Loading...
2003 04 08 PC Minutes MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA April 8, 2003 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 Butler who asked Commissioner Abels to lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Jacques Abels, Tom Kirk, Robert Tyler and Chairman Butler. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to excuse Commissioner Robbins. Unanimously approved. C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Kathy Jenson, Planning Manager Oscar Orci, Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer, Principal Planners Stan Sawa and Fred Baker, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: IV. CONSENT ITEMS: A. Chairman Butler asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of March 25, 2003. Commissioner Tyler asked that Page 4, Item 1, be corrected to read "...that he and the appellant had been ..... "; Page 6, Item 4, corrected to read, "adopts a resolution exempting themselves from the City's regulations..."; Page 7, Item 14, corrected to read, "Palm Royale Road on both ends will have traffic signals, so there is no parent drop-off on Washington Street." There being no further corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to approve the minutes as amended. Unanimously approved. B. Department Report: None V. PRESENTATIONS: None G :\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\4-8-O3.wpd 1 Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 2003 VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None A. Continued - Siqn Application 2003-682; a request of Jack Tarr for review of a proposed sign program for the Washington Park Commercial Center, bounded by Highway 111, Adams Street, Washington Street, and Avenue 47. 1. Chairman Butler 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 Butler asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler clarified that the single logo was on the south end. Staff confirmed this was correct. Commissioner Tyler stated that under the Code they are allowed one monument sign per frontage footage. Staff stated that under a sign adjustment in the Zoning Code, the Planning Commission can make that determination. Commissioner Tyler confirmed that the Code does not differentiate the length of the frontage in regard to the signs. 3. Commissioner Kirk asked if there was any standard for what size would be considered a major tenant. Staff stated that every sign program before the Commission has had something different. In order to get a comparison staff looked at major tenants, not including the "big boxes" over 10,000 square feet, within the vicinity and that list is in the staff report. Commissioner Kirk stated that some of those on the list appear to be much larger than some of the major tenants identified in the applicant's sign program. Is this true? Staff stated they were informed by the applicant that if the building is larger than 10,000 square feet, they are a major tenant. Commissioner Kirk asked if the Commission agreed that deleting the sign in the rear of the building meant the applicant could increase the size of the signs in the front. Staff stated if it was the Commission's discretion. Commissioner Kirk asked if the applicant could increase the size of the signs at their own discretion. Staff stated not unless they decreased the overall aggregate signage allowed as well. Commissioner Kirk asked if the applicant's request for 50 square foot aggregate was for the total sign, Or per side. Staff stated it was the aggregate; they were requesting more than allowed by the Code. Staff was supporting the request due to the length of G :\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\4-8-O3.wpd 2 Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 2003 the "Washington Park" sign that is not advertising the users of the Center. Commissioner Kirk asked if the linear elevation of the Target building is significantly larger/smaller than the Super Wal- Mart building. Staff stated Wal-Mart is larger. Target is comparably the same size as the Retail "B" building at the Super Wal-Mart Center. 4. Chairman Butler asked if the Commission reduces the number of signs as recommended, who will determine which tenant goes on the monument signs. Staff stated the property manager will make that determination. Those business that have signed leases for the Center are in the Monument sign proposal. 5. Chairman Butler asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Hal Hall, Mr. Bill Sanchez, representing the Center, and Mr. David Randolph, representing the Pacific Neon Company, stated they are not proposing to use any exposed neon. They agree with Conditions//1 and 2. Conditions//3 and//4 they have questions. They are not asking to increase the size of the signs on the front of the building. This is a three-sided center. The purpose of the Target sign on the rear is to address traffic direction as people are driving around the Center and parking areas. In regard to the monument sign, the drive aisle is not major, but it does lead to both sides of the Shopping Center. Adams Street is not a major street now, but it will be and there is no signage on the north and east end of the Center. There will be a sign to the north and slightly west of the Target building, and south and west of the