Loading...
2006 08 08 PCT4,tit 4 4 Qum& Planning Commission Agendas are now available on the City's Web Page @ www.la-guinta.org PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California AUGUST 8, 2006 7:00 P.M. **NOTE** ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING Beginning Resolution 2006-028 Beginning Minute Motion 2006-021 I. CALL TO ORDER IL PUBLIC COMMENT This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled for public hearing. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your comments to three minutes. III. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 25, 2006. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\1 AgendaW.doc V. PUBLIC HEARING: For all Public Hearings on the Agenda, a completed "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Executive Secretary prior to the start of the Planning Commission consideration of that item. The Chairman will invite individuals who have requested the opportunity to speak, to come forward at the appropriate time. Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before a public hearing, may appear and be heard in support of, or in opposition to, the approval of the project(s) at the time of the hearing. If you challenge any project(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to the public hearing. A. Item ................ RIGHT -OF -WAY -CLOSURE 2005-013 Applicant ......... Borrego Resort Holdings, LLC Location .......... Portion of Calle Tampico near Avenida Villa Request ........... Consideration of a finding that the proposed right-of-way vacation is consistent with the General Plan. Action ............. Resolution 2006- B. Item ................ SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-862 Applicant ......... Highland La Quinta, LLC Location .......... North side of Highway 111, between Jefferson Street and Dune Palms Road Request ........... Consideration of architectural and landscaping plans for three commercial buildings in Phase 2 of the Dunes Business Park Action ............. Resolution 2006- VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None Vill. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Review of City Council meeting of June 20, 2006. B. Summer meeting schedule. IX. ADJOURNMENT: This meeting of the Planning Commission will be adjourned to a Regular Meeting to be held on September 12, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. GAWP000S\PC Minutes\1 AgendaW.doc DECLARATION OF POSTING I, Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary of the City of La Quinta, do hereby declare that the foregoing Agenda for the La Quinta Planning Commission meeting of Tuesday, August 8, 2006, was posted on the outside entry to the Council Chamber, 78-495 Calle Tampico and the bulletin board at the La Quinta Cove Post Office, on Friday, August 4, 2006. DATED: August 4, 2006 / F / BET- WYER, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California Public Notices The La Quinta City Council Chamber is handicapped accessible. If special equipment is needed for the hearing impaired, please call the City Clerk's office at 777-7123, twenty-four (24) hours in advance of the meeting and accommodations will be made. If special electronic equipment is needed to make presentations to the Planning Commission, arrangements should be made in advance by contacting the City Clerk's office at 777-7123. A one (1) week notice is required. If background material is to be presented to the Planning Commission during a Planning Commission meeting, please be advised that eight (8) copies of all documents, exhibits, etc., must be supplied to the Executive Secretary for distribution. It is requested that this take place prior to the beginning of the 7:00 p.m. meeting. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\1 AgendaMdoc MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA July 25, 2006 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 Quill who asked Commissioner Alderson to lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Ed Alderson, Katie Barrows, Rick Daniels, and Chairman Paul Quill. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Barrows to excuse Commissioner Engle. Unanimously approved. C. Election of Chair. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Alderson/Barrows to elect Paul Quill as Chair. There being no further nominations, Paul Quill was elected as Chair. D. Election of Vice Chair. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Barrows to elect Ed Alderson as Vice Chair. There being no further nominations, Ed Alderson was elected Vice Chair. E. Staff present: Community Development Director Doug Evans, Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston, Planning Manager Les Johnson, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed. IV. CONSENT ITEMS: A. Chairman Quill asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of the July 11, 2006 regular meeting. There being no changes to the minutes, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Alderson to approve the minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None. A. Tentative Tract Map 31910, Extension #1; a request of Desert Elite, Inc. for consideration of a one-year extension of time for a subdivision of approximately 38 acres into 130 single-family lots and other common lots for the property located on the west side of Monroe Street, north of Avenue 58. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2006\7-25-06.doc Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 2006 1. Chairman Quill opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Community Development Director Doug Evans presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Quill asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Daniels asked if time extensions could be streamlined to allow staff to approve them if there are no changes. Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston stated the Subdivision Map Act gives the life of a tentative tract a life of two years. It also allows an applicant to seek up to five years. The City's Zoning Code allows one year or more if the decision law so desires. Could this be done administratively, the Map Act could allow it, but the City's Subdivision Ordinance probably requires the Commission to allow the extension, because the Planning Commission and City Council approved it originally. Commissioner Daniels asked if there are no changes, could it be approved administratively. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated there are provisions in the Code for certain permits to be approved administratively. The practice in La Quinta is for them to go before the Commission and Council. Staff will review the Code and report back at the next meeting. 3. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Quill asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. John Pedalino, representing the applicant, stated the off -site sewer and water have been completed. The precise grading has been approved and once the extension is approved they are prepared to take the final map forward for approval. 4. There being no further public comment, the public participation portion of the hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 5. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Alderson to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2006-027, recommending approval of Tentative Tract Map 31910, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Barrows, Daniels, and Chairman Quill. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Engle. ABSTAIN: None. 2 Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 2006 B. Specific Plan 99-035, Amendment #1; a request of East of Madison, LLC for consideration of standard perimeter wall and planting plans for the property located south of Avenue 52 and east of Madison Street in the Madison Club. 1. Chairman Quill opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff noted the change to the conditions that staff made regarding the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee recommendation. 2. Chairman Quill asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Daniels asked how the height of this berm compares with the berm height along Avenue 52. Staff stated it is slightly higher. Community Development Director Doug Evans explained it was approved with a higher berm that the one on Avenue 52, but not as high as the berm for the Hideaway on Avenue 54. Commissioner Daniels stated he has a problem with the berm being this high. Staff clarified the height differences. 3. Commissioner Barrows asked if the berm height has been approved. Staff stated yes and the height is 16 feet at the westerly end along Avenue 52 at Madison Street. Easterly it will go down in height. Commissioner Barrows clarified the approval before them is only the landscaping and perimeter wall for that section along Avenue 52. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated the height of the berm has been approved and only the perimeter wall is back before the Commission. Staff has had extensive conversations with the applicant and adjacent property owners, but staff is working within the approved Specific Plan to reach a solution for everyone. Commissioner Barrows asked if the wall would be similar to what has been built on the Hideaway project. Discussion followed regarding the berm height and the location of the wall in relation to the berm. 4. Commissioner Alderson asked where the trees would be planted. Staff clarified the ALRC agreed with the trees being on top of the berm; however, staff is asking that they not be at the top but that large trees be planted near the toe of the berm. Commissioner Alderson asked staff to define what the "view corridors" were. Staff stated the area where the trees were not so thick that you could see the mountains through some of the open spaces. 3 Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 2006 5. Commissioner Barrows stated she took a tour of the City where the berm treatment has been used and does not believe it is effective in regard to drainage and erosion. Staff stated the berm is a maximum 3:1 slope, and at that grade it is a challenge. They will use drip irrigation for the plants. Commissioner Barrows asked if it will meet the City's Landscape Ordinance. Staff stated they will have to meet the requirements. 6. Commissioner Daniels asked when Madison Street would be completed. Staff asked that the applicant answer this question. 7. Chairman Quill noted there is significant turf at the entrance. Staff stated it is extensive, but for the overall project it is minimal. 