Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1997 06 24 PC
s o z v Of PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California June 24, 1997 7:00 P.M. **NOTE** ALL AGENDA ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. MAY BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT COMMISSION MEETING Beginning Resolution 97-036 Beginning Minute Motion 97-008 I. CALL TO ORDER' A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call II. PUBLIC COMMENT This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled for public hearing. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your comments to three minutes. III. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Department Report PC/AGENDA V. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Item .................. CHANGE OF ZONE 97-082 Applicant ........... City of La Quinta Location ............ Area A: Bounded by Avenida Nuestra to the south, Calle Rondo o the east, Avenida Ultimo on the north and Washington Street on th west. Area B: Bounded by Sagebrush Avenue on the north and extende, to the Evacuation Channel, 50`h Avenue on the south, Washingto: Street on the west, and the Evacuation Channel on the east. Area C: Bounded by Avenida La Fonda on the north, Avenid Nuestra on the south, Washington Street on the east, and 100 fee west of Calle Guatemala. Area D: East of the Bear Creek Channel, north of Avenid Montezuma, and west of the Yucatan area. Request .............. Adding special zoning limitation (lot size, building height in fee and stores, and lot width) to the four areas identified above. Action ............... Resolution 97- B. Item .................. SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-606 Applicant ............ Home Depot, USA, Inc. (Mr. Daniel R. Hatch) Location ............. The north side of Highway 111, 765 feet west of Jefferson Street Request .............. Approval to construct a 2,816 square foot Jack in the Box restaurai with a drive -through on Pad Site #3 within the Jefferson Plaz Shopping Center Action ................ Resolution 97- BUSINESS ITEMS: None A. Item .................. SIGN PERMIT 97-383 Applicant ............ Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc. (Mr. Daniel R. Hatch) Location ............. The north side of Highway 111, 765 feet west of Jefferson Stree Request .............. Approval of a planned sign program for Phase II of the Jeffersc Plaza Shopping Center Action ................ Resolution 97- B. Item .................. PLOT PLAN 95-554 Applicant ............ Caal Theatres Corporation Location ............. 78-740 Highway 111 (the north side of Highway 111, midw, between Washington Street and Adams Street, within the On Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center) Request .............. Approval of a one year time extension for an eight-plex mov theater (La Quinta 8) Action ................ Resolution 97- PC/AGENDA C. Item ............... SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-609 Applicant ......... Platinum Development Location .....•..... 44-315 Villeta Drive Request ........... Compatibility Review to allow construction of one single famil} residence Action ............ Resolution 97- D. Item ............... TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 28409 Applicant ......... Murphy/Kunkle Location .......... North side of Avenida Montezuma, east of Bear Creek Channel, anc west of the Yucatan Peninsula residential neighborhood Request ........... Approval of landscaping, entry circulation and Avenida Montezuma screen wall design features Action ............ Minute Motion 97- VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS A. Report of the City Council meeting of June 17, 1997. IX. ADJOURNMENT PC/AG:ENDA PH #A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: JUNE 24, 1997 CASE NO.: CHANGE OF ZONE 97-082 APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA LOCATION: NUESTRA TO THE SOUTH, AREA A: BOUNDED BY AVENIDA CALLE RONDO ON THE EAST, AVENIDA ULTIMO ON THE NORTH AND WASHINGTON STREET ON THE WEST. AREA B: BOUNDED BY SAGEBRUSH AVENUE ON THE NORTH AND EXTENDED TO THE EVACUATION CHANNEL, 50" AVENUE ON THE SOUTH, WASHINGTON STREET ON THE WEST AND THE EVACUATION CHANNEL ON THE EAST. AREA C: BOUNDED BY AVENIDA LA FONDA ON THE NORTH, AVENIDA NUESTRA ON THE SOUTH, WASHINGTON STREET ON THE EAST, AND 100-FEET WEST OF CALLE GUATEMALA. AREA D: EAST OF THE BEAR CREEK CHANNEL, NORTH OF AVENIDA MONTEZUMA, AND WEST OF THE YUCATAN AREA. REQUEST: ADDING SPECIAL ZONING LIMITATIONS (LOT SIZE, BUILDING HEIGHT IN FEET AND STORIES, AND LOT WIDTH) TO THE FOUR IDENTIFIED AREAS BACKGROUND: Due to concerns that were raised by residents in one of the areas identified above regarding the construction of a second story on an existing single story house, an Urgency ordinance was presented to the City Council. The Council determined that since 1986 these areas had been limited to 17-feet in height and one story, the limitation should remain 17-feet. As a result of that determination, on November 12, 1996, the City Council adopted Ordinance 289 as an urgency measure requiring development in Areas A through D, as noted above, to comply with the Residential Cove (RC) Zoning District. On December 17, 1996, at a duly noticed public hearing, the City Council extended the urgency ordinance to September 30, 1997, by the adoption of Ordinance 294. Since that time staff has been analyzing the newly adopted Zoning Code which permitted two story units in the identified areas. The results of that analysis is that special zoning symbols should be added to the existing zoning districts. Section 9.20.030 of the Zoning Code titled "Special Zoning Symbols", permits the City to create alternate development standards for a particular geographic area rather than utilizing those identified within the district. In particular provisions can be added dealing with lot sizes, setbacks, height and number of stories, and lot frontage. Area A: Consists of large lots created by a subdivision recorded prior to the City's incorporation. The lot sizes range from 10,000 to 18,000 square feet. The existing units are one story with the exception of one unit. Prior to the adoption of the new Zoning Code designation, this area was zoned Special Residential (SR) limiting the house size to 17-feet and one story. The new zoning designation is Low Density Residential or RL. Area B: The majority of this area has been developed with 50 X 100 foot lots with two exceptions; the area north of 50`' Avenue, south of Saguaro, which is a large vacant parcel that has an approved tentative map approved for lot sizes of 7,200 feet or more. The second is a vacant parcel east of Date Palm Drive consisting of five large lots. Currently, the area from Sagebrush Avenue to Saguaro Road was zoned Special Residential (SR) with a 17-foot height limit. The current zoning is Medium Density Residential (RM). The vacant land to the nrth of 501 Avenue (south of Saguaro Road) was zoned Special Residential (SR) with a 17-foot limitation and is currently zoned Low Density Residential (RL). The remainder area east of Date Palm Drive, which is also vacant land, was previously zoned R-2-12,000 allowing two story units. It is now zoned Low Density Residential (RL). Area C: This area consists of 50 X 100 foot lots developed with single family residential homes. Prior to the current zoning, this area was zoned Special Residential (SR) which permitted one story 17-feet high single story. The current zoning is Medium Density Residential (RM). Area D: This area is currently vacant land. However, a recent tentative tract map was approved for lots over 12,000 square feet in size. The Conditions of Approval for the subdivision limited all the lots to one story units. The previous zoning for this area was Hillside Conservation and the current zoning is Median Density Residential (RM). RECOMMENDATION: Based on the information provided, staff is recommending the following: Area A to be zoned RL-10 000 17/1 This designation represents the current zoning designation of low residential with a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet, height limitation of 17-feet and a one story unit. Area B to be zoned: RM 17/ 1 This is for the area from Sagebrush Avenue to Saguaro Road which retains the Medium Density Residential with a height limit of 17-feet and a one story unit. Area B-Remainder: RL 17/1 The remaining portion of Area B will retain the Low Density Residential designation with a 17-foot height -one story limit. Area C: RM 17/1 This zoning represents the current designation of Medium Density Residential with a height limit of 17-feet and one story. Area D: 60-RM-10.000 17/1 This represents a minimum lot width of 60-feet within the Medium Density Residential and minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet with the 17-foot height limit. This zoning complies with the proposed development that has been approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. If the Planning Commission concurs with staffs recommendation, it is recommended that Planning Commission Resolution 97- be adopted recommending approval of Change of Zone 97-082 to the City Council. Attachments: 1. Exhibits 1-4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF AL QUINTA, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CHANGE OF ZONE FOR AREAS IDENTIFIED AS AREA A, AREA B, AREA C, AND AREA D CHANGE OF ZONE 97-082 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 24' day of June, 1997, hold duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a Change of Zone for the following areas: follows: AREA A: BOUNDED BY NUESTRA TO THE SOUTH, AVENIDA CALLE RONDO ON THE EAST, AVENIDA ULTIMO ON THE NORTH AND WASHINGTON STREET ON THE WEST. AREA B: BOUNDED BY SAGEBRUSH AVENUE ON THE NORTH AND EXTENDED TO THE EVACUATION CHANNEL, 50n' AVENUE ON THE SOUTH, WASHINGTON STREET ON THE WEST AND THE EVACUATION CHANNEL ON THE EAST. AREA C: BOUNDED BY AVENIDA LA FONDA ON THE NORTH, AVENIDA NUESTRA ON THE SOUTH, WASHINGTON STREET ON THE EAST, AND 100-FEET WEST OF CALLE GUATEMALA. AREA D: EAST OF THE BEAR CREEK CHANNEL, NORTH OF AVENIDA MONTEZUMA, AND WEST OF THE YUCATAN AREA WHEREAS, said Change of Zone under consideration will change the areas as AREA A: from Low Density Residential (RL) to RL-10,000 17/ 1 AREA B: from Medium Density Residential (RM) to RM and 17/ 1 from Low Density Residential (RL) to RL 17/ 1 AREA C: from Medium Density Residential (RM) to RM 17/ 1 AREA D: from Medium Density Residential (RM) to 60-RM-10.000 17/ 1 WHEREAS, said Change of Zone request has been determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15061; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify the recommendation for approval of said Change of Zone: The proposed Change of Zone will not adversely affect the development of the areas as specified by the General Plan for the City. 2. The proposed Change of Zone will further the intent of the goals and policies of the General Plan. 3. There will be no significant impacts from this Change of Zone. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case. 2. That it does confirm the environmental determination for this case. 3. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of the Change of Zone 97-082 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as illustrated in the maps labeled Exhibit A thru D, attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held this 241 day of June, 1997, 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 EXHIBIT A AVE ULMMO- 'yr r_ ' ,Ii- - NORTH MUESYkA EXHIBIT B r-_____ .SAGEBRUSH AVE------- ---- -- / I L 1 �. 1 bdTTLE6S'H AVE a o v SAGUARO Rb 1 O RL J� 7/1 ©' s �1 / NORTH 1 1------- AVE SOTH--------+ ' V / EXHIBIT C NORTH -.� --AVE LA FONDA ---------= /ROR z � Z ' � z _- AVE NLJESTRA ____---:-- 1 EXHIBIT D NORTH 60-RM-10,000- i 1711 / ��Q` o/ PH #B PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: JUKE 24, 1997 CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-606 APPLICANT: HOME DEPOT, U.S.A., INC. (MR. DANIEL R. HATCH, SENIOR CORPORATE COUNSEL) PROPERTY OWNER: CREDIT SUISSE LEASING ARCHITECTS: GREENBERG-FARROW (MR. DOUGLAS COUPER, AIA) AND WAYNE C. SUI (MR. DENNIS J. KASA, PROJECT MANAGER) REQUEST: APPROVAL OF A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A 2,816 SQUARE FOOT JACK IN THE BOX RESTAURANT WITH DRIVE -THROUGH ON PAD SITE #3 IN THE UNDER CONSTRUCTION JEFFERSON PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER LOCATION: ON THE NORTH SIDE OF STATE HIGHWAY 111, 765-FEET WEST OF JEFFERSON STREET ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: THE JEFFERSON PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER, A 218,300 SQUARE FOOT CENTER, WAS APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 (I.E., SPECIFIC PLAN 96-027 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-028). THE CITY COUNCIL AT THAT TIME CERTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 96-325, CONCLUDING THAT NO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WOULD OCCUR BASED ON THE MITIGATION MEASURES OF THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION. THE JACK IN THE BOX SITE IS WITHIN THE PROPOSED SHOPPING CENTER, THEREFORE, THOSE MITIGATION MEASURES CERTIFIED BY RESOLUTION 96-71 SHALL BE REQUIRED OF THIS APPLICATION. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: M/RC WITH NON-RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL OVERLAY - MIXED REGIONAL COMMERCIAL WITH A NON- RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL OVERLAY. SDPPC606-14/RESOPCSDP606-14/CONAPRVLSDP606-14 Page 1 of 7 ZONING: CR WITH NON-RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL OVERLAY - REGIONAL COMMERCIAL WITH NON-RESIDENTIAL BACKGROUND: COMMERCIAL OVERLAY Surrounding Land Use and Zoning The Jefferson Plaza Shopping Center is surrounded by the following zoning and land uses: North: Flood Plan/Whitewater Stormwater Channel with RL and Golf Zoning beyond the channel. Land uses beyond the'channel consist of undeveloped land and single family residences. Adjacent to the northeast corner of the site above the Wash is a Coachella Valley Water District pump station surrounded by a chain link fence. South: Regional Commercial with non-residential commercial overlay/Vacant commercial land in the City of Indio as well as the City of La Quinta. East: RL/Single Family Residences in City of La Quinta. The property south of the residences is in the City of Indio and consists of a convenience store with service station pumps and retail shops, a multi -family apartment complex, and a vacant lot. On -site: Site grading has occurred with Home Depot is currently under construction in Phase I. West: Regional Commercial with non-residential commercial overlay/Vacant land. Jefferson Plaza Shopping Center History On September 17, 1996, the City Council approved the Jefferson Plaza Shopping Center under Environmental Assessment 96-325, Specific Plan 96-027 and Conditional Use Permit 96-028 by adoption of Resolutions 96-71 through 96-73. The two-phase commercial project, when completed, will consist of approximately 218,300 square feet of floor space on the approximately 20 acres. Vehicular access is allowed on Jefferson Street and Highway 111. The project and phasing is as follows: A. - The Phase I area consists of approximately 10.77 acres at the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Highway 111 and Jefferson Street, and will consist of a Home Depot c with 105,700 square feet of interior floor space and a 24,102 square foot outdoor garden center. Construction of these improvements is now occurring. B. - The Phase II area consists of approximately 9.1 acres west of Phase I. Approximately 79,300 square feet of retail floor space is proposed along with two restaurant pads, one of which would have a drive -through lane, consisting of approximately 7,670 square feet of floor space. SDPPC606-14/RESOPCSDP606-14/CONAPRVLSDP606-14 Page 2 of 7 The adopted Specific Plan (SP 96-027) for the project sets development standards and allows the applicant to request deviations from the Zoning Ordinance in areas such as parking and landscaping. The overall site design for Phase H is conceptual per Condition 83 requiring final review and approval under a Site Development Permit by the Planning Commission. Project Request Phase II Site Plan The Planning Commission reviewed the conceptual site plan for Phase II of the shopping center during review and approval of Specific Plan 96-027 and Conditional Use Permit 96-028. A copy of the original site plan exhibit is attached (Attachment 1). A new site plan for Phase II has been prepared, and the applicant has worked with the adjacent property owner to develop a driveway providing access from the traffic signal. The proposed driveway shows the design agreed upon by the applicant and adjacent property owner. The details of the new site are addressed later in this report. 