Loading...
2009 02 24 PC MinutesMINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA February 24, 2009 7:02 P.M. CALL TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Chairman Ed Alderson who asked Commissioner Wilkinson to lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Katie Barrows, Paul Quill, Mark Weber, Robert Wilkinson, and Chairman Ed Alderson. C. Staff present: Planning Director Les Johnson, Planning Manager David Sawyer, Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston, Principal Engineer Ed Wimmer Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Assistant Planner Yvonne Franco, Consultant Nicole Criste, and Executive Secretary Carolyn Walker. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: Chairman Alderson asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of January 27, 2009. There being no changes, or corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Wilkinson/Weber to approve the minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Draft Environmental Impact Report, Site Development Permit 2006- 875 Conditional Use Permit 2007-105 and Tentative Parcel Map 35088; a request by Mayer Villa Capri, L. P. for consideration of 1) Site Development Permit 2006-875, for approval of a Site Development Permit consisting of a retail and medical office complex on 25 acres to allow construction of approximately 234,450± square feet of building area; 2) Conditional Use Permit 2007-105, to P:\Reports - PC\2009\3-24-09\PC MIN 2-24-09_Approved.doc Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 2009 recommend approval to allow aconvalescent/rehabilitation facility use; and 3) Tentative Parcel Map 35088 approval of a Tentative Parcel Map to divide 25 f acres into ten parcels located on the north side of Fred Waring Drive, between Washington Street and Palm Royale Drive. Chairman Alderson opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. Chairman Alderson asked if there were any comments from the Commissioners. Commissioner Barrows commented on the questions included in the EIR; and asked if the conditions were incorporated by reference. Staff responded they were. Commissioner Weber asked for discussion/comment on the Public Works memo which was distributed at the meeting. Staff directed the Commission to Principal Engineer Wimmer who explained the conditions included in the memo. Commissioner Quill asked about the deceleration lanes. Principal Engineer Wimmer pointed out the location of the deceleration lanes and explained the changes discussed in the memo; including the correction to 87 feet. Commissioner Quill asked if there was only one deceleration lane on Fred Waring. Staff said yes. Commissioner Quill asked why there were not three deceleration lanes on Fred Waring. Principal Engineer Wimmer responded the traffic study prepared by the applicant was reviewed by staff and it was determined there was not a need for those decel lanes per the peak hour traffic count. The condition was written to include the right-turn lane on Fred Waring Drive, but none on the other two driveways. Commissioner Wilkinson asked how there could be 50 vehicles at the westerly entrance but not at the center and easterly intersection. Planning Director Johnson said a lot of it has to do with the different land uses and explained how the determination was made. Commissioner Wilkinson asked if staff was referring to future, not present, traffic. Staff replied yes and said the improvements were Fr.Reports - PC~.2009~3-24-09~i'C MIN_2-24-09_Approved.doc 2 Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 2009 identifying the conditions of the deceleration lane and explained what would be included in the future traffic movement. Chairman Alderson commented there are two other contributing factors; one being a signal at Palm Royale Drive, and the other being the medical driveway, which would not get the use a commercial driveway would. Staff confirmed the commercial would be a higher usage than the medical driveway. Staff introduced Consultant, Nicole Criste, who was the author of the draft EIR. She stated the comment period was still ongoing. All of the comments made tonight would be editorial and administrative and have no impact on the analysis. They would be added to the comments by Ms. Rose. Chairman Alderson asked if the grocery store was to be included in the project. Staff said it was still proposed to be a grocery store. Chairman Alderson asked if there were any questions of staff. There being no further questions of the staff, Chairman Alderson asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Larry Brose, Mayer Corp., introduced himself and gave some background of his firm. He went over some of the slides that had been presented and pointed out the retail, versus the commercial, sites. Larry Brose said staff had comments about the density of the retail site and that is why the layout had been changed to include an angle for the market site. He added they pushed the drug store back. He commented on the driveways and the deceleration lanes. He said they all met the City's standards. He pointed out where the delivery trucks would be entering and exiting. He wanted to point out the improvements on Fred Waring and the fact they would be able to save some of those improvements. They did look at this as one site through the use of shared elements and design standards; with the idea being it would appear to be one project, not two. Mr. Brose commented on the design, which was done by Prest-Vuksic Architects, made note of the desert contemporary four-sided architecture with pop out walls and design elements of the buildings which created spirit and excitement in the development. P_~~.ReF~nrts PC`~2009 ~3 24 09+PC MIN 2 24 09 Approv~ad.doa 3 Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 2009 He commented on Medical/Professional medical tenant. the CVS pharmacy and the Living Waters Center and gave a little background of the The center building would be two stories. He described the architecture which included recessed elements and said the architectural style was well suited to the desert environment. Mr. Brose said he had concerns regarding several of the conditions of approval for the Site Development Permit as follows: Condition number 91: addressing the height of the medical building in the back, closest to Palm Royale Drive. The condition eliminated the second story of the building, and reduced the floor area by ten percent and imposing negative effects on the economic viability of the project. The applicant studied the impact of the building on the neighboring residential developments and pointed out that the building was set back a lot further than required. He commented on the protection the existing wall provided, which backed up to the residences, and gave examples of the line of sight view for each of the first four residences and the impact on each home. He also explained what the view would be from Palm Royale and Rome Drives. He then asked the condition be changed to allow a two story building. Condition number 41: addressing the required offsite improvements for the projects identifying what they were and when they were to be installed and whether the City or the applicant was responsible for the improvements. He explained the language used for the condition was a bit open-ended and gave room for interpretation. He asked the Commission to modify the language