The URL can be used to link to this page

1997 07 22 PCO�Tit* 64� " oe I �t I I' k w� OFTNt�� PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA An Regular Meeting to be Held at the -La Quints City Hall Council Chamber 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California July 22, 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 97-053 Beginning Minute Motion 97-009 I. CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call C. Election of Chair and Vice Chair II. PUBLIC COMMENT This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled for public hearing. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your comments to three minutes. III. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of the June 24, 1997 and July 8, 1997 Planning Commission Minutes B. Department Report PC/AGENDA V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Item .................. Applicant ............ Location ............. Request .............. Action ................ CONTINUED - ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 97-056 City of La Quinta Highway 111 Prohibition of independent used car sales, excluding new car sales with associated used car sales in the Regional Commercial District Resolution 97- B. Item .................. CONTINUED - 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 restaurant with a drive -through on Pad Site #3 within the Jefferson Plaza Shopping Center Action .............. Resolution 97- VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Item ................. CONTINUED SIGN PERMIT 97-383 Applicant .......... Home Depot, USA, Inc. (Mr. Daniel R. Hatch) Location ........... The north side of Highway 111, 765 feet west of Jefferson Street Request ............ Approval of a planned sign program for Phase II of the Jefferson Plaza Shopping Center Action ............. Resolution 97- B. Item ................. CONTINUED - SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-611 Applicant .......... Century Crowell Communities Location ........... Southeast corner of Miles Avenue and Adams Street (Montecito at La Quinta Norte) Request ............ Approval of new prototype single family house plans for Tract 27899 Action ............. Resolution 97- VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS A. Report of the City Council meeting of July 15, 1997. IX. ADJOURNMENT PC/AGENDA MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California June 24, 1997 I. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. A. This meeting. of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:03 P.M. by Chairman Abels who asked Commissioner Gardner to lead the flag salute. B. Chairman Abels requested the roll call: Present: Commissioners Gardner, Butler, Seaton, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Abels. It was moved and seconded by Commissioner Tyler/Gardner to excuse Commissioner Newkirk. Unanimously approved. C. Staff Present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, Planning Manager Christine di Iorio, City Attorney Dawn Honeywell, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed III. PUBLIC COMMENT: None IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Department Report: None V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Zone Change 97-082, a request of the City of La Quinta to add special zoning limitations (lot size, building height in feet and stories, and lot width) to four identified areas. 1. Commissioner Gardner excused himself due to a possible conflict of interest. PC6-24-97 I Planning Commission Meeting June 24, 1997 9. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the public hearing. 10. There being no further disoussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioner Tyler/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97- 036 recommending approval of Zone Change 97-082 as submitted. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Seaton, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Gardner and Newkirk. ABSTAIN: None. Commissioner Gardner rejoined the meeting. B. Site Development Permit 97-606; a request of Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc. for approval to construct a 2,816 square foot Jack in the Box restaurant with drive -through on Pad Site #3 within the Jefferson Plaza Shopping Center currently under construction. 1. 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. Staff noted that a recommendation was being added that menu boards on the drive -through, be limited to one menu board and the sign not exceed the 4-foot berm in height. 2. Chairman Abels asked if a signal was to be installed at the entrance next to the Jack in the Box. Staff stated that only the Highway I I I signal proposed is the signal near the west property line. Other driveways are right in/right out only. Discussion followed regarding the entrance locations. Commissioner Gardner asked if the south elevation which faces Highway 111, was the front of the building. Staff stated that the west elevation was the main access into the building. Commissioners discussed the building elevations with staff. Staff stated that the applicant was proposing two menu boards along the drive -through lane. Staff is recommending that there be only one menu board hidden behind a four foot berm. Commissioner Gardner asked if the other berms further west were four feet. Staff stated they varied from 18-inches to three feet. In addition, the area will be landscaped in accordance with Highway 111 Guidelines. PC6-24-97 Planning Commission Meeting June 24, 1997 15. Commissioner Tyler asked Mr. Cooper to identify the main circulation pattern for the center. Mr. Cooper went over the circulation pattern. 16. Commissioner Gardner expressed his concern about the sparseness of the landscaping. Mr. Cooper stated they would have the landscaping in place prior to opening and it would meet the requirements of the Conditions of Approval. Commissioner Gardner asked if the berm would be four feet with two feet of landscaping. Mr. Cooper stated he was asking for clarification regarding this issue as it was not specific in the Condition; Condition #35.D. Staff clarified 48-inches of screening was being required. 17. Commissioner Butler restated his concern about the height of the signs. The most visible exposure for the signs was facing the parking lot. As far as the applicant's request for four signs, he was not aware of any other business that had been allowed that many signs. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio clarified that the applicant was allowed one sign for each elevation. If the Commission wanted to add a condition giving them more latitude, staff could write a condition requiring the applicant to architecturally add the towers into the building and all signs be the same height. Mr. Cooper stated they had discussed this with staff and the signs had been reduced to 20-feet 6-inches for two of the signs and the east elevation would remain 17-feet. 18. Commissioner Woodard asked if he was the architect for the entire project. Mr. Cooper stated he was. Commissioner Woodard asked if plans had been submitted for the remaining pad sites in Phase Two. Mr. Cooper stated they had not been submitted. They were talking with prospective tenants, but to date none had signed. Commissioner Woodard stated he had a strong objection to approving the parking layout without knowing the floor plans for the other two pads. If the Commission wanted any variations to the pad designs they would again have problems with the parking lot layout. It was his opinion that more parking was needed on the north side to allow more landscaping. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated that if during the review process of the parking layout the Commission felt a change was needed, the parking could be required to be redrawn. Commissioner Woodard asked if the parking that is necessary for Jack in the Box could approved at this time, and the remainder of the parking for Phase Two be approved at later date, or at the time the other pads are approved. In his opinion, this would make for a better overall design. Staff stated if it was the desire of the Commission to approve Phase Two in that manner, it could be done. PC6-24 97 6 Planning; Commission Meeting June 24, 1997 19. Commissioner Woodard stated the current plans showed too little landscaping. It was his opinion that the parking be relocated to the north to accommodate an appropriate amount of landscaping for the entrance. He asked if the applicant would be willing to accept approval for half of the parking and bring back the remainder at a different time. Mr. Cooper stated it was easier to sell a site when the parking lot is laid out. 20. Commissioner Tyler stated that having cars pulling in and backing out on the a main entrance street is not acceptable. Mr. Cooper asked if the parking would be acceptable if it were moved. Discussion followed regarding the parking plan. 21. Commissioner Woodard stated his concern that the Commission would be approving the plan on a piecemeal basis. Mr. Cooper stated they were trying to meet the parking requirements for each of the pad sites. 22. Commissioner Seaton reiterated her concern about the location of the drive - through exit and people backing out of the parking spaces when people were leaving. Mr. Cooper stated this was not the main entrance to the project site and this part of the parking layout had been previously approved by the Commission. 23. Chairman Abels stated he too was concerned about the piecemeal approvals of the project. There being no further comment, Chairman Abels closed the public hearing. 24. Commissioner Woodard stated he would be voting to deny the project unless the applicant was willing to bring back a revised plan. 25. Commissioner Butler stated that since the Commission had approved the parking design for Phase One, the parking to the east of Pad #3, the Commission had no alternatives but to concentrate on the Phase Two parking. He then asked it would be acceptable to the developer to remove some of the parking spaces in Phase One. