2002 12 10 PCT4t!t 4 4 QumtO
Planning Commission Agendas are now
available on the City's Web Page
@ www.la-quinta.org
PLANNING COMMISSION
� , U � � �L% d F 'i"I
A Regular Meeting to be Held at the
La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California
DECEMBER 10, 2002
7:00 P.M.
**NOTE**
ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED
TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING
Beginning Resolution 2002-117
Beginning Minute Motion 2002-019
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 on November 26, 2002.
B. Department Report
V. PRESENTATIONS: None
PC/AGENDA
VI. PUBLIC HEARING: None
VII. BUSINESS ITEMS:
A. Item ................. SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-728
Applicant .......... Stamko Development
Location ........... Southeast of Highway 111 and Adams Street
intersection, within the Centre at La Quinta
Request ............ Consideration of the final landscaping plan for an
auto/retail center.
Action .............. Minute Motion 2002-
B. Item ................. SPECIFIC PLAN 2000-050
Applicant .......... Santa Rosa Developers
Location ........... North of Calle Tampico, east of Avenida Bermudas,
and west of Desert Club Drive
Request ............ Consideration of a Master Sign Program
Action .............. Minute Motion 2002-
C. Item ................. SIGN APPLICATION 2002-668
Applicant .......... Bill Moore & Associates (Ross Dress for Less)
Location ........... North side of Highway 1 1 1, east of Washington
Street within the One Eleven La Quinta Shopping
Center
Request ............ Consideration of an Amendment to the One Eleven La
Quinta Shopping Center Sign Program to allow a
revised sign for a 30,000 square foot commercial
building.
Action .............. Minute Motion 2002-
Vlll. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None
IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. Report on the City Council meeting of December 2, 2002
X. ADJOURNMENT:
This meeting of the Planning Commission will be adjourned to a Regular Meeting
to be held on January 14, 2003, at 7:00 p.m.
PC/AGENDA
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
November 26, 2002 7:00 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00
p.m. by Chairman Butler who lead the flag salute.
B. Present: Commissioners Jacques Abels, Tom Kirk, Steve Robbins, Robert
Tyler, and Chairman Richard Butler.
C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, Assistant
City Attorney John Ramirez, City Engineer Tim Jonasson, Assistant City
Engineer Steve Speer, Planning Manager Oscar Orci, Principal Planner
Fred Baker, Associate Engineer Elsa Paisley, Associate Planner Wallace
Nesbit, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed
IV. CONSENT ITEMS:
A. Chairman Butler asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of
November 12, 2002. Commissioner Kirk noted that on Page 2, Item 5
under Roll Call, Commissioner Tyler's vote should show that he was in
favor of the project. There being no further corrections, it was moved
and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to approve the minutes as
amended. Unanimously approved.
B. Department Report: None
V. PRESENTATIONS: None
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\11-26-02.wpd 1
Planning Commission Minutes
November 26, 2002
Associates/Washington 1 1 1, LTD, for: 1) certification of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of environmental impact; 2) consideration of design
guidelines and development standards for a 488,050 square foot
commercial center; 3) consideration of a conditional use permit to allow
a health club over 50.62 square feet; 4) consideration of a tentative
parcel map to allow the subdivision of 50.71 acres into six parcels; and
5) Consideration of a site development permit to allow construction of
five commercial buildings for the property bounded by Highway 1 1 1 on
the north, Avenue 47 on the south, Washington Street on the West and
Adams Street on the east.
1. Chairman Butler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Principal Planner Fred Baker presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department.
2. Chairman Butler asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Tyler asked if La Quinta Center Drive is a public or
private street. Staff stated it is private and pointed out all the
access points.
3. Commissioner Kirk asked for clarification on the traffic assessment
portion of the Environmental Checklist. Environmental Consultant
Nicole Criste stated the traffic assessment looked at overall trips
and pass by trips are those trips that would be on Washington
Street regardless, and would stop in at the center. Commissioner
Kirk asked if a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan
would be required. Staff stated it would be required. This is the
first project that has been conditioned to provide a TDM.
Commissioner Kirk asked what the use was for the drive through
on Shop 3. Staff stated at the present there is no specified use,
but they are talking to Starbucks. The drive through would be
approved as part of the Specific Plan.
4. Commissioner Robbins asked if the Champion Chevrolet building
and the building at the corner, comply with the height
requirements. Staff stated La Quinta Court does have buildings
that were approved in excess of the 22-foot height limitation.
Commissioner Robbins asked if a Big 5 Sporting Goods store had
not already been approved for the center across the street. Staff
stated they have decided to be in this project.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\11-26-02.wpd 2
Planning Commission Minutes
November 26, 2002
5. Commissioner Tyler asked about Condition 7 of the Specific Plan
where the applicant is being asked to comply with a future General
Plan Amendment. He asked how the City can require the applicant
to meet a condition that is not in place at the time of approval.
Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated the current General
Plan identifies Washington Street as an eight lane roadway and
there is a potential to reduce that within a General Plan
Amendment. The applicant will be required to comply with
whichever General Plan requirement is in place at the time the
project is built. Commissioner Tyler asked the City Attorney if this
was possible. Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez stated he
was uncertain and would respond after reviewing the appropriate
document. Commissioner Tyler asked why the applicant was
being required to pay 50% of the signal at Adams Street and
Avenue 47 when it only has one third of the corner or 25%.
Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated 50% has already been
paid for by the Auto Mall and there is no other developer who can
be charged, so the applicant has the burden of the remainder of
the cost.
6. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Butler asked
if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Dale
Frank, applicant, gave a presentation on the project. In regard to
the General Plan Amendment he would dedicate six feet on
Washington Street so, if the City goes to four lanes, the land is
available with no utilities in the street.