establishing that the applicant be reimbursed for costs incurred on installing improvements that other parties are conditioned for. Condition number 65: requesting it be changed to say the City will issue final occupancy permits of habitable structures when streets and sidewalks are improved. He explained they needed to obtain the temporary certificate of occupancy in order for the buildings to be fixtured and be able to put in the interior workings of the building. P^.ficports - PCA2009.3-24-Q9'~Pe MIN_2-P4-09_Approved cioc 4 Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 2009 Condition number 80: stating the commercial complex and medical office complex projects shall be considered separate projects for plan checking. He noted the two projects were linked with regard to grading, the installation of the backbone utilities infrastructure and streets. He said it would be more efficient to submit only one set of final design/engineering plans for review for both projects instead of two separate sets which could possibly create some conflicts in terms of synergy and timing during the review process. Thus, he requested the condition be eliminated. Condition number 98: asking the Commission to clarify the location of the entry monument sign for the project. He explained there was an inconsistency in the staff report requesting the sign be placed on the northeast corner of Fred Waring Drive and Washington Street. However, the applicant found it more feasible if the sign was placed on the southeast corner instead. Condition number 101, Mitigation Measure 3: requiring all structures within the proposed project to demonstrate energy efficiency exceeding the standards of Title 24 of the U.B.C. by twenty percent. He said the EIR study addressed the air quality impacts and it was established there were significant impacts during the construction of the project, but not during its operation. He asked the Commission to reconsider the condition and hold the applicant liable only to the established building codes at the time the building permit is issued. He noted there was no City policy to justify imposing an arbitrary twenty percent standard over Title 24. He felt these were onerous and arbitrary and explained why. Mr. Brose discussed the water features. He said the half moon fountain was the focal point of the Living Waters Medical Center. The water features were no more than twelve inches deep with a sheer wall to minimize evaporation. He said he did not have the pump standards and efficiency levels, but he assured the Commission that at the minimum the water features would meet the City's water efficiency standards. P;~Reports PC`~.2009',3 24 09\PC MIN 2 24 05 Rpproved.doc 5 Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 2009 Mr. Brose said he would like to have Mr. John Vuksic address an eighteen inch height discrepancy with the CVS building as it was not his expertise. Mr. John Vuksic, Prest Vuksic Architects, 46311 Goldenrod Lane, Palm Desert, introduced himself and referenced condition of approval 96 for the Site Development Permit application addressing the 27-1/2 feet height of one of the architectural elements of the drug store; which was requested to be 26 feet. When it was designed they used 27-1 /2 feet since it was well balanced with the two adjacent elements and aesthetically pleasing in terms of the three dimensional quality of the building. He then explained the design elements of the building and why the height was necessary. He requested the Commission leave the element at 27-1/2 feet. Mr. Brose said the above were all of the applicant's concerns and noted his whole team was there to answer questions the Commission might have. Commissioner Barrows asked what energy efficiency efforts were going to be used. She expressed her concern with the amount of glass on the building and the fact that the plans did not indicate that it was protected by any shading structures. She added there was no coverage provided by the landscaping as well. She noted the project was not pedestrian-friendly and wanted to gain insight on how the pedestrian scale of the project could be enhanced. Mr. Brose commented on the pedestrian scale. He said staff had asked them, early on in the process, to incorporate a pedestrian friendly connectivity and ambiance between the two projects. He pointed out various features in the commercial site which would draw the pedestrians from the medical to the retail side; as well as the nearby neighborhoods. He added there was a full ADA access accommodated in the project. He noted it is not a lifestyle center, it is a neighborhood center. Commissioner Barrows asked how the medical portion of the project would enhance the retail portion of the project. Mr. Brose commented the design of the architecture and the landscaping of the project was planned in a manner to reduce the visual mass of the building and make it more inviting. P:~neportn - PC`2U09'~,3-24-09iPC MIN_2-24-09_Appraved.dac Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 2009 Commission Barrows said the water feature in the entry area on the east side did not have a function as it didn't have the appropriate landscaping, or design, to attract interactive connectivity with the patrons of the center. She commented the landscaping of the Living Waters Medical Center building entry area needed to be enhanced. Mr. Brose said her comment had been noted. He explained the name of the company was Living Waters and the use of the water feature blended in with the name. Commissioner Barrows said it seemed like all the rehabilitation took place inside the building and she felt the outer grounds area around the water should be enhanced and made pedestrian friendly. Commissioner Quill stated he had the exact same comment. He explained the Commission was not favorable of water features that had no purpose and only looked good. He said the fountain was inaccessible and served no benefit to the pedestrians and patients walking around the building. He added the feature at the other corner was even less accessible and he suggested the use of a piece of artwork which would be lower in maintenance costs and would create the same aesthetic affect. Commissioner Weber suggested moving the water feature closer to the entrance of the building where it would be more interactive. Mr. AI Burghard, Principal with Burghard Design Group located in Menifee, CA introduced himself and addressed the central water feature. He said it was placed in a way so that it would be the focal point at the Fred Waring Drive entrance. Secondly, he noted its use as a security feature. He used the example that if someone came into the driveway and picked up speed they would not be able to enter the building. With regard to enhancing the entry area and making it more pedestrian friendly, Mr. Burghard pointed to a grouping of plants by the front which he explained were raised planters with seating areas all the way around them, as well as the seat wall around the front side of the water feature. Chairman Alderson asked staff to show slides of the water features. Mr. Burghard pointed out where the seating was and the areas surrounding the water features. P:`~.Re,PGrts - PC~2009'~.3 24 09`,PC MIN 2 24 09 Approvod.dor, '] Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 2009 Chairman Alderson echoed Commissioner Weber's suggestion of making the water feature multi-purpose by