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated the Commission would need to concentrate on the Phase Two as the parking for Phase One could not be manipulated as the applicant had already met the Conditions of Approval. PC6-24-97 7 Planning Commission Meeting June 24, 1997 26. Commissioner Butler stated that when they approved this project, the Commission knew there would be negotiations with the adjoining property owner to work out a circulation plan. This design is the result of those negotiations. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated this was true. The Commission had directed the applicant to work out the problem with the adjoining property owner. Currently, however, there is nothing worked out regarding the parking for the second access. 27. Commissioner Butler stated his only concern with finding a solution to the circulation plan problem for Jack in the Box. 28. Commissioner Woodard stated he would ask that Jack in the Box move their building further to the west and provide more landscaping. Then the parking on the north of the shaded area would have people again backing out into the east/west traffic. Again, he was unsatisfied with approving a parking plan when there is no knowledge of what the floor plan will be for the other two pads. 29. Commissioner Gardner stated that he was in agreement with Commissioner Woodard. In addition, he would want the berm to be four feet. However, he did note a request of the Sheriff's Department that the berm not be so high as to block their view into the restaurant. This creates a dilemma as he did not want to approve it the way it is designed. 30. Commissioner Tyler stated that he too agreed that the Phasing Plan, approved in September, was not the same plan they are looking at tonight. As far as the traffic backing into the cars entering or leaving at this entrance to the site, he would hope this could be looked at again to solve the problem. Another issue was the fast food restaurants flying flags. The same restrictions need to be added as the other fast foot restaurants. He then asked what could be used to limit the volume on the order taking speakers, after the area had been built out. Also, it appeared that Condition #9 needed to state the American's for Disability Act requirements. He noted that the conditions regarding the retention basin did not need to be added again for one pad. Condition #48.B. regarding the maximum sign space should be for each, or was the figure for the total? Staff noted it was for each sign and would be made more clear. 31. Chairman Abels stated that he concurred with all the comments stated. PC6-24-97 8 Planning Commission Meeting June 24, 1997 32. Commissioner Woodard stated that the specific plan was approved conceptually and he understood this. But, what is being asked of the Commission at this time is backing the Commission into a corner due to the approval of the conceptual design. The Commission needs to look at the overall picture and respond to what happens as the plan develops. 33. Commissioner Tyler asked if the agreement with the adjoining neighbor were recorded. Mr. Cooper stated that the agreement is to be drawn up and held by the Community Development Department until the property to the east develops. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that normally you record a reciprocal agreement to see that it remains with the land to assure that it stays with the project. 34. Mr. Cooper stated that to move the building to the west and redesign the other pads, would have to be discussed with Home Depot. He could eliminate the parking backing into the east and west driveway for Phase Two and they would be willing to come up with an alternate parking plan. As far as being able to submit a final plan rather than a conceptual plan, in his opinion it was not possible. There were too many tenants to consider and each had its own requirements they had to meet. 35. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant had any objection to a continuance. Mr. Cooper stated they would have no objection. 36. Commissioner Woodard requested that the architectural details on the roof be extended into the building four feet. 37. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioner Tyler/Woodard to continue Site Development Permit 97-606 to the Planning Commission meeting of July 22, 1997. Unanimously approved. 38. Commissioner Gardner asked what site plan the Commission would receive. Staff stated it would be the site plan as revised by the applicant. VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Sign Permit 97-383; a request of Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc. for approval of a planned sign program for Phase Two of the Jefferson Plaza Shopping Center. PC6-24-97 9 Planning Commission Meeting June 24, 1997 Chairman Abels asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Commissioner Tyler noted some corrections to the staff report. 3. Commissioner Butler stated that each of the site plans in the staff report are different and this puts a burden on the Planning Commission and staff each time the parking plans are changed to accommodate the pad tenant. 4. Commissioner Woodard stated there appears to be eight signs in the sign program. Staff stated this was true if the pad is divided into multiple tenants. Commissioner Woodard asked if the pad had only one tenant, would it return to one sign. Staff stated it would allow one sign per side. 5. Commissioner Woodard clarified that Pad 4 has been reduced to three signs. Staff stated that was correct. 6. Commissioner Woodard asked if Pad 1 had multiple tenants would more signs be allowed. Staff stated that what the Commission was reviewing was an example of what would happen. If either Pad 1 or 2 had multiple tenants they would be reflected on the number of signs allowed. Discussion followed regarding the signs allowed for single vs. multiple tenants. Commissioner Woodard stated his concern that this sign program was again being approved and would not allow for changes as tenants were added to the development. Staff clarified that the submittal was a guideline for the sign program. Commission and staff agreed that the single tenant would be allowed three signs. 7. Commissioner Seaton asked how many tenants would be allowed on the free standing signs. Staff stated they would be allowed three and explained how the ordinance breaks it out. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Gardner/Seaton to continue the Planned Sign Program for Phase Two of the Jefferson Plaza Shopping Center for Sign Permit 97-383. Unanimously approved. B. Plot Plan 95-554; a request of Caal Theatres Corporation for approval of a one year time extension for an eight-plex theater (La Quinta 8) located within the One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center. PC6-24-97 10 Planning Commission Meeting June 24, 1997 1. Commissioner Butler excused himself due to a possible conflict of interest. 2. Chairman Abels asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 3. Commissioner Tyler asked how many extensions could be granted. Staff stated this was their final extension. 4. Commissioner Woodard asked why the Commission was approving the sign program at this time when the applicant was only asking for a time extension. Staff stated this was the last extension and if changes were needed, the Commission would need to do it at this time. 5. Commissioner Woodard stated that the issue before the Commission is whether or not the Commission wanted to require the applicant to make any changes now, or leave it as it is because of the work that had already been done by the applicant. 6. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Abels asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. Mr. Bill Hughes, applicant, stated they were working with a different developer and hoped to have their plans completed before the end of their extension. 7. Commissioner Tyler asked if they were planning to expand their theaters into Palm Springs. The newspaper stated this theater was going to progress within 60-days. Mr. Hughes stated that is correct, if the financing is in place. 8. Commissioner Woodard asked what the difference would be between what was originally approved and if the applicant was required to met the requirements of the updated Zoning Code. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated the entry sign on the facade would be reduced and the marquee reader board would be Smaller. The neon sign is not addressed in the sign ordinance. 9. Commissioner Woodard asked if the applicant would be required to required to make any changes to the Highway 111 landscaping. Staff stated the only item being considered is the theater itself. 13C6-24-97 I I Planning Commission Meeting June 24, 1997 10. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Seaton to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97- 037 approving a one year time extension for Plot Plan 95-554, subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Gardner, Seaton, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioners Butler and Newkirk. ABSTAIN: None. Commissioner Butler rejoined the Commission. C. Site Development Permit 97-609; a request of Mr. Marvin Johnson, for Platinum Development for approval of a new single family house plan for Lot 182 of Tract 23269 (La Quinta Vistas). Chairman Abels asked for the staff report. Planning Manger Christine di Iorio presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Commissioner Woodard asked if the six foot high concrete wall is to be exposed or what. C- ordinance requires a treatment. 3. Commissioner Woodard asked who would be responsible for maintaining the landscaping for that portion of Estello Court where the wall separates the corner lot. Staff stated that it would need to be addressed with the applicant. 4. Commissioner Woodard asked if a landscape architect was required. Staff stated one was not. 5. Commissioner Seaton asked in relation to Condition 3, if the property owner would have a choice as to what type of garage door they wanted and also the setback. Staff stated they would be given the choice. 6. Commissioner Tyler stated that for compatibility it would need to be a roll up door. 7. Commissioner Gardner asked if this design meets all the energy requirements and if the Commission asks that a window be added, would that mess up their energy calculations. Commissioner Woodard stated the calculations would not be effected. PC6-24-97 12 Planning Commission Meeting June 24, 1997 8. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Tom Hernandez, architect for the project, stated he would maintain the entire area with sprinklers, and the block wall could be extended. The area will be completely landscaped along the parkway. The location being requested for the window is behind the block wall. Staff showed the area being discussed. Mr. Hernandez stated he would add the window. 9. Commissioner Woodard stated he agreed the wall would be better if it was set back with landscaping, but who would be responsible for maintaining it. The applicant stated the developer would plant it and have the sprinkler system include this area. 10. Commissioner Woodard stated the wall would be right up against the sidewalk. Mr. Hernandez stated that five feet of landscaping would be between the two. Commissioner Woodard asked if the applicant would object to extending the roof overhang on the sides similar to the front. Mr. Hernandez stated he would do so. 11. Commissioner Tyler asked if this was a custom built home or is it being built for speculation. Mr. Marvin Johnson, contractor, stated the house has been presold but they have had a problem getting the house started. When the title report showed a homeowner's association, they investigated and found out that it no longer existed. 12. Commissioner Tyler stated that he is aware of the lot and it is a large lot. An 1800 square foot house does not seem to fit in this location. Mr. Johnson stated it is a single woman and this is the size of home that she desires. All elevations will match the neighborhood. 13. Commissioner Tyler stated there is an extra driveway cut shown and apparently will not be used, therefore it should be restored to a curb. Staff stated this would be added to the Conditions of Approval as Condition #14. 14. Commissioner Tyler stated the plan shows the air conditioning condenser is located behind the garage which puts it next to the adjoining house. Can the condenser be moved to the street side. Staff stated it could be conditioned to do so. PC6-24-97 13 Planning Commission Meeting June 24, 1997 15. Commissioner Tyler expressed his concern about the tremendous amount of wall that will face the neighbor. Commissioner Woodard stated this is a cul- de-sac with no landscaping and trees. This is a disservice to the neighbors to not require the wall be setback four or five feet and have the landscaping. Discussion followed regarding alternatives. Staff reminded the Commission of what is normally required in this area. Staff could add a condition requiring the additional landscaping as this is a unique lot. 16. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Seaton to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97- 038 approving Site Development Permit 97-609, subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval as amended: a. Curbs be restored where the extra curb cut exists. b. Relocate the air conditioning unit to the street side. C. Additional landscaping be provided along the northwest side of the perimeter wall adjacent to the cul-de-sac. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Gardner, Seaton, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Newkirk. ABSTAIN: None. D. Tentative Tract Map 28409 (The Adobes of La Ouinta); a request of Mr. Charles Murphy and Mr. Lynn R. Kunkle for approval of the perimeter landscaping and Avenida Montezuma screen wall design features. 1. 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. Staff added that they were recommending removal of the turf and annual color as it more lush than what has been recommended for the Bear Creek Chanel. Need to use the materials recommended for the bike path. 2. Commissioner Tyler asked if the bike path wasn't done in segments to coincide with the different eras of La Quinta. If so, what area is this supposed to be. Staff stated it was to be the drought tolerant plants. The bike path is already landscaped and staff is only asking that the entry of this project match. PC6-24-97 14 Planning Commission Meeting June 24, 1997 3. Commissioner Woodard stated that in the minutes for this project, reference is made to Lot A now it shows Lot 16. Where is Lot A. Staff clarified the location. Commissioner Woodward asked what the dimension was of the landscaped space from the wall to the landscaping. Staff stated it is required to be 12-feet. Commissioner Woodward asked what the functional reasons was for the left side island being offset, how large was Lot 16, and finally how far from the property line can there be a building. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated the offset was part of the figure eight entry treatment and to accommodate the visitor lane. The applicant could better explain this configuration. Lot 16 is 15,000 square feet and the house can be five feet from the wall (property line) and 17 feet in height Staff stated it goes up to the frontyard setback. Commissioner Woodard asked if the adobe pilaster was the frontyard setback. Staff stated it has to be ten feet away from the right df way line. 4. Commissioner Seaton stated she wanted to be sure that the concerns raised at the prior meeting are addressed. 5. Commissioner Woodard asked if there was to be a sign on the wall. Staff said none is proposed at this time. 6. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. The applicant did not wish to. Chairman Abels asked if there was any further discussion from the Commission. 7. Commissioner Woodard stated it was a better design than what was originally proposed. However, the berms needed to be a minimum of three feet and the wall should be symmetrical with no jog on the left wall and the plan changed to reflect the landscape materials for the Bear Creek Channel. Staff noted the recommendation and noted that the landscaping materials would be changed to match those of the Bear Creek Channel. There' being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Gardner/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Minute Motion 97-008 approving the perimeter landscaping and Avenida Montezuma screen wall design features for Tentative Tract Map 28409, subject to the Conditions of Approval as amended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Gardner, Seaton, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Newkirk. ABSTAIN: None. PC6-24-97 15 Planning Commission Meeting June 24, 1997 VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: A. Chairman Abels reviewed the invitation to the Ritz Carlton. B. Commissioner Woodard stated it is unfair to have Mr. Johnson come in to get an approval of his building designs and others do not; such as the houses constructed at the Tradition. He asked if there was anything be done to changed this? City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated there has always been a distinction between a subdivision and custom homes in the Compatibility Ordinance. Staff noted that if the Commission wanted to address this, they could ask to have it agendized for a meeting of the Planning Commission. VIII. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS: A. Chairman Abels reported on the City Council meeting of June 17, 1997. B. Chairman Abels noted that the Commissioners would be, or had been, contacted by KSL for a private meeting. He reminded the Commissioners of the Commissioners' handbook and stated it is a person choice. C. Commissioner Seaton stated she had attended the Future of the Coachella Valley Conference and she was very impressed with what was presented. D. Commissioner Tyler stated that the Highway 111 Property owners meeting and it was sad that no one attended. E. Staff informed the Commission that staff was distributing documents on the proposed Auto Mall specific plan and development agreement to allow the Commission time to review the material. IX. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Seaton to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting to be held on July 8, 1997, at 4:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:26 p.m. on June 24, 1997. PC6-24-97 16 PH #A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE:: JULY 22, 1997 CASE NO.: CONTINUED - ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 97-056 APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA LOCATION: HIGHWAY 111 REQUEST: PROHIBIT INDEPENDENT USED VEHICLE SALES, EXCLUDING NEW VEHICLE SALES WITH ASSOCIATED USED VEHICLE SALES IN THE REGIONAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. BACKGROUND: Staff is recommending that independent used vehicle sales, not associated with new vehicle sales be prohibited within the Regional Commercial Zoning District. This Zoning District is generally located on the north and south sides of Highway 111. Under a Conditional Use Permit, independent used vehicle sales will be allowed in the Commercial Park Zoning District only. Highway 111 is designated within the Circulation Element of the General Plan as a Primary Image Corridor. A primary Image Corridor is defined as "streets in the roadway network which are the urban design statements of the City." To ensure the preservation of the existing and future landscape and architectural image of this Corridor as well as retain the quality of businesses, independent used vehicle sales will be prohibited. A non -conforming used vehicle sales facility exists along Highway 111. The use was approved by the Planning Commission on a temporary basis. The Use Permit will expire on October 10, 1997. This use will not be granted a time extension if the Ordinance for this Zoning Code Amendment is adopted. This used vehicle car sales facility is representative of the potential threat to the General Plan goal of enhancing Highway 111 as a Primary Image Corridor. Attached is the resolution which includes the Findings necessary to recommend approval of this Zoning Code Amendment. RECOMMENDATION: Move to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97-_ recommending to the City Council approval of Zoning Code Amendment 97-056. p:\cd\pc ZCA97-056 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL PROHIBITION OF INDEPENDENT VEHICLE SALES, EXCLUDING NEW VEHICLE SALES WITH ASSOCIATED USED VEHICLE SALES IN THE REGIONAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, SECTION 9.80.040, TABLE 801 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 97-056 CITY OF LA QUINTA WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 22nd day of July, 1997, and continued from July 8, 1997, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a Zoning Code Amendment for the prohibition of used vehicle sales excluding new vehicle sales with associated used vehicle sales in the Regional Commercial District; and, WHEREAS, it has been determined that used vehicle sales, due to their product advertising, display and storage needs, have operational characteristics which are objectionable under certain conditions and in certain locations; and, WHEREAS, said used vehicle sales, excluding new vehicle sales with associated used vehicle sales, if not appropriately sited or developed, negatively impact surrounding businesses and residents; and, WHEREAS, there is a deterioration in the quality of businesses which choose to locate near used vehicle businesses not associated with new vehicle sales businesses; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that such uses require special land use and development consideration because of their unique operational and locational characteristics, especially as they relate to Highway 1 1 1, a Primary Image Corridor; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that non -conforming used vehicle sales represent an increasing threat to the quality of Highway 111, a Primary Image Corridor; and,, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission desires to minimize and control these adverse impacts and thereby protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens, preserve quality of life, preserve property values and the character of surrounding neighborhoods and business districts, and deter the spread of urban blight; and, P:\cd\;pcRes ZCA 97-056 Planning Commission Resolution 97-_ WHEREAS, said request has complied with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (as amended), and adopted by City Council Resolution 83-68, in that the Community Development Director has determined that the project could not have any significant adverse effect on the physical environment; therefore, the project is exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3); and, 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 hereby recommend to the City Council approval of Zoning Code Amendment 97-056 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as noted in Exhibit "A". PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held this 22nd day of July, 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 P:\cd\pcRe;s ZCA 97-056 9.80: PERMITTED SONRESIDENTL4L USES TABLE 801: PERMITTED USES IN NONRESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS DISTRICT P = Principal Use M = Minor Use Permit A = Accessor!r Use T = Temporary Use Permit C= Conditional Use Permit X= Prohibited Use a d a o d 6 50. d d o o � V; � � H o � a 0 0 p v � w LAND USE CR CP CC CN CT CO MC Timeshare facilities, subject to §9.60.280 C X C X C X X Bed and breakfast inns(Revised 4/97) X X X X X X X Caretaker residences M M M M M M M Automotive Uses (subject to §9.100.120, Outdoor Storage and Display) Automobile service stations, with or without minimart C C C C X X X Car washes C C C X X X X Auto body repair and painting; transmission repair X C X X X X X Auto repair specialty shops, providing minor auto maintenance: tire sales/service, muffler, brake, lube and C C C X X X X tune-up Svcs -- not including major engine or drivetrain repair Auto and motorcycle sales and rentals C C X X X X X Used vehicle sales, not associated with a new vehicle sales X C X X X X X facili Truck, recreation vehicle, and boat sales C C X X X X X Truck ,and/orequipment rentals C C X X X X X Auto parts stores, with no repair or parts installation on the P P P C X X X remises Auto or truck storage yards, not includingdismantlingX C X X X X X Private parking lots/garages as a principal use subject to C C C X C C X Cha ter 9.150, Parkin Warehousing and ]Heavy Commercial Uses (subkct to §9.100.120, Outdoor Storage and Display) Wholesaling/distribution centers, with no sales to consumers CIPIXIXIXIXIX IIGeneral warehouses, with no sales to consumers I C I P I X I X I X I X X Il 80-7 J �r r� � a� • O�T 4 • 2 Pf 4 FCF� OF To: All Planning Commissioners From: Community Development Department Date: July 18, 1997 RE: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for July 8, 1997 Due to circumstances beyond our control we were unable to include the July 8th Meeting Minutes in your packet. Those Minutes will be delivered to you on Monday, July 21, 1997. We are sorry for any inconvenience this may cause you. PH #B PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: JULY 22, 1997 (CONTINUED FROM JUNE 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 ARCHITECTURE, INC. (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. SDPPC606UPDATE-14/RESOPC SDP606UPDATE-14 CONAPR VL,SDP606UPATE-14 Page I of 6 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: M/RC WITH NON-RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL OVERLAY - MIXED REGIONAL COMMERCIAL WITH A NOW RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL OVERLAY. ZONING: CR WITH NON-RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL OVERLAY - REGIONAL COMMERCIAL WITH NON-RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL OVERLAY BACKGROUND: Planning Commission Action On June 24, 1997, the Planning Commission, on a unanimous vote, continued this project to July, 22, 1997, to allow the applicant time to make changes to the proposed development plans as follows: (1.) Increase the width of the east side planter, (2.) Increase the depth of the "raised" roof parapets, (3.) Remove the interim parking spaces along the north side of the east/west driveway between the traffic signal and Phase 1, (4.) Provide adequate screening of the freestanding menu signs by using a four -foot high berm with landscaping on top, and (5.) Delete unnecessary signs such as the east elevation building sign and second freestanding menu sign on the south side of the drive -through lane. A copy of the Planning Commission Minutes is attached (Attachment 1). 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. Protect Request 1). Phase II Site Plan A site plan for Phase II has been prepared, and the applicant has worked with the adjacent property owner to the west to develop future access from his property to traffic signal on Highway '111. The proposed driveway shows the design agreed upon by the applicant and adjacent property owner. 2). Jack in the Box The proposed Jack in the Box restaurant (Pad Site #3) is located within the vacant Phase II area of Specific Plan at a non -signalized access driveway to Highway 111 approximately SDPPC606UPDATE-14/RESOPCSDP606UPDATE-14 C0NAPRVLSDP606UPATE-14 Page 2 of 6 765-feet west of Jefferson Street (Attachment 2). This L-shaped restaurant contains 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 persons. 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 tile roofing with textured walls and split -face masonry block wainscot (Attachment 3). A material sample board will be available at the meeting. Primary parking for employees and patrons is located on the west side of the building with overflow parking to the north. The applicants are proposing individually mounted internally illuminated channel letter signs on the -south and west sides of the building reading "Jack in the Box' within a detached reverse pan channel border. The two signs are approximately 25 square feet each (Attachment 4). Additionally, a smaller 6.25 square foot internally illuminated cabinet sign is proposed on the drive -through shade structure facing east. The sign colors are Jib Red with white returns. In addition to building signs, Jack in the Box is proposing two menu board monument signs (Attachments 5 and 6) 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 each and 5'-8.75" high by 8.25' long. Small drive through directional signs are also proposed (Attachment 7). The signs are placed behind a four -foot high landscaped berm. 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 - Since the project's approval, the applicant has refined the overall site plan by adding an additional pad site along Highway 111, and reorganized the primary retail buildings along the north :aide of Parcel 2. On -site parking spaces have been limited to the south side of SDPPC606UP'DATE-14/RE SOPC SDP606UPDATE-14 CONAPRVLSDP606UPATE-14 Page 3 of 6 the two-way driveway connecting Phase 1 with Phase II and the adjacent property owner to the west. The landscape planter between the Jack in the Box drive through lane and the entry driveway has been increased to an average width of 35-feet from 13-feet. Staff Comments: The revised plan is consistent with the provisions of Specific Plan 96-027, and meets the design requirements of the Planning Commission. B. Architecture - The architectural plans show the building to be one story with tower features extending up to 20.6" in height. Changes have been made to the thickness of the raised roof parapets as requested by the Planning Commission. 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 provided full cover shading over their service windows. Condition 48(a) requires that the shade structure on the east side of the building be extended from the edge of the building to not less than eight -feet deep. C. Landscaping The landscape concept for Jefferson Plaza 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 with 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. Sign Program A comprehensive Sign Program (Sign Permit 97-383) for the shops within Phase 11 has been submitted to the Commission for approval (on this agenda) as required by Condition 4 of SP 95-027. Under the proposed Sign Program, national tenants require Planning Commission approval if they wish to have corporate signing. Staff Comments: National or regional tenant are permitted to vary from these standards if they have more than five outlets and the Planning Commission approves the final Sign Program. The Jack in the Box building should be limited SDPPC606UP DATE-14/RESOPC SDP606UPDATE-14 CONAPRVLSDP606UPATE-14 Page 4 of 6 to two building mounted signs which do not exceed 25 square feet each per the Phase II Sign Program unless the Planning Commission makes findings to support additional signs using the Sign Adjustment process of the Sign Ordinance (Condition 48c). 