7. Chairman Butler asked if there were any questions of the
applicant. Commissioner Abels asked about the proposed market
that would be in competition with the existing market. Mr. Frank
stated Jensons is a specialty market and the proposed Henry's is
a national company that is similar to a Trader Joes which is a
different product type.
8. Commissioner Robbins asked about the ancillary doors on the front
of the Target building. Mr. Frank stated the site plan is from the
Target corporation. Mr. Saeid Shantiyai, representing Target,
stated they are offices that need outdoor access. He went on to
explain the building design.
9. Commissioner Kirk stated the Target elevation seems to suffer
architecturally in comparison to the other parts of the center. By
itself it is a good design, but in comparison to the other buildings
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\11-26-02.wpd 3
Planning Commission Minutes
November 26, 2002
it falls short. Buildings 3 and 4 are very well done. The Target
needs some work between the entrance and the garden center.
The height of Target building is 35 feet and you are asking for
additional height on the other buildings. Mr. Frank stated
functionally they may need to raise the height. Commissioner Kirk
stated that giving more height may be a trade off for additional
facade. He would like to see ways to improve the facade design
on the Target building. Mr. Frank stated that the parking is sunken
which may raise the building. Commissioner Kirk asked about the
accesses on Avenue 47. Mr. Frank stated it was an error on the
plans and his architects will have to reconfigure the accesses.
Commissioner Kirk asked about the impact on the residents on the
south side of Avenue 47 in regard to circulation. Mr. Frank stated
they have considered the residents and believe they have taken
everything into consideration. Commissioner Kirk asked why the
landscaping was being phased. Mr. Shantiyai stated the
landscaping is colored only for affect, it is not a phasing plan. Mr.
Frank stated that as each building is built, the landscaping will be
complete for that entire portion of that site.
10. Commissioner Tyler noted that the landscaping looks great on
paper, but does not always translate into reality. He asked the
location of the loading dock. Mr. Frank noted the location on the
site plan. Mr. Shantiyai stated the plan is based on Target's
prototype. Commissioner Tyler asked about color variations on the
buildings. Mr. Shantiyai stated the color palette shows the colors
intended to be used.
11. Commissioner Abels stated he thought there should be a vestibule
on the front of the larger stores. Mr. Shantiyai stated they do
intend to use one.
12. Chairman Butler stated he is not in favor of a drive through in
association with a fast food. He noted the landscaping and
extensive trees, but in reality they do not reach any real growth.
Mr. Frank stated they are looking for larger trees to initially plant.
13. There being no further questions of the applicant, Chairman Butler
asked if there was any other public comment. Mr. Adam Zack,
Vice President of Jensons Food, stated they do not oppose the
project, but have an objection to Henry's. It is similar to their
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\11-26-02.wpd 4
Planning Commission Minutes
November 26, 2002
store. They are trying to build their store and there lease does
have exclusive uses. Besides bring competition to an existing
tenant, they believe it may violate their lease.
14. There being no further public participation, Chairman Butler closed
the public participation portion of the hearing and opened the
matter up for Commission discussion.
15. Commissioner Abels stated he thinks it is a great project and he
supports it.
16. Commissioner Tyler stated he agrees and asked if the health club
was an uncertainty. If the health club was not a known entity,
why process the conditional use permit. Community Development
Director Jerry Herman stated it gives the applicant the opportunity
to secure a health club owner.
17. Commissioner Kirk stated this is an outstanding project and he
likes the landscaping. Circulation issues are minor and could be
worked out with staff. His greatest concern is the Target building.
He thinks it would be appropriate for the building to be taller than
proposed and would suggest conditioning the building to be larger
and higher with landscaping enhanced along the front. There could
be some additional vertical relief as well as horizontal relief.
18. Commissioner Robbins stated that in this case he likes the rear of
the building more than the front. They need to do something with
the doors on the front of the building.
19. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Kirk/Abels to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2002-107 recommending certification of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment 2002-459, as
recommended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and
Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
20. It was moved and seconded by Commissioner Abels/Tyler to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-108 recommending
approval of Specific Plan 87-01 1 Amendment #4, subject to the
findings and conditions as amended.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\11-26-02.wpd 5
Planning Commission Minutes
November 26, 2002
a. Condition #82: add after lighting plan, "including
illumination plan".
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler and
Chairman Butler, NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
21. It was moved and seconded by Commissioner Abels/Robbins to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-109 recommending
approval of Conditional Use Permit 2002-072, subject to the
findings and conditions as recommended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler and
Chairman Butler, NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
22. It was moved and seconded by Commissioner Abels/Robbins to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-1 10 recommending
approval of Tentative Parcel Map 30903, subject to the findings
and conditions as recommended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler and
Chairman Butler, NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
23. It was moved and seconded by Commissioner Tyler/Kirk to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-111 recommending
approval of Site Development Permit 2002-751, subject to the
findings and conditions as amended.
a. Condition # The Target building shall have an average
vertical height of 35 feet and up to 40 feet and work with
staff to seek variation in color or materials on the mid-
section of the front facade.
b. A vestibule shall be added at the entrance.
C. Articulation shall be added around the doors on the front
elevation.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler and
Chairman Butler, NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\11-26-02.wpd 6
Planning Commission Minutes
November 26, 2002
24. Commissioner Robbins/Kirk moved to reconsider the Specific Plan
Amendment. Unanimously approved.
25. It was moved and seconded by Chairman Butler and seconded by
Commissioner Abels to add a condition to the Specific Plan that no
drive through associated with a fast food stores shall be allowed.
Unanimously approved.