2. Jack in the Box The subject site is vacant. The proposed Jack in the Box restaurant (Pad Site #3) is located within Phase II of Specific Plan (Attachments 2 - Site Plan) at a non -signalized access driveway approximately 765-feet west of Jefferson Street. This L-shaped restaurant is 2,816 square feet and includes a drive-thru lane which is accessible from the west side of the one story structure. Seating capacity is approximately 86. The overall building height is 16-feet, but increases to 23-feet for a gabled tower element on the west elevation. Building entries are proposed on the west and south sides of the building with the drive-thru window on the east side. Exterior materials consist of flat concrete the roofing with textured walls and split -face masonry block wainscot (Attachment 3 - Building Elevations). A material sample board will be available for viewing at the meeting. Parking for employees and patrons is located on the west side of the building with overflow parking to the north. The applicants are proposing individual mounted internally illuminated channel letter signs on the south and west sides of the building reading "Jack in the Box" within a reverse pan channel border. Two signs are approximately 25 square feet. Additionally, a smaller 6.25 square foot internally illuminated cabinet sign is proposed on the east side of the building on the drive -through shade structure. The sign colors are Jib Red with white returns. In addition to attached building signs, Jack in the Box is proposing two menu board monument signs at the entry of the drive through lane (i.e., north and south sides of drive -through lane adjacent to Highway 111). The internally illuminated cabinets signs are approximately 32 square feet and 5'-8.75" high by 8.25' long (Attachments 4 and 5). Small directional signs are also proposed (Attachment 6). The signs are placed behind a four -foot high landscaped berm. SDPPC606-14/RESOPCSDP606-14/CONAPRVLSDP606-14 Page 3 of 7 Public Notice This request was advertised in the Desert Sun Newspaper on June 9, 1997, and mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the site. Any other correspondence received before the meeting will be presented to the Commission at that time. Public Agency Review A copy of the applicant's request has been sent to all public agencies and City departments. All correspondence received is on file with the Community Development Department. All applicable conditions and comments have been incorporated into the attached Draft Conditions of Approval. STATEMENT OF ISSUES: ISSUE 1 - General Plan/Specific Plan and Zoning Consistency The General Plan Land Use Element designates this site as Mixed/Regional Commercial with a Non - Residential Commercial Overlay. This designation provides for commercial uses including retail uses and restaurants as proposed under the Jefferson Plaza Specific Plan. The Shopping Center, as approved, is consistent with the other applicable elements such as the Circulation Element, Environmental Conservation (Archaeological, Water Conservation and Arts in Public Places policies), Infrastructure and Public Services Element, Environmental Hazards Element, and Air Quality Element. Therefore, the Jack in the Box restaurant development request and minor changes to the Phase II site plan are consistent with the City's General Plan, Specific Plan 96-027 and Municipal Code. ISSUE 2 - Site Plan/Architecture/Landscaping/Sign Consistency A. Site Plan - The site plan for Phase II under Specific Plan 96-027 was conceptual in nature when approved. Since approval, the applicant has refined the overall site plan by adding an additional pad site along Highway 111. The reorganized the primary retail buildings along the north side of Parcel 2 is still conceptual. Any proposals for these buildings will require a Site Development Permit. The Jack in the Box site was restaurant Pad Site #2 under the original plan. Staff Comments: A. Phase H Site Plan - Minor modifications have been made to the overall site plan for Phase II that include increasing the number of access points along the west boundary from one to two, increasing the number of pad sites from two to three, and other minor changes to the on - site parking and east/west driveway aisles. The site plan layout provides internal circulation and cross traffic movement between Phases I and II. Staff recommends approval of new site plan for Phase II provided the recommended conditions are met. SDPPC606-14/RESOPCSDP606-14/CONAPRVLSDP606-14 Page 4 of 7 B. Jack in the Box - The Jack in the Box original site was only conceptual and doesn't necessarily need to be compared to what is being proposed. B. Architecture - Staff Comments - The architectural design of the Jack in the Box is consistent with the overall design theme as defined in Specific Plan 96-027 in that the materials, and colors are compatible with the Home Depot project. The only design changes recommended by staff is the enlargement of the shade structure over the drive -through lane. Under Section 9.150.080(J5) of the Municipal Code, shading of the drive -through service window is required. The other fast food restaurants along Highway 111 have had to provide full cover shading over the service window. Condition 48(a) requires that the shade structure on the east side of the building be extended from the edge of the building not less than eight -feet. C. Landscaping The landscape concept for the Jefferson Plaza project as stated in the Specific Plan is to "utilize lush and efficient design principals with a goal of creating an oasis of tropical character." Fifty percent (50%) of the parking lot will be shaded by trees. Meandering sidewalks will be provided along Highway 111. Staff Comments: The proposed landscape plan is very conceptual. Staff recommends that the final plans be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department prior to building permit issuance (Condition 35). D. Sian Program A comprehensive Sign Program (Sign Permit 97-383) for the shops within Phase H has been submitted to the Commission for approval as required by Condition 4 of SP 96-027. Under the proposed Sign Program, corporate or national tenants require Planning Commission approval of the sign program. Staff Comments: National or regional tenant signing is permitted to vary from these standards if they have more than five outlets and the Planning Commission approves the final sign program. Page 12 of the Sign Program shows the proposed Jack in the Box signs. The Jack in the Box building should be limited to two building mounted signs which do not exceed 25 square feet each unless the Planning Commission makes findings to support additional signs using the Sign Adjustment process of the Sign Ordinance (Condition 48). The existing Sign Ordinance does not permit this type of signing unless an adjustment is allowed or approved by the Planning Commission. Regarding any additional number of signs, the Commission may approve more signs for a tenant to compensate for "inadequate visibility, or to facilitate good design balance." In the past, the Planning Commission has allowed accessory freestanding drive -through menu board signs for the various fast food restaurants along Highway 111 to permit ordering take- SDPPC606-14/RESOPCSDP606-14/CONAPRVLSDP606-14 Page 5 of 7 out food because the signs are placed behind was or bermed landscaping improvements. Typically, one sign of approximately 32 square feet has been allowed per fast food restaurant. Staff supports only one freestanding menu board sign (32 sq. ft.) due to not only the close proximity to Highway 111 but also its proximity to another one. The height of the sign shall not exceed the height of the bermed landscaping. Findings to support this recommendation are attached (Condition 48c). ISSUE 3 - Air Quality Report Under Section 2.70.4 (Air Quality) of the Specific Plan, drive -through uses within Phase II are required to "... show that air quality impacts will not increase when compared to non -drive through uses." An air quality study prepared by CottonBeland Associates has been prepared for this development request. A copy of the Report is on file in the Community Development Department. The study concludes that "... there are no emission benefits to be gained by a ban on drive -through service lanes." ISSUIE; 4 - Property Suitability The proposed project will not create any conditions which are materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare of the City's citizens. The project design along with the recommended Conditions assure this by requiring shielded lighting, additional landscaping, buffering, architectural treatment, traffic and street improvements. CONCLUSION: The Conditions of Approval ensure that the project will be compatible with the design theme of the Jefferson Plaza Shopping Center and with surrounding land uses. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97 approving Site Development Permit 97-606, subject to Findings and Conditions. Attachments: 1. Original SP 96-027 Exhibit 2. Jack in the Box Site Plan Exhibit 3. Building Elevations with Signs 4. Freestanding Menu Sign 5. Freestanding Menu Sign 6. Directional Sign 7. Large Plans - Commission Only SDPPC606-14/RESOPCSDP606-14/CONAPRVLSDP606-14 Page 6 of 7 Prippared by: Greg Trousdeil, Associate Planner Submitted by: Christine di Iorio, PI ng Manager SDPPC606-14/RESOPCSDP606-141CONAPRVLSDP606-14 Page 7 of 7 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 97-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMSSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 2,816 SQUARE FOOT FAST FOOD RESTAURANT WITH DRIVE -THROUGH LANE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 111, 765-FEET WEST OF JEFFERSON STREET IN THE JEFFERSON PLAZA CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-606 APPLICANT: HOME DEPOT, USA, INC. (JACK IN THE BOX) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 24" day of June, 1997, hold duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Home Depot, USA, Inc. for a 2,816 square foot restaurant (Jack in the Box) in the Regional Commercial Zone within Jefferson Plaza Shopping Center, more particularly described as: Being a subdivision of a portion of the northeast quarter of Section 29, T5S, R5E, S.B.B. M. (Parcel 2 of Certificate of Compliance recorded October 22, 1996, as instrument No. 404708 of Official Records of Riverside County); APN: 649-020-022 (Portion) WHEREAS, said Site Development Permit request complies with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended by Resolution 83-68, in that a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact (EA 96-325) was certified by the City Council under Resolution 96-71 for the Jefferson Plaza Shopping Center on September 17, 1996 (i.e., Specific Plan 96-027 and Conditional Use Permit 96-028). Therefore, no further environmental review is necessary for Site Development Permit 97-606 because the building site was analyzed for environmental impacts including an Air Quality Analysis under EA 96-325; and, WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify approval of Site Development Permit 97-606: 1. The project is consistent with the General Plan, Specific Plan and Zoning Code. The City's General Plan Land Use Element designates this site as Mixed Regional Commercial with a non-residential overlay. This designation provides for commercial uses including restaurants as is proposed. The development of the site with a restaurant with drive -through lane is consistent with the other applicable elements such as the Circulation Element, Environmental Conservation (Archaeological, Water Conservation and Arts in Public Places policies), Infrastructure and Public Services Element, Environmental Hazards Element, and Air Quality Element and the provisions of Specific Plan 96-027 and the Zoning Code. The subject property as well as the adjacent properties are zoned for commercial uses. Therefore, development of the subject property with commercial uses will be compatible with adjacent properties provided the applicable Conditions as recommended by staff are complied with. resopcsdp606-14 Planning Commission Resolution 97-_ Site Development Permit 97-606 Jack in the Box Restaurant 2. The project is in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. The applicant has submit an Air Quality Study for the project as required by EA 96-325 to determine if drive -through lanes for fast food restaurants have a greater impact on the environment than restaurants without drive -through lanes. The study concludes that the development of a sit down fast food restaurant verses fast food restaurant with drive -through lane generally have the same overall air quality impacts from mobile sources (i.e., vehicle emissions). Thus, the development of the project is acceptable. 3. 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 surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the City. The architectural elements of the building are compatible with the design elements of the Home Depot building in Phase I of Jefferson Plaza. The "L" shaped building provides interesting building elevations and tower elements have been included to accentuate the facades. Materials used are primarily stucco with flat tile roofing. A desert colors scheme has been chosen for the project. The proposed project as proposed will not create any conditions which are materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare of the City's citizens. The proposed Conditions ensure architectural compatibility between this project and the under construction Home Depot building and SP 96-027. 4. 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 enclosure, lighting, and other site design elements are compatible with surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the City. This pad site was designated for development under SP 96-027. The site has access to the parking areas proposed with Phases I and II of Jefferson Plaza, but not direct access to Highway 111, a major thoroughfare. Parking for this site is proposed on the west and north sides of the building. The parking lot, as designed, complies with the required design standards of the City. The project design, along with the recommended Conditions, assures required design standards are met. 5. The landscaping for the project has been designed to comply with the design parameters of Specific Plan 96-027. Parking lot trees and perimeter site landscaping are proposed to provide shading and complement the building facades. Landscape berming is proposed along the south side of the drive -through lane to reduce the view of the automobiles waiting in the service lane. resopcsdp606-14 Planning Commission Resolution 97-_ Site Development Permit 97-606 Jack in the Box Restaurant 6. The sign program is consistent with Chapter 9.160 of the Municipal Code, and proposes common design elements. An adjustment for the freestanding menu board sign is warranted because it assists patrons who are ordering food in the drive -through lane. The sign is located so that it will be hidden behind a four -foot high landscape berm, and amplification equipment is allowed under Chapter 9.150 (Parking) of the Municipal Code. The building signs are consistent with the Sign Program for Phase II of Jefferson Plaza (Sign Permit 97-383) as Conditioned. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby approve Site Development Permit 97-606 because it is in compliance with the provisions of Specific Plan 96-027. That the Environmental Impacts identified under EA 96-325 are binding for this case. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 24 h day of June, 1997, 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 resopcsdp606-14 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 97-_ CONIDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-606 (JACK IN THE BOX RESTAURANT) JUNE 24, 1997 GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Within 24 months of approval, the site development permit shall be used (beginning of construction) pursuant to Section 9.200.080 of the Municipal Code unless a one year time extension is granted. 2. The proposed restaurant development shall comply with all applicable Conditions of Specific Plan 96-027. 3. Exterior lighting for the project shall comply with the "Dark Sky" Lighting Ordinance. Plans shall be approved by the Community Development Department prior to issuance of building permits. All exterior lighting shall be down shining and provided with shielding to screen glare from adjacent streets to the satisfaction of the Community Development and Building and Safety Departments. 4. Plan for adequate trash recycling provisions for the restaurant shall be approved by the Community Development Department prior to Building Permit issuance. Plan to be reviewed for acceptability by applicable trash company prior to City review. 5. Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits, or ground disturbance, mitigation measures as required by EA 96-325 shall be met. 6. Upon approval, the City Clerk is authorized to file these Conditions of Approval with the Riverside County Recorder for recordation against the properties to which they apply. 7. Prior to the issuance of a grading, improvement or building permit, the applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies; • Fire Marshal • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) • Community Development Department • Riverside County Environmental Health Department • Desert Sands Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District • Imperial Irrigation District • California Regional Water Quality Control Board (NPDES Permit) The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those CONAPRVLSDP606-14/RESOPCSDP606-14 Page 1 Planning Commission Resolution 97-_ Site Development Permit 97-606 (JACK IN THE BOX) jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the plans. For projects requiring NPDES construction permits, the applicant shall include a copy of the application for the Notice of Intent with grading plans submitted for plan checking. Prior to issuance of a grading or site construction permit, the applicant shall submit a copy of an approved Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan. 8. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City's adopted Infrastructure Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. 9. Handicap access, facilities and parking shall be provided per State and local requirements. 10. Construction shall comply with all local and State building code requirements as determined by the Building and Safety Director. 11. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Community Development Director demonstrating compliance with those Conditions of Approval and mitigation measures of SP 96-027, SDP 97-606 and EA 96-325 which must be satisfied prior to the issuance of a grading permit. The Community Development Director may require inspection or other monitoring to assure such compliance. IMPROVEMENT PLANS 12. Site improvements plans shall be submitted to the City on 24"X 36" media for plan checking. The plans shall indicate all site improvements including buildings, trash enclosures, grading, pavement, drainage, and landscaping and shall have signature blocks for the City Engineer. Plans are not approved for construction until they are signed. 13. Paving plans shall include striping, curbing, pavement markings, signs, and other vehicle and pedestrian traffic improvements. If water and sewer plans are included on the site plans, the plans shall also have signature blocks for the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). The combined plans shall be signed by the CVWD prior to their submittal for the City Engineer's signature. Landscaping plans shall normally include landscape improvements, irrigation, landscaping and lighting, and other improvements to or within landscape areas. 