The URL can be used to link to this page

2008 06 10 PC� T City of La Quinta Planning Commission Agendas are now G� 9ti5 available on the City's Web Page OF Tl�ti www.la-guinta.org PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California JUNE 10, 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 2008-017 Beginning Minute Motion 2008-012 CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call 11 1-141090101 ird IT, 14 011111 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 May 27, 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 .................... CONTINUED - VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2005-032, EXTENSION NO. 1 Applicant ............. Nispero Properties, Inc. Location .............. Northwest corner of Avenida La Fonda and Main Street Request ............... Consideration of a One -Year Time Extension for Construction of a ± 19,433 Square Foot Two -Story Office Building, Located in the La Quinta Village. VI. BUSINESS ITEM: A. Discussion regarding Work Programs for Fiscal Year 2008/2009. VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: Vill. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Review of City Council meeting of June 3, 2008. IX. ADJOURNMENT: This meeting of the Planning Commission will be adjourned to a Regular Meeting to be held on June 24, 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, June 10, 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, June 6, 2008. DATED: June 6, 2008 CAROLYN 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 material 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. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA May 27, 2008 CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Chairman Ed Alderson who asked Commissioner Barrows to lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Katie Barrows, Jim Engle, Paul Quill, Robert Wilkinson, and Chairman Ed Alderson. Absent: None. C. Staff present: Planning Director Les Johnson, Planning Manager David Sawyer, Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston, Attorney Glenn Worthington, Principal Planner Andy Mog,ensen, Assistant Planners Eric Ceja and Yvonne Franco, and Executive Secretary Carolyn Walker. PUBLIC COMMENT: None II. PRESENTATION: None. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Chairman Alderson requested two Commissioner Items be added; Item C - Capital Improvement Program, and Item D - Council call up of Village Use Permit 2007-039. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Barrows/Wilkinson approve the Agenda as amended. V. CONSENT ITEMS: A. Chairman Ed Alderson asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of April 22, 2008. There being none, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Barrows/Wilkinson to approve the minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved. PAReports - PC\2008\6-10-08\PC Minutes 5-27-08.doc Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 2008 VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Village Use Permit 2005-032, Extension No. 1; a request of Nispero Properties, Inc. for consideration of a One -Year Time Extension for Construction of a ± 19,433 Square Foot Two -Story Office Building, Located in the La Quinta Village. Chairman Alderson opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Assistant Planner Eric Ceja presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. Chairman Alderson asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Quill asked about on -street parking and separation from sidewalks. He didn't see those two items and thought they had been included as conditions in the original approval. He said he remembered a streetscape where the sidewalk pulled somewhat away from the curb and allowed the planting of shade trees. Planning Director Johnson said he did remember the discussion of the condition. He didn't know if those conditions were reflected in the current plans. However, he commented during the building plan check they would make sure all the conditions were adhered to. These may not necessarily represent the most current proposal. These are similar to the original plans. Commissioner Quill asked if there was an applicant representative in the audience and was told there was not. Commissioner Quill reconfirmed these plans had not been modified yet. Staff replied they would be modified in the final process. Commissioner Quill asked if they could make similar recommendations as to those made in the first approval. Staff said they would already be part of the record. Planning Director Johnson said the Commissioners could recommend specific items or continue the item and staff would research the previous meeting. Commissioner Quill said the applicant had not been adverse to those conditions. Staff replied you could add "as previously conditioned" in the motion to approve. Commissioner Quill said he did not remember what was previously approved. Staff said the item could be continued if there was a problem. Commissioner Barrows said it looked as though the sidewalk was next to the curb in opposition to what Commissioner Quill had suggested. PAReports - PC\2008\6-10-08\PC Minutes 5-27-08.doc 2 Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 2008 Chairman Alderson said we would have to verify those conditions be met. Staff replied the recommendation would have to go to the Council for an extension, as they are the final authority and staff could be directed to make sure the record was correct. Commissioner Quill said since this was an extension of time it would not be an issue in extending the approval for two weeks. The Commission could ask for the continuance and it would not be a major burden to the applicant. Staff replied that was not a problem. Commissioner Wilkinson said he noticed there was a water feature and was concerned with its size. It appeared larger than what was is normally considered acceptable. Planning Director Johnson said as long as the time extension is granted they would still follow the original approval criteria unless conditioned otherwise. Commissioner Quill asked if conditions or modifications could be added if it was deemed appropriate. Staff replied, since this was a time extension, there was the potential for certain conditions to be revisited. Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston said Tract Map Extensions could only be approved or denied but could not include new conditions. This was not the case for a Vidlage Use Permit and conditions could be added. He included this information for future clarification. Chairman Alderson wanted to verify the Commission was considering a continuation of two weeks while the original conditions of approval were verified and to consider any changes to the fountain per Commissioner Wilkinson's comments. Commission Quill said regardless of the conditions he would like to pull the minutes from that original meeting as a reminder of what was decided. Planning Director Les Johnson said staff would research the original approval and include a copy of the minutes from that meeting for the next meeting. Chairman Alderson said since time is not of the essence he would like to see this matter cleaned up before it goes to Council for approval. Commissioner Barrows wanted to clarify she would be supportive of Commissioner Wilkinson's suggestion about the water feature. She referenced to Condition No. 38, which referred to the landscaping plans. PAReports - PC\2008\6-10-08\PC Minutes 5-27-08.doc 3 Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 2008 She added if those still needed to be submitted to the Planning Department and CVWD, it would be based upon the time the approval was made. Planning Director Johnson said with regards to the water feature it was a city -imposed feature, but CVWD would look at these with the new criteria. CVWD's provisions have changed and they may be more stringent. Commissioner Barrows asked if they had gone through the CVWD plan check process and staff replied no as far as they knew. Commissioner Barrows asked if there were bicycle racks in this project. She said that is a feature that should be encouraged. Commissioner Quill said that subject had been discussed in the original meeting. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Alderson asked if there were any applicant representatives or comments. There being none, he asked if there was any public comment. There being no public comment, Chairman Alderson closed the public participation portion of the meeting and opened the matter for Commission discussion. Commissioner Quill said they do like the building but made a motion to continue the item for two weeks to allow staff more time to research this project and the prior approval. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners QuHIlBarrows to continued Village Use Permit 2005-032, Extension No. 1, to the meeting of June 10, 2008. ROLL CALL. AYES; Commissioners Barrows, Engle, Quill, Wilkinson, and Chairman Alderson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. B. Sign Application 2003-735 Amendment No. 3; a request of PD Sign Company for La Quinta Valley Plaza for consideration of a Sign Program Amendment for Permanent Business Signage for La Quinta Valley Plaza located on the north side of Highway 111 between approximately 100 feet from Dune Palms Road. Chairman Alderson opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Assistant Planner Yvonne Franco presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. P:\Reports - PC\2008\6-10-08\PC Minutes 5-27-08.doc 4 Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 2008 Chairman Alderson asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Engle asked if the panels were only in red panels or did the color vary. He also asked if the change was only for the monument. Assistant Planner Franco referred to the exhibit and said it was just for the cabinet. She said the applicant originally asked for eight signs but staff recommended six. Commissioner Barrows asked if the monument sign allowed for the placement of the center name and three tenants signs on each side for a total of six as referenced in Attachment 3. Staff replied yes. Planning Director Johnson referred to the Power Point slide which showed six of those proposed instead of eight and the upper two would be a smaller size and the center id would remain. Chairman Alderson asked if there was an example of what staff proposed. Planning Director Johnson replied they did not have an exhibit but staff was recommending the plaza id be put on the top and six tenant signs be included on each side instead of eight. Commissioner Barrows wanted to clarify there were six tenants total on each side. Staff replied that was correct. