2008 02 26 PCCity of La Quintal
®� Planning Commission Agendas are now
c� 9tiS available on the City's Web Page
OF T1iE
www.la-quinta.orq
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
A Regular Meeting to be Held at the
La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California
FEBRUARY 26, 2008
7:00 P.M.
**NOTE**
ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT
REGULAR MEETING
Beginning Resolution 2008-008
Beginning Minute Motion 2008-007
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. Pledge of Allegiance
B. Roll Call
If. PUBLIC COMMENT
This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled
for public hearing. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit
your comments to three minutes.
III. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 12, 2008.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
For all Public Hearings on the Agenda, a completed "Request to Speak" form must
be filed with the Executive Secretary prior to the start of the Planning Commission
consideration of that item. The Chairman will invite individuals who have requested
the opportunity to speak, to come forward at the appropriate time.
Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before a
public hearing, may appear and be heard in support of, or in opposition to, the
approval of the project(s) at the time of the hearing. If you challenge any project(s)
in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised
at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior
to the public hearing.
A. Item .................... SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2007-901
Applicant ............. Washington 111, Ltd.
Location .............. Bounded by Highway 1 1 1, Washington Street, Avenue
47, and Adams Street, within the Washington Park Retail
Center.
Request ............... Consideration of development plans for a parking lot,
retaining wall, and landscaping within Washington Park
Commercial Center.
Action ................ Resolution 2008-
B. Item .................... SIGN APPLICATION 2006-1022, AMENDMENT NO. 1
Applicant ............. Accretive La Quinta Partners, LLC
Location .............. 47-647 Caleo Bay Drive, East of Washington Street,
North of Avenue 48, South of Lake La Quinta Drive.
Request ............... Consideration of a Sign Program Amendment for
permanent business identification signage for the La
Quinta Medical Center.
Action ................ Minute Motion 2008-
VI. BUSINESS ITEM:
A. Item .................... MODIFICATION BY APPLICANT 2008-009
Applicant ............. Stamko Development Company
Location .............. Parcel 1, Centre at La Quinta, southwest corner of Dune
Palms Road and Highway 111
Request ............... Consideration of a request to modify an existing sign
program to allow for neon elements to be incorporated
into tenant sign design.
Action ................ Minute Motion 2008-
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None
Vill. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. Review of City Council meeting of February 19, 2008.
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
This meeting of the Planning Commission will be adjourned to a Regular Meeting to
be held on March 11, 2008, at 7:00 p.m.
DECLARATION OF POSTING
I, Carolyn Walker, Executive Secretary of the City of La Quinta, do hereby declare
that the foregoing Agenda for the La Quinta Planning Commission meeting of
Tuesday, February 26, 2008 was posted on the outside entry to the Council
Chamber, 78-495 Calle Tampico and the bulletin board at the La Quinta Cove Post
Office, on Friday, February 22, 2008.
DATED: February 22, 2008.
CAROL WALKER, Executive Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
Public Notices
The La Quinta City council Chamber is handicapped accessible. If special
equipment is needed for the hearing impaired, please call the City Clerk's office at
777-7123, twenty-four (24 hours in advance of the meeting and accommodations
will be made.
If special electronic equipment is needed to make presentations to the Planning
Commission, arrangements should be made in advance by contacting the City
Clerk's office at 777-7123. A one (1) week notice is required.
If background materials is to be presented to the Planning Commission during a
Planning Commission meeting, please be advised that eight (8) copies of all
documents, exhibits, etc., must be supplied to the Executive Secretary for
distribution. It is requested that this take place prior to the beginning of the 7:00
p.m. meeting.
PH #A
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: FEBRUARY 26, 2008
CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2007-901
REQUEST: CONSIDEPARKING RLOT, RETAINING WAATION OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND LANDSCAPING
WITHIN WASHINGTON PARK COMMERCIAL CENTER
LOCATION: BOUNDED BY HIGHWAY 111, WASHINGTON STREET,
AVENUE 47, AND ADAMS STREET, WITHIN THE
WASHINGTON PARK RETAIL CENTER
APPLICANT: WASHINGTON 111, LTD.
PROPERTY OWNER: WASHINGTON 111, LTD.
ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW: THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT 2002-459 FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 89-011
AMENDMENT NO. 4, WASHINGTON PARK COMMERCIAL
CENTER ON DECEMBER 17, 2002. NO CHANGED
CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS AND NO NEW
INFORMATION IS PROPOSED WHICH WOULD TRIGGER
THE PREPARATION OF A SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE
SECTION 21166.
ZONING: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (CR)
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (RC)
SURROUNDING
ZONING/LAND USE: NORTH:
REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (CR)
SOUTH:
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL) /
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC)
EAST:
REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (CR)
WEST:
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL)
P
PAReports - PC\2008\2-26-08\SDP 07-901 Washington Park\PC staff rot. SDP 2007-901.doo
]
BACKGROUND:
Building pads within the Washington Park retail center have been approved through
multiple Site Development Permits in accord with the Washington Park Specific Plan
(SP 87-011, Amendment No. 4). Existing portions of Washington Park include Target,
Circuit City, Office Depot, and Trader Joe's. The most recently completed building
pads are Shops 3, 4, and Sub -Major 5 containing the recently opened Lumpy's golf
store. A temporary driveway currently exists across the proposed site, which was
required as a condition of approval for Site Development Permit 2005-838 involving
Shops 4 and Sub -Major 5. The most recent ALRC review of Washington Park was Site
Development Permit 2006-869 for Shops 1 and 2 on September 6, 2006, located
between the existing Stein Mart and Cost Plus, which were approved by the Planning
Commission on September 26, 2006 and are currently under construction.
PROPOSAL:
The applicant is proposing to construct a parking lot, retaining wall, and landscaping to
serve the surrounding future building pads, an area identified by the applicant as
"Phase 4" (Attachment 1). Section 9.150.020 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that
all parking facilities are subject to approval by a Site Development Permit application.
All building pads and associated screening walls identified on the landscaping plans will
be reviewed by the Planning Commission under separate Site Development Permits at
a later date. No timeframe has been provided by the applicant for the future
development of these building pads.
The applicant's proposed landscaping plan identifies a plant palate and landscaping
design consistent with the Specific Plan and previously constructed phases of
Washington Park. The perimeter street design will continue the same design used
along the adjacent portion of Washington Street, which utilizes a combination of
Mexican Fan Palms, Mulgas, Ironwood, Purple Orchids, and Palo Verde trees with a
meandering sidewalk bounded by decomposed granite with lantana, bougainvillea, and
other accent shrubs. A water feature has been identified at the corner of Washington
Street and Avenue 47. Some landscaping along the immediate perimeter of the
building pads will be reviewed under separate future Site Development Permit
applications.
The applicant has identified decorative paving to be installed along building frontages
and certain intersections. Decorative paving material will consist of colored and
stamped concrete. Although the plans identify what appears to be a brick pattern, the
final design will be consistent with those paving designs used on the existing phases
of Washington Park.
Due to a six foot elevation difference between the rear of the existing Lowe's store
and this proposed phase 4 development, the applicant is requesting to construct a
PAReports - PC\2008\2-26-08\SDP 07-901 Washington Park\PC staff rpt. SDP 2007-901.doc 2
retaining wall, tapering from 4 feet 10 inches to 2 feet 2 inches, along the rear parking
area of a future major tenant. This retaining wall will consist of split -faced blocks
consistent with the previous phases and the adjacent retention basin retaining wall.
The building code will require a 42 inch high guardrail placed on top of the proposed
retaining wall, which was not identified on the elevations.
ANALYSIS:
The proposed plans identify a parking lot layout and landscaping palate consistent with
the approved specific plan. The proposed landscape palate is consistent with the
specific plan and landscaping planted within the other phases of Washington Park.
Staff suggests limiting the use of Crape Myrtle trees on the Final Landscaping Plans
due to the level of maintenance involved and the use of some type of hanging or
climbing landscaping over the retaining wall to reduce potential impacts from graffiti.
The Planning Commission should also consider the proposed water feature located at
the corner of Washington Street and Avenue 47 with regards to water usage. Staff
recommends that the final landscaping plans identify enhanced landscaping with
significant foliage to screen the rear of all future building pads, the applicant ensures
that all trees within the parking areas consist of a 36 inch box and provide adequate
shading and that all vacant future building pads be covered with a dustless decorative
groundcover.
The applicants have identified an ADA accessible path of travel extending through the
center of the southernmost parking area. Staff and the ALRC recommend that this
path of travel be redesigned as a sidewalk along the landscaping planters located
adjacent to the interior driving aisle and that the applicant provides landscaping along
this path. Staff anticipates this path to be well utilized by pedestrians traveling
between the future building pads.