moving it closer to the building, and taking it out of the traffic circle to make it accessible to pedestrians without having to go trough traffic. Mr. Burghard said the suggestion had been noted and would be taken into consideration. Commissioner Barrows expressed her concern that the water feature, in its current design, would use and pump a lot of unnecessary water and provide no benefit as it was surrounded by driveways. She gave an example of a sculpture used in the project with water coming down which would give a similar effect, but the water use would be a lot more conservative. She reiterated that the Commission's desire was to have the water feature be part of a park-like feeling, or not be there at all. Mr. Burghard acknowledged her concern and explained the water feature was only twelve inches deep, the water would be circulating constantly, and the evaporation would be minimal. Commissioners Barrows and Quill both said they would be interested in seeing some redesigns of the water features. Mr. Burghard addressed the energy efficiency of the building. He said the new building codes were effective as of January, 2008 and would stay in effect for at least two years. He stated their goal was to always exceed the requirements of Title 24 whenever possible, but exceeding them by twenty percent was very difficult. He said the materials and building designs that would be used would allow them to exceed Title 24 by approximately ten to fourteen percent. He described the different energy efficiency efforts they had made on this project. Commissioner Barrows asked about the shade requirement on the second story windows. Mr. Burghard explained the heat would be mitigated substantially through the use of "E" glass and by the fact that the windows were set back four feet. The windows on the first level already had shade devices. Commissioner Barrows inquired about the large expanse of glass in the central area. Mr. Burghard replied there was atwo-story lobby on the south side and the glass would extend all the way up to the roof. He Pr.Reports - PC`~.2009'~,3-24-02PC MIN_2-14Q9_Appruve~i.ctoc g Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 2009 explained they mitigated the heat by designing the roof to overhang the face of the building by a substantial margin. Commissioner Weber asked if the applicant was referring to having package roof systems for HVAC and, if so, what were the calculations. He also inquired as to whether they had looked into any of the incentives offered in regards to an energy efficient building. Mr. Burghard replied the engineering had not yet been started for the project. Commissioner Weber stated the City of La Quinta was trying to be a model in regards to energy efficient building. He said Title 24 would be subject to an increase by the end of the year. He commented on the water feature agreeing with Commissioner Barrows that it needed to be made accessible to pedestrians and that would not be possible if the fountain remained in its present location. He suggested the use of a raised median with an Art in Public Places art piece in place of the fountain. Commissioner Weber said he had questions regarding the covered parking. Mr. Burghard replied the design on the shade structure had not yet been initiated; however, he would be working closely with staff to ensure compliance. Chairman Alderson asked if the shade structures design would be submitted along with the Final Landscaping Plans. Mr. Burghard said he was not sure if they would be submitted at the same time. Usually, the shade structure lagged a little bit behind. Commissioner Weber encouraged the applicant to consider possibly incorporating solar into the shaded parking structure. He inquired about the mass transit accessibility, the way the patients would be arriving to the facility and about the fact that the number of parking spaces exceeded the requirements. Mr. Burghard explained the reasons the rehabilitation facility located at the flagship building was over-parked. Commissioner Weber asked about the medical component of the project, since the tenants have not yet been identified, whether or not it was a partnership, a hospital affiliation, or a potential tenant. Mr. Brose replied the negotiations needed to be kept confidential. P'~.Repcrts P0.2009`~,3-24 09b°C .UiIN 2 24 09 Approved.doc 9 Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 2009 Commissioner Weber asked if a Certificate of Need would be required to establish the outpatient surgery center. Consultant Criste said the Certificate of Need was not required. Commissioner Weber inquired about mass transportation accessibility for the public including senior citizens, and accommodations for the neighborhood children. Mr. Brose said the applicant had been in contact with SunLine and explained where the bus stop would be located. He added they would be adding anything required by code. He also pointed to the ADA access points and stated that bike racks would be provided as well. Commissioner Wilkinson asked about the twenty percent efficiency and the potential solar on the parking structure and whether or not there were any provisions for the solar application on roofs. Mr. Brose replied they would do what the code required and that they had not gotten that far down the road on design. Commissioner Wilkinson encouraged the applicant to use solar as it would be a step in the right direction. Commissioner Wilkinson asked Mr. Brose to explain his comments on condition 98. Mr. Brose asked the site plan of the project be displayed and showed the possible corner locations for the sign. Planning Director Johnson said the General Plan identified an entry sign at the northeast corner; however, staff concurred with what the applicant brought forth in that the southeast corner would be the most appropriate site for the entry sign. He mentioned that, on the southeast corner, the City did not have sufficient right-of-way or public area for it. Commissioner Quill asked if the City could acquire the space for the sign. Staff explained the situation and the procedures which would have to be followed to allow for the monument sign. Chairman Alderson asked if the applicant would be financially responsible for acquiring the additional right-of-way and for placing the sign in the future. Planning Director Johnson explained the steps which would be taken to acquire the sign. Commissioner Wilkinson noted he was having a difficult time getting past the omission of the deceleration lane at the intersection of Fred P '~ftepcrts - PG2009~.3-74-09'~PC MIN_?