The URL can be used to link to this page

2000 11 14 PCr 2u"Y 4 4 Qumrao Planning Commission Agendas are now available on the City's Web Page @ www.la-quinta.org PLANNING COMMISSION A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California November 14, 2000 7:00 P.M. **NOTE** ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. WILL, BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING Beginning Resolution 2000-082 Beginning Minute Motion 2000-016 CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call 11>� 1�13SL196181ITiI Ti14kill This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled for public hearing. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your comments to three minutes. III. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of the Minutes of the regular meeting on October 24, 2000, PC/AGENDA Page 1 of 3 u VI PUBLIC HEARINGS: 0 Item ................. CONTINUED - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2000-396, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2000-067, ZONE CHANGE 2000-093, SPECIFIC PLAN 2000-045, AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2000-677 Applicant .......... Evergreen - Walgreen's Location ........... The southwestern corner of Washington Street and 50th Avenue. Request ............ 1). Change the land use designation from Commercial Ofice to Neighborhood Commercial; 2). Design Guidelines and Development for a 7.63 acre Commercial/Office complex; and 3). Development plans for a one story 14,490 square foot drug store. Action ............... Continue to November 28, 2000 B. Item ................. SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2000-685 Applicant .......... Tait & Assoc Location ........... Northwest corner of Washington Street and Highway 111 Request ............ Review of development plans for a 3,984 square foot convenience store and gas station canopy Action .............. Resolution 2000- BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Item ................. SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 99-664 Applicant .......... Tiburon Homes, LLC Location ........... On the north side of Airport Boulevard, east of Madison Street, in the Norman Golf Course Request ............ Review of irrigation and landscape plans for 19 residential lots Action ............... Minute Motion 2000- B. Item .................. SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 99-665 Applicant ........... Steven Walker Homes Location ............ On the north side of Airport Boulevard, east of Madison Street, in the Norman Golf Course Request ............ Review of landscaping plans for model homes, approved prototype residential plans, and common areas. Action .............. Minute Motion 2000- PC/AGENDA Page 2 of 3 C. Item .................. MASTER DESIGN GUIDELINES 2000-011 Applicant .......... Kristy Brady Location ............ 51-785 and 51-805 Avenida Villa Request ............ Review prototype house plan with two difference facades Action .............. Minute Motion 2000- D. Item ................. MASTER DESIGN GUIDELINES 2000-012 Applicant .......... Robert B. Kellogg and Sylvia M. Kellogg Location ........... La Quinta Cove Request ........... Review eight prototype house plans Action ............. Minute Motion 2000- E. Item ................. SIGN APPLICATION 2000-52:3 Applicant .......... Pomona First Federal Bank and Trust Location ........... 78-752 Highway 111 (previously the Boston Market Restaurant) within the 111 La Quinta Shopping Center Request ............ Review four internally illuminated identification signs including two time and temperature signs Action .............. Minute Motion 2000- VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Commissioner discussion regarding City Council meeting of November 7, 2000. B. Discussion relative to the Planning Commission December 26, 2000 meeting. IX. ADJOURNMENT PC/AGENDA Page 3 of 3 v RE: OCTOBER 24, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PLEASE REPLACE PAGES 2 AND 12 OF THE MINUTES YOU RECEIVED IN YOUR PACKET. WE ARE SORRY FOR THIS INCONVENIENCE. Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 2000 a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change from Tourist Commercial to Low Density Residential, a Specific Plan allowing up to 178 single family detached and attached dwellings on 73 acres; and a Tentative Tract Map subdividing 73 acres into 172 residential lots, and lettered lots for streets, access, landscaping, lakes and a well, located at the southwestern corner of Jefferson Street and 50" Avenue. 1 . Vice Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Planning Manager Christine di lorio presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff noted changes that needed to be made to the Specific Plan conditions to make it consistent with the Tract Map. In addition modification to Conditions #53 & 54 of the Specific Plan and Condition #52 of the Tract Map stating "all on -street parking is prohibited with the exception of guest parking with a permit, subject to HOA approval."; and the deletion of Condition #35 of the Specific Plan and Condition #52 of the Tract Map. 2. Vice Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler asked about the changes at the entry off Avenue 50. Staff stated the changes were at the request of the Fire Department. 3. Commissioner Butler asked for clarification regarding water suitability standards. Staff stated they are water efficiency standards and there are no changes proposed. Commissioner Butler asked if the deletion of Condition #53 regarding parking requirement for guest parking, was normal. Staff stated yes. 4. Commissioner Kirk asked staff to clarify what they were requiring regarding the Water Efficiency Ordinance. ;Staff clarified it was to note that the applicant must supply the; calculations per the Ordinance. Commissioner Kirk stated he did not understand how a project could have 20% in lake and meet City standards. Staff stated the calculations will show if it meets the requirements. Commissioner Kirk stated the City typically works with the applicant to see that they meet the requirements and asked if staff has ever computed the calculation and has the applicant been notified. Staff stated yes. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated the Public Works Department at this stage of the project normally does not check that particular condition under the tentative stage. Staff reviews the hydrology and conditions the applicant to meet the P:\CAROLYN\PC10-2-1.WPD 2 Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 2000 C. Condition #34.B.d. add the "s" and removing the last sentence. Modifying the condition so that all on -street parking is prohibited with the exception of guest parking by permit only and enforced by the Homeowners' Association. d. Modifying Condition #34 2. to read: "All on -street parking is prohibited with the exception of guest parking by permit only and enforced by the Homeowners' Association and the applicant shall be required to provide for the perpetual enforcement of the restriction by the Homeowners' Association. e. Delete Condition #53. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Tyler, and Vice Chairman Abels. NOES: Commissioner Kirk. ABSENT: Chairman Robbins. ABSTAIN: None. 43. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000-076 recommending to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map 29858, as amended. a. Modify Condition #35. 2. To read: All on -street parking is prohibited with the exception of guest parking by permit only and enforced by the Homeowners' Association and the applicant shall be required to provide for the perpetual enforcement of the restriction by the Homeowners' Association. b. Delete Condition #52 C. Condition #55 modified to require "prior to City Council approval the applicant shall provide calculations consistent with Chapter 8.13 of the Municipal Code -Water Efficient Landscaping and that canal water shall be used in place of well water for the lake features. 44. Commissioner Kirk asked if they wanted the applicant to meet calculations or Ordinance, or both. Commissioners agreed that it be both. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Tyler, and Vice Chairman Abels. NOES: Commissioner Kirk. ABSENT: Chairman P:\CAROLYN\PC10-2-1 .WPD 12 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA October 24, 2000 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Vice Chairman Abels who asked Commissioner Kirk to lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Richard Butler, Tom Kirk, Robert Tyler, and Vice Chairman Abels. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Tyler to excuse Chairman Steve Robbins. Unanimously approved. C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez, Planning Manager Christine di lorio, Senior Engineer Steve Speer, Principal Planner Stan Savva, Consultant Nicole Criste, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. Ill. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed. IV. CONSENT ITEMS: A. Vice Chairman Abels asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of joint meeting of October 10, 2000. Commissioner Tyler asked that Page 11, Item #3 be amended to state: "Commissioner Tyler asked if the lights would be 10-feet above grade or the concrete pavement filler?" Page 12, Item 6.a. change the word "with" to "plus". There being no further corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Kirk to approve the minutes as submitted. B. Department Report: None. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: r �Continued - - Environmental •0..0 Amendment8 Zone Change 2000-094 Specific elan 2uvv- 048 and Ten alive Tract Map 2g858; a request of RJT Homes, LLC for certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental P:\CAROLYN\PC10-2-1 .WPD I Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 2000 Impact, a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change from Tourist Commercial to Low Density Residential, a,Specific Plan allowing up to 178 single family detached and attached dwellings on 73 acres; and a Tentative Tract Map subdividing 73 acres into 172 residential lots, and lettered lots for streets, access, landscaping, lakes and a well, located at the southwestern corner of Jefferson Street and 50`h Avenue. 1. Vice Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Planning Manager Christine di lorio presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff noted changes that needed to be made to the Specific Plan conditions to make it consistent with the Tract Map. In addition modification to Conditions #53 & 54 of the Specific Plan and Condition #52 of the Tract Map stating "all on -street parking is prohibited with the exception of guest parking with a permit, subject to HOA approval."; and the deletion of Condition #53 of the Specific Plan and Condition #35 of the Tract Map. 2. Vice Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler asked about the changes at the entry off Avenue 50. Staff stated the changes were at the request of the Fire Department. 3. Commissioner Butler asked for clarification regarding water suitability standards. Staff stated they are water efficiency standards and there are no changes proposed. Commissioner Butler asked if the deletion of Condition #53 regarding parking requirement for guest parking, was normal. Staff stated yes. 4. Commissioner Kirk asked staff to clarify what they were requiring regarding the Water Efficiency Ordinance. Staff clarified it was to note that the applicant must supply the calculations per the Ordinance. Commissioner Kirk stated he did not understand how a project could have 20% in lake and meet City standards. Staff stated the calculations will show if it meets the requirements. Commissioner Kirk stated the City typically works with the applicant to see that they meet the requirements and asked if staff has ever computed the calculation and has the applicant been notified. Staff stated yes. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated the Public Works Department at this stage of the project normally does not check that particular condition under the tentative stage. Staff reviews the hydrology and conditions the PACAROLYMPC10-2"1.WPD 2 Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 2000 applicant to meet the Ordinance. Commissioner Kirk asked staff if the calculations had been computed on the last tract that was before the Commission. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated not as of yet. Commissioner Kirk asked if staff had any information as to whether or not this could meet the City's water efficiency standards. Staff stated that would not be known until plan check. Commissioner Kirk asked if the water was coming from ground water or well water. The project engineer stated well water. 5. Commissioner Tyler asked on the northwest corner of 50"' Avenue and Jefferson Street where the access will be. Staff stated the access is a service access which will be a right in -right out and there is no problem with traffic circulation. 