Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1997 12 23 PC
ira�� �C9 Q � � C�y4 OFTN��I� PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California December 23, 1997 7:00 P.M. **NOTE** ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING Beginning Resolution 97-079 Beginning Minute Motion 97-017 I. CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call II. PUBLIC COMMENT This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled for public hearing. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your comments to three minutes. III. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of the Minutes of the meetings of November 12, 1997, November 25, 1997, and December 9, 1997 B. Department Report PC/AGENDA V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Item ..................... SPECIFIC PLAN 85-906, AMENDMENT #2, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-037 Applicant ................ KSL Land Company Location ................ Northwest corner of Jefferson Street and 54`h Avenue Request ................. Approval of a Specific Plan Amendment and Conditional Use Permit to allow construction and operation of interim polc fields/sports field with lighting Action ................... Request to continue VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Item ................. SIGN PERMIT 97-411 Applicant ........... Century -Crowell Communities Location ............ Southeast corner of Miles Avenue and Adams Street Request ............. Approval of one permanent project identification sign for the Marbella Development pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 9.160 (Signs) of the Zoning Code Action .............. Resolution 97- B. Item ................. SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 96-590 Applicant .......... Lapis Energy Location ........... Southeast corner of Dune Palms Road and Highway 111 Request ............ Approval of a revision to the design and materials to be used for the pump island canopy and approval of a change for both the canopy and service station/mini-mart building Action ............. Minute Motion 97- C. Item ................ STREET NAME CHANGE 97-009 Applicant ......... City of La Quints Location .......... Within Rancho La Quinta, east of the intersection of Mission Drive West and Via Carmel Request ........... Consideration of a street name change for a portion of Via Carmel to Carmel Circle Action ............ Resolution 97- D. Item ............... SIGN PERMIT 92-186, AMENDMENT #1 Applicant ........ Integrated Sign Associates for Auto Club of Southern California Location ......... Northeast corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street Request .......... Approval of a revision to the sign program for east and west facing signs. Action ............ Minute Motion 97- E. Item ............... TRACT 27952 Applicant ......... T D Desert Development Location .......... Rancho La Quinta Country Club Request ........... Approval of a new prototype unit for construction within Tract 27952 Action ............ Minute Motion 97- PC/AGENDA VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS 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 November 12, 1997 I. CALL TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman Butler who asked Commissioner Tyler to lead the flag salute. B. Chairman Butler requested the roll call: Present: Commissioners Abels, Gardner, Kirk, Tyler, Woodard. and Chairman Butler. C. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Gardner/Woodard to excuse Commissioner Seaton. D. Staff Present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Dawn Honeywell, Planning Manager Christine di Iorio, Senior Engineer Steve Speer, Principal Planners Stan Sawa and Fred Baker, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: A. Commissioner Gardner asked that the Agenda be reorganized by reversing Public Hearing Items A and B. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Gardner/Kirk to reorganize the Agenda as requested. Unanimously approved. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Chairman Butler asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of October 28, 1997. Commissioner Tyler asked that Page 8, Item 10 be corrected to read "local sellers"; Page 9, Item 14, add the words "last year"; Item 21, he asked that the words "screening option" be deleted; Page 10, Item 23, the wording needed to be corrected. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated it should read, "when a person buys in a custom tract, you were expected to have more flexibility. There was no expectation that all the homes would be the same." Commissioner Tyler continued with Page PC 11-12-97 Planning Commission Meeting November 12, 1997 11, Item 27, it was his understanding that the caliper of trees would be indicated for box trees and it is not reflected in the minutes. There being no other changes to the minutes, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Gardner/Tyler to approve the minutes as amended. Unanimously approved. B. Chairman Butler asked if there was a Department report. None. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Chairman Butler excused himself due to a possible conflict of interest. Vice Chairman Woodard assumed the chair. A. Environmental Assessment 97-346 and Tentative Tract 25953; a request of Oliphant and Williams Associates, Inc., for certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 97-345; approval of a revision and third one year time extension for an approved subdivision map of 38.4 acres into 132 single family and other common lots; and approval of prototype houses which range in size from approximately 1,724 to over 2,200 square feet. 1. Vice Chairman Woodard opened the public hearing and asked for a staff report. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Vice Chairman Woodard asked if there were any questions of staff. There being none, he asked if the applicant wished to address the Commission. 3. Betty Williams, President, Oliphant and Williams Associates, stated she had met with staff and reviewed the proposed Conditions of Approval and had the following comments. There are three elevations for this plan and two have been submitted to the Commission for review. The third plan will be submitted at a :later date for Commission review. Regarding Issue 8, of the staff report, Oliphant and Williams will be constructing a park retention basin on the project and it will not be maintained by the City. Initially, it will be maintained by the developer and ultimately by the unincorporated management association. It is staff s recommendation that this cannot be accepted and has recommended that an in -lieu fee be paid. This fee amounts to approximately $28,000. The improvements they are proposing are greater PC 11-12-97 2 Planning Commission Meeting November 12, 1997 than an acre and will cost in excess of the in -lieu fee and will be an asset to the development. They are therefore, requesting to be relieved of this fee. Regarding Condition #22.C., (Dune Palms Road) it is their understanding that the current improvements which widened Dune Palms Road by nine feet in 1993, is estimated by the Public Works Department to be approximately $57,500 for their fair share of the improvement costs. It is their understanding that all or a portion of these improvements were completed with regional transportation funds. These improvements installed and paid for by others should not be a cost of improvements to this project. They are therefore requesting relief from these financial burdens. 4. There being nc further public comment, Vice Chairman Woodard closed the public comment portion of the public hearing and opened the item for Commission discussion. 5. Commissioner Kirk asked if the City had ever waived a fee when part of the facilities had been paid for out of regional transportation funds. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated she was unaware of the history on that item. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated that some of the money that was used to construct the signal at Dune Palms Road and Miles Avenue was constructed with regional arterial funds from CVAG. The basis of those funds is that the developer is still responsible for 50% of the regional arterial improvements and the fund is responsible for the other 50%. There may be some adjustment, but staff does not expect the entire amount to go away. Staff would need to see how this is consistent with CVAG and City policies before making a determination. 6. Commissioner Kirk asked if the third extension was the last extension available to the applicant. Staff stated it is the last extension based on the Subdivision Map Act as adopted by the City. 8. Commissioner Tyler commended the developer on the revised layout of the project. He also commended the developer for combining the park/retention basin as it was a long way to the Adams Street Park or any other proposed park. He then noted changes that were needed to be made to the staff report. Regarding Conditions of Approval #43.C., a more definitive statement needs to be made as to when the temporary vehicular access off Miles Avenue will be closed. It needs to be tied to a more specific calendar date. On the Site PC 11-12-97 3 Planning Commission Meeting November 12, 1997 Plan, none of the streets are named and he would recommend that a condition be added requiring Lot C, which goes from Dune Palms Road and connects with an existing street on Quinterra, be named Nuevo Drive. It should be noted that on Page 57 of the Environmental Assessment, the intersection at Dune Palms Road and Miles Avenue is controlled by a traffic signal, not a stop sign. On Page 58, it states there is no need for a bus turnout as there is no bus route on Miles Avenue. This is presently true, but the City should be planning for the future. He would further recommend a bus turnout on Dune Palms Road somewhere close to the main access to this project for school buses. 9. Vice Chairman Woodard asked staff for their opinion regarding the bus turnout. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated that Sunline does not have any bus lines planned other than what is currently existing. Staff is therefore, not recommending any changes. 10. Commissioner Tyler stated that on Fred Waring, just east of Las Vistas there is a bus turnout and there is no bus service on Fred Waring. If Sunline does not anticipate any then the City should consider them for school buses to service this development. Staff stated that no comments had been received from Sunline regarding the addition of bus turnouts. Commissioner Tyler stated he was suggesting the bus turnout be supplied for the school district. Staff stated they would make a recommendation. 11. Vice Chairman Woodard asked staff why this request was before the Commission after the date of expiration for the tract. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated the request for an extension had been received in time. The project is automatically extended to allow for staff s processing time. Vice Chairman Woodard asked if the 2:1 and 3:1 slope was the recommendation for berming. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell stated it is the requirement that whether or not there is sloping and there will also be berming. 12. Vice Chairman Woodard asked if the proposed retention area/passive park had playground equipment added to make it more functional, would it change staff s requirement regarding the in -lieu fees. Staff stated the applicant would have to process a General Plan Amendment to be able to request that their park be included in the Parkland Plan. 13. Vice Chairman Woodard asked if the Fire Department had any problems with PC 11-12-97 4 Planning Commission Meeting November 12, 1997 the phasing plan. Staff stated the Fire Department had seen the initial concept. The a:pplicant will have to submit their final phasing plan to the Fire Department for their final review and approval. 14. Vice Chairman Woodard asked if the Commission could make any changes to the map at this time. Staff asked Vice Chairman Woodard to be more specific. Vice Chairman Woodard stated he would like to request that the setback area at the entrance be increased by the deletion of one lot and divided into landscaped setback area between the road and the wall of the first house. Staff stated this could be added to the conditions. 15. There being no other comments, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97- 071 recommending to the City Council certifying Environmental Assessment 97-346. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Gardner, Tyler, and Vice Chairman Woodard. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioners Butler and Seaton. ABSTAIN: None. 16. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Kirk to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97-072 recommending to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract 25953, subject to the Conditions of Approval as revised: a. Necessary changes be made to the Transportation Mitigation Fee based on regional contribution to the construction of the signal. b. Condition #43.C., be modified to state that the access will occur prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the first model home. C. Lot C will be named Nuevo Drive. d. Plan 1, Elevations A and B be modified to differentiate between the two garages to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. e. One lot be eliminated and the area dedicated to setback and landscaping to be approved by staff. f. Condition #66 have the following words added: "prior to issuance of Building Permits" and "acceptable to the City in the CC&R's. PC 11-12-97 5 Planning Commission Meeting November 12, 1997 ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Gardner, Kirk, Tyler, and Vice Chairman Woodard. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioners Butler and Seaton. ABSTAIN: None. B. Continued - Environmental Assessment 97-344. Specific Plan 97-030, Site Development Permit 97-612 and Conditional Use Permit 97-035; a request of Thomas Bienek for Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, approval of Specific Plan Guidelines and Standards, approval of a Site Development Permit application to allow construction of a 12,546 square foot two story building with 80 tees for a golf driving range, and a 1,000 square foot maintenance building, and approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a lighted golf range, at the northeast corner of Adams Street and 48th Avenue. Chairman Butler informed the public that the public hearing had been closed, but public comment would be taken and asked for a staff report. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Butler stated that Exhibit 12 still appears to have the lights. Staff clarified that the towers still have lights on them. 3. Commissioner Kirk asked if there were any changes to the bunker lights. Staff stated there were none. 4. Commissioner Tyler asked for clarification in the staff report regarding the building lights to be used. Staff stated it was referring to the facia under the roof overhang. Three lights are shining out of the facia and on either end there are two lights. 5. Commissioner Tyler stated there appears to be a discrepancy between the report that stated the project complies with the Dark Sky Ordinance and the discussion of Option 4 where it stated that it almost meets the Ordinance. Staff stated that the majority of the lights are below the one foot candle reading at the 100-foot lighting level envelope. 6. Chairman Butler asked how the noise coming from the site would be determined and measured for the noise study. Staff stated it is a part of how the noise study is conducted and it was determined based on the uses proposed and the mitigation measures proposed. Therefore, it meets the City's standards. PC 11-12-97 6 Planning Commission Meeting November 12, 1997 7. Commissioner Tyler stated that Section 3 of the Specific Plan (3.20.2) still references the future office building as 32 feet and should be corrected to state 28-feet. 8. Commissioner Woodard asked if the setbacks for the office site would be considered now or at a later date. Staff stated they would be considered later. The applicant is showing only what the General Plan requires for a minimum setback. Commissioner Woodard asked if this plan meets the Dark Sky Ordinance. Staff stated that it does come close. (Within the 100-foot envelope that they have created with the tower mounted lighting, there is a level of lighting just above this envelope of less than 1 foot candle.) Commissioner Woodard asked if the 48th Avenue was an arterial road. Staff stated it was. Commissioner Woodard asked what the projected traffic on that road would be per day. Staff stated the future volume at building out for 48`h Street is projected to be 29,000 trips per day. Commissioner Woodard asked if the present zoning would allow the serving of liquor. Staff stated that a restaurant serving alcoholic beverages would be a permitted use if they met the Alcoholic Beverage Control regulations. Commissioner Woodard asked if there was a time when the utility poles would be required to be removed. Staff stated they would not due to the high power levels that are carried on these lines. Staff informed the Commission that the sight line exhibits were available for Commission review. Mr. John Vogley, landscape architect for the project, explained the line -of -sight exhibits. 9. Chairman Butler asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Tom Bienek, applicant, gave an overview of the project and asked if he could address the Commission after the public comment had been taken. 10. Mr. Tom Cullinan, 73-38 Juniper, Palm Desert, stated he was representing the Homeowners' Association for Rancho La Quinta and TD Desert Development, the developer of Rancho La Quinta and asked for a show of hands of how many in the audience had written letters in opposition to the project. Commissioner Tyler raised an objection and stated they had read all the letters submitted and Mr. Cullinan was to address his concerns to the Commission. Mr. Cullinan stated he would like to clear up some misconceptions. First, the misconception that they had known of this development for year and had made no objection. They had met with Mr. Bienek 18 months prior and stated at that time that they could not support the PC I 1-12-97 7 Planning Commission Meeting November 12, 1997 project with the night lighting and the netting so close to their project. Two weeks prior to the last Commission meeting, Mr. Bienek approached him to go over the new proposal and that meeting never occurred. The second misconception is that Mr. Bienek has expended money and time and because of this he should be allowed to proceed. He too has had projects where money has been spent and the project was not approved. They have spent $60 million to make Rancho La Quinta what it is and in their opinion their project enhances the charm of La Quinta. Two years ago, a PacTel Cellular proposal was turned down due to the tower. Adams Street and 48th Avenue are residential on three corners and even though the third corner is zoned Regional Commercial, compatibility must be considered. Their model complex is 75 yards from this proposed development and it is their opinion that visitors looking out their model complex at these poles would not have a favorable opinion. It is therefore their request that the Commission deny this proposal. 11. Mr. Tony Rushent, 79-235 Rancho La Quinta Drive, directly across the street from the project, stated his concerns are noise, traffic, hours of operation, netting, and primarily, the lighting. This project is not what exemplifies La Quinta. 12. Mr. Ralph Baggs, 78-705 Descanso Lane, stated he had previously submitted letters to the Commission objecting to this project. This letter stated his objections to the project which included lighting, glare, steel structures up to 110 feet, a two story building, and the noise. He questioned whether the noise study was based on one person hitting a ball or 80 people. In addition, the noise that would be generated from the serving of beer and wine. The visual affect of the steel structure and black netting during the daylight hours. There are utility poles and power lines running along Adams Street which are 70 feet in height. Now the poles and netting at almost twice this height will destroy the scenic vistas and natural desert and mountain views. The Environmental Assessment stated that there will be less than significant impact on scenic vistas. In his opinion, it should be stated that it would be potentially a significant impact. There will not only be 300 feet of poles and netting near Adams Street, but 200 yards east there will be another line of poles and netting up to 110 feet. Therefore, the view east from Adams Street and northwest from Rancho La Quinta, toward the Santa Rosa Mountains, will be blocked by two rows of black netting and two story poles. This project should not be in any residential backyard in La Quinta. PC 11-12-97 8 Planning Commission Meeting November 12, 1997 13. Mr. Trevor Jones, 79-195 Rancho La Quinta Drive, stated his house is 100 feet from 48th Avenue. Virtually across the street from entrance to 195 stalls of parking. They selected La Quinta because of the quietness and composition of residential communities. Now they will be looking directly into lighting, netting, and steel poles. He visited the Community Development Department to see the material that was being reviewed by the Commission. In the environmental review under noise, there is a letter from the acoustical engineer firm addressing the noise that comes from striking a ball with a titanium covered club, but never addresses the noise relative to automobiles or the lighting that comes from the automobiles. The line -of - sight that was presented tonight, is not true. If it were true he would be looking above the mountains in the far distance. There is ample land for this project in a commercial area that is not tucked in a residential area. 14. Mr. Mark Wurtz, 48-612 Calle Esperanza, stated he was in favor of the project as it was a first class driving range that will have a wonderful junior golf program with top instructors. This is needed for the youth in the desert. 15. Ms. Sandra J. Lyman, 85-075 Merion, stated she too supported the project and in her opinion, it would be a wonderful recreational use for La Quinta. 16. Mr. Richard Cullhne, 80-075 Merion, stated he was moving from his PGA West home because he no longer wanted to live in a gated community. This project will do nothing but enhance La Quinta. 17. Mr. David James, 44-495 Blazing Star Trail, stated he has been a resident of La Quinta for eight years with three children. There are a lot of private golfing facilities, but no place for those outside the private facilities to practice their golf swing. This type of facility is needed in the desert and he is very much in support of the project. 18. Mr. Rey Neufeld, 48-205 Paso Tiempo, stated he was speaking on behalf of others as well as himself. One of the reasons he moved to Rancho La Quinta is because the City has taken the time and effort to ensure that there is good visual aesthet,cs. He had taken the time to contact Mr. Tom Lyons of Imperial Irrigation District regarding the poles along Adams Street. He stated these poles are 61 feet above the ground. Commissioner Woodard stated the poles are "ugly" and he would agree with him. Mr. Neufeld stated he had taken some pictures in which he had drawn in the netting and towers to show PC I 1-12-97 9 Planning Commission Meeting November 12, 1997 what the potential impact of I I0-foot poles would be. These exhibits were taken at the 7th green to show the telephone poles and netting. Additional pictures were taken on Descanso Street and at the sales office on the south side of Lake La Quinta. In addition, the commercial building in the second phase was also of concern to him. 19. Commissioner Woodard asked Mr. Neufeld how he determined his pictures and drawings were accurate. Mr. Neufeld stated his figures were based on the height of the utility poles. Commissioner Woodard questioned the poles appearing to be closer than the III) poles. Discussion followed regarding the location of the power poles. 20. Mr. Jack Fleck, 48-425 Via Solano, stated his concern was that these towers would be highly visible from both Rancho La Quinta and Lake La Quinta. From his home he can look down into the proposed site. To say that it will not be visible, is not true. He also commented on the additional traffic and public safety problem as noted in the Sheriff's Department report. It is a good project, especially for the youth, but not here. In addition, the exposure of the children to a micro brewery in this location is of concern. He then read a letter from Assemblyman Jim Battin expressing his understanding of Mr. Fleck's concern. 21. Mr. Dave Sawyer, 48-380 Via Salano, stated he was a full time real estate appraiser, and his comments were based on his real estate experience. Pointing the lights to the north will not solve the problem. One thing buyers continually request of him is that they not put them near anything that is ugly, high power lines, etc. He has watched the appraisal process and an appraiser will make a negative adjustment when the developments cause visual downgrading. A mandatory disclosure will be placed on Rancho La Quinta to their potential buyers as to what is planned for the neighboring properties. He has seen potential buyers walk away because of these type of impacts. This will have an impact on property owners within Rancho La Quinta. 22. Mr. Robert Leccercq, 78-835 Descanso Drive, stated his objection and showed pictures of other driving ranges in Glendora with 100-foot netting and poles. This is a good project, but not for this location. PC 11-12-97 10 Planning Commission Meeting November 12, 1997 23. Commissioner Kirk asked that the applicant be shown the photographs taken by Mr. Neufeld. 24. Ms. Ann Madison, 78-735 Dulce Del Mar, stated her concern was with the lighting as they like to take their boat out onto the lake at Lake La Quinta at night and they will now see the lights and not the moon. The noise standards might not have been based on residential developments, but on commercial. They will hear all the noise from the ball hitting as well as the traffic. She was concerned that the City has a conflict of interest in regard to this project in that the City stands to gain from the purchase of this land. The City will profit more from a commercial project rather than a residential development. It appears to be a beautiful project, but not at this location. 25. Mr. Richard Agnello, 48-480 Via Solana, stated he has practiced law for 27 years in the County of Los Angeles. His background has caused him to be involved with developers who wanted to develop driving ranges, but most were in the outskirts of town and not in residential areas. He represented the Monterey Country Club in its litigation against the City of Palm Desert in regards to their ball fields. At those hearings they were assured that with the diffusing of the lights they would not affect the 187 residents on the south corridor of that development. They lost their case as the park is still operating. What he would like to point out is that development guaranteed the property owners that the lights would be diffused and lowered down and directed on the ball fields. If you are to visit there now you will find that the light pollution is tremendous. If this project moves forward and any litigation develops therefrom, any prospective buyer for a Rancho La Quinta property will have to be made aware of the pending litigation. When this happened at Monterey Country Club, potential buyers passed on the purchases. Financially, the impact on revenue would be devastating. How can the City go from a low density residential to a high density commercial directly across the street. He objects that this project can meet the Dark Sky Ordinance. He then read an article from the newspaper on the affect of the Palm Desert driving range. 26. Mr. Jake Batin, 47-415 Via Cordova, stated the three corners at this intersection are residential and Lake La Quinta is an investment in excess of $40 million and their property taxes are $5,500 a year on their property alone. Lake La Quinta is an open lake area and extends from one end of the project to the other. These lights and netting will be seen in both the daylight and PC 11-12-97 11 Planning Commission Meeting November 12, 1997 night time hours. This is a unique community and noise will be a problem. He would like to see a crane delivered to the site with a light placed at the height of towers so everyone can see the affect. 27. Chairman Butler read Commissioner Seaton's comments into the record stating that she was in objection to the project due to her concern of the aesthetics in the area and the impact on the scenic vistas. The mitigation measures do not eliminate her concerns as well as the objections raised by the residents. 