2009 04 28 PCo4�To City of La Quinta
Planning Commission Agendas are now
available on the City's Web Page
@ www.la-guinta.org
w
of T4 9
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
A Regular Meeting to be Held at the
La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California
APRIL 28, 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 2009-014
Beginning Minute Motion 2009-006
CALL TO ORDER
A. Pledge of Allegiance
B. Roll Call
II. PUBLIC COMMENT
This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled for
public hearing. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your
comments to three minutes.
III. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 14, 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 .................. CONTINUED 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-
B. Item .................. CONTINUED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2008-905
AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2008-112
Applicant........... Leslie Lippich Architect and Associates, Inc. for Yury
Levitan
Location............ East Side of Washington Street, Approximately 780±
Feet North of Fred Waring Drive.
Request ............. Consideration of Architectural and Landscaping Plans for
a 4,924 Square Foot Express (Self -Service) Car Wash.
Action ............... Resolution 2009- , and Resolution 2009-
C. Item .................. SIGN PROGRAM 2006-1034, AMENDMENT NO. 1
Applicant........... Komar Investments, LLC
Location............ South of Highway 111 At Depot Drive
Request ............. Consideration of a Sign Program Amendment to Install
Two Directional Signs Within Komar Desert Center at
Depot Drive.
Action ............... Minute Motion 2009- .
VI. BUSINESS ITEM:
Vll. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL:
Vill. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. Report on City Council meeting of April 21, 2009, from Commissioner
Barrows.
B. Commissioner Quill is scheduled to attend the May 5, 2009, City
Council meeting.
IX. DIRECTOR ITEMS:
A. General Plan Update Request for Proposals
X. ADJOURNMENT:
This meeting of the Planning Commission will be adjourned to a Regular Meeting to be
held on May 12, 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, April
28, 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, April 24, 2009.
DATED: April 24, 2009
/A
CAROL hN WALKER, Executive Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
Public Notices
The La Quinta City Council Chamber is handicapped accessible. If special equipment is
needed for the hearing impaired, please call the City Clerk's office at 777-7123, twenty-
four (24) hours in advance of the meeting and accommodations will be made.
If special electronic equipment is needed to make presentations to the Planning
Commission, arrangements should be made in advance by contacting the City Clerk's
office at 777-7123. A one (1) week notice is required.
If background material is to be presented to the Planning Commission during a Planning
Commission meeting, please be advised that eight (8) copies of all documents, exhibits,
etc., must be supplied to the Executive Secretary for distribution. It is requested that this
take place prior to the beginning of the 7:00 p.m. meeting.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
April 14, 2009
CALL TO ORDER
7:03 P.M.
A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:03
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, Principal Engineer Ed Wimmer, Assistant City Attorney
Michael Houston, Principal Planner Andrew Mogensen, Principal
Planner Stan Sawa, Assistant Planner Eric Ceja, and Secretary Monika
Radeva.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA:
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR:
Chairman Alderson asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of the
Planning Commission Meeting of March 24, 2009. There being no changes,
or corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Wilkinson/Barrows to approve the minutes as submitted. Unanimously
approved.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Continued Sign Program 2006-1078 Amendment No. 1; a request by
Highland Development Sign Company for consideration of a proposed
sign program amendment to add an additional freestanding monument
sign for the Dunes Business Park located on the north side of Highway
111, approximately 1,000 feet east of Dune Palms Road.
PAReports- PC\2009\4-28-09\PC MIN_4-14-09_Draft.doc
Planning Commission Minutes
April 14, 2009
Chairman Alderson opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report.
Planning Director Les Johnson noted this was the second continuation
for this item, and said staff would like to reschedule it to the April 28,
2009 meeting to allow additional time to address all of their concerns.
Chairman Alderson asked if there were any comments from the public.
There were no comments from the public, and he then closed the
public hearing portion of the meeting.
There being no further discussion from the Commissioners, it was
moved and seconded by Commissioners Barrows/Wilkinson to
continue Sign Application 2006-1078, Amendment No. 1 to the
Planning Commission meeting of April 28, 2009. Unanimously
approved.
B. Site Development Permit 2008-905 and Conditional Use Permit 2008-
112; a request by Leslie Lippich Architect and Associates for Yury
Levitan for consideration of architectural and landscaping plans for a
4,924 square foot express (self-service) car wash to be located on the
east side of Washington Street, approximately ±780 feet north of
Fred Waring 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.
Principal Planner Sawa said staff had received an e-mail from Mr.
Marvin Roos, Director of Design Development with MSA Consulting,
representing the Robert Capri Corporation expressing concerns
regarding the proposed requirement for a deceleration lane for the car
wash entry located on Washington Street. Mr. Roos noted in his
e-mail there was no professional traffic analysis indicating the need for
a deceleration lane; nor would the car wash generate the amount of
trips per peak hour that would trigger the threshold identified by the
City to require a deceleration lane. Mr. Roos stated his concern was
that the condition, as written, would create an off -set curb condition
for the adjacent Mayer Villa Capri project at the northern driveway and
the off -sets could be confusing and possibly dangerous to motorists.
Mr. Roos proposed the condition state the driveway curbs not be off-
P::Ropnrts PC12009`.4-28 09A�C WIN 4 14 09 Draft.doc 2
Planning Commission Minutes
April 14, 2009
set and the deceleration lane start northerly of the Mayer Villa Capri
approved entry on Washington Street.
Mr. Roos noted a second concern in his e-mail pointing out that the
landscaping plans submitted for the car wash did not indicate any
ground cover for the area between the car wash and the property line.
He said he hoped that area would be covered with decomposed
granite and rockscape as shown elsewhere on the landscaping plans.
Chairman Alderson asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Weber asked if the hours of operation for the car wash
were specified in the Code. Staff replied they were not and that the
closing time was indicated by the applicant.
Commissioner Weber asked if there were any requirements to prepare
a noise study. Staff replied there were not. Commissioner Weber
asked if the applicant was in agreement with the condition to install
some type of a sound barrier wall to help deflect the noise from the
tunnel. Principal Planner Sawa indicated it was his understanding that
the applicant was in support of the condition.
Chairman Alderson asked Principal Engineer Ed Wimmer to explain the
issue concerning the deceleration lane as expressed by Mr. Roos in his
e-mail. Principal Engineer Wimmer explained deceleration lanes were
usually required on major arterial streets, however, if an applicant
demonstrated that less than fifty vehicles per hour would be generated
in the peak hour, then a deceleration lane would not be required. He
said this project was exempt from CEQA requirements and therefore,
did not require a traffic study. Public Works had conducted an in-
house analysis in regards to the IT trip generation rate for similar type
projects and it had identified that the trips generated would be in the
area of forty-five vehicles per hour in the peak hour, which would not
be enough to require a deceleration lane. However, in this case, the
applicant offered to put the deceleration lane in front of his property.
The proposed deceleration lane at 116 feet would not qualify for a
complete design for a deceleration lane, but it would provide an
opportunity for the traffic wanting to turn into the car wash to move
into the lane and allow the faster moving traffic through on the outer
lane on Washington Street. Principal Engineer said staff did not share
the concern expressed by Mr. Roos and felt that the proposed
deceleration lane would be a benefit to Washington Street and would
help move traffic along.
P:.Rnports PCA2009A 28 09`PC WIN 1 14 09 Dmft.doo 3
Planning Commission Minutes
April 14, 2009
Commissioner Weber asked what the speed limit was for that location
on Washington Street. Principal Engineer Wimmer replied the posted
speed limit was fifty mph.
Commissioner Weber pointed out other partial deceleration lanes
already in existence near the project. Staff explained the benefits and
connectivity between the partial deceleration lane for the car wash
and the adjacent La Quinta Business Center.
Commissioner Weber asked if the applicant would be submitting final
landscaping plans as the ones currently submitted were marked as
drafts. Principal Planner Sawa replied the applicant would be
submitting final landscaping plans for approval, based on the
Commission's decision and direction.
Chairman Alderson asked to clarify that the applicant would address
the landscaping for the area between the car wash and the property
line in the final landscaping plans. Staff confirmed.
Commissioner Quill commented that if the car wash site plan was
submitted as a mirror image of itself, the parking area would be facing
the Mayer Villa Capri parking lots. That would allow for connectivity
between the two projects and would eliminate the necessity for two
driveways that were only 150 feet apart from each other, as one
access point could be used for both projects. He noted the
deceleration lane, if the same access point is used, would have to be
extended over the Mayer site as well.
Commissioner Quill asked staff why flipping the site plan was not
considered in the preliminary review of the project especially in terms
of sustainability, preservation, and keeping vehicles off the main
arterial for trip reduction.
Planning Director Johnson said there was a lot of discussion about
having the car wash design flipped and he noted the original proposal
by the applicant did have the building flipped. He explained the
driveway into the car wash in the original plans was not shared;
however, it was adjacent to the one for the Mayer Villa Capri site.
Staff had extensively discussed the issue of connectivity between the
two projects and the Mayer Corporation was not in support of it
because of concerns regarding potential access logistics, traffic flow,
and the stacking of vehicles for the car wash creating a problem for
the Mayer Villa Capri site and the site design to the south. He noted
P:�Reports PC`2009'14 28 091PC VIN 4 14 09 Drn R.dor, 4
Planning Commission Minutes
April 14, 2009
the issue had been discussed at length as staff shared the same
interest and concern expressed by Commissioner Quill, however, both
parties were not supportive of having the connectivity between the
two projects.
General discussion followed regarding what the potential issues would
have been if there was a shared driveway for both projects.
Commissioner Wilkinson asked about the length of the drive area from
the access point on Washington Street to the car wash pay station
and approximately how many cars would be accommodated in the
three lanes. Staff replied approximately twenty vehicles, but that the
applicant would be able to better answer those questions.
Chairman Alderson asked about the height of the wall and if the
applicant was supportive of it. Staff responded the recommended
height was six feet and that the applicant would comply with the
condition.
Chairman Alderson inquired if the recommendations made by the
ALRC regarding the building color palette and types of palm trees used
had been incorporated into the submitted plans. Staff replied the
recommendations were not addressed in the plans, but were made
part of the conditions of approval.
There being no further questions of the staff, Chairman Alderson
asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission.
Mr. Robert Palmer, Leslie Lippich Architect and Associates, Inc., 4766
Park Granada, Calabasas, CA 91302, introduced himself and offered
to answer any questions the Commission might have.
Commissioner Quill inquired how the polycarbonate clear roof material
of the car wash would be made to look like copper. Mr. Palmer
replied the polycarbonate material was available in different colors and
the architect chose to use the bronze, or copper -like, color because
the car wash would be in the southwest and it would blend better
with its surroundings. He explained the material was chosen because
it was light, cost effective, and allowed sunlight to get through to the
car wash tunnel during the day eliminating the need to have lights on.
Commissioner Quill asked about the design of the vacuum cleaners.
Mr. Palmer explained the vacuum cleaners would look like hoses
P:AReports PCA20091ri-28 09VPC MIN 4 14 09 Dmft.doc 5
Planning Commission Minutes
April 14, 2009
running across a canopy and dropping down, similar to full service car
wash vacuum cleaners.
Commissioner Quill said the canopy was not identified on the site
plans. Chairman Alderson concurred. Mr. Palmer replied the canopy
was not identified because it was subject to a different permit.
Planning Director Johnson stated the applicant had never mentioned to
staff that there would be a canopy. Commissioner Quill noted the
Commission was being asked to approve the plans without knowing
what the canopy would look like, even though it was an architectural
design feature of the car wash.
Commissioner Quill asked about the trash receptacles and what
measures would be taken to ensure that they get emptied out on a
regular basis. He was also concerned about the applicant making sure
the parking lot would be consistently swept and kept clean.
Yury Levitan, Owner of the Express Car Wash, 11501 Donna Evita
Drive, Studio City, CA 91604, introduced himself and addressed
Commissioner Quill's previous question regarding the vacuum cleaning
equipment. He said they would be using Vacuum Tech, a company
which specialized in custom design of central vacuum systems and
explained where the equipment would be located and how it would
work.
Mr. Levitan said there would always be at least two employees
present at all times at the car wash and they would be in charge of
maintenance and monitoring cleanliness of the site. Further, the
volume of business would determine the appropriate manpower
necessary to maintain the car wash.
Commissioner Quill asked if the car wash was fully automated. Mr.
Levitan replied the car wash would be fully automated. He said
payment would be rendered through computers located at each of the
three lanes as the cars entered the car wash and explained the
process.
Commissioner Quill asked about the aesthetic design of the trash
receptacles and if there would be one at every parking space. Mr.
Levitan replied the design had not yet been determined and there
would be trash receptacles at every parking space.
P::Ra;ports K, 2009A 28 09�PC MIN 4 14 09 Draft_doc 6
Planning Commission Minutes
April 14, 2009
Commissioner Quill asked where the vending machines would be
located. Mr. Levitan noted the vending machines would be located in
the building niches.
Commissioner Quill asked about the type of material that would be
used for the parking lot. Mr. Levitan said, due to the high
temperatures in the desert area, it would most likely to be concrete
instead of asphalt. Commissioner Quill asked, and the applicant
confirmed that he would not object if the Commission conditioned him
to use concrete.
Commissioner Quill asked for details on the site lighting. Staff replied
a requirement for additional design information on the lighting was
included in the conditions of approval. Mr. Levitan said the lighting
plans had not been completed, but sufficient lighting would be
provided to allow for the car wash to operate at night.
Commissioner Quill inquired about the hours of operation for the car
wash. Mr. Levitan said the car wash would be open from 6:00 a.m.
until 10:00 p.m., but if business was very slow, it would trigger an
earlier closing time.
Commissioner Quill asked if there would be employees present at the
car wash during all hours of operation. Mr. Levitan replied there
would.
Commissioner Quill inquired about the close -down process and what it
would involve. Mr. Levitan explained all outside equipment would be
put away in the mechanical room, the gates to the tunnel would be
closed, and the site would be secured with an alarm system.
Commissioner Quill asked if there
maintenance. Mr. Levitan replied
done two to three times a day.
would be end -of -day parking lot
parking lot maintenance would be
Chairman Alderson asked if the two car wash employees would be the
ones designated for the maintenance of the car wash. Mr. Levitan
said the two employees would be in charge of maintenance, but if
volume was high and more manpower was needed, more employees
would work the site.
Commissioner Quill asked if the water would be recycled and what
would be the recycling process. Mr. Levitan explained the water
recycling process.
P:ARt;poris PC'2009Aa 28 09TC WN 4 14 09 Draf[Aoc 7
Planning Commission Minutes
April 14, 2009
Commissioner Quill asked approximately how much water would be
used to operate the car wash. Mr. Levitan gave an example of the car
wash in Palm Desert and stated the water bill for that operation was
from $300 to $400 per month. His estimate for the La Quinta car
wash would be between $400 and $500 per month.
Commissioner Quill asked who would be in charge of maintaining the
landscaping. Mr. Levitan replied a landscaping company would be put
in charge on a weekly basis.
Commissioner Wilkinson inquired about the warranty for the
polycarbonate roof material. Mr. Palmer replied the warranty was at
least 10 years, possibly more.
Commissioner Wilkinson asked about heat generation within the car
wash tunnel, considering the translucent roof material would allow a
substantial amount of heat to build up in the tunnel. Mr. Palmer asked
for the elevation plans to be displayed. He explained the top of the
car wash tunnel at the front, and rear elevations, would be open for
ventilation, as well as the tunnel doors being open during operating
hours.
Commissioner Wilkinson expressed concern regarding the durability of
the roof material. He also concurred with Commissioner Quill's
comments regarding not having any information on the color palette,
shade structure, lighting, trash receptacles, etc.
Commissioner Barrows asked if the proposed polycarbonate roof
material had been used in other places with similar weather
conditions. Mr. Palmer replied the same roof material was used for a
similar car wash in Las Vegas. He said the main reason the material
was preferred to other materials was because it was light and
translucent. He explained there was no roof equipment and it was a
self supporting structure.
Commissioner Weber echoed the concerns regarding the roof material
expressed by his fellow Commissioners in terms of durability,
discoloration, and heat generation. He said the applicant should try to
provide an example of where the material was used successfully. Mr.
Palmer noted the polycarbonate material was generally used for green
houses and therefore it would be able to sustain the heat. He
explained there wouldn't be high levels of heat generated in the car
wash tunnel because in addition to the roof and door openings on both
P..Reprts PC,20094 26 09�PC WN 4 14 09 Draft_doc 8
Planning Commission Minutes
April 14, 2009
ends of the tunnel, the entire car wash process required the use of
water which would further reduce the heat levels.
Mr. Palmer said the car wash tunnel was only for the car wash
operations, the on -site office and restrooms were located to the side
of the car wash building and were not under the polycarbonate roof
material.
Commissioner Weber clarified that his concern was not in terms of
generating heat inside the car wash tunnel, but rather whether or not
the polycarbonate material was durable enough to sustain the high
temperatures of the desert. Mr. Palmer noted that was why he
mentioned that this type of material was generally used for green
houses.
Commissioner Weber asked for the applicant's comments on the
deceleration lane and expressed his concern regarding traffic safety
and possible future liability for the City of La Quinta. Mr. John
Hacker, Civil Engineer, 77810 Las Montanas Road, Palm Desert, CA
92260, introduced himself as part of the applicant's design team and
provided his expertise on the traffic analysis for the car wash. He
said, based on the estimated trips generated and the car wash design,
there should be no backing up of traffic and no need for a deceleration
lane.
Mr. Hacker addressed the Commission's concern regarding the
maintenance of the car wash. He said staff requires the applicant to
submit a report for Best Management Practices (BMP) which identifies
in detail how the applicant is to maintain the site. A newer trend is to
also require the applicant to sign the report committing him/her to
perform by the identified BMPs.
Commissioner Weber asked for comments about the reverse design of
the car wash. Mr. Hacker replied the original plans for the car wash
were reversed, but the Robert Mayer Corporation was not in favor of
that design. He noted Mr. Levitan did not object to having the car
wash designed either way. When the applicant was asked by staff to
flip the design and re -submit the site plans, he agreed.
Chairman Alderson asked Mr. Hacker if he was the Civil Engineer for
the car wash project. Mr. Hacker said he was. Chairman Alderson
inquired about the symbols on the grading plan indicating the grease
and sand traps. Mr. Hacker explained those were part of the
P: Reports PCA2009l4 28&09`PC MIN 4 14 09 Draf�Alw 9
Planning Commission Minutes
April 14, 2009
architectural design and he was not involved in that part of the
project. He said he would provide an underground storm trap to
channel the water. Chairman Alderson commented the grading plans
did not have sufficient information indicating the flow of the storm
drain water. Mr. Hacker said the water in the submitted design was
being channeled to the underground storm pipes and a minor amount
of water was directed to a small catch basin at the entrance. Mr.
Hacker explained the works of the underground water receptacles and
the catch basin and noted the design could be modified during the
final grading.
Chairman Alderson expressed concern that there was only one catch
basin and, if it were to plug up, the water would not have a second
place to drain. Mr. Hacker replied there was a second catch basin
above the receptacles. He said additional catch basins could be easily
installed.
Chairman Alderson asked if there was any public comment.
Ms. Terry Forward, Coldwell Banker Commercial, introduced herself as
a representative of the owner of the La Quinta Business Center, 43-
576 Washington Street, La Quinta, CA 92253, located to the north
of the proposed car wash, and asked for an explanation as to whether
or not there would be some type of sound barrier protection to ensure
there would be no nuisance noise for those tenants.
Principal Planner Sawa replied there were no walls proposed along the
north property line, only landscaping. Ms. Forward inquired about the
type of landscaping. Staff said the plans identified alternating citrus
and palm trees along the north border. Ms. Forward asked if there
could be possible accommodation for a different type of landscaping
or a sound wall barrier. Staff replied the Planning Commission had the
authority to impose such a requirement on the applicant if it was
determined to be necessary.
Commissioner Quill asked if staff had required the applicant to submit
acoustic information on the car wash equipment and operation.