6. Commissioner Kirk asked Planning Consultant Nicole Criste who prepared the Biological Analysis of the Environmental Report, in regard to the Blacktail Gnatcatcher which was observed on site has the Department of Fish and Game agreed to the relocation to surrounding habitat to mitigate the project? Does the Department of Fish and Game see how this will be accomplished? Planning Consultant Nicole Criste stated it is not listed as endangered; it is a species of concern. The environmental assessment stated the habitat is poor and there would be a loss of foraging area but it could be made up on alternate sites. Commissioner Kirk asked what staff was trying to accomplish in regard to the two story condition. Staff stated it is to re-emphasize the requirement. Commissioner Kirk asked if the Specific Plan would be a City document when approved. Staff stated yes. Commissioner Kirk questioned the appropriateness for City staff and Planning Commission Chairman to be mentioned in the document as it appears. He also stated he did not think there had been any discussion between the Chairman and the applicant with respect to the amount of surface area in lake amenities, because on Page 2.12 of the Specific Plan it sort of suggests there has been a buy off by CVWD on the amount of lake area and I do not think that is the case. 7. Vice Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Forrest Haag, representing RJT Homes, deferred to staff's presentation and was available for any questions the Commission may have. In regard to one of the Commission's concerns regarding land use and in this case, this is a more appropriate use for the property as the market will bear P:\CARO LYN\PC 10-2 -1. W PD 3 Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 2000 out. 8. Commissioner Kirk stated he was not as concerned about the land use as he was about the water usage. Mr. Haag stated they have analyzed the Ordinance to see how it works and it is directed to deal with water conservation as it relates to the landscape installation. Not necessarily the bigger picture that the Chairman may be addressing. The way the calculations are driven it is not only site and area specific, it is plant material specific. It is regional and local. The calculations are very difficult, but until a final landscape plant pallette delineates numbers, and water application rates, percolation rates are calculated in, it is hard to give a definitive answer as to whether or not it complies. The engineers for the project have helped in the master planning process to build into this plan is freeboard in the lake where they are dealing with stormwater retention, aesthetics, open space buffer. If the water surface area has to shrink, it increases retention area, but may not change the contour of the landscape. Now whether that is green or has a cactus on it is an issue that will be addressed by the Ordinance. Commissioner Kirk asked if it was his interpretation that the Ordinance only applies to landscape areas and may not apply to the entire project. Mr. Haag stated that to him it reads that it is landscape area and there are exclusions that deal with public benefit landscape areas like outside the wall where a trail would benefit everyone so you make that carve out of the street. There are discounts that benefit running that technical calculation. Lake surface is different because it is not known whether it is open space, landscape element, or development area. In this plan, when you group things together you get into what the intent is and in this case it is responsible use of water. What they have to do is train the market because people do not come here for desertscape. In the resort -lush market, it is not desired. Commissioner Kirk asked staff for their interpretation. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated Section 8.13.020.U. defines the landscape area as, "the entire parcel less the building footprint, driveway, non -irrigated portions of parking lots, hardscapes, such as decks, patios and nonporous areas. Water features are included in the calculations of the landscape areas dedicated to....... So Lakes would fall within the Ordinance requirements. Commissioner Kirk stated he has a hard time understanding how a project with all this lake area can meet the intent of the Ordinance, no matter what you do in the common landscape areas whether it is lush tropical forest or cactus when you have a lake this size. Mr. Forrest stated even more critically a golf course. Imagine the PACAROLYMPC10-2-1 .WPD 4 Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 2000 issue there. 9. Commissioner Butler asked if water suitability standards were the same. In his opinion when you are talking about water suitability standards and what the applicant is talking about, he sees a difference. 10. Commissioner Kirk stated the way he interprets the Ordinance is the way staff read it and that is all landscaping, including the lakes, should be included into the calculations. 11. Commissioner Butler stated he agrees with that, but water suitability, could that be a broader statement. Broader in the sense that, is it right to build lakes in developments or use of water in ways that we are not use to having and these calculations being the confining factors of that suitability. 12, Commissioner Kirk stated staff brought up the Water Efficiency Ordinance. He did not hear staff say "water suitability". 13. Commissioner Butler stated he wrote down "water suitability". 14. Commissioner Kirk stated he agrees the issue of water suitability and some of the letters from CVWD and articles in the newspaper suggest that we need to be more sensitive to this issue as our aquifer is being drawn down. These are very big issues that should impact what the Commission is doing. In addition, the Commission has some leverage with this Water Efficiency Ordinance and he cannot see how these projects can meet that. How can you have a lake this size and meet the intent or the letter of the Ordinance. It should be addressed by staff before it comes before the Planning Commission. This is the second project and you would think the Commission could go through this with the applicants as to whether or not they can build a major lake in one of these developments and meet the Ordinance. Mr. Haag stated that since this is an issue that covers the development community and is not specific and should not be specific to one plan over another and it does get confused when you throw all these design concepts into a development, whether it is golf, residential or a combination of both. He asked if they were to take a 160 acre piece of ground, we know the percolation rate in the desert for places in La Quinta that have engineered soils data, and they could back into what the maximum lake area should be given some type of coverage that P:\CARO LYN\PC 10-2 " 1. W PD 5 Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 2000 is not project driven, but formula driven. 15. Commissioner Butler asked about evaporation; you have two issues. Mr. Haag stated that is part of the calculation, but they know what that is year-round in the desert. Commissioner Butler asked if there is a constant evaporation rate. Mr. Haag stated it is constant over a series of years that is plugged in as a factor into the calculation. They take away the project issue and come back to the Planning Commission with a board that shows a barometer of gauging, and ask if that is too much "blue" area on a map. 16. Commissioner Kirk stated he agrees, but this is the second time this issue before the Commission and this determination should be made before it comes before the Commission. It would be nice to know if this project meets the Ordinance, and he does not believe it does. If the Ordinance only allows them to have a lake 1 /20 of the size proposed, it obviously affects their entire design. Would they build one small lake or consider some other common landscape feature. Mr. Haag stated that as an alternative to be able to address the timing issue here, they suggest that an alternative condition be added that states that before the applicant goes to the City Council calculations be completed to insure compliance with the Ordinance. That way the Commission has the assurance to more forward that the project will comply with the Ordinance. 17. Commissioner Tyler asked about Page 2.14 of the Specific Plan where it states, "it is envisioned that the residential areas of the land will be served by an extension of the contract refuse collection services currently in place of the plan." and this makes no sense as there is nothing in place at the moment. Mr. Haag stated it would be changed to read whatever serves the City. 18. Commissioner Kirk asked if the ALRC reviewed this plan. Staff stated no. Commissioner Kirk asked why not. Staff stated they are to review the specific building elevations and landscaping for the project. The building elevations will go to them as required when submitted. Commissioner Kirk stated that as there is a design component to specific plans, doesn't it make sense to have them review this document now when there are design and landscaping palettes. Staff stated that could be done. Commissioner Kirk suggested that if there is time, he would like P:\CARO LYN\PC 10-2 -1 . W PD 6 Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 2000 to have it reviewed by the ALRC before the (Planning Commission reviews it. He then commended the applicant on his plan. 19. Vice Chairman Abels asked if there was any other public comment. There being no further public comment, the public participation portion of the hearing was closed and opened the project for Commission discussion. 20. Commissioner Butler stated the ALRC's obligation is to review the architectural and landscaping at the same time, but to add an additional review such as the specific plan submission with architectural features at this point when they would be doing it again in the future, may be a burden on them. 21. Commissioner Kirk stated his perspective is that we provide as much guidance to the applicant as early as possible. It would be better to give the applicant a sense of where they ought to be going with the design part of this. ALRC focuses on design issues more than the Commission. The specific plan is setting out guidelines for landscaping and architecture and it makes sense to him that it would be advisable to give the developer/applicant input early. 22. Commissioner Butler stated he agrees, but his concern is that another level of review is being added to an application that staff is not prepared to do. 23. Commissioner Tyler stated that in both this project and the next one on the agenda, the specific plains have exhaustive landscaping designs that should have been reviewed before being brought to the Commission. Planning Consultant Nicole Criste stated that often specific plans document are submitted with site development permits which are the specific; review for elevations and landscaping, but in this case there is not the level of detail because it is just a specific plan. When there is a site development permit, it will go to the ALRC: before coming to the Commission. In this case, there needs to be more detail before taking it to the ALRC. 24. Commissioner Kirk stated he believes either the ALRC or the Commission should review the design details at this stage rather than waiting for the site development permit. Commissioner Kirk stated it is a great project, but he does have significant concern as to whether or not it meets the City's Water Efficiency P:\CARO LYN\PC 10-2 -1. W PD 7 Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 2000 Ordinance. They just had a project brought before them where the same issue was raised and he is disappointed that no analysis was done prior to being before the Commiission that tells them whether or not this meets the Ordinance within some range of acceptability and he does not want to see it happen again. For this reason he cannot support the project. 25. Commissioner Butler stated he concurs, but is leaning toward the applicant's answer to condition the project to show that it can meet the City's standards. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated Condition #55 does make them comply before a grading permit can be issued. If it does not comply then they will have to redesign and bring it back to the Commission. 26. Commissioner Kirk stated he is uncomfortable because the Commission does not know the answer as to whether they are applying the Ordinance correctly. As an example, what if this project had come forward without streets and they said they will comply with the Zoning Ordinance that requires them to have streets; take our word for it and move us forward. Well, the streets are such an integral part of the development, and in this case this major lake in the middle is the essence of the development. So, in that sense he cannot see it happening. He appreciates the developer wanting to move forward, but when the development itself does not meet the City Ordinance, he has a hard time approving it. If they knew the results of that analysis and knew that it did not meet the Ordinance by five or ten percent, maybe they could make some kind of allowance. Planning Consultant Criste stated that in the Specific Plan they could make that kind of modification. Commissioner Kirk stated yes, they could change the Zoning Ordinance, but they do not know whether or not this meets the Ordinance, whether it is two or three fold off, and given our water problems , now and in the future, he has a hard time approving a major lake project that probably does not meet the intent or letter of our Water Efficiency Ordinance. 27. Commissioner Tyler asked if they changed Condition #55 to require the calculations prior to presentation to the City Council, instead of the grading permit, then the City Council could make that decision. 28. Commissioner Kirk stated that would make sense, but since this is the second time this has occurred, he does not feel comfortable PACAROLYMPC10-2"1.WPD 8 Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 2000 moving this forward. He would understand if the rest of the Commission was comfortable with that kind of action. 29. Vice Chairman Abels stated he concurs with Commissioner Kirk, as this is an important issue to be resolved. He is uncertain what the Commission should do at this time. It is not known whether or not Condition #55 will resolve the issue and he does not like to delay a developer unnecessarily. 30. Commissioner Butler asked that in regard to the water efficiency landscaping, it leads to the question of ambiguity as to what they are addressing; is it the landscaping efficiency, or the use of the water treatment. Staff stated both. 31. Commissioner Kirk stated that if the City has a Water Efficiency Ordinance and most of the "landscaping" is a lake, and if this meets the terms of our Water Efficiency Ordinance, then our Ordinance is a joke. Staff stated the City's Ordinance is modeled after the State of California Ordinance. Commissioner Kirk stated then why have an ordinance if you can put everything in water and say it is water efficient. He asked if the previous project approved by the Commission with a lake had gone to Council. Planning Manager Christine di lorio stated yes, with the condition that the calculations be done prior to a grading permit being issued. 32. Commissioner Butler stated he was leaning toward letting the City Council making this determination, but would like to see that future projects have a more clear definition as to whether or not it meets the Ordinance. 33. Vice Chairman Abels asked what is to prevent this from coming back again. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated that if it doesn't meet the requirement, they it will come back to the Commission. 34. Commissioner Kirk some level of analysis has to be done by staff before coming to the Commission to determine if it is even reasonable. Staff noted other conditions which are placed on future decisions by other agencies. Commissioner Kirk stated in that case we do not know what the need will be, but in this case there is a specific Ordinance that addresses the specific issue and a project with a water feature which is the largest landscape P:\CAROLYN\PC10-2-1.WPD 9 Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 2000 feature on the project. 