Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2002 03 12 PC
T4ht 4 4 Q" Planning Commission Agendas are now available on the City's Web Page @ www.la-quinta.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 MARCH 12, 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 2002-031 Beginning Minute Motion 2002-006 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. 111. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of the Minutes of the regular meeting on February 26, 2002 and the Special Meeting of February 27, 2002. B. Department Report V. PRESENTATIONS: None PC/AGENDA VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Item ................. SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-729 Applicant .......... Michael Shovlin for 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 ............. Review of development plans for a 30,187 square foot commercial building Action ............... Resolution 2002- B Item ................. ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 2002-071 Applicant .......... City of La Quinta Location ............ City-wide Request .........A. Review of an Amendment to Chapters 9.220, 9.230, and 9.240 of the La Quinta Municipal Code amending procedures for Zone Changes and Code B. Amendments, General Plan Amendments, and Specific Plans; and Review of an addition of Section 9.140.070 Low Density/Agricultural-Equestrian Residential District Action ............... Resolution 2002- VII. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Item ................. SIGN APPLICATION 2002-609 Applicant .......... Coronel Enterprises/Sign-A-Rama Location ............ West side of Avenida Villa, north of Avenida Montezuma Request ............. Review of planned sign program for 51-105 Avenida Villa (Durango Building) Action ............... Minute Motion 2002- VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Report on the City Council meeting of March 5, 2002 X. ADJOURNMENT PC/AGENDA MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA February 26, 2002 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:04 p.m. by Chairman Abels who asked Commissioner Kirk to lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Richard Butler, Tom Kirk, Steve Robbins, Robert Tyler, and Chairman Jacques Abels. C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Kathy Jenson, Senior Engineer Steve Speer, Planning Consultant Nicole Criste, Principal Planners Stan Sawa and Fred Baker, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed. IV. CONSENT ITEMS: A. Chairman Abels asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of January 22, 2002. Commissioner Tyler asked that Page 11, Item 9, Condition #2 be corrected to read, "15% will be allowed". Commissioner Robbins asked that Page 5, be corrected to read, "However, staff found that as noise impacts, that would be generated by the Washington Street and Miles Avenue roadway activities was studied, that to put residential units at this location, it would provide more impacts to residences than it would to occupants of hotel/commercial uses." Commissioner Kirk asked that Page 11, Item 9, Condition #3 be corrected to read, "...up to 30% shall be allowed to be under 1,200 square feet." There being no further corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Kirk to approve the minutes as corrected. Unanimously approved. B. Department Report: None G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2-26-02.wpd 1 Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2002 V. PRESENTATIONS: None. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Addendum to Environmental Impact Report 92-337 (State Clearinghouse No 97011055) Site Development Permit 2002-728, Conditional Use Permit 2002-067, and Tentative Parcel Map 30420; a request of Stamko Development Co. for Certification of an Addendum to an Environmental Impact Report for The Centre at La Quinta Specific Plan 97-029 (1997) and Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (1998), State Clearinghouse No. 9701 1055; approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a plant nursery/garden center, an auto repair/specialty shop, and an auto service station in conjunction with Retail Building "B"; and approval of a Tentative Parcel Map to create 18 numbered and two letter lots ranging in size from .47 to 19.44 acres, to be located at the south side of Highway 1 1 1, between La Quinta Centre Drive and west of Dune Palms Road. 1. Commissioners noted they had each met with the applicant prior to the meeting to discuss the project. 2. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Community Development Director Jerry Herman presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 3. Chairman Abels asked staff to clarify that the applicant had provided more parking spaces than were required. Staff stated that was correct. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff. 4. Commissioner Butler asked about the heights of the lights in the parking lot. Staff noted that in the Highway 1 1 1 Shopping Center the lights area 39 feet high; the Auto Center has 24-foot high lights; and Lowe's and Home Depot have 24-foot high lights. Commissioner Butler asked if the lighting standards would have any impact as they would protrude over the top of the trees. Staff stated they would have to comply with the light standards. 5. Commissioner Tyler asked what the zoning was on the strip of land to the east of this project. Staff stated it was the same as this project, Regional Commercial. Commissioner Tyler asked the name of the street as it appears to have two different names. Staff noted the streets would be completed and will follow the G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2-26-02.wpd 2 Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2002 names as they are now. Commissioner Tyler asked about the turning access points. Staff noted the applicant negotiated the turning access points with Caltrans; the City was not involved. 6. Commissioner Kirk stated his concerns was whether or not the current Walmart building would be left empty. This does happen in other jurisdictions; is the City's approach under Condition #84 something that would be enforceable. City Attorney Kathy Jenson stated in her opinion it would be enforceable as both the applicant and Walmart have agreed to it. The Planning Commission is being asked to make a finding with regard to the Environmental Assessment Addendum, and it is within the Commission's purview to consider such a condition. Other jurisdictions have struggled with this issue and legal counsel believes it is enforceable. Commissioner Kirk stated that in regard to Condition #84.13 it sounds as if Walmart could provide an option to the City and that would meet the terms of the condition, but does not rule out the opportunity for Walmart to insist that that option require the City not lease or sell to a competitor, which could be a broad range of uses given the number of items and services this Walmart will sell; does this condition preclude that? City Attorney Kathy Jenson stated the option agreement that would be entered into, would have to be agreeable to the City. We did try to negotiate the terms and determined that was not possible for this meeting, so a condition was added that prior to issuance of a building permit, an option agreement that is acceptable and approved to the City would have to be agreed upon. Staff did leave an option for a different type of agreement that would satisfy the City's concern to make sure the building does not become a boarded up building. Commissioner Kirk asked if a sentence should be added to Condition #84.B.i., stating it would have to be acceptable to the City; would that be appropriate? City Attorney Kathy Jenson stated it would be appropriate and that was the understanding. The condition as stated says, "the City and Walmart shall execute..." and to her if it was not acceptable, the City would not execute it and there would not be a building permit. The City would not agree to purchase property for a fair market value and have restrictions on the reuse of the property. 7. Commissioner Tyler questioned why the Commission was considering such an agreement as this would normally be decided by the City Council. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated this is a Site Development Permit and the Commission is the final acting authority in this case. City G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2-26-02.wpd 3 Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2002 Attorney Kathy Jenson stated that if there were an option agreement, prior to issuance of building permit, it would be subject to the City Council approval. There would be no building permit issued on Retail Building "B" if the City were unable to work out an option agreement, or some other type of agreement, that would satisfy the City's concern. 8. Staff noted conditions had been received from CVWD and would be added to the conditions. 9. Commissioner Kirk questioned the 25 signs requested for Building "B", would they be permitted under the current Zoning Code. Staff noted the current Code allows 50 square feet of signage per elevation to the parking lot or street. The provisions of the Zoning Code allow the Commission to grant additional signage. Commissioner Kirk asked what the second largest structure was in the City. Staff noted probably Home Depot or Lowes. This building is approximately 50% larger than either of those buildings. Discussion followed regarding signage. Commissioner Kirk asked about the two accesses along Highway 1 1 1, is this appropriate and does it fit within the General Plan guidelines. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated they do comply. The closest, in access point, is 250 feet from the intersection at La Quinta Drive. Commissioner Kirk asked if staff believed the parking was acceptable from the Zoning Code perspective, with the number of parking spaces proposed. Staff stated it is not an engineering issue, but rather an aesthetics issue. 10. Commissioner Robbins asked if a large shopping center made up of several smaller shops, would they each be allowed to apply for a sign. Staff noted each shop would have its own signage and went on to explain the applicant's sign request. 11. Commissioner Tyler noted an economic study that was contained in the packet, and asked why this was submitted before the applicant has a signed tenant. City Attorney Kathy Jenson noted the City recommended this study be done as part of the Addendum. There is an argument under CEQA that if there are building vacancies that create adverse physical conditions, they can be considered as an environmental impact and the purpose of the report was to investigate whether or not this was a likely scenario. It is relevant to the Commission's CEQA review in consideration of the Addendum. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2-26-02.wpd 4 Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2002 12. Commissioner Robbins asked if under CEQA Walmart moved out and the building became vacant it would be a environmental impact. City Attorney Kathy Jenson stated that was correct. Under CEQA, a purely economic impact is not considered an environment impact, but an impact that has secondary physical impacts. The creation of vacant run down buildings can be considered to be a physical impact that should be considered. Commissioner Robbins stated that if that building were to become vacant, the EIR would be false and lawsuits could pursue. City Attorney Kathy Jenson stated that the question before the Commission is whether or not they are comfortable certifying the Addendum to the original EIR. The original EIR had an economic study that was prepared for it, but a Walmart was not considered. The purpose of this study was to provide the basis for the Commission's consideration on the Addendum as prepared. It is not a mitigation measure but a condition of approval if the project is approved in both the Site Development Permit and Conditional Use Permit. 13. Commissioner Kirk asked if it was not a part of the mitigation measures, what authority does the City have to condition an applicant like this. City Attorney Kathy Jenson stated that under CEQA the Commission has the authority to make modifications to the project in order to avoid the issue. A concern was raised and to be sure the City requested the applicant to fund the Natelson Report. Commissioner Kirk stated we are using the CEQA analysis to express out concerns regarding the impacts of the empty building (Walmart), but do not identify it as even less than significant impact because of the economic analysis which suggests there is sufficient demand. What he thinks he is hearing is that the existing property owner, Walmart, may not give up that land to a potential competitor or third party. If that is the case, that would have an aesthetic impact and should be mitigated. City Attorney Kathy Jenson stated this is not a Negative Declartion, but rather an Addendum and its purpose is to update an EIR to look at minor project modifications which is what is before the Commisison. In order to approve the Addendum the Commission has to verify that the modification and circumstances have not changed from the original project approval or the original EIR within the scope of that original EIR. Commissioner Kirk stated this mechanism does not allow the City the opportunity to identify a significant impact. City Attorney Kathy Jenson stated that if the Commission believes that the project as it is before the G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2-26-02.wpd 5 Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2002 Commission with all the conditions that are imposed on it, if there is a potential for an impact, you would not certify the Addendum. It is her believe that the City has taken care of all the concerns through the modification and conditions of approval that have been incorporated and therefore the Commission has the ability to certify the Addendum. She would, as a follow up to the condition on Page 127, she would recommend adding to Subpart "B", "subject to City satisfaction". 14. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Ms. Chris Clarke gave a presentation on the project. At the end of her presentation, the applicant requested clarification on the Assessor Parcel Numbers on each of the applications and that the off -site street issue with Highway 1 1 1 in the Tentative Parcel Map be the same as in the Site Development Permit. 15. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Tyler asked how many Walmarts there were in the Valley. Ms. Clarke stated there were some proposed for Palm Desert and Palm Springs. Community Development Director Jerry Herman asked if Ms. Clark agreed with condition #84 as amended by the City Attorney. Ms. Clarke stated she did agree. She further stated she has given a well site to CVWD and it is all she is required to give per her Specific Plan. In regard to the retention basin, she requests the condition be amended to comply with the City's new design guidelines for retention basins. 16. Chairman Abels asked if there was any other public comment on this item. Mr. Dave Stark, Mazda Kia Superstore, representing the Auto Center on Highway 1 1 1, stated he supported the project as proposed and gave his reasons why. 17. Mr. Scott Gaynor, One Eleven Venture (across the street) 74,333 Highway 1 1 1, Palm Desert, stated his support for the project. 18. Mr. Joe Hammer, owner of the property to the east of the project, stated his support of the project. Commissioner Kirk asked if there was any opportunity for a shared access between the two properties. Mr. Hammer stated they had discussed the issue, but nothing had been agreed upon. 19. Mr. Paul Parrish, architect for the project, gave a presentation on the sign proposal for the building signs. This is a large building, G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2-26-02.wpd 6 Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2002 set a long distance from Highway 1 1 1, therefore the amount of signage is reasonable. The signs provide directional assistance to the customers. Most signs are too small to be seen from Highway 1 1 1. Commissioner Kirk asked if the proposed 20 signs were for Phase I and II. Mr. Parrish clarified the request is for both phases. 20. Mr. Stan Rothbart, Rothbar Development, authorized representative for Walmart, thanked the City Attorney for her assistance for drafting Condition #84 and stated it is acceptable to Walmart. 21. Ms. Clarke asked for clarification on Condition #50.b. be amended to state she "....will be reimbursed..."; Condition #83 replace " the Planning Commission" with "Community Development Director". 22. There being no further public participation, the public comment portion of the public hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 23. Commissioner Tyler stated this is a wonderful opportunity for the City. There is a lot of focus on signage and asked if there was any way to continue this portion to a different time. Staff noted the Planning Commission could approve the project and continue the sign program to a future date as a business item. Commissioner Tyler stated his concern about the landscaping and Walmart's ability to maintain it. He would like the final landscaping to come back to the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee (ALRC) and the Planning Commission with some guarantee as to how it will appear. 24. Commissioner Robbins stated he agreed with Commissioner Tyler in that Walmart has not been a good neighbor to the City in regard to the landscaping and the storage containers. He has no problems with the project as proposed, but does have a problem with the performance level of Walmart. He asked how the City could ensure this center does not turn out the same way. He questioned the condition as it is written, as he was not sure that the landscaping as it is currently proposed, is acceptable. There needs to be discussion regarding the 34-foot high light standards, as he believes this is too high. He is concerned about the side and rear elevations as there is almost zero articulation. He is G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2-26-02.wpd 7 Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2002 concerned about any future use of storage containers during Phase I so they are not in public view on the vacant land adjacent to the Building "B". 25. Commissioner Kirk stated that on the whole it is a good project. Much of the staff report was on the economic analysis. Building "B" design is pretty good for that size of a building in regard to articulation. Building "A", however, has very little articulation and interest and there was no comment from the ALRC. He is concerned about the blight that could be caused by Walmart leaving the existing center. He does commend the applicant and City Attorney on their work to resolve this issue. Other challenges are the signs as he does not agree with 20 signs no matter how far the building is from Highway 1 1 1. He also has concerns about lighting and parking. The Highway 111 Center has too much asphalt and poorly managed landscaping. This will be a positive project for the City once the issues are resolved. 26. Commissioner Tyler asked about Condition #38 regarding the telephone system. Staff was unaware of why it was there. Staff would remove it. 27. Chairman Abels commended the applicant on the appearance of the project. 28. Commissioner Tyler stated he believed signs were significant at the beginning, but once the center is built everyone knows where everything is located. 29. Senior Engineer Steve Speer went over some condition changes: Condition #39, if the retention basin goes below 6-feet deep the City will use the same criteria. Staff will delete the last sentence and replace with, "the retention basin depth may be increased in accordance with the provisions of revised Engineering Bulletin 97- 03" . 30. Commissioner Robbins asked who was responsible for maintaining the retention basin and how does the City ensure the retention basin is maintained. Staff noted the City would require the merchant association would maintain it. Commissioner Robbins noted the problem of having the merchants maintain the landscaping up to the City's standards and the City has been unable to enforce this, what can be put into the conditions that G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2-26-02.wpd 8 Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2002 has teeth to require the developer to maintain it. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated a commercial area should be treated differently than a residential district. A suggestion is that a condition be placed on them to pay the City to maintain it. 31. Commissioner Kirk asked if they could be conditioned that if it was determined the development was not being maintained, can the City condition the project to allow the City to go in and maintain at their expense. City Attorney Kathy Jenson stated a condition could be added to that affect. Chairman Abels recessed the meeting at 9:08 and reconvened at 9:26 p.m. 32. Senior Engineer Steve Speer continued with condition changes: Condition #39, the last sentence will be deleted regarding the on - site two foot depth. Condition #50 A.1.b regarding the 28-foot wide landscape median, inside the parentheses staff will replace with "(developer is required to construct 50% of the landscape median for at their expense per the Conditions of Approval for Specific Plan 97-029)". "The remaining 50% of the expense will be reimbursed from the City's Development Impact Fee Fund in accordance with the policies established for that program." Condition #58, Change "30-feet" to "90-feet", in both locations. Condition #55, strike the last sentence. Condition #50.A.1. change to read "widened section" for both the Site Development Permit and Tentative Parcel Map. 33. City Attorney stated that in regard to the landscaping, it has been agreed to by both the City and the applicant, that in regard to Retail Building "B", there would be a posting of a $25,000 letter of credit or bond acceptable to the City Attorney and would remain in effect for five years. The property owner would have a 30-day notice period to correct any problems the City saw in the landscaping maintenance. The property owner would provide the addresses to which any notices would be provided. At the end of the five year period if they performed well, the bond would be released and if not the bond would be renewed for an additional five year period. Language would be added to Condition #69 to add "interior". 34. Commissioner Robbins stated this should apply to more than just Building "B". City Attorney Kathy Jenson stated the bonding requirement is something that was agreed to with Walmart, it is G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2-26-02.wpd 9 Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2002 the Commission's prerogative. There is no occupant to consent or object at this time. Commissioner Robbins asked if it was a condition that could be placed on the merchant association for the entire site. Discussion followed as to applying this to the entire site and not just the Walmart site. Ms. Clarke stated there are two sets of CC&R's. A Master Association on the entire 90 acres and the existing Auto Centre has their own association under the Master Association. Additional associations can be created to control each of the tenants. 35. Commissioner Kirk added the condition should be strengthened to allow the City to notify the property owner that it was not be maintained as agreed to and go in and clean up the landscaping at the owners expense and lien the property. City Attorney Kathy Jenson stated Retail "B" could be covered by the bond and the remainder of the site would be covered by a condition of approval. 36. Commissioner Kirk asked staff to explain how they came up with the number of signs they were recommending. Staff stated it was a determination based on other sign programs. Staff suggested the sign program be pulled and brought back for approval at a future date, under a business item. 37. Commissioner Kirk suggested Building "A" elevation articulation be brought back for review. Ms. Clarke stated she is willing to bifurcate Building "A", but this is Kohl's standard building. Mr. Gary Shepner, architect for the project, gave a presentation on the elevation design for Building "A". He suggested a popout treatment be applied similar to the Walmart building. Commissioner Kirk suggested the applicant work with staff to add some articulation to the rear elevation of Building "A" and "B" to add some visual interest. 38. Commissioner Robbins stated his concern regarding the height of the 34 foot high light standards. Following discussion it was determined to leave them at 34 feet. 39. Commissioner Robbins asked that a condition be added that while Walmart is being constructed and during Phase I, there will be no storage containers on the vacant eastern pad. They can apply for a permit to have the containers in the rear of the Walmart building. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2-26-02.wpd 10 Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2002 40. Commissioner Kirk asked what the standard time limit was for a gas station. Staff stated it is not specifically stated in the Ordinance and there has been no standard. Discussion resulted in changing the time limit for the Conditional Use Permit to five years. 41. Commissioner Tyler asked that the street entering off of Highway 1 1 1 with a right -in be designated a one-way street. 42. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-024, recommending Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for an Addendum to the Centre at La Quinta Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (1997) and Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (1998), subject to the findings. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 43. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Robbins to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-025, recommending approval of Conditional Use Permit 2002-067 subject to the findings and conditions of approval, subject to the conditions as amended: A. Condition #1: "...shall be used within five years..." B. Correct Condition #4.b: to add, "(i) an option agreement satisfactory to the City..." ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 44. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Robbins/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-026 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2001-728, subject to the findings and conditions as amended: G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2-26-02.wpd l l Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2002 A. Condition #10: eliminate the sentence referring to the meandering wall. B. Condition #50.A.1.b. "(The developer is required to pay 50% of the landscape median improvements at their own expense pursuant to Specific Plan 97-029. The remaining 50% of the landscape median improvements will be reimbursed from the City's Development Impact Fee Fund in accordance with policies established for that program.)" C. Condition #58: Change 30-feet to 90-feet. D. Condition #64: The final landscape plan shall include an enhanced landscape entry statement at the intersection of Auto Centre Drive and La Quinta Drive. The enhancements are for the access lane east of La Quinta Drive only. E. Condition 50.A.1: "...and widen the north half as required for the widened section." F. Condition #65: The final landscape plans shall be reviewed by the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee and the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of any permit for the construction of the parking lot. The review by the Planning Commission will be conducted as a business item. G. Condition #67: The applicant shall make provisions for continuous, perpetual maintenance of all private on -site improvements, perimeter and interior landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks. 1. For the Retail Building "B" site, a $25,000 bond or letter of credit in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, shall be posted prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the Retail Building "B". The bond or letter of credit shall initially remain in effect for a period of five years. During that period, if the City determines that the landscaping is not being properly maintained, it shall provide notice, at the addresses to be provided by the applicant or owner, of the need to correct the specific deficiencies. If the deficiencies in the landscaping are not corrected within 30 days of the mailing of the notice, the City shall have the right to call the bond or letter of credit, and the proceeds shall be utilized to the extent needed to correct the landscaping deficiencies. If, after five years, the landscaping has been properly maintained, the City shall release the bond or letter of credit. If, in the determination of G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2-26-02.wpd 12 Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2002 the Community Development Director, the landscaping has not been properly maintained, the bond or letter of credit shall be renewed and maintained for an additional five year period. 2. For the entire Planning Area III, the landscaping and irrigation system shall be well maintained and any dead plant material shall be promptly replaced. If the landscaping is not properly maintained, and if the condition is not cured within 30 days of the notice of the deficiencies, the City shall have the right to cause the correction of the deficiencies in the landscaping, and the applicant/owner agrees that the costs of the correction shall be recorded as a lien against the property. This remedy shall be in addition to any other remedies the City has by law." H. Conditions #82-83: eliminated and replaced with a condition to require all signs to come back to the Planning Commission at a future date as a Business Item. I. Condition #86.A.b: "(i) an option agreement, satisfactory to the City..." J. Add a new Condition #88: "No outdoor storage or outdoor storage containers will be permitted on the vacant area of Phase II for Building "B". However, storage and storage containers can be permitted along the rear of Building "B" provided a Minor Use Permit is granted by the Planning Commission as a business item review process." K. Add a new Condition #89: "The rear elevations of Buildings "A" and "B" shall include visual interest as deemed appropriate by the Community Development Director." L. Add a Condition regarding the right -in off Highway 1 1 1 to be properly signed as a one-way. M. Add all conditions received from the Coachella Valley Water District ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 88. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-027, recommending approval of Tentative Parcel Map 30420, subject to the findings and conditions of approval. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2-26-02.wpd 13 Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2002 A. Condition #38: last paragraph eliminated B. Condition 65.A.1: "...and widen the north half as required for the widened section." C. Condition #76: "The applicant shall submit final landscape plans for approval by the Community Development Department after Planning Commission review and action and...." D. All conditions submitted by the Coachella Valley Water District in their letter dated February 25, 2002. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. E. Environmental Assessment 2001-440 and Capital Improvement Project 2001-14 for the La Quinta Northeast Fire Station; a request of the City for Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for an Environmental Assessment and approval of a Capital Improvement Project for the construction of a fire station. 1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Planning Consultant Nicole Crist presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Robbins asked why the Environmental Assessment was not included in the Planning Commission packet for their review. Chairman Abels recessed the hearing to allow the Commission time to review the Environmental Assessment and reconvened the meeting. 3. Chairman Abels asked if there was any other public comment on this item. There being no further public participation, the public comment portion of the public hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 4. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-028, recommending certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact for Environmental Assessment 2001-440. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2-26-02.wpd 14 Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2002 ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 5. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Robbins to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-029, recommending approval of Capital Improvement Project 2001-14, subject to the findings. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. C. Village Use Permit 2000-040 Amendment #1; a request of Chapman Golf Development to allow development plans for a 7,500 square foot restaurant at the northeast corner of Avenue 52 and Desert Club Drive. 1. Commissioner Kirk withdrew due to a possible conflict of interest and left the dias. 2. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Fred Baker presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 3. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Robbins asked if the landscaping would conform to the City's Landscaping Ordinance. Staff noted it complies with the Ordinance. 4. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Ralph Raya, MRC Associates, the lighting consultant, gave a presentation on the project's exterior lighting. 5. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of the lighting consultant. Commissioner Tyler asked the color of the high pressure sodium lights. Mr. Raya stated it was the amber color and explained the appearance. 6. Chairman Abels asked if there was any other public comment. Mr. Skip Lench, 78-215 Calle Cadiz, stated his concern that either this item be continued or set aside approving the landscaping and G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2-26-02.wpd 15 Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2002 lighting. When this project was before the City Council, the applicant was requested to work with the neighbors in regard to the trees and lighting. They called the applicant and they agreed to get together, but never did. Now this is a different lighting engineer. The Planning staff was also directed to meet with the neighbors and also did not meet with the neighbors. The lights were at 18 feet and now tonight they have a new lighting study and the lights are at 16 feet. This project backs up to residential properties. The new restaurant on La Fonda has lights at 12 feet. The La Quinta Hotel has 16 foot high lights. All they are asking is to meet with the applicant to resolve the issues. The applicant is planting African Sumacs along the wall and back of their property that will grow 16-18 feet high. 7. Commissioner Tyler asked the location of his house. Mr. Lench indicated the location of his house on the plans. 8. Mr. Michael Brauchman, 78-175 Calle Cadiz, stated he attended a City Council meeting where the applicant was required to lower the lights to six feet or less and to work with the neighbors. His concern is that the lighting schedule and landscaping are not consistent with the City's Ordinance. He assumes there will still be valet parking and the trash enclosure would be move further away from the residences. 9. There being no further public comment, the public participation portion of the hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 10. Commissioner Tyler stated this project was required to lower the lights along the perimeter and he is confused as to why they are not lowered. Staff noted that the Planning Commission recommendation was sent to the Council and the Council requested the applicant work with the neighbors. Subsequently, the project was redesigned and a new lighting plan was required. That is why the neighbors were not contacted as it had to come back to the Commission for review and approval. 11. Commissioner Butler asked if the neighbors were given an opportunity to review the lighting and landscaping plans. Staff noted some had been into City Hall to review the plans. Commissioner Butler asked if any of the view corridors could be G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2-26-02.wpd 16 Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2002 maintained. Staff noted the landscape architect could address this. Mr. Rob Parker, RGA Landscape Architects, landscape architect for the project, stated he was not aware of any issue with regard to the height of the trees. The trees are there as required by the City. The height was to shield the lighting in the parking lot and shade the parking lot. The number of trees could be reduced along the neighbors property line to maintain any view. They would be more than happy to meet with the neighbors to increase their view corridor. Commissioner Butler asked when the height of the light standards changed. Mr. Raya stated the original lighting plan did have taller light fixtures along the property line. When reviewed by the City Council they were required to be lowered to six feet or lower. The lighting engineer at that time is no longer with the project and they moved the lights further into the interior of the project and lowered the foot candles. They are more than happy to meet with the property owners. Discussion followed regarding the light fixtures. 12. Commissioner Robbins stated this is a good project, but there seems to be a lack of coordination with the neighbors. 13. Chairman Abels asked if there was any other public comment. There being no further public comment, the public participation portion of the public hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 14. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Robbins/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-030, approving Village Use Permit 2000-004, Amendment #1, subject to the findings and conditions with the lighting and landscaping plans returning to the Planning Commission on March 26, 2002. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Kirk. ABSTAIN: None. Commissioner Kirk rejoined the Commission. Chairman Abels recessed the meeting at 9:46 p.m. and reconvened at 9:49 p.m. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2-26-02.wpd 17 Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2002 VII. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. General Plan Consistency Finding; a request of Desert Sands Unified School District for a finding of General Plan conformity for Desert Sands Unified School District Elementary School Project, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65401 for the property located at the northeast corner of Calle Tampico and Eisenhower Drive. 1. Chairman Abels asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler asked if KSL was on hold for their project on this site. Staff stated if this project is constructed, KSL's project would go away. 3. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. The applicant was not present. 4. Chairman Abels asked if there was any other public comment. There being no further public comment, the public participation portion was closed and open for Commission discussion. 5. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-031 finding General Plan Conformity for Desert Sands Unified School District Elementary School Project pursuant to California Government Code Section 65401. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. B. Capital Improvement Project 2000-10, a request of the City of La Quinta for review of development plans for a two story detached addition and rehabilitation of the historic City of La Quinta Historic Society Museum located at the southeast corner of Avenida Montezuma and Calle Mendoza (77-885 Avenida Montezuma). G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2-26-02.wpd 18 Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2002 1. Chairman Abels asked for the staff report. Community Services Director Dodie Horvitz presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. There being no questions of staff, or the applicant, Chairman Abels asked if there was any other public comment. There being no public comment, the public participation portion was closed and open for Commission discussion 3. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Butler to adopt Minute Motion 2002-003 approving Capital Improvement Project 2002-003, as recommended. Unanimously approved. C. Plaza Tampico Sign Program Amendment #3; a request of Plaza Tampico to amend the Plaza Tampico Sign Program to allow first floor business tenants facing Calle Tampico to use Gatorform for building signs for the property located at 78-150 Calle Tampico . 