The URL can be used to link to this page

2008 08 26 PCCity of La Quinta _ Planning Commission Agendas are now cq5 available on the City's Web Page of Tl'9 @ 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 AUGUST 26, 2008 7:00 P.M. **NOTE** ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING Beginning Resolution 2008-023 Beginning Minute Motion 2008-014 I. CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call II. PUBLIC COMMENT This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled for public hearing. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your comments to three minutes. III. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA IV. CONSENT CALENDAR Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 22, 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 .................... CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2008-113 Applicant ............. Gary Steven Location...............79-430 Highway 1 1 1; North of Highway 1 1 1; Approximately 150 Feet West of Dune Palms Road Request ............... Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for an Ice Skating Rink in an Existing Commercial Space in the Regional Commercial (CR) District Action .................Resolution 2008- . B. Item .................... SIGN PROGRAM 2003-734, AMENDMENT NO. 1 Applicant ............. Sign -A -Rama (Chad Addington) for Corporate Centre Professional Plaza Location...............79-215 - 79-245 Corporate Centre Drive Request ............... Consideration of an Amendment to update the Sign Program for the Corporate Center Professional Plaza to Allow Illuminated and Larger Signs Action.................Minute Motion 2008- VI. BUSINESS ITEM: VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: Vill. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Discussion of Whitewater Channel Multi -Use Trails IX. DIRECTOR ITEMS: A. Joint Council Meeting X. ADJOURNMENT: This meeting of the Planning Commission will be adjourned to a Regular Meeting to be held on September 9, 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, August 26, 2008 was posted on the outside entry to the Council Chamber, 78-495 Calle Tampico and the bulletin board at the La Quinta Cove Post Office, on Friday, August 22, 2008. DATED: August 22, 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 Calls Tampico, La Quinta, CA July 22, 2008 CALL TO ORDER 7:05 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 Weber to lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Katie Barrows, Paul Quill, Mark Weber, Robert Wilkinson, and Chairman Ed Alderson. C. Staff present: Planning Manager David Sawyer, City Attorney Kathy Jenson, Principal Engineer Ed Wimmer, Associate Planner Jay Wuu, and Executive Secretary Carolyn Walker. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None III. PRESENTATION: Norio. IV. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: V. CONSENT CALENDAR: A, Chairman Ed Alderson asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of July 8, 2008. Commissioner Mark Weber had the following changes: Page 6, last paragraph, second sentence should read: He said identification of Jefferson Square, for direction purposes, was not more important than the tenants signs, and he wondered if the Square identification could be made smaller and then the tenant identifications made larger." There being no further changes, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Barrows/Wilkinson to approve the minutes as amended. Unanimously approved. PAReports - PC\2008\8-26-08\PC Minutes 7-22-08.doc Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 2008 VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Environmental Assessment 2008-593 Tentative Parcel Map 36067, Site Development Permit 2008-902 and Conditional Use Permit 2008-1 11; a request of Highway One Eleven Partners, LLC for consideration of plans to subdivide and construct Madison Square, an approximately 92,000 square foot commercial development including retail spaces, a health club, and a drive -through restaurant, located on the northeast corner of Highway 111 and Dune Palms Road. Chairman Alderson opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Associate Planner Jay Wuu presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is can file in the Planning Department. Chairman Alderson asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Wilkinson asked about the deletion of two parking spaces and asked where those were located. Staff higiNighted those spaces on the Power Point screen. Chairman Alderson asked if those were the grill spaces. Staff said yes. City Attorney Jenson said, regarding the grill spaces, if the Planning Commission was going to relieve the applicant of the requirement, the Commission might want to put some language in the conditions to accommodate this waiver. She said the Commission might not want to waive this requirement, in general, but specifically for this tenant. Commissioner Wilkinson asked if there would be changes to the building. Staff said they would defer to the applicant to respond. Commissioner Wilkinson asked about a walking path on the CVWD path on the Channel. He commented other projects have been conditioned to include the path or had funds set aside to accommodate them. He commented on the TRESS committee, and wondered if there was any condition to address that. Planning Manager Sawyer said there was not at present. PAReports - PC\2008\8-26-08\PC Minutes 7-22-08.doc 2 Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 2008 Chairman Alderson asked if any comment on that condition would be coming back. Planning Manager Sawyer said this condition was not discussed prior to the meeting but the condition could be added if the Commission desired. Commissioner Quill asked what the sidewalk width was on Highway 111. Associate Planner Wuu replied it met the City of La Quinta guidelines. Commissioner Quill commented the sidewalk was ten feet in other areas and asked if it was six feet in this one. Staff replied it was six feet. Commissioner Quill commented on the width of sidewalks along Dune Palms and other areas of Highway 111. He was concerned about pedestrian access, adequate sidewalk width, and proximity to the street. He said there was a lot of pedestrian access on that road and wanted to make sure there was adequate sidewalk for bikes and pedestrians. Staff replied the sidewalk would be the some width as the adjacent development to maintain consistency between the two. Chairman Alderson asked if this project would reflect the same sidewalk width as the project to the east and asked staff if they had any exhibits showing the width of the sidewalk. Planning Manager Sawyer said none of the drawings, presented at the meeting, showed the width of the adjacent sidewalk. He said it would be appropriate to condition this project to have a sidewalk width which is equal to the adjacent property for consistency. Commissioner Quill asked if that was a minimum of eight feet. Planning Manager Sawyer said eight feet was identified in the drawing presented to the Comrrtission. He did not know if the sidewalk on the adjacent property was ten feet. Commissioner Quill noted the plans indicated several turf areas which did not serve any useful recreational purpose. He wanted to know if staff had discussed this with the applicant. Associate Planner Wuu said they had and the amount of turf shown actually represented a reduction from the original plans. He suggested the Commissioners could discuss a further reduction with the applicant. Commissioner Barrows said the City was trying to provide pedestrian access both from Dune Palms and Highway 1 1 1. She said it looked like it was done on Highway 1 1 1 in a way that wasn't right along the road, but she was concerned there was pedestrian access cutting right in front PAReports - PC\2008\8-26-08\PC Minutes 7-22-08.doc 3 Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 2008 of the entry point for the'drive- through. She said there may not be a lot of other options available but wanted to know if that design made sense. She concurred with Commissioner Quill's question about the sidewalks. She said it would be better to have the sidewalk set back from the street in a design similar to that on Highway 1 1 1. Associate Planner Wuu responded on three points: 1). Building 6 - the pedestrian access wasn't there originally, it was an added condition; 2). northeast of Building 6 - a pedestrian access was added as a decoratively paved trail/path over the planter and across the drive -through into the north entrance for the restaurant providing pedestrian connectivity to the site; and, 3). the sidewalk on Dune Palms - the original plan showed a sidewalk that ran along the street and the applicant re -configured it to meander near Buildings 4 and 5 to add access into the site. There was a Public Works issue with not having a sidewalk along the curb for uses such as stalled vehicles. There would need to be sidewalk access so someone could access the vehicle. If there was a planter it would be more difficult to access a vehicle. That was the reason behind the inclusion of the meandering sidewalk along Dune Palms. Commissioner Barrows was concerned about the pedestrian access near Building 6 being in the front entrance of the drive -through; especially since this would be a location of high student pedestrian traffic. Associate Planner Wuu said they had focused on students there, and the Main Access Drive, bisecting the site, has a decorative sidewalk clearly marked for pedestrians. Students would not have to cross Highway 1 1 1, they could take that sidewalk. Commissioner Quill pointed out a small planter on the slope down towards the wash and mentioned it was bothersome because it is in an area where students walk to school. Associate Planner Wuu went over the plans; including the traffic layout and a future signalized intersection. Chairman Alderson asked which side of the road the high school students would normally be using. Commissioner Weber said they would use both roads as well as Adams Street. P:\Reports - PC\2008\8-26-08\PC Minutes 7-22-OS.doc 4 Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 2008 Associate Planner Wuu commented on the applicant's inclusion of bicycle racks to accommodate the high school students. Commissioner Quill asked about the stacking area for In-N-Out Burger and described stacking at other In-N-Out restaurants during rush times. He asked if the City had considered an adequate stacking plan which would avoid having cars consistently blocking parking spaces. Associate Planner Wuu said there were over 10 stacking spaces. Staff did not see a significant issue. Commissioner Quill asked if the development was over, or under- parked. Staff said it currently met the City's parking requirements. Planning Manager Sawyer replied to the stacking question stating the site had been designed to allow the overflow queue to extend back into the parking lot. This made it a little more visible from Highway 1 1 1, and if that was a concern the Commission oould address it by conditioning more landscaping to hide the stacking. Commissioner Weber said if there was an overflow of more than 10 cars, it could probably be accommodated with additional berming or an addition to change flow. Commissioner Weber said generally the student and walkability issues had been addressed. The parcel map did show a sidewalk to accommodate the student traffic. He had a concern about the elevation change in the northwest corner in relation to if, and when, a bridge was going to be built,. He asked if the elevation would change then. Chairman Alderson sold he was correct. The bridge, currently planned for construction, would make the grade change from 13% in one direction to 4% in another direction based on a flat bridge deck. A curvilinear deck would change that. He said the northerly access could be preserved even under the bridge condition, however if that was a concern a condition could be added. Chairman Alderson asked for confirmation that the grade differential would change from 13% in one direction to 4% in the other direction. Principal Engineer Wimmer said that was correct, per the Preliminary Study. Commissioner Weber said he was concerned about adequate bike access and cited the example of the McDonald's restaurant. P:\Reports - PC\2008\8-26-08\PC Minutes 7-22-08.doe 5 Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 2008 Chairman Alderson said the Commission had spent a lot of time in discussion of drive -through screening. He was concerned about screening on the corner as well as the entire parking lot. He referenced the undulations and berming shown in the architectural layout. He described the landscape palette and layout and wanted to know if the seven or eight large trees shown were adequate screening for that size acreage. Chairman Alderson said the Commission had two sets of revised conditions of approval and asked staff if there was anything the Planning Commission should be concerned about Planning Manager Sawyer explained the information contained in the memos submitted to the Planning Commission, copies of which are on file in the Planning Department. Chairman Alderson asked if staff would confirm the applicant was not required to participate financially in a future signal via bonds or an agreement. Principal Engineer Wimmer said that was correct. City Attorney Jenson clarified the information from the Public Works Department stating the reasons why the conditions were not written to require the developer to contribute to future signalization. She said the signalization issue was currently anticipated to be added to the DIF (Development impact Fee) 100% at the August 5th City Council Meeting, when Council would take up the revised DIF. Because the signalization would be 100% funded by the. DIF, Public Works staff did not think it was appropriate to add it as a condition. However, that is not yet approved. A condition could be added to the effect that if the DIF was not added then the applicant's responsibility would be 50%, but it was anticipated that it would be funded by the City-wide DIF. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Alderson asked if there were any applicant representatives or comments. Mr. Brad Sobel, Highway 111 Partners, 420 Beverly Drive, Beverly Hills CA 90210, was introduced. Mr. Sobel responded to staff's comments on the Highway 111 screening for Building 6. He said they did what they felt was a thorough job of screening by providing screening walls, berming, and landscaping to eliminate the visibility of autos from Highway 111 in that area. He then went over the cross-section screening shown on the screen. PAReports - PC\2008\8-26-08\PC Minutes 7-22-08.doc 6 Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 2008 Chairman Alderson asked about the panelized landscaping. Mr. Sobel said they were masonry walls. Mr. Sobel gave a brief explanation of the plans and said the architect for In-N-Out Burger, and a representative from LA fitness, were present. Mr. Steve Sherrill, Landscape Development, 1874 Tandem Way, Norco 92860 introduced himself and offered to answer any questions. Chairman Alderson said he had grave concerns about screening and asked about the shading of the nine Palo Breas in the center of the site. Mr. Sherrill said they were a low branching screening tree. Chairman Alderson asked if they were deciduous. Mr. Sherrill replied they were. Chairman Alderson asked about the height of the Blue Palo Verde trees to be installed in 24-inch boxes. Mr. Sherrill said, on average, they were about 10 feet high at the top of the canopy when planted. Chairman Alderson commented that the desert willow was also a lower branching tree with negligible screening value. Mr. Sherrill replied it was a wispy tree. The Bruce Lancia had been chosen for use in the parking lot as it was a denser variety. Chairman Alderson discussed several other tree varieties and their shading properties. Mr. Sherrill responded relocation and re -specification of the trees was not a problem. He added, the applicant had actually focused their efforts on screening and berming of the drive- through area. The berming issues could be achieved through modifications within the space available. Commissioner Quill said he could not read the grading plan as it was too small. He requested the applicant describe the grade at several locations as he would be unable to make a decision without clarification of these numbers. He added the Commission had been consistent on stating turf would not be approved if it did not serve a legitimate purpose. He suggested the applicant replace the turf with a desert -tolerant ground cover. He also had concerns about the sidewalk. He could not tell what the width of the sidewalk was but said it needed to be at least eight feet along the entire length. He said he would defer to Commissioner Barrows' suggestions for plant choices. P:\Reports - PC\2008\8-26-08\PC Minutes 7-22-08.doc 7 Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 2008 Mr. Sherrill said the purpose of the turf was to stay consistent with neighboring property but the applicant could go back and remove the turf. Commissioner Quill said his biggest issue was the berming and keeping cars, headlights, and car hoods invisible from Highway 111. Commissioner Barrows endorsed the comments made by Commissioner Quill. She didn't have an alternative suggestion for the desert landscape, but said she understood the berming was supposed to be three feet high. She suggested if the turf was eliminated, there would be the potential for a higher berm. She said additional trees were needed, possibly Palo Verdes. She agreed with the ALRC, in terms of landscaping, the African Sumac was compact but was not sure that would work out. She said Mesquite does best, but suggested the applicant look for a tree which provided more shade. She also echoed Commissioner Quill's comments regarding the turf. Commissioner Quill asked if the buildings would be brought back to the Commission at a later date. Planning Manager Sawyer said the approval of the buildings would be made at this meeting. Chairman Alderson said these buildings were superior to those on the adjacent property and were very well designed. He said the layout was very good for the LA Fitness building. Mr. Mike Sutton, RBF Consulting, 74-130 Country Club, Palm Desert, explained the property grading. He explained the differentiation in heights across the devetopment versus the Highway 111 grade and the possibilities of changing the height of the berm. Commissioner Quill said to simplify the issue on the berming we could just require it be approximately a three foot berm in elevation, above the top of curb elevation on the parking lot side in a meandering, sloping form, but said that couldn't really occur where the paths came through. Chairman Alderson said he was going to recommend that the landscaping be brought back. He asked if the Commission could do that as a separate issue. City Attorney Jenson said yes. Commissioner Barrows had a question about a Tentative Parcel Map condition dealing with the sidewalk on Dune Palms. She said the condition required an eight foot meandering sidewalk which it does in part, but not the whole way. She asked if the applicant could address P:\Reports - PC\2008\8-26-08\PC Minutes 7-22-08.doc 8 Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 2008 having the sidewalk off the street; possibly by making it wider on Dune Palms to better serve the high school students. Mr. Sherrill commented on the areas where the sidewalk meandered. He explained there was not enough room to meander the sidewalk into the landscaped area. He said there was also a requirement to have a sufficient berm between the street and the parking lot. For those reasons it remained curb -adjacent and had some curvilinear nature between Buildings 4 and 5 and the street. Commissioner Barrows asked if that eliminated the possibility of putting the sidewalk on the other side of the berm. Mr. Sherrill replied that was correct but then it would be adjacent to the parking lot. He said that was a possibility. There was a brief discussion about clarification of which area was being discussed. Mr. Sherrill pointed out the Correct area. Chairman Alderson asked it the applicant was discussing the possibility of bringing in the sidewalk into the inward area. Mr. Sherrill said that would be the other alternative; tst route the sidewalk to be immediately adjacent to the end of the parking stalls and have the berming between the walk and the curb. He was unsure if that affected the Public Works condition concerning the stalled cars issue. That was not a part of the applicant's design issue. It was strictly the berming. Chairman Alderson asked about Building 1 along the west face, and asked if the sidewalk could be brought inward there, then the same condition could apply in both locations. Commissioner Quill asked if the slope was getting to be an issue there? Mr. Sutton said the slope was beginning to be an issue there and went over the landscape plan, discussion of the sidewalks, the layout, and the reason for the layout. He ending by saying the primary way they want to direct traffic, until a bridge was completed, was on the west side of the street. Chairman Alderson replied the traffic could not be put over there. Mr. Sutton explained the sidewalk, on the north side of the wash, was along the high school. P:\Reports - PC\2008\8-26-08\PC Minutes 7-22-08.doc 9 Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 2008 Commissioner Quill said he was right about that and there was no sidewalk on the east side. Commissioner Weber said that was right and that area was going to have to have some improvements. He said he was glad the Commission was addressing the issue specifically concerning the areas by the high school, over on Adams Street, and through the wash. It was critical these issues be addressed. Having the sidewalk adjacent to the street was not a very good plan and needed to be mitigated. Commissioner Quill said if the sidewalk could not be relocated then it had to be made wider. Chairman Alderson asked why the eight foot sidewalk couldn't be brought in and the street side be landscaped. Mr. Sutton replied currently the sidewalk was six feet wide. He said an eight foot width might be possible. He said to move the sidewalk non -curb adjacent could be difficult because of some of the slope issues, especially on the north side. Chairman Alderson asked .if this was due to grade issues. Mr. Sutton said yes, as well as ultimately with the bridge condition. Chairman Alderson asked if the Commissioners felt there were enough issues brought up to bring the landscaping portion of the project back, at a later date, and go forward with the rest of the project. Commissioner Wilkinson commented on the landscaping saying an adjacent city had installed artificial turf in some of their medians. He said this could be a future solution for the look of turf while eliminating the extensive upkeep and water usage requirements. He commented he could not tell the difference in the appearance of the artificial turf unless it was pointed out. Chairman Alderson said maintenance of turf was expensive in proportion to the square footage. He said he was in support of Commissioner Quill's comments and said maybe sod could be a viable alternative. Mr. Sobel said he wished to speak to the sod issue. He said they were not a proponent of "we must have sod there". It was just a design idea. They would be happy to remove the sod and continue with the desertscape. He added they were happy to take the conditions asked for, regarding increasing the width of the sidewalk on the north end and in PAReports - PC\2008\8-26-08\PC Minutes 7-22-08.doc 10 Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 2008 the middle section, and also further south in front of Buildings 4 and 5 to accommodate a wider width if it could not be accomplished due to grade issues. They were happy to make the sidewalk wider to accommodate the Commission's request. Commissioner Barrows said, in response to Chairman Alderson's question about the separation of the landscaping from the balance of the project, there were some conditions which applied to the project and some to the landscaping. She clarified the Chairman was suggesting they go on with the project and review the landscaping portion at a later date. Chairman Alderson replied either separate the issues or include conditions to address the landscaping concerns on the project and then go forward. Commissioner Barrows asked the applicant if they had additiona6 comments on the project before the Commission proceeded further. Mr. Sobel said they had no further