Target building. From that site east there is no project identification. Therefore, they thought it was important to put Center identification on that eastern half of the project. In regard to the letter received from nearby residents concerned about lighting issues, the monument signs are designed to be small and will not create any additional light into the adjacent communities. There is no white background illumination. They are all routed aluminum signs so the background is entirely opaque. Only the graphics will be illuminated. In regard to the building signs, they are individual letter signs. The last paragraph of the sign program was incorrectly written. It was intended to state that a large tenant who has a corner, end, or stand alone building, could have a name identifying sign on the side of the building. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\4-8-O3.wpd 3 Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 2003 6. Commissioner Tyler stated he had visited the Palm Desert Target and the bulls-eye is separate from the sign letters for Target. The national logo has been rearranged. Mr. Randolph stated this had changed approximately a year ago. Commissioner Tyler stated the pharmacy sign appears to blend right into the building. Mr. Randolph stated the building is actually darker and the pharmacy sign is white. 7. Chairman Butler asked about Monument sign "C" on Avenue 48, which has Target well designated so those traveling on Avenue 47 will find it, so why have this and the sign on the back of the building. Mr. Randolph stated the concern is that when you pull into the Center from Avenue 47 it directs people to the store. Chairman Butler asked about Monument sign "B" on Adams Street, the street is very short and the first turn is right into the project. Mr. Hall stated that Adams Street is becoming a major entrance and they would like the visibility. Chairman Butler asked which monument sign they would prefer "B" or "C". Mr. Hall stated they would like both but would be willing to reduce the size. Mr. Sanchez stated that if you enter off Caleo Bay, using the Monument sign on Caleo Bay and Avenue 47, there is no real access to the businesses on the east end of the building. Therefore, it is important to have both Monument signs. The entrance off Adams Street services seven large tenants on the east end of the Center. Both Monument signs will identify Target and two other tenants. 8. Chairman Butler asked if anyone else would like to speak on this issue. There being no further public comment, Chairman Butler closed the public hearing and opened the discussion to the Commission. 9. Commissioner Abels complemented the applicant on his presentation and agrees with staff's recommendation. 10. Commissioner Tyler stated he finds the 12 foot diameter bulls-eye over the main entrance offensive. It is three times the size of the Palm Desert store sign. It needs to be significantly reduced. The monument signs are architecturally pleasing, but 15.5 feet long is too much. He has no problem with the two Monument signs on Highway 111. On Adams street he would suggest using the same G :\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\4-8-03.wpd 4 Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 2003 sign as is on Washington Street. In regard to the rear signage, there was no access to the rear of Lowe's and it didn't make sense. This is not the same situation and if Lowe's is willing to install a rear door he would be willing to reconsider their request for a sign on the rear. 11. Chairman Butler reopened the public hearing to allow the applicant an opportunity to respond to the Commission's questions. Mr. Randolph stated the rear doors are for delivery and emergency access only. People could park in this area and walk to the Garden Center entrance which is heavily used as it is a shortcut. On the front elevation, the logo is much larger, but the lettering is much smaller that the Palm Desert store. If you calculate the overall square footage of the sign area, the typical horizontal signs, such as Palm Desert, is 174 square feet with the logo and wording calculated separately, or 204 calculated as a box. So in this instance, the overall sign is smaller. 12. Commissioner Tyler recommends' deleting the last paragraph on Page 8 of the Sign Program. Mr. Randolph suggested deleting the last line. Staff stated the paragraph is still unclear. From what was stated at this meeting, it appears the applicant is asking that the two corner (end) buildings be allowed three signs. They have one sign on each street side and a sign on the interior parking lot side. Commissioner Tyler asked if these buildings would be downgraded from major tenants. Staff stated the applicant would agree to this. Staff would be comfortable with the aggregate 50 square feet and allow the two end buildings to have three signs. Commissioner Tyler asked that a statement be added to Page 10 of the Sign Program stating, "in accordance with the City's Sign Ordinance." Also, under "Window Graphics", remove the credit card decal sign. After discussion, Commissioners determined to leave it as written. 13. Chairman Butler closed the public participation of the public hearing. 