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, accessory freestanding drive -through menu board signs have been allowed for the various fast food restaurants along Highway 111 to facilitate 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. Staff supports only one freestanding menu board sign (32 sq. ft.) due to not only the close proximity to Highway 111 but also the 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. 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 Cotton/Beland 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." ISSUE 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. Findings to support approval of the Site Development Permit can be made and are contained in the draft Resolution. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97- , approving Site Development Permit 97- 606, subject to Findings and Conditions. SDPPC606UPDATE-14/RESOPCSDP606UPDATE-14 CONAPRVLSDP606UPATE-14 Page 5 of 6 Attachments: 1. June 2e Planning Commission Minutes - Excerpt 2. Site Plan Exhibit 3. Jack in the Box Building Elevation Exhibit 4. Buiilding Sign Exhibit 5. Freestanding Menu Board Sign Exhibit 6. Freestanding Menu Board Sign Exhibit 7. Directional Sign Exhibit 8. Large Plans - Planning Commission Only Prepared by: usdell, Associate Planner Submitted by: Christine di lorio, Plahning Manager SDPPC606UPDATE-14/RESOPCSDP606UPDATE-14 CONAPRVLSDP606UPATE-14 Page 6 of 6 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION 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 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, and 22"d day of July, 1997, hold duly noticed Public Hearings 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, T5 S, 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: 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. resopcsdp606update-14 Planning Commission Resolution 97-_ Site Development Permit 97-606 Jack in the Bax 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 (previously certified on September 17, 1996) 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 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 drive through lane. resopesdp606update-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 cornmon 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 H 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 and the Municipal Code. 3. That the project has been assessed under EA 96-325 for which a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been certified, and the mitigation measures identified are hereby required to be met. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 22nd day of July, 1997, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JACQUES ABELS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY I ERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California resopcsdp606update-14 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 97-_ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-606 (JACK IN THE BOX RESTAURANT) JULY 22, 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, prior to expiration. 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. Parking lot light standards shall match those used in Phase 1. 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 CONAPRVLSD:P606UPATE-14/RESOPCSDP606UPDATE-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. CONAP:RVLSI)P606UPATE-14/RESOPCSDP606UPDATE-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. UTIL,ITII�S 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. CONAPRVLSI)P606UPATE-14/RESOPCSDP606UPDATE-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. Improvements shall match those of Phase 1. 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. CONAPRVLS13P606UPATE-14/RESOPCSDP606UPDATE-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. CONAPRVLSDP606UPATE-14MSOPCSDP606UPDATE-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 2A1OBC 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 shall be made: CONAPRVLSTIP606UPATE-14/RESOPCSDP606UPDATE-14 Page 6 Planning Commission Resolution 97- Site Development Permit 97-606 (JACK IN THE BOX) 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 sign on the east building elevation shall be eliminated. C. One freestanding menu -board sign is permitted provided it is screened by using a four foot high berm with an additional two -feet of landscaping on top. 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, design and location of the directional signs shall be approved by the Community Development Director. Each directional sign shall not exceed three square feet in size. 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. 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 discourage criminal activities. CONAPRVLSL)P606UPATE-14/RESOPCSDP606UPDATE-14 Page 7 Planning Commission Resolution 97- Site Development Permit 97-606 (JACK IN THE BOX) MISCELLANEOUS 56. Prior to on -site grading, 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. The City of La Quinta shall have the right to select its defense counsel in its sole discretion. CONAPRVLSDP606UPATE-14/RESOPCSDP606UPDATE-14 Page 8 ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT I Planning Commission Meeting June 2.4, 1997 9. Tyre being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the public aring. F 10 There bein ..o f/-Doroval discussion, it waste e and seconded by Commis ner Tyleer to adopt Plarg Commi ion Resolution 97- 036 commending of Zoneafian2e 97-082 s submitted. ROL ALL: AYES: CkmmissiKis Butler, Seaton, 1%hUxv1iM6-dard, and Chairman A ES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Gardner and Newkirk. ABSTAIN: None. pp Commissioner Gardner rejoined the meeting. B. Site Development Permit 97-606; a request of Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc. for approval to construct a 2,816 square foot Jack in the Box restaurant with drive -through on Pad Site #3 within the Jefferson Plaza Shopping Center currently under construction. 1. 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. Staff noted that a recommendation was being added that menu boards on the drive -through, be limited to one menu board and the sign not exceed the 4-foot berm in height. 2. Chairman Abels asked if a signal was to be installed at the entrance next to the Jack in the Box. Staff stated that only the Highway 111 signal proposed is the signal near the west property line. Other driveways are right in/right out only. Discussion followed regarding the entrance locations. 3. Commissioner Gardner asked if the south elevation which faces Highway 111, was the front of the building. Staff stated that the west elevation was the main access into the building. Commissioners discussed the building elevations with staff. Staff stated that the applicant was proposing two menu boards along the drive -through lane. Staff is recommending that there be only one menu board hidden behind a four foot berm. Commissioner Gardner asked if the other berms further west were four feet. Staff stated they varied from 18-inches to three feet. In addition, the area will be landscaped in accordance with Highway 111 Guidelines. PC6-24.-97 3 Planning Commission Meeting June 24, 1997 4. Commissioner Tyler asked why a condition had not been added requiring the applicant to conform to the Highway 111 Design Guidelines. Staff stated that it was initially added to their specific plan. 5. Commissioner Butler stated that some of the drive-throughs have a smaller menu board at the window in case you forget what you wanted. Staff stated they were concerned about the proliferation of signs due to its location on Highway 111. Commissioner Woodard stated they should be required to have the ordering done at the menu board. 6. Commissioner Woodard stated his strong concern that they were reviewing a site plan for the remainder of the Home Depot site while they were not meeting the condition requirements for landscaping on the first phase. He asked if the Planning Commission could withhold any future building permits to force them to comply with the landscaping requirements. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell suggested the Planning Commission require they become current with the specific plan before they go forward with Phase 2. 7. Commissioner Woodard stated his concern that the Public Works Department would allow the drive -through exit for Pad #3, Jack in the Box, to be so close to the street entrance. Staff stated the applicant had been working with the Public Works Department to better accommodate the circulation plan. Commissioner Woodard stated he also believed this would create a traffic problem. When the Planning Commission approved the overall site plan conceptually it was their understanding that there would be more of a landscaping buffer between the entrance road and the drive -through. In addition, now there are cars that will be backing out into the road as cars are entering. This Jack in the Box is a large building and will be located right at the entrance. Regarding the architectural aspect of the structure, Commissioner Woodard asked if the Planning Commission could request that an architectural dimension be added to the raised parapets. He stated the raised parapets needed to be integrated into the design of the building and not stand out by themselves. Staff stated the Commission could add a condition to the Conditions of Approval requiring any of his suggestions. 8. Commissioner Woodard asked why Condition #29 was requiring a 3:1 slope instead of 4:1. Staff stated this was a typical standard requirement of the Engineering Department. 