specific comments other than to address the Commission's concerns and questions. There being no further applicant comments Chairman Alderson asked if there was any public comment. Mr. Dr. I W. Allen, 80-416 Pebble Beach, La Quinta, said he wished to speak in support of the proposed development. He and his wife had been long time friends of the principals in the corporation and knew, from their past endeavors, they had always done a first class job. They were very responsible and interested in the area. He added, in conversations with friends and residents of PGA West, the development of this particular parcel was of great interest to that group to get rid of the last empty space in a way that was very attractive. He said the idea of the In-N-Out Burger, as well as the LA fitness was very attractive to the locals. He said he was looking forward to the Commission's approval and the project's ultimate completion. Mr. Sobel said he wanted to be sure everyone understood the access to the middle drive. He said the documents the Commission had showed full term movements were permitted with a stop sign for a traffic signal at the section discussed previously . He suggested there was an earlier misunderstanding regarding the turn movements. He asked for clarification from staff. PAReports - PC\2008\8-26-08\PC Minutes 7-22-OS.doc 11 Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 2008 Principal Engineer Wimmer pointed out Condition 22 a, & b in the Tentative Parcel Map Conditions: the Dune Palms Road southerly access drive was a right in right out, and no left turns in or out were permitted, the middle access drive, which was the one across from Corporate Center Drive, scheduled for future signalization, allows full turn movements (stop controlled on the driveways at project opening). Later on, if a signal was warranted, it would be full turn movements with a traffic signal. He added that Mr. Sobel was correct in stating that it was full turn movement on that access. And on the northerly access the drive was a right -in, right -out with prohibitions of the left turn in and out. Commissioner Quill said there was a deceleration lane coming into number 3 and asked if that same width carried across to number 2 so that it stayed a deceleration lane as you come into number 2 as well. Mr. Sobel said no it did not. The deceleration lane at the drive entrance for number 3 was put in after discussion with City staff. That entrance was actually below the trip count for a required deceleration lane, but the applicant offered to put that in at that intersection; however traffic to number 2 did not continue as a deceleration lane. There being no further questions, or public comment, Chairman Alderson closed the public participation portion of the meeting and opened the matter for Commission discussion. Commissioner Weber said he was curious why the middle driveway was chosen for signalization. The orientation was similar to Adams Street, close to the entrance into the Henry's market and the Post Office. Associate Planner Wuu said there were two issues dealing with the signalization of the middle driveway: 1). the southern driveway did not meet General Plan requirements, as the southern access would be too close to Highway 1 1 1, another signalized intersection; and 2). the intent was Corporate Center one day would go all the way through and the light on Adams would be synchronized with this one. Commissioner Weber had additional comments on the sidewalk issue. His reference point being Adams street which had some berming between the curb and gutter and the sidewalk adjacent to the Jiffy Lube and where they had berming. He did not like the sidewalk adjacent to the street on Dune Palms. He suggested with all the traffic anticipated at In- N-Out if there could be some kind of retaining wall and relocation of the sidewalk. He said there should at least be some kind of separation PAReports - PC\2008\8-26-08\PC Minutes 7-22-08.doc 12 Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 2008 through curb and gutter. He deferred to the rest of the Commission. He strongly felt it needed to be addressed. He brought up the access to the wash area and to a future trail, and said he hoped the applicant would include a trail on the multi -use trail in his planning process. He commented on the bike lane and his hope the City continued to be friendly to bike usage. Commissioner Barrows said after looking at the conditions she would support a condition to remove the turf. She had concerns on the landscaping issues, such as screening, additional planting, more trees and a condition which specifically addressed the berms, and was in favor of bringing the landscaping back as a separate issue Commissioner Barrows said she deferred to Commission Quill's suggestion on how the berms should be addressed. She was interested in the trails issues and how they needed to be dealt with, as well as an alternative parking lot tree as recommended by the ALRC that provided more shade. She concurred with Commissioner Weber; she would not be comfortable with the sidewalk design as presented on Dune Palms. Commissioner Quill said he wanted to replace the Bruce Lancia as the main shade tree in the parking lot with an alternative which would not be chosen at the meeting but could be deferred to the Planning Director's approval. Commission Barrows said there was already a condition that addressed that concern. Commissioner Quill said he'd like to propose that the sidewalk on Highway 111 be ten feet wide. He was concerned with children walking to school and the safety issue of a curb -adjacent sidewalk. He suggested a retaining wall could be used because of the difference in elevation between the parking lot and Dune Palms on the right side, which would prevent the students from molesting the plants behind that retaining wall and deter the vandalism of landscaping along Dune Palms. He was amenable to quality fake turf. He agreed with the trail condition and wanted to add a condition to make sure the future access between those two buildings for the multi -use trail would be provided since the whole purpose of building the multi -use trail, along the wash, was to access the commercial sites. P:\Reports - PC\2008\8-26-08\PC Minutes 7-22-OB.doc 13 Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 2008 Commissioner Quill also requested there be a minimum three foot meandering berm, measured from the southerly top of curb of the parking lot between Highway 1 1 1 and the parking lot. Commissioner Weber asked if that three foot berm would be the whole length of the parking lot. Commissioner Quill replied basically the whole length except at the ends where the sidewalk came through where they would have to maintain handicap access. Chairman Alderson asked if Commissioner Quill was asking that it be more constant instead of the undulations shown on the plans. Commissioner Quill said yes; not engineered, but a landscaped -quality berm. Commissioner Wilkinson asked fortrlarification on the trails condition. He asked if there was some language already included. Planning Manager Sawyer said the Commission could add to the language read earlier to clarify that said improvements include access to the site between Buildings 2 and 3. He read the entire condition which said: "If the Planning Director determines; that improvements along the Channel Bike Trail are required the developer will be required to install such improvements or bond for the improvements prior to the approval of the final map. Said improvements shall include access to the site between Buildings 2 and 3." Commissioner Wilkinson was in favor of that condition. Chairman Alderson had a lot of criticism of the landscape plans, but wanted to make sure the ALRC knew there was no disrespect towards them. This was constructive criticism. He mentioned several problems with the landscaping plans; such as issues with berms in the permanent grade, the variety of trees, additional trees needed on the Highway 1 1 1 side, shade tree replacements, readable drawings, sidewalks that were either 8 or 10 feet and with undulation, and a revised plan eliminated the turf. He added since there was a reference to the multi -use trail plan and the bike path, if he were the applicant, he would want to know what was being requested and how much money was involved. The applicant might have to bond or enter an agreement and he hasn't any idea of how much money was involved. PAReports - PC\2008\8-26-08\PC Minutes 7-22-08.doc 14 Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 2008 Commissioner Quill commented the building of the multi -use trail was being diligently pursued by the Community Services Department while the Planning and Public Works Departments might not be looking at its inclusion in the appropriate plans. He was concerned that some projects had been conditioned to build the trail, others had not. Chairman Alderson said meeting discussion was alluding to the fact that the applicant might have to post a bond for it, He asked Commissioner Quill if they were discussing a bike path along the berm of the channel. Commissioner Quill said yes. Chairman Alderson asked if the developer had to post a bond or enter an agreement to do that, City Attorney Jenson said the developer would have other improvements he would have to do as well that he will have to bond for, this could just be listed as one of them. That would all done by the applicant's engineer, who would come up with an estimate. Commissioner Quill asked If a future business item could be scheduled to discuss how the bike path would be funded and to address the issue of developer bonding/funding requirements. Planning Manager Sawyer repljed they would bring back an update at the next meeting which would include the status of the trail, how it fit in with the General Plan and Parks Trail, and which projects were subject to it at the next meeting. Chairman Alderson said he was leaning towards suggesting the processing of the project and setting the landscaping aside to deal with it as a separate entity. Since the Commission was dark on August 121", he was concerned the delay would encumber the applicant's progress. Commissioner Quill said, in the past, the Commission had approved projects, with the landscape plans being brought back separately for later approval. City Attorney Jenson said the Commission could condition the final landscaping plans be subject to Planning Commission approval. Commissioner Weber asked if that would cause the applicant any hardship. PAReports - PC\2008\8-26-08\PC Minutes 7-22-08.doc 15 Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 2008 Commissioner Quill said the applicant had to prepare the plans anyway. The hardship could be a potential of a couple of weeks of waiting to be placed on the agenda. City Attorney Jenson said the Commission would need to give the applicant some direction as to what they would need to include in the final landscaping plans. Chairman Alderson asked the applicant if this condition was imposed, did they have enough information to complete the task. Mr. Sobel said yes. They had enough notes to come beck with something more acceptable to the Commission. He did discuss the requested bike lane and what the current design plans were for the back of the buildings. He described the easement with CVWD and parking spaces behind the building areas. He suggested they could possibly include some sort of striping plan in the rear of the project to provide use for the bicyclists. He was not sure how wide it would have to be, but used the example of a ten foot bike path on the northernmost edge of the project. Commissioner Weber said what he was envisioning was some special pavement, between Buildings 2 and 3, that would connect the applicant's property to the CVWD property where the trail would be located. It was not his objective to take away any of the property of the applicant but to provide an access point that would come straight through that area. Mr. Sobel said the Commission should be aware there was an architectural element running between Buildings 2 and 3. He went up to the exhibits and pointed out the feature (an arch) which had been included for possible tenant use as outside seating. There would be the opportunity for an outside restaurant area, or coffee service area, to allow the space to be utilized and not wasted. He was sure they could accommodate access to the trail as well as the potential tenants' use of that area. Commissioner Quill asked Mr. Sutton about the relationship between the pavement and the top of the levee. Mr. Sutton replied the top of slope lining to his property line was 15 feet or so. The easement Commissioner Quill was referring to was actually for a sewer line located at the back of the property. PAReports - PC\2008\8-26-08\PC Minutes 7-22-08.doc 16 Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 2008 Commissioner Quill said that was the 15 feet that would potentially be used to build the multi -use trail. He also commented on landscaping along the berm to screen buildings from the residences across the wash. Mr. Sutton asked if he was suggesting the plantings be placed in the CVWD easement. Commissioner Quill replied yes. Chairman Alderson quoted Councilman Sniff as having said every time he sees a Prest Vuksic building, before him, he has little concern whatsoever as to its quality because they are top-drawer architects. Chairman Alderson echoed those sentiments, but he did have concern with the use of the land. There are only two pieces of commercial ground left in La Quinta on Highway 1 1 1 and he said it was imperative the Commission really did their best to screen it for architecture and land use. He did not believe the best usage was a fast food restaurant. Having said that, he added this particular building overrode that because of its nice design. He was still concerned with the screening but reiterated he did not like the fact there was another fast food restaurant on one of the two very precious remaining commercial sites and asked to go on record as having said that. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Barrows/Wilkinson to approve Resolution 2008-019 recommending approval of Environmental Assessment 2008-593, as recommended. Unanimously approved. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Barrows/Weber to approve Resolution 2008-020 recommending approval of Tentative Parcel Map 36067, with conditions as amended below; 1. Amend Condition 11 to read as follows: Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and left turn lanes, curb cut and curb ramps, a Class III Bike Route and other features contained in the approved construction plans. Additionally, the applicant shall dedicate additional right of way for the construction and maintenance of the potential future traffic signal on the east side of Dune Palms Road at the intersection of Corporate Center Drive/Middle Access Drive. P:\Reports - PC\2008\8-26-08\PC Minutes 7-22-08.doc 17 Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 2008 Pursuant to this requirement the applicant shall include in the submittal packet containing the draft final map submitted for map checking, an offsite street geometric layout, drawn at 1 " equals 40 feet, detailing the following design aspects: median curb line, outside curb line, lane line alignment including lane widths, left turn lanes, and deceleration lane(s). The geometric layout shall be accompanied by professional engineering studies to confirm the appropriate length of all proposed turn pockets and auxiliary lanes that may impact the right of way dedication required of the project and the associated landscape setback required. 2. Amend Condition 19.A.1)b) to read as follows: 10-foot wide meandering sidewalk. The meandering sidewalk shall have an arrhythmic horizontal layout that utilizes concave and convex curves with respect to the curb line that either touches the back of curb or approaches within five feet of the curb at intervals not to exceed 250 feet. The sidewalk curvature radii should vary between 50 and 300 feet and at each point of reverse curvature, the radius should change to assist in creating the arrhythmic layout. The sidewalk shall meander into the landscape setback lot and approach within S. feet of the perimeter wall at intervals not to exceed 260 feet. The applicant shall also install City of La Quinta standard light bollards spaced at 40 feet on center and alternating from back to front of the sidewalk as approved by the Planning Director. 3. Add paragraph 2 to Condition 19.A.2)a), which shall read as follows: The sidewalk on the west side of the project (Dune Palms Road) if located adjacent to the roadway shall be expanded to a ten foot width, if feasible. As an alternative, if the sidewalk could be feasibly located further east of the roadway, the sidewalk may be eight feet in width. The sidewalk, located on the south side of the project (Highway 1 1 1) shall be expanded to ten feet in width. 4. Replace Condition 19.A.21e) with the following: Interconnection between the existing traffic signal at the Highway 1 1 1 and Dune Palms Road intersection and the future traffic signal at the Corporate Center Drive/Middle Access Drive intersection. The design and installation shall include at a minimum, conduit, P:\Reports - PC\2008\8-26-08\PC Minutes 7-22-08.doc 18 Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 2008 and pull boxes to provide a workable system as approved by the City Engineer. 5. Add the following paragraphs to Condition 70, as follows: The curbside turf, located on the northwest driveway shall be completed removed and replaced with artificial turf or equivalent water -efficient landscaping. Additional shade trees shall be added to the landscaping palette; and shall include the Palo Verde and Mesquite varieties. Screening shall be provided on the north (Whitewater Channel) side of the project to partially screen the buildings from the adjacent residential properties. Varieties such as oleanders may be used as screening material. 6. Insert the following as Condition 71 and adjust subsequent numbers: The berms as identified and located within the landscape area adjacent to Highway 111 shall be a minimum of 3 feet in height as measured from the top of curb on the parking lot side of the project. 7. Amend Condition 72 (re -numbered as 73) to read as follows: "The applicant shall submit the landscape plans for approval by the Planning Department and green sheet sign off by the Public Works Department. When plan checking has been completed by the Planning Department, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner, prior to submittal for signature by the Planning Director, however landscape plans for landscaped median on public streets shall be approved by both the Planning Director and the City Engineer. Where City Engineer approval is not required, the applicant shall submit for a green sheet approval by the Public Works Department. Final landscape plans for on -site planting shall be reviewed by the ALRC and approved by the Planning Commission. Said review and approval shall occur prior to issuance of first building permit unless the Planning Director determines extenuating circumstances exist P:\Reports - PC\2008\8-26-08\PC Minutes 7-22-08.doe 19 Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 2008 which justify an alternative processing schedule. Final plans shall include all landscaping associated with this project and shall clearly identify all pedestrian walkways including the central sidewalk area. NQTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by both the Planning Director and/or the City Engineer." 8. Add the following Condition as number 78 as follows: The applicant shall make provisions for the continuous and perpetual maintenance of all private on -site improvements and perimeter landscaping including but not limited to Lot A, access drives and sidewalks. The applicant shall submit the agreements for maintenance to the Funning Director and City Attorney for review and approval. Approval of the agreements must be obtained prior to final approval of the tentative parcel map. 9. Add Condition 81 which shall read as follows: "If it is determined that improvements to facilitate a multi -purpose trail along the Whitewater Channel are appropriate, the developer shall install or bond for such improvements prior to the approval of the final map. Said improvements shall include access from the trail facility to the interior of the site between Buildings 2 and 3. Said determination Shall be made by the Planning Director and be based on. existing General Plan policies with consideration of conditions of approval required of comparable approved projects as well as circumstances unique to this specific proposed development and site." 10. Add Condition 82 which shall read as follows: "Should the Corporate Way central access signal not be included in the DIF calculations, as of August 2008, the developer shall be responsible for 50% of the cost of signalization." Unanimously approved. PAReports - PC\2008\8-26-08\PC Minutes 7-22-08.doc 20 Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 2008 There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Barrows /Wilkinson to approve Resolution 2008-021 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2008-902, with conditions as amended below: 1. Amend Condition 11, first paragraph to read as follows: Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and left turn lanes, curb cut and curb ramps, a Class III Bike route and other features contained in the approved construction plans. Additionally, the applicant shall dedicate additional right of way for the construction and maintenance of the potential future traffic signal on the east side of Dune Palms Road at the intersection of Corporate Center Drive/Middle Access Drive. 2. Amend Condition 19.A.1)b) to read as follows: 10-foot wide meandering sidewalk. The meandering sidewalk shall have an arrhythmic horizontal layout that utilizes concave and convex curves with respect to the curbline that either touches the back of curb or approaches within five feet of the curb at intervals not to exceed 250 feet. The sidewalk curvature radii should vary between 50 and 300 feet and at each point of reverse curvature, the radius should change to assist in creating the arrhythmic layout. The sidewalk shall meander into the landscape setback lot and approach within 5 feet of the perimeter wall at intervals not to exceed 250 feet. The applicant shall also install City of La Quinta standard light bollards spaced at 40 feet on center and alternating from back to front of the sidewalk as approved by the Planning Director. 3. Add a second paragraph to Condition 19.A.2)a), which shall read as follows: The sidewalk on the west side of the project (Dune Palms Road) if located adjacent to the roadway shall be expanded to a ten foot width, if feasible. As an alternative, if the sidewalk could be feasibly located further east of the roadway, the sidewalk may be eight feet in width. The sidewalk, located on the south side of the project (Highway 11 1) shall be expanded to ten feet in width. PAReports - PC\2008\8-26-08\PC Minutes 7-22-08.doc 21 Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 2008 4. Amend Condition 71 to read as follows: The applicant shall make provisions for the continuous and perpetual maintenance of all private on -site improvements and perimeter landscaping including but not limited to Lot A, access drives and sidewalks. The applicant shall submit the agreements for maintenance to the Planning Director and City Attorney for review and approval. Approval of the agreements must be obtained prior to final approval of the tentative parcel map. 5. Insert this Condition as number 74 to read as follows: If it is determined that improvements to facilitate a multi -purpose trail along the Whitewater Channel are appropriate, the developer shall install or bond for such improvements prior to the approval of the final map. Said improvements shall include access from the trail facility to the interior to the s4te between Buildings 2 and 3. 6. Insert this Condition as number 75 to read as follows: Said determination shall be made by the Planning Director and be based on existing General Plan policies with consideration of conditions of approval required of comparable approved projects as well as circumstances unique to this specific proposed development and site. 7. Insert the following as Condition 76 and adjust subsequent numbers: Should the Corporate Center Drive central access signal not be included in the DIF calculations, as of August 2008, the developer shall be responsible for 50% of the cost of signalization. 