1. Chairman Abels asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Robbins asked if this was a new material. Staff stated yes. 3. Commissioner Tyler asked if this is restricted to only the buildings that face Calle Tampico or if the other tenants can use this. Staff stated it was an option for first floor tenants. 4. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Matt Johnson, 73-134 Bel Air, the applicant, gave a presentation on his project. 5. There being no public comment, Chairman Abels closed the public participation portion of the meeting and opened for Commission discussion. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2-26-02.wpd 19 Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2002 6. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Robbins to adopt Minute Motion 2002-004 approving Plaza Tampico Sign Program Amendment #3, as requested. Unanimously approved. D. Sign Application 2002-597 (an Amendment to Sign Application 2000- 502); a request of Chevron Oil (Greg Hohn) to amend the sign program for Dune Palms Center to allow canopy signing for the property located at the southeast corner of Dune Palms Road and Highway 1 1 1 1. Chairman Abels asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Kirk asked what signage is generally allowed for a service station. Staff stated they have allowed spanner signs as long as they are not illuminated. 3. Commissioner Robbins asked staff to define a spanner. Staff stated the applicant could do this. 4. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Commissioner Robbins asked staff to define a spanner. Mr. Greg Hogue, representing Chevron, gave an illustration of the spanner sign above the gas pump. 5. Commissioner Tyler asked the intended purpose of the sale signs. Mr. Hogue stated it is for advertisement of the food mart. Commissioner Tyler asked why there was no signage for the convenience store. Mr. Hogue stated it is not owned by Chevron but is an independent owner. Commissioner Tyler asked how this request compares with the USA gas station approval across the street. Staff stated they did not know at this time. Discussion followed regarding the spanners. 6. Mr. Tim Fetterly, principal of the project, stated his reasons for the signage. The convenience store will come back at a later date. 7. Mr. Mark Rodriguez, Chevron Project Manager, stated the image is their issue. The site is lower than the street with the landscaping. The added illumination will help to identify the site. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2-26-02.wpd 20 Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2002 8. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the public participation portion of the meeting and opened for Commission discussion. 9. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Robbins/Butler to adopt Minute Motion 2002-005 approving Sign Application 2002- 597, as amended with the lighted spanners. Unanimously approved. VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Commissioner Tyler gave a report on the City Council meeting of February 19, 2002. X. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Robbins to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a special meeting of the Planning Commission to be held February 27, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 11 :14 p.m. on February 26, 2002. Respectfully submitted, Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2-26-02.wpd 21 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A Special meeting of the Planning Commission held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California February 27, 2002 I. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:04 p.m. by Chairman Abels who asked Commissioner Tyler to lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Richard Butler, Steve Robbins, Robert Tyler, and Chairman Jacques Abels. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Robbins to excuse Commissioner Kirk. Unanimously approved. C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Kathy Jenson, Senior Engineer Steve Speer, Planning Consultant Nicole Criste, Principal Planner Fred Baker, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed. IV. CONSENT ITEMS: None V. PUBLIC HEARING A. Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan Update, Annexation No. 12 and Sphere of Influence Amendment ISch#2000091023f, and General Plan Update and Master Environmental Assessment; a request of the City for Certification of an Environmental Impact Report for the Comprehensive General Plan, Annexation No. 12 and Sphere of Influence Amendment, and for adoption of the General Plan Update and Master Environmental Assessment. 1 . Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and requested the staff report. Planning Consultant Nicole Criste presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2-27-09 GenPI.WPD 1 2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler asked the location of the property referred to by A&M in their letter of request. Community Development Director Jerry Herman noted the area on the map. 3. Commissioner Butler asked if any of the property owners wanted to come back at a later date to request a Zone Change would they be able to do so? Staff stated yes. 4. Chairman Abels asked if there was any other public comment. Pomelos Ranch, LLC, 201 Ocean Avenue, Apartment #1009B, Santa Monica, stated he supported the annexation. 5. Mrs. Gayle Cady, 82-831 Avenue 54, Vista Santa Rosa, stated she would like the Vision Statement of the Annexation Plan regarding the current Land Use Map to keep the continuity of their rural agricultural life style. On Page 17, the buildout dwelling units and population totals, for Planning Areas No. 1 and 2 are dramatically out of context for what the residents of their community would like to see. She requested this be reduced. On Map 3.6 referring to the Agrarian Corridor, there is no Agrarian Corridor provision for Madison Street or Avenue 58 to Lake Cahuilla. She requested this be added. Additionally, she requested a provision be added for the connection of trails to include Avenue 52. Also on Map 3.10 Multi -purpose trails are not included on Avenue 52, Avenue 54 east and west, or on Madison Street to Avenue 64. These need to be added before any decision is made. Program 12.3 indicates the Agrarian Image Corridor shall include Madison Street, Jackson Street, Harrison Avenue, Avenue 54, Avenue 58, Avenue 62 and Avenue 66. She would like this to also include Avenue 52, which is the heart and center of the equestrian living and activity. 6. Mr. Jesse McKeever, 82-550 Avenue 60, stated he does not support annexation. His concern is the amount of water that is being wasted and the drop in the water table. 7. Mr. Jeff Harrison, 54-102 Avenida Bermudas, representing the La Quinta Cove Neighborhood Organization, gave a presentation on their desire to preserve the quality of life in the Cove and throughout the City of La Quinta. 8. Mr. Joe Hammer, 74-757 North Cove Area, Indian Wells, stated he and/or his family own three parcels of property. On the 40 acre parcel at Avenue 65 and Tyler, in Planning Area No. 2, his G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2-27-09 GenPI.WPD 2 concern is that the Coachella Valley Unified School District will be building a new school facility consisting of 80 acres at Avenue 66 and Tyler which has generated a lot of interest in their property. He noted that all the land to the south of Avenue 65 is within the Torres Martinez Indian Reservation. At a public meeting, one of the Tribal members included his 40 acre parcel on Avenue 65 as part of their land and it is not. He requested the Commission consider annexing the non -Reservation lands. The second parcel is between Avenue 62 and Avenue 63 on Jackson Street. This parcel is also surrounded by Tribal Land. Their request is to ask that this parcel be included in the Annexation. The third parcel is 40 acres located at Avenue 59 and Monroe Street. This parcel they would like to develop as Neighborhood Commercial and/or High Density Residential to develop apartments. 9. Mr. Don Recktor, 46-450 Cameo Palms, requested the Dark Sky Ordinance be included as part of the General Plan Policy. His concern is to retain the open space and preserving Point Happy Ranch as a wildlife preserve or open space. 10. Ms. Judy Schenkman, 53-540 Avenida Villa, stated she was interested seeing that a Golf Cart Transportation Plan was implemented for the residents in the Cove. 11. Mr. Brent Lance, Diamantina LLC, 84-401 Avenue 61, stated he owns 40 acres at 84-041 Avenue 61, stated he would like to request a change to the Agricultural/Equestrian Overlay to be more meaningful. He would like a change to Exhibit 2.1, the Legend which still only refers to a Agricultural Overlay, to refer also to Equestrian and Agricultural. This would clarify that the changes made on Page 11 to incorporate reference to equestrian uses were intended to apply to the entire area in Planning area 1 and 2. 12. Mr. Robert Kull, 54-721 Monroe Street, stated he owns 40 acres east of Monroe Street and supports the annexation and asks they maintain the ranch style. 13. Mrs. Kay Wolff, 77-227 Calle Ensenada, member of Cove Neighborhood Group, stated she agrees with Mr. McKeevor and Mr. Harrison. One of their issues was to allow golf course privileges for all residents to the existing golf courses. The residents do not want another golf course, they would either like privileges to the existing golf courses or have the City assume one after it is no longer viable. Her own concerns are that the G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2-27-09 GenPI.WPD 3 anticipated population growth for the Planning Areas is too large. The EIR makes no reference to the total cost of services to maintain Planning Areas 1 or 2. The Draft EIR gave these figures and stated the deficient was to be balanced out by the businesses, assessments and taxes of the residents of the current City boundaries. This is unacceptable. She would also request that the request of A & M Construction to rezone the park area along the Bear Creek Storm Channel be denied. She would like to request a philosophy of slow growth, very very low density, and high quality commercial development be adopted. The City needs to be "picky", charming and small. Mitigate the negative effects of water, noise, and traffic and keep La Quinta small and charming. 14. There being no further public comment, the public participation portion of the public hearing is closed and open for Commission discussion. 15. Planning Consultant Nicole Criste reviewed the comments that were made. Regarding Ms. Cady's request for Agrarian Image Corridors and Trails to General Plan maps and on Page 16 of staff report, it is suggested that multi -use trails be designated on Avenue 62, Avenue 54 and Van Buren Street in addition to those already designated. On Page 19 of the staff report, it is suggested Agrarian Image Corridors be placed on Airport Boulevard, Avenue 60, Monroe Street, and Van Buren Street and that the program be amended. Mr. Hammer's first two properties were included in the Planning Areas; now they are both out of the area. The third property is Item A.3 of the staff report along with the analysis. Mr. Rector referred to the Dark Sky principals. There were discussions between the Commission and Council recommending that it not be added. However, Policy #10 of the General Plan states the City will maintain the Dark Sky Ordinance. Mr. Lance's suggestion regarding the Agricultural Overlay being changed to Agricultural/Equestrian and on Page 18 of staff report it is recommended the term Agricultural Overlay be changed to Agricultural/Equestrian Overlay. Ms. Wolff's question regarding the cost revenue analysis for Planning Area No. 1 and No. 2, Planning Area No. 1 was analyzed in the EIR under the heading of Annex No. 12 and Planning Area No. 2 under the Sphere of Influence. The Tables regarding cost revenue analysis are located on Page 3-206 of Draft EIR Table 47 and Table 48 on Page 3-207. Ms. Criste went over the revisions that had been made. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2-27-09 GenPI.WPD 4 Chairman Abels recessed the meeting at 8:16 p.m. and reconvened at 8:25 16. Planning Consultant Nicole Criste stated there were two approvals that needed to be made. Attachment "A" which dealt with Land Use changes and Attachment "B" which dealt with the other Text Changes that had been requested. In addition, staff is recommending a designation of Multi -purpose Trails on the even numbered streets on Avenues 50 through 60 in addition to the trails recommended in the staff report. 17. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Robbins to accept Attachment "A" as recommended by staff. Unanimously approved. 18. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Tyler to accept Attachment "B" as recommended by staff including the Multi -purpose Trails on the even numbered streets on Avenues 50 through 60. Unanimously approved. 