Planning Director Johnson replied acoustics were not requested. He
explained staff had identified the need for a wall along the eastern
property boundaries because of the new school to the east; however,
staff did not define a requirement for walls along the north and south
property lines.
P:'.fteports PC\2009A4 28 09�PC MIN 4 14 09 Draf" doc 10
Planning Commission Minutes
April 14, 2009
Commissioner Quill asked if staff had asked the applicant to submit
some type of a decibel (DB) analysis on their operation and if there
was an established threshold. Staff replied the Code identified a
standard DB level, but based on the proposed operation, staff had no
reason to believe that it would exceed the City's established standard
requirements. Staff did not require the applicant to conduct any type
of noise analysis.
Chairman Alderson asked Ms. Forward if the answer provided by staff
was sufficient or if she insisted on further consideration for acoustic
protection. Ms. Forward noted her client would not be in favor of
reversing the site plans as it would put the car wash building closer to
the La Quinta Business Center structure.
Mr. Marvin Roos, MSA Consulting, 34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho
Mirage, CA 92270, representing the Robert Mayer Corporation,
introduced himself. Mr. Roos said he had reviewed the car wash site
plans when the design was reversed and noted the plans identified a
separate access for the car wash from Washington Street. He said
there was never any intent to have a joint driveway for both projects.
He explained the way the building and parking lot were laid out, there
would not have been sufficient space to make the connection between
the two projects and there were concerns that it might block up the
Mayer Villa Capri project's service drive. He noted he was surprised
to see the design reversed as his impression was the original design
was to remain without the connectivity. He said the Robert Mayer
Corporation is in support of the car wash project. Mr. Roos said there
was an issue with the location of the trash enclosure which had been
addressed.
Mr. Roos explained his client's concerns in having the deceleration
lane and demonstrated the traffic movement on the site plan.
Mr. Roos said the only concern his client had was that the submitted
landscaping plans did not indicate any ground cover for the area
between the car wash and the property line. He stated he was not
sure if the plans were simply hard to read or if the applicant had in
fact planned to cover the area with the same decomposed granite and
rockscape shown elsewhere on the landscaping plans, but he just
wanted to address the issue.
Mr. Roos said he was available to answer any questions the
Commission might have.
P:.Reports PC%.2009`:a-28 09`?C MIN 4 14 09 Dmft.dw 11
Planning Commission Minutes
April 14, 2009
Commissioner Quill said he could tell the connectivity issue had been
previously discussed in detail, but he did not get the impression that
there was adamant opposition from both parties to flip the car wash
design and come up with some type of connectivity between the two
projects as well as a shared, wider driveway as opposed to two
separate driveways. He noted he could tell both applicants were not
in favor of the idea, but it seemed like the issue was still open for
discussion. Mr. Roos replied he could not say whether or not the
Robert Mayer Corporation would be willing to discuss the issue as he
needed to confer with them first. Mr. Roos explained why a shared
driveway might be a major issue for the Mayer Villa Capri site and
what possible repercussions it might have to the deceleration lane. He
emphasized the fact that the car wash site plan posed constraints to
having the connectivity between the two projects.
There being no further questions, or public comment, Chairman
Alderson closed the public participation portion of the meeting and
opened the matter for Commission discussion.
Commissioner Weber said, based on the comments provided,
additional work could be done to make the project better. He said he
appreciated the ALRC comments about the use of more vibrant colors
and additional planting. He noted he had inspected the site based on
the concern expressed in an e-mail by a resident from a development
located on Washington Street (across from the car wash.) He found
that, based on her location, there would be no noise issues for her.
He found the overall design of the car wash to be very nice. He liked
the lay out and the trellises very much. He commented it would be
optimal to incorporate a shared driveway with the Mayer Villa Capri
project. If the design remained as currently submitted, he thought the
deceleration lane to be appropriate and he looked forward to seeing
more detailed landscaping plans.
Commissioner Barrows did not have any additional questions or
comments.
Commissioner Wilkinson said he concurred with Commissioner
Weber's assessment that the noise from the car wash on the south
end would not be an issue for the nearby residential developments.
He said he would prefer to see the design of the car wash flipped,
which he thought would also be better for the commercial building
located to the north of the project. He expressed a concern about the
use of polycarbonate roof material as he questioned its durability. He
P R,;perts PG2009 4 2E 09'•PC MIN 4 14 09_ Droftdx 12
Planning Commission Minutes
April 14, 2009
said he would like to know what the design of the shade structure
was as well as some type of lighting information. He said additional
information needed to be submitted by the applicant.
Commissioner Quill said he concurred with his fellow Commissioners.
He said he would like to see what the trash receptacles would look
like, how many would be there, and where they would be placed
within the site. He stated he would like to see the design of the
vacuum trellis system. He would like to see some shaded parking
provided by the vacuum system area, preferably having half of the
parking lot as a shaded structure. He pointed out there was no sign
information provided. He said he would like to see the architectural
design of the pay stations. He expressed concerns regarding
acoustics generated by the vacuum cleaners and would like to see
additional information provided. Commissioner Quill would like the
applicant to submit lighting details on the site as none were provided.
He stated he would not be in favor of the project without any
connectivity between the car wash and the Mayer Villa Capri site.
Chairman Alderson said he agreed with most of the previous
comments made by the Commissioners. He stated he would like to
see detailed information on the trellises and the acoustics addressed.
He noted he found the project to be well designed and beneficial to
the City. He said it would have been beneficial to have the architect
present to provide detailed answers to the Commission's questions.
Chairman Alderson noted he did not concur with his fellow
Commissioners that there was a need for a common driveway because
the service traffic for the Mayer Villa Capri site would interfere with
the commercial traffic for the car wash, possibly creating confusion
and a dangerous situation. He found the two separate driveways to
be more beneficial and a far better layout. He noted the applicant and
staff had spent a lot of time and effort trying to figure out a way to
create connectivity between the two projects only to find out that it
would not be very practical to do so. He said flipping the site design
would cause concern for the La Quinta Business Center owner
because it would place the building adjacent to that office center.
Chairman Alderson said he did not want to lose this project, but the
applicant needed to provide additional information before the
Commissioners could objectively cast their votes. He emphasized the
need for specific information such as the quantity of water that would
be used (not the dollar amount of the water bill.) He said he visited
Mr. Levitan's car wash operation in the City of Palm Desert and
P .Repots PC�2009 4 28 09;PC MIN 4 14 09 Draft.doY, 13
Planning Commission Minutes
April 14, 2009
complimented him for running a well maintained car wash business.
Commissioner Weber suggested they continue the project to the next
Planning Commission meeting to give the applicant a chance to
provide the additional information requested.
Commissioner Quill noted that two weeks might not be sufficient time
for the applicant to address all of the issues raised. He asked staff if
the project needed to be continued to a specific date. Staff replied it
did not have to be date specific, but it was preferable.
Planning Director Johnson asked to clarify the items the Commission
would like to be addressed and suggested the following:
■ Detailed information on the roof material.
■ Trash receptacles design, spacing, and location.
• Pay station design.
■ Vacuum trellis detail.
■ Noise decibel allowance for the car dryers, not a full noise
study, but an independent analysis that would provide
identification of the impact at the property line.
• Site lighting detail identifying the type of fixtures to be used and
the throw pattern.
■ Identify the approximate quantity of water to be used.
Planning director Johnson said the Commission made comments on
having a shared drive, reversing the plans, and possible connectivity
between the two projects. There were comments made for and
against these items and he asked the Commission to give staff clear
direction on how to address those issues.
Commissioner Quill stated he was adamant about having the
connectivity and the shared driveway issues addressed. He said he
would like to see the Best Management Practices (BMPs) included in
the conditions of approval which would give the City the right to
enforce proper maintenance of the site, if necessary, in the future.
Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston explained that enforcing
proper maintenance in the future through BMPs may be difficult
because the property rights lie with the conditional use permit (CUP)
and it vests once operation begins. He said if the Commission had
specific concerns along the lines of enforcement that those be clearly
stated allowing enforcement to be managed.
P:1Reports PC.2009:4 28 09VPC MIN_ 4 14 09 Drsf"Aon 14
Planning Commission Minutes
April 14, 2009
Commissioner Barrows said, in addition to the amount of water being
used, she would like more information on the recycling system
indicating how much water would be saved, and details on the water
efficiency of the entire operation.
Assistant City Attorney Houston said when an item was continued
procedurally, it needed to be continued to a date specific time. If the
Commission did not want to continue the item to a date specific time,
the item should be tabled, which would indicate that it was
indefinitely postponed. He noted staff would prefer the item be
continued to a date specific time and if additional time was needed the
item could be continued again.
Commissioner Quill asked staff what would be a reasonable amount of
time to allow the applicant to address all issues. Planning Director
Johnson replied four weeks would be reasonable.
Chairman Alderson re -opened the public hearing portion of the
meeting.
Chairman Alderson asked the applicant how much time would be
needed to provide the information requested. Mr. Levitan asked if the
conditional use permit could be approved by conditioning the applicant
to provide the requested information subsequently. He expressed his
concern that additional specialists would have to be hired to provide
such detailed information, without having an approved project.
Chairman Alderson replied the Commission would like to give Mr.
Levitan an opportunity to provide the necessary information, but could
not be responsible for the costs incurred during that process.
Mr. Bob Reordan, Real Estate Broker with R.G. Reordan, Inc., 60217
Wishbone Court, La Quinta, CA 92253, introduced himself and
thanked the Commission for their willingness to work with the
applicant. He explained that timing was of the essence with regards
to the close of escrow. He asked the Commission to continue the
item for only two weeks, until the next Planning Commission meeting
scheduled for April 28, 2009, which would give the applicant the
opportunity to meet the escrow deadline.
Mr. Reordan pointed out the applicant had originally submitted the
plans with the reverse design and had changed at the request of City
staff and comments from the Robert Mayer Corporation.
P,�Reports PC'.20M14 2B 09TC MIN-4 14 09 Drih,dnc 15
Planning Commission Minutes
April 14, 2009
Chairman Alderson consulted with staff regarding having the meeting
continued to the next Planning Commission meeting. Planning
Director Johnson replied as long as the applicant could provide the
requested information staff would work with them to meet the
deadline. If more time was needed, that could be addressed at the
next meeting.
Planning Director Johnson wanted to clarify that the Robert Mayer
Corporation was not involved in the recommendation to flip the plans
for the car wash and that it was strictly staff's direction. He
explained staff felt this design was more advantageous once it was
determined there was not going to be an access on the south.
There was no further discussion and it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Weber/Barrows to continue Site Development Permit
2008-905 and Conditional Use Permit 2008-112 to the next Planning
Commission meeting on April 28, 2009. Unanimously approved.
C. Sign Application 2003-682 Amendment No. 1; a request by
Washington 1 1 1, Ltd. for consideration of a proposed sign program
amendment to include revised monument signs and under -canopy
blade signs for their retail center located south of Highway 111
between Washington Street and Adams Street.
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 questions of staff.
There being no further questions of the staff, Chairman Alderson
asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission.
Mr. Bill Sanchez, Project Manager, representing the developer,
Washington 1 1 1, 78365 Highway 1 1 1, La Quinta, CA 92253,
introduced himself and said the sign program amendment was aimed
at freshening up the shopping center and trying to bring awareness
and directional signage for the existing tenants who had expressed
concerns. He explained the developer had requested the two
additional monument signs to be placed along Washington Street
because oftentimes when giving directions to businesses located
PrReports PC%.2009':4 28 09`PC MIN 4 14 09 Drah.dor, 16
Planning Commission Minutes
April 14, 2009
within the shopping center, some of the brand name tenants had to be
used instead of the name of the center itself.
Mr. Sanchez submitted revised sign designs based on staff's
recommendations and explained the difference in size, in terms of
width and height, where they would be located, and how they relate
to the geometrical shape of the shopping center. He said he was
available to answer any questions the Commission might have.
Commissioner Wilkinson asked if staff had had the opportunity to
review the sign revisions. Staff replied the revisions had been
reviewed earlier in the afternoon.
Planning Director Johnson said the staff report provided a comparative
analysis and identified the scale of the signs to be consistent with
other existing signs in the area. He noted the revised plans still
exceeded what had been recommended, but the dimensions were
reasonably scaled back and were much more in line. He indicated
staff's original recommendation would remain. He explained staff's
concern in changing the recommendation was because it would raise
the bar from what had been historically addressed with other projects
along Highway 1 1 1. He pointed to the fact that Washington Park was
a very large shopping center with many major tenants involved and
still a lot of land to be developed. Staff felt it would be best to leave
the decision up to the Commission's discretion and follow their
direction.
Commissioner Wilkinson asked about the dimensional differences
between staff's recommendations and the revised proposal in terms of
height and width. Staff replied the comparison was done based on
gign face area and not by height and width. Staff presented graphics
of similar existing signs and explained the difference in dimensions and
the implication of the City's sign code which excluded the structural
elements of the sign design and focused on sign face area.
Commissioner Quill expressed his concern that if the Commission
allowed one applicant to exceed the sign dimensions identified in the
Code that might invite other project owners to demand the same. He
said he did, however, realize the importance of providing signage for
the tenants in the current hard economic conditions.
Commissioner Barrows did not have any additional questions, but she
indicated she had the same concerns as those expressed by
Commissioner Quill.
P:':Roports PC'2009%4 28 09'PC VIN 4 14-09 Dtnfi.Cioo 17
Planning Commission Minutes
April 14, 2009
Commissioner Weber thanked the applicant for doing the extra work
and providing the Commission with a revised set of sign designs that
was more in line with staff's recommendation. Commissioner Quill
concurred with Commissioner Weber's comment.
Commissioner Weber commented that the revised signs used a
substantial amount of the sign area in identifying the name of the
shopping center (Washington Park). He inquired about the need to
advertise the Washington Park brand. Mr. Sanchez replied that due to
the current economic hardship, a lot of the tenants, in an effort to
generate more business, are advertising the location of their
businesses in Washington Park, in the local venues. The owner of the
shopping center was being supportive of that and wanted to help
establish the brand recognition of where Washington Park Shopping
Center was located. Commissioner Weber noted he concurred with
his fellow Commissioners' concern to approve signs that exceeded the
sign code guidelines.
Chairman Alderson thanked Mr. Sanchez for submitting the revised
sign designs.
Mr. Sanchez asked the Commission to consider section 9.160.090 of
the sign code, referenced on page 5 of the staff report, which allowed
adjustments and additions to the Sign Program "to overcome a
disadvantage as a result of an exceptional setback between the street
and the sign or orientation of the sign location," or "due to an unusual
lot shape, the street frontage is excessively narrow in proportion to
the average width of the lot. "
Commissioner Barrows said the proposed Al and A2 signs were
within staff's recommendation as they only exceeded the sign area by
five feet. However, she pointed out that the proposed B1 sign along
Washington Street, exceeded staff's recommendation of sign area by
fifteen feet. She suggested the Commission move to approve the Al
and A2 signs as proposed in the revisions and ask the applicant to
follow staff's recommendations for the B1 sign.
Chairman Alderson provided opportunity for Mr. Sanchez to respond
to Commissioner Barrow's comments. Mr. Sanchez replied the overall
mass of the monument sign was not an issue and he could comply
with the recommended sixty five feet of sign area by only reducing the
signs and keeping the overall design of the monument sign.
P .Ropons PCl200944-28 09A°C MIN 4 14 09 Drnft-don 18
Planning Commission Minutes
April 14, 2009
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/Quill to approve Minute Motion 2009-005
recommending approval of Sign Application 2003-682, Amendment
No. 1, accepting the proposed revised Al and A2 signs, and having
the applicant comply with staff's recommendation to reduce the
signage area for the B1 sign to sixty-five feet. Unanimously approved.
D. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2009-097; a request by staff for
consideration of the following amendments to the La Quinta Municipal
Code:
1. To restrict the placement of permitted temporary signs
within the public right-of-way (9.160.60);
2. To reduce the maximum time period for permitted
temporary signs from sixty (60) days to forty-five (45)
(9.160.60);
3. To eliminate sign size restrictions for exempt directional
and informational signs for public, quasi -public, and non-
profits (9.160.020);
4. To revise Table 9-17 to change maximum sign size and
height restrictions for exempt signs (9.160.020)
Chairman Alderson opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report.
Assistant Planner Eric Ceja 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 the staff, Chairman Alderson opened the
public hearing and asked if there was any public comment.
There being no questions, or public comment, Chairman Alderson
closed the public participation hearing and opened the matter for
Commission discussion.
Chairman Alderson asked staff to clarify that the Commission was to
review the proposed changes, provide feedback and comments, and
recommend approval to City Council.
P-Acports PCt2009'4 28 09'PC MIN 4 14 09 Drafisloc 19
Planning Commission Minutes
April 14, 2009
Planning Director Johnson explained there were multiple study
sessions that led up to the proposed changes. There was a lot of
general discussion between the Council members, but no clear,
definitive direction was given. Staff followed Council's general
comments to bring this information together and the document was
open for the Commission's review, comments and recommendations.
Chairman Alderson asked if the document provided by staff had
Council's input in it. Planning Director Johnson replied it did have
Council's input; however, it consisted of comments during the study
session discussions.
Commissioner Weber said he was pleased to see that staff was
working on code revisions, he thought such updates were necessary,
and contributed to the clean and overall appropriate appearance of the
City of La Quinta and the standards the City would like to maintain.
Chairman Alderson commented that signage was one of the most
inexpensive and effective ways to obtain public recognition. He said
other types of advertising, such as magazines, newspapers, TV, etc.
were not as effective and were also very expensive. He noted taking
away the political candidate's privilege to advertise through signage,
would be taking away their most effective and affordable weapon.
Chairman Alderson said he agreed that the display of political signs
took away from the aesthetics of the City and he found that reducing
the amount of days the signs could be displayed from sixty to forty-
five would most definitely help with that problem. He noted he was in
favor or prohibiting the display of signs in the public medians as it was
dangerous for those trying to put up or take down the signs, but he
was in opposition of prohibiting the display of political signs in the
public right-of-way all together.
There was no further discussion and it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Barrows/Weber to approve Resolution 2009-015
recommending approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2009-097
as submitted. AYES: Commissioners Barrows, Quill, Weber, and
Wilkinson. NOES: Chairman Alderson. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT:
None.
VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: None.
P -Reports PCr2009',4 28 09 PC UIN 4 14 09 Drattd"r, 20
Planning Commission Minutes
April 14, 2009
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL:
A. Attendance Update
Chairman Alderson inquired about the reason for Commissioner
Wilkinson's absence on the January 13, 2009, Planning Commission
Meeting. Commissioner Wilkinson clarified the absence was due to
health reasons, which prevented him from attending the meeting.
Vill. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. Chairman Alderson reported on the City Council meeting of April 7,
2009. He said the City's new public relations company Ferrino &
Green made a presentation suggesting programs of interest and what
actions were to be taken. Council provided comments and feedback.
He mentioned another item that was discussed was a memorial grant
that was available to the City to be received from the Federal
Government in the amount of $69,416 allocated for police activity,
etc. Staff was in opposition of accepting the grant because he
thought it was time for someone to make a stand and turn down
government handouts. His proposition, however, was not accepted
and the item was accepted with a majority vote.
B. Chairman Alderson noted Commissioner Barrows was scheduled to
report back on the April 21, 2009, Council meeting; however, there
was a scheduling conflict with a lecture she needed to give that
evening in Palm Springs.
Commissioner Weber would sit in for Commissioner Barrows for the
April 21, 2009, meeting and would report back on the Council
meeting.
D. Commissioner Wilkinson asked about the requirements for the federal
funding item. Chairman Alderson replied the money was allocated to
purchase two police segways and other items. Planning Director
Johnson explained the City would not have to pay that money back,
but only provide proof that the equipment was acquired. He noted
this program grant had been around for years and it was not directly
affiliated with the large federal stimulus package that was currently
underway.
