Loading...
2005 12 13 PC4 &t,, 4 � �W .0 Ogg C �OFTtfi Pla nning 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 DECEMBER 13, 2005 7:00 P.M. **NOTE** ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING Beginning Resolution 2005-066 Beginning Minute Motion 2005-016 1. CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call II. 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 November 22, 2005. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\1 AgendaW.doc V. PUBLIC HEARING: None. 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 La Quinta 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. VI. BUSINESS ITEM: A. Item ................ SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004-812 Applicant ......... Chick-Fil-A Location .......... North side of Highway 111, east of Adams Street in The Pavilion at La Quinta Request ........... Consideration of screening provisions for a restaurant with a drive-thru lane. Action ............. Minute Motion 2005- B. Item ................ DISCUSSION REGARDING VINYL FENCING Applicant ......... City of La Quinta Location ........... City-wide Request ............ Consideration to allow vinyl fencing as an alternate material to wood for the rear and side yard of residential districts (Section 960.030.E.). Action .............. Provide staff with direction VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None Vill. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Review of City Council meeting of December 6, 2005. IX. ADJOURNMENT: This meeting of the Planning Commission will be adjourned to a Regular Meeting to be held on December 27, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. G:\WPDOCS\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, December 13, 2005, was posted on the outside entry to the Council Chamber, 78-495 Calle Tampico, the bulletin board at the La Quinta Cove Post Office, Chamber of Commerce, and Stater Bros. 78-630 Highway 1 1 1, on Friday, December 9, 2005. DATE: December 9, 2005 7.Uv WY , Exe._ i BE �.� ER, 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 AgendaW.doc MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA November 22, 2005 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Kirk who asked Commissioner Quill to lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Richard Daniels, Kay Ladner, Paul Quill and Chairman Kirk. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Ladner to excuse Commissioner Alderson. Unanimously approved. C. Staff present: Community Development Director Doug Evans, City Attorney Kathy Jenson, Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer, Planning Manager Les Johnson, Principal Planner Fred Baker, Associate Planners Wallace Nesbit and Andrew Mogensen, Planning Consultant Nicole Criste, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. III11�K9i•191:i�R_rli[iIRi731i:1 _� ► _ d8,s , � \��K�7►69q���1����691 A. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of the November 8, 2005 regular meeting. There being no changes to the minutes, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Quill to approve the minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved. lv�Yl1-3ILes CPF-AlVI01103 A. Draft Environmental Impact Report 2005-539, Specific Plan 2005-075, Conditional Use Permit 2005-092, Tentative Parcel Map 33960, and Site Development Permit 2005-833; a request of Costco Wholesale and Komar Investments for consideration of: 1) Recommending to the City Council its Findings regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Report; 2) recommending approval of the Komar Desert Center Specific Plan G:=PDOCS\PC Minutes\11-22-05.doc Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 2005 creating development guidelines and standards for a commercial development; 3) recommending approval of a Conditional Use Permit allowing a store over 50,000 square feet, fueling station, and a tire sales and services store; 4) recommending approval of the subdivision of +26.53 acres into four lots; and 5) recommending approval of a Site Development Permit for a 149,739 square foot store and a four bay fueling station, for the property located south of Highway 111 and Depot Drive. 1. Chairman Kirk 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 was on file in the Community Development Department. City Attorney Kathy Jenson noted that in regard to the Site Development Permit for the west property line, it is unknown what type of development will be on this site, but the site does allow for a high density affordable housing development as well as commercial. Therefore, staff is recommending an addition to Condition #81 that states: "If, at the time Costco installs its lighting, and the Community Development Department Director is relatively certain there will not be a residential development to the west of this site, the lights for the Costco parking lot could be 35 feet." With regard to traffic and the four intersections that staff stated would remain significant after mitigation, at the Highway 111 and Jefferson Street intersection, the EIR states there is a potential that it will not be significant, but because the improvements for one leg of that intersection are under the jurisdiction of the City of Indio, the EIR outlines it could be significant if Indio does not implement improvements for which they have funding. In regard to Highway 111 and Washington Street, there has been a mitigation measure outlined in the EIR that does mitigate the project's incremental increase, but does remain significantly impacted. The impact on the other two intersections would be mitigated to less than significant. 2. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Peter Clement, Costco Wholesale, gave a presentation on the project. He asked that Condition #76 of the Site Development Permit be changed to read "36-inch box trees be used against building and 24-inch box can be used in the parking lot." He went on to introduce Mr. Jeff Wilson, architect for the project, who gave a presentation on the building design; and Mr. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\11-22-05.doc 2 Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 2005 Brad Lenahan, landscape architect, who gave a presentation on the landscaping. 3. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Daniels asked what costs staff was referring to on Page 9 of the staff report "been deemed infeasible due to construction costs and right-of-way restrictions". City Attorney Kathy Jenson stated one problem is that the right-of-way needed would require the acquisition of property at the intersection. Right- of-way acquisitions would be extreme. The restriping option outlined in the EIR on Page 27 was developed to allow this project to mitigate its incremental increase without having to address the bigger problem at this intersection. Commissioner Daniels stated he had a concern in regard to the size of this parcels adjoining this site in regard to what type of development would occur. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated the property to the west could be a combination of residential and commercial, but currently there are no plans. The property to the east is in the City of Indio that does have a plan for mixed commercial. In regard to the overall traffic, the challenge at Washington Street is that if you mitigate the peak hours, there will be so many lanes a pedestrian could not cross the street. As other properties are developed and the peak hour becomes a challenge, people will find other roadways that have the capacity. When you try to reduce Washington Street down to the 2020 capacity, it will be extreme. Commissioner Daniels asked if the alternative would be to move it to alternative streets. He asked if it was feasible to open the driveway to the west, so any trips would be able to get there without going onto the Highway 111. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated an easement was part of the discussions to get the traffic to Dune Palms Road as well. Commissioner Daniels asked about a roadway across the wash to Jefferson Street. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated the City did not analyze this as it is not in the City. Mr. Del Huntington, Kittelson and Associates, traffic engineer for the project, stated that if there were a connection directly across to Jefferson Street there would be significant improvements to the intersection and the amount of traffic on Highway 111 which would create a release valve. City Attorney Kathy Jenson clarified that on Page 9 of the staff report, it should state, "Four intersections will have significant impact without mitigation..." Pages 4-10-27 to 28 of the EIR outline the mitigation measures for G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\71-22-05.doc 3 Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 2005 the four intersections. There are mitigation measures for all the intersections which will reduce the project impact with regard to the Indio branch/leg of Jefferson Street and Highway 111 intersection, but the City cannot control what Indio does. There is a conclusion that it does still have a significant impact, but there is mitigation in place that hopefully will mitigate any potential impacts. Also, with regard to the 2020 figure analysis in the EIR, it assumes the adjacent sites are developed consistent with the zoning. 4. Chairman Kirk asked if the City ever considers mitigation measures that are out of the City limits with respect to other issues. City Attorney Kathy Jenson stated a condition has been added for the developer to provide a reciprocal easement at the edge of the property, but until there is a project we are unable to define where the access should be. Chairman Kirk asked if the City has an opportunity when there is a common property owner to mitigate off -site across that property. City Attorney Kathy Jenson stated the Commission can require that access, but the City of Indio may not want the curb cuts onto Jefferson Street and at this time she does not know whether or not Indio will allow those curb cuts. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated the City of Indio would have to agree to anything the City requested of the applicant for that portion of the property. 5. Commissioner Daniels asked if there have been any discussions with the City of Indio regarding this access. Staff noted Indio was given the Notice of Preparation of the Draft EIR and Indio's letter is included in the report. 6. Commissioner Quill noted other projects where the two cities had to work together to resolve such issues. It seems that a mitigation measure requiring an access across the Flood Control Channel out to Jefferson Street would make sense. It does appear that, in listening to the traffic engineer a mitigation measure that could improve the Level of Service "F" condition at Highway 111 and Jefferson Street is to provide access to Jefferson Street. He does not understand why it is not addressed in the Draft EIR. City Attorney Kathy Jenson stated a condition could be added requiring the access and the applicant would make its best effort to comply. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated the property owner, Komar, may have some suggestions. Mr. Jim Brockman, G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\71-22-05.doc 4 Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 2005 representing Komar, identified the Komar property boundaries on the map. He further stated that when they obtained approval for the Mobile gas station at the southwest corner of Jefferson Street and Highway 111 they gave the City of Indio an easement that would allow for the installation of a signal across from the Indian Wells Mobile Home Park. This signal will be triggered when they submit their development plans for the property to the south of the gas station and they connect the two sites on both sides of the Channel. 7. Chairman Kirk questioned why this information was not included in the traffic study. Del Huntington stated he was not aware of Komar's intention to cross the Channel. He went on to explain that when Highway 1 1 1 is widened to six lanes it will lessen the impact even without this crossing. 8. Commissioner Quill stated his concern is that this project will be able to stand alone even if the access across the Channel is not built. We may not be able to dictate what happens in another city, but we should be able to ensure that it develops to our advantage. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated the City of Indio traffic did submit an extensive list of issues and this connection point was not raised by them. We do not try to create mitigation measures where another city could hold up a project. When Komar goes through their entitlement process with the City of Indio, La Quinta will have an opportunity to comment on its development. We did consider all the streets over as far as Madison Street in the City of Indio. 9. Chairman Kirk asked if the site plan for this site would be the same design if it was known there was a crossing intended by Komar across the Channel. 10. Commissioner Quill asked how pedestrian circulation from Costco to the commercial development to the north of Costco. Mr. Clements stated it is by walking through the parking lot on the islands. 11. Chairman Kirk noted Commissioner Alderson had raised a concern to him that the Costco gas station stacking and the narrowing of the throat where the delivery traffic is proposed may be to narrow; do they anticipate any problems. Mr. Clements noted other G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\11-22-05.doc 5 Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 2005 Costco gas station sites where the site is designed the same and there are no problems. Chairman Kirk asked if the loading could be accommodated in the rear of the building. Mr. Clements explained it is inefficient for the interior of the store mechanism. Chairman Kirk asked how they intend to mitigate the loading dock on the front of the building. Mr. Clement noted the landscaping buffers. 12. Commissioner Ladner stated her concern was the cars backing up at the entrance to the fueling station. She asked if there were two lanes at the entrance or one. Mr. Clements noted the width of the driveway is for two cars. It is their belief this gas station is ample for the amount of business they anticipate. With the construction of this store/gas station it will relieve a lot of the congestion currently at the Palm Desert store. 13. Chairman Kirk asked if the reciprocal easement with the property to the south of the fueling station becomes a throughway to Dune Palms Road, does staff know what the impact will be at this intersection. Mr. Huntington stated that when the adjacent property is proposed for development, a traffic study will be prepared addressing this future condition. Chairman Kirk asked if the internal circulation would change if there was an access over to Jefferson Street over the Channel. Mr. Huntington stated no, he believes the site works well as designed, with or without that access. 14. Commissioner Quill asked if the site across the Channel is developed, is there any proposed location of where the access would cross the Channel. Mr. Brockman stated it was determined when they obtained approval for the Mobile gas station by the City of Indio to be across from the Indian Wells Mobile Home Park. City Attorney Kathy Jenson stated Condition #13 provides the best access to the west. Discussion followed regarding circulation. 15. Chairman Kirk asked why the parking spaces exceeded what was required by the City. Mr. Clements noted they have found that their needs normally exceed city standards. 