28. Mr. Steve Lee, the architect for the project, stated this project meets the Dark Sky Ordinance and other requirements of the City. The noise study was based on 80 people hitting balls. The berming, building materials, and landscaping all work to diffuse the noise. Actual anticipated build out traffic volume is estimated to be 29,000 cars per day which generates 66 decibels and their facility is anticipated to be 46 decibels. The distance between the property line of Lake La Quinta and the first pole is 400 feet. They have planned this project to meet all of the City of La Quinta's zoning laws and requirements. A housing project will generate a higher traffic flow than this project. As far as the impact on housing, it is a point of view; the quality of life has to do with a community. This facility will provide a recreational use to the community that is needed. 29. Commissioner Kirk asked if Mr. Lee could address the photometric study; is this design better than the previous design in regard to the Dark Sky Ordinance. Mr. Lee went over the different lighting options that had been presented to the City for this project. Commissioner Kirk stated that although the developer is receptive to the City's concerns regarding the Dark Sky Ordinance, there are still some lighting impacts. Mr. Lee reminded the Commission that this project is exempt from meeting the Dark Sky Ordinance, but due to their concern to mitigate any potential negative impacts, they have tried in every way to meet the Dark Sky Ordinance. Commissioner Kirk stated that the Commission should consider revising the Zoning Code to see that this type of project be required to meet the Dark Sky Ordinance. 30. Commissioner Kirk stated he too was concerned with the aesthetics. The concerns that he is not as receptive to are traffic and noise. If this project is developed at a .35 floor area ratio as allowed by the Zoning Code, there would be significant amounts of commercial and office development and PC 11-12-97 12 Planning Commission Meeting November 12, 1997 significant amounts of traffic and noise. Hitting 80 golf balls at one time is not as significant a noise impact as the traffic will be. Real estate sales should have already been making the disclosure that commercial development is probable on this site. Concerning the comment that was made regarding the Commission's motivation, it is not based on what the City could or would potentially make from this project. This is a great project, but he is still concerned with the light. 31. Commissioner Gardner asked staff to give an example of what streets meet the same traffic demand as proposed. Senior Engineer Steve Speer clarified that the projec'., would not be generating the 29,000 trips. Traffic projections were based on the buildout of the City. This is based on the potential projects that could be built. This project will not come close to generating anywhere near this amount. The figure of 29,000 is what would be on Washington Street at Highway 111. Highway 111 currently only carries 26,000 trips. Commissioner Woodard asked staff if the projection in the future is to be 29,000. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated this is true, based on the entire City being built out. Commissioner Woodard asked if this project site were to be developed with residential would it be more or less. Staff stated that housing usually would be less than a commercial development. 32. Commissioner Gardner thanked staff for clarifying this figure. He has spent a lot of time at driving ranges and has lived next door to one, and the noise level is not as' as the traffic impact. There is a light impact concern. It is a well designed project and he would like to see it in La Quinta, but it is probably in the wrong location. In addition, he is concerned with the mandatory disclosure of the real estate laws and whether or not people in this area were aware this site was zoned commercial. 33. Commissioner Woodard complimented the applicant on his project and the planning that went into it. The issues raised are the same as in all projects. Traffic will be greater in the future due to the development of the City. In regard to noise, he visited a driving range at Newport Beach and the noise was insignificant. He drove through Lake La Quinta and from the lake, you are going to see the poles that hold up the netting. His concern is more with the daytime aesthetics than the nighttime. He is concerned with what distance should be required for real estate disclosures. It has been his objection from the beginning to not have commercial zoning next to PC 11-12-97 13 Planning Commission Meeting November 12, 1997 residential, but it is and these homes were bought knowing this area was zoned for commercial. He then asked staff to explain how this zoning came to be. Staff stated that the General Plan in 1985 designated this area as Regional Commercial. The zoning was not changed to reflect the General Plan but the use intent was commercial. In 1992, the General Plan was updated which maintained the Regional Commercial zoning and in 1996, the zoning was changed to reflect the General Plan. Rancho La Quanta was originally designed in 1977 before the City's incorporation. It was approved in the 1980's as The Grove, then it changed to The Pyramids in 1988-89 and then went into receivership and laterl bought by the Drummond Company in the early 1990's and became Rancho La Quinta. The houses were started in approximately 1992. Commissioner Woodard stated that if he was living in the first row of homes he would have taken a hard look about whether or not he would want to be next to the telephone poles along 48th Avenue and Adams Street. The first poles that will be seen from the Rancho La Quinta residents will be two football fields away. From the standpoint of the overview of the project, if the telephone poles did not exist, he would vote no for the project. The aesthetics of driving by a project that is as well designed and landscaped as this one is, will be much more aesthetically pleasing. 34. Commissioner Tyler stated he currently lives next to a golf course and his concern is more with the noise that is generated from the maintenance workers than this project. In regard to the question of whether or not he would have this in his back yard, this was originally proposed for his "backyard" and he was in favor of it then. It is his opinion that this project would be an asset to the City for numerous reasons. He went over corrections that needed to be made to the staff report. He spent time walking and driving around Rancho La Quinta and Lake La Quinta and he is very proud of these developments. It was his opinion that there are very few streets from where this project will be able to be seen. These homes will have more trouble from the proposed auto mall than this project. The houses along Descanso Lane are the closest, but the living area is in the front and designed to take their view from the south side onto the golf course. When you add up all the distances from those houses and take into account the landscaping, wall, width of the street, the setback on the south side of 48th Avenue, the width of 48th Avenue at 110 feet, and the landscaping on the other side, they are far apart. The project was developed to maximize the distance from these homes. He had read all the objections to the project and there were some very prominent PC 11-12-97 14 Planning Commission Meeting November 12, 1997 issues; some valid and some not. He went on to discuss the objections raised in relation to what is proposed with the project. The purpose of the Commission is to review projects based on their ability to meet the City's requirements. 35. Chairman Butler stated he too was concerned with the towers and netting. There is no way to change the effect of the netting. Although the applicant has worked hard to mitigate the lights, the lights will be seen. It is a project that is needed, but he would like to see it somewhere else. 36. Commissioner Abels stated he had sat on this Commission when this project was originally proposed at Miles Avenue and Washington Street. He is pro - business for La Quinta and believes this is a fine project for La Quinta. If everyone objects to this in their back yard, then there is no place for it to be built. In his opinion he does not believe this will project will have a negative effect on the neighborhood. 37. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97-073 recommending to the City Council approval of a Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 97-344 according to the Findings set forth in the attached Resolution. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Tyler, and Woodard. NOES: Commissioners Butler and Gardner. ABSENT: Commissioner Seaton. ABSTAIN: None. 38. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Abels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97-074 recommending to the City Council approval of Specific Plan 97-030. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Tyler, and Woodard. NOES: Commissioners Butler and Gardner. ABSENT: Commissioner Seaton. ABSTAIN: None. PC 11-12-97 15 Planning Commission Meeting November 12, 1997 39. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97-075 recommending to the City Council approval of Site Development Permit 97-075 to allow construction of a lighted golf range with a 12,546 square foot building and a 1,000 square foot maintenance building at the northeast corner of Adams Street and 48th Avenue subject to amendments to Conditions 14.B., 20.A., and 38. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Tyler, and Woodard. NOES: Commissioners Butler and Gardner. ABSENT: Commissioner Seaton. ABSTAIN: None. 40. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Kirk to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97-076 recommending approval to the City Council of Conditional Use Permit 97-035, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Tyler, and Woodard. NOES: Commissioners Butler and Gardner. ABSENT: Commissioner Seaton. ABSTAIN: None. VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: None VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None VIII. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS: 13 Commission discussion regarding the landscaping at Home Depot. Commissioner Woodard stated that he had spoken with staff regarding this issue and according to what he understood, Caltrans would not allow any berming or change in elevation within the first 12-feet. Home Depot is not willing to make any changes to the remaining 20 feet which can be modified. He would therefore, like to strongly recommend that this Commission write a letter to the Council asking them to address their concerns to the applicant. Staff stated that the Conditions of Approval allowed options for screening. Home Depot chose the additional landscaping which is currently being planted. PC 11-12-97 16 Planning Commission Meeting November 12, 1997 2. Commissioner Gardner stated that Home Depot is notorious for causing the social economic downfall of the cities they reside in. Is there not something the City can do to make them comply? City Attorney Dawn Honeywell pointed out that they are complying with every condition as written. 3. Commissioner Woodard stated the Conditions were not written in a manner that would require them to meet the Commission's intent. 4. Commissioner Gardner asked if nothing could be done to resolve this issue, such as revoking their business license, etc. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated they have improved and upgraded the landscaping that was originally installed. Even though they were approved prior to the new Highway 111 Guidelines, they have added the additional landscaping. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated that some of the delays were due to the time constraints in dealing with Caltrans. B. Status of the used car lot on Highway 111. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated that the owner has evicted the used car dealer and staff is working with the owner to resolve the outstanding issues regarding landscaping lighting and cars parked in the dirt. C. Discussion regarding a Cooperative Agreement with Riverside County regarding the proliferation of signs on adjoining boundaries. Staff stated they are working to obtain a report for Council to see what they would like to do regarding this issue. Chairman Butler asked about the flying of the American flag by a development on Fred Waring Drive for advertising purposes. Staff stated they are not allowed to have more than what is allowed by Code. Staff will speak with the Code Enforcement Division to see that the developer complies with the regulations. Chairman Butler asked if there are developers that repeatedly violate regulations, could fines be issued prior to any Certificates of Occupancy being issued. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that some changes have been made to allow cities to adopt framework for administrative type fines. There has been no direction by Council to investigate or look into doing this in La Quinta. Chairman Butler stated he would like to recover the City's cost to enforce these requirements. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated there is some ability to require developers to pay the City's cost to enforce these regulations. Discussion followed regarding potential solutions. PC11-12-97 17 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A Regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California November 25, 1997 I. CALL TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman Butler who asked Commissioner Tyler to lead the flag salute. B. Chairman Butler requested the roll call: Present: Commissioners Gardner, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman Butler. C. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to excuse Commissioners Abels, Seaton, and Woodard. Unanimously approved. D. Staff Present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Dawn Honeywell, Planning Manager Christine di Iorio, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Chairman Butler asked. if there was a Department Report. There was none. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Sign Permit 97-402; a request of Roger Snellenberger and Associates for approval of two permanent project identification signs for the Bella Vista development at the northeast corner of Fred Waring Drive and Venice Drive pursuant to provisions of Chapter 9.160 (Signs) of the Zoning Code. PC 1 1-25-97 Planning Commission Meeting November 25, 1997 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 noted that subdivision flags, that had not been processed under a Minor Temporary Use Permit for approval, were presently installed along the frontage of the site and staff is requesting that the applicant submit their plans for the flags and reduce the number of 20 flags to eight. 2. Chairman Butler asked if the location of the sign permit is for the main entrance or at the signal. Staff clarified it was for the main entrance into the tract, east of the proposed signal. 3. Chairman Butler asked is there was any illumination proposed for the sign. Staff stated none had been proposed. Community Development Director Jerry Herman noted that if any were proposed for in the future, it would require staff approval only. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated it would be for external illumination or uplighting, if they were to propose any. 4. Commissioner Tyler asked staff for clarification as to whether the signs were to be free standing or affixed. Staff stated the Sign Ordinance states that freestanding signs can be affixed to a wall under the signs requirements for a residential district with a sign permit. Commissioner Tyler asked that this be reviewed during the updating of the Zoning Code. 5. Chairman Butler asked if the applicant wished to address the Commission. Mr. Don Olson, with Roger Snellenberger and Associates, clarified that it was their intention to illuminate the sign by the use of uplighted lights. Staff noted that the lights specifications would need to be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval. Mr. Olson noted that eight project flags were currently up and 13 American flags. One for each lot that is adjacent to Fred Waring Drive. He expressed his concern that they would not be allowed to fly the American flag. They have never been told they cannot fly the American flag nor any concern as to how many. It is something they would like the Commission to reconsider. They have reduced the number down to 13 and can't understand why they are even being requested to do this. 6. Commissioner Kirk asked which flags had been reduced. Mr. Olson stated they had reduced the number of American flags and went on to explain how they had been displayed. PC 11-25-97 2 Planning Commission Meeting November 25, 1997 7. Commissioner Kirk asked staff to verify that the eight flags were allowed. Staff noted eight were allowed with the filing of a Minor Use Permit and no permit had been issued as of this meeting. Commissioner Kirk asked if the applicant was aware that a permit was required. Mr. Olson stated they were not aware that a separate permit was needed. It was their understanding that it was included in their sign permit. The application was filed by their sign company and it had not come to their attention. It is an oversight that will be taken care of. 8. Commissioner Kirk asked if the eight flags had to be project flags or could they be any type of flag. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated there is no content restriction on the flags. They can fly any flag they want. The City is regulating the time, place, manner, and number of signs in which case the flag is likened to a sign. It is the total number that is being regulated not the content. Commissioner Kirk asked if the applicant was concerned with the number of flags that were being required. Mr. Olson stated he has no objection to the number of project flags that are being regulated. It is their belief that the number of American flags should not be governed. Commissioner Kirk asked if the flags would remain once the houses are sold. Mr. Olson stated they would be removed once the units were sold. Commissioner Kirk asked if patriotism continued beyond the selling of the units. Mr. Olson stated he hoped that every homeowner would be proud to fly the flag. Commissioner Kirk noted that the flags may be up for patriotic reasons, but largely they were there to advertise the project. If the argument was that flags had to be up to show how patriotic we were, they should be everywhere and not just new projects. His concern was that the flags were being used to sell homes. Mr. Olson stated that was not their intention. 9. Commissioner Gardner stated he concurred with Commissioner Kirk. In addition, he questioned the logo for the sign of Bella Vista in that it appeared to resemble the logo at PGA West and wondered if this was a conflict. Mr. Olson stated it was not exact. It was created by the sign company and it was an emblem that he created ten years. 10. Mr. Olson stated he had a disagreement with the comments that were made by the City Attorney in regard to the flags they were flying. The City has a standard flag size and it does not fit the American flag size. In addition, they have always flown American flags at all their developments. They would be PC 1 1-25-97 3 Planning Commission Meeting November 25, 1997 willing to leave the flags up after the properties are sold, but as they do not own the property at that time, it is not their decision. It is their desire to fly the flag at every development they have in process. 11. Commissioner Gardner asked staff to look at the size of flags that are listed in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Olson also stated that he had raised the question that a neighboring developer was allowed 16 flags because they had two tracts next to each other. 12. Chairman Butler stated he lived in this area and the American flags do not come down at night as stated by Mr. Olson. That in itself is a violation. If the American flag is to be flown at night, it is to be lighted. The flags at Quinterra were not lighted and in his opinion, he was in violation of the City's ordinance. If Mr. Olson would like to discuss the flying of the American flag as a patriotic issue, then all Commissioners agree and fly the flag on every holiday. In his opinion, this whole issue is about advertising. He would urge him to continue flying his flags, American or project, as long as only eight are flown. To infer by way of a letter addressed to the Commission that the Commission is unpatriotic, is totally out of reason. No Commissioner objects to the flying of the American flag as long it is done in the appropriate manner. If it is flown for the purposes of advertising, then he completely objects. 13. Commissioner Tyler stated he too was a veteran and flies his flag on holidays and he agrees with his fellow Commissioners that to say these flags are being flown as a matter of patriotism, is a stretch of the imagination. The Commission is here to see that the project meets the City's ordinance and that ordinance allows only eight flags. Rather than belabor this issue, he would like to ask the City Attorney to give an opinion as to whether the American flag goes beyond the advertising flags that are allowed. Mr. Snellenberger stated that according to the City's ordinance, there is no way he could fly the American flag due to the size restrictions. Commissioner Tyler stated it was not an issue of the size of the American flag, but the number of flags. 14. Commissioner Tyler questioned the wrought iron segment of the perimeter wall along Fred Waring Drive and asked if that would be replaced with a solid wall upon the selling of the models. Mr. Snellenberger stated that it would be replaced with a solid wall. Commissioner Tyler commended him for lighting the sign as it is difficult to see the signs at night. PC 1 1-25-97 4 Planning Commission Meeting November 25, 1997 15. Community Development Director Jerry Herman asked Mr. Snellenberger what size American flag he was using. Mr. Snellenberger stated they were three feet by five feet. Staff pointed out that the Ordinance allows up to 18 square feet. Therefore, the flags meet the sign requirements of the Ordinance. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated the staff s recommendation is that the developer comply with the City's ordinances for flags which states a number of eight flags under 18 square feet each are permitted. As far as flags flown at individual residences, the City has a standard that does not require a permit and fits within the definition of temporary/decorative flags and gives a size specification. 16. Mr. Snellenberger stated he owns the 13 lots and should be allowed to fly a flag at his individual lots. Chairman Butler asked staff for a clarification. Staff stated the flags would not be flown on the perimeter of the property. Community Development Director Jerry Herman suggested that the item be continued to allow the City Attorney time to prepare an opinion. 17. Chairman Butler stated he would also like to point out that if the American flag is to be displayed, the Code should define how it is to be displayed. If at night, it should be lighted or removed. Discussion followed. 18. Following discussion, Community Development Director Jerry Herman suggested that since there was a dispute as to whether or not the American flag should be counted as part of the subdivision flags, he would recommend Mr. Snellenberger remove his tract flags and leave the eight American flags up until the City Attorney can render an opinion on the American flag. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell suggested he be allowed to keep whatever eight flags he chooses until the issue is researched. Obviously, the City's Code does not allow the additional flags and as we do not know at this time whether or not there is a Federal law that overrides local control on time, place, and manner of signs, the developer is permitted to have his eight flags. 19. There being no further discussion, it was moved by Commissioners Gardner to adopt Minute Motion 97-014 approving Sign Permit 97-402. 20. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio asked for clarification on the Conditions of Approval to state that all temporary subdivision flags would be removed with the exception of eight and submitted to the Community Development PC 1 I -25-97 5 Planning Commission Meeting November 25, 1997 Department for review and approval. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell asked that another condition be added that upon final review by the City Attorney if it is determined that Federal law requires allowance of the American flag under any condition different than what is provided by the City, the developer would then be allowed the additional flags. 21. Mr. Snellenberger stated he was unaware that the Ordinance allows only eight flags per model home complex. There has to be a model complex in order to have the flags. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the whole purpose of the flags is for new development model home complexes. Mr. Snellenberger asked what would happen if he was building spec homes with no models. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated that one of the spec homes would then become the model. Discussion followed regarding how the ordinance came to be adopted. 22. Commissioner Kirk stated that it might take some time for the City Attorney to research the case law regarding the flags, and asked about the issue of the First Amendment. As the applicant owns all thirteen properties within one subdivision, and it is assumed that the Sign Ordinance and appropriate case law is related to the First Amendment. Then his right to free speech would allow him one American flag to exhibit his patriotism and it would not be necessary to allow him to fly the American flag for every piece of property he owns. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that is correct. As long as he has the opportunity to express the thought in a reasonable manner, then that will be balanced against the communities right to not have visual blight. It is her assumption that a certain number of flags in a relatively small area is going to be deemed to be sufficient to transmit the message that he wants to state. Going beyond that the local municipalities have the right to regulate how many of the same messages need to be allowed. Commissioner Kirk stated that based on this information, there does not seem to be a need to continue this item unless the City Attorney determines it to be necessary. I le would prefer to move forward to make a recommendation. 23. Chairman Butler stated he agreed with Commissioner Kirk, but part of the approval for this sign is to have the signs done correctly. The monument signs are going to be approved based on a modification of the signs that are currently in place. 24. Commissioner Gardner withdrew his motion. PC 1 1-25-97 6 Planning Commission Meeting November 25, 1997 25. It was moved and seconded by Commissioner Kirk/Tyler to adopt Minute Motion 97-014 approving Sign Permit 97-402, subject to the Conditions of Approval as modified to allow eight temporary subdivision flags. Unanimously approved. VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None VIII. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS: A. Commissioner Gardner stated he was receiving complaints about Home Depot and their lack of vegetation, and asked staff what decisions had been made in reference to this item. Staff noted that all changes had been made with the exception of removing some Pepper trees from Highway 111. They had already changed 30 trees and replaced them with larger box size trees in the parking lot. Commissioner Gardner stated he hoped this would serve as an example of what the City did not want. B. Commissioner Gardner asked staff who was responsible for the completion of the medians. Staff noted that the City Council had allocated funds from the Capital Improvement projects so that certain medians would be completed this year and next. It is a fiscal decision by the City Council as to when the funds would be expended for the completion of the medians. Staff would see that Commissioner Gardner received a copy of the Capital Improvement Program. Commissioner Tyler stated he concurred with Commissioner Gardner and pointed out that one of the most visible medians that is not completed, is the Eisenhower Drive median. Community Development Director Jerry Herman noted this was a separate issue as this median was a joint project between the City and KSL to have additional landscaping added beyond what the City had allocated funds. The problem currently is that Coachella Valley Water District will not sign off on the plans for the median because they believe the landscaping exceeds what they believe is appropriate for efficient water usage. The City is now waiting for CVWD to sign off on the plans before proceeding. C. Commissioner Kirk stated his concern was with the lighting in the Washington Street medians. Staff stated they had met with the lighting consultant and the Public Works Department to determine what needed to be done. They were informed by the lighting consultant that they are burning the lights during the day because after 100 PC I I -25-97 7 Planning Commission Meeting November 25, 1997 hours, the glare goes down 20%. Secondly, they brought in a opaque plastic cover so the light source can no longer be seen which reduces the level of lighting. Their goal is to reduce the glare by reducing the light intensity with the burn off as well as replacing the lenses. Commissioner Kirk asked if the City would be in compliance with the Dark Sky Ordinance with these changes. Staff stated yes with the exception of the lights not shining downward. Commissioner Kirk stated he would like to see revisions in the Zoning Ordinance to require the City to conform with the same regulations as developers. Staff stated they could speak with the lighting consultant to hood the lights. Discussion followed regarding landscape lighting. D. Commissioner Tyler gave a report of the City Council meeting of November 18, 1997 and Special Meeting of November 24, 1997. He further offered his apology for his actions at the Planning Commission meeting of November 12, 1997. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Gardner/Tyler to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held on December 9, 1997, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 7:55 p.m. on November 25, 1997. PC 11-25-97 8 Planning Commission Meeting December 9, 1997 1. Commissioner Gardner asked to be excused due to a possible conflict of interest. 2. Chairman Butler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 3. Chairman Butler asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Woodard asked if there were any other uses for this site. Staff stated the property was acquired by KSL and sold to the Homeowners' Association. Commissioner Woodard asked if the neighboring property owners were aware of this project. Staff stated a notice was mailed to each property owner within 500-feet. In addition, the applicant had held two meetings with the neighboring property owners on -site. 4. Commissioner Woodard asked how may employees would be on site. Staff stated the facility is to accommodate the existing employees. Commissioner Woodard stated his problem was with the amount of landscaping at the entrance to the facility. It was his opinion that additional landscaping was needed but, he did not want it to be a detriment to the operations of the facility. Staff stated they were providing more parking than what was required by the Code. Commissioner Woodard asked how the parking was determined. Staff stated it was based on a formula in the 'Zoning Code. 5. Commissioner Woodard stated that the property owners across the street originally bought with the intention that houses would be on this site. Staff stated no negative comments had been received from the adjoining property owners. 6. Commissioner Woodard asked if the ten foot landscaped area along Winged Foot. will be different on the top of the road to the top of the berm where the wall will be located. Staff stated that along Winged Foot there is the existing curb, ten foot berm and the wall and then a small landscaped strip. Commissioner Woodard asked if the houses across the street were setback 25-feet. Staff stated they averaged 20-25 feet and larger. Commissioner Woodard stated that as you drive along Southern Hills there are walled -in areas. Staff explained the wall configuration to the north of the site. PC' 12-9-97 2 Planning Commission Meeting December 9, 1997 7. Commissioner Tyler asked staff to explain what was proposed for the wall on the east side of Southern Hills. Staff explained Exhibit A-4. 8. Commissioner Tyler stated there was a community swimming pool at the corner of Winged Foot and Southern Hills on the south side, and asked staff to identify where the termination of the three foot high wall was located and the transition to the six foot wall relative to the adjoining property owner. Staff explained the construction of the wall that was to transition around the corners for visibility. The 45-degree diagonal wall transition proposed is acceptable. Commissioner Tyler stated his concern was what the residents at the corner, and next to that house, would see across the street. Discussion followed regarding the wall configuration and the view from the neighboring properties. 9. Commissioner Seaton asked what the problem was with the bike path and traffic. Staff sated the bikepath crossed at the exit/entrance to the facility on Madison Street and they need to be sure that individuals exiting/entering are aware of any bicyclists. It is a right in/right-out which will help. Commissioner Seaton asked if signage would help. Discussion followed as to possible solutions. 10. Chairman Butler read a letter from Mr. Paul Valenti, Jr., a property owner on Winged Foot within PGA West into the record. 11. Chairman Butler asked if the applicant wished to address the Commission. Mr. Don Hodges, La Jolla, architect for the project, stated he would like to address some of the questions raised by the Commissioners. Mr. Hodges explained that the colored elevations shown to the Commission had been prepared and used in their presentation to the homeowners. Additional landscaping would be added and some parking spaces would be eliminated to accommodate this. The gates on Southern Hills would be left open to allow residents access to the parking lot during board meetings. The Madison Street doors would also remain open so vendors would not pass through the security gates. Additional parking was added due to the duality of the use. The facility design had been reviewed by KSL as well as the homeowners and both had approved them. In contrast to staff recommendation, they would like to keep the six foot wall along Southern Hills. The site is currently three to four feet higher than the surrounding terrain. They are exporting dirt, but will be leaving some of the dirt to allow the walls to have a higher elevation to shield the building from view. This PC 12-9-97 3 Planning Commission Meeting December 9, 1997 is why they are requesting to keep the four foot high landscape setback on Winged Foot and the three foot high bank on Southern Hills and the six foot wall on both sides. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell stated that in discussions with the Ms. Mac Galliard, a three foot high berm with the six foot high wall would be processed. Ms. Mac Galliard stated she did not want to revise the plans and staff would redline the plans to the three foot berm and six foot high wall and these are the plans that have been shown to the Commission. Mr. Hodges explained along Winged Foot they are requesting to keep the three foot berm and six foot wall along Winged Foot. Commissioner Woodard asked as opposed to what. Mr. Hodges stated as opposed to having a three foot wall from the point indicated westerly. In contrast staff is recommending a three foot wall on a three foot berm. Their purpose is to tie into the existing wall. The height of the wall is to screen the building. The landscaping and wall will be more attractive and will reduce any noise generated. The higher wall was presented to KSL and the surrounding property owners and approved by both. Commissioner Woodard noted that if the Commission were to change the berm or wall, it would not be known to KSL or the surrounding property owners. 12. Mr. Hodges noted their second issue with staff s recommendation is the mansard roof. The roof could be called a mansard roof or a hip roof that is truncated on t?ie top and has a roof well. It was their intent to place the mechanical equipment in the roof wells and the roof wells are a part of the acoustical performance of the building. If the HVAC equipment is taken off the roof and placed on the ground, the acoustical report is uncertain and a less satisfactory solution. The Specific Plan does not call for a hip or gable roof, it states "roofing materials shall be limited to concrete base or clay tile materials in barrel tile or shade type forms and predominate exterior building material". The Architectural Design Guidelines for the Homeowners' Association states that artificial mansard roofs will not be allowed and these plans have been reviewed and approved by the Architectural Design Committee for PGA West. 13. Mr. Hodges went on to state that thirdly, the 12-foot high roll -up garage doors are on the south side of the facility are needed on both ends for flow - through for vehicular access. Therefore, they would not like to have them eliminated. The south side doors will remain closed at all times except for access for and security purposes. He went on to explain the workings of the facility. PC ] 2-9-97 4 Planning Commission Meeting December 9, 1997 14. Commissioner Woodard stated he had an issue with the amount of landscaping and amount of parking and asked Mr. Hodges to explain how the workers come and go. Mr. Mike Walker, PGA West Residential Association General Manager, stated there are 24 employees of the Homeowners' Association who work on the property. They currently contract with a company for landscape maintenance of the entire 1300 homes, swimming pools, and a considerable amount of common area. During a normal work period there are an additional 45-50 gardeners. During seasonal times for planting of flowers or pruning of trees, there could be an additional 30-40 employees. This was how the number of parking spaces was determined. Vendors parking is sporadic as they come and go. On a daily basis there may be 26 homeowners who come to the site each day. Commissioner Woodard stated this added up to 80-100 people. Discussion followed regarding the proposed parking. 15. Commissioner Woodard asked if the tile would be a concrete Spanish - looking tile. Mr. Hodges stated it would be. Commissioner Woodard asked how the height of the vehicular traffic was that would be going through the building. Mr. Hodges stated the smaller trucks that would fit in the 12-foot high doors. Commissioner Woodard asked about the security needed on the east side. Mr Hodges explained there were circulation lanes on both the south and north sides, there is a need of a 50/50 allocation of the warehouse space, it works out well to have a divided line in the middle with access to both sides. His comment regarding security, was that if the Commission was concerned that the doors on the south side would remain open and not mitigate the noise for the neighbors, he wanted the Commission to know they would not have them open as it would be a security problem for them. 16. Commissioner Woodard asked how they were handling their surface drainage. Mr. Hodges stated they were working with the Engineering Department to formulate a plan. There is a storm drain across Winged Foot that goes to an on -site lake. They are directing their storm water to this existing underground storm system. 17. Commissioner Tyler asked if the maintenance facility was air conditioned. Mr. l lodges stated the back of the facility will have an evaporative cooler and the front will (offices) be air conditioned. 18. Mr. Paul Chasey, President of the Homeowners' Association, stated he would like to address the question that had been raised regarding an alternative use for this site. lie went on to explain that this property had been acquired from PC 12-9-97 5 Planning Commission Meeting December 9, 1997 the Resolution Trust Company in a settlement based on a filing they had made. In order to settle the bankruptcy they were deeded the 1.93 acres to the homeowners in 1993. Their complaint to the RTC was based on the fact that the original Landmark plan submitted to the City in 1984, included a maintenance and office site on 54`' Avenue and was never built and subsequently sold to Sunrise Company for the construction of homes. In order to settle the bankruptcy, they deeded the 1.9 acres to them. Since then, they have been working with KSL to determine whether or not there was an alternate site :"or this facility. KSL determined there was no other site they could swap for the facility. Therefore, they moved forward to make this site as architecturally compatible with the neighborhood in regards to sound and traffic to make acceptable to the homeowners at this location. KSL was in the process of trying to sell homes on Winged Foot and represented this plan, with the bermed walls, to the prospective buyers. They purchased their homes based on this representation. This is why KSL has written a letter in strong support of this plan. 19. Commissioner Tyler asked what the setback was for this wall during that presentation. Mr. Chasey stated it was his understanding it would be a ten foot setback on Winged Foot. 20. Commissioner Woodard asked Mr. Chasey what the affect would be on their agreement with KSL, if the Commission concurred with staffs recommendation for a lower wall. Mr. Chasey stated it would put them in jeopardy because it violates their agreement with KSL and he would not know what position they would take. 21. Commissioner Woodard stated he was not pleased with the architecture or straight perimeter wall. They were not meeting the same design requirement for this building that they imposed on individual homeowners. In particular, the mansard roof. Mr. Hodges explained the Design Guidelines state that no artificially applied mansard can be used. It is their opinion that this is not an artificially applied mansard roof, but a hip roof. Commissioner Woodard discussed the difference between an artificial mansard roof and mansard roof with Mr. Hodges. 22. Commissioner Abels asked why staff was requesting a three foot wall. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated it was to obtain some design variation and compatibility with the adjacent six foot high wall at the CVWD well site. Commissioner Abels stated he would prefer to agree with the Homeowners' Association. PC 12-9-97 6 Planning Commission Meeting December 9, 1997 23. Ms. Kelly Mac Galliard, Operations Manager for the Homeowners' Association, showed a photograph of the existing walls and roll up doors to explain the setback and height of the structure to be constructed. She had also inquired if complaints had been received regarding the noise or any other issue relating to the doors of this facility and had been told no. 24. There being no further public comment, Chairman Butler closed the public comment portion of this hearing and opened the item for Commission discussion. 