Public Works is still reviewing the applicant's proposed underground retention design
and has included some related conditions of approval. The applicants have proposed a
new design consisting of an arched steel chamber, rather than a concrete vault, to
contain the underground retention. The final underground retention design will not
change the proposed site plan and will be reviewed and approved at the plan check
level.
The final parking lot design may require the removal or adjustment of some parking
spaces and minor lane and intersection re -configurations to accommodate sight -
distances, turning movements, and traffic flow patterns. These items have been
conditioned to allow minor modifications and flexibility to be finalized with the precise
grading plans.
PAReports - PC\2008\2-26-08\SDP 07-901 Washington Park1PC staff rpt. SDP 2007-901.doc 3
ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE (ALRC) REVIEW:
The ALRC reviewed this request at the January 2Id, 2008 meeting. The Committee
adopted Minute Motion 2008-006 recommending approval with the following
conditions:
1. Final landscaping and irrigation plans shall be prepared by a licensed landscape
professional, shall be reviewed by the ALRC and Public Works Director, and
approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of the first building permit.
An application for Final Landscape Plan Check shall be submitted to the Planning
Department for final landscape plan review. Said plans shall include all
landscaping associated with this project, including perimeter landscaping, shall
be certified to comply with the 50% parking lot shading requirement, and be in
compliance with Chapter 8.13 (Water Efficient Landscaping) of the Municipal
Code. The landscape and irrigation plans shall be approved by the Coachella
Valley Water District and Riverside County Agriculture Commissioner prior to
submittal of the final plans to the Planning Department.
2. Final Landscaping Plans shall identify enhanced landscaping with significant
foliage to provide improved screening for the rear of all future building pads and
any loading zones.
3. A more detailed design of the proposed water feature to be located at the
corner of Washington Street and Avenue 48 shall be reviewed as a part of the
Final Landscaping Plans.
4. All sidewalk, decorative paving, and retaining wall building materials shall be
consistent with those used in previous approved phases of Washington Park.
5. All trees located within the parking area shall have a minimum trunk caliper of
2.5 inches and height of 10 feet. All trees within the parking area shall meet or
exceed the shading requirements specified under section 9.150.080 of the
Parking Ordinance. Should the proposed Palo Verde shading coverage be
deemed insufficient, the applicant shall utilize an alternative tree from the
existing plant palate.
6. The applicant shall relocate the ADA accessible path of travel within the south
portion of the parking lot to a location adjacent to the proposed landscaped
islands and provide an additional landscaped island on along the opposite side of
the path.
PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENT:
This project was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper and posted on February 15,
P:\Reports - PC\2008\2-26-08\SDP 07-901 Washington Park\PC staff rpt. SDP 2007-901.doc 4
2008. All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the
public hearing notice. No comments concerning this item were received from either the
members of the public or outside agencies.
FINDINGS:
The findings necessary to approve the Site Development Permit can be made provided
the recommended Conditions of Approval are imposed per Section 9.210.010 of the
Zoning Code as noted in the attached Resolution.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2008-_ approving Site Development Permit
2007-901 pursuant to Findings and conditions, to allow construction of a parking lot,
retaining wall, and landscaping.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Plans and Elevations
2. Minutes for the January 2, 2008 Architecture and Landscape Review
Committee
Prepared by:
J. Mogensen
Planner
PAReports - PC\2008\2-26-08\SDP 07-901 Washington Park\PC staff rpt. SDP 2007-901.doc 5
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2008-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR A PARKING LOT, RETAINING
WALLS, AND LANDSCAPING WITHIN THE WASHINGTON
PARK COMMERCIAL CENTER
CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2007-901
APPLICANT: WASHINGTON 111, LTD
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 26T" day of February 2008, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
the request of WASHINGTON 1 1 1, LTD to approve the construction of a parking lot,
retaining wall, and landscaping within a portion of a retail shopping center in the
Washington Park commercial center located on the east side of Washington Street,
south of Highway 1 1 1, more particularly described as:
Parcel Map #30903
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 83-68). The City Council certified Environmental
Assessment 2002-459 for Specific Plan 89-01 1 Amendment No. 4, Washington Park
Commercial Center. No changed circumstances or conditions exist which would
trigger the preparation of a subsequent Environmental Impact Report or environmental
review pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166; and,
WHEREAS, said Site Development Permit includes a retaining wall,
parking lot, and landscaping to serve future building pads which have yet to be
approved by separate Site Development Permits and does not include any screening
walls to be approved under future Site Development Permits; and,
WHEREAS, the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee, did on
the 2nd day of January, 2008, at a regular meeting, recommended approval of the
development plans, subject to conditions; and,
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, or all interested persons wanting to be heard, said
Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify approval of
said Site Development Permit:
1. The parking lot and landscaping in this proposed phase of the project have been
designed to accommodate future retail commercial building pads and are
consistent with the designated regional commercial uses identified in the
General Plan.
PAReports - PC\2008\2-26-08\SDP 07-901 Washington Park\sdp 2007-901 pc res.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2008-
Site Development Permit 2007-901
Parking Lot and Landscaping
Washington 111, LTD
Adopted: February 26, 2008
2. The commercial landscaping and a parking lot project have been designed with a
layout consistent with the previously approved Specific Plan 89-011
Amendment No.4 and are in accord with the applicable provisions of the City's
Zoning Code.
3. The parking layout is compatible with the surrounding commercial development,
previously approved and constructed phases of Washington Park, and with the
quality of design prevalent in the City. The commercial center's parking lot,
parking capacity, and surrounding access roads are suitably designed to
accommodate the anticipated level of use and conform to the established
standards of the project.
4. The site design of the project, including but not limited to project entries,
interior circulation, pedestrian and bicycle access, pedestrian amenities,
screening of equipment, exterior lighting, and other site design elements are
compatible with previously approved and constructed phases of Washington
Park, surrounding developments, and with the quality of design prevalent in the
City.
5. Project landscaping, including but not limited to the arrangement, variety, size,
color, texture, and coverage of plant materials, with conditions, has been
designed so as to provide relief, complement buildings, visually emphasize
prominent design elements, screen undesirable views, provide a harmonious
transition between adjacent land uses, and provide an overall unifying influence
to enhance the visual continuity of the project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning
Commission in this case;
2. That it does hereby approve Site Development Permit 2007-901 for the reasons
set forth in this Resolution, subject to the Conditions, attached hereto;
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta City Planning Commission, held on the 26`h day of February, 2008, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
P:\Reports - PC\2008\2-26-08\SDP 07-901 Washington Park\sdp 2007-901 pc res.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2008-
Site Development Permit 2007-901
Parking Lot and Landscaping
Washington 111, LTD
Adopted: February 26, 2008
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ED ALDERSON, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
LES JOHNSON
Planning Director
City of La Quinta, California
P:\Reports - PC\2008\2-26-08\SDP 07-901 Washington Park\sdp 2007-901 pc res.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2008-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2007-901
WASHINGTON PARK PARKING LOT & LANSCAPING
FEBRUARY 26, 2008
GENERAL
1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of La
Quinta ("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 applicant of any claim, action or proceeding
and shall cooperate fully in the defense.
2. This Site Development Permit shall comply with the requirements of the La
Quinta Municipal Code, Specific Plan 87-011 Amendment #4, and Tentative
Parcel Map No's. 30903 and 32683.
The City of La Quinta's Municipal Code can be accessed on the City's Web Site
at www.la-guinta.org.
3. This Site Development Permit is valid for two years from the February 26, 2008
date of approval, expiring on February 26, 2010 unless an extension is applied
for and granted by the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 9.200.080 of
the La Quinta Municipal Code.
4. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the City,
the applicant shall obtain any necessary clearances and/or permits from the
following agencies:
• Fire Marshal
• Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Green Sheet (Public Works
Clearance) for Building Permits, Improvement Permit)
• Planning Department
• Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department
• Desert Sands Unified School District
• Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD)
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2008-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2007-901
WASHINGTON PARK PARKING LOT & LANSCAPING
FEBRUARY 26, 2008
Imperial Irrigation District (IID)
• California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB)
• SunLine Transit Agency
South Coast Air Quality Management District Coachella Valley
When applicable, the applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits
and/or clearances from the above listed agencies. When the requirements
include approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of such
approvals when submitting those improvements plans for City approval.
5. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES
stormwater discharge permit, Sections 8.70.010 et seq. (Stormwater
Management and Discharge Controls), and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water),
LQMC; Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; and the State Water Resources
Control Board's Order No. 99-08-DWQ.
A. For construction activities including clearing, grading or excavation of
land that disturbs one 0 ) acre or more of land, or that disturbs less than
one (1) acre of land, but which is a part of a construction project that
encompasses more than one (1) acre of land, the Permitee shall be
required to submit a Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan ("SWPPP").
The applicant or design professional can obtain the California Stormwater
Quality Association SWPPP template at www.cabmphandbooks.com for
use in their SWPPP preparation.
