Loading...
2002 02 26 PC Minutes MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA February 26, 2002 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:04 p.m. by Chairman Abels who ask'ed cordmissioner Kirk to lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Richard Butler, Tom Kirk, Steve Robbins, Robert Tyler, and Chairman Jacques Abels. C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Kathy Jenson, Senior Engineer Steve Speer, Planning Consultant Nicole Criste, Principal Planners Start Sawa and Fred Baker, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed. IV. CONSENT ITEMS: A. Chairman Abels asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of January 22, 2002. Commissioner Tyler asked that Page 11, Item 9, Condition //2 be corrected to read, "15% will be allowed". Commissioner Robbins asked that Page 5, be corrected to read, "However, staff' found that as noise impacts, that would be generated by the Washington Street and Miles Avenue roadway activities was studied, that to put residential units at this location, it would provide more impacts to residences than it would to occupants of hotel/commercial uses." Commissioner Kirk asked that Page 11, Item 9, Condition//3 be corrected to read, "...up to 30% shall be allowed to be under 1,200 square feet." There being no further corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Kirk to approve the minutes as corrected. Unanimously approved. B. Department Report: None G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2-26-O2.wpd ] Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2002 V. PRESENTATIONS: None. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Addendum to Environmental Impact Report 92-337 (State Clearinghouse No. 97011055), Site Development Permit 2002-728, Conditional Use Permit 2002-067, and Tentative Parcel Map 30420; a request of Stamko Development Co. for Certification of an Addendum to an Environmental Impact Report for The Centre at La Quinta Specific Plan 97-029 (1997) and Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (1998), State Clearinghouse No. 97011055; approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a plant nursery/garden center, an auto repair/specialty shop, and an auto service station in conjunction with Retail Building "B"; and approval of a Tentative Parcel Map to create 1 8 numbered and two letter lots ranging in size from .47 to 19.44 acres, to be located at the south side of Highway 111, between La Quinta Centre Drive and west of Dune Palms Road. 1. Commissioners noted they had each met with the applicant prior to the meeting to discuss the project. 2. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. 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. 3. Chairman Abels asked staff to clarify that the applicant had provided more parking spaces than were required. Staff stated that was correct. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff. 4. Commissioner Butler asked about the heights of the lights in the parking lot. Staff noted that in the Highway 111 Shopping Center the lights area 39 feet high; the Auto Center has 24-foot high lights; and Lowe's and Home Depot have 24-foot high lights. Commissioner Butler asked if the lighting standards would have any impact as they would protrude over the top of the trees. Staff stated they would have to comply with the light standards. 5. Commissioner Tyler asked what the zoning was on the strip of land to the east of this project. Staff stated it was the same as this project, Regional Commercial. Commissioner Tyler asked the name of the street as it appears to have two different names. Staff noted the streets would be completed and will follow the G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2-26-O2.wpd ~- Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2002 names as they are now. Commissioner Tyler asked about the turning access points. Staff noted the applicant negotiated the turning access points with Caltrans; the City was not involved. 6. Commissioner Kirk stated his concerns was whether or not the current Walmart building would be left empty. This does happen in other jurisdictions; is the City's approach under Condition//84 something that would be enforceable. City Attorney Kathy Jenson stated in her opinion it would be enforceable as both the applicant and Walmart have agreed to it. The Planning Commission is being asked to make a finding with regard to the Environmental Assessment Addendum, and it is within the Commission's purview to consider such a condition. Other jurisdictions have struggled with this issue and legal counsel believes it is enforceable. Commissioner Kirk stated that in regard to Condition //84.B it sounds as if Walmart could provide an option to the City and that would meet the terms of the condition, but does not rule out the opportunity for Walmart to insist that that option require the City not lease or sell to a competitor, which could be a broad range of uses given the number of items and services this Walmart will sell; does this condition preclude that? City Attorney Kathy Jenson stated the option agreement that would be entered into, would have to be agreeable to the City. We did try to negotiate the terms and determined that was not possible for this meeting, so a condition was added that prior to issuance of a building permit, an option agreement that is acceptable and approved to the City would have to be agreed upon. Staff did leave an option for a different type of agreement that would satisfy the City's concern to make sure the building does not become a boarded up building. Commissioner Kirk asked if a sentence should be added to Condition//84.B.i., stating it would have to be acceptable to the City; would that be appropriate? City Attorney Kathy Jenson stated it would be appropriate and that was the understanding. The condition as stated says, "the City and Walmart shall execute..." and to her if it was not acceptable, the City would not execute it and there would not be a building permit. The City would not agree to purchase property for a fair market value and have restrictions on the reuse of the property. 