Chairman Butler recessed the meeting at 8:50 p.m. and reconvened at 8:57 p.m.
B. Village Use Permit 2002-015; a request of Prest Vuksic Architects for
consideration of development plans for construction of a 6,700 square
foot office building on a 0.4 acre parcel located at the northwest corner
of Calle Amigo and Desert Club Drive.
1. Commissioner Kirk excused himself due to a potential conflict of
interest due to proximity of the project to his residence, and left
the dais.
2. Chairman Butler 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 is on file
in the Community Development Department.
3. Chairman Butler asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Tyler asked if the small sliver of land across from
Calle Amigo was buildable. Staff stated probably not as a
commercial building. Commissioner Tyler stated his concern was
that if it is not buildable, this facade would be seen from Avenue
52. Also, it appears the planter in the middle of the parking lot
could be eliminated to give more parking spaces. Staff stated they
are required to have two-way travel in the parking lot.
4. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Butler asked
if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Dave
Prest, representing the applicant stated he was available to answer
any questions.
5. Commissioner Robbins asked how the applicant feels about the
suggestions of the Architecture and Landscaping Review
Committee. Mr. Prest stated they had no objections and had
offered to eliminate a parking space to create a gathering place for
the workers of the office building as they suggested.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\11-26-02.wpd 7
Planning Commission Minutes
November 26, 2002
6. Chairman Butler asked if there were any questions of the
applicant. Commissioner Tyler asked if the restrooms both have
access from the outside of the building and if so, he assumes they
would be controlled by access keys. Mr. Prest stated the idea is
to have fairly small offices and one common restroom for the
entire building instead of each office.
7. There being no further questions of the applicant, Chairman Butler
asked if there was any other public comment.
8. There being no further public participation, Chairman Butler closed
the public participation portion of the hearing and opened the
matter up for Commission discussion.
9. Commissioner Tyler questioned the need for the "gathering place".
10. Commissioner Robbins stated he did agree with idea as it does
make for a nicer place to work.
11. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Abels/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2002-112, approving Village Use Permit 2002-015,
subject to the conditions as recommended:
a. Condition #30: The gathering place shall be located on the
westernmost parking stall in front of the building entry.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Robbins, Tyler and Chairman
Butler, NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Kirk.
ABSTAIN: None.
Commissioner Kirk rejoined the Commission.
C. Environmental Assessment 99-389 Addendum and Tentative Tract Man
29323, Amendment #2; a request of Cornerstone Development for
certification of an Addendum to Environmental Assessment 99-389 and
consideration of a second amendment to the tract map to add ten acres
and 32 residential lots to the original 117 acre site, located at the
northwest corner of Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street.
1. Chairman Butler 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 is on file
in the Community Development Department.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\11-26-02.wpd 8
Planning Commission Minutes
November 26, 2002
2. Chairman Butler asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioners asked staff to explain the letter received from the
City of Indio. Staff stated the issues raised in their letter were
vague and staff was unable to reach anyone from the City of Indio
to obtain an explanation.
3. Commissioner Kirk asked staff if the developer on the east side of
the street, which is in the City of Indio, is not required to pay his
portion of the signal costs, would this developer be responsible for
the full amount of the signal, and if the developer in Indio pays
nothing, then this developer would pay nothing. Assistant City
Engineer Steve Speer responded that if the developer creates the
impact there is an argument that supports the concept of the
developer paying for 100% of the mitigation costs. Staff indicated
they would review the condition for an opportunity to clarify the
language.
4. Commissioner Robbins stated that since the east side is in the City
of Indio, La Quinta cannot require that developer to pay their
portion of the signal, and this developer would have to pay the
entire cost for the signal.
5. Commissioner Tyler asked if the utility lines would be
undergrounded. Staff stated they did not believe they would be.
No response was received from IID.
6. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Butler asked
if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Marvin
Roos, Mainiero Smith and Associates, engineers for the project,
stated they are happy with the redesign, but would prefer to have
a right in-, right out rather than a signal. In addition, they would
like to request that four lots be removed from the list of approved
pad elevations. Lots 42, 43, 236, 237.
7. Chairman Butler asked if there were any questions of the
applicant. Commissioner Tyler asked about the signal costs.
8. Mr. Allan Levin, representing Cornerstone, stated that in regard to
the traffic signal, they would be willing to accept limited access
instead of paying for the entire signal. The project across the
street does not have any requirement to pay any portion of the
signal and therefore, it puts the entire burden on them. In regard
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\11-26-02.wpd 9
Planning Commission Minutes
November 26, 2002
to the issue on compatibility, Ponderosa has already been
approved for their elevations. In order to approve the units for this
development, Ponderosa withdrew their approval and both are
before the Commission for review and approval. This way they
would not be in violation of the compatibility requirement. In
addition, staff has stipulated there can be nothing in the five yard
setback. He would like to ask for some latitude for access and air
conditioners, etc.
9. Mr. Joe Swain, Cornerstone Developers, stated that in regard to
the Biology report there is reference to contacting Fish and
Wildlife. Nothing was found in the study and US Fish and Wildlife
has transferred the responsibility to Fish and Game who has said
the only thing they would be concerned with would be the
vegetation. They are working on a mitigation with them.
10. There being no further questions of the applicant, and no other
public participation, Chairman Butler closed the public participation
portion of the hearing and opened the matter up for Commission
discussion.
11. Commissioners discussed whether or not to require the signal or
right-in,right-out. Staff recommended leaving the condition as
written.
12. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Tyler/Robbins to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2002-1 13, recommending certification of an Addendum
to Environmental Assessment 99-389, as recommended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler and
Chairman Butler, NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
13. It was moved and seconded by Commissioner Kirk/Robbins to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-1 14 recommending
approval of Tentative Tract Map 29323 Amendment #2, subject
to the conditions as amended:
a. Condition 37: Delete Lots 42, 43, 236, 237
b. Condition #59.A.1.: Change "reimbursement" to "cash fee"
C. Condition #70: change CVWD to Myoma Dunes
d. Condition #89: Appropriate wildlife agency
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\11-26-02.wpd 10
Planning Commission Minutes
November 26, 2002
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler and
Chairman Butler, NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
VII. BUSINESS ITEMS:
A. Site Development Permit 2002-752; a request of Cornerstone
Developers/Ponderosa Homes for consideration of a residential tract
development with seven single family prototypes with three facade
treatments each, and landscaping design plans for the property located
on the northwest corner of Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street,
within Tentative Tract 29323.
1. Chairman Butler asked for the staff report. Associate Planner
Wallace Nesbit presented the information contained in the staff
report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department.
2. Chairman Butler asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Tyler asked the location of the models. Staff
indicated their location on the site plan.
3. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Butler asked
if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Joe
Swain, representing the applicant, gave an explanation of the
models and their location.
4. Chairman Butler asked if there were any questions of the
applicant. Commissioner Tyler asked if the CC&R's would
eliminate the parking of RV's on the street. Mr. Swain stated this
would be included in the CC&R's.
5. There being no further questions of the applicant and no other
public participation, Chairman Butler closed the public participation
portion and opened the matter up for Commission discussion.
6. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Robbins/Kirk to adopt Minute Motion 2002-018,
approving Site Development Permit 2002-752, subject to the
conditions as amended:
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\11-26-02.wpd 11
Planning Commission Minutes
November 26, 2002
a. Condition added: If there is an option for a third car
garage, it shall be conditioned to a 16 foot approach,
except on a cul-de-sac.
Unanimously approved.
B. Right of Way Vacation 2002-01 1; a request of the Coral Mountain LLC,
for determination of General Plan consistency of the proposed 60-foot
wide street right of way vacation for that portion of Madison Street
between Avenue 58 and Avenue 60.
1. Chairman Butler asked for the staff report. Assistant City Engineer
Steve Speer presented the information contained in the staff
report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department.
2. Chairman Butler asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Tyler asked why they want to move the street.
Staff stated it is to improve their land plan. Commissioner Tyler
stated he would like to know the reason, before approving the
request.
3. Commissioner Robbins asked about all the utilities in Madison
Street; will they also be realigned. Staff stated this is the first
step in the process. The next step is for the City Council to adopt
a Resolution of Intent. During the process if utilities are found to
be in the street, they will be conditioned to relocated them.
4. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Butler asked
if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Grady
Sparks, representing Coral Mountain, stated the reason for the
realignment is for land space and the type of developments they
are proposing. A lot of open space is needed or an additional 40-
45 acres. This gives a nice gentle sweep to break up the asphalt
jungle.
5. There being no further questions of the applicant and no public
comment, Chairman Butler closed the public participation portion
and opened the matter up for Commission discussion.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\11-26-02.wpd 12
Planning Commission Minutes
November 26, 2002
6. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Robbins to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-115, making a
determination of General Plan consistency for Right of Way
Vacation 2002-01 1, as recommended:
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler and
Chairman Butler, NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
C. Right of Way Vacation 2002-012; a request of the Louis Campagna, for
determination of General Plan consistency for the vacation of a portion
of Calle Tampico near Avenida Navarro.
1. Chairman Butler asked for the staff report. Assistant City Engineer
Steve Speer presented the information contained in the staff
report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department.
2. Chairman Butler asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Tyler asked if this vacation is approved, will the
vacated portion become a part of Lot 1. Staff stated it would.
3. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Butler asked
if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Louis
Campagana stated he was available to answer any questions.
4. There being no questions of the applicant and no other public
participation, Chairman Butler closed the public participation
portion and opened the matter up for Commission discussion.
5. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Abels/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2002-116, making a determination of General Plan
consistency for Right of Way Vacation 2002-012, as
recommended:
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler and
Chairman Butler, NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None.
G:\WPD0CS\PC'Minutes\1 1-26-02.wpd 13
Planning Commission Minutes
November 26, 2002
IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. Commissioner Tyler gave a report on the City Council meeting of
November 19, 2002.
B. Commissioners asked staff to agendize a discussion of the Compatibility
Ordinance.
X. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Abels/Kirk to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular
meeting of the Planning Commission to be held December 10, 2002, at 7:00 p.m.
This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned 10:24 at p.m. on November
26, 2002.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\11-26-02.wpd 14
BI #1
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: DECEMBER 10, 2002
CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-728
APPLICANT: STAMKO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF FINAL LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR
AN AUTO RETAIL CENTER
LOCATION: SOUTHEAST OF HIGHWAY 111 AND ADAMS STREET
INTERSECTION, WITHIN THE LA QUINTA AUTO CENTRE
The 4.94-acre project site is located southeast of the intersection of Highway 111 and
Adams Street, and is a part of the La Quinta Auto Centre (Specific Plan 97-029)
approved in July 1997. The applicant proposes to construct an auto retail center
consisting of seven buildings.
When this project was approved by the Planning Commission it was conditioned to
submit final landscaping plans for review and approval prior to issuance of a grading
permit.
The Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee (ALRC) reviewed and approved
this request at its meeting of June 5, 2002, and determined the project was
acceptable with the following conditions:
1. Lantana would not be planted in the front of the Walmart building.
2. Pickets with vines would be added to the columns on the front of the building
3. Two palm trees shall be added on the north and south sides of the island at the
entrance to the site.