8. Chairman Quill asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Jeff Provost, Madison LLC, stated the height of the berm has been engineered and they are working with staff to accomplish the undulation. In regard to the Conditions, they have a concern with Condition Nos. 7 and 8. They are trying to make a distinction between this project and the Hideaway. The view corridor issue to them seems unimportant due to the speed at which you would be traveling along the street. As the trees grow there will be openings between the trees to give the view corridor wanted by staff. In regard to the height limitation for the trees, how are you able to measure the trees and who will cut the top off of the trees when they exceed the height. They do anticipate starting construction along Madison Street within the next four to six months. The wall and berm will undulate and there are very few instances where the wall will be right at the top of the berm. 9. Commissioner Alderson asked if a different variety would be used to reach the desired height. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated that in the design aspect of the planting, if the proposed tree will reach a height of over 30 feet, staff will ask that a different species be used. Discussion followed regarding the location and height of the trees in relation to the berm. 10. Commissioner Daniels asked if the Commission added a condition that the average height of the wall would not exceed the height of the berm, would this be an issue. Mr. Provost stated they would have to look at the plans, but he believes they could do this. 11. Chairman Quill stated this may bring the wall into the setback area. He asked if the wall landscaping and wall would be done in advance of the sidewalk. Mr. Provost stated he is not aware of El Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 2006 the construction schedule, but he does not believe they would want to do this before that street improvements are completed on Avenue 52. Chairman Quill asked if there was a multi -purpose trail on Madison Street between Avenue 52 and Avenue 54. Staff stated they believe there is a trail on one side of the street. Chairman Quill asked if the landscaping for Madison Street will be submitted in conjunction with the Hideaway side of Madison Street. Staff stated the Commission could request to have the Madison Street landscaping plans for the east side or both set could be brought back. Chairman Quill stated he is not necessarily interested in seeing the entire length of the street, but he would like to see the multi -purpose trail and how it fits in and how it relates to both sides. He is very concerned about the Hideaway side because he has never seen those plans. He does not want to create a tunnel. Mr. Provost stated their berm on Madison Street is not even half the height of the Hideaway project. Staff stated there is a multi -purpose trail on the east side of Madison Street. Staff reviewed the setbacks as they relate to where the wall can be constructed. Chairman Quill asked about the plans for Monroe Street that were included in their packet. Staff stated they are concepts and are not before the Commission for approval. 12. Commissioner Barrows asked for clarification that the plan before them will be repeated on Avenue 52 and Monroe Street. Mr. Provost stated it will have undulation but, it is not completed. Community Development Director Doug Evans drew a diagram on the plans to explain the setback, building envelope, berm, and wall design. 13. Commissioner Daniels stated his concern was to not have a tunnel effect as you drive down Madison Street between Avenue 52 and Avenue 54. Staff suggested those plans be brought back to the Commission. 14. Chairman Quill asked if there was any other public comment. Dr. Tim Vail, property owner across the street, stated this is going to appear to be the wall of "King Kong". He was not notified of this public hearing and would ask that this hearing be continued until the berm issue has been resolved. It appears the wall is at the top of the berm for the entire length of the street. Why can the wall not be closer to the street for security. The current height limits the views for the neighbors to the north. They are working to have assurance the berm does not exceed the height that was approved. F Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 2006 15. Staff requested a five minute recess. Chairman Quill recessed the meeting at 8:18 p.m. and reconvened at 8:28 p.m. 16. There being no further public comment, the public participation portion of the hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 17. Community Development Director Doug Evans clarified that the item on the agenda is listed as an amendment to the Specific Plan and that is not the case. The request is for review of the perimeter wall and landscaping. It should have been listed as a business item and not a public hearing which does not require notification of the surrounding property owners. Staff believes the berms comply with the Specific Plan with some minor increases that are minor design changes. From the standpoint of whether notices should have been mailed, they would not have been mailed. The project was heard as a public hearing with public testimony the same as it would have been if it were listed as a Business Item. A complete set of the plans, agenda, and staff report were sent to the attorney that represents Dr. Vail. The proceeding would have occurred exactly as they have occurred. 18. Commissioner Daniels asked where the berm is measured from along Avenue 52. Staff stated the intent, and it was checked, was from the top of the curb. Commissioner Daniels noted the berm at 16 feet has been approved, but he does not want to take any action that would increase the height. He would want to limit the wall to not exceed the height of the berm. He agrees with the taller vegetation and trees being lowered off the top of the berm. For clarification, this Commission is not only concerned with the driving public but, also the neighbor to the project. 19. Commissioner Barrows stated her concurrence with Commissioner Daniels suggestions. 20. Chairman Quill stated the limiting of the height of the berm is negligent when you consider when the landscaping reaches maturity as it will exceed the height of the berm and wall. 21. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Barrows to adopt Minute Motion 2006- 018, approving Specific Plan 99-035 Amendment No. 1, as recommended and amended including 7 and 8: 31 Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 2006 a. Condition added: At no place shall the top of the wall exceed the 16 foot height limit of the berm even if it extends into the setback area. The details of the perimeter plans for Madison Street be brought back to the Commission. b. Condition added: Multi -use trail design and materials along Madison Street shall be brought back to the Commission. Motion carried with Commissioner Barrows voting no. C. Site Development Permit 2006-864; a request of Tahiti Partners Real Esate Development Corporation for consideration of architectural and landscaping plans for two prototypical residential plans for use in Tract 24890-1 located on the east side of Mandarina south of Pomelo in the citrus project. 1. Chairman Quill opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. There being no questions of staff, Chairman Quill asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Phil Larson, representing the applicant, stated he was available to answer any questions. 3. Commissioner Alderson asked if the roof material would be mudded and boosted for the roof. Mr. Larson stated yes and the walls would be a slick smooth trowel finish. He did ask that Condition No. 9 for no turf be removed as they have been requested by the Homeowners' Association to maintain continuity with the front yard landscaping for the remainder of the Citrus. 4. Mr. Robert Crowell, 79-890 Citrus Street, president of HOA stated they support the project and the removal of Condition No. 9. They have been working with the applicant but, have not seen the landscaping plans. Also, they did not receive any notification of the public hearing. Staff noted it is a normal process of staff to ask the applicant to obtain approval of the HOA before staff renders their approval. 5. There being no further public comment, the public participation portion of the hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 7 Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 2006 6. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Barrows/Alderson to adopt Minute Motion 2006-019, approving Site Development Permit 2006-864, as recommended and amended: a. Condition added: The applicant shall submit HOA comments on the landscaping plans to staff prior to final approval. b. Condition No. 9: add: "artificial turf can be used." Unanimously approved. D. Site Development Permit 2006-863; a request of Innovative Communities for consideration of architectural and landscaping plans for three prototypical residential plans for use in Tract 34243 located on the north side of Avenue 58 west of Madison Street. 1. Chairman Quill opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff asked that a condition be added to require boulders and shrub material be added to the retention basin. 2. Chairman Quill asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Barrows asked if there was a gate from the homes to the area. Staff stated no. Commissioner Barrows asked if the pathways were wide enough for pedestrian and bicycle use. Staff stated it is a tight sidewalk. A pedestrian would have to step out of the way of the bicycle rider. 3. Chairman Quill asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Brad Foman, Innovative Communities, stated there is access from the north and south and east and west of the project but, not from the individual homes. The walkway is not intended for bicyclists, but pedestrian. They would be sensitive to benches and clustering as suggested by staff. They are prepared to cluster the plant material as requested by the ALRC. 4. There being no further public comment, the public participation portion of the hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. I Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 2006 VI Wl K4 5. Commissioner Daniels agrees with staff's suggestions for boulders and benches in the retention basin. 6. Chairman Quill stated his concern that the last time this project was before them, the Commission asked for more innovation and again the Commission is asking for additional treatment. 7. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Barrows/Alderson to adopt Minute Motion 2006-020, approving Site Development Permit 2006-863, as recommended and amended: a. Condition added: Enhancement of landscaping area including boulders, shrub material, benches, etc., shall be added to the retention basin as recommended by staff. b . Condition added: An option shall be offered for no turf landscaping. C. Condition added: There shall be adequate nuisance water drainage so there are no muck basins in the recreation basin. Motion carried with Chairman Quill voting no. BUSINESS ITEMS: None. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Staff informed the Commission they were working on standard programs for the City for walls and berms. This will also be tied into the Vista Santa Rosa area as well. Staff is preparing a Request for Proposals to draft a set of standard. B. Staff informed the Commission that in a quick review, it appears time extensions, which no changes to the conditions, can be approved by staff. Staff will review past practice to see if there is a reason for bringing them before the Commission. C. Commissioners reviewed the City Council meeting of July 18, 2006. 0 Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 2006 X. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Alderson/Barrows to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held on August 8, 2006. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. on July 25, 2006. Respectfully submitted, Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California 10 FH STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: AUGUST 8, 2006 CASE NO.: RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION 2005-013 REQUEST: REPORT OF FINDING UNDER CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65402 THAT THE PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION OF A + 420 SQ. FT. PORTION OF CALLE TAMPICO IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN LOCATION: PORTION OF CALLE TAMPICO NEAR AVENIDA VILLA APPLICANT: BORREGO RESORT HOLDINGS LLC BACKGROUND: Pursuant to State Law', the "Planning Agency" shall make a finding that the proposed vacation is consistent with the City's General Plan and Circulation Element for any street right -of -way or public easements being vacated by the City Council. The planning agency in this case is the Planning Commission. Due to the realignment of Calle Tampico, as shown on Attachment 1, Calle Tampico contains a portion of right-of-way that is no longer required. This portion of right-of-way is specifically described in Attachment 2 and 3 and is not needed by other property owners for access, or improved accessibility. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: The proposed vacation is categorically exempt under Section 15305, and not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). PUBLIC AGENCY COMMENTS: On September 21, 2005 and December 2, 2005, staff mailed notices to potentially affected public utility agencies and public agencies, respectively, informing them of the proposed vacation. If the utility companies respond with requests for easements to continue operation and maintenance of existing public utilities, a utility easement will be reserved. To date, no objection to the right of way vacation has been received. Government Code Section 65402 PAReports - PC\2006\8-8-06\Right of way\StaffReport.doc FINDINGS: 1. The proposed right-of-way vacation will have no environmental effects that adversely impact the human population, either directly or indirectly because the street segment is currently unused by the public and inaccessible to vehicles; and secondly, the act of vacating the right-of-way will have no physical environmental effect. 2. The right-of-way vacation will not impact public utility agencies, provided easements are retained for the continued maintenance and operation of existing public utilities. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2006- finding that Right -of -Way Vacation 2005- 013 is consistent with the La Quinta General Plan. Attachments: 1. - Calle Tampico Street Plan 2. - Plat Map 3. - Legal Description Prepared by: BRIAN CHING, Associate ngineer P:\Reports - PC\2006\8-8-06\Right of way\StaffReport.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA THAT THE PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION OF A + 420 SQ. FT. PORTION OF CALLE TAMPICO IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN CASE NO.: RIGHT OF WAY VACATION 2005-013 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 8T" day of August, 2006, consider the request for right-of-way vacation of a portion of Calle Tampico near Avenida Villa; and, WHEREAS, State Government Code Section 65402 requires that prior to streets being vacated by the City Council, the Planning Commission make a finding that the proposed right-of-way vacation is consistent with the City's General Plan; and, WHEREAS, said Planning Commission did make the following Mandatory Finding confirming that the proposed street vacation is consistent with the City's General Plan: 1. The proposed right-of-way vacation will have no environmental effects that adversely impact the human population, either directly or indirectly, because the street segment is currently unused by the public and inaccessible to vehicles; and secondly, the act of vacating the right-of-way will have no physical environmental effect. 2. The right-of-way vacation will not impact public utility agencies, provided easements are retained for the continued maintenance and operation of existing public utilities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does find the proposed Right -of -Way Vacation 2005-013, as shown on the Attachments 1 and 2, are consistent with the City's General Plan for the reasons set forth in this Resolution. PAReports - PC\2006\8-8-06\Right of way\Reso.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2006_ Right -of -Way Vacation 2005-013 August 8, 2006 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 8TR day of August, 2006, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: PAUL QUILL, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: DOUGLAS R. EVANS Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California P:\Reports - PC\2006\8-8-06\Right of way\Reso.doc ATTACHMENT' � Fr«♦ A � IP p��w ��� ��� 4�' ti —� rY �° i� is rr• tit �p )� � S •r.•t• 1 di 1 • E• 1 . I r' • r'A �YY ti n ..« u l • �y'�e`! 1, k lr'•' 7y . Ar>, . � !, �iSY, £r„�s�Ha.` 1 witq y .,. ......._..,. � '8 i �- x _fi 0 f� It •�i a •n kC 8 Y iA i� r ff �$ Pit P g ri d VY: a �-».._ �• il•�r-•J � �z.. yj _t Y _ '.,� _ IY^��� 'n �xdF+'ll� •!T__ � 4 •. y •r ... .�'ka lI .i" ��}[�}^�y$�^ _ t�Q + I $FE 311F.Ft 14 4 L ATTACHMENT 2.. o� A VENIDA VILLA N O'04'38"W y v N 11 O � V (n V x 32.03' of 6t _GN � O ■ I 'V �/ tT 00 A I �✓ 9 ZD r• m R' ocon� 09 n ZIN10 r 0 1 N 00'0456V J� z o n 2 m oce o Z o ATTACHMENT RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION AREA TO BE VACATED ---PARCEL C A PARCEL OF LAND IN A PORTION OF UNIT NO, 14 OF THE SANTA CARMELITA AT VALE LA QUINTA TRACT, AS RECORDED IN BOOK 18 PAGES 82 AND 83 OF TRACTS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; ALSO BEING A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE -QUARTER OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 6 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT I 1 OF THE SANTA CARMELITA AT VALE LA QUINTA NO. 14 TRACT AS RECORDED IN MAP BOOK 18 PAGES 82 AND 83 OF TRACTS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; THENCE NORTH 890 56' 26" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 63.92 FEET TO A POINT ON A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTHWEST AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,250.00 FEET, A RADIAL TO SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 120 15' 00" WEST; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 02° 05' 47", A DISTANCE OF 45.74 FEET; THENCE NORTH 770 39' 45" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 19.49 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 000 04' 56" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 19.14 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIPTION. CONTAINS 419.95 SQ.FT.(0.0096 ACRES) MORE OR LESS. C 25658 < Exp.12-31-05 pG� PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: AUGUST 8, 2006 CASE NO: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-862 APPLICANT: HIGHLAND LA QUINTA, LLC ARCHITECT: KKE ARCHITECTS (MARK GILES) LOCATION: NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 111, BETWEEN JEFFERSON STREET AND DUNE PALMS ROAD REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR THREE COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS IN PHASE 2 OF THE DUNES BUSINESS PARK ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THE REQUEST HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY ASSESSED IN CONJUNCTION WITH ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2005-553 PREPARED FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-822 WHICH WAS CERTIFIED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON JUNE 14, 2005. NO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS ARE PROPOSED, OR NEW INFORMATION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED WHICH WOULD TRIGGER THE PREPARATION OF A SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21166. ZONING: CR (REGIONAL COMMERCIAL) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: M/RC (MIXED REGIONAL COMMERCIAL) SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USES: NORTH: FP / FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL SOUTH: CR / RETAIL CENTER UNDER CONSTRUCTION EAST: CR / RETAIL CENTER WEST: CR/VACANT PAReports - PC\2006\8-8-06\SDP 2006-862 Highland Iq\sdp 2006-862 pc rpt.doc BACKGROUND: The total project site is approximately 6.38 acres and located immediately west of the shopping center that houses Jack -in -the -Box, Smart and Final, 99 Cents Only, and other retail users (Attachment 1). The first phase of the project was approved in June, 2005 with 36,000 square feet of floor space in one inline structure near the back half of the property. Foundation installation for the first phase construction is under way. The preliminary architectural and landscaping plans have been submitted for the second and last phase of the project, which consists of approximately 2.7 of the 6.38 acre site abutting Highway 111. Power poles run next to and parallel to Highway 111. These poles are required to be undergrounded. Jack -in -the -Box is immediately east of proposed Building 3 and has constructed a combined retaining and garden wall along the property line. The pad elevation of this proposed building is approximately 5'-6' lower than the adjacent Jack -in -the -Box. PROJECT PROPOSAL AND DISCUSSION: The proposal includes three freestanding pad buildings along the front of the project site adjacent to Highway 111 (Attachment 2). The architectural style of the buildings is "Desert Contemporary and consistent with that approved for the first phase construction in 2005. Exterior building materials include a float finish exterior plaster, slate veneer, maroon colored metal awnings, and red blend concrete S-tile roofing. Exterior colors will consist of earth tones, including garnet and two shades of