16. Commissioner Quill noted his concern regarding the 35 foot high parking lot light standards and asked what other commercial sites in the City had lights at this height. Staff noted Super Wal-Mart G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\11-22-05.doc 6 Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 2005 and Sam's Club. Commissioner Quill confirmed this is a masonry building and not a tilt up. Mr. Wilson confirmed it was masonry. 17. Chairman Kirk stated he does not see any strong vertical elements on the building. Mr. Wilson noted the elements are higher than what they would normally design. The taller you go the more bracing is required on the building. He went on to review the design elements. Chairman Kirk noted the renderings appear to be very pedestrian friendly and yet the site plan shows a great separation between the buildings. He asked if staff was requesting the larger trees in the parking lot. Staff stated it is a recommendation. 18. Commissioner Quill noted along Highway 1 1 1, the curb is adjacent and he would rather see the sidewalk meandering through the parkway. He asked what type of canopy trees were proposed for the parking lot. Mr. Lenahan identified the trees. 19. Chairman Kirk asked why planters were not shown on certain bays. Mr. Wilson stated no specific reason except meeting the City's conditions. Chairman Kirk asked if there had been any discussion regarding the park place where the art in public places would be installed. Mr. Clements stated conversations have been such as Costco will be dedicating the area and the City will either do a landscaped area or place an art feature. Community Development Director Doug Evans explained the alternatives they were discussing with the applicant. 20. Commissioner Quill asked if Costco had any plans for seasonal stocking of merchandise in regard to storage containers. Also, where would the empty trailers be located after they are unloaded. Mr. Clements stated they do not utilize the storage containers and the empty trailers are kept in the loading zone until they are removed from the site. Commissioner Quill asked for an assurance that there would not be any unsightly trash at the rear of the building. Mr. Clements stated they would be amenable to a condition that prohibits any such storage as long as they are allowed to screen an area for pallets. Commissioner Quill asked that all improvements along Highway 1 1 1, including the signal and all turn pockets be 100% complete prior to a Certificate of Occupancy being issued. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\71-22-05.doc 7 Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 2005 21. Chairman Kirk asked if the fueling station canopy could be architecturally designed to be more dramatic. Mr. Wilson stated typically it is not something they would do. They would normally try to minimize the structure. 22. Chairman Kirk asked if the EIR analysis had identified any other locations for this project that would mitigate the traffic concerns. City Attorney Kathy Jenson stated no, the alternative site was on Washington Street and Fred Waring Drive which was worse. 23. Commissioner Quill asked about the two vacant sites along Highway 111 that belong to Komar in regard to aesthetics. He would like to see that they are kept clean while they are vacant and not under construction. Mr. Brockman stated they would be amenable to any conditions requiring them to maintain the lots free of debris. Mr. Clements stated the site will be treated for dust control. It is also their understanding that Komar's application is to be submitted shortly. 24. Chairman Kirk asked if anyone else would like to address the Commission. There being no further public comment, Chairman Kirk closed the public participation portion of the hearing and opened the discussion among the Commission. 25. Commissioner Ladner commended the applicant on their design. She has no objection to the applicant's request to allow the 24 inch box trees. 26. Commissioner Daniels stated his biggest concern has been the traffic and he believes staff has addressed those concerns along with the applicant's intention to create a roadway across the Channel as this will alleviate a lot of the traffic. He agrees with meandering the sidewalk back away from Highway 111. 27. Commissioner Quill requested a condition be added that there will be no exterior storage without subsequent approval by the Commission. And, if any outdoor storage is requested by Costco, the request should be brought back to the Commission for approval. He would like to know the type of shade trees proposed to be used for the parking lot shade trees. He would also like language added regarding the access across the Channel to Jefferson Street. A condition added that the vacant pads for G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\11-22-05.doc 8 Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 2005 Parcels 1 and 2 shall be treated and vehicle access to them limited until the sites are developed. He agrees with the 24 inch box trees being used in the parking lot. 28. Chairman Kirk thanked all the entities who were involved with the project for their work and commended the applicants on their Specific Plan and elevations. His concerns were related to the transportation impacts, but he realizes there is no alternative location where you would not have these issues. He is still concerned that the environmental traffic analysis did not consider the crossing over the Channel which is owned by the same property owner. He will not be voting in favor of the EIR for that reason. He then went over the conditions discussed as follows: the Commission agrees with allowing the 24 inch box trees, the Phase 2 and 3 pads shall be maintained free of debris; If any storage is proposed behind the buildings it shall be screened consistent with the remaining Center; the loading bays in the front of the building shall have landscape screening. Planning Manager Les Johnson noted the landscape feature for the public art in the front of the project could be increased to keep the loading bays out of the direct line of site. Chairman Kirk asked if the final landscaping plan could be brought back to the Commission. Staff stated the final landscape plan would be brought back to the Commission. Chairman Kirk stated he would like to see the landscaping increased in the parking lot given the amount of asphalt on the site. He would like to see the shade increased to 60-65%. Community Development Director Doug Evans noted that by increasing the percentage of shade trees, it could create a bigger problem. Chairman Kirk stated this could be addressed when the landscaping plan is brought back. In addition, he would like to see some additional landscaping at the fueling station considered as well. 29. Following discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Ladner/Daniels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005-058 recommending to the City Council its Findings regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Report 2005- 539. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Daniels, Ladner, and Quill. NOES: Chairman Kirk. ABSENT: Commissioner Alderson. ABSTAIN: None. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\11-22-05.doc 9 Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 2005 30. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Ladner/Quill to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005-059 recommending approval of Specific Plan 2005-075, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Daniels, Ladner, Quill, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Alderson. ABSTAIN: None. 31. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Ladner/Quill to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005-060 recommending approval of Conditional Use Permit 2005-092, as recommended and amended: ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Daniels, Ladner, Quill, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Alderson. ABSTAIN: None. 32. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Ladner/Daniels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005-061 recommending approval of Tentative Parcel Map 33960, as recommended and amended: a. Condition #3 modified to read: "The applicant is hereby notified that prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the City or other agency, it may be necessary to obtain necessary clearances and/or permits from the following agencies:" b. Condition #6: Delete "Prior to issuance of any permits)". C. Condition #22.f.: Modify the existing traffic signal at the Highway 1 1 1 and Depot Drive intersection to accommodate for a dual left turn for northbound Depot Drive traffic to westbound Highway 1 1 1, a dual left turn for westbound Highway 1 1 1 to southbound Depot Drive, and any ancillary street improvements conditioned herewith and as approved by Caltrans." d. Condition #23: Deleted. e. Condition #45: The applicant shall construct the following street improvements to conform with the City of La Quinta's General Plan (street type noted in parentheses.) A. OFF -SITE STREETS G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\11-22-05.doc 10 Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 2005 1) Highway 111 (Major Arterial — State Highway, 140' ROW): Widen the south side of the street along all frontage adjacent to the Specific Plan boundary to its ultimate width on the south side as specified in the City of La Quinta General Plan, the requirements of these conditions and as required by Caltrans. The south curb face shall be located fifty eight feet (58') south of the centerline, except at locations where additional street width is needed to accommodate: a) A deceleration/right turn only lane on Highway 111 at the Highway 111 /Depot Drive intersection. The south curb face shall be located sixty six (66') south of the centerline and length as approved by Caltrans. b) A deceleration/right turn only lane at the Secondary Entry Driveway. The south curb face shall be located sixty six feet (66') south of the centerline and length as approved by Caltrans. c) A bus turnout on Highway 111 east of the Highway 111 /Depot Drive intersection as required by SunLine Transit Agency and as approved by Caltrans. Other required improvements in the Highway 111 right or way and/or adjacent landscape setback area include: d) All appurtenant components such as, but not limited to: curb, gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and signs. e) 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 G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\ 1 1-22-05.doc 11 Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 2005 within five feet of the 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. f) Modify the existing traffic signal at the Highway 111 and Depot Drive intersection to accommodate for a dual left turn for northbound Depot Drive traffic to westbound Highway 111, a dual left turn for westbound Highway 111 to southbound Depot Drive, and any street improvements conditioned herewith and as approved by Caltrans. g) A bus shelter on the south side of Highway 111, west of Depot Drive to be constructed in accordance with the City's Highway 111 Design Guidelines. h) A 24 - foot wide raised landscaped median along the entire boundary of the Specific Plan plus variable width as needed to accommodate a dual left turn for the westbound Highway 111 turning left to southbound Depot Drive. The length shall be as required by Caltrans but a minimum 250 feet. The raised landscaped median may be deferred until the City of La Quinta's Highway 111 Widening project from Adams Street to Jefferson Street as required by Caltrans and the City Engineer. The applicant shall install interim intersection and signal improvements at the Highway 111 and Depot Drive intersection as approved by GAWPOOMPC Minutes\11-22-05.doc 12 Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 2005 the City Engineer. As a minimum, the applicant shall provide split phase traffic signal operation for northbound and southbound Depot Drive traffic and relocate the north - south crosswalk crossing Highway 1 1 1 to the east side of the intersection. Ultimate street improvements and signal modification shall be implemented once sufficient right of way is obtained to accommodate all turn movements per Item f above. The applicant shall extend improvements beyond the tentative parcel map boundaries to ensure they safely integrate with existing improvements (e.g., grading; traffic control devices and transitions in alignment, elevation or dimensions of streets and sidewalks). Pursuant to this condition, the applicant shall construct street improvements along the north leg of the Highway 1 1 1 /Depot Drive intersection including widening of Depot Drive signing and striping and signal modification required for the ultimate street improvement configuration but excluding additional property acquisition for right-of-way. The applicant shall enter into a reimbursement agreement for their fair share of street improvements required on Highway 111 conditioned of any parcels created by the future Parcel Map. The applicant is responsible for construction of all improvements mentioned above. Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, corner cutbacks, bus turnouts, dedicated turn lanes and other features shown on the approved construction plans, may require additional street widths as may be determined by the City Engineer. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\11-22-05.doe 13 Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 2005 ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Daniels, Ladner, Quill, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Alderson. ABSTAIN: None. 33. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Ladner/Daniels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005-062 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2005-833, as recommended and amended: a. Condition #3 modified to read: "The applicant is hereby notified that prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the City or other agency, it may be necessary to obtain necessary clearances and/or permits from the following agencies:" b. Condition #6: Delete "Prior to issuance of any permits)". C. Condition #22.f.: Modify the existing traffic signal at the Highway 111 and Depot Drive intersection to accommodate for a dual left turn for northbound Depot Drive traffic to westbound Highway 111, a dual left turn for westbound Highway 111 to southbound Depot Drive, and any ancillary street improvements conditioned herewith and as approved by Caltrans." d. Condition #44: The applicant shall construct the following street improvements to conform with the City of La Quinta General Plan (street type noted in parentheses.) A. OFF -SITE STREETS 1) Highway 111 (Major Arterial - State Highway, 140' ROW): Widen the south side of the street along all frontage adjacent to the Specific Plan boundary to its ultimate width on the south side as specified in the City of La Quinta General Plan, the requirements of these conditions and as required by CalTrans. The south curb face shall be located fifty eight feet (58') south of the centerline, except at locations where additional street width is needed to accommodate: al A deceleration/right turn only lane on Highway 111 at the Highway 111 /Depot Drive intersection. The south curb face shall be located sixty six (66') south of the centerline and length as approved by Caltrans. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\11-22-05.doc 14 Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 2005 b) A deceleration/right turn only lane at the Secondary Entry Driveway. The south curb face shall be located sixty six feet (66') south of the centerline and length as approved by Caltrans. c) A bus turnout on Highway 111 east of the Highway 111 /Depot Drive intersection as required by SunLine Transit Agency and as approved by Caltrans. Other required improvements in the Highway 111 right or way and/or adjacent landscape setback area include: d) All appurtenant components such as, but not limited to: curb, gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and signs. e) 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 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. f) Modify the existing traffic signal at the Highway 111 and Depot Drive intersection to accommodate for a dual left turn for northbound Depot Drive traffic to westbound Highway 111, a dual left turn for westbound Highway 111 to southbound Depot Drive, and G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\71-22-05.doc 15 Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 2005 any street improvements conditioned herewith and as approved by Caltrans. g1 A bus shelter on the south side of Highway 1 1 1, west of Depot Drive to be constructed in accordance with the City's Highway 111 Design Guidelines. h) A 24-foot wide raised landscaped median along the entire boundary of the Specific Plan plus variable width as needed to accommodate a dual left turn for the westbound Highway 111 turning left to southbound Depot Drive. The length shall be as required by Caltrans but a minimum 250 feet. The raised landscaped median may be deferred until the City of La Quinta's Highway 111 Widening project from Adams Street to Jefferson Street as required by Caltrans and the City Engineer. The applicant shall install interim intersection and signal improvements at the Highway 111 and Depot Drive intersection as approved by the City Engineer. As a minimum, the applicant shall provide split phase traffic signal operation for northbound and southbound Depot Drive traffic and relocate the north -south crosswalk crossing Highway 111 to the east side of the intersection. Ultimate street improvements and signal modification shall be implemented once sufficient right of way is obtained to accommodate all turn movements per Item f above. The applicant shall extend improvements beyond the tentative parcel map boundaries to ensure they safely integrate with existing improvements (e.g., grading; traffic control devices and transitions in alignment, elevation or dimensions of streets and sidewalks). Pursuant to this condition, the applicant shall construct street improvements along the north leg of the Highway 111 /Depot Drive intersection including G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\11-22-05.doc 16 Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 2005 signing and striping and signal modification required for the ultimate street improvement configuration but excluding additional property acquisition for right-of- way. The applicant is responsible for construction of all improvements mentioned above. Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, corner cutbacks, bus turnouts, dedicated turn lanes and other features shown on the approved construction plans, may require additional street widths as may be determined by the City Engineer e. Condition #76: Modified to allow 24 inch box trees in the parking lot. f. Condition #81 amended to read: "The applicant shall install building mounted and parking lot lighting located within 100 feet of the property line to the east, west and south of the Costco building to be no more than 21 feet in height." And add, "If, at the time Costco installs its lighting, the Community Development Department Director is relatively certain there will not be a residential development to the west of this site, the lights for the Costco parking lot could be 35 feet." g. Condition #82: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a revised site plan for the area from the Highway 111 bus shelter to the north edge of the Costco parking field to be approved by the Community Development Director. This shall include a path of pedestrian travel from the Highway 111 bus shelter to the north edge of the Costco parking field, unobstructed access points across the east- west driveway on the north side of the parking field connecting the walkway to the Costco store and also to the future building areas 1 and 2; the lane striping for the main driveway, and landscape planter redesign to accommodate potential public art and/or a landscape feature. h. Condition added: At no time shall storage be allowed behind the building without screening consistent with the rest of the Center. i. Condition added: Applicant shall provide an easement for the potential placement of public art and or a landscape feature as identified in Condition No. 82. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\11-22-05.doc 17 Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 2005 ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Daniels, Ladner, Quill, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Alderson. ABSTAIN: None. Chairman Kirk recessed the meeting at 9:17 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:26 p.m. B. Environmental Assessment 2005-545 and Tentative Tract Map 33717• a request of Quadrant, Inc. for consideration of the subdivision of 4.6 acres into 17 single-family lots and other parcels for the property located on the south side of Avenue 58, west of Monroe Street. 1 . Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Associate Planner Andrew Mogensen presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which was on file in the Community Development Department. 2. There being no questions of staff, Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Serko Khatchadourian, the applicant, stated he was available to answer any questions. 3. There being no questions of the applicant, Chairman Kirk asked if there was any other public comment. There being no further public comment Chairman Kirk closed the public participation portion of the hearing and open for Commission discussion. 4. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any reciprocal accesses. Staff stated there was currently none. 5. Commissioner Daniels asked what is being developed to the south. Staff noted there was a vacant 40-acre parcel and no tract is proposed at this time. Commissioner Daniels asked if this project could be required to have an easement to the property to the south. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated that if we are going to allow private streets, it is very difficult to require an easement. Each project needs to stand alone. 6. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Daniels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005-063, recommending certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\11-22-05.doc 18 Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 2005 impact for Environmental Assessment 2005-545, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Daniels, Ladner, Quill, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Alderson. ABSTAIN: None. 7. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Daniels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005-064, recommending approval of Tentative Tract Map 33717, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Daniels, Ladner, Quill, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Alderson. ABSTAIN: None Chairman Kirk excused himself due to a potential conflict of interest due to the proximity of his residence and left the dais. C. Development Agreement 2005-008; a request of Calle Estado, L.L.C. for consideration of a Development Agreement for parking management, to allow construction of a + 10,709 gross square foot two-story retail/office building in the Village as approved under Village Use Permit 2005-027 for the property located at the southwest corner of Calle Estado and Desert Club Drive. 