The developer has complied with the ALRC recommendations
G:\WPDOCS\PC Stf Rpt\StamkoFinallandscaping.wpd
Adopt Minute Motion 2000-_ approving the final landscaping plans for Site
Development Permit 99-666, as submitted.
Attachments:
1. ALRC Minutes for June 5, 2002
2. Landscaping Plans (Commission only)
G:\WPDOCS\PC Stf Rpt\StamkoFinaiIandscaping.wpd
ATTACHMENT A
MINUTES
ARCHITECTURE & LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA /
June 5, 2002 10:00 a.m.
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. This meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping Committee was called
to order at 10:07 a.m. by Principal Planner Stan Sawa who led the flag
salute.
B. Committee Members present: Dennis Cunningham, Bill Bobbitt, and David
Thorns.
C. Staff present: Community •Development Director Jerry Herman,
Management Analyst Debbie Powell, Principal Planners Stan Sawa and
Fred Baker, Associate Planners Greg Trousdell, Wallace Nesbit, and
Martin Magana, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
III. CONFIRMATION OF TFJI AGENDA: Confirmed.
IV. CONSENT CALEN/AR:
A. Community Development Director Jerry Herman asked if there were any
changes to the Minutes of May 5, 2002. There being no corrections, it
was moved and seconded by Committee Members Cunningham/Thoms
to approve the Minutes as submitted.
V. BUSINESS ITEMS:
A. Site Development Permit 2002-728; a request of Stamko Development
Company to review enhanced landscaping plans for the area in front of
the new Walmart building and at the Centre at La Quinta Centre Drive
entry located at the southeast corner of Highway 111 and La Quinta
Centre Drive.
1. Community Development Director Jerry Herman presented the
information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file
in the Community Development Department.
GAWPD0CS\ARLC\6-5-02.wpd I
Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes
June 5, 2002
2. Mr. George Sicrea, architect for the project, gave a presentation
on the project.
3. Committee Member Thorns asked about the height of the gas
station signs. Staff noted it was an issue for the Planning
Commission. Committee Member Thorns asked if the band was
natural in color. Mr. Sicrea sated it was a French gray color to
accommodate the heavy traffic. The landscaping planting is
similar to the Auto Center but more massing with the lantana or
blooming shrubs.
4. Committee Bobbitt asked if the landscaping would block the view
at the entrance. Mr. Sicrea stated that without the big shrubs the
views are safe. Plan check procedures will verify the safety
concerns.
5. Committee Member Thorns asked for one more date palm on each
side of the entrance. Mr. Sicrea stated it would take shuffling to
accommodate more trees.
6. Ms. Chris Clarke, project developer, stated it is a right in to the
center so they need to be careful with the distance on the south
side of the property to accommodate the right turn in. The added
landscaping may block the views. Mr. Russ Beckner, representing
the developer, stated he also had a concern as to whether or not
there was enough room for the light fixtures.
7. Committee Member Cunningham stated his concern was that the
extra trees may crowd the area.
8. Community Development Director Jerry Herman asked if the
Committee had any concerns regarding the proposed changes to
the Walmart frontage landscaping. Mr. Sicrea gave a presentation
on the landscaping plan.
9. Committee Member Bobbitt stated there is always a problem with
plant material in planters as they are never maintained properly.
10. Committee Member Thoms stated planters with lantana do not
last. He would recommend vines be used on the columns, but
leave the ground shrubs in front of the store. Eliminate the plants
and place a picket with vines on the columns.
G:\WPDOCSWRI,C\6-5-02.wpd 2
Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes
June 5, 2002
11. Committee Member Bobbitt stated his concern was with the size
of the planters containing the trees in the parking lot. They need
to be larger to allow growth and staking. The minimum size
should be at least 8 feet by 8 feet. Ms. Clarke stated the only
reason they are back before the Committee is for review and
approval of the enhanced entrance landscaping. They were not
required to upgrade the landscaping in front of Walmart and did so
at their own option based on a request by the City Council. They
have approval of the entire site. Committee Member Bobbitt
stated he understands, but every project has this problem, and the
City has conditioned the project for 50% shade and it is a waste
of money to plant trees when there is not enough room for them
to grow. Ms. Clarke stated she was proud of the Auto Mall
landscaping and this site will be developed the same. Lowe's
landscaping was well planned and constructed; Walmart had
different standards.
12. Committee Member Cunningham stated this is an issue where
staff could present alternatives to the ALRC
13. Community Development Director Jerry Herman confirmed the
conditions: 1) no lantana in front of the building; 2) add vines on
the columns; and 3) add two palm trees on the north and south
side of the island at the entrance.
14. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Committee Member Cunningham/Thoms to adopt Minute Motion
2002-020 recommending approval of Site Development Permit
2001-728, subject to the conditions as submitted and amended:
A. Lantana would not be planted in the front of the Walmart
building.
B. Pockets with vines would be added to the columns on the
front of the building.
C. Two palm trees shall be added on the north and south sides
of the island at the entrance to the site.
Unanimously approved.
B. Site Development" Permit 2001-738; a request of Affiliated
Construction/Prest Vuksic Architects, for review of architectural and
landscaping plans for a 4,500 square foot two story office building in the
La Quinta Professional Plaza located at the southeast corner of Avenue
47 and Washington Street.
