Loading...
2009 03 24 PCa, City of La Quinta o� o Planning Commission Agendas are now available on the City's Web Page @ www.la-guinta.org C�hlOF t1� PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California MARCH 24, 2009 7:00 P.M. **NOTE** ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING Beginning Resolution 2009-010 Beginning Minute Motion 2009-004 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 Meetings of February 24, and March 10, 2009; and Special Joint Meeting Minutes of March 10, 2009. 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 2008-118 Applicant........... Verizon Wireless Location............ 54-001 Madison Street, Fire Station #70 Request ............. Consideration to Allow the Construction of a 72 Foot High Telecommunications Monopalm and 830 Square Foot Equipment Shelter. Action ............... Resolution 2009- B. Item .................. SIGN PROGRAM 2009-1356 Applicant........... Eisenhower Medical Center Location............ Eisenhower Medical Center - Centre Pointe Development at the Southeast Corner of Seeley Drive and Washington Street Request ............. Consideration of a Proposed Sign Program for Eisenhower Medical Center Identification and Monument Signage. Action ............... Minute Motion 2009- . C. Item .................. SIGN PROGRAM 2006-1078, AMENDMENT NO. 1 Applicant........... Highland Development Sign Company Location............ North Side of Highway 1 1 1, Approximately 1,000 Feet East of Dune Palms Road Request ............. Consideration of a Proposed Sign Program Amendment to Add an Additional Freestanding Monument Sign for the Dunes Business Park. Action ............... Minute Motion 2009- . D. Item .................. ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 2008-096 Applicant........... City of La Quinta Location............ City-wide Request ............. Consideration of the following amendments to the La Quinta Municipal Code: 1 . To Update the List of Established Zones (9.20.010); 2. To Identify the Effective Date for Low Density Residential Zoned Lots which are Permitted a Ten Foot Rear Setback (9.50.030); 3. To Identify the Correct Cove Residential Minimum Dwelling Unit Size in Table 9-2 (9.50.030); 4. To Identify Provisions for the use of Vinyl Fencing Materials (9.50.090); 5. To Correct the Guesthouse Provisions in the Residential Table of Permitted Uses (9.60.100); 6. To Require a Specific Plan in Certain Commercial Zoning Districts for all Projects Over Ten Acres in Size (9.70.030 & 9.90.040); 7. To Identify Tobacco, Off -Site Car Sales, and Ice Skating Related Uses in the Non -Residential Table of Permitted Uses (9.80.040); 8. To Establish sunset Provisions for Inactive and Incomplete Applications (9.200.070 & 13.04.080); 9. To Specify Criteria for Modification by Application Procedures (9.200.090); 10. To Correct the Mandatory Findings of Approval for Tentative Tract Maps (13.12.130); 11. To Specify the Timing of Land Appraisals for Parkland Fees (13.48.060). Action ............... Resolution 2009-, and Resolution 2009- VI. BUSINESS ITEM: VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Report on City Council meeting of March 17, 2009, from Commissioner Wilkinson. B. Chairman Alderson scheduled to attend the April 7, 2009, City Council meeting. IX. DIRECTOR ITEMS: X. ADJOURNMENT: This meeting of the Planning Commission will be adjourned to a Regular Meeting to be held on April 14, 2009, 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, March 24, 2009 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, 51-321 Avenida Bermudas, on Friday, March 20, 2009. DATED: March 20, 2009 qWRO N iC/ W AERExecutive Secretary City of La Quinta, California Public Notices The La Quinta City Council Chamber is handicapped accessible. If special equipment is needed for the hearing impaired, please call the City Clerk's office at 777-7123, twenty- four (24) hours in advance of the meeting and accommodations will be made. If special electronic equipment is needed to make presentations to the Planning Commission, arrangements should be made in advance by contacting the City Clerk's office at 777-7123. A one (1) week notice is required. If background material is to be presented to the Planning Commission during a Planning Commission meeting, please be advised that eight (8) copies of all documents, exhibits, etc., must be supplied to the Executive Secretary for distribution. It is requested that this take place prior to the beginning of the 7:00 p.m. meeting. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA March 10, 2009 I. CALL TO ORDER 7:04 P.M. A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:04 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 Director Les Johnson, Planning Manager David Sawyer, Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston, Principal Engineer Ed Wimmer, Principal Planner Andrew , and Secretary Monika Radeva. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: None V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Tentative Tract Map 36089; a request by Dolphin La Quinta, LLC. to subdivide 8.45 gross acres into two lots for condominium purposes located on the southwest corner of Miles Avenue and Seeley Drive. Chairman Alderson opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Andrew Mogensen 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. PAReports - PC\2009\3-24-09\PC_MIN 3-10-09_Draft.doc Planning Commission Minutes March 10, 2009 There being none, Chairman Alderson noted that the lot line between Lots 1 and 2 went down an existing parking lot. Staff further noted additional parking would be required when Lot 2 was developed and that noted the conditions of approval asked for a shared parking easement agreement. Chairman Alderson asked if there was a reciprocal parking agreement and if the parking would be adequate. Staff replied the current parking on site is adequate to serve the existing units. Staff said it was likely that this would not be the last approval to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Staff was anticipating the applicant would be applying for a new Site Development Permit ISDP) for Lot 2, even though they could decide to build per the existing SDP. Commissioner Quill wanted to clarify that the applicant would still have to build at the reduced amount of units. Staff said the applicant would have to reduce the number of units in accordance with the condominium map. Chairman Alderson wanted to clarify that the intent is that when Lot 2 is developed it will have the same product as Lot 1. Staff confirmed that it would. Margo Thibeault, MSA Consulting, 34-200 Bob Hope Dr, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270, introduced herself and said she was available to answer any questions from the Commission. Chairman Alderson asked if the project was approved, what the developer's intent was in terms of timing. Ms. Thibeault replied currently there had not been a definitive time line established. Chairman Alderson said the construction fence on Seeley Drive for Lot 2 was placed twenty-five to thirty feet back from the curb and a tremendous amount of tumbleweeds were growing in that area. He asked if the fence could be moved forward to the sidewalk line. Ms. Thibeault replied the construction fence was placed there to identify the landscaping easement and, if the Public Works Department did not have any objections, the fence would be moved as requested. Chairman Alderson mentioned the two islands in the driveway of Lot 2 which also needed to be cleaned up. Ms. Thibeault replied it would be taken care of. PAReports - PC\2009\3-24-09\PC_MIN_3-10-09_Draft.doc 2 Planning Commission Minutes March 10, 2009 There being no further questions, or public comment, Chairman Alderson closed the public hearings and opened the matter for Commission discussion. There was no further discussion and it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Barrows/Wilkinson to approve Resolution 2009-009 recommending approval of Tentative Tract Map 26089 as submitted. Unanimously approved. VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: None VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIALS: VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Commissioner Weber reported on the City Council meeting of March 3, 2009, including details on the display of temporary and political signs being displayed in the public right-of-way. He also said Council discussed marketing efforts, the City's support of CVWD in addressing the water shortage and commented that Mayor Adolf attended the Dike 4 meeting of the CVWD Water Policy Committee. The Mayor and the City Council were looking into whether or not the City would be able to obtain some fiscal assistance through the stimulus packet. The Treasurer reported there was not concern at this time about the City's investment portfolio as it was not invested in high -risk areas. B. Chairman Alderson noted Commissioner Wilkinson was scheduled to report back on the March 17, 2009, City Council meeting. IX: DIRECTOR ITEMS: A. Staff noted the attendance packets for the Planning Commissioner Institute in Anaheim were distributed. PAReports - PC\2009\3-24-09\PC_MIN_3-10-09_Draft.doc 3 Planning Commission Minutes March 10, 2009 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 March 24, 2009. This regular meeting was adjourned at 7:21 p.m. on March 10, 2009 Respectfully submitted, Monika Radeva, Secretary City of La Quinta, California PAReports - PC\2009\3-24-09\PC_MIN_3-10-09_Draft.doc 4 MINUTES 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. 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\Updated-PC MIN_2-24-09_Draft_3.doc Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 2009 recommend approval to allow a convalescent/rehabilitation facility use; and 3) Tentative Parcel Map 35088 approval of a Tentative Parcel Map to divide 25± 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 P:�'Reports - PC'!12009\3-24-09\Updated-PC MIN 2-24-09 Draft 3.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. Pr Rmpurts - PCV009�3-24 09\Updated-PC MIN 2 14-09 Draft 3.doc 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:\Reports - PC`,2009'\.3-24-09Wpda1ed-PC MIN 2-24-09 Draft 3.doc 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�200913-24 09%Updated-PC MIN 2-24-09 Draft 3.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. PA.Reports - PD.20091,3-24-09"Updated-PC MIN 2-24 09 Draft 3.doc 6 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. Al 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:dReports - PC\200913-24-09Wpdoled-PC MIN 2-24-09 Draft 3,doc 7 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 a two-story lobby on the P,�Raports - PC%.2009113-24-09\Updated-PC MIN 2-24-09 Draft 3.dor. 8 Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 2009 south side and the glass would extend all the way up to the roof. He 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;yReports - PC-20M3-24-09AUpda1ed-PC MIN 2-24-09 Draft ldoc 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'Aapurtr, - PCi2009;3-24-WUpdated-PC MIN 2-24-09 Draft 3doc 10 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 P:�,Reports PC�.2009`.3-24-09ftdaled-PC MIN 2-24-09 Draft 3.doc 1 t 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:�,Repuris - PC�2009i3-24-09WpdaLed-PC MIN 2-24-09 draft 3.dac 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. P.\.Reports - P0.2009\3-24-09\OpduLed-PC MIN 2-24-09 Draft 3.dor, 13 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 feet 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:iReporis - PC1.2009\3-24-09\Upda[Gd-PC MIN 2 24-09 Draft 3.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. PP,%ports - PC\200T13-24-09Wpdoted-PC MIN 2 24-09 Draft 3.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 a multi -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 P:`,Repurts PC%12009\3-24-09\Updated-PC MIN 2-24-09 Draft 3.doo 16 Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 2009 enjoy it. She would like to see the re -designed plans come back to the 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 P:\Repurts - PC\2009\3-24-09\Updated-PC MIN 2-24-09 Draft 3Aoc 17 Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 2009 concurred with Mr. Brose that it would be a good idea for the temporary occupancy permit to be issued earlier. 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 P:''Reports P0.2009\3-24-09\Updated-PC MIN 2-24-09 Draft 3.dor, 18 Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 2009 the funds to establish the signs, but it would not be something that would transpire in the next couple of years. 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. P \Reports PC�2009\3-24-09Wpdaled-PC MIN 2-2-1 09 Draft 3.doc 19 Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 2009 Commissioner Quill asked if the first consideration was a resolution recommending the approval of the EIR. Chairman Alderson replied it 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',2009\3-24-09Wpdcued-PC MIN 2-24-09 Draft 3.doe 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 41.6. 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., 2Id 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 P:`'Reports - P6.2009t3-24-09\Updated-PC MIN 2-24-09 Draft 3.doc 21 Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 2009 approval of the Final Map, or the issuance of any permit related 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. A new 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. A new 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. 11. Replace Condition 10.A.2)b) with the following: "for a deceleration/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 a deceleration/right turn only lane at the easterly most driveway on Fred Waring Drive as approved by the City Engineer." PPReports PC�2009\3 24 09AUpduled PC MIN 2-24 09 Dratt 3.doc 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 for a 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.21c) as follows: "For a deceleration/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 strongty 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 a one-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 for a 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 PAReports - K\2009`,3-24-09\Updated-PC MIN 2-24-09 Draft ldoc 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 Pi!.Rreporis - PC\2009\3-24-09\Updated-PC MIN 2-24-09 Draft 3.dor, 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. PAReports - PC�12009`,3-24-09\Updated-PC MIN 2-24-09 Draft 3d00 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:AReports - PC�12009\3-24 09AUpdaled-PC MIN 7-24-09 draft 3.dor, 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. Pr.Roports-PC�2009\3-24-09\Updated-PC MIN 2-24-09 Drafl 3doc 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 Walker, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California P:\R©ports - PC2009i3-24-09`0pdated-PC MIN 2-24-09 draft 3.dor. 28 MINUTES ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE JOINT MEETING WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION A Special Meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA March 10, 2009 CALL TO ORDER 6:02 P.M. A. This special meeting of the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee with the Planning Commission was called to order at 6:02 p.m. by Chairman Alderson who asked Committee Member Ronald Fitzpatrick to lead the flag salute. B. Present: Committee Members Ronald Fitzpatrick and Ray Rooker, Commissioners Katie Barrows, Paul Quill, Mark Weber, Robert Wilkinson, and Chairman Ed Alderson. Absent: Committee Member Jason Arnold C, Staff present: Planning Director Les Johnson, Planning Manager David Sawyer, Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston, Principal Engineer Ed Wimmer, Principal Planner Wally Nesbit, Principal Planner Andrew Mogensen, and Secretary Monika Radeva. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS: Chairman Alderson said the purpose for the Joint Meeting was for the Commission and the Committee to discuss different areas of concern. The results of the discussion would be used in the review of projects in the areas of water conservation, green building and sustainability features. P:\Reports - PC\2009\3-24-09\Jt Mtg_A RC_PC_MIN_3-10-09_Drafr2.doc Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee Joint Meeting with the Planning Commission Minutes — March 10, 2009 1. Water conservation policies Chairman Alderson said La Quinta City Council and Planning Commission are a leader in water conservation in the Coachella Valley. The Planning Commission has been particularly strict on water usage, turf, and irrigation. He said the Commission would like to find out if the Committee shared the same views on this issue. Chairman Alderson asked Committee Member Fitzpatrick to express his thoughts on the current water conservation policies. Committee Member Fitzpatrick said the makeup of the Committee consisted of two architects and a landscaping contractor. He encouraged staff and the Commission to take advantage of the expertise the Committee could offer in those two areas. He said as an Advisory Committee they were limited to one review of the project. The second the time the Committee could comment on the project was at the Final Landscaping Plans stage. As a result of the limited reviews, the Committee does not get the opportunity to address sustainability, green buildings, LEAD certification, renewal energy, wind power, solar power, etc. Commissioner Quill joined the meeting at 6:08 p.m. Chairman Alderson asked Committee Member Fitzpatrick to comment on the water conservation policies. Committee Member Fitzpatrick said a lot of emphasis was being put on water conservation, but that energy conservation was just as important. He stated his main concern in reviewing a project was to make it people friendly by creating green space with seating, street scenes, to take away from the hostile environment of acres of paved asphalt and vertical stucco walls. He applied this to both residential and commercial developments. Chairman Alderson asked Committee Member Fitzpatrick if he was referring to the use of water and fountains within commercial developments where people could sit around. Committee Member Fitzpatrick replied he was primarily referring to fountains because he considered them to be an enhanced architectural feature to the project and not an intrusion. He noted there were lakes in residential developments that were not user friendly and served no purpose, other than for aesthetics, but he said there was a practical way to use architectural features. He commented that commercial centers presented a limitation to creating a people friendly environment and P:\Reports - PC\2009\3-24-09\Jt Mtg—ALRC—PC_MIN-3-10-09_Draft2.doc 2 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee Joint Meeting with the Planning Commission Minutes - March 10, 2009 having a fountain or any kind of a water feature was a good enhancement. He noted that a shaded seating area with a little bit of grass around it is inviting to patrons and is a nice break in the sea of asphalt. Chairman Alderson asked Committee Member Fitzpatrick what his thoughts were on the use of grass and sod versus artificial grass. Committee Member Fitzpatrick replied he would be in favor of either one as long as it looked inviting and provided an outside seating space with possible low level lighting, etc. With regards to water conservation for residential developments, he stated developers should be required to install smart irrigation control designs, limit the amount of turf to a certain percentage of the property. Chairman Alderson talked about Commissioner Quill's perception of the use of turf. He said if there were multi -uses for the turf then it could be justified, but the Commission did not support installing turf merely for aesthetics. Commissioner Quill talked about the different ways a water feature could be utilized to perform several functions besides the aesthetic, such as being the reservoir for irrigation, or it has a recreational component, or it is part of a park setting. He said the Commission did not support the use of water elements without additional functions not only because of the water shortage, but also because of sustainability standpoint due to the costly additional resources needed to keep it running. There was discussion regarding the use of water elements within commercial developments and the different methods that could be implemented to do that in a conservative manner. Commissioner Barrows asked staff if the current water ordinance could be amended to include some definitive general guidelines letting applicants know what would be encouraged in their water element designs. Planning Director Johnson said staff could revisit the city's water provisions and amend them, but the City's conservation methods needed to be at a much more global level. The City would have to establish more definitive policies in regards to sustainability, water and electricity related conservation measures, and the issue of energy efficiency with buildings. The City would further have to decide how much the State's requirements could be exceeded. He said the reason being for this was because all of these elements and features collectively would make a difference. He stated staff would be proposing policies to address sustainability in the next few months to the Commission and Council for comments and feedback. P:\Reports - PC\2009\3-24-09\Jt Mtg_ALRC_PC—MIN_3-10-09—Draft2.doc 3 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee Joint Meeting with the Planning Commission Minutes - March 10, 2009 Commissioner Quill talked about the issue of over -parking in commercial developments. Assistant City Attorney Houston said the Planning Commission had the authority to not allow developers to install additional parking spaces above the code requirements. Staff suggested a good way of dealing with such issues is to include a maximum number of parking spaces allowed in the code in addition to the minimum. Chairman Alderson commented on the public's perception of the great amounts of water and electricity used by commercial developments without any conservation attempts. Chairman Alderson said establishing sustainability policies would make it much easier for staff to point applicants in the direction supported by the City's officials. Commissioner Weber discussed the state's leading conservation measures and the need to raise awareness within consumers and to establish the policies that would help create a sustainable community. 2. Green building and sustainability techniques Chairman Alderson complimented the ALRC for reviewing all projects so thoroughly for offering their architectural and landscaping expertise and evaluations and asked Committee Member Rooker to share his thoughts on the use of excess power and its relation to utility conservation. Committee Member Rooker said that building an efficient building was through good architecture in terms of paying attention where the sun would be, where roof overhangs would be applicable, having recessed openings versus flat boxes. He talked about the often encountered applicants' concern to install a lot of trees due to possible signage obstructions. Commissioner Quill said the ALRC should be the body that thoroughly reviewed the architecture of the projects and suggested modifications be made because by the time the project was presented to the Planning Commission it was too far into the process. There was discussion regarding awnings, buildings' exposure to the sun, and other architectural features. Committee member Fitzpatrick talked about water conservation versus the complete elimination of water features and how overall conservation could P:\Reports - PC\2009\3-24-09\Jt Mtg_ALRC—PC_MIN-3-10-09—Drafr2.doc 4 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee Joint Meeting with the Planning Commission Minutes — March 10, 2009 be achieved through alternative methods, such as LEAD certified buildings, energy conservation, etc. Commissioner Barrows said she would appreciate the Committee's recommendations on projects on how to keep proposed water features and still be conservative in resource use. Discussion followed on the many possible applications of water features and the people -friendly environment they create. There was further discussion on establishing policies that would mandate applicants to design sustainable projects with green buildings. Commissioner Weber talked about LEED certification. Chairman Alderson asked Commissioner Wilkinson to talk about energy conservation and the solar impact and heat transfer of windows directly exposed to the sun. Commissioner Wilkinson talked about the relation of LEED certification to Title 24, the California Energy Commission standards, and the use of environmentally friendly building materials being used such as asphalt versus concrete, etc. He said energy conservation was more related to the installation of SEER (Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio) rated air conditioning units, door and window sealing, air filtration, solar, etc. He noted energy conservation came at a price that might not be affordable to many consumers and requiring a developer to build this way might impose fiscal difficulties in trying to build a product that would be within the price range of the targeted buyers. Commissioner Quill said there would be many new requirements dictated by the state that would address sustainable building and would be incorporated into the building and safety code. Commissioner Weber added the water and energy agency providers would be incorporating fiscal penalty provisions to target unconscientious users based on a tier rate. Commissioner Weber said sustainable building must be a combination of the installation of conservation measures with already efficiently constructed buildings. He talked about establishing some basic principles that would be shared between all parties, the Commission, Council, and Staff to help guide the future development of the community and address the concerns for water and energy conservation, over -parking, pedestrian access, public transportation, the design and quality of the buildings. P:\Reports - PC\2009\3-24-09Ut Mtg_ALRC_PC_MIN_3-10-09_Drart2.doc 5 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee Joint Meeting with the Planning Commission Minutes - March 10, 2009 Chairman Alderson asked Committee Member Rooker if he wanted to add anything to the discussion. He replied the use of turf had not yet been addressed. Committee Member Rooker said he found the use of desertscape throughout in a development to be too harsh, especially during the hot summer and high - wind seasons. He agreed in some instances too much grass had been used, but he favored the right balance between grass and desertscape to maintain the oasis -like environment in the desert. He noted he was not very familiar with the application and maintenance related to the use of artificial grass, but would be inclined to use it instead of desertscape. Chairman Alderson said the Commission very much appreciated the comments and suggestions provided by the ALRC in regards to landscaping. Commissioner Weber talked about the Commissions view on the use of turf. He said the amount had to be reasonable for the proposed use and it had to be accessible. There was discussion about the use of grass in medians and the repetitive maintenance costs incurred due to the damage caused by the watering of grass to streets, curbs, sidewalks, etc.; possible limitation policies were mentioned. Staff said there were efforts underway that were trying to address some of the existing problems of overwatering and extra turf such as the programs available through CVWD and IID to convert turf to desertscape, others promote upgrading to more sustainable equipment and provide for a fiscally sound way of achieving that. Commissioner Quill suggested the Commission make a motion to have a joint meeting with the ALRC again in six months. Commissioner Quill said he would like to make a motion as a recommendation to Council or Staff to establish basic sustainability guidelines for the City of La Quinta. Planning Director Johnson said the Commission has the authority to always direct staff to look into matters such as basic sustainable principles and practices. Staff talked about the different ways this could be approached. There being no further discussion it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Barrows to make a joint motion of the ALRC and the PAReports - PC\2009\3-24-09Ut Mtg_ALRC _PC_MIN_3-10-09_Draft2.doc 6 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee Joint Meeting with the Planning Commission Minutes — March 10, 2009 Planning Commission recommending that staff begin working on a set of sustainable principles and guidelines for the City of La Quinta. Unanimously approved. Chairman Alderson asked staff to arrange another meeting between the Commission and the ALRC in six months. IX: ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Wilkinson/Quill to adjourn this special meeting of the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee with the Planning Commission to the next regular Planning Commission meeting to be held on March 10, 2009, at 7:00 p.m. This special meeting was adjourned at 6:58 p.m. on March 10, 2009 Respectfully submitted, Monika Radeva, Secretary City of La Quinta, California P:\Reports - PC\2009\3-24-09\Jt Mtg_ALRC_PC_MIN_3-10-09_Draft2.doc 7 PH # A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: MARCH 24, 2009 CASE NO.: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2008-118 APPLICANT: VERIZON WIRELESS REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF 730 SQUARE FOOT UNMANNED TELECOMMUNICATION BUILDING AND A 72-FOOT HIGH MONOPALM ANTENNA FOR WIRELESS COMMUNICATION LOCATION: 54-001 MADISON STREET; FIRE STATION #70 (ATTACHMENT 1) PROPERTY OWNER: CITY OF LA QUINTA GENERAL PLAN: MAJOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES (MC) ZONING: MAJOR COMMUNITY FACILTIES (MC) ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: THE LA QUINTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THIS PROPOSAL IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15332 (CLASS 32) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA), IN THAT THIS IS AN IN -FILL PROJECT SURROUNDED BY URBAN SERVICES AND EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS SURROUNDING LAND USES: NORTH: RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY/GOLF COURSE (RL/GC) (THE HIDEAWAY) SOUTH: RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY/GOLF COURSE (RL/GC) (PGA WEST) EAST: RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY (RL) (GRIFFIN RANCH) WEST: RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY/GOLF COURSE (RL/GC) (PGA WEST) 1 RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2009- , approving Conditional Use Permit 2008-118, for a 72-foot high Verizon Wireless Communication Facility, subject to the attached Findings and Conditions of Approval. Prepared by: ERIC CEJA, ssistant Planner Attachments: 1. Location 2. Monopalm submittal package 3. Monopalm photo simulation 4. Radio frequency emissions study 5. FCC frequency registration 6. Coverage Maps 7. Monopalm location photos 5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2008-118; VERIZON WIRELESS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED March 24, 2009 GFNFRAI 1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Site Development Permit. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense council. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. Prior to the issuance of a grading, construction or building permit, the applicant shall obtain applicable permits and/or clearances from the following agencies, if applicable or required: • Fire Marshall • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) • Planning Department • Riverside County Environmental Health Department • Coachella Valley Unified School District (CVUSD) • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) • Waste Management of the Desert • Public Utilities Commission (PUC) • Federal Communication Commission (FCC) • Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits or clearances from the above listed agencies and departments. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the plans. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit. 7 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2008-118; VERIZON WIRELESS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED March 24, 2009 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. 7. 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 LQMC Section 13.24.040 (Improvement Plans). 8. The following plans shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Department for review and approval. The plans shall utilize the minimum scale specified, unless otherwise authorized by the Building and Safety Director 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 -Commercial Building and Precise Grading Plan (as required by the Building and Safety Department) 1 " = 30' Horizontal Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not listed above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to commencing plan preparation. 9. Upon completion of construction, and prior to record drawing submittal 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" 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 Record 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. Z PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2008-118; VERIZON WIRELESS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED March 24, 2009 15. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control signs, markings and other devices, raised medians if required, street name signs and sidewalks. 16. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, or as approved by the City Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking areas shall be stamped and signed by qualified engineers. 17. The applicant shall protect existing hardscape along the proposed Verizon Wireless Prefabricated Equipment Shelter and Monopalm construction area to include but not be limited to garden walls, landscaping, irrigation systems, curb and gutter, sidewalk and pavement, and existing building structures. Restoration to any damaged hardscape shall be to the satisfaction of the City of La Quinta. QUALITY ASSURANCE 18. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer. 19. The applicant shall arrange and bear the cost of measurement, sampling and testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program but required by the City as evidence that construction materials and methods comply with plans, specifications and applicable regulations. 