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Alderson asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr.Tad Black with Sign-a-rarna located at 41-945 Boardwalk Street, Palm Desert, introduced himself and said he was available to answer any questions. Chairman Alderson asked if he had any comments regarding the presentation. Mr. Black commented the Center's interior clients have no visibility and need to have their names added to the monument sign. Commissioner Wilkinson asked if the monument was limited to six tenant signs was it really necessary for the Center id to utilize two sign spaces. Mr. Black said not all tenants would be able to have their information on the monument sign. It would dramatically increase the visibility of the monument sign that is currently there. Ultimately they are looking for all the tenants to be included on the sign, but that was not staff's recommendation. PAReports - PC\2008\6-10-08\PC Minutes 5-27-08.doc 5 Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 2008 Commissioner Wilkinson asked if the intent of the sign was not to allow all of the tenants to have their name on the sign. Mr. Black replied that was correct. Chairman Alderson said he had a couple of observations which were: 1). The monument sign was very hard to read. He had discussed this with staff and asked them if there was any way more signage could be added. He said if there was anything the City could do to help they should do it. 2) He did not think they should remove the "Valley Plaza" name because people want to identify it as a location. He asked staff if there was any way to help this applicant create a better and more functional sign to help promote this commercial center better than the current proposal. Commissioner Engle said the reason the "Valley Plaza" portion of the sign was difficult to read was because the spacing was too tight and there was not enough contrast. He suggested the applicant set the identification on top and add more space to the letter. You would then have a better picture of the "Valley Plaza" identification. He agreed the tenants, in that center, needed the exposure. He said it was good there was a little variation in color as it made the names stand out. Chairman Alderson asked if the individual tenant letters were current as large as the code allowed. Mr. Black said on the current sign cabinet would have to be re -configured to accommodate larger individual panels. The design is requested to be a little more consistent, but the tenants would be very open to have more color. Even if they were smaller they would be more visible. Chairman Alderson asked if there was any reason why the Valley Plaza monument sign could not be on the masonry column, adjacent to the sign structure, and use the sign for the tenants only. Planning Director Johnson said the code does limit the sign to 50 square feet per side. The sign face excluding the decorative stone trim is at 50 square feet or close to it. If it were added to the stone it would exceed the limit. Commissioner Quill asked if the 50 square foot maximum was because they did not have a sign program. He also wanted to ask if the Commission could make modifications to this limit. Staff replied the 50 square foot maximum, for monument signs, has been strictly adhered to. P:\Reports - PC\2008\6-10-08\PC Minutes 5-27-08.doc 6 Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 2008 Chairman Alderson said he recalled the Commission had given applicants tremendous allowance for overage on some of the sign boxes previously brought before them. Staff said allowances have been made for corporate signs, but the monument sign requirements have been strictly adhered to. Commissioner Engle asked the applicant if it was imperative to have the "Valley Plaza" portion of the sign illuminated. Mr. Black said no. Commissioner Engle suggested the applicant put some flat cut out letter below the cornice and just put it on top. That way the Center would get its identification everything else could be lit and you could offer that exposure. Mr. Black asked if he meant in a lighter color. Commissioner Engle said put it in a contrasting color, space it, contrast it, and it would be easier to read. It would appear the landlord would probably make an allowance for more signage since he wants the tenants to be successful. Commissioner Engle said if you just put something on top, just below that cornice up on top and just some individual letters to identify the center. It is imperative to keep the color consistency and he pointed to Papa Dan's and Club Achilles as examples. Chairman Alderson reiterated what Commissioner Engle had said in that he proposed take the "Valley Plaza" lettering, clean it up and make it more distinctive, remove the logo above, slide it up to the top of the sign then take the area remaining and put in six tenant signs as large as the Code would allow. Commissioner Engle said that was correct. He said he would just "scrap" the Valley Plaza ID; unless the landlord needed it. He referred to the portion that says "La Quinta" and said that type of letter is a flat cut out letter. He said scrap "Valley Plaza". Get rid of that and use the words "La Quints". You could put "La Quinta Valley Plaza" all the way across the top and what they'll do is make that portion down below the new type of lettering. The tenant panels would have a variation of color. Commissioner Engle asked if they were going to change the monument sign on Corporate Drive. Mr. Black said there was currently no plans to change that sign. Chairman Alderson asked if the sign contractor was available. Mr. Black said that was him. PAReports - PC\2008\6-10-08\PC Minutes 5-27-08.doc 7 Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 2008 Chairman Alderson asked if staff had any problems with any of the suggestions. Staff said no, as long as they stay within the allowable square footage. Chairman Alderson asked if there were any more applicant representatives or comments. There being none, he asked if there was any public comment. There being no further public comment, Chairman Alderson closed the public participation portion of the meeting and opened the matter for Commission discussion. Commissioner Engle said to keep the sign low maintenance, the background color should be consistent for all the tenants much as possible. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Barrows/Engle to approve Minute Motion 2008-011 approving Sign Application 2003-735, Amendment No. 3, as amended: a. Background colors be consistent for all tenants. b. Use fiat letters for La Quinta Valley Plaza C. Put the corporate identification at the top of the sign d. Use better spacing for the corporate identification Unanimously approved. C. Environmental Impact Report 2005-560 and Tentative Tract Map 33848; a request of David Maman Designs for consideration of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2007021060) and Subdivision of 4.8± Acres into 12 Single -Family Residential and Miscellaneous Lots, Located on the south side of Avenue 58, approximately 510 feet west of Monroe Street. Chairman Alderson opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Andy Mogensen presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. Chairman Alderson asked if there were any questions of staff. PAReports - PC\2008\6-10-08\PC Minutes 5-27-08.doc 8 Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 2008 Commissioner Quill had questions of staff regarding how the applicant was dealing with the differences in grading levels between the two subdivisions. He also asked if staff had the previous drainage plans. Staff replied the largest difference would be one to one -and -a -half feet. If this tract is constructed after Tentative Tract 33717, the applicant would have to deal with the retaining wall. Commissioner Quill asked if there would be a slope easement issue. Staff replied said this is a condition found on other projects. This is not a substantial difference. Chairman Alderson asked which was higher. Staff said this tract was higher. Commissioner Quill asked if the City could have done an Environmental Assessment, instead of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for this property or was that triggered by the Historic Preservation Survey. He added since this is only a 12-unit subdivision was an EIR absolute necessity or did the City request it. Nicole Criste, the Consulting Planner, said the City was required per CEQA to do this. At the time the first archaeological/historical resource study was prepared it identified the home as a potentially significant historic resource. 'there was a second follow-up resource study that was done which determined the initial site study needed to be altered and answered a lot of the questions not answered in the first study. So, at the time that we would do our initial environmental check to determine the level of significance of any project that the standards established in CEQA triggering the need for an environmental impact were met. She also added that she had received several non -substantive form letters on this project and the EIR would be modified to include the comments of the Ramona Band tribal monitor request. Commissioner Quill said he was dumbfounded the Ramona Band was the only tribe to reply to the Draft EIR Request for Comments. He thought the local tribes should be involved, but only the Ramona Band had responded. Commissioner Quill asked if the HABS HAER research was done as a mitigation measure to record all the details of the structure because it would be demolished. He asked who would be keeping those records. Mrs. Criste replied they would be curated at the La Quinta City Museum. PAReports - PC\2008\6-10-08\PC Minutes 5-27-08.doc 9 Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 2008 Commissioner Quill commented this is a 12-lot subdivision that ends in a cul de sac; pointing out that you have to leave the subdivision and go into another gate to reach the subdivision next to it. He said this plan was reflective of the fact that we fail to do connectivity along Avenue 58. He did not know what we can do about creating these enclaves without connecting them. We need to look at pedestrian, and bicycle connections. He stated that we need to look at safe access and to include,that in our plans. He referred to the aerial showing the two subdivisions next to each other. These is a 40 acre parcel between Andalusia and Monroe Street. Someday there will be one that will be a single row street along Almonte and behind the subdivisions there will be opportunities to create the same. There will be a 40 acre residential parcel with possibility of 5 subdivisions which will have to drive to Monroe street to get to the other. He said that there is something wrong with that picture. Planning Director Les Johnson responded with the new provisions requiring 20,000 square foot lots would encourage consolidation, better design and higher yield. This application pre -dated those conditions. Commissioner Quill said the Commission should be looking at future connectivity. They should be recommending the provisions for a prohibition against development and an easement, at the end of the cul de sac, for connection to a possible development to the south. If development does not occur the easement can be removed. This would place a reservation on the property for future access for a residence, or trails access. The issue everyone is concerned about is security, but the idea of connectivity certainly isn't pervasive in our thinking yet and we need to get there. Chairman Alderson asked if Commissioner Quill wanted to discuss the easement issue a little further. He wanted to know if Commissioner Quill was proposing creating an easement that could be utilized sometime in the future to allow access from the cul de sac to the south. Commissioner Quill interjected it could even be east or west; some way to connect future developments to this development. He said there has been a mentality of privacy and security and it does not accomplish that as much as it increases costs and HOA dues. This small subdivision will have substantial costs to maintain a gate. Pedestrian, bicycle, trail access between subdivisions are something we should think about. We need to preserve easements even if it is between lots. We could even consider the area between the lots near Avenue 58 which could be P:\Reports - PC\2008\6-10-08\PC Minutes 5-27-08.doc 10 Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 2008 connected to Tentative Tract 33717. He suggested the Commission consider these things since ultimately development would occur all around the entire 40 acres and connecting them up would make sense. Chairman Alderson commented the two site plans shown side by side was really helpful. Principal Planner Andrew Mogensen replied both plans were drawn by the same engineer and on the same scale. Chairman Alderson asked Commissioner Quill if he had additional comments regarding the easement and he replied he would hold further comments until all the Commissioners had made comments. Staff pointed out there was an easement at the south end of the property. Chairman Alderson replied that was a utility easement. Commissioner Wilkinson said there was an issue of retention not working across the street. He spoke with staff earlier about the retention in Tentative Tracts 33717 and 33848 their overflows. He asked if the overflow would go into the street. Staff said yes. He mentioned the stand pipe across the street. Staff was not sure if that had been repaired. Commissioner Wilkinson wanted to make sure all these hydrology issues were taken into consideration and looked at. Commissioner Quill said he had heard from a resident, in the area, that the stand pipe was being repaired. Commissioner Wilkinson said there is no percolation in the soil and was it engineered large enough for all the issues that previously occurred in the project across the street. Staff replied they were aware of it. Planning Director Les Johnson said plans showed a Maxwell system. Preliminary hydrology had been made by Public works and there were nine conditions addressing this. Commissioner Barrows asked if the landscaping plans would come back to the Commission and how the landscaping of a retention basin fit into the new water efficient landscaping requirements. Staff said the landscaping would come back to the Commission. He suggested the Commissioners wait for the landscape plans from the applicant. Commissioner Barrows wanted to encourage the applicant to use water efficient landscaping in the retention basin. Commissioner Barrows also commented on Commissioner Quill's concerns about easement and connectivity. Staff said the matter could be discussed during Commissioner Comments at this, or a later meeting. PAReports - PC\2008\6-10-08\PC Minutes 5-27-08.doc 11 Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 2008 Chairman Alderson asked about the location of a manhole cover. Principal Planner Andy Mogensen replied the current location for the manhole cover was only a suggestion. Chairman Alderson asked why we are bonding the split rail fence as opposed to just building it. Staff replied the Agrarian Image Corridor requires a split -rail fence which would be an improvement to the subdivision and would be included in the bondable items; i.e., street improvements. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Alderson asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. David Maman, 475 South La Pere Drive, introduced himself and said he was available to answer any que$tions. Mr. Maman said the pedestrian access comments were very interesting. He was concerned about the future of his project with reference to the a condition be required for connectivity. He said it could be an interesting element for the neighborhood if his neighbors would be as accommodating as he. Chairman Alderson asked if he was referencing the connectivity of the two projects since they would only be dedicating a small area on lots 7 and 8. Mr. Maman replied he was all right with it as long as it didn't limit them from doing something else. He wanted to discuss this concept with his partner. Chairman Alderson asked if he was able to discuss the historical mitigation measures with the Commission. Mr. Maman said he was not that familiar with it, but had been restricted by those measures for three years. He said once they received information the structure was unsafe they had to have the tenant vacate the property. They could not fix it, they could not destroy it, but they were liable. Commissioner Wilkinson said he was involved in the restoration of the Patton house in Indio and realizes this situation can be very complicated. Robert White, P 0 Box 180, Sun City, representing Archaeological Associates, cultural and paleontology consultants to David Maman. They prepared the initial and the follow-up studies, as included in the EIR. PAReports - PC\2008\6-10-08\PC Minutes 5-27-08.doc 12 Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 2008 Chairman Alderson said there are two groups scheduled to do historical work on this; Historical American Building Survey and Historical American Engineering. He asked if these firms would be preparing video tapes. Mr. White said they are basically sister programs. They are essential federally -based programs designed to record historical properties for the federal register. In California we adopt this as a mitigation measure following the federal guidelines to the best of our ability. Very fixed standards on photos, drawing and video recordation, 35 mm you must photograph the building using a large format camera and described the different types of materials used. The whole idea is to produce a record that will withstand the passage of time. On the Federal level most of this is administered through the National Parks Service in San Francisco and the ultimate repository would be the Library of Congress. The City will be the ultimate owner of these documents (originals). Basically the HABS Haer has three components: photography, engineering record, and written study of what was learned. He explained the detail of all the components and how the work would be done. Chairman Alderson asked if both these surveys were a part of the conditions of approval for this project. Mr. White replied yes. Commissioner Barrows said the uniqueness of this structure was characterized in the report. She asked is this adobe unique as compared to other adobes in La Quinta. Mr. White said the City has an inventory of adobes. There are not as many left as there were because it was never the preferred building method to begin with. Commissioner Barrows said there are not many left. Mr. White said two doors down there is one in very good condition. Mr. White went on to describe the lintels, bevels, and other architectural features unique to the subject adobe. They surmise that the same architect may have built both places, but they're unable to document it. Chairman Alderson asked if there were any more applicant representatives or comments. There being none, he asked if there was any public comment. There being no further public comment, Chairman Alderson closed the public participation portion of the meeting and opened the matter for Commission discussion. PAReports - PC\2008\6-10-08\PC Minutes 5-27-08.doc 13 Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 2008 Commissioner Quill wanted to discuss about the subject of connectivity. He asked the slide be put up comparing the two developments side by side (Tentative Tracts 33717 & 33848). He asked if the other adobe structure was on Almonte Street. Almonte Street is the back door entrance into the Andalusia's sales office. He assumed this is a private road with easement to the various owners adjacent to it. He said every new smart growth conference he goes to goes back to standard block layouts emphasizing pedestrian usage. Here is a block of 40 acres and the City can't dictate any easements for connectivity. Commissioner Quill said this is the perfect opportunity from Monroe Street back to Almonte Street to be able to get to a trail and if there is an existing easement that kind of thinking could really be helpful. He said if they had looked at the whole 40 acres it would have been helpful. The only thing they could do now was ask the applicant if they would be willing to make an access easement. He asked staff to look up easements to see if there is a future thought process as other applications come in to took at the connectivity since Tentative Tract 33717 would be coming back for a renewal. Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston said if the Commission was considering matters relating to another tract map, that would have to be addressed later. Commissioner Quill said the Commission should think through the 40 acre parcel before going on to the next subdivision to see if there is any potential for connectivity. Planning Director Les Johnson said if the Commission considers the easement identified as a lettered lot it would retain its privacy, be delineated on the map, and be dedicated to pedestrian linkage. Commissioner Quill said, as a property owner, he would want the simplest reservation possible to allow that to go back to the adjacent lots if it did not happen. He said if you make it a lettered lot it's harder to go back to the adjacent lots. Making it an easement would prohibit building and the developer could take it back. Staff had two questions; 1). who would the easement be granted to and, 2). how would the language be worded since it should not state "for public purpose" as this is a private development. Chairman Alderson said they already talked to the landowner and he had no problem with doing this. He asked if the Commission was going to PAReports - PC\2008\6-10-08\PC Minutes 5-27-08.doc 14 Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 2008 implement this easement issue as a condition of approval and move forward. Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston said if the action taken tonight is to make a recommendation to the Council, and the desire were to impose this sort of structure it could be done. Then if the applicant needed the time to talk to his partners he could do that in the time between this meeting and the Council meeting. He added regarding Commissioner Quill's proposal, about having the property go back to a residential development, the lettered lot seemed to make more sense from a legal standpoint because the issue would become who is the easement granted for the benefit of. If it is going to be granted to the benefit of the City you are tacking on a right the City may have to enforce something on the end of a private street which conceptually may be a little difficult. If you create a lettered lot you could have it for open space access and recreation purposes and tie a condition to the tentative map. If an adjacent owner develops to the south that applicant would work with those owners to facilitate connectivity. The only downside is it would ultimately be a lettered lot. Commissioner Quill asked if the lettered lots were added on the tentative map and it didn't work out could they (under substantial conformance) eliminate the lettered lot without coming back to the Commission prior to final recordation. Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston said that was certainly a determination that could be put in the record. Commissioner Quill said it would .be ridiculous for them to come back for approval of removal of the lettered lot if the removal was deemed appropriate by staff. It could then be a substantial conformance and at the recordation of the final mep the lettered lot could just disappear and the owners of those two property owners would receive the extra property. Planning Director Les Johnson said the only difficulty would be we have no idea when the property to the south would come in for an entitlement action. Commissioner Quill said the second part of the equation is have the Commission direct staff to look at the rest of the 40 acres and if you think you can come up with a scheme and it makes sense to have some kind of an easement for trail purposes at the back of those subdivisions there, then you're going to have your direction and you're going to know how to treat future maps and you're going to want to keep the lettered lot there. If you come back and say that's a stupid idea and that's not going to work, then we can remove the lettered lot and you can give them a substantial conformance and they can record their final map. Staff said it does put a placeholder in for staff to do the additional research to see if this is possible. P:\Reports - PC\2008\6-10-08\PC Minutes 5-27-08.doc 15 Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 2008 Commissioner Quill said that's all he wanted, was a placeholder, but he -wanted it to be the least onerous procedure to the owner. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Barrows/Quill to approve Resolution 2008-016 approving Environmental Impact Report 2005-560, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Barrows, Engle, Quill, Wilkinson, and Chairman Alderson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Barrows/Quill to approve Resolution 2008-017 approving Tentative Tract Map 33848 with amendments as follows: a. Staff identify a mechanism, perhaps a lettered lot, to provide for an open space and/or access easement at the terminus of the cul de sac to the south and investigate the potential for access along the southern boundary of the subdivision which could tie into other parcels by whatever mechanism staff deems appropriate. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Barrows, Engle, Quill, Wilkinson, and Chairman Alderson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. VII. BUSINESS ITEMS: None Vill. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: Discussion of League of California Cities and Planning Commissioner Training brochure included in packet. Staff was making this available to the Commission for general information as a recommendation, but not sponsorship. If the any of the Commissioners have an interest in attending the functions there are to advise staff. Staff added they did not want financial considerations to be a deterrent for attendance. IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Review of City council meeting of May 6, 2008. Chairman Alderson gave a brief overview of the City Council meeting of May 6, 2008 and referenced his addition of Item D. PAReports - PC\2008\6-10-08\PC Minutes 5-27-08.doc 16 Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 2008 B. Discussion regarding Commission summer meeting schedule. Staff pointed out that Council has taken action to go dark August 19, 2008, and may also go dark September 2, 2008. Chairman Alderson said the Commission usually goes dark one night only and if they go dark on August 12 there wouldn't be any items for the Council meeting of August 29, 2008. Commissioners agreed to go dark on August 12, 2008. Staff commented they are currently working on the annual budget. The Council will have a meeting on the June 19, 2008, and if the Commissioners are interested in finding out more with next year's budget, they should attend. C. Discussion of the Capital Improvement Program Information Chairman Alderson said the Commissioners should be receiving the Capital Improvement log of events. He requested the Commissioners begin receiving copies of these as they outline issues and dates on a monthly basis. The report shows things that are under construction. Staff added if they Commissioners don't receive their monthly copy please let them know. D. Council Call -Up of Arnold Palmer Project. Chairman Alderson said, with reference to the Arnold Palmer project, the Council had two areas of concern: 1) parking and some dangerous pedestrian conditions and, 2) the neighbors concerns about future development. There was extensive discussion and ultimately the Planning Commission's decision was upheld. One additional condition was made to change the valet parking, in front of the restaurant, to general parking. This should help alleviate the parking concerns with people parking in the street and crossing the street. Also the neighbors' development agreement was resolved between the neighbors, on their own. Staff commented the new Council condition added 29 stalls in front of Palmer's entrance to be used as general public parking. That was a good move as the concern was to provide another parking option rather than on the fronting street. PAReports - PC\2008\6-10-08\PC Minutes 5-27-08.doc 17 Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 2008 E. Additional Discussion Items. Commissioner Quill requested the staff take a look at the previously discussed 40 acres and come back with information on access easements to see if there's any opportunity which might be advantageous to future plans of a neighborhood concept on the 12 lots. Staff said they would look into public record information and would get back to the Commission by the next meeting, if possible. Commissioner Barrows wanted to broaden the discussion about the Planning Commission Training information given to the Commissioners regarding transportation planning for livable communities. I think we had tried to look at the same sort of issues regarding the Highway 111 corridor. She wanted to know if staff could direct them to some references that could give some background information. Commissioner Quill mentioned Mr. Ron Snyder was working on a Cal Trans grant to do a walkable communities survey in Mecca in the Moving Mecca Forward Plan. His presentation will be at 6:00 on June 11, 2008 if any of the Commissioners are interested. Commissioner Barrows commented Mr. Snyder did a Non -Motorized Trails Plan for CVAG a few years earlier. Staff commented that one of the items planned for discussion, at the next Commission meeting, was to have a work session after the agenda items. The work session will reference the programs the Commission will be working on in 2009. It will be an opportunity for open dialogue and the Commissioners can certainly discuss walkability items, as well as any additional items or discussion points you may want to discuss at that time. Staff said it would be an opportune time to discuss the Commission's concerns for 2009. Commissioner Barrows said it sounded great and referenced the Green and Sustainable program discussed at the Council. She would be interested in discussing those items. Staff said Council approved the Green and Sustainable Program at their last meeting. Staff then discussed how the program was to be directed within the various departments and what programs are currently on -going and will provide the Commission with additional information at the next meeting. PAReports - PC\2008\6-10-08\PC Minutes 5-27-08.doc 18 Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 2008 Chairman Alderson asked if the discussion would be an agenda item at the next meeting. Staff replied yes. X. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Barrows /Quill to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next regular meeting to be held on June 10, 2008. This regular meeting was adjourned at 9:18 p.m. on May 27, 2008. Respectfully submitted, Carolyn Walker, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California P:\Reports - PC\2008\6-10-08\PC Minutes 5-27-08.doc 19 PH#A MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Les Johnson, Planning Director DATE: June 10, 2008 RE: VUP 2005-032, Time Extension #1 — Nispero Properties The Planning Commission, at it's meeting on May 27, 2008, continued the above - referenced application until the following Planning Commission meeting (June 10, 2008), and directed staff to complete research regarding the Commission's initial recommendation and subsequently approved Conditions of Approval for this project. Per the Planning Commission's direction the following items were researched and the subsequent information is provided for consideration by the Commission: • Conditions of Approval related to on -street parking and street frontage improvements along Main Street • Water feature compliance with newly adopted City Ordinance • Provision of bike rack facilities On -Street Parkinq / Street Frontage Conditions The Planning Commission Minutes from January 10, 2006 (Attachment 1) provide insight into the discussion regarding future site conditions along Main Street. Per item 20 of the minutes, the Planning Commission added the following Conditions of Approval: • The street section on Main Street be widened to allow an additional four feet on the half width in order to allow on -street parking in front of the building. • An enhanced sidewalk with associated landscaping shall be installed. • Coffee seating shall be encouraged in the front courtyard area of the building. Architectural detail shall be added to the rear elevations of the coffee bar. These issues were addressed in the original Conditions of Approval as approved by the City Council and are included in the recommended Conditions of Approval for the requested Time Extension, specifically Conditions 7, 10, 29, 49 and 52. Water Feature Compliance On January 15, 2008, the City Council adopted Ordinance 452 "Water Efficiency" which set standards for water use and conservation within the City. Contained within the Ordinance are specific standards for water feature use. Per the Ordinance all water features shall use re -circulated water and shall be replenished by a non -potable water supply. While the Preliminary Landscape Plan does not include the details regarding the water feature's design and source of water, the Final Landscape Plan will be reviewed for compliance with the new regulations and since this requirement is a now part of the Zoning Code, a special condition is not needed to insure compliance. Provision of Bike Rack The Planning Commission, at it's meeting on May 27, 2008, expressed concern that the project does not include any bicycle racks or dedicated bicycle parking areas. The Village Design Guidelines, under Sections HB Circulation Considerations and HD Accessory Provisions, states that streetscape items such a bicycle racks shall be addressed and facilitated by all private and public development projects. Section 9.150.060.D3, of the La Quinta Municipal Code (LQMC) provides staff with the parameters for requiring bicycle parking as part of a proposed project. Excerpts from that section of code read as follows: D. Parking for Nonresidential Land Uses. 3. Required Bicycle Parking. Bicycle parking shall be provided for certain nonresidential uses in order to encourage the use of bicycles and to mitigate motor vehicle pollution and congestion. The minimum bicycle parking requirements for nonresidential uses are as follows: a. Land uses required to provide bicycle parking; video arcades, bowling alleys, cinemas/movie theaters, commercial recreation, tennis clubs, health clubs, libraries, schools, and skating rinks. b. Churches, clubs/halls, hospitals and restaurants (all categories). c. Office developments greater than twenty-five thousand square feet of gross floor. d. Retail centers over twenty thousand square feet of gross floor area. e. Bike racks shall be placed in shaded locations, out of the way of pedestrian flows and shopping cart storage and shall be provided with a mechanism which permits locking a bicycle onto the rack. The project size is comprised of approximately 19,000 square feet of office space, which is below the bicycle parking mandate under Section 9.150.060.D3.c. Although the Code does not require bicycle parking for this project, as part of its VUP approval authority, the Planning Commission can condition the project to provide a minimum amount of bicycle parking facilities if it determines such facilities further the enhancement of the Village Design Guidelines and in particular the Guidelines' stated Goal "To Create a design, scale and place that will lend itself to The Village environment." If the Commission so desires, the following condition of approval could be added to its recommendation regarding VUP 2005-032 Time Extension #1. Condition #53 - A minimum of five bicycle parking spaces shall be provided on -site and shall be placed in a shaded location, out of the way of pedestrian flows and shall be provided with a mechanism which permits locking a bicycle onto the rack. Staff will be available at the June 10" meeting to address any further questions the Planning Commission may have. ATTACHMENTS: 1. May 27, 2008 Planning Commission Staff Report with Resolution and Conditions of Approval (updated to reflect new meeting date) 2. Planning Commission Minutes from January 10, 2006. ATTACHMENT 1 DATE: CASE NO: APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MAY 27, 2008 VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2005-032, EXTENSION 1 NISPERO PROPERTIES, INC. NISPERO PROPERTIES, INC. REQUEST: CONSIDRATION OF A ONE-YEAR TIME EXTENSION FOR VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2005-032 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A ± 19,433 SQUARE FOOT TWO- STORY OFFICE BUILDING WITH COFFEE HOUSE LOCATION: NORTHWEST CORNER OF AVENIDA LA FONDA AND MAIN STREET (ATTACHMENT 1) ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: AS PART OF ITS INITIAL REVIEW AND APPROVAL, THIS PROJECT WAS DETERMINED CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15332 CLASS 32 (INFILL DEVELOPMENT) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: VC (VILLAGE COMMERCIAL) ZONING DESIGNATION: VC (VILLAGE COMMERCIAL) SURROUNDING LAND USES: NORTH: MAIN STREET; VACANT LAND SOUTH: AVENIDA LA FONDA; VACANT LAND EAST: MAIN STREET; CITY LIBRARY WEST: VACANT LAND; RESIDENTIAL DUPLEX PROJECT BACKGROUND Village Use Permit 2005-032 and Development Agreement 2005-009 were reviewed and approved by the City Council on February 7, 2006. The Development Agreement facilitated the payment of a parking related in -lieu fee to compensate for an approved 39% reduction in the number of required on -site parking spaces. Although the Development Agreement does not require review for this extension, it does require that any time extension for Village Use Permit 2005-037 be reviewed and approved by the City Council. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site is an odd shaped 0.72 acre lot located at the northwest corner of Avenida La Fonda and Main Street. Main Street is adjacent to the east (front) and north sides of the site and is constructed as a 28-foot-wide street. Avenida La Fonda is adjacent to the south side of the site and is constructed to a width of 40 feet. Both roadways are improved with curb and gutter but no sidewalk. As part of the proposed project, a sidewalk will be installed along both street frontages adjacent to the project site. Parking on Main Street is prohibited due to its narrow design width. The City Library facility is sited directly east of the property. No improvements, structures, or other features exist on the property, which is flat and barren of vegetation. The proposed building contains approximately 19,433 square feet and is intended for general office use (Attachment 2). The first floor contains 9,470 square feet of floor area and includes general office space and a coffee bar. The second floor consists of 9,963 square feet of general office floor area. The building is flanked on its east and west sides by exterior stairwells. The highest building point is at 38.5 feet from finish grade at the central turret/rotunda feature, with the main roof line at 29.8 feet. The building is generally sited on the eastern portion of the property along Main Street's interior curve, with the front of the building facing Main Street. The site plan provides for a 10-foot building setback along the Main Street frontage. The parking area, which provides 49 spaces, is located on the west side of the building. Access into the parking area is taken from both Main Street and Avenida La Fonda, at the north and south ends of the site, respectively. The architecture will be a blend of Traditional Spanish and Mediterranean design elements, with a more contemporary architectural design overall. The building walls will be stucco with deep shades of earth -tone colors applied to the finish. Areas of stone veneer will be used as an accent material. The roofing material will be a two-piece mission clay tile in a dark tri-color earth tone blend. The window surrounds, doors and mullions will be framed in a painted finished aluminum. The roof eaves will be accented with exposed rafter tails, stained in a dark wood color. Upper floor exterior access areas are to be framed with a wrought iron railing. ANALYSIS The height limit for the Village is set at two stories, not to exceed 35 feet. However, the Code does allow architectural elements to extend above the required height limit, within certain parameters, as part of a development review application. Because the proposed central turret/rotunda feature is considered an architectural element and the main roof height is at 29.8 feet, five feet under the 35 feet limit, the building's design is within the parameters of the Code. With regard to parking, a total of 68 on -site parking stalls are required by Code and only 49 are provided on the proposed site plan. However, as part of the initial approval and as provided for by the Municipal Code, the 19 deficient stalls are to be compensated for through the payment of a parking in -lieu fee in the amount of $228,000. This payment is facilitated through the Development Agreement approved for the project by the City Council on February 21, 2006. Consequently, the project as approved is in compliance with the City's on -site parking requirements. In general, through the initial approval process it was determined the proposed building design and site layout are in compliance with the La Quinta Municipal Code and with the La Quinta Village Design Guidelines. In addition, the proposed building's scale and architectural design will accentuate and compliment the adjacent Library building. As the current request for a time extension does not include any amendments to the previously reviewed and approved development plans and there have been no significant changes to the City's Municipal Code or the Village Design Guidelines that would necessitate a modification of the approved plans, a finding that the proposed time extension is justified by the circumstances of the project can be made. Public Notice This request was published in The Desert Sun newspaper on May 16, 2008, and mailed to all affected property owners and occupants within 500 feet of the proposed project site as required by Section 9.200.110 of the La Quinta Municipal Code. No comments have been received as of this report's preparation; any correspondence received interim to the public hearing will be transmitted to the Planning Commission. Public Agency Review This request was sent to all applicable City departments and affected public agencies on March 25, 2008: All written comments received are on file and available for review with the Planning Department. All applicable comments have been incorporated in the recommended Conditions of Approval, as appropriate. FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Findings to approve this request can be made and are contained in the attached Resolution. For clarification purposes and ease of administration, Staff's recommendation includes the original Conditions of Approval as approved by the City Council on February 7, 2006, except that Condition No. 2 noting the Village Use Permit's expiration date has been modified to reflect approval of the requested extension. No additional conditions are recommended. RECOMMENDATION Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2008- , recommending to the City Council approval of a one-year time extension for Village Use Permit 2005-032, subject to the attached findings and conditions of approval. Prepared by: r � � Eric Ceja, Assi ant Planner Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Project Development Plans PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2008- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL A ONE-YEAR TIME EXTENSION FOR VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2005-032 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A ± 19,433 SQUARE FOOT TWO-STORY OFFICE BUILDING WITH COFFEE HOUSE VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2005-032, Ext. 1 NISPERO PROPERTIES, INC. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 10" day of June, 2008, consider a one-year time extension for Village Use Permit 2005-032 for a ± 19,433 square -feet commercial office building to be located at the northwest corner of Main Street and Avenida La Fonda, more particularly described as: LOT 77, MB 021 /060, DESERT CLUB TRACT UNIT #4 WHEREAS, said one-year time extension of Village Use Permit application 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 initial approval of Village Use Permit 2005-032 by the City Council on February 7, 2006 included a determination that the proposed Village Use Permit was exempt from CEQA review under Guidelines Section 15332 (Infill Development) and there has been no change in circumstances to justify altering said determination; and, WHEREAS, Village Use Permit 2005-032 in conjunction with Development Agreement 2005-009 was approved by the City Council, thereby requiring approval of the one-year time extension of said Village Use Permit by the City Council as stipulated under Section 9.200.080, LQMC; and WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, the Planning Commission did, in accordance with LQMC Section 9.200.080 D, 1, make the following mandatory finding: The proposed one-year time extension for Village Use Permit 2005-032 is justified by the circumstances of the project. Through the initial approval process it was determined the proposed building design and site layout are in compliance with the La Quinta Municipal Code and with the La Quinta Village Design Guidelines. In addition, the proposed building's scale and VUP 05-032 PC Reso ds architectural design will accentuate and compliment the adjacent Library building. As the current request for a time extension does not include any amendments to the previously reviewed and approved development plans and there have been no significant changes to the City's Municipal Code or the Village Design Guidelines that would necessitate a modification of the approved plans. 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 finding of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby recommend to the La Quinta City Council, approval of a one-year time extension for Village Use Permit 2005-032 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City of La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this the 10" day of June, 2008, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ED ALDERSON, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: LES JOHNSON Planning Director City of La Quinta, California VUP 05-032 PC Reso ds PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2008- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2005-032, EXT. 1 NISPERO PROPERTIES, INC. MAY 27, 2008 ,ela011 aT_\irKf]i•101111Eel►RK91mod;iti0iWIS 1. Village Use Permit 2005-032, Extension 1 (VUP 2005-032, Ext. 1) shall be developed in compliance with these conditions and all approved site plan, elevation, color, materials and other approved exhibits submitted for this application, and any subsequent amendment(s). In the event of any conflicts, these conditions shall take precedence. 2. This approval shall expire on February 7, 2009, one year from the date of the initial date of expiration, February 7, 2008, unless extended pursuant to the provisions of Section 9.200.080. 3. The applicant 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 development application or any application thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the developer of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 4. Prior to the issuance of any permit by the City, the applicant shall obtain the necessary permits and/or clearances from the following agencies: • Fire Marshal • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Green Sheet, (Public Works Clearance) for Building Permits, Improvement and Encroachment Permits • Planning Department • Riverside County Environmental Health'Department • Desert Sands Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Southern California Gas Company • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) P:\Jay\' VUP - Village Use Permits\VUP 05-032 EXT 1 Sun Vista Plaza\VUP 05-032 EXT 1 - COA ds.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2008- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Village Use Permit 2005-032, Ext. 1 May 27, 2008 South Coast Air Quality Management District Coachella Valley 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. 5. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit, LQMC Sections 8.70.010 et seq. (Stormwater Management and Discharge Controls) and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water); 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 (1) 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") (LQMC Section 8.70.020 (Definitions)): 1) Temporary Soil Stabilization (erosion control). 2) Temporary Sediment Control 3) Wind Erosion Control VUP 05-032 EXT 1 - COA ds Planning Commission Resolution 2008- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Village Use Permit 2005-032, Ext. 1 May 27, 2008 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. 6. Handicap access and facilities shall be provided in accordance with Federal (ADA), State and local requirements. Handicap accessible parking shall generally conform to the approved exhibits for VUP 2005-032, Ext. 1. 7. All parking area civil plans and improvements shall be developed in accordance with the standards set forth in applicable portions of Section 9.150.080 of the Zoning Code, and these conditions, which shall take precedence in the event of any conflicts with said Section. Any on -street parking/street improvement plans for Main Street, if submitted, shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer as to acceptable design standards. Any deviation from standards as applicable under Section 9.150.080 of the Zoning Code may be approved by the Planning and Public Works Departments, as part of the improvement plan review process. PROPERTY RIGHTS 8. 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 the best match existing. The applicant shall VUP 05-032 EXT 1 - COA ds Planning Commission Resolution 2008- Conditions of Approval — Recommended Village Use Permit 2005-032, Ext. 1 May 27, 2008 establish the aforementioned requirements in the CC&R's for the development or other agreements as approved by the City Engineer. 9. The applicant shall offer for dedication all public street right-of-ways in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and/or as required by the City Engineer. 10. The public street rights -of -way offers for dedication required for this Village Use Permit include: A. PUBLIC STREETS 1) Avenida La Fonda (Local Street, 60' ROW) — The standard 30 feet from the centerline of Avenida La Fonda for a total 60-foot ultimate developed right of way. 2) Main Street (Local Street, 50' ROW) — The standard 30 feet from the centerline of Main Street for a total of 50-foot ultimate developed right of way except for an additional right of way dedicated to accommodate improvements conditioned under STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS. 11. The applicant shall offer for dedication those easements necessary for the placement of, and access to, utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, and common areas shown on the Village Use Permit. 