1994 12 13 PCOFTN��,�
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
A Regular Meeting to be Held at the
I.a Quinta City Hall Council Chamber
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California
December 13, 1994
7:00 P.M.
**NOTE**
ALL AGENDA ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. MAY BE CONTINUED
TO THE NEXT COMMISSION MEETING
Beginning Resolution 94-028
Beginning Minute Motion 94-042
CALL TO ORDER - Flag Salute
ROLL CALL
PUBLIC COMMENT
This is the time set aside for citizens to address the Planning Commission on matters
relating to City planning and zoning which are not Agenda items. When addressing the
Planning Commission., please state your name and address.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Item ................ TENTATIVE TRACT 27854 (REVISED) & SPECIFIC
PLAN 93-023 (AMENDMENT #1)
Applicant ......... Jascorp (Mr. Joseph A. Swain)
Location .......... The west side of Washington Street, 700-feet north of Calle
Tampico
Request ........... Approval to 1.) Revise an approved Tentative Tract Map to
reduce the number of buildable lots from 116 to 106; and 2.)
to revise the adopted Conditions of Approval for the project's
approved Specific Plan
Action ............. Continue to January 10, 1995
PC/AGENDA
2. Item ................ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-015
Applicant .......... J. L. JarM . (La Quinta Carwash)
Location .......... East side of Washington Street, approximately 100 feet south
of Highway 111
Request ........... Approval of a full service tunnel carwash and detail shop
Action ............ Resolution 94- Minute Motion 94-
BUSINESS ITEMS
1. Item ............... SIGN APPLICATION 94-240
Applicant ........ Skip Berg
Location ......... 78-672 Highway 111
Request .......... Approval of a corporate sign program for both The Green
Burrito and Carls Jr.
Action ........... Minute Motion 94-
CONSENT CALENDAR
Approval of the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of November 22, 1994.
OTHER
1. Commissioner report of City Council meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
STUDY SESSION
Tuesday, December 13, 1994
Study Session Room
4:00 P.M.
1. All agenda items
PC/AGENDA
PH #1
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: DECEMBER 13,1994 (CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 22,1994)
PROJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 27854 (REVISED), SPECIFIC PLAN 93-
023 (AMENDMENT 1) AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-016
APPLICANT: JASCORP (MR. JOSEPH A. SWAIN)
OWNER: AMCOR CAPITAL CORPORATION (MR. ROBERT WRIGHT)
ENGINEER: THE KEITH COMPANIES (MR. MIKE ROWE)
REQUESTS: APPROVAL TO: (1). REVISE AN APPROVED TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF BUILDABLE
LOTS FROM 116 TO 106, (2). REVISE THE ADOPTED
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE PROJECT'S
APPROVED SPECIFIC PLAN, AND (3) INCLUDE SOME
AFFORDABLE UNITS.
LOCATION: THE WEST SIDE OF WASHINGTON STREET, 700-FEET NORTH
. OF CALLE TAMPICO.
GENERAL PLAN: MDR (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 4-8 DU'S/AC)
ZONING: R-2 (MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLINGS)
SURROUNDING ZONING/LAND USE:
NORTH: R-2-8,000; GOLF COURSE AND LA QUINTA
STORM CHANNEL
SOUTH: C-P; UNDER CONSTRUCTION LA QUINTA
VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER (I.E., RALPH'S)
EAST: ACROSS WASHINGTON STREET - SR;
SCATTERED SINGLE FAMILY HOMES
WEST: R-3; VACANT (RECENTLY APPROVED
AFFORDABLE SINGLE FAMILY AND SENIOR
HOUSING PROJECTS)
PCGT.101
BACKGROUND:
Please continue this project to January 24, 1995, because the applicant is still working on
the necessary information for his conditional use permit request.
RECOMMENDATION
Move to continue Tentative Tract Map 27854 (Revised), Specific Plan 93-023 (Amendment
1), and Conditional Use Permit 94-016 to the January 24, 1995, agenda as requested by the
applicant.
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Letter from applicant
PCGT.101
Existing Vacant
Property
(future Single Family
Subdivision;
Shopping Center
.r
under coast.
ATTACHMENT 1
....
h
6
PROPERTY IN QUESTION ,
ri
�1
Z
w
I�
®
c
'
N
y
a
we
C
v�•
W
r �
r �
we
ITS •
8V • •1�7
laxm
,. ? 07
Vacant Parcel
Ra 1 ph' s 2
� O
_ (future Senior
e
Housing)
s`LL
CASE Na
City Nail Site
r� •
CASE MAP
NORTH
Tentative Tract Map 27854 (Revised)
Specific Plan 93-023 (Amendment 1) SCALE : nts
JASCORP
Conditional Use Permit 94-016
12/08/1994 13:47 6193459753
JASCORP PAGE 01
P®rp,.,
l utun
December 8, 1994
City of La Quinta
Poo. Box 1504
La Quinta, CA 92253
ATTACHMENT 2
LEC 0 9
y 1 1 1 6�� 4 L 1 l k lira
Attn: Greg Trousdell
Re: La Quinta Village Tract #27854
Dear Greg,
we respectfully request a continuance of hearing on the above
Tentative Tract#C 27854 presently scheduled for December 13,
1994. We are currently reviewing our submittal and would
like additional time to prepare our presentation prior to
meeting with the city council.
Please contact the undersigned to discuss a rescheduled
hearing date.
Respectfully Submitted,
Joseph A. Swain
Partner
c.c. Robert Wright
Amcor Realty ]Fund
79-811 0)untry Club Drive #A
Bermuda Dunes. California 92201
1\1 EM ORAND UM
TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DATE: DECEMBER 12, 1994
SUBJECT: J. L. JARNAGIN - conditional USE PERMIT 94-015
PUBLIC HEARING #2
On December 9, 1994, at approximately 4:00 P.M. the Community Development Department
received a letter from Pomona First Federal Savings and Loan offering to sell the subject
property to Simon Plaza. The offer requires a financial commitment no later than 5:00 P.M.,
December 12, 1994. Should this offer be executed, the need for processing of this conditional
use permit will no longer exist.
We will notify you of the results at the Study Session on Tuesday, December 12, 1994.
MEMOSS.234
]M :PFF SECURITY
TO 7733013 1994,12-09 15:09 #294 P.02/02
Mona First Federal Savings and Loan Association
Since 1892
December 9, 1994
Mr. Fred J. Simon, Jr. To Be Presented in Person
Simon Plaza, Inc. By Mr. Dick Baxley
P. 0. Box 1461
La Quinta, CA 92253
Subject: Parcel 6 of Parcel May 1841
]dear Mr. Simon:
Responding to the December 5, 1994, letter of Marls Moran to the
Mayor and City Council of Spa Quinta, Pomona First Federal Savings
and Loan Association is willing to give you the opportunity to
honer Mr. Moran' s claim that you n ... will buy the subject property
and will pay Pomona First Federal a fair price .... 11
We regijire a purchase price of $737,500, which you will recall is
less than the amount you previously agreed to pay. This sum will
enable us to receive the same amount that we will receive on our
sale to our current: buyer, Mr. Jarnagin, pay the broker, and also
provide the funds to obtain Mr. Jarnagin's consent to walk away
from his transaction. A non-refundable deposit of $too,000 must be
made, and a mutually acceptable purchase agreement executed, by
5:00 p.m, on Monday, December 12, 1994. The purchase agreement
must provide for escrow to close on or before March 31, 1995, the
same date on which our escrow with Mr. Jarnagin must close.
Based upon the statements made in the December 2, 1994, letter of
CGI Financial Chairman & CEO Stephen C. Miller to you, which also
was forwarded to the City of La Quinta, "All contracts and
commitments have been signed and funds will be flawing within a few
days of this writ,inc so these terms should not present any
problems for you.
We believe this offer is more than reasonable under the
circumstances and hope it meets with your approval. If it does
ncaL, we intend to proceed with Mr. Jarnagin to obtain ail necessary
approvals from the City of La Quinta to complete the development of
this site.
`e y truly yours,
.A(�
Robert L. Golish
Senior Vice President
Senior Counsel
CC: City Council and Planning Commission, City of La Quinta
Rinehart, Shannon
Paul. Selzer
Claremont Offloe, 393 W. FoWnill Hlvr1. R1711-2710 - R,0. Box 190 -Claremont, California 91 I11-11' 90 • (909) 629-$6$4 - (8001332-4733 -Fax (Slu;l) ii:4-5271
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMNHSSION
DATE: DECEMBER 13, 1994
CASE. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-015
APPLICANT: J. L. JARNAGIN (LA 4UBNTA CARWASH)
REQUEST: APPROVAL OF A FULL SERVICE TUNNEL CARWASH AND DETAIL SHOP
LOCATION: EAST SIDE OF WASHINGTON STREET, APPROXIMATELY 100 FEET SOUTH OF
HIGHWAY III
GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE
DESIGNATION: MIRC (MIXED REGIONAL COMMERCIAL)
ZONING: C-P-S (SCENIC HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL)
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
The Community Development Department has completed an Initial Study (EA 94-289) on the
proposed project and determined that it will not have a significant environmental impact.
Therefore, a mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact is hereby proposed for
adoption.
SURROUNDING ZONING
LAND USES: NORTH:
C-P-SICOMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTER ACROSS HIGHWAY III AND
VACANT LAND (PART OF PP 93-495)
SOUTH:
C-P-SIVACANT LAND (PART OF PLOT PLAN 93495)
EAST:
C-P-SIVACANT LAND (PART OF PLOT PLAN 93-495)
WEST:
C-P-SICOMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTER
(BACKGROUND:
The subject property is an irregularly shaped site of approximately one acre. While the
property appears to be right at the intersection of Highway III and Washington Street there
is actually a small triangular shaped parcel of approximately 3500 square feet immediately
north of the property. The subject site is presently vacant and void of any significant
vegetation.
It should be noted that this property was originally a part of an adjacent approved project.
This property, along with the properties to the north, south, and east are a part of Plot Plan
93-495 which was approved in 1993 for Simon Plaza. That project consists of an 82,000 square
foot commercial project on approximately 5.6 acres. Presently an appeal of a Planning
Commission time extension granted in May, 1994, is being reviewed by the City Council. This
PCST.198 1
Simon Plaza application was last reviewed at the City Council meeting of December 6, 1994
and continued for four months. Assuming this carwash request is approved, the applicants
were instructed by the City Council to revise their site plan without this piece of land and
submit for Planning Commission review within three months and subsequent City Council
review following the Planning Commission review.
On September 13, 1994, the Planning Commission held a study session on the proposed
carwash facility. At that time, the applicants presented conceptual plans of their proposed
facility for Commission comment.