IX: DIRECTOR ITEMS: None
P:ARcperts PCA2009A 28 091PC MIN 4 14 09 Draft doD 21
Planning Commission Minutes
April 14, 2009
X. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Barrows/Weber to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the
next regular meeting to be held on April 28, 2009. This meeting was adjourned at
9:23 p.m. on April 14, 2009.
Respectfully submitted,
Monika Radeva, Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
P:AReports PCA2009%4 28 09`,PC IVIJN_ 4 14 09 Drait.doe 22
PH # A
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: APRIL 28, 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: FLOODPLAIN / WATER
SOUTH: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL / REGIONAL
COMMERCIAL
EAST: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL / REGIONAL
COMMERCIAL
WEST: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL / REGIONAL
COMMERCIAL VACANT
BACKGROUND:
The subject case number was originally scheduled for the March 24, 2009 Planning
Commission meeting. Just prior to the first scheduled hearing, staff became aware of
the owner of Parcel Four's opposition of the application as submitted. Because of
comments received by the adjacent property owner within the commercial center and
the necessary time needed for staff, the applicant, and the adjacent property owner to
discuss other options, the item was continued to the meeting of April 14 and again to
April 28, 2009. Staff met with William Schmitt, the property owner and the sign company
to discuss the different options for the monument and also spoke with Jeff Lowden
owner of the Phase 1 Building at the back of the shopping center. The applicant
subsequently amended the application which is presented in this report.
SA 2006-1078 Amd. #1 Staff Report
The Dunes Business Park (Attachment 1) was approved as a multi -phased commercial
development on four parcels (Attachment 2) totaling 6.38 acres. The project includes
four (4) separate one-story buildings (Attachment 3) on each parcel with a common
used parking area. The first phase, approved in June of 2005, included a 36,000 square
foot multi -tenant building at the rear of the center. The second phase was approved in
August, 2006 for three freestanding multi -tenant buildings located at the front of the
center adjacent to Highway 111. There are two different owners for the commercial
center; one owner for the three parcels fronting Highway 111 and another owner for the
larger parcel to the north.
The Sign Program (Attachment 4) was approved for the entire center on February 13,
2007. At the time of approval, the applicant was granted building mounted identification
signs for each building and one monument sign for the entire center at the west end of
the project site. When the Sign Program was initially submitted to the Planning
Department, the applicant. was proposing two monument signs for the commercial
center. The Planning Commission, as recommended by Staff, limited the approval to
only one monument sign at the west end of the project, close to its access point off of
Highway 111.
With approximately 497 linear feet of frontage along Highway 111, the Dunes Business
Park was granted approval of a 30 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. Based on the 497' of street frontage, the center is entitled
by code to one 50 square foot freestanding sign. The center has one access point from
Highway 111 located to the west of Phase 2 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.
As referenced by Mr. Lowden, the CC&Rs (Attachment 5), which were not approved by
the City, states the Phase 1 Building on Parcel 4 located at the back of the center is
entitled to two monument signs before the other three buildings can install a monument
sign for identification of their tenants. With regard to the CC&Rs, the provisions for
signage is not consistent with the approved sign program and is not supported by staff
nor enforced by the City.
SIGN PROGRAM AMENDMENT PROPOSAL:
The applicant is proposing an amendment to the approved Sign Program to include an
additional 50 square foot monument sign with 30 square feet of sign face area
(Attachment 6) on the east end of the project site. 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
SA 2006-1078 Amd. #1 Staff Report
2
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:
As noted, approval of the original Sign Program was restricted to one monument sign
due to the center's relatively limited amount of street frontage combined with the
placement of its buildings and its single access point from Highway 111. Now with the
construction of the commercial center complete and over fifty percent leased, the lack of
visibility for certain tenant's is more readily apparent.
In order to allow the proposed 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). Specifically, current and future tenants
located in the interior of Phase 2 Building Retail 3 would benefit from an additional
monument sign because the approved Sign Program prohibits sign placement on that
building's East elevation and the orientation of the building makes it impossible to see
business names located on its West (front) elevation from traffic travelling westbound on
Highway 111. Tenants in Phase 2 Buildings Retail 1, 2, and the South end tenant of
Retail 3 are each allotted sign areas that face Highway 111.
To ensure that all monument signs on the site are proportionately available for all
similarly impacted tenant spaces within the center, Staff recommends that the proposed
second monument sign reserve 12 square feet of the total 30 square feet of the sign
face area for the Phase 1 Building in the northern portion of the center and the
remainder 18 square feet go to building Phase 2 Retail 3. The monument should be
structurally designed to allow tenant panels to be converted from a small panel of 12" by
33" to a larger one measuring approximately 12" by 66", in order to accommodate a
business name on a single complete panel and not cross over onto another one.
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 has received comments
from the adjacent property owner within the commercial center in opposition of the
proposed additional monument. The correspondence is attached as Attachment 7.
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.
SA 2006-1078 Amd. #1 Staff Report
3
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 Phase 1 Retail Building and Phase
2 Retail Building 3, which limits visibility from Highway 111 and the restrictions
from the approved Sign Program which prohibits signage placement on the east
elevation of Phase 2 Retail Building 3.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Minute Motion No. 2009 -_, approving Sign Application 2006-1078
Amendment No. 1, based on the findings and analysis included in the April 28, 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.
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 Phase 2 Retail Building 3 not
including the south end tenant abutting Highway 111 and tenants within Phase
One Retail Building in the northern portion of the center.
4. Monument sign face areas, except for the copy, shall be opaque. Only the routed
copy may be translucent when illuminated.
5. Monuments shall be structurally designed to allow tenant panels to be converted
from the smaller size panel of approximately of 12" by 33" to a larger one
measuring approximately 12" by 66", in order to allow a business name on one
complete panel and not cross over onto the adjacent panel space.
SA 2006-1078 Amd. #1 Staff Report
6. The eastern monument's sign face area shall be divided between the Phase One
Retail Building in the northern portion of the center, which shall have 12 square
feet, and the Phase 2 Retail Building 3 which shall have 18 square feet.
Attachments:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Copy of Parcel Map
3. Site Plan
4. Approved Sign Program
5. Copy of CC&Rs addressing monument signage
6. Monument Exhibit
7. Letter from Mr. Jeff Lowden
Prepared by:
Yvonne
SA 2006-1078 Amd. #1 Staff Report
5
ATTACHMENT 1
z
0
i
D
00 0 0
o eoo
/1 I MUM I L
04
la e I
11.20 AC
O
7RA 020-M 1 •�
`—' m
O fV
� cO
a C llJ
Z
D
m
Clt*Q
��WgTER
1 � Cy,�NNEI
r
-
2RA o20.131
eMAIYlY -_�
PAR 4
P
IB
A
' &92ACMk
22HK
1
NAM
I
1wA� -
teey
AKM
PAR,
PAR
PAR
I
13
14
15
I
I
1AC
IAC
1AC
IN,
.off
INJO
010
INA$
_ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _
_
HIGHWAY111
r
�
0
ATTACHMENT 3
SITE PLAN
i
PHASEBUILDING
I
" I
� i'. licit
J%..L
♦
—Elm
_
,•.ram ire a�:mia. r �.:.nnra.�
PHASE...
RETAIL 1
�"su'*�'dir��a'eF�var��axa�diJ�• ' � .
STATE HIGHWAY ill
H I I /Aunivicim I It
APPROVED SIGN PROGRAM
AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION
M o t/M vv e VA '6-1 Vj
Vi o� wwA D-� Sin
1116 yam
A-,m-
THE DUNES
SIGN PROGRAM
TENANT
TENANT
TENANT
TENANT
TTENANTTENANT
ITENVANTTENAN
APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION
IN
HY DATE z -13- o
QESO l
t ASE NO. SA X0(v- 10-I t
J ,A-vl CDvoOl u". 9
The Dunes
Sign Program
Sign Program:
The purpose of the Sign Program is to ensure: design, guidance, production,
implementation, consistency, quality coordination, proportion, enhancement, image
and compatibility between all signs within the Sign Program area. As such, the
Sign Program is intended to address placement, color, style, sign material,
integrity, and their consistency on the property. This program also serves to
communicate particular tenant sign parameters to compliment the project as a
whole, while achieving a unified, attractive balanced appealing signage. Although
the Sign Program exhibits establish the letter and sign dimensions, the Sign
Program is not intended to substitute Chapter 9.160 of the City of La Quinta
Zoning Ordinance.
Applicability:
A sign program is a coordinated sign plan for an individual building or a group of
buildings. For those signs requiring a program, no permit shall be issued for an
individual sign unless and until a Sign Program for the lot on which the sign will
be erected has been submitted and approved by the City in conformance with the
City of La Quinta Sign Ordinance.
General Requirements, Standards and/or Provisions:
All signs shall be constructed, installed and maintained in accordance with the
following standards:
1. All sign (s) shall comply with the Sign Program, current local zoning, meet
the provisions of the Uniform Building and electrical codes, be maintained in
good structural condition and appearance, and MUST BE Underwriters Laboratory
(U. L.) and BEAR the U. L. listing.
2. The tenant, tenant's agent and/or the tenant's sign contractor and/or general
contractor shall be responsible for obtaining any and all permits required.
3. Former tenant(s) shall be responsible for the removal of the signage,
including: sealing, patching, painting, and electrical disconnect(s). Removals to be
10
completed within a 10 (ten) day period of lease termination at the tenant's expense.
It is required that you use a sign contractor for signage and signage component
removal and electrical disconnect, and a painting contractor for finishing and
painting work. All repair work must match the building color and texture. Working
area must be left in a neat and clean condition.
4. No audible, flashing, animated, moving, pulsating, electronic and/or search
lighting or sign (s) not specifically mentioned herein shall be permitted.
5. It is the responsibility of the owner, owner's agent, or owner's representative
to verify all sign locations and/or field conditions, conduit and primary electrical
locations and services, prior to installation of any sign (s).
6. No exposed raceways, crossovers, conductors, wiring, or junction boxes.
Transformer boxes will be used to cover and/or conceal transformers. All bolts,
fastenings, and clips shall be non "rust prone" and painted to match the exterior
building color permitted.
EXCEPTION (S):
WHEN THE DESIGNATED SIGN LOCATION(S) HAS SUPPORT
BEAMS, NO ACCESS, AND/OR A NON -WORKING AND/OR
BUILDING INSPECTOR AREA BEHIND THE DESIGNATED
SIGN LOCATION. THE CONTRACTOR MAY USE A RACEWAY
THAT IS IN KEEPING WITH THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE
BUILDING. THE SIGN FACILITATOR/"RACEWAY" SHALL
ENCOMPASS SIGNAGE, STAY WITHIN DESIGNATED
SIGNAGE AREA, AND NOT EXCEED/PROJECT FROM
LETTERING.
7, Sign Contractor must have the following: General Liability Insurance,
Workers Compensation, Contracting and City Business License. Tenant will be
responsible for its sign contractor to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the
Landlord and its agents from any damage or liability resulting from the
contractor's work. Tenant will also provide adequate evidence of the sign
contractor's insurance coverage, naming the landlord as additional insured.
8. Sign labels that pertain to construction and installation shall be permitted
and placed in a conspicuous location for inspections and/or emergencies.
2
11
9. Penetrations of the building structure required by installation(s) shall be
neatly sealed in a "water tight" condition and painted to match exterior surface.
10. Sign(s) shall have access and/or adequate "crawl space" for inspection(s)
and servicing.
11. No live and/or simulated animals or humans may be used on site or within
right-of-way adjacent to the subject property as a sign.
12. No sign(s) shall be permitted that pose a nuisance or hazard.
13. No exposed neon, lamps, tubing, and/or bulbs, shall be permitted.
14. Roof sign(s) or projected sign(s) shall not be permitted.
15. Temporary identification signs such as: construction, developer, seasonal
promotions and/or compliance non -illuminated advertising displays are permitted
as per La Quinta City Code. Some time restrictions may apply.
16. Sign(s) that project onto the public right-of-way shall not be permitted.
17. The tenant will be responsible for the maintenance of their sign(s). Repairs
may be required within 30 (thirty) days of needed repair/servicing. If not mitigated
within 30 (thirty) days, the Landlord may repair and/or service the sign at the
tenant's expense.
18. Owner shall reserve the right to have architectural control.
Specifications for Building Signs:
1. Signs shall be individually illuminated Channel letters.
2. Matte Black painted Aluminum letters with standard color trim cap.
3. Colors: As approved by City or DRB.
4. No two adjacent signs shall be the same color.
3
12
5. Lettering type style shall be Helvetica light or equal, or as approved by
City and developer.
6. Single or double line shall be permitted.
7. Sign illumination may range from 4500 - 6500 neon or equal with 30 MA
transformers.
8. National or regional tenant (s) with 5 or more outlets (s) will be allowed to
use their standard signage.
9. Sign square footage not to exceed 50 square feet net. Logo not to exceed
25% of total area.
10. All signage to be within designated area as shown on elevations.
11. One sign per leasehold front. Maximum width of sign shall not exceed 75%
of lease frontage or wall width upon which the sign is placed, whichever is smaller.
12. See exhibits for material and location requirements.
13. Sign area limited to one square foot per lineal foot of lease frontage up to a
maximum of 50 square feet.
Specifications for window signs (Secondary)
1. One for parking lot side only.
2. Not to exceed 18" x 18", and includes business name and/or hours of
operation.
3. Copy shall be machine cut vinyl lettering.
4. Lettering to be at least I" in height.
5. Lettering type to be Helvetica light or equal.
6. Lettering to be face or reverse/second surface mount. If tinting prevails on a
window, it is recommended that a face application process is used.
4
13
7. Lettering color to be white.
Submittal Requirements:
A sign application consistent with this program shall consist of the following:
For each proposes sign application on the building, the following shall be specified
or drawn to scale and dimensioned plans:
A) A dimensioned location of each sign in the building and/or property.
B) Sign dimensions including letter height, color, sign length and sign
projection from the building.
C) Color scheme.
D) Type style or graphic style.
E) Material being used.
F) Method of instal lation/attachment/cross section.
G) Site plan indicating the location of the occupant space on the site.
H) Fabrication and installation details.
All permits for sign (s) and their installation shall be obtained by the owner and/or
its representative (s). La Quinta Professional Plaza and/or its representative shall
satisfy all requirements and specifications herein.
Binding Effect:
No sign shall be erected, constructed, installed, displayed, altered, placed or
maintained except in conformance with this program. In case of any conflict
between the provisions of this program and any other provisions of Chapter 9.160
of the City Zoning Ordinance, the City Zoning Ordinance shall prevail.
14
Approvals:
The design and construction of the tenant's signage must receive written approval
by the Landlord/Owner or the Management Company and the City of La Quinta
before fabrication and installation prior to submitting a sign application. The
owner's or manager's written approval shall be submitted to the City, along with a
completed City application, approved plans, and fees.
Owner's approval shall be based on the following:
1. Conformity of the Sign Program established for the center including
fabrication and method of installation.
2. Complete information, i.e. contractor's name, company name, address,
license number, and workers compensation number. To secure the owner's
approval, three (3) copies of the design drawing of the signage must be submitted
directly to the owner or Management Company.
Final Inspection of Sign Installation:
1. The installing sign contractor shall call the City for a final inspection after
having installed the sign.
2. The Final Inspection Card must be maintained on file with the sign
contractor.
3. Signs that deviate from this Sign Program will be removed at the tenant's
expense.
6
15
(\ /�
(��!
\\ \\
$\\\
$9\!
k}/�
RQQ`
&2R�
£Ja!
rJ@!
$G\"
\\\)
\ \\f
• �NNOI o
• ; t n n „
m¢oa±
UUmm�
• �:Ohr �
Q
N
O!
CD
Q
'i
y
v
m
T
m
ly
E
m
17
m
n
Ei
C
7
CO
®'
I
z
o
o
F
W
w
w
�
w
i
i
.
e
r
2
< I
R
t
ti
'7
m
m
�l
a
19
j�ysP
a
m
m
.l
i
J
21
23f2089 14:18 2133829916
ATTACHMENT 5
aisles as shown on the Site Plan without the prior written approval oftbe Boa Lot Owner and
&c, Mansviag Patty of the Front Lot&
AWICIS VM
ROIS
S.i Sboyping Combca 3ians All aigas wiNa the Shopping Ounter shall a to all
Sign Gdde&jwv roslriadem, permits and apptovais.adopted by Declarant stud all applicable Lewa
and nquircumemts and approvals of the (oily ("Applicohle Sign Requfr+ecents'. Rxc for
directional signs for gmidama whim tbeparld%and drivoway emcee ofthe Cottmwa Area,
fittastandmg mannient signs approved by.Daclatant (m its sole disciration) an the fift foot (50)
easomen t area between MgIrway I I I and the Building Areas on Parcels 1, 2 and 3, and mb
other signs as may be required by taw (such as signs roaming of hazardous substances), no sign
ahall be aectod or maintained upon the Common Area which is not in cue with the
Applicable Sign Req.
8.2 Ii Declmani r+ese rves the right to grant fights to Owners and/or
OCVq=te ("SiiJP Penal UMU") to Place idattifioation Sip panels (mdiviebna 'a, "Sign Pastel"
and colleadvely "SignF%xin on mutd4enm tmonazagnt signs constricted by Dedsteat within
the Shoppdng Contan Wept as expressly granted byDeclumd, mother OwAarcrOempant
shall have stay dSUs to Piano any Sign Panele on any multi-tonamt monum 4os within the
Shopping Canter. All Sign Finials shalt be maintained by the Sign Panel Use to whom such
Slpftllel(s) belong or by Declarant at the solo cost dam Sign Panel User to whom such No
Peool(s) below& Except eas ofl& wise provided haven, each Sign Panel shall comply with the
program the City or o9w apphouble, S cWty and such signs
(1) see in compflaace with the Applicable Sign Require; (ii) are oomadstent with the
arabitectu[al design of the multi -tuned mommna l signs oonstruoted by Declarant within the
Shopping Center; and (111) do nut materially and adversely impact the visibility of the mutti-
temeut mwnnment signs co= uatcd by Declarant within the Shopping Canter.
8.3 Sign Panel Ir2119 mmca by Sian Partal Useas, Each Sign Panel User shall be
solely ropponslble for all muft to fabricate, obtain permits for and install its individual Sign
Panels on the monamemt dp to which it has been amnled rights hereunder. Each Sign Pand
User abaU maintain its Sign Pane(s) to an attractive and good, clam and first-class state of ouch'
end mpur, Mdudmg tha psomln rrplacemamt of bwkesn, faded or damaged aign panels mid
repainting ofgmM Deolarant hereby ®rants to each sign Panel User and theircoabsuiasa an
casoment over the Common Aron of the Shopping Canter hs meaoomabiy necessary to condaet
Sign Panel is slallation, oplacemod and mamoroanoe, pmo qdW such entry and wo* shall not
i is with the use ofthe rem wimmt sign byothe r Sign Penal Use w or theuse and cWoymewt
of the gtaffior Owaoi'a Pamei, by such Owner or its Occupants, and the Sign Panel User
corrdnetiug such wale shall pixomptly repair any damaae to themommm®t sign of any adw
improvements Clnchrding landscaping) on tiro Paredd on wbioh the me»mmcmd sign is located
which is canned by such entry and work and ahall iudeumW, dofand and hoed rite other Sign
Panel Umams and the Owner an whoso Pared tho momumemt sign is located heamlcss from and
urmtmae
22
\
�«!- _ .•.
>/��\}}\/�\\\}\\�\\�
\5`,
t - -
\j\\/\ i j
\ \ \2}}\\\\
\\\\/\k
, \y ..,�=G�
/./ f '�^||■^;§
\ � }� . _ a��:*(§$§•
4�0=;B,t�
$f§ (2§§)
» % }k��§§;(�!
aF-
/�
-
^\�«
-
\-
�
�-y�-
, e2 -
\\jj}\ME \
\\
A I I AUNMENT 7
.onne Franco
From: Jeff Lowden Deff@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 as 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.