7. Commissioner Tyler questioned why the Commission was considering such an agreement as this would normally be decided by the City Council. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated this is a Site Development Permit and the Commission is the final acting authority in this case. City G :\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2-26-O2.wpd 3 Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2002 Attorney Kathy Jenson stated that if there were an option agreement, prior to issuance of building permit, it would be subject to the City Council approval. There would be no building permit issued on Retail Building "B" if the City were unable to work out an option agreement, or some other type of agreement, that would satisfy the City's concern. 8. Staff noted bonditi(~ns had been' received from'CVWD and would be added to the conditions. 9. Commissioner Kirk questioned the 25 signs requested for Building "B", would they be permitted under the current Zoning Code. Staff noted the current Code allows 50 square feet of signage per elevation to the parking lot or street. The provisions of the Zoning Code allow the Commission to grant additional signage. Commissioner Kirk asked what the second largest structure was in the City. Staff noted probably Home Depot or Lowes. This building is approximately 50% larger than either of those buildings. Discussion followed regarding signage. Commissioner Kirk asked about the two accesses along Highway 111, is this appropriate and does it fit within the General Plan guidelines. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated they do comply. The closest, in access point, is 250 feet from the intersection at La Quinta Drive. Commissioner Kirk asked if staff believed the parking was acceptable from the Zoning Code perspective, with the number of parking spaces proposed. Staff stated it is not an engineering issue, but rather an aesthetics issue. 10. Commissioner Robbins asked if a large shopping center made up of several smaller shops, would they each be allowed to apply for a sign. Staff noted each shop would have its own signage and went on to explain the applicant's sign request. 11. Commissioner Tyler noted an economic study that was contained in the packet, and asked why this was submitted before the applicant has a signed tenant. City Attorney Kathy Jenson noted the City recommended this study be done as part of the Addendum. There is an argument under CEQA that if there are building 'vacancies that create adverse physical conditions, they can be considered as an environmental impact and the purpose of the report was to investigate whether or not this was a likely scenario. It is relevant to the Commission's CEQA review in consideration of the Addendum. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2-26-O2.wpd 4 Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2002 12. Commissioner Robbins asked if under CEQA Walmart moved out and the building became vacant it would be a environmental impact. City Attorney Kathy Jenson stated that was correct. Under CEQA, a purely economic impact is not considered an environment impact, but an impact that has secondary physical impacts. The creation of vacant run down buildings can be considered to be a physical impact that should be considered. Commissioner Robbins stated that if that building were to become vacant, the EIR would be false and lawsuits could pursue. City Attorney Kathy Jenson stated that the question before the Commission is whether or not they are comfortable certifying the Addendum to the original EIR. The original EIR had an economic study that was prepared for it, but a Walmart was not considered. The purpose of this study was to provide the basis for the Commission's consideration on the Addendum as prepared. It is not a mitigation measure but a condition of approval if the project is approved in both the Site Development Permit and Conditional Use Permit. 