25. Commissioner Tyler stated that if staff s recommended change in the roof was required it would be a taller building which would be more conspicuous to the neighbors. His preference would be for the roof as proposed by the applicant. In regard to the wall, he suggested truncating the wall and making a low landscape area to solve the problem. He agreed with Commissioner Abels that if the residents and KSL had agreed with the six foot wall, then maybe they should agree. Regarding the roll -up doors on the south end, it is his opinion that the north end doors could be used for the same purpose of unloading materials and eliminate the need for the south doors. 26. Commissioner Seaton stated she had no problem with the design as presented and she had no issue with the six foot wall. 27. Chairman Butler stated he was concerned with the parking situation. There appears to be a burden on the site to control the parking and it appears that Madison Street will be the source to alleviate this. Even though he is in favor of the additional landscaping, he does not want to loose parking. During the season, the need for additional employee parking may or may not be an issue for the HOA, but the issue of how this would affect the traffic on Madison is a concern the Commission should consider. The roll -up doors were not an issue to him. 28. Commissioner Woodard stated that he had no problem with the building if it were relocated. But as it is adjacent to homes, it should be more compatible. Therefore, he would like to see three issues addressed: a. Two perking stalls removed at the Southern Hills entrance and additional landscaping planted; b. Stamped concrete or a paving material used at the entrance; PC 12-9-97 7 Planning Commission Meeting December 9, 1997 C. He does not agree with the architect that this is not a mansard roof. A silhouette could be used to enhance the design. The architect could drop down and come back into a double hip roof and the area in the middle of the roof be flat and in the front of the building he could come back with two hip roof to break up the one continuous line. A second suggestion would be for them to come back with some walls that would exceed and break into the roof fascia line and disrupt the one continuous on -going fascia that goes around the building; d. The wall should be undulated to break it up. Different materials could be used, different openings, or different setbacks to the walls to get away from the maintenance building look. 29. Commissioner Tyler stated that anything would be better than what is there currently. He does not agree with the scenario made by Commissioner Woodard in regard to the look into the facility. They are talking about the need for parking and he is recommending the removal of parking for landscaping. Commissioner Woodard explained that as you drive by, or live across the street from the facility, all you see is sidewalk, wall, paving, and parking. The surfaced area at the entrance should be softened for the neighbors. 30. Chairman Butler stated he thought there was enough landscaping at the entrance to sofi:en it without having to give up parking, but would agree with the stamped ar..d colored concrete to soften the look. 32. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97- 077 certifying a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 97-348. Staff stated there are mitigation measures which deal with the roof, wall and roll up doors and the Commission must identify those areas that need to be changed in the Environmental Assessment. Following discussion it was confirmed by the maker and second of the motion that the following areas would be modified in the Environmental Assessment to conform with the Commission's motion: a. The roll -up doors are to remain as presented by the applicant. b. The wall will remain as proposed by the applicant. C. The roof will remain as proposed by the applicant. PC12-9-97 8 Planning Commission Meeting December 9, 1997 ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Seaton, Tyler, and Chairman Butler. NOES: Commissioner Woodard. ABSENT: Commissioners Gardner and Kirk. ABSTAIN: None. 33. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97-078 approving Site Development Permit 97-615, subject to the Conditions of Approval as modified: a. No 19 changed to delete the requirement for the three-foot high wall; b. No. 50 deleted C. No. 49 deleted d. A new Condition would be added to require stamped concrete at the entrance. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Seaton, Tyler, and Chairman Butler. NOES. Woodard. ABSENT: Commissioners Gardner and Kirk. ABSTAIN: None. Commissioner Gardner rejoined the Commission. VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: Chairman Butler excused himself due to a possible conflict of interest for the next agendized item and turned the meeting over to Vice Chairman Woodard. A. Tentative Tract 25953. Revised; a request of Oliphant and Williams Associates, Inc., for approval of an Elevation C for each of the three approved prototype houses (Plan 1-3) located on the northwest corner of Miles Avenue and Dune Palms Road. 1. Vice Chairman Woodard asked for the staff report. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Vice Chairman Woodard asked if there were any questions of staff. There being no questions of staff, Vice Chairman Woodard asked if the applicant wished to address the Commission. 3. As the applicant had no comments and there being no other public comment, the item was open for Commission discussion. PC 12-9-97 9 Planning Commission Meeting December 9, 1997 4. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to adopt Minute Motion 97-015 approving Tentative Tract Map 25953, Revised, Elevation C as proposed. Vice Chairman Woodard asked Commissioner Tyler if he thought the competitiveness of the garage elevations on these three plans was somewhat similar. Should this be a design problem for the Commission? Commissioner Tyler states it should be a concern, but there isn't much you could do with a three car garage facing the street. 6. There being no other discussion, the motion was unanimously approved. Chairman Butler returned to the dias and assumed the chair. B. Site Development Permit 97-611; a request of Century -Crowell Communities for approval of a new prototype single-family house plan for Tract 27899 - Marbella, located at the southeast corner of Miles Avenue and Adams Street. l . Chairman Butler asked for the staff report. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff reminded the Commission that this plan had been initially reviewed and in the revision that occurred is the bedroom that was converted to a dining room allowing the two car garage. 2. Chairman Butler asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler asked if the bedroom next to the garage was guaranteed to remain a bedroom or could it become a bonus room or third stall for the garage. Staff stated that as designed it would remain a two car garage. If the lot was large enough the possibility existed that the garage could expanded and would be approved by staff. If a bonus room was proposed, it would have to come back to the Commission for review. 3. Commissioner Woodard commented on the distance the homeowner would have to walk to get from this bedroom to the bathroom. Commissioner Tyler stated his comment was based on the converted garage that had been done by Del Rey, to meet the square footage requirement for compatibility, and ended up with some strange floor plans. PC 12-9-97 10 Planning Commission Meeting December 9, 1997 4. Chairman Butler asked if the applicant wished to address the Commission. Mr. Ed Knight, Century -Crowell stated they concurred with staff's recommendation and informed the Commission that this produce had been approved by the Commission and was currently being built on an adjacent tract. 5. Commissioner Gardner asked what material was proposed to be used on the trim. Is it to be a dry material or left over material. His reason for asking is to have some dry material used on the one by fours and two by sixes. Mr. Knight stated it was his understanding that this was a relief that was added to the building so there wouldn't be a flat wall. 6. There being no further public comment, the item is open for Commission discussion. 7. Commissioner Woodard stated he would like to have the bedroom moved back a foot from the garage to break up the architectural elevation on Plan A. A-2 and B-2 need variation to the roof element. 8. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Woodard to adopt Minute Motion 97-016 approving Site Development Permit 97-611 as recommended. Unanimously approved. VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None VIII. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS: A. Commissioner Tyler gave a report of the City Council meeting of December 2, 1997. B. Commissioner Woodard took issue with comments that had been made by two of the Commissioners. It was his belief that the Commission had two primary responsibilities: land planning and design issues. They are to explore and comment on design as well as planning. As has been stated previously by Chairman Butler and Commissioner Abels, the Commission cannot be concerned with the cost incurred by the applicant. When he hears that the Commission should not be imposing or asking for design elements to be added if it is going to cost to much, or it is not within the Commission's purview because it has already been approved by some other person/body, it is his opinion that it flies in the face of the Commission's responsibility. He would therefore, like to have a clarification, or consensus, by the Commission that it is the Commission's responsibility to raise these issues and vote on these issues in a responsible way when they see it will enhance the quality of the City. PCA 2-9-97 11 Planning Commission Meeting December 9, 1997 1. Commissioner Abels stated that as far as cost is concerned, he did not remember where he had been concerned about a cost to the applicant, if it is a situation that will improve the project. He does feel that if a change is warranted then the Commission should request a change. Commissioner Woodard apologized if he was wrong in assuming he had. 2. Chairman Butler stated he too stood corrected, but in regard to changing a roof structure, he was concerned whether or not the Commission could make those changes without considering the financial consequences. He was therefore, questioning the structural changes, or cosmetic change, as a financial problem and did the Commission have that right. Therefore, he stands corrected, if that is not an issue then should not have raised it. As to raising this issue previously, he does not believe he has. Commissioner Woodard apologized if he was wrong in making this assumption. C. Commissioner Woodard stated he took exception with Commissioner Tyler's comments that the Commission should not consider issues that have been approved by others as this was beyond their purview to make any changes or recommendations. This should not be the basis for the Commission's design decisions. Their decisions should be made on what is good design and they have the responsibility, as charged legally to them, to evaluate design. 1. Commissioner Tyler commented that the plans that were before them at this meeting was a unique situation. It is contained within a gated community, with limited public access. It had been reviewed and approved by everyone that was to build it, use it, and the neighboring community. In his opinion, for the Commission to come along and put their own individual spin on the plan, is outside the Commission's purview. 2. Commissioner Woodard asked if the Commission should have any responsibility to review design for those projects within a gated community. Commissioner Tyler stated that most gated communities have their own internal architectural review and the Commission should be sensitive to their approvals. 3. Commissioner Woodard stated that the Commission has agreed in the past that the commercial buildings along Highway 111, the continuous silhouette, is a detriment to the environment of Highway 111. If that is an appropriate design concern, it seems that the Commission has the same concern to express and act upon the same situation when it prevails again. Commissioner Tyler stated his point was that there isn't a lot of drive by PC 12-9-97 12 Planning Commission Meeting December 9, 1997 traffic to view it and the design had been approved by everyone who would be affected. In his opinion, for the Commission to say they did not like the way it is designed after the design has been made because they think it looks better this way, is unfair. No two architects will ever design the same. 4. Commissioner Woodard stated that the Commission has a responsibility to express and vote on design guidelines. 5. Commissioner Abels stated that if the Commission does not believe it is compatible, they should comment on it. Streetscapes are important and even though it is within a gated community and they have architectural review committees, if it is not compatible they should comment. 6. Commissioner Woodard stated his reason for bring this issue up is to have a clarification and confirmation between the Commissioners as to whether not it is the Commission's responsibility. It is his understanding from legal counsel and staff that this is a responsibility of the Commission, but he is uncertain as to whether or not the Commission views it as their responsibility. 7. Commissioner Abels stated the reason the Design Review Board was eliminated was that their responsibilities were transferred to this Commission. 8. Chairman Butler stated that the design function is appropriate of the Commission, but again he has to raise the issue that if study sessions were available to the Commission, it might shorten and lighten the burden of the Commission and the applicant. The Commission does deal on architecture and landscaping, that from the developers standpoint, does increase their expense, and the Commission should take this into consideration as they do not want to burden the developer with additional expenses that need not be required with a little foresight on the Commission part. It seems that in some instances, as a body, they make changes, and as a second thought, realize maybe it should not have been required, but the Council does. There needs to be a way to deal with design issues without taking so much time in the meeting. 