12. Direct vehicular access from any portion of the site with frontage along Avenida La Fonda and Main Street is restricted, except for those access points identified on the approved site plan, or as otherwise conditioned in these conditions of approval. 13. 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. 14. The applicant shall cause no easements to be granted, or recorded, over any portion of the subject property, between the date of approval of this Village Use Permit and the date of final acceptance of the on -site and off -site improvements for this Village Use Permit, unless such easements are approved by the City Engineer. VUP 05-032 EXT 1 - COA ds Planning Commission Resolution 2008- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Village Use Permit 2005-032, Ext. 1 May 27, 2008 15. Upon approval of this Village Use Permit, the applicant shall begin right-of- way vacation of the existing remnant public right-of-way at the corner of Avenida La Fonda and Main Street (Avenida Buena Ventura). 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. 16. 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. 17. The following improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval by the City. 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. A. On -Site Rough Grading Plans 1 " = 30' Horizontal B. PM10 Plan 1" = 40' Horizontal C. SWPPP 1 " = 40' Horizontal NOTE: A through C to be submitted concurrently. D. On -Site Precise Grading Plans (Commercial Development) 1 " = 20' 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. On -Site Precise Grading Plans shall normally include all on -site surface improvements including but not necessarily limited to finish grades for curbs & gutters, sidewalks, building floor elevations, parking lot improvements and VUP 05-032 EXT 1 - COA ds Planning Commission Resolution 2008- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Village Use Permit 2005-032, Ext. 1 May 27, 2008 ADA requirements for the parking lot and access to the building; and showing the existing street improvements out to at least the center lines of adjacent existing streets, including ADA accessibility route to surrounding buildings, parking facilities and public streets. 18. 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. 19. The applicant shall furnish a complete set of the mylars of all approved improvement plans on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. Upon completion of construction, and prior to final acceptance of the improvements by the City, the applicant shall furnish the City with reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were approved by the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawing", "As Built", or "As Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy mylars previously submitted to the City, revised to reflect the as -built conditions. The applicant shall employ or retain the Engineer Of Record during the construction phase of the project so that the FOR can make site visits in support of preparing As Built drawings. However, if subsequent approved revisions have been approved by the City Engineer and reflect said "As Built' conditions, the Engineer Of Record may submit a letter attesting to said fact to the City Engineer in lieu of mylar submittal. GRADING 20. Prior to occupancy of the project site for any construction, or other purposes, the applicant shall obtain a grading permit approved by the City Engineer. 21. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval of all of the following: A. A precise grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer or architect, B. A preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report prepared by a qualified engineer, VUP 05-032 EXT 1 - COA ds Planning Commission Resolution 2008- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Village Use Permit 2005-032, Ext. 1 May 27, 2008 C. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with LQMC Chapter 6.16 (Fugitive Dust Control), and D. A Best Management Practices report prepared in accordance with LQMC Sections 8.70.010 and 13.24.170 (NPDES stormwater discharge permit and Storm Management and Discharge Controls). 22. The applicant shall maintain all open graded, undeveloped land to prevent wind and water erosion of soils. All such land shall be planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures as approved by the Public Works Departments under the Fugitive Dust Control Plan. 23. Prior to issuance of the main building permit, the applicant shall provide a lot pad certification, stamped and signed by qualified engineers or surveyor. DRAINAGE 24. Nuisance water shall be retained onsite. 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. UTll ITIES 25. 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. 26. 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. The applicant shall provide certified reports of all utility trench compaction for approval of the City Engineer. 27. Prior to issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall provide evidence to the Public Works Department, of vacation of the existing 10-foot PUE along the common lot line of lots 68 and 77, along with any relocated VUP 05-032 EXT 1 - COA ds Planning Commission Resolution 2008- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Village Use Permit 2005-032, Ext. 1 May 27, 2008 easement(s) as may be required. Any in -ground utilities shall be relocated to the satisfaction of the purveyor of record, and the City Engineer STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 28. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Sections 13.24.060 (Street Improvements), 13.24.070 (Street Design - Generally) & 13.24.100 (Access For Individual Properties And Development), LQMC for public streets. 29. No additional street improvements are required, except for: A. Avenida La Fonda 1) A five-foot wide sidewalk next to the curb along the property boundary with corner improvements and curb ramp per Standard 250 — Case A. B. Main Street 1) A minimum five-foot wide sidewalk next to the curb along the property boundary, to consist of enhanced design materials (e.g. colored/stamped concrete, pavers, etc.) and to include provision for landscaped areas. The sidewalk design shall provide for minimum clearances of 4 feet for ADA accessibility. It is acknowledged that the applicant may submit street improvement plans for Main Street, to accommodate on -street parking along the inside curve (west side), but is not required to do so. Any such improvement plans shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning and Public Works Departments, as specified in Condition 7. Generally, said plans shall be based on a 4-foot curb inset to the west from existing curb line along Main Street, for an 18-foot half -width pavement section, as measured from centerline to gutter flow line, along the project frontage. PARKING LOTS AND ACCESS POINTS 30. 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 VUP 0"32 EXT 1 - COA ds Planning Commission Resolution 2008- Conditions of Approval — Recommended Village Use Permit 2005-032, Ext. 1 May 27, 2008 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 length shall be according to LOW Chapter 9.150 and be a minimum of 17 feet in length with a 2-foot overhang for standard parking stalls and 18 feet with a 2-foot overhang for handicapped parking stall 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 to Public Streets a minimum of 30 feet as shown on the Site Development Permit site plan or as approved by the City Engineer. Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, corner cutbacks, bus turnouts, dedicated turn lanes, ADA accessibility routes 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. 31. The applicant shall design parking lot 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): 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. 32. The applicant shall submit current mix designs (less than two years old at the time of construction) for base, asphalt concrete and Portland cement VUP 05,032 EXT 1 - COA ds Planning Commission Resolution 2008- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Village Use Permit 2005-032, Ext. 1 May 27, 2008 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. 33. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the proposed access driveways on Main Street and Avenida La Fonda. All turn movements are permitted. 34. The entry driveway throat and parking aisle shall be permitted to be constructed as designed on the approved plans, at the depths as shown and 26 feet in width rather than the required 28 feet, as permitted under Section 9.65.030.A.3.a, in order to retain the parking space count of 49 on -site spaces. Use of wheel stops is not permitted. 35. A total space count of 49 parking stalls, including handicapped parking spaces, shall be provided. A minimum of 16 spaces shall be maintained as covered parking, to be designed and located as required under Section 9.150.080.B.5, LQMC. 36. Design and final location of the two trash enclosures shall be reviewed and approved by Waste Management., with the written and/or stamped plan approval to be submitted during the building plan check process. No permits for these facilities shall be issued without said approval. 37. A minimum four -foot high screen wall shall be provided at the west property line. The wall design shall be consistent with the materials and colors used on the main structure, subject to review and approval by the Planning Department. This shall be shown on the civil and landscape plans as submitted for plan check. LANDSCAPING 38. On -site and off -site (streetscape) landscape, landscape lighting and irrigation plans shall be submitted for approval by the Planning Department. Plans shall be in substantial conformance with the conceptual landscaping as approved for the project by Planning Commission. When plan checking is complete, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the VUP 05-032 EXT 1 - COA ds Planning Commission Resolution 2008- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Village Use Permit 2005-032, Ext. 1 May 27, 2008 Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner prior to submitting for final acceptance by the Planning Department. 39. The Silk trees located along the west property line shall be replaced with a non -deciduous (evergreen) variety, to be approved as part of the landscape plan check process. 40. The Phoenix Dactylifera species (Date Palms) to be used shall be purchased from within the Coachella Valley, per the requirement of the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner. FEES AND DEPOSITS 41. 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. 42. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City's adopted Art in Public Places program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. 43. Permit(s) issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time said permit(s) are issued. 44. Prior to the issuance of any building permit for the Site, the applicant shall pay the up -front parking fees, in the manner and amount as specified in the Development Agreement for Village Use Permit 2005-032. FIRE PROTECTION 45. Specific fire protection requirements will be determined when final building plans are submitted for review. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are submitted. A plan check fee must be paid to the Fire Department at the time building plans are submitted. MISCELLANEOUS 46. The applicant shall submit a detailed project area lighting plan. Parking lot lighting is required, and shall meet the criteria set forth in Section VUP 05-032 EXT 1 - COA ds Planning Commission Resolution 2008- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Village Use Permit 2005-032, Ext. 1 May 27, 2008 9.150.080.K, LQMC. All pole -mounted light standards shall conform to lighting standards as in effect when plans are reviewed. Under canopy lighting for building areas shall incorporate flush lens caps or similar recessed ceiling lighting. The lighting plan shall be submitted for review at the time construction plan check for the permanent building permit is made to Building and Safety. 47. A comprehensive sign program shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission prior to establishment of any individual tenant signs for the project. Provisions of the sign program shall be in compliance with applicable sections of Chapter 9.160 of the Zoning Code. No signs shall be permitted to be placed on any portion of the roof projections or balcony railings along Main Street, and the west elevation. 