13. Commissioner Kirk asked if it was not a part of the mitigation measures, what authority does the City have to condition an applicant like this. City Attorney Kathy Jenson stated that under CEQA the Commission has the authority to make modifications to the project in order to avoid the issue. A concern was raised and to be sure the City requested the applicant to fund the Natelson Report. Commissioner Kirk stated we are using the CEQA analysis to express our concerns regarding the impacts of the empty building (Walmart), but do not identify it as even less than significant impact because of the economic analysis which suggests there is sufficient demand. What he thinks he is hearing is that the existing property owner, Walmart, may not give up that land to a potential competitor or third party. If that is the case, that would have an aesthetic impact and should be mitigated. City Attorney Kathy Jenson stated this is not a Negative Declaration, but rather an Addendum and its purpose is to update an EIR to look at minor project modifications which is what is before the Commission. In order to approve the Addendum the Commission has to verify that the modification and circumstances have not changed from the original project approval or the original EIR within the scope of that original EIR. Commissioner Kirk stated this mechanism does not allow the City the opportunity to identify a significant impact. City Attorney Kathy Jenson stated that if the Commission believes that the project as it is before the G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2-26-O2.wpd Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2002 Commission with all the conditions that are imposed on it, if there is a potential for an impact, you would not certify the Addendum. It is her belief that the City has taken care of all the concerns through the modification and conditions of approval that have been incorporated and therefore the Commission has the ability to certify the Addendum. As a follow up to the condition on Page 127, she would recommend adding to Subpart "B", "subject to City satisfaction". 14. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Ms. Chris Clarke gave a presentation on the project. At the end of her presentation, the applicant requested clarification on the Assessor Parcel Numbers on each of the applications and that the off-site street issue with Highway 1 1 1 in the Tentative Parcel Map be the same as in the Site Development Permit. 15. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Tyler asked how many Walmarts there were in the Valley. Ms. Clarke stated there were some proposed for Palm Desert and Palm Springs. Community Development Director Jerry Herman asked if Ms. Clark agreed with condition #84 as amended by the City Attorney. Ms. Clarke stated she did agree. She further stated she has given a well site to CVWD and it is all she is required to give per her Specific Plan. In regard to the retention basin, she requests the condition be amended to comply with the City's new design guidelines for retention basins. 16. Chairman Abels asked if there was any other Public comment on this item. Mr. Dave Stark, Mazda Kia Superstore, representing the Auto Center on Highway 1 1 1, stated he supported the project as proposed and gave his reasons why. 17. Mr. Scott Gaynor, One Eleven Venture (across the street) 74,333 Highway 1 1 1, Palm Desert, stated his support for the project. 18. Mr. Joe Hammer, owner of the property to the east of the project, stated his support of the project. Commissioner Kirk asked if there was any opportunity for a shared access between the two properties. Mr. Hammer stated they had discussed the issue, but nothing had been agreed upon. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2-26-O2.wpd (~ Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2002 19. Mr. Paul Parrish, architect for the project, gave a presentation on the sign proposal for the building signs. This is a large building, set a long distance from Highway 111, therefore the amount of signage is reasonable. The signs provide directional assistance to the customers. Most signs are too small to be seen from Highway 111. Commissioner Kirk asked if the proposed 20 signs were for Phase I and I1. Mr. Parrish clarified the request is for both phases. 20. Mr. Stan Rothbart, Rothbar Development, authorized representative for Walmart, thanked the City Attorney for her assistance for drafting Condition #84 and stated it is acceptable to Walmart. 21. Ms. Clarke asked for clarification on Condition #50.b. be amended to state she" .... will be reimbursed..."; Condition #83 replace "the Planning Commission" with "Community Development Director". 22. There being no further public participation, the public comment portion of the public hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 23. Commissioner Tyler stated this is a wonderful opportunity for the City. There is a lot of focus on signage and asked if there was any way to continue this portion to a different time. Staff noted the Planning Commission could approve the project and continue the sign program to a future date as a business item. Commissioner Tyler stated his concern about the landscaping and Walmart's ability to maintain it. He would like the final landscaping to come back to the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee (ALRC) and the Planning Commission with some guarantee as to how it will appear. 24. Commissioner Robbins stated he agreed with Commissioner Tyler in that Walmart has not been a good neighbor to the City in regard to the landscaping and the storage containers. He has no problems with the project as proposed, but does have a problem with the performance level of Walmart. He asked how the City could ensure this center does not turn out the same way. He questioned the condition as it is written, as he was not sure that the landscaping as it is currently proposed, is acceptable. There needs to be discussion regarding the 34-foot high light standards, G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2-26-O2.wpd 7 Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2002 as he believes this is too high. He is concerned about the side and rear elevations as there is almost zero articulation. He is concerned about any future use of storage containers during Phase I so they are not in public view on the vacant land adjacent to the Building "B". 