20. The applicant shall arrange and bear the cost of measurement, sampling and testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program but required by the City as evidence that construction materials and methods comply with plans, specification and applicable regulations. 21. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were signed by the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawings," "As -Built" or "As -Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy of the drawings. The applicant shall revise the CAD or raster -image files previously submitted to the City to reflect as -constructed conditions. 11 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2008-118; VERIZON WIRELESS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED March 24, 2009 28. The antenna arrays shall be painted to match the color of the monopalm tower's palm fronds. 29. The height of the tower shall not exceed fifty-five (55) feet, measured from finished floor. 30. The applicant shall negotiate in good faith for shared use by third parties; an owner generally will negotiate in the order in which requests for information are received, except an owner generally will negotiate with a party who has received an FCC license or permit before doing so with other parties. 31. This permit shall expire on March 24, 2011, unless a one-year time extension is applied for and granted by the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 9.200.080 of the Zoning Code. 32. Building and monopalm setbacks shall comply with the rules and regulations of Chapter 9.130 and 9.170 of the Zoning Code. A minimum of two of the existing paved parking spaces shall be reserved for maintenance personnel, in close proximity to the equipment building. 33. The synthetic palm fronds shall extend a minimum of three feet beyond the communication antennas. Placement of the palm fronds shall be heaviest around the antenna arrays to guarantee that off -site locations (e.g., 200 feet and beyond) do not see the telecommunication equipment. A visual inspection by the Planning Department shall be required before a Certificate of Occupancy permit is issued by the Building and Safety Department. 34. Verizon Wireless shall secure a lease agreement with the property owner prior to any improvements. Once the lease agreement is secured a copy shall be submitted to the Planning Department for placement in the file. 35. Verizon Wireless shall have a continuing obligation to respond to and resolve any and all complaints associated with any potential interference with frequencies related to residential and/or life safety communications and operations. Response shall be within 48 hours of receipt of notice of any such complaints. 13 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 72-FOOT HIGH MONOPALM TELECOMMUNICATION ANTENNA AND UNMANNED EQUIPMENT BUILDING ON A PORTION OF A 1.95-ACRE FIRE STATION SITE, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS CASE NO.: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2008-118 APPLICANT: VERIZON WIRELESS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 241" day of March, 2009, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a request by Verizon Wireless to allow the construction of a 72-foot high monopalm telecommunication antenna and unmanned one- story equipment building of 740 square feet, located near the southwest corner of Madison Street and Avenue 54, in the MC (Major Community Facility) district, more particularly described as: A PN: 775-100-004 WHEREAS, on the 13`h day of February, 2009, the Planning Department mailed case file material to all affected agencies for their review and comment, with all written comments received on file with the Planning Department; and WHEREAS, the Planning Department published the public hearing notice in the Desert Sun newspaper on the 7t' day of March, 2009, for the 24" day of March, 2009, Planning Commission meeting as prescribed by Section 9.200.110 (Public Notice Procedure) of the Zoning Code, and by mailing a copy of said public hearing notice to all property owners and residents within 500 feet of the site; and WHEREAS, the conditioned height of the monopalm tower meets the intent of collocation and will minimize adverse visual effects of the tower and accessory buildings on the surrounding neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the communication facility will improve telecommunication service within the City of La Quinta, as shown on the coverage maps provided by the applicant; and 15 Planning Commission Resolution 2009-XXX Conditional Use Permit 2008-118; Verizon Wireless Monopalm March 24, 2009 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 correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission for this Conditional Use Permit; 2. That it does hereby approve Conditional Use Permit 2008-118 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval; PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 241" day of March, 2009, 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 17 ATTACHMENT # 1 19 ATTACHMENT # 4 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY I COMMUNICATIONS DIVISION REVISED PLANNING CRITERIA Site Name: SPANISH BAY 1. Specific Frequencies to be licensed with the FCC. Tx Fre uencies Rx Fre uencies [B" 880-889/ E 1965-1970/ C 776-787 B 835-844/ E 1885-1890/ C 746-757 2. Total Effective Radiated Power (ERP) of the antenna array. ERP dBm 57.64 3. RF Azimuth / radiation pattern/ antenna type -specs. Antenna Type -Specs Azimuth Radiation Pattern: Azimuth/Elevation Beamwidths i.e. Horizontal and Vertical Beamwidths LPD-6513 5 110 Azimuth BW: 65' Elevation BW: 16.10 LPD-6513 5 230 Azimuth BW: 65° Elevation BW: 16.10 LPD-6513 5 350 Azimuth BW: 65' Elevation BW: 16.10 See Attached Antenna Specification Sheet 4. The site Coordinates (Lat / Long) in NAD83. Latitude I Longitude 33° 39' 21.19" N 1 116° 15' 5.86" W 5. Height of antenna Center Line above ground; site AMSL. Antenna Center Line Feet AMSL eet 65 -5 Im 6. Field power intensity in terms of dbu / my per meter / standard benchmark; minimum power level to achieve desired reliability for connectivity. Minimum Field Power Intensity(dBm) In Buildin -75 In Auto -85 Street Level -95 See Attached Propogation Map Minimum antenna height required to achieve the specifications above, Minimum Antenna Height(Feet) 65 8. User friendly Propagation Maps with clear field intensity contours depicting field intensity specifications/legends relative to the RF coverage areas desired; relative distances, coordinates, main roads, See Attached Propogation Map 9. Radio Interference studies for sites within close proximity to Public Safety radio communications facilities. NA 10. FAA Studies and FCC tower registration for sites in close proximity to County airports. NA. See Attached: TOWAIR Determination 11. Completion / certification of RF Emission Hazard Safety Studies in compliance with FCC/OSHA directives: See Attached: SPANISH BAY EME Certification Itr 12. Identification of viable alternative sites. No viable alternative candidate available. 13. Antenna structure (including stealth design) specifications, highlighted towards long- term reliability and maintainability. See Attached Zoning approval drawings. 21 Revised 01/02/2001 22 ATTACHMENT # 5 Ve/'f�f wireless Date: January 19, 2009 Subject: Verizon Wireless' telecommunications facility to be located at 54001 Madison St., La Quints, CA Verizon Wireless' Network Enginecring Department has conducted a radio frequency (RF) emission study on the above referenced facility. The RF emission study was conducted pursuant to the guidelines and specifications provided in FCC OET Bulletin No. 65, Edition 97-01 dated August 1997, entitled Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields. All cellular transmit and receive equipment is manufactured to meet strict FCC requirements. Prior to use in a cellular system, the equipment must have FCC approval as to design, use and technical parameters. The study evaluated RF emission levels on the monopole directly in front of the proposed Verizon antennas. RF emission levels were calculated for a person 6 feet tall standing in the main beam of the antenna arrays at various points in front of the antennas. The calculations were made assuming `worst case' conditions i.e., all transmitters operating simultaneously at their maximum power excluding any attenuation. Based upon Verizon Wireless' engineering study and analysis, this telecommunications facility does not exceed the general population exposure limits in locations that are accessible to the general public, and is in complete compliance with the FCC's RF emission regulations. Terry Trink Radio Frequency Engineer 23 $a b5 ZR�e"seggssp�a�5�@3�8gg�@@g�G�� ®�r�€x�� a mfit oa O D ii,A Z Y F M �w4 31q F g 4 X 3o568 g�s�$ D �Cyl 0 0 DD D� �0 z 01-q W ' V ) m z4 DO D m Q D z CD (p w w » g gg n� O s 3 t t 2 u 3J m e 4? A m m R R R £ a��� gay p [$ D A= R O w� A � Z 3 gg #e dS g q Ag R¢ IN II A A9 �• Js*� STTE NAME:'SPANISH BAY' i —I n smm•0iO" 540O1 MADISON ST. LA OUINiA, CA 92253 wireless " TITLE SHEET +vanswcer�m� � ZONING Bi°vnp 4•��10f ocs inn.. ca ox+e ryas me-r000 N ���$����laaaaDaa►���+���9"�'3Swa�aaa�Re'9@a�4G5x � � x ggI S _ MADISON TEET �A yy m > b I � k I o Z i � O I \ W b I : W ry RRSS I I m gg J �y ■ 4 IFgR R @' {R¢pp� ggRg�ggs� ye�P� A�p �e�lygppgs �,fE{#a Sb E$mL 4'a �C CB, 1 qp +U 3 PRR IN NIP pi ZATOPWRAPHIC SU :F:Y:ll BEW SAM NJ.: pxpt /.ygcW Oeb w em wwvq AaC LMO ASS CIx iEI ING q( w ®�Y6 'SPANISH BAY' LAND SURVEYING & MAPPING �®®gam V 11 wireless 1.IIWAI x' LWXM H w v 54001 MADISON STREET COSTA xESA aura wA s2em EE mi Im0ea.,d c. A.. nxm-+5e7 Om0E ova LA OUINTA� CA 92253 w-� N> FM Fbx na sx-I see EAx mam zeo-moo .m. ma021 druj y11`� ' \ lP 1 1 ��7K -SPANISH BAN-4 MACISLIq,CfyJ CA 92p� 4 e�gg���+����as�aggNggn•�x��xa��,:3�39•a as � IRID Us wireless u SZI'R G^, MAI COyya 4ESl E Sn1E 7 y A o g o -D � N) x 0 c0 -P OEl m, N'd U CO pOl � ( F N A m III* 8� ri SITE NAME: "SPANISH BAY" 54001 MADISON ST. LA QUINTA, CA 82263 SITE PLAN ZONING A.P.N. 767-780-082 TRACT NO. 32879 M.B. 399 / 3-18 LOT "AH" si m D d SITE NAME: "SPANISH BAY" 54001 MADISON ST. LA OUINTA, CA 92253 LEASE AREA PLAN ZONING qk¢�� �a 9 101 D O z SITE NAME: 'SPANISH BAY" 54001 MADISON ST. m LA OUINTA, CA 92253 W m m® ELEVATIONS n ZONING R SFE NAME: 'SPANISH BAY' D m.� 54001 MADISON ST L4 OUINTA, CA 92253 .Q n ELEVATIONS ZONING SrrE NAME: "SPANISH BAY" 54001 MADISON ST. LA QUINTA, CA 92253 LEASE AREA PLAN ZONING (5 age! {c ! 9p t a " ���s gig, �$c5 �p tgy�sy 4yNz bt,X�g os4 E,m3 FM o�cp R ££ P EmR�� . p k� pR �M $ei F b t?S�RhS IX 'I'mmm R Ap €mR RR wireless � mo- 41 12 ou � Mwoae oeu PH#B STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: MARCH 24, 2009 CASE NO: SIGN APPLICATION 2009-1356 APPLICANT: EISENHOWER MEDICAL CENTER PROPERTY OWNER: EISENHOWER MEDICAL CENTER REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR A SIGN PROGRAM TO SERVE THE EISENHOWER MEDICAL CENTER LOCATION: CENTRE POINTE DEVELOPMENT; SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WASHINGTON STREET AND SEELEY DRIVE (ATTACHMENT 1) ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: ON -PREMISE SIGNS ARE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT UNDER CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 1531 1(a) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: O (OFFICE COMMERCIAL) ZONING: 0 (OFFICE COMMERCIAL) BACKGROUND: Eisenhower Medical Center was approved through Specific Plan 2001-055 and Site Development Permit 2007-887. Currently, phase one of the Eisenhower Medical Center, an 85,000 square foot three-story building, is under construction. The City Council approved Site Development Permit 2007-887 on August 7, 2007, and approved Specific Plan 2001-055, Amendment 2, on November 1, 2005. Eisenhower Medical Center is a three phase project totaling 195,000 square feet. Only phase one of the Eisenhower Medical Center has received full entitlements for the construction and operation of the site. No entitlement applications have been received for the construction of Phase 2 and 3. It is unknown at this time when Eisenhower Medical Center will apply for the other two phases. As part of the approval Site Development Permit 2007-887, Eisenhower Medical Center was required to complete a Sign Program for the phase one improvements. The proposed sign program is for three building -mounted identification signs, two monument signs, and five street directional signs. SIGN PROGRAM PROPOSAL: The applicant requests a sign program be approved for Eisenhower Medical Center (EMC) (Attachment 2). The proposed sign program provides specifications for three building -mounted signs, two monument signs, definitive sign locations, and specific standards and provisions for sign construction, installation and design. The proposed sign program sets building -mounted signs for the phase one building and two monument signs for the site. Building -Mounted Signs The program identifies permitted locations, sign text, sign size and color for three building -mounted signs — North, South, and West. Two types of building -mounted signs have been proposed, the first is "Eisenhower — George and Julia Argyros Health Center". The second sign is the five-star circular emblem which is currently on display at the existing Eisenhower Hospital in Rancho Mirage. Eisenhower - George and Julia Argyros Health Center — These two building identification signs are proposed on the buildings' north and south building elevations (Attachment 2, page 9 - 18). The signs are illuminated reverse -channel letters. Each sign contains three lines of text "Eisenhower", "George and Julia Argyros", and "Health Center". The sign faces and returns are painted gold; the outline of the signs letters is white. Total sign area for each of the signs is eighty- five (85) square feet; combined the two signs are 170 square feet in area. Five -Star Circular Emblem — The EMC logo is a five-star circular emblem that reflects Eisenhower Medical Centers' motto "Five star treatment for everyone°". The circular emblem contains a red and blue background surrounded by five five - pointed stars in white. The emblem is placed above the two proposed building identification signs on the north and south elevations of the building, and as a stand-alone identification sign on the buildings west elevation (Attachment 2, page 17). The two emblems located above the building -mounted identification signs are thirteen square feet in area. The stand-alone identification sign is approximately twenty (20) square feet in area. Monument Signs Two monument signs are proposed as part of this sign program (Attachment 2, pages 3, 4, 5, and 7). Each sign contains the same text and logo emblem as the building -mounted identification signs. The two signs vary in area, location and design. The first sign is centered on the retaining wall along Washington Street, while the other is a double faced sign located along Seeley Drive at the entrance to EMC. The retaining wall at the southeast corner of Washington Street and Seeley Drive was reviewed as part of the landscaping plans for the project. The retaining wall was deemed necessary due to the grade differential between the EMC pad site and Washington Street. The wall design is staggered vertically for visual relief and PA incorporates several planting areas for additional landscaping. EMC has proposed to use the upper portion of the retaining wall as part of their monument sign (Attachment 2, page 3 and 4). The proposed sign incorporates the Eisenhower five- star emblem along with two lines of text "Eisenhower" above, and "George and Julia Argyros Health Center" below. The sign is reverse channel lettering and painted to match the building -mounted signs. The monument sign text is illuminated and indirectly illuminated by landscape lighting. Letter size varies between twelve (12) inches and twenty two (22) inches in height. Total sign area for the monument sign is 51 square feet. The second sign is a double sided monument sign proposed at the southeast corner of Seeley Drive and the entrance driveway into the EMC. The sign is a single six (6) foot high wall with two smaller curved walls around the sign base. The monument sign is designed to reflect the architectural character of the EMC building and has a stucco finish and paint color to match the building. The sign contains the same three lines of text as the building -mounted signs; "Eisenhower", "George and Julia Argyros", "Health Center". The sign is composed of reverse channel letters painted to match the proposed building mounted signs. Total sign area for the monument sign is approximately 92 square feet. Directional Signs There are four proposed directional signs for EMC (Attachment 2, page 22). The signs are identified as typical standard city street signs. The signs are blue and contain the text "Express Clinic" with a directional arrow. The sign program identifies four locations for the signs; one along Washington Street, two along Seeley Drive, and one along Miles Avenue. The proposed signs are not typically reviewed by the Planning Commission, and staff has recommended a condition that the signs be reviewed separate from this sign program. ANALYSIS: Although the sign