14. The City may maintain standard plans, details and/or construction notes for elements of construction. For a fee established by City resolution, the applicant may acquire standard plan and/or detail sheets from the City. CONAPRVI.SDP606-14/RESOPCSDP606-14 Page 2 Planning Commission Resolution 97-_ Site Development Permit 97-606 (JACK IN THE BOX) GRADING 15. Graded, undeveloped land shall be maintained to prevent dust and blowsand nuisances. The land shall be planted with interim landscaping or provided with other wind and water erosion control measures approved by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. 16. The applicant shall comply with the City's Flood Protection Ordinance. 17. The applicant shall conduct a thorough preliminary geological and soils engineering investigation and shall submit the report of the investigation ("the soils report") with the grading plan. 18. A grading plan, which may be combined with the on -site paving and drainage plan, shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and must meet the approval of the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. The grading plan shall conform with the recommendations of the soils report and shall be certified as adequate by a soils engineer or an engineering geologist. 19. Prior to construction of any building, the applicant shall provide a separate document, bearing the seal and signature of a California registered civil engineer or surveyor, that lists actual building pad elevations. The document shall list the pad elevation approved on the grading plan, the as -built elevation, and the difference between the two, if any. DRAINAGE 20. Stormwater falling on site during the peak 24-hour period of a 100-year storm shall be retained within the development unless drainage to the Whitewater Storm Channel is approved by CVWD. The tributary drainage area shall extend to the centerline of public streets adjacent to the development. 21. Nuisance water (and storm water if drainage to the Whitewater Channel is not approved) shall be retained in a retention basin(s) or other approved retention/infiltration system(s). In design of retention facilities, the soil percolation rate shall be considered to be zero unless the applicant provides site -specific data that indicates otherwise. 22. If retention is in an open basin, a trickling sand filter and leachfield of a design approved by the City Engineer shall be installed to percolate nuisance water. The sand filter and leach field shall be sized to percolate 22 gallons per day per 1,000 square feet of drainage area. UTILITIES 23. All existing and proposed utilities within or adjacent to the proposed development shall be installed underground. High -voltage power lines which the power authority will not accept underground are exempt from this requirement. CONAPRVLSDP606-14/RESOPCSDP606-14 Page 3 Planning Commission Resolution 97- Site Development Permit 97-606 (JACK IN THE BOX) 24. In areas where hardscape surface improvements are planned, underground utilities shall be installed prior to construction of surface improvements. The applicant shall provide certified reports of utility trench compaction tests for approval of the City Engineer. HARDSCAPE 25. Pavement sections shall be based on a Caltrans design for a 20-year life and shall consider soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including site and building construction traffic). The minimum pavement section for on -site paving shall be 3.0" a.c./4.50" a.b. 26. The applicant shall submit designs for road base, Portland cement concrete and asphalt concrete, including complete mix design lab results, for review and approval by the City. Construction operations shall not be scheduled until mix designs are approved. LANDSCAPING 27. The applicant shall provide landscape improvements in the perimeter setback area along Highway 111. 28. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots, landscape setback areas, medians, and retention basins shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be approved by the Community Development Department. Landscape and irrigation construction plans shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval by the City Engineer. The plans are not approved for construction until they have been approved and signed by the City Engineer, the Coachella Valley Water District, and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner. 29. Slopes shall not exceed 5:1 within public rights of way and 3 :1 in landscape areas outside the right of way. 30. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn shall be minimized with no lawn or spray irrigation within 5- feet of curbs along public streets. 31. The applicant shall ensure that landscaping plans and utility plans are coordinated to provide visual screening of above -ground utility structures. 32. Parking lot shading as required by Municipal Code (Chapter 9.150) shall be provided. Plans showing compliance with shading requirements shall be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit to verify compliance. 33. Landscape materials shall be maintained as planted in perpetuity. Any dead or missing landscaping shall be replaced within 30 days. CONAPRVLSDP606-14/RESOPCSDP606-14 Page 4 Planning Commission Resolution 97-_ Site Development Permit 97-606 (JACK IN THE BOX) 34. Landscaping within the shopping center shall be commonly maintained under a single maintenance contract. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a common area maintenance association or other similar body shall be established to insure compliance with this requirement. Required agreement or CC & R's shall be reviewed for this purpose by the Community Development Department prior to issuance of a building permit. 35. Prior to issuances of any building permits, the applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department for review and approval a plan (or plans) showing the following: A. Landscaping, including plant types, sizes, spacing, locations, and irrigation system for all landscape areas. Desert or native plant species and drought resistant planting materials shall be incorporated into the landscape plan. B. Location and design detail of any proposed and/or required walls. C. Parking lot trees shall be 24" box tree or large with 2-1/2" to 3" diameter trunks. D. The drive -through lane and parking lot shall be screened by using a combination of berms, walls, and landscaping so that the cars or sign will not be visible by pedestrians and cars on the perimeter sidewalk and street. A barrier height of 48-inches above the curb height of the drive -through lane shall be achieved. Landscaping hedges shall be of a kind or used in such a manner so as to provide screening with a minimum thickness of two feet within 12 months after initial installation. E. All shrubs shall be five gallon unless used for groundcover. CONSTRUCTION 36. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record drawings of all plans which were signed by the City Engineer. Each sheet of the drawings shall have the words "Record Drawings," "As -Built" or "As -Constructed" clearly marked on each sheet and be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy of the drawings. The applicant shall revise the improvement plan computer files previously submitted to the City to reflect the as -constructed condition. 37. Site work shall be performed only after the applicant has obtained an encroachment permit for the work. FEES AND DEPOSITS 38. The applicant shall pay all deposits and fees required by the City for plan checking and construction inspection. Deposit and fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan checking and permits. CONAPRVLSDP606-14/RESOPCSDP606-14 Page 5 Planning Commission Resolution 97- Site Development Permit 97-606 (JACK IN THE BOX) FIRE MARSHAL 39. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 1,500 g.p.m. for a 2-hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 40. The required fire flow shall be available from a Super hydrant(s) (6" x 4" x 2-1/2") located not less than 25' or more than 165' from any portion of the building as measured along approved vehicular travel ways. 41. Blue retro-reflective pavement markets shall be mounted on private streets, public streets and driveways to indicate location of fire hydrants. Prior to installation, placement of markers must be approved by the Riverside County Fire Department. 42. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant/developer shall furnish one blue line copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans must be signed by a registered Civil Engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department ". 43. Install panic hardware exit signs as per Chapter 10 of the Uniform Building Code. 44. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less than 2A10BC in rating. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. 45. Install a Hood/Duct automatic fire extinguishing system. System plans must be submitted, along with a plan check/inspection fee, to the Fire Department for review. 46. Install Knox Key Lock boxes, Models 4400, 3200 or 1300, mounted per recommended standard of the Knox Company. Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for approval of mounting location/position and operating standards. Special forms are available from the Riverside County Fire Department for ordering of the Key Switch. The form must be authorized and signed by office personnel for the correctly coded system to be purchased. 47. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed. A plan check fee must be paid to the Fire Department at the time building plans are submitted. All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions should be referred to the Fire Department Planning and Engineering staff at (760) 863-8886. ARCHITECTURAL AND SIGN REQUIREMENTS 48. Prior to issuance of building or sign permits for Jack in the Box, the following modifications CONAPRVLSDP606-14/RESOPCSDP606-14 Page 6 Planning Commission Resolution 97-_ Site Development Permit 97-606 (JACK IN THE BOX) shall be made: a. The shade structure of the east side of the building over the drive -through lane shall be extended a minimum of eight feet out from the building wall to provide adequate shading of vehicles waiting at the service window as required by Section 9.150.080(J5) of the Municipal Code. b. All signs on the tower elements of the building shall be placed so that the area between the building wall and each side of the sign(s) is equal in length. The maximum sign area permitted for all building mounted signs is 50 square feet. C. One freestanding menu -board sign is permitted provided it is screened by using a combination of berms, walls and landscaping. The size of the sign shall be 32 square feet and not exceed 6-feet in overall height. d. All roof and wall mounted mechanical -type equipment shall be installed or screened with architecturally compatible material so as not to be visible from surrounding buildings in the center and Highway 111 to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Working drawings showing all proposed equipment and how they will be screened shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building permit. e. The number, size, design and location of the directional signs shall be approved by the Community Development Director. POLICE DEPARTMENT 49. Exterior lighting shall be adequate to ensure the safety of patrons or workers after dusk. 50. All exterior doors shall have industrial quality key and latch system locks. Deadbolt locks are encouraged. 51. Delivery doors shall be equipped with a peephole for delivery identification purposes. 52. Perimeter shrubbery should be trimmed to eliminate hiding places for criminals. Product displays shall not block windows to ensure internal visibility of the restaurant by patrol personnel. 53. Loading areas shall be designed to ensure that parking aisles or on -site parking areas in the immediate area are not impacted by deliveries during normal business hours. 54. Building address numbers shall be eight inches tall (or larger) and be contrasting in color to the building color. 55. Exterior areas for deliveries should be monitored by closed circuit remote cameras to C0NAPRVLSDP606-14MS0PCSDP606-14 Page 7 Planning Commission Resolution 97-_ Site Development Permit 97-606 (JACK IN THE BOX) discourage criminal activities. MISCELLANEOUS 56. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, Fringe -toed Lizard mitigation fees shall be paid to the City (i.e., $600.00/acre). 57. Developer agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City of La Quinta in the event of any legal claim or litigation arising out of the City's approval of this project. CONAPRVLSDP606-14/RESOPCSDP606-14 Page 8 ATTACHMENTS " 'k, �c 8SIs � � • - tt � K j� Oq• y Q < cd J t7 • Pv Wa ►��`' r 0 sow ti = o ►- �� ste < �a���� A38iS NOSb3333f ATTACHMENT 1 > u III---UUU I w r �� 2.20.3 -- �— v �� 0 Em J cc V W Q J 2 14 LAM'` CAP'NG p w ANDj(AP,f. --5 -STALLS 0 9' EA =-36' ATTFACHMENT2 RzA . ENWCLOSLIRKE WK 7 SA LA40SC z OVAL RAM L nN -AtAuu, , S°EAKER— 'TAPING AtC 'th BAR SLECT404 DALA Y- LANDSCAPED bERM AND r APIN,- R ATTACHMENT 3 11 F� y �II N Z O N Q gW CL W Z t0^j fL Q W W C- CL "'o ATTACHMENT 4 4 oho j 4 U) °Save Nxi s X ' O m I 11.1 2 Q r CLo0 Nc7 O `0 0UCAN y O r r �p aim C M C O X 'a (n n LL N F- U 0 0 a z 0 w z Q z 0 LL J Q 0 I ATTACHMENT 5, Q fAr 6 9 w I ATTACHMENT 6 aocri C14r ONfV� C�aclq `c� o U N r N o Cc Q) M .mac m vtoElL N H U 0 LL Ir IL z 0 w z ¢ B 1 #A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: JUNE 24, 1997 CASE NO.: SIGN PERMIT 97-383 APPLICANT: HOME DEPOT, U.S.A., INC. (MR. DANIEL R. HATCH, SENIOR CORPORATE COUNSEL) PROPERTY OWNER: CREDIT SUISSE LEASING ARCHITECT: GREENBERG-FARROW (MR. DOUGLAS COUPER, AIA) REQUESTS: APPROVAL OF A PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM FOR PHASE II OF THE JEFFERSON PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER LOCATION: ON THE NORTH SIDE OF STATE HIGHWAY 111, 765-FEET WEST OF JEFFERSON STREET ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: THE JEFFERSON PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER WAS APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 (I.E., SPECIFIC PLAN 96-027 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-028). THE CITY COUNCIL AT THAT TIME CERTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 96- 325, CONCLUDING THAT NO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WOULD OCCUR BASED ON THE MITIGATION MEASURES OF THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION. BACKGROUND: Jefferson Plaza Shopping Center History On September 17, 1996, the City Council approved the Jefferson Plaza Shopping Center under Environmental Assessment 96-325, Specific Plan 96-027 and Conditional Use Permit 96-028 by adoption of Resolutions 96-71 through 96-73. The two-phase commercial project, when completed, will consist of approximately 218,300 square feet of floor space on the approximately 20 acres. Vehicular access is allowed on Jefferson Street and Highway 111 (Attachment 1). The project and phasing is as follows: SIGN97-383/16 Page I of 5 Phase I - This is the Home Depot area consisting of approximately 10.77 acres at the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Highway 111 and Jefferson Street. Phase II - This area consists of approximately 9.1 acres west of Phase I. Approximately 79,300 square feet of retail floor space is proposed along with two restaurant pads. The adopted Specific Plan (SP 96-027) for the project sets development standards and allows the applicant to request deviations from the Zoning Ordinance in areas such as parking and landscaping. The Conditions of Approval for SP 96-027 require a comprehensive sign program for the retail businesses in Phase II to be approved by the Commission before a building permit is issued within this area (Condition 4). Surrounding Land Use and Zoning The Jefferson Plaza Shopping Center is surrounded by the following zoning and land uses: North: Flood Plan/Whitewater Stormwater Channel with RL and Golf Zoning beyond the channel. Land uses beyond the channel consist of undeveloped land and single family residences. Adjacent to the northeast corner of the site above the Wash is a Coachella Valley Water District pump station surrounded by a chain link fence. South: Regional Commercial with non-residential commercial overlay/Vacant commercial land in the City of Indio as well as the City of La Quinta. East: RL/Single Family Residences in City of La Quinta. The property south of the residences in the City of Indio and consists of a convenience store with service station pumps and retail shops, a multifamily apartment complex, and a vacant lot. On -site: Site grading has occurred and Home Depot is currently under construction. West: Regional Commercial with non-residential commercial overlay/Vacant land. Existing Sign Program (Phase I) The Specific Plan document allowed Home Depot to install building mounted signs which will consist of internally illuminated channel letters with corporate colors (i.e., bronze returns and trim cap with orange Plexiglas letter face) and cabinet signs (i.e., bronze returns and retainers with an orange background and white copy with a black border around the letters). Two monument signs were permitted (Attachments 2 and 3). Sianing_Request On June 9, 1997, staff received the Master Sign Program for Phase II of the shopping center. A copy is attached. The program submitted includes signs for the main center identification, major and minor SIGN97-383/16 Page 2 of 5 tenants and pad buildings. All signs proposed are attached to the buildings except for the proposed freestanding sign for the major tenants and accessory menu signs for the Jack in the Box restaurant. The Plan consists of internally illuminated individually mounted channel letter signs which vary in size based on the lease frontage of the tenant space. Minor tenant signs cannot exceed 50 square feet. However, no sign sizes are prescribed for the three major tenants. The developer is also proposing an illuminated monument (multiple tenant) ID sign on Highway 111 in front of Pad Site #3. This multiple tenant sign was conceptually approved by the Planning Commission and City Council during review of SP 96-027. Non -illuminated under canopy signs (3.5 sq. ft.) are shown on Page 6 of the Plan. Environmental Assessment Under Section 15311 (Class I l (a)) of the California Environmental Quality Act, the placement of on - site signs is Categorically Exempt from further environmental analysis. Freestanding