19. It was moved and seconded by Commissioner Butler/Robbins to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-032 recommending to the City Council certification of the Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan Update, Annexation No. 12, and Sphere of Influence Amendment and amend the General Plan by adopting an Updated General Plan and Master Environmental Assessment, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. VI. ADJOURNMENT: It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Butler to adjourn this special meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting of the Planing Commission on March 12, 2002. This special meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 8:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2-27-09 GenPI.WPD 5 PH #A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: MARCH 12, 2002 CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-729 APPLICANT: MICHAEL J. SHOVLIN (FOR ROSS DRESS FOR LESS) REQUEST: REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR A 30,187 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 approved Staples building. The location is a graded area north of Carl's Jr (Attachment 1). The parking lot has been installed to the north and south of the proposed site. The land to the east is a vacant pad site. PROJECT PROPOSAL: The applicants are proposing a 30,187 square foot one story building to be used for Ross Dress for Less (Attachment 2). The architecture of the building is similar to the existing buildings to the west. The building has a flat roof of heights varying from 27 P:\STAN\sdp 2002-729 pc rpt ross.wpd feet over a mansard tiled arcade at the front, to 42 feet over the main part of the building at the square entry tower. The recently approved Staples building is primarily 24 feet high with the round entry tower 35'-6" high with roof tile behind the round tower. Architectural features from existing buildings include a detailed cornice with a diamond pattern, rectangular tower, wall light sconces, square decorative the and wood outrigger posts in the tower. The arcade columns use a treatment similar to that used elsewhere in the center. The side elevations will primarily be adjacent to other buildings, but will provide the decorative cornice treatment and reglets or scoring. The rear elevation shows the decorative cornice and some use of reglets. A stucco wall will screen the loading dock area. Exterior colors consist of the same light earth tones used in the adjacent buildings. The plans indicate no landscaping proposed for this project. SIGN PROPOSAL: The elevation plan shows a wall sign reading "ROSS DRESS FOR LESS" on two lines. The sign is designed in the corporate style of the company. The sign is shown at approximately 64.5 square feet, with a maximum length of 17.5 feet and height of five feet. The sign would be internally illuminated and use their standard colors. ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE (ALRQ: The ALRC reviewed this request at its meeting of February 13, 2002, and recommended approval of the project by adoption of Minute Motion 2002-006, subject to conditions (Attachment 3). PUBLIC NOTICE: This map application was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on March 1, 2002. All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice as required by the La Quinta Municipal Code. As of this writing, no comments have been received. FINDINGS: The findings as required by Section 9.210.010 (Site Development Permits) of the Zoning Ordinance can be made as noted in the attached Resolution provided the recommended conditions of approval are imposed. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution 2002- ,approving the development plans, subject to the attached conditions. kl1;,� P:\STAN\sdp 2002-729 pc rpt ross.wpd Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Plan exhibits 3. Draft minutes of the February 13, 2002, Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee meeting Prepared by: Stan B. Sawa, Principal Planner P:\STAN\sdp 2002-729 pc rpt ross.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 31,1900± SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL BUILDING IN THE ONE -ELEVEN LA-QUINTA SHOPPING CENTER CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-729 APPLICANT: MICHAEL SHOVLIN WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 12" day of March, 2002, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing, to consider the request of MICHAEL SHOVLIN to approve the development plans for a 31,190 ± square feet commercial building in the One -Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center, located on the north side of Highway, east of Washington street, more particularly described as: PORTION OF APN 643-220-002 and -003 WHEREAS, the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee, on February 13, 2002, at a regular meeting, adopted Minute Motion 2002-006, recommending approval of the architectural plans for the new building, subject to conditions; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify approval of said Site Development Permit: 1. The General Plan designates the project area as Regional Commercial. The proposed commercial buildings are consistent with the commercial designation of the property. 2. The proposed commercial building is designed to comply with the Zoning Code requirements, including but not limited to, height limits, parking, lot coverage, and signs. 3 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. p:\stan\sdp 2002-729 pc res.wpd Ll Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Michael Shovlin - Ross Site Development Permit 2002-729 March 12, 2002 4. The architectural design of the project, including but not limited to the architectural style, scale, building mass, materials, colors, architectural details, roof style, and other architectural elements are compatible with the surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the city. The building is a well designed with articulation on the front and rear elevations. The project uses architectural features, colors, and materials to match the surrounding existing buildings. The side elevations will not be readily visible because of the future structures to the west and to the east. The rear elevation will be acceptable provided additional architectural articulation is provided as recommended. 5. The site design of the project, including but not limited to project entries, interior circulation, pedestrian and bicycle access, pedestrian amenities, screening of equipment and trash enclosures, exterior lighting, and other site design elements are compatible with surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the city. The proposed building is located on an area that is designated for a commercial building with a loading ramp provided at the rear of the building 6. Project landscaping, including but not limited to the location, type, size, color, texture, and coverage of plant materials has been designed so as to provide relief, complement buildings, visually emphasize prominent design elements and vistas, screen undesirable views, provide a harmonious transition between adjacent land uses and between development and open space, provide an overall unifying influence, enhance the visual continuity of the project, and complement the surrounding project area, ensuring lower maintenance and water use. While there is not a lot of opportunity to provide landscaping, the recommended small planters around some of the arcade columns will soften the facade. 7. The one proposed building sign will be consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code and centers sign program, and will be in harmony and visually related to the proposed buildings, with the approval of the Planning Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case. 2. That it does hereby approve Site Development Permit 2002-729 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the attached conditions. p:\stan\sdp 2002-729 pc res.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Michael Shovlin - Ross Site Development Permit 2002-729 March 12, 2002 PASSED, Quinta City Planning following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Commission, held on the 121h day of March, 2002, by the JACQUES ABELS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California 000", p:\stan\sdp 2002-729 pc res.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-729 MICHAEL SHOVLIN - ROSS MARCH 12, 2002 GENERAL 1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Site Development Permit. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the developer of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. Prior to the issuance of any permit by the City, the applicant shall obtain the necessary permits and/or clearances from the following agencies: • Fire Marshal • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) • Community Development Department • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Desert Sands Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances from the above listed agencies. When the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when submitting the improvement plans for City approval. 3. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit, Chapter 8.70 (Stormwater Management and Discharge Controls), La Quinta Municipal Code ("LQMC"); Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; and the State Water Quality Resources Control Board's ("SWQRCB") Order No. 99-08-DWQ. A. For construction activities including clearing, grading or excavation of land that disturbs five (5) acres or more of land, or that disturbs less than five (5) acres of land, but which is a part of a construction project that encompasses more than five (5) acres of land, the Permitee shall be required to submit a Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan ("SWPPP"). lip, 7 P:\STAN\sdp 2002-729 pc coa.wpd Page 1 of 8 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-729 MICHAEL SHOWN - ROSS MARCH 12, 2002 B. The applicant's SWPPP shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any on or off -site grading being done in relation to this Site Development Permit. C. The applicant shall ensure that the required SWPPP is available for inspection at the project site at all times through and including acceptance of all improvements by the City. D. The applicant's SWPPP shall include provisions for all of the following Best Management Practice ("BMPs"), 8.70.020 (Definitions), LQMC: 1) Temporary Soil Stabilization (erosion control). 2) Temporary Sediment Control. 3) Wind Erosion Control. 4) Tracking Control. 5) Non -Storm Water Management. 6) Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control. E. All of applicant's erosion and sediment control BMPs shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any on or off site grading being done in relation to this project. F. All approved project BMPs shall be maintained in their proper working order throughout the course of construction, and until all improvements have been accepted by the City. 4. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permit(s). PROPERTY RIGHTS 5. Prior to the issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire, or confer, those easements, and other property rights necessary for the construction and/or proper functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for emergency services, and for the maintenance, construction and reconstruction of essential improvements. 6. Prior to issuance of any construction permits, the applicant shall provide documentation to assure that the parking lots have been or will be included within the previously recorded "Common Area Maintenance Agreement". ') 0 P:\STAN\sdp 2002-729 pc coa.wpc Page 2 of 8 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-729 MICHAEL SHOWN - ROSS MARCH 12, 2002 7. The applicant shall offer for dedication those easements necessary for the placement of, and access to, utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, and common areas shown on the Site Development Permit. 8. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements, or written permission, as appropriate, from those owners of all abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, ingress/egress, or other encroachments will occur. 9. When an applicant proposes the vacation, or abandonment, any existing right-of- way, or access easement, which will diminish the access rights to any properties owned by others, the applicant shall provide an alternate right-of-way or access easement, to those properties, or shall submit notarized letters of consent from the affected property owners. 10. The applicant shall cause no easement to be granted, or recorded, over any portion of the subject property between the date of approval of this Site Development Permit and the date of final acceptance of the on and off -site improvements for this Site Development Permit, unless such easement is approved by the City Engineer. IMPROVEMENT PLANS As used throughout these conditions of approval, professional titles such as "engineer," "surveyor," and "architect" refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their respective professions in the State of California. 11. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified engineers and/or architects, as appropriate, and shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.040 (Improvement Plans), LQMC. 12. The following improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval by the City. A separate set of plans for each line item specified below shall be prepared. The plans shall utilize the minimum scale specified, unless otherwise authorized by the City Engineer in writing. Plans may be prepared at a larger scale if additional detail or plan clarity is desired. Note, the applicant may be required to prepare other improvement plans not listed here pursuant to improvements required by other agencies and utility purveyors. A. On -Site Development Plan: 1 " = 20' Horizontal ) �� B. On -Site Utility Plan: 1 " = 20' Horizontal C. On -Site Landscape Plan: 1 " = 40' Horizontal P:\STAN\sdp 2002-729 pc coa.wpd Page 3 of 8 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-729 MICHAEL SHOWN - ROSS MARCH 12, 2002 Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not listed above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to commencing plan preparation. "Site Development" plans shall normally include all on -site surface improvements including but not necessarily limited to finish grades for curbs & gutters, building floor elevations, parking lot improvements and ADA requirements. "Site Utility" plans shall normally include all sub -surface improvements including but not necessarily limited to sewer lines, water lines, fire protection and storm drainage systems. 