DESCRIPTION OF 3ITE:
The subject property consists of approximately one acre of land and is a somewhat
irregularly shaped rectangle. The property has approximately 290 feet of frontage along
Washington Street and 88 feet along Highway 111. This piece of property was created as a
result of a parcel map which subdivided the land bounded by Highway 111, Simon Drive, and
Washington Street into seven parcels. A parcel right at the intersection of Washington Street
and Highway III exists, but was not a part of this parcel map. The largest of these parcels
is approximately four acres and is the site of Simon Motors. The balance of the parcels
including the subject parcel are vacant. As a part of the parcel map, recorded private 40-foot
to 30-foot wide vehicular access easements were created between the parcels and generally
connect Washington Street with Simon Drive. Presently, adjacent to the site curbs, gutter, and
sidewalk adjacent to the curb exist. These improvements were put in as a result of the
original parcel map. Power poles run along the Washington Street frontage adjacent to the
site.
PROJECT PROPOSAL
General
The applicant proposes to construct a full service tunnel carwash and detail shop on the
subject property. The carwash building will consist of 4232 square feet while the detail or
auto care building will consist of 2095 square feet on the first floor with 575 square feet of
office area on the second floor. Therefore, the total building square footage would be 6327
square feet. The structures while being separate will be attached by a wood trellis structure.
Additional trellis structures attached to the main building will be constructed over the car
drying area.
Circulation/Parking
Vehicular circulation for the site is proposed from Washington Street through the private
easement created as a result, of the parcel map. This easement is 40-feet wide and adjacent
and parallel to the south property line. This easement transverses to the east and then to the
southeast and to the north along the easterly property line. It is along this northerly
easement, that the two driveway access points into the carwash will be provided. The
northerly driveway will be for cars entering the carwash while cars exiting the carwash will
use the southerly driveway.
PCST.198 2
Cars will circulate in a counter -clockwise direction once they enter the site with the actual
carwash being on the westerly side of the site. The auto care or detail shop, will be located
adjacent to the northeasterly corner of the site.
Ten off-street parking spaces are provided adjacent to the Highway 111 side of the site and
are proposed to be used only for the employees since other persons utilizing the site will
undoubtedly be using the detail shop or carwash. The detail shop will contain parking for
four additional vehicles. The applicant has indicated that the operation at its maximum,
require five full time employees and two part-time employees. With the proposed parking,
adequate spaces will be provided. There is additional space on the site to provide at least
four informal parallel parking spaces.
Architectural Design
The proposed structure is Spanishlearly California in nature and would consist of stucco walls,
wood trellises with stucco columns, and a two-color Spanish "S" tile. Exterior colors are
proposed to be tan stucco, with white bulk head and columns with the roof tile being light
redltan.
The structures will consist of a combination flat roof and sloped the roof. In the flat roof
areas of the structure, the maximum height is approximately 18-feet. There will be two hip
roofed towers, one on the carwash building and one over the detail shop. The highest point of
this feature on the carwash building will be approximately 23'811. The space below this tower
will provide one floor with the feature designed to provide architectural interest and variety.
On the detail shop building, the maximum height of the tower structure will be 27'5" with this
area actually having a second floor for office space. This feature is approximately 130 feet
from the existing Washington Street property line. This tiled tower structure is approximately
15' X 15' in size with the balance of the second story office space in an area lower in height
(22' 10").
Adjacent to Washington Street, the carwash tunnel will be provided ten feet to approximately
18-feet from the new Washington Street property line after dedication. The carwash tunnel
will be partially roofed with the center portion provided with a gable -shaped wood trellis. The
entry which will be at the north end and exist at the south end will be provided with sectional
doors which can be closed when the facility is not in operation. The auto care or detail shop
will also be provided with sectional doors.
In order to screen the facility from both Highway 111 and Washington Street, the applicant
has provided stuccoed six foot high stuccoed walls. These walls will enclose and be attached
to the exterior of the carwash and detail shop buildings. The walls will wrap around the
south side of the facility in the area of the car drying.
The applicant has proposed a trash enclosure at the south end of the detail for auto care
building. While this location is adjacent to the public access easement, it is on a portion of
the property which is a part of the site.
PCST.198
Landscape Design
The applicant has submitted a preliminary landscaping plan for the project. The applicant's
plan indicates trees, varying In size from 24-inch to 36-inch box in size. The total landscaped
area proposed is 13, 824 square feet or approximately 30% of the site. Along Highway 111,
the landscape area behind property line after dedication varies from 30-feet to 50-feet with the
landscape setback varying from 10-feet to approximately 18-feet along Washington Street.
Along the south property line, adjacent to the private access easement, a setback of
approximately 8-feet is shown. Additional landscape areas are shown on site adjacent to the
carwash buildings, detail building, and driveways. A unique feature of the proposed plan is to
include a waterfall at the northern end of the six foot high wall facing the intersection of
Highway 111 and Washington Street. It should be noted that as indicated previously, there is
actually another triangularly shaped piece of privately owned land right at the intersection of
Highway 111 and Washington Street. It is necessary for the City to obtain this piece of land
in order to complete the Washington Street intersection. The applicant's landscape plans
indicate that mounding will be provided along both Washington Street and Highway 111 to
provide visual interest. The applicant has submitted a colored elevation closely replicating
the proposed landscaping at maturity.
Carwash Operation
The applicant describes his facility as a luxury full service carwash with auto detail. There
will be no gasoline sales as part of the operation. The proposed hours of operation, as
indicated by the applicant, is 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. with the maximum number of employees
being seven of which two would be part-time and five full time. The applicant, as of this
time, has not indicated any exterior lighting. However, due to the proposed hours of
operation, it can be expected that lighting will be necessary in the winter.
Signage
The applicants have not yet submitted signage plans for the proposed "La Quinta Carwash".
However, they have indicated that they will be mounting individually unlit letters on the west
wall of the carwash building facing Washington Street and on the north facing wall of the
auto care building.
Comments and Responses
The La Quinta Chamber of Commerce Executive Committee met as the Planning and Review
Subcommittee for the Chamber. After review of the project, they determined that while they
were in favor of the carwash project conceptually, they could not recommend approval at the
proposed location. The Subcommittee expressed considerable concern regarding this project
at the "Gateway" (Highway 1,11 and Washington Street) to La Quinta (see attached letter).
PCST.198 4
As previously indicated, this property was a part of the Simon Plaza project of which the
properties to the north, east, acid south are also a part. The adjacent property owners feel that
the subject property should be a part of their project. A letter from Paul Selzer, dated November
18, 1994, is attached for your review.
ANALYSIS:
The project as designed complies with most necessary development standards and requirements.
The project has been architecturally designed to be attractive and compatible with the adjacent
properties.
The project has been designed with access only to Washington Street. Due to the future raised
landscape medians, access will be limited to right turn in and right turn out only. No access to
Highway III will be permitted nor is any proposed.
With regards to the proposed landscaping, it has been designed to be attractive and screening.
However, the General Plan and Municipal Code do require a 50-foot landscape setback adjacent
to Highway III and a 20-foot landscape setback adjacent to Washington Street. These setbacks
are measured from final right-of-way lines (street property lines). Due to the relatively small odd
shape of the property, the applicant is requesting a deviation of this requirement along Highway
111. Along Washington Street this requirement could be provided if the further dedication of a
right -turn lane was not required. This right -turn land requirement is a result of the Washington
Street Specific Plan which was adopted several years ago.
Staff does feel that it is necessary to provide some additional treatment along the west elevation
facing Washington Street and north facing Highway 111. Along Washington Street is the west
wall of the car wash tunnel and screen wall for the interior area along Highway II I is the screen
wall and detail building. Staff feels that stucco columns along these sides should be provided
to provide a visual breakup and provide a shadow line. The stucco columns should match those
used on the interior of the facility.
While the preliminary landscape plan is generally acceptable, staff does feel that there are some
changes necessary. The proposed landscape plan shows lawn planted adjacent to the street
curbs. Staff has not allowed this to be provided due to overspray and water conservation
concerns. Therefore, the plan should be modified so that there is no lawn within 5-feet of curb
line and that any plant material used be drip irrigated. The landscape plan shows that tree sizes
will vary from 24" to 36" box. Staff feels that landscape trees should be a minimum of 48" bog
size unless the tree is one which grows extremely fast. Additionally, palm trees should be a
minimum of 8' and vary in height. There are several plant materials which may not be
appropriate for La Quinta, and will need to be replaced.
The applicant has shown a trash enclosure south of the auto care building. It will be necessary
to design this to meet code requirements. Additionally, it will be necessary for the enclosures to
comply with recycling access ordinance requirements. Generally speaking, this requires adequate,
accessible, and convenient areas for collecting and loading recyclable materials. Conditions are
recommended in order to comply with this requirement.
PCST.198 5
Presently, there is a bus stop on Washington Street and Highway III in the vicinity of this
project. Staff has received no comments from Sunline Transit regarding these facilities. It will
be necessary for the applicant to comply with the requirements provided they are acceptable to
the City and Caltrans.
FINDINGS FOR PLOT PLAN:
Findings for approval of the Plot Plan can be made and are as follows:
1. The proposed use conforms to all the requirements of the General Plan for the City and
with all applicable requirements of State law and ordinances of the City, with the
exception of setbacks for which a variance is required and will be required.
2. The proposed project is in conformance with General Plan Land Use Element and has been
designed for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare.
3. With the construction of the project, the applicant will dedicate and improve the
surrounding streets as required by the City and Caltrans to improve traffic circulation and
thereby mitigate traffic congestion at the project location.
4. The maximum height of the proposed car wash is lower than the previously approved
restaurant structure.
5. The proposed project has provided a 6-foot high screen wall around the entire parking and
driveway areas which will mitigate any visual eyesores. Additionally, the applicant has
provided extensive landscaping around the perimeter of the site including a waterfall
feature at the intersection of Highway III and Washington Street. This treatment has
been determined to be preferable to that proposed by the previous project.
VARIANCE CONSMERATIUM
The Community Development Department has determined that there are sufficient findings to
support granting of a variance which is required as a condition of approval, as follows:
1. Approval of a variance would not constitute a grant of special privileges that is
inconsistent with the :limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone.
2. In order to widen the existing street and provide adequate traffic circulation, granting
of a variance permit is necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare.
3. The property is irregularly shaped and relatively narrow in depth. The City requirements
for widening of Washington Street and Caltrans requirements for widening of Highway
III further inhibits the ability to develop the subject property.
4. The location of the two-story office portion is situated so that it will not be visible from
view adjacent to Washington Street. The car wash structure which complies with height
requirements is in a location which will block the view of the two story element.
Additionally, the two story structure is provided at the easterly most position of the site.
PCST.198
RBCONMUDATION:
Based upon the findings as noted above, staff recommends:
1. Adoption of Resolution 94- , a mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact;
2. Adoption of Minute Motion 94 , approving Conditional Use Permit 94-015, subject to the
attached conditions.
