCS\PC3-13-01 .wpd ] 5 Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2001 6. Chairman Robbins asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Glen Goodman, project manager for M & H Partners, gave a presentation of the sign program and stated they are looking for consistency with the other pad building signs. They concur with staff's recommendations. 7. Commissioner Kirk stated there is some confusion as to where the channel signs would be allowed. Staff stated the Downey Savings building is the only building currently with multi-tenants and the only building that would be allowed to change their signs. 8. Chairman Robbins stated his only concern was the preference being given to national chains versus local businessmen. Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez stated the issue was not a national change versus a small business. It is the fact that the City has not been given documentation that this is part of their corporate logo. The City can prohibit the sign all together, or reduce its size; or location. What you cannot do is change the logo itself. 9. Chairman Robbins stated they could eliminate the red glow. Staff stated that would be consistent with what has been approved. 10. Commissioner Butler stated he has no objection to what staff is recommending. The issue is that they are allowing individual pads to have signs that are different from what was originally approved for the center. Staff clarified the sign program is different for the in-line tenants than the satellite buildings. 11. Commissioner Tyler asked about the status of the proposed parking lot south of the Beerhunter. Mr. Goodman stated they are hoping to have it started before the week is out. 1 2. Chairman Robbins asked if anyone else would like to speak on this project. 1 3. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioner Abels/Kirk to adopt Minute Motion 2001-005 approving Sign Approval 2001-536, as amended: Condition 2.A. Logo cabinet box signs shall be allowed if it is a part of a formally registered trademark of the business which is used for business sign identification The background shall be opaque. Unanimously approved. Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2OO1 VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Commissioner Tyler gave a report of the City Council meeting of March 6, 2001. IX. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Abels to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held March 27, 2001, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 10:06 p.m. on March 1 3, 2001. Respectfully submitted, ~ cu~tive Secretary City~T La Quinta, California