9. Commissioner Woodard asked why there were two entrances so close together. Staff explained this was one of the results of the negotiations with the property owner to the west. PC6-24-97 4 Planning Commission Meeting June 24, 1997 10. Commissioner Butler stated his dislike of the design features for the signs. One sign had a height of 23-feet, another 20-feet, and yet another at 17-feet. He had no objection with the advertising, but with the inconsistency of the sign heights. The sign on the west side facing the parking lot was 23-feet and that was too high. The sign facing Highway 111 was only 20-feet and the east elevation showed a sign of only 17-feet. It was his belief that they were getting enough exposure for their advertising, but the height of the signs needed to be more consistent with the other commercial businesses along Highway 111. 11. Commissioner Gardner stated his concern was also regarding the landscaping, and it had already been discussed. 12. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated that Attachment 2 of the report was a drawing of the design that reflected the solution that had been worked out between the Engineering Department and the applicant regarding the location of the drive -through and entrance to the center. By requiring the changes to the restaurant layout it allowed the drive -through to be more flexible. Commissioners discussed the design revision with staff. 13. Commissioner Woodard stated that with this configuration, a person coming up to that intersection would be very confused. 14. Mr. Doug Cooper, Greenburg-Farrow, Architects, stated he agreed with Commissioner Woodard, that the landscaping for Phase One was thin and they would be investigating this. In regard to the height of the elements on the building, the parapet would be worked out with staff and brought down to a height of 20-feet 6-inches. In talking with representatives of Jack in the Box, they had requested four signs to be consistent with the remainder of the businesses down the street. Regarding the berm height, Mr. Cooper asked for clarification as to whether it was four feet to the berm or to the top of the landscaping. The landscaping island on the east side of the drive -through had been worked out to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department. It was originally ten feet, but had been increased to 13-feet and a bulb added at the end of the drive -through. Regarding the Commission's concerns about the west entrance being a major drive/entrance, Mr. Cooper stated this access was a secondary entry and would not have as much traffic. This entrance would be mostly for those traveling west or exiting from the project site. As far as the exit for the adjacent property, this is due to the negotiations with the adjoining property owner. PC6-24-97 5 Planning Commission Meeting June 24, 1997 15. Commissioner Tyler asked Mr. Cooper to identify the main circulation pattern for the center. Mr. Cooper went over the circulation pattern. 16. Commissioner Gardner expressed his concern about the sparseness of the landscaping. Mr. Cooper stated they would have the landscaping in place prior to opening and it would meet the requirements of the Conditions of Approval. Commissioner Gardner asked if the berm would be four feet with two feet of landscaping. Mr. Cooper stated he was asking for clarification regarding this issue as it was not specific in the Condition; Condition #35.D. Staff clarified 48-inches of screening was being required. 17. Commissioner Butler restated his concern about the height of the signs. The most visible exposure for the signs was facing the parking lot. As far as the applicant's request for four signs, he was not aware of any other business that had been allowed that many signs. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio clarified that the applicant was allowed one sign for each elevation. If the Commission wanted to add a condition giving them more latitude, staff could write a condition requiring the applicant to architecturally add the towers into the building and all signs be the same height. Mr. Cooper stated they had discussed this with staff and the signs had been reduced to 20-feet 6-inches for two of the signs and the east elevation would remain 17-feet. 18. Commissioner Woodard asked if he was the architect for the entire project. Mr. Cooper stated he was. Commissioner Woodard asked if plans had been submitted for the remaining pad sites in Phase Two. Mr. Cooper stated they had not been submitted. They were talking with prospective tenants, but to date none had signed. Commissioner Woodard stated he had a strong objection to approving the parking layout without knowing the floor plans for the other two pads. If the Commission wanted any variations to the pad designs they would again have problems with the parking lot layout. It was his opinion that more parking was needed on the north side to allow more landscaping. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated that if during the review process of the parking layout the Commission felt a change was needed, the parking could be required to be redrawn. Commissioner Woodard asked if the parking that is necessary for Jack in the Box could approved at this time, and the remainder of the parking for Phase Two be approved at later date, or at the time the other pads are approved. In his opinion, this would make for a better overall design. Staff stated if it was the desire of the Commission to approve Phase Two in that manner, it could be done. PC6-2.1-97 6 Planning, Commission Meeting June 24, 1997 19. Commissioner Woodard stated the current plans showed too little landscaping. It was his opinion that the parking be relocated to the north to accommodate an appropriate amount of landscaping for the entrance. He asked if the applicant would be willing to accept approval for half of the parking and bring back the remainder at a different time. Mr. Cooper stated it was easier to sell a site when the parking lot is laid out. 20. Commissioner Tyler stated that having cars pulling in and backing out on the a main entrance street is not acceptable. Mr. Cooper asked if the parking would be acceptable if it were moved. Discussion followed regarding the parking plan. 21. Commissioner Woodard stated his concern that the Commission would be approving the plan on a piecemeal basis. Mr. Cooper stated they were trying to meet the parking requirements for each of the pad sites. 22. Commissioner Seaton reiterated her concern about the location of the drive - through exit and people backing out of the parking spaces when people were leaving. Mr. Cooper stated this was not the main entrance to the project site and this part of the parking layout had been previously approved by the Commission. 23. Chairman Abels stated he too was concerned about the piecemeal approvals of the project. There being no further comment, Chairman Abels closed the public hearing. 24. Commissioner Woodard stated he would be voting to deny the project unless the applicant was willing to bring back a revised plan. 25. Commissioner Butler stated that since the Commission had approved the parking design for Phase One, the parking to the east of Pad #3, the Commission had no alternatives but to concentrate on the Phase Two parking. He then asked it would be acceptable to the developer to remove some of the parking spaces in Phase One. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated the Commission would need to concentrate on the Phase Two as the parking for Phase One could not be manipulated as the applicant had already met the Conditions of Approval. PC6-24-97 7 Planning Commission Meeting June 24, 1997 26. Commissioner Butler stated that when they approved this project, the Commission knew there would be negotiations with the adjoining property owner to work out a circulation plan. This design is the result of those negotiations. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated this was true. The Commission had directed the applicant to work out the problem with the adjoining property owner. Currently, however, there is nothing worked out regarding the parking for the second access. 27. Commissioner Butler stated his only concern with finding a solution to the circulation plan problem for Jack in the Box. 28. Commissioner Woodard stated he would ask that Jack in the Box move their building further to the west and provide more landscaping. Then the parking on the north of the shaded area would have people again backing out into the east/west traffic. Again, he was unsatisfied with approving a parking plan when there is no knowledge of what the floor plan will be for the other two pads. 29. Commissioner Gardner stated that he was in agreement with Commissioner Woodard. In addition, he would want the berm to be four feet. However, he did note a request of the Sheriff's Department that the berm not be so high as to block their view into the restaurant. This creates a dilemma as he did not want to approve it the way it is designed. 30. Commissioner Tyler stated that he too agreed that the Phasing Plan, approved in September, was not the same plan they are looking at tonight. As far as the traffic backing into the cars entering or leaving at this entrance to the site, he would hope this could be looked at again to solve the problem. Another issue was the fast food restaurants flying flags. The same restrictions need to be added as the other fast foot restaurants. He then asked what could be used to limit the volume on the order taking speakers, after the area had been built out. Also, it appeared that Condition #9 needed to state the American's for Disability Act requirements. He noted that the conditions regarding the retention basin did not need to be added again for one pad. Condition #48.B. regarding the maximum sign space should be for each, or was the figure for the total? Staff noted it was for each sign and would be made more clear. 31. Chairman Abels stated that he concurred with all the comments stated. PC6-24-97 8 Planning Commission Meeting June 24, 199 7 32. Commissioner Woodard stated that the specific plan was approved conceptually and he understood this. But, what is being asked of the Commission at this time is backing the Commission into a corner due to the approval of the conceptual design. The Commission needs to look at the overall picture and respond to what happens as the plan develops. 