program is less restrictive than the City's Sign Code, the larger sign sizes are intended to be more consistent and compatible with the scale and architectural design of the building. There is more opportunity for flexibility under the sign program to review sign size, location and design as part of the total building design, and incorporate that design into the overall sign program. The eastern elevation of EMC faces the nearby residences of the Reunion neighborhood. Due to the location and orientation of the three-story building, no building mounted signs are proposed along the eastern building elevations. Sign illumination is not expected to impact the neighborhood. Other building -mounted signs are oriented towards Washington Street and Seeley Drive. All building - mounted signs for the EMC are proposed to be illuminated, which is suitable due to the proximity to major thoroughfares, current vehicular traffic patterns, and other signs within the City. All illuminated signs are reverse -channel letters and will be 3 back -lit. The back -lit, or halo effect, is a much softer illumination than the standard channel letter sign. The illumination impact from these signs on adjacent neighborhoods and commercial and hotel guests is anticipated to be minimal. The sign program proposes a total of two monument signs, one at the corner of Seeley Drive and Washington Street, and at the EMC entrance along Seeley Drive. The proposed monument signs are in compliance with the La Quinta Municipal Code, which limits monument signs for non-residential uses to one sign per street frontage. The exact location of the monument sign along Seeley Drive is unclear. Per Municipal Code, all monument signs shall be located a minimum of five (5) feet from the edge of right-of-way. The exact location of the monument sign shall be determined at the time of permit and shall be incompliance with all setbacks and visibility requirements. The proposed directional signs resemble typical parking lot signs such as the "Handicap Parking Only" signs. These signs are exempt from obtaining a sign permit per Section 9.150.020.15 of the La Quinta Municipal Code and require review by the Planning and Public Works Director. These signs are not typically reviewed as part of a sign program submittal, and staff has recommended that these signs be reviewed administratively. FINDINGS: The following findings can be made in support of Sign Application 2009-1356: A. Sign Application 2009-1356, as recommended, is consistent with the purpose and intent of Chapter 9.160, in that sign standards contained within the sign program either comply with the general provisions of the sign code or have met the findings required in order to deviate from the sign standards as set forth in Chapter 9.160. B. Sign Application 2009-1356, as recommended, is harmonious and consistent with all signs as proposed under the Sign Program, due to the common use of letter type and size, color and location of signs. C. Sign Application 2009-1356, as recommended, is harmonious with and visually related to the subject buildings as the scale of the signs and letter sizes used accentuate the building design. D. Sign Application 2009-1356, 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 as there is substantial distance between the surrounding neighborhoods and the Eisenhower Medical Center. rd E. Sign Application 2009-1356, as recommended, is harmonious with, visually related to and compatible with other conforming signs in the vicinity and with the Centre Pointe development, in that all signs are limited in size and illuminated. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Minute Motion No. 2009 approving Sign Application 2009-1356, based on the findings and analysis included in the March 24, 2009 Planning Commission Staff Report for Sign Application 2009-1356, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Per Section 9.160.050 of the City's Municipal Code, monument sign locations shall be located a minimum of five (5) feet outside of the public right-of-way. 2. The proposed "Express Clinic" signs shall be submitted for review to the Planning Department through a separate Sign Application, and shall be reviewed administratively. 3. Prior to issuance of any sign permits for the site, final Sign Program (with text and graphics) shall be submitted to the Planning Department incorporating any amendments or conditions of approval by the Planning Commission. Prepared by: Eric Ceja, A tp ant Planner Attachments: 1. Site Map 2. Sign Program 5 ATTACHMENT # 1 R. me PH#C PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: MARCH 24, 2009 CASE NO.: SIGN APPLICATION 2006-1078 AMENDMENT NO. 1 APPLICANT: HIGHLAND DEVELOPMENT REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED SIGN PROGRAM AMENDMENT TO ALLOW AN ADDITIONAL MONUMENT SIGN LOCATION: NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 111 APPROXIMATELY 1000 FEET EAST OF DUNE PALMS ROAD ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: ON -PREMISE SIGNS ARE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT UNDER CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15311(a) GENERAL PLAN/ ZONING: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (RC) / REGIONAL COMERCIAL (RC) SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USES: NORTH: FLOODPLAN / WATER SOUTH: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL / REGIONAL COMMERCIAL EAST: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL / REGIONAL COMMERCIAL WEST: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL / REGIONAL COMMERCIAL VACANT BACKGROUND: Dunes Business Park (Attachment 1) was approved as a multi -phased commercial development on a 6.38-acre parcel through Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) 31143. The project includes four (4) separate one-story buildings on each parcel with a common parking area. The first phase, approved in June of 2005, included a 36,000 square foot multi -tenant building. The second phase was approved in August 2006 for three freestanding pad multi -tenant buildings. Approval of the Sign Program was granted on February 13, 2007. At the time of approval, the applicant was granted building mounted identification signs for the center SA 2006-1078 Amd #1 Staff Report 1 and one monument sign. SIGN PROGRAM AMENDMENT PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing an amendment to the approved Sign Program to include an additional 50 square foot monument sign (Attachment 2) on the east end of the project site (Attachment 3). The monument sign will be identical to the existing monument sign in style and size. The design and content of the existing monument sign which provides ten tenant identification spaces was approved for the site to provide more visibility for the tenant spaces in the building at the back of the center. The proposed amendment also modifies the existing monument sign to allow three long panels across the top portion of the monument and four smaller ones on the bottom two rows for a total of seven tenant identification spaces. ANALYSIS: At approximately 497 linear feet of frontage along Highway 111, the Dunes Business Park was granted approval of a 50 square foot monument sign. Per Code Section 9.160.050 Table 9-19, one freestanding monument identification sign for a multi -building shopping center is allowed per street frontage. The size is limited to .25 square feet per lineal feet of street frontage up to a maximum of 50 square feet per sign and 100 square feet aggregate for all signs. The center has one access point from Highway 111 located to the west of Retail 1. The parking lot for Jefferson Plaza immediately to the east ties into the parking lot for the Dunes Business Park providing additional access to the center. In order to allow the additional monument sign the Planning Commission will need to consider granting approval of a sign adjustment to compensate for inadequate visibility per Code Section 9.160.090 (E) (2). Current and future tenants located in the interior of building Retail 3 would benefit from an additional monument sign because the approved Sign Program prohibits sign placement on the East building elevation and the orientation of the building makes it impossible to see business names from Highway 111 headed westbound. Tenants in buildings Retail 1 and Retail 2 all have signs that face Highway 111. To ensure that all monument signs on the site are utilized to the benefit of the tenants, staff recommends that both monuments be limited to tenants in Retail 3 and Retail A, B, C, and D. SA 2006-1078 Amd #1 Staff Report 2 FINDINGS: Based on the foregoing analysis, the following findings support approval of Sign Application 2006-1078 Amendment No. 1, subject to the recommended conditions of approval. A. Sign Application 2006-1078, 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. B. Sign Application 2006-1078, 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 2006-1078, 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. D. Sign Application 2006-1078 Amendment No. 1, as recommended, is consistent with the purpose and intent of the sign adjustment review process in that the sign adjustment to allow an additional monument sign is necessary to overcome a disadvantage as a result of the orientation of the buildings , which limits visibility from Highway 111 and the restrictions from the approved Sign Program which prohibits signage placement on the east building elevation of building Retail 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS: This project was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on March 14, 2009, 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. 2009 approving Sign Application 2006-1078 Amendment No. 1, based on the findings and analysis included in the March 24, 2009 Planning Commission Staff Report for Sign Application 2006-1078, Amendment No. 1, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to the issuance of any sign permits, a final Sign Program (with text and graphics) shall be submitted to the Planning Department incorporating any amendments or conditions of approval by the Planning Commission. SA 2006-1078 Amd. #1 Staff Report 3 2. Per Section 9.160.050, exact monument sign locations shall be subject to issuance of a sign permit consistent with the Sign Program and the City's Zoning and Building Code requirements. 3. Monument sign panels shall be limited to tenants in building Retail 3 and tenants in Retail Spaces A, B, C, and D in the building at back of the center. Attachments: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Monument Exhibit 3. Site Plan Prepared by: SA 2006-1078 Amd. #1 Staff Report 4 ATTACHMENT 1 g- w ƒ m< a . WIN .__._..__. 5 / § co j 5 \ ( A ATTACHMENT 3, d a 1 _ aC �3�izs PH#D PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: MARCH 24, 2009 CASE NO.: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2008-096 APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS TO THE LA QUINTA MUNICIPAL CODE: 1.) TO UPDATE THE LIST OF ESTABLISHED ZONES (9.20.010), 2.) TO IDENTIFY THE EFFECTIVE DATE FOR LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONED LOTS WHICH ARE PERMITTED A 10 FOOT REAR SETBACK (9.50.030), 3.) TO IDENTIFY THE CORRECT COVE RESIDENTIAL MINIMUM DWELLING UNIT SIZE IN TABLE 9-2 (9.50.030), 4.) TO IDENTIFY PROVISIONS FOR THE USE OF VINYL FENCING MATERIALS (9.50.090), 5.) TO CORRECT THE GUESTHOUSE PROVISIONS IN THE RESIDENTIAL TABLE OF PERMITTED USES (9.60.100), 6.) TO REQUIRE A SPECIFIC PLAN IN CERTAIN COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS FOR ALL PROJECTS OVER 10 ACRES IN SIZE (9.70.030 & 9.90.040), 7.) TO IDENTIFY TOBACCO AND ICE SKATING RELATED USES IN THE NON-RESIDENTIAL TABLE OF PERMITTED USES (9.80.040), 8.) TO ESTABLISH SUNSET PROVISIONS FOR INACTIVE AND INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS (9.200.070 & 13.04.080), 9.) TO SPECIFY CRITERIA FOR MODIFICATION BY APPLICANT PROCEDURES (9.200.090), 10.► TO CORRECT THE MANDATORY FINDINGS OF APPROVAL FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS (13.12.130), 11.) TO SPECIFY THE TIMING OF LAND DEDICATIONS AND PARKLAND FEES (13.48.080), AND 12.) TO CORRECT AND REMOVE PARKLAND POLICY REFERENCES TO AN OUTDATED VERSION OF THE GENERAL PLAN (13.48.090 AND APPENDIX TO 13.48). LOCATION: CITY WIDE GENERAL PLAN/ ZONING DESIGNATIONS: NOT APPLICABLE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEWED THE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) AND HAS DETERMINED THAT THE AMENDMENTS ARE EXEMPT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15061(B)(3) OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES. BACKGROUND: In the past few years, the Planning Commission has made a number of policy determinations regarding permitted uses and fencing materials which have not been brought forward for codification. In addition, staff has encountered code inconsistencies and procedural issues which need to be addressed. Routine adjustments to the Municipal Code are typical and necessary in order to stay up to date with state law, policy determinations, and to correct inconsistencies. Staff previously brought forward a code update to the Planning Commission on September 11, 2007 and anticipates this to become an annual process. PROPOSAL: There are a number of different Zoning and Subdivision Code amendments being proposed. These amendments can be broken into three different categories: corrections, policy codifications, and procedural clarifications. Because the proposed amendments are either corrections, clarifications, or the codification of current policy, none of the proposed code amendments will result in a change in development standards or affect existing development. Code Corrections Update List of Established Zones in §9.20.010 (Zoning Exhibit A) Prior to the creation and codification of a single Village Commercial zoning district, the Village was broken up into six different zoning districts: Village Residential, Village Core, Village Park, Village South, Village North, and the Tampico Urban Mix District. References to these districts were never deleted from the list of established zones identified in Section 9.20.010 and the unified Village Commercial zoning district was not identified. The proposed code correction will address this inconsistency. Minimum Dwelling Unit Size in Cove Residential (Zoning Exhibit B) During a prior code revision approved by the City Council on July 20, 1998, the minimum dwelling unit size for the Cove Residential zoning district was erroneously identified on the recorded ordinance as being 1,400 square feet. Although a 1,400 size had been recommended by the Planning Commission, the City Council elected to maintain the minimum dwelling unit size at 1,200 square feet. Following Council 2 2 approval, the recorded ordinance erroneously identified the minimum dwelling unit size as 1,400. The 1,200 square foot minimum dwelling unit size is correctly identified in Section 9.50.090 and 9.50.040, but is erroneously identified in the Table of Development Standards of Section 9.50.030. This will correctly identify the minimum dwelling unit size as 1,200 square feet. Low Density Residential Properties Permitted a Rear Setback of 10 feet (Zoning Exhibit B) Table 9-2, the Table of Residential Development Standards in Section 9.50.30, identifies a 20 foot rear setback for new lots and a 10 foot rear setback for existing recorded lots in the Low Density Residential zoning district, but does not identify what constitutes an "existing recorded lot." Previous versions of the Zoning Ordinance identify this date as May 1, 1997, but the current ordinance omits this cut-off date. Staff has historically referenced this date when determining rear setbacks. This code amendment will restore the omitted date. Guesthouses and Second Residential Units (Zoning Exhibit C) Although the code was revised in 2007 to conform to state housing law and remove the requirement for a Minor Use Permit, the Residential Table of Permitted Uses in Section 9.40.040 continues to identify that a Minor Use Permit is required for guesthouses within the Cove, Low, and Very Low Density Residential zoning districts. In addition, the table also erroneously omits a footnote identifying that second dwelling units are only permitted with single family homes in Medium High Density Residential zoning districts. This proposed code change will correct Table 9-1 in accord with the prior approval. Staff proposes to correct the Table of Permitted Uses as follows: Land Use RVL RL RC RM RMH RH Guesthouses, subject to Section 9.60.100 M A M A M A X X X Second residential units subject to Section 9.60.090 1,3 A A A AZ AZ A2 Mandatory Findings of Approval for Tentative Tract Maps (Subdivision Exhibit B) In the Subdivision Ordinance, two of the mandatory findings for approval of Tentative Tract Maps are duplicated. This duplication error was identified on recorded Ordinance 272, dated September 19, 1995. Staff is proposing to remove the duplicated findings and inserting new text requiring a finding of consistency with the Subdivision Map Act and Zoning Ordinance, as this type of finding is not 3 3 currently identified in the Subdivision Ordinance, yet is required to be made under the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act. Blank Spaces within the Non -Residential Table of Permitted Uses (Zoning Exhibit D) Staff is proposing to fill