13. The City maintains standard plans, details and/or construction notes for elements of construction. For a fee, established by City resolution, the applicant may purchase such standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction notes from the City. 14. The applicant shall furnish a complete set of the AutoCAD files of all complete, approved improvement plans on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall be saved in a standard AutoCAD format so they may be fully retrievable through a basic AutoCAD program. At the completion of construction, and prior to the final acceptance of the improvements by the City, the applicant shall update the AutoCAD files in order to reflect the as -built conditions. Where the improvement plans were not produced in a standard AutoCAD format, or a file format which can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the City Engineer will accept raster -image files of the plans. PARKING LOTS 15. The design of parking facilities shall conform to LQMC Chapter 9.150 (Parking). The applicant shall provide accessible parking stalls as required by Section 1 129B of the California Building Code. Parking lot and striping modifications may be required to provide additional accessible stalls and to provide proper accessible access in accordance with the ADA requirements. GRADING P:\STAN\sdp 2002-729 pc coa.wpd Page 4 of 8 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-729 MICHAEL SHOVLIN - ROSS MARCH 12, 2002 The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading Improvements), LQMC. 16. Prior to occupancy of the project site for any construction, or other purposes, the applicant shall obtain a grading permit approved by the City Engineer. 17. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval of all of the following: A. A grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer or architect, B. A preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report prepared by a qualified engineer, and C. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16 (Fugitive Dust Control), LQMC. All grading shall conform to the recommendations contained in the Preliminary Soils Report, and shall be certified as being adequate by a soils engineer, or by an engineering geologist. The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, and in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the approved Fugitive Dust Control Plan provisions submitted with its application for a grading permit. 18. Slopes shall not exceed 5:1 within public rights of way and 3:1 in landscape areas outside the right of way unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 19. The applicant shall minimize differences in elevation between the adjoining properties. DRAINAGE 20. "Stormwater handling shall conform with the approved hydrology, drainage report and drainage plans for the One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center. Nuisance water shall be disposed of in an approved manner." UTILITIES 21 . The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.1 10 (Utilities), LQMC. J►III P:\STAN\sdp 2002-729 pc coa.wpd Page 5 of 8 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-729 MICHAEL SHOWN - ROSS MARCH 12, 2002 22. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all utility lines within any right-of-way, and all above -ground utility structures including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electric vaults, water valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes. 23. Existing overhead utility lines within, or adjacent to the proposed development, and all proposed utilities shall be installed underground. All existing utility lines attached to joint use 92 KV transmission power poles are exempt from the requirement to be placed underground. 24. Underground utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of utilities in existing improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench restoration requirements maintained, or required by the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide certified reports of all utility trench compaction for approval by the City Engineer. LANDSCAPING 25. The applicant shall comply with Sections 9.90.040 (Table of Development Standards) & 9.100.040 (Landscaping), LQMC. 26. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins and common lots. 27. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians and retention basins shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. 28. The applicant shall submit plans for approval by the Community Development Department prior to plan checking by the Public Works Department. When plan checking is complete, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner prior to submitting for signature by the City Engineer. Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer. The plans shall provide for a minimum of four pocket planters around the columns at the front of the building. The planters shall include shrubs and/or vines, and groundcover. 29. Only incidental storm water will be permitted to be retained in the landscape setback areas. 1 114 P:\STAN\sdp 2002-729 pc coa.wpd Page 6 of 8 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-729 MICHAEL SHOWN - ROSS MARCH 12, 2002 QUALITY ASSURANCE 30. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet with the approval of the City Engineer. 31. The applicant shall employ, or retain, qualified engineers, surveyors, and such trr other appropriate professionals as are required to provide the expertise with which to prepare and sign accurate record drawings, and to provide adequate construction supervision. 32. The applicant shall arrange for, and bear the cost of, all measurements, sampling and testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program, but which may be required by the City, as evidence that construction materials and methods employed comply with the plans, specifications and other applicable regulations. After tributary -area improvements are complete and soils have been permanently stabilized where retention basins have been constructed, testing shall include sand filter percolation tests, as approved by the City Engineer. 33. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record drawings of all public improvement plans which were signed by the City Engineer. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawings," "As -Built" or "As -Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy of the drawings. The applicant shall revise the AutoCAD or raster -image files previously submitted to the City to reflect the as -built conditions. MAINTENANCE 34. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous, perpetual maintenance of all private on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks. 35. The applicant shall maintain the required public improvements until expressly released from this responsibility by the appropriate agency. FEES AND DEPOSITS 36. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.180 (Fees and Deposits), LQMC. These fees include all deposits and fees required by the City for plan checking and construction inspection. Deposits and fee amounts shall 1►13 P:\STAN\sdp 2002-729 pc coa.wpd Page 7 of 8 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-729 MICHAEL SHOVLIN - ROSS MARCH 12, 2002 be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan check and permits. MISCELLANEOUS 37. Applicant shall comply with the approved Conditions of Approval for Specific Plan 89-014. 38. Prior to issuance of a building permit final working drawings shall be approved by the Community Development Department. 39. The rear elevation of the building shall be revised to include: A. A 3.5 inch furr-out treatment similar to that used on the adjacent Staples building. B. Diamond shaped the treatments similar to the light scones used on the front of the building. 40. A minimum clear 24 feet drive aisle shall be provided at the rear of the building.. SIGNS 41. Final sign plans shall be submitted to the Community Development Department and shall include all details, colors, and materials. LIGHTING 42. Rear elevation wall mounted lights for the building shall use non-adjustable shoebox type down shining light fixtures with recessed or flush mounted lenses. }14 P:\STAN\sdp 2002-729 pc coa.wpd Page 8 of 8 ATTACHMENT # CASE MAP CASE- No. NORTH SITE DEVEL PERMIT 2002-729 SCALE: SHOVLIN NTS I I .................. 7 ATTACHMENT ROOF PLAN ROSS DRESS FOR LESS LA QUINTA, CA �ij no 0 o p rb fi,, o 0 4 . '© "T.,p ROSS DRESS FOR LESS LA QUINTA, CA M-p m 0 m O m r m 0 z -4 i�i 0 m m 0 kt l ill EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS ROSS DRESS FOR LESS LA QUINTA, CA W* ATTACHMENT ; Architectural & Landsca a Review Committee Minutes February 13, 2002 7. ommittee Member Cunningham stated he would like the block all to be a split face block. It also calls for stone wainscot on the lower portion of the building. He would suggest taking the split face and using it in this area to soften the building. Planning Consultant Nicole Crist stated staff could add a condition that wains oting be the split face block as well and have split face on the pu T p station wall on all sides. 8. Commitiee Member Cunningham suggested a flat tile roof that blends wiTh the split face. If you are going to veneer the building with the brown split face, blend the roof color to the split face, then you h Ye the brown with the pump station that will tie it all together wi the split face perimeter wall. 9. There being \ o discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Cunningham/Thorns to adopt Minute Motion 2002-005 recommending approval of Capital Improvement Project 2001-14, subje�t to the conditions as amended: 1. The height of the palm trees is to be substantial. 2. The design pf the landscaping along the driveway and over the entire si a shall take into consideration the grade. 3. Vine material shall be added to the wall on the street side, west side and south side. 4. The pine trees in the streetscape shall be replaced with something consistent with what is across Adams Street. 5. The perimeter v4I shall be split face and a split face veneer used instead of \ he wainscoting. 6.i<eec be compatible with the split face color. Unanimously approved. B. Site Development Permit 2001-729; a request of Michael Shovlin for Ross Dress for Less) for review of architectural plans for a 30,187 square foot commercial building to be located on the orth side of Highway 1111, east of Washington Street within the One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Committee Member Thorns asked about the roof color. Staff stated it would match what is existing in the Center. 1 1 3 GAWPD0CSVIR1,C\2-13-02.wpd 4 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes February 13, 2002 3. Committee Member Cunningham stated it is keeping with the Center. With regard to the color, color is getting to be the trend and there is a lot of responsibility with color. Staff needs to ask for the actual color chips and where the color lines break. He has no objections to this project. 4. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Member Cunningham/Thoms to adopt Minute Motion 2002-006 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2001-729, subject to the conditions as recommended. Unanimously approved. C. Capital Improvement 2001-10; a request of the City for review of hitect laru plans or a two story detached addition and rehabilitation of the istoric City of La Quinta Historic Society Museum located at the south st corner of Avenida Montezuma and Calle Mendoza (77-885 Avenida Montezuma). 1. Prin 'pal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Committe Member Cunningham stated he had no objection. He asked if th y would be using random mudded and . Mr. Paul Johnson, arc itect for the project, stated he proposing to use red boosting throLighout the roof. They do not want the roof to be too rough but do w�t texture and character. The stucco color will be similar to what i existing. 