35. Planning Consultant Criste suggested that since the Specific Plan is a broad base document. The applicant does not do the level of detail in a specific plan that he is required to do in a site development permit, which is the closest detail to a construction document that the Commission reviews. The Commission might want to consider requiring the analysis at the site development permit level because the landscape plan will be developed to a level that is sufficient to do the analysis. Whereas, at the specific plan level, the level of detail has not yet been provided in the plans. Commissioner Kirk stated that is an option, but this is the second project the Commission has been through and staff has heard his concerns and they have not been addressed and he cannot support an application with a massive lake for the project size, that he cannot believe meets the terms of the City's Ordinance. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated Condition #15 talks about flood hazard regulations, Chapter 8.11, that they must comply and provide calculations and certifications for FEMA, for the building pad and storm water, so again the applicant is going to make sure the design of the product complies with flood regulations that the City des not have that detail at this point to make sure it does or does not meet the requirements. Commissioner Kirk stated that we do have the information in the case of this issue to go through and do the calculations and he does not understand what the problem is. We have the Ordinance and we have an appllication and we could determine if the application is close to meeting that Ordinance or what portion of it does meet. Why is that not done? He would suggest that if the Commission is going to move forward and there are some alternatives, he would suggest that the applicant also be conditioned to use canal water instead of well water as its primary water source. 36. Commissioner Tyler stated he too is concerned that items he has mentioned before are not being addressed in the applications as they come before the Commission. For some reason, people forget how our streets are named. All the streets are 50' Avenue and it should be Avenue 50. This applies to this project as well as the next. There is also an inconsistency as to whether it is a "cuts -de -sac" or "cul-de-sacs". Also, does the western boundary abut the Estarcia development. Planning Consultant Nicole Criste stated the western boundary is the Estincia development. The correct grammar is "cols -de -sac". P:\CAROLVN\PC10-2"1 .WPD 10 Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 2000 37. Commissioner Butler stated he is willing to go forward knowing that canal water is accessible which would ease the ground water situation and maybe this could be another holding pond for recharging our water. He does want the project conditioned that canal water will be used for the lake and moire clarification on the water features in the future from staff to show compliance with the Ordinance has been processed. 38. Commissioner Kirk asked if canal water could be delivered to this site. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated there is an irrigation line because it flooded the road last fall. There is canal water on Jefferson Street and at the southwest corner of the site. 39. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000-072 recommending to the City Council Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 2000-401 as submitted ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Vice Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: Chairman Robbins. ABSTAIN: None. 40. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000-073 recommending to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 2000- 068, as submitted. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Vice Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: Chairman Robbins. ABSTAIN: None. 41. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000-074 recommending to the City Council approval of Zone Change 2000-094, as submitted. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler„ Kirk, Tyler, and Vice Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: Chairman Robbins. ABSTAIN: None. 42. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000-075 recommending P:\CAROLYN\PC10-2-1.WPD 11 Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 2000 to the City Council approval of Specific Plan 2000-048, as amended. a. Specific Plan to be updated per the recommendations. b. Delete Condition #34.1.D C. Condition #34.1 E. add the "s" and removing the last sentence. Modifying the condition so that all on -street parking is prohibited with the exception of guest parking by permit only and enforced by the Homeowners' Association. C. Delete Condition #53. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Tyler, and Vice Chairman Abels. NOES: Commissioner Kirk. ABSENT: Chairman Robbins. ABSTAIN: None. 43. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000-076 recommending to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map 29858, as amended. a. Delete Condition #35, #52 b. Condition #55 modified to require "prior to City Council approval the applicant shall provide calculations consistent with Chapter 8.13 of the Municipal Code -Water Efficient Landscaping and that canal water shall be used in place of well water for the lake features. 44. Commissioner Kirk asked if they wanted the applicant to meet calculations or Ordinance, or both. Commissioners agreed that it be both. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Tyler, and Vice Chairman Abels. NOES: Commissioner Kirk. ABSENT: Chairman Robbins. ABSTAIN: None. D. Environmental Assessment 99-380 Conditional Use Permit 2000-053, Specific Plan 99 035 Tentative Tract Map 22894 and Street Vacation 2000-041; a request of Country Club Properties LP for certification of an Environmental Impact Report, approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow resort residential use in conjunction with a country club; approval P:\CAR0LYN\PC10-2-1.WPD 12 Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 2000 of a specific plan development principals and guidelines for a 819 unit residential project with three 18 hole golf courses; subdivision of 988 acres into 819 residential lots and miscellaneous lots; and a street vacation of a portion of 53rd Avenue, east of Jefferson Street located generally on the north side of 5Wh Avenue between Jefferson Street and Monroe Street. 1 . Vice Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff noted a change that was being requested by the Public Works Department requiring a new condition pertaining to the access to the project. Additional gated access on 52"d Avenue shall be added between Madison and Jefferson with full turning movements with a traffic signal at their expense. Staff stated canal water is available and the EIR does specify that canal water would be used for the lakes. 2. Vice Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner . 3. Commissioner Kirk stated he had questions on traffic, biology, design and water. Again, there is the issue of water, but it is not as high a percentage. On Page 1-6 of the Traffic Analysis of the EIR recommends construction of Avenue 53 to Madison Street, but the circulation plan shows Avenue 53 stopping at the project boundary. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated he was not aware of that recommendation that it continue to Madison Street. It appears to be a typographical error as it should be Monroe Street. Commissioner Kirk asked why Avenue 54 and Madison Street was not analyzed. Staff stated the applicant is not loading Madison Street with their own traffic. Commissioner Kirk asked about the additional recommendations that had been added by the Public Works Department; he did not sere them in the traffic analysis. Staff stated because they only have two access points; one on Jefferson Street and one on Avenue 53. In order to give them another full turn movement they are requesting another access on Avenue 52. Commissioner Kirk asked how many adjustments were made on the buildout model. Staff stated that on the buildout model, the reality is that the buildout model assumes that the City develops more heavily that what is actually PACAROLVMPC10-2-1. WPD 13 Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 2000 occurring, so staff made some adjustments downward because this project is coming in a little over one dwelling unit per acre where the lower end of the density range used was twice as large and perhaps as high as four dwellings per acre. Therefore, staff made the downward adjustments not only for this site but for some of the surrounding areas as well. PGA West is coming in at one third of what it was envisioned for at one time. Commissioner Kirk stated it would be helpful if a table showing existing levels of service on the analyzed intersections, levels of service without the project, with the project, at opening day, at buildout and with improvements were in one location in the study. Staff stated that as far as the level of service, what they want to know on the intersections is when the signal will be required. Staff is also finding out that this is the time to get the right-of- way at major intersections that may be needed. 4. Commissioner Tyler stated that on Page 20 of the Traffic Analysis it states the intersection at Jefferson Street and Avenue 50 and Avenue 53 are projected to be operating at unacceptable levels of service at peak hours in the year 2005, and Avenue 50 is quite a distance away from the project and Avenue 53 will be vacated, then when you read the Traffic Analysis you find that that unacceptable level only occurs if there are no improvements. Everyone knows that the Jefferson Street improvements are taking place now, so he does not understand why this statement occurs. Staff explained this document was started over a year ago and in the course of that year, the City is building very rapidly. So some of the items stated a year ago are not accurate today, since the traffic study was not prepared recently. Where the staff report addresses the intersection of Avenue 53, they are talking about their main entrance on Avenue 53, but it will be renamed. Commissioner Tyler stated it did not address the closure of Avenue 53, nothing that talked about the traffic flow improvement by the construction of Madison Street between Avenue 52 and Avenue 54 which will move some of the traffic off of Jefferson Street. If the document is dated August, 2000, it should address what is going on in August, 2000. 5. Commissioner Kirk stated the environmental documentation raises the questioned the use of the mesquite hurnac. There seem to be several ambiguous statements relating to the mesquite hummock. P:\CAROLYN\PC10-2-1. WPD 14 Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 2000 It is referred to in the alternative section of the document, where it alternatives are suggested for preserving the mesquite hummock, but in other parts of the document it is not referenced other than being native desert scrub. Where in the northwest corner is it located. He was unable to find it in the EIR. Planning Manager Christine di lorio stated it was part of the discussion in the biology and also in the alternatives, that they are scattered in the general area. There are nine scattered plants and that was the discussion, that they are too disjointed to have a real community, so recommendation is to provide a substitute area where it is a larger part to provide a full community. Commissioner Kirk asked if someone could describe it. Staff stated the EIR identifies the hummock as a habitat. Commissioner Kirk asked if they are preserved somewhere else in the City and is this a good site, or what? It states they are second most sensitive habitat in the City; what does that mean? Staff stated that is what they are trying to show, that this is not as good a site for them as another site would be and defined how the EIR identifies them. Commissioner Kirk asked if the Mesquite Hummock would survive on a golf course site. Staff stated they did not know. Commissioner Kirk stated it suggests it was a big enough issue to design an alternative around them. Staff stated there were no other issues proposed with this project as there is no land use redesignation or anything else. This was the only issue identified with the biology study. Commissioner Kirk summarized that was the most significant issue directing the alternatives analysis, but not such a "back breaker". Staff stated that is correct, and the opportunity was there for them to have a mitigation requiring them to purchase land to provide a better community for the plant. Commissioner Kirk stated he would like to hear if the developer thinks that is appropriate since we do not know whether or not it is an important issue. Commissioner Kirk reiterated his comments that he would like to have ALRC review the documents before they come 'to the Commission. Commissioner Kirk stated another issue was the living fence; but is it permitted under the Zoning Ordinance. Staff stated not under the Ordinance, but under the Specific Plan, with the condition specific to the noise study to show if it needs to be a solid portion along Madison Street. Commissioner Kirk asked if the next specific plan comes forward and wants a living fence, is this going to be a City policy. Staff stated that if it was recommended PACARO LYMPC 10-2 -1 . W PD 15 Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 2000 by the Commission or if staff recommends it, it w\could be a Zoning Text Amendment, not a policy. Commissioner Kirk stated there is a deviation to the Zoning Code with respect to the living fence, but no concerns were raised by staff. Staff stated that was correct except for the area on Madison Street. There are golf courses on this project separating the Major Arterials from the homes so there is no impact from the noise except for the homes on Madison Street whereas other projects that may propose the living fence, they would not meet the noise standards for homes so close to the arterials. 6. Commissioner Tyler stated a lot of people have their own golf carts and wondered if there was any justification for all the automobile parking. He also has a concern regarding the 44 foot high club house or is this the height of the tower element. If this is the case, he would like this to be the limit. Also, in the club house it states that if there are any basement structures protruding above the ground level, it is not counted in the height. You could have a 20 foot high basement wall and build 40 feet on top of that. He does not believe that is the intent of what was written. He would like to know what is proposed for the tennis court lighting. Will they be lit at night as well as the driving range? 7. Vice Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Haywood Pardue, 13CA engineers for the project, representing the applicant, stated he agrees with conditions and the additional conditions as requested by staff. 8. Commissioner Tyler asked where the proposed access to the maintenance yard would be at Avenue 52 and Jefferson Street. Mr. Pardue stated it would be off Avenue 52 with a right in and right out driveway. Staff had no objections. 