-t4-09_Approved.doc IQ Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 2009 Waring and Palm Royale Drives. He felt the deceleration lane was necessary. He commented on the daily traffic situation in the area and questioned the justification for not requiring that lane. He was very concerned about the possibility of accidents in the area due to the great amount of traffic and the hazard of not having the deceleration lane. Commissioner Quill echoed Commissioner Wilkinson's concern in regards to not requiring a deceleration lane. He gave the example of the JFK Center on Washington Street since it was the same exact use and commented on the fact the inclusion of a deceleration lane would have eliminated the traffic problem there. He said that, based on the traffic study submitted, a deceleration might not be required but a different study might indicate otherwise. Commissioner Wilkinson noted he shared the same concerns regarding the water features as the other Commissioners because it was pedestrian friendly. Commissioner Quill stated he had already voiced his concerns and he would not approve the water feature in its current design. He said it needed to be a pedestrian friendly, multi-use water feature, and it should be reduced in surface area, pumping capacity and water consumption. Commissioner Quill asked if the tenants had already been identified. Mr. Brose replied the leases were in the works, but currently nothing had been executed. Commissioner Quill questioned the phasing of the projects and what was scheduled to go in first. Mr. Brose explained there would be mass grading on both project sites and the backbone utilities infrastructure would be installed at the same time. Commissioner Quill asked if all the parking would be paved at that time. Mr. Brose replied the underground storage would have to be built first which might trigger the build out of the parking in the early phases. He explained the smaller tenant did not want to move in until the bigger tenants were already in. Also, they still needed to work on the final engineering, the mapping, and the packaging of all the documents in order to obtain the final approvals from the City. Mr. Brose explained how the leasing of a commercial center is usually done. He then laid out the plans they would follow to build the PPROports PC`.2009~3 24 09,PC MIN 2 24 05 Apprwod.dor, ] 1 Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 2009 center. He said there would be a major grocery store going in as well as CVS. Also, they were in communications with the medical entities. Chairman Alderson voiced a concern that the architect had provided elevations only on the two-story medical building and none for the other buildings. He emphasized the importance of coordinating closely the architecture for the rest of the buildings in both the commercial and the medical centers. He referenced lots seven and eight of the medical center where the retention basin was located and asked if the applicant could put in amenities and make it a people friendly environment. Mr. Brose replied that it would be complimentary. Commissioner Alderson asked if there would be any legal ramifications with having the retention basins split across two different lots. Mr. Brose said he was not aware of any. Commissioner Alderson suggested fencing the retention basins along the public sidewalk to keep kids, walking by, from entering. He commented on the wrought iron fence in the area. Mr. Brose said he would prefer not fencing the retention basin. He said it was prison- like with the existing fencing in the adjacent areas. Commissioner Alderson said he was only referring to the area of the retention basin and there was some public liability involved. Commissioner Weber asked if there was a significant elevation change. Mr. Brose pointed out where the retention basin was and there was a difference of about five feet. Commissioner Weber said fencing the retention basins was a good suggestion. Commissioner Alderson stated staff had suggested either a berm or a thirty inch high screen wall around the perimeter of the property which had not yet been discussed. He said the Commission would like to have a wall there. Mr. Brose asked if he was referring to screening the parking lot. Planning Director Johnson clarified that it was condition 83 and referenced fencing the parking lot wherever it was up against the perimeter property line. Commissioner Alderson asked Consultant Nicole Criste to explain her interpretation of Title 24 and the twenty percent mitigation measure. P~~Reports - PC12009~.3-24-09~WC MIN 2-?4-69 kpproved.doc 12 Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 2009 Consultant Criste said the twenty percent mitigation measure was not tied directly to the traditional air quality analysis, but rather to the greenhouse gas analysis included in the EIR. Thresholds have not yet been identified by the State, but some of the transportation-related programs addressing reduction of greenhouse gases were ranging in the twenty percent range. Further, under AB 32, the City is required to lower its greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. This is why the twenty percent mitigation measure was included. Commissioner Weber commented the above was also in relation to SB 375. Consultant Criste said SB 375 was more transportation-related. This mitigation measure was purely to address greenhouses gas emissions associated with the project relating to AB 32. Chairman Alderson asked if the ten percent proposed by the applicant was sufficient. Consultant Criste replied that any reduction over Title 24 was a positive reduction. If the applicant believed they could accommodate fourteen percent as indicated, she suggested changing the condition to reflect fourteen percent. Commissioner Barrows asked if the change in the percentage of the mitigation measure would have an impact on the conclusions of the EIR and if reducing it would be sufficient to meet the new thresholds. Consultant Criste replied the reduction would not require the re- circulation of the EIR and since there weren't any current thresholds there wasn't a set mitigation percentage. Commissioner Barrows inquired about the EIR and some of the emission reduction opportunities. She said she would like the project to be designed to incorporate public transportation opportunities and asked if that was a mitigation measure. Consultant Criste replied the mitigation measures included a whole menu of potential strategies, ranging from transportation management strategies to grading strategies designed to be implemented to the greatest extent possible. Commissioner Weber said the electricity utility did have design assistance for any new building. This was a new construction energy efficiency program encouraging ten percent reductions above Title 24, which also were accompanied by financial incentives. He said he was pleased that the utility was moving forward in that direction and was providing opportunities to make the mitigation a lot easier to obtain. PclRoports PC\2Q09-32409~PC MIN _2 2~ 09 Approvnd.doc ).3 Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 2009 Chairman Alderson asked about design and color of the awnings on the front of the buildings. Planning Director Johnson replied the developer was conditioned to identify the color palette that would be available for the tenants to choose from and that awnings were to be established on all of those locations. The tenants would have to adhere to an administrative review prior to installing the awnings. There is a strong aesthetic value but also a strong shading value. Commissioner Barrows questioned the significant amount of extra parking provided by the developer above the 415 spaced required by the City. She suggested the parking spaces be reduced and the space be used for outdoor amenities instead. Mr. Brose responded the plan had gone through a lot of iterations. On the retail side there were very strict parking requirements; so we have some tenant considerations. On the medical side the difference was due to the change in use of the building from medical to a rehabilitation center. Mr. Marvin Roos, MSA Consulting, explained the City's parking requirements for a medical use. He said the Code did not