B. The applicant's SWPPP shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to
any on or off -site grading being done in relation to this project.
C. The applicant shall ensure that the required SWPPP is available for
inspection at the project site at all times through and including
acceptance of all improvements by the City.
D. The applicant's SWPPP shall include provisions for all of the following
Best Management Practices ("BMPs") (8.70.020 (Definitions), LQMC):
1) Temporary Soil Stabilization (erosion control).
2) Temporary Sediment Control.
P:\Reports - PC\2008\2-26-08\SDP 07-901 Washington Park\PC COA SDP 2007-901.doc COA Page 2 of 13
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2008-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2007-901
WASHINGTON PARK PARKING LOT & LANSCAPING
FEBRUARY 26, 2008
3) Wind Erosion Control.
4) Tracking Control.
5) Non -Storm Water Management.
6) Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control.
E. All erosion and sediment control BMPs proposed by the applicant shall be
approved by the City Engineer prior to any onsite or offsite grading,
pursuant to this project.
F. The approved SWPPP and BMPs shall remain in effect for the entire
duration of project construction until all improvements are completed and
accepted by the City.
PROPERTY RIGHTS
6. Prior to issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire or confer
easements and other property rights necessary for the 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. Said conferred rights shall also include grant of access
easement to the City of La Quinta for the purpose of graffiti removal by City
staff or assigned agent in perpetuity and agreement to the method to remove
graffiti and to paint over to best match existing. The applicant shall establish the
aforementioned requirements in the CC&R's for the development or other
agreements as approved by the City Engineer.
Direct vehicular access to Washington Street and Avenue 47 are restricted
(Parcel 2 of Parcel Map No. 30903); except for the access point identified on
the Parcel Map Nos. 30903 and 32683 and Amended Parcel Map No. 32683-3.
Pursuant to the aforementioned, the applicant shall enter into reciprocal access
agreement with abutting parcel owners and/or establish said easement via
future subdivision of Parcel Map No. 30903.
7. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements, or written permission, as
appropriate, from those owners of all abutting properties on which grading,
retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments will
occur.
PAReports - PC\2008\2-26-08\SDP 07-901 Washington PaWPC COA SDP 2007-901 doc COA Page 3 of 13
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2008-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2007-901
WASHINGTON PARK PARKING LOT & LANSCAPING
FEBRUARY 26, 2008
8. The applicant shall cause no easement to be granted, or recorded, over any
portion of the subject property between the date of approval of the Tentative
Parcel Map and the date of recording of any Final Map, unless such easement is
approved by the City Engineer.
PARKING LOTS and ACCESS POINTS
9. The design of parking facilities shall conform to LQMC Chapter 9.150 and in
particular the following:
A. The parking stall and aisle widths and the double hairpin stripe parking
stall design.
B. Cross slopes should be a maximum of 2% where ADA accessibility is
required including accessibility routes between buildings.
C. Building access points shall be shown on the Precise Grading Plans to
better evaluate ADA accessibility issues.
D. Accessibility routes to public streets and adjacent development shall be
shown on the Precise Grading Plan.
E. Parking stall lengths shall be according to LQMC Chapter 9.150 and be a
minimum of 17 feet in length with a 2-foot overhang or 19 feet with no
overhang for standard parking stalls and 18 feet with a 2-foot overhang
for handicapped parking stall or 20 feet with no overhang or as approved
by the City Engineer. One van accessible handicapped parking stall is
required per 8 handicapped parking stalls.
F. Drive aisles between parking stalls shall be a minimum of 26 feet with
access drive aisles and a minimum of 28 feet for circulation drive aisles
and to include truck routes as shown on the Site Development Plan site
plan or as approved by the City Engineer.
Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, corner cutbacks, bus turnouts,
dedicated turn lanes, ADA accessibility route to public streets and other
features shown on the approved construction plans, may require additional
street widths and other improvements as may be determined by the City
Engineer.
10. As truck routes are not provided with this submittal, the applicant shall redesign
PAReports - PD2008\2-26-08\SDP 07-901 Washington Park\PC COA SDP 2007-901.doc COA Page 4 of 13
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2008-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2007-901
WASHINGTON PARK PARKING LOT & LANSCAPING
FEBRUARY 26, 2008
the parking layout and to increase curb radii to provide for adequate accessibility
for larger delivery vehicles to loading areas and circulation aisles accessing the
Site Development Permit site from the entry off of Washington Street and La
Quinta Center Drive.
11. The following Conditions of Approval are placed on the Site Development Permit
No. 2007-901 per the Precise Grading Plans for Washington Park Retail Center
Phase 4 Parcel 2 of Parcel Map No. 30903 presently in for plan check under
Plan Check No. 07184:
A. Realign the circulation drive aisle from the Washington Street entry to the
La Quinta Centre Drive to provide a smoother throat connection at La
Quinta Centre Drive.
B. Redesign the north/south parking drive aisle west of Shops 6 to provide a
less abrupt change in alignment as approved by the City Engineer.
C. As the circulation drive aisles around Sub 6, 7 and 8 access the loading
areas, these stalls shall be designated employee parking only as approved
by the City Engineer.
12. The applicant shall re -locate and revise the identified ADA path of travel located
extending across the center of the southernmost parking area. The path of
travel shall consist of a sidewalk with landscaping located adjacent and parallel
to the driving aisle. Final design and location shall be approved by the Planning
Director.
13. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using CalTrans' design
procedure for 20-year life pavement, and the site -specific data for soil strength
and anticipated traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum
structural sections shall be as follows:
Parking Lot & Aisles (Low Traffic) 3.0" a.c./4.5" c.a.b.
Parking Lot & Aisles (High Traffic) 4.5" a.c./5.5" c.a.b.
Loading Areas 6" P.C.C./4" c.a.b.
or the approved equivalents of alternate materials.
14. The applicant shall submit current mix designs (less than two years old at the
PAReports - PC\2008\2-26-08\SDP 07-901 Washington Park\PC COA SDP 2007-901.doc COA Page 5 of 13
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2008-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2007-901
WASHINGTON PARK PARKING LOT & LANSCAPING
FEBRUARY 26, 2008
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.
15. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control signs,
markings and other devices, raised medians if required, and sidewalks.
16. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City
adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, or as approved by
the City Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking
areas shall be stamped and signed by qualified engineers.
17. Tubular -steel "ribbon -type" or other securable, foundation -inset bicycle parking
racks shall be provided, as per Section 9.150.060 of the Parking Ordinance.
Bicycle racks shall be placed upon a hard surface in a shaded location out of the
way of pedestrian flows. Final placement shall be approved by the Planning
Department.
IMPROVEMENT PLANS
As used throughout these Conditions of Approval, professional titles such as
"engineer," "surveyor," and "architect," refers to persons currently certified or licensed
to practice their respective professions in the State of California.
18. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of
qualified engineers and/or architects, as appropriate, and shall comply with the
provisions of Section 13.24.040 (Improvement Plans), LQMC.
19. The following improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for review
and approval by the Public Works Department. A separate set of plans for
each line item specified below shall be prepared. The plans shall utilize the
minimum scale specified, unless otherwise authorized by the City Engineer in
writing. Plans may be prepared at a larger scale if additional detail or plan
clarity is desired. Note, the applicant may be required to prepare other
improvement plans not listed here pursuant to improvements required by other
agencies and utility purveyors.
PAReports - PC\2008\2-26-08\SDP 07-901 Washington Park\PC COA SDP 2007-901.doc COA Page 6 of 13
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2008-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2007-901
WASHINGTON PARK PARKING LOT & LANSCAPING
FEBRUARY 26, 2008
A. On -Site Commercial Precise Grading Plans 1 " = 20' Horizontal
B. PM10 Plan 1" = 40' Horizontal
C. SWPPP 1 " = 40' Horizontal
Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not
listed above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to
commencing plan preparation.
The applicant shall prepare an accessibility assessment on a marked up print of
the building floor plan identifying every building egress and notes the 2001
California Building Code accessibility requirements associated with each door.
The assessment must comply with submittal requirements of the Building &
Safety Department. A copy of the reviewed assessment shall be submitted to
the Engineering Department in conjunction with the necessary plans when
submitted for plan checking.
"On -Site Commercial Precise Grading" plans shall normally include all on -site
surface improvements including but not necessarily limited to finish grades for
curbs & gutters, building floor elevations, parking lot improvements and ADA
requirements.
20. The City maintains standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction notes for
elements of construction which can be accessed via the "Plans, Notes and
Design Guidance" section of the Public Works Department at the City website
(www.la-quinta.org). Please navigate to the Public Works Department home
page and look for the Standard Drawings hyperlink.
21. The applicant shall furnish a complete set of mylars of all approved
improvement plans to the City Engineer.
At the completion of construction, and prior to the final acceptance of the
improvements by the City, the applicant shall update the mylars in order to
reflect the as -built conditions.