33. Commissioner Tyler asked if the agreement with the adjoining neighbor were recorded. Mr. Cooper stated that the agreement is to be drawn up and held by the Community Development Department until the property to the east develops. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that normally you record a reciprocal agreement to see that it remains with the land to assure that it stays with the project. 34. Mr. Cooper stated that to move the building to the west and redesign the other pads, would have to be discussed with Home Depot. He could eliminate the parking backing into the east and west driveway for Phase Two and they would be willing to come up with an alternate parking plan. As far as being able to submit a final plan rather than a conceptual plan, in his opinion it was not possible. There were too many tenants to consider and each had its own requirements they had to meet. 35. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant had any objection to a continuance. Mr. Cooper stated they would have no objection. 36. Commissioner Woodard requested that the architectural details on the roof be extended into the building four feet. 37. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioner Tyler/Woodard to continue Site Development Permit 97-606 to the Planning Commission meeting of July 22, 1997. Unanimously approved. 38. Commissioner Gardner asked what site plan the Commission would receive. Staff stated it would be the site plan as revised by the applicant. VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Sian Permit 97-383; a requesttHome Depot, U.S.A., Inc. r approval of a planned sig 'program for Phase Twofferson Plaza Shopp' r. PC6-24-97 9 2 0 f f J 9�ffi a p 6 W3 • bL n IL�� e R ATTACHMENT 2 wl Y�� w,w� it I W,� � r j vE W j � W O W Iat N � j W r Z CY) cn ry. m - = Cl R a u a I F F � U y 0 I � Q W W ►' 4 g ze WQ °d mow. : �- 11 rn � <Y _f III ATTACHMENT 3 xQ O�x 0o O U- Z V 0 Q `Q -Q a Z CLU E LU a UL V V/ W J W LU z a t= V \/ Rom W I cn¢ Q O Lu Z as z2 o 0 �U- cr o o L� - zo z LL w U -J Q W O Q Z w O O p O Q LL- CD ~O LL. IZ w x ME uj — h— Q Z Lid � cz Z J Q z Cc o o cc w Z Z w w toto p i� LU p m o Z' 45 Q m: cn m p c_ u- m Q oiS i en �C a: U Q cmH Ci w Q LLJ p � U �z'0U cH LLmt wZ Q x a Z' Q LU Q _Z Qp�wu CC. mO'-j mp m Lt O� m� ; CC U = ATTACHMENT 4 ...... ............ . :_':: i i� J J LL W Lt W p O p w lSpm� xzLU F-L" LU pJLun CL J 1LJ J C= O y w LA- w c� zujLu J e_ZCwv ^<ZLL xQ p J i w is =.' U z 11,�oOlo Q-5 ��o�o�W�b3a FEBRUARY 1. 1993 SiGNSPEC.293 ATTACHMENT 5 fij —0 $$zu h4fl oms�� w z Q rn c o 0 0) oQNc.j O V 1 y .O .� rn a) rn �2 0 aj fv0 cc?) C O iC ca t co v (f) a_ tL N f- U 7 a 0 IL K IL z 0 w z a z m 0 LL J a U ATTACHMENT 6 4 Q 'Lau I� LI Q Wig � � 2 morn o,r c� o `0rn00rn C7QNM O V N �0 ajc�o cv) C 0 X N F- U 7 a 0 a a z 0 w z Q z a 0 a J Q U ! I Born t, 0 coc o C*4 ty - o O)o c( C 0 M -C: It U) a. LL PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: JULY 22, 1997 (CONTINUED FROM 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: GREEN BERG -FARROW ARCHITECTURE, INC. (MR. DOUGLAS COUPER, AIA) REQUEST: 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 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. The adopted Specific Plan (SP 96-027) for the project sets development standards. The Conditions of Approval for SP 96-027 require a comprehensive sign program for Phase II to be approved by the Commission before a building permit is issued within this area. Planning Commission Review On June 24, 1997, the Planning Commission reviewed the applicants request to establish a Sign Program for Phase II of the Jefferson Plaza. After discussion the Planning Commission, on a unanimous vote, requested the comments contained in the staff report be incorporated and returned for review on July 22, 1997. The Planning Commission also stated that number of building signs for single pad tenants should be limited to three signs. The Minutes from this meeting will be available at the meeting. SIGN97-383UPDATE/16 Page 1 of 3 Signing Request On July 10, 1997, staff received the revised Master Sign Program for Phase II (Attachment 1). The sign program is on file with the Community Development Department. The program submitted includes signs for the main center (I.D.) identification, major and minor tenants and pad buildings. All signs proposed are attached to the buildings except for the proposed center I.D. freestanding sign for the major tenants. The following changes have been incorporated into the Sign Program: 1. Page 3 - A major tenant is identified as having a lease area of 9,500 square feet or more. 2. Page 4 - Changes in the site plan layout created minor changes in the location of building mounted signs. 3. Page 5 - Major tenant building signs shall not exceed 4'-0" in height unless approved by the Planning Commission, and each tenant is allowed 50 square feet of aggregate sign area. 4. Page 6 - Under canopy signs shall not be illuminated or exceed three square feet. 5. Page 8 - Added provision that tenant signs shall comply with Chapter 9.160 of the Municipal Code. 6. Page 10 - Added a provision to restrict single businesses to no more than two building mounted signs for the satellite buildings. 7. Page 12 - Deleted (Original Jack in the Box sign graphics). Staff Comments The center I.D. sign should be moved to the signalized entry on Highway 111, near the west property line. The height of individually mounted channel letter signs for major tenants shall not exceed 3.0' if the tenant lease area is between 9,500 square feet to 20,000 square feet or 3.5' for tenant spaces greater than 20,000 square feet unless approved by the Planning Commission. Staff recommends the major tenant signs should be smaller in size than the Home Depot building signs, an anchor tenant of the shopping center with approximately 130,000 square feet. 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 of this case, as defined under Section 9.200.120 (Appeals) of the Zoning Code, is final unless appealed to the City Council. SIGN977-383UPDATE/16 Page 2 of 3 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. July 10, 1997, Sign Program Document - Commission Only Prepared by: Greg Te6usdell, Associate Planner Submitted by: Christine di lorio, Planning Manager SIGN97-383UPDATE/16 Page 3 of 3 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 20 day of June, 1997, and 22" a day of July, 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 (CEQ,A) 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: 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. RESOPCSIGV383(JEFFERSON PLAZA)-16 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 22id day of July, 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 RESOPCSIGN383(JEFFERSON PLAZA)-16 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, - RECOMMENDED SIGN PERMIT 97-383 (SIGN PROGRAM FOR PHASE II OF JEFFERSON PLAZA) JULY 22, :1 997 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 4 - Center I.D. sign location shall be moved to signalized entry on Highway 111, near west property line. Fne 5 - Major tenant signs shall not exceed 3.0' in height for tenants with between 9,500 to 20,000 square feet and 3.5' in height if greater than 20,000 square feet unless approved by the Planning Commission. Page 10 - The sign on the west building elevation of Pad 1 shall be deleted because it does not face a parking lot or street. 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 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JULY 22, 1997 (CONTINUED FROM JULY 8, 1997) CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-611 REQUEST: APPROVAL OF NEW PROTOTYPE SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSE PLANS FOR TRACT 27899 (MARBELLA AT LA QUINTA NORTE) LOCATION: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MILES AVENUE AND ADAMS STREET APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: TOPAZ ASSOCIATES, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP BUILDER.: CENTURY-CROWELL COMMUNITIES (DBA CENTURY HOMES) REP: MR. DENNIS CUNNINGHAM, PROJECT MANAGER ARCHITECT: BENJAMIN AGUILAR AND ASSOCIATES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: R. J. CUNNINGHAM COMPANY GENERAIL PLAN: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (2-4 DU'S/ACRE) ZONING: RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) BACKGROUND: Planning Commission Action On July 8, 1997, the Planning Commission, on a unanimous vote, continued this project for a two -week period without discussion because the meeting went beyond 11:00 P.M. based) on public testimony for the public hearing agenda items. Project Location/Tract History The proposed development is located at the southeast corner of Miles Avenue and Adams Street. Tentative Tract Map 27899 was approved by the City Council on February 1, 1994 for 111 single family lots on public streets under Resolution 94-15 (Attachment 1 - Map STRPSDP611.UPDATE-16/CONDSDP611UPDATE-16 Page 1 of 4 Exhibit). A one year time extension was approved by the City Council on June 4, 1996 under Resolution 96-39. On May 20, 1997, the City Council reviewed and approved the final map application. To date, the Map has not been recorded. Development Request On July 17, 1997, staff received a fax transmittal from Mr. Dennis Cunningham, project manager for Century Homes, stating that they are revising their plans to eliminate the bonus bedroom option and two of the Del Rey houses, and that the plans will be submitted on July 18, 1997 (Attachment 2). Additionally, the Montecito name of the project has been changed to Marbella. Century Homes is proposing two product lines for different portions of Tract 27899. The first is a continuation of the Del Rey series on Lots 1-38, with the new Marbella series proposed on Lots 39-111. A summary of each Plan type is shown below: Del Rey Series Plan 2X Deleted Plan 2 Deleted Plan 3 1,445 sq. ft. Plan 4 1,567 sq. ft. Plan 5 1,678 sq. ft. 3 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 3 car garage 2 car garage + storage 3 car garage One Story Two Story I One Story Note: The Del Rev orototvoe house plans were aooroved by the Plan ninc Commission for Tracts 26188 and 25363 in 1994 and 1996, respectively. Marbella Series Plan 1 - 1,450 sq. ft. Plan 2 - 1,803 sq. ft. Plan 3 - 2,166 sq. ft. Plan 4 - 2,240 sq. ft. 3 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 3 car garage 2 car garage 3 car garage --71One 3 car garage One Story One Story One Story Story The floor plans show house sizes from approximately 1,445 to 2,240 square feet of livable area with 2- or 3-car garages. Most houses are single -story (maximum 17'-6" high) except for Plan 4 of the Del Rey series. Front -loaded garages are being offered. Rear yard patio covers are proposed for the Del Rey Series houses. California Mediterranean architecture utilizing gable, clipped gable and hip roof lines with tile roofs, and stucco walls and arches combined with multi -pane window features is proposed for each series of houses. Each plan will have two or three facades. Garage doors are metal roll -ups, and the colors and materials reflect lighter earth tones suitable to the desert environment. A material sample board will be available at the meeting. STRPSL)P61'.UPDATE-16/CONDSDP611UPDATE-16 Page 2 of 4 ANALYSIS: The applicant's plans comply with the RL Zoning Code provisions for the following reasons: The minimum size house allowed is 1,400 square feet. The developer proposes houses that exceed this requirement. 