Attachments:
1. Location map
2. Letter from Paul Selzer dated November 18, 1994
3. Letter from Pomonadated November 30, 1994
4. Letter from La Quinta Chamber of Commerce dated November 18, 1994
5. Initial Study and draft Negative Declaration
6. Comments from various City Departments and agencies
7. Plans and exhibits
PCST.198 7
ATTACHMENT 2
BEST, BEST
& KRIEGER
A NwnRINNIr IA "WNM NIS/KINMSMAL co VGRAMstl
LAWYERS
ARTHUR L. LfTTLEWORTN"
WYNNE 1 ►NRT'M
PATRICK KWI. ►CARCC
BONA SLIMS CARVALNO
600 EAST TANO{UTE CANYON WJ
GLEN E. WEPWNV
GEMS TANAKA
KINK W. SMITH
JOHN 0. PGRNET
POST OP110E Sox B710
WILLIAM R. 06VIOLF96
BASK T. CHAPMAN
JASON D. DAGAREINCR
GEARING 0. ENGLISH
SANTON C. GAY"
TIMOTHY M. Comm"
KYLE A. - - -
THEODORE A GRISWOLD
CALL ORNIA
PALM WROW i, CALIFORNIAOZ=d
PAUL T. 6L1ER-
VICTOR L. WW
NARK A. [ASTER
JULIANN ANDERSON
TELPPOWS,
G1I
DALLAS HOLMEM DANIEL E. OLMJ<R
CHRISTOPHER L. CARPEMTER HOWARD S. 00 —
DIANE 1. PNLST
MICHELLE OUCLLCTTE
JVPREY R. TNOM►[
LOMA H. WILSOM
TE'L[COP1C" GNOI 3S6.OSA6
RICHARD T. ANOERSOMS
S)CPHEM P. OQTSCM
0AV0 P. ►HIPPCM. M.
PATRICIA !TARS CISMItAh"
JOHN D. WAN60P
MARC E. EMPET
SUSAN C. MAUSS
JACOUELSIM C. MAK.CT
M CNACI D. HARMIV
JOHN R. NOTTSCHACPU
SCRNIE L. WILLIAMSON
MARK D. IIQII[ER
W. CURT SALT-
MARTIN A. MUELLER
KEVIN K. RAMDOLPN
D. ANTHONY RODRIGUES
JOHN E. SIIOWNP
A ORCNACL SNMIKROUII
JAMES S. GILPGN
SUSAN E. OYNOUC1Kl
or COUNSEL
MIC14ACL T. RIDOCLIJ
VICTORIA N. KNS
MARSHALL S RUDOLPH
JENNI/CR OLSON DOLAN
JAM" S. COWSOM
MEREDITH A. JURY-
SCOTT C. SMITH
KIM A. SYMENS
C. MI C14ACL COWCTT
MICHAEL DRAMT•
JACK S. CLASKE. JM.
CYNTHIA M. SM14ANO
GRUCE W. BEACH
/RANCID J. GAUM•
BRIAN M. LEWIS
MART E. OLWMAP
AJKJM PRATER
AUK T. THOMAY
BRADLEY C. MEIIELO
GLENN P. &ADNE
JONM1 C. TOGN
O. MARTIN NCTMERY-
SMARYL WALKER
DIANE C. RLASDEL
GEORGE M MCYCS
PETER M. BARRACK
DOROTHY I. ANDERSON
WILLIAM W. PLOYD. JR.
JEANNETTE A. PETCSSON
G. HCMRY WELLES
OREOORY L. HAROKE
WILLIAM D. DAMLMO. JR.
JAMCS R. HARPER
KENDALL K MACVCY
MATT H. MORRM
DINA 0. HARRIS
OFFICERS!
CLAIM K ALSOP
JEFFREY V. OWN
SARKARA R. BARON
RIVERSIDE f60!) i6i•11lO
OAVKI J..RWOH
RCVCN C. 095AUN
RICHARO T. EGGER
MICHAEL J. AMDELSOM
ERIC L. GARNER
PATRICK D. OMAN
RANCHO MNRAOC fit!) S6!-S!R
DOUOLAS & PHALIPS-
DENNIS M. COTA
OCAM R. DERLETH
RAYMOND REST (1886•1/M
ONTAWO UMM !ii-6S6NI
ANTONIA BRA►HOB
ORCOORY K. WILKINSON
ROBERT W. HAMORZAVEB
JAMICE L. was
HELENE P. DREYER
CHILY P. HEMPHILL
JAMES K K)MEOCM 11913•I876)
CUGCMC MST (1693-000
jA,l Qlyp UM) it�dSSS
• A PNNIPIIONHtAL CONPOoNATON
November 18, 1994
City of La Quinta
Planning Commission
78-495 Calle Tampico
P.O. Box 1504
La Quinta, California 92253
Re: CUP 94-015
Dear Commission Members:
N0V 2 1
�y
�.,y-aA.ass••�Is.
The undersigned represents the 3S Partnership which is the
owner of parcels 2,3,4,5 and 7 of Parcel Map 18418 and Simon
Motors, Inc., which is the owner of parcel 1 of Parcel Map 18418,
all of which parcels are adjacent to the proposed La Quinta Car
Wash which is proposed for parcel 1 of Parcel Map 18418.
For over three and a half years, the 3S Partnership, Simon
Plaza, Inc. and Pomona First Federal Savings and Loan ("PFFSL"),
which is the owner of parcel 6 of Parcel Map 18418 have been
working with the City and its planners to develop a first class
office/restaurant complex at the corner of Highway 111 and
Washington Street. 'Under our original plan, the 3S partnership had
arranged to purchase the PFFSL parcel. However, because of
changing city zoning standards and regulations and the adverse
market conditions of the last several years, we have not yet been
successful in completing the financial arrangements necessary for
us to proceed with this complex which we continue to believe will
be a very appropriate and fitting entrance to the City. Assuming
no further modification of city requirements, we have good reason
to believe.that we will have our financing in place before year's
end, and would be happy to discuss those arrangements with your
staff.
S52071
LAW orrIecs OF
BEST, BEST & KRIEGER
City of La Quinta
Planning Commission
November 18, 1994
Page 2
Because we have not yet been able to finalize our financing
and purchase the PSSFL parcel, PFFSL has informed us and the City
that while they are not opposed to our development which they
originally supported, they now wish to pursue development of their
parcel independently from the remainder of our parcels.
While we can not object to the right of PFFSL to develop their
parcel on their own, we can and do object vehemently to their
current proposal to place a car wash on the most visible corner in
the City.
When we first sold this parcel to PFFSL, their intent was to
place a branch of their bank on the parcel, and we were to develop
the balance of the property in a first class manner. Market
conditions have apparently made them decide not to build a branch
at this location. We have no alternative other than to respect
their business decision. However, while neither PFFSL nor
ourselves could predict exactly how the property would eventually
be developed, we all agreed that the entire parcel should be
developed in a first class manner and that neither fast food
restaurants nor automobile service stations or the like would be
allowed on any of the parcels, even though both parties knew that
probably the highest: market value might be found in developing in
that manner. Neither PFFSL nor ourselves wanted that sort of use
as a neighbor. Imagine what their response would have been had
they built a beautiful branch office on their site and we now were
proposing a car wash immediately adjacent to them!
What has been proposed to you for the PFFSL parcel is exactly
what both they and we attempted to prevent -- a facility whose sole
purpose of existence is the servicing of automobiles. While their
application prominently points out that they do not propose to sell
gasoline and that they intend to disguise it, the fact remains that
the proposed development is still an automotive service station
without gas pumps -- a large traffic generator; a quick in, quick
out facility with its attendant lines of cars waiting to be
serviced; noisy vacuum, washing and drying machinery; and
attendants working out in the lot drying cars and finishing the
process. In many respects, this proposed use is more objectionable
to us than a traditional gas station.
We believe that our Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions
(CC&R's) prohibit this use, and we fully intend to pursue our
remedies against PFFSL should the City allow this use. However, we
obviously prefer that the matter be nipped in the bud without the
necessity of litigation.
952071
LAW OFFICES 0►
BEST, BEST & KRIEGER
City of La Quinta
Planning Commission
November 18, 1994
Page 3
Furthermore and notwithstanding the CC&R's, we believe that
the proposed use is totally inappropriate for one of the most
prominently situated parcels in the entire city. Obviously, if
this use is allowed, our plans for the remainder of the parcels
will have to be dramatically modified. you can almost be assured
that the quality of development for the balance of the property
will be adversely affected if you approve this car wash project.
No doubt the argument will be made that we are attempting to
hold. PFFSL hostage. Nothing could be further from the truth. We
acknowledge their right to develop on their property. However,
after they abandoned their intention to build their branch office,
they participated and encouraged us to spend hundreds of thousands
of dollars to design, redesign and process our office complex
through the city process. Now they come to you and ask for
approval of a project and use which is entirely inappropriate for
the site and incompatible with our project. All of the time, money
and effort expended by both ourselves and city staff will be tossed
out the window if you approve this car wash. At the very least,
the development of their parcel should compliment and be compatible
with what has been proposed for the balance of the property.
We appreciate the opportunity you have given us to comment on
the proposal and formally request that we be given specific written
notice of any and all meetings or hearings dealing with the
car wash project.
Thank your for your consideration of our concerns.
PTS/sk
Yours very truly,
BEST, BEST & KRIEGER
Paul T. Sel
S52071
LAW o►►iccs OF
BEST, BEST 6 KRIEGER
City of La Quinta
Planning Commission
November 18, 1994
Page 4
cc: Gilbert J. Smith, PFFSL
John J. Pena, Mayor
Glenda Bangerter, Mayor Pro Tem
Stan Sniff, Council Member
Ron Perkins, Council Member
G. Michael McCartney, Council Member
Donald Adolph, Chairman Planning Commission
Jacques Abels, Vice Chairman
Paul Anderson, Commissioner
Katie Barrows, Commissioner
Richard Butler, Commissioner
Wayne Gardner, Commissioner
Elwin "Al" Newkirk, Commissioner
52071
ATTACHMENT 3
Pomona First Federal Savings and Loan Association
Since 1892
City of La Quinta
Planning Commission
78-495 Calle Tampico
P.O. Box 1504
La Quinta, CA 92253
November 30, 1994
Subject: CLIP 94-015; Selzer/3S Partnership Letter of November 18, 1994
Dear Commission Members:
We have no choice but to respond to the subject letter, because we feel it paints an inaccurate picture
of the situation facing development of Pomona First Federal's Parcel 6 of Parcel Map- 1841.