green. The material sample board will be available at the meeting. Roof tile use is limited to small square tower features on each building. Each building is proposed to have at least one trellis over a portion of the building wall. Building heights of the primarily flat roof buildings are generally 22' or lower except for the tower features which are proposed at 24', 25' and 29' +. The parking lot has been designed to be compatible and tie in with the previously approved Phase 1 development. No additional direct access to Highway 111 is proposed. A previously approved drive to Highway 111 is located to the west of Building 1 and two driveways in the Phase 1 area tie into the center to the east. Parking spaces required is 112 for this phase with 119 spaces provided. The total project requires 292 parking spaces with 298 spaces provided. Buildings 1 and 2, the two westerly buildings will each have individual drive-thru lanes that wrap around the buildings. Although both buildings are multi -tenant, the drive-thru lanes will be used by the easterly most tenant of each building only. A preliminary landscaping plan has been submitted for the project. The plan shows specific trees, shrub and groundcover details. Most of the planting is in the parking lot area or next to the drive-thru lanes with some palm trees proposed adjacent to building 2. A plant palette for trees, shrubs and groundcover is included. PAReports - PC\2006\8-8-06\SDP 2006-862 Highland Iq\sdp 2006-862 pc rpt.doc The drive-thru lanes are proposed to be screened from Highway 111 by a combination of berms, a continuous decorative screen wall and planting. A series of 4' high berms is proposed adjacent to the drive thru lane areas of buildings 1 and 2 facing Highway. Where the berm is not provided a 4' high decorative block wall is proposed. The plan notes that the drive-thru lane is lowered one foot below the base of the berm. The result is that there will be a continuous 5' of screening of vehicles in the lane provided. Additionally, immediately south of the lane, adjacent to most of the drive-thru lane, there will be a hedge of 5 gallon Texas Ranger shrubs planted. South of the berm and wall is a landscape setback planted in various shrubs, groundcovers and trees. This frontage immediately adjacent to Highway 111 is included in the Phase 1 landscaping plans and is not a part of this applicant's property, but is designed by the same landscape architect to ensure consistency in design. No sign program has been submitted to date for the center. However, the elevations indicate proposed sign locations. The sign program is required to be submitted and approved for Phase 1 and will apply to this proposal as well. ISSUES: The two drive-thru lanes will be provided with 5' of effective wall/berm screening adjacent to Highway 111. Additional landscaping will be provided on and around the berming. This amount of screening is consistent will other recently approved drive-thru's on Highway 111 (i.e. Chick-fil-A and Wells Fargo). Condition of Approval 54E is recommended to address this requirement. The freestanding buildings are within the 150 foot setback distance where building heights are restricted to 22 feet. The main buildings comply with this requirement. As noted, the buildings all have one small tower feature higher than 22 feet. In the past, tower, spire and other non floor area features have been allowed to exceed 22 feet to allow for architectural interest. Condition of Approval 63C is recommended to address this requirement. During Architectural and Landscaping review Staff indicated a need to provide additional articulation to the building elevations. Staff recommended that the popout projections be increased to a minimum 4' on the south elevations facing Highway 111 and 3' on the other elevations with the exception of the east side of Building 3 which is adjacent to Jack-in-the-box and will be approximately 3' below their finish grade. Condition of Approval 63A is recommended to address this requirement. It should be noted that increasing the popouts may require changes to the site design, grading, building size, etc. if the increase encroaches into an aisle, walkway, etc. PAReports - PC\2006\8-8-06\SDP 2006-862 Highland Iq\sdp 2006-862 pc rpt.doc While the perimeter Highway 111 landscape area is not a part of this applicant responsibility, it will be necessary for the landscaping plans to be coordinated to ensure that the berming and landscaping flows together. A sign program for the Center has been required to be submitted for Planning Commission approval for Phase 1. To date, it has not been submitted. ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE: The Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee (ALRC) reviewed this request at their meeting of July 12, 2006 and recommended approval of the architectural and landscaping plans, subject to staff recommended conditions with several revisions, including requiring the several trellises be a composite material or metal (Attachment 3). PUBLIC NOTICE: These applications were advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on July 29, 2006. All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the Public Hearing notice as required by the La Quinta Municipal Code. As of this writing, no comments have been received. SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FINDINGS: The findings needed to approve this Site Development Permit, as noted in the Zoning Code, can be made as stipulated in the attached Resolution, subject to the Conditions of Approval. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2006- approving Site Development Permit 2006-862, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Development Plans 3. Minutes of Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee meeting of July 12, 2006 Prepared by: Stan Sawa, Principal Planner P:\Reports - PC\2006\8-8-06\SDP 2006-862 Highland Iq\sdp 2006-862 pc rpt.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- RESOLUTION OF THE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR PHASE 2 OF A SHOPPING CENTER LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 111, BETWEEN JEFFERSON STREET AND DUNE PALMS ROAD CASE: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-862 APPLICANT: HIGHLAND LA QUINTA, LLC WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California did, on the 8th day of August, 2006, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a request by Highland La Quinta, LLC for approval of architectural and landscaping plans for three commercial buildings in phase 2 of the Dunes Business Park in the CR (Regional Commercial) zone district, more particularly described as: APN: Portion of 649-020-014 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department published a public hearing notice in the Desert Sun newspaper on July 29, 2006 as prescribed by the Municipal Code. Public hearing notices were also mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the site; and WHEREAS, the La Quinta Community Development Department has determined that the request has been previously assessed in conjunction with Environmental Assessment 2005-553 prepared for Site Development Permit 2005- 822 which was certified by the Planning Commission on June 14, 2005. No changed circumstances or conditions are proposed, or new information has been submitted which would trigger the preparation of a subsequent environmental review pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21 166; and WHEREAS, at the Public Hearing upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following Mandatory Findings to justify approval of said Site Development Permit: 1. The General Plan designates the project area as Regional Commercial. The proposed commercial buildings are consistent with this land use designation. 2. The proposed commercial buildings are designed to comply with the Zoning Code requirements, including, but not limited to, height limits, parking, and lot coverage. PAReports - PC\2006\8-8-06\SDP 2006-862 Highland Iq\sdp 2006-862 pc res.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2006- Site Development Permit 2006-862 Highland La Quints, LLC Adopted: Page 2 3. The Community Development Department has determined this project has previously been assessed with a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact certified, and no further environmental review is required. 4. The architectural design of the project, including, but not limited to the architectural style, scale, building mass, materials, colors, architectural details, roof style, and other architectural elements are compatible with the surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the City. 5. The site design of the project, including, but not limited to project entries, interior circulation, pedestrian and bicycle access, pedestrian amenities, screening of equipment and trash enclosures, exterior lighting, and other site design elements are compatible with surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the City. 6. Project conceptual landscaping, including, but not limited to the location, type, size, color, texture, and coverage of plant materials has been designed and conditioned to provide relief, compliment buildings, visually emphasize prominent design elements and vistas, screen undesirable views, provide a harmonious transition between adjacent land uses and between development and open space, provide an overall unifying influence, enhance the visual continuity of the project, and compliment the surrounding project area, ensuring lower maintenance and water use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of said Planning Commission in this case; and 2. That it does hereby approve Site Development Permit 2006-862, for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 81h day of August, 2006, by the following vote, to wit: P:\Reports - PC\2006\8-8-06\SDP 2006-862 Highland Iq\sdp 2006-862 pc res.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2006- Site Development Permit 2006-862 Highland La Quints, LLC Adopted: Page 3 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PAUL QUILL, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: DOUGLAS R. EVANS Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California PAReports - PC\2006\8-8-06\SDP 2006-862 Highland Iq\sdp 2006-862 pc res.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2006- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2006-862 Highland La Quinta, LLC Adopted: GENERAL 1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of La Quinta ("City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Site Development Permit. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the City, the applicant shall obtain any necessary clearances and/or permits from the following agencies: Fire Marshal Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Green Sheet (Public Works Clearance) for Building Permits, Improvement Permit) Community Development Department Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department Desert Sands Unified School District Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) Imperial Irrigation District (IID) o California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) o SunLine Transit Agency o SCAQMD Coachella Valley o Caltrans The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances from the above listed agencies. When the requirements include approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when submitting those improvements plans for City approval. 3. A project -specific NPDES construction permit must be obtained by the applicant; an, who then shall submit a copy of the Regional Water Quality Control Board's ("RWQCB") acknowledgment of the applicant's Notice of Intent ("NOI"), prior to the issuance of a grading or site construction permit by the City. P:\stan\sdp\sdp 2006-862 pc coa.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2006- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2006-862 Highland La Quinta, LLC Adopted: 4. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit, Sections 8.70.010 et seq. (Stormwater Management and Discharge Controls), and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water), LQMC; Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; and the State Water Resources Control Board's Order No. 99-08- DWQ. Additionally, the applicant shall comply with Conditions of Approval for Parcel Map No. 31143. A. For construction activities including clearing, grading or excavation of land that disturbs one (1) acre or more of land, or that disturbs less than one (1) acre of land, but which is a part of a construction project that encompasses more than one (1) acre of land, the Permitee shall be required to submit a Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan ("SWPPP"). The applicant or design professional can obtain the California Stormwater Quality Association SWPPP template at www.cabmphandbooks.com for use in their SWPPP preparation. B. The applicant's SWPPP shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any on or off -site grading being done in relation to this project. C. The applicant shall ensure that the required SWPPP is available for inspection at the project site at all times through and including acceptance of all improvements by the City. D. The applicant's SWPPP shall include provisions for all of the following Best Management Practices ("BMPs") (8.70.020 (Definitions), LQMC): 1) Temporary Soil Stabilization (erosion control). 2) Temporary Sediment Control. 3) Wind Erosion Control. 4) Tracking Control. 5) Non -Storm Water Management. 6) Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control. E. All erosion and sediment control BMPs proposed by the applicant shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any onsite or offsite grading, pursuant to this project. P:\stan\sdp\sdp 2006-862 pc coa.doc Printed August 4, 2006 Page 2 Manning Commission Resolution 2006- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2006-862 Highland La Quints, LLC Adopted: F. The approved SWPPP and BMPs shall remain in effect for the entire duration of project construction until all improvements are completed and accepted by the City. 5. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permit(s). PROPERTY RIGHTS 6. Prior to issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire or confer easements and other property rights necessary for the construction or proper functioning of the p•oposed development. Conferred rights shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for emergency services and for maintenance, construction and reconstruction of essential improvements. 7. The applicant shall offer for dedication all public street right-of-ways in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and/or as required by the City Engineer. 8. The public street right-of-way offers for dedication required for this development include: A. PUBLIC STREETS 1) Highway 1 1 1 (Major Arterial - State Highway, 140' ROW) - No additional right-of-way is required for the standard 70 feet from the centerline of Highway 1 1 1 for a total 140-foot ultimate developed right- of-way except for additional right-of-way for an exclusive right turn only/deceleration lane at the shared entry at the westerly property line as determined by Caltrans and as conditioned under STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS. Additional right-of-way is required at curb returns along Highway 111 per La Quinta Standard 225 or as required by the City Engineer. 9. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and left turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved construction plans. Pursuant to this requirement, the Applicant shall include in the submittal packet containing the draft final map submitted for map checking, an offsite street geometric layout, drawn at 1 " equals 40 feet, detailing the following design aspects: median curb line, outside curb line, lane line alignment including lane widths, left turn lanes, P:\stan\sdp\sdp 2006-862 pc coa.doc Pdnted August 4. 2006 Page 3 Planning Commission Resolution 2006- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2006-862 Highland La Quinta, LLC Adopted: deceleration lane(s) and bus stop turnout(s). The geometric layout shall be accompanied with sufficient professional engineering studies to confirm the appropriate length of all proposed turn pockets and auxiliary lanes that may impact the right-of-way dedication required of the project and the associated landscape setback requirement, 10. The applicant shall create perimeter landscaping setbacks along all public right-of- ways as follows: A. Highway 111 - 50-foot from the R/W-P/L. The setback requirements shall apply to all frontages including, but not limited to, remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes. Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks, the applicant shall offer for dedication blanket easements for those purposes on the Parcel Map. 11. At locations where the onsite finished grade adjacent to the landscaped setback lot has an elevation differential with respect to the arterial street top of curb exceeding 5-feet, the applicant shall comply with, and accommodate, the maximum slope gradients in the parkway/setback area and meandering sidewalk requirements by either: 1) increasing the landscape setback size as needed, or 2) installing retaining walls between the sidewalk and the back of the landscaped area as needed. 12. The applicant shall offer for dedication those easements necessary for the placement of, and access to, utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, and common areas on the Parcel Map. 13. Direct vehicular access to Highway 111 from lots with frontage along Highway 1 1 1 is restricted except for those access points identified on the tentative parcel map, or as otherwise conditioned in these conditions of approval. The vehicular access restriction shall be shown on the recorded parcel map. 14. The applicant shall grant any easements necessary for the adjoining parcel(s) to construct and use the shared entry drive on Highway 1 1 1 . 15. If the approved access drives are located in whole or in part on the adjoining parcel(s), the applicant shall furnish proof of easements for construction and use of drives on those parcels, including the recordation of a reciprocal access agreement. 16. When the City Engineer determines that access rights to the proposed street rights - of -way shown on the approved Parcel Map No. 31143, the applicant shall grant the necessary right-of-ways within 60 days of a written request by the City. P:\stan\sdp\sdp 2006-862 pc coa.doc Printed August 4, 2006 Page Planning Commission Resolution 2006- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2006-862 Highland La Quints, LLC Adopted: 17. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements, or written permission, as appropriate, from those owners of all abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments will occur. 18. The applicant shall cause no easement to be granted, or recorded, over any portion of the subject property between the date of approval of the Tentative Tract Map and the date of recording of any Final Map, unless such easement is approved by the City Engineer. 19. The applicant shall provide reciprocal easements necessary for the adjoining parcel(s) to construct and use the shared entry drive to Highway 1 1 1 along the west property line of Parcel Map No. 31143 as well as to proposed parking and access drive associated with this Site Development Permit. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENTS 20. When improvements are phased through a "Phasing Plan," or an administrative approval (e.g., Site Development Permits), all off -site improvements and common on - site improvements (e.g., backbone utilities, retention basins, perimeter walls, landscaping and gates) shall be constructed prior to the issuance of any permits in the first phase of the development, or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer unless said improvements are secured under Tentative Parcel Map 31143. Improvements and obligations required of each subsequent phase shall be completed prior to the occupancy of permanent buildings within such latter phase, or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. In the event the applicant fails to construct the improvements for the development, or fails to satisfy its obligations for the development in a timely manner, pursuant to the approved phasing plan, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of all permits, and/or final inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of the project, or call upon the surety to complete the improvements. 21. Should the applicant fail to construct the improvements for the development, or fail to satisfy its obligations for the development in a timely manner, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of building permits, and/or final building inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of the project, or call upon the surety to complete the improvements. IMPROVEMENT PLANS As used throughout these Conditions of Approval, professional titles such as "engineer," "surveyor," and "architect," refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their respective professions in the State of California. P:\stan\sdp\sdp 2006-862 pc coa.doc Pdnted August 4. 2006 Page 5 Planning Commission Resolution 2006- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2006-862 Highland La Quinta, LLC Adopted: 22. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified engineers and/or architects, as appropriate, and shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.040 (Improvement Plans), LQMC. 23. The following improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Department. A separate set of plans for each line item specified below shall be prepared. The plans shall utilize the minimum scale specified, unless otherwise authorized by the City Engineer in writing. Plans may be prepared at a larger scale if additional detail or plan clarity is desired. Note, the applicant may be required to prepare other improvement plans not listed here pursuant to improvements required by other agencies and utility purveyors. A. On -Site Commercial Precise Grading Plan 1 " = 30' Horizontal B. On -Site Storm Drainage Plans C. PM10 Plan 1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " = 4' Vertical 1 " = 40' Horizontal NOTE: Items A through C to be submitted concurrently. On -Site Storm Drainage Plans shall include all necessary connections to the Storm Drain D. Off -Site Street Improvement/Storm Drain Plan 1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " = 4' Vertical E. Off -Site Signing & Striping Plan 1 " = 40' Horizontal F. Perimeter Landscaping Plan 1 " = 20' Horizontal G. Meandering Sidewalk Plan 1 " = 20' Horizontal NOTE: Items D through G to be submitted concurrently if not plans have not been submitted for said improvements under Parcel Map No. 31143. Caltrans approval required for all work within Highway 111 right-of-way. Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not listed above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to commencing plan preparation. The applicant shall prepare an accessibility assessment on annotated print of the building floor plan identifying every building egress and notes the 2001 California Building Code accessibility requirements associated with each door. The assessment must comply with submittal requirements of the Building & Safety Department. A P:\stan\sdp\sdp 2006-862 pc coa.doc Printed August 4, 2006 Page Planning Commission Resolution 2006- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2006-862 Highland La Quinta, LLC Adopted: copy of the reviewed assessment shall be submitted to the Engineering Department in conjunction with this Site Development Plan when it is submitted for plan checking. "Precise Grading" plans shall normally include all on -site surface improvements including but not necessarily limited to finish grades for curbs & gutters, building floor elevations, parking lot improvements and ADA requirements, retaining and perimeter walls, etc. ADA accessibility to public streets, adjacent buildings and existing and proposed handicap parking shall be shown on the Precise Grading Plans at a scale to be determined by the Public Works Department. Precise Grading Plans shall also require approval by the Community Development and Building and Safety Departments. 24, The City maintains standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction notes for elements of construction which can be accessed via the Online Engineering Library at the City website (www.la-quinta.org). Navigate to the Public Works Department home page and look for the Online Engineering Library hyperlink. 25. The applicant shall furnish a complete set of the AutoCAD files of all approved improvement plans on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall be saved in a standard AutoCAD format so they may be fully retrievable through a basic AutoCAD program. At the completion of construction, and prior to the final acceptance of the improvements by the City, the applicant shall update the AutoCAD files in order to reflect the as -built conditions. Where the improvement plans were not produced in a standard AutoCAD format, or a file format that can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the City Engineer will accept raster -image files of the plans. GRADING 26. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading Improvements), LQMC. 27. Prior to occupancy of the project site for any construction, or other purposes, the applicant shall obtain a grading permit approved by the City Engineer. 28. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval of all of the following: A. A grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer, B. A preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report prepared by a qualified engineer, P:\stan\sdp\sdp 2006-862 pc coa.doc Printed August 4, 2006 Page 7 'fanning Commission Resolution 2006- ;onditions of Approval - Recommended ;its Development Permit 2006-862 4ighland La Quints, LLC 4dopted: C. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16, (Fugitive Dust Control), LQMC, and D. A Best Management Practices report prepared in accordance with Sections 8.70.010 and 13.24.170 (NPDES stormwater discharge permit and Storm Management and Discharge Controls), LQMC. All grading shall conform to the recommendations contained in the Preliminary Soils Report, and shall be certified as being adequate by a soils engineer, or by an engineering geologist. A statement shall appear on applicable improvement plans that a soils report has been prepared in accordance with the California Health & Safety Code § 17953, The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, and in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the approved Fugitive Dust Control Plan provisions as submitted with its application for a grading permit. 29. The applicant shall maintain all open graded, undeveloped land in order to prevent wind and/or water erosion of such land. All open graded, undeveloped land shall either be planted with interim landscaping, or stabilized with such other erosion control measures, as were approved in the Fugitive Dust Control Plan. 30. Building pad elevations on the rough grading plan submitted for City Engineer's approval shall conform with pad elevations shown on the Site Development Permit Plan, unless the pad elevations have other requirements imposed elsewhere in these Conditions of Approval. 31. Prior to any site grading or regrading that will raise or lower any portion of the site by more than plus or minus three tenths of a foot from the elevations shown on the approved Tentative Parcel Map, the applicant shall submit the proposed grading changes to the City Staff for a substantial conformance finding review. 32. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any building lot, the applicant shall provide a lot pad certification stamped and signed by a qualified engineer or surveyor. Each pad certification shall list the pad elevation as shown on the approved grading plan, the actual pad elevation and the difference between the two, if any. Such pad certification shall also list the relative compaction of the pad soil. The data shall be organized by lot number, and listed cumulatively if submitted at different times. DRAINAGE 33. Stormwater handling shall conform with the approved hydrology and drainage report for Parcel Map No. 31143 and as revised for this site development permit. As the P:\stan\sdp\sdp 2006-862 pc coa.doc Printed August 4, 2006 Page t 'fanning Commission Resolution 2006- ;onditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2006-862 ffghland La Quints, LLC kdopted: applicant proposes discharge of storm water directly, or indirectly, into the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel, the applicant shall indemnify the City from the costs of any sampling and testing of the development's drainage discharge which may be required under the City's NPDES Permit or other City- or area -wide pollution prevention program, and for any other obligations and/or expenses which may arise from such discharge. The indemnification shall be executed and furnished to the City prior to the issuance of any grading, construction or building permit, and shall be binding on all heirs, executors, administrators, assigns, and successors in interest in the land within the overlying tentative parcel map and this site development permit excepting therefrom those portions required to be dedicated or deeded for public use. The form of the indemnification shall be acceptable to the City Attorney. If such discharge is approved for this development, the applicant shall make provisions in the final development CC&Rs for meeting these potential obligations. 34. Nuisance water shall be retained onsite and disposed of via an underground percolation improvement approved by the City Engineer. 35. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and handled accordingly on -site or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route. UTILITIES 36. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.110 (Utilities), LQMC. 37. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all utility lines within any right-of-way, and all above -ground utility structures including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electric vaults, water valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes. 38. Existing overhead utility lines within, or adjacent to the proposed development, and all proposed utilities shall be installed underground. All existing utility lines attached to joint use 92 KV transmission power poles are exempt from the requirement to be placed underground. 39. Underground utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of utilities in existing improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench restoration requirements maintained, or required by the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide certified reports of all utility trench compaction for approval by the City Engineer. P:\stan\sdp\sdp 2006-862 pc coa.doc Printed August 4. 2006 Page 9 Planning Commission Resolution 2006- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2006-862 Highland La Quinta, LLC Adopted: STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 40. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Sections 13.24.060 (Street Improvements), 13.24.070 (Street Design - Generally) & 13.24.100 (Access For Individual Properties And Development), LQMC for public streets; and Section 13.24.080 (Street Design - Private Streets), where private streets are proposed. 