8. Amend Condition 77 (re -numbered as 80) to read as follows: The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins, common lots and park areas. The curbside turf, located on the northwest driveway shall be completely removed and replaced with artificial turf or equivalent water -efficient landscaping. PAReports - PC\2008\8-26-08\PC Minutes 7-22-08.doe 22 Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 2008 Additional shade trees shall be added to the landscaping palette; and shall include the Palo Verde and Mesquite varieties. Screening shall be provided on the north (Whitewater Channel) side of the project to partially screen the buildings from the adjacent residential properties. Varieties such as oleanders may be used as screening material. 9. Amend Condition 79 (re -numbered as 83), second paragraph, to read as follows: Final landscaping plans for on -site planting shall be reviewed by the ALRC and approved by the Planning Commission. Said review and approval shall occur prior to issuance of first building permit unless the Planning Director determines extenuating circumstances exist which justify an alternative processing schedule. Final plans shall include all landscaping associated with this project and shall clearly identify all pedestrian walkways including the central sidewalk area. 10. Add Condition 97, which shall react as follows: The waiver of the requirement of grill spaces shall only be allowable for the proposed singular tenant, In-N-Out Burger. Any changes in tenant occupation will cause the condition to revert back to the requirement of two (2) grill spaces. Unanimously approved. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Barrows/Quill to approve Resolution 2008-022 recommending approval of Conditional Use Permit 2008-111, as recommended. Unanimously approved. VII. BUSINESS ITEMS: None VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Chairman Ed Alderson said he would give a brief overview of the City Council meeting of July 15, 2008 at the next meeting. P:\Reports - PC\2008\8-26-08\PC Minutes 7-22-08.doc 23 Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 2008 B. Planning Manager David Sawyer invited the Commissioners to a Housing Community Forum to be held on July 24, 2008, from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. at the La Quinta Library. C. The Schedule of Commissioner Attendance at City Council Meetings was discussed. D. Commissioner Attendance Update. Planning Manager David Sawyer asked if the Commissioners would like to receive this update at each meeting or on a quarterly basis. The Commission unanimously agreed to receive it on a quarterly basis. E. Discussion of the LEEDs Tour (Vista Dunes! scheduled for July 24 and 25, 2008. Schedule distributed to Commissioners. 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 August 26, 2O08. (Planning Commission is dark for the August 12" meeting). This regular meeting was adjourned at 8:59 p.m. on July 22, 2008. Respectfully submitted, Carolyn Walker, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California PAReports - PC\2008\8-26-08\PC Minutes 7-22-08.doc 24 PH # A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: AUGUST 26, 2008 CASE NO.: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2008-113 APPLICANT: GARY STEVEN PROPERTY OWNER: NEIL WAYNE KLEINE REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE OPERATION OF AN ICE SKATING RINK WITHIN AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL SPACE IN THE REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (CR) DISTRICT LOCATION: 79-430 HIGHWAY 111; NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 111, APPROXIMATELY 150 FEET WEST OF DUNE PALMS ROAD WITHIN LA QUINTA VALLEY PLAZA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15301 (LEASING OF EXISTING PRIVATE FACILITIES) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RC (REGIONAL COMMERCIAL) ZONING: CR (REGIONAL COMMERCIAL) SURROUNDING LAND USES: NORTH: CORPORATE CENTER DRIVE AND LA QUINTA CORPORATE CENTER (OFFICE CENTER) SOUTH: LA QUINTA VALLEY PLAZA (RETAIL CENTER); HIGHWAY 111 EAST: LA QUINTA VALLEY PLAZA (RETAIL CENTER); DUNE PALMS ROAD WEST: VACANT, UNENTITLED COMMERCIAL LAND CUP 2008-113 PC Staff Report.doc I BACKGROUND: La Quinta Valley Plaza was approved in April 2003 as a six -building commercial center. The applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow an ice skating rink within the existing center (Attachment 1) in Building 5, which is entirely vacant. The applicant previously operated an ice skating rink in the City of Cathedral City, which was located in a former furniture store and not large enough to meet their needs. Building 5 will be large enough for an ice rink that is two-thirds the size of a regulation rink. REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit Requirement The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow an ice skating rink in the Regional Commercial (CR) District. Code Section 9.80.040 Table 9-5 Permitted Uses in Nonresidential Districts, does not specifically list a skating rink as a permitted use, but Code Section 9.20.040 does grant the Planning Director the authority to determine if unlisted uses shall be permitted in a specific zoning district. Based on the existing uses listed in Table 9-5, it was determined that a skating rink could be allowed subject to approval of a conditional use permit. This was based on three of the listed recreational uses, miniature golf/recreation center, tennis club or complexes, and health clubs, martial arts studios and dance studios with over 5,000 square feet floor area, being similar in nature and intensity to a skating rink. Ice Skating Rink The ice skating rink will be two-thirds the size of a regulation ice rink. The glass windows on the building will be protected by a three-part protection system made up of a 42-inch arena dasher (board), a 48-inch Lexan glass board for visibility and protection, and netting material that runs from the Lexan glass up to the ceiling. Ice maintenance will be via a battery -operated zamboni, which will scrape off the top layer of ice and at the same time lay fresh water to resurface new ice. All ice shavings gathered will be dumped into a special plastic box -lined container with a heating system and pump that will melt the ice and drain into the sewer. There will not be any hazardous materials, other than standard cleaning supplies used on the site. The main entrance/exit to the building will be the door located near the southwest corner of the building and a secondary exit will be located closer to the east end of the building. A general seating/viewing area will be located on the west end of the building, south of the restrooms, and spectator seating will be located along the sides of the ice rink. An ice skate rental area will be adjacent to the restrooms. The only exterior change will be to the trash enclosure located on the east building 2 CUP 2008-113 PC Staff Repon.doc elevation, which will be modified to add approximately 150 square feet to make room for a chiller within a landscape area. The ice skating rink will be open for public skating, private skating, and hockey. Hours of operation for the skating rink will vary from day to day, but in no case will it be open for use earlier than 6:30 a.m. or later than 11:30 p.m. On the majority of days, the facility will close at 10:30 p.m. with the exception of Wednesdays and special events running to 1 1:30 p.m. ANALYSIS: Before granting approval of the subject Conditional Use Permit, the City must first analyze if there will be significant, potential or adverse impacts on the surrounding businesses. The primary item to address in this case is the number of parking spaces required for the proposed use. Per the City's parking requirements (LQMC 9.150.060) as a general retail shopping center, La Quinta Valley Plaza is required to provide one parking stall for every 250 square feet of gross floor area (GFA). At approximately 63,590 square feet of GFA, the parking requirement for the center, as a whole, is 254 parking stalls; the center has 258 total parking stalls. Therefore, as the center currently exists, there is a surplus of four parking stalls. Although the Zoning Code does not specifically list an ice-skating rink as an allowable use, it does list parking requirements for such a use. Section 9.150.060 Spaces Required by Use, requires skating rinks provide one space per 100 square feet of GFA. With a GFA of 15,400 square feet, the proposed skating rink generates the need for 154 parking spaces. Upon review of this requirement, this standard appeared overly restrictive and consequently, staff reviewed other sources for comparative requirements. This research included referencing two industry standard publications; the Institute of Transportation Engineers' "Parking Generation" manual, 3rd Edition and the American Planning Association's Planning Advisory Service Report #510/511 "Parking Standards". The APA report listed several examples of cities utilizing a 1 space per 200 square feet ratio for ice rinks and the ITE manual listed one example at 3.9 spaces per 1,000 square feet (1/250). These references are attached as Attachment 4. Based on these examples, the following analysis utilizes the standard of 1 parking space per 200 square feet of GFA as the requirement for an ice rink. Utilizing the 1 /200 standard for the 15,400 square feet of ice rink use and comparing the resulting 77 required spaces with the original 62 spaces required for the same amount of general retail square footage, the ice rink use generates a need for an additional 15 parking spaces. After subtracting the existing four surplus spaces, the proposed use results in a shortage of 11 spaces or 4% of the total required. CUP 2008-113 PC Staff Report.doc 3 Per LQMC Section 9.150,050 Determination of Spaces Required, the City may use alternative methods to determine the amount of spaces required in unusual circumstances. To arrive at such a determination, consideration may be given to several factors, including the proposed hours of operation and expected number of occupants, customers, or visitors for the proposed use as well as other nearby uses. To address this, the operation of both the skating rink and the shopping center, as a whole, needs to be reviewed. The operation schedule (Attachment 3) for the ice rink has the majority of the high attendance events, such as hockey games and open -skate events, scheduled for early evening to late at night. On most nights, hockey games start at 5:00 p.m. or later for children and at 8:00 p.m. or later for adults. Over the life of the center, the mix of business uses within the center has become one of fewer pure retail uses with standard 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. hours to one with more retail uses with non-standard operating hours as well as more non -retail uses with limited evening hours of operation. As this pattern has been influenced by the location and design layout of the center, which is unlikely to change without major redesign and subsequent reconstruction, it is anticipated that this trend is likely to continue with uses, such as general office and health service uses with typical daytime operating hours, leasing more space in the center. Considering that: 1) the mix of businesses within the center has and continues to change from one with a majority of retail uses with standard 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. hours to a balanced mix with more uses with limited evening and weekend hours of operation; 2) due to the current design and location of the center, this trend in business mix and hours of operation is likely to continue; 3) the primary hours of operation for the proposed use are in the evening and on weekends, and 4) the type of uses that do operate in the evening and on weekends would likely benefit from the addition of a destination type use within the center, a finding that despite the shortage of 11 spaces (4% of the total required), sufficient parking to accommodate the needs of the proposed use and the other uses within the center as proposed and conditioned can be made. Public Notice This project was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on August 16, 2008, mailed to all property owners within 500-feet of the site, and posted on City Public Hearing information boards. At the time of the filing of this report, staff had not received any letters or phone calls from the public regarding the proposal. 