the blank portions of the Table of Permitted Uses with an "X" in order to be consistent with the remainder of the table. It is implied that a blank space in the table indicates a use that is not permitted. All of the blank spaces are within Major Community Facilities and Office Commercial under "Dining, Drinking, and Entertainment Uses." As this is an apparent oversight, staff is recommending the existing blank spaces be replaced with "X." Staff proposes to correct the Table of Permitted Uses as follows: Dining, Drinking and CR Cr CC CN CT CO MC Entertainment Uses Restaurants, drive -through P A P X P X X Restaurants, counter take-out with P P P P P X X_ ancillary seating, such as yoghurt, ice cream, pastry shops and similar Bars, taverns and cocktail lounges C C C X C X X Dancing or live entertainment as a C X C X C X X principal use Dancing or live entertainment as an A X C C C X X accessory use Theaters, live or motion picture C X C X C X X Policy Codifications Vinyl Fencing Policy (Zoning Exhibit E) On December 13, 2005, the Planning Commission heard a request for interpretation on whether to allow the use of vinyl fencing in residential areas. The outcome of that meeting was a policy direction to permit the use of vinyl fencing in the same manner that wood fencing is currently regulated. The Commission also directed that this policy be included in a future code update. Section 9.40.040 of the Zoning Ordinance only permits wood fencing in the rear or interior side yards, and then only if not visible from the street. This code revision would include vinyl with the existing wood fencing regulations. Because of durability and structural stability concerns, the proposed text includes provisions that all vinyl fencing be constructed of an aluminum -reinforced, non -reflective material that contains anti -static and UV - radiation inhibiting additives. These durability provisions are in line with industry 4 4 quality standards and are intended to prevent the use of substandard vinyl fencing materials. Required Specific Plans in Commercial zoning, §9.70.030 & §9.90.040 (Zoning Exhibit F) The current code states "Specific Plan approval [is] required for development or land division in the CR district," and references that this provision comes from the General Plan. Policy 4 on page 19 of the General Plan identifies that Specific Plans shall be required for all development or land divisions over 10 acres in size in Commercial Park, Tourist Commercial, and Regional Commercial districts. This code provision would be updated to identify this specific plan policy from the General Plan and would remove an outdated cross-reference to an older version of the General Plan identified in §9.70.030. Tobacco related uses (Zoning Exhibit D) Tobacco related businesses such as tobacco shops and cigar lounges have been the most common land use inquiries staff has seen in recent years that are not listed in the Table of Permitted Uses. As a result, the appropriateness of these land uses have been determined by the Planning Director based on past policy and if similar businesses had historically been located within the same zoning district. An example of a past policy determination relates to the use of hookah bars. In January 2006, the Planning Commission heard a request to determine whether a hookah bar should be allowed as a permitted use or conditional use, and which zoning district(s) they should be allowed to locate within. In this instance, the determination was to permit the proposed hookah bar with a conditional use permit, though no specific zoning was specified in the motion. Following the determination, the applicant did not return to apply for a conditional use permit. More recently, staff has fielded inquiries as to whether tobacco shops and cigar lounges were a permitted use along the Highway 111 corridor. As many of the retail tobacco sales enquiries stated that they did not intend to allow smoking within their stores, and because smoking is the primary nuisance issue, staff has proposed separating permitted tobacco uses by those that involve on -site smoking and those that do not. This code revision relates to those businesses which sell tobacco as their primary product and are not regulated under the Smoking in Public Places chapter of the Health and Sanitation Ordinance. Section 6.18.010[L] of the Municipal Code defines tobacco stores as "Retail tobacco store means a retail store utilized primarily for the sale of tobacco products and accessories and in which the sale of other products is merely incidental." It should also be noted that tobacco shops are 5 5 already identified as a permitted use in Section 9.65.020[B] of the Village Commercial zoning district. Staff is proposing to identify permitted tobacco related businesses as follows: Land Use CR CP CC CN CT CO MC Tobacco shops without onsite P X_ C X C X_ X smoking, as per the. provisions of the Health and Sanitation Code Tobacco shoes, cigar lounges, C X X_ X C X X_ hookah bars. and similar uses with onsite smokier. as per the provisions. of the Health and Sanitation Code Ice Skating Rinks (Zoning Exhibit D) In August 2008, the Planning Commission approved a request for a proposed Ice Skating Rink, a business not specifically listed as a permitted use. Based on the existing similar uses listed in Table 9-5, it was determined by the Planning Director that a skating rink could be allowed subject to approval of a conditional use permit. In light of the decision, ice skating rinks are proposed to be allowed in Regional Commercial, Community Commercial, and Major Community Facilities with a conditional use permit. Staff is proposing to identify ice skating rinks as follows: Land Use CR CP CC CN CT CO MC Ice skating rinks C X C X X X C Procedural Clarifications Staff is proposing three different procedural clarifications related to incomplete and inactive permit applications, identifying the timing of a property assessment for the calculation of parkland (Quimby) fees, and clarifying the procedures for a Modification by Applicant request. All of these code amendments will codify current department policies. Application Sunset Provisions (Zoning Exhibit G & Subdivision Exhibit A) The California Permit Streamlining Act is the driving force behind the Planning Department's processing of permit applications. The law essentially requires that all 6 6 applications be reviewed in a timely manner, including a 30 day response for any application submittal. While staff is mandated to act and respond in an expedient manner, the code does not identify a provision for staff to automatically withdraw or close those applications which have been abandoned or significantly delayed. In accord with current departmental policy, staff is proposing to codify that all applications which remain incomplete and inactive for a minimum 6 month period receive a written 30 day warning notification, forwarded to the applicant. If no action is taken by the applicant regarding the application within 30 days thereafter, the application would be automatically withdrawn and closed, and a refund of the appropriate fees would be provided. By codifying these sunset provisions, staff will be granted the ability to automatically withdraw applications inactive for an extended period of time. All applicants will be offered to apply with a new application at a later date, rather than keeping the inactive application open for an extended period of time. Timing of Determination of In -Lieu Parkland Fees and Deletion of Outdated General Plan Policy References (Subdivision Exhibits C D & E) The current code requires the determination of in -lieu parkland fees to be made at the time of the approval of a tentative map, but paid prior to the recordation of a final map. There is often a multi -year gap between the tentative map approval and final map recordation, resulting in a difference in land valuation between the time of in -lieu fee calculation and in -lieu fee payment. Existing determinations for the amount of parkland dedication at the time of the tentative map approval would remain unchanged. Staff is proposing modifying a statement in the code which would require determination of in -lieu fees with the filing of a final map, eliminating the timing gap. Staff is also proposing to clean up this chapter by correcting an outdated General Plan reference to parkland policies including the deletion of an appendix which duplicated the former parkland fee policy from an old version of the General Plan. Modification by Applicant (Zoning Exhibit H) As per Section 9.200.090 of the Zoning Code, Modifications by Applicant, plans modified at the initiative of the applicant from those approved by the decision - making authority may be submitted to the Director for a determination. If the Director determines the proposed changes are significant, then the request is brought before the Planning Commission. 7 7 One of the concerns with Modifications by Applicant relates to the lack of definition as to what types of applications and plan modifications are eligible for consideration. The proposed changes would clarify these provisions by including a reference that only Site Development Permits and Village Use Permits are eligible for MBA consideration and would specify what constitutes a minor change to development plans. Changes which will be deemed acceptable and eligible for Modification by Applicant consideration include expansions of less than ten percent from the original approval that do not require additional parking, substitutions of building materials, adjustments to the color palate, alternative window styles or placements, changes to lighting fixtures or their locations, modifications to paving designs, the use of alternative screening materials, and adjustments to a project's landscaping, including the removal of turf or water features. ANALYSIS: The purpose of this code update is to codify current policies and address outstanding code errors and inconsistencies. Code errors are a typical by-product of the code update process due to typographical errors and omissions in recorded ordinances or cross-referencing errors where duplicated portions of code are overlooked. The code update is an ongoing process which staff anticipates to be brought forward in the future on an annual basis. This particular code update has a number of items due to the fact that a code update has not been undertaken since September of 2007. CEQA: The approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendments has been determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Because the proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance constitute either error corrections, the codification of existing policy, or procedural clarifications, the ordinance amendments will have no impact on the environment. Future projects that may be affected by changes to the ordinance would be reviewed under CEQA individually, and would have their impacts addressed under CEQA. Public Notice: This request was published in the Desert Sun newspaper on March 13, 2009. To date, no letters have been received. A copy of this request has been sent to all applicable public agencies and City Departments. Any comments from public agencies have been included in the recommended conditions of approval. N STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: Findings to recommend approval of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance amendments can be made and are contained in the two attached Resolutions. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolutions recommending approval of Zoning Code Amendment 2009-096 to the City Council. Prepared by: AnCYXIN J. Mogensen, AICP Pri cipal Planner M PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2008-096, 1.) TO UPDATE THE LIST OF ESTABLISHED ZONES (9.20.010), 2.) TO IDENTIFY THE EFFECTIVE DATE FOR LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONED LOTS WHICH ARE PERMITTED A 10 FOOT REAR SETBACK (9.50.030), 3.) TO IDENTIFY THE CORRECT COVE RESIDENTIAL MINIMUM DWELLING UNIT SIZE IN TABLE 9-2 (9.50.030), 4.) TO IDENTIFY PROVISIONS FOR THE USE OF VINYL FENCING MATERIALS (9.50.090), 5.) TO CORRECT THE GUESTHOUSE PROVISIONS IN THE RESIDENTIAL TABLE OF PERMITTED USES (9.60.100), 6.) TO REQUIRE A SPECIFIC PLAN IN CERTAIN COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS FOR ALL PROJECTS OVER 10 ACRES IN SIZE (9.70.030 & 9.90.040), 7.) TO IDENTIFY TOBACCO AND ICE SKATING RELATED USES IN THE NON-RESIDENTIAL TABLE OF PERMITTED USES (9.80.040), 8.) TO ESTABLISH SUNSET PROVISIONS FOR INACTIVE AND INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS (9.200.070), AND 9.) TO SPECIFY CRITERIA FOR MODIFICATION BY APPLICANT PROCEDURES (9.200.090). CASE NO.: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2008-096 APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 241h of March, 2009, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing for review of a, Zoning Ordinance Amendment to update the list of established zones (9.20.010); to identify the effective date for low density residential zoned lots which are permitted a 10 foot rear setback (9.50.030), to identify the correct cove residential 'minimum dwelling unit size in Table 9-2 (9.50.030), to identify provisions for the use of vinyl fencing materials (9.50.090), to correct the guesthousei provisions in the residential table of permitted uses (9.60.100), to require a specific plan in certain commercial Zoning districts for all projects over 10 acres in size (9.70.030 & 9.90.040), to identify tobacco and ice skating related uses in the non-residential table of permitted uses (9.80.040), to establish sunset provisions for inactive and incomplete applications (9.200.070), and to specify criteria for modification by applicant procedures (9.200.090); and WHEREAS, said Zoning Ordinance Amendment has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (CEQA) as amended (Resolution 83-63) in that the La Quinta Planning Department'' has reviewed the Amendment under the provisions of CEQA, and has 10 Planning Commission Resolution 2009- Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2008-096 March 24, 2009 determined that the Amendment is exempt pursuant to Section 15061(B)(3), Review for Exemptions of the CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Planning Department published the public hearing notice in the Desert Sun newspaper on March 11, 2009, as prescribed by the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings recommending approval of said Zoning Ordinance Amendment: 1. The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the General Plan, insofar as it amends the Zoning Code to be consistent with California requirements for second units; implements existing City policies that are in conformance with those in the General Plan; removes inconsistent, conflicting, and incompatible portions of text; and allows for continued high quality development in the City. Because the amendments are either corrections, clarifications, or the codification of current policies and interpretations, the code amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan. 2. Approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, and will have no impacts on the public health, safety and welfare. 3. The Zoning Ordinance Amendment has been determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act in that the proposed changes to the Municipal Code will have no effect on the environment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case. 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2008-096 as set forth in attached Exhibits A through H to the City Council for the reasons set forth in this Resolution. 