Wttsk—dsEyavpfute
Thank you
24
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 l_SignDesign, SA 06-1078_Amd 1_App_1-18-09
«SA 06-1078_Amd 1_SignDesign.pdf>> «SA 06-1078_Amd 1_App_1-18-09.pdf>>
The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments:
SA 06-1078_Amd I_SignDesign
SA 06-1078_Amd 1_App_l-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
K
25
YAGt U1116
FAX
TO:
FROM:
RE:
Date:
PAGES:
'Am Mvtl"4 y Mampnient
For: The Dunes Business Park, LLC
Yvonne Franco — FAX 760.777.1233
Jeffiny Lowden — FAX 213382.9918
Public Noticc — Sign - Highland
3.19.09
Cover + he
1 AS
We received your Notice of Public Hearing for Sign program 2006-1078 AMD. #t . 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 rue prior w the meeting. We are NOT in agreement with the request
for a monument sign.
Background. -
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 Durres Business Park,
LLC) retaining the back 3.3 acres for our 37,600 Sq Ft Retail center.
The CCR's, Thai control our shopping center which they signed, are very clear. l would be
happy to provide a fully executed copy of the CCR's but they are very long and would take
26
03/23/2009 14:18 2133829918
too much of your FAX paper. Please let me know if you need a copy, and we can mail 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 thcir property.
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.
Please decline the application.
If you have any questions please feel free to contact me
Cordi
TeJRey Lowden
Managing Director
The Dunes Dusiness Purk, LLC
310.502.5703
27
PH#B
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: APRIL 28, 2009, CONTINUED FROM APRIL 14, 2009
CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2008-905 AND CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 2008-112
APPLICANT: LESLIE LIPPICH ARCHITECT AND ASSOCIATES (FOR YURY
LEVITAN)
ENGINEER: JHA ENGINEERING
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT: PAUL STURWOLD ASSOCIATES, ASLA
LOCATION: EAST SIDE OF WASHINGTON STREET, APPROXIMATELY 780
FEET NORTH OF FRED WARING DRIVE
REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING
PLANS FOR A 4,924 SQUARE FOOT EXPRESS CAR WASH
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: THE LA QUINTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED
THAT THIS REQUEST IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT
TO SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3), OF THE GUIDELINES FOR
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT. THEREFORE, NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION IS
NECESSARY.
ZONING: COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC)
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC)
SURROUNDING
ZONING/LAND
USES: NORTH: CC / OFFICE BUILDING
SOUTH: CC / APPROVED SHOPPING CENTER (MAYER VILLA
CAPRI)
EAST: OFFICE COMMERCIAL / MITCHELL PAIGE MIDDLE
SCHOOL
WEST: RESIDENTIAL USES IN PALM DESERT
1
o•�o.,.....«� _ or�onno�n_�o_nou :....:..�.�or c«.,aa oe......� a..,.
PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW
This request was originally reviewed by the Planning Commission at the April 14,
2009 meeting (Attachment 1). Various aspects of the project were discussed
including architectural design, site layout, access, colors, materials and landscaping.
Additionally, a number of concerns were discussed by the Commission. Commissioner
discussion focused upon whether the design should be "flipped" so that the car wash
building is adjacent to the north property line instead of the south property line as
shown on the site plan presented at the meeting in order to allow either a joint
driveway from Washington Street with the adjacent property owner to the south or to
provide access between the subject property and the adjacent property to the south.
Staff noted the original submittal to the Planning Department showed the building on
the north side and a driveway connection to the south property was requested by Staff
but objected to by the property owner to the south.
During the hearing two members of the public spoke regarding the project. Mr. Marvin
Roos, MSA Consulting, spoke on behalf of the owners of the recently approved Mayer
Villa Capri project to the south. Mr. Roos noted a concern regarding the provision of a
deceleration lane in front of the proposed car wash and how it could detrimentally
affect their adjacent driveway. Additionally, Mr. Roos stated his client's position that
providing vehicular cross access between the projects was not desirable because of
the potential for blocking the drive aisle on their property when car wash traffic use is
heavy. Furthermore, he noted a joint Washington Street access between their project
and the car wash was not proposed or deemed desirable.
Ms. Terry Forward, Coldwell Banker Commercial, representing the property owner of
the office building to the north, indicated a desire for a sound barrier wall along the
common property line between them and the proposed car wash. She also indicated
an objection to flipping the design, which would place the car wash tunnel next to
their office building.
While discussing the proposal, Planning Commissioners commented that further
consideration of relocating the building to the north side of the site in order to provide
access to the south as well as the need to see additional detail was necessary.
Commissioners requested additional information on the following:
1. The polycarbonate roof material, its durability and properties in our climate.
2. Provisions for and design of the pay stations, vacuums and attached trellises
(not shown on the plans).
3. Trash provisions and maintenance of the facilities operation.
4. Water use and recycling of the car wash water.
5. Parking lot lighting
6. Noise issues from the car wash equipment.
o•�o�.....«.. _ or�onne�n_oo nmi �.,..:,.�,�or c.�sF oa.....«o a..,.
2
The Planning Commission unanimously moved to continue the public hearing to the
April 28 meeting and directed the applicant to address the previously noted items.
NEW INFORMATION
The applicant has submitted a revised site plan and has provided additional information
as requested by the Commission at the April 14 meeting (Attachment 2). The
additional information includes the following:
1. A revised site, landscaping and grading plan showing the car wash tunnel along
the north property line and an option for a driveway to connect with the
property to the south..
2. Detailed information on polycarbonate roofing material, including photographs
showing its use and actual color sample.
3. Provisions for the location and design of the pay stations, vacuums and
attached trellises and trash can. The locations of the vacuum trellises and pay
station are shown on the site plan.
4. Maintenance schedules and procedures for facility operation.
5. Water use and recycling of the car wash water based on recycling equipment
proposed to be used.
6. Five double head box type parking lot poles are shown in the parking lot area.
Information on the fixture manufacturer is provided.
7. Information on expected noise levels based on proposed drying equipment.
The revised site plan basically "flips" the project by placing the car wash tunnel along
the north property line instead of the south property line. This places the pay station
line along the south property line while the vacuum stations and parking area remains
in the center of the site. The driveway has always been identified near the north
property line in order to provide maximum separation from the northern Mayer Villa
Capri driveway. With this revised site plan, the driveway to Washington Street
remains near the north end of the site. This design requires the patron to immediately
turn right upon entering the site and then circulate around the site to one of the car
wash pay kiosks near the southeast corner of the site. When patrons exit the tunnel
they can leave the site or immediately make a left turn upon existing the tunnel if they
wish to use the vacuum stations.
Since the 4/14 Planning Commission meeting Staff received a letter from Dr. J.E.
Chandrashekar, owner of the office building north of and adjacent to the subject
property (Attachment 3). In his letter Mr. Chandrashekar states he objects to the car
wash project if the building is placed adjacent to their common property line.
Additionally, he requests a six foot high sound wall be provided along their shared
property line.
The following sections of the staff report include the background and other pertinent
information previously provided to the Planning Commission for the April 14, 2009
oa Qe......e - Dr%1nnQ%AJJG_n0\1 In.;-k%Dr c.�ff P.—.N A-- 3
meeting. The Conditional Use Permit, general description of operation and
architectural description provided below applies to the new proposal except for the
new plan the north building elevation is the south elevation and south elevation is the
north elevation. Also included is a brief description of the newly submitted plans
where necessary.
Since the 4/14 meeting Mr. Roos, on behalf of Mayer Villa Capri, has reiterated their
position that a cross access connection between the two properties is not desirable
and not necessary for either business.
BACKGROUND OF PROJECT SITE
The .98 acre vacant site is located in the north end of the City, on the east side of
Washington Street between Fred Waring Drive and Palm Royale Drive (Attachment 4).
Immediately north of the site is an office building constructed within the last three
years. To the south of the site is the recently approved Mayer Villa Capri shopping
center (Attachment 5). To the east is the Mitchell Paige Middle School. A residential
tract is located to the west across Washington Street in the City of Palm Desert.
The property is mostly vacant, except for some scattered desert shrubs and a tree.
Power poles and overhead lines run adjacent to the Washington Street frontage.
The .98 acre site has 150 feet of frontage along Washington Street and 285 feet of
depth. The existing grade of the site is slightly lower than the office building site to
the north and approximately 8 feet higher than the school site to the east. The vacant
Mayer property to the south varies from approximately 2 to 4 feet lower than the
project site. A 6 ±foot high chain link fence has been installed by the school adjacent
to the east property line at the top of the slope along the property line.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
A Conditional Use Permit has been filed as the Community Commercial zoning district
requires for such for a car wash. This is to ensure that the location of the car wash is
appropriate and it will not be detrimental to the surrounding uses. Since the 4/14
meeting staff has added three conditions to address hours of operations, staffing,
landscape maintenance as well as general maintenance and upkeep of the site.
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
General Description of Operation:
The facility would consist of a car wash tunnel and outside vacuum stations. Though
designed to essentially be an automatic car wash, the proposed use will employ 2 to 3
employees at any one time, depending on the time of day and weather. Hours of
operation are proposed to be from 6 am to 10 pm, seven days a week. The operation
has the customer stay in the car while going through the car wash and either leaves the
4
site after the wash or may self vacuum the car before leaving. The vacuuming is
included in the cost of the car wash. The new information includes a daily clean-up
schedule and operational schedule for the car wash.
Site Design - Original Submittal:
The car wash building on the original plans runs along the south side of the site within
five feet of the property line and is set back approximately 73' from the ultimate
Washington Street curb with a 20' landscape setback provided. The car wash entrance
located at the east end and exit at the west end (Attachment 6). The vacuum stations,
as well as employee parking spaces are provided adjacent to the north side of the
building. A 15 foot dedication of land is required adjacent to the existing Washington
Street to widen and improve the street. A minimum 20 foot landscape perimeter is
provided adjacent to Washington Street.
The site plan shows a monument sign location near Washington Street. The details for
this and other on -site signage will be determined when a separate sign program
application is submitted.
Parking lot lighting will be provided but is not specified at this time. Lighting will be
shoe box type with recessed light sources.
Storm water will be retained in an underground retention system proposed underneath a
portion of the parking lot.
Site Design - New Submittal:
The revised plan is essentially a "flipped" version of the original plan with the car wash
tunnel adjacent to the north property line (Attachment 2). The driveway is still located
near the north property line in the same location as shown on the original plan. The 24
vacuum stations and two employee spaces are still located in the middle of the site,
with the three pay station lanes adjacent to the south property line.
The tunnel is setback approximately 75' from Washington Street and the 20' landscape
setback is provided. A monument sign is shown at the south end of the project site
near Washington Street. A second sign location is shown in the planter next to the
tunnel exit. Parking lot lights are shown on the plan. Storm water will still be retained
in an underground retention system underneath a portion of the parking lot. The site
plan includes locations of the vacuum/trellises proposed in the parking lot area.
Circulation/Parking - Original Submittal:
Site access to Washington Street via a 28 foot wide driveway near the north end of the
site. The lane adjacent to the entry will be a continuation of the deceleration for the
Mayer project immediately to the south. Cars entering the site line up in the lanes
5
along the north property line, pay at the pay station and circle around to the right to the
car wash entry. An escape driveway is provided midway through the pay line before
the pay station should a person wish to exit before paying. The trash enclosure is
located in this area. The operation includes automatic washing and drying of the
vehicle within the tunnel. After exiting the car wash tunnel, customers have the option
of leaving the site or using the vacuums. After vacuuming, the cars exit to Washington
Street.
As previously noted, twenty-four vacuum stations or spaces are provided in the center
area of the site. Two employee parking spaces are provided at the east end of the
vacuuming area. The city's off-street parking requirements have been met. If needed,
the vacuum spaces can be used for short term parking. "No parking" areas are
provided at the east end of the parking lot in case all vacuum stations are being used
and vehicle turn around is necessary.
Circulation/Parking - New Submittal:
The new, plan modifies the on -site circulation from the original plan reviewed at the last
hearing because the driveway does not "flip" or move to the south side of the property.
It stays at the north end of the site because of the desire to maintain it as far north of
the northernmost Mayer project driveway as possible for vehicular safety. Cars
entering the site essentially made a u-turn on site to enter the pay station lane along the
south property line. The cars then circulate around the site and enter the car wash
tunnel at the northeast corner of the site and exit at the west end of the tunnel where
they may make a left turn to the vacuum stations or drive straight to exit on the
Washington Street.
Architecture - Both Submittals:
The car wash structure is 34 feet wide and 160 foot long with a southwest type design
except for its curved bronze 16mm polycarbonate twin wall roof. Other materials
include sand finish exterior plaster walls, cultured stone veneer, composite wood
trellises, metal lattice plant panels, wrought iron wall d6cor over ceramic tile inlay
accents, and decorative wall mounted light fixtures (Attachment 6 — sheet 3). The
building entrance and exit will have aluminum roll -up grills that will be down when the
car wash is closed. Architectural features include curved parapets and windows,
decorative cornices and light fixtures, and the ceramic tile accents previously described.
Plaster colors will be two shades of beige, with the trellises a redwood color and the
stone veneer shades of light tan to brown (Attachment 7).
The building is rectangular in shape with three deep popouts on the north side facing
the vacuum area (Attachment 6 — sheet 2). These popouts house a restroom, a small
office, and equipment and storage areas. Between and at the extreme ends of these
popouts, trellises will be provided. Windows into the car wash are shown beneath two
of the trellises. The south side of the building will look similar to the north, with the
exception of the trellises and the fact that the popout areas extend 8" to one foot out.
oa oe........ _ orronno�n_oa_nou �....�..�,�or c.�a� ❑a..,...o .+....
6
The height of the building is primarily 22 feet with the exception of the entry and exit
areas which are lower at 17.5' high. The curved bronze colored polycarbonate roof
runs the length of the 160 foot long building. No roof mounted equipment is proposed.
Landscape Design - Original Submittal:
The applicant has submitted preliminary -level landscaping plans that identify the various
trees, shrubs and groundcover proposed (Attachment 6 — sheet P1.0)• The tree palette
includes 24" box size Willow and Sweet Acacias, 24" box size Palo Verde's, 24" box
size dwarf Citrus, 36" box size African Sumacs, 15' high California Fan Palms and 36"
box size Mediterranean Fan Palms. Shrubs are desert and other low water use plants in
five and one gallon sizes. Groundcover consists of Lantana, Palm Springs Gold Fines
gravel, 5-6' boulders and rock cubble. Adjacent to the car wash building opening a six
foot high masonry wall is proposed on a portion of the south property line facing the
approved shopping center and on the east property line facing the school yard.
Trees are shown around the perimeter of the site, with a heavy concentration near the
car wash tunnel exit near Washington Street for screening. Bougainvillea vines are
shown on the building wall along the rear (south) side and on some of the trellises.
Landscape Design - New Submittal:
The revised landscape plans are based on the new site plans and are similar in concept
to the original landscape plan. Trees still ring the site, but have been reduced in total
number from approximately 61 to 30. Tree sizes of 24" box and 36" box have been
maintained. Planting along the north property line has been reduced adjacent to the
tunnel, as well as to the east adjacent to the school. Some plant material has been
changed but remains low water use plants. The citrus trees and California Fan Palms
have been removed from the palette.
ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPE REVIEW COMMITTEE (ALRC) REVIEW AND
ACTION
The ALRC reviewed this request at their meeting of April 1, 2009. Staff
recommended a number of standard conditions to the ALRC. The ALRC reviewed the
plans and agreed with those staff recommended conditions.
The ALRC discussed the colors used for the exterior of the building and said the colors
could be more dynamic than the standard earth tones proposed. However, the ALRC
did not include a recommendation to change the colors. They also noted that use of
temporary banners should be closely reviewed and regulated. The ALRC did make
recommendations regarding the proposed landscaping plan. Their action recommending
oa oe....«.. - cr%onnMA_w nou ;....;nkXDr c.ss oe..,...o .+.... 7
approval of the project included the following additional conditions:
1. Bougainvillea vines shall be provided on all trellises facing the vacuuming area.
2. The two 36" box size Mediterranean Fan Palms shown in the two landscape
fingers immediately north of the car wash building shall be changed to 15' bth
(brown trunk height) Washingtonia Robusta.
It should be noted that just prior to ALRC review the Public Works Department
reviewed the site plan for circulation and function. As a result, the Public Works
Department requested several minor changes to the site plan to ensure that the
operation's vehicular circulation functions as safely and efficiently as possible. This
subsequently required changes to the grading and landscaping plans. Those revisions
were not reflected on the submitted plans reviewed by the ALRC. However, the
changes were of a nature that did not substantially affect the ALRC's review and
recommendations. The landscaping and grading plans have also been revised to reflect
the new site plan. No specific revisions or conditions to the ALRC recommendation are
needed to address the revised plans. The description of the project and exhibits in this
report reflect the revised plans.
PUBLIC NOTICE
This map application was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on April 3, 2009.
All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public
hearing notice as required by the La Quinta Municipal Code. One e-mail
correspondence regarding this application was received for the April 14, 2009 hearing
from Michele Rose, a resident in the Desert Breezes subdivision located on the west
side of Washington Street across from the project site in the City of Palm Desert. Ms.
Rose expressed concern regarding potential impact from the operational noise
generated by the carwash (Attachment 8). As noted earlier, since the last meeting
Staff has received a letter from Dr. J.E. Chandrashekar, owner of the office building to
thee north (Attachment 3).
PUBLIC AGENCY REVIEW
All written correspondence received are on file with the Planning Department. All
applicable agency comments have been made a part of the recommended Conditions
of Approval for this case.
ANALYSIS
When the site development permit application was first filed, the site plan submitted
showed the car wash tunnel along the north property line, without access identified to
the Mayer project to the south. Staff recognized the benefits of providing such an
access and requested the plans be revised accordingly. The applicant's representative
8
was asked to contact Mayer Villa Capri to coordinate the access. The applicants
reported that Mayer Villa Capri was reluctant to providing such a connection. Staff
also subsequently met with Mayer Villa Capri and they indicated their objection was
due to concern with the design of the connection creating congestion on their
driveway(s) due to stacking of vehicles trying to enter the car wash site during times
of high use. Based upon this information, staff then decided that providing the cross
access connection should not be pursued. Staff also concluded that in order to
provide better on -site circulation the tunnel should be moved to adjacent to the south
property line.
Noting the objection of the adjacent property owner to allow access between the two
properties, staff believes that the original plan provides a better circulation pattern in
the area where the driveway and tunnel exit meet. The original plan provides direct
access from Washington Street to the pay station line, provides a larger stacking area
at the driveway entry and eliminates the potential for circulation conflicts between cars
entering the site and exiting the vacuuming area. The original plan also provides a
larger exit area after leaving the tunnel for patrons to decide if they would like to
vacuum their vehicle or exit the site. Furthermore, the revised plan has a potential
circulation conflict southwest of the tunnel where the site entrance and exit lanes are
adjacent to the carwash exit lane that directs patrons to the vacuums. The original
plan does not have such a conflict.
At the last hearing Staff recommended a six foot sound wall adjacent to the driveway
in front of the tunnel exit. This was proposed to minimize noise as well as headlight
glare and direct visibility of the tunnel exit from Washington Street. Based upon the
latest information provided by the applicant, staff does not believe that noise will
necessarily be of concern to the existing residences across Washington Street. Thus,
the wall could be reduced to as low as four feet. Please note that the condition of
approval still provides for a six foot wall.
Though not currently identified, the revised plans could include a wall in front of a
portion of the tunnel exit within the proposed landscape island. However, this will not
reduce direct visibility of the tunnel exit and only have minimal impact upon headlight
glare. The revised plans still show a 6' high sound wall across the east facing tunnel
opening adjacent to the school to the east and the easterly 30' of the north property
line facing the office building site.
Lastly, the proposed car wash is a retail commercial type use that is more compatible
with the Mayer Villa Capri project than the office building to the north. Therefore,
keeping the tunnel adjacent to the retail project was deemed desirable. It should be
noted that the applicant has indicated to Staff that either plan (tunnel along north or
south property line) is acceptable.