3. Committee Memb r Thorns asked about the existing door and if there was any connection to the paved area. Staff stated it would stay as it is historic 4. Committee Member Th ms asked about the planters. Mr. Johnson stated the planters wo Id be added to the top of the pavement. They would be detache and protected to retain it for historical purposes. Additional p nters would be added as well. All existing trees will be reta ed as much as possible. Committee Member Thorns asked abou�the four palms and stated they should be used as an accept; foul;, are too much and they should be replaced and a desert schem� used. If shade is wanted use the Palo Verde. G:\WPDOCS\ARLC\2-13-02.wpd 5 DATE: CASE NO.: REQUEST: LOCATION: APPLICANT: STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 12, 2002 ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 2002-071 RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 2001-071: A. AMENDING CHAPTERS 9.220, 9.230 AND 9.240 OF THE LA QUINTA MUNICIPAL CODE, AMENDING PROCEDURES FOR ZONE CHANGES AND CODE AMENDMENTS, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, AND SPECIFIC PLANS B. RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 2001-071, ADDING SECTION 9.140.070 LOW DENSITY/AGRICULTURAL-EQUESTRIAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: CITY-WIDE CITY OF LA QUINTA A. THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 9.220, 9.230 AND 9.240 ARE EXEMPT PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 2.6, SECTION 21080 OF THE PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE, CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) STATUTES, AND SECTION 15268, MINISTERIAL PROJECTS, OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES B. AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2000091023) WAS CERTIFIED BY THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF LA QUINTA GENERAL PLAN. THERE ARE NO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES, CONDITIONS, OR NEW INFORMATION WHICH WOULD TRIGGER THE PREPARATION OF A SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21166. G:\WPDOCS\PC Stf Rpt\ZCA07lAgriEques.WPD BACKGROUND: A. Chapters 9.220, 9.230, 9.240 Historically, planning staff has submitted recommended changes to the Zoning Map, Zoning Text, General Plan and adopted Specific Plans. However, pursuant to the existing text in the Municipal Code, the only method of changing is by the applicant, Planning Commission or City Council. Therefore, staff is requesting an Amendment to permit staff to submit recommended changes for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council. B. Section 9.140.070 A number of persons have expressed concerns about the lack of Zoning Ordinance text relating to agricultural and equestrian activities, especially as it relates to the City's General Plan Agricultural/Equestrian Overlay. In September, 2001, the City Council and Planning Commission held a public hearing for the General Plan. At that time, staff submitted text for such an addition to the Zoning Ordinance, to address these concerns. The text attached to this report as Attachment (1) parallels the County Zoning Ordinance for Zone A-1 (Light Agriculture), which is typically the zoning in Planning Area No. 1 and Planning Area No. 2. Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Uses Land uses which are permitted or conditionally permitted under the County standards will receive the same consideration in the City text. These uses include, but are not limited to, single family homes, stables (both private and commercial), field crops, orchards, the raising of cattle and other farm animals, golf courses, farmworker housing and mobile home parks. Some uses not listed in the County text have been included in the City text, including: guest ranches and bed & breakfasts, child day care, polo grounds and veterinary facilities. Two land uses included in the County text have not been included in the City's text: mining operations and oil production. Neither use is believed to be germane within either Planning Area No. 1 or Planning Area No. 2. Please see Attachment A, the text of the Zoning section, for a complete listing of permitted and conditionally permitted uses. G:\WPDOCS\PC Stf Rpt\ZCA071AgriEques.WPD Additional Provisions In addition to refinements to the land uses, two additions have been made to the text since its first presentation in September: 1. The Riverside County Right -to -Farm ordinance text has been adapted for the City and included as item "D." of the text. 2. A specific reference has been added as item "F." to the City's transfer of development rights provisions. The first item was added as a result of considerable public comment regarding the protection of the equestrian and agricultural land uses from potential future urban land uses, including residences. The right -to -farm provisions protect the land owners from nuisance claims. The second item was also included as a result of public comment. A number of people have stated that the Agricultural/Equestrian overlay does not provide sufficient protection against urbanization. The Transfer of Development Rights provisions in the Code allow a land owner who wishes to preserve his land use in perpetuity to sell, trade or give his density allowance, and permanently restrict the land use on his parcel, thereby ensuring its preservation. For example, if a property owner had 100 acres of land which was used for field crops and his house, and he wished to preserve the land in farming forever, he could subdivide the land on which his house occurs, and sell, trade or otherwise convey the remaining density (100 acres X 4 units per acre, minus his house = 399 units) to a developer who would use it on another parcel. The transfer would be recorded, and no residential development could ever occur on the farm parcel. CONCLUSION: The Text Amendments regarding the process to amend the Zoning Code, General Plan, and Specific Plan provide more flexibility to the City. As currently drafted, the zoning text addresses the bulk of the concerns raised by the public both in writing and orally at previous hearings. The new designation will provide lands which are designated Low Density Residential, Agricultural/Equestrian Overlay in the General Plan, with the ability to continue in their current agricultural or equestrian land use in perpetuity, or until the land owner wishes to develop the parcel. Public Notice This application was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on March 1, 2002. G:\WPDOCS\PC Stf Rpt\ZCA071AgriEques.WPD STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: The findings necessary to recommend approval of the Zoning Code Amendments can be made, as noted in the attached Resolution. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-, recommending to the City Council adoption of Zoning Code Amendment 2002-071. G:\WPDOCS\PC Stf Rpt\ZCA071AgriEques.WPD PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADDING SECTION 9.140.070 LOW DENSITY/AGRICULTURAL-EQUESTRIAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND AMENDING CHAPTERS 9.220, 9.230 AND 9.240 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDING PROCEDURES FOR ZONE CHANGES AND CODE AMENDMENTS, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, AND SPECIFIC PLANS CASE NO.: ZCA 2002-071 APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 12th day of March, 2002, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing for a Zoning Code Amendment to add Section 9.140.070 to the Municipal Code, for Low Density/Agricultural-Equestrian Residential District and to amend Chapters 9.220, 9.230 and 9.240 of the Municipal Code amending procedures for Zone Changes and Code Amendments, General Plan Amendments, and Specific Plans; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings recommending approval of said Zoning Code Amendment: 1. The proposed text changes are consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan, and the Land Use Map for the General Plan and surrounding development and land use designations, ensuring land use compatibility. 2. The proposed text changes will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, as they have been designed to be compatible with surrounding development, and conform with the City's standards and requirements. 3. The proposed text changes are compatible with the City's Zoning Code in that it supports the development and maintenance of equestrian and agricultural land uses in certain areas of the City. 4. The proposed text changes supports the orderly development of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\ZCA07l Agri-Eques.WPD Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Zoning Code Amendment 2002-071 Adopted: March 12, 2002 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case. 2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion that the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2000091023) assessed the environmental concerns of the Zoning Text Amendment. 3. The La Quinta Community Development Department has determined that the Amendment to Chapters 9.220, 9.230 and 9.240 are exempt pursuant to Chapter 2.6, Section 21080 of the Public Resources Code, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statutes, and Section 15268, Ministerial Projects, of the CEQA Guidelines. 3. That it does recommend approval to the City Council of Zoning Code Amendment 2002-071 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 12th day of March, 2002, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JACQUES ABELS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\ZCA071Agri-Eques.WPD EXHIBIT "A" Chapter 9.220 ZONE CHANGES AND CODE AMENDMENTS Section 9.220.010.C. Who May Apply. Amend to read: 1. The owner of the property or by the owner's agent (with written notarized authorization from the owner) fe, a Zone Change. 2. The City Council may initiate eansideration of a Zone Change-.; 3. The Planning Commission by a majority vote may recomMend that the City Council initiate consideration of a Zone .; or 4. The Community Development Director may recommend that the City Council initiate consideration of a Zone Change. Section 9.220.010.D.3. Review Procedures. Amend to read: 3. If the Council contemplates a modification to the application not previously considered by the Planning Commission, the proposed modification shM may be referred to the Planning Commission for report back to Council. A public hearing shall not be required for such Planning Commission review. Section 9.220.020.C. Who May Apply. Amend to read: A Code Amendment may be initiated by:YLI IV 1. The City Council; 2. The Planning Commission by a majority vote; or 3. The Community Development Director; may recommend that the City Council initiate a Code Amendment. Chapter 9.230 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS Section 9.230.010.C. Who May Apply. Amend to read: 1. The owner of the property or by the owner's agent (with written notarized authorization from the owner) Plan .; 2. The City Council rnay initiate Gienem! Plan Amendment-.; 3. The Planning Commission by a majority vote, Arnendrnent-; or G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\ZCA071 ExhA.WPD EXHIBIT "A" 4. The Community Development Director may recommend that the City Council initiate consideration of a General Plan Amendment. Section 9.230.010.E.1. Frequency of General Plan Amendment. Modify to read: 1. General Plan elements specified as mandatory in the State Government Code sfmW may be amended no more than four times during each calendar year pursuant to City Council Resolution 2000-77. Each amendment may include more than one change to the General Plan. Section 9.230.020.A.3. Review Procedures and Findings. Modify to read: 3. If the Council contemplates a modification to the application not previously considered by the Planning Commission, the proposed modification shall may be referred to the Commission for report back to the Council. A public hearing shall not be required for such Commission review. Chapter 9.240 SPECIFIC PLANS Section 9.240.010.C. Who May Apply. Amend to read: C. Who May Apply. A Specific Plan or Specific Plan Amendment application may • -initiated by: • • • - - i - i i :. - , atitho,ization frern the owner). in addition, the Plartimg Gornrnission, by of a specific plan u, specific plan Amendment. 1. The City Council; 2. The owner of the property or by the owner's agent (with written notarized authorization from the owner); 3. The Planning Commission by a majority vote; or 4. The Community Development Director G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\ZCA071 ExhA.WPD EXHIBIT "B" SECTION 9.140.060 LOW DENSITY/AGRICULTURAL-EQUESTRIAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TABLE PERMITTED USES IN THE AGRICULTURAL/EQUESTRIAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Mobile Home Subdivisions and manufactured homes on P individual lots Child day care facilities as an accessory use, serving 8 or I A fewer children, subject to Section 9.60.190 Child day care facilities as an accessory use, serving 9-14 M children, subject to Section 9.60.190 Tennis Court or other game court as an accessory use I P associated with a private residence Second units, "granny flats" and employee quarters, I M subject to Section 9.60.090 G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\ZCA071ExhA.WPD EXHIBIT "B" The grazing and breeding of cattle, horses, llamas, sheep, P goats or other farm stock or animals, not including hogs, not to exceed five animals per acre of all the land available The grazing and breeding of sheep or goats, not to exceed P 15 animals per acre of all land available The drying, packing, canning, freezing and processing of P produce resulting from permitted uses when such activity is conducted within permanent buildings and structures G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\ZCA071ExhA.WPD EXHIBIT "B" A. Residential Development Standards TABLE 501 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT STANDARD E/A R Min. Lot Size for Single Family Dwelling (sq. ft.) 10,000 Min. Project Size for Multifamily Projects (sq. ft.) 20,000 Min. Lot Frontage for Single Family Dwelling or Multifamily Projects (ft.) 100 Max. Structure Height (ft.) 28 Max. No. of Stories 2 Min. Front Yard Setback (ft.) 30 Min. Garage Setback (ft.) 30 Min. Side Yard Setback (ft.) 20 Min. Rear Yard Setback (ft.) 30 Max. Lot Coverage (% of net lot area) 40 Min. Livable Area Excluding Garage (sq. ft.) 1,400 Min. Perimeter Landscape Setbacks (ft.) 20 Max. No. of Horses for Private Use (per acre) 5 Parking shall be provided as required by Chapter 9.150. B. Development Standards, All Non -Residential Uses 1. All buildings shall be limited to two stories in height and a maximum of 35 feet, measured from the finished grade of the pad. G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\ZCA071ExhA.WPD EXHIBIT "B" 2. Setbacks: The following minimum setbacks shall apply from the property line: Pasture: 0 feet Accessory buildings: 20 feet Accessory structures: 20 feet Manure storage: 25 feet 3. Fencing: All properties containing one or more uses shall be fenced to a minimum height of 5 feet and a maximum of 6 feet. Permitted fencing materials include chain link, cement block, wood, wrought iron or tubular steel. Razor wire or concertina wire is permitted for those uses listed under "Equestrian and Agriculture Uses" in Table 4. Manure Collection: Any use involving the storage, spreading or use of manure, or the keeping of animals, shall be required to file a plan for its use and disposal with the Public Works Department. 