G:\WPDOCSWRI,C\6-5-02.wpd 3
1 5
BI #2
DATE:
CASE NO.:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
BACKGROUND:
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DECEMBER 10, 2002
SPECIFIC PLAN 2000-050
SANTA ROSA PLAZA, LLC
CONSIDERATION OF A MASTER SIGN PROGRAM FOR
SANTA ROSA PLAZA
NORTH OF CALLE TAMPICO, EAST OF AVENIDA
BERMUDAS, AND WEST OF DESERT CLUB DRIVE
The Santa Rosa Plaza Specific Plan consists of 145 unit Embassy Suite Hotel, 144
Casitas units, and three retail pads. Currently the first phase of Casitas units are under
construction and the hotel is in plan check. The Specific Plan Conditions of Approval,
require the developer to submit and receive approval of a Master Sign Program. The
developer has submitted a Master Sign Program which establishes the criteria for the
monument sign, directional signs for the Casitas units and the hotel, and the
commercial tenants.
Staff has reviewed the Sign Program and finds it acceptable.
Adopt Minute Motion 2000-_ approving the Master Sign Program for Specific Plan
2000-050, as submitted.
Attachments:
1. Master Sign Program
G:\WPDOCS\PC Stf Rpt\SantaRosSignApp.wpd
CITY OF LA QUINTA
SANTA ROSA PLAZA
SIGN PROGRAM
PREPARED BY
SANTA ROSA PLAZA, LLC
PO BOX 1503
LA QUINTA, CA 92253
IN ASSOCIATION WITH
PK ARCHITECTS
1620 N. 48TH STREET, #102
PHOENIX, AZ 85008
602-283-1620
THE CAMPBELL COLLABORATIVE
1550 EAST MISSOURI
PHOENIX, AZ 85014
602-266-1644
FOR
EMBASSY SUITES
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
November 5, 2002
SANTA ROSA PLAZA
SIGN PROGRAM
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this Sign Program is to develop a set of graphic standards that will be
used throughout the Santa Rosa Plaza development. This program will set the type
of material, size, colors, and related items for each type of sign to be used throughout
this mixed -used project.
The Sign Program is intended to provide the design criteria for the following:
Entry monument
Directional signs to the Casitas units and the Hotel
Hotel signs
It is also the intent of this Program to set the standards for each individual commercial
tenants. These standards will create the maximum sign exposure for the commercial
tenants in a manner that will enhance the overall image of the project and tie into the
design of the Casitas units and Hotel signage. As each commercial tenant proposes
their signs, it will first be submitted to the Santa Rosa Plaza Developer for review and
approval, then submitted to the City for a permit.
The criteria in this program shall be strictly enforced. Any requested deviation from
the approved Sign Program shall be submitted first to the developer and then the City
for approval.
APPROVAL PROCESS:
All signs shall be submitted to the Santa Rosa Plaza Developer for review and
approval. Once approved by the Developer, an application will be submitted to the
City for review and appropriate action.
Each application must contain a drawing that clearly identifies the sign size, color,
construction material, location, message and typeface with specifications. Each sign
must comply with all provisions of Chapter 9.160-Signs of the City of La Quinta
Municipal Code, unless otherwise amended herein. The application is then processed
by the City.
ENTRY MONUMENT, DIRECTIONAL, CASITAS, AND HOTEL
SIGNS
The following is a list of Exhibits that provide sign criteria for the Hotel, Casitas units,
and directional information.
Exhibit SW Location map
Exhibit SN2 & SN5: Entry and Monument signs
Exhibit SN3 & SN4 Hotel and directional signs
Exhibit SN6 Building signs for the Casitas units and Hotel
LIGHTING
PURPOSE: The visual effect of the lighting of the signs needs to be soft, subtle and
effective. The overall lighting of the signs needs to portray the quality
of the development and community. The light source needs to out of
site. In ground fixtures, fixed with louvers will be used to direct the light.
Additionally, low growing shrubs will be used to hide some floodlights.
The lights will be aimed as to not blind the pedestrian, or the operator of
any vehicles. The light levels will be kept at a level that will not burn out
the colors of the signs.
MAIN ENTRY SIGN:
The main entry sign will be lit from the sides and from below in the
water. The lights will illuminate both the water and the sign to create a
visual effect of the sign moving. The water will glisten with the light
from under the falls. The effect will be one that is soft and welcoming;
not harsh and bright. The light fixture will be aimed at a 30-degree angle
utilizing a 28-watt (120 volt) twin bulb fluorescent. The type of bulb and
its wattage may be reduced once the sign is in place to achieve the
effect desired.
DIRECTIONAL SIGNS:
The lighting for these signs will be supplied from an in -ground light
source. Louvers will be utilized to both control and direct the lighting
onto the portion of the sign that needs to be lit. The light source will not
be seen. Lights will also be directed so as not to blind any of the
pedestrians, or vehicular operators. The light fixture will be aimed at a
45-degree angle utilizing a 70-watt metal halide bulb. The type of bulb
and its wattage may be reduced once the signs are in place to achieve
the effect desired.
a
COMMERCIAL SIGNS
TENANT/SHOP SIGNS:
The following is a list of criteria for all commercial tenants
PURPOSE: Tenant Identification
QUANTITY: One sign per lease area frontage. Corner unit spaces may split
their size between the two frontages (one on each face). Corner
unit signs are to be separated by 20-feet.
NET SIGN AREA: *75% of the leased area building frontage, not to exceed 50
square feet. (This percentage includes the tenant logo sign, which
cannot exceed 25% of the total sign area). Signs can consist of
two lines provided the total sign area does not exceed 50 square
feet.
LETTER STYLE *Helvetica light, or as approved by the Developer and City.
COLORS: As approved by the Developer and City. Each sign shall have only
one letter color. No two adjacent signs shall be the same color.
MATERIAL: Plexiglass face, matte black painted aluminum can, internally
illuminated individual letters. No exposed electrical raceways
permitted. No exposed neon signs allowed.