1. Vice Chairman Quill opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which was on file in the Community Development Department. 2. There being no questions of staff Vice Chairman Quill asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. David Brudvik, stated he was available to answer any questions. 3. There being no questions of the applicant, Vice Chairman Quill asked if there was any other public comment. There being no further public comment the public participation portion of the hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 4. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Ladner to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005-065, approving Development Agreement 2004-008, as recommended: G:\WPDOCS\PC Mmutes\11-22-05.doc 19 Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 2005 ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Daniels, Ladner, and Vice Chairman Quill. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Alderson and Chairman Kirk. ABSTAIN: None. Chairman Kirk rejoined the Commission. D. Specific Plan 2005-076 and Village Use Permit 2005-030; a request of Borrego Resort Holdings, Inc. for direction whether to proceed with a General Plan Amendment to allow up to 25 units per acre in the Village Commercial land use designation for a 31-unit project consisting of 3.5 stories, up to 47.5 feet in height with underground parking, on a 1.23 acre site for the property located on the south side of Calle Tampico, between Avenida Villa and Avenida Navarro. 1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which was on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff and noted this was a policy issue in regard to a specific project. 3. There being no questions of staff Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant of the proposed project would like to address the Commission. Mr. Del Oakes, Knitter and Associates, representing Borrego Resort Holdings, Inc., gave a presentation on the project. 4. Commissioner Quill commented this type of project is what is needed in the Village. His concern would be with the height of the buildings in the Village and wonders why it is not a part of the General Plan Amendment discussion. He would like to see more of this type of development in the Village. 5. Commissioners Ladner and Daniels agreed. It would support the commercial in the Village. 6. Chairman Kirk noted Commissioner Alderson did not support the density requested. 7. Chairman Kirk stated he too would support the Amendment. He would have more intense questions in regard to the project itself. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\11.22-05.doc 20 Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 2005 He would encourage staff to look more at design rather than density. Form based codes may make more sense in this instance. The public facade is more important than the uses. The City needs to ensure the public street scene is consistent in regard to landscaping, arches, entry points. Chairman Kirk stated his concern that increasing density would increase the property values which can prohibit development. 8. Commissioner Quill stated his concern is not density, but the design. He thinks there is a need to encourage an architectural style in the Village area. 9. Commissioner Daniels stated underground parking should be encouraged. 10. There being no questions, Chairman Kirk asked if there was any other public comment. Mr. Lucas Coronel, adjacent property owner, stated his concerns were height and density. This is the same height as the Embassy Suites project and this is to be 47 feet right in the middle of downtown, right next to the curb. It is a great concept but height should be a consideration. 1 1 . Ms. Audrey Ostrowsky, P. 0. Box 351, La Quinta, stated she does not understand how Mr. Coronel could object to this project. 12. There being no further public comment, Chairman Kirk closed the public participation portion of the hearing and opened for Commission discussion. 13. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Quill to accept Option 1 and directed staff to prepare a General Plan Amendment. Unanimously approved. E. Zoning Code Amendment 2005-083; a request of the City for consideration of an Amendment to Chapter 9.200.020 and 9.210.010 of the Municipal Code relating to Site Development Permits. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Planning Manager Les Johnson presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which was on file in the Community Development Department. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\11-22-05.doe 21 Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 2005 2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Daniels clarified this action would happen once the appeal period had expired. City Attorney Kathy Jenson stated yes. Commissioner Daniels stated he did not believe this would resolve any of the issues that had instigated this action. 3. Chairman Kirk asked why it was before the Commission. It is a Council driven decision. Staff noted the Code requires it to go before the Commission. 4. City Attorney Kathy Jenson clarified that if no action was taken by the Commission, it would go forward to the Council with a report of no action being taken. She would recommend forwarding it to the Council as being there prerogative. 5. Chairman Kirk asked if there was any public comment. There being none, the public participation portion of the hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 6. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Quill to forward the matter to the Council. Unanimously approved. VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Site Development Permit 2005-829, Landscaping Plan; a request of Tarlos and Associates for consideration of a revised landscaping plan for a Wendy's Restaurant located at the northeast corner of Auto Center Drive and La Quinta Drive. 1. Chairman Kirk asked for the staff report. Consulting Planner Nicole Criste presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which was on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. There being no questions of staff Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. 3. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Ladner to adopt Minute Motion 2005-015, approving the landscaping plans for Site Development Permit 2005-829, recommended. Unanimously approved. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\11-22-05.doc 22 Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 2005 Vill. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Review of City Council meeting of November 15, 2005. X. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Ladner to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held on December 13, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 10:10 p.m. on November 22, 2005. Respectfully submitted, Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\ 1 1-22-05.doc 23 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: DECEMBER 13, 2005 CASE NOS.