Center Identification Sign The Sign Ordinance permits one freestanding monument ID sign per street or parking lot frontage for multiple tenant buildings. The size is based on .25 square feet per lineal foot of street frontage up to a maximum of 50 square feet per sign and 100 square feet aggregate for all signs. The maximum height of the sign shall be eight feet. On Page Numbers 3 and 4 of the Sign Program the developer proposes one center ID sign at the southeast corner of Phase II in front of Pad Site #3. The sign measures approximately 12-feet high by approximately 9'-6" wide. The name of the center is located at the top of the sign with four tenant signs within a 49 square foot area. The sign design is consistent with the freestanding ID signs permitted for Home Depot. However, the overall size of the sign does not comply with the existing Sign Ordinance because it exceeds the allowable aggregate sign area and is greater in height than 8-feet. Staff Recommendation: Page #3 of the Sign Program shall be amended to reduce the size of the monument ID sign to eight feet in height by six feet in width to comply with the Home Depot monument sign on Jefferson Street for Phase I. The combined tenant sign area shall be limited to 5' high by 5' wide (25 square feet) with only three major tenants advertising on this sign because staff defines a major tenant as any business that has a lease area of greater than 9,500 square feet. Lastly, the name of the center at the top of the ID sign shall not be less than ten inches high. Major Tenant Building Signs Major tenants are permitted one building -mounted sign per frontage which shall not exceed one square foot per lineal foot of lease frontage up to a maximum of 50 square feet in aggregate area for all signs, and one under canopy sign of three square feet based on the existing Sign Ordinance. Page #5 of the Sign Program provides limited information about the size of the proposed signs for retail Buildings B, C and D, other than to show location and require approval of the signing by the Planning Commission. SIGN97-383/16 Page 3 of 5 Staff Recommendation: The Sign Program shall be amended to state that the maximum size of each building sign for major tenants shall be 50 square feet. The size of the sign shall be proportional to the area in which it is located with height of sign letters not to exceed four feet unless otherwise approved by the Planning Commission. A major tenant is defined for the purposes of this document as a business with over 9,500 square feet of lease area under roof. Minor Tenant Building Signs The existing Sign Ordinance permits minor tenants to have a maximum of one building mounted sign facing the street or parking lot provided the size of the sign does not exceed one square foot per lineal foot of building frontage (50 square foot maximum aggregate area). The Sign Program permits up to one 50 square foot building sign per building frontage depending on the width of the store front (75 percent of the frontage). One or two rows of copy are permitted with letter style being limited to Helvetica Light or as approved by the developer or City. Internally illuminated letters are required. Sign color shall be limited to one color and no two adjacent signs shall be the same color. National or regional tenant signing is permitted to vary from these standards if they have more than five outlets and the Planning Commission approves the final sign program. Page 12 of the Sign Program shows the proposed Jack in the Box sign program for the center's first national tenant. Staff Recommendation: The Sign Program for minor tenants is similar in design to the One Eleven -La Quinta Shopping Center. Staff supports the program provided the total area of all signs for each tenant does not exceed 50 square feet and no exposed electrical raceways are used. Jack in the Box Freestanding Signs In addition to attached building signs, Jack in the Box is proposing two freestanding signs at the entry of the drive through lane. The menu board sign is 22 square feet and 4'-8" high and the speaker board sign is 32 square feet and 5-8" high. The existing Sign Ordinance does not permit this type of signing unless an adjustment is permitted by the Planning Commission. Regarding additional number of signs, the Commission may approve more signs for a tenant to compensate for "inadequate visibility, or to facilitate good design balance." In the past, the Planning Commission has allowed accessory freestanding menu board signs for the various fast food restaurants along Highway I I I to provide a method to permit ordering take-out food because the signs are placed behind walls or bermed landscaping improvements. Typically, one sign of approximately 32 square feet has been allowed per fast food restaurant (i.e., Sign Adjustment). Staff Recommendation: Staff supports one freestanding menu board sign (32 sq. ft.) for the Jack in the Box restaurant provided the sign is placed on the north side of the drive through lane and screened with landscaping to conceal its view from Highway 111. However, Page #12 should be deleted because Page #8 addresses the Commission review of national or regional tenants. CONCLUSION: The Conditions of Approval ensure that the project will be compatible with the design theme of the Jefferson Plaza Shopping Center and with surrounding land uses. The Planning Commission's review SIGN97-38M6 Page 4 of 5 of this case, as defined under Section 9.200.120 (Appeals) of the Zoning Code, is final unless appealed to the City Council. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97- , approving the Planned Sign Program for Phase II of the Jefferson Plaza Shopping Center under Sign Permit 97-383, subject to Findings and Conditions. Attachments: 1. Original SP 96-027 Exhibit 2. Monument Sign Location Map (SP 96-027) 3. Monument Sign Exhibits (SP 96-027) 4. June 9, 1997, Sign Program Document - Commission Only Prepared by: 4 Greg Trousdell, Associate Planner Submitted by: Christine di Iorio, Planning Manager SIGN97-383/16 Page 5 of 5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM FOR PHASE II OF JEFFERSON PLAZA (SPECIFIC PLAN 96-027) ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 111, 765-FEET WEST OF JEFFERSON STREET CASE NO.: SIGN PERMIT 97-383 APPLICANT: HOME DEPOT, USA, INC. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 24'h day of June, 1997, hold a public meeting to consider the request of Home Depot, USA., Inc. to approve a Planned Sign Program for Phase II of Jefferson Plaza as required by Specific Plan 96-027; and, WHEREAS, said Sign Permit is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15311 (Class 11(a)) because the placement of on -site signs is Categorically Exempt from further environmental analysis; and, WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify approval of Sign Permit 97-383: The proposed Sign Program for Phase II of the shopping center will not create any conditions which are materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare of the City's citizens not addressed during consideration and approval of Specific Plan 96-027. 2. The proposed signs have unifying design elements such as placement of signs on buildings and size and color as designed. Building signs shall consist of individual channel letters to enhance the building architecture and eliminate sign clutter. One or two rows of sign copy is permitted. The building mounted signs shall be proportional in size to the building fascia where they are placed and not be longer in length than 75% of the lease frontage depending on type of sign, etc. The signs for Phase II are architecturally compatible with Phase I (Home Depot) of Jefferson Plaza based on Conditions. The proposed Sign Program complies with Chapter 9.160 (Signs) of the Municipal Code as designed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby approve Sign Permit 97-383 (Sign Program) for Phase II of Jefferson Plaza because it is in compliance with the provisions of Specific Plan 96- 027. resopcs#606-14 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 24' day of June, 1997, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JACQUES ABELS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY BERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California resopcs#606-14 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SIGN PERMIT 97-383 (SIGN PROGRAM FOR PHASE II OF JEFFERSON PLAZA) JUNE 24, 1997 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Prior to issuance of any sign permits, the Sign Program marked "A", is hereby approved as amended by the following Conditions: The following text changes shall be made: Page_1 - Remove statements discussing the Design Review Board and change Planning and Development Department to Community Development Department. Page 3 - Reduce the number of major sign tenants from four to three and require the graphic area for these signs to be 25 square feet (i.e., 5' high by 5' wide). The overall height of the sign shall be 8-feet by 6-feet wide. Add a requirement that any major tenant that advertises on the center I.D. sign shall have a minimum leaseable square footage of 9,500 or more. Page 5 - Add a requirement that states that each major building tenant is allowed 50 square feet of sign area unless otherwise approved by the Planning Commission. Remove statement mentioning the Design Review Board. The maximum letter height for major tenant signs shall be four feet. Page 6 - Under canopy signs shall not exceed three square feet nor be internally illuminated. Page 8 - Remove Design Review Board statement and add a provision that states exposed raceways will not be permitted. Minor tenant signs shall comply with all provisions of Chapter 9.160 of the Municipal Code. Page 10 - Revise to state that each building sign shall not exceed one square foot per lineal foot of frontage not to exceed 50 square feet for all attached building signs. No business shall have more than two building mounted business I.D. signs excluding under canopy signing. Page 12 - Delete (Already covered on Page 8). 2. Amendments to this Sign Program shall made by the Planning Commission. Exposed neon signs are not permitted. 4. During review of the future Site Development Permit for each tenant in Phase II, the applicant shall submit drawings showing proposed sign locations in compliance with this document. 5. Accessory freestanding price signs for automotive service stations shall be approved by the Planning Commission. 6. All provisions of Chapter 9.160 (Signs) of the Municipal Code shall be met unless otherwise amended herein. CONDSIGN383-16 ATTACHMENTS R g gig Of • • S 12 W n O < O F V M ~�� _ 4~m Y� 3Vg s Uatma F 1332115 2 ace NOS83j33f z 0 u) cr LL Ll 3 gg {gg q In- 9 P• ATTACHMENT 1 iin i ® u i wlui N � � 1 203 U 1OIIIIIIIIIIIIIIU m J6h v I- _ Lai J co Q J 2 s 133HIS NOSN3dd3t � rU r T 11117 r - ATTACHMENT 1 � � I111111111 � I I � a / WWI' a Q yi9 QM' u r a 00 W gg it O ¢ 4 n du Z � I � I M 1 a U^IIIIIiIIU - .J { t 9 ® W ` ac 1 Q * S N I g { Q — (L e Q w { I Ja { Z oIC ` < _ I Id a 0 Rf cr ��� WL )I ac I �\ w W v li 91. g m W >,R r 1 \• �H�I I I l l l l l l� IO1N'1i1� 2.80.1 �1ll 1►111-I 2 Z 0 UC C Q O a O Z C 0u N - F- � Z o w L Z D c Z c SO <0 u 2 c F 961 ofNF, MONUMENT SIGN ' fie' TOTAL SIGN FACE AREA 149 S,F, 9161 JEFEERSOX.PL�2A 4LEaQa4 4C�G9Qa4 4C��Qa4 4C�aQb4 '. MONUMENT SIGN `8' TOTAL SIGN FACE AREA t 49 S.F. MONUMENT SIGN A TTACHMENT 3 Is JEFF680N PLAZA 510, 6101 MONUMENT SIGN " TOTAL SIGN FACE AREA 1 25 SCALB 1 /4" = 1 —C 2.80.5 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: JUKE 24, 1997 CASE NO.: PLOT PLAN 95-554 (TIME EXTENSION) APPLICANT: CAAL THEATRES CORPORATION REPRESENTATIVE: MS. CANDACE CRAWFORD ARCHITECTS: THORP ASSOCIATES THEATER OPERATOR: METROPOLITAN THEATRES CORPORATION (MR. BILL HUGHES, VICE PRESIDENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT) REQUEST: APPROVAL OF A ONE YEAR TIME EXTENSION FOR AN EIGHT-PLEX MOVIE THEATER (LA QUINTA 8) LOCATED IN THE ONE -ELEVEN LA QUINTA SHOPPING CENTER LOCATION: 78-740 HIGHWAY 111 (I.E., ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 111, MIDWAY BETWEEN WASHINGTON STREET AND ADAMS STREET, WITHIN THE ONE -ELEVEN LA QUINTA SHOPPING CENTER) ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: ON JUNE 27, 1995, THE PLANNING COMMISSION CERTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 95-301 (NEGATIVE DECLARATION) BY ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 95-024 CONCLUDING THAT THE PROJECT WOULD NOT CREATE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT BASED ON SITE IMPROVEMENTS COMPLETED BY TRANSPACIFIC DEVELOPMENT COMPANY UNDER SPECIFIC PLAN 89-014. BACKGROUND: One Eleven -La Quinta Shaping Center History On April 17, 1990, the City Council approved the One Eleven -La Quinta Shopping Center (Environmental Assessment 89-150 and Specific Plan. The phased commercial project, when completed, will consist of approximately 617,565 square feet of leaseable area on the approximately 60-acres. Vehicular access to the center is permitted on Washington Street, Highway 111 and Adams Street (Attachment 1). Major existing tenants are Wal-mart and Albertsons. PP554-16G/RES0554-16G/CONDPP554-16G Page I of 4 Surrounding_ Land Use and Zoning The One Eleven -La Quinta Shopping Center is surrounded by the following zoning and land uses: North: Flood Plan/Whitewater Stormwater Channel with Residential Zoning beyond the channel. Land uses beyond the channel consist of undeveloped land. South: Regional Commercial with nonresidential commercial overlayNacant commercial land and the Simon Motors Dealership. Eagle Hardware is proposed to the east of Simon Drive under Site Development Permit 97-602. East: Regional Commercial and Commercial Park with nonresidential commercial overlayNacant commercial land. A mini -storage complex is proposed across the street from the Wal-mart Shopping Center under Site Development Permit 96-598. West: Regional Commercial with nonresidential commercial overlayNacant land. Project History The subject property is an irregularly -shaped parcel which is part of the One Eleven -La Quinta Shopping Center. The site is near the back of the shopping center, approximately midway between Washington Street and Adams Street and will align with the Albertsons/Wal-mart row of stores. The extension of Simon Drive, from the south, borders the property on the east. Service entries to the theater are located on the west and east sides of the building. On June 27, 1995, the Planning Commission approved development of an eight -screen movie theater in one structure under Resolution 95-024 (EA 95-301) and Minute Motion 95-025 (PP 95-554) on a 7-0 vote (Attachment 2 - Minutes). The signs for the building were not approved by the Planning Commission at this time. This approval was accepted by the City Council on July 5, 1995, as a Report of Action. The building is approximately 30,000 square feet and has over 1,700 seats. Each theater will be a separate auditorium connected by a main corridor, centralized concession stand, and restroom facility located near the front entrance on the south side of the building (Attachments 3, 4 and 5). The theater was designed to be architecturally compatible with the Albertson portion of the shopping center. The architectural style of the project is Spanish in nature with exterior materials consisting of stucco, clay tile roofing, and Mexican Adequin tile column bases. The structure has a tower feature in the center of the building facing south upon which the name "La Quinta 8" has been approved. A smaller, shorter tower structure is proposed in front of this tower and will be part of the covered walkway system. A marquee sign is located on this tower. The overall height of the building is between 32' and 45'. On July 25, 1995, the Planning Commission reviewed the final sign and landscaping plans prepared by SignTech and Kobzeff and Associates, respectively. The Planning Commission, on a 6-0 vote, approved the final plans as presented, subject to Conditions (Attachment 6). A copy of the Minutes PP554-•16G/RES0554-16G/CONDPP554-16G Page 2 of 4 is attached (Attachment 7). In addition to building signs, a freestanding reader board sign was approved on Highway 111, just east of the Red Robin restaurant (Attachment 8). Public Agency Review A copy of the applicant's time extension request has been sent to all public agencies and City departments. All correspondence received is on file with the Community Development Department. All applicable conditions and comments have been incorporated into the attached draft Conditions of Approval. Environmental Assessment On June 27, 1997, the Planning Commission certified EA 95-301 (i.e., Mitigated Negative Declaration) by approval of Resolution 95-024 for Plot Plan 95-554 approving an eight-plex theater. The Commission's review of the project was accepted by the City Council as a Report of Action on July 5, 1995. STATEMENT OF ISSUES: ISSUE 1 - General Plan/Specific Plan and Zoning Consistency Since approval of the signs for this facility, the Sign Ordinance (Chapter 9.160 of the Municipal Code) has been amended. The current Code allows smaller signs for theater than permitted two years ago. However, since the Commission approved sign adjustments for the theater signs in 1995, the signs are still acceptable if the Commission permits this time extension request. The General Plan Land Use Element designates this site as Mixed/Regional Commercial with a nonresidential commercial overlay. This designation provides for commercial uses including retail uses and restaurants as proposed under the One Eleven -La Quinta Specific Plan. The eight-plex theater is consistent with the City's General Plan, Specific Plan 89-014 and Municipal Code. ISSUE 2 - Project Suitability The location of the project within the Center creates equally spaced major tenants for the Center and provides varied opportunities for shopping for surrounding residents. The site is zoned for commercial land uses and designated regional commercial in the General Plan. The proposed architectural design recognizes the functional design requirements imposed under SP 89-014, and the design elements are in keeping with the other existing buildings within the Shopping Center. Adequate parking for the theater complex currently exists in the Shopping Center parking lot through reciprocal parking agreements. The proposed project with the uses as proposed will not create any conditions which are materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare of the City's citizens. The project design, along with the recommended Conditions assures this by requiring shielded lighting, additional landscaping, and various architectural treatments. PP554-16G/RES0554-16G/CONDPP554-16G Page 3 of 4 CONCLUSION: The Planning Commission is permitted to extend this project for a one year period to June 27, 1998. If no construction activity occurs by this date, the project approval will expire. The Conditions of Approval ensure that the project will be compatible with the design theme of the One Eleven -La Quinta Shopping Center and with surrounding land uses. The Conditions imposed by the Commission in June and July of 1995 have been merged into one document. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution 97- , approving a one year time extension for Plot Plan 95-554 (La Quinta 8 Theater), subject to Findings and Conditions as attached. Attachments: 1. One Eleven -La Quinta Shopping Center Exhibit 2. Planning Commission Minutes of June 27, 1995 (Excerpt) 3. Site Plan Exhibit 4. Building Elevations 5. Floor Plan 6. July 25, 1995 Conditions 7. Planning Commission Minutes of July 25, 1995 (Excerpt) 8. Freestanding Reader Board Sign 9. Large Plans - Commission Only i1 Prepared by: Greg . USAail, Asiociate Planner Submitted by: 5 � ve`I Christine di Iorio, Planning Manager PP554-16G/RES0554-16G/CONDPP554-16G Page 4 of 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 97-_,_, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PLOT PLAN 95-554 TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN EIGHT-PLEX MOVIE THEATER AT THE ONE ELEVEN -LA QUINTA SHOPPING CENTER PURSUANT TO SPECIFIC PLAN 89-014 CASE NO.: PLOT PLAN 95-554 APPLICANT: CAAL THEATRES CORP. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 2e day of June, 1997, consider the request of CAAL Theatres Corporation for a one year extension of time for an eight-plex theater at the One Eleven -La Quinta Shopping Center, located midway between Washington Street and Adams Street on the north side of Highway 111, more particularly described as: Portions of Section 30, TSS, R7E, S.B.B.M. (APN: 643-080- 046) in the City of La Quinta, County of Riverside, State of California WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, did on the 5t' day of July, 1995, review and concur with the Planning Commission's approval of Plot Plan 95- 554 as a Report of Action. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 2r day of June, 1995, approve the La Quinta 8 Theater under Plot Plan 95-554 allowing a 30,000 square foot facility, subject to Conditions. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 26h day of July, 1995, approve the sign and landscaping plans for Plot Plan 95- 554, subject to Conditions. WHEREAS, said Plot Plan has complied with the requirements of'The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63), in that the Community Development Director has determined that the EA 95-301 approved in 1995 is still valid and binding on this development request. Therefore, no additional environmental review is warranted for the time extension request; and, WHEREAS, at said meeting, 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 of approval for Plot Plan 95-554 (Time Extension): RESOPC554-16, CONDPP554-16 Planning Commission Resolution 97-_ Plot Plan 95-554 (Time Extension) A. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, Specific Plan 89-014, and Zoning Code. The project is within the One Eleven -La Quinta Shopping Center which was approved by the City in 1990 under Specific Plan 89-014. The Specific Plan permits retail, office or restaurant land uses and anticipated development of a movie theaters. In 1995, the City processed the CAAL Theatres application to build an eight-plex theater in the shopping center between the Albertsons Supermarket and Wal-mart under Plot Plan 95-554. The approved plans are consistent with the provisions of SP 89-014 and the existing Zoning Code with the exception of signs (See Item E). The development of the project, as Conditioned, will be compatible with the surrounding area. B. The architectural design of the theater is consistent with other buildings in the One Eleven -La Quinta Shopping Center. Spanish style architectural features were approved for this project in 1995. The exterior building materials are stucco with concrete tile roofing. Mexican Adequin stone the is used to accent the columns similar to other existing buildings in the center except the Wal-mart building. All mechanical equipment is roof mounted and will be screened by architectural features. Conditions are recommended to ensure the eight-plex theater is built to current Uniform Building Code standards. C. The site design for the theater is compatible with surrounding areas and includes prevalent site features. The site plan for the theater includes a drop-off area on the south side of the building to relieve traffic congestion in the parking lot. The theater will have outdoor seating areas for patrons waiting for upcoming movies or waiting to be picked up after the movie is over. Bike racks are available for those people that do not come by car. A public art display is being considered by the developer at the southeast corner of the building in the entry courtyard area. The theater's site plan does not affect the internal circulation system which was established for SP 89-014 in 1990. D. The site landscaping will complement the proposed building and create a unifying influence for the community. On July 25, 1995, the Planning Commission reviewed the final landscaping plan for this project. The Conditions require box trees to be planted along the south side of the building to provide shade and reduce the overall scale of the building. The landscaping improvements will be similar to adjacent buildings and be semi -mature when installed. The proposed plant materials are acceptable for this climate zone and complement other developments in the area. RESOPC554-16, CONDPP554-16 Planning Commission Resolution 97-_ Plot Plan 95-554 (Time Extension) E. The building signs for the project shall be consistent with the Sign Ordinance unless an adjustment is granted. The proposed signs are architecturally compatible with the other existing signs in the One Eleven -La Quinta Shopping Center as designed. Signs larger than permitted by the Zoning Code are needed to overcome a disadvantage as a result of an exceptional setback of over 400-feet between the street and the attached signs. The Commission's approval of the Sign Program with adjustments in 1995 is still warranted to increase the visibility of the signs and create an orderly display of the signs on the building facade. WHEREAS, in the review of this Plot Plan (Time Extension), the Planning Commission has considered, the effect of the contemplated action on housing needs of the region for purposes of balancing those needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City of La Quinta and its environs with available fiscal and environmental resources; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby approve a one year extension of time for Plot Plan 95-554 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached Conditions. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Planning Commission, held on the 20 day of June, 1997, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JACQUES ABELS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California RESOPC554-16, CONDPP554-16 Planning Commission Resolution 97-_ Plot Plan 95-554 (Time Extension) ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California RESOPC554-16, CONDPP534-16 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED PLOT PLAN 95-554, TIME EXTENSION CAAL THEATRES, INC. JUNE 24, 1997 * Amended by the Planning Commission on 6-27-95 ** Deleted by the Planning Commission on 6-27-95 + Modified by Staff on 6-24-97 GENERAL Development of this site shall be in substantial conformance with the revised exhibits contained in the file for Plot Plan 95-554, unless amended by the following Conditions. 2.+ The approved plot plan shall be used by June 27, 1998; otherwise it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9.200.080. 3. The building wall scones (lights) shall have the same treatment as the fixtures used in the shopping center. 4. An exterior lighting plan for the parking lot area and buildings shall be approved by the Community Development Department prior to issuance of a building permit. All exterior building lighting shall match that used in the shopping center (Albertsons) and be subject to approval by the Community Development Department. 5. The project shall pay the required Art in Public Places fee prior to issuance of a building permit. .. - - - : ... - --- - - -- - - - -- - - 7.+ The developer she'! Mstain a qualified _--l-aeoiegist immediately tipon any the site. The developer shall have a qualified archaeologist on -site during any trenching work not monitored during grading of the site. The developer shall apply appropriate mitigation measures should archaeological remains or artifacts be uncovered. 8. Prior to issuance of building permit, the applicant/developer shall meet with the Community Development Department recycling coordinator to determine what trash materials can be recycled. Upon that determination, enclosures sufficient for recycling bins shall be provided. Recycling trash enclosures shall comply with the requirements of the City and Waste Management of the Desert (i.e., solid metal Planning Commission Resolution 97- Plot Plan 95-554, Time Extension doors mounted on poles and embedded in concrete with an eight -inch curb provided within the enclosure, with a concrete pad in front of the trash enclosure). 9. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Community Development Director demonstrating compliance with those Conditions of Approval which must be satisfied prior to issuance of a building permit. Prior to issuance of final occupancy, the applicant shall prepare and submit a second written report demonstrating compliance with the remaining Conditions of Approval and mitigation measures. The Community Development Department Director may require inspection or other additional monitoring to insure such compliance. 10. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures and Mitigation Monitoring Plan an file in the Community Development Department. 11. Any required modification to the street/parking lot striping shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering and Community Development Departments. 12. Prior to issuance of any grading or building permit for construction of any building or use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following agencies: Fire Marshal Public Works Department Community Development Department Riverside County Environmental Health Department Desert Sands Unified School District Coachella Valley Water District Imperial Irrigation District California Regional Water Quality Control Board (NPDES Permit) The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from the above jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approvals and signature an the plans. The evidence of permits or clearances from the above jurisdictions shall be presented to the Building and Safety Department at the time of request for a building permit. 13. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City's adopted Infrastructure Fee Program in effect at the time of issuance of a building permit. Planning Commission Resolution 97-_ Plot Plan 95-554, Time Extension 14. As shown in the submitted three-dimensional perspective drawing, on the east side of the building, between the stucco accent band and top of parapet, there shall be provided eight diamond shaped tile accent treatments. The the treatment shall be located directly above the false pilasters. 15.+ A detailed m be submitted for this projeet prior to instal ation of any project. Th - -iW 9 - -arm she" be reviewed and approved by the Planning Gernmission. (See Condition Numbers 46 through 50) 16.* Bike racks to accommodate 10 bicycles shall be provided. 17. Plans for downspout treatment shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department prior to issuance of a building permit. 18. ** There shall be no mean lights used on the outside of the building whieh all we!' she'! be allowed. Plans for tubing to be approved by the Gernmu 19. There shall be outrigger posts to match others used in the shopping center provided on the large tower structure on the south side of the building. Said use shall be approved by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of a building permit. 20. On the east and west sides of the building there shall be tiled accents provided in the same color of the wall scones (lights). The tile treatment shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department prior to issuance of any building permits. LANDSCAPING 21. Prior to preparation of final landscaping and irrigation plans for the project, preliminary landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for approval. Landscaping features to be included shall be as follows: A.*+ Additiomal shade trees (Minimurn 36-imch box) shall be pmvided em the south side of the buildimg with locations approved by the Garnrm nity Developmemt. Department. That two additional 36-inch box trees shall be provided on the south side of the building and a total of three benches with seating for twelve shall be provided with location to be subject to approval of the Community Development Department prior to issuance of a building permit. Condpp554-16/Resopp554 Planning Commission Resolution 97-_ Plot Plan 95-554, Time Extension B. Ten foot to 16-foot high Washingtonia Robusta Palm Trees shall be provided along the east side of the building within the two planter areas to soften the building. D. Additional benches/seating shall be provided on the south side of the building. Said seating and its location shall be approved by the Community Development Department prior to building permit issuance. E.+ Landscaping plans shall provide for the publie art proposed for the southeast eerner of. the building pad area. That proposed public art at the southeast corner of pad site shall be taken into consideration when landscaping and irrigation are installed. 22.+ The provisions of City Water Conservation Ordinance (Chapter 8.13) shall be met during plan check. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 23. Upon their approval by the City Council, the City Clerk is authorized to file these Conditions of Approval with the Riverside County Recorder for recordation against the properties to which they apply. IMPROVEMENT PLANS 24. Site improvement plans submitted to the City for plan checking shall be submitted on 24-inch by 36-inch media and shall include grading, hardscape (curbing, paving, and walkways), striping and traffic signage including parking stalls, drainage, and landscaping including walls, fencing, irrigation, and lighting. All plans shall have signature blocks for the City Engineer and are not approved for construction until they are signed. 25.+ Prior to occupation of the project site for construction purposes, the Applicant shall submit and receive approval of a Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16, La Quinta Municipal Code. In accordance with said Chapter, the applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the provisions of the permit. Condpp554-15/Resopp554 Planning Commission Resolution 97- Plot Plan 95-554, Time Extension 26.+ Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained to prevent dust and blowsand nuisances. The land shall be planted with interim landscaping or provided with other wind and water erosion control measures approved by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. Provisions of the Dust Control Plan approval shall be enforced and valid until a permanent Certificate of Occupancy has been issued. 27. A grading plan shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and must meet the approval of the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. The grading plan shall conform with the recommendations of the soils report and shall be certified as adequate by a soils engineer or an engineering geologist. DRAINAGE 28. Nuisance water, irrigation runoff, and wash water (including parking lot washdown) shall be retained on site or routed to the sanitary sewer system unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 29. In areas where hardscape surface improvements are planned, underground utilities shall be installed prior to construction of the surface improvements. The applicant shall provide certified reports of utility trench compaction tests for approval of the City Engineer. STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 30. Improvement plans for all on- and off -site streets and parking areas shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the La Quinta Municipal Code, adopted Standard Drawings, and as approved by the City Engineer. Street pavement sections shall be based on a Caltrans design procedure for a 20- year life and shall consider soil strength and anticipated traffic loading, including site and building construction traffic. The minimum pavement sections shall be as follows: Parking areas 3.0"14.5" Collector 4.0"15.00" Secondary Arterial 4.0"16.00" Primary Arterial 4.5"16.00" Major Arterial 5.5"16.50" It the applicant proposes to construct a partial pavement section which will be Condpp554-16/Resopp554 Planning Commission Resolution 97 Plot Plan 95-554, Time Fxtension subjected to traffic, the partial section shall be designed with the 20-year design strength. 31. Street plans shall show existing access drives and other improvements impacting the site, improvements proposed with this development, and improvements currently proposed for future construction an adjacent sites which must be integrated with improvements to this site. 32. The City Engineer may require improvements extending beyond site boundaries such as, but not limited to, pavement elevation transitions, street width transitions, traffic striping and other channelization devices, or other incidental work which will insure that newly constructed improvements are safely integrated with existing improvements and conform with the City's standards and practices. MAINTENANCE 33. The applicant or applicant's successors in ownership of the property shall ensure perpetual maintenance of private street and drainage facilities, landscaping, and other improvements required by these conditions. FEES AND DEPOSITS 34. The applicant shall pay all deposits and fees required by the City for plan checking and construction inspection. Deposit and fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for the plan checks and permits. FIRE MARSHAL 35. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 3,000 g.p.m. for a two-hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 36. The required fire flow shall be available from a Super hydrant(s) (6" X 4" X 2.5" X 2.5"), located not less than 25-feet nor more than 165-feet from any portion of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travelways. 37. Prior to issuance of building permits, applicant/developer shall furnish one blueline copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review/approval. Plans shall conform to fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system shall meet fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed approved by a registered civil engineer and local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department." Condpp554-16/Resopp554 Planning Commission Resolution 97 Plot Plan 95-554, Time Extension 38. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13, Light Hazard. The post indicator valve and Fire Department connection shall be located to the front within 50-feet of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25-feet from the buildings. System plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for review, along with a plan check inspection fee. 39. Install a manual pull, smoke detection and voice evacuation fire alarm system as required by the Uniform Building Code/Riverside County Fire Department and National Fire Protection Association Standard 72. 40. Install panic hardware and exit signs as per Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code. 41. Comply with Title 19 of the California Administrative Code. 42. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA Pamphlet 10, but not less than 2AIOBC in rating. 43. Install Knox Lock Box, Models 4400, 3200, or 1300, mounted per recommended standard of the Knox Company. Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for approval of mounting location/position. Special forms are available from this office for the ordering of the Lock Boxes. 44. Conditions subject to change with adoption of the new codes, ordinances, laws, or when building permits are not obtained within twelve months. 45. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed. A plan check fee must be paid to the Fire Department at the time building plans are submitted. SIGNS 46.+ That the maximum height of the freestanding sign shall be the same as the Center identification signs which is approximately 1 V-6". 47.+ That the sign returns for all building -mounted signs, except the reader board, shall match the stucco surface upon which it is placed. 48.+ That poster signs and cabinets shall be permitted as shown on plans a approved by the Planning Commission on June 27, 1995. Condpp554-16/Resopp554 Planning Commission Resolution 97-_ Plot Plan 95-554, Time Extension 49.+ The sign on the east side of the building shall be deleted. 50.+ The "8" in the main sign, on the south side of the building, shall be reduced to 3- feet high with "La Quinta" curved to follow arch of top of tower. MISCELLANEOUS 51.+ Developer agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City of La Quinta in the event of any legal claim or litigation arising out of the City's approval of this project. Condpp554-16/Resopp554 ATTACHMENTS m "»k ' ATTACHMENT 1 ���114 JJW �o�0o_vv�a e o�nn B r-a w— Y �A E cnv rnrn'��p 7 i-�O ��$^ �O rnw tA� M N O Nam-' e O�V�M C In 'Jp{kw N 6 i=hz a- 00 rn 1(7 • S In N Cn a .N . NM SL O Z r ; i e � 2 _ wog o "A. `" '•y' _ i a,. a, c>ue �8�:GO O $f u _v0°OONOp C^v O,N owap <g81s W E_o K O N m yy rn Q. a$i� j yy'7 n �c�M gi Akw M H o • C,4 Sx.: as 2 cl,N • _ moo 0 ovvam:a <yaax � o°ooa,ov W �'��tl cav rnrn m••� b- dN�o �, o of m"spa y;y t000 tTCC0O '+yk YwY • - 00 • '� Z. N M .W16- e W�`o'oo'oo �� v�E^���,Cl ;"al � a--- - a a.Nin v, o m.- m++EGp i0 QQk_ c N O•^ aY i- er N W• v M • ATTACHMENT 2 Planning Commission Minutes June 27,1995 B. Continued - Environmental Assessment 95.301 and Plot Plan 95-554 a request of Caal Theatres for approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact and approval of a plot plan to allow the construction of a 30,000 square foot 8•plex theater. 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. Staff stated that changes had been made to the Conditions of Approval to reflect the applicant's submittal. 2. Commissioner Barrows asked about Condition #21.C. and #21.13. to clarify the type of trees to be planted. Staff clarified the trees to be planted in the planter. 3. Commissioner Barrows asked how many bicycle racks would be required in Condition #16. Staff stated there was no specific formula to determine the number. It would be determined by staff (a minimum size to accommodate ten bicycles). 4. Commissioner Barrows asked staff to clarify the exposure of the neon lighting. Staff stated the conditions require the neon tubing to be hidden and be indirect lighting. 5. Chairman Adolph asked if the color of the neon was submitted. Staff stated it was turquoise•blue. 6. Commissioner Gardner asked staff to clarify the proposed design of the downspouts on the back of the building. Staff explained the construction of the false pilaster to be constructed to hide the downspouts. 7. Chairman Adolph asked if the downspout could be stuccoed to blend in with the building. Staff stated the conditions could be amended to address this request. 8. Commissioner Barrows asked for clarification of the height of the building at the tower. Staff explained the highest tower would be 44' 10". The parapet would be 35'4". Commissioner Barrows stated this is 14' above the highest point of the Albertson's building. Community Development Director Jerry Herman clarified that the height of the building was within the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. 9. Chairman Adolph asked if the request before them included the landscaping and signs. Staff stated the signs would come back to the Planning Commission and the landscaping would be approved by staff, based on the conditions at this time. 10. Commissioner Anderson stated that at the last meeting he had asked to see an overall site plan showing the parking for the entire center. Staff displayed the overall site plan of the Center and explained the area affected by the parking of the theater. Discussion followed relative to the peak period parking needs. Pcs-27 6 Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 1995 11. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Adolph opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wished to address the Commission. Mr. Roger Thorpe, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission regarding the concerns that had been raised. 12. Mr. Thorpe clarified the height of the building. He stated that the highest points were to draw attention the theater. He went on to explain the purpose for the building height (i.e., the movie screen), sound quality, and the mechanical space needed. The neon lighting is needed because the structure is at the rear of the center and behind several satellite pad sites. It is important to distinguish this building from the other buildings in the Center. Therefore, it is necessary to have the exposed neon to draw attention to the building. The blue neon is softer and will not make a loud statement. Need to have the ability to express that they are a theater with the neon lighting and in addition they do not feel it is fair to require them to landscape the rear of the building when no other building tenant has been required to. He displayed pictures of the existing Oleanders that are planted on the rear of the site. They feel this is sufficient landscaping to guide any future development north of the property. Requiring landscaping is a hardship to his client. 13. Commissioner Anderson asked for clarification on the downspout and false pilaster. The separation between the stucco and textcoat would appear as a vertical line. Mr. Thorpe stated yes. 14. Commissioner Anderson stated he understood the reason for the air conditioning space in the attic of the building, but what is the size of the ducts and returns? Mr. Thorpe explained. Discussion followed regarding the installation of the duct work in conjunction with the mechanical equipment in the building attic. 15. Commissioner Anderson stated that on the tower structure of the other buildings in the center do not use it as a sign. Has any other area been looked at to relocate the sign. Mr. Thorpe stated that the sign people have looked at all the options and this was the best suited location for patrons to see the sign from Highway 111. The sign was vital to the project for visibility and identification. 16. Commissioner Abels stated he approved of the project as designed. 17. Commissioner Gardner asked staff to clarify the effect of the lighting on the Dark Sky Ordinance. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated the Code allowed exposed neon. 18. Commissioner Barrows asked where neon lighting had been approved at other sites. Staff stated the only other site was the Jefferson Square project, but it was indirect lighting. Discussion followed as to the neon lighting. PC6.27 7 Planning Commission Minutes June 27,1995 19. Commissioner Gardner asked for clarification of the installation as to whether they are open and exposed or hidden under the cornice. Mr. Thorpe explained the installation (exposed) and staff displayed the elevation drawing. 20. Commissioner Newkirk stated he felt this was a very subdued presentation (because blue neon was being used) and he agreed with the applicant. 21. Commissioner Butler stated he agreed that landscaping at the rear of the building was not necessary. He would like to see the sign program before it is approved and as a concession, shine the neon light down, maybe with a lip of wood installed to direct the light down. Mr. Thorpe stated that the effect of covering caused it a to be a covered laminar. To gain the effect of the neon, which is an effect associated with going to the movies, they would need to have it exposed. 22. Commissioner Barrows asked if there was another light medium they could use to keep the effect. Mr. Thorpe explained florescent lighting would be used if the light source had to be shielded. 23. Commissioner Abels stated this was a movie theater and there must be a give and take and this proposal has been done very tastefully. 24. Commissioner Anderson stated he was concerned about the neon, but was not entirely opposed to it. If it is recessed and shielded it does lose its affect. He was willing to allow the neon. 25. Commissioner Barrows agreed that even though the landscaping would add to the north side of the building, she did not feel it was necessary. The landscaping on the south elevation where the Eucalyptus are shown, what are the height of the plants. Mr. Thorpe stated they would be 20•feet. Commissioner Barrows asked if there was a bench and if none, where would the applicant expect the patrons to wait. Mr. Thorpe stated there is one bench and probably be more, as well.as the grass and art work. Commissioner Barrows suggested that a few extra Palm Trees would soften the effect of the building and give some added shade. 26. Chairman Adolph asked if each theater is individually air conditioned. Mr. Thorpe stated each had its own air conditioning unit. 27. Chairman Adolph stated he had no objection to the neon lighting and the landscaping does need some attention to clustering the palms and trees for shade. 28. There being no further public comment, Chairman Adolph closed the public hearing. PCB-27 8 Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 1995 29. Commissicner Anderson expressed his concern for the signage and would address it when presented. 30. Commissioner Barrows stated she felt additional landscaping should be added to the design for shade. Staff stated that Condition #21.A. would require additional landscaping. 31. Community Development Director Jerry Herman pointed out the changes to the Conditions of Approval. They were: Condition #16 B-10 bike racks. Condition 18 deleted Condition 21.A. add more trees Condition 21.C. deleted 32. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners ButlerlAbels to adopt Resolution 95-024 certifying a Negative Declaration of environmental impact for Environmental Assessment 95.301 prepared for Plot Plan 95.554. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Anderson, Barrows, Butler, Gardner, Newkirk, and Chairman Adolph. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 33. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners ButlerlAbels to adopt Minute Motion 95- 025 approving Plot Plan 95.554, subject to the amended conditions. Unanimously approved. C. Plot Plan 9 58 (Compitility Review): a request of Land u Development for approval of a new single family construction in the lake q a project. A 1. Niff lanner Stan Sawa presen 'information containZthestart, a which is on file in the Cc ty Development Departmed out 4t the rear of the house do west and the applicant hatial overhand which does can f ith the Planning Commissione's 2. Commissioner Ande sked if a materials board hlbernitted. Staff displayed and explained thssubmitted. 3. There /beither questions of staff, Chair ed the public hearing. Mr. Warchitect for the project, st a was there to address the Commding any questions they ve. Pcs•27 9 1N3Vh'6 fd30 WNW14 VV41 RO V130 n a P3 _ �ssl 7. N n r ATTACHMENT 3 ! s � ! f k lot! S !R C+ ap Z g MISSION � jZ_ v 4,12-7 Jj 4Y4 4■ aaa ^^ oil :99 10 air nnE ® P.O. Box 129 C!� 54T:. LXV5CAM Pan F-vas ParK CO W97 LA QUNTA THEATRE �oae: 1970 5B -9ETR s28 MQPOUTAN THEATRES o i a '°>E Assact�tes rftiQ CM 534-B78 ,. � JUNr- 19, 1995 P� ex 'sue 5as meb 1A QLX UA. CA1.1Fa2NiA dINNO31IdJ 'd1NInO bl 3NIV- 41 NVIInOdO8l3W 3N1d3H1 d1Nino `d PI (--Z)67 . ATTACHfMENT 4 urrR a 0,3 -t IM 00 ' -1 od swofi,335 9f 11a71f19 - Q rs wc8il4�y��: jL d viv"If"D rl it) ADS 1/�� C(YC(� �,� ,(11 II••���� ii�� F �(./Y w NYOISSi��i�bOO V?Yi1�l�Y'�C+5`777 - Cl O ♦I -. a3A4dddVURV 4 U� J 'l Ea 0 ° ° r I l � l A _[[ Illy t I cc e � CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - FINAL ATTACHMENT 6 FOR SIGNS AND LANDSCAPING PLOT PLAN 95-554 - CAAL THEATRES CORPORATION JULY 25, 1995 * Amended by Planning Commission July 25, 1995 "Added by Planning Commission July 25, 1995 1. That sign program and landscaping and irrigation plans for this project are approved as noted on plans on file in the Community Development Department, subject to the following conditions. 2. That the maximum height of the free-standing sign shall be the same as the Center identification signs which is approximately 11-feet, 6-inches. 3. That the sign returns for all building -mounted signs, except the reader board, shall match the stucco surface upon which it is placed. 4. That poster signs and cabinets shall be permitted as shown on plans approved by Planning Commission on June 27, 1995. *5. That two additional 36-inch box trees shall be provided on the south side of the building and a total of three benches with seating for twelve shall be provided with location to be subject to approval of Community Development Department prior to issuance of a building permit. 6. That proposed public art at southeast corner of pad site shall be taken into consideration when landscaping and irrigation are installed. * *7. The sign on the east side of building shall be deleted. **8. The W in the main sign, on the south side of the building, shall be reduced to 3-feet high with "La Quinta" curved to follow arch of top of tower. CON"RVL.332 Planning Commission Meeting July 25, 1995 ATTACHMENT 7 a two year extension of time. Unanimously approved with Commissioners Anderson and Gardner being absent. Commissioner Anderson rejoined the meeting. QdM request of Liberty Mutual lw=ctional sign and flag bunting est in March, 1996. ector Jerry Herman presented the a copy of which is on file in the no discussion, it was moved and rows to adopt Mim Device 95-068 for the "signs and flag bunting. being absent. PJ3 approving Special Tournament directional D. Plot Plan 95-554; a request of Caal Theatres Corporation for approval of a sign program and landscaping plan within the One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center for an 8-plex movie theater. 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. Commissioner Barrows asked for clarification on the height of the sign. Staff clarified. 3. Commissioner Adolph asked how many monument signs had been approved for Highway 111. Could the Commission anticipated another tenant applying for another monument signs? Staff stated this request was in -lieu of one of the other monument signs. To date all of the monument signs that were approved have not been built. 4. Commissioner Adolph asked how many of the large monument signs are allowed per the approved Specific Plan. Staff stated that two were approved for Highway 111. 5. Commissioner Adolph asked about the six or eight poster signs that are requested. Staff stated that the previous plans that were approved, did show them and staff included a condition to permit them. Commissioner Adolph PC7.25 13 Planning Commission Meeting July 25, 1995 asked how this would affect the total square footage allowed for signs. Staff stated the Commission has the right to modify the amount of square footage and it can be approved as part of the Commission's decision. 6. Mr. Bill Hughes, representing Caal Theatres, stated that due to the location of the building in the rear of the Center, their marketing information has shown that by having a marque on the street, it eliminates a lot of traffic problems. People are able to read the movies showing without having to drive through the parking lot. Discussion followed as to the signs. 7. Commissioner Adolph expressed his concern that vehicles passing as fast as they are traveling would not be able to read the sign. Mr Hughes stated his experience shows they will. 8. Commissioner Anderson asked if the readers were in an open position. He asked if the lexan would close over the face. Mr. Hughes stated they would be closed. 