ADDRESS: Letter style: Six inch Helvetica light
Colors: "Freeze", CZ-5880W
Material: Die cut faced letters
* National or regional tenants with more than five outlets, will be allowed to use
their corporate sign. No two adjacent separate tenant signs shall be the same
color without Developer and City approval. One color only per sign other than
the logo, unless approved by the Developer and City. This provision will also
require Planning Commission approval.
C)
r
I
V)
I
Z
W
M
I
I
0
0
Z
m
YJ
CD
Q
Z
r
I
fr
o
M
Z
I
WW
O
�=
z
z
z
W
Z
o
I�
O
O
S
W
W
LLJ
N
N
I
Q
Q
Q
J
cn
IW-
Iz
W
a.
U
o
0
Q
Z
V)
J
Q
Z
O
P
U
W
O
O
S
FQ-
W
Q
U
i � OOOOOO
MA
ff
W
0
0
w
F--
J
U _
m
m
^ i
n tV
Q
U
CY
W_
a_ J
w
z `
o z
U
V)
Q
LL
V)
z
.J
0
ry
w
z
W U
z
Q CD
U 0
0
CD
0
J 0
CD
Z 0
Q 0
00 Q
� W
z
0� U
z v)
wLLI
mQ z
w� w
m
3:0 ct
W
W Q
'S C) W
J ~
Q
w
z
0
I--
V)
0
w
J
U Z
� 0
m J
a_ m
U =
ry 0 F—
w Z
a_ m
w 0
o 0 F-
f- -J 0
� W U
W
LJi. X (n
LO
to z
Q
m
0
W
J
W
w
.9-j
0
0
w
0
ry
C�
W
z
W
W
w
0
V)
Q
J
LL.
W
0
aa_
Q
U
Mo
W
N
0
0
w
F-
V)
m
w
N
Z
U)
a,
LW
z
0
J
W
O
J 7
w
z
p
a
w
2
z
1
m
3�
z
N
in
J
U
NQ
Q
w
F-
W
two
a
m
FN
OD
o
iL
o
(0
N
d
d
JFz
a
�
w
w
O
:D
wo
U
O
o
W
J
FQ
cn
II
ZQ
a
h-
�
0
a
a
o
a
n-
_C
0
W
N
<z N
z
N
O
Z
Z
z
N
N
z
Q
�
O
U
Oo
ZW
O
F
O
U
wa
W
��
M
W
Q
U
�Z
�-
W
0=
N
Q0.
O
N
W
0
w
�
�0
wWJ
Q
z
_
N
w
F
zU
Wo
F-
W
�y�
Z
�
ClQ
m4
Uw
o_
w
J
w
ZW
S
\
LLJ
J
zo
O
Z
-'
�Z
Z
U
_CL
w
0
F-
N
0
w
0_
U
m
a.
cr-
U
W
a
w
O
w
0
a
0_
Q
U
0
rn
co
m
W
N
Q
U-
0
z
Q
a
F-
O
I
O
0_
T
V)
z
O
U
U)
Q
z
O U
r
W S
U
Z
WQ Q
w
MIN
F� �
N
�O w
WWJ Q
Jz �
JZ
WO
O
QQ
_tok w
Uw O
QN Z
aE
z
Do 0
DZ W
Qd �
M
r
m
w
w
N
Q
Wa
w
z
Q
a.
T
Ln
z
O
U
U
z
U
VI
z
W
Q:
� a
Z o
11.1
0 U
W
W
_j
Z
C.�
110
W
CD
Q
z
MA
W
O
I
�o
ZWC cn
aoN
li. O 0
WUZ
J p
LLJ
Z
wS2Z
mina
V)
0 §E
Z
O
F-O
Q
W
Fa-U
Q
a-'cn
V)c p
^'
z i
VVe
N
cn
wo
p
Op00
O
ZOO
a �
JCOD
V)
0.
f-
O QLA
Q U
V)
WU:E
Jm0
V)
V)
V)
V)
}
V)
W�O
ENO
V)
m
�0.0
:
MaU
W
W
U
LU
7Z
Q
C)
Q0
Q
z
V)U
O
V)
I
m
a
W p
Q
Oz
F
U
w
0. Q
o�
Z
p
m
R
OZ
F
U
L—
��
K g
o
�
Q�
W
uj
0
0
ov
t� a
ZW
Nm
W
0.0
Z
W
0
kJ'
O
zcn
¢w
Q.O�n
M=
OU
ZW
c(n�
m
�
Q�
OrZ
J
=
UZ
Q�
aWo
�Z
J
�
f
U
Uz§
v,a
z
v,
WAS
z
(na
FQ
a
W
WLLJ
c)
-j§m
P�
_
LJ
��
z
CD
U
�a
o>
_W
^a
.r
O
~_z
W o Z
wFx
Q
-. a
(n
O
v�
�V)a
p>
vEr,
U
W
O
2
IB
W
z
0
U
W
CO
Q
,so
w
QF�
. 3
O O U
Soo .000`O�g
mmmo�mmm�
IL » >pmp gIg Q
U U 35W 6000-Zoz
�'(ommxL)COW, B ffy--a
a �ar`o� x x T'—;R
It 19
, w COZ �� v.0
r'M
n
8W
3E
f--0
a_z
�a
z
F
g
J
J
Q
z
Lj
z
ME
z
_0
�W
V)
4J
lry
f
z
W
44
n
a
U
w
rs W
z
O
«c ,z «C
N
0
Q
J
w
� � m
w
N_
M � �
W
O
O
O
J
'< <z
cn
w
(� w
(n
N
%-
Con
Q
W
m
w
O
O
J
F-
z
Q
V)
plm
Ct
Z
U.