The General Plan land use and zoning designations of the project site are Community
Commercial, which permits car washes with approval of a Conditional Use Permit. In
this case the location of the car wash will have minimal impact on the surrounding
Dace........ - c."f oe......o a,,. 9
uses. Commercial uses to the north and south will be compatible. The residential
uses to the west in Palm Desert are separated by a wide heavily used street and will
therefore, not be impacted. The school play yard located to the east is approximately
eight feet lower and will be provided with a sound wall which minimizes noise and
other impacts. Additionally, with the either plan a six foot high masonry wall is
recommended in front of the car wash entry opening further increasing compatibility by
buffering the impact of the carwash opening. Therefore, the use is acceptable on the
site proposed.
The height, massing, and scale of the building is appropriate for the location. The
maximum height of 22' complies with the city's image corridor requirement. The
project meets all of the dimensional requirements of Community Commercial zoning
district.
Except for the bronze colored polycarbonate roof, which is an unusual material for
buildings in this area, the proposed southwest architectural style is essentially similar to
many other buildings within the City. With regard to the elongated building, since the
building's long side is orientated away from and set back from Washington Street, the
visibility of the roof as well as the mass of the building is limited from Washington
Street. In regard to a concern expressed by the ALRC about potentially significant heat
gain within the building, since the building is open on both ends and is essentially
unoccupied, excessive heat gain should not be a problem. The new information
provided by the applicant indicates that the material is quite durable and has been used
for a wide range of uses in varied climates.
The proposed building is provided with four sided architecture providing depth and
architectural detail and articulation around the building. Landscaping, especially on the
side of the building facing the office building, helps break up the linear appearance of
the building. The architecture of the recently approved Mayer project to the south is
desert contemporary with flat roofs, square corners, numerous pop -outs and recesses
along with stone veneer and metal work accents used to break up the smooth plaster
walls. The exterior colors of the Mayer project include five shades of tan to brown plus
a deep green. Its roof material will include standing seam metal in a clear anodized
aluminum color.
While not matching either the Mayer development's design style or that of the Tuscan
designed office building to the north, the general southwest design of the carwash is
consistent with the theme of many developments in the community and could be
considered as an appropriate transitional design between the two adjacent styles.
Whether this is acceptable, or if the architectural design should be adjusted to be more
compatible with the adjacent Mayer development is an issue that the Planning
Commission may wish to discuss. Such discussion could also include whether the
impact of the exit opening's height can and should be reduced in some way, possibly
by enclosing the arched portion of the opening in manner that retains the decorative
function of the arch. At the last hearing this issue was not discussed and therefore,
the architectural design is deemed to be acceptable.
10
The proposed conceptual landscaping plans are a desert -appropriate design and tree
sizes are comparable to other commercial projects. Relatively dense tree planting on
the original plans along all of the perimeters minimizes visibility of the carwash
structure from off -site. To ensure the proposed trees achieve their intended screening
purpose in a timely manner, staff is recommending each of the trees located in the
landscape areas adjacent to Washington Street have 2" caliper trunks at the time of
planting. Furthermore, as previously noted the 6' high walls adjacent to the car wash
tunnel entry and exit minimizes visibility and noise to the school play ground. The
revised plans have reduced the number of trees. Along the side adjacent to the school
and adjacent to the tunnel the trees should be increased. Condition of Approval 106 of
the Site Development Permit requires doubling of the trees in these areas.
The applicant states that the water used for washing cars is recycled and subsequently
reused. Specifics on how this is done have been submitted with the new information.
The applicant states the recycling system clarifier tank is equipped with an oil and sand
separator, as required by the Coachella Valley Water District. Reuse of water is
desirable and included as a condition of approval.
STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS
Findings per Zoning Code Sections 9.210.010 F and 9.210.020 F, respectively,
necessary to approve the Site Development Permit and Conditional Use Permit can be
made and are contained in the attached resolutions.
RECOMMENDATION
The Commission should review the revised as well as original plans and determine
which is superior should you wish to approve this request. Additionally, should the
Commission wish to approve the revised plans (with the tunnel to the north) you
should determine if access to the Mayer project to the south should be included. As
previously noted access to this property was not required from Mayer Villa Capri when
their project was recently approved.
1. Adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 2008-112, subject to
Conditions of Approval.
2. Adopt a resolution approving Site Development Permit 2008-905, subject to
Conditions of Approval.
Attachments:
1. Draft Planning Commission minutes for the meeting of April 14, 2009
2. Revised plans and new information
3. Letter from Dr. J.E. Chandrashekar dated April 16, 2009
4. Location Map
oa oe.....«.. _ or�onnm n_w_nou �,...�..uor c.•,av oe......o a..,. I1
5. Composite aerial map showing project site and Mayer commercial complex
6. Original development plans reviewed April 14, 2009
7. Color and Material Samples
Prepared by:
Stan Sawa
Principal Planner
o•�o.,........ _ or�onno�n_�Q no�i �....�..w or c,ss oe..,...o .+.... 12
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN
EXPRESS CAR WASH USE IN THE COMMUNITY
COMMERCIAL ZONE LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF
WASHINGTON STREET APPROXIMATELY 780 FEET
NORTH OF FRED WARING DRIVE
CASE NO.: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2008-112
APPLICANT: LESLIE LIPPICH ARCHITECT AND ASSOCIATES
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta,
California, did on the 28`h day of April, 2009, continued from the meeting on the
14`h day of April, 2009, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider the request
of LESLIE LIPPICH ARCHITECT AND ASSOCIATES (for Yury Levitan) for approval
of an express car wash located on the east side of Washington Street
approximately 780 feet north of Fred Waring Drive more particularly described as:
APN 609-070-047
WHEREAS, said Conditional Use Permit has been filed concurrently
with a Site Development Permit and in whole represents the development permit
application for the project as contemplated; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Department has determined that this request
is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15303 (Class 3), of the Guidelines for
Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act. Therefore, no further
documentation is necessary; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Department did publish a public hearing
notice in the Desert Sun newspaper, on the V day of April, 2009, as prescribed by
the Municipal Code, with public hearing notices mailed to all property owners
within 500 feet of the property in question; and,
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, the
Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings to justify approval
of the Conditional Use Permit:
1. Conditional Use Permit 2008-112 is consistent with the La Quinta General
Plan, in that the project site is designated as Community Commercial (CC)
which is intended to be developed with commercial uses including the car
P:\reports-pc\2009\4-28-09\Lippich\cup reso.doc
13
Fl
Planning Commission Resolution 2009-
Conditional Use Permit 2008-112
Leslie Lippich Architect and Associates
Adopted:
wash use proposed herein. This commercial use will therefore help achieve
the goals and permitted uses of the CC designation.
2. Conditional Use Permit 2008-112 is consistent with the La Quinta Zoning
Code in that it is conditionally permitted under the CC zoning designation
with a Conditional Use Permit. The project's proposed use is consistent with
the uses identified in the CC district and have been designed and is
conditioned to comply with the development standards of the CC district and
other Zoning Code requirements such as parking, setbacks, building heights,
and landscaping.
3. Processing and approval of Conditional Use Permit 2008-112 is in
compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality
Act. The La Quinta Planning Department has determined that this request is
Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15303 (Class 3), of the Guidelines
for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act.
4. Approval of Conditional Use Permit 2008-112 will not create conditions
materially detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare or be
injurious to or be incompatible with other properties or land uses in the
vicinity in that the use is self contained in a building that has been designed
to be compatible with the adjacent uses. Furthermore, it is a significant
distance from nearby residential and school uses and will not create
conditions, such as noise, odors, traffic, etc. that will be detrimental to
adjacent properties.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of
the City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the
Planning Commission in this case;
2. That it does hereby approve Conditional Use Permit 2008-112, as referenced
in the title of this Resolution, for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, and
subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
14
Planning Commission Resolution 2009-
Conditional Use Permit 2008-112
Leslie Lippich Architect and Associates
Adopted:
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City of La
Quinta Planning Commission, held on this the 28" day of April, 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
15
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2008-112
LESLIE LIPPICH ARCHITECT AND ASSOCIATES
ADOPTED:
GENERAL
1. The use of the subject property for a car wash facility shall be in conformance
with the approved exhibits and conditions of approval contained in Conditional
Use Permit 2008-1 12 and Site Development Permit 2008-905, unless otherwise
amended by the following conditions.
2. The Conditional Use Permit shall be expire after two years of the effective date
of approval of April 28, 2009, and shall become null and void. A time extension
for this Conditional Use Permit may be requested as permitted in Municipal Code
Section 9.200.080 D.
3. Developer agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta
in the event of any legal claim or litigation arising out of the City's approval of
this project. The City of La Quinta shall have the right to select its defense
counsel in its sole discretion.
The City shall promptly notify the developer of any claim, action or proceeding
and shall cooperate fully in the defense.
4. No ancillary uses such as detailing, window tinting, etc. shall be conducted on
the property unless specifically approved in writing by the Planning Director.
Additionally, no temporary structures such as tents, covers, etc. shall be placed
on the property.
5. Hours of operation are limited to 6 am to 10 pm. Seven days a week. There
shall be a minimum of two employees on duty at all times.
6. Landscaping shall be continuously maintained with dead plants immediately
replaced with like plant material.
7. There shall be continuous on -site maintenance of the car wash area per the
Daily Maintenance Schedule submitted and on file in the Planning Department.
p\reports - pc\2009\4-28-09\1ippich\cup pc coa.doc
16
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA. APPROVING
DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR AN EXPRESS CAR WASH
LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF WASHINGTON
STREET APPROXIMATELY 780 FEET NORTH OF FRED
WARING DRIVE
CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2008-905
APPLICANT: LESLIE LIPPICH ARCHITECT AND ASSOCIATES
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta,
California, did on the 28" day of April, 2009, hold a continued Public Hearing from
the meeting of the 141h day of April, 2009, to consider the request of LESLIE
LIPPICH ARCHITECT AND ASSOCIATES (for Yury Levitan) for approval of
development plans for an express car wash located on the east side of Washington
Street approximately 780 feet north of Fred Waring Drive, more particularly
described as:
APN 609-070-047
WHEREAS, said Site Development Permit has been filed concurrently
with a Conditional Use Permit and in whole represents the development permit
application for the project as contemplated; and,
WHEREAS, the La Quinta Planning Department has determined that
this request is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15303 (Class 3), of the
Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act.
Therefore, no further documentation is necessary; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Department did publish a public hearing
notice in the Desert Sun newspaper, on the 3rd day of April, 2009, as prescribed by
the Municipal Code, with public hearing notices mailed to all property owners
within 500 feet of the property in question; and,
WHEREAS, the La Quinta Architecture and Landscaping Review
Committee, at their meeting on the 15L day of April, 2009 reviewed the
development plans associated with Site Development Permit 2008-905, and
adopted a Minute Motion recommending approval to the Planning Commission,
subject to staff -recommended conditions; and
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, the
Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings to justify approval
for the Site Development Permit:
P:\reports-pc\2009\4-28-09\lippich\sdp reso.doc 17
Planning Commission Resolution 2009-
Site Development Permit 2008-905
Leslie Lippich Architect and Associates
Adopted:
1. Site Development Permit 2008-905 is consistent with the La Quinta General
Plan, in that the project site is designated as Community Commercial which
permits, with a Conditional Use Permit which has been approved, and
anticipates the use as proposed. The commercial uses will therefore help
achieve the goal and permitted uses of the Community Commercial
designation.
2. Site Development Permit 2008-905 is consistent with the La Quinta Zoning
Code in that it proposes commercial uses permitted under the Community
Commercial (CC) zoning designation. The project's proposed uses are
consistent with the uses identified in the CC district and have been designed
or are conditioned to comply with the development standards of the CC
district and other Zoning Code requirements such as parking, setbacks,
building heights, and landscaping.
3. Processing and approval of Site Development Permit 2008-905 is in
compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality
Act. The La Quinta Planning Department has determined that this request is
Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15303 (Class 3), of the Guidelines
for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act.
4. The architectural design of Site Development Permit 2008-905, including,
but not limited to the architectural style, scale, building mass, materials,
colors, architectural details, roof style, and other architectural elements, are
compatible with surrounding development and with the quality of design
prevalent in the City.
5. The site design of Site Development Permit 2008-905, including, but not
limited to project entries, interior circulation, pedestrian amenities, and other
site design elements will be compatible with surrounding development and
with the quality of design prevalent in the City.
6. Site Development Permit 2008-905 landscaping, including but not limited to
the location, type, size, color, texture, and coverage of plant materials is
designed and conditioned so as to provide relief, complement buildings,
visually emphasize prominent design elements and vistas, screen undesirable
views, and provide a harmonious transition between adjacent land uses. The
project design and landscaping will serve to establish an overall unifying
influence, enhance the visual continuity of the project, complement the
surrounding project area and comply with City and CVWD water efficiency
requirements, ensuring efficient water use.
It.]
Planning Commission Resolution 2009-
Site Development Permit 2008-905
Leslie Lippich Architect and Associates
Adopted:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of
the City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the
Planning Commission in this case;
2. That it does hereby approve Site Development Permit 2008-905, as
referenced in the title of this Resolution, for the reasons set forth in this
Resolution, and subject to the attached"Conditions of Approval.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City
of La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this the 28`h day of April, 2009, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ITS If-A10A
ED ALDERSON, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
LES JOHNSON, Planning Director
City of La Quinta, California
19
Planning Commission Resolution 2009-
Site Development Permit 2008-905
Leslie Lippich Architect and Associates
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Adopted:
GENERAL
1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of La Quinta
("City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to
attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Site Development Permit. The
City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel.
The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and
shall cooperate fully in the defense.
2. This Site Development Permit is valid for two years from April 28, 2009, unless an
extension is applied for and granted by the Planning Commission pursuant to Section
9.200.080 of the La Quinta Municipal Code.
3. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the City, the
applicant shall obtain any necessary clearances and/or permits from the following
agencies, if required:
• Riverside County Fire Marshal
• Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Green Sheet (Public Works
Clearance) for Building Permits, Improvement Permit)
• Planning Department
• Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department
• Desert Sands Unified School District
WE
• Coachella Valley Unified School District
• Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD)
• Imperial Irrigation District (IID)
• California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB)
• SunLine Transit Agency
• South Coast Air Quality Management District Coachella Valley
P:\reports-pc\2009\4-28-09\sdp2o08-905 lippich\sdp coa.doc 20
Planning Commission Resolution 2009-
Site Development Permit 2008-905
Leslie Lippich Architect and Associates
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Adopted:
The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances from
the above listed agencies. When the requirements include approval of improvement
plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when submitting those
improvements plans for City approval.
A project -specific NPDES construction permit must be obtained by the applicant; who
then shall submit a copy of the Regional Water Quality Control Board's ("RWQCB")
acknowledgment of the applicant's Notice of Intent ("NOI"), prior to the issuance of a
grading or site construction permit by the City.
4. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater
discharge permit, LQMC Sections 8.70.010 at seq. (Stormwater Management and
Discharge Controls), and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water); Riverside County
Ordinance No. 457; the California Regional Water Quality Control Board — Colorado
River Basin Region Board Order No. R7-2008-0001 and the State Water Resources
Control Board's Order No. 99-08-DWQ.
A. For construction activities including clearing, grading or excavation of land that
disturbs one (1) acre or more of land, or that disturbs less than one (1) acre of
land, but which is a part of a construction project that encompasses more than
one (1) acre of land, the Permittee shall be required to submit a Storm Water
Pollution Protection Plan ("SWPPP").
The applicant or design professional can obtain the California Stormwater
Quality Association SWPPP template at www.cabmphandbooks.com for use in
their SWPPP preparation.
B. The applicant's SWPPP shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any on
or off -site grading being done in relation to this project.
C. The applicant shall ensure that the required SWPPP is available for inspection
at the project site at all times through and including acceptance of all
improvements by the City.
D. The applicant's SWPPP shall include provisions for all of the following Best
Management Practices ("BMPs") (LQMC Section 8.70.020 (Definitions)):
1) Temporary Soil Stabilization (erosion control).
2) Temporary Sediment Control.
3) Wind Erosion Control.
4) Tracking Control.
P:\reports-pc\2009\4-28-09\sdp2008-905 lippich\sdp coa.doc 21
Planning Commission Resolution 2009-
Site Development Permit 2008-905
Leslie Lippich Architect and Associates
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Adopted:
5) Non -Storm Water Management.
6) Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control.
E. All erosion and sediment control BMPs proposed by the applicant shall be
approved by the City Engineer prior to any onsite or offsite grading, pursuant
to this project.
F. The approved SWPPP and BMPs shall remain in effect for the entire duration of
project construction until all improvements are completed and accepted by the
City.
Additionally, the applicant shall comply with applicable provisions for post
construction runoff per the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit, LQMC
Sections 8.70.010 at seq. (Stormwater Management and Discharge Controls), and
13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water); Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; and the
California Regional Water Quality Control Board — Colorado River Basin (CRWQCB-
CRB) Region Board Order No. 137-2008-001.
G. For post -construction urban runoff from New Development and
Redevelopments Projects, the applicant shall implement requirements of the
NPDES permit for the design, construction and perpetual operation and
maintenance of BMPs per the approved Water Quality Management Plan
(WQMP) for the project as required by the California Regional Water Quality
Control Board — Colorado River Basin (CRWQCB-CRB) Region Board Order No.
R7-2008-001.
H. The applicant shall implement the WQMP Design Standards per (CRWQCB-
CRB) Region Board Order No. R7-2008-001 utilizing BMPs approved by the
City Engineer.
5. Approval of this Site Development Permit shall not be construed as approval for any
horizontal dimensions implied by any site plans or exhibits unless specifically
identified in the following conditions of approval.
PROPERTY RIGHTS
6. Prior to issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire or confer easements and
other property rights necessary for the construction or proper functioning of the
proposed development and shall make a good faith effort to acquire easements or
other property rights for the adjacent project's deceleration lane transition curb
reconstruction. Conferred rights shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant
access easements to the City for emergency services and for maintenance,
P:\reports-pc\2009\4-28-09\sdp2008-905 lippich\sdp coa.doc 22
Planning Commission Resolution 2009-
Site Development Permit 2008-905
Leslie Lippich Architect and Associates
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Adopted:
construction and reconstruction of essential improvements. Said conferred rights shall
also include grant of access easement to the City of La Quinta for the purpose of
graffiti removal by City staff or assigned agent in perpetuity and agreement to the
method to remove graffiti and to paint over to best match existing. The applicant
shall establish the aforementioned requirements in the CC&R's for the development
or other agreements as approved by the City Engineer. Pursuant to the
aforementioned, the applicant shall submit an "AUTHORIZATION TO REMOVE
GRAFFITI FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY" form located at the Public Works Department
Counter prior to Certificate of Occupancy.
7. The applicant shall offer for dedication or other development application all public
street right-of-ways in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code,
applicable specific plans, and/or as required by the City Engineer. Dedication of Right
of Way and Landscape setbacks shall utilize contracts, approved by the City
Attorney, for perpetual maintenance, as applicable.
8. The public street right-of-way offers for dedication required for this development
include:
A. PUBLIC STREETS
1. Washington Street (Major Arterial, 120' ROW) — Per the General Plan, the
standard 60 feet from the centerline of Washington for a total 120-foot
ultimate developed right of way.
2. Deceleration Lane on Washington - An additional right of way dedication
along the project measuring Sixty -Eight (68) feet east of the centerline of
Washington Street per the Site Plan dated March 24, 2009.
3. Right of Way Extension along the Deceleration Lane Transition on
Washington Street at the La Quinta Business Center (SDP No. 2004-814) -
The applicant shall put forth a "good faith effort" to attain Right of Way
dedication from the adjacent property measuring Sixty -Eight (68) feet east
of the centerline of Washington Street per the Site Plan dated March 24,
2009.