2. Varied front building elevations are provided. This feature of the plan will contribute to a preferred streetscape scene by providing interest to the buyers and visitors of the City. 3. This project is not subject to a compatibility review because no units have been built in the Tract. However, since this developer has built the surrounding Del Rey series and other houses, these new houses will be compatible with surrounding houses built in Tracts 26188, 25363 and 23935. 4. The model complex location is appropriate because it is located away from existing houses in surrounding Tracts. Off-street parking is proposed to discourage parking on Adams Street. 5. Perimeter screen walls for each house shall be architecturally compatible with the house as required by Chapter 9.60 of the Zoning Code. Houses in the immediate area that were built by Century Homes have tan precision masonry walls with tubular metal gates. Exposed precision masonry block walls are not allowed unless painted or stuccoed to match the architecture of the house based on recent changes to the Zoning Code. 6. Exterior materials are stucco with earth (Desert) tone colors. Two tone, concrete roof tiles are used to accent the building colors selected by the developer to match existing Century houses. 7. The facade windows for the houses are rectangular (i.e., dual -pane with internal metal grids) with stucco surrounds. These treatments are consistent with existing houses in surrounding developments. 8. The developer's landscaping plan is consistent in overall design with the existing houses in surrounding Tracts. The preliminary landscape plan is substantially consistent with RL requirements in terms of materials and quantities. 9. Rear yard setbacks for these houses shall be 20-feet instead of 10-feet based on the new adopted Zoning Code requirements. The developer shall insure that all houses comply with this standard during plan check review. STRPSI)P61:LUPDATE-16/CONDSDP611UPDATE-16 Page 3 of 4 10. Pursuant to Condition 55 of Tract Map 27899, only one story houses (20' high or less) shall be built within 150-feet of Miles Avenue. Additionally, Chapters 9.50 and 9.60 of the Zoning Code requires one story houses (22' or less in height) to be built along the Tract boundary if abutting an existing one story home built in Tracts 26188 and 25363. Condition #13 is recommended to insure that all houses built in this Tract meet these standards. CONCLUSION: The applicants' development request conforms to the provisions outlined in the City's Zoning Code if conditions are met. RECOMMENDATION: By Minute Motion, approve Site Development Permit 97-611, subject to the Conditions as attached and set forth therein. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Fax Transmittal from Mr. Dennis Cunningham 3. Large Plans - Planning Commission Only Prepared by: i Greg "Tr usdell, Associate Planner Submitted by: _ r Christine di lorio, Planning Manager STRPSLiP61].UPDATE-16ICONDSDP611UPDATE-16 Page 4 of 4 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-611 CENTURY-CROWELL COMMUNITIES JULY 22, 1997 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL GENERAL 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 27899 and the RL Zone District shall be met during building permit plan check approval. SITE DEVELOPMENT 3. Perimeter wails shall be constructed for each house prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The new walls shall be constructed using six-inch wide masonry block that can be stuccoed (or painted) to match the design texture of the house. The wall shall be topped with eight -inch wide block cap to match the existing walls in Tract 26188. Pedestrian gates leading into the side and back yards shall be wrought iron or tubular metal and shall be constructed in accordance with Section 9.60.030 of the Zoning Code. The perimeter wall for the Tract shall be constructed to match the wall built for Tract 26188 unless a deviation is permitted by the Planning Commission. 4. The final landscape/irrigation plan shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review for production housing units. 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 yard landscaping shall include lawn and a minimum of ten shrubs (i.e., 5-gallon or larger) and two trees for interior lots and five trees for corner lots. Trunk diameter for 15-gallon and 24" box trees is 1" to 1.75" as measured three -feet up from grade once installed. The developer and subsequent property owner shall continuously maintain all landscaping in a healthy and viable condition. B. All provisions of Chapter 8.13 (Water Efficient Landscaping and Irrigation) shall be met. C. All lawn areas 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. D. The off -site parkway landscaping and irrigation plans shall require review and approval by the Community Development and Public Works Department, and shall be consistent in design with the existing landscaping installed for Tract 26188. Approval by the Coachella Valley Water District and Agricultural Commissioner's Office is required prior to submission of plans to the City. 5. 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. 6. Location and design of any patio covers/decking, and/or pool/spa, shall be it accordance with the provisions of Zoning Code Section 9.60.040 and 9.60.070, respectively. 7. The concrete driveways for each house shall include expansion joints and a broom finish (or better) texture and be a minimum width of the required garage door opening. ARCHITECTURE 8. Colors used in the construction of the house shall be of light earth tones, consistent with those of the surrounding area units. 9. Rolll-up, sectional metal garage doors shall be installed for all homes. 10. Plaster surrounds shall be added to all windows on the building elevations for all houses unless confined by architectural features or off -sets, subject to approval of the Community Development Department. MISCELLANEOUS 11. Each required single car garage space shall measure 10-feet wide by 20-feet long (inside dimension) and exclude mechanical equipment. 12. One story houses (20' in height or less) shall be built within 150-feet of Miles Avenue. One story houses (22' in height or less) shall be built adjacent to existing CONDSDP61 'l UPDATE-16/STRPPCSDP611 UPDATE-16 one story homes in Tracts 26188 and 25363 if the existing house is within 50-feet of the common property line as required by Chapters 9.50 and 9.60 of the Zoning Code. 13. Permanent subdivision signing, if desired, for the Tract shall be approved by the Planning Commission prior to issuance of a building permit for said structure(s) pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 9.160 (Signs) of the Zoning Ordinance. Any signs installed shall not be internally illuminated. 14. A Minor Use Permit shall be required for temporary model complexes including signs/flags per Section 9.60.250 of the Zoning Code. Driveway access on Adams Street for the model complex shall be approved by the Public Works Director. A minimum of 10 on -site parking spaces shall be provided as required by Chapter 9.150 of the Zoning Code. CONDS DP611 UPDATE- 16/STRPPCSDP611 UPDATE-16 ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT 1 M= AVEIM T T T T- a �a W III i-�L=1_L J II = Kristen T`— Tract 26188 -4 �11 It r — � -- V lrr-- — —1.01 DIAM DRIVF&— — — —_ - ...— — _ — —'�'�— I I I ..�-- — — — — I II v 7� �7"T1 y s I . • ' Il li— I II� Tract 27899��- I I I I I I I 1 - I II -- �---�1 1 J ItoII se - —WINDY COURT— ..�----- --- -- I � �, � �-- — _ I d I 'I I� �r 7 rT -1 II_ �� 7 T r - v I I Rl I— ICI II !I — I� + + Ir I III � �� _./'—" cot»- � �, � % `•— IT= -_0 q. 1 0 1 OT �`. i i li L � ,I,r ---r. aH act 25363 iRTH I r -_ I c5j I It III I� �_ - ' L i- -L'_I _I=_1=J_1�1_L� I i IL_ -- I T-T~TrT—T- T- �.- 71—f _ TT -TT. e� L .LI . --I '° a o L I L: o u I I I j 1 v _1_- _ L _I_ J_ J 1 I I v � ...... FAX COVER SHEET ATTACHMENT 2 TO: _Pre'g Trousdale, Assoc. Planner pafe7/17/97 COMPANY: City of La Quinta Time: 11am FAX # ,L 1 777-7155 FROM' Dennis Cunningham/Century Crowell Marbella Project Numbdr of Pages, incttdng this cover sheet - 1 u ,I JUL 1 r' 1997 J CITY OF Li.(U;N Fr, PLANNING DEPARTMENT Notes: of will be receiving a resubmit al _of Pian_s., for Tgacctt„`27899 ate— 53.&+ __ _ . �el.ivered -to your office �v P•riday. July J, 1927- _ .Thg submittal Vil.l reflect the removal of the Bonus Rooms a` previously submitted. _ Iinicerely, P.S. - Plans 2 and 2X (Del Rey) have been eliminated. CONFIQENTtAL.ITY NOTICE The InfolMOCT, 90Fldtned In flue ko*d6 nsma and documents 4= rnparrong same MW IV" p i"M utd ft twu InfermegG* AwWad "W tt:e teas at ft kwIM d or an* named tamMn. It the reader of aft enasape 4 net the I W,6d raoipient, you we Meraby indAwd flint uy Otaserntr+edan. *Wbutton or copying of aft latecopy an a" In *kY xftbd*:L If you hovd Welved this WwW" fn ~. phase "only Ve fromedtate{y by tai.phona and noun+ m.am is us at Via adcraas betmv via the Untied States Poatd Savim Tftnk Yau.