9. Commissioner Abels stated that the Commission should try to make La Quinta the most aesthetically pleasing City whether or not it steps on someone's toes. PC 12-9-97 13 Planning Commission Meeting December 9, 1997 10. Chairman Butler stated he agreed, but the applicant should be made aware that those potentials could occurred and that staff does not have the final say when it comes to the architectural design or landscaping when it comes to these projects, and be ready to make some changes, even if they are major changes. 11. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated this is what staff is asking the Commission to do and the applicant's are made aware of the fact that the Commission may require changes. 12. Commissioner Gardner stated there are areas that could have been done better. He is in favor of making suggestions to the developer totally from the standpoint of review and not with respect to cost. This is the charge they have as Commissioners. They do get caught up on the cost issue, but it should be removed from their thought process as best they can. Just because it is behind the gate, they should not pass up their responsibilities. It some point in time, it may become public, and someone may ask why the Commission approved something in the best interest of La Quinta. D. Commissioner Tyler asked when the League of California Cities meeting will be. Staff is to notify Commissioners. l:. Commissioner Tyler reported on the Strategic Vision for County Government - Overview. 1. Commissioner Gardner commented on a newspaper article regarding public involvement in local government. In his opinion, Commissioners should encourage the public to attend these meetings. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Woodard to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held on December 23, 1997, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. on December 9, 1997. PC 12-9-97 14 PH #A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: DECEMBER 23, 1997 CASE NOS.: SPECIFIC PLAN 85-006, AMENDMENT #2 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-037 REQUEST: APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE OAK TREE WEST SPECIFIC PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF INTERIM POLO/SPORTS FIELDS WITH EXTERIOR LIGHTING LOCATION: NORTHWEST CORNER OF JEFFERSON STREET AND 54T" AVENUE, WITHIN OAK TREE WEST SPECIFIC PLAN AREA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THIS REQUEST IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPTED PURSUANT TO THE GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, SECTION 15304, CLASS 4E. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: RESIDENTIAL AND GOLF COURSE ZONING: RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE: The applicants have asked to continue the consideration of this request to the meeting of January 13, 1997, in order to allow them additional time for preparation. c:\pc sp85-006-cup97-037 RECOMMENDATION: Continue the public hearing to the meeting of January 13, 1997. Prepared by: Stan B. Sawa, Principal Planner Submitted by: Christine di lorio, Planning Manager c:\pc sp85-006-cup97-037 BI #A STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: DECEMBER 23, 1997 CASE NO.: SIGN PERMIT 97-411 APPLICANT: CENTURY-CROWELL COMMUNITIES (MR. ED KNIGHT, PROJECT DIRECTOR) REQUEST: APPROVAL OF ONE POERRMANENT PRO E CT IDENTIFICATION SIGN THE LA DEVELOPMENT PURS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCENT TO PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 9.160 (SIGNS) LOCATION: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MILES AVENUE AND ADAMS STREET SIGN CONTRACTOR: BEST SIGNS, INCORPORATED ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMNT SEGN DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED APPLICATION IS CATEGOS CLY EXEMPT PURSUANT OF THE GUIDELINES OR TO SECTION 15311, CLASS IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. BACKGROUND: Project History On February 1, 1994, the City Council approved Tentative Tract Map 27899 allowing development of 111 single family homes on 30-acres located at the southeast corner of Miles Avenue and Adams Street (Attachment 1). The map was recorded on June 12, 1997. On September 16, 1997, the City Council approved seven prototype house plans for the project that ranged in size from 1,450 square feet to 2,240 square feet (Del Rey and Marbella Series). An additional single family house erplan (Plan 2 - Del Rey Series) was approved by the Planning Commission on 1 Building permits for the initial construction phase were issued by the Building and Safety Department last month. Request The request is for one permanent, freestanding tract identification sign. The channel letter sign is proposed to be affixed to the six-foot high perimeter tract wall (Attachments 2 through 5). The sign is approximately 17 square feet (2.0-feet high, or less, by 8.5-feet wide) and states the name of the development (i.e., Marbella) in gold letters. The individual letters are constructed using 3/4h'ck acrylic. Indirect sign lighting ghttters are raised ng from the gro�ndff hs surface of the wall to create a shadow pattern proposed. Applicable Sign Ordinance Provision Section 9.160.040 (Table 1602) of the Sign Ordinance requires neighborhood identification signs to be no greater than 24 square permittedin size unlessthesix feet in proposedsign is double-faced. verall height freestanding. Two entry signs are perms p Lighting for this type of sign must be indirect. REQUIRED FINDINGS: The findings necessary to approve the Marbella identification signs are as follows: Placement of the Marbella identification sign on the perimeter wall will not obstruct traffic visibility or street signs on Miles Avenue and Adams Street. Similar neighborhood identification signs are used to promote other developments in the immediate area. 2. The sign is in proper scale to the area on the wall it is to be mounted on. The proposed sign is consistent with the architectural elements of the perimeter wall which includes cement plaster (stucco) surfaces. Acrylic, used to build the sign, is a durable product that will withstand the harsh desert climate. 3. The proposed sign, as designed, is consistent with the provisions of the Sign Ordinance in that they meet the height and square footage requirements. CONCLUSION: The proposed tract identification sign is properly located to provide exposure of this new development without obstructing the visibility of motorists and will have negligible impacts on the surrounding properties. Approval of the sign request is recommended. STRTPCSign411-21 2 RECOMMENDATION' Adopt Minute Motion 97- , approving Sign Permit 97-411, subject to the Conditions of Approval as attached. Attachments: 1. Reduced Tract Map Exhibit 2. Sign Location Map 3. Conceptual Sign Sketch 4. Sign Elevation Sketch 5. Sign Lettering Exhibit Prepared by: Greg Tr usdell, Associate Planner Submitted by: Christine �dilo�Planning Manager 3 STRTPCSign411-21 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SIGN PERMIT 97-411 (MARBELLA) CENTURY-CROWELL COMMUNITIES DECEMBER 23, 1997 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Sign Permit 97-411 shall become null and void on June 23, 1998, unless a building permit for the identification sign has been issued by the Building and Safety Department. 2. All provisions of Chapter 9.160 (Signs) of the Municipal Code shall be met unless otherwise amended herein. 3. The project identification signs shall be constructed pursuant to the exhibits on file with the Community Development Department. 4. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide the Community Development Department with specific lighting details for any indirect sign lighting to be used. 5. The letters and anchoring method for the "Marbella" monument sign located at the Miles Avenue/Adams Street corner shall be approved by the Public Works Department prior to installation. coNDSIUN97411/21 ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT 1 MILES AVENUE MILES AVENUE TTTT- m >< \ O 4 q fav) — / N Kristen ourt� N y ♦ YI � � % � I ^ i u I N I M . I I I o / I I I Tract 2618 4— �' 11 8 Ili f- -DtANE nRiVE- L I I-„ II Tract27899 II a \+ N b O I "I2 ---£INDY COURT-- Idl %� --- II V IIIII w.�NII�I� ��%glPl�l�l�l101i-y ,,III .�� ITu S�glglglglgllllL- -SAYE�- I III � r � �----- � �- _ _`\ •- �-�_-_ � 1 I ii—k I �$ � � o � •Q u + � w w I e I v I. I g C I II o N II— � IIIII _ �RnE1 _� I l—S — r Tract 25363 — �I I � i�o Ln�o �• i�j I = II I 1I— f f-- T_ -7 7-1 —T T' i i I � I'I GI pI Vl -I Nr I •I �I •I �IU � I I I I I -- DEsT s B - - -_-_-_ _ -� _ — I II�u�1l �J I NII• � ul. I �I I IIIII � J z HLEY P 2AC-E I to to y IL i ATTAC.H[MENT 2 1 u _ z Rl V�l � yCIA CIO tiff AZ Or, +. l •, U') OA CIO .SS 1 U-) � � v� -tom L=37•:0 / ui .— fn co ��s aA• J .� o, r O 4S a �D `I -ram^ 9 6 S 00'0l l Sodoad • J � �P '9 'dOa VICIV IS IN �ra.®7GY9ilO.X+'G�/ 1' Q .•III � � tj >00, V 5� S -t i , kp V�-L ATTACHMENT 3 ,•' � ,. ` ,�� -jig 't • ti ATTACHMENT 4 at it A TT A /-I T T A N Y� l� T rx� C" STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: DECEMBER 23, 1997 CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 96-590 REQUEST: APPROVAL OF ARCHITECTURAL MODIFICATIONS RELATING TO THE PUBLIC FUELING FACILITY FOR LAPIS ENERGY LOCATION: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF DUNE PALMS ROAD/HIGHWAY 111 APPLICANT: LAPIS ENERGY ORGANIZATION (MR. JOHN GABBARD) PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AS APPLICANT ENGINEER/ ARCHITECT: GARY ENGINEERING, INC. On February 4, 1997, the La Quinta City Council approved Site Development Permit 96-590, one of four applications filed by the applicant for the referenced site. This approval was granted based on conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission. On April 8, 1997, the Planning Commission approved minor site modifications to Parcel 1 of the Site Development Permit, which contains the Lapis fueling station, convenience store and restaurant uses. On October 28, 1997, the Planning Commission reviewed the final landscape plan for compliance with the approval conditions for the entire site. The plan was approved, with a few minor changes. Revisions have been proposed to the fueling canopy, equipment building and convenience store. Attachments 1 and 2 illustrate the current approved architecture for the three structures in question, while Attachments 3 through 5 show the proposed revisions. Convenience mart - This structure's architectural design is proposed to be modified. Twelve inch square ceramic tile (color not indicated) is proposed to replace the split face block along the building wainscot, and glass block squares have been symmetrically placed in all building walls. The east elevation (entry) has been changed to include paneled windows surrounding the entry doors, in lieu of the previously approved glass block windows. The entry trellis has been widened, but shortened in its depth, and the pop -out area housing the entry doors has been eliminated. The proposed west elevation shows a reduced trellis expanse along with what appears to be a window that would allow a drive -through design. The north elevation now shows an access door to employee and sales areas, along with a single -pane window. The south elevation has additional revised storage doors and the same single -pane window as the north elevation. Fuel canopy - The major change to this structure is in the roof line, eliminating the hip roof in favor of a flat roof. The roof cornice shown matches that of the convenience mart. The same ceramic tiles have been applied to the support columns to match the convenience mart wainscot. Equipment building - This structure also proposes elimination of the hip roof in favor of a mansard roof. There are some changes to the number, type and location of access doors to the building. The wainscot areas are finished in the same ceramic tile proposed with the convenience mart and fuel canopy support column bases. As with the previously approved building, there are no windows. 1. The project architecture is consistent with the general design guidelines in the approved specific plan. However, the mansard roof on the equipment building is not consistent with the other two structures. Staff is recommending a hip roof to better complement the project architecture. 2. The material and design revisions previously discussed are compatible with the specific plan design guidelines. However, a condition of the Site Development Permit approval for the total Lapis project requires all wainscot areas to be split face block, and all trellises must be of steel construction, painted to match building trim. The ceramic the and Alaskan Cedar trellises proposed are inconsistent with the remaining buildings approved for the overall project; therefore staff is recommending retaining the split face block and steel trellises as originally required. 3. As shown on Attachment 6, the light fixtures in the fuel canopy are proposed as metal halide, which according to the Outdoor Light Control provisions must be fully shielded and filtered. The detail as shown indicates a fixture which is only partly shielded, as it projects below the plane of the canopy; a flush lens will be required that is opaque, in order to meet shielding and filtering as required. There are 24 fixtures shown in the canopy; staff recommends reducing the number to 18, eliminating the two rows of three lights each, in between the fueling islands (refer to Attachment 5 for these locations). 4. Areas are shown where signs will be proposed. While no sign approvals are implied, the 3' x 3' logo sign areas on the fuel canopy shall not be permitted as part of any sign program or application. Under the Sign Code, this parcel is permitted one free-standing combined gas price/business identification sign per street frontage and one building -mounted identification sign. 5. The applicant has shown revisions which indicate a potential drive -through setup along the west elevation of the convenience store. Any improvements for a drive -through use require an amendment to the Specific Plan and Site Development Permit approvals. Staff therefore recommends that the drive - through window shown at the west elevation be deleted. Adopt Minute Motion 97- , approving architectural modifications to Site Development Permit 96-590, subject to compliance with the following requirements: Prior to issuance of the first building permit, building elevation plans for the convenience mart, fuel canopy and equipment building shall comply with the following: 1 . The equipment building shall incorporate a hipped roof, consistent with the convenience store structure. 