4 CUP 2008-113 PC Staff Report.doc Public Agency Review Staff did not identify any public agencies that the applicant's request might affect. The use determination and conditions to be applied are at the sole discretion of the City of La Quinta. FINDINGS: Findings to approve this request per Section 9.210.020.F of the City of La Quinta Zoning Code can be made and are contained along with related analysis in the attached Resolution. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2008- , approving Conditional Use Permit 2008-1 13, subject to the attached Findings and Conditions of Approval. by: l '� Assistant Planner Attachments: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Application Exhibits 3. Copy of Hours of Operation 4. Parking Standard References CUP 2008-113 PC Staff Report.doc 5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2008- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE OPERATION OF AN ICE-SKATING RINK IN AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL SPACE AT 79-430 HIGHWAY 111 CASE NO.: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2008-113 APPLICANT: GARY STEVEN WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 26" day of August, 2008, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request by Gary Steven for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of an ice skating rink within a t 15,400 square -foot commercial space located within the La Quinta Valley Plaza at 79-430 Highway 1 1 1, near the northwest corner of Dune Palms Road and Highway 111 and more particularly described as, APN: 649-820-005 WHEREAS, said Site Development 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 Community Development Department has determined that the proposed Conditional Use Permit is exempt from CEQA review under Guidelines Section 15301 (Leasing of Existing Private Facilities); 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 make the following mandatory findings to justify approval of said Conditional Use Permit: 1. The proposed use is consistent with the land use designation of Regional Commercial. The City's General Plan Policies relating to Regional Commercial encourage a wide range of commercial opportunities and support services. 2. The proposed use is consistent with the provisions of the La Quinta Zoning Code Section 9.80.040 Table 9-5 and the Director's determination. Use of the space as an ice skating rink will have similar characteristics and impacts as miniature golf/recreation center and tennis club or complexes, and similar uses which are permitted by right under the Regional Commercial zoning district. 0 CUP 2008-113 PC Resolution.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2008- Conditional Use Permit 2008-113 Gary Steven - The Ice Garden August 26, 2008 3. Processing of this Conditional Use Permit for the proposed use is in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. The La Quinta Community Development Department has determined that the request is exempt from CEQA under Guideline Section 15301 (Leasing of Existing Private Facilities). As a result, no environmental review is required. 4. Approval of this proposed use will not be a detriment to the public health, safety and general welfare, nor shall it be injurious or incompatible with other properties or uses in the vicinity. Use of the space as an ice skating rink will have similar characteristics and impacts as neighboring land uses. 5. The mix of businesses within the center has and continues to change from one with a majority of retail uses with standard 9:00a.m. to 9:00 p.m. hours to a balanced mix with more uses with limited evening and weekend hours of operation. 6. Due to the current design and location of the center, this trend in business mix and hours of operation is likely to continue. 7. The primary hours of operation for the proposed use are in the evening and on weekends, and; 8. The type of uses that do operate in the evening and on weekends would likely benefit from the addition of a destination type use within the center NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the Findings of the Planning Commission in this case. 2. Despite the shortage of 11 spaces (4% of the total required), sufficient parking to accommodate the needs of the proposed use and the other uses within the center as proposed and conditioned is provided. 3. That it does hereby approve Conditional Use Permit 2008-113 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. 7 CUP 2008-113 PC Resolution.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2008- Conditional Use Permit 2008-113 Gary Steven - The Ice Garden August 26, 2008 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this the 26" day of August, 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 CUP 2008-113 PC Resolution.doc E PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2008- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2008-113 GARY STEVEN — ICE GARDEN AUGUST 26, 2008 GENERAL By operating this ice rink, the applicant agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City of La Quinta, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Conditional Use Permit. The City of La Quinta shall have the right to select its defense counsel at its sole discretion. The City of La Quinta shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. This Conditional Use Permit shall expire on August 26, 2010, two years after the Planning Commission approval date if approved use is not established; unless a time extension is granted pursuant to Section 9.200.080 if use is not established within that timeframe. 3. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the City, the applicant shall obtain any necessary clearances and/or permits from the following agencies, if required: • Fire Marshall • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Green Sheet (Public Works Clearance) for Building Permits, Improvement Permit) • Planning Department • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Desert Sands Unified School District • Coachella Valley Unified School District • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances from the above listed agencies. When the requirement includes approval of improvements plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when submitting those improvements plans for City approval 4. The applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of the La Quinta Municipal Code (LQMC). 5. Prior to issuance of a building permit, all plans must comply with the 2007 California Building Code (CBC). CUP 2008-113 PC Conditions.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2008- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2008-113 GARY STEVEN — THE ICE GARDEN AUGUST 26, 2008 6. The Ice Garden owner shall ensure that adequate outdoor trash and other facilities are provided. 7. The City of La Quinta reserves the right to review and monitor the operation of this facility and modify Conditions of Approval regarding hours of operation, occupancy, and other operational conditions. The applicant shall comply with the operations plan submitted and attached to the staff report. 8. Any expansion of this use or substantial modifications to the approved floor plan may require an amendment of this Conditional Use Permit. Minor modifications to this Conditional Use Permit may be approved by the Planning Director, provided notification of existing tenants may be required prior to such approval. 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. 9. 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. 10. The following improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Department. A separate set of plans for each line item specified below shall be prepared. The plans shall utilize the minimum scale specified, unless otherwise authorized by the City Engineer in writing. Plans may be prepared at a larger scale if additional detail or plan clarity is desired. Note, the applicant may be required to prepare other improvement plans not listed here pursuant to improvements required by other agencies and utility purveyors. A. On -Site Non -Residential/ Commercial Precise Grading Plan 1 " = 20' Horizontal Note: The applicant shall submit a revised precise grading plan for La Quinta Valley Plaza, Parcel Map No. 31172, Plan Set Number 04022 as required by the City Engineer. 10 CUP 2008-113 PC Conditions.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2008- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2008-113 GARY STEVEN — THE ICE GARDEN AUGUST 26, 2008 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. 11. The applicant shall furnish a complete set of the mylars of all approved improvement plans to the City Engineer. 12. 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 and completeness of the drawings. The applicant shall have all approved 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 EOR. 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. DRAINAGE 13. Stormwater handling shall conform with the approved hydrology and drainage report for Parcel Map No. 31172. Nuisance water shall be retained on site. Nuisance water shall be disposed of per approved methods contained in Engineering Bulletin No. 06-16 — Hydrology Report with Preliminary Hydraulic Report Criteria for Storm Drain Systems and Engineering Bulletin No. 06-015 - Underground Retention Basin Design Requirements. MAINTENANCE 14. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance), LQMC. 15. The applicant shall make maintenance of all private access drives, and sidewalks, provisions for the continuous and perpetual on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, CUP 2008-113 PC Conditions.doc 11 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2008- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDEI CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2008-113 GARY STEVEN — THE ICE GARDEN AUGUST 26, 2008 FEES AND DEPOSITS 16. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.180 (Fees and Deposits), LQMC. These fees include all deposits and fees required by the City for plan checking and construction inspection. Deposits and fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan check and permits. 17. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permit(s). 12 CUP 2008-113 PC Conditions.doc ATTACHMENT # 1 13 „ D � , ` ` 71 / A� �� ! . v� IMPROVEMENT ! �� „ . \A A j 0 r. k $� �SI� a$�59�6 as 3Aay 49 AA a 8aa "a :a n o' g y g f 9 g g E[ ga ap aM a{ a ya 5p gj g 4p {ff MAN �� 5 � D m o z 0 F m fi p Ig SR SR $A 11 R S5 jig It Al R gf IQ 1 11 5l � a B a# FR " 111 all a R€ a 3e R$ru ��g Rg g g43 iS 9 59g # fI '# f gRgAq f 9 n 5 3 p " gy 'S i e�pg "@ €q, �fSF5F'S 55 ayy "3 qaa I°ypepe " �g f y Rp��.9 ••� O [ Y Y tl Y Y x C p x 0 Y x "S a Y p T ' R {g R +g R "� A A 7 i pgR E �A 51 Se€ 3 R! 5@#A L 4#1^�9�°iai0JiRM R1'j; ill9 A A" ➢ �gj aa,� '41ggp Rill a S A�� o ` — IlAgg A 5 Y j nIT � , Ig€a ij All al 1�pp € Jill a xa a9gawga qy 1 ��! c as zo gi3 --- 01# d 5 G 'Si'S 5 Ag d ayy3 � a Ai a = a- A- JOIN, d e p8 gSAc� a R R [ i€ ol k°� g{ i, g 5�� ¢ � " a�g � �9p�'� ��"��g I 41 is�i !1€ 9EkAR Idyll 6 �g R3 m �:iootl.1 �� A j°•ic' c-6 o A S'xR pG 3a "f�@¢; Sa ; "Ap o #esa " 3! r: °a r*t - a 'f ®x IF " P"3 R, ��€ O �, sye6?'v O Hill a Mpp R' R a x gg E _ A ° ' 3 i as sa W a S gg � i1j �'E8 Ae "a aR A3 z �4 F vgA z�i D D .I li m 3I in Sa€ € 3�g$ 5�0 �a n 9�as n �� "3 ��p "3 a � S� A gg , A a SHELL I A ALL1Y MEA e g LA QU0 HI VALLEY PLAZA p Ce $ p di•�gl E.: 7s-3aa RICH W, 17 Et.3s[.[,,�c." g ,y1(Y(p �i; e A OUINTA CALIFORNIA MA-M u EVEN SON m u n fml o r n _ o o r _ - n m - n o — z -- 9 oL - __ o r> 99e9 g J 0 E•aii — r-t o O ✓r--E�r _ N � y¢ixy O ^ ll - Oz 9iyyk'�y a°y f ay� gia n P moma m,� scrvnc n7—s_— a� "y ..a 44g ECa4 se`3§-§,' jra $ fliar, }�• e¢ :£{ego a 6giar4EFJ_b er @ P¢ 94 R$ 4a 9 4p 4c a� QD s,:55E cjt :-f;9s tlq �r9`� 9a i o$.e ..F: - 4 0aaS.- q? £ o 9ig E a;xRAfiA.•ag�¢.xke4,.nc'�S,a2 R"$4®?`>! i0 €s _-i p HIP `d- !9 s ¢Q S� `1 € € ' " o o K $^ q. g,•_;gq€,i., s; e a44 ° pp .� r- g 34::'xg 9' OR- it a`4°b, €nd4`i"6gi5j � Bi, �G E p'A i- 4 d° �. a I- " n p s s ZO °y C K5a4[{ 4 '� t .4€fin a6s4i Sy%f c 9� n3 ` 5 Sk 2 ig ak'Fe�4ggq �€€ • �4� �ps E��I(y.. gC FY iF g4 y� 9a ¢4 9a " �€ a �r 9 U 19�g4a4�9 1,3 ,3 SHELL IMPROVEMENT'^ LA QUINTA VALLEY PLAZA a'2e S 9-340 HIGHWAY 111 LA QUINTA . CALIFORNIA ND gggg A °'x t 9.