9. Right-of-way geometry for standard knuckles and property line corner cut -backs at
curb returns shall conform to Riverside County Standard Drawings #801, and #805,
respectively, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
10. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for turn lanes, bus turnouts,
and other features contained in the approved construction plans.
P:\reports-pc\2009\4-28-09\sdp2008-905 lippich\sdp coa.doc 23
Planning Commission Resolution 2009-
Site Development Permit 2008-905
Leslie Lippich Architect and Associates
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Adopted:
11. The applicant shall create perimeter landscaping setbacks along all public rights -of -
way as follows:
A. Washington Street (Major Arterial) - 20-foot from the R/W-P/L.
The setback requirements shall apply to all frontages including, but not limited to,
remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes.
Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks, the
applicant shall offer for dedication blanket easements.
12. The applicant shall offer for dedication those easements necessary for the placement
of, and access to, utility lines and structures, and drainage basins.
13. Direct vehicular access to Washington Street shall be the access point identified on
the Site Plan dated 03-24-09, or as otherwise conditioned in these conditions of
approval.
14. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements, or written permission, as appropriate,
from those owners of all abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall
construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments will occur.
STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS
15. The applicant shall construct the following street improvements to conform with the
General Plan
A. OFF -SITE STREETS
1) Washington Street (Major Arterial; 120' R/W):
Widen the east side of the street to its ultimate width on the east side as
specified in the General Plan and the requirements of these conditions. Per the
General Plan, the east curb face shall be located fifty one feet (51') east of the
centerline, except at locations where additional street width is needed to
accommodate:
a) Bus turnout (if required by Sunline Transit)
b) A twelve foot (12') deceleration/right turn only lane at
Washington Street Entry. The east curb face shall be located
sixty feet (60') east of the centerline. The required deceleration
lane shall be for the entire length of the project site.
c) At the La Quinta Business Center, SDP No. 2004-814,
P:\reports-pc\2009\4-28-09\sdp2008-905 lippich\sdp coa.doc 24
Planning Commission Resolution 2009-
Site Development Permit 2008-905
Leslie Lippich Architect and Associates
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Adopted:
reconstruct the deceleration lane transition curb to match the
curb face found in the deceleration lane (60' east of centerline)
as shown on Plan Set Number 06079 Sheet 2 of 5. All
construction work on Washington Street shall be approved by the
City Engineer.
Other required improvements in the Washington Street right-of-way and/or
adjacent landscape setback area include:
a) All appurtenant components such as, but not limited to: curb,
gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and signs, at the entrance
for pedestrian safety.
b) Provide lighting sufficient for school zone and pedestrian safety
along the ADA pathway.
c) Eight (8) foot wide meandering sidewalk.
d) Reconstruct and realign the sidewalk at The La Quinta Business
Center (SDP No. 2004-814) caused by demolition from the
proposed reconstruction and realignment of the curb along the
deceleration lane transition per Site Plan dated March 24, 2009.
e) If required, modify the half width of a fourteen foot (14') wide
raised landscaped median along the entire boundary of the
project as approved by the City Engineer.
16. The applicant shall construct all offsite improvements prior to Building Occupancy.
17. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using CalTrans' design procedure
for 20-year life pavement, and the site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated
traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall be
as follows:
Major Arterial 5.5" a.c./6.5" c.a.b.
or the approved equivalents of alternate materials.
18. The applicant shall submit current mix designs (less than two years old at the time of
construction) for base, asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete. The
submittal shall include test results for all specimens used in the mix design procedure.
For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall include recent (less than six
months old at the time of construction) aggregate gradation test results confirming
that design gradations can be achieved in current production. The applicant shall not
schedule construction operations until mix designs are approved.
P:\reports-pc\2009\4-28-09\sdp2008-905 lippich\sdp coa.doc 25
Planning Commission Resolution 2009-
Site Development Permit 2008-905
Leslie Lippich Architect and Associates
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Adopted:
19. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following:
Washington Street
1. Primary Access Drive: Right turn movements in and out are permitted. Left
turn movements in and out are prohibited.
20. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control signs, markings and
other devices, raised medians if required, street name signs and sidewalks.
21. 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.
PARKING LOTS and ACCESS POINTS
22. The design of parking facilities shall conform to LQMC Chapter 9.150 and in
particular the following:
A. The parking stall and aisle widths and the double hairpin stripe parking stall
design.
B. Cross slopes should be a maximum of 2% where ADA accessibility is required
including accessibility routes between buildings.
C. Building access points shall be shown on the Precise Grading Plans to better
evaluate ADA accessibility issues.
D. Accessibility routes to public streets and adjacent development shall be shown
on the Precise Grading Plan.
E. Parking stall lengths shall be according to LQMC Chapter 9.150 and be a
minimum of 17 feet in length with a 2-foot overhang for standard parking
stalls and 18 feet with a 2-foot overhang for handicapped parking stall or as
approved by the City Engineer. One van accessible handicapped parking stall is
required per 8 handicapped parking stalls.
F. Drive aisles between parking stalls shall be a minimum of 26 feet with access
drive aisles to Public Streets a minimum of 30 feet as shown on the Site
Development Plan site plan or as approved by the City Engineer.
Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, corner cutbacks, bus turnouts, dedicated
turn lanes, ADA accessibility route to public streets and other features shown on the
P:\reports-pc\2009\4-28-09\sdp2008-905 lippich\sdp coa.doc 26
Planning Commission Resolution 2009-
Site Development Permit 2008-905
Leslie Lippich Architect and Associates
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Adopted:
approved construction plans, may require additional street widths and other
improvements as may be determined by the City Engineer.
23. General access points and turning movements of traffic to off site public streets are
limited to the access locations approved for Site Plan dated 03-24-09, and these
Conditions of Approval.
24. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using CalTrans' design procedure
for 20-year life pavement, and the site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated
traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall be
as follows:
Parking Lot & Aisles (Low Traffic)
3.0"
a.c./4.5"
c.a.b.
Parking Lot & Aisles (High Traffic)
4.5"
a.c./5.5"
c.a.b.
Loading Areas 6" P.C.C./4" c.a.b.
or the approved equivalents of alternate materials.
25. The applicant shall submit current mix designs (less than two years old at the time of
construction) for base, asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete. The
submittal shall include test results for all specimens used in the mix design procedure.
For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall include recent (less than six
months old at the time of construction) aggregate gradation test results confirming
that design gradations can be achieved in current production. The applicant shall not
schedule construction operations until mix designs are approved.
26. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control signs, markings and
other devices, raised medians if required, street name signs and sidewalks.
27. 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.
IMPROVEMENT PLANS
As used throughout these Conditions of Approval, professional titles such as "engineer,"
"surveyor," and "architect," refers to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their
respective professions in the State of California.
P:\reports-pc\2009\4-28-09\sdp2008-905 lippich\sdp coa.doc 27
Planning Commission Resolution 2009-
Site Development Permit 2008-905
Leslie Lippich Architect and Associates
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Adopted:
28. 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).
29. The following improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for review and
approval by the Public Works Department. A separate set of plans for each line item
specified below shall be prepared. The plans shall utilize the minimum scale
specified, unless otherwise authorized by the City Engineer in writing. Plans may be
prepared at a larger scale if additional detail or plan clarity is desired. Note, the
applicant may be required to prepare other improvement plans not listed here
pursuant to improvements required by other agencies and utility purveyors.
A. On -Site Rough Grading Plan (Optional) 1 " = 40' Horizontal
B. PM10 Plan 1" = 40' Horizontal
C. SWPPP 1 " = 40' Horizontal
D. WQMP (Plan submitted in Report Form)
E. Off -Site Street Improvement/Storm Drain Plan/Meandering Sidewalk
F. Off -Site Signing & Striping Plan
1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " = 4' Vertical
1 " = 40' Horizontal
The Off -Site street improvement plans shall have separate plan sheet(s) (drawn
at 20 scale) that show the sidewalk, mounding, and berming design in the
combined parkway and landscape setback area.
G. On -Site Precise Grading Plan 1" = 30' Horizontal
The Precise Grading plan shall include: Storm Drain/Underground Retention.
NOTE: A through G shall be submitted concurrently.
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.
All Off -Site Plan & Profile Street Plans and Signing & Striping Plans shall show all
existing improvements for a distance of at least 200-feet beyond the project limits, or
a distance sufficient to show any required design transitions.
P:\reports-pc\2009\4-28-09\sdp2008-905 lippich\sdp coa.doc 28
Planning Commission Resolution 2009-
Site Development Permit 2008-905
Leslie Lippich Architect and Associates
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Adopted:
The Precise Grading Plans shall show, at a minimum; Stop Signs, Limit Lines and
Legends, No Parking Signs, Raised Pavement Markers (including Blue RPMs at fire
hydrants) and Street Name Signs per Public Works Standard Plans and/or as
approved by the Engineering Department.
"Rough Grading" plans shall normally include perimeter walls with Top of Wall & Top
of Footing elevations shown. All footings shall have a minimum of 1-foot of cover,
or sufficient cover to clear any adjacent obstructions.
The applicant shall prepare an accessibility assessment on a marked up print of the
building floor plan identifying every building egress and notes the 2007 California
Building Code accessibility requirements associated with each door. The assessment
must comply with submittal requirements of the Building & Safety Department. A
copy of the reviewed assessment shall be submitted to the Engineering Department
in conjunction with the Site Development Plan when it is submitted for plan checking.
In addition to the normal set of improvement plans, a "Site Development" plan is
required to be submitted for approval by the Building Official, Planning Director and
the City Engineer.
"Site Development" plans shall normally include all on -site surface improvements
including but not necessarily limited to finish grades for curbs & gutters, building
floor elevations, parking lot improvements and ADA requirements.
30. The City maintains standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction notes for
elements of construction which can be accessed via the "Plans, Notes and Design
Guidance" section of the Public Works Department at the City website (www.la-
quinta.org). Please navigate to the Public Works Department home page and look for
the Standard Drawings hyperlink.
31. The applicant shall furnish a complete set of the mylars of all approved improvement
plans on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer.
32. Upon completion of construction, and prior to final acceptance of the improvements
by the City, the applicant shall furnish the City with reproducible record drawings or
equal according to Engineering Bulletin 09-01.
IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AGREEMENTS
33. Prior to constructing any off -site improvements on Washington Street, the developer
shall deposit securities equivalent to both a Performance and Labor & Material Bonds
each valued at 100% of the cost of the offsite improvements required on Washington
Street.
P:\reports-pc\2009\4-28-09\sdp2008-905 lippich\sdp coa.doc 29
Planning Commission Resolution 2009-
Site Development Permit 2008-905
Leslie Lippich Architect and Associates
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Adopted:
34. Should the applicant fail to construct the improvements for the development, or fail
to satisfy its obligations for the development in a timely manner, the City shall have
the right to halt issuance of building permits, and/or final building inspections,
withhold other approvals related to the development of the project, or call upon the
surety to complete the improvements.
35. Depending on the timing of the development of this Site Development Permit, and the
status of the off -site improvements at the time, the applicant may be required to:
A. Construct all off -site improvements.
B. Construct additional off -site improvements, subject to the reimbursement of its
costs by others.
C. Reimburse others for those improvements previously constructed that are
considered to be an obligation of this Site Development Permit.
D. Secure the costs for future improvements that are to be made by others.
E. To agree to any combination of these means, as the City may require.
In the event that any of the improvements required for this development are
constructed by the City, the applicant shall reimburse the City for the costs of such
improvements.
36. If the applicant elects to utilize the secured agreement alternative, the applicant shall
submit detailed construction cost estimates for all proposed on -site and off -site
improvements, including an estimate for the final survey monumentation, for
checking and approval by the City Engineer. Such estimates shall conform to the unit
cost schedule adopted by City resolution, or ordinance.
For items not listed in the City's unit cost schedule, the proposed unit costs shall be
approved by the City Engineer.
Estimates for improvements under the jurisdiction of other agencies shall be approved
by those agencies and submitted to the City along with the applicant's detailed cost
estimates.
Security will not be required for telephone, natural gas, or Cable T.V. improvements.
GRADING
37. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.050
(Grading Improvements).
P:\reports-pc\2009\4-28-09\sdp2008-905 lippich\sdp coa.doc 30
Planning Commission Resolution 2009-
Site Development Permit 2008-905
Leslie Lippich Architect and Associates
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Adopted:
38. Prior to occupancy of the project site for any construction, or other purposes, the
applicant shall obtain a grading permit approved by the City Engineer.
39. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval
of all of the following:
A. A grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer,
B. A preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report prepared by a qualified engineer,
C. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with LQMC Chapter 6.16,
(Fugitive Dust Control), and
D. A Best Management Practices report prepared in accordance with LQMC
Sections 8.70.010 and 13.24.170 (NPDES stormwater discharge permit and
Storm Management and Discharge Controls).
All grading shall conform to the recommendations contained in the Preliminary Soils
Report, and shall be certified as being adequate by a soils engineer, or by an
engineering geologist.
The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, and in an
amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the approved Fugitive Dust Control
Plan provisions as submitted with its application for a grading permit.
40. The applicant shall maintain all open graded, undeveloped land in order to prevent
wind and/or water erosion of such land. All open graded, undeveloped land shall
either be planted with interim landscaping, or stabilized with such other erosion
control measures, as were approved in the Fugitive Dust Control Plan.
41. Grading within the perimeter setback and parkway areas shall have undulating
terrain and shall conform with the requirements of LQMC Section 9.60.240(F)
except as otherwise modified by this condition requirement. The maximum slope
shall not exceed 3:1 anywhere in the landscape setback area, except for the
backslope (i.e. the slope at the back of the landscape lot) which shall not exceed
2:1 if fully planted with ground cover. The maximum slope in the first six (6) feet
adjacent to the curb shall not exceed 4:1 when the nearest edge of sidewalk is
within six feet W) of the curb, otherwise the maximum slope within the right of
way shall not exceed 3:1. All unpaved parkway areas adjacent to the curb shall be
depressed one and one-half inches (1.5") in the first eighteen inches (18") behind
the curb.
P:\reports-pc\2009\4-28-09\sdp2008-905 lippich\sdp coa.doc 31
Planning Commission Resolution 2009-
Site Development Permit 2008-905
Leslie Lippich Architect and Associates
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Adopted:
42. Building pad elevation shall not differ by more that one foot higher from the building
pads in adjacent developments, or the applicant shall minimize the differences in
elevation between the adjoining properties and the lots within this development.
Where compliance within the above stated limits is impractical, the City may consider
alternatives that are shown to minimize safety concerns, maintenance difficulties and
neighboring -owner dissatisfaction with the grade differential.
43. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any building lot, the applicant shall
provide a lot pad certification stamped and signed by a qualified engineer or
surveyor with applicable compaction tests and over excavation documentation.
The pad certification shall list the pad elevation as shown on the approved grading
plan, the actual pad elevation and the difference between the two, if any. Such pad
certification shall also list the relative compaction of the pad soil. The data shall be
organized by lot number, and listed cumulatively if submitted at different times.
DRAINAGE
44. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.120
(Drainage), Retention Basin Design Criteria, Engineering Bulletin No. 06-16 —
Hydrology Report with Preliminary Hydraulic Report Criteria for Storm Drain Systems
and Engineering Bulletin No. 06-015 - Underground Retention Basin Design
Requirements. More specifically, stormwater falling on site and adjacent tributary '/2
street area during the 100 year storm shall be retained within the development,
unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The design storm shall be the 1
hour, 3 hour, 6 hour or 24 hour event producing the greatest total run off. The
required volume of the underground retention system was estimated to be equal to
12,004 cubic feet per the Preliminary Hydrology and Drainage Report for La Quinta
Hand Car Wash Commercial Site dated June 3, 2008 and Revised August 22,
2008. The vault design shall be approved by the City Engineer.
45. Nuisance water shall be retained on site. Nuisance water shall be disposed of per
approved methods contained in Engineering Bulletin No. 06-16 — Hydrology Report
with Preliminary Hydraulic Report Criteria for Storm Drain Systems and Engineering
Bulletin No. 06-015 - Underground Retention Basin Design Requirements.
46. In design of retention facilities, the maximum percolation rate shall be two inches
per hour. The percolation rate will be considered to be zero unless the applicant
provides site specific data indicating otherwise and as approved by the City
Engineer.
47. The project shall be designed to accommodate purging and blowoff water (through
underground piping and/or retention facilities) from any on -site or adjacent well sites
P:\reports-pc\2009\4-28-09\sdp2008-905 lippich\sdp coa.doc 32
Planning Commission Resolution 2009-
Site Development Permit 2008-905
Leslie Lippich Architect and Associates
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Adopted:
granted or dedicated to the local water utility authority as a requirement for
development of this property.
48. No fence or wall shall be constructed around any retention basin unless approved by
the Planning Director and the City Engineer.
49. Stormwater may not be retained in landscaped parkways or landscaped setback
lots. Only incidental storm water (precipitation which directly falls onto the setback)
will be permitted to be retained in the landscape setback areas. The perimeter
setback and parkway areas in the street right-of-way shall be shaped with berms
and mounds, pursuant to LQMC Section 9.100.040(B)(7).
50. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries and
levels in any area outside the development.
51. The development shall be graded to permit storm flow in excess of retention
capacity to flow out of the development through a designated overflow and into the
historic drainage relief route.
52. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and
retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route.
11Tll ITIFS
53. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all
utility lines within any right-of-way, and all above -ground utility structures including,
but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electric vaults, water valves, and
telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic
purposes.
54. Existing overhead utility lines within, or adjacent to the proposed development, and
all proposed utilities shall be installed underground.
All existing utility lines attached to joint use 92 KV transmission power poles are
exempt from the requirement to be placed underground.
55. Underground utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation
of utilities in existing improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench
restoration requirements maintained, or required by the City Engineer.
The applicant shall provide certified reports of all utility trench compaction for
approval by the City Engineer. Additionally, grease traps and the maintenance
thereof shall be located as to not conflict with access aisles/entrances.
P:\reports-pc\2009\4-28-09\sdp2008-905 lippich\sdp coa.doc 33
Planning Commission Resolution 2009-
Site Development Permit 2008-905
Leslie Lippich Architect and Associates
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Adopted:
CONSTRUCTION
56. The City will conduct final inspections of the habitable building only when the
building has improved parking lot and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly -
maintained streets. The improvements shall include required traffic control devices
and pavement markings.
LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION
57. The applicant shall comply with LQMC Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks)
& 13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans).
58. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, and common areas.
59. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped areas and setbacks, and medians shall
be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect.
60. The applicant shall submit the landscape plans for approval by the Planning
Department and green sheet sign off by the Public Works Department. When plan
checking has been completed by the Planning Department, the applicant shall obtain
the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner, prior
to submittal for signature by the Planning Director, however landscape plans for
landscaped median on public streets shall be approved by the both the Planning
Director and the City Engineer. Where City Engineer approval is not required, the
applicant shall submit for a green sheet approval by the Public Works Department.
Final landscape plans for on -site planting shall be reviewed by the ALRC and
approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of first building permit. Final
plans shall include all landscaping associated with this project.
NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by both the Planning
Director and/or the City Engineer.
61. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the
requirements of the Planning Director. Use of lawn areas shall be minimized with no
lawn, or spray irrigation, being placed within 24 inches of curbs along public streets.
62. The applicant or his agent has the responsibility for proper sight distance
requirements per guidelines in the AASHTO "A Policy on Geometric Design of
Highways and Streets, 5`" Edition" or latest, in the design and/or installation of all
landscaping and appurtenances abutting and within the private and public street
right-of-way.
63. Bougainvillea vines shall be provided on all trellises facing the vacuuming area.
P:\reports-pc\2009\4-28-09\sdp2008-905 lippich\sdp coa.doc 34
Planning Commission Resolution 2009-
Site Development Permit 2008-905
Leslie Lippich Architect and Associates
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Adopted:
64. The two 36" box size Mediterranean Fan Palms shown in the two landscape parking
lot fingers adjacent to the car wash building shall be changed to 15' bth
Washingtonia Robusta.