14. Commissioner Kirk commended staff on the report. It is a nice design on the monument signs as most of the signs are' architectural rather than advertising. He would therefore Cecommend going with the larger than the standard usually G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\4-8-O3.wpd '~ Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 2003 approved except for Sign "B". He agrees with Commissioner Tyler, that Monument sign "B" be the same size as sign "D". He does have concerns with the total aggrecjate size of the Target signage. He would prefer to see more logo and less lettering and he believes the proposed sign is a nice balance. With respect to the rear elevation, if it is not a public entrance, he does not have strong feelings. There is justification for some signage at this location. He is concerned about having a bright light on the back of the building. He would suggest allowing a non-lighted sign. He supports Commissioner Tyler's suggestions in regard to Page 8 and 10 of the Sign Program. 15. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Abels to adopt Minute Motion 2003-007, approving Sign Application 2003-682, as amended. a. Monument Sign "B" shall be the same style and size as sign 11 D" · b. The rear sign of the Target building shall be unlighted. c. Page 8, paragraph 6, shall be rewritten and approved by staff. d. Page 10 of the Sign Program shall have the following added, "in accordance with the City's Sign Ordinance." Unanimously approved. B. Tentative Parcel Map 31172 and Site Development Permit 2003-761; a request of Klein Building and Development, Inc. for review of development plans for a seven building commercial complex with 63-550 square feet of floor area and a subdivision of six acres into eight commercial parcels for the property located on the north side of Highway 111, 331 feet west of Dune Palms Road. 1. Chairman Butler 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 and presented a perspective drawing showing one view of the building. 2. Chairman Butler asked if the applicant agreed with the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee (ALRC) recommendations. Staff stated the ALRC recommended the stone G :\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\4-8-O3.wpd 6 Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 2003 be removed and the applicant wants to retain the stone as they believe it adds dimension to the buildings. They did make the changes to the plant palette. Chairman Butler asked if the ALRC recommendations are normally included in the conditions submitted to the Planning Commission. Staff stated they normally are included. 3. Chairman Butler asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler asked that Condition #1 1 in the Conditions of Approval for both the Tract Map and the Site Development Permit needs to be rewritten for clarity. Also, Condition #40 for both applications does not reflect the shared access for the existing driveway onto Dune Palms Road. On Corporate Center Drive one access is joint, but there is a new access on the northwest corner that should be included in the condition. Page 18 has very little on the lighting; is this covered by the Specific Plan. Staff stated it is conditioned to meet the Specific Plan requirements. 4. Commissioner Kirk asked if the western boundary would have a block wall. Staff stated the applicant is not proposing a wall. There is a landscape strip with trees and shrubs along the western boundary. Commissioner Kirk asked if the landscape plan on the western boundary appears to be sparse with only palm trees and he questions how much shielding they will provide. Staff stated a detailed landscaping plan will have to be submitted for approval. Commissioner Kirk stated the Radio Active landscaping plan appeared to be more elaborate. 5. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Butler asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Nell Kleine, owner and developer of the project, gave a presentation on the project. He has no issues with staff's recommendations. His understanding of the ALRC comments was that they were recommendations and not conditions. They will match the Radio Active landscaping plan concept. In regard to the shared access, they are recording easements to be reciprocal between Radio Active and themselves and the Dune Palms Road access. They did submit a complete lighting plan. There are two parts of the project, which will need to have loading areas. They were designed to be screened by placing them backing up to 'the adjoining businesses loading zones. It is hoped that the project to the west, when it is submitted, will do the same by backing up their loading zone to Building 7. G :\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\4-8-O3.wpd 7 Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 2003 6. Commissioner Abels asked if they have signed tenants. Mr. Kleine stated two buildings are spoken for and will be leased. The restaurant site is spoken for. 7. Commissioner Tyler asked if the rear doors on Building 7 were roll ups. Mr. Kleine stated no, they will be double man doors. Commissioner Tyler asked about Buildings 5 and 6. Mr. Kleine stated they could be either a single tenant or two. They are keeping their options open. 8. Chairman Butler asked if there was any other public comment on this