PRECISE GRADING FOR PRECISE GRADING & STORM DRAIN PLANS FOR
WASHINGTON PARK RETAIL CENTER PHASE 4 (PCN 07184)
22. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading
Improvements), LQMC.
PAReports - PC1200812-26-08\SDP 07-901 Washington Park\PC COA SDP 2007-901.doc COA Page 7 of 13
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2008-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2007-901
WASHINGTON PARK PARKING LOT & LANSCAPING
FEBRUARY 26, 2008
23. Prior to occupancy of the project site for any construction, or other purposes,
the applicant shall obtain a precise grading permit approved by the City
Engineer.
24. To obtain an approved precise grading permit, the applicant shall submit and
obtain approval of all of the following:
A. A precise grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer,
B. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16,
(Fugitive Dust Control), LQMC, and
C. A Best Management Practices report prepared in accordance with
Sections 8.70.010 and 13.24.170 (NPDES stormwater discharge permit
and Storm Management and Discharge Controls), LQMC.
All grading shall conform to the recommendations contained in the Preliminary
Soils Report, and shall be certified as being adequate by a soils engineer, or by
an engineering geologist.
The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, and in an
amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the approved Fugitive Dust
Control Plan provisions as submitted with its application for a grading permit.
25. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any building lot, the applicant shall
provide a lot pad certification stamped and signed by a qualified engineer or
surveyor.
Each pad certification shall list the pad elevation as shown on the approved
grading plan, the actual pad elevation and the difference between the two, if
any. Such pad certification shall also list the relative compaction of the pad
soil. The data shall be organized by lot number, and listed cumulatively if
submitted at different times.
26. The applicant shall provide and maintain a dustless groundcover at the location
of all vacant future building pads adjacent to the parking area. The temporary
groundcover material shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works
Director and Planning Director.
PAReports - P02008\2-26-08\SDP 07-901 Washington Park\PC COA SDP 2007-901.doc COA Page 8 of 13
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2008-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2007-901
WASHINGTON PARK PARKING LOT & LANSCAPING
FEBRUARY 26, 2008
DRAINAGE
27. Stormwater handling shall be revised as necessary and approved by the City
Engineer to conform to the approved hydrology and drainage reports for
Washington Park Development to include Parcel Maps Nos. 30903 and 32863.
The applicant is hereby notified that future site modifications may be necessary
including, but not limited to lot and street reconfiguration. Verification of the
proposed storm water retention system is subject to review and approval by the
City Engineer. If the proposed retention capacity or pass through storm water
flow is found to be inadequate during final design, the applicant shall revise
what is currently proposed in the preliminary hydrology study and make
adjustments to the site layout as needed to accommodate the increased
retention/detention or pass through capacity required to satisfy the safety issues
of the Public Works Department. Pursuant to the aforementioned, the applicant
may be required to construct additional underground and above ground drainage
facilities to convey on site and off site storm water.
28. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.120
(Drainage), Retention Basin Design Criteria, Engineering Bulletin No. 06-16 -
Hydrology Report with Preliminary Hydraulic Report Criteria for Storm Drain
Systems and Engineering Bulletin No. 06-015 - Underground Retention Basin
Design Requirements. More specifically, stormwater falling on site during the
100 year storm shall be retained within the development, unless otherwise
approved by the City Engineer. The design storm shall be the 3 hour, 6 hour or
24 hour event producing the greatest total run off.
29. Nuisance water shall be retained on site. Nuisance water shall be disposed of
per approved methods contained in Engineering Bulletin No. 06-16 - Hydrology
Report with Preliminary Hydraulic Report Criteria for Storm Drain Systems and
Engineering Bulletin No. 06-015 - Underground Retention Basin Design
Requirements.
30. In design of retention facilities, the maximum percolation rate shall be two
inches per hour. The percolation rate will be considered to be zero unless the
applicant provides site specific data indicating otherwise to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer.
31. Stormwater may not be retained in landscaped parkways or landscaped setback
lots for new retention areas not previously authorized by Specific Plan 97-029,
Amendment 4.
PAReports - PC\2008\2-26-08\SDP 07-901 Washington Park\PC COA SDP 2007-901.doc COA Page 9 of 13
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2008-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2007-901
WASHINGTON PARK PARKING LOT & LANSCAPING
FEBRUARY 26, 2008
32. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries,
levels or frequencies in any area outside the development.
33. The development shall be graded to permit storm flow in excess of retention
capacity to flow out of the development through a designated overflow and into
the historic drainage relief route.
34. If the applicant gains CVWD approval to discharge storm water directly, or
indirectly, into 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 executed and furnished to the City prior to the
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 tentative parcel map excepting there from 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 final
development CC&R's for meeting these potential obligations. The 100-year
storm water HGL shall be 3 feet below the channel lining and 2 feet below the
Project Storm HGL.
UTILITIES
35. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.1 10 (Utilities),
LQMC.
36. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all
utility lines within any right-of-way, and all above -ground utility structures
including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electric vaults, water valves,
and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic
purposes.
37. Underground 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.
PAReports - PC\2008\2-26-08\SDP 07-901 Washington Park\PC COA SDP 2007-901.doc COA Page 10 of 13
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2008-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2007-901
WASHINGTON PARK PARKING LOT & LANSCAPING
FEBRUARY 26, 2008
The applicant shall provide certified reports of all utility trench compaction for
approval by the City Engineer.
CONSTRUCTION
38. The City will conduct final inspections of habitable buildings 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 in
residential developments are initially constructed with partial pavement
thickness, the applicant shall complete the pavement prior to final inspections of
the last two within the development or when directed by the City, whichever
comes first.
39. The applicant shall be required to install a guard railing above the retaining wall.
The applicant shall provide a minimum 2 foot overhang between the curb and
the wall for all parking spaces facing the retaining wall. Final design and
approval shall be made by the Planning Director.
40. All screening walls identified on the plans shall be reviewed and approved with
their respective future Site Development Permit applications.
41. All colors, light fixtures, and building materials shall be consistent with those
utilized by the previous phases of Washington Park.
LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION
42. The applicant shall comply with Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) &
13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans), LOMC.
43. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention
basins, common lots and park areas.
44. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians,
retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape
architect.
45. Final landscaping and irrigation plans shall be prepared by a licensed landscape
professional, shall be reviewed by the ALRC and Public Works Director, and
approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of the first building permit.
An application for Final Landscape Plan Check shall be submitted to the Planning
PAReports - PC\2008\2-26-08\SDP 07-901 Washington Park\PC COA SDP 2007-901.doc COA Page 11 of 13
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2008-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2007-901
WASHINGTON PARK PARKING LOT & LANSCAPING
FEBRUARY 26, 2008
Department for final landscape plan review. Said plans shall include all
landscaping associated with this project, including perimeter landscaping, and
be in compliance with Chapter 8.13 (Water Efficient Landscaping) of the
Municipal Code and the Coachella Valley Water District's Landscaping and
Irrigation Design Ordinance. The landscape and irrigation plans shall be approved
by the Coachella Valley Water District and Riverside County Agriculture
Commissioner prior to submittal of the final plans to the Planning Department.
Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the
requirements of the Planning Director.
Note: Final landscaping plans are not approved for construction until approved
and signed by the Planning Director.
46. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the
requirements of the Planning Director.
47. The applicant or his agent has the responsibility for proper sight distance
requirements per guidelines in the AASHTO "A Policy on Geometric Design of
Highways and Streets, 51h Edition" or latest, in the design and/or installation of
all landscaping and appurtenances abutting and within the private and public
street right-of-way.
48. Landscaping placed between the rear of all future building pads and the
Washington Street and/or Avenue 47 street frontage shall be revisited and
reviewed with future Washington Park Site Development Permits. All perimeter
landscaping adjacent to the rear of any future building pads shall consist of
larger specimens having significant foliage for screening purposes.
49. Any ground -mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened by a wall,
landscaping with significant foliage, or combination of the two, of a sufficient
height and/or density to fully screen such equipment above its horizontal plane.
50. Should any landscaping utilized for screening purposes be deemed insufficient
by the Planning Director following an initial period of growth, the applicant shall
replace or provide additional landscaping with significant foliage.
51. All trees planted within the parking lot shall consist of a minimum 36 inch box
specimen having significant foliage. All trees shall meet or exceed the parking
lot shading requirement referenced under Section 9.150.080 of the Parking
Ordinance.
PAReports - PC\2008\2-26-08\SDP 07-901 Washington Park\PC COA SDP 2007-901.doc COA Page 12 of 13
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2008-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2007-901
WASHINGTON PARK PARKING LOT & LANSCAPING
FEBRUARY 26, 2008
52. The applicant shall provide either hanging or climbing landscaping with
significant foliage over the face of the retaining wall.