65. All trees proposed in the landscape areas adjacent to Washington Street shall have a
minimum trunk caliper of two inches measured at least 12 inches from the ground.
PUBLIC SERVICES
66. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as required by SunLine
Transit Agency and approved by the City Engineer.
MAINTENANCE
67. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.160
(Maintenance).
68. The applicant shall make provisions for the continuous and perpetual maintenance of
perimeter landscaping up to the curb, access drives, and sidewalks.
FEES AND DEPOSITS
69. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.180 (Fees
and Deposits). These fees include all deposits and fees required by the City for plan
checking and construction inspection. Deposits and fee amounts shall be those in
effect when the applicant makes application for plan check and permits.
70. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the
Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the
time of issuance of building permit(s).
71. The applicant shall pay the Coachella Valley Multi -Species Habitat Conservation
Plan/Natural Community Habitat Conservation Plan Mitigation Fee, in accordance
with Chapter 3.34 of the Municipal Code unless modified by the City Council.
FIRE MARSHAL
72. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering a fire flow 8000
gallons per minute for four hours duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure,
which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the
construction site.
73. Approved accessible on -site super fire hydrants shall be located not to exceed 200
P:\reports-pc\2009\4-28-09\sdp2008-905 lippich\sdp coa.doc 35
Planning Commission Resolution 2009-
Site Development Permit 2008-905
Leslie Lippich Architect and Associates
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Adopted:
feet apart in any direction. Any portion of the facility or of an exterior wall of the
first story of the building shall not be located more than 150 feet from fire apparatus
as measured by an approved route around the complex, exterior of the facility or
building, and no portion of a building further than 400 feet from a fire hydrant. Fire
hydrants shall provide the required flow.
74. Prior to building plan approval and construction, applicant/developer shall furnish
two copies of the water system fire hydrant plans to Fire Department for review and
approval. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, and shall confirm
hydrant type, location, spacing, and minimum fire flow. Once plans are signed and
approved by the local water authority, the originals shall be presented to the Fire
Department for review and approval.
75. Prior to issuance of building permits, the water system for fire protection must be
provided as approved by the Fire Department and the local water authority.
76. Blue dot retro-reflectors pavement markers on private streets, public streets and
driveways to indicated location of the fire hydrant. 06-05 (located at
www.rvcfire.org)
77. Fire Apparatus access road shall be in compliance with the Riverside County Fire
Department Standard number 06-05 (located at www.rvcfire.org). Access lanes will
not have an up, or downgrade of more than 15%. Access roads shall have an
unobstructed vertical clearance not less than 13 feet and 6 inches. Access lanes will
be designed to withstand the weight of 60 thousand pounds over 2 axles. Access
will have a turning radius capable of accommodating fire apparatus. Access lane
shall be constructed with a surface so as to provide all weather driving capabilities.
78. Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be
provided with approved provision for the turn around capabilities of fire apparatus
79. Driveway loops, fire apparatus access lanes and entrance curb radius should be
designed to adequately allow access of emergency fire vehicles. The applicant or
developer shall include in the building plans the required fire lanes and include the
appropriate lane printing and/or signs.
80. An approved Fire Department access key lock box (Minimum Knox Box 3200 series
model) shall be installed next to the approved Fire Department access door to the
building. If the buildings are protected with an alarm system, the lock box shall be
required to have tampered monitoring. Required order forms and installation
standards may be obtained at the Fire Department.
P:\reports-pc\2009\4-28-09\sdp2008-905 lippich\sdp coa.doc 36
Planning Commission Resolution 2009-
Site Development Permit 2008-905
Leslie Lippich Architect and Associates
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Adopted:
81. Street numbers shall be displayed in a prominent location on the address side of
building(s) and/or rear access if applicable. Numbers and letters shall be a minimum
of 12" in height for building(s) up to 25' in height. In complexes with alpha
designations, letter size must match numbers. All addressing must be legible, of a
contrasting color, and adequately illuminated to be visible from street at all hours.
82. Install a complete commercial fire sprinkler system (per NFPA 13 2002 Edition). Fire
sprinkler system(s) with pipe sizes in excess of 4" in diameter will require the project
Structural Engineer to certify with a "wet signature", that the structural system is
designed to support the seismic and gravity loads to support the additional weight of
the sprinkler system. All fire sprinkler risers shall be protected from any physical
damage. The PIV and FCD shall be located to the front of building and a minimum of
25 feet from the building(s). Sprinkler riser room must have indicating exterior and/or
interior door signs. A C-16 licensed contactor must submit plans, along with current
permit fees, to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to installation.
83. Install an alarm monitoring system for fire sprinkler system(s) with 20 or more
heads, along with current permit fees, to the Fire Department for review and
approval prior to installation.
84. Install a portable fire extinguisher, with a minimum rating of 2A-10BC, for every
3,000 sq. ft. and/or 75 feet of travel distance. Fire extinguishers shall be mounted
3.5 to 5 ft above finished floor, measured to the top of the extinguisher. Where not
readily visible, signs shall be posted above all extinguishers to indicate their
locations. Extinguishers must have current CSFM service tags affixed.
85. No hazardous materials shall be stored and/or used within the building, which
exceeds quantities listed in 2007 CBC. No class I, II or IIIA of
combustible/flammable liquid shall be used in any amount in the building.
86. Exit designs, exit signs, door hardware, exit markers, exit doors, and exit path
marking shall be installed per the 2007 California Building Code.
87. Electrical room doors if applicable shall be posted "ELECTRICAL ROOM" on outside
of door.
88. Fire Alarm Control Panel room doors if applicable shall be posted "FACP" on outside
of door.
89. Fire Riser Sprinkler room doors if applicable shall be posted "Fire Riser" on outside
of door.
P:\reports-pc\2009\4-28-09\sdp2008-905 lippich\sdp coa.doc 37
Planning Commission Resolution 2009-
Site Development Permit 2008-905
Leslie Lippich Architect and Associates
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Adopted:
90. Roof Access room door if applicable shall be posted "Roof Access" on outside of
door.
91. Access shall be provided to all mechanical equipment located on the roof as required
by the Mechanical Code.
92. Air handling systems supplying air in excess of 2000 cubic feet per minute to
enclosed spaces within buildings shall be equipped with an automatic shutoff. 2007
CIVIC
93. Gate(s) shall be automatic or manual operated. Install Knox key operated switches,
with dust cover, mounted per recommended standard of the Knox Company.
Building plans shall include mounting location/position and operating standards for
Fire Department approval.
MISCELLANEOUS
94. Exterior lighting shall be consistent with Section 9.100.150 (Outdoor Lighting) of the
La Quinta Municipal Code. All freestanding lighting shall not exceed 20 feet in height,
shall be fitted with a visor if deemed necessary by staff, and be turned off or reduced
to a level deemed appropriate by the Planning Director within one hour following
closing hours. Lighting plans shall be submitted with the final landscaping plans for a
recommendation to the Planning Director for his approval.
95. Signage is not a part of this approval. All signs shall comply with the requirements of
Zoning Code Chapter 9.160.
96. All parking areas shall be screened from view through the means of a landscaped
berm, a three foot high decorative masonry wall, landscaped hedges or bushes with
significant foliage, or a combination of all three methods. All screening shall be
reviewed and approved by the Planning Director.
97. No ancillary uses such as detailing, window tinting, etc. shall be conducted on the
property unless specifically approved in writing by the Planning Director.
Additionally, no temporary structures such as tents, covers, etc. shall be placed on
the property.
98. Design, color and finish of the proposed six (6) foot high sound walls shall be
approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of a building permit.
P:\reports-pc\2009\4-28-09\sdp2008-905 lippich\sdp coa.doc 38
Planning Commission Resolution 2009-
Site Development Permit 2008-905
Leslie Lippich Architect and Associates
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Adopted:
99. All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be completely screened from view behind the
parapet. Utility transformers or other ground mounted mechanical equipment shall be
fully screened with a screening wall or landscaping and painted to match the adjacent
buildings.
100. The site shall be monitored during on- and off -site trenching and rough grading by
qualified archaeological monitors, including a Native -American monitor. Proof of
retention of monitors shall be given to the City prior to issuance of the first earth -
moving or clearing permit. The monitor shall be empowered to temporarily halt or
divert equipment to allow for City notification and analysis.
101. The final report on the monitoring shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior
to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the project.
102 Collected archaeological resources shall be properly packaged for long term curation,
in polyethylene self -seal bags, vials, or film cans as appropriate, all within acid -free,
standard size, comprehensively labeled archive boxes and delivered to the City prior
to issuance of first Certificate of Occupancy for the property.
Materials shall be accompanied by descriptive catalogue, field notes and records,
primary research data, and the original graphics.
103. If prehistoric or historic resources are discovered during monitoring or the subsequent
construction phase, the Planning Department shall be notified immediately.
104. A program and system for recycling of used car wash water shall be implemented
and approved by the Planning Director.
105. A six foot high masonry sound wall shall be installed in the landscaping area along
the exit drive from the carwash structure. The exact design, location and length of
the wall shall be worked out with staff and shown on the final landscaping plans.
106. If the plan with the tunnel along the north property line is approved, the quantity of
trees adjacent to the east property line shall be doubled along the east property line
and adjacent to the car wash tunnel.
P:\reports-pc\2009\4-28-09\sdp2008-905 lippich\sdp coa.doc 39
ATTACHMENT # 1
Planning Commission Minutes
April 14, 2009
Alderson opened the public hearing and asked forylWstaff
Planning Direct es Johnson noted this was t second continuation
for this item, and s taff would like to r edule it to the April 28,
2009 meeting to allow a ' 'onal timelpOrddress all of their concerns.
Chairman Alderson asked if t any comments from the public.
There were no commen rom the pu and he then closed the
public Zhhearingportio the meeting.
Therer discussion from the Commission it was
movedd by Commissioners Barrows/Wilkins toContition 2006-1078, Amendment No. 1 to th
P ning Commission meeting of April 28, 2009. Unanimously
pproved.
B. Site Development Permit 2008-905 and Conditional Use Permit 2008-
112; a request by Leslie Lippich Architect and Associates for Yury
Levitan for consideration of architectural and landscaping plans for a
4,924 square foot express (self-service) car wash to be located on the
east side of Washington Street, approximately ±780 feet north of
Fred Waring 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.
Principal Planner Sawa said staff had received an e-mail from Mr.
Marvin Roos, Director of Design Development with MSA Consulting,
representing the Robert Capri Corporation expressing concerns
regarding the proposed requirement for a deceleration lane for the car
wash entry located on Washington Street. Mr. Roos noted in his
e-mail there was no professional traffic analysis indicating the need for
a deceleration lane; nor would the car wash generate the amount of
trips per peak hour that would trigger the threshold identified by the
City to require a deceleration lane. Mr. Roos stated his concern was
that the condition, as written, would create an off -set curb condition
for the adjacent Mayer Villa Capri project at the northern driveway and
the off -sets could be confusing and possibly dangerous to motorists.
Mr. Roos proposed the condition state the driveway curbs not be off-
P:.Reports PCA2009-4 28 09V°C MIN 4 14 09 Draft.dec 40
Planning Commission Minutes
April 14, 2009
set and the deceleration lane start northerly of the Mayer Villa Capri
approved entry on Washington Street.
Mr. Roos noted a second concern in his e-mail pointing out that the
landscaping plans submitted for the car wash did not indicate any
ground cover for the area between the car wash and the property line.
He said he hoped that area would be covered with decomposed
granite and rockscape as shown elsewhere on the landscaping plans.
Chairman Alderson asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Weber asked if the hours of operation for the car wash
were specified in the Code. Staff replied they were not and that the
closing time was indicated by the applicant.
Commissioner Weber asked if there were any requirements to prepare
a noise study. Staff replied there were not. Commissioner Weber
asked if the applicant was in agreement with the condition to install
some type of a sound barrier wall to help deflect the noise from the
tunnel. Principal Planner Sawa indicated it was his understanding that
the applicant was in support of the condition.
Chairman Alderson asked Principal Engineer Ed Wimmer to explain the
issue concerning the deceleration lane as expressed by Mr. Roos in his
e-mail. Principal Engineer Wimmer explained deceleration lanes were
usually required on major arterial streets, however, if an applicant
demonstrated that less than fifty vehicles per hour would be generated
in the peak hour, then a deceleration lane would not be required. He
said this project was exempt from CEQA requirements and therefore,
did not require a traffic study. Public Works had conducted an in-
house analysis in regards to the IT trip generation rate for similar type
projects and it had identified that the trips generated would be in the
area of forty-five vehicles per hour in the peak hour, which would not
be enough to require a deceleration lane. However, in this case, the
applicant offered to put the deceleration lane in front of his property.
The proposed deceleration lane at 116 feet would not qualify for a
complete design for a deceleration lane, but it would provide an
opportunity for the traffic wanting to turn into the car wash to move
into the lane and allow the faster moving traffic through on the outer
lane on Washington Street. Principal Engineer said staff did not share
the concern expressed by Mr. Roos and felt that the proposed
deceleration lane would be a benefit to Washington Street and would
help move traffic along.
41
Pnfteports PCi20090 28 09\.°C MIN 4 14 09 OraR.doc
Planning Commission Minutes
April 14, 2009
Commissioner Weber asked what the speed limit was for that location
on Washington Street. Principal Engineer Wimmer replied the posted
speed limit was fifty mph.
Commissioner Weber pointed out other partial deceleration lanes
already in existence near the project. Staff explained the benefits and
connectivity between the partial deceleration lane for the car wash
and the adjacent La Quinta Business Center.
Commissioner Weber asked if the applicant would be submitting final
landscaping plans as the ones currently submitted were marked as
drafts. Principal Planner Sawa replied the applicant would be
submitting final landscaping plans for approval, based on the
Commission's decision and direction.
Chairman Alderson asked to clarify that the applicant would address
the landscaping for the area between the car wash and the property
line in the final landscaping plans. Staff confirmed.
Commissioner Quill commented that if the car wash site plan was
submitted as a mirror image of itself, the parking area would be facing
the Mayer Villa Capri parking lots. That would allow for connectivity
between the two projects and would eliminate the necessity for two
driveways that were only 150 feet apart from each other, as one
access point could be used for both projects. He noted the
deceleration lane, if the same access point is used, would have to be
extended over the Mayer site as well.
Commissioner Quill asked staff why flipping the site plan was not
considered in the preliminary review of the project especially in terms
of sustainability, preservation, and keeping vehicles off the main
arterial for trip reduction.
Planning Director Johnson said there was a lot of discussion about
having the car wash design flipped and he noted the original proposal
by the applicant did have the building flipped. He explained the
driveway into the car wash in the original plans was not shared;
however, it was adjacent to the one for the Mayer Villa Capri site.
Staff had extensively discussed the issue of connectivity between the
two projects and the Mayer Corporation was not in support of it
because of concerns regarding potential access logistics, traffic flow,
and the stacking of vehicles for the car wash creating a problem for
the Mayer Villa Capri site and the site design to the south. He noted
42
P .Reports PC'.2009%a 28 09TC MIN 4 14 09 QraR_doa
Planning Commission Minutes
April 14, 2009
the issue had been discussed at length as staff shared the same
interest and concern expressed by Commissioner Quill, however, both
parties were not supportive of having the connectivity between the
two projects.
General discussion followed regarding what the potential issues would
have been if there was a shared driveway for both projects.
Commissioner Wilkinson asked about the length of the drive area from
the access point on Washington Street to the car wash pay station
and approximately how many cars would be accommodated in the
three lanes. Staff replied approximately twenty vehicles, but that the
applicant would be able to better answer those questions.
Chairman Alderson asked about the height of the wall and if the
applicant was supportive of it. Staff responded the recommended
height was six feet and that the applicant would comply with the
condition.
Chairman Alderson inquired if the recommendations made by the
ALRC regarding the building color palette and types of palm trees used
had been incorporated into the submitted plans. Staff replied the
recommendations were not addressed in the plans, but were made
part of the conditions of approval.
There being no further questions of the staff, Chairman Alderson
asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission.
Mr. Robert Palmer, Leslie Lippich Architect and Associates, Inc., 4766
Park Granada, Calabasas, CA 91302, introduced himself and offered
to answer any questions the Commission might have.
Commissioner Quill inquired how the polycarbonate clear roof material
of the car wash would be made to look like copper. Mr. Palmer
replied the polycarbonate material was available in different colors and
the architect chose to use the bronze, or copper -like, color because
the car wash would be in the southwest and it would blend better
with its surroundings. He explained the material was chosen because
it was light, cost effective, and allowed sunlight to get through to the
car wash tunnel during the day eliminating the need to have lights on.
Commissioner Quill asked about the design of the vacuum cleaners.
Mr. Palmer explained the vacuum cleaners would look like hoses
43
P:1Roporis PC2009428-09\PC VIIN 4 1409 QrIhAlc
Planning Commission Minutes
April 14, 2009
running across a canopy and dropping down, similar to full service car
wash vacuum cleaners.
Commissioner Quill said the canopy was not identified on the site
plans. Chairman Alderson concurred. Mr. Palmer replied the canopy
was not identified because it was subject to a different permit.
Planning Director Johnson stated the applicant had never mentioned to
staff that there would be a canopy. Commissioner Quill noted the
Commission was being asked to approve the plans without knowing
what the canopy would look like, even though it was an architectural
design feature of the car wash.
Commissioner Quill asked about the trash receptacles and what
measures would be taken to ensure that they get emptied out on a
regular basis. He was also concerned about the applicant making sure
the parking lot would be consistently swept and kept clean.
Yury Levitan, Owner of the Express Car Wash, 11501 Donna Evita
Drive, Studio City, CA 91604, introduced himself and addressed
Commissioner Quill's previous question regarding the vacuum cleaning
equipment. He said they would be using Vacuum Tech, a company
which specialized in custom design of central vacuum systems and
explained where the equipment would be located and how it would
work.
Mr. Levitan said there would always be at least two employees
present at all times at the car wash and they would be in charge of
maintenance and monitoring cleanliness of the site. Further, the
volume of business would determine the appropriate manpower
necessary to maintain the car wash.
Commissioner Quill asked if the car wash was fully automated. Mr.
Levitan replied the car wash would be fully automated. He said
payment would be rendered through computers located at each of the
three lanes as the cars entered the car wash and explained the
process.
Commissioner Quill asked about the aesthetic design of the trash
receptacles and if there would be one at every parking space. Mr.
Levitan replied the design had not yet been determined and there
would be trash receptacles at every parking space.
44
P:AReports - PC\2009AA 28 09\PC MIN 4 14 09 Drait.dnn
Planning Commission Minutes
April 14, 2009
Commissioner Quill asked where the vending machines would be
located. Mr. Levitan noted the vending machines would be located in
the building niches.
Commissioner Quill asked about the type of material that would be
used for the parking lot. Mr. Levitan said, due to the high
temperatures in the desert area, it would most likely to be concrete
instead of asphalt. Commissioner Quill asked, and the applicant
confirmed that he would not object if the Commission conditioned him
to use concrete.
Commissioner Quill asked for details on the site lighting. Staff replied
a requirement for additional design information on the lighting was
included in the conditions of approval. Mr. Levitan said the lighting
plans had not been completed, but sufficient lighting would be
provided to allow for the car wash to operate at night.
Commissioner Quill inquired about the hours of operation for the car
wash. Mr. Levitan said the car wash would be open from 6:00 a.m.
until 10:00 p.m., but if business was very slow, it would trigger an
earlier closing time.
Commissioner Quill asked if there would be employees present at the
car wash during all hours of operation. Mr. Levitan replied there
would.
Commissioner Quill inquired about the close -down process and what it
would involve. Mr. Levitan explained all outside equipment would be
put away in the mechanical room, the gates to the tunnel would be
closed, and the site would be secured with an alarm system.