It was not only market conditions that forced Pomona First Federal to reassess its intended use of our
parcel. The rather significant takings of our property for the desired widening of Washington Street.
have made the site unsuitable for a branch office. Taking that in stride, we agreed to sell the property
to the 3 S Partnership so it could proceed with its development plans. However, both we and the City
seem to have been hearing representations for years now about how the Simon Plaza was going to
come together soon. We agreed to several extensions of our sale escrow, until finally the 3S
Partnership and Pomona First Federal were no longer able to stay in agreement as to a proposed sale.
Taking that in stride also, we looked for and have found another willing buyer for our parcel, even
though the parcel is becoming subject to even further takings so that the other side of Washington
Blvd. can be widened to create a left -turn lane for the shopping center to the northwest. If our
current buyer is prevented from proceeding with his proposed development, we will have to
reevaluate whether any reasonable use remains for our site in light of the nearly 40% being taken by
the City.
We wish to strongly encourage the City to approve the proposed car wash use. We and our buyer
are confident that the CC&i s permit this use and we can litigate the issue if need be. More
importantly, we believe that our buyer's plans for this site provide a fitting entrance to the City. They
include extensive beautification. at the northerly corner of the site that will be done at the expense of
the developer.
Mr. Selzer is accurate in predicting that we would characterize his protest as an attempt to hold our
parcel hostage, for we believe that is exactly the source of his motivation. The fact that the proposed
use is "incompatible" with the plans of the 3 S Partnership is unfortunate. However, they had their
Administrative Offices: 350 South Garay Avenue • P.O. Box 1520 • Pomona, California 91769 - (714) 623-2323 • (213) 625-7666 • (818) 964-7800 • (714) 972-0521
City of La Quinta Planning Commission
November 30, 1994
Page 2
opportunity to control the destiny of our Parcel 6, and the time has now come for Pomona First
Federal and the City to move forward with a realistic plan for this site that can be attained.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Very truly yours,
W1,4&
Robert L. Golish
Senior Vice President ,Sr. Counsel
cc: L. Rinehart, PFFSL
F. Shannon, PFFSL
Dick Baxley, Broker
Jim Jarnagan, Buyer
John J.Pena, Mayor
Paul T. Selzer
Glenda Bangerter, Mayor Pro Tern
Stan Sniff, Council Member
Ron Perkins, Council Member
G. Michael McCartney, Council Member
Donald Adolph, Chairman Planning Commission
Jacques Abels, Vice Chairman
Paul Anderson, Commissioner
Katie Barrows, Commssioner
/ Richard Butler, Commissioner
Wayne Gardner, Commissioner
Elwin "Al" Newkirk, Commissioner
Pomona First Federal Savings and Loan Association
ATTACHMENT 4
•
CHAMBER of COMMERCE
GEM OF THE DESERT
November 18, 1994
TO: CITY OF LA QUINTA
Community Development
Stan Sawa,, Principal Planner
FROM: LA QUINTA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
Planning and Review
Dan Featheringill, President ,
The Executive Committee of the La Quinta Chamber of Commerce
recently met as the Planning and Review Subcommittee. They
reviewed the above referenced project and rendered the
following recommendation:
While they were in favor of the car wash project in concept,
they could not recommend approval at the proposed location.
They expressa!3 considerable concern regarding this project
at the "gateway" ("4wy.111 and Washington) to La Quinta.
N I 18 1994
CITY OF LA QLIINTA
FLANNitiDFPAA,,JH-W1,J
POST OFFICE BOX 255 9 51-351 AVENIDA BERMUDAS 9 LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 • (619) 564-3199 FAX (619) 564-311
ATTACHMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
Environmental Assessment No. 94-289
Case No. CUP 94-015 Date November 7, 1994
Name of proponentJ . L. J a r n i g a n
Address 38-490 Crangecrest Road, Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201
Phone 772-1803
Agency Requiring Checklist City of La O u i n to
Project Name (if applicable) La Quinta Car Wash
CITY OF LA QUINTA
Community Development Department
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California 92253
H. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving
at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless
Mitigated," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Land Use and Planning Transportation/Circulation Public Services
Population and Housing X Biological Resources Utilities
Earth Resources Energy and Mineral Resources Aesthetics
Water Risk of Upset and Human Health Cultural Resources
Air Quality Noise Recreation
Mandatory Findings of Significance
III. DETERMINATION„
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on
the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because
the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the
project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,
and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least,
1) one effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards; and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as
described on attached sheets, if the effect is a " potentially significant impact" or "potential
significant unless mitigated. " AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it
must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
Signature ��- Date November 6, 1994
Printed Name and Title Leslie Mouriquand-Cherry, Associate Planner
For CUP 94-015, EA 94•-289
i
Faftawly
P-awly siofi= LAU Thu
swaft- unka S*WfM= No
hapad MWPL-d h%%d Impau
3.1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
X".
(source #(s):
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over
the project?
C) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.
impact to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses)?
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)?
3.2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projo.tions?
b) hxhice substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped
area or extension of major infrastructure)?
.... .....
C)
Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing?
3.3. EARTH AND GEOLOGY. Would the project result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a)
Fault rupture?
b)
Seismic ground shaking
C)
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
d)
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?
e)
Landslides or midflows?
f)
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading or fill?
g)
Subsidence of the land?
h)
Expansive soils?
i)
Unique geologic or physical features?
11
PutentWly
PowNW)y SIOPON Less Ilan
Sistficam Unk" S*WficM
No
hnpaa Mk*IW Impad
3.4. WATER. Would the project result in:
a)
Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff?
b)
Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding?
C)
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidiiT? A.
d)
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? ...
e)
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of,
water movements'?
f)
Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability?
g)
Altered direction or rate of glow of groundwater?
mx
h)
Impacts to groundwater quality?
3.5. AIR QUALM. Would the project:
a) Violate any air quality standard to contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violations?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
cause any change in climate?
d) Create objectional odors?
Ptftmwly
POMMY
siof"M LAss T1=
significant
Unk" Sigwflmm
NO
Impact
Mitigated Impact
IMPw
3.6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the project
result
in:
a)
Increased vehicle: trips or traffic congestion?
b)
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangirous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g. farm equipment)?
c)
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
uses?
..... . ... ..
d)
Insufficient parking capacity on site or off site?
e)
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
f)
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
.....
g)
Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
3.7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project result in
impacts to:
a)
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their
habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish,
insects, animals, and birds?
b)
Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? .....
C)
Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
paft"Iy
PMMWJy
sivdraw LMSThn
Sig o"M
unity S*Wncam
No
Impact
MWpled Inwa
lawt
d)
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal
pool)?
e)
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
X:.
3.8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
project:
a)
Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
b)
Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner?
3.9. RISK OF UPSET/HUMAN HEALTH.
Would the proposal involve:
a)
A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited to:
oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
b)
Possible interference with an emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
C)
The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards?
. . ... .....
d)
Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards?
e)
Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees?
3.10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a)
Increases in existing noise levels?
b)
Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
3.11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon,
or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
a)
Fire protection? .... . .
....
V
PNONWly
pow"ly
SWdkM LAMS ThM
signin=
udw SlPlfcm No
hwa
MOW lmwt hupla
b) Police protection?
C) Schools?
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
e) Other governmental services?
3.12. UTILITIES.
Would the proposal result in a need for new systems, or
substantial alternations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas?
b) Communications systems?
C) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities?
d) Sewer or septic tanks?
e) Storm water drainage?
f) Solid waste disposal?
3.13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a)
Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?
b)
Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
c)
Create light or glare?
3.14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a)
Disturb paleontological resources?
b)
Disturb archaeological resources?
C)
Affect historical resources?
d)
Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
e)
Restrict existing religious of sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
Pomatially
Potentially significant Lass Than
s4ftirwant Unless Significant No
impact mwpw impact impact
3.15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks of other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
X
4. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the Potential to degrade the
quality of the environmental, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
XX:
California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-
term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals?
C) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects).
d) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one
or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed by the earlier document.
C) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "potentially significant" or "potentially significant
unless mitigated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the
earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project.
Vii
ATTACHMENT 6
FROM:
DATE: I d -%-14—
T-af 4
7"6 CALLE TAMPICO — LA AUINTA, CALIFORNIA 62263 - (619) M-7000
FAX (619)-7T7-7101
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
City Manager
'N_Public Works Department
N Building & Safety
_Parks & Recreation
Fire Marshal
Chamber of Commerce
Nt4jmperial Irrigation District
', Southern California Gas
Desert Sands Schbapistrict
—CV Unified School District
N CV Water District
,_Waste Management
US Postal Service
_General Telephone
_Colony Cable
' Sunline Transit
St Caltrans (District II)
_Agricultural Commission
CV Archaeological Society
—BIA - Desert Council
—City of Indio/Indian Wells
_CV Mountain Conservancy
—CV Recreation & Parks
_ Principal
Planner
Associate
Planner
�► Associate
Planner
Planning
Director
'r C41 lCa� t�Q
QUA i OW-41
Riverside County: —Sheriffs Department —Planning Department _EnvironmenW Health
LA QUINTA CASE NO(S): tcyt44 or !34--015 1 �, L . gY.V1 !y 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
I
PROJECT LOCATION:
-
Idopot
The City of La Quinta Development Review Committee is conducting an initial environmental study pursuant to the Califon
Environmental Quality Act (C EQA) for the above referenced project(s). Attached Tthe-mbMittedproponent. Your comments are requestedwith respect forV 14 1994
1. Physical impacts the project presents on public resources, faclties, and/or seY tlF QjINTA
2. Recommended conditionx a) that you or your agencybelieve would mitigate
to the project design; e) or improvements to satisfy other regulations and
-0y0flM14 ap)
is respotrsrbt�t
3. If you find that the identified impacts will have significant admtse effects on the environment which cannot be avoid
through conditions, please recommend the scope and focus of additional study(ies) which may be helpful.
Please send your response by NO'Y -A Is Ig44' . You are invited to attend the DEVELOPMENT REVIE
C:OMMT1'TEE meeting at L.a pinta City Hall: .
Date: "Oy, .23 1 I g014 Tune. t o �`' a1�.
Contact Person: WOL Title; ffili! E04A AV11f .& - ----
Conunents made by: _ "' Title: l ✓ J"� rS C41J
MAILING ADDRESS - P.O. BOX 1504 - LA OUINTA f :At IMPNIA Q99Sa
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE 0 PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92570 • (909) 657-3183
NOVEMBER 16, 1994
To: City of La Quinta
'Planning Division
Attn: Stan Sawa
Re: Conditional Use Permit 94-015
With respect to the condition of approval regarding the above referenced CUP,
the Fire Department requires the following fire protection measures be provided
in accordance with La Quinta Municipal Code and /or Riverside County Fire Depart-
ment protection standards:
1. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 1250
gpm for a 2 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure which must
be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site.
2. The required fire flow shall be available from a Super Hydrant(s) (6" x 4"
x 2}"), located not less than 25' nor more than 165' from any portion of
the buildings(s) as measured along approved vehicular travelways.