OUTDOOR LIGHTING
53. Exterior lighting shall comply with Section 9.100.150 (Outdoor Lighting) of the
La Quinta Municipal Code.
54. All freestanding lighting fixtures along the southern perimeter of the property,
including Avenue 47 and adjacent parking areas, shall be limited to 18 feet in
height and be fitted with a visor or shield to reflect lighting away from the
street. Final outdoor lighting design shall be reviewed and approved by the
Planning Director.
MAINTENANCE
55. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160
(Maintenance), LQMC.
56. The applicant shall make provisions for the continuous and perpetual
maintenance of all private on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access
drives, and sidewalks.
FEES AND DEPOSITS
57. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.180 (Fees and
Deposits), LQMC. These fees include all deposits and fees required by the City
for plan checking and construction inspection. Deposits and fee amounts shall
be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan check and
permits.
58. 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 issuance of building permit(s).
PAReports - PC\2008\2-26-08\SDP 07-901 Washington Park\PC COA SDP 2007-901.doc COA Page 13 of 13
m
0
L7
LJ
1111$
HIM
fn�`6
®v
Eqd
h
I A
I' F
W
LI
I
r ;�
1 ,` „ °'-
,._ ,� _ ,,
ATTACHMENT #2
Architecture and La
January 2, 2008
Committee
16. There being no 1
by Committee M
2008-005 rewff
as recommended
.i ' was moved and seconded
aktLikmold to adopt Minute Motion
proval —of-Site Development Permit
Unanimously approved.
F. Site Development Permit 2007-901; a request of Bill Sanchez for
review of parking lot, landscaping, and retaining wall plans within The
Washington Park Retail Center located on the northeast corner of
Washington Street and Avenue 47 within The Washington Park Retail
Center.
1. Principal Planner Andrew Mogensen presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Planning Department.
2. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked about the location of the
ADA path. Staff showed its location.
3. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked about the location of a
large water feature on Washington and Avenue 48. Staff
identified the location and replied it was actually on Avenue 47.
4. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked how many parking spaces
were involved. Staff replied they did not have that exact
number. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if there was
some formulation used for the parking spaces. Staff said the
formula was 4 parking spaces per thousand for this Specific
Plan.
5. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked about regulations on the
hand rail. Staff pointed out the placement and gave a
description of materials to be used.
6. Committee Member Fitzpatrick commented on the key or master
page again. Planning Director Johnson said the old projects
would not have this key page, but that staff is updating the
application requirements so that all new projects would have it
included.
7. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked about carports in the
parking lot. Principal Planner Mogensen replied the Municipal
Code requires carports for 30% of a parking lot if it is being
used for office or medical, but since this project is retail it
would be optional.
13
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
January 2, 2008
8. Committee Member Bobbitt asked why they are looking at a
landscaping plan before there are even buildings involved. Staff
replied the Municipal Code requires a Site Development Permit
application for a parking lot.
9. Bill Sanchez, Construction Manager for Washington 111, Ltd.,
80-618 Declaration Avenue, Indio, said the site plan and site
configuration had been approved via their Specific Plan. He said
the building locations and the configurations were approved, as
well as the ingress/egress locations. The submitted the
landscaping because the want to start on improvements in the
parking lot and the landscape as there are some leasing
negotiations on these possible buildings. The actual footprint of
the buildings might change within the pad location and at that
point they would come in with an additional site permit for
those buildings.
10. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if the parking lot spaces were
based on the amount of square footage. Principal Planner
Mogensen said they were but those numbers were decided
during the Specific Plan application. Planning Director Johnson
went over the calculations used for the parking space
determination.
11. Committee Member Bobbitt wanted to go back to the size of
the planters in the parking lot, for the trees, which was an issue
he brought up 10 years ago. These planters in the parking lot.
He could not tell from the plans what size the planters were and
if they were in the shape of diamonds. Mr. Sanchez replied they
were four-by-fours. Committee Member Bobbitt said he had a
problem with that. He thought the City had changed their
specifications to a larger size. Principal Planner Mogensen said
the planters were identified on the plans as being nine feet wide
and square.
12. Mr. Sanchez said this particular phase had a new, local
landscape architect and he suggested they move away from the
diamond design.
13. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if the City's design guidelines
dictated a certain size planter. Planning Director Johnson said
he thought they did, but he didn't know if they guidelines were
ever changed. They would need to check the City's minimum
standards and report back to the Committee. He wasn't sure
14
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
January 2, 2008
what the minimum standard was but he was pretty sure it was
a four-by-four.
14. Committee Member Bobbitt said he had a bit of problem when
he got on the Committee originally and each the City Council
interviewed him for a new term they asked him what kind of
progress he had made. One of the issues was regarding the
planting of trees and their discussion led him to believe they all
had the same understanding. He now believes that may not be
true and asked how he could be assured his recommendations
from the past ten years were being followed. Planning Director
Johnson replied that such changes must be made via the
Municipal Code Amendment process. He couldn't speak about
the last ten years, but would keep the Committee apprised of
any future amendments.
15. Committee Member Bobbitt said he does not have many issues,
but one of them is the size of trees. He realized it would impact
the amount of parking spaces by increasing the size of the
planter boxes. He asked staff to follow up on the size of the
planter to make sure it would not be four feet. The percentage
of trees that survive in those little squares is very low. Principal
Planner Mogensen added the Coachella Valley Water District
(CVWD) had new standards for the size of tree wells and
thought it was five feet.
16. Committee Member Bobbitt said he would not be happy with
five feet either. It should be a minimum of six feet and ideally
eight feet. Staff asked his opinion of a four -by -nine in this
situation. Committee Member Bobbitt answered he was a
Certified Arborist and did a lot of studying on trees, especially
attrition as in the case of the Peppers and the Mesquites. He
finds that the architects rarely go back to a project ten years
later. He then explained how the plantings should be handled
and what could happen if done incorrectly.
17. Mr. Sanchez said they would work with staff to come up with
an adequate planting area.
18. Committee Member Arnold said he liked the plant palette.
19. Committee Member Bobbitt said the overall project was fine
with the exception of the tree wells.
15
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
January 2, 2008
20. Mr. Sanchez explained the tree plantings for Target and the
areas with security cameras that had to be trimmed.
21. Committee Member Bobbitt said the Acacia trees in the Target
parking lot were pretty good trees and should do fairly well.
22. There being no further questions, it was moved and seconded
by Committee Members Fitz patrick/Bobbitt to adopt Minute
Motion 2008-006 recommending approval of Site Development
Permit 2007-901 as submitted. Unanimously approved.
VI. CORRESP'QNDENCE AND WRITTEN MA/(-ERIAL: None
VII. COMMITTEEiVIEMBER ITEMS:
A. Committee Member Arngfd asked if the Committee Members could
receive a coy of the/Village Design Guidelines. Staff replied they
would be sent 1p the Committee Members.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, was moved and seconded by Committee
Members Fitzpatrick/Bo itt to adjou this meeting of the Architectural and
Landscaping Review mmittee to a Re lar Meeting to be held on February 6,
2008. This meeting as adjourned at 12:40 .m. on January 2, 2008.
Respectfully
ZRO LKER
Executive Secretary
16
PH #B
DATE:
CASE NO.:
APPLICANT:
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
FEBRUARY 26, 2008
SIGN APPLICATION 2006-1022 AMENDMENT 1
ACCRETIVE LA QUINTA PARTNERS, LLC
REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF A SIGN PROGRAM AMENDMENT FOR
PERMANENT BUSINESS IDENTIFICATION SIGNAGE FOR
THE LA QUINTA MEDICAL CENTER
LOCATION
GENERAL PLAN
ZONING:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
BACKGROUND
47-647 CALEO BAY DRIVE; EAST OF WASHINGTON
STREET; NORTH OF AVENUE 48; SOUTH OF LAKE LA
QUINTA DRIVE
CC (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL)
CC (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL)
THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT
THIS PROPOSAL IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE
PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF
SECTION 15311 (CLASS 11) ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
The La Quinta Medical Center, located on the southeast corner of Washington
Street and Lake La Quinta Drive, is bounded on the north by Lake La Quinta Drive,
on the east by Caleo Bay Drive and the Lake La Quinta residential community, and
on the west by Washington Street (Attachment 1). Vacant, un-entitled property is
located to the immediate south.
The Planning Commission approved the La Quinta Medical Center project on
October 12, 2004 (SDP 2004-811), and later approved a sign program for the
project on October 24, 2006. The current approved sign program permits up to
two building identification signs above the second -story windows of the building
and two monument signs. Currently, one building identification sign and both
monument signs have been installed (Attachment 2).
REQUEST
The applicant is requesting an amendment to the sign program for the La Quinta
Medical Center (Attachment 3). A total of three additional "eyebrow" tenant
identification signs have been applied for as part of the proposed amendment,
identified by the (�) on Sheet 6 and 7 of Attachment 3. The signs, in keeping with
the consistency of the existing sign program, are proposed to be individual halo -
illuminated (warm white neon) reverse channel letters, with an all uppercase
Humanist 777 BT Bold font (Attachment 3, Sheet 10).