2. The ceramic tiie wainscot and column base areas shall retain the approved split face block material, and the trellises as shown shall be painted steel, pursuant to the existing Site Development approval conditions. 3. The under -canopy lighting fixtures shall incorporate a flush lens cover that is opaque. The total number of fixtures shall be reduced to 18, eliminating the two rows of three lights each, in between the fueling islands 4. The 3' x 3' logo sign areas on the fuel canopy shall not be permitted as part of any sign program or application. 5. No drive -through window shall be shown on the west elevation of the convenience mart. Prepared by: Wallace Nesbit, Associate Planner Submitted by: 0;�\ Christine di lorio, Planning Manager Attachments: 1 . Approved convenience store elevations; 2/4/97 2. Approved equipment building elevations; 2/4/97 3. Proposed convenience store elevations 4. Proposed equipment building elevations 5. Proposed fuel canopy elevations 6. Proposed lighting detail in fuel canopy M g t tt illhe I �g :I �9 'i CO < y5 fill = t LU & �f`} � <•=Olin u @I s gs] r iQDG e n n ! i 4 �E�ppiy mill olmml IF ZIE-• 0 x N zz W, i€ HIP{ 1 � t✓_�o ee E: Q {➢Pn l;'I' L enn o fit I I' 0 > 99 pI WF- 3� �tl�e pp 5 3l9�� 6 eg�l� 0 0 d w C I ¢I VI i� eu ,o ©7 L� o-- O x x cna �'a 0 Qli Z oa _Y I ao I i zz 00 W W F F as z r.n� rim .9 R� s W W aE x O Q, ZZ Vt 0 cam 8r-d zW ,- W F p� w a PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: DECEMBER 23, 1997 CASE NO.: STREET NAME CHANGE 97-009 APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA PROPERTY OWNER: T.D. DESERT DEVELOPMENT REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF A STREET NAME CHANGE FOR A PORTION OF VIA CARMEL TO CARMEL CIRCLE LOCATION: WITHIN RANCHO LA QUINTA, EAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF MISSION DRIVE WEST AND VIA CARMEL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: THIS STREET NAME CHANGE HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE EXEMPT FROM CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15301, CLASS 1. THEREFORE, NO FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS DEEMED NECESSARY. BACKGROUND: Site Background The private street is located in Tract 27952, which is in the center of Rancho La Quinta (attachment 1). Residences are under construction within the tract. Applicable Code Provisions The Municipal Code permits an applicant to request a street name change with a public hearing. As an option, the Planning Commission may , for any reason it deems in the public; interest and necessity, recommend to the City Council that a street name be changed. In this case, the second option is appropriate since, there are no homeowners along the affected street portion other than the developer, T.D. Desert Development. pAstan`,pc rpt snc 97-009 The portion of street under consideration was called Carmel Circle by the developer when he applied for building permits and therefore, persons in escrow to purchase the residences has been using that name in process of obtaining utilities, forwarding mail, etc. STATEMENT OF ISSUES: ISSUE 1- Public Interest and Necessity Due to the irregular nature of the portion of street under review, a different name is acceptable and would not be confusing for the public or hinder emergency response. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Minute Motion No .97- , recommending approval of Street Name Change 97- 009. Attachments: 1. Location Map Prepared by: Stan B. Sawa, Principal Planner Submitted by: Christine di lorio, Planning Manager p:\stan\pc rpt snc 97-009 .0 ui o NOSNUar - n i �. or., 1S N01.9NIHSVM � s O - a •O Oa� ' � O.,t Change this portion on °� O 59' A Via Carmel es +' 0 to Carmel ^ " 0 . m 1 a G + 5 w �5t prive , STREET NAME CHANGE 97-009 RANCHO LA QUINTA 14 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: December 23,1997 CASE NO.: Sign Application 92-186, Amendment No. 1 APPLICANT: Steve Therriault (Integrated Sign Associates) for the Automobile Club of Southern California REQUEST: Approval of a revision to the Sign Program for the east and west facing signs LOCATION: 46050 Washington Street (Northeast corner of Highway 111 and Washington) in One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: The La Quinta Community Development has determined this Sign Application is categorically exempt pursuant to section 15311, Class 11 of the guide lines for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act. ZONING: Regional Commercial (CR) BACKGROUND: The Automobile Club of Southern California is located at northeast corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street in the One Eleven La Quinta Plaza and has been in operation since 1993. The Planning Commission approved the existing signs on the building in November, 1992. The applicant requests a modification of the building mounted sign on the east and west facing walls to add "AAA Travel Agency" identification as shown on the submitted Exhibit. Both the east and west building mounted signs are identical with internally illuminated aluminum channel letters and logos. The first line reads "AUTO CLUB" with 20 inch letters on one line the Auto Club logo at 36 inches between Auto and Club. With this revision, the logo will be reduced from 48 inches to 36 inches. The entire length is 18' 8". "AUTO CLUB" lettering is blue with red trim cap edges, the logo is red, white and blue. This sign proposed will be 31.27 square feet. The second line is 17 inches below and will read "Travel Agency" with 8 3/16 inch high letters, and a AAA 'orbit' logo (2' 101 /2 "high) placed above the script. Travel Agency lettering is blue with blue trim cap edges. The entire length of this sign is 7' 11 " which includes the logo. The AAA 'orbit' logo is red with red trim caps and the swirling orbit is blue with blue trim caps. This portion of the sign is 17.3 square feet. Both signs will be wall mounted approximately 12 feet high; with the top of the sign at 21 feet. The total sign area is 48.57 square feet. •r YA I aM •� Planned sign programs (3 or more signs) permit certain adjustments to the code requirements. For both the east and west facing signs, the maximum height of 8 feet can be modified "in order to further the intent and purposes of this chapter (Signs) or where normal placement would conflict with the architectural design of the structure." The applicant has requested modification of the signs to adequately describe the nature of the business activity i.e. there is also a travel agency associated with the Auto Club. The property manager for the shopping center has submitted a letter indicating that they approve this request. (Attachment 1). The findings necessary to approve the signs are as follows: 1 . The sign location will be above 8 feet. However, this location is the location of the current signs. 2. A location lower than 8 feet would place it on a diminished wall surface due to berming against the building on the east wall, too close to the doorway entrance and existing protruding architectural elements on the wall. 3. The sign design is compatible with the scale of the building. 4. The total sign area is within the maximum allowable square footage of 50 square feet for permanent building mounted signs allowed under the approved sign program for satellite buildings. The findings necessary to approve this sign application can be made. The signs will provide improved identification of the existing business, be architecturally compatible, and have negligible impacts on the surrounding properties. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt by Minute Motion 97-_, approving Sign Application Amendment 87-186 subject to attached conditions. Attachment. 1. Letter of approval from Michael Shovlin, Property Management Prepared by: Fred Baker, AICP Principal Planner Submitted by: . Christine di lono Planning Manager MINUTE MOTION 97- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SIGN APPLICATION 92-186, AMENDMENT NO. 1 AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DECEMBER 23,1997 1 . Approval of this sign application shall expire and become void one year from the date of approval unless it is installed, or extended pursuant to Municipal code requirements. 2. Prior to sign fabrication, final sign plans shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval to determine compliance with conditions. 3. Applicant 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. BI #E STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: DECEMBER 23, 1997 CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 27952 REQUEST: APPROVAL OF A NEW PROTOTYPE HOUSE (PLAN #3 - PALACIO UNIT) FOR THE RANCHO LA QUINTA COUNTRY CLUB IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ADOPTED SPECIFIC PLAN LOCATION: ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WASHINGTON STREET AND 48TH AVENUE APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: T. D. DESERT DEVELOPMENT, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ARCHITECT: PEKAREK-CRANDELL, INCORPORATED BACKGROUND: General The City originally approved the current Rancho La Quinta Country Club project as The Grove Specific Plan in 1984. The master planned development consists of a maximum of 1,500 single family homes, 80 guest cottages, and two 18-hole golf courses (Attachment 1). Four years ago, T. D. Desert Development purchased the Rancho La Quinta development and expanded the master planned development by acquiring 47 estate single family lots on the south side of 501' Avenue (The Estancias) and 98 single family lots (Tract #25154) to the south of Rancho La Quinta, east of Parc La Quinta. Housing units built in Rancho La Quinta were built by T. D. Desert Development, but the existing Robert Trent Jones Jr. championship golf course was built by the prior developer. On August 24, 1993, T. D. Desert Development obtained approval to build five different Mediterranean style family homes in the development as follows: 1. A Casitas duplex with units containing 1,425 square feet and 1,650 square feet. SRPC27952(21); CONDTTM27952-21 Page 1 of 3 2. A Hacienda with garden bedroom containing 1,816 square feet. 3. A Hacienda containing 2,180 square feet with a detached garden bedroom. 4. An Enstancia containing 2,750 square feet. 5. An Enstancia containing 3,000 square feet with a detached garden bedroom. Note: The developer changed the names of the existing model units to Rancho (2040 was #2), Rancho (2235 was #3), Hacienda (2940 was #4) and Hacienda (3265 was #5). In 1995, the Planning Commission approved an amendment to the Casitas units by permitting units that are 1,719 square feet and 1,948 square feet. On September 26, 1995, the Planning Commission approved Terraza (2,285 square feet to 2,707 square feet) and two Palacio (3,465 square feet and 3,822 square feet) units. The early California Mission -style houses are single -story with attached garage parking. Proiect Request T. D. Desert Development has requested approval of a third Palacio unit (Plan 3) for their existing series of houses for use in Tract #27952 (Attachment 2). The one story house is 3,077 square feet with attached three car garage. An optional attached guest suite is provided to increase the size of the house to 3,349 square feet. Plan #3 is approximately 21-feet high, and has two different street elevations if one of the garage spaces is side -loaded (Plan 3X). The architectural style (early California Mission), of this new Palacio unit, is consistent with previous plans in that the homes have similar roof materials, exterior cement plaster walls, painted metal entry gates, exposed rafter tails and other exposed wood fascia treatments, and eave overhangs. Privacy walls are provided except along the rear property line adjacent to the golf course. The Palacio unit will have traditional side yard setbacks, but enhanced front and rear yard setbacks depending on whether the garage is side -loaded or front -loaded (Attachment 3). The rear of each home will face the golf course. CONCLUSION: The Palacio unit (Plan #3) is in keeping with other architectural design elements of the Rancho La Quinta development including Plan Numbers 1 and 2 of the Palacio series. The house plans, as designed, meet the requirements of the Zoning Code and Specific Plan 84-004. SRPC27952(21); CONDTTM27952-21 Page 2 of 3 RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Minute Motion 97- approving a third Palacio unit, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Tract #27952 Location Map 3. Typical Site Plan (Reduced) 4. Architectural Plans (Commission only) Prepared by: Greg Tro sdell, Associate Planner Submitted by: Christine di lorio, Planping Manager SRPC27952(21); CONDTTM27952-21 Page 3 of 3 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 27952 (RANCHO LA QUINTA) T. D. DESERT DEVELOPMENT DECEMBER 23, 1997 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL GENERAL Applicable conditions of Specific Plan 84-004 and the Zoning Ordinance shall be met prior to building permit issuance. 2. Developer (or property owner) 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. 3. Prior to building permit issuance, the Community Development Department shall approve the final working drawings. 4. The minimum front yard setback for a side -loaded garage structure is 15-feet. RL Zoning District standards shall be met unless otherwise defined in SP 84-004. 5. Ground mounted mechanical equipment shall be screen by landscaping or block walls and located a minimum distance of five feet from side yard property lines. CONDTTM27952/21 ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT Location Map Rancho La Quinta Country Club fN K. y 4 ) 4- r � N � C �- •r y C E N Q Cm ATTACHMENT 2 RANCHO LA QUINTA PROJE4 TRACT NO. 27952 FOR T.D. DESERT DEVELOPMEN I AYE - - - - -PUNCHO &.A DRIB! l l l l l TRACT 27W \ i� Jl /C T GOL, VIA 8AN GLARA (--4 7-1/t G04Po .1 TRACT BOUNDARY it IPA 1� 1 SHEEN VIA. G W-m- 2" A 10' PUE —T ATTACHMENT 3 JuR� —g-----------I---- --�— — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.40% y� �� L-66.08' I L-69.61' Lei I L3.92' I m 4 I S 0 I C4 Ep I O Of T �Q. s yp 8p PROVED 59SEE I H.P..00 1 996 5' S, I ) � I X R 3 PLAN 3 b P1..AN 3 ; s' PAD 59.0 ; T PAD 59.2 1 F.F. 59.5 z F.F. 59.7 � Is � gB.E G• S8 �S I z I � id 1 l 9 ;n o K �r M I o A 3S c S�F 77.85' .."' G 70r41�.......... 9.9' ............--LS11NG D GRA�7 LINE I Y J EpDING PLAN \ I PER ROUGH