25. Commissioner Kirk stated that on the whole it is a good project. Much of the staff report was on the economic analysis. Building "B" design is pretty good for that size of a building in regard to articulation. Building "A", however, has very little articulation and interest and there was no comment from the ALRC. He is concerned about the blight that could be caused by Walmart leaving the existing center. He does commend the applicant and City Attorney on their work to resolve this issue. Other challenges are the signs as he does not agree with 20 signs no matter how far the building is from Highway 111. He also has concerns about lighting and parking. The Highway 111 Center has too much asphalt and poorly managed landscaping. This will be a positive project for the City once the issues are resolved. 26. Commissioner Tyler asked about Condition #38 regarding the telephone system. Staff was unaware of why it was there. Staff would remove it. 27. Chairman Abels commended the applicant on the appearance of the project. 28. Commissioner Tyler stated he believed signs were significant at the beginning, but once the center is built everyone knows where everything is located. 29. Senior Engineer Steve Speer went over some condition changes: Condition #39, if the retention basin goes below 6-feet deep the City will use the same criteria. Staff will delete the last sentence and replace with, "the retention basin depth may be increased in accordance with the provisions of revised Engineering Bulletin 97- 03". 30. Commissioner Robbins asked who was responsible for maintaining the retention basin and how does the City ensure the retention basin is maintained. Staff noted the City Would require the merchant association would maintain it. Commissioner Robbins noted the problem of having the merchants maintain the G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2-26-O2.wpd 8 Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2002 landscaping up to the City's standards and the City has been unable to enforce this, what can be put into the conditions that has teeth to require the developer to maintain it. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated a commercial area should be treated differently than a residential district. A suggestion is that a condition be placed on them to pay the City to maintain it. 31. Commissioner Kirk asked if they could be conditioned that if it was determined the development was not being maintained, can the City condition the project to allow the City to go in and maintain at their expense. City Attorney Kathy Jenson stated a condition could be added to that affect. Chairman Abels recessed the meeting at 9:08 and reconvened at 9:26 p.m. 32. Senior Engineer Steve Speer continued with condition changes: Condition//39, the last sentence will be deleted regarding the on- site two foot depth. Condition//50 A.1 .b regarding the 28-foot wide landscape median, inside the parentheses staff will replace with "(developer is required to construct 50% of the landscape median for at their expense per the Conditions of Approval for Specific Plan 97-029)". "The remaining 50% of the expense will be reimbursed from the City's Development Impact Fee Fund in accordance with the policies established for that program." Condition//58, Change "30-feet" to "90-feet", in both locations. Condition //55, strike the last sentence. Condition //50.A.1. change to read "widened section" for both the Site Development Permit and Tentative Parcel Map. 33. City Attorney stated that in regard to the landscaping, it has been agreed to by both the City and the applicant, that in regard to Retail Building "B", there would be a posting of a $25,000 letter of credit or bond acceptable to the City Attorney and would remain in effect for five years. The property owner would have a 30-day notice period to correct any problems the City saw in the landscaping maintenance. The property owner would provide the addresses to which any notices would be provided. At the end of the five year period if they performed well, the bond would be released and if not the bond would be renewed for an additional five year period. Language would be added to Condition//69 to add "interior". G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2-26-O2.wpd C~ Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2002 34. Commissioner Robbins stated this should apply to more than just Building "B". City Attorney Kathy Jenson stated the bonding requirement is something that was agreed to with Walmart, it is the Commission's prerogative. There is no occupant to consent or object at this time. Commissioner Robbins asked if it was a condition that could be placed on the merchant association for the entire site. Discussion followed as to applying this to the entire site and not just the Walmart site. Ms. Clarke stated there are two sets of CC&R's. A Master Association on the entire 90 acres and the existing Auto Centre has their own association under the Master Association. Additional associations can be created to control each of the tenants. 