All three eyebrow signs are proposed to be placed on the western building elevation
above the first -story windows. Two of these signs are proposed to be placed
approximately 4'-9" from the building edge, while the third sign is proposed to be
placed near the western building entrance (Attachment 3, Sheet 6 & 7). At their
highest and widest dimensions, the signs are proposed to be a maximum of
approximately 1'-2" in height and 21'-6" wide, with a maximum area of 25 square
feet per sign (Attachment 3, Sheet 10).
Currently, building -mounted identification signs for the La Quinta Medical Center,are
only allowed on the western building elevation facing Washington Street. The
proposed sign program amendment does not change this provision (Attachment 3,
Sheet 4).
ANALYSIS
The proposed sign program amendment for the La Quinta Medical Center meets all
criteria set forth in La Quinta Municipal Code Section 9.160.050 Permanent Signs
in Non -Residential Districts, and there are no adjustments to the standard code
requirements included in this proposed amendment. The code states that individual
tenants within a multi -tenant commercial/office building are allowed one (1) flush -
mounted identification sign with a maximum sign area of one (1) square foot per
lineal foot of lease frontage, up to a maximum of 50 square feet. Although none of
the tenant spaces within the La Quinta Medical Center have any exterior lease
frontages, as all tenants take their primary access from the interior of the building,
staff believes that the applicant's proposal of up to three eyebrow signs at a
maximum of 25 square feet allows for adequate tenant identification, while
avoiding a possible cluttering of the fascia that may result from all tenants having
illuminated identification signs.
The proposed sign program amendment identifies no building -mounted identification
signage along Caleo Bay Drive, thereby minimizing any visual impacts on the
surrounding residential community to the east. The halo -illumination of the signs
on the western building elevation is subtle and should not result in excessive
lighting. Illuminated signs would be suitable as the signs are appropriately -sized,
the building is set back an adequate distance from Washington Street
(approximately 150 feet from right-of-way), and traffic characteristics
(volume/speed of cars) on Washington Street justifies illuminated signage.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Minute Motion 2008- , approving the requested signage, subject to the
following Conditions of Approval:
1. A building sign permit shall be obtained prior to installation of the signs
2. Per LQMC Section 9.160.050, utilization of the three eyebrow tenant
identification signs proposed by this sign program shall be limited to tenants
occupying the first floor of the building. Tenants that take primary access
from and occupy the second floor shall not utilize any of the three tenant
identification signs.
by:
YNVUU, Associate Planner
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Photographs: Site Photo & Current Building Identification Signage
3. La Quinta Medical Center Proposed Sign Program Amendment
ATTACHMENT #1
Project Site --\W '
L e La Quinta
�s
G
Eisenhower Dr
Avenue 48
A=A!'+L1R=hlT if'J
ATTACHMENT #3
lu
3d
ovy�m
6 Y
P
c
C
C1
ca
cc
1�
60
_GD
i
2�
eR
P�a
f-
A
M
—
IV
O
n
d
p a
O
�cfb
pp
rO
`m
m
C
ou=a
J
j
CY
�■d
g3
Yes r,
g8r�
P
`
� s
o
a'-3`.
a _�o
12,
Y•'is��
w
■
Y
e
yy
Y
e
'i
e
e
i
wwoo
■
ills
■ ■
e
Y
•�
n
i
e �x
o �
el
u
i
a° a
II M $ TM
Y� f ca m Z i �- Y
mode�QSdza _ a al; t
a
0
INI
w�
r
� �YJ�$m
rM
G co ^9 P o r
s
S _ua
�S
g
ygtS
$a°° v €em E mtl n 9P7� O°8 ai
ou p} 5 € O
o C' a°m it °
4' a ,ti E c E yg,
N S9ri�� B x~ W EJ .qgS �a and p .,a ONp
E" X0 E OEV'�c �p9 ° EZ V
fiy=c$vy$,; E.b �oGr.
yJ, vqg�
3 1st$€BLS yB Egiy
6ti L',nS Pgy g�E •� rMO
ES$$EEE0 $ G m'B5r B` �E4LSE y,� �x°xey Lek 5y5 0
E
3a
BgFe ,"=,BEec_o XE '� LL 6Pnm „ma p 3 y�,yaN Cy.
N ;p;p��a maB i LrO�VE�$rL Ct?
na�0.7� u • c « s� y 6 �o u'$i
E o� �N Ny�d' AOS
°a6 wf s'S Z.B�a B <obiN ko no m ZOc a
L
€=
g$�
E 1� IB S 2.0
r�= yyo, Etij� E raj°!`o frPB'�� V�j SN4
l a
a E631b Emaite$%
EE B hC� ° Cc^ E:IIx nC S§°
•� E gJ2 zc c�-�[Eo **yy$3��d sf�aSt3
4u Q9 =V2,
=Q ENE$V OBE.. Y
1� YE Va J C 5 L 'j dp
° YmvI Y SEnn .�N�nS °o � BE
S b 8 E Ls td O'�
OA
yg gyp j� �j .16 ba `62!ty1 4vSok aE B
°S $aV^L LO 6J£�OUI $9 ypC�j n .L y7 `5 PK
LSV S$o9 «g$4q„90 ae b mggr ESa. g S `a 5333� yy,6
cE6`o$ a og2fu 7 n .cO. $y$$ Slc
gL 9-g.@DaE Zia E�'@O Sa ��n'F `o �5 B „ • �� � RJR $ �
a $aBo.agag1SBCE s-vSz s� S 3 sB
°LL yy o
rC. G Oii Y i< r 2 C j yg (.1 E V m
LV9 9 SEn �E CC$�E.1x ag`o 4SE ,e°_o N. NF ii No S'3'6 <EE
Hic°C 6m�a Md ms 3`°' 30 0"� 3 E$ B °B„
E gg p
Ea 9d mV0 3 $�a�SSa o6y E'z FEs
55 g5£� g C11 S
Nrw� -'�0
lb
0
i m
f
-g �2- 3� 9
ra
cr
55;�?MCA
5a f� F Oda
04
rm
Lfb
ra
�_y 5. 33 O mpj
u 6 -fitj
$± 9 2 Y gg
Cy su
^� ool
a
a
0
N
0
9 gg 9
cr
�fg $`�
sc
a
O
,i
EE
0
G
a
0
m -
jam^ 5"§
8 u C p s m o '}y�g„gNg{g. E E 5
C 30 kz a` fps aR§I 3 e � a
61 _
_; FF
o V F 0 3 N
F
cc
W
H
z
W
u
z
CY
N
0
m
g e
V V spa
m:33
3
3 i N 5
a 21
rii°
219
N
i
Ci
0
0
0
O' C
QQ
15
W a
ID3a try .= a �u f: i� Ali
/5
E I1dtP N n n d w ai s 6 N n L�
F r
N
z
J
3
0
cc
m
LU
z
2
cn
00
LA
q*
M
r
a
0
C
))
`
2J
w#t5
!,!!�z!
-
e
!,:!
§f
)
� §
=
||
In
!�
74��-
/}2\
5\A
-
_
cy
\/\\/\\
\
CD
}\i)
\/
/
�
�
!
a
w
a+
�
5Z`
1
3
�
g
,_00
V
=
W
ttA
Ln
O
CY
M
C
N
Q
O
V
t
1-11 IN
0 it @@R
.e. �.e. .:..
i
rm
O
N
W
717
0
BI #A
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: FEBRUARY 26, 2008
CASE NO.: MODIFICATION BY APPLICANT (MBA) 2008-009
APPLICANT: STAMKO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST TO MODIFY AN EXISTING
SIGN PROGRAM (SA 2002-618) TO ALLOW FOR NEON
ELEMENTS TO BE INCORPORATED INTO A SINGLE TENANT
SIGN DESIGN
LOCATION:
PROPERTY
OWNER:
GENERAL PLAN/
ZONING:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
SURROUNDING
LAND USES:
PROJECT REQUEST
PARCEL 1; CENTRE AT LA QUINTA, SOUTHWEST CORNER
OF DUNE PALMS ROAD AND HIGHWAY 1 1 1 (Attachment 1)
STAMKO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
REGIONAL COMMERCIAL/REGIONAL COMMERCIAL
ON -PREMISE SIGNS ARE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT UNDER
CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 1531 1(a)
NORTH: RC - REGIONAL COMMERCIAL
SOUTH: RC - REGIONAL COMMERCIAL
EAST: RC - REGIONAL COMMERCIAL
WEST: RC - REGIONAL COMMERCIAL
Stamko Development is requesting that the use of neon elements for a single
tenant's sign design be permitted. The tenant is located at Parcel One (1) of the
development (Attachment 2).