11 Planning Commission Resolution 2009- Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2008-096 March 24, 2009 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on the 24" day of March, 2009, 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 12 EXHIBIT A 9.20.010 Establishment of districts. The city is divided into the following zoning districts which are consistent with and implement the general plan: 1. RVL Very Low Density Residential District 2. RL Low Density Residential District 3. RC Cove Residential District 4. RM Medium Density Residential District 5. RMH Medium High Density Residential District 6. RH High Density Residential District 7. RSP Residential Specific Plan Overlay District 8. RR Rural Residential Overlay District 9. VC Village Commercial District 4$ VG 41- aFR 4-4 10. NR Nonresidential Overlay District 11. CR Regional Commercial District 12. CP Commercial Park District 13. CC Community Commercial District 14. CN Neighborhood Commercial District 15. CT Tourist Commercial District 16. CO Office Commercial District 17. MC Major Community Facilities District 18. PR Parks and Recreation District 19. GC Golf Course District 20. OS Open Space District 21. FP Floodplain District 22. HC Hillside Conservation Overlay District 23. SOB Sexually Oriented Business Overlay District 24. EOD Equestrian Overlay District 13 EXHIBIT B 9.50.030 Table of development standards Table 9-2 Residential Development Standards Development Standard District RVL RL RC RM RMH RH RSP RR Overlay Overlay Minimum lot size for single- 20,000 7200 7200 5000 3600 2000 ** family dwellings (sq. ft.) Minimum project size for n/a n/a n/a n/a 20,000 20,000 n/a multifamily projects (sq. ft.) Minimum lot frontage for 100 60 60 50 40 n/a * ** single-family dwellings (ft.)' Minimum frontage for n/a n/a n/a n/a 100 100 * n/a multifamily projects (ft.) Maximum structure height 28 28 17 28 28 40 " (ft.)z Maximum number of stories 2 2 1 2 2 3 * "" Minimum front yard setback 30 20 20 20 20 20 RVL:40 (ft.)3 Minimum garage setback" n/a 25 25 25 25 25 ** (ft.) Minimum interior/exterior 10/20 5/10 5/10 5/10 5/10 10/15 * ** side yard setback (ft.)', 7 Minimum rear yard setback 30 20 for 10 15 15 20 (ft.)7 new lots and 10 for existing recorded lotO Maximum lot coverage (% of 40 50 60 60 60 60 net lot area) Minimum livable area 2500 1400 4499 1400 1400 750 for " ** excluding garage (sq. ft.) 1200 (multi- multi- family: family 750) Minimum common open n/a n/a n/a 30% 30% 30% 30% n/a areas Minimum/average perimeter 10/20 10/20 n/a 10/20 10/20 10/20 10/20 n/a landscape setbacks (ft.)e 14 Special Zoning Symbols Referenced on the Official Zoning Map Symbol Description of Special Zoning Symbols Used as per Section 9.20.030 60-RM-10,000 60-foot minimum lot frontage, medium density residential zoning, 17/1 10,000 square foot minimum lot size, 17-foot maximum building height at one story RL 10,000 Low density residential zoning, 10,000 square foot minimum lot size, 17/1 17-foot maximum building height at one story RM Medium density residential zoning, 17-foot maximum building height at 17/1 one story RL Low density residential zoning, 17-foot maximum building height at one 17/1 story " As shown on the approved specific plan for the project. ** As provided in the underlying base district. Minimum lot frontage on cul-de-sacs and knuckles shall be 35 feet. Minimum lot frontage for flag lots shall be 15 feet. s Not including basements. Also, notwithstanding above table, the maximum structure height equals 22 feet for all buildings within 150 feet of any general plan -designated image corridor, except in the RC zone, which is 17 feet. ' For non -garage portions of dwelling only. Also, projects with five or more adjacent single family dwelling units facing the same street shall incorporate front setbacks varying between 20 feet and 25 feet or more in order to avoid streetscape monotony. ° For all but RVL district, minimum garage setback shall be 20 feet if "roll -up" type garage door is used. Also, for side -entry type garages, the garage setback may be reduced to 20 feet in the RVL district and 15 feet in all other residential districts. s The following are exceptions to the minimum side setbacks shown:" For interior side yards in the RL, RM and RMH districts, if the building is over 17 feet in height, the setback is five feet plus one foot for every foot over 17 feet in height or fraction thereof, to a maximum setback of ten feet. The additional setback may be provided entirely at grade level or a combination of at grade and airspace above the 17-foot building. For RH, five feet minimum plus one foot additional setback for every foot of building height above 28 feet, or fraction thereof, up to a maximum setback of 15 feet when said height above 17 feet is located between five and ten feet from said side yard property line. For interior setbacks, if the building is over 28 feet in height the setback is ten feet plus one foot for every foot over 28 feet in height or fraction thereof, to a maximum setback of 15 feet. The additional setback may be provided entirely at grade level or may be a combination of at grade and airspace above the 28-foot building height. e Common open area and perimeter landscape requirements do not apply to single-family detached projects unless a specific plan is required. Common open area equals percent of net project area. Perimeter landscape setbacks are adjacent to perimeter streets: first number equals minimum at any point; second number equals minimum average over entire frontage (thus, 10/20). See Section 9.60.240 and additional landscape/open area standards. Rear and side yard setbacks for residential units abutting the image corridor shall be a minimum of 25 feet with the exception of RVL zone district where it only applies to the side yard. e Existing recorded lots prior to May 1, 1997. 15 EXHIBIT C 9.40.040 Table of permitted uses. Table 9-1 Permitted Uses in Residential Districts P = Principal use A = Accessory use District C = Conditional use permit M = Minor use permit H = Home occupation Very Medium - permit Low Low Medium High High S = Specific plan required Density Density Cove Density Density Density X = Prohibited use Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Land Use RVL RL RC RM RMH RH Residential Uses Guesthouses, subject M A M A M A X X X to Section 9.60.100 Second residential A A A Az Aa Az units subject to Section 9.60.090 1,3 16 EXHIBIT D 9.80.040 Table of permitted uses. Table 9-5 Permitted Uses In Nonresidential Districts P = Principal use District Regional Commercial Community Neighbor- Tourist Office Major A = Accessory use hood Commercial Park Commercial Commercial Commercial Community C = Conditional use Commercial permit Facilities M = Minor use permit T = Temporary use permit X = Prohibited use Land Use CR CP CC CN CT CO MC Dining, Drinking and Entertainment Uses Restaurants, drive- P A P X P X X through Restaurants, counter P P P P P X_ X take-out with ancillary seating, such as yoghurt, ice cream, pastry shops and similar Bars, taverns and cocktail C C C X C X X lounges Dancing or live C X C X C X_ X entertainment as a principal use Dancing or live A X C C C X X entertainment as an accessory use Theaters, live or motion C X C X C X X picture Tobacco shops without P X C X C X X onsite smoking, as per the provisions of the Heath and Sanitation Code Cigar lounges, hookah C X X_ X C X X bars, and similar uses with onsite smoking, as per the provisions of the Health and Sanitation Code Recreation Uses Ice skating rinks I C X C X X X C 17 EXHIBIT E 9.60.030 Fences and walls. E. Fence Construction and Materials. All fencing in residential districts shall conform to the following construction and material standards: 1. Wood and Vinyl Fencing. a. Except for gates, split two rail fencing, and for equestrian fencing regulated by Section 9.140.060, wood and vinyl fencing is permitted in rear or interior side yards only, and only if not visible from the street. Gates may be of wood in any location provided they comply with the standards of this section. b. All wood fencing shall be constructed of not less than a grade of construction heart or merchantable and better redwood or No. 2 and better (no holes) western red cedar, stained or painted to match or complement the adjacent wall or structure. Alternatively, if left in natural color, all wood shall be treated with a water -repellant material. c. All vinyl fencing shall be constructed of an aluminum -reinforced non - reflective material that contains anti -static and UV -radiation inhibiting additives. d. e. Fence boards may be horizontal or vertical. Support posts shall be a minimum of nominal four inches by four inches redwood, pressure -treated lumber, tubular steel or block and installed per the Uniform Building Code. e. d Split Rail Fencing. Split two rail fencing shall be allowed in the front yard or along the front property line with columns a maximum height of four feet and three feet for the top rail. All columns shall be cemented with footings. Materials for the columns shall be wood, brick, or block. The rails may be either wood or other non -wood products that have the appearance of split rail. A building permit shall be obtained prior to construction. 18 r"7:11.111W 9.70.030 CR regional commercial district. A. Purpose and Intent. To provide for the development and regulation of regionally oriented commercial areas located along the Highway 111 corridor as shown on the general plan. The CR district is intended to provide a broad range of goods and services serving the entire region. Representative land uses include corporate headquarters, regional service centers, research and development facilities, major community facilities, major medical facilities, overnight commercial lodging, entertainment, and automobile -oriented sales and services. B. Permitted Uses. Chapter 9.80 lists permitted land uses. C. Development Standards. Chapter 9.90 contains development standards and illustrations. oe- geneFal plan Peliey 2 3.' .9, Approval of a specific plan is required for any development or land division greater than 10 acres in the CR district. 9.90.040 Table of development standards. Table 9-6 following and the illustrations in Section 9.90.050 set forth standards for the development of property within nonresidential districts. Notwithstanding Table 9-6, different standards shall apply if special zoning symbols, described in Section 9.20.030, are designated on the official zoning map. Table 9-6 Nonresidential Development Standards Development Standard District CR* CP* CC CN CT* I CO MC Minimum —Maximum building site (acres) n/a n/a n/a 1-20 n/a n/a n/a Maximum building height (ft.)', a 50 35 40 35 40 40 40 Maximum number of stories 4 2 3 2 3 3 3 Maximum floor area ratio (FAR)' .35 .50 .30 .25 .25 .30 n/a Minimum perimeter From Highway 111 right-of-way' 50/50 50/50 50/50 n/a n/a n/a n/a W building/landscape From all primary setbacks (in ft.)4 image corridor' rights -of -way' (except Hwy 11 1) 30/20 30/20 30/20 30/20 30/20 30/20 30/20 and from all major and primary arterials From all other perimeter street 20/10 20/10 20/10 20/10 20110 20/10 20/10 rights -of -way' From residential districts and PR, OS 50/10 50/10 50/10 30/151 30/15' 30/155 30/151 and GC districts' Minimum setback from interior property O 0 0 0 0 0 0 lines within the same project Parking and signs See Chapters 9.150 and 9.160 Fences and walls See Section 9.100.030 Landscaping and screening See Sections 9.100.040 and 19.100.050 " Specific plan approval required for development or land division greater than 10 acres in the CR, CP, and TC districts. ' All minimum perimeter setbacks shall be increased 1 foot for every foot in height that building is above 35 feet. P FAR means the gross floor area of all buildings divided by the building site area. 3 The following are applicable primary image corridors as identified in the general plan: Washington Street, Jefferson Street, Fred Waring Drive, Calle Tampico, Eisenhower Drive (from Tampico to Washington Street). 4 Landscape setback shall consist of landscaped area within the building setback. Number given is minimum landscaped setback from the street right-of-way. The remaining building setback may contain parking, driveways and similar facilities. In addition to above landscape setbacks, interior landscaping shall be required as a percentage of the net project area as follows: parking areas: minimum 5 percent; nonparking areas: minimum 5 percent (also see Section 9.100.050). e For buildings over one story in CN, CT and CO districts, setbacks shall be increased to 40/20. e Not including basements. Also, notwithstanding above table, the maximum structure height equals 22 feet for all buildings within 150 feet of any general plan primary image corridor and major or primary arterials. U11 EXHIBIT G 9.200.070 Time limits on processing applications. A. Development review applications shall be processed within the time limits specified in Chapter 4.5 of the State Planning and Zoning Law (Government Code Section 65920 et seq.). Time periods specified in Section 9.200.120 regarding actions on appeals shall be in addition to the preceding Government Code time limits. (Ord. 284 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 1996) B. Incomplete Application Sunset Provisions. All applications which remain incomplete and inactive for a minimum 6 month period shall have a written 30 day warning notification forwarded to the applicant. If no action is taken by the applicant regarding the application within 30 days thereafter, the application shall automatically be withdrawn and closed. 21 EXHIBIT H 9.200.090 Modifications by applicant. A. Plan Modifications by Applicant. Site Development Permit and Village Use Permit Rplans modified at the initiative of the applicant from those approved by the decision -making authority may be submitted to the director. B. Procedures. If the director determines that the proposed plan modification is minor, will not result in a significant change in the project approved by the decision -making authority, and complies with the spirit and intent of the original approving action, the director may approve the modified plan without further compliance with this section. If the director determines that the plan modification may result in a significant change in the project, the director shall refer the change to the original decision -making authority. (Ord. 284 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 1996) C. Criteria. Modifications by Applicant shall permit minor changes to an existing or approved Site Development Permit or Village Use Permit. The following criteria constitute minor changes that shall be deemed eligible for Modification by Applicant consideration: 1. Increases in building square footage not to exceed ten percent from the original approval that have been determined to not result in a significant architectural, aesthetic, or visual impact to the existing project and require additional parking. 2. Changes, additions, or adjustments to windows, window locations, or window treatments. 3. Changes, substitutions, or adjustments to building materials, roofing materials, screening materials, lighting fixtures, or paving. 4. Changes, additions, or substitutions to existing landscaping, including the removal of turf or water features. 5. Minor adjustments, substitutions, or additions to architectural features such as pilasters, canopies, trellises, shade structures, overhangs, eaves, parapets, cornices, or portions of roof structures that do not result in a significant effect on the overall aesthetic or architectural style of the building. 6. Changes, substitutions, or adjustments to the approved color palate or material colors. 22 D. Ineligibility. Modifications by Applicant which have been determined by the Planning Director, Planning Commission, or City Council to exceed these standards or constitute a significant change shall require application and approval of an amended Site Development Permit or amended Village Use Permit. 23 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF SUBDIVISION TEXT AMENDMENT 2008-096, 1.) TO ESTABLISH SUNSET PROVISIONS FOR INACTIVE AND INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS (13.04.080), 2.) TO CORRECT THE MANDATORY FINDINGS OF APPROVAL FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS (13.12.130), 3.) TO SPECIFY THE TIMING OF PARKLAND FEES (13.48.080), AND 4.) TO CORRECT AND REMOVE OUTDATED GENERAL PLAN POLICY REFERENCES (13.48.090 & 13.48 APPENDIX). CASE NO.: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2008-096 APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 24`h of March, 2009, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing for review of a Subdivision Text Amendment to establish sunset provisions for inactive and incomplete applications (13.04.080), to correct the mandatory findings of approval for tentative tract maps (13.12.130), to specify the timing of parkland fees (13.48.080), and to correct text and remove an appendix identifying outdated General Plan parkland policies (13.48.090 & an Appendix to 13.48); and WHEREAS, said Subdivision Text Amendment has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (CEQA) as amended (Resolution 83-63) in that the La Quinta Planning Department has reviewed the Subdivision Text Amendment under the provisions of CEQA, and has determined that the Amendment is exempt pursuant to Section 15061(B)(3), Review for Exemptions of the CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Planning Department published the public hearing notice in the Desert Sun newspaper on March 11, 2009, as prescribed by the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings recommending approval of said Subdivision Text Amendment: 1. The proposed Subdivision Text Amendment is consistent with General Plan, insofar as it removes inconsistent, conflicting, and incompatible portions of text and allows for continued high quality development in the City. Because the amendments are either corrections, clarifications, or the codification of W Planning Commission Resolution 2009- Subdivision Text Amendment 2008-096 March 24, 2009 current policies and interpretations, the Subdivision Text Amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan. 2. Approval of the Subdivision Text Amendment will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, and will have no impacts on the public health, safety and welfare. 3. The Subdivision Text Amendment has been determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act in that the proposed changes will have no effect on the environment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case. 