48. All roof -mounted mechanical equipment must be internal to the roof design, or screened as an integral part of the roof structure, in a manner so as not to be visible from surrounding properties and streets. Working drawings showing all such equipment and locations shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Department along with the construction plan submittal for building permits. The method and design must be approved by the Planning Department, prior to any issuance of the main structural building permit. 49. The building plans submitted for plan check shall incorporate the following revisions: A. The west elevation for the coffee shop portion of the building shall be modified to lower the stone veneer work, and add arched windows, and/or similar detailing, compatible with the main building. B. Wrought iron railings used on the project shall reflect more of a hand- crafted detailing, similar to the photo exhibit examples in the approved plan set, as opposed to the standard appearance of railings as represented in the architectural renderings and elevations. C. The proposed sign monument shall be reviewed as part of the sign program, as required by Condition 52. The monument shall be similar in design to the photo exhibit example of the fountain, contained in the approved plan exhibits. 50. It is understood by the Applicant that Nispero Properties, Inc, by payment of a deposit in the amount of $5,000 on 12/21/05, has entered into an VUP 05-032 EXi 1 - COA ds Planning Commission Resolution 2008- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Village Use Permit 2005-032, Ext. 1 May 27, 2008 Agreement with the City relating to preparation and possible approval of a Development Agreement for the purpose of clarifying the applicant's parking obligations associated with development of Village Use Permit 2005-032, Extension 1. This Village Use Permit shall not be effective unless and until the Development Agreement has been approved by the City Council and recorded; the applicant further understands that the City Council may choose to reject entering the Development Agreement or modify its contents. While this approval will not be effective until such time as a Development Agreement may become effective, the time limits associated with approval of VUP 2005-032 shall be in effect with respect to expiration, as stated under Condition #2. 51. The permitted office and coffee bar uses shall be limited to those of a general intensity, consistent with the parking ratios of 1 space per 250 s.f. of office and 1 space per 150 s.f. of retail food with ancillary seating. This precludes use of any office space as a medical office use, and retail food with ancillary seating space for sit-down restaurant use, unless shared parking or tenant space reductions are determined to maintain the approved parking ratios for this building, or the Development Agreement is amended to allow payment of per -space fees to increase any use intensity for the project. 52. Use of the coffee bar lease space may be relocated to an alternate ground floor space, oriented toward the center of the main building proximate to the pedestrian entrance from Main Street. Limited unreserved ancillary outdoor seating for coffee bar patrons may be provided in the entry courtyard, whether or not the coffee bar space is relocated. VUP 05-032 EXT i - COA ds ATTACHMENT 1 VUP 2005-032, Time Extension #1 Blue kY-WO _. — _--- - - CaAe'I"amplco Old I I I i SITE AWnKda W Fonda La ifHfagelna Pam Avenidta—Nkoritezuma --- •? Calff ado_ —'oi Fortuna. ;0 Calle Cadiz I �it ! Street View Aerial View Location Map ATTACHMENT 2 Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2006 23. Commissioner Alderson stated he too is concerned that syre of the residents were not notified about the public heari He supports limiting the project to one story. He would pre r to look down the drive-in entry and see a landscaped road ra r than the dirt trail that exists. If CVWD did not allow the /arnative chment, the applicant is not supporting the street widening and he does not know where it will go. 24. Commissioner Quill stated that in regard street widening, he would support the 28 foot /theighboring 25. Commissioner Daniels stad support Commissioner Quill's comments. He wpport the project going forward while working witring residents to resolve the issues. He would wantmeet with the neighbors and resolve the issues as eble. 26. Chairman Kirk stated h,yAoo would be concerned if he lived here for 30 years and had expectation of low density or open space. He would like to sefa continuance to see a meeting between the residents, staff, d the developer to resolve the issues such as density,/witthhfoff s, and site design. He agrees with allowing the 28 footway with rolled curbs. If they can work an easemeVWD and have rolled curbs he would not be concern -street parking. 27. It moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Alderson to co inue Tentative Tract Map 34185 to February 14, 2006 28. Chairman Kirk reopened the public hearing. Mr. Rowe asked that the notice be made tonight to allow this public hearing to take place in one month. Chairman Kirk asked that staff deliver a notice to each resident and post it in the area. 29. Commissioner Daniels stated he believes the neighbors have been notified and he would move to continue the hearing to February 14, 2006 with the project being re -noticed for a neighborhood meeting. Commissioner Alderson seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously. B. Village Use Permit 2005-032 and Development Agreement 2005-009• a request of Nispero Properties, Inc. for consideration of: 1) development plans for construction of a ±19,433 gross square foot two-story office G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2006%1-10-06PC.doc Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2006 building, including a 935 square foot coffee bar in the Village at La Quinta; and 2) a Development Agreement for parking management to allow construction of said office building and coffee bar for the property located at the northwest corner of Avenida La Fonda and Main Street. 1. Chairman Kirk asked for the staff report. Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which was on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Alderson asked if the westerly property wall would be four feet in height. Staff stated there is no existing wall. Staff is recommending a four foot wall. 3. There being no further questions of staff Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Steve Nieto, Southwest Concepts, representing the applicant, gave a presentation on the project. 4. Commissioner Daniels asked if the applicant saw any parking problems. Mr. Nieto stated no, his own parking lot where he has his business in the Village is never full. He has no objection to the conditions or the Development Agreement. 5. Commissioner Quill stated he would like to see a pedestrian access created to Old Town through this building. Mr. Nieto stated it would all depend on what is built on the adjacent lots to the west. They are proposing a six foot wall along the west property line. Commissioner Quill stated he would like the pedestrian access to be similar in style to what the City has installed on Avenida Bermudas. 6. Chairman Kirk asked what the ALRC recommended. Mr. Nieto stated they requested the rear elevation of the coffee bar be redesigned to remove the oval windows and install some arches to reflect the other windows. Chairman Kirk stated he would rather see windows than the arches with no windows. Mr. Nieto stated the area behind the arches is for storage. He would recommend some type of inlay inside the arches with stone or tile. Chairman Kirk asked if the second floor of the rotunda, on the rear elevation behind the rail, needs some detail added. Mr. Nieto stated there is an office in the rotunda with one window. He does not believe G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2006\1-10-06PC.doc Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2006 there will be much ability to see this area from the street. They could create some detail to add interest. Chairman Kirk stated he was concerned where the pedestrian activity will occur. It appears most of the activity will occur in the rear instead of the front of this building. He too wants to see the link between this project and the downtown area. Mr. Nieto stated the front elevation is the choice elevation and most of the traffic will enter from the rear. Chairman Kirk stated he would prefer the traffic be along Main Street. He asked staff if there could be some on -street parking provided with a 28-foot street width. Associated Engineer Paul Goble stated the traffic engineer found it very difficult with the layout of the building and the curve of the street. Something would have to be sacrificed because the building footprint has been maximized. Chairman Kirk stated they would prefer to lose parking in the rear to obtain on -street parking. This would slow the traffic down and he would prefer to see the coffee bar in the front of the building. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated this is probably starting to push the idea of 28-foot wide streets. This particular location is relatively busy with the Senior Center and Library. If the City allows on -street parking we would need to look at locations to maintain turning movements in and out of driveways. They considered popouts, but unless you pull it behind the sidewalk you could have half a car in the street. Chairman Kirk asked if the Commission supports the idea. 7. Commissioner Alderson asked if they are proposing parallel parking with an inside radius would this not cause more problems. Associate Engineer Paul Goble stated it is a problem in this area and unless a variance were given to the standards currently being used, you run into the building. 8. Commissioner Quill stated it seems you could have parallel parking spaces the entire length of the building along Main Street with a sidewalk and enhanced pavement landscaping and push the building to the west a few feet and still make it work. This would help bring the traffic into the front of the building. 9. Commissioner Alderson stated that if we are trying to create pedestrian activity in the front, could they have an ornate walkway across the street and utilize the library parking lot. Staff stated it could be done but, it may not be the best location. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2006\ 1 - 1 0-06PC.doc Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2006 10. Chairman Kirk stated he would suggest no one would park across the street and walk across the street unless the rear parking lot was closed or full. Mr. Nieto suggested they eliminate or reduce the landscaping and provide a 32 foot wide street with parallel parking. Community Development Doug Evans stated the street could be widened four feet closer and landscaping reduced to accommodate the on -street parking on the inside of the curb. Some areas may need to be red -curbed, but it should work. 11. Chairman Kirk stated he would not want to lose horizontal landscaping. If you move the curb back four feet he would like to see landscaping in the sidewalk itself. If the building were moved to the west and lose parking spaces to the north and south and make them up with parallel parking on Main Street. 12. Commissioner Quill suggested an enhanced or paver sidewalk with planter pockets with trees be used similar to the El Paseo sidewalk. 13. Chairman Kirk asked if there was an opportunity to move the coffee bar to the front of the building. Mr. Nieto stated they could move it into one of the front spaces without redesigning the building. If they are required to move the building to the west he would not be able to meet ADA requirements. Discussion followed. Staff recommended parking pockets with landscaped areas be allowed which would give them ten spaces. Chairman Kirk stated he would not recommend the parking pockets on an inside radius as it would make it more difficult to get in and out. Associate Engineer Paul Goble stated he was not tied to the parking pockets. 