project. Mr. J. Paul, owner of the two buildings across Corporate Center Drive, stated he would like to thank everyone for helping him complete his buildings. He had been informed by his architect, that this project may have areas of concern to him, or his project. First, the visual elevatiOn is fine. His concern is what will be seen on all four sides of the project. The inside of the project has the "Rancho La Quinta" look with tile roofs, but the Highway 111 side does not. The view from his project is a flat building with no undulation. The relief, or popout portion, is only a foot. He also has a concern with the ends of his buildings; they are flat with no softness. Why was the tile not wrapped around to the outside and onto Highway 1 I 1. He would be disappointed if the stone were removed. This building is only 22 feet from the street. He is glad to hear the landscaping will be the same as Radio Active. The side that faces his project should have some tile relief. The ends of the buildings should be softened as well and the wing-wall needs to be kept consistent with the stone along the entire front of the building. 9. Mr. Kleine responded by stating he appreciates Mr. Paul's comments. In regard to the shed roofs, he was never informed he had to have a "Rancho La Quinta" look and it is not contained in the Specific Plan. The shed roofs were used to create a courtyard effect. In terms of the landscape setback, he has the same landscape architect as Mr. Paul and Radio Active. In regard to the window glazing, retail customers will want it to the floor for light and exposure. In regard to the restaurant they will have a pony wall. The stone will remain. They were requested to vary the parapet along Highway 111 building and will do the same along Corporate Center Drive. In regard to the shed roofs, it is not an option when you are trying to have full ceiling heights. G :\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\4-8-O3.wpd 8 Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 2003 10. There being no other public participation, Chairman Butler closed the public participation portion of the hearing and opened the matter up for Commission discussion. 1 1. Commissioner Kirk asked if the Highway 1 1 1 Design Guidelines had any architectural details. Staff stated there are none. Commissioner Kirk stated he is generally in support of the project as it does appear to be high quality. The applicant does need to live up to the commitment that the landscaping will match the Radio Active site. The most problematic problem may be the back of Building 7. His concern is that the property to the west should of been subject to this Specific Plan. As it is not, it is right that this project is there first and the neighbor should design to be sensitive to this. However, this building will be visible from Highway 1 1 1 and no one knows when or how that property will be developed and, he believes, there needs to be a lot more relief. This could be done by landscaping. Also, Buildings 5 and 6 should have some architectural detail. 12. Commissioner Tyler stated he has the same concerns. The west wall of Building 7 will be visible for a long time and has no character. The same applies, to a lesser extent, to the rear of the other buildings. He is also concerned about the buildings all being painted with the earth tones which will make it drab. 1 3. Commissioner Abels stated he agrees with Commissioners Tyler and Kirk and Mr. Paul. There are a lot of things that could be done to enhance it. 14. Chairman Butler asked if the rear of the buildings should be reviewed in light of the buildings opening to a future project that should be buffered. He questioned whether the Commission should be concerned with a neighboring project. Staff stated yes, the Planning Commission can do so. Typically the Commission has reviewed all the elevations of a project. 'Chairman Butler stated the property across the street does not have the same concerns this tenant will have. If this is approved as it is, he has no objection to the interior elevations, but how do they address the adjoining projects. 1 5. Commissioner Abels suggested continuing the project and give the applicant time to address the concerns of the Commission. G :\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\4-8-03. wpd 9 Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 2003 16. Commissioner Tyler stated there has been a precedent set by other projects for controlling the rear' elevations that butt up to vacant property, such as the buildings on the east side of Dune Palms Road and the east end of the buildings at the Wal-Mart site. 17. The public hearing was reopened. 18. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Kirk to continue Tentative Parcel Map 31172 and Site Developmeht Permit 2003-761 to April 22, 2003, with the following recommendations to be addressed by the applicant: a. A. revised landscaping plan that is similar to the Radio Active site. b. The elevations shall be revised as follows. 1 .) Buildings 5 & 6 additional architectural detail shall be added to the rear of the building. 2.) Building 7 additional articulation and/or landscaping shall be added to the rear of the building. 3.) Buildings 1 and 2 shall be resubmitted with a better diagram and additional detail on the Highway 111 elevation. Unanimously approved. VII. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Continued - Appeal of Public Nuisance Cases 7397 and 7398; a request of Donald and Patricia Cross for consideration of an appeal of a Public Nuisance Determination for the property located at 78-570 Saguaro Road. 1. Commissioner Tyler informed the Commission that he and the applicant had been long term friends and he had discussed this case at length with City and therefore he feels he is unable to render an impartial objective opinion on this matter and requested to recuse himself and left the dais. 2. Chairman Butler asked for the staff report. Planning Manager Oscar Orci presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\4-8-03.wpd 10 Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 2003 3. There being no questions of staff, Chairman Butler asked if the appellant would like to address the Commission. Mrs. Cross, the appellant, stated they have tried to obtain a building permit on several occasions, but were unable to. They are asking for a waiver to allow the wall to be built at their own risk. 4. Commissioner Kirk asked for clarification as to whether or not it was a permanent wall. Mr. Cross stated it was permanent. Commissioner Kirk asked when the Code requirements changed. Staff stated approximately 1999. Commissioner Kirk asked if the appellant had approached the City prior to this time. Ms. Cross stated they had and were told the wall was exempt. They were told to bring in a drawing, which they did. They have receipts for building materials purchased prior to the new Code interpretation. They should have been given direction to specify what their alternatives were to get this wall approved. Commissioner Kirk stated he would uphold the appellants request as they did 'start this prior to the Code change. 5. 'Mr. John Hardcastle, Code Compliance Manager, stated that in December 1999, plans were submitted for'the wall. The plans were picked up by the appellant for corrections in December and resubmitted in May, 2000. The Building Code was in place at the time of resubmittal and knowledge was known by the Cross' that the requirement was to obtain a building permit for the wall prior to the construction of the wall. Staff first noticed the wall in November of 2002. Mr. Cross stated construction started on the wall on June 27, 2002. 6. Commissioner Kirk asked if the applicant knew a permit was needed and an engineered plan required. Mr. Cross stated they have been in constant communication with the City. They were told they would not receive a permit and to tear it down. He believes they should have the opportunity to improve the look of their property. 7. Commissioner Abels asked if the appellant was willing to tear the wall do.wn to the bottom plate. Mr. Cross stated he was willing to expose how it was constructed. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\4-8-O3.wpd 1 1 Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 2003 8. Chairman Butler stated the wall was constructed without a permit when they were required to tear it down. He realizes they have tried their best to meet the City's requests and asked if they could obtain an engineer's specifications on the wall. 9. Commissioner Kirk stated his understanding was that this type of construction is not even permitted by the City. Mr. Hardcastle stated this is not a typical wall allowed by the City. If the Cross's can obtain engineered specifications showing the wall to be safe, they will issue a permit. Staff is asking the Commission to uphold the public nuisance and if they are able to obtain the calcs, they will issue a permit. The City is concerned about the liability factor. 10. There being no further discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Kirk to uphold the appellant's request. The motion died for lack of a second. 11. Mr. Cross noted another wall that was approved at the same time he requested his. If the plans for this could be found, it would set a standard he could build to. 12. Chairman Butler asked if this was appealable to the City Council. City Attorney Kathy Jenson stated yes. 13. It was moved and seconded by Chairman Butler/Commissioner Abels to adopt Minute Motion 2003-008 denying the appeal of Public Nuisance Cases 7397 and 7398, as recommended. The motion carried with Commissioner Kirk voting no and Commissioner Tyler being absent. B. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2003-074, a request of staff for review of proposed changes to the Lighting Ordinance. 1. Chairman Butler asked for the staff report. Planning Manager Oscar Orci introduced the City's lighting consultant James Benya who presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Purposes of a Lighting Ordinance: a. Reduce sky glow; b. Reduce light trespass; and c. Improve the appearance and safety of the City at night. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\4-8-03.wpd 12: Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 2003 3. Problems with current regulations: a. Light pollution concepts are outdated; b. Current regulations require relatively high lighting levels; c. Not easily enforced; d. One standard for all parts of the City; e. Need to subdivide the City in four lighting zones; f. Need to increase certain types of lighting to be exempt; g. Change some of the prohibited lighting standards to prevent extremely bright or intense lighting; h. Address foot candles according to the project instead having a set standard; i. Shielding requirements based on wattage and lighting zones using the IES&A designations for the type of cutoff; j. Need to combine wattage limits and shielding; k. Height limits varied according to use; I. Need power limits on how many watts of light can be on. a site in accordance with Title 24, 2005 Outdoor Lighting Requirements. m. Need requirements on the measure of light that can trespass using a physically measure to determine the amount of light that can trespass. n. Need to adopt controls (Title 24, 2005 Outdoor Lighting Requirements) curfews in regard to parking lot lights. 4. Establish four Lighting Zones. a. Zone 1 - Natural settings, park areas; b. Zone 2 - Residential and rural areas; c. Zone 3 - Commercial Districts and high density living districts; and d. Zone 4 - Special High Density Commercial District 5. General changes to the Residential Outdoor Lighting standards: a. Modify residential lighting in regard to game court lighting; b. Exempting some types of lighting such as swimming pools, exits signs, individual Christmas tree lighting, etc; c. Shielding requirements for anything over 50 watts; d. Limit on luminar lights to 150 watts; e. Mounting heights modified; f. Sport courts; and g. Landscape lighting. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\4-8-O3.wpd 13 Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 2003 6. General changes to the Commercial Lighting standards: a. Adding lighting under canopies or covers to clarify. 7. Adding "Purpose" for the standards, 8. Applicability changes to let people know when they have to bring lighting into compliance. 9. Adding Definitions in regard to candle power, cutoff, etc., consistent with IES&A standards. 10. Add Regulations requiring them to comply with other applicable codes. 11. Expanded the Exempt Lighting list. 12. Prohibited Lighting Requirements. 1 3. Shielding Requirements for each of the different Zones. 14. Adding Lamp Wattage Limits. 15. Height limits for each of the different Zones 1 6. Setback requirements. 1 7. Exceptions. 1 8. Controlled Requirements. 1 9. Externally illuminated signs. 20. Special lighting systems dealt with on a case by case basis. 21. Enforcements. 22. Alternate methods and materials substitutions. 23. Special residential mitigation. 24. Temporary and Minor Use Permits. G :\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\4-8o03.wpd 14 Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 2003 25. Commissioner comments/questions: a. Commissioner Tyler suggested the curfew times take into consideration daylight savings time. How would the zones be determined. Mr. Benya stated the City Council would set the zones. b. Discussion of the placement of the Zones. c. Commissioner Kirk asked staff what direction the Commission was to take at this point. Staff stated the Commission should provide staff with any specific comments/changes they may have and staff would take those changes and incorporate them into the ordinance to bring back to the Commission at a public hearing for recommendation to the City Council. d. Commissioner Kirk questioned why the City would not be subject to its own lighting standards. Mr. Benya stated this is a common problem. An example is street lighting which is the biggest offender of light pollution and the City needs time to make changes t° those standards. CommissiOner. Kirk asked if everything that is already built would be exempt. Mr. Benya stated a gradual transition would take place over time. Commissioner Kirk recommended that as lights in the City are broken they be replaced with the new standards. Also, the difference between a tree light and a commercial center light. Mr. Benya explained the impact of each. Commissioner Kirk asked about the height standards to reduce spillage. Mr. Benya explained our standards are based on how much illumination we have on the surface. The cone of light tends to be four-five times the height. Then you need to address the adjacent conditions. It becomes a combination of pole height, cutoff, and then the mitigated circumstances. Commissioner Kirk suggested the reference to a Coast Guard facility be removed. e. Commissioner Tyler suggested defining high rise and Iow rise residential. Other suggestions would be given to staff. f. Staff informed the Commission that the next step would be to bring the Zone Map back to the Commission, then set the Lighting Ordinance for a public hearing. VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. G :\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\4-8-O3.wpd 15 Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 2003 IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Commissioner Abels gave a report of the City Council meeting of April 1, 2003. X. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held April 22, 2003, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 10:23 p.m. on April 8, 2003. ~'--'~'~Resp~~c~fully submitted, ~t~J~ ?.a~y.~r, Executive Secretary City of ~Qdinta, California G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\4-8-O3.wpd 16