9. Commissioner Tyler stated there were several emergency access points around the perimeter, but none on Avenue 54. Mr. Pardue stated because of the culs-de-sac heading in a southerly directly they did not want to bisect the golf course with emergency access points. 10. Commissioner Tyler asked about the height of the clubhouse at P:\CAROLYN\PC10-2-1 .WPD 16 Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 2000 44 feet; was that for the tower element only. Mr. Anton Rankovitch, architect for the project, stated that is for the major roof. They are wanting to make a major statement with the tower. They would like the tower to be 60-65 feet to be a large statement that can be seen from the entire project. 11. Commissioner Tyler stated the general architectureal theme is stated as "Old World" and he is not suns what that is. Mr. Rankovitch stated they are trying to do a blend. It is hard to pick a specific architectural style when they want to be unique to La Quinta and not copying an old piece of architecture. They want a blend between the "Golden Era of California" 1930's", similar to the Montecito/Santa Barbara area and a combination of "Old World Tuscany" introducing the stone element into this project. The entrance structure is designed as all stone and a lot of the design guidelines for the houses are going to be very specific to the Montecito/Santa Barbara look along with the "Old World Tuscany" look. They are wanting more of an Italian type, country valley look mixed with the stucco of Santa Barbara. 12. Commissioner Tyler stated the EIR talks about the "Rural Overlay" in this area and the type of architecture it calls for, none of which is "Old World". Community Development Director Jerry Herman pointed out that in the Specific Plan, Page 5-3, the building height of the clubhouse is 40 and the architectural feature is 15 feet so the total is 55 feet. Mr. Rankovitch stated they would like to have a little more height, but will stick with it, if they have to. 13. Commissioner Tyler asked if the issue of the "Rural Overlay" was an issue, or can it be overlooked. Mr. Rankovitch stated this is very Mission style. Planning Manager Christine di lorio stated architecturally the design is in conformance with the architectural standards for the area. 14. Commissioner Tyler asked about the night lighting for the tennis courts. Mr. Grant Hornbeck, managing partner for the project, stated the tennis courts will not be lit at night, nor the driving range. Mr. Pardue stated the percentage of lakes is significantly smaller and the water will come out of the canal. Numerous lakes will be used for the golf course irrigation system. Additionally, all the 100 year runoff will be contained on site to recharge the P:\CAROLYN\PC10-2-1 .WPD 17 Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 2000 groundwaters. 15. Commissioner Kirk asked if they had done the calculations or if staff had asked them to do so? Mr. Pardue stated no to both questions. Mr. Steve Garcia, GMA Landscape Architects and Planners, stated the exhibit shows the living fence on Jefferson Street and went on to explain the design. Commissioner Tyler asked how long will it take to cover the fence. Mr. Garcia stated they anticipate planting 15 gallon vines at approximately 10 foot on center, so it will have pretty full coverage at the onset. 16. Commissioner Tyler asked what Phase 3 would be. Mr. Pardue stated that at the present time they are only projecting two phases. 17. Ms. Madeline Waters, who owns the 40 acre piece of property at Avenue 53 and Monroe Street, asked if she could speak as she had to leave due to an emergency. Her concern was that this is an agricultural area where they grow table grapes and for five months of the year they spray the plants and which is done at night and this is abuts right up to these houses. They spray from 12:00 midnight till 3:00 a.m. with sulfer and other heavy chemicals. Due to the problem of freezing in this area, they have helicopters on standby to circulate the air at night if the temperature will drop below 32 degrees, all night long. In January they prune, February they start leafing out and from there on they spray every night with the chemicals. When they pick the grapes, crews can come in the middle of the night and they use lights. Trucks are using Avenue 53. In addition, when the birds come in to eat the grapes, they have noise makers going off every ten minutes to deter them. They also have peacocks that are screaming all the time. She spends $100,000 to get the grapes into the boxes and she hopes to get an $80,000 profit. This is a large process and her concern is that they will be receiving complaints from the homeowners because of their business. She wants to be sure these items are disclosed to the homebuyers. 18. Commissioner Tyler stated that on Page 4-28 of the Specific Plan what is referred to as conventional switching inside the home. Mr. Pardue stated the intent was that there will be no formal P:\CAROLYN\PC10-2-l.WPD 18 Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 2000 street lighting and if the homeowner wants to light certain portions of his own property that will be controlled in his house rather than a common switch. Commissioner Tyler asked about Page 5-3 referring to the basement height being excluded from the total building height; where is the 40 feet measured from. Mr. Pardue stated the intention is that the building will be at 40 feet above ground level and then a 15 foot high tower. Planning Manager Christine di lorio stated the Zoning Code definition for basement which defines a basement as a habitalble building level which is partially or completely underground and shall be counted as a building story if more than five feet of the height of any portion is above adjoining finish grade. Ms. Aimee Grana, Country Club Properties, stated the intent was to exclude the basement as part of the 40 feet since the definition in the Zoning Code was that if the basement was more than five feet it was considered part of the stories. They want the forty feet above ground, however, the Commission would like them to draft it, so that the basement, which is below ground, is not included as part of one of their stories. Commissioner Tyler defers to staff to see that wording is added to clarify this. 19. Commissioner Tyler asked staff to confirm that Condition #62 takes care of all maintenance and not just inside the walls. Mr. Pardue stated he agrees with that condition. 20. Commissioner Tyler stated that the EIR on Page 3.0-13 talks about a "Village Center", where and what is that? Mr. Pardue stated it is the clubhouse area, the associated tennis courts, spa, putting course, etc. 21. Commissioner Kirk stated that in that same paragraph it refers to the desert oasis theme, that would use drought tolerant material; he sees a lot of turf everywhere, is the turf considered part of the drought tolerant theme. Mr. Garcia stated that in the landscape areas they anticipate using the turf for about 40-60% of the areas and that would vary depending on where it is on the property. The ground cover areas are drought tolerant shrubs. Commissioner Kirk asked Mr. Garcia to show an example. Mr. Pardue stated the irrigation water will come from the canal water. 22. Commissioner Tyler stated that on Page 4.7-1 Air Quality, the P:\CAROLYN\PC10-2"1.WPD 19 Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 2000 statement and table do not agree. Also, on Page 4.7-7 and 4.7- 2, 4.7-18, he would like clarification. Page 4.9-6 there is inconsistency regarding parks. Page 4.10-7 there is a reference to the Coachella Valley Solid Waste Management Authority Joint Powers Authority and he thought that died when the transfer station died. Staff stated that is correct. On Page 4.11-5 the figures are not contained in the document. 23. Commissioner Butler stated this is another example where the ALRC should have reviewed this document. He also has a problem with the overall height of the clubhouse. If they approve the Specific Plan, are they approving the (height of the building without further review. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated the limitations of the Specific Plan would govern the design that will ultimately come back to the Commission through the site development permit before they can pull a building permit. At that time it will go to the ALRC and the illustrations may change depending upon what the ALRC recommends. The design standards in the Specific Plan will govern. This is a concept. Final design plans will go the ALRC and then back to the Commission. These are illustrations only and that is why it is not submitted to the ALRC until final drawings are submitted. Commissioner Butler commended the applicant on their presentation. As it is below sea level liquifaction could be an issue. Mr. Pardue stated it will be addressed in their soils study. Commissioner Butler asked if the archaeological findings on the site were being preserved. Who will have possession of the artifacts found on site. Planning Manager Christine di lorio stated the artifacts would be collected, boxed and cataloged as to the specifications for storage and they will be submitted to the City. 24. Commissioner Butler stated it was a very nice project; he is unsure of the "Santa Barbara" look, but as far as supporting the project, he does not find enough items to not support it. 25. Vice Chairman Abels stated it is a wonderful job and asked if there was any other public comment. There being no further public comment, the public participation portion of the hearing was closed and opened the project for Commission discussion. P:\CAROLYN\PC10-2-1.WPD 20 Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 2000 26. Commissioner Kirk stated it is a great project, fits into the City and will be a great neighbor. He supports the projects and would suggest adding a condition regarding water efficiency. Also, a condition be added regarding a disclosure regarding the agricultural operations in this location. Whether that be 500 or 1000 feet, he would leave that to staff to what is appropriate. Planning Manager Christine di lorio stated a condition could be added regarding disclosure similar to what was used for PGA West mitigation measure. Commissioner Kirk stated he was not concerned with the building height. It makes great sense to have a major monument on a property of this size. There are three golf courses coming together in a village setting, but in this village setting it makes good sense to have a monument with a strong statement. Some viewshed analysis might be a recommended before it goes to the City Council to show the impact of this project from off -site. 27. Vice Chairman Abels reminded the Commission of the concern that had been raised about the Marriott Hotel in Palm Desert and now, it is not even an issue due to the way they handled it. 28. Commissioner Kirk stated that on the density issue, we keep seeing the applications coming in with lower density. He would caution that every time they approve a lower density development, it is likely to push the development out further to accommodate the growth in this region and in 30-40 years there will be concern as to the impacts on traffic and urban sprawl. 29. Commissioner Tyler stated it is a great project and he only brings up the inconsistency now to see that they are cleared up at this stage. In regard to Condition #62, he would like to include the multi -purpose trails. As to the height, it is always an issue before the Commission. After reviewing the rendering, he has no objection as long as it is reasonable. 30. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Kirk to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000-077 recommending to the City Council Certification of an Environmental Impact Report for Specific Plan 99-035, Tentative Tract Map 29894, Conditional Use Permit 2000-053, and Street Vacation 2000-041 . P:\CAROLYN\PC10-2-1. WPD 21 Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 2000 ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Vice Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: Chairman Robbins. ABSTAIN: None. 31. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000-078 recommending to the City Council approval of Conditional Use Permit 2000-053, as submitted. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Vice Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: chairman Robbins. ABSTAIN: None. 32. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000-079 recommending to the City Council approval of Specific Plan 99-035, as amended. a. Adding a condition regarding the acess on Avenue 52. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Vice Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: Chairman Robbins. ABSTAIN: None. 33. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 20CIO-080 recommending to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map 29894, as amended. a. Add a condition that the applicant will do the calculations and meet Ordinance requirements for water efficiency prior to presentation to the City Council. b. Condition #62 shall include multi -purpose trails. C. Add a condition regarding a disclosure regarding agricultural uses on the adjoining property. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler„ Kirk, Tyler, and Vice Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: Chairman Robbins. ABSTAIN: None. 34. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Butler to P:\CAR0LYN\PC10-2-1. WPD 22 Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 2000 adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000-081 recommending to the City Council approval of Street Vacation 2000-041 as being consistent with the General Plan. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Vice Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: Chairman Robbins. ABSTAIN: None. C. Environmental Assessment 94 287 Addendum Conditional Use Permit 99-047 Specific Plan 94-025 Amendment #1. Tentative Parcel Map 28617; a request of Agiotage Limited for Certification of an EIR Addendum for the Green Specific Plan allowing a new access road for an approved master planned residential community of 277 houses; a Conditional Use Permit to allow development of a private road on a hillside slope exceeding 20 percent, approval of an amendment to the Specific Plan allowing a 3,000 foot long private access road along the north side of a 331 + acre property to serve 'ten custom lots; and approval to allow a Tentative Parcel Map subdividing 331 acres into four parcels and other lettered street lots. 1. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Tyler to continue this to application to November 28, 2000, as requested by the applicant. Unanimously approved. VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: None. VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. Vill. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Commissioner Tyler gave a report of the City Council meeting of October 17, 2000. B. Vice Chairman Abels informed the Commission that he will be out of country till the 1" meeting in December. IX. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Kirk to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held November 14, 2000, at 7:00 PACARO LYMPC 10-2 -1 . W PD 23 Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 2000 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 8:38 p.m. on October 24, 2000. Respectfully submitted, Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California P:\CAR0LYN\PC10-2-1.WPD 24 RH #A wr FM OF TKE9 TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: CHRISTINE DI IORIO, PLANNING MANAGER, COKAMUNITYC� DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: NOVEMBER 14, 2000 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM "A" - EVERGREEN, LA QUINTA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP At the request of the applicant, and in order to clarify site planning issues associated with the project, staff is requesting this item be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of November 28, 2000. n, •b P f I .i U C '� h iil5�: LD'UIE"' YIJ 4`'91, ATTACHMENT 1 Pryxaenw bane /or fharie� )rae:li November 8, 2000 Christine di lorio Planning Manager City of La Quinta. 78-495 Celle Tampico La Quints, Ca. 92253 E"010e40,, F/eeMea fewhe meuel SaJeeeee NO 110e01esemeet t<eleie9e 75-150 Sheryl Avenue Suite C Pelm Dseert, California 12211 750,3011W Fax 750MA1 Is Project: 2636 Subject: Evergreen La Quints Specific Plan and Site Development Permit - Request for Postponement of Planning Commission Hearing to November 28, 2000. Dear Ma, di Iorio: On behalf of my client Evergreen - La Quinta Limited Partaership I am requesting that the scheduled Planning Comrnissior. Hearing on the above project be postponed until the November 28, 2000 Planning Commission Meeting, This postponement will allow my client to complete revisions to their site plan in accordance with the street improvement issues brought up by reviewer Allen Levin. Thank you for your consideration and assistance in this matter, Very Truly Yours; Dudek & Ass ciates.Inc. '• J Michael A. Peron Principal Cc, Phillip R. Cross Greg Alpert PH #B STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: NOVEMBER 14, 2000 CASE NOS.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2000-685 REQUEST: DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR OF A 3,984 SQUARE FOOT CONVENIENCE STORE AND GAS STATION CANOPY LOCATION: NORTHWEST CORNER OF WASHINGTON STREET AND HIGHWAY 111 APPLICANT: TAIT AND ASSOCIATES REPRESENTATIVE: STEVE FRANK, PROJECT MANAGER TAIT AND ASSOCIATES PROPERTY OWNER: TOSCO MARKETING CORPORATION ZONING: COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC) SURROUNDING ZONING/LAND USE: NORTH: SOUTH: EAST: WEST: BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW: CITY OF INDIAN WELLS (CC) COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC) REGIONAL COMMERCIAL COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC) The currently vacant project site, located at the northwest corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street, consists of 1.14 acres. The project site is within Point Happy Specific Plan 2000-043, adopted by City Council on May 5, 2000, which establishes guidelines and standards in a focused development plan for the distribution of land uses, location and sizing of supporting infrastructure, development standards, and requirements for public improvements. The Design Guidelines portion of the Plan provides specific design criteria which includes Architectural Guidelines utilizing a contemporary interpretation of Colonial Spanish style architecture; and Landscape Guidelines that complement and accent the project with perimeter landscaping which is consistent the Highway Design Guidelines. TM •i •- •� The request is for approval of a Site Development Permit to construct a Convenience Store and Gas Station with Canopy on 1 .14 (Attachment 1) acres within the Point Happy Commercial Center Specific Plan 2000-043. The project consists of a 3,984 square foot building with eight pump island bays under a 5,504 square foot canopy. Site Plan The site has frontage of on Highway 111 taking access at the existing traffic signal at the Plaza Tampico Shopping Center on Highway 111 and Washington Street; the driveway will be located at the western end of the future Point Happy commercial center. The 3,984 square foot convenience store building is sited generally parallel to the service bays with the front entrance located on the south building front (Attachment 2). The building is setback 189 feet from the south property along Highway 111. There are five vehicle lanes with eight service bays and eight pumps for vehicle fueling under a 5,504 square foot canopy with a rectangular site lay out. The service bay canopy is set back approximately 87 feet from the south property along Highway 111. There are eighteen parallel parking spaces provided on the south and east side of the building. Spaces in the front of the building are 9-feet by 20-feet and on the side the spaces are 9-feet by 19 -feet The trash enclosure is located at the southeast portion of the site. The Landscaping Plan identifies a pallette of plant material consisting of shrubs, groundcover, and trees for the on -site parking planters and the building planters; and along Highway 111 ( as required by Specific Plan approval). Palm trees will line the left edge of the project access road and two landscape planter areas with shrubs and trees helps to delineate the right edge of the access road. Water efficient landscaping materials, including native plants are provided. The landscape plan is consistent with the Point Happy Specific Plan and complements the Highway 111 landscaping. Architectural Desjgn The convenience store structure is proposed with a parapet roof for the main portion of the building with 26 feet clay tile gable roof tower and a 22 foot gable roof tower in the northeast end of the structure. Each of the two towers will be highlighted with a stone veneer wainscot. Wall material consists of smooth troweled pearl white stucco with a decorative cornice trim that wraps around each elevation and cantilever wood beams projecting approximately six feet and lattice work for vine planting over the main entry. The facade will have a proposed arcade supported by stucco columns with stone veneer bases. Proposed windows will be single pane bronze tinted glass with anodized frame. The proposed upper tower windows will be recessed 12 inches. The proposed rear elevation metal man doors are highlighted with clay tile gable roof supported by pilasters with stone veneer bases. Espalier for vine planting that softens the blank wall surface are proposed on the front, rear, and left elevations. Each tower element is enhanced with decorative wrought iron grille work on the second story. The proposed gas station canopy will be 22 feet high supported by steel beams with decorative braces that are stucco finished over the sheet metal with stone veneer trim to match the convenience store. Lighting Site lighting consists of nine 18-foot high steel square post with a round 2' concrete footing, located generally on the perimeter of the interior pavement, with box luminaries directed downward. All poles have one 400 want metal halide lamps. There are 16 box luminaries with 320 watt metal halide lamps installed flush with the ceiling of the service bay canopy. The illumination study identifies the lighting patterns and light source intensity in relationship to surrounding property. It also shows light spillage off the property not exceeding one foot candle. Sian Plan Two building identification signs, using the Circle K logo, are proposed. A 6' X 6' square sign to be place on the front elevation directly over the entry, and a 3'6"X 3'6" square sign on the right elevation. Three round 36" diagonal Union 76 logo signs are proposed to mounted on the canopy. A gas pricing monument sign was approved with the Specific Plan. ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE IALRCI REVIEW. The ALRC reviewed this request at its meeting of November 1, 2000 (Attachment 3), and discussed Staffs recommendations to revise the canopy design, so as to provide design consistency and compatibility with the convenience store building. The Committee unanimously adopted Minute Motion 2000-021, recommending approval, subject to canopy design revisions to achieve a compatibility with the with the convenience store building. K3 1 i_ I I 1 I 1. The Community Development Department completed Environmental Assessment 2000-402 for Specific Plan 2000-685. Based upon this assessment, the project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment: and no additional documentation is necessary. COMMENTS FROM OTHER DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES: The applicant's request was sent to sent City Departments and affected public agencies on October 3, 2000, requesting comments to be returned by October 20, 2000 . All applicable comments are incorporated in the Conditions of Approval. PUBLIC NOTICE: This case was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper and posted on November 1, 2000. All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice. UFFNEWT _ k 14 1*4 The findings necessary to approve the Site Development Permit can be made per Section 9.210.010 of the Zoning Code as noted in the attached resolution with the exception of the following. The Specific Plan, adopted by the City Council, identified this site as a service station; although the proposed Site Plan contains acceptable modifications from the original site layout, vehicular access, parking and setbacks are consistent with the Specific Plan. Vehicle access is adequately accommodated with the proposed driveway on Highway 111. Adequate lanes and spacing are provided for on -site vehicle circulation. However, staff recommends adding a condition of approval to provide that any minor revisions or adjustments to the approved alignment shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Director and/or the City Engineer. (Condition No.39). Adequate parking is accommodated on site. Building setbacks for the convenience store building and service bay canopy are consistent with the Specific Plan. Sign Program The proposed Sign Program is not consistent with the Specific Plan. Staff recommends adding a condition of approval to require the building mounted signs to be consistent with the Specific Plan which necessitate requiring the CirQIQ K and the Union 76 sign to be a maximum height of 24 inches and the Circle K Sign to be a modified individual channel letter allowing for stylized circle around the 'I" (Condition No. M. 0 01 i_1_�' 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000-_, approving Site Development Permit 2000-685 to allow development plans for a Convenience Store and Gas Station canopy, subject to conditions. ATTACHMENTS 1. Project Location Exhibit (Parcel Map 29736) 2. Site Plan and Elevations 3. Draft Minutes of the ARLC meeting of November 1, 2000 Prepared by: Fred Baker, AICP Principal Planner Submitted by: Christine di lorio Planning Manager 9 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA GRANTING APPROVAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS OF CONVENIENCE STORE WITH A GAS STATION CANOPY CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2000-685 APPLICANT: TOSCO MARKETING CORPORATION WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the, 14`h day of November, 2000 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing, for a 1 .14 acre site with a 3,984 square foot convenience store building and gas station canopy generally located at the northwest corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street, more particularly described as: PARCEL MAP 29736, PARCEL NO. 7 WHEREAS, said Site Development Permit has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63) in that the Community Development Department Director has conducted, and adopted under Resolution 90-27, and has determined that the proposed project is within the scope of EA 2000-395 and that no further environmental review is necessary. WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings. of approval to justify a recommendation for approval of said Site Development Pernnit 2000-685. 1 . The proposed commercial building is consistent with the City's General Plan in that the property is designated Community Commercial (CC). The Land Use Element (Policy 2-3.1) of the 1992 General Plan Update allows retail business. The project is consistent with the goals, policies and intent of the La Quinta General Plan Land Use Element (Chapter 2) provided conditions are met. 2. The proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Point Happy Specific Plan in that the project is a permitted use and complies with the development standards and design guidelines. 3. The proposed commercial building is consistent with the City's Zoning Code in that development standards and criteria contained in the Point Happy Specific Plan 2000-043 supplement, replace or, are consistent with those in the City's Zoning Code. PCRESO.SDP 2000-685 RESOLUTION 2000- SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2000-685 NOVEMBER 14, 2000 4. The site design of the proposed project is compatible with the commercial development in the in the area, and accommodates site generated traffic at area intersections. 5 The landscape design of the proposed project complements the building and the surrounding commercial area in that it enhances the aesthetic and visual quality of the area and uses a high quality of materials. 7. The architectural design of the project is compatible with surrounding development and development in the area in that it is similar in scale to the development in the area; the building materials are a durable, aesthetically pleasing, low maintenance, and a blend of surfaces and textures are provided. 8. The sign program of the project is consistent with the adopted Sign Program for the Specific Plan and Zoning Code and it provides building identity using common elements of size, color, and materials. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case; 2. That it does approve Site Development Permit 2000-685 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Planning Commission, held on this the 1Wh day of November , 2000, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PCRESO.SDP 2000-685 RESOLUTION 2000- SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2000-685 NOVEMBER 14, 2000 Steve Robbins, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California PCRESO.SDP 2000-685 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2000-685 NOVEMBER 14, 2000 GENERAL 1 . Upon conditional approval by the City Council of this development application, the City Clerk shall prepare and record, with the Riverside County Recorder, a memorandum noting that conditions of approval for development of the property exist and are available for review at City Hall. 2. The subdivider agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Site Development Permit. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the subdivider of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 3. Prior to the issuance of a grading, construction or building permit, the applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: • Fire Marshal • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) • Community Development Department • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Desert Sands Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) The applicant is responsible for 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 approval of the plans. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit. For projects requiring project -specific NPDES construction permits, the applicant shall submit a copy of the CWQCB acknowledgment of the applicant's Notice of Intent prior to issuance of a grading or site construction permit. The applicant shall ensure that the P:APREDAC0NAPRVL.SDP97-616 I Conditions of Approval - SDP 2000-685 November 14, 2000 required Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan is available for inspection at the project site. 4. Construction Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of this Site Development Permit approval. 5. All applicable conditions of the Point Happy Specific Plan No. 2000-043 shall be fulfilled with respect to the following: A. Required dedications along Highway 111 . B. Onsite improvements: a. Entry on Highway 111 and secondary entry on Washington Street or Highway 111 for access to subject site. b. Installation of traffic signal at Highway 111 . C. Construction of required improvements to Highway 111. d. Paving for onsite circulation and parking for subject site. e. Storm drain improvements to provide appropriate drainage from subject site to approved discharge location. f. Installation of landscaping in setback areas along Highway 111. g. Installation of sidewalk along Highway 111 6. No final building inspections or certificate of occupancy shall be issued prior to the completion of all street and traffic improvements as well as all storm drain improvements as identified above and as required by Specific Plan 2000- 043. PROPERTY RIGHTS 7. The applicant shall demonstrate that the site has rights of reciprocal access and parking over the entire Point Happy site as well as rights of drainage over the site. 8. Prior to issuance of any construction permits, the applicant shall acquire or confer easements and other property rights required of this approval or otherwise necessary for construction or proper functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for emergency services and for maintenance, construction, and reconstruction of essential improvements. PTREMONAPRVI..SDP97-616 2 Conditions of Approval - SDP 2000-685 November 14, 2000 9. The applicant shall dedicate or grant public and private 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. 10. Right of way dedications required of this development include: a. PUBLIC STREETS None required. b. PRIVATE STREETS Commercial: minimum 29-foot width. 11. Right of way geometry for knuckle turns and corner cut backs shall conform with Riverside County Standard Drawings #801 and #805 respectively unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 12. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and left turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved construction plans. 13. If the City Engineer determines that access rights to proposed street rights of way shown on the approved site plan are necessary prior to dedication of the rights of way, the applicant shall grant the necessary rights of way within 60 days of written request by the City. 14. The applicant shall dedicate public utility easements as required. 15. The applicant shall dedicate easements necessary for placement of and access to utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, and common areas. 16. The applicant shall vacate abutter's rights of access to public streets and properties from all frontage along the streets and properties except access points shown on the approved Specific Plan 2000-043,. 17. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements or written permission, as appropriate, from owners of any abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments are to occur. P.AFREDVCONAPRVL.SDP97-616 3 Conditions of Approval - SDP 2000-685 November 14, 2000 18. If the applicant proposes vacation or abandonment of any existing rights of way or access easements which will diminish access rights to any properties owned by others, the applicant shall provide approved alternate rights of way or access easements to those properties or notarized letters of consent from the property owners IMPROVEMENT PLANS As used throughout these conditions of approval, professional titles such as "engineer," "surveyor," and "architect refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their respective professions in the State of California. 19. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified engineers and landscape architects, as appropriate. Plans shall be submitted on 24" x 36" media in the categories of "Rough Grading," "Precise Grading," "Streets & Drainage," and "Landscaping." (Precise grading plans shall have signature blocks for Community Development Director and the Building Official. All other plans shall have signature blocks for the City Engineer. Plans are not approved for construction until they are signed. "Streets and Drainage" plans shall normally include signals, sidewalks, bike paths, entry drives, gates, and parking lots. "Landscaping" plans shall normally include irrigation improvements, landscape lighting and entry monuments. "Precise Grading" plans shall normally include perimeter walls. Plans for improvements not listed above shall be in formats approved by the City Engineer. 20. The City may maintain standard plans, details and/or construction notes for elements of construction. For a fee established by City resolution, the applicant may acquire standard plan and/or detail sheets from the City. 21. When final plans are approved by the City, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCad files of the complete, approved plans on storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard AutoCad menu items so they may be fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program. At the completion of construction and prior to final acceptance of improvements, the applicant shall update the files to reflect as -constructed conditions. If the plans were not produced in AutoCad or a file format which can be converted to AutoCad, the City Engineer may accept raster -image files of the plans. P:\FRFD\CONAf'RVL.SDP97-616 4 Conditions of Approval - SDP 2000-685 November 14, 2000 IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT 22. Depending on the timing of development of the lots or parcels and the status of off -site improvements at that time, the subdivider may be required to construct improvements, to construct additional improvements subject to reimbursement by others, to reimburse others who construct improvements that are obligations of Specific Plan 2000-043, to secure the cost of the improvements for future construction by others, or a combination of these methods. In the event that any of the improvements required herein are constructed by the City, the Applicant shall, prior to final inspection or certificate of occupancy, reimburse the City for the cost of those improvements. 23. The applicant shall construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations required by the City prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy. Improvements to be made or agreed to shall include removal of any existing structures or obstructions which are not part of the proposed improvements. 24. If improvements are phased administrative approvals (e.g., Site Development Permits), off -site improvements and common improvements (e.g., retention basins, perimeter walls & landscaping, gates) shall be constructed or secured prior to approval of the first phase unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Improvements and obligations required of each phase shall be completed and satisfied prior to completion of hornes or occupancy of permanent buildings within the phase and subsequent phases unless a construction phasing plan is approved by the City Engineer. 25. If the improvements required under Specific Plan 2000-043 have not been constructed in a timely manner or as specified in an approved phasing plan or in an improvement agreement, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of building permits or final building inspections. GRADING 26. This development shall comply with Chapter 8.11 of the LQMC (Flood Hazard Regulations). If any portion of any proposed building lot in the development is or may be located within a flood hazard area as identified on the City's Flood Insurance Rate Maps, the development shall be graded to ensure that all floors and exterior fill (at the foundation) are above the level of the project (100-year) flood and building pads are compacted to 95% Proctor Density as required in Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 65.5(a) (6). Prior to issuance of building permits for lots which are so located, the applicant shall P:\PRFD\CONAPRVL. SDP97-616 5 Conditions of Approval - SDP 2000-685 November 14, 2000 furnish certifications as required by FEMA that the above conditions have been met. 27. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall furnish a preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report and an approved grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer. The grading plan shall conform with the recommendations of the soils report and be certified as adequate by a soils engineer or engineering geologist. 28. Slopes shall not exceed 5:1 within public rights of way and 3:1 in landscape areas outside the right of way unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 29. Prior to occupation of the project site for construction purposes, the applicant shall submit and receive approval of a fugitive dust control plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16, LQMC. 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. 30. The applicant shall maintain graded, undeveloped land to prevent wind and water erosion of soils. The land shall be planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures approved by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. 31. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide building pad certifications stamped and signed by qualified engineers or surveyors. For each pad, the certification shall list the approved elevation, the actual elevation, the difference between the two, if any, and pad compaction. The data shall be organized by lot number and listed cumulatively if submitted at different times. DRAINAGE The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03 and the following: 32. Stormwater handling shall conform with the approved hydrology and drainage plan for Point Happy (Specific Plan 2000-043). Nuisance water shall be disposed of in an approved method. 33. If the applicant proposes discharge of stormwater directly or indirectly to the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel, the applicant shall indemnify the City from the costs of any sampling and testing of the development's drainage discharge which may be required under the City's NPDES Permit or other City - or area -wide pollution prevention program, and for any other obligations and/or expenses which may arise from such discharge. The indemnification shall be P.\PRED\CONAPRVL.SDP97-616 6 Conditions of Approval - SDP 2000-685 November 14, 2000 executed and furnished to the City prior to issuance of any grading, construction or building permit and shall be binding on all heirs, executors, administrators, assigns, and successors in interest in the land within this Site Development Permit excepting therefrom those portions required to be dedicated or deeded for public use. The form of the indemnification shall be acceptable to the City Attorney. If such discharge is approved for this development, the applicant shall make provisions in the CC&Rs for meeting these potential obligations. UTILITIES 34. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all utility lines within the right of way and all above -ground utility structures including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electrical vaults, water valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes. 35. Existing aerial lines within or adjacent to the proposed development and all proposed utilities shall be installed underground. Power lines exceeding 34.5 kv are exempt from this requirement. 36. Utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of utilities in existing, improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench restoration requirements maintained or required by the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide certified reports of trench compaction for approval of the City Engineer. STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 37. The applicant shall install the following street improvements to conform with the General Plan street type noted in parentheses. (Public: street improvements shall conform with the City's General Plan in effect at the time of construction.) a. PRIVATE STREETS Commercial: minimum 28-foot travel width. Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, turn knuckles, corner cutbacks, bus turnouts, dedicated turn lanes, and other features contained in the approved construction plans may warrant additional street widths as determined by the City Engineer. 38. The site plan shall conform with the approved "Point Happy Grading and Paving Plan for Parcel Map No. 29736" on file with the Public Works Department. P:\FRLD\CONAPRVL.SDP97-616 7 Conditions of Approval - SDP 2000-685 November 14, 2000 39. The curbline alignments and the landscaped island shapes and locations for the primary circulation street shall conform to those shown on approved Point Happy Specific Plan 2000-043. Any minor revisions or adjustments to the approved alignment shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Director and/or the City Engineer. Any revisions deemed significant by the Community Development Director shall be referred to the Planning Commission for their review and approval. 