Commissioner Quill asked if there would be end -of -day parking lot
maintenance. Mr. Levitan replied parking lot maintenance would be
done two to three times a day.
Chairman Alderson asked if the two car wash employees would be the
ones designated for the maintenance of the car wash. Mr. Levitan
said the two employees would be in charge of maintenance, but if
volume was high and more manpower was needed, more employees
would work the site.
Commissioner Quill asked if the water would be recycled and what
would be the recycling process. Mr. Levitan explained the water
recycling process.
45
P:'t.Reports PC2009`'a 28 091PC MIN 4 1409 Draft.dor
Planning Commission Minutes
April 14, 2009
Commissioner Quill asked approximately how much water would be
used to operate the car wash. Mr. Levitan gave an example of the car
wash in Palm Desert and stated the water bill for that operation was
from $300 to $400 per month. His estimate for the La Quinta car
wash would be between $400 and $500 per month.
Commissioner Quill asked who would be in charge of maintaining the
landscaping. Mr. Levitan replied a landscaping company would be put
in charge on a weekly basis.
Commissioner Wilkinson inquired about the warranty for the
polycarbonate roof material. Mr. Palmer replied the warranty was at
least 10 years, possibly more.
Commissioner Wilkinson asked about heat generation within the car
wash tunnel, considering the translucent roof material would allow a
substantial amount of heat to build up in the tunnel. Mr. Palmer asked
for the elevation plans to be displayed. He explained the top of the
car wash tunnel at the front, and rear elevations, would be open for
ventilation, as well as the tunnel doors being open during operating
hours.
Commissioner Wilkinson expressed concern regarding the durability of
the roof material. He also concurred with Commissioner Quill's
comments regarding not having any information on the color palette,
shade structure, lighting, trash receptacles, etc.
Commissioner Barrows asked if the proposed polycarbonate roof
material had been used in other places with similar weather
conditions. Mr. Palmer replied the same roof material was used for a
similar car wash in Las Vegas. He said the main reason the material
was preferred to other materials was because it was light and
translucent. He explained there was no roof equipment and it was a
self supporting structure.
Commissioner Weber echoed the concerns regarding the roof material
expressed by his fellow Commissioners in terms of durability,
discoloration, and heat generation. He said the applicant should try to
provide an example of where the material was used successfully. Mr.
Palmer noted the polycarbonate material was generally used for green
houses and therefore it would be able to sustain the heat. He
explained there wouldn't be high levels of heat generated in the car
wash tunnel because in addition to the roof and door openings on both
46
P.,Rsporrs PC\2009`'A 28 09`,PC MIN 4 14 09 Drah.dor,
Planning Commission Minutes
April 14, 2009
ends of the tunnel, the entire car wash process required the use of
water which would further reduce the heat levels.
Mr. Palmer said the car wash tunnel was only for the car wash
operations, the on -site office and restrooms were located to the side
of the car wash building and were not under the polycarbonate roof
material.
Commissioner Weber clarified that his concern was not in terms of
generating heat inside the car wash tunnel, but rather whether or not
the polycarbonate material was durable enough to sustain the high
temperatures of the desert. Mr. Palmer noted 'that was why he
mentioned that this type of material was generally used for green
houses.
Commissioner Weber asked for the applicant's comments on the
deceleration lane and expressed his concern regarding traffic safety
and possible future liability for the City of La Quinta. Mr. John
Hacker, Civil Engineer, 77810 Las Montanas Road, Palm Desert, CA
92260, introduced himself as part of the applicant's design team and
provided his expertise on the traffic analysis for the car wash. He
said, based on the estimated trips generated and the car wash design,
there should be no backing up of traffic and no need for a deceleration
lane.
Mr. Hacker addressed the Commission's concern regarding the
maintenance of the car wash. He said staff requires the applicant to
submit a report for Best Management Practices (BMP) which identifies
in detail how the applicant is to maintain the site. A newer trend is to
also require the applicant to sign the report committing him/her to
perform by the identified BMPs.
Commissioner Weber asked for comments about the reverse design of
the car wash. Mr. Hacker replied the original plans for the car wash
were reversed, but the Robert Mayer Corporation was not in favor of
that design. He noted Mr. Levitan did not object to having the car
wash designed either way. When the applicant was asked by staff to
flip the design and re -submit the site plans, he agreed.
Chairman Alderson asked Mr. Hacker if he was the Civil Engineer for
the car wash project. Mr. Hacker said he was. Chairman Alderson
inquired about the symbols on the grading plan indicating the grease
and sand traps. Mr. Hacker explained those were part of the
47
P:-Reports PC�12009,4 28 09�PC MIN 4 14 09 Drnft.doc
Planning Commission Minutes
April 14, 2009
architectural design and he was not involved in that part of the
project. He said he would provide an underground storm trap to
channel the water. Chairman Alderson commented the grading plans
did not have sufficient information indicating the flow of the storm
drain water. Mr. Hacker said the water in the submitted design was
being channeled to the underground storm pipes and a minor amount
of water was directed to a small catch basin at the entrance. Mr.
Hacker explained the works of the underground water receptacles and
the catch basin and noted the design could be modified during the
final grading.
Chairman Alderson expressed concern that there was only one catch
basin and, if it were to plug up, the water would not have a second
place to drain. Mr. Hacker replied there was a second catch basin
above the receptacles. He said additional catch basins could be easily
installed.
Chairman Alderson asked if there was any public comment.
Ms. Terry Forward, Coldwel) Banker Commercial, introduced herself as
a representative of the owner of the La Quinta Business Center, 43-
576 Washington Street, La Quinta, CA 92253, located to the north
of the proposed car wash, and asked for an explanation as to whether
or not there would be some type of sound barrier protection to ensure
there would be no nuisance noise for those tenants.
Principal Planner Sawa replied there were no walls proposed along the
north property line, only landscaping. Ms. Forward inquired about the
type of landscaping. Staff said the plans identified alternating citrus
and palm trees along the north border. Ms. Forward asked if there
could be possible accommodation for a different type of landscaping
or a sound wall barrier. Staff replied the Planning Commission had the
authority to impose such a requirement on the applicant if it was
determined to be necessary.
Commissioner Quill asked if staff had required the applicant to submit
acoustic information on the car wash equipment and operation.
Planning Director Johnson replied acoustics were not requested. He
explained staff had identified the need for a wall along the eastern
property boundaries because of the new school to the east; however,
staff did not define a requirement for walls along the north and south
property lines.
48
P:%Reports PC2009':4 28 09RC MIN 4 14 09 Draft doc
Planning Commission Minutes
April 14, 2009
Commissioner Quill asked if staff had asked the applicant to submit
some type of a decibel (DB) analysis on their operation and if there
was an established threshold. Staff replied the Code identified a
standard DB level, but based on the proposed operation, staff had no
reason to believe that it would exceed the City's established standard
requirements. Staff did not require the applicant to conduct any type
of noise analysis.
Chairman Alderson asked Ms. Forward if the answer provided by staff
was sufficient or if she insisted on further consideration for acoustic
protection. Ms. Forward noted her client would not be in favor of
reversing the site plans as it would put the car wash building closer to
the La Quinta Business Center structure.
Mr. Marvin Roos, MSA Consulting, 34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho
Mirage, CA 92270, representing the Robert Mayer Corporation,
introduced himself. Mr. Roos said he had reviewed the car wash site
plans when the design was reversed and noted the plans identified a
separate access for the car wash from Washington Street. He said
there was never any intent to have a joint driveway for both projects.
He explained the way the building and parking lot were laid out, there
would not have been sufficient space to make the connection between
the two projects and there were concerns that it might block up the
Mayer Villa Capri project's service drive. He noted he was surprised
to see the design reversed as his impression was the original design
was to remain without the connectivity. He said the Robert Mayer
Corporation is in support of the car wash project. Mr. Roos said there
was an issue with the location of the trash enclosure which had been
addressed.
Mr. Roos explained his client's concerns in having the deceleration
lane and demonstrated the traffic movement on the site plan.
Mr. Roos said the only concern his client had was that the submitted
landscaping plans did not indicate any ground cover for the area
between the car wash and the property line. He stated he was not
sure if the plans were simply hard to read or if the applicant had in
fact planned to cover the area with the same decomposed granite and
rockscape shown elsewhere on the landscaping plans, but he just
wanted to address the issue.
Mr. Roos said he was available to answer any questions the
Commission might have.
49
PnReports PC.20M4 28 091,PC MIN d 14 09 Dra t.doc
Planning Commission Minutes
April 14, 2009
Commissioner Quill said he could tell the connectivity issue had been
previously discussed in detail, but he did not get the impression that
there was adamant opposition from both parties to flip the car wash
design and come up with some type of connectivity between the two
projects as well as a shared, wider driveway as opposed to two
separate driveways. He noted he could tell both applicants were not
in favor of the idea, but it seemed like the issue was still open for
discussion. Mr. Roos replied he could not say whether or not the
Robert Mayer Corporation would be willing to discuss the issue as he
needed to confer with them first. Mr. Roos explained why a shared
driveway might be a major issue for the Mayer Villa Capri site and
what possible repercussions it might have to the deceleration lane. He
emphasized the fact that the car wash site plan posed constraints to
having the connectivity between the two projects.
There being no further questions, or public comment, Chairman
Alderson closed the public participation portion of the meeting and
opened the matter for Commission discussion.
Commissioner Weber said, based on the comments provided,
additional work could be done to make the project better. He said he
appreciated the ALRC comments about the use of more vibrant colors
and additional planting. He noted he had inspected the site based on
the concern expressed in an e-mail by a resident from a development
located on Washington Street (across from the car wash.) He found
that, based on her location, there would be no noise issues for her.
He found the overall design of the car wash to be very nice. He liked
the lay out and the trellises very much. He commented it would be
optimal to incorporate a shared driveway with the Mayer Villa Capri
project. If the design remained as currently submitted, he thought the
deceleration lane to be appropriate and he looked forward to seeing
more detailed landscaping plans.
Commissioner Barrows did not have any additional questions or
comments.
Commissioner Wilkinson said he concurred with Commissioner
Weber's assessment that the noise from the car wash on the south
end would not be an issue for the nearby residential developments.
He said he would prefer to see the design of the car wash flipped,
which he thought would also be better for the commercial building
located to the north of the project. He expressed a concern about the
use of polycarbonate roof material as he questioned its durability. He
50
P iRepans PC't2009%4 28-09',PC MIN 4 14 09 Draltdoo
Planning Commission Minutes
April 14, 2009
said he would like to know what the design of the shade structure
was as well as some type of lighting information. He said additional
information needed to be submitted by the applicant.
Commissioner Quill said he concurred with his fellow Commissioners.
He said he would like to see what the trash receptacles would look
like, how many would be there, and where they would be placed
within the site. He stated he would like to see the design of the
vacuum trellis system. He would like to see some shaded parking
provided by the vacuum system area, preferably having half of the
parking lot as a shaded structure. He pointed out there was no sign
information provided. He said he would like to see the architectural
design of the pay stations. He expressed concerns regarding
acoustics generated by the vacuum cleaners and would like to see
additional information provided. Commissioner Quill would like the
applicant to submit lighting details on the site as none were provided.
He stated he would not be in favor of the project without any
connectivity between the car wash and the Mayer Villa Capri site.
Chairman Alderson said he agreed with most of the previous
comments made by the Commissioners. He stated he would like to
see detailed information on the trellises and the acoustics addressed.
He noted he found the project to be well designed and beneficial to
the City. He said it would have been beneficial to have the architect
present to provide detailed answers to the Commission's questions.
Chairman Alderson noted he did not concur with his fellow
Commissioners that there was a need for a common driveway because
the service traffic for the Mayer Villa Capri site would interfere with
the commercial traffic for the car wash, possibly creating confusion
and a dangerous situation. He found the two separate driveways to
be more beneficial and a far better layout. He noted the applicant and
staff had spent a lot of time and effort trying to figure ,out a way to
create connectivity between the two projects only to find out that it
would not be very practical to do so. He said flipping the site design
would cause concern for the La Quinta Business Center owner
because it would place the building adjacent to that office center.
Chairman Alderson said he did not want to lose this project, but the
applicant needed to provide additional information before the
Commissioners could objectively cast their votes. He emphasized the
need for specific information such as the quantity of water that would
be used (not the dollar amount of the water bill.) He said he visited
Mr. Levitan's car wash operation in the City of Palm Desert and
51
P:\Reports PC2009\4 28 09\PC MIN 4 14 09 Draft.doc
Planning Commission Minutes
April 14, 2009
complimented him for running a well maintained car wash business.
Commissioner Weber suggested they continue the project to the next
Planning Commission meeting to give the applicant a chance to
provide the additional information requested.
Commissioner Quill noted that two weeks might not be sufficient time
for the applicant to address all of the issues raised. He asked staff if
the project needed to be continued to a specific date. Staff replied it
did not have to be date specific, but it was preferable.
Planning Director Johnson asked to clarify the items the Commission
would like to be addressed and suggested the following:
• Detailed information on the roof material.
■ Trash receptacles design, spacing, and location.
■ Pay station design.
■ Vacuum trellis detail.
■ Noise decibel allowance for the car dryers, not a full noise
study, but an independent analysis that would provide
identification of the impact at the property line.
■ Site lighting detail identifying the type of fixtures to be used and
the throw pattern.
■ , Identify the approximate quantity of water to be used.
Planning Director Johnson said the Commission made comments on
having a shared drive, reversing the plans, and possible connectivity
between the two projects. There were comments made for and
against these items and he asked the Commission to give staff clear
direction on how to address those issues.
Commissioner Quill stated he was adamant about having the
connectivity and the shared driveway issues addressed. He said he
would like to see the Best Management Practices (BMPs) included in
the conditions of approval which would give the City the right to
enforce proper maintenance of the site, if necessary, in the future.
Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston explained that enforcing
proper maintenance in the future through BMPs may be difficult
because the property rights lie with the conditional use permit (CUP)
and it vests once operation begins. He said if the Commission had
specific concerns along the lines of enforcement that those be clearly
stated allowing enforcement to be managed.
52
P-Rvports PC.2009:4 28-09',PC MIN 4 14 09 DrahAor,
Planning Commission Minutes
April 14, 2009
Commissioner Barrows said, in addition to the amount of water being
used, she would like more information on the recycling system
indicating how much water would be saved, and details on the water
efficiency of the entire operation.
Assistant City Attorney Houston said when an item was continued
procedurally, it needed to be continued to a date specific time. If the
Commission did not want to continue the item to a date specific time,
the item should be tabled, which would indicate that it was
indefinitely postponed. He noted staff would prefer the item be
continued to a date specific time and if additional time was needed the
item could be continued again.
Commissioner Quill asked staff what would be a reasonable amount of
time to allow the applicant to address all issues. Planning Director
Johnson replied four weeks would be reasonable.
Chairman Alderson re -opened the public hearing portion of the
meeting.
Chairman Alderson asked the applicant how much time would be
needed to provide the information requested. Mr. Levitan asked if the
conditional use permit could be approved by conditioning the applicant
to provide the requested information subsequently. He expressed his
concern that additional specialists would have to be hired to provide
such detailed information, without having an approved project.
Chairman Alderson replied the Commission would like to give Mr.
Levitan an opportunity to provide the necessary information, but could
not be responsible for the costs incurred during that process.
Mr. Bob Reordan, Real Estate Broker with R.G. Reordan, Inc., 60217
Wishbone Court, La Quinta, CA 92253, introduced himself and
thanked the Commission for their willingness to work with the
applicant. He explained that timing was of the essence with regards
to the close of escrow. He asked the Commission to continue the
item for only two weeks, until the next Planning Commission meeting
scheduled for April 28, 2009, which would give the applicant the
opportunity to meet the escrow deadline.
Mr. Reordan pointed out the applicant had originally submitted the
plans with the reverse design and had changed at the request of City
staff and comments from the Robert Mayer Corporation.
53
P. %Repor7s PC+2009.4 28 09TC MIN 4 14 09 Gmf',doc
Planning Commission Minutes
April 14, 2009
Chairman Alderson consulted with staff regarding having the meeting
continued to the next Planning Commission meeting. Planning
Director Johnson replied as long as the applicant could provide the
requested information staff would work with them to meet the
deadline. If more time was needed, that could be addressed at the
next meeting.
Planning Director Johnson wanted to clarify that the Robert Mayer
Corporation was not involved in the recommendation to flip the plans
for the car wash and that it was strictly staff's direction. He
explained staff felt this design was more advantageous once it was
determined there was not going to be an access on the south.
There was no further discussion and it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Weber/Barrows to continue Site Development Permit
2008-905 and Conditional Use Permit 2008-112 to the next Planning
Commission meeting on April 28, 2009. Unanimously approved.
Sign Application 2003-682 Amendment No. 1; a reque by
Washington 111, Ltd. for consideration of a proposed sign rogram
\report.
include revised monument signs and u er-canopy
their retail center located south of ighway 111
gton Street and Adams Street.
on opened the public hearing d asked for the staff
Principal Planner A new Mogensen p sented the staff report, a copy
of which is on file in t Planning D artment.
Chairman Alderson asked i e were any questions of staff.
There being no further uestl s of the staff, Chairman Alderson
asked if the applicant ould like t ddress the Commission.
/Ctional
Sane Project Manager, representing the developer,
on 1, 78365 Highway 11 La Quinta, CA 92253,
d mself and said the sign progr amendment was aimed
Ing up the shopping center and tr g to bring awareness
tional signage for the existing tenants ho had expressed
. He explained the developer had r pasted the two
l monument signs to be placed along W ington Street
oftentimes when giving directions to busin ses located
54
P:;Roporis PC 2009 4 28 09 PC MIN _4 14 09 Drafi.doc
ATTACHMENT 2
SEE NOTEBOOK
55
ATTACHMENT 3 received
April 16, 2009
Mr.Les Johnson
Planning Director, City of La Quinta
P.O.Box 1504, 78-495 Calle Tempico
La Quinta, CA 92247
RE: Building of Car Wash next to the property located at 43-576 Washington Street.
APR 2 0 2009
City at w QWntu
MMM68 Depwm d
Dear Mr. Johnson,
I am the new owner of the property located at 43-576 Washington Street.
I am interested in starting a medical clinic in the building which will serve the people of
La Quinta and surrounding area. My representative, Dr.Terry Forward of Coldwell
Banker Commercial properties attended the planning commission meeting on April 14a'
2009 on my behalf.
Commissioner Quill proposed that the car wash site plan be "flipped" to a mirror image,
which would be of concern to the LQBC and disturb the quite enjoyment and
environment of the tenants by the continuous noise and pollution created by the car wash.
I strongly oppose the proposal to have the car wash in that location which will be a great
disturbance to the quiet environment of a medical clinic. Certainly, the car wash tunnel
should not be allowed to abut our medical clinic.
If the car wash is approved, as recommended by the planning commission members, it
should be at the north side of the shopping center. Also, I want to request that a 6 foot
wall with sound proofing be built between my property and the property owned by
Robert Darby and Kenneth Friess (cash -wash site) to mitigate the noise.
If you have further questions, I will be more than happy to meet with you discuss the
matter.
Thank you for your consideration.
Dr. J.E. Chandrashekar, M.D.
39000 Probst Building
Suite 103
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
Phone: 760-347-0707
Email: Chandra_shekar@dc.rr.com
56
ATTACHMENT 4
_ J-
CASE MAP
LIPPICH
I
SCALE:
NTS
57
ATTACHMENT 5
, ti
Al
-W I I
Nz
IT
, 07
YER __JT
SIT E
O)l
D
ATTACHMENT 6
SEE LARGE PLANS
59
ATTACHMENT 7
SEE LARGE SHEET
MY
PH#C
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: APRIL 28, 2009
CASE NO: SIGN APPLICATION 2006-1034 AMENDMENT NO. 1
APPLICANT: KOMAR INVESTMENTS, LLC
PROPERTY OWNER: KOMAR INVESTMENTS, LLC
REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF A SIGN PROGRAM AMENDMENT