3. Prior to issuance of building permit applicant/developer shall furnish
one blueline copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for
review/approval. Plans shall conform to fire hydrant types, location
and spacing, and the system shall meet registered civil engineer and local
water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of
the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the
Riverside County Fire Department."
4. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13 Ordinary Hazard
Occupancy Group 1. The post indicator valve and fire department connec-
tion shall be located to the front within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a
minimum of 25' from the buildings.
5. System plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for review, along
with a plan/inspection. fee. The approved plans, with Fire Department job
card must be at the jab site for all inspections.
-1-
FIRE PREVENTION DIVISION �/
❑ RIVERSIDE OFFICE PLANNING SECTION V IND10 OFFICE
3760 12th Street, Riverside, CA 92501 79-733 Country Club Drive, Suite F, Indio, CA 92201
(909) 275-4777 0 FAX (909) 369.7451 (619) 863-8886 9 FAX (619) 863-7072
prmird on rrryrlyd poprr�
To: City of La Quints.
Re: CUP 94-015
11/16/94
Page 2
6. Install a supervised waterflow fire alarm system as required by the Uniform
Building Code/Riverside County Fire Department and National Fire Protection
Association Standard 71.
7. All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans
must be submitted separately for approval prior to construction. Sub-
contractors should -contact the Planning & Engineering office for submittal
requirements.
8. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less
than 2AlOBC in rating. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper
placement of equipment.
9. Install Knox Lock Boxes, Models 4400, 3200 or 1300, mounted per recommended
standard of the Knox Company. Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department
for approval of mounting location/position and operating standards. Special
forms are available from the Riverside County Planning & Engineering office
for the correctly coded system to be purchased.
Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed. A plan
check fee must be paid to the Fire Department at the time building plans are
submitted.
All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions should be referred to
the Fire Department Planning & Engineering staff at (619) 863-8886.
Sincerely,
RAY REGIS
Chief Fire Department Planner
by
io,.,.. A tom._
Tom Hutchison
Fire Safety Specialist
JP/th
a+u-raa tSM ■da �M1 �I r�� 1
ea ave (too) 'W o U V �J o� o Ll w* " W A m o n� lJ
sec¢a wuNNS g VA 9 v v v v
a•�ag p.•ta +�3 an e
=d•i•b `uufaweBe}r KjvE) •r
"^ I� Mks O�i�
❑000
(LZ)all
r
41
19
L 1N3WHOVUV
0
0
oil
bl
u
�o
o
i
c
o
c
.
no
o
0 0 ,J
L�GNIS NO.LIPNIHS`dM
o
µ ` _ •
N
I Non
_ N o1 Y U) ,6 I' d x lO j 6 la IL �D -7
Q
� ) N
U.
an"el ieoai ■•a
ss"ai twat
Stsaas ulu+onso Www"
loo.Y9 44078 46" &A 9
WDH&floO ,�O0 uwo llwa fln W=o
•�•�•d luutwass4s RiaE) •P
oil
H SW h�1 MdQ) d-ILH0nO W-
0
d
Q
21
A
0
Q
id
NVWML 490M x•d
9d4-99L 19091
OL9a9 oujonvO 'SoNow"
~9 go49 ma SA 9
13a1142M
•�•1•d `uu+awaBalg ABBE) •f
a ��a
�
ME
0dF ill 4 t 4'"i' \
I
I
pa I
i1000 -10
noH&floAo=Ono "WRma no r»
aOdfiRMno WILMMU r»
9
�2
z
sS
sg
.b14
rrITTT1rn -TU.m"Tn
'11 11111111 0 1111 it 11 11MI 110 11
I0 Jill 1111 11 1 I i11 11 010111 1 11
to 111 lull +d I54IFil
�� Ip 111111110 1 11111 0 J1d11
I-
10 1111 IIII 0 I IM
�0Jill 111101 [1111M111111
II II 0 II II II it p II II II II 0 I 1 II Ipll II 0 II
Ilpllq II II II II0111111119 1 �d 11lplillnll
Ipiln II II IIIIp1111111101 II d I Ilnlllnll
I 11�,11JL0 II II II it 0 $ d I I Il.II
Illlllp II II IIII� I IIII
11 11 IIJill 11
01111 '.Inl Idll Igll!I II
II II1111 11 llllpllll 11014d1 �IIIdII
S Ilgllll II Illlpllll 1101 Idlln 11611
it p ll ll II II II II 0 Jill 1111 1 1 4 d lI I II
II II II II II II II IIIIgI rddf"'
q 94, Illl00nplillllnl I11
Illlgllp Ilullq uuullnullIIII —
I III n II 11 0 11 0 11 II 11 Ill
Jill II II 0 I d
of II fl p 1 0 11 p 1111 Iffy 0111HFp 1
I'llnl Ilpllq II II II IIplllllIllII d d
Illillllu Ilpllq [11111IIn��uiiiinl h
a
o a
I
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 94-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA
CERTIFYING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 94-289
PREPARED FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-
015
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 94-289
J. L. JARNAGIN
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta,
California, did on the 13th clay of December, 1994, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to
consider the request of J. L. Jarnagin for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a full service
car wash and detail shop on the east side of Washington Street, 100± feet south of Highway
111; and,
WHEREAS, said Conditional Use Permit has complied with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970" (as amended) (Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that the
Community Development Department has prepared Initial Study EA 94-289; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has determined
that said Conditional Use Permit will not have a significant adverse effect on the
environment and that a Negative Declaration of environmental impact should be filed; and,
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission
did find the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify certification of said
Environmental Assessment:
1. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare
of the community, either directly or indirectly.
2. The proposed project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self sustaining; levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.
3. The proposed project does not have the potential to achieve short-term
environmental goals,, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals.
4. The proposed project will not result in impacts which are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable.
RESOPC.107
Resolution 94-
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the
Commission for this environmental assessment.
2. That is does hereby certifies Environmental Assessment 94-289 for the reasons set
forth in this resolution and as stated in the attached environmental Assessment
Checklist and Addendum, labeled Exhibit "A" - EA.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 13th day of December, 1994, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
DON ADOLPH, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
1U:s0Pc.107
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94--015 - RECOMMENDED
J. L. JARNIGAN (CARWASH)
DECEMBER 13, 1994
COM11UNITV DEVBLOPMBNT D AST�NT
1. The development of this site shall be in substantial conformance with the exhibits
contained in the file for Conditional Use Permit 94-015 unless amended by the following
conditions.
2. The approved conditional use permit shall be used within one year of the City approval
date of December 13, 1994; otherwise it shall become null and void and of no effect
whatsoever. "Be used" means the beginning of substantial construction which is allowed
by this approval, not :including grading which is begun within the one year period and
thereafter diligently pursued to completion. Time extensions up to a total of two years
may be requested pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9.172.060.
3. Approval of this conditional use permit shall be subject to approval of a variance
application for setback requirements as noted in the staff report for Conditional Use
Permit 94-015.
4. An exterior lighting plan for the parking lot area and buildings shall be approved by the
Community Development Department prior to issuance of a building permit. Light fixtures
shall be designed and placed so as to shield glare from adjacent properties and streets.
There shall be no flair poles installed unless approved by the Planning Commission as
required by Code.
6. There shall be additional architectural treatment provided on the exterior walls facing
Washington Street and Highway III through the use of stuccoed columns similar to those
used within the parking lot area.
7. All trees shall be a minimum 48" box size with all palm trees being a minimum of 8-feet
in height.
8. If prior to issuance of a building permit, the City requests installation of a City entry sign
at the intersection of Highway III and Washington Street, the applicant shall install and
maintain said sign.
9. There shall be no outdoor storage in unscreened areas or sales displays on the property
unless approved by the Community Development Department.
CONAPRVL.143 1
Conditions of Approval
Conditional Use Permit 94.015
December 13, 1994
10. The project shall pay the required Art in Public Places fee prior to issuance of a building
permit.
11. There shall be no exposed rain downspouts permitted on the building unless they are an
integral part of the architectural element of the structure.
12. Within 48-hours of final City Council approval, the applicant shall pay the required State
Fish and Game fee of $1328.00 to the City. The City shall forward said fee to the County
of Riverside.
13. The provisions of the City Water Conservation Ordinance (Ordinance 220) shall be met
during plan check.
14. The developer shall retain a qualified archaeologist immediately upon any discovery of
archaeological remains or artifacts during grading of the site. The developer shall apply
appropriate mitigation measures during the project development should archaeological
remains or artifacts be uncovered.
15. Wall heights around the paved parking area shall be subject to final review and approval
of the Community Development Department prior to issuance of a building permit.
16. If perimeter public street improvements are not installed initially with the project,
temporary planting shall be installed in any unpaved areas adjacent to the streets
17. Trees shall be planted near the north and south openings of the carwash in the perimeter
planting areas to screen said carwash opening from view of Washington Street.
18. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant/developer shall meet with the
Community Development Department to determine what trash materials can be recycled.
Upon that determination, recycling areas sufficient in capacity, number, and distribution
to serve the development shall be provided. Trash enclosures shall comply with the
requirements of the City and Waste Management of the Desert (i.e., solid metal doors
mounted on poles embedded in concrete with an 8-inch curb provided within the enclosure,
etc.).
19. A noise study shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer and submitted to the
Community Development Department prior to submission of building plans for plan check
or issuance of a grading permit, whichever comes first. The study shall concentrate on
noise impacts on interior areas for perimeter streets and impacts on the proposed and
abutting land uses and provide mitigation measures. Mitigation measures as determined
by the Community Development Director shall be provided as part of the construction of
the project.
CONAPRVL.143 2
Conditions of Approval
Conditional Use Permit 94-015
December 13, 1994
20. Prior to issuance of a ;grading permit, the applicant shall prepare and submit a written
report to the Community Development Director demonstrating compliance with those
conditions of approval which must be satisfied prior to issuance of a building permit.
Prior to final building occupancy inspection approval, the applicant shall prepare and
submit a second written report demonstrating compliance with all remaining conditions
of approval and mitigation measures. The Community and Development Director may
require inspection or other monitoring to assure such compliance.
21. The parking lot stripping plan including directional arrows, stop signs, no parking areas,
and parking spaces, shall be approved by the Community Development Department and
Engineering Department prior to issuance of a building permit.
22. The color and design of the decorative entry ways shall be reviewed and approved by the
Community Development Department prior to issuance of a building permit.
23. If required, the applicant shall install a bus "turn out" and bus shelter on Highway III
in compliance with Call Trans, Sunline Transit, and City requirements.
24. All mitigation measures of Environmental Assessment 94-289 on file in the Community
Development Department shall be met.
25. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit for construction of any building or use
contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances, if
necessary, from the following public agencies:
Fire Marshal
Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit)
Community Development Department
Riverside County Environmental Health Department
Desert Sands Unified School District
Coachella Valley Water District
Imperial Irrigation District
California Regional Water Quality Control Board (NPDES Permit)
The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those
jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall
furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approvals and signatures on the
plans.
Evidence of permits or clearances from the above jurisdictions shall be presented to the
Building Department at the time of the application for a building permit for the use
contemplated herewith.
CONAPRVL.143 3
Conditions of Approval
Conditional Use Permit 94.015
December 13, 1994
26. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City's adopted
Infrastructure Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits.
I A 1:1 :j",Til:
27. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 1250 gpm for a two
hour duration at 20 psi' residual operating pressure which must be available before any
combustible material is placed on the job site.
28. The required fire flow shall be available from a Super Hydrant(s) (6" X 4" X 2r111), located
not less than 25-feet nor more than 165-feet from any portion of the building(s) as
measured along approved vehicular travelways.
29. Prior to issuance of a building permit, applicantldeveloper shall furnish one blueline copy
of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review/approval. Plans shall
conform to fire hydrant, types, location and spacing, and the system shall meet registered
civil engineer and local water company with the following certification: "I certify that
the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the
Riverside County Fire Department."
30. Install a complete fire sprinkler system NFPA 13 Ordinary Hazard Occupancy Group 1. The
post indicator valve and fire department connection shall be located to the front within
50-feet of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25-feet from the buildings.
31. System plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for review, along with a
plantinspection fee. The approved plans, with Fire Department job card must be at the
job site for all inspections.
32. Install a supervised waterflow fire alarm system as required by the Uniform Building
CodelRiverside County Fire Department and National Fire Protection Association Standard
71.
33. All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must be
submitted separately for approval prior to construction. Subcontractors should contact
the Planning and Engineering office for submittal requirements.
34. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less than 2A10BC in
rating. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment.
35. Install Knox Lock Boxes, Models 4400, 3200, or 1300, mounted per recommended standard
of the Knox Company. Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for approval and
mounting location/position and operating standards. Special forms are available from the
Riverside County Planning and Engineering office for the correctly coded system to be
purchased.
CONAPRVL.143 4
Conditions of Approval
Conditional Use Permit 94.015
December 13, 1994
36. A plan check fee must be paid to the Fire Department at the time building plans are
submitted.
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT:
IIBIPROVENUT AGREEMENT
37. The applicant shall construct, or enter into a secured agreement to construct, the on- and
off -site grading, streets, utilities, landscaping, on -site common area improvements, and
any other improvements required by these conditions before issuance of a grading permit
for this development.
Improvements to be made or agreed to shall include removal of any existing structures
or obstructions which are not part of the proposed improvements.
38. The applicant shall pay cash or provide security in guarantee of cash payment for
required improvements which are deferred for future construction by others.
Deferred improvements for this development include:
A. Construction of 30-feet of pavement, curb and gutter on Washington Street from
the south side of the entry drive to the end of the curb radius to State Route 111.
The improvements shall include removal, relocations, or replacements of existing
improvements as required by the City Engineer.
B. Applicant's pro rate share of the cost of a new storm drain along Washington
Street to the Whitewater River channel. The secured amount shall include the cost
of a storm drain lateral crossing from the west side of Washington Street to the
storm drain outffall for this development.
C. Applicant's pro rata share of the cost of undergrounding existing overhead utility
lines within or adjacent to the currently undeveloped portion of the property
bounded by Washington Street, State Route III (S.R. 111), and Simon Drive.
The applicant's obligations for all or a portion of the deferred improvements may, at the
City's option, be satisfied by participation in a major thoroughfare improvement program
or other street infrastructure fee program which may be adopted by the City.
DEDICATIONS
39. The applicant shall dedicate or deed public street right-of-way and utility easements in
conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and
as required by the City Engineer. Approved deeds and/or dedications shall be executed
and recorded prior to issuance of any encroachment, grading, or building permit.
CONAPRVL.143 5
Conditions of Approval
Conditional Use Permit 94-015
December 13, 1994
Required deeds andlor dedications include:
A. Washington Street - 95-foot half width right-of-way from the section line west of
Washington Street centerline and may be reduced where right turn lane
terminates. Right-of-way line shall be a minimum of 10 feet east of the approved
curb location. Dedication shall include the applicant's portion of the corner
cutback for a 50-foot curb radius at the intersection with S.R. 111.
1. The applicant shall deed to the City blanket sidewalklbikepath easements
over the required landscape setbacks along Washington Street and S.R.
111.
2. The applicant shall dedicate any easements necessary for placement of
and access to utility lines and structures, drainage facilities, and mailbox
clusters.
GRADING
40. Prior to occupation of the project site for construction purposes, the applicant shall
submit and receive approval of a Fugitive Dust Control plan prepared in accordance with
Chapter 6.10, La Q,uinta Municipal Code. In accordance with said Chapter, the applicant
shall furnish security„ in a form acceptable to the City, in an amount sufficient to
guarantee compliance with the provisions of the permit.
1. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a condition so as to prevent
dust and blowsand nuisances and shall be planted with interim landscaping or
provided with other wind and water erosion control measures as approved by the
Community Development Department and Public Works Departments.
2. The applicant shall comply with the City's Flood Protection Ordinance.
3. A thorough preliminary engineering, geological and soils engineering investigation
shall be conducted. The report of the investigation ("the soils report") shall be
submitted with the grading plan.
4. A grading plan shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and must meet the
approval of the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit.
The grading plan shall conform with the recommendations of the soils report and shall
be certified as adequate by a soils engineer or an engineering geologist.
Prior to issuance of any building permit the applicant shall provide a separate document
bearing the seal and signature of a California registered civil engineer, geotechnical
engineer, or surveyor that lists actual building pad elevations. The document shall, for
each building pad, state the pad elevation approved on the grading plan, the as -built
CONAPRVL.143
Conditions of Approval
Conditional Use Permit 94.015
December 13, 1994
elevation, and shall clearly identify the difference, if any. The data shall be organized
by lot number and shall be cumulative if the data is submitted at different times.
DRAINAGE
41. The site shall be graded to permit storm flow in excess of retention or storm drain
capacity to flow off the site through a designated overflow outlet and into the historic
drainage relief route. The site shall be designed to receive storm flow from adjoining
property at locations that have historically received flow.
42. The design of this development shall not cause any change in flood boundaries, levels or
frequencies in any area outside the property.
43. Storm water run-off produced during a 100-year storm shall be routed to the City storm
drain facility on the west side of Washington Street. If that facility is not yet in place
at the time this project is constructed, the applicant may temporarily direct storm flow,
In an approved manner, to the existing east gutterline of Washington Street. If the
temporary solution is utilized, the applicant shall construct an approved storm drain stub -
out beyond the proposed future curbline of Washington Street for connection to the future
City storm drain facility.
44. The applicant shall provide for on -site retention, treatment, or sanitary sewer disposal of
nuisance water produced as a result of this development. Nuisance water shall not be
allowed to enter the storm drainage system.
This requirement shall The waived during any period in which the applicant demonstrates
to the City that the nuisance water will not contribute to pollutant loadings which may
require the expenditure public funds to mitigate.
45. The applicant shall provide for treatment or sanitary sewer disposal of gray water
produced by this development. Gray water shall include service bay and operations area
washdown water as well as wash- and rinse -water from the car wash.
UTILITIES
46. The applicant shall pay a pro rata share of the cost of the undergrounding of overhead
utility lines. The pro rota share shall be based on the percentage this parcel represents
of the currently undeveloped portion of the property bounded by Washington Street, S.R.
111, and Simon Drive. The utilities to be undergrounded shall include all existing
overhead lines within or adjacent to the larger property.
CONAPRVL.143 7
Conditions of Approval
Conditional Use Permit 94-015
December 13, 1994
47. In areas where hardscape surface improvements are planned, underground utilities shall
be installed prior to construction of the surface improvements. The applicant shall
provide certified reports of utility trench compaction tests for approval of the City
Engineer.
48. The applicant shall comply with Conditions of Approval requested by the Coachella Valley
Water District.
STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS
49. Improvement plans for all streets, drives, and parking areas shall be prepared by a
registered civil engineer. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance
with the La Quinta Municipal Code, adopted Standard Drawings, and as approved by the
City Engineer.
Pavement sections shall be based on a Caltrans design procedure for a 20-year life and
shall consider soil strength and anticipated traffic loading. The minimum pavement
sections shall be as follows:
Residential & Parking Areas 3.0" a.c.14.50" a.b.
Collector 4.01115.00"
Secondary Arterial 4.0"16.00"
Primary Arterial 4.51116.00"
Major Arterial 5.51'16.50"
If the applicant proposes to construct a partial pavement section for use during
construction or between phases of construction, the partial section shall be designed with
a strength equivalent to the 20-year design strength.
50. Improvements shall include all appurtenances such as traffic signs, channelization
markings, raised medians if required, street name signs, sidewalks, and mailbox clusters
approved in design and location by the U.S. Post Office and the City Engineer. Mid -block
street lighting is not required.
51. The City Engineer may require miscellaneous incidental improvements and enhancements
to existing improvements as necessary to integrate the new work with existing
improvements and provide a finished product conforming with City standards and practices.
This may include, but is not limited to, street width transitions extending beyond property
boundaries.
CONAPRVL.143 8
Conditions of Approval
Conditional Use Permit 94.015
December 13, 1994
LANDSCAPING
52. The applicant shall provide landscape improvements in the setback lots along the following
streets:
A. Washington Street
B. S. R. 111
The applicant is encouraged to . minimize steep slope designs within the perimeter
landscaping setback areas. Use of lawn shall be minimized with no lawn or spray
irrigation within 5-feet of curbs along public streets.
53. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements
of the City Engineer.
54. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect.
Landscape and irrigation plans shall meet the requirements of and be signed by the
Community Development Director, the City Engineer, the Coachella Valley Water District, and
the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner.
55. The applicant shall insure that landscaping plans and utility plans are coordinated to
provide visual screening of above -ground utility structures.
56. The applicant or applicant's successors in ownership of the property shall ensure perpetual
maintenance of the approved landscaping and related improvements.
QUALITY ASSURANCE
57. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the
approval of the City Engineer.
58. The applicant shall employ or retain California registered civil engineers, geotechnical
engineers, or surveyors, as appropriate, who will provide, or have his or her agents provide,
sufficient supervision and verification of the construction to be able to furnish and sign
accurate record drawings and certify compliance of all work with approved plans,
specifications and applicable codes.
59. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record
drawings of all plans signed by the City Engineer. Each sheet of the drawings shall have
the words "Record Drawings," "As -Built" or "As -Constructed" clearly marked on each sheet
and be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy of the
drawings.