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004-812 APPLICANT: CHICK-FIL-A REPRESENTATIVE: KERR PERMIT SERVICES LOCATION: NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 111, EAST OF ADAMS STREET IN THE PAVILION AT LA QUINTA PROJECT REQUEST: REVIEW OF SCREENING PROVISIONS FOR A RESTAURANT WITH A DRIVE-THRU LANE BACKGROUND: The proposed site is part of a 17.48-acre project site approved by a Specific Plan and located along the north side of the Highway 111 commercial corridor east of Adams Street (Attachment 1). The Site Development Permit for this restaurant was approved in October, 2004. One of the conditions of approval is that the drive-thru lane be screened from Highway 111 and that the Planning Commission approve the screening provisions. DISCUSSION: The applicant has submitted plans to address the screening of the drive-thru lane from view of Highway 111. One unique aspect of this is that the area south of the southern side of the drive-thru lane is not a part of the applicant's property but part of the master developer's perimeter landscaping area. The landscape architect for the master developer has designed perimeter area landscaping that is intended to provide screening of the lane and vehicles. A cross section view cut through the landscaped setback between Highway 111 and the drive-thru lane adjacent to the restaurant has been submitted (Attachment 2). This exhibit shows the relative grade relationships between the street, bermed setback and drive -through lane adjacent to the restaurant. Additionally, grading and landscaping plans for the site and adjacent Highway 111 perimeter were previously submitted. Together these items illustrate the applicant's proposal to achieve screening of the drive-thru lane. P:\stan\sp 03.066 thomas\sdp 2004-812 pc rpt plan chk.doc The information submitted indicates that the Highway 111 street elevation (69.5' above sea level (asl) near the curb will be approximately 2.8 feet lower than the drive-thru lane (72.3'). The overall high point of the berm (74 feet asl) will be approximately 1.7 feet higher than the drive-thru lane and 4.5 feet higher than Highway 111. The landscaping plan shows a hedge of Texas Ranger shrubs along the length of the drive-thru lane. This hedge is to be planted at the 72 to 73 foot elevation (asl) of the berm and can grow up to four feet high. If allowed to grow this tall the top of the shrubs could be at 76 to 77 feet (asl) which would provide 4 to 5 feet of screening from the drive-thru lane surface. In addition to the hedge, the landscaping plan also includes multiple trees (Acacia, Sonoran Palo Verde, Fan Palm) and shrubs (Red Bird of Paradise, Trailing Indigo Bush, Yellow Lantana, Purple Trailing Lantana, etc.) which will also assist with screening the drive-thru. CONCLUSION AND ALTERNATIVES: Adequate screening of the drive-thru lane appears to be provided. The full effect of the screening by the planting will be achieved approximately 12 months after installation. If increased or full screening is desired upon completion of the project the following alternatives exist: 1. A minimum 1' high stem wall can be constructed adjacent to the south side of the drive-thru lane allowing for higher berming to be stacked against the wall. This could provide up to a 5.7' (instead of 1.71 difference between the top of the berm (assuming 3:1 slope over a 30' distance) and surface of the drive -through lane. 2. A 4'-5' high wall could be built adjacent to the south side of the drive-thru lane providing a solid screen wall. 3. The Texas Ranger shrubs could be relocated to the top (74' elevation [asli) of the berm. This will provide more immediate and future screening than planting the shrubs on the lower portion of the berm. Alternatives 1 and 2 would only be needed for the straight run portion of the drive- thru lane adjacent to Highway 111 and do not include screening provided by the planting. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Minute Motion 2005- , approving the screening provisions for Site Development Permit 2004-812, subject to the following condition: p \stan\sp 03-066 thomas\sdp 2004-812 pc rpt.doc 7 Jr- 1. The shrubs provided for screening shall be allowed to grow to 4 feet in height and be perpetually maintained with dead plant material immediately replaced by the applicant or master developer. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Development Plans Prepared by: Stan Sawa, Principal Planner P:\stan\sp 03-066 thomas\sdp 2004-812 pc rpt plan chk.doc j CASE Nm ATTACHMENT #1 N i i Vmun4 uui� QGi � hiiiu :f� SDP 2004-812 a s 0 48 ST. AYE. PROJECT SITE ��6c HIGHWAY 111 SCALE: NTS uar.nns xv. FUN STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: DECEMBER 13, 2005 APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA REQUEST: CONSIDERATION AS TO WHETHER TO ALLOW VINYL FENCING AS AN ALTERNATE MATERIAL FOR RESIDENTIAL FENCES. LOCATION: CITY-WIDE BACKGROUND: As it is currently provided for in Municipal Code Section 9.60.030E, fencing materials in the residential districts are limited to wood, ornamental iron and tubular steel, and masonry. Interest has been expressed in allowing vinyl fencing material as an alternative to wood fencing, particularly for residences within the Cove area that are replacing existing wood fences in the rear and side yard. ANALYSIS: Most new residential fencing is a masonry product. In fact virtually all of the new residential fencing installed over the past decade or so has been concrete block. In contrast, there are numerous residences in the Cove with existing wood fences in the rear yards. Though it is the least expensive of the materials currently provided, wood fencing also has the highest maintenance cost and the shortest life span. As an alternative to wood fencing, vinyl fencing has been suggested. Vinyl fencing is slightly higher in cost that wood, but overall requires less maintenance and typically has a longer life span. In addition, the product provides the privacy that most homeowners want to achieve in their rear yards. It is worth noting that wood fencing is limited to rear and interior side yards only with an exception for gates. Thus, there would typically be limited street visibility of such fences. Historically, the aesthetic of vinyl fencing has been of question. Recent improvements in design have made it difficult to discern the difference between vinyl and wood unless viewing from less than five feet. Also, several manufacturers are now producing fencing in a limited selection of colors allowing for alternatives to the standard white. One manufacturer is even producing a vinyl fence that resembles natural wood (Attachment 1). Vinyl fencing material has been used for split rail fencing in the community. Most notably, the split rail fencing along the north side of Avenue 54 abutting The Hideaway/Madison Club and along the south side of Avenue 60 abutting Trilogy are both vinyl split rail fencing. The Municipal Code allows for non -wood products having the appearance of split rail fencing. It is staff's position that vinyl fencing should be allowed as an alternate material to wood fencing, subject to all of the applicable wood fence provisions in LQMC Section 9.60.030.E1 (Attachment 2). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission consider the option of allowing vinyl fencing as an alternate material to wood fencing and provide the appropriate direction to staff. Attachments: 1. Vinyl Fence Sample Sheet 2. LQMC 9.60.030E ATTACHMENT ply \ hm n u a_ ¢ n � u O 2 O i ,x I 141111ti ATTACHMENT #2 d. Any portion of a building site where vehicular access is taken shall conform to the access intersection luirements of subsection (Cx4) of this section. e. City- or state -required sound attenuation walls bordering freeways or arterial highways may exceed six I in height if so recommended by a noise attenuation study and approved by the director. 4. Adjacent to a nonresidential zone or use. The maximum fence height between a residential zone or use d a nonresidential zone or use shall be eight feet. a. The height of fences, trees, shrubs and other visual obstructions shall be limited to a maximum height of rty inches within the triangular area formed by drawing a straight line: i. Between two points located on and twenty feet distant from the point of intersection of two ultimate eet right-of-way lines. ii. Between two points located on and five feet distant from the point of intersection of an ultimate street or ey right-of-way on one hand and the edge of a driveway or another alley right-of-way on the other if parkway dth is less than twelve feet wide. b. For purposes of this code, "point of intersection" means the intersection of the prolongation of the right - way lines, excluding any curved portion joining the two lines. c. The height restrictions of this subdivision shall apply to fences, walls, trees, shrubs, vegetation, or any ier material which obstructs or may obstruct visibility. D. Gates. 