BACKGROUND:
Parcel One of the Centre at La Quinta was approved by the Planning Commission
on May 24, 2005 under Site Development Permit 2005-835. The parcel is
approximately 2.6 acres in size and is located at the southwest corner of Dune
Palms Road and Highway 111. The approved building contains 23,000 square feet
of commercial space, is L-shaped, and faces the intersection of Dune Palms Road
and Highway 111.
Specific Plan 1997-029 was originally approved by the City Council on July 15,
1997. The project was later enlarged under Amendment 3 of the Specific Plan. The
amendment was approved by the City Council on December 21, 2004, and added
approximately 12.5 acres of commercial property to the Centre along Dune Palms
Road.
Sign Program 2002-618 was approved by the Planning Commission on June 11,
2002, and set sign provisions for the Centre (Attachment 3). On October 19,
2007, a letter was sent to the property owners confirming that the existing sign
program for the Centre at La Quinta would apply to Parcel (Attachment 4).
On January 17, 2008, a sign application was filed for Jumpin' Juice and Java. The
sign has been reviewed by staff and has not been approved due to the use of a
neon element in the sign. Per La Quinta Municipal Code, Section 9.160.100
Prohibited Signs, neon signs, except those specifically approved as an activity's
major identification sign are prohibited (Attachment 5).
The sign program for the Centre at La Quinta contains specific requirements for
retail shop sign designs. Although the sign program regulates sign size and location,
the program does not specifically allow the use of neon as a sign element.
However, the sign program does contain verbiage regarding national chain tenants,
which states that, "national chain elevation shall be allowed typical trademark
logo".
The proposed sign for Jumpin' Juice and Java is a registered trademark with the
United States Patent and Trademark Office. The sign incorporates the use of
individual letters and a graphic with two jumping coffee beans along the bottom of
the sign. However, the trademark does not include illumination standards for the
sign and graphic.
Because the sign program does not specifically allow signs with neon elements the
property owner has filed a Modification By Applicant to address the use of neon.
DIRECTOR'S DETERMINATION
As per Section 9.200.090 of the Zoning Code, Modifications by Applicant (MBA),
plans modified at the initiative of the applicant from those approved by the
decision -making authority may be submitted to the Director for a determination.
The Director determined that this request to allow neon elements in sign design
exceeds the scope of an administrative minor modification, and has thus referred
MBA 2008-009 - Centre at La Quinta
consideration of the MBA back to the original decision -making authority, the
Planning Commission.
ANALYSIS:
La Quinta Municipal Code, Section 9.160.090 Sign Permit Review, allows for sign
adjustments if adjustments are requested for additional sign area, new sign
illumination, the number and location of signs, and the type of signs. The use of
neon as a sign element classifies for a sign adjustment as an alternative type of
sign. As part of the approval of an alternative type of sign, the Planning
Commission must make the appropriate findings per Section 9.160.090E
(Attachment 6). In this case, the appropriate finding is that the alternative type of
sign is complimentary to the architecture of the building.
The design of the building located on Parcel 1 of the Centre at La Quinta is modern
with geometric construction and building lines. The use of a neon sign element is
common with similar building designs. The use of neon as a sign element helps to
create additional color, accent elements, and adds visual interest to the simplicity of
the modern building design. As such, the use of neon as a sign element can
compliment and enhance the existing architecture but should be limited in use.
FINDINGS -
The alternative type of sign, which incorporates the use of a neon element, is
compatible with, and improves the overall appearance of the modern and geometric
architecture of the building on Parcel 1 of the Centre at La Quinta.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Minute Motion 2008-_ approving Modification By Applicant 2008-009; to
allow the use of neon in sign design at Parcel 1 of the Centre at La Quinta;
pursuant to Findings and subject to the following Conditions:
CONDITIONS:
1. The use of neon is specific to Parcel One (1) at the Centre at La Quinta. The
use of neon in sign design is not permitted elsewhere at the Centre at La
Quinta.
2. The use of neon in sign design shall be reviewed on a case -by -case basis by
the Planning Director. Upon review, the Planning Director may defer approval
of the sign application to the Planning Commission.
3. No exposed neon tubes are permitted. All proposed neon tubing shall be
contained in a "can" with a clear plastic face.
MBA 2008-009 - Centre at La Quinta
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Proposed Sign
3. Sign Program (SA 2002-618)
4. Letter dated October 19, 2007
5. Municipal Code Section 9.160.100
6. Municipal Code Section 9.160.090
Prepared by:
1
Eric Ceia
Assistant Plan er
MBA 2008-009 - Centre at La Quinta
ATTACHMENT #1
N
Dune Palms Road 1
c
a�
SITE I -'
E
a mu
v � �
S
� £m
� ra
Wa
�LOT
.lT.IM}p x¢£W
����ryyPP 4
aU.TZ_
_ O3
ATTACHMENT #3
APPROVED NING COMMISSION
ON 9 % as
BY DATE
Retail shooas Allowable Sian Frontage:
CASE NO. SY142 („ lZ an _/
Length of wall signs shall not exceed 70% of tenant storefront. Allowable sign area for each tenant
shall be at one and one- half (1 '/z) square feet per lineal foot of building frontage to a maximum of
100 squarefeet. Signage shall be limited to Tenant's trade name and logo. The use of logos is
acceptable, but the size must not exceed 36x x 36' (see Detail 1). National chain elevation shall be
allowed typical trademark logo. Shop tenants are limited to storefront elevation signage only.
Comer shop tenants are allowed signage on two sides. Individual letter ascenders or descenders
may project up to 18" above or below sign height zone. When two (2) lines of text are used, sign
height zone may be increased to 36'.
Shon Pedestrian Walkway Sian:
A double -sided, non -illuminated hanging walkway sign at each shop entry is limited to a maximum
of three (3) square feet.
Tenant storefront width = 25 ft Tenant storefront width = 50 ft
Max. Sign Area: 25 x 1.5 - 37.5 sq.ft. Max. Sign Area- 50 x 1.5 = 75 sq.ft.
aa— a,. Lenath: 25 x .7 - 17.5' ft. Max. Sign Length: 50 x .7 - 35 ft.
RETAIL SHOPS
4a
ATTACHMENT #4
October 19, 2007
Mr. Russ Beckner
Stamko Development Company
78-060 Calle Estado, Ste. 5
La Quinta, CA 92253
SUBJECT: SIGN PROGRAM FOR PARCEL 1
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF DUNE PALMS ROAD AND HIGHWAY 111
1
Dear Mr. Beckner:
Due to recent request at the Planning Department, Planning Staff has researched the approved
Sign Program for Parcel 1, within Specific Plan 1997-029. Based on the approved Site
Development Permit (SDP 05-835), Parcel 1 building mounted signs shall conform to the same
sign criteria for Retail Shops for the Centre at La Quinta, set by Sign Application 2002-618.
Per the approved Sign Program, Parcel 1 signs are limited to the following:
Length of wall signs shall not exceed 70% of tenant storefront. Allowable sign area for each
tenant shall be at one and one-haff (1 %) square feet per lineal foot of building frontage to a
maximum of 100 square feet. Signage shall be limited to Tenant's trade name and logo. The
use of logos is acceptable, but the size must not exceed 36" x 36". National chain elevation
shall be allowed typical trademark logo. Shop tenants are limited to storefront elevation
signage only. Corner shop tenants are allowed signage on two sides. Individualletter ascenders
or descenders may project up to 18"above or below sign height zone with landlord's approval.
Should you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Eric
Ceja at (760) 777-7125 or eceja@la-quinta.org.
Sincerely,
A
ERIC CEJA
Assistant Plan Zer
r
C: Les Johnson, Planning Director
SDP 2005-835
SA 2002-618
P_U. Bus 1504 • LA t)I�INIA, C.\i.n,ORNIA 92247-1504 �y
78-495 (,A]. IF IAMPI(,u • LA QUINIA, GAL.�Fuxn�IA 92253 ��`��
(760) 777-7000 -FAX (760) 777-7101
9.160.100 Prohibited signs.
hq://gcode.us/codes/la ATTACHMENT #5 0&...