9. Commissioner Butler stated that when the use was originally approved, the height of the building was reduced and the applicant, at that time, felt the City was taking away his advertising to the street. The Commission did not understand the applicant would be installing another sign on the street. If this had been known, their signs on the theater would have been reduced even further. Once it is known that the theater is in the Center, additional signs will not be needed on the street, especially this large. 10. Chairman Abels stated that from a business standpoint, it was necessary. 11. Commissioner Adolph asked how large the "La Quinta 8" sign is on the side. Staff stated it was 52 square feet. Commissioner Adolph stated this was a total of 69 square feet and is over the amount allowed. Discussion followed regarding the sign size. 12. Commissioner Barrows expressed her concern about the size of the sign being on Highway 111. Staff clarified this was the same height as the other monument sign. 13. Mr. Robert Tyler, resident, stated he was concerned about the traffic problems on Highway 111. In addition, the name of the complex lacked imagination and had nothing to do with the building. PC7.25 14 Planning Commission Meeting July 25, 1995 14. Commissioner Anderson stated he was opposed to the large signs on the front of the building, the signs on the side of the building, and the monument sign. In addition, the type style was mundane and lacked character. 15. Commissioner Barrows stated she would like to see additional landscaping and seating provided. 16. Mr. Hughes stated they did not want to provide a lot of seating as this would encourage teens to hang around. In reference to the name, they were proud to be in the City of La Quinta and consequently named the theater after that and the "8" is the number of theaters. In addition, he had no objection to removing the east side sign. 17. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Anderson/Barrows to adopt Minute Motion 95-034 approving Plot Plan 95-554 landscaping plans with the additional landscaping and benches, and deny the sign program for an 8-plex movie theater. Discussion followed by Commissioners Anderson/Barrows withdrawing their motions. 18. Commissioners Barrows/Adolph moved and seconded a motion to adopt Minute Motion 95-034 approving the landscaping plans with the addition of: a. Two additional trees and three benches (seating 3-4 people); b. Approval of the requested signs with the monument sign reduced to 11-feet 6-inches; C. The elimination of the eastern side sign; and, d. Reducing the entire large marque sign and making it one line "La Quinta 8". 19. Discussion followed among the Commissioners regarding various options of reducing the signs. Mr. Hughes stated the in -line wording would not work. Commissioner Barrows asked if the sign could be 36" and arched. Following the discussion, staff clarified the motion as follows: The motion was to approve the Plot Plan with the modification to the Conditions as follows: Conditions #1, 2, 3, 4, 6 as stated Condition #5 amended to require two additional trees and three benches with seating for 4-people per bench. Condition #7 amended to prohibit any east wall sign. PC7.25 15 Planning Commission Meeting July 25, 1995 Condition #8 amended to require the "8" be reduced to three feet tall and the "La Quinta" arched the same as the parapet. The motion was approved unanimously with Commissioner Gardner being absent. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Commissioner An ed that the Minutes of July 11, 1995, Page 11, Item #47 be correcte . "the City should be at the edge of defensibility of the Ordina,; ere being no further corrections to the Minutes of July 11, 1995, it was , d and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Anderson to approve the ` tes as amended. Unanimously approved with Commissar Gardner being SIONER ITEMS A. Commissioner Adolph gave a B. Commissioner Anderson complete elevations/ with colored ele ADJOURNMENT There being to adiournA Council meeting of July 5, 1995. his concern about reviewing a project without having e applicant needs to submit complete sample boards presentation to the Commission. reetingr business, it was moved and seconc of the Planning Commission to a re Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:: PC7.25 16 I I ATTACHMENT 8 s 9 1�1 � s �17 d US z w W BI #C STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JUNE 24, 1997 CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-609 REQUEST: APPROVAL OF NEW SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSE PLANS FOR LOT 182 OF TRACT 23269 (LA QUINTA VISTAS) LOCATION: 44-315 VILLETA DRIVE (SOUTHWEST CORNER OF VILLETA DRIVE AND ESTELO COURT; SEE ATTACHMENT 1) APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: MR. MARVIN JOHNSON BUILDER: PLATINUM DEVELOPMENT (MR. DARRELL DANILSON) DESIGNER: DESIGN CLASSICS (MR. THOMAS HERNANDEZ) ZONING: RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) CEQA IMPACT ANALYSIS: THIS APPLICATION IS EXEMPT FROM CEQA UNDER GUIDELINES SECTION 15303(a); NEW CONSTRUCTION OF SMALL STRUCTURES The La Quinta Vistas development is located within Tract 23269, on the south side of Fred Waring Drive, westerly of Las Vistas Drive which provides the main access to the tract, as well as other area subdivisions. La Quinta Vistas is the west portion of Tract 23269, which was approved for 255 lots on 8/2/88. The easterly portion of the tract §s known as La Quinta Highlands; there is no apparent physical distinction between the two areas beyond the subdivision entry signs at Las Vistas and Fred Waring Drive. The four units initially approved in 1990 for the overall tract ranged in size from 1,609 to 2,405 square feet; these were built by Triad Pacific Development. In 1993, Century Homes received approval for four prototype units ranging from 1,606 to 2,010 square feet. Several of these units were targeted for the lots around the subject site. There are no other vacant lots in the vicinity, and all but two of the existing units proximate to the site are over 2,000 square feet (see Attachment 2). No two-story units are adjacent to the site. An existing 6-foot block wall is located along the south property line, extending from the west property line. The lot immediately adjacent to the south is developed, and is approximately 3 feet below grade of the proposed site. When measured in accordance with the Zoning Code, the existing wall is approximately 9 feet in height. Section 9.60.300 of the Zoning Code requires that four or fewer new residential units which are different from those previously approved or constructed in a partially - developed subdivision, are subject to compatibility review by the Planning Commission as a non -hearing item. PROPOSAL: (Exhibit references are to large-scale plans) The house will be sited with an east/west facing on the lot. As this is an irregularly shaped lot, the yard areas for setback determinations are established by Section 9.50.070 of the Zoning Code. A six-foot high concrete block wall is proposed for enclosure of portions of the north and west yard areas, and will tie-in with the existing south property line wall (NOTE: the house siting, as shown on site plan Exhibit A, is reversed from floor plan Exhibit B). The front of the house has been set back 25 feet from it's closest point to the property line; because the details call out a roll -up style door, this setback need only be 20 feet. A landscape plan has been prepared as part of the site plan with Exhibit A. The proposed single family home is sited on an odd -shaped parcel of approximately 13,000 square feet (0.3 acres). The floor plan shows 1,831 square feet of livable area with a 460 square foot, 2-car garage. The plan incorporates three bedrooms, with a study located off the master bedroom and the third bedroom functioning as a den if desired. The house will have a morning and a great room, both located off the dining room/kitchen area. The architecture proposed is consistent with that seen throughout the area, utilizing similarly -pitched gabled and hipped roof lines with tile, and stucco arches combined with multi -pane window features. The house incorporates a portico with a gabled hip style roof. Units in the surrounding area have either hip style, gabled or a combination of the two roof treatments, and incorporate similar architectural details as the proposed unit. Garage doors are metal roll - ups, and the colors and materials reflect lighter earth tones suitable to the desert environment. Again, note that the Exhibit C and C-1 elevations are based on the floor plan as shown on Exhibit B. Therefore, the left elevation shown on Exhibit C will be facing Estelo Court and Villeta Drive. 1. The house plan provides the minimum 20 x 20 foot clear 2-car garage, as required for three -bedroom homes under the Zoning Code. 2. All but two of the units in the surrounding area are over 2,000 square feet; those two units are 1,818 square feet and are located across from Estelo Court. The proposed unit is more than 200 square feet larger than the smallest approved unit for the tract, and is only 179 square feet, or 9%, smaller than the two 2,010 square foot units located directly south of and across Villeta Drive from the site. On Villeta Drive, adjacent lots 235 and 236 are developed with 2,467 and 1,818 square foot units, respectively. While the immediate area surrounding the site is primarily developed with homes above 2,000 square feet, the proposed unit size is consistent with the applicable compatibility requirements and the existing unit size differentials in the area. 3. The proposed wall locations will allow the 6-foot height under the Zoning Code requirements; however, the existing wall cannot be modified as it exceeds the maximum height allowance when measured in accordance with Section 9.60.030.13. The proposed wall shall be required to match the color and construction of the existing wall. 4. The landscape plan is substantially consistent with existing yard landscape materials and quantities. The type(s) of shade trees need to be specified. In addition, a minimum of one 24" box specimen tree must be shown in the front or street side yard, as required by the compatibility review provisions of the Zoning Code. Considering the height and location of the block wall as proposed, the most visible aspects of the site will be the roof line, front elevation and unenclosed north elevation and yard areas, as well as the wall itself. Therefore, staff has recommended that an additional window be incorporated for the third bedroom/den on the north site plan elevation. This will help to alleviate the blank look of visible areas along the north elevation, which is considered critical due to the corner lot facing of the elevation. 5. The rear elevation does not show a continuation of the roof eaves along the north and south elevations. Staff recommends that this treatment be incorporated into all elevations in order to complete a consistent roof line. While a color board was not provided with the application, staff recommends a condition that the proposed colors and materials be consistent with those established in the area, and verified prior to construction. Staff is also recommending that stuccoed pop -outs be incorporated around window areas of the house, consistent with those of surrounding units. recommending that stuccoed pop -outs be incorporated around window areas of the house, consistent with those of surrounding units. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97-_, approving Site Development Permit 97-609, subject to the findings and conditions as attached and set forth therein. Attachments: 1. Location Map. 2. Unit sizes in vicinity of proposal. Submitted by: CHRISTINE DI IORIO, Planning Manager PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-609, TO ALLOW A 1,831 SQUARE -FOOT SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE ON LOT 182 OF TR 23269 CASE NO: SDP 97-609 APPLICANT: MR. MARVIN JOHNSON WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 24th day of June, 1997, consider a Site Development Permit application for a 1,831 square -foot single-family home within TR 23269 on the south side of Fred Waring Drive, east of Adams Street, more particularly described as: LOT 182 OF TRACT 23269 WHEREAS, said Site Development Permit application has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63), in that the Community Development Department has determined that the proposal is exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15303(a); and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, upon considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, did make the following mandatory findings to justify approval of said Site Development Permit: 1 . The proposed Site Development Permit is consistent with the La Quinta General Plan, as it proposes a single family home in an established residential tract zoned and General Plan -designated for Low Density Residential development. 2. The proposed Site Development Permit is consistent with the La Quinta Zoning Code, as it proposes a single family home in an established residential tract zoned for RL (Low Density Residential) development. 3. The proposed Site Development Permit is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), under Guidelines Section 15303(a), new construction of small structures. Respcsdp.609 Planning Commission Resolution 97- 4. The architectural design aspects of the proposed Site Development Permit will be compatible with and not detrimental to surrounding development in the La Quanta Vistas tract, and with the overall design quality prevalent in the City. 5. The site design aspects of the proposed Site Development Permit will be compatible with and not detrimental to surrounding development in the La Quinta Vistas tract, and with the overall design quality prevalent in the City. 6. The project landscaping for the proposed Site Development Permit has been designed to unify and enhance visual continuity of the proposed home with the surrounding development. 1. The proposed Site Development Permit has been determined to be in compliance with Section 9.60.300J, when considering the proposed plans in combination with approval conditions to be attached. 2. The architectural and other design elements of the proposed unit will be compatible with and not detrimental to other existing homes in the overall tract. The proposal is compatible in size with existing proximate La Quinta Vistas dwellings as proposed at 1,831 square feet. Existing proximate homes range from 1,818 to 2,467 square feet; the originally approved units for Tract 23269 range from 1,609 to 2,405 square feet. As a result, this home will not deviate by more than 10% from those unit sizes. 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 97-609 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Planning Commission, held on this the 24th day of June, 1997, by the following vote, to wit: Respcsdp.609 Planning Commission Resolution 97- AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JACQUES ABELS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California Respcsdp.609 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED EXHIBIT 1 - Planning Commission Resolution 97- SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-609 MR. MARVIN JOHNSON JUNE 24, 1997 1. All revisions required by these conditions shall be incorporated at plan check, and shall be verified by the Community Development Department prior to building permit issuance or final occupancy release, as appropriate. 2. All outstanding requirements of Tract Map 23269 and the RL Zone District shall be met during building permit plan check approval. 9'1i—►- I 3. All structures shall maintain a minimum of 20 feet from the front property line along Villeta Drive. The garage as proposed with a metal roll -up door may also be so located. If the garage is constructed with a pivot style garage door, then the garage itself shall maintain the 25 foot setback as shown on Exhibit A. 4. Block walls shall be constructed for this house, as indicated on Exhibit A, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The new walls shall be constructed so as to match the previously built block wall along the south property line of the house. 5. A revised landscape/irrigation plan shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review. The plans will require Coachella Valley Water District and Riverside County Agriculture Commissioner approval before they will be considered final, and shall include the following: A. Front or street side yard landscaping shall include one 24"-box specimen tree, to be a minimum of 10 feet in height as measured from top of box. Types and quantities of shade trees, shrubs and all other landscape elements shall be shown on the plans. B. All applicable provisions of Chapter 8.13 (Water Efficient Landscaping and Irrigation) shall be met. The property owner shall continuously maintain all landscaping in a healthy and viable condition. C. All lawn areas shown on Exhibit A shall be either Hybrid Bermuda (Summer) or Hybrid Bermuda/Rye (Winter) depending upon the season when it is installed. All trees shall be double staked to prevent wind damage. All shrubs and trees shall be watered with bubblers or emitters. Landscape and irrigation improvements shall be installed and verified prior to release of any final occupancy for the house. Cond6C)9.sdp 6. Ground mounted equipment (air-conditioning condensers, etc.) shall be located in side and rear yard areas behind screen walls or landscaping. All equipment shall maintain minimum setback distances as specified in the Zoning Code. 7. Location and design of any patio covers/decking, and/or pool/spa, shall be in accordance with the provisions of Zoning Code Section 9.60.040 and 9.60.070, respectively. 8. Roof eaves shall be provided along all elevations, specifically to be added to the left and right elevations as shown on Exhibits C and C-1. 9. Stuccoed pop -outs shall be provided around all windows where space is available, subject to final approval by the Community Development Director. 10. A multi -pane style window shall be incorporated with the third bedroom/den on the north elevation of the house, with stuccoed pop -out treatment as required by Condition 9. 