35. Commissioner Kirk added the condition should be strengthened to allow the City to notify the property owner that it was not be maintained as agreed to and go in and clean up the landscaping at the owners expense and lien .the property. City Attorney Kathy Jenson stated Retail "B" could be covered by the bond and the remainder of the site would be covered by a condition of approval. 36. Commissioner Kirk asked staff to explain how they came up with the number of signs they were recommending. Staff stated it was a determination based on other sign programs. Staff suggested the sign program be pulled and brought back for approval at a future date, under a business item. 37. Commissioner Kirk suggested Building "A" elevation articulation be brought back for review. Ms. Clarke stated she is willing to bifurcate Building "A", but this is Kohl's standard building. Mr. Gary Shepner, architect for the project, gave a presentation on the elevation design for Building "A". He suggested a popout treatment be applied similar to the Walmart building. Commissioner Kirk suggested the applicant work with staff to add some articulation to the rear elevation of Building "A" and "B" to add some visual interest. :38. Commissioner Robbins stated his concern regarding the height of the 34 foot high light standards. Following discussion it was determined to leave them at 34 feet. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2-26-02.wpd ] 0 Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2002 39. Commissioner Robbins asked that a condition be added that while Walmart is being constructed and during Phase I, there will be no storage containers on the vacant eastern pad. They can apply for a permit to have the containers in the rear of the Walmart building. 40. Commissioner Kirk asked what the standard time limit was for a gas station. Staff stated it is not specifically stated in the Ordinance and there has been no standard. Discussion resulted in changing the time limit for the Conditional Use Permit to five years. 41. Commissioner Tyler asked that the street entering off of Highway 111 with a right-in be designated a one-way street. 42. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-024, recommending Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for an Addendum to the Centre at La Quinta Specific .Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (1997) and Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (1 998), subject to the findings. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 43. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Robbins to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-025, recommending approval of Conditional Use Permit 2002-067 subject to the findings and conditions of approval, subject to.the conditions as amended: A. Condition #1' "...shall be used within five years..." B. Correct Condition #4.b: to add, "(i) an option agreement satisfactory to the City..." ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2-26-O2.wpd ] ] Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2002 44. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Robbins/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-026 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2001-728, subject to the findings and conditions as amended: A. Condition //10: eliminate the sentence referring to the meandering wall. B. Condition //50.A.l.b. "(The developer is required to pay 50% of the landscape median improvements at their own expense pursuant to Specific Plan 97-029. The remaining 50% of the landscape median improvements will be reimbursed from the City's Development Impact Fee Fund in accordance with policies established for that program.)" C.Condition //58: Change 30-feet to 90-feet. D. Condition //64: The final landscape plan shall include an enhanced landscape entry statement at the intersection of Auto Centre Drive and La Quinta Drive. The enhancements are for the access lane east of La Quinta Drive only. E. Condition 50.A.1: "...and widen the north half as required for the widened section." F. Condition//65: The final landscape plans shall be reviewed by the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee and the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of any permit for the construction of the parking lot. The review by the Planning Commission will be conducted as a business item. G. Condition //67: The applicant shall make provisions for continuous, perpetual maintenance of all private on-site improvements, perimeter and interior landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks. 1. For the Retail Building "B" site, a $25,000 bond or letter of credit in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, shall be posted prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the Retail Building "B". The bond or letter of credit shall initially remain in effect for a period of five years. During that period, if the City determines that the landscaping is not being properly maintained, it shall provide notice, at the addresses to be provided by the applicant or owner, of the need to correct the specific deficiencies. If the deficiencies in the landscaping are not corrected within 30 days of the mailing of the notice, the City shall have the right to call the bond G :\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2-26-O2.wpd ! 2. Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2002 or letter of credit, and the proceeds shall be utilized to the extent needed to correct the landscaping deficiencies. If, after five years, the landscaping has been properly maintained, the City shall release the bond or letter of credit. If, in the determination of the Community Development Director, the landscaping has not been properly maintained, the bond or letter ~of credit shall be renewed and maintained for an additional five year period. 2. For the entire Planning Area III, the landscaping and irrigation system shall be well maintained and any dead plant material shall be promptly replaced. If the landscaping is not properly maintained, and if the condition is not cured within 30 days of the notice of the deficiencies, the City shall have the right to cause the correction of the deficiencies in the landscaping, and the applicant/owner agrees that the costs of the correction shall be recorded as a lien against the property. This remedy shall be in addition to any other remedies the City has by law." H. Conditions #82-83: eliminated and replaced with a condition to require all signs to come back to the Planning Commission at a future date as a Business Item. I. Condition #86.A.b: "(i) an option agreement, satisfactory to the City..." J. Add a new Condition #88: "No outdoor storage or outdoor storage containers will be permitted on the vacant area of Phase II for Building "B". However, storage and storage containers can be permitted along the rear of Building "B" provided a Minor Use Permit is granted by the Planning Commission as a business item review process." K. Add a new Condition #89: "The rear elevations of Buildings "A" and "B" shall include visual interest as deemed appropriate by the Community Development Director." L. Add a Condition regarding the right-in off Highway 111 to be properly signed as a one-way. M. Add all conditions received from the Coachella Valley Water District ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. G :\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2-26-O2.wpd ] 3 Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2002 88. It was mOved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-027, recommending approval of Tentative Parcel Map 30420, subject to the findings and conditions of approval. A. Condition//38: last paragraph eliminated B. Condition 65.A.1: "...and widen the north half as required for the widened section." C. Condition//76: "The applicant shall submit final landscape plans for approval by the Community Development Department after Planning Commission review and action and .... " D. All conditions submitted by the Coachella Valley Water District in their letter dated February 25, 2002. ROLL CALL' AYES' Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels' NOES:' None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. E. Environmental Assessment 2001-440 and Capital Improvement Project 2001-14 for the La Quinta Northeast Fire Station; a request of the City for Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for an Environmental Assessment and approval of a Capital Improvement Project for the construction of a fire station. 1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Planning Consultant Nicole Crist presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Robbins asked why the Environmental Assessment was not included in the Planning Commission packet for their review. Chairman Abels recessed the hearing to allow the Commission time to review the Environmental Assessment and reconvened the meeting. 3. Chairman Abels asked if there was any other public comment on this item. There being no further public participation, the public comment portion of the public hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. .. G :\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2-26-O2.wpd ] 4 Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2002 4. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-028, recommending certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact for EnVironmental Assessment 2001-440. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 5. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Robbins to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-029, recommending approval of Capital Improvement Project 2001-14, subject to the findings. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. C. Village Use Permit 2000-040, Amendment #1; a request of Chapman Golf Development to allow development plans for a 7,500 square foot restaurant at the northeast corner of Avenue 52 and Desert Club Drive. 1. Commissioner Kirk withdrew due to a possible conflict of interest and left the dias. 2. Chairman Abels 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. 3. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Robbins asked if the landscaping would conform to the City's Landscaping Ordinance. Staff noted it complies with the Ordinance. 4. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Ralph Raya, MRC Associates, the lighting consultant, gave a presentation on the project's exterior lighting. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2-26-O2.wpd ! ,5 Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2002 5. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of the lighting consultant. Commissioner Tyler asked the color of the high pressure sodium lights. Mr. Raya stated it was the amber color and explained the appearance. 6. Chairman Abels asked if there was any other public comment. Mr. Skip Lench, 78-21 § Calle Cadiz, stated his concern that either this item be continued or set aside approving~'the landscaping and lighting. When this project was before the City Council, the applicant was requested to work with the neighbors in regard to the trees and lighting. They called the applicant and they agreed to get together; but never did. Now this is a different lighting engineer. The Planning staff was also directed to meet with the neighbors and also did not meet 'with the neighbors. The lights were at 1 8 feet and now tonight they have a new lighting study and the lights are at 1 6 feet. This project backs up to residential properties. The new restaurant on La Fonda has lights at 1 2 feet. The La Quinta Hotel has 16 foot high lights. All they are asking is to meet with the applicant to resolve the issues. The applicant is planting African Sumacs along the wall and back of their property that will grow 1 6-18 feet high. 7. Commissioner Tyler asked the location of his house. Mr. Lench indicated the location of his house on the plans. 8. Mr. Michael Brauchman, 78-175 Calle Cadiz, stated he attended a City Council meeting where the applicant was required to lower the lights to six feet or less and to work with the neighbors. His concern is that the lighting schedule and landscaping are not consistent with the City's Ordinance. He assumes there will still be valet parking and the trash enclosure would be move further away from the residences. 9. There being no further public comment, the public participation portion of the hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 10. Commissioner Tyler stated this project was required to lower the lights along the perimeter and he is confused as to why they are not lowered. Staff noted that the Planning Commission recommendation was sent to the Council and the Council requested the applicant work with the neighbors. Subsequently, G :\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2-26-O2.wpd ] 6 Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2002 the project was redesigned and a new lighting plan was required. That is why the neighbors were not contacted as it had to come back to the Commission for review and approval. 11. Commissioner Butler asked if the neighbors were given an opportunity to review the lighting and landscaping plans. Staff noted some had been into City Hall to review the plans. Commissioner Butler asked if any of the view corridors could be maintained. Staff noted the landscape architect could address this. Mr. Rob Parker, RGA Landscape Architects, landscape architect for the project, stated he was not aware of any issue with regard to the height of the trees. The trees are there as required by the City. The heig.ht was to shield the lighting in the parking lot and shade the parking lot. The number of trees could be reduced along the neighbors property line to maintain any view. They would be more than happy to meet with the neighbors to increase their view corridor. Commissioner Butler asked when the height of the light standards changed. Mr. Raya stated the original lighting plan did have taller light fixtures along the property line. When reviewed by the City Council they were required to be lowered to six feet or lower. The lighting engineer at that time is no longer with the project and they moved the lights further into the interior of the project and lowered the foot candles. They are more than happy to meet With the proPerty owners. Discussion followed regarding the light fixtures. 12. Commissioner Robbins stated this is a good project, but there seems to be a lack of coordination with the neighbors. 13. Chairman Abels asked if there was any other public comment. There being no further public comment, the public participation portion of the public hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 14. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Robbins/T¥1er to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-030, approving Village Use Permit 2000-004, Amendment #1, subject to the findings and conditions with the lighting and landscaping plans returning to the Planning Commission on March 26, 2002. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Kirk. ABSTAIN: None. G :\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2-26-O2.wpd ! 7 Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2002 Commissioner Kirk rejoined the Commission. Chairman Abels recessed the meeting at 9:46 p.m. and reconvened at 9:49 p.m. VII. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. General Plan Consistency Finding; a request of Desert Sands Unified School District for a finding of General Plan conformity for Desert Sands Unified School District Elementary School Project, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65401 for the property' located at the northeast corner of Calle Tampico and Eisenhower Drive. 1. Chairman Abels 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. 2. Chairman Abels asked' if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler asked if KSL was on hold for their project on this site. Staff stated if this project is constructed, KSL's project would go away. 3. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. The applicant was not present. 4. Chairman Abels asked if there was any other public comment. There being no further public comment, the public participation portion was closed and open for Commission discussion. 5. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-031 finding General Plan Conformity for Desert Sands Unified School District Elementary School Project pursuant to California Government Code Section 65401. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2-26-O2.wpd ] 8 Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2002 B. Capital ImDrovement Pro!ect 2000-10, a request of the City of La Quinta for review of development plans for a two story detached addition and rehabilitation of the historic City of La Quinta Historic Society Museum located at the southeast corner of Avenida Montezuma and Calle Mendoza (77-885 Avenida Montezuma). 1. Chairman Abels asked for the staff report. Community Services Director Dodie Horvitz 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, or the applicant, Chairman Abels asked if there was any other public comment. There being no public comment, the public participation portion was closed and open for Commission discussion 3. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Butler to adopt Minute Motion 2002-003 approving Capital Improvement Project 2002-003, as recommended. Unanimously approved. C. Plaza Tampico Sign Program, Amendment #3; a request of Plaza Tampico to amend the Plaza Tampico Sign Program to allow first floor business tenants facing Calle Tampico to use Gatorform for building signs for the property located at 78-150 Calle Tampico. 1. Chairman Abels 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. 2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Robbins asked if this was a new material. Staff stated yes. 3. Commissioner Tyler asked if this is restricted to only the buildings that face Calle Tampico or if the other tenants can use this. Staff stated it was an option for first floor tenants. 4. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Matt Johnson, 73-134 Bel Air, the applicant, gave a presentation on his project. G :\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2-26-O2.wpd ] ~) Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2002 5. There being no public comment, Chairman Abels closed the public participation portion of the meeting and opened for Commission discussion. 6. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Robbins to adopt Minute Motion 2002-004 approving Plaza Tampico Sign Program Amendment #3, as requested. Unanimously approved. D. Sign Application 2002-597 (an Amendment to Sign Application 2000- 502); a request of Chevron Oil (Greg Hohn) to amend the sign program for Dune Palms Center to allow canopy signing for the property located at the southeast corner of Dune Palms Road and Highway 111 1. Chairman Abels 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. 2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Kirk asked what signage is generally allowed for a service station. Staff stated they have allowed spanner signs as long as they are not illuminated. 3. Commissioner Robbins asked staff to define a spanner. Staff stated the applicant could do this. 4. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Commissioner Robbins asked staff to define a spanner. Mr. Greg Hogue, representing Chevron, gave an illustration of the spanner sign above the gas pump. 5. Commissioner Tyler asked the intended purpose of the sale signs. Mr. Hogue stated it is for advertisement of the food mart. Commissioner Tyler asked why there was no signage for the convenience store. Mr. Hogue stated it is not owned by Chevron but is an independent owner. Commissioner Tyler asked how this request compares with the USA gas station approval across the street. Staff stated they did not know at this time. Discussion followed regarding the spanners. 6. Mr. Tim Fetterly, principal of the project, stated his reasons for the signage. The convenience store will come back at a later date. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2-26-O2.wpd ~.0 Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2002 7. Mr. Mark Rodriguez, Chevron Project Manager, stated the image is their issue. The site is lower than the street with the landscaping. The added illumination will help to identify the site. 8. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the public participation portion of the meeting and opened for Commission discussion. 9. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Robbins/Butler to adopt Minute Motion 2002-005 approving Sign Application 2002- 597, as amended with the lighted spanners. Unanimously approved. VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: 'A. Commissioner Tyler gave a report on the City Council meeting of February 19, 2002. X. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Robbins to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a special meeting of the Planning Commission to be held February 27, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 1 1:14 p.m. on February 26, 2002. Respectfully submitted, ~B'~:ty ~___,e/wyer, E_xecutive Secretary City of-La Quinta, California G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2-26-O2.wpd ~- !