specify parking requirements for a rehabilitation center. He described their philosophy and layout of the parking. He added they increased the size of the retention basin and that the extra parking had been apportioned throughout the site. He said they found the projects to be adequately parked and explained why. Commissioner Barrows commented that she quoted the wrong number of extra parking spaces earlier and that in fact the actual number was quite significant. She said the extra unnecessary parking took away from the feel of the project and did not encourage the use of alternative transportation as well as the pedestrian-friendly atmosphere the Commission was pushing towards. Chairman Alderson noted that if the designated use of any of the buildings were to change in the future the applicant would already have accommodated the possibly greater parking requirements. Staff explained what would happen if one of the building uses was changed. Staff suggested the applicant be permitted to ensure enough spaces to allow that possibility and explained the calculations of the parking areas. P;,Reports - PC~.2009~,3-24-U9~.PG MIN_2-24-Q9_Appro~~ed.doc 14 Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 2009 Chairman Alderson asked if Staff was referring to the alternative use. Staff gave an explanation of how the parking requirements had changed. Commissioner Alderson asked if the calculations covered both projects. Staff responded it did and then explained the parking calculations. Commissioner Barrows wanted to clarify there would be an excess of 134 parking spaces on the medical portion of the project. Staff confirmed. Commissioner Quill asked the applicant if they would comply if the Commission conditioned them to relocate the water feature. Mr. Brose replied he would concede to the water feature located at the corner of Fred Waring and Washington Drives. He said they would be flexible. Commissioner Quill asked if the applicant agreed to present to the Commission the re-designed water features. Mr. Brose replied he would as long as they could move forward with the project at this time. Planning Director Johnson said the Commission had the authority to decide whether this would be done as an administrative approval or returned to the Commission as a business item. Mr. Brose asked if the final landscape plans would be coming back to the Commission. Staff clarified. Chairman Alderson asked if there was any public comment. Mr. William Brogan, 43820 Milan Court, La Quinta, California, introduced himself and said he lives directly across the street from the project and pointed out his home's location. He said he had a longer line of sight, with a smaller angle, and explained how the second story building would affect him. He added, the further you go back the more you can see. He requested the Commission not allow the second story. 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. P:;Repons PQ2J09.3-24 09~PC h~ W _2 24-09 Approved doc 15 Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 2009 Commissioner Wilkinson said he had no additional concerns other than the ones discusses which included the water feature and the deceleration lane on Fred Waring. He added he wasn't sure what the impact would be regarding the two-story line of sight issue as he didn't know what type of vegetation was to be included. He emphasized his biggest concern was the deceleration lane and asked if staff was satisfied with that condition. Principal Engineer Wimmer replied the traffic study had been reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department and the identified threshold did not require a deceleration lane. The Commission could look into seeking advice from Council to condition this or request the applicant to change the plan. Commissioner Quill referred to the dual glazed, tinted windows used for the two-story lobby at the Living Waters Medical Center. He wanted to find out if the addition of awnings would even make a difference. He asked if additional shading would have an impact if the quality of the glass is that high already. Because if it wouldn't he did not want to continue asking applicants and developers to install awnings in the future. He had further comments on shading, awnings, and architectural integrity. Commissioner Quill stated his big concerns with the project at hand were the re-design of the water feature in front of the Living Waters Medical Center, and the deceleration lane on Fred Waring Drive, especially because the turn would be after a signal. He commented he was pleased that the applicant had agreed to replace the corner water feature with a possible Art in Public Places feature. He said he did not have a problem with the height of the building extension exceeding the 26 feet. Commissioner Barrows said she would like to see a deceleration lane as, from a common sense point of view, the traffic in the area would become a problem. She noted the applicant's efforts to provide for pedestrian pathways, but her concern was that she didn't see any pedestrian opportunities anywhere on the site. She said the trend the City was promoting was amulti-use type facility enhancing public spaces encouraging people to go to them. She did not like the idea of keeping the extra parking spaces instead of using them to build pedestrian scale, public-friendly gathering areas. She said she supported a limited water feature with an opportunity for folks to enjoy it. She would like to see the re-designed plans come back to the P.~Repotts - PC`~.2009'~.3-24-09~PC MIN_2-24-09_Apprave<f duc ).6 Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 2009 Commission for review. She suggested the applicant take advantage of the natural desert dunes and shape them into perimeter mounds rather than installing a wall or berms. Commissioner Weber complimented the general layout and the building style of the project. He said the water feature needed to be moved back closer to the building, it needed to be more interactive, and the volume needed to be mitigated to comply with energy efficiency and environmental stewardship. He said he appreciated the public comment regarding the line of sight and expressed his hope that staff and the applicant would look into the issue and find a way to mitigate the impact so the nearby resident would not be adversely affected. Commissioner Weber said he agreed a deceleration lane was needed from a safety standpoint. He stated he would like to allow the applicant to build the second story of the building, but at the same time he was sensitive to the line of sight issue and was hopeful that it could be worked out. He mentioned condition 41 regarding reimbursement of additional off-site improvements and said staff needed to weigh in on it. He addressed the sign location issue and said it would be more appropriate to have it at the location proposed by the applicant, but that would be a problem if the necessary property for that could not be secured. Commissioner Weber said he was pleased with condition 101 regarding air quality and its requirement for a greater level of compliance with Title 24. He stated he agreed with Commissioner Quill that the change in the height of the building extension from 26 to 27-1/2 feet was not significant. He touched on condition 80 and asked for staff's input whether or not two sets of plan checks were necessary or if the applicant could be accommodated and