CONAPRVL . 14 3 10
Conditions of Approval
Conditional Use Permit 94.015
December 13, 1994
FEES AND DEPOSITS
60. The applicant shall pay all deposits and fees required by the City for plan checking and
construction inspection. Deposit and fee amounts shall be those in effect when the
applicant makes application for the plan checks and permits.
WSCELLANBOUS
61. Except for water, sewer and electric transmission systems which are under the jurisdiction
of other agencies, all non -building improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted on
24" x 36" media.
62. Plans for grading, drainage, streets, pedestrian/bike facilities, gates, common parking
areas, parks, lighting, landscaping & irrigation, and perimeter walls are not approved for
construction until they have been signed by the City Engineer.
63. Prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy for buildings, the applicant shall install
traffic control devices and street name signs along access roads to those buildings.
CONAPRVL . 14 3 11
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
:M.EM0RAN DUM
HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DECEMBER 13, 1994
SIGN APPLICATION 94-270
On December 9, 1994, staff received a last minute sign application request from Mr. Skip Berg
who represents both Carls Jr. and The Green Burrito. Mr. Berg asked that staff place his
request on the December 13th agenda because they cannot wait until January 10, 1995, for the
Planning Commission to consider his clients sign application request. The applicant is
requesting that the Planning Commission approve the new sign program for the existing Carls
Jr. restaurant at 78-672 Highway III (One Eleven La Quinta Center). Mr. Berg has stated that
the Carls Jr. Corporation has signed a contract with the Green Burrito to operate both
businesses from the existing restaurant. Therefore, both companies would like their corporate
sign programs approved. The application and drawings for the project are attached. The
applicant has stated that he will be present to explain his last minute request.
The master sign program for this shopping center requires tenants to have approval by the
Planning Commission if corporate colors are used. Last year the Planning Commission
approved the existing Carl's Jr. signs, but as you will see in the attached drawings, the
original signs have been modified to accommodate the new request by the Green Burrito.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. The Planning Commission can elect to pass Minute Motion 94- approving the Sign
Application 94-270; or
2. Continue the case to January 10, 1994, because the application was submitted after the
City's normal deadline date.
Attachments
MEMO&T.O72
Case Number
Date Received
PLANNING S DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
SIGN PERMIT APPLICATION
APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
A. The following shall be submitted by the Applicant to the Planning &
Development Department at the time of permit application unless otherwise
modified by the Planning Director:
1. Completed sign application obtained from the City.
2. Appropriate sign plans with number of copies and exhibits as
required in the application.
3. Appropriate fees as established by Council resolution.
4. Letter of consent or authorization from property owner, or
lessor, or authorized agent of the building or premises upon
which the sign is to be erected.
B. Plans Required - Information required - the following information
must be shown on the sign plan:
I. Sign elevation drawing indicating overall and
letter/figure/design dimensions, colors, materials, proposed
copy and illumination method.
2. Site plan indicating the location of all main and accessory
signs existing or proposed for the site with dimensions,
color, material, copy and method of illumination indicated for
each.
3. Building elevations with signs depicted (for non -freestanding
signs).
Applicant
Mailing Address I-/"/ T 6HE
-2�j Phone:
Name of Business
Type of Business _ Phone: )
Address of Business
FORM.004/CS -I-
Sign Company Name 7
Address Phone:
Sign Company Representative fr K t P /Z _-
Type of Signs Proposed:
Number
Number
Free Standing
L f�-z) Wall Mounted
Temporary
Main Trade Sign
Directional Sign
Offsite Advertising
Location of Proposed Signsr��t>F_�
Assessor's Parcel Number
Zone
sou rFt - $t� r-" % - `/ 7
Overall dimensions of sign (and of copy face if less) -Y61' kIEsr_ �
Materials _ryl F-54 L w- _ 2L ,yrnG,
Colors P.�4�Ls .� - �� t-4au� R�= ►� t=TREFu &-vi r o -r�!FA�-iQE&
-T—
Type of Illumination .1�+Iti1
Declared Value or Contract Price
Signature of Applicant �27 Date ,;, - $-9
Signature of Property Owner (s) *�." t` c_ Date
*(Written Authority May be Attached) Date
NOTE: Any false or misleading information shall be grounds for denial of
this application.
FORM.004/CS -2-
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California
NOVEMBER 22, 1994
1. CALL TO ORDER
A. The meeting was called to order at 7:04 P.M. by Chairman Adolph.
Commissioner Anderson led the flag salute.
II. ROLL CALL
7:00 P.M.
A. Chairman Adolph requested the roll call. Present: Commissioners Abels,
Anderson, Barrows, Butler, Gardner, Newkirk, and Chairman Adolph.
B. Staff Present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney
Dawn Honeywell, Public Works Director Dave Cosper, Senior Engineer Steve
Speer, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, and Department Secretary Betty Sawyer
III. PUBLIC COMMENT: None
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Tentative Tract 27854 (Revised) and Specific Plan 93-023 (Amendment #1); a
request of Jascorp for approval to 1.) revise an approved tentative tract map to
reduce the number of buildable lots from 116 to 106; and 2.) to revise the
adopted Conditions of Approval for the project's specific plan.
1. Community Development Department Director Jerry Herman informed
the commission the applicant had requested a continuance.
2. Chairman Adolph opened the public hearing and as no one wished to
address the Commission, Commissioners Abels/Gardner moved to
continue the hearing to December 13, 1994.
B. Plot Plan 94-541; a request of Vintage Homes, a Division of Century Homes,
for approval of four new house plans for construction on 102 lots within Lake
La Quinta.
1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the
staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department.
2. Commissioner Butler asked if staff had checked to see if the existing
project had three car garages and what was offered by the Avante
project. Staff stated the two smaller units have 2-car garage and the
third has a 2-car garage with extra workshop area, but no second door.
The Marquessa units, part of the original project on the lake, had three -
car garages.
3. Chairman Adolph asked if staff knew how many units were to be built in
proportion to the other two models. Staff stated Only two production
units of the Avante unit are under production and staff does not know
the size: of those units. Staff further stated that percentage were not
relative as there were only a few. Community Development Director
Jerry Herman stated these units were approved prior to the
Compatibility Ordinance and it did not relate to this project.
4. There being no further comments of staff, Chairman Adolph opened the
public hearing. Mr. Arthur Levine spoke on behalf of the applicant and
stated they had no problem with adding the additional treatment on the
elevations as requested by staff. He went on to state that it was the
intention of the developer to have a two car garage with a golf cart
space. This would allow the homeowner the golf cart space or the
additional storage space. The garage sizes are per the City requirements
and Building Code. Mr. Levine questioned Condition #12 and stated he
was offering the circular driveway as an option and asked that the
Commission allow a 20-foot setback instead of requiring the 25-foot.
He would install a berm to give relief to the amount of concrete on the
circular driveways.
5. Commissioner Gardner asked about the number of curb cuts that are
already existing. Mr Levine stated the circular driveway was being
offered as an option and if a homeowner does not want the circular
driveway on a lot with two cuts; they will reconstruct the curb.
Commissioner Gardner asked that this be added to the conditions.
6. Chairman Adolph stated his concern about the amount of concrete and
asked that if the applicant would agree to a certain number of circular
driveways and no two in a row. Mr. Levine stated he understood the
Commission was looking for the best streetscape possible but he would
prefer to have the opportunity to see if they could landscape the area to
reduce the amount of concrete rather than being limited to a number or
location. He would prefer to present an alternative to mitigate the
problem. Chairman Adolph asked Mr. Levine to submit a design for the
Commission to approve upon approval of a final landscape plan. Mr.
Levine stated they would.
7. Commissioner Anderson suggested that the applicant present several
options for the Commission to consider. He stated he felt the berm was
an excellent idea and a suggestion might be to give variations to the
berm.
8. Chairman Adolph asked what the price range was going to be for the
homes. Mr. Levine stated the prices would range from $1604215,000.
9. Commissioner Butler asked about the number of garages with four
bedroom houses and where do the extra cars would be parked. Mr.
Levine stated he did not believe there would be a "sea of cars" problem
and he felt that providing the space for two cars and a space for the
storage so the cars are still allowed enough space to park two cars in the
garage and if there was a third car it could be parked in the driveway.
Commissioner Butler stated he felt the price range would dictate people
not wanting their cars parked all over the street.
10. Commissioner Butler asked what the dimension of the golf cart space
was. Mr. Levine stated the door was 7-foot. Commissioner Anderson
stated a. car garage door is 8-feet. Commissioner Butler pointed out that
with the loft there is a potential for five bedrooms. Mr. Levine stated
the loft is meant to be a recreational space not a bedroom, but it is
impossible to dictate what a property owner will do once he owns the
house.
11. Commissioner Anderson stated the Commission needed to look at all the
possible uses these rooms could have. Even though it is not being
presented that way and is not the intended use, it could be made into a
five bedroom house. Mr. Levine stated that once the home is
purchased, it is theirs to do with as they please. A developer cannot
address, what will happen beyond the sale.
12. Commissioner Butler stated his concern that the homeowner is not given
a choice if the space provided is for a golf cart instead of a third
garage. Mr. Levine stated that was correct but not all the existing units
have three car garages. Staff stated that Plan #4 could easily be widened
to be rnade into a three car garage. Mr. Levine stated they had not done
this. Staff stated that additionally, Plan #3 could be extended to
accommodate a third car. Staff stated that Plans #1 and #2 would take
some design changes.
13. Commissioner Butler stated his concern that with the larger homes, the
need exists for a three car garage. Mr. Levine stated there is always the
potential to have a host of cars with the larger homes but it depends on
the farnily and in his experience he had not seen the problem.
Discussion followed regarding three car garages. Chairman Adolph
stated that the Commission had set a precedent by requiring a three car
garage on larger homes. Mr. Levine asked if there were any existing
requirements requiring the applicant to provide a three car garage.
14. Commissioner Anderson stated structural stability would require
additional width between the doors and the single garage door would
need to be six feet. He stated he shared the concern that five bedrooms
could have two car garages, but there are no existing requirements
requiring the developer to increase the garages. Commissioner Butler
stated that there are existing three car garages in the community and it
could be stressed as an issue of compatibility.
15. Mr. Levine stated that the compatibility ordinance was for the livable
square footage, and the basic minimum size, and deals with the visual or
architectural aspect of the house so that what is built is not wildly out of
step with the existing. Other than the size the ordinance does not
address the number of garages provided. Mr. Levine stated he felt they
had complied with all the requirements.
16. Mr. John Pavilak, president of Vintage Homes, stated that he was
beginning to feet the Commission was closing the door on his face on
the units he was submitting. He was questioned regarding the number of
possible bedroom changes, garages, etc. He stated that other projects
that had been approved were not required to have the three car garages.
He felt that they had tried to comply with all the requirements and he
was now being scrutinized for everything he was building. Mr. Pavilak
agreed to modify Plan 4 and Plan 3 to include three car garages.