41, The applicant shall construct the following street improvements to conform with the General Plan (street type noted in parentheses.) A. OFF -SITE STREETS 11 Highway 111 (Major Arterial — State Highway, 140' ROW) The City of La Quinta will widen Highway 111 along the development's boundary with the proposed Highway 111 Capital Improvement Project from Adams Street to Jefferson Street to its ultimate width on the north side as specified in the General Plan and the requirements of these conditions. The north curb face shall be located fifty eight feet (58') north of the centerline, except at locations where additional street width is needed to accommodate: a. Bus turnout as required by the SunLine Transit Agency and as approved by Caltrans. b. A deceleration/right turn only lane at Highway 111 Shared Entry located at the west property line. The north curb face shall be located per the requirements of Caltrans. As a minimum, the required right-of-way shall be for a length of 485 feet plus a variable dedication of an additional 150 feet or as determined during the Public Works Department Plan Review and as approved by Caltrans. Other improvements to be constructed by the proposed Highway 111 Capital Improvement Project mentioned above are the following: C. A 24 - foot wide raised landscaped median along the entire boundary of the Tentative Parcel Map. Street Improvements required by this development in the Highway 111 right-of-way and/or adjacent landscape setback area includes: d. An 8-foot wide meandering sidewalk. The meandering sidewalk shall have an arrhythmic horizontal layout that utilizes concave and convex curves with respect to the curb line that either touches the back of curb or approaches within five feet of the P:\stan\sdp\sdp 2006-862 pc coa.doc Printed August 4. 2006 Page ll Planning Commission Resolution 2006- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2006-862 Highland La Quinta, LLC Adopted: curb at intervals not to exceed 250 feet. The sidewalk curvature radii should vary between 50 and 300 feet and at each point of reverse curvature, the radius should change to assist in creating the arrhythmic layout. The sidewalk shall meander into the landscape setback lot and approach within 5 feet of the perimeter wall at intervals not to exceed 250 feet. e. Install Bus Shelter per City of La Quinta Standard at the proposed bus turnout with power and water. The applicant shall provide perpetual water and power service at its expense. The cost burden of Highway 111 Improvements (Items a through c) is predicated on the development timing of the applicant. If the applicant's development precedes the proposed Highway 111 Capital Improvement Project, the applicant shall design and construct Items a through a or provide interim street improvements along Highway 111 as required by Caltrans and the City of La Quinta. The applicant shall bond for improvements (Items a and e) mentioned above to remain in effect until the Highway 111 improvements (Items a through c) are completed by the City of La Quinta or the applicant at which time the applicant shall construct said improvements (Items d and a). 42. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using CalTrans' design procedure for 20-year life pavement, and the site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall be as follows: Parking Lot & Aisles (Low Traffic) 3.0" a.c./4.5" c.a.b. or the approved equivalents of alternate materials. 43. The applicant shall submit current mix designs (less than two years old at the time of construction) for base, asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete. The submittal shall include test results for all specimens used in the mix design procedure. For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall include recent (less than six months old at the time of construction) aggregate gradation test results confirming that design gradations can be achieved in current production. The applicant shall not schedule construction operations until mix designs are approved. 44. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, or as approved by the City Engineer. Improvement plans for streets and parking areas shall be stamped and signed by qualified engineers. 45. The applicant shall advise any prospective buyer of any parcel on this Site P:\stan\sdp\sdp 2006-862 pc coa.doc Printed August 4. 2006 Pagel l Manning Commission Resolution 2006- 'onditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2006-862 Highland La Quints, LLC Adopted: Development Permit of its continuing obligation to maintain all sidewalks located in the public right-of-way adjacent to its property in a good state of repair pursuant to Streets & Highways Code Section 5610. PARKING LOTS and ACCESS POINTS 46, The design of parking facilities shall conform to LQMC Chapter 9.150 (Parking). In particular, the following are conditioned with this approval. A. Accessibility routes to public streets and adjacent development shall be shown on the Precise Grading Plan. B. Cross slopes should be a maximum of 2% where ADA accessibility is required including accessibility routes between buildings. C. Building access points shall be shown on the Precise Grading Plans to better evaluate ADA accessibility issues. D. Drive aisles shall be a minimum of 26 feet. E. Drive-thru aisles shall be a minimum of 12 feet along straight away portions and increased to a minimum 14 feet at bends (to accommodate turning movements). Pursuant to this condition, the throat to the drive-thru for Proposed Retail 1 may require additional widening to address said turning movements. Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, corner cutbacks, bus turnouts, dedicated turn lanes, ADA accessibility route to public streets and other features shown on the approved construction plans, may require additional street widths and other improvements as may be determined by the City Engineer. 47. General access points and turning movements of traffic to off site public streets are limited to the access locations approved in the approved Parcel Map No. 31143 and these conditions of approval. LANDSCAPING 48. The applicant shall comply with Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) & 13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans), LQMC. 49. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins, and common lots. 50. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, and retention basins shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. P:\stan\sdp\sdp 2006-862 pc coa.doc Printed August 4, 2006 Pagel: anning Commission Resolution 2006- onditions of Approval - Recommended to Development Permit 2006-862 ighland La Quints, LLC dopted: 1. If deemed necessary by the Community Development Director to prevent soil erosion and provide acceptable slope (maximum 3:1) a short block retaining wall for the planter along the east property line shall be constructed. 2. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn areas shall be minimized with no lawn, or spray irrigation, being placed within 18 inches of curbs along public streets. i3. Final landscape plans shall be reviewed by the ALRC and approved by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of first building permit. Final plans shall include all landscaping associated with this project including Highway 111 perimeter landscaping. Prior to the Community Development Director approval CVWD and Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner approval shall be submitted to the Community Development Director. 34. The following landscaping revisions shall implemented with the final landscape plans: A. Parking lot tree wells shall be a minimum 6'x6' in size. Palm Springs Gold Fines or equal shall cover all planter areas. B. Shrub planting on top of berms shall be sufficient to provide eventual drive - through lane screening. C. The trees south of the buildings adjacent to Highway 111 shall be a minimum of 36" box size. D. The 4' high decorative screen wall along Highway 111 shall be extended for the southerly 1 /3 length of the landscape planter along the west side of the westerly most drive-thru lane to adequately screen the drive-thru from the driveway and Highway 111. E. Berm and/or wall heights proposed for screening of the drive-thru lanes shall be a minimum of 5' in height measured from finished grade of adjacent drive-thru lanes. F. The east side of Building 3 shall include shrubs that will have a minimum height of 3'-4' high. G. The Highway 111 perimeter landscaping shall be revised as needed to incorporate these conditions and ensure a consistent and compatible landscape design along the street. A dense hedge of 3'-4' high shrubs shall be planted within the Highway 111 perimeter adjacent to the parking spaces between Buildings 2 and 3 for screening. P:\stan\sdp\sdp 2006-862 pc coa.doc Printed August 4, 2006 Page 13 Tanning Commission Resolution 2006- :onditions of Approval - Recommended ;its Development Permit 2006-862 lighland La Quinta, LLC ldopted: IUALITY ASSURANCE 55. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet with the approval of the City Engineer. 56. The applicant shall employ, or retain, qualified engineers, surveyors, and such other appropriate professionals as are required to provide the expertise with which to prepare and sign accurate record drawings, and to provide adequate construction supervision. 57. The applicant shall arrange for, and bear the cost of, all measurements, sampling and testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program, but which may be required by the City, as evidence that the construction materials and methods employed comply with the plans, specifications and other applicable regulations. 58. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City with reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were approved by the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawing," "As -Built" or "As - Constructed and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy and completeness of the drawings. The applicant shall have all AutoCAD or raster -image files previously submitted to the City, revised to reflect the as -built conditions. MAINTENANCE 59. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance), LQMC. 60. The applicant shall make provisions for the continuous and perpetual maintenance of all private on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks. FEES AND DEPOSITS 61. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.180 (Fees and Deposits), LQMC. These fees include all deposits and fees required by the City for plan checking and construction inspection. Deposits and fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan check and permits, 62. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permit(s). P:\stan\sdp\sdp 2006-862 pc coa.doc Printed August 4, 2006 Page 14 lanning Commission Resolution 2006- onditions of Approval - Recommended its Development Permit 2006-862 ighland La Quints, LLC adopted: ;OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT i3. The following architectural changes shall be incorporated into the final architectural plans: A. Depths of architectural projections for north, east and west elevations of the proposed buildings shall be increased to a depth of 3 feet or greater except for the east side of Building 3. South building elevation projections shall be increased to a depth of 4 feet or greater. The floor plans, site plan, grading plans and elevation plans shall be revised, as necessary to ensure compliance with this condition. Revised plans to be submitted for Community Development Director approval prior to review of precise grading plans. B. The trellis structures shall be constructed of metal or a composite material. C. All buildings within 150' of Highway 111 are limited to 22' in height, except for non-structural architectural features. 