5. Parking: Parking shall be provided as required by Chapter 9.150. 6. Lighting_ All lighting shall comply with Sections 9.60.160 and 9.100.150. 7. Loudspeakers: Loudspeaker systems or other amplified sound are limited to operation or use between 8 a.m. And 10 p.m. Unless otherwise specified by an approved conditional use permit. 8. Dust Control: A Dust Control Plan shall be maintained on file with the Public Works Department at all times. C. Definitions "Accessory building" means any building subordinate to a permitted or conditionally permitted use, including but not limited to hay and tack barns, storage sheds and other structures and uses customarily appurtenant to the primary permitted use. "Accessory structure" means any structure subordinate to a permitted or conditionally permitted use, including but not limited to exercise rings, arenas, corrals, and other structures associated with the permitted or conditionally permitted use. Fences are not considered structures for the purposes of this Section. "Agricultural Activity, Operation, or Facility, or Appurtenances thereof." The phrase "agricultural activity, operation, or facility, or appurtenances thereof" shall include all uses allowed under the Agricultural Overlay District, including, but be limited to, the cultivation and tillage of the soil, dairying, the production, cultivation, growing, and G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\ZCA071 ExhA.WPD EXHIBIT "B" harvesting of any agricultural commodity, including timber viticulture, apiculture, or horticulture, the raising of livestock, fur bearing animals, fish, or poultry, and any practices performed by a farmer or on a farm as incident to or in conjunction with such farming operations, including preparation for market, delivery to storage or to market, or to carriers for transportation to market. "Land Zoned For Primarily Agricultural Purposes." The phrase "land zoned for primarily agricultural purposes" means any land lying within the Agricultural Overlay District. "Arena" -- see Corral. "Caretaker Residence" means a residential unit not exceeding 1,000 square feet, which is not the principal use on the property, to be occupied by a caretaker or watchman who is responsible for the security of the principal use of the property. "Cattery" means any building, structure, enclosure or premises within which five or more cats are kept or maintained primarily for financial profit for the purpose of boarding, breeding, training, marketing, hire or any other similar purpose. "Commercial stable" means any facility specifically designed or used for the stabling of horses not owned by the residents of the property on which the stable is located, and for which the residents or land owner receives compensation. Services provided by a commercial stable including boarding, breeding, training, riding or other recreational use of the horse. "Community auction and sales yard" means a facility which periodically holds auctions of farm equipment, fixtures and other related materials in an enclosed building. "Corral" means an enclosure designed for use as an open holding area for horses for the purpose of confinement within that area for an indeterminate period of time. "Farm" means a parcel of land devoted to agricultural uses where the principal use is the propagation, care and maintenance of viable plant and animal products for commercial purposes. "Farmworker housing" means any building or group of buildings where six or more farm employees are housed. "Kennel" means any building, structure, enclosure or premises within which five or more dogs are kept or maintained primarily for financial profit for the purpose of boarding, breeding, training, marketing, hire or any other similar purpose. G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\ZCA071 ExhA.WPD EXHIBIT "B" "Menagerie" means a lot on which more than one wild, non -domestic reptile (not including turtles or tortoises), bird (not including poultry) or mammal is kept. A tamed or trained wild animal shall not be considered a domestic animal. "Pasture" means an enclosed holding area consisting of grass or similar vegetation, specifically used for purposes of grazing or feeding of animals. "Guest Ranch" means any property of five acres or more operated as a ranch which offers guest rooms for rent and which has outdoor recreational facilities such as horseback riding, swimming or hiking. "Riding Academy" means a facility designed and used primarily for recreational riding, training and instruction, and allowing both on -site boarding or trailering of horses to the facility. "Stable" means a building or structure containing multiple stalls for the purposes of sheltering, feeding, boarding, accommodating or otherwise caring for horses. "Stall" means a division of a stable accommodating one horse into an adequately sized enclosure for the purposes of confining individual horses within a sheltered environment as may be necessary for security, safety or other reasons pertinent to the health, welfare and daily care of each animal. D. "Right to Farm" Intent and Policies Intent It is the intent of the City of La Quinta to conserve, protect and encourage the development, improvement, and continued viability of its agricultural land and industries for the long-term production of food and other agricultural products, and for the economic well-being of the City's residents. It is also the intent of the City to balance the rights of farmers to produce food and other agricultural products with the rights of non -farmers who own, occupy, or use land within or adjacent to agricultural areas. It is the intent of this ordinance to reduce the loss to the area of its agricultural resources by limiting the circumstances under which agricultural operations may be deemed to constitute a nuisance. Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to limit the right of any owner of real property to request that the City consider a change in the zoning classification of his property in accordance with the procedures set forth in the La Quinta Development Code. Policies 1. No agricultural activity, operation, or facility, or appurtenances thereof, conducted or maintained for commercial purposes, and in a manner consistent with proper and accepted customs and standards, as established and followed G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\ZCA071ExhA.WPD EXHIBIT "B" by similar agricultural operations in the same locality, shall be or become a nuisance, private or public, due to any changed condition in or about the locality, after the same has been in operation for more than three (3) years if it was not a nuisance at the time it began. 2. This section shall not invalidate any provision contained in the Health and Safety Code, Fish and Game Code, Food and Agricultural Code, or Division 7 (commencing with Section 13000) of the Water Code of the State of California, if the agricultural activity, operation, or facility, or appurtenances thereof, constitutes a nuisance, public or private, as specifically defined or described in any such provision. 3. This section is not to be construed so as to modify abridge the state law set out in the California Civil Code relative to nuisances, but rather it is only to be utilized in the interpretation and enforcement of the provisions of county ordinances and regulations. E. Notice to Buyers of Land 1. The Director of Community Development shall cause the following notice to be included on all tentative land division proposed that lies partly or wholly within, or within 300 feet of any land zoned for primarily agricultural purposes: Lot(s) No. , as shown on this map, is (are) located partly or wholly within, or within 300 feet of land zoned for primarily agricultural purposes by the County of Riverside and the City of La Quinta. It is the declared policy of the City of La Quinta that no agricultural activity, operation, or facility, or appurtenances thereof, conducted or maintained for commercial purposes in the unincorporated area of the County, and in a manner consistent with proper and accepted customs and standards, as established and followed by similar agricultural operations in the same locality, shall be or become a nuisance, private or public, due to any changed condition in or about the locality, after the same has been in operation for more than three (3) years, if it was not a nuisance at the time it began. The term "agriculture activity, operation, or facility, or appurtenances thereof" includes all uses permitted in the Agricultural Overlay District, and includes but is not limited to, equestrian activities, the cultivation and tillage of the soil, dairying, the production, cultivation, growing, and harvesting of any agricultural commodity, including timber, viticulture, apiculture, or horticulture, the raising of livestock, for bearing animals, fish, or poultry, and any practices performed by a farmer or on a farm as incident to or in conjunction with such farming operations, including preparation for market, delivery to storage or to market, or to carriers for transportation to market. G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\ZCA071ExhA.WPD EXHIBIT "B" 2. The City Engineer shall cause the notice described in subsection (1) to be included on any final land division proposed for recordation that lies partly or wholly within, or within 300 feet of, any land zoned for primarily agricultural purposes. F. Preservation of Agricultural Land Uses in Perpetuity Any land owner wishing to continue a land use listed in Table , Permitted Uses in the Agricultural/Equestrian Residential District, may, at any time, exercise his or her rights under Chapter 9.190: Transfer of Development Rights. G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\ZCA071 CxhA.WPD STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: MARCH 12, 2002 CASE NO: SIGN APPLICATION 2002-609 APPLICANT/ SIGN CONTRACTOR: CORONEL ENTERPRISES/SIGN-A-RAMA PROPERTY OWNER: ESEQUIEL CORONEL REQUEST: REVIEW OF PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM FOR 51105 AVENIDA VILLA (DURANGO BUILDING) LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF AVENIDA VILLA, JUST NORTH OF MONTEZUMA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: ON -PREMISE SIGNS ARE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT UNDER CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 1531 1(a) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: VC (VILLAGE COMMERCIAL) ZONING: VC (VILLAGE COMMERCIAL) BACKGROUND: Village Use Permit 2000-003 was approved by the Planning Commission on August 22, 2000. The approval set forth signs as proposed by the applicant, as part of the development application. The applicant has chosen to revise the approved signs through the proposed sign program application. Presently, the building is a few weeks away from final inspection. SIGN PROGRAM PROPOSAL• The sign program as proposed (Attachment 1) requests approval for building and tenant ID signs, to be mounted only on the east building elevation (facing Avenida Villa. The signs shown represent one building ID sign ("Durango Building") and two tenant ID signs ("Coronel Construction"; "Provident Savings"). The main building ID copy will have letter heights of 12 inches and 6 inches. Tenant sign are limited to a maximum letter height of 10 inches. The cumulative area of all signs is just over 29 square feet. Construction of the sign copy consists of injection molded plastic letters, with no Illumination. All letters will be in a dark bronze finish, and will be affixed to the building with stud mounting. puptrev.lap ANALYSIS: 1 . The signs proposed total just over 29 square feet in area. This is below the standard of 50% of lineal building lease frontage allowable; the maximum sign area permissible for this building is 42 square feet. 2. Future signs for the second floor tenants will be submitted later as they are identified. FINDINGS: 3. The following findings can be made in support of SA 2002-609: A. Sign Program 2002-609 is consistent with the purpose and intent of Chapter 9.160, in that it does not conflict with the standards as set forth in said Chapter. B. Sign Program 2002-609 is harmonious with and visually related to all signs as proposed under the Sign Program, due to the common use of letter type and size, color and location of signs. C. Sign Program 2002-609 is harmonious with and visually related to the subject building as the scale of the signs and letter color used accentuate the building design. D. Sign Program 2002-609 is harmonious with and visually related to surrounding development, as it will not adversely affect surrounding land uses or obscure other adjacent conforming signs. RECOMMENDATION• Adopt Minute Motion No. 2002 - , approving Sign Application 2002-609 as submitted. Prepared by: Wallace Nesbit, Associate Planner Attachments: 1. Proposed signs - East elevation paptrev.lap T Z III