La Quinta Municipal Code
Up Previous Next
Title 9 ZONING
Chapter 9.160 SIGNS
9.160.100 Prohibited signs.
Main
Search Print No Frames
The signs and displays listed in this section are prohibited. Such signs are subject to removal by the city at
the owners or users expense. Prohibited signs include the following:
1. Any sign not in accordance with the provisions of this chapter;
2. Abandoned signs;
3. Rotating, revolving or otherwise moving signs;
4. Trailer signs and other signs with directional arrows affixed to vehicles which are used exclusively or
primarily for advertising, unless specifically permitted;
5. Flags, pennants, streamers, spinners, festoons, windsocks, valances or similar displays, unless
specifically permitted in this chapter;
6. Animated or flashing signs;
7. Portable signs, unless specifically permitted in this chapter;
8. Off premises signs, unless specifically permitted in this chapter;
9. Billboards or outdoor advertising signs;
10. Signs which identify or advertise activities which are illegal under federal, state or local laws in effect at
the location of such signs or activities;
11. Building -mounted signs placed on or above the roof or above the eave line of any structure;
12. Signs which purport to be, are an imitation of, or resemble an official traffic sign or signal;
13. Signs which, by reason of their size, location, movement, content, coloring or manner of illumination
may be confused with or construed as a traffic -control sign, signal or device, or the light of an emergency
vehicle, or which obstruct the visibility of any traffic or street sign or signal device;
14. Signs that create a potential safety hazard by obstructing clear view of pedestrian or vehicular traffic;
15. Signs located upon or projecting over public streets, sidewalks or rights -of -way (unless specific approval
has been granted);
16. Signs attached to utility poles or stop signs or other municipal sign structure;
17. Balloon signs, inflatable animal or other figures, or other inflatable displays, whether tethered or not,
except as otherwise permitted by a temporary or special outdoor event permit;
18. Signs located closer to overhead utility lines than the minimum distance prescribed by California law, or
by the rules duly promulgated by agencies of the state or by the applicable public utility;
19. "For Sale" signs affixed to vehicles parked on public right-of-way or on any vacant property;
20. Neon signs, except those specifically approved as an activitys major identification sign;
21. Signs drawn or painted onto or otherwise affixed to trees or rocks unless specifically permitted in this
chapter;
22. Advertising statuary;
23. Any temporary sign or banner, unless specifically permitted in this chapter.
24. Translucent or transparent signs on internally illuminated awnings so that they allow light to shine
1 of 2 2/21/2008 11:15 AM
9.160.090 Sign permit review.
http://gcode.us/codes/laqu ATTACHMENT #6
La Quinta Municipal Code
Up Previous Next
Title 9 ZONING
Chapter 9.160 SIGNS
9.160.090 Sign permit review.
Main
Search Print No Frames
A. Sign Permit Required. Sign permit approval is required prior to obtaining a building permit for the
placing, erecting, moving, reconstructing, altering or displaying any sign on private property within the city,
unless the review procedure is exempt under Section 9.160.020 of this chapter or other provisions of this
chapter. Signs requiring approval shall comply with the provisions of this chapter and all other applicable laws
and ordinances. Signs legally existing prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter shall
not require approval until such time as the sign is moved, structurally altered, changed or relocated; at which
time, the review and approval provisions of this chapter shall apply before a sign permit and/or building permit
is issued.
B. Submission Materials. The following shall be submitted by the applicant to the community development
department at the time of permit application unless otherwise modified by the community development director:
1. Completed sign application obtained from the city;
2. Appropriate sign plans with number of copies and exhibits as required in the application;
3. Appropriate fees as established by city council resolution;
4. Letter of consent or authorization from the property owner, or lessor, or authorized agent of the building
or premises upon which the sign is to be erected;
5. Sign plans with the following information:
a. Sign elevation drawing indicating overall and letter/figure/design dimensions, colors, materials, proposed
copy and illumination method,
b. Site plan indicating the location of all main and accessory signs existing or proposed for the site with
dimensions, color, material, copy and method of illumination indicated for each,
c. Building elevations with signs depicted (for building -mounted signs).
C. Review Procedures —Standard Sign Application.
1. The standard sign application is used by the community development department to process the
following sign applications using the standards and provisions contained in this chapter:
a. Two or less permanent signs;
b. Signs in conformance with a previously approved planned sign program pursuant to subsection D of this
section.
2. The community development director or other authorized staff member shall review standard sign
applications and shall make a determination to either approve, approve with modification or deny the
application. The review shall consider the size, design, colors, character and location of the proposed signs.
3. A standard sign application shall only be approved after a finding that the proposed sign is consistent
with the purpose and intent of this chapter and the regulations herein.
D. Review Procedures —Planned Sign Programs.
1. Planned Sign Programs. Planned sign program review per the provisions of this subsection is required for
submissions which: (1) include three or more permanent signs; (2) are in conjunction with review of a site
development permit by the planning commission; or (3) include a request for a sign adjustment to a sign
previously approved under a planned sign program.
1 of3 2/21/2008 2:02 PM
9.160.090 Sign permit review.
http://gcode.usicodes/laquinta/view.php?topic=9-9_ 160-9_ 160_090&...
2. The planning commission shall make a determination to either approve, approve with modifications, or
deny planned sign program applications in conjunction with its review of the associated development project.
3. The planning commission, upon completion of its review, may attach appropriate conditions to any sign
program approval. In order to approve a planned sign program, the commission must find that:
a. The sign program is consistent with the purpose and intent of this chapter;
b. The sign program is in harmony with and visually related to:
i. All signs within the planned sign program, via the incorporation of several common design elements
such as materials, letter style, colors, illumination, sign type or sign shape.
ii. The buildings they identify. This may be accomplished by utilizing materials, colors, or design motif
included in the building being identified.
iii. Surrounding development. Implementation of the planned sign program will not adversely affect
surrounding land uses or obscure adjacent conforming signs.
4. Modification of signs within a previously approved sign program shall be reviewed by the community
development director and approved by the planning commission under the same procedures as review of a new
planned sign program.
E. Sign Adjustments. Adjustments to planned sign programs to permit additional sign area, additional
numbers of signs, an alternative sign location, an alternative type of signage, new illumination or additional
height may be granted by the planning commission. Applications for sign adjustments shall be submitted in
writing on forms provided by the community development director. The planning commission shall make one or
more of the following findings in conjunction with approval of a sign adjustment:
1. Additional Area:
a. To overcome a disadvantage as a result of an exceptional setback between the street and the sign or
orientation of the sign location;
b. To achieve an effect which is essentially architectural, sculptural or graphic art;
c. To permit more sign area in a single sign than is allowed, but less than the total sign area allowed on the
site, where a more orderly and concise pattern of signing will result;
d. To allow a sign to be in proper scale with its building or use;
e. To allow a sign compatible with other conforming signs in the vicinity;
f. To establish the allowable amount and location of signing when no street frontage exists or when, due to
an unusual lot shape (e.g., flag lot), the street frontage is excessively narrow in proportion to the average width
of the lot.
2. Additional Number. To compensate for inadequate visibility, or to facilitate good design balance.
3. Alternative Locations.
a. To transfer area from one wall to another wall or to a freestanding sign upon the finding that such
alternative location is necessary to overcome a disadvantage caused by an unfavorable orientation of the front
wall to the street or parking lot or an exceptional setback;
b. To permit the placement of a sign on an access easement to a lot not having street frontage, at a point
where viewable from the adjoining public street. In addition to any other requirements, the applicant shall
submit evidence of the legal right to establish and maintain a sign within the access easement;
c. Additionally, alternative on -site locations may be granted in order to further the intent and purposes of
this chapter or where normal placement would conflict with the architectural design of a structure.
4. Alternative Type of Sign. To facilitate compatibility with the architecture of structure(s) on the site and
2 of 3 2/21/2008 2:02 PM
Y.tou.u9u sign permit review. http://gcode.us/codes/laquinta/view.php?topic=9-9_160-9_160_09O&...
improve the overall appearance on the site.
5. Additional Height. To permit additional height to overcome a visibility disadvantage.
F. Disposition of Plans.
1. When revisions to sign plans are required as a condition of approval, the applicant shall submit the
required number of copies of the revised plans to the community development department to be stamped
"Approved." The department will retain copies and a set will be returned to the applicant.
2. After approval is granted, it shall be the responsibility of the applicant to submit all required
applications, plans, bonds, and fees to the building and safety department and the community development
department for issuance of the building permit.
G. Sign Permit Expiration and Time Extensions.
1. Approval of a standard application or planned program application shall expire one year from its
effective date unless the sign has been erected or a different expiration date is stipulated at the time of approval.
Prior to the expiration of the approval, the applicant may apply to the director for an extension of up to one year
from the date of expiration. The director may make minor modifications or may deny further extensions of the
approved sign or signs at the time of extension if the director finds that there has been a substantial change in
circumstances.
2. The expiration date of the sign approval(s) shall automatically be extended to concur with the expiration
date of building permits or other permits relating to the installation of the sign.
3. A sign approval shall expire and become void if the circumstances or facts upon which the approval was
granted changes through some subsequent action by the owner or lessees such that the sign would not be
permitted per this chapter under the new circumstances.
H. Appeals. Any decision of the community development director made pursuant to this chapter may be
appealed to the planning commission and decisions of the planning commission may be appealed to the city
council. The appeal must be made within fifteen calendar days of the decision date, in accordance with Section
9.160.120. (Ord. 284 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 1996)
3 of 3 2/21 /2008 2:02 PM