14. Chairman Kirk asked if anyone else wanted to speak on this project. Mr. Bob Hill, 58-473 Quarry Ranch Road, developer of the project, stated that in regard to the parking issues they envisioned the building not being a retail center similar to Old Town, but office oriented. He does not see the intensity of in and out parking during the day similar to what retail uses would generate. The coffee bar was to service the businesses in the office complex and across the street and not to be a "Starbucks". He would agree to the on -street parking with the detailed walkway across the street. He does not agree with losing parking spaces and move the building back as he would not receive any benefit from this. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\200611-10-06PC.doc Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2006 15. There being no further public comment, the public participation portion of the hearing was closed and the matter was opened to Commission discussion. 16. Commissioner Alderson stated the emphasis for the front parking to have a user friendly building does not appear to be what the applicant wants. Therefore, he does not believe the building should be moved back. As far as the rear window of the coffee shop, he supports some architectural detail being made. 17. Commissioner Quill stated it is a great looking building and he agrees with the window treatment to the coffee bar. The idea of this area is to make it a pedestrian friendly area. Having a traffic calming sidewalk into this site with on -street parking will help to accommodate that emphasis. He does not believe it is necessary to push the building back. The sidewalk could be reduced and enhanced with planters and it could still work with on -street parking. 18. Commissioner Daniels stated he too would not want to push the building back. Allowing the on -street parking is needed. 19. Chairman Kirk stated he wants the public space image and the objective of pedestrian linkage between major activity centers in the City. On -street parking, enhanced paving, and pedestrian link across the street need to be done. If we can get 14-15 parking spaces with on -street parking, he does not believe a Development Agreement is needed for four spaces. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated they would need to provide the applicant with relief for parking standards which would require a different application. Chairman Kirk asked why they could not grant 100% credit for parking spaces. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated they were doing that through a Development Agreement. From a parking perspective, there may be an advantage to having public parking at this end of the Village and give people the ability to walk from the east to the west throughout the Village area. 20. Following discussion it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Daniels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2006-002, recommending approval of Village Use Permit 2005-032, as recommended and modified: G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2006\7-10-06PC.doc Planning Commission Minutes January 10, .2006 a. Condition added: the street section on Main Street be widened to allow an additional four feet on the half width in order to allow on -street parking in front of the building. b. Condition added: an enhanced sidewalk with associated landscaping shall be installed. C. Condition added: architectural detail shall be added to the rear elevations of the coffee bar. d. Condition added: coffee seating shall be encouraged in the front courtyard area of the building. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Daniels, Quill, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Ladner. ABSTAIN: None. 21. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Daniels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2006-003, approving Development Agreement 2005-009, as recommended and modified: a. Modified to allow a one to one credit for up to the number of parking spaces that is determined by the Public Works that can be created. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Daniels, Quill, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Ladner. ABSTAIN: None. VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: Continued - Consideration regarding Hookah Bars; a request of City for in regard Hookah Bars within the City. 7ection Ch an Kirk asked for the staff report. Assistant Planner Jay Wuu pres ed the information in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the mmunity Development Department. 2. Commissioner Daniels a why it was not proposed as a permitted versus a conditional Staff stated that during their review of the use, it was found that a undesirable uses had accompanied the use in other cities. 3. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to a ess the Commission. Mr. Emad gave a presentation on the projec . e GAWPDOCS\PC Minutes\2006\7-10-06PC.doc BI # A TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: LES JOHNSON, PLANNING DIRECTOR DATE: JUNE 10, 2008 SUBJECT: PLANNING DEPARTMENT WORK PROGRAM The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a brief summary of the key work program items the Planning Department is currently working on or will be working on during the next budget cycle (FY 2008-09). All of the programs listed are either underway or are scheduled to commence shortly. It is anticipated that the Planning Commission will be involved with all of the listed projects. During the June 10, 2008 Planning Commission meeting, Staff will be prepared to provide a verbal summary of each of the listed program items and answer any questions you may have. General Plan Update: The City's current General Plan was last comprehensively revised in 2002. We are now approaching the 8 to 10 year time period that State law and the Office of Planning and Research uses as the benchmark for recommending the review and revision of a community's general plan. In light of this and the pace of growth the City has seen in the past six years, Staff is commencing the process of comprehensively reviewing and revising the City's General Plan. Recognizing the fact that the great majority of land within the current City limits is built out, it is anticipated the large extent of land use discussions will be focused on the southeast portions of the City and its currently identified Sphere of Influence area as well as considering potential redevelopment opportunities in the older non- residential areas of the community. Other items of focus will include circulation issues and the incorporation of goals and policies to address the issues of sustainability, reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and the general topic of "green" building and environmental justice. Staff's current request for the 2008/2009 Budget includes funding for this project that will facilitate the hiring of a planning consultant team to assist Staff in the preparation of the revised General Plan, its environmental review and other support documents. Staff is currently preparing a scope of work and request for proposals which is tentatively scheduled for distribution in July, 2008. An early estimate for PAReports - PC\2008\6-10-08\Work Program Report.doc Planning Commission review of the draft revised General Plan would be in the fall/winter of 2009. General Plan Amendment (GPA 08-112) — Multi -Purpose Trails and Street Classification Maps: This amendment is to adjust the alignment of the Multi -Purpose Trail route in the southeast portion of the City to better reflect the topography and practicality of implementation in the area south of Avenue 58 and west of Madison Street. The amendment will also include an adjustment to the Circulation Element's Street Classification Map and street configuration requirements with regard to street width and amenity improvements in the same area. It is anticipated this amendment will be before the Planning Commission in August or September, 2008. General Plan and Zoning Code Amendments (GPA 08-114 & ZC 08-134) — School sites changed to Mixed Commercial (MC): These amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Code, amend the land use designations of three existing and fully developed school sites in order to bring their General Plan and Zoning designations into consistency with their current educational use. The three sites consist of the Colonel Mitchell Paige Middle School located at the southeast corner of Palm Royale Drive and Washington Street, the Horizon School located at the southeast corner of Darby Road and Palm Royale Drive, and the Benjamin Franklin Elementary School located at the northeast corner of Calle Tampico and Eisenhower Drive. This amendment is scheduled for review by the Commission in September, 2008. Housing Element Update: The City's current Housing Element was last updated and adopted by the City Council in November, 2004 and ultimately certified, or found to be in compliance, by the State Housing and Community Development Department (HCD). The regional housing needs assessment (RHNA) process has since been completed by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) resulting in new affordable housing allocations being established for all cities within SCAG. Each city is now required to update its Housing Element in accordance with the new allocations. La Quinta's number of allocated housing units for each level of affordability is listed in the following table. Very Low Income Households Low Income Households Moderate Income Households I Above Moderate I Income Households TOTAL N OF UNITS 1,065 724 796 1 1,741 4,327 The Planning Center has been retained to assist City staff with our update process. The most significant challenge will be ensuring that there is sufficient land available to accommodate the allocation, particularly with regard to the 1,789 very low and low income households. The project is well underway with a work schedule identifying Commission review of the update and its environmental documentation scheduled for October, 2008. PAReports - PC\2008\6-10-08\Work Program Report.doc Village Strategic Plan: Planning Staff is beginning the process of preparing a Strategic Plan for the Village. Key factors to be considered in the development of the Strategic Plan are: • Assessment of existing Village Zoning Code requirements and their limitations in promoting a diverse mix of projects appropriate for the Village. ■ Development of an enhanced context sensitive street design that promotes and encourages a pedestrian friendly environment creating more intimate "village scale" settings. The streetscape design standards would focus on traffic calming design and features, street trees and landscaping, outdoor lighting, furniture, accessibility, etc., while also considering the streetscape relationship with buildings and structures. ■ Propose new innovative Village Design Guidelines. Potential to allow three- story structures for specific uses, within certain limits. Consider setbacks for second and third story of multi -story buildings. Planning Staff is currently preparing a request for proposals (RFP) to be circulated for consultant assistance in updating the guidelines. The RFP is scheduled to go out this month with the selection of a consultant completed in August, 2008. The project's overall work plan targets Commission review in the summer of 2009. Lighting Ordinance: Staff is currently working on an update to the City's zoning regulations regarding outdoor lighting standards. The review includes an analysis of the current requirements by Ralph Raya, a lighting consultant, for consistency with the policies of the Dark Sky program and potential recommendations. Planning Commission review of this item is tentatively scheduled for spring of 2009. Zoning Code Amendment — Clean Up Adjustments: The purpose of this amendment is to address Zoning Code issues that have come to light throughout the course of the year and which need either correction or clarification. A typical example of such is a code interpretation made by the Planning Director which needs confirmation and inclusion in the Zoning Code. Another example is the discovery of an inaccuracy or conflict in the language of the code that needs correction. To date, this year's list includes changing the Code's reference of Community Development Director to Planning Director, interpretations regarding unlisted land uses and parking requirements as well as clarification regarding amended applications and modifications by applicants. The work schedule for this amendment brings it to the Planning Commission for review in November, 2008. PAReports - PC\2008\6-10-08\Work Program Report.doc