�e:;3P�:i e ATTACHMENT # 3 MONDAY 6:15-7:15am TUESDAY 6:30-7:30am WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY SUNDAY 9:00-30:30am 6:15-7:15am 6:30-7:30am 7:30-8:30am *`High School Freestyle **High School Freestyle Freestyle Family Puck Play Club Hockey 8:00-9:00am ClubHockey 8:00-9:00am $10.00 $10.00 Freestyle Freestyle 7:45-8:45am $10.00 7:45-8:45am $10.00 ***9:0010:30am Pick Up Puck Play Skating School $20.00 *9:30-12:30 $10.00 *9:30-12:30 Terry Terry *11:00-1:00pm Public Skating *11:00-1:00pm Public Skating *2:00-4:00pm Public Skating *1:00-3:00pm *1:00-3:00pm *1:00-3:30pm *1:00-3:30pm *1:00-3:00pm *3:00-5:00pm Public Skating Public Skating Public Skating Public Skating Public Skating Public Skating ***4:00-5:30pm **3:30-4:30pm *4:OD-5:00pm ***4:00-5:30 **3:30-4:30pm Skating School High School Adult Public Skating School High School 5:30-6:30pm ClubHockey ClubHockey Freestyle $10.00 **5:00-5:45pm 5:00-6:00pm **6:00.6:45pm Hockey **5:30-6:30pm **6:00-7:00pm Broomball *7:00-10:00 7:DO-7:45pm 6:00-6:45pm Mites Practice 7:00-8:OOpm $10.00 Public Skating Mite Games Hockey 2 6:45-7:45pm Pee Wee Games Bring School ID 7:00-8:00pm PeeWee Practice and receive Pick Up 6:30-7:30pm discount $20.00 Pick Up **8:15-9:15pm **8:00-9:00pm **8:00-9:00pm **8:15-9:15pm $20.00 Adult B Hockey Adult A Hockey Adult B Hockey Adult A Level 9:30-10:30pm 9:15-10:15pm 9:15-10:15pm 9:3430:30pm *8:00-11:00pm Adult a Hockey Adult A Hockey Adult B Hockey Adult A Level Family Night Public Skating 10:30-11:30pm Pick Up $20.00 PUBLIC SKATING PRICES ***SKATING SCHOOL 6 WEEKS FOR $100.00 TEEN/ADULTS- $10.00 SKATE RENTALS $4.00 YOUTH/CHILDREN $ 8.00 "HOCKEY CLINICS 6 WEEKS FOR $100.00 SENIORS $8.00 SKATE RENTALS $4.00 MILITARY $10.00 (SKATE RENTALS INCLUDED) •• HOCKEY LEAGUES 12 WEEKSFOR$450,00 SKATE RENTALS $4.00 HIGH SCHOOL CLUBANDTEAM JUBILEEMEMBERSHIP COFFEE CLUB $10.00 (SEE FRONT DES ADULT SKATE $10.00 �i GROUP RATE . $10.00 PER PERSON/10 PEOPLE MINIMUM TUG ALL SKATERS MUST PAY AT THE SAME TIME OR REGULAR RAM RAMWILL APPLY RESERVATIMUST BE MADE I WEEK PRIOR TO SKATE 11 2008 CITY Off 4A QUINTA ATTACHMENT # 4 i Land Use: 465 Ice Skating Rink Land use Description Ice skating rinks are free-standing facilities used for ice-skating oriented sports and entertainment activities. These rinks may contain limited spectator seating, refreshment areas, locker rooms and arcades. Database Description The database consisted of one site. • Size: 26,000 sq. ft. GFA. • Parking supply ratio: 3.9 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. GFA. Parking demand data were collected in October and was comprised of several data points scattered throughout a Friday and two discontinuous hourly observations on a Saturday. averageThe parking ratio 00 sq. ft. observed betty n 5:00 and6 0 p.m. andbetween 8 00 and 9.00 p.m demandeGFA with peak The average Saturday peak period parking demand ratio was 0.58 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. GFA between 7:00 and 8:00 p.m. Countstaken demand rates winter han those observed active recreational hockey leagues may produce higher Study SiteNear Santa Barbara, CA (1981) pdoln9 G,,mbm 3rd EdiUM Institute of TranaPortadon Englneera 102 15 ice cream industrial use ice cream parlor (see also retail use, unless otherwise specified) • 1 parking space is required per I50 square feet (Coral Springs, Fla., pop. 117,549) • I space per 4 seats or 1 space per 100 square feet of gross leasable floor area, whichever is less. (Athens - Clarke County, Ga., pop. 101,489) • 1 per 75 square feet of gross floor area, with a mini- mum of 8 spaces (Canton, Mich., pop. 76,366) • 6 per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area (Racine, Wisc., pop. 81,855) Minimum. 1 space for each 200 square feet of gross floor area Maximum: 1 space for each 100 square feet of gross floor area (Jefferson County, Ky., pop. 693,604) Bicycle Parking Standard long-term: 2, or 1 per 50 employees; short-term: 4, or 1 per 50 seats (Jefferson County, Ky, pop. 693,604) --� ice rink (see also recreation facility uses; roller rink) • 0.3 per seat or 1 per 100 square feet (Hickory, N C., pop. 37,222) • 1 space per 200 square feet of gross floor area (Provo, Utah, pop. 105,166) • 1 space per 200 square feet (Columbia, Miss., pop. 6,603) • 1 space per 200 square feet of skating area (Raleigh, N.C., pop. 276,093) • 1 space for each 3 seats; or 1 space for each 50 square feet of rink area (Coconino County, Ariz., pop. 18,617) • 1 per 4 seats of capacity (East Greenwich, R.I., pop. 12,948, Anne Arundel County, Md., pop 489,656) • 1 parking space for each 200 square feet of gross floor area in the building (Plainfield, Ind, pop. 18,396) • 1 space for each 100 square feet of skating area, plus spaces otherwise required for spectator seating (Uni- versity City, Mo., pop 37,428) • 6 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area (Genoa Township, Mich., pop. 15,901) Minimum: 5per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area Maximum: 7 per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area (San Antonio, Tex., pop. 1,244,646) Minimum:4 spacesper 1,000 square feet offloorarea I Maximum: 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area (Gresham, Ore., pop. 90,205) Minimum: I space for each 300 square feet of gross floor area Maximum: 1 space for each 150 square feet of gross floor area (Jefferson County, Ky., pop. 693,604) Minimum: 1 per 150 square feet of skating area Maximum: I per 100 square feet of skating area (Glenville, N.Y., pop. 28,183) Bicycle Parking Standard: 0.4 space per 1,000 \_J square feet of floor area (Gresham, Ore., pop. 90,205) impound yard (see automobile impound facility) industrial park (see also office park; research park) • 15 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area (Lakewood, Colo., pop. 144,126) • 1.5 parking spaces per 1,000 gross square feet or 0.75 spaces per employee, whichever is greater (Minot, N.Dak., pop. 36,567) 1.6 for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area (Washington County, Ore., pop. 445,342; Hillsboro, Ore., pop. 70,186) industrial use, unless otherwise specified 1 space for every 2 employees during shift of maxi- mum employment and 1 space for every truck to be stored or stopped simultaneously (Raleigh, N.C., pop. 276,093) 16 115 PH#B PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: AUGUST 26, 2008 CASE NO.: SIGN APPLICATION 2003-734 AMENDMENT NO. 1 APPLICANT: CORPORATE CENTER PROFESSIONAL PLAZA (APPLICANT'S AGENT: CHAD ADDINGTON- SIGN-A-RAMA) REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED SIGN PROGRAM AMENDMENT TO ALLOW ILLUMINATED AND LARGER SIGNS. LOCATION: 79-215 / 79-245 CORPORATE CENTRE, SOUTH SIDE OF CORPORATE CENTER DRIVE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: ON -PREMISE SIGNS ARE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT UNDER CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15311(a) GENERAL PLAN/ ZONING: COMMERCIAL PARK (CP) / COMMERCIAL PARK (CP) SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USES: NORTH: COMMERCIALPARK / COMMERCIAL PARK SOUTH: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL/REGIONAL COMMERCIAL EAST: COMMERCIAL PARK / COMMERCIAL PARK WEST: COMMERCIAL PARK / COMMERCIAL PARK BACKGROUND: Corporate Center Professional Plaza was originally approved under Specific Plan 1999-036. Subsequently, the Planning Commission has reviewed and approved different Site Development Permits within the Specific Plan. On April 22, 2003, the Planning Commission approved Site Development Permits 2003-780 and 781 for two commercial buildings located at the southeast corner of Corporate Centre Drive and Commerce Court (Attachment 1) for this location. The Sign Program (SA 2003-734) approved in December 2003, (Attachment 2) was for both buildings; as is common with shopping centers, the individual buildings are now under separate ownership. Currently, there are two monument signs, one for each building, and no building mounted signs installed under the existing Sign Program. SA 2003-734 Amd. #1 Staff Report SIGN PROGRAM PROPOSAL: The proposed amendment (Attachment 3) requests to eliminate provisions that provide definitive guidelines for letter height and restrict illumination. The proposal would mandate that all signs be illuminated and allow signs to have a maximum sign area of one square foot per lineal foot of lease frontage, not to exceed 100 square feet aggregate and eliminate letter height restrictions. Furthermore, the Sign Program amendment designates two locations for building signs on the north elevation each building. The following section explains the provisions of the existing Sign Program and the applicant's proposed amendment. Section C No. 1 Existing Sign Program: All building wall and fascia signs shall be individual non -illuminated, dimensional letters. Proposed: All building and fascia signs shall be individual internally illuminated, acrylic face or reverse halo channel letters. Analysis: The applicant's request to allow illuminated signs is quite common. Although commercial centers such as The Pavilion at La Quinta and La Quinta Valley Plaza are in the Regional Commercial district, like the Corporate Center Professional Plaza, they are a part of the original Specific Plan (SP 1999-036) and their corresponding sign programs allow illuminated signs. Section D No. 3 Existing Siqn Program: Maximum sign area shall be one (1) square foot per lineal foot of lease frontage, not to exceed 50 square feet aggregate. Maximum width of sign shall not exceed 75% of the lease frontage or wall width upon which the sign is placed, whichever is smaller. Maximum letter and sign heights: a. On units having front elevation sign panel areas below shed roof and above walkway, the maximum letter height shall be twelve (12) inches. Overall height of signs in this area shall not exceed eighteen (18) inches. b. All other sign panel areas shall have a maximum letter height of sixteen (16) inches. Overall height of signs in these areas shall not exceed twenty-four (24) inches. Proposed: Maximum sign area shall be one (1) square foot per lineal foot of lease frontage, not to exceed 100 square feet aggregate. SA 2003-734 Amd. #1 Staff Report a. Applicant proposes to delete. b. Applicant proposes to delete. Analysis: The request to allow signs to not exceed 100 square feet does not comply with the Sign Code provided in Section 9.160.050 Table 9-19, which states that building -mounted signs can be one (1) square foot per lineal foot of lease frontage and up to a maximum of 50 square feet aggregate. The applicant has not provided any justification for the larger sign area and staff does not support this proposed change. The proposal also includes removing a provision that will limit the maximum width of the sign to not exceed 75% of the lease frontage or wall width upon which the sign is placed, or whichever is smaller. The Sign Code does not specifically provide guidelines for lease frontage, but this is a provision that has been included in many sign programs to keep signs from covering an excessive amount of the building lease frontage. Staff supports this change. Although limiting letter height is not required by Code, it is a provision that is included in most other sign programs. If the amendment is approved with sign placement as shown in the exhibits, subsection "a" would no longer be applicable to the Sign Program since the proposed sign locations are not below the shed roof and above the walkway. Subsection "b" is a provision that should remain in the Sign Program since it provides uniformity and balance between all the signs and limits the potential mass and vertical proportionality of the sign area signs from being placed from the bottom edge of the of the building to the top. Section D No. 5 Existing Sign Program: Letters shall be attached to wall surface using clear silicone adhesive. Proposed: Applicant proposes to delete this provision. Analysis: An approved Sign Program amendment with illuminated signs would no longer make this provision applicable. The proposed amendment does not clarify how signs will be mounted on the building, but staff recommends that all lettering and logos be individually mounted on the wall. FINDINGS: Based on the foregoing analysis, the following findings support approval of Sign Application 2003-734 Amendment No. 1, subject to the recommended conditions of approval. A. Sign Application 2003-734, Amendment No. 1, as recommended, is consistent with the purpose and intent of Chapter 9.160, in that it does not conflict with the standards as set forth in Chapter 9.160. SA 2003-734 Amd. #1 Staff Report 3 B. Sign Application 2003-734, Amendment No. 1, as recommended, is harmonious and consistent with all signs as proposed under the Sign Program, due to the common use of size and location of signs for both buildings. C. Sign Application 2003-734, Amendment No. 1, as recommended, is harmonious with and visually related to surrounding development, as it will not adversely affect surrounding land uses or obscure other adjacent conforming signs. PUBLIC COMMENTS: This project was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on August 16, 2008, mailed to all property owners within 500-feet of the site, and posted on City Public Hearing information boards. At the time of the filing of this report, staff had not received any letters or phone calls from the public regarding the proposal. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Minute Motion No. 2008 -_, approving Sign Application 2003-734 Amendment No. 1, based on the findings and analysis included in the August 26, 2008 Planning Commission Staff Report for Sign Application 2003-734, Amendment No. 1, and subject to the following conditions: Prior to issuance of the first sign permit, a final version of the sign program (text and graphics) shall be submitted to the Planning Department incorporating any amendments or Conditions of Approval by the Planning Commission. 2. Internally illuminated signs with opaque acrylic face or reverse halo channel letters shall be allowed. 3. Building -mounted signs shall not exceed 50 square feet or exceed a maximum width of 75% of the lease frontage. 4. Section D No. 3 Subsection "a" shall be removed and Subsection "b" shall remain as approved in the original Sign Program. 5. Sign Program Section D No. 5 shall be deleted and shall be replaced with a provision that letters and logos shall be individually mounted on the wall. SA 2003-734 Amd. #1 Staff Report Attachments 1. Vicinity Map 2. Site Plan 3. Proposed Sign Program 4. Approved Sign Program by: , Assistant SA 2003-734 Amd. #1 Staff Report ' ftl "MMaI§A= 3 ■,GEW ATTACHMENT 2 ¢ 0 a ■` I FI ■ 0 :I 6I j l Unc ! ■oum"n OO NEI ■r� ATTACHMENT 3 SIGN PROGRAM for CORPORATE CENTRE PROFESSIONAL PLAZA 79-215; 79-245 Hwy 111 La Quinta, CA 92253 Prepared by: Sign -A -Rama 41-945 Boardwalk, Ste. L Palm Desert, CA 92211 Phone: (760) 776-9907 Fax: (760) 776-9844 A. INTRODUCTION The intent of this Sign Program is to provide guidelines necessary to assure visually appealing signage and achieve a uniform appearance for the benefit of all tenants. This Sign Program shall be strictly enforced and any non -conforming signs shall be removed or brought into conformity by the Tenant or its sign contractor at the Tenant's expense, upon demand by the Landlord. B. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 1. Prior to sign fabrication or installation, Tenant shall submit two (2) copies (one in full color) of the proposed sign for Landlord's approval. Drawings must include sign location, size, layout, design and color, including all lettering and/or graphics. 2. Upon Landlord's approval, Tenant shall obtain all applicable permits from the City prior to sign installation. 3. All costs for signs, installation (including any necessary electrical service connections) and permits shall be at the sole expense of the Tenant. 4. Tenant is responsible for fulfillment of all requirements of this Sign Program. 7Ja81o8 Page 1 of 4 VFem 8 5. For purposes of secondary business identification, Tenant will be permitted to place upon glass door at each entrance to its premises Oyster colored vinyl lettering not to exceed two (2) square feet in area. Letters shall not exceed three (3) inches in height and copy shall indicate business name, hours of business, emergency telephone, etc. The number and letter type shall be Helvetica, Optima or Helvetica Italic. 6. In addition to business identification described in previous paragraph, Oyster colored vinyl lettering shall be permitted on one (1) window panel adjacent the entry door. Lettering on this panel shall not exceed eight (8) square feet in total area and letter height shall not exceed six (4) inches. Typestyle optional. 7. Sign area allowances expressed in this Sign Program are stated as maximum. Should the City Sign Ordinance requirements be more restrictive, the City Sign Ordinance shall apply. C. GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS 1. All Building Wall and Fascia Signs shall be individual internally illuminated, acrylic face or reverse channel letters.. 2. No animated, flashing or audible signs are permitted. 3. Upon removal of any sign, the building or wall surface shall be patched, textured, sealed and painted to match its original condition, at Tenant's sole expense. D. DETAIL REQUIREMENTS, MAIN BUSINESS SIGN Main Business Signage shall be individual illuminated dimensional letters face lit or reverse halo, multi color excepted with approval of property owner. 1. Signs shall be installed on building wall or fascia in designated areas and on designated frontages only. (see individual building elevation drawing attachments 7AV Page 2 of 4 &-' 4-04 2. Maximum number of signs: 9 A tenant may have a maximum of one (1) sign. (see individual building elevation drawing attachments) 3. Maximum sign copy area: Maximum sign area shall be one (1) square foot per lineal foot of lease frontage, not to exceed 100 square feet aggregate. Maximum width of sign shall not exceed 75% of the lease frontage or wall width upon which the sign is placed, whichever is smaller. 4. All signs shall be centered vertically and horizontally on the wall panel upon which they are placed. 5. Tenants having federally registered trademarks may use such designs and colors in their signs. E. Temporary Signs Upon submission approval of permit for main signage, a temporary banner, not to exceed 20 square feet in area, may be installed in main sign area, pending approval and fabrication of main sign. 7/aS-/og Page 3 of 4 -,SOS-94 F. Center Identification Signs Freestanding center identification (monument) signs shall be permitted at the two (2) Corporate Center Drive entrances. The sign face shall not exceed 50 square feet in area and the overall height shall not exceed 8 feet from the average finish grade at the base of the sign. The Center ID copy shall be 1 inch thick acrylic letters painted medium bronze in color. Illumination shall be external flood landscape lighting. 10 Tenants may obtain pertinent sign specifications and fulfill their leasehold sign requirements by contacting the Authorized Sign Supplier. Authorized Sign Supplier: Sign -A -Rama 41-945 Boardwalk, Ste. L Palm Desert, CA 92211 Phone: (760) 776-9907 Fax: (760) 776-9844 7`a81C9 Page 4 of 4 -94 11 .r... ..•,r .,mw:� ci �+� III 12 N 137>I� f 13 ATTACHMENT 4 SIGN PROGRAM for ?-215; 79-245 Hwy 111 La Quints, CA 92253 Prepared by: Sign -A -Rama 41-905 Boardwalk, Ste. U Palm Desert, CA 92211 Phone: (760) 776-9907 Fax: (760) 776-9844 A. INTRODUCTION The Intent of this Sign Program is to provide guidelines necessary to assure visually appealing signage and achieve a uniform appearance for the benefit of all tenants. This Sign Program shall be strictly enforced and any non -conforming signs shall be removed or brought Into conformity by the Tenant or its sign contractor at the Tenant's expense, upon demand by the Landlord. B. rMENERAL REQUIREMENTS 1. Prior to sign fabrication or installation, Tenant shall submit two (2) copies (one in full color) of the proposed sign for Landlord's approval. Drawings must include sign location, size, layout, design and color, including all lettering and/or graphics. 2. Upon Landlord's approval, Tenant shall obtain all applicable permits from the City prior to sign installation. 3. All costs for signs, Installation (including any necessary electrical service connections) and permits shall be at the sole expense of the Tenant. 4. Tenant is responsible for fulfillment of all requirements of this Sign Program. Page 1 of 4 2-18-04 14 5. For purposes of secondary business identification, Tenant will be permitted to place upon glass door at each entrance to its premises Oyster colored vinyl lettering not to exceed two (2) square feet in area. Letters shall not exceed three (3) inches in height and copy shall Indicate business name, hours of business, emergency telephone, etc. The number and letter type shall be Helvetica, Optima or Helvetica Italic. B, in addition to business identification described in previous paragraph, Oyster colored vinyl lettering shall be permitted on one (1) window panel adjacent the entry door. Lettering on this panel shall not exceed eight (8) square feet in total area and letter height shall not exceed six (4) inches. Typestyle optional. 7. Sign area allowances expressed In this Sign Program are stated as maximum. Should the City Sign Ordinance requirements be more restrictive, the City Sign Ordinance shall apply. C. GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS 1. All Building Wall and Fascia Signs shall be individual non - illuminated, dimensional letters. 2. No animated, flashing or audible signs are permitted. 3. Upon removal of any sign, the building or wall surface shall be patched, textured, sealed and painted to match its original condition, at Tenant's sole expense. D. DETAIL REQUIREMENTS, MAIN BUSINESS SIGN Main Business Signage shall be individual non -Illuminated dimensional letters, 3 inch thick foam with medium bronze anodized aluminum faces and matching painted returns. (Except as noted in Paragraph DB) 1. Signs shall be installed on building wall or fascia in designated areas and on designated frontages only. (see individual building elevation drawing attachments) Page 2 of 4 2-18-04 1, 15 2. Maximum number of signs: A tenant may have a maximum of one (1) sign. (see Individual building elevation drawing attachments) 3. Maximum sign cony area: Maximum sign area shall be one (1) square foot per lineal foot of lease frontage, not to exceed 50 square feet aggregate. Maximum width of sign shall not exceed 75% of the lease frontage or wall width upon which the sign is placed, whichever is smaller. Maximum letter and sign heights: a. On units having front elevation sign panel areas below shed roof and above walkway, the maximum letter height shall be twelve (12) inches. Overall height of signs in this area shall not exceed eighteen (18) inches. b. All other sign panel areas shall have a maximum letter height of sixteen (16) inches. Overall height of signs in these areas shall not exceed twenty-four (24) inches. 4. All signs shall be centered vertically and horizontally on the wall panel upon which they are placed. 5. Letters shall be attached to wall surface using dear silicone adhesive. 6. Tenants having federally registered trademarks may use such designs and colors in their signs. E. Temporary Signs Upon submission approval of permit for main signage, a temporary banner, not to exceed 20 square feet in area, may be installed in main sign area, pending approval and fabrication of main sign. Page 3 of 4 2-18-04 16 Freestanding center identification (monument) signs shall be permitted at the two (2) Corporate Center Drive entrances. The sign face shall not exceed 50 square feet in area and the overall height shall not exceed 8 feet from the average finish grade at the base of the sign. The Center ID copy shall be 1 inch thick acrylic letters painted medium bronze in color. Illumination shall be external flood landscape fighting. Tenants may obtain pertinent sign specifications and fulfill their leasehold sign requirements by contacting the Authorized Sign Supplier. Authorized Sign Supplier: Sign -A -Rama 41-905 Boardwalk, Ste. U Palm Desert, CA 92211 Phone: (760) 776-9907 Fax: (760) 776-9844 Page 4 of 4 2-18-0 17 Ito MIBi W N,M3J 3lYWtltpJ SIi-!t w , '� 11. M191 'tlU 3llIX3J 3IYtlOdWJ SIS-I[ _ _ e- •�M•, y'^•� ,o�®� •� SIIIIl;l11J3 it AfAlt• I• y a a z f J W a R Iq rrxxo3lm 'nm n IA'MA1 3Y1 x3> 31 YAOCWJ wsK-!! 3 x'rer 'tl1 PUN3J 3lrmmmJ se2e[ e'I TIFISG3lJVO 3Ylx?) 3l reOM03 _ v S1t 11113N it 4II p11 Ai Q. Q z G J w a 0.