required to submit only one set. Commissioner Weber said he agreed with Commissioner Barrows on her concerns regarding the walkability, sustainability, and environmental stewardship of the project as he hoped for it to stand the test of time twenty years from now. Chairman Alderson thanked everyone for their patience. He said this was a very complicated and important project for the City of La Quinta and the Commission wanted to ensure that it was reviewed well. He concurred with Mr. Brose that it would be a good idea for the temporary occupancy permit to be issued earlier. Pr:Reports PC`~2009~.3 24 09\PC MIN 2 2J 09 APFraved.Ao:; ]'] Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 2009 Chairman Alderson commented regarding condition 81 asking for the plans for the two projects to be plan checked separately. He said if he plans were ready to be submitted and said he did not see a problem to do the plan check on both projects simultaneously. He stated he was pleased with the mitigation measures exceeding Title 24 requirements. Chairman Alderson mentioned that the photometrics for the parking lot lighting were not available at this time, but they would be submitted at a later time. Planning Director Johnson said the project was currently conditioned to have an administrative review of the fixtures and photometric plan. Chairman Alderson said he concurred with the other Commissioners on the comments regarding the water feature. It needed to be pulled back closer to the building and re-designed. He wanted the Commission to review it again along with the final landscaping plans for the project sites. Staff noted the Commission would have to recommend to Council to add the condition for the project to come back to the Commission for a second review. If the condition was upheld by Council, the project would be presented to the Commission as a business item. Commissioner Alderson commented that the deceleration lane was a very good idea and would allow patients and patrons to move into the deceleration lane. Commissioner Alderson said placing the sign at the location proposed by the applicant was a great idea. He asked if the Commission conditioned the applicant to place it there, would it impose a financial obligation or would it be just a suggestion. Planning Director Johnson replied the condition currently was encumbering the applicant to merely secure the corner space for a sign to be established, it did not pose any financial obligation. He added this condition was a matter brought forward a couple of years ago when it was considered by the ALRC. He said when staff recently revisited the matter, as stated earlier, staff concurred with the applicant's position. The issue, as pointed out by Commissioner Weber, was that the City did not have the area nor the sign designs established. Chairman Alderson said depending on the Commission's and Council's decisions, at some point in the future staff would have to come up with a sign design and the funds to establish the signs, but it would not be something that would transpire in the next couple of years. P:~~Reports - PC~.2009~3-24-09'.PC MIN_2-2A-09_Apprcved.dac 18 Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 2009 Chairman Alderson asked about the entry sign contemplated by Council to be placed on Washington Street. Planning Director Johnson referenced the two large entry signs on the east and west City limits located on Highway 111. He explained that other than those two the City did not have other entry signs except for the standard two-toned green signs. Therefore, the City would have to work something out in the future. Chairman Alderson thanked the applicant for being flexible and agreeing to change out the corner fountain with artwork. Mr. Brose wanted to make a comment. Chairman Alderson said the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed. Assistant City Attorney Houston informed the Commission that the public hearing could be reopened. Chairman Alderson reopened the public hearing. Mr. Brose asked if the Commission was going to make a recommendation on the two-story building and in regards to Title 24. Chairman Alderson replied the recommendations would be made in the upcoming hearing. Chairman Alderson closed the public hearing. Planning Director Johnson wanted to clarify that the Commission could comment on the mitigation measures, they could not make a definitive recommendation and take any formal action on the draft EIR. Consultant Criste said her comments were in the same line as staff's. She asked if the Commission wished to make a recommendation to make it separate from their motions on the project and she asked they include in the recommendation that any change to the mitigation measure does not represent a significant change in the mitigation measures proposed, and, therefore, would not require recirculation of the document. Assistant City Attorney Houston urged the Commission to speak slowly and clearly when moving and conditioning in order to ensure that the court reporter records everything accurately. Commissioner Quill asked if the first consideration was a resolution recommending the approval of the EIR. Chairman Alderson replied it P:.Re~ports PC?2009.3 24 09 Pf, MIN 2 24-09 Approvod.iioe I9 Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 2009 was not. Staff clarified the first consideration was Site Development Permit 2009-875. Commissioner Quill asked if the conditions of approval were only for the Parcel Map and they should be addressed there. Planning Director Johnson replied there were 101 conditions relative to the Site Development Permit. He added for clarification that the Commission was not to take any formal action or request any formal action on the draft EIR. It would only be identified as a finding and that the draft EIR was considered by the Commission, but the draft EIR process was still open until Friday (February 27, 2009). He explained Council would be taking the final action on the EIR. The Commission could make recommendations for Council tonight, but it was not a requirement. Commissioner Weber asked staff for clarification on whether or not condition 80, regarding the two separate plan checks on both projects, was an issue. Staff replied it was not an issue and suggested modifying the condition to state "may" instead of "shall" giving the applicant the opportunity to separate the projects if need be in the future, instead of just deleting the condition all together. Commissioner Weber commented on the phtometrics. He said the Commission needed to be very sensitive about the light sources being in such a proximity to the adjacent neighborhoods. Commissioner Quill said the City's ordinance on photometrics was very solid and dealt with the issue in depth. He stated as long as the applicant complied with the City's ordinance he felt comfortable. Staff said that additional language was included requiring shielding for perimeter fixtures and as Commissioner Quill identified, the ordinance was very good and definitive with regards to the thresholds as the light trespasses off the site. He added the Commission would be seeing, in the not very distant future, an update in the lighting ordinance. There was no further discussion and it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Wilkinson to approve Resolution 2009-006 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2006-875 with the following conditions and adjustments: P.