BI#3
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: DECEMBER 10, 2002
CASE NO.: SIGN APPLICATION 2002-668
APPLICANT: BILL MOORE & ASSOCIATES (FOR ROSS DRESS FOR LESS)
REQUEST: AMENDMENT TO 111 LA QUINTA SHOPPING CENTER SIGN
PROGRAM TO ALLOW REVISED SIGN FOR A 30,000+SQUARE
FOOT COMMERCIAL BUILDING
LOCATION: NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 111, EAST OF WASHINGTON
STREET WITHIN THE ONE -ELEVEN LA QUINTA SHOPPING
CENTER
GENERAL PLAN/
ZONING: M/RC (MIXED REGIONAL COMMERCIAL) / RC (REGIONAL
COMMERCIAL)
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
HAS DETERMINED THAT THE REQUEST HAS BEEN ASSESSED
IN CONJUNCTION WITH ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 89-
150 (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER 90020162), PREPARED
FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 89-014, WHICH WAS CERTIFIED ON APRIL
17, 1990. NO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS
ARE PROPOSED, OR NEW INFORMATION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED
WHICH WOULD TRIGGER THE PREPARATION OF A
SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW.
BACKGROUND:
The project site is located east of Stater Brothers Supermarket, adjacent to the
recently constructed Staples building. The specific location is a vacant graded pad
area north of Carl's Jr (Attachment 1). The parking lot has been installed to the north
and south of the site. The land to the east is a vacant pad site approved for a Big 5
sporting goods store on June 25, 2002.
At the request of the property owner (Michael Shovlin), the Planning Commission
approved the building plans for ROSS DRESS FOR LESS on March 12, 2002. At that
time, a "ROSS DRESS FOR LESS" wall sign of approximately 64.5 square feet
P:\STAN\sdp 2002-668 pc rpt ross.wpd
(maximum 17.5 feet long and 5 feet high) was approved as shown on the plans
(Attachment 2). Construction has not yet begun on the building.
REVISED SIGN PROPOSAL:
The applicants are proposing an amendment to the existing sign program to allow a
larger main sign for the approved 30,187 square foot one story building, as well as
three small pedestrian signs under the arcade (Attachment 3). The architecture of the
building is similar to the existing buildings to the west and approved building to the
east. The building has a flat roof of heights varying from 27 feet over a mansard tiled
arcade at the front, to 42 feet over the main part of the building at the square entry
tower where the sign is to be placed. The recently constructed Staples building is 24
feet high with the round entry tower at 35'-6" high where their sign is located. The
Big 5 building has a flat roof of heights varying from 23'-4" feet over a stucco
covered arcade at the front, to 29'-5" feet over the main part of the building at the
arched entry tower where their sign is to be placed.
The approved sign is an internally illuminated channel letter wall sign reading "ROSS
DRESS FOR LESS" on two lines. The sign is designed in the corporate style and blue
color of the company. The approved and proposed sign sizes are as follows:
Approved- "ROSS" -
"DRESS FOR LESS" -
Proposed- "ROSS" -
"DRESS FOR LESS" -
2'-6" high by 10' long
V-6" high by 17'-6"
64.5 square feet including blank spaces
for the 160 foot wide building
5' high by 20' long
2'-6" high by 30' long
209 square feet including blank spaces
for the 160 foot wide building
For comparison, the approved sign sizes of major nearby businesses are as follows:
"STAPLES" -
"STATER BROTHERS" -
"BIG 5 SPORTING GOODS" -
82 square feet (3'-3" high by 17 feet Iona) for
a 134 foot wide building.
180 square feet (4' high by 45 feet long_) for
a 245 foot wide building.
66 square feet (2'-9" high by 23'-6" long) for
a 80 foot wide building.
P:\STAN\sdp 2002-668 pc rpt rossmpd
The applicant justifies their request by stating the sign letter size is consistent with
the corporate sign standards currently used by ROSS Stores on comparable elevations
in their locations around the country. They state the approved planned sign program
allows major tenants to use their standard signs, subject to review by the developer
and City. The developer has approved the revised sign. They feel the letter size they
are proposing is more harmonious with the approved elevations, than the letter size
previously approved. They feel the letter height is appropriate because Albertsons
(now Stater Brothers) and Wal-Mart have 5 foot high letters. For the record, only
Albertsons "A" logo was 5 feet high. The balance of the letters were 3 or 4 feet
high. Also, the current Stater Brothers sign uses 4 feet high letters.
STAFF COMMENTS:
The original sign approved for Ross Dress for Less compared with approvals for
surrounding major businesses is relatively small. An amendment of the sign program
to allow a larger sign and the pedestrian signs is appropriate. The sign size should
be based on compatibility with the structure and surrounding development. At the
size proposed, the sign would be larger than that for Stater Brothers, a considerably
larger and wider structure than the Ross building. A height of 3'-9" for the "ROSS"
letters with the balance of the sign proportionate would be more appropriate.
FINDINGS:
The revised signs (main and pedestrian) for ROSS DRESS FOR LESS, as recommended
by Staff, would be consistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code.
Furthermore, it will be in harmony and visually related to the signs in the center,
including those in the surrounding area. The signs will be compatible with the
building it is proposed for.
RECOMMENDATION•
Adopt Minute Motion 2002- ,approving an amendment to the approved sign
program and the revised signs, subject to the following conditions:
1. The "ROSS" letter heights shall be 3'-9" in height with balance of sign
proportionally reduced in size.
2. The revised sign plans shall be submitted to the Community Development
Department for approval prior to issuance of building permit for the structure.
P:\STAN\sdp 2002-668 pc rpt ross.wpd
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Previously approved sign plan
3. Revised sign plan
Prepared by:
Stan B. Sawa, Principal Planner
P:\STAN\sdp 2002-668 pc rpt ross.wpd