64. These buildings shall use the same sign program as that approved for Phase 1. 65. The development plans shall be submitted to the Fire Marshal for review and approval prior to submission to the City for plan check. 66. Exterior building wall lighting shall be down -shining with shielded fixtures to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department. 67. Parking lot lighting shall be down -shining, shielded fixtures and match those used in the Phase 1 project. 68. All applicable conditions of SDP 2005-822 and Mitigation measures of Environmental Assessment 2005-553 shall be complied with. 69. Per Zoning Code Section 9.210.010 H. establishment of the use allowed by this Site Development Permit shall expire one year from its effective date, unless extended pursuant to Section 9.200.100. P:\stan\sdp\sdp 2006-862 pc coa.doc Printed August 4, 2006 Pagel CASE Na CASE MAP SDP 2006-862 ATTACHMENT #1 ORT SCALE: NTS ATTACHMENT Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee July 12, 2006 49. Committee Member Bobbitt said most org is mulches tend to grey and float out, but this mulch is t being placed near homes so it should work. 50. There being no further questions o the applicant, it was moved and seconded by Committee M mbers Bobbitt/Smith to adopt Minute Motion 2006 023 r commending approval of Site Development Permit 2006-8 4, as recommended and amended: a. Remove Conditio #1 and 4, but request the Planning Commission rev' w these items and be aware they were brought up. b. Condition # should be corrected to read "Consider deleting" i tead of "Delete". e. Conditio #6 should be revised to say "A minimum of two in of decomposed granite, or one inch of organic mulc , shall be provided in planter areas." f. Ad Condition #7 — Recommending the developer review th it plant palette as some particular varieties of trees d shrubs may not be appropriate. ly approved. C. Site Development Permit 2006-862; a request of Highland La Quinta, LLC for consideration of architectural and landscaping plans for three commercial buildings in Phase 2 of the Dunes Business Park located on the north side of Highway 111, between Jefferson Street and Dune Palms Road. 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. Committee Member Smith asked if there was a wood trellis. Mr. Mark Giles, repreenting Highland La Quinta, said yes. Committee Member Smith said there is a problem with the maintenance of wood products. The applicant said they would be happy to use a composite material. He added he is also the architect for Washington Park and is familiar with alternative products. Mr. Giles asked to review the conditions. In particular, Conditions 1 and 8. Regarding Condition #8, the Highway 111 Plans were a part of Phase I and were previously approved. They were not responsible for the Highway 111 landscape plans. Staff said Condition #8 could be deleted as it r.-i%mPnnrC\GI Rr%7.i znn nnr 12 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee July 12, 2006 does not apply to this project. Staff said the key issue is the two drive-thrus proposed in one area. The Planning Commission will have concerns regarding about drive-thrus and the landscape plan on Highway 111. They will want the plans to provide a nice aesthetic landscape with adequate screening of the drive-thrus. 3. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if staff was referring to Condition #1 or Condition #2. Staff said they were specifically referring to Condition #1 and then pointed out the concerns regarding the narrow strip. 4. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if the landscape strip had been planted. Staff said it was not. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if a condition would be added to require the landscaping. Staff said it was conditioned to be constructed as part of the back buildings. Mr. Giles said one of their concerns was to ensure the landscape had the same look as the strip landscaped by the previous architect, who did the Highway 111 landscape. They have a problem because there is a 50 foot setback which was moved in 12 feet due to a deceleration lane, and there is not much room left. 5. Committee Member Bobbitt said this could cause a very steep berm and with a water problem from the sprinkler system run off. The applicant said there is currently a 2:1 slope. They asked if they could encroach into the 50 feet setback to blend in the landscaping. Staff said yes, they would encourage the applicant to do so. 6. Committee Member Bobbitt said he would like to see a decrease in the slope to push it back to the street. Staff said the landscape berm treatment could intrude into the 50 foot setback. 7. Committee Member Bobbitt had a question regarding the landscaping maintenance of the center itself. The landscape architect Mike Singelyn, said there was a maintenance agreement in the CC&R's. The whole property would be covered by this agreement. Mark Giles said they would work on Conditions 1, 2, and 6 so the area blends with the previously approved Highway 111 landscape setback. They would work on Condition #3. r.•��nivnnrc�ni 13 ar%ziana nnr Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee July 12, 2006 8. Committee Member Bobbitt asked what size the tree wells were going to be. Staff replied they would be 6' x 6'. Mr. Giles stated they did not have a problem with Condition #7. Staff identified the issue of a wall wrapping around on the west side to minimize view of the drive-thru. What staff had identified in the report was some way to help soften the drive through. Discussion followed regarding the exhibit; staff reviewed what was requested. Mr. Giles said they were not opposed to the recommendation but, wanted to see what happened when the change is made. Mr. Giles had a question on Condition #4 and asked if that meant towers. Staff said yes. Mr. Giles asked what was included in the height limit; the treatment or the towers. Staff said they were referring to the towers. Mr. Giles said the main concern is the 24 foot height on the building. Staff said only the tower elements can go above the 22 foot height limit. 9. Committee Member Bobbitt said they have received negative comments on some of the projects along Highway 111 and are very cognizant of these issues. He asked the applicant if they could bring the height down. The applicant showed how they could vary the height of the building. He stated the height would have to be determined by staff. 10. Committee Member Bobbitt asked for an explanation on Condition #5 and pointed out the areas on the drawing to make sure he understood what was requested. The applicant said they can comply on Building 1. Staff noted some of the buildings don't comply. 11. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he agreed with staff's recommendations on height and depth. Mr. Giles stated their main concern is the 4 foot popout on the building that backs up to Jack -In -The -Box. 12. Committee Member Bobbitt said the Committee is very sensitive to the negative responses they have received about the side building elevations that have a long, blank wall. He said adding trees does not relieve the poor aesthetics. Mr. Giles pointed out they had added articulation and trees and the building is six feet below grade. r.-%micnnrc%ni ar�7.i o_na nnr 14 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee July 12, 2006 13. Committee Member Bobbitt asked what staff was recommending? The applicant outlined the grades around the project and what options they had on popouts and setbacks. 14. Committee Member Bobbitt asked about the sidewalk. Mr. Giles said there is a four foot sidewalk and a five foot with landscaping. Staff said they are less concerned about the landscaping backing onto Jack -In -The -Box versus the view on Highway 111. Discussion followed regarding the exhibits and what could be done to soften the back of the building. 15. Committee Member Smith suggested they add a couple of trees and made several suggestions. Staff said that would be helpful. 16. Committee Member Bobbitt asked how staff proposed they make the changes. Staff said they will physically go out to the site and look at the Jack -In -The -Box site to see what is visible along Highway 111 and will work. The applicant went over the different buildings and what they would do to make the development work to staff's recommended standards. The applicant pointed out that staff is looking at the visibility of the project and made several suggestions on how to improve the site. Committee Member Bobbitt asked questions about the sidewalk and said he thought it could be screened but it must be maintained. 17. Committee Member Bobbitt asked how deep the arcade was for Building 3. The applicant gave a description of the project and pointed out which building faced Highway 111 and which faced Jack -In -The -Box. Staff said they needed to go to the site prior to taking the application to the Planning Commission. 18. Committee Member Bobbitt said he would like to see some taller, three to four feet shrubs but not as a hedge to screen the Jack -In -The Box. 19. Committee Member Smith asked if one of the areas in Building 1 was going to be a restaurant. The applicant said only one tenant would use the drive-thru. 20. Committee Member Smith asked if there was anywhere else in La Quinta where there were several drive-thrus in one location. Staff said there are no other developments with "built" projects similar to this, but there were currently plans for one. 15 n•\wpnnrQ\AI prw_i a_na nnr Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee July 12, 2006 21. There being no further questions, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Bobbitt/Smith to adopt Minute Motion 2006-024 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2006-864, as recommended with the following amendments: 1. All trellis shall be made of composite or metal. 2. The applicant shall add three to four foot shrubs to each side of Building B. 3. Add to Condition 5 - "excluding the east side of Building 3." 4. Condition 8 deleted Unanimously approved. VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: VII. C6,MMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS VIII. ADJOURNMENT: There being o further business, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Bobbi t/Smith to adjourn this Special Meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping Rev w Committee to a Regular Meeting to be held on August 2, 2006. This meetin was adjourned at 12:12 p.m. on July 12, 2006. Respectfully CAROLYN WALKER Secretary 16 r-%M1annrc%ai ar�zi zna nnr