~Reports - PC:2D09'~3-24-091PC MIN_2-24-09 Approved.dac 20 Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 2009 1. Condition number 89 shall be amended to read: The medical complex water feature shall be re-designed to be more water efficient, use less energy, and be more interactive with the general public, pedestrians, and other people using the facilities. The final plans for the water feature shall be included in the final landscaping plans submitted to the City and shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission as a business item prior to approval by the Planning Director. 2. Condition number 98 shall be amended to read: The proposed water feature at the northeast corner of Washington Street and Fred Waring Drive shall be removed and, in its place, an art piece shall be explored as part of the City's Art in Public Places Program. 3. Condition number 91 shall be deleted. 4. Condition number 65 be amended to read: "The City will conduct final inspections of habitable buildings only when the buildings have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to public-maintained streets. The improvements shall include required traffic control devices, pavement markings and street name signs. Temporary occupancy permits, solely for the purposes of allowing fixture interior improvements will be allowed." 5. Condition number 41.B. shall be amended to read: "Construction additional off-site improvements required for development of this project, subject to the reimbursement of its costs by others." 6. Condition number 41.E., 2"d paragraph shall be amended to read: "In the event that any of the improvement which this project is conditioned to provide required for this development are constructed by the City, the applicant shall, prior to the approval of the Final Map, or the issuance of any permit related P:'~Rrports PC`~.2009`~.3 24 09YPC AKIN 2 24 09 Approved.doc 2 ] Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 2009 thereto, reimburse the City for the project's proportionate share of the costs of such improvements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer." 7. Condition number 80 will be amended to read: "The commercial and medical office complex projects may be considered separate projects for plan checking purposes. 8. Condition number 96 shall be deleted. 9. Anew condition shall be added to read: "The applicant shall consider eliminating parking spaces in each complex to provide additional pedestrian-friendly outdoor public spaces. Areas provided shall be included in the final landscaping plans." 10. Anew condition shall be added to read: Within the .landscape perimeter strip along Palm Royale Drive minimum 36" box size trees shall be densely planted adjacent to Building 13 of the medical complex. 1 1. Replace Condition 10.A.21b) with the following: "for adeceleration/right turn only lane at the westerly most driveway on Fred Waring Drive to provide measured 87 feet north of the centerline of Fred Waring Drive for a length of 248 feet plus storage length and a transition taper of an additional 150 feet (or length as approved by the City Engineer) to accommodate improvements conditioned under STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS." 12. Add Condition 10.A.2)c) as follows: "for adeceleration/right turn only lane at the easterly most driveway on Fred Waring Drive as approved by the City Engineer." P ~:ReEx~rts - PC.7003'~.3-?4-09 7C MIN_?-24-P9_AUproved.<iac 22 Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 2009 13. Replace Condition 18.A.2)a) with the following: "at the intersection of Washington Street to provide fora 12- foot parkway, 12-foot deceleration/right turn only lane, three westbound through lanes, a dual westbound left turn lane to southbound Washington Street, and a raised median as approved by the City Engineer. The proposed right of way shall be measured 75 feet north of the centerline of Fred Waring Drive as shown on the approved Site Plan for this Site Development Permit and as approved by the City Engineer." 14. Add Condition 18.A.2)c) as follows: "For adeceleration/right turn only lane at the easterly most driveway on Fred Waring Drive to the satisfaction of the City Engineer." Chairman Alderson opened the motion for discussion. Commissioner Weber disagreed with condition number 98, about the city signage. He felt the Commission should condition the applicant to dedicate the corner area for an entrance sign to be place there in the future by the city. He wanted the space noted in the architectural drawings as reserved for later signage. There was discussion about the proper signage and placement. Chairman Alderson said he did not feel strongly enough to alter the motion. Planning Director Johnson said the three items that were brought up by Public Works were not included in the recommendation. Staff asked for the memorandum to be referenced. Commissioner Quill clarified that the motion intended to include the three amendments made by Public Works are also to be included as part of the motion. Commissioner Barrows noted she supported staff's recommendation for aone-story structure for Building 13. She clarified the condition concerning the reduction in parking spaces and adding more public areas. She said the Commission would like for the applicant to work with staff and to identify ways to reduce parking. The Commission did not ask fora certain percentage or a number, but from her perspective the reduction should be fairly significant. Chairman Alderson said the Commission needed to address the two- story application of Building 13. He commented that all three of he P:~.Reports PC`~.2Q09~.3 24 09\PC rJiiN 2 2~l 09 Approvod.rloc 23 Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 2009 back buildings were two-stories and all of the front buildings were one-story. He stated he did not feel that there was enough negative impact to alter the design. Commissioner Wilkinson commented on the distance between the nearby residences and the development. He estimated it was approximately the length of a football field. Chairman Alderson said he concurred with Commissioner Wilkinson. He noted the Planning Commission was very sensitive in approving high density developments and this was not such a case. He commented that the negative impacts were very minimal and insufficient to result in the removal of the second floor. Chairman Alderson said the Commission needed to agree in order to finalize the issue. Commissioner Quill said the Commission did not have to agree as the motion had already been made and it was seconded. Commissioner Barrows said it was difficult for her to specify whether the parking spaces should be reduced by ten or twenty percent. She commented that the project would be a lot more attractive with less parking. Commissioner Quill asked staff if Commissioner Barrows' comment could serve as part of the condition already made in regards to the reduction of parking. Planning Director Johnson replied the Commission's direction to staff was "staff and applicant shall consider minor reduction of parking to add public space." Commissioner Quill suggested eliminating the word "minor." Chairman Alderson asked if the Commission could provide more definitive language such as ask for common area usage and seating amenities in both the medical and commercial complexes and that each one shall dedicate four parking stalls or 800 square feet combined. Planning Director Johnson said the more definitive the language of the condition, the easier would be for staff and the applicant to determine the best way to comply. Commissioner Barrows said she was not trying to make this difficult, but she was wondering if a percentage was specified if that would P ~.Repcrts - PC;2009'.3-?4-09 PC Ul(N_2-24-09_Appraved dac 24 Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 2009 give staff some flexibility. Her point was there were over one hundred extra parking spaces between both projects and she was concerned that these projects were being approved with too much parking. Commissioner Quill said the modification to the motion was to eliminate the word "minor," and that would be the direction given to staff. Planning Director Johnson replied staff would do their best to comply. AYES: Commissioners Barrows, Quill, Wilkinson and Chairman Alderson. NOES: Commissioner Weber. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. There was no further discussion and it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Wilkinson to approve Resolution 2009-007 recommending approval of Conditional Use Permit 2007-105 as submitted. Unanimously approved. There was no further discussion and it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Wilkinson to approve Resolution 2009-008 recommending approval of Tentative Parcel Map 35088 with any conditions that were replicated in the Tract Map that were stated in the Site Development Permit 2006-875 or if there were additional conditions that were added that were applicable in the Tentative Parcel Map were to be included. Unanimously approved. Break was called at 9:53 p.m. B. Sign Application 2009-1337; a request by Imperial Sign Company for consideration of a request for a sign program for the Plaza at Tampico located at the northeast corner of Calle Tampico and Desert Club Drive. Chairman Alderson opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Assistant Planner Yvonne Franco presented the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. Chairman Alderson asked if there were any questions of staff. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Alderson asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. PnR~ports PC.2Q09.3 24 Q9APC MIN 2 24 09 Appruved.do,^, 25 Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 2009 Mr. Jim Engle introduced himself and offered to answer any questions. There being no questions of the applicant, Chairman Alderson asked if there was any public comment. There being no questions, or public comment, Chairman Alderson closed the public hearing and opened the matter for Commission discussion. There was no further discussion and it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Barrows/Wilkinson to approve Minute Motion 2009- 002 recommending approval of Sign Application 2009-1337 as submitted. Unanimously approved. VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Site Development Permit 2006-874; a request by Komar Investments, LLC for consideration of approval of graphic panels to be mounted on the walls of Building A and Building H within the Komar Desert Center located south of Highway 111 at Depot Drive. Chairman Alderson opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Assistant Planner Yvonne Franco presented the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. Chairman Alderson asked if there were any questions of staff. There being no questions of staff, Chairman Alderson confirmed the areas where the graphic panels would not be installed and stated the applicant did not want them at those locations due to the landscaping and the sign program. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Alderson asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Clint Knox, Komar Investments, Newport Beach, California, introduced himself and added that the staff report stated the panels had a two year lifetime, but the sign company informed him it was really a five year lifetime. He also stated, as a follow-up to the P".Reports - PC`~2008`.3-2409`~pC MIN_2-7~1-d9_Approved.doc 26 Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 2009 present conditions of the areas where they are now not proposing to locate the panels, the trees were bigger and the landscape would block the panels. They did not need the visual addition of the graphic panels. Chairman Alderson asked if the project was initially conditioned to include the panels. Staff said they were and added the original conditions of approval stated the panels had to be brought back to the Planning Commission. Chairman Alderson asked if the client had the latitude to change the location and design of the panels. Staff responded they did. Commissioner Weber suggested the client consider using bulk, or lower wattage lighting, since this was considered an architectural piece. Mr. Knox said they would consider removing the lighting. Chairman Alderson stated these panels would add color to the buildings. Chairman Alderson asked if there was any public comment. There being no further questions, or public comment, Chairman Alderson closed the public hearing and opened the matter for Commission discussion. There was no further discussion and it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Barrows/Wilkinson to approve Minute Motion 2009- 003 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2006-874 as submitted. Unanimously approved. VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Commissioner Quill reported on the City Council meeting of February 17, 2009, including details of the continuance of the Monroe Dates project and the issues the Council had with the conditions of the project. B. Chairman Alderson noted Commissioner Weber was scheduled to report back on the March 3, 2009, Council meeting. P:;Ropnrts PC 2009 3 24 09~PC MIN_2 24 09 Approved.doc 27 Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 2009 IX: DIRECTOR ITEMS: A. Discussion of the Joint Meeting (ALRC/PC) topics. Planning Director Johnson gave a brief overview of the time/place for meeting. He commented on the three topics suggested by the ALRC and stated there would only be 45 minutes available to discuss them. He asked for guidance, and feedback, on the ranking of the items. Discussion followed on the discussion items, including comments by: Commissioner Barrows asked if the City was considering looking at ways to utilize solar power and what kinds of provisions could be incorporated to provide for alternatives. Staff responded that solar panel conduits were added to the City Hall expansion and said this could be a possible discussion item at the meeting. Other topics suggested included: • Green Building requirements • Title 24, energy efficiency, and shade structures. • Site designs and pedestrian access, walkability, and the use of water features and general sustainability. X. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Wilkinson/Quill to adjourn this Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission to a Special Joint Meeting with the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee to be held on March 10, 2009 at 6:00 p.m. This Regular Meeting was adjourned at 10:34 p.m. on February 24, 2009. Respectfully submitted, ~,~ ~~.,~ Carolyn alker, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California P: ;Reports - PC:2009~3-24-09'~PC MIN_2-24-09_Approved doc 'L$