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Subdivision Text Amendment 2008-096, as set forth in attached Exhibits A through E to the City Council for the reasons set forth in this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on the 24" day of March, 2009, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ED ALDERSON, Chairman City of La Quinta, California 25 Planning Commission Resolution 2009- Subdivision Text Amendment 2008-096 March 24, 2009 ATTEST: LES JOHNSON, Planning Director City of La Quinta �I EXHIBIT A 13.04.080 Sunset provisions regarding incomplete and inactive subdivision applications. A. Incomplete Application Sunset Provisions. All subdivision applications which remain incomplete and inactive for a minimum 6 month period shall have a written 30 day warning notification forwarded to the applicant. If no action is taken by the applicant regarding the application within 30 days thereafter, the application shall automatically be withdrawn and closed. 27 EXHIBIT B 13.12.130 Mandatory findings of approval. A tentative map shall be approved by the city only if the city makes all of the following findings: A. The proposed map or vesting map is consistent with the city general plan and any applicable specific plans. B. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the city general plan and any applicable specific plans. C. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. D. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. E. The site of the proposed subdivision is physically suitable for the type of development and proposed density of development. F. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable provisions of this title and the La Quinta Zoning Ordinance, including but not limited to minimum lot area requirements, any other applicable provisions of this code, and the Subdivision Map Act. G. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. (Ord. 295 § 1 (part), 1997; Ord. 272 § 1 (part), 1995) 28 EXHIBIT C 13.48.080 Processing procedures. At the time of approval of the tentative map the city shall determine the amount of land to be dedicated ^• •he fees to be paidor Beth. At the time of the filing of the final map the city shall determine the fees to be paid. Dedications of land and in -lieu payments shall be made prior to or concurrently with recordation of the first final map within the tentative map or approval of a waiver of parcel map. In -lieu fees may be paid for each proposed final map phase of a multiple -phased map, based upon the acreage of the phased map and in accordance with the applicable provisions of this chapter. 29 EXHIBIT D 13.48.090 General plan criteria. The city general plan contains a number of policies on parkland development. Those policies have been compiled and placed in the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan an appendix Cet out at the end of this ehapte. which May be updated I FBSpense to amendments to the g al 30 EXHIBIT E Fegulating the dedioation ef 'and and payment of fees feF Pak and FeeFeatien 31 ��P� 32 Titf 4 4 Q" MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Les Johnson, Planning Director DATE: March 24, 2009 RE: Sign Application 2006-1078 Amendment No. 1 Since the writing of the staff report, staff has received written correspondence from Jeffrey Lowden, one of the property owners within the center, expressing concerns about the proposed amendment to the Sign Program. In his attached correspondence he has requested that the item be withdrawn. Staff recommends that this item be continued until the April 14, 2009 Planning Commission meeting in order to allow Mr. Lowden, the applicant, and staff to discuss the issues expressed in the correspondence. Yvonne Franco From: Jeff Lowden [Jeff@skywestservices.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 12:33 PM To: Yvonne Franco Cc: ghoeksma@allenmatkins.com; Caras, Chris Subject: RE: Emailing: SA 06-1078_Amd 1_SignDesign, SA 06-1078_Amd 1_App_1-18-09 Received your email and info on application from Highland Development Co. for a second monument sign. The public announcement you mailed was the first we saw or heard of the matter, which was disturbing and a shock. As this monument sign is important to our tenants in the back we need to be a part of the decision and how tenants will get signage. To date we have had no conversation with Highland. We were not informed by them that they put application in for the sign. We do not have an agreement in place on how the sign is to be shared or used and in fact per our CCR's the back tenants have the right to a second sign prior to the front tenants getting a sign. The partners in the back lot want to have a good working relationship with the front lot owners. In order for this to happen we need to have agreement prior to any application to the City of La Quinta. The Back Lot Owners are NOT in agreement with the Front Lot owners at this time. Our CCR's are clear that the Back Lot owners get two monument signs prior to front lot owners. The CCR's was part of something they agree to prior to buying the front pads from us. Your suggestion that we share the second monument sign does not work for us at this time for several reasons. There is still more work to be done prior to this application or a ruling on this application; therefore, we recommend the application be withdrawn (or declined if it is not withdrawn prior to the meeting) until the two lot owners have an amended agreement in writing. Then and only then will application be submitted for your review and vote. Once all parties are in agreement we will resubmit the application. Please call me to confirm you received this email. Feel free to use this if you need to at the hearing this evening. We are in LA and expect that this letter will be used in place of our attendance. Please call me to discuss how best to move forward prior to hearing this evening. We appreciate our working relationship with the City as well as our neighbor in hopes we can resolve this in a fair and equitable manner. At the present time it is not fair and equitable how it has been presented. — -------- We -ask -that -you -protect all -parties -interest at this-time-by-declining-or-withdrawing-the-applieation.--- Thank you The Dunes Business Park, LLC Jeffrey Lowden, Managing Director www.skywestservices.com 3550 W. 6th St., Suite 400 Los Angeles, CA 90020 800.276.8787 Ext. 201 & 202 Phone 213.382.9918 Fax 310.502.5703 Mobile -----Original Message ----- From: Yvonne Franco [mailto:Yfranco@la-quinta.org] Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 11:41 AM To: jeff@skywestservices.com Subject: Emailing: SA 06-1078_Amd I_SignDesign, SA 06-1078_Amd 1_App_1-18-09 «SA 06-1078_Amd 1_SignDesign.pdf>> «SA 06-1078_Amd I_App_1-18-09.pdf>> The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments: SA 06-1078 Amd 1_SignDesign SA 06-1078_Amd 1_App_1-18-09 Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled. Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3958 (20090324) The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3958 (20090324) The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com 03/23/2009 14:18 213382551H, Saks, bewVl"ent, M3%a9enicnt y west Real Estate services, LLC 3550 W. 6dt streM. Sulle 400, Los Asada, CA 9W20 WWtV.81()'MC9l W04C5,ftga 900.274,a IV =20I For: The Dunes Business Park, LLC FAX TO: Yvonne Franco — FAX 760.777.1233 FROM: Jeffrey Lowden— FAX 213382.9918 RE: Public Noticc — Sign - Highland Date: 3.19.09 / PAGES: Cover+{j We received your Notice of Public Hearing for Sign program, 2006-1078 ANM. -91. Please use this paperwork as our request to decline the application as we have specific language that is clear (Attached) in our CCR's that the applicant is not adhering to under our rules and guidelines they agreed to, executed and signed. Plcasc review and call We prior to the meeting. We are NOT in agreement with the request for a monument sign. Backuound: As you may recall we purchased the entire 6.3 acres and sold the front 3 acres to Highland Development in 2006. We are the owners of the bank building (The Dunes Business Park, LLC) retaining the back 3.3 acres for our 37,600 Sq Ft Retail center. The CCR'a, that control our shopping center which they signed, are very clear. 1 would be happy to provide a fully executed copy of the CCR's but they are very long and would take PAGE 02/16 too much of your FAX paper. Please let me know if you need a copy, and we can snail to you. The back building (our property) is allowed a second monument sign. If we have two signs approved by the City then and only then can they apply for a third sign, for tlicir ptvperty. We intend to put our application in for a second monument sign immediately as all our tenants are burting with little to no visibility from the front buildings that block signage on our back building. PIease decline the application. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me. Cord'- Jeffrey Lowden Managing Director The buns Business Park, LLC 310.502.5703 15 :?, - 0 r (� 03/23/2009 14:18 21JJ82yyld -CITY OF LA Q UINTA 'PLANNING COMMISSION, NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of La Quinta Planning Commission will hold a PUBLIC HEARIA on March 24.,,2009, at 7::00 p:m. ii . the La Quinta City Hall Council Chambers, 78-495 Calle Tampico, I Quinta, CA, on the following item: , APPLICATION: SIGN PROGRAM 2006-1078 AMD. #1 APPLICANT. HIGHLAND DEVELOPMENT SIGN CO. LOCATION: NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 111 APPROXIWATELY 1000 FEET EA81. OP � fffiN ­ PALMS ROAD REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED SIGN PROGRAM 'AMENDMENT TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL. FREESTANDING MONUMENT SIGN FOR THE DUNES BUSINESS PARK. LEGAL: APN 600-030-013, 015 The La Quinta Planning .Development has determined that this sign application is categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant to provisions of Section 15311 (Class 11) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CECA). Any person may submit written comments on this case to tho Planning Department prior to the Hearing and/or may appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the project at the time of the bearing. If you challenge the decision, of this case in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues that you or someone else raised either at the Public Hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the -Planning Department at, or prior to-;. the -Public Hearing. The proposed„fi(p(,) may be via ed_byc the public Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m, at the Planning Department, La Quinta City Hall, 78-495 Celle Tampico, La Quinta, California. The public comment period continues through the Public Hearing. Yvonne Franco is the staff planner for the application (760-777-7131). In the' City's efforts to comply with the requirements of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act Of 1990, the Administration/Planning Department requires that any person in need of any type of special equipment, assistance or accommodation(s) in otder.to communicate at a City public meeting, must inform the Planning. Department (760-777-7125) a minimum of 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting. PUBLISH ONCE ON MARCH 14., 2009 PAHearing Noticey2009_Hearing Notices12009_PC HN�20o9_PC_HN_7an-Mar\SA, 2006-1078 Amd ! PC_iiN 3-14-09.doc 0 rmur- U4/lb 1�EldlYNAilONALTII7ECOI[gAigp DOC # 2006-0439147 86/19/96M 06.80 'Fe®:135.vo RECORDING REQUESTED BY ReO r'dedPAmOfflelal Rleorda AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: C "iar.y°r Riu ralac A��os6er, C L#'ty C1trk 6 Reeolyder ALZEN MALORY LECK SIS LLP MALLORY & NATSIS LLP n N� fF�11111 1901 Avenue Of The Stars, Suite I S00 M , u r � Los Angeles,, California 90067-6019 Attention: c"nben Hoeksma, Eeq- �] A At L eqY 1qp I�iiA 1e 6 15 w" b (a r '^f[�{-- (Space Above FdrRecorde D 6CL ATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND REST,RIC 'JO VS AND GRANT OF EASEMENTS . 1i11491141C uxsmmc�aaa.Qenj�n,n . bC1NES 9USINESA.PA�C.__ 03/23/2009 14:18 2133829918 PAGE Ubnb TABLE OF CONTENTS palze ARTICLE Y DEFINITIONS..........................................................................................2 1.1 Defined Terms ...................................................... .......................:........................2 1.2 Certain Other Terms.............................................................................................5 ARTICLE II GRANT OF TITLE AND RECIPROCAL EASEMENTS ......................5 2.1 Creation of Reciprocal Easements for Ingress, Egress and Parldug.....................5 2.2 Creation of Utility Easements ............................................... .......... I ....... I .... I ... :.... 6 2.3 Creation of Surface Water Easements ............................ 6 2.4 Min" Encroachments .............................................................................._...........7 2.5 Reservation ofSignageEasements .......................................................................7 2.6 Easement for On -Site Public Water and Sewer Lines ......................... :................ 7 2.7 Recordation of Easements.....................................................................:...............7 2.8 Parcel Map No. 31143 ..........................................................................................7 ARTICLE ilI COVENANTS REGARDING SHOPPING CENTER USE, OPERATION AND CONSTRUCTION.................................................8 3.1 Uniform General Plan for Shopping Center ........................................ ".......... ..... 9 3.2 Retail and Commercial Purposes; Use Limitations .......................... ...... :............. 8 3.3 Building Area Limitations and Building Covenants. ................ 4 ........................... 9 3.4 Comfort and Convenience Facilitics............... ...........»..............................._...... t'0 to S-: Buitti tfg ImprefVetntottt3 aritl lilahRert�r��...'...- ........: :.:..-......:.:............. ..... _.._ 3.6 Common Area Rules and Regulations ....:..... ................... 3.7 ......... ..........................10 Parking Area Levies... .................................................................::............:......IQ 3.8 Common Area Lighting ....................... ....................................»...................... ... t0 3.9 Usc of Hrizardous Materials............................................................................:...1 ! 3.10 Exclusive Uses ........................ ............. .....................................:........:.......:.....:.. Y 1 ARTICLE rV COMMON AREAS 12 ....... --- ........................... :.................... .................. 4.1 Ownces Dutits.............. ................... .... ......... ................ .......... .........:...............1.12 4.2 Msutt: of Common Area...................................................................................14 4.4 Delegation of Rights 16 ........................................................................................... ARTICLE V COMMON INTbREST SUBDIVISION................................................16 ARTICLE VI ASSESSMENTC................................................................:................17 6.1 Creation of Lien and Personal Obligation for Assessments..."., .... ................. :; 17 6.2 Purpose of A:asawments ............................. 6.3 Annual Assessments ........... :....................... :....... 6.4 ......... ................... ................ ...17 Special Assessments; Allocation.................................:..»..............:......::...._..._..17 6.5 Allocation of Annual Assessments 6.6, ......................................................................18 Date of Commencement of Annual Assessment; Due'Dates ........ ...:.................. I8 6.7 1356ct of Nonpayment of Assessments ......... ........... ........ ................ ................ 1'8. 6.8 Waiver.................................................................................................................20 M16z1110c ot6t.•oove 14'0"Jj m. PAGE 06/16 Pace 6.9 Priorities; Transt-er of Parcel by Sale or Foreclosure,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,„ 6.10 Taxes and Assessor 20 Assessments ........................................... ....,.... 6.11 - Failure to Pay Tdxcs and Assess ZO. ARTICLE VIl PARKING AREA REQUIREMENTS; COMMON AREA ALTERATIONS ....................... 7.1 Parking Ratio and Requirements ................... 7.2 Changes in Parking Area .............................. 20 ARTICLE VilISIGNS............. .....................................................................................21 8,1 ShoPPing Center Signs ........................... 8.2 Sign .Panels ............. ..........................................21 .-.. 3 Sign Pend Maiatcnanre by Sign 8-4 Payment of Costs 01 Construco Panel Users ................... nIustallation, MaiAtaining.and Oaeratirtp Monument SiEna...-.--•................ , .,.......22 ' .............. .......................... : . ARTICLE DC BUILDING AREA DEVELOPMENT AND ALTERATION/PLAN APPPOVAL............ 9.1 General Shopping Center Construction Standards; Grant of ` Conshirctinn License . ......................... ................. .22 .2 Plans .............. .. ...23 ARTICLE X MFMNIFICATION AND INSURANCE .............. f11 t -Z idBilat—y Titsuxce .......:....... •102Ctmsntctioa in ' errtni$cation by Owners ................................................10.4 ••••,•:•...�... ........•..:..�...:...._......_2225 10:5 Requircents .................................:............:................25 .......I............... ARTICLE XI PROPERTY DAMAGE AND EMINENT DOMAIN .............. .------- : . ..26 11.1 Damage to Buildings .................... 