40. A traffic circulation plan shall be submitted for review by the City Engineer. The plan shall indicate that the access and use of the fuel pumps will not interfere with the flow of traffic in the various parking aisles and circulation streets of the site. 41. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control signs, markings and other devices, raised medians if required, street name signs, and sidewalks. Mid -block street lighting is not required. 42. The applicant may be required to extend improvements beyond development boundaries to ensure they safely integrate with existing improvements (e.g., grading; traffic control devices and transitions in alignment, elevation or dimensions of streets and sidewalks)• 43. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the LQMC, adopted standards, supplemental drawings and :specifications, and as approved by the City Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking areas shall be stamped and signed by qualified engineers. 44. Knuckle turns and corner cut -backs shall conform with Riverside County Standard Drawings #801 and #805 respectively unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 45. Streets shall have vertical curbs or other approved curb configurations which convey water without ponding and provide lateral containment of dust and residue for street sweeping. If a wedge or rolled curb design is approved, the lip at the flowline shall be vertical (1/8" batter) and a minimum of 0.1' in height. Unused curb cuts on any lot shall be restored to normal curbing prior to final inspection of permanent building(s) on the lot. 46. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using Caltrans' design procedure (20-year life) and site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall be as follows (or approved equivalents for alternate materials): P:\PRED\CONAPRVL.SDP97-616 8 Conditions of Approval - SDP 2000-685 November 14, 2000 Residential & Parking Areas 3.0" a.c./4.50" c.a.b. Collector 4.0"/5.00"' Secondary Arterial 4.0"/6.00"' Primary Arterial 4.5"/6.00"' Major Arterial 5.5"/6.50" 47. The applicant shall submit current mix designs (less than two years old at the time of construction) for base, asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete. The submittal shall include test results for all specimens used in the mix design procedure. For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall include recent (less than six months old at the time of construction) aggregate gradation test results confirming that design gradations can be achieved in current production. The applicant shall not schedule construction operations until mix designs are approved. 48. The City will conduct final inspections only when the buildings have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly -maintained streets. The improvements shall include required traffic control devices, pavement markings and street name signs. If on -site streets are initially constructed with partial pavement thickness, the applicant shall complete the pavement prior to final inspections. 49. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to those access points as per approved Specific Plan 2000-043. LANDSCAPING 50. The applicant shall provide landscaping in required setbacks, retention basins, common lots, and park areas. 51. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. The applicant shall submit plans for approval by the Community Development Department prior to plan checking by the Public Works Department. When plan checking is complete, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner prior to submitting for signature by the City Engineer. Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer. 52. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn shall be minimized with no lawn or spray irrigation within 18 inches of curbs along public streets. P:TRED\CONAPRVL.SDP97-616 9 Conditions of Approval - SDP 2000-685 November 14, 2000 QUALITY ASSURANCE 53. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer. 54. The applicant shall employ or retain qualified civil engineers, geotechnical engineers, surveyors, or other appropriate professionals to provide sufficient construction supervision to be able to furnish and sign accurate record drawings. 55. The applicant shall arrange and bear the cost of measurement, sampling and testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program but required by the City as evidence that construction materials and methods comply with plans, specifications and applicable regulations. 56. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were signed by the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawings," "As -Built" or "As -Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy of the drawings. The applicant shall revise the CAD or raster -image files previously submitted to the City to reflect as -constructed conditions. MAINTENANCE 57. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous, perpetual maintenance of all on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks. The applicant shall maintain required public improvements until expressly released from this responsibility by the appropriate public agency. FEES AND DEPOSITS 58. The applicant shall pay the City's established fees for plan checking and construction inspection. Fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan checking and permits. FIRE MARSHAL 59. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 1750 g.p.m. for a 2 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 60. The required fire flow shall be available from a Super hydrant(s) (6" x 4" x 2- 1 /2") located not less than 25-feet, or more than 165-feet, from any portion 13 \FRED\CONAPRVL.SDP97-616 10 Conditions of Approval - SDP 2000-685 November 14, 2000 of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travel ways. 61. Blue retro-reflective pavement markets shall be mounted on private streets, public streets and driveways to indicate location of fire hydrants. Prior to installation, placement of markers must be approved by the Riverside County Fire Department. 62. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, applicant/developer shall furnish one blue line copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans must be signed by a registered Civil Engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department". 63. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and operational prior to the start of construction. 64. All buildings shall be accessible by an approved all-weather roadway extending to within 150' of all portions of the exterior wall of the first story. 65. The minimum dimensions for the fire apparatus access roads entering and exiting this project shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. Parking is permitted on one side of roadways with a minimum width of 28 feet. Parking is permitted on both sides of roadways with a minimum width of 36 feet. 66. Applicant/developer shall be responsible for obtaining under ground/above ground tank permits from both the Riverside County Health and Fire Departments. 67. Final conditions will be addressed when architectural building plans are reviewed. A plan check fee must be paid to the Fire Department at the time the building plans are submitted. MISCELLANEOUS 68. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit for approval by the Community Development Director a revised Sign Plan which is consistent with the Point Happy Specific Plan. The revisions shall include the Circle K and the Union 76 sign to be a maximum height of 24 inches and the Circle K sign to be a modified individual channel letter allowing for stylized circle around the "K" and the Union 76 signs to be mounted with equal margins between the top and bottom of the canopy fascia. P\FRED\CONAPRVI..SDP97-616 t 1 L..i 133UIS NOIJNIHSVM a ATTACFIMENT 3 Excerpt from Architecture and Landscaping Minutes of November 1. 2000• C. Site Development Permit 2000-685; a request of Tait and Associates for review of building elevations and landscaping plans for a 3,984 square foot convenience store located on the northwest corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street within Point Happy Specific Plan. 1 . Principal Planner Fred Baker presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Committee Member Cunningham asked about the location of the building. Planning Manager Christine di lorio stated it is right off the Highway 111 signal entrance. Staff has worked with the developer of the site to be consistent with the other buildings in the project. 3. Mr. Steve Frank, Tait and Associates, stated they have been working with staff to reach an agreement on the canopy. 4. Committee Member Cunningham stated this is an extremely sensitive site. The Cliffhouse Restaurant is located on the other side of the rock, which is gorgeous. Their building elevations for this land use on this side of the rock is almost what they are looking for. What needs to happen is for the architect to go over and look at the Cliffhouse and come real close to it architecturally. This is a nice looking gas station, but this site is very important and in his opinion they have to go to the extremes to make it be on scale with the Cliffhouse. He understands that it is a gas station and it needs to resemble that, but it needs to be on the scale of the Cliffhouse architecturally. 5. Committee Member Reynolds asked what else is going in on this site. Staff explained that the developer has stated there will two fast food restaurants as well as a major sit down restaurant. Other than those uses that were approved for the site, the other uses are not known. Committee Member (Reynolds, asked if the property was under two ownerships. Principal Planner Fred Baker stated Madison Development is now the owner of the entire site. Planning Manager Christine di lorio stated the grading plan has been approved and they are now working on the pad areas. There was a Specific Plan developed with design guidelines which outlined the elements that had to be followed. 6. Committee Member Cunningham stated he would like to see the stone work used on the Cliffhouse utilized here. He would not condition it to be real stone, but a good veneer stone. The use of smooth stucco finish, open tails on the roof element on the high part of the building needs to be similar to the Cliffhouse, and raised mudded tile to warm it up. On the canopy they are no where close to what it should look like. Maybe a trellis type with beams with a closed off the center section; similar to the Rancho La Quinta guardhouse to soften up the trellis -gas bays. Planning Manager Christine di lorio clarified it would have a smooth trowel finish. Committee Member Cunningham reiterated how sensitive this corner is and how important the design is to this site. Staff stated that under the Specific Plan it is a flat clay tile roof tile. As to the stone veneer the reference to the Coronado Virginia Light, the Specific Plan states the cantera stone with the Cafe Two could be used. Mr. Frank noted it stated or a "like" material which in their opinion this is. 7. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he agrees with Committee Member Cunningham and this is the first proposal for the site. He does not believe the design is reflective of what is wanted on this corner. It needs to lend itself more to what the Cliffhouse looks like. 8. Committee Member Cunningham stated the Specific Plan is a guideline and it could be expanded upon. 9. Committee Member Reynolds stated he hates to see Highway 111 being developed into a string of gas stations with fast foods. This corner is far more important. Some special treatment needs to be added to this site. He does not understand why so many gas stations are needed in the same area. 10. Committee Member Cunningham stated the proposal is getting there. They need to review the stone work. Wood is not a good material to use on the exterior; it needs a smooth stucco finish; coloring is not an issue; curving is not right, it should be rectangular or square; and the canopy needs to have a trellis look around the perimeter to soften it with knee braces or similar type of architectural treatment. Planning Manager Christine di lorio asked what material should be used on the knee braces; was he referring to metal material? Discussion followed regarding suggestions. w 11. Committee Member Cunningham stated he was not wanting the Committee to challenge the Specific Plan conditions. Staff stated the applicant is constrained by what is approved in the Specific Plan. Committee Member Cunningham asked that they at least use the Coronado instead of the Cantera stone. 12. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Member Bobbitt/Reynolds to adopt Minute Motion 2000-022 recommending approval of the building elevations and landscaping plans for Site Development Permit 2000-685, as suggested. Unanimously approved. a. Canopy redesign as suggested with a, trellis look using the beam element used on the building BI #A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: NOVEMBER 14, 2000 CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 99-664 APPLICANT: TIBURON HOMES, LLC LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS: HERMANN & ASSOCIATES REQUEST: REVIEW OF IRRIGATION AND LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR 19 RESIDENTIAL LOTS LOCATION: ON THE NORTH SIDE OF AIRPORT BOULEVARD, EAST OF MADISON STREET IN THE NORMAN GOLF: COURSE BACKGROUND: The property is in the Norman golf course on the north side of Airport Boulevard, east of PGA West. These plans are for 19 lots on Royal St. George, north of Tiburon Drive in Tract 29348-1 (Attachment 1). The three prototype house plans proposed for these lots were reviewed by the ALRC and approved by the Planning Commission on January 11, 2000. One of the Conditions of Approval was that the front yard landscaping plans be approved by the ALRC and Planning Commission prior to final occupancy of the first residence built by this developer. Irrigation and landscaping plans have been submitted for each lot. PROJECT PROPOSAL: All lots have at least five minimum 24" box size trees proposed, with a combination of canopy and palm trees (Attachment 2). Minimum 5 and 15 gallon size shrubs are used in combination with lawn and ground cover to complete the front yard landscaping. The plant material substantially conforms with the suggested specific plan plant pallette and are well designed. The plans are also required to obtain approval from the Coachella Valley Water District and Riverside County Agricultural Commission. ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE IALRCI REVIEW: The ALRC reviewed this request at its meeting of November 1, 2000, and determined the project was acceptable as presented. The Committee unanimously (3-0) recommended approval. pAstan\pc rpt sdp 99-6641andsc.wpd RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Minute Motion 2000- , approving the irrigation and landscaping plans for Site Development Permit 99-664, subject to the following conditions: 1. Submit to the Community Development Department verification that the irrigation and landscaping plans have been approved by the Coachella Valley Water District and Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner prior to the starting of installation 2. Prior to the beginning of plant installation, submit to Community Development Department provide calculations verifying compliance with Chapter 8.13, Water Efficient Landscaping, of the Municipal Code. 3. Specify on plans that 24" box size trees shall have a minimum caliper of 2.5 inches Attachments: 1 . Location Map 2. Landscaping Plan exhibits Prepared by: ., cb , �f)aw'k Stan B. Sawa, Principal Planner Submitted by: Christine di lorio, Planning Manager pAstan\pc rpt sdp 99-6641andsc.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: NOVEMBER 14, 2000 CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 99-665 APPLICANT: STEVEN WALKER HOMES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: CHARLES TROWBRIDGE AND ASSOCIATES REQUEST: REVIEW OF LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR MODEL HOMES, APPROVED PROTOTYPE RESIDENTIAL PLANS, AND COMMON AREAS LOCATION: ON THE NORTH SIDE OF AIRPORT DRIVE, EAST OF MADISON STREET IN THE NORMAN GOLF COURSE BACKGROUND: The architectural plans for these prototype plans was originally reviewed by the ALRC on January 5, and approved by the Planning Commission on January 11, 2000, subject to conditions. As required, the applicant has submitted landscaping and irrigation plans for the units for approval by the Planning Commission. PROJECT PROPOSAL: The applicant has submitted typical planting and irrigation plans for the landscaping of the three prototype plans, model complex, and common areas around Tract 29347, located in the Norman Course (Attachment 1). Within the front yard area between the building and street curb, four 24" box size trees are provided the balance of the yard is planted in five gallon shrubs with lawn close to the curb and in areas within the courtyards (Attachment 2). The side yards use gravel, while rear yards have one 24" box tree near the side property line. Shrub planting is used adjacent to the rear of the units with lawn blending into the golf course. All of the front yards face east or north. The three model units are planted in a similar manner but are upgraded in tree sizes (48" box size) and quantities and shrub quantities (Attachment 3)• In the rear yard each lot will have a swimming pool. The common area to be landscaped is the parkway across the street from the 39 lots being developed by the applicant. This area partially borders the Monroe Street s\stan\:pc rpt sdp 99-665.wpd perimeter wall (Attachment 2)• The planting is a combination of trees, shrubs, and groundcover, with trees varying from 15 gallon to 36" box size. The plant pallette is also the same as that used for the residences. Plant material includes many of those included in the Norman Course Specific Plan plant palllette, as well as others which are compatible and used in this area. The majority of the plants are low water or relatively low water users that have colorful flowers, heaves, or growth patterns. ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE (ALRC) REVIEW: The ALRC reviewed this request at its meeting of November 1, 2000, and determined the project was acceptable as presented. The Committee unanimously (3-0) recommended approval. FINDING: As required by Section 9.60.300 (Compatibility Review) of the Zoning Ordinance, the Commission is required to make the following landscaping finding: 1. At least one specimen tree (min. 24-inch box size (minimum 2.5" caliper), and minimum 10 feet tall, measured from top of box) shall be provided in the front yard or street side yard. Response: The proposed landscaping plans will be required to provide a minimum of one 24" box size tree in the front yard area. All units will have at least three additional trees and other shrubs and groundcover. STAFF COMMENTS: The landscaping plans are well designed, use attractive plant material, and will be compatible with surrounding development. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt minute Motion 2000-_, approving the landscaping plans for Site Development Permit 99-665, subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to the beginning of plant installation, submit to Community Development Department clearance of irrigation and planting plans from Coachella Valley Water District and Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner. s\stan\:pc rpt sdp 99-665.wpd 2. Prior to the beginning of plant installation, submit to Community Development Department provide calculations verifying compliance with Chapter 8.13, Water Efficient Landscaping, of the Municipal Code. 3. Specify on plans that 24" box size trees shall have a minimum caliper of 2.5 inches. Attachments: 1 . Location map 2. Front yard and perimeter wall landscaping plans 3. Model complex landscaping plans Prepared by: Stan B. Sawa, Principal Planner Submitted by: ✓ L- Christine di lorio, hanning Manager s\stan\:pc rpt sdp 99-665.wpd ATTACHMENT 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 7 8 9 110 11 1213141516171840 BROWN DEE PARKS 19 ' 20 GOLF COURSE 21 ' 41 Z2 ' 45.209 ACRES 23 i 22 i 25 SlrE Q 27 3 W w 28 DUI?ON Of 29 1430 31 -_DRIVE w li m32 33 [i Z 34 Z \ Cif 35 O 36 �\ F' 37 i 38 1 39 i ig II CASE MAP ORT CASE No. SDP 99-665 STEVEN WALKER HOMES SCALE: NTS P BI #C PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: NOVEMBER 14, 2000 CASE NUMBER: MASTER DESIGN GUIDELINES 2000-011 REQUEST: REVIEW OF ONE PROTOTYPE HOUSE WITH TWO DIFFERENT FACADES APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: KRISTY BRADY LOCATION: 51-785 AND 51-805 AVENIDA VILLA (ADJACENT LOTS) EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR) EXISTING ZONING DESIGNATION: COVE RESIDENTIAL (RC DISTRICT) BACKGROUND): Project Bequest This proposed single story, three bedroom prototype house has been previously constructed in the Cove by the applicant. California -Mediterranean style architecture is exhibited with traditional hip and gable roof designs topped with light red colored concrete S-tile. Covered front door entrances are only partially visible from the street. The proposed hip roof facade (Elevation A) achieves greater architectural character through the use of column arches and horizontal stucco banding than the gable facade (Elevation B). Buildings are clad in exterior stucco with light brown color tones (La Habra Stucco - Aspen and Sante Fe). Each facade design for this prototype house meet the intent of the Zoning Ordinance as presented. St PC MDG011 Brady 44 (10/30;11/7) - Page 1 greg A conceptual front yard landscape plan shows the applicant using lawn, a minimum of three 15 gallon shade trees and ten shrubs. A plant pallette list has not be provided to staff for this application. Staff has reviewed the Guidelines and determined the applicant has provided adequate deviations to the building elevations to comply with Section 9.50.090 of the Zoning Code. These Guidelines, if approved by the Planning Commission, will be used to evaluate each building permit application for compliance with the approved Guidelines. RECOMMENDAT10A: Adopt Planning Commission Minute Motion approving the Master Design Guidelines (MDG 2000-012) as presented. Attachments: 1 . Architectural Booklet (Planning Commission only) Prepared by: Submitted by: e sdell, Iciate Planner St PC MDG011 Brady 44 (10/30;11/7) - Page 2greg T Christine di Iorio,��Ma g - BI #D PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: NOVEMBER 14, 2000 CASE NUMBER: MASTER DESIGN GUIDELINES 2000-012 REQUEST: TO ALLOW ELEVEN PROTOTYPE HOUSE PLANS FOR USE IN THE COVE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: ROBERT B. KELLOGG AND SYLVIA M. KELLOGG LOCATION: LA QUINTA COVE (UNSPECIFIED) EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR) EXISTING ZONING DESIGNATION: COVE RESIDENTIAL (RC DISTRICT) BACKGROUND: Project Bequest The attached Guidelines contain information as to how the developer intends to vary the exterior of the units which includes, but is not limited to, roof types, window and entry treatment, stucco and paint colors, roof tile colors, and setbacks. Southwest style architecture is proposed on five of the eight plans. Photos of existing houses that have been built in the Cove are identified in the architectural booklet. Staff has reviewed the guidelines and determined that the applicants have provided adequate deviations to the building elevations such as style, roof lines, entry and window treatments. Pitched roofs have concrete tile, as required. In addition, upon St PC MDG012Cont. 44 (10/30;11[£) - Page I grcg Planning Commission approval, staff will use the guidelines to evaluate each building permit application from this developer for compliance with the approved guidelines. Adopt Planning Commission Minute Motion approving the Master Design Guidelines (MDG 2000-012) as presented. Attachments: Architectural Booklet (Planning Commission only) Submitted by: ry Associate lanner Christine di lorio, Planning anager St PC MD(3012Cont. 44 (10/30;11L6) - Page 2greg BI #E PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: NOVEMBER 14, 2000 CASE NO.: SIGN APPLICATION 2000-523 APPLICANT: POMONA FIRST FEDERAL BANK AND TRUST PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE REQUEST: INSTALL FOUR LOGOS AND INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED IDENTIFICATION MOUNTED CHANNEL LETTER SIGNS INCLUDING TWO TIME AND TEMPERATURE SIGNS LOCATION: 78-752 HIGHWAY 111 (PREVIOUSLY THE BOSTON MARKET RESTAURANT), WITHIN THE 111 LA QUINTA SHOPPING CENTER SIGN CONTRACTOR: PLASTI-LINE, WEST ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: THE LA QUIN.TA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THIS SIGN APPLICATION IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15311, CLASS 11, OF THE GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: M/RC (MIXED REGIONAL COMMERCIAL) ZONING: CR (REGIONAL COMMERCIAL) BACKGROUND - Shopping -Center History In 1990, the One -Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center Specific Plan was approved by the City Council allowing development of 617,565 square feet of floor area on 60 acres Sr PC Sign Pomona Final 44 greg (11n,11/6, it/9), Page 1 for property north of Highway 111 between Washington Street and Adams Street. Construction of the center has been ongoing since 1992. The center's Master Sign Program, approved by the Planning Commission, allows 24" high internally illuminated pan channel letter signs on each of the four building elevations for single tenants on satellite pads. The Sign Program allows one sign per building facade not exceeding 50 square feet, or 75% of the lease frontage width. Corporate signs can be approved by the Planning Commission as a deviation to approved Sign Program. Site History The applicant has purchased the vacant Boston Market restaurant which was constructed in 1997 under Conditional Use Permit 96-027; this facility has roughly 3,200 square feet and 39 parking spaces with a 12 foot wide derive-thru lane capable of handling 8-9 queued vehicles before arriving at the first pick-up window. The building is setback 60 feet from Highway 1 1 1 . No signs exist on the building at this time; they were removed when the restaurant closed in 1999. However, the freestanding menu sign was left on the northwest side of the building. SIGN SEGAUEST: The applicant is proposing on the east and west elevations a triangular logo cannister measuring 5.8' high and 7' wide for a total of approximately 28.63 square feet. The proposed background, stainless steel, is not illuminated. The proposed chevrons will be three shades of blue and the shield dark blue with the copy "PFF" a white color. Proposed below the shield are individually mounted 1' high and 5' long (total 10.35 sq. ft.) channel letters. The copy reads "Bank and Trust." The fakes will be white with dark blue returns and blue trim caps. Also proposed on each of these elevations is a time/temperature cannister sign. This sign will be 1 .75' high and 5.38' long for a total of 9.41 square feet. The total for each of these signs does not exceed 49.99 square feet. The signs on the east elevations are proposed on the pop out entry, within the arched parapet wall. The west elevation signs are mounted on the southern portion of the building. The applicant is proposing on the north and south elevations 2' high and 25' long (total 50.8 sq. ft.) individually mounted channel letter signs. The sign copy reads "PFF Bank and Trust." The letter faces are white with a blue outline. The returns and trim caps are dark blue and blue, respectively. Sr PC Sign Pomona Final 44 greg (t 1/1, 1 v6, ut2), Page 2 In 1998, the applicant was granted trademark status for their corporate logo. This documentation is on file with the Community Development Department. The applicant states that they have 23 bank facilities and other affiliated financial offices. STATEUENLQF_T HE_W—UES : Consistency with the One -Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center Sign Program and the City's Sign Ordinance (Chapter 9.160) The signs are generally consistent with the Sign Program with the following exceptions: A. The location of the east elevation sign extends above the tower parapet wall and a portion is proposed within the arched parapet. Therefore, staff is recommending the sign be lowered so as not to have any portion of the sign within the arched parapet. B. The proposed location of the west elevation sign is not centered on the wall in accordance with the Sign Program and is proposed on the southwest corner. Staff is recommending a sign adjustment as the logo is better suited in the corner and provides design consistency with the east elevation sign. C. The south and north elevation's sign area of 50.83 square feet exceeds the 50 square feet of sign area allowed per the Sign Program. Therefore, staff is recommending the sign area for each sign be reduced to not exceed 50 square feet. 2. The menu board sign shall be removed as the building no longer serves as a fast food restaurant prior to issuance of sign permit. RECOMMEND-ATLON: Adopt Minute Motion 2000-.__, approving Sign Application 2000-523, subject to the following conditions: 1 . Prior to obtaining a building permit to install the signs, the following design changes shall be made to the sign application graphics: A. The east elevation building sign shall be lowered so as not to extend above the tower parapet wall. B. The east and west building signs shall be reduced in size so as not to exceed 50 square feet. 2. The menu board sign shall be removed prior to issuance of sign permits. Attachments: 1 . PFF Sign Program (Planning Commission only) Submitted by: I� Associate Planner Christine di lorio, anning Manager