11. Any pedestrian gates leading into side and/or back yards shall be similar in design and material to the existing single family homes in the area, and shall be constructed in accordance with Section 9.60.030 of the Zoning Code. 12. Colors used in the construction of the house shall be of light earth tones, consistent with those of the surrounding area units. Samples of colors and materials to be used shall be submitted for review during the plan check process and shall be approved prior to permit issuance. 13. The Community Development Director may approve minor design deviations provided the architectural integrity of the proposal remains intact. The Community Development Department shall approve any architectural revisions prior to building permit issuance. Cond609.sdp ATTACHMENT 1 m. T. S. ATTACHMENT 2 NN v N�_ zz w N� NU OS S9 ••. 05 S9 ,tti•q® 6�'�fb /9�6 of OL q N O by s N oL OL 0 107 n r _ ii' s. N O �' N �.;' ��tip �` u O�•299Z't' 1 tihh• N 0��N s, � `` Z 99 *v b9'69 LO � � � •. � � by /�► � � � � it N O � tom. i 65 f 6 t • �� E a N 04 ♦p !� s N �' 4 u 89'ZZI %rto v O �i N• e1 , ♦ 3 h N N ^ fob ZE/ i • S II O t-- L/ 'Z99 W air, 9/ol a N : W N 90 uI Z4, c3 as• b N M N 1° EI'iI/ N N t� y�,qb � � ` t. � Q 0 a N 107 Z 06Z os bs b � tp[/•7 A�iz.7 O • �. p Lu P 1�. r O Y® Q1 S BI #D STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: J U N E 24, 1997 CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 28409 (THE ADOBES OF LA QUINTA) REQUEST: APPROVAL OF THE PERIMETER LANDSCAPING AND AVENIDA MONTEZUMA SCREEN WALL DESIGN FEATURES FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 28409 LOCATION: NORTH SIDE OF AVENIDA MONTEZUMA, EAST OF THE BEAR CREEK CHANNEL AND WEST OF THE YUCATAN PENINSULA RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD APPLICANTS/ PROPERTY OWNERS: MR. CHARLES B. MURPHY AND MR. LYNN R. KUNKLE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: RONALD GREGORY AND ASSOCIATES BACKGROUND: On March 25, 1997, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the land division application of the applicants to subdivide property along the north side of Avenida Montezuma, east of the Bear Creek Channel for 19 single family houses on private streets (Attachment 1). After discussion, the Commission, on a 6-0 vote, adopted Resolutions 97- 017 and 97-018 recommending to the City Council approval of Environmental 96-335 and Tentative Tract Map 28409 with minor changes to the Conditions. A copy of the Commission Minutes is attached (Attachment 2). On May 6, 1997, City Council approved the development request under Resolutions 97-35 and 97-36. The final conditions require the Planning Commission to approve the parkway landscaping and Avenida Montezuma screen wall details (Conditions 52, 57, and 58). Request On June 13, 1997, staff received revised plans from the applicant's landscape architect detailing the design features for the entrance into Tract 28409. A copy of the large maps are on file in the Community Development Department. The landscape architect has provided landscape planters along both sides of Street Lot "A" adjacent to single family Lots 15 and 16, and enlarged the center median from 2' to 4'. Mature landscaping is proposed to accentuate this private street leading into the 19-lot subdivision. The smooth stucco wall, along Avenida Montezuma, varies in overall height from 5' to 6' and includes SRPC28409-16/RESOPC28409A-16/COND28409A-16 Page 1 of 2 buttresses at 40-foot intervals to break up the architectural characteristics of the Adobe wall design. Gated access with turnaround access to the subdivision is also proposed. CONCLUSION: Minor design changes have been made to the plans to comply with the Conditions of Approval. Staff members from the Fire, Community Development and Public Works Departments have conceptually approved the attached plans, subject to the recommended Conditions. RECOMMENDATION: By Minute Motion, approve the perimeter landscaping and Avenida Montezuma screen wall design features for Tentative Tract Map 28409, subject to Conditions. Attachments: 1. Tract Map Exhibit - Reduced 2. Planning Commission Minutes of March 25, 1997 (Excerpt) 3. Large Map Exhibit (Planning Commission Only) Prepared by: Greg Trousdell, Associate Planner Submitted by: Christine di lorio, Planning Manager SRPC28409-16/RESOPC28409A-16/COND28409A-16 Page 2 of 2 RESOLUTION 97- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 28409 MURPHY/KUNKLE J U N E 24, 1997 The preliminary plans for Tract 28409, dated June 16,1997, are hereby approved subject to the following Conditions: 1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any houses in Tract 28409, the final landscaping and irrigation plans and perimeter wall details shall be approved by the Community Development Director. 2. Gates installed to restrict access shall be power operated and equipped with a Fire Department override system consisting of Knox Key Operated switches, series KS- 2P with dust cover, mounted per recommended standard of the Knox Company. Street Lot "A" shall have minimum 16-foot wide one-way access lanes (curb to curb) to accommodate the needs of the Fire Department including gate openings. 3. The landscape planters along single family Lots 15 and 16 may be less than 12 feet wide if the width lost from each planter is transferred to the center median (e.g., ten foot wide planters with six-foot wide center median). COND PC284091-16/RES028409A-16 ATTACHMENTS _ < 3 a< W J o } 000 N Za a W o> Q � W ATTACHMENT 1 29 od a zz fill v�is u I II II TAf I/n 111 IIIf1I /� - Planning Commission Meeting ATTACHMENT 2 March 25, 1997 HEARINGS U equest of Mr. Charles Murphy and Mr. Lynn Kunkle for approval of a subdivision 9.15 acres into 19 single family and other common or private streets. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio 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. 3. Commissioner Tyler stated that Ordinance 289 had placed temporary restrictions on the subject site. What happens after this Ordinance expires in September, 1997? Planning Manager stated Council would consider an ordinance that would specify the height requirements. 4. Commissioner Woodard asked about the perimeter wall regarding landscaping, why was the landscaping plan not submitted for Commission consideration at this time. Planning Manager stated the plans had not been prepared and it was not required at this time. 5. Commissioner Woodard asked about the eight foot landscaped planter on the entry street and if it included an eight foot sidewalk. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated it was not' required to submit it at this time. Commissioner Woodard stated that as staff was asking the Commission to approve the project suggesting there be an eight foot buffer zone; but he is uncertain how far the wall is from the house. How far does the wall go into the site. Staff explained it would serve as the exterior side/perimeter wall for the adjacent residence. It would go in as far as the wall could meeting the front setback requirements. Commissioner Woodard asked why eight feet was determined and how does it enhance the entrance. Staff stated it was based upon building a house with the setback requirements. Discussion followed regarding the wall, landscaping, and how they will be addressed regarding the tentative tract. Commissioner Woodard stated he was more concerned about the streetscape than what was planned for on inside of the wall. Commissioner Woodard, asked what the setback was from the curb to the wall on Avenida Montezuma. Staff stated it varied. Commissioner PC3-25-97 Planning Commission Meeting March 25, 1997 Woodard stated there was no wall plan included in the Commission packet. Staff stated the wall plan was to be approved by staff at a later date. Commissioner Woodard stated the distance from the house to the wall could be ten feet from the wall and the distance from the wall to the curb is ten feet. Commissioner Woodard asked if there was to be any undulation of the wall for the length of the wall. Is that the standard of the City for walls? Staff stated it was. 6. Commissioner Woodard asked about the requirement to have the applicant submit his plans on AutoCAD; is the applicant going to be able to scan the plans. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated they would accept the scanning. 7. Commissioner Woodard asked for clarification on Condition #26 regarding the pad elevation. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated this was a requirement of the City to keep the new lots adjacent to the existing lots from being higher than the other. It is an opportunity for the builder to build on the higher pads first to alleviate the problem of the lower house being constructed before the higher pad elevation and not being happy with the house being higher than his. Commissioner Woodard asked what the home buyer would do if he didn't like it. Senior Engineer Steve Speer explained that if the higher house was built first, the lower lot would know that he was buying the house with the higher house already existing. Commissioner Tyler suggested that the wording "and buyer satisfaction" be removed. Commissioner Woodard also asked that the wording be removed. 8. Commissioner Butler asked if there was a sidewalk for pedestrian traffic on Avenida Montezuma. Staff explained that the Bear Creek Bike Path is a bike path, jogging trail, and pedestrian walkway. Discussion followed with staff regarding the landscaping along the Bike Path's and the Path's location. 9. Commissioner Woodard stated that if more than eight feet of landscaping is required, Lot 16 becomes almost unbuildable. Discussion followed regarding the landscaping and setback requirements of the entrance and the residence to be built adjacent to the entrance. 10. Commissioner Newkirk asked if a 100 year flood could cause a flood if the creek bed overflowed. Senior Engineer Steve Speer explained that it is an improved creek bed, with a throddled retention basin which controls the water. PC3-25-97 Planning Commission Meeting March 25, 1997 11. Commissioner Tyler asked staff to clarify the flood plan designation. Steve stated he would have to look at the map to see what it is. 12. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Lynn Kunkle, applicant, stated they were here to address the concerns of the community. Stated they had met all the City's requirements and hoped for approval. 13. Commissioner Woodard asked how the applicant was going to get water back to the detention basin. Mr. Bill Murphy, applicant, stated it would be by gravity so that the water would flow down to the catch basin through the streets. It was designed according to engineering requirements. 14. Commissioner Woodard asked how the water gets to the detention area. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated they had two options; put it in the detention basin or drain into the channel. Commissioner Woodard asked how the water would get from the street to the catch basin and would it have to flow through Lot 1? Mr. Bill Fitch, engineer for the project, stated the water would be picked up at the end of the cul-de-sac, take it along the easement to the detention basin. It is not shown on the plans as they were not designed that far. If the storm water exceeds the detention basin top, it will be taken to the Bear Creek Channel. 15. Commissioner Woodard stated he would be recommending an 15-foot landscape lot on each side of the main entrance and would this affect Lots 15 and 16 negatively. Mr. Fitch stated a 15-foot easement would be excessive. Commissioners discussed with staff and the applicant regarding the distance from the curb to the wall to the house. Following discussion, Mr. Murphy stated he would have no objection to a 12-foot landscape lot. 16. Commissioner Butler explained that in his opinion eight feet might be enough to develop a landscape entrance. 17. There being no further questions of the applicant, Chairman Abels asked if there was any other public comment. 18. Mr. Joe Daniels, 51-315 Avenida Juarez, stated his house was directly across from proposed Lot 1. In conversations with the builders, it was stated that before putting up homes, they would use sight poles to determine the view PC3-25-97 4 Planning Commission Meeting March 25, 1997 that would be blocked by the new homes. If the property lines are moved it will affect his home. In addition, he was concerned about the fence that will be put along the Bear Creek Channel; what is the height and location of the fence. If a wall is built along the CVWD service road, the wall could be 16 feet above his ground level. Developer has not stated where the houses will be built, and according to the pads they are acceptable; is there a way to require the pads stay as they are planned? 19. Commissioner Butler asked Mr. Daniels to identify his house. Mr. Daniels stated his home was located on Lots 4 and 5 on Avenida Juarez. 20. Commissioner Woodard stated Mr. Daniel's home was across from the retention basin and would not have a house constructed across from him. 21. Commissioner Tyler stated it was the pad locations that the Commission was approving. Mr. Daniels stated if that was true, it was acceptable to him. 22. Commissioner Woodard explained the pad locations and asked staff to explain the service road to the rear of the lots. Community Development Director Jerry Herman explained that the lot is two feet lower than the elevation of the road and the wall would be on the pad height not the elevation of the road. This would be approximately four feet above the road. The wall is on the property line and would extend approximately two feet above the road and will be sloped. 23. Community Development Director Jerry Herman clarified that this property is designated and zoned Medium Density Residential (four to eight units per acre). However, there is an urgency ordinance in affect that does not expire until September regarding height standards. Staff will be bringing a redesignation of this property to be compatible with the Cove requirements to the Commission prior to that time. 24. Commissioner Woodard asked if the ten foot requirement from the wall to the house, is this same requirements for Lots 1, 19 and 18, and if the new homes could be constructed ten feet away from the rear property line. Staff stated the minimum rear yard setback requirement is ten feet for the Cove. Staff stated that due to the configuration of the adjacent homes, will not be built within ten feet of the adjoining lot. PC3-25-97 5 Planning Commission Meeting March 25, 1997 25. Mr. Edward Armendarez, 51-800 Montezuma, stated he did not receive any notice of the meeting. His concern was to see that the height restriction stays at 17-feet. In addition, he asked if anyone considered restricting the sodium lights in the cove. Staff stated they are not permitted in the City, however the existing lights were grandfathered in at the time the ordinance was passed. 26. Mr. Clayton Russell, stated he was constructing a home at 51-715 Avenida Montezuma, and he was concerned about his view. The landscaping and trees presently being planted will eventually block his view. He would like the City to pass a landscape sight easement to protect his view. He was not concerned with the wall as it would enhance the quality of the project. 27. Mr. Mike Wales, 52-870 Montezuma, asked that careful consideration be given to the perimeter wall as it may be creating a nuisance area. 28. There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed. 29. Commissioner Tyler asked that a condition be added to state that the maximum height of the homes would be 17-feet. Condition #63 be amended to add, "...landscaping, including the perimeter landscaping..." Commissioner Butler stated his concern that the Bike Path is an already approved landscape area and it is included. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell clarified that the bike path landscaping maintenance would be grandfathered into the landscaping district. 30. Commissioner Tyler asked if Lot A going across the bike path needed to be clarified in the conditions. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated Condition #41.(1). required the easement. Community Development Director Jerry Herman added that Condition 41 also needed to be amended to require the 10 foot median requirement be changed to 4-feet and 59-feet become 46-feet. 31. Commissioner Woodard asked that a new condition be added to require an easement to Lot 1 for the detention basin and that the entrance landscaping on Lot A be increased 12 feet. 32. Commissioner Butler asked that the sight poles be required. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that as this project is approved with the 17-foot high stipulation, there was no need. PC3-25-97 Planning Commission Meeting March 25, 1997 33. Commissioner Woodard stated that if he were building a home on a lot, the landscaping could eventually block the view. Can the landscaping heights be restrictive? City Attorney Dawn Honeywell clarified that the city has no limitations on the height of the trees, or any landscaping height restrictions. 34. Commissioner Gardner stated there is a state-wide landscaping code being drafted and hopefully the City will adopt it. 35. There being no further comment it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97- 023 recommending certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 96-335 prepared for Tentative Tract 28409. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Gardner, Newkirk, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Seaton. ABSTAIN: None. 36. There being no further comment it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/ to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97-024 recommending to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract 28409, subject to the findings and Conditions of Approval as amended: a. Condition #4.1 - changing 59 feet to 46 feet and ten feet to four feet b. Condition #26 - deleting the words "buyer satisfaction" C. Condition #63 - add the wording "including perimeter landscaping" d. Condition#78 - be added restricting the building height to 17 feet and single story. e. Condition #81 - be added requiring an easement through Lot 1 to the detention basin. f. Condition #80 - be added requiring a landscaping lot along the entrance road be increased to 12 feet on each side. g. Condition #52 - be changed to require the wall and landscaping plans be approved by the Planning Commission. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Gardner, Newkirk, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Seaton. ABSTAIN: None. PC3-25-97 7