112 Prts ....26 ................ party stuanco.........................................................:..... .....2711.3 1.3 Eminent Domain ....,..... ...............•---------• ..................................................:.................... ARTICLE XIi 27 RIGHTS UPON DEFAULT ...................:.... ..................... .. 27 12.1 Events of. Di:fault......................... 12:2 . Self Help.Cure Rights .................... :.............. ............................:,......27 Rhts.............:................................ ..28 12.3 Lien .......................:.-•------.._......_.............,.. ..................................... • ......................I ........ 29 12.5 Remedies ............. .._.........:..,.,............ ...................... 28 ...................................... ...;...«..,.:..28 12.6 Mort ......................................... Mortgagees .................................................................................1.......:.:,......:...... .29 ARTICLE XIII EFFECT 01; BKE,ACH UPON PURCHASERS AND MORTGAGEES .................. ........ _..... ..29 13.1 No Termination...,,,-.... 13.2 . Mu ............................................ .....29 >B� Protection...................•--..................._............. ......29 ............................ 711I67.l AOC a2X97d1a/SI4aVEymn - (ii1 03/23/2009 14:18 213�81yy18 Paee 13.3 Subordination of Lien Claims.............................................................................29 ARTICLE XIV COVENANT'S AND RECORDATION.................................................30 14.1 Covenants Run With the Land............................................................................30 14.2 Recordation; Effective Date of Declaration ........................... ............................. 30 ARTICLE XV MISCELLANEOUS...............................................................................30 15.1 Negation of Partaorship.............................................. :...... ....... I ........... I ............. 30 15.2 No Third Patty BeneSciary.................................................................................30 15.3 Amendment and Termination ................ .............. ..................................... :......... 30 ISAForceMaje= .....................................................................................................30 15.5 Severability.........................................................................................................30 15.6 13rhibits......................................................................................................1.........31 15.7 Notices................................................................................................................31 15.8 Entire Agreement................................................................................................3 t. 15.9 Construction and interpretation..........................................................................32 15.10 Attorneys' Fees....................................................................................................32 15.11 Waiver of Liability ..... ....................... ..................................:...............................32 15.12 Signature Pages...................................................................................................32 15.13 Time............................................................... .................... ................................. 32' 15.14 Governing Law................................................................................................. 32 15.15 Compliance by Tenants.................................................................. ...•...:...._.._....12 15116 Not a'Public Dedication 33 .................................... ...................... ............................ 15.17 Alteration of Parcels ...............................................:............................:..............33 15.18 Estopjwl Cerdflcate........................................................................._..............:...33 15.19 Mechanics' Liens................................................................................................33 EXHiBI'C A — LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT B — SITE PLAN 731167-111W.. D0692-0024-14-W&jAm (ii1) �S PAGE 08/16 aisles as shown on the Site Plan without the prior written approval of the Back Lot Owner and the Managing party of the Front Lots, ARTICLE vjH SIGNS 8.1 Shopping Ccntor Signs. All 'signs within the Shopping Center steal( Conform t0 all Sign Guidelines, restriction, permits and approvals adopted by Declarant and all applicable Laws and requirements and approvals of the City ("Applicable Sign Requirements'). Except for directional signs far guidance within the parking and driveway areas of the Common ,Area, &evstandimg monument signs approved by Declarant (in its sole discretion) on the fifty foot (501 easement area between Highway 111 and the Building Areas on Parcels 1, 2 and 3, and such other signs as may be required by law (such as signs warning of hazardous substances), no sign shall he erected or maintained upon the Common Area which is not in wnformance with the Applicable Sign Requirements. _ �---� 8.2 Sign Panels. Declarant reserves the right to grant rights to Owners and/or Occupants ("Sign Panel Users') to place identification sign panels (individually a "Sign Panel" and collectively "Sign panels,,) on muhth-te the Snant monument signs constructed by Declarant within PP g Center. Except eras expressly granted by Doelareirt, no other Owner or Occupant Shall have any rights to plane any Sip panels on any multi -tenant monument signs within the Shopping Center. All Sign Panels shalt be maintained by the Sign panel User to whom such Sign Panel(s) belong or by Declarant at the sole cost of the Sign Panel User to whom such Sign Panel(s) belong. Except as otherwise provided herein, each Sign Panel shall comply with the hirable Sign Requirements _ Notwithstandiaforegniovided that at ail times the t a' shall be entitled m tWo non �i� the right to install and maintain monument and/or !on s Frost Lot Owners) shall have u signage program is PY igns on its Parcels) provided such r approved by the City or other applicable goverrunentai entity and such signs ()arc in compliance with the Applicable Sign Requirernaatts; (ii) are consistent with the err ehitecturaj design of the multi -tenant monument signs constrnetod by Aeclarant within the Shopping Coster, and (iii) do not materially and adversely impact the visibility of the multi. tenant monument signs constructed by Declarant within the Shopping Center. 8.3 Burr Panel Maintenance by Sfga Panel sera, Each Sign Panel Uses shall be solely responsible for all costs to fabricate, obtain permits fnr and install its individual Sign Panels on the monument sign to which it has been granted rights hereunder. Each Sign Panel User shall maintain its Sign Panel(s) in an attractive and good, clean and fast -class state of order and repair, including the prompt replacement of broken, faded or damaged sign repainting of grafhti. Declarant hereby grants to each panels and Sign Panel User and their contractors an easement over the Common Arca of the Shopping Can(er as reasonably necessary to conduct Sign Panel installation, replacement and maintenance, provided such entry and work shall not interfere with the use of the monument sign by other sign panel Users or the use and orrjoyment of the grantor Owner's Parcel, by such Owner or its Occupants, and the Sign Panel User conducting such work shall promptly repair any damage to the monument sign or any other improvements (including landscaping) on the Parcel on which the monument sign is located which is caused by such entry and work and shall indemnify, defend and hold th0 other Si Panel Users and the Owner on whose Paroel the monument sign gn is locateal harmless from and aa��.aaroc �� oaas:.00vs-swam��u„ ��r -2 t- 71� b W I UJ/Zd/ZUMJ 14: 1t3 Z163047710 aisles as shown on the Site Plan without the prior written approval of the Back Lot Owner and the Managing Party of the Front Lots. ARTICLE VM SIOS- 8.1 Shopmnr; Coutcr Sims. All signs wHliiri the Shopping Ccntcr shall conform to all Sign Guidelines, restriction, permits and approvals adopted by Declarant and all applicable Laws and requirements and approvals of the City ("Applicable Sign Requirements'D. Except for directional sighs for guidance within the parking and driveway areas of the Common Area, freestanding monument signs approved by Declarant (in its sole discretion) on the fifty foot (501 easement area between highway 111 and the Building Areas on Parcels 1, 2 and 3, and such other signs as may be required by law (such as signs warning of hazardous substances), no sign shall be erected or maintained upon the Conunon Area which is not in conformance with the Applicable Sign Requirements. 8.2 SiMEariels. Declarant reserves the right to grant rights to Owners and/or Occupants ("Sign Panel Users") to place identification sign panels (individually a "Sign Panel" and collectively "Sign panels' on multi -tenant monument signs constructed by Declarant within the Shopping Center. Except as expressly granted by Declarant, no other Owner or Occupant shall have any rights to place any Sign Panels on any multi -tenant monumcni signs within the Shopping Center. All Sign Panels shall be maintained by the Sign Panel User to whom such Sip Panels) belong or by Declarant at the sole cost of the Sign Panel User to whom such Sign Panels) belong. Except as otherwise provided herein, each Sign Panel shall comply with the Applicable Sign Requirements. Notwithstanding the foregoing, and provided that at all times the Back Lot Owner shall be entitled to two (2) monument signs, the Front Lot Owner(s) shall have the right to install and maintain monument and/or pylon signs on its Pared(s) provided such signage program is approved by the City or other applicable govorrrmontal entity and such signs (i) are in compliance with the Applicable Sign Requirements; (ii) are consistent with the architectural design of the multi -tenant monument signs constructed by Declarant within the Shopping Center; and (iii) do not materially and adversely impact the visibility of the multi - tenant monument signs constructed by Declarant within the Shopping Center. 8.3 Sim Panel Maintenance by Sign Panel Users. Each Sign Panel User shall be solely responsible for all Costs to fabricate, obtain permits for and install its individual Sign Panels on the monument sign to which it has been granted rights hereunder. Each Sign Panel User shall maintain its Sigh Pancl(s) in an attractive and good, clean and first-class state of order and repair, including the prompt replacement of broken, faded or damaged sign panels and repainting of graffiti. Declarant hereby grants to each Sign Panel User and their contractors an moment over the Common Arcs of the Shopping Center as reasonably necessary to conduct Sign Panel installation, replacement and maintenance, provided such entry and work shall not interfere with the use of the monument sign by other Sigh Panel Users or the use and enjoyment of the grantor Owner's Parcel, by such Owner or its Occupants, and the Sign Panel User conducting such work shall promptly repair any damage to the monument sign, or any other improvements (including landscaping) on the Parcel on which the monument sign is located which is cauaed by such entry and work and shall indemnify, defend and hold the other Sign Panel Users and the Owner on whose Parcel tho monument sign is located harmless from and 7311e7.1010c-17 zt � mesrr.00v+z+osmribn o Q v�i 4J 45op m � �L � � � n�- • •y�+ � � Lam' PC G r-� Cam.'► ��+ ,��., A : 0 N s�..i ao�a�� 0 QrA c0i co] >-tQ k 'D M O 14-' `3 := o �+ " Ci 54 �1 10 �• .,., SZ a.o � a •-- ,,(! cam.ca 0 gh c 00 �� i� . 03/23/2009 14:18 L133tlL771G IN WrMSS WHEREOF. Declarant has executed this Declaration a% ofthe day and year first above written. "Tleclarant" THE DUNES BUSINESS PARK, LLC, a Califomia limited liability company Name: Jeffrey Lowden Title: Member A%A -V,.K L «ucieh By: Name: Chris W. Cam, Jr. Title: Member ESF CAPITAL, LLC, a California limited.flability company tsy: -- Name: Chris W. Caras Title: Title: Member M �s ► � vsus�.�woc .34- oievz�ay.-uaareym" MAUL 12116 M WITNESS WHEREOF. Declarant has executed this Declaration as of the day and year first above written. "Declarant" THE DUNES BUSINESS PARK, LLC, a California limited liability company By: Namc ylowden Title: ber By: Name: 'Chris W. Caras, Jr, . Title; Member BSF CAPUAL, LLC, . a California limited liability company By Iy,- r.f ) D x ". Name: Chris W. Caras Title Title: Member [uasxaovaz�.o6yDm„ -34- . 03/23/2009 14:18 2133829918 STATE OF Cl' i rr r'N, A ) COUNTYOF 6 IQ-7fPC'- F appeared '.-P" . [JDWW'CL-rpvraoft� , proved to me on.the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the pemonW whose maatew istan. subscribed to the withla insmment and acknowledged to me that he/shekkey executed the, same in hIsRwAheiLaudrorized oapacity(iie), and that by his/gerl> signamrM on the road unmt, the petson(fi, or the eatity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instnunent. t1Vn"MS my hand and official seal_ setrtwtn+n MG, s \ � artotay.t+unlla-coMamla r�Sig,Iiattire ` r (Seal) Ceaey '.rd�zC,..G11rIL:MLDYIt-�tr STATE OF ) ) ss. COUNTY O On before me, person dly appeared personally known to me (or proved to me on Elie bags -of satisfactory evidence) to be the pctson(s) whose imme(s) istare subacribed to the within instrument and acknowtedgad to me that he/shefrltey exeeuted the same is hislherhheir authorized capacity(ies} and that by his/herhheir slgnstum(9) on'.the insuitineat, .the persod(s), or thccntity upon bohalf of which the pmsoa(s) ti led, txo mded the hts{nimettt. wmgESS ray hand and official seal. SignatttCe M16T.16W oraszaovt-r:. WYm -35- (Seal) -- PAGE 14/19 STATE OF CAt.TtanmmA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF Los Aymmm ) �S• On 5/25/2006 , before me, nebralynne It. setting Notary S. y Pub19.c, peraoaelly apaeared Chri,g R. Gras Jr , personaliyknown to me (At #6f" ' to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(f# whose name(n is/ab subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to the that he/sAteUl oyexecuted the satire in hia/V~ authorized cap acity(l jj, and that by higWMp)t signanan;(t) on the InShument, the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed theattskument. WFFNMS ttty hand and official seal. Signature STATE OF g& TpMn ) ) 6S COUNTY OF .txne. kttrxr rr� . ) (Seal) UE9RpfYNNrc rA SMms C .CcY��rr. Ku. 14ArOB7.. .� ':eot^m r»ecrc-cd•'iriiwaA o v.5. p5- On 5/251ZWfi . before me, Aebralvouc !t: Sett.ln Notary; ftb11c, 1Pe�34ppea=ed Chris tt Caras personally known to tttetJVskY' to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person($) whose hame(f) ishlfit-Bu3iscrrbed to tho withk i istewnetrt and acknowledged. to me that he/ yey executed'" adine.k hisA*MW authorized capacity(ibA), and that by hisM/AW at gnahveW on the-Inswuneut, the pettson(4W. or the entity upon behalf of which the petson(A) Acted, executed the instrument Signatu (Seal) wpE9RAtYNNE t n CorprttNo.ia85os7 9 V 1057J10EtES Cp,Ji1N ' AsyCmmn.,E><p..Mata�,;zacs r nxenmuea4.oaroywn -35- rn l,/T 1 uj/'L:i/LuMl 14: 1tl L1jjtiL7y1G EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL 1: PARCELS 1, 2,3 AND 4 INCLUSIVE, OF PARCEL MAP NO.31145, IN THS.CI7Y OF LA QUINTA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP FILED IN BOOK 216, PAGES 69 THROUGH 71, INCLUSIVE, OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF T14E COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. EXCEPTINQ THEREFROM ALL OIL, GAS, MINERAL AND OTHER HYDROCAAWN' SUBSTANCES Jig AND UNDER SAID LAND AS RESERVED BY LEONARD'A. ORENIER AND MARY LOUISE GRENIER AS TO A ONE-HALF INTEREST INDEED RECORDED OCTOBER I I" 1955 INBOOK '1805 PAGE 153 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS AND #Y•ROSE'W. LEVINSON AND KATE NEISHULER, AS TO A ONE-HALF INTEREST IN DEMPECORDED MAY14, IVA AS INSTRUMENT NO. 55979 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. 711167.171OC M102-M16-l"Wlpn 0 EXM Rr7 A 4- 11// EXHIM B SITE PLAN PROPOSED RETAM 0 1 1 is �l } 1 -- - --_ -- - - - -- -STATE _'_ HIGHWAY--- 1�--- -' -- --- - --r -- - 7J7167.1110C a rraTf g �� (� , /' r Michael, Included with this packet is a copy of the proposed code updates for Tuesday's Planning Commission consideration. We apologize for the short notice and review time and will make better effort to provide you with advance notice in the future, but should point out that the majority of the code changes are basically simple "clean-up" or consistency corrections. One of the items that may be of special concern to you relates to the proposed "sunset provisions" (Zoning Exhibit G & Subdivision Exhibit A), as it is the most likely to have potential conflict with the state Permit Streamlining Act provisions. All of these items should be evaluated for consistency with CEQA and the Permit Streamlining Act. If there are any proposed code items which will require changes or corrections, we will prepare a memorandum to the Commission prior to the public hearing. Please give me a call at (760) 777-7068 if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, 44 Anct6w Mogensen, AICP Principal Planner