1. Materials. Gates shall be constructed of ornamental iron/tubular steel and/or wood. Such gates may be iced in any location provided they meet the requirements of this section and provided any wood used is not s than a grade of construction heart or merchantable and better redwood orNo. 2 and better (no holes) western I cedar, stained or painted to match or complement the adjacent wall or structure. Alternatively, if left in natu- color, all wood shall be treated with a water -repellant material. Wood gates over thirty-six inches wide shall ve a metal frame. Chain link gates are prohibited. Vehicular driveway gates shall be constructed of ornamental n/tubular steel and metal if solid. If screening an RV, the gate shall be constructed of a solid opaque material. 2. Width. Pedestrian gates shall not exceed five feet in width, except that gates may be any width within eyard setbacks of at least twelve feet. E. Fence Construction and Materials. All fencing in residential districts shall conform to the following con- uction and material standards: 1. Wood Fencing. a. Except for gates, split two rail fencing, and for equestrian fencing regulated by Section 9.140.060, wood icing is permitted in rear or interior side yards only, and only if not visible from the street. Gates may be of rod in any location provided they comply with the standards of this section. b. All wood fencing shall be constructed of not less than a grade of construction heart or merchantable and tter redwood or No. 2 and better (no holes) western red cedar, stained or painted to match or complement the jacent wall or structure. Alternatively, if left in natural color, all wood shall be treated with a water -repellant tterial. c. Fence boards may be horizontal or vertical. Support posts shall be a minimum of nominal four inches by rr inches redwood, pressure -treated lumber, tubular steel or block and installed per the Uniform Building ide. d. Split Rail Fencing. Split two rail fencing shall be allowed in the front yard or along the front property e with columns a maximum height of four feet and three feet for the top rail. All columns shall be cemented th footings. Materials for the columns shall be wood, brick, or block. The rails may be either wood or other n-wood products that have the appearance of split rail. A building permit shall be obtained prior to construc- n. 2. Ornamental Iron and Tubular Steel Fencing. Ornamental iron or tubular steel fencing maybe used along front or street side yards only. The iron or steel shal I be painted to match or complement the adjacent wall or ucture. 3. Masonry Fencing. Solid masonry fencing (i.e., block, rock, brick, with or without stucco covering) is rmitted in any location on the lot provided the color of the masonry or stucco matches or complements the jacent wall or structure. Precision concrete block shall not be used unless all exterior surfaces visible from Quinn Supp. No. 1.4.03) 236 9.60.030 outside the property are covered with stucco, paint, texture coating, or other comparable coating approved by the director. 4. Material Combinations. Combinations of two or more of the preceding materials may be used provided that the bottom one-half of the fence is constructed of a masonry material. Combinations incorporating wood materials shall only be used for the rear and interior side yards and only when not visible from the street. F. Fence Landscaping and Maintenance. 1. Landscaping. The area between the back of curb and any fencing shall be landscaped, have a suitable permanent irrigation system, and be continuously maintained by the property owner. 2. Maintenance. All walls and fences shall be continuously maintained in good repair. The property owner shall be provided thirty days after receiving notice from the city to repair a wall or fence. The building official may grant an extension to such time period not to exceed sixty days. G. Prohibited Fence Materials and Construction Fences. The use of barbed wire, razor wire, chain link, or similar materials in or on fences is prohibited in all residential districts. Chain link fencing is permitted for tem- porary construction fences when authorized by a minor use permit issued in accordance with Section 9.210.020, Said minor use permit shall not be approved until a permit for grading, or construction, has been filed for, whichever comes first. H. Equestrian Fencing. Notwithstanding any other requirements of this section, fencing shall be regulated by the provisions of Section 9.140.060 (Equestrian overlay regulations) where the keeping of horses is permit. ted. I. Nonconforming Fences. Any fence which does not meet the standards of this section but which was le• gally established prior to the adoption of these standards may be maintained provided such fence is not expandec nor its nonconformance with these standards otherwise increased. Any fence which is destroyed or damaged tc the extent of more than fifty percent of its total replacement value shall not be repaired, rebuilt, or reconstructec except in conformance with these standards. (Ord. 378 § 1 (Exh. A), 2002; Ord. 361 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 2001, Ord. 325 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 1998; Ord. 299 § 1 (part), 1997; Ord. 284 § 1 (Exhs. A, B) (part), 1996) 9.60.040 Patio covers, decks and play equipment. A. Applicability. For purposes of this section, the term "patio covers, decks, and play equipment' include! any type of yard structure other than a building or a carport. Such structures include but are not limited to opet and solid patio covers, gazebos, trellises, arbors, and to play equipment which is more than eight feet in height All such structures shall be "open" (no side walls) and are referred to in this section as "yard structures." En closed structures shall be considered accessory buildings (see Section 9.60.050). Uncovered decks and othe structures less than eighteen inches above finish grade shall not be subject to the provisions of this section. B. Standards. Patio covers, decks, gazebos, play equipment or other yard structures, attached to or detachea from the main building shall comply with front and side yard setbacks for the main building and the following requirements: 1. The location of decks shall be governed by the standards for wall projections in Section 9.50.060. 2. No yard structure shall be more than twelve feet in height. 3. Yard structures shall not be constructed or established in the panhandle portion of panhandle or flag lot 4. No yard structure shall be located less than five feet from any adjacent residential lot or from any rea property line adjacent to a public or private right-of-way. 5. No yard structure shall be located less than three feet from any rear property line adjacent to any com mon use easement or open space or recreational area which is at least ten feet deep. 6. Eaves or roofs may overhang into the required setback a maximum of eighteen inches. Setbacks shall b measured from the nearest supporting member of the structure to the property line or, ifthe property line is at th toe of a slope, from the top of the slope. 7. Structures shall be constructed in a manner so as to prevent rooftop water from draining onto any adja cent parcel. 8. Wood lattice cross -members in patio covers or trellises shall be of minimum nominal two inches by tw inches material. 237 (L Quinu Supp. No. 1, 4-0