17. Commissioner Anderson stated that the attempt was not to over
scrutinize but comments are made to understand what the impacts of the
Commission's decisions will be. It is the Commissions desire to fully
understand the project.
18. There being no further public comment, Chairman Adolph closed the
public :hearing and opened the matter for Commission discussion.
19. Commissioner Newkirk stated he felt the Commission needed to look at
what the neighbors are requesting. The Avante and Marquessa
homeowners are in favor of the project and do not show any concern.
20. Commissioner Butler stated the Plan 3 and Plan 4 show that they could
easily be converted to three car garages. He felt that the existing units
now have two and three car garages and he felt the demand for the area
was for three car garages on the larger homes.
21. Staff stated the Commission needed to add an extra condition regarding
the curb cuts and Planning Commission review of the final landscape
plans with several options for the circular driveways. Commissioner
Anderson asked if the approval of the circular driveways could be
approved at the later date with the landscaping drawings. City Attorney
Dawn Honeywell stated that the Planning Commission could hold off
approval to the landscaping plans and call out specific requirements or
wait to see the options that were presented. This would require
changing Condition #12 to be subject to Planning Commission approval
with the landscape drawings.
22. Commissioner Butler asked that Plans #3 and #4 be required to be three
car garages with a minimum width of 29-feet and door widths of 8-feet
and 15--feet.
23. Chairrnan Adolph asked if Mr. Levine was in agreement to the
conditions as submitted and as amended. Mr. Levine stated that he was
in agreement. Commissioner Anderson stated Mr. Levine was in
disagreement with the 25-setback, but that it might be a mute point
depending on the landscaping options submitted.
24. Staff clarified that proposed Condition #14 would be deleted and
Condition #12 amended regarding circular driveways. Commissioner
Anderson stated his concern that the Commission could not require a
three car garage if the ordinance did not contain the requirement.
Commissioners Barrows and Newkirk stated their agreement with
Commissioner Anderson. Staff clarified that the garage size for the Plan
#4 was adequate but the single door would have to be widened. Mr.
Pavilob. stated they could make those changes.
25. Commissioner Anderson asked for clarification regarding Condition #4.
Staff stated that Condition #14 for Plans #3 and #4 would be required to
be a minimum width of 29-feet and with a 15-foot and 8-foot wide door.
26. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Abels/Butler to adopt Minute Motion 94-038 approving
Plot Plan 94-541 as amended (amending Condition #12 and adding
Conditions #13 and #14). Unanimously approved.
]BUSINESS SESSION:
A. Continued - Plot Plan 94-529; a request of Century Homes for approval of
circular driveways for homes at the Rancho Ocotillo subdivision.
1. Commissioner Butler withdrew due to a possible conflict of interest.
2. Staff presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of
which i.s on file in the Community Development Department.
3. There being no questions of staff, Chairman Adolph asked if the
applicant wished to address the Commission. Mr. Dennis Cunningham
stated lie felt the revised exhibit submitted met with the Commissions
request. Regarding percentages, Mr. Cunningham stated that circular
driveways were an option and he would like to let market demand
determine the percentages.
4. Commissioner Anderson stated that on the exhibit no two driveways are
curbed together nor are they in the same direction. Commissioner
Anderson asked what the separation would be between the two
driveways. Mr. Cunningham stated it was an 8-feet with a planter.
5. Commissioner Anderson asked about the tree in the island as to whether
this was a condition or was this an option. Mr. Cunningham stated they
are required to supply two trees. The location was an option. Mr.
Cunningham stated they would make variations so not to be repetitive.
6. Chairman Adolph questioned which lots could have the circular
driveways and reminded Mr. Cunningham that he had stated he would
only allow 50 % of the homes to have circular driveways. Mr.
Cunningham stated he did not remember making that statement, but if he
did so then he was stuck with it. Chairman Adolph stated that on the
exhibit the majority of the homes have circular driveways and he was
concerned for the number of circular driveways. He asked Mr. Cunning
ham what he felt the numbers would be. Mr. Cunningham stated that he
was hesitant to quote any numbers as he would prefer to let the market
dictate, but there was not a large demand at this time for the circular
driveway.
7. Commissioner Abels stated his offense to being told the Commission
was " inicro managing" the projects. The Commission was concerned
about the quality of homes in La Quinta and Mr. Cunningham had
earlier agreed with the 50% maximum figure. He further stated he
would be content with a statement that no circular driveways would be
side by side and asked if Mr. Cunningham would be agreeable. Mr.
Cunningham stated his problem was with the flexibility to build what the
market demands. In regards to his comment on micro management, he
stated this was in regards to the entire process that he had been through.
Mr. Cunningham stated he did not understand the objection to the
driveways being next door to each other as he felt the plan submitted
showing the driveways curving away from each other kept the amount of
concrete down.
8. Commissioner Anderson asked what the building setback was. Mr.
Cunningham stated it was 7 to 8 feet and the City requires five feet.
Commissioner Anderson stated that potentially the driveways could be
ten feet apart and with the worse case scenario they would be 8-feet
apart for circular driveways and ten feet for a regular driveway. The
difference is not that great and the landscaping would make the
difference. Discussion followed.
9. Commissioner Barrows stated that with the additional landscaping her
fears were alleviated and she felt the applicant had done an excellent job.
She further pointed out to Mr. Cunningham that the Planning
Commission was now serving the capacity of the Design Review Board
and therefore was reviewing the projects with additional criteria in mind.
10. Ms. Barbara Irwin, Rancho Ocotillo resident stated her concern with the
density of the circular driveways. She felt no two circular driveways
should be allowed side -by -side and the proposed landscaping was
inadequate. She further stated that presently there were no circular
driveways and this could potentially create gridlock.
11. There being no further public comment, Commissioners
Barrows/Newkirk moved to adopt Minute Motion 94-039, subject to the
amended conditions with 50% of those on the submitted map being
allowed to have circular driveways. City Attorney Honeywell pointed
out that Condition #28 was still in affect. Motion is to accept
landscaping plan and no more than 50% can have circular driveways per
Exhibits #5 and #7 of the staff report and each lot would have a 24-inch
box tree; and a 15-gallon tree. The motion was unanimously approved
with Commissioner Butler being absent.
B. Plot Plan 91-456; a request of The Koenig Companies for approval of a flagpole
at the La Quinta Village shopping center.
Staff presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of
which is on file in the Community Development Department.
2. Commissioner Anderson questioned the color of the pole and thought the
dark color might make the pole stand out. He felt the silver would blend
more.
3. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated the Commission
needed to add a condition restricting the use of the pole to non-
commercial uses only.
4. There being no further discussion, Commissioners Barrows/Anderson
moved to adopt Minute Motion 94-040 approving Plot Plan 91-456
(Amendment #1) subject to the conditions and that no non-commercial
uses would be allowed and proper lighting would be installed and used
according to proper flag etiquette. Commissioner Abels questioned the
color and stated he felt the dark color would be better. Commissioners
Barrows/Anderson agreed to the amendment and changed the motion.
Unanimously approved.
C. Sign Application 94-265; a request of Inco Homes Corporation for approval of
a sign adjustment to allow two subdivision name signs for "Reunion".
Staff presented the information contained in the staff report; a copy of
which is on file in the Community Development Department.
2. Commissioner Barrows asked about graffiti -proofing the walls. Staff
understood there was a compound that could be placed on to discourage
graffiti. The applicant stated they were in favor of the compound use
and would check into it.
3. Mr. Fred Farr, spoke on behalf of the applicant and explained the
request,.
4. Commissioner Anderson asked if the pilasters were 24-inch square and
if the sign was to be lit. Mr. Farr stated they were 24-inches and would
not be lit.
5. Chairman Adolph asked Mr. Farr to explain the plan view drawing.
Mr. Farr stated it was misleading. Chairman Adolph asked if the
applicant considered any other type of lettering and paint color.
Chairman Adolph stated that color on metal will not hold up unless it
was baked in and assumed it was a raised letter. Mr. Farr stated it was
a raised texture and it would be done by a professional sign company
and the paint being used was similar to car paint and this was a typical
paint for this type of sign. Outdoor Dimensions would be constructing
and installing the sign.
6. There being no further questions of the applicant, Commissioners
Abels/Butler moved to adopt Minute Motion 94-041 to approve the sign
as submitted, subject to conditions. Unanimously approved.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Commissioners Gardner/Anderson moved and seconded a motion to adopt the minutes of
November 8, 1994, as submitted. Unanimously approved.
OTHER:
1. Commissioner report of City Council meeting. Chairman Adolph gave a report of the
Council meeting.
2. Consideration of cancellation of December 27, 1994, Planning Commission meeting.
Commissioners Abels; Newkirk moved and seconded a motion to cancel the meeting of
December 27, 1994.
3. Consideration of representation on the Chamber of Commerce Workshop.
Commissioner Barrows attended the City Council meeting where this was discussed
and felt it was good idea to have a planning commissioner in attendance. The request
was taken to the City Council and they agreed. Commissioner Abels volunteered to
be the representative and Commissioners Barrows and Anderson volunteered to be the
first and second alternates. Commissioner Gardner asked if the Planning Commission
should be concerned with finding commercial entities to come to La Quinta.
Chairman Adolph stated this was a function of the Chamber.
4. Consideration of representation on the Subdivision Update Review Committee. Staff
stated that the Engineering Department had put together a list of organizations that
might be considered as representatives for the Committee. Commissioner Butler asked
if additional names could be added. Staff stated this was not a problem.
Commissioner Butler asked that Desert Contractors Association might be included as
they expressed an interest. Commissioner Anderson stated he would like to see a
developer and a civil engineer added to the committee. The Commissioners agreed
with the engineering list and had names added to the list. Commissioner Barrows
asked if this list should be included with the Zoning Update as well. Community
Development Director Jerry Berman stated that as builders they are aware of the
energy efficient requirements. Commissioner Newkirk stated that a landscape architect
should be added. Dave Cosper stated that they tried to include those who would be
directly affected by the Subdivision Ordinance on a day-to-day basis and would be most
familiar with it.
ADJOURNMENT:
Commissioners Abels/Anderson moved and seconded a motion to adjourn this regular meeting
of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting on December 13, 1994. This regular
meeting of the Planning Commission adjourned at 9:04 P.M., November 22, 1994.
Unanimously approved.
CONSIMUCTIONHOdd
October 1 st - April 30
Monday o Friday: 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
Saturday: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Sunday; None
Government Code Holidays: None
May 1 st . September 30th
Monday o Friday: 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
Saturday: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 P.M.
Sunday: None
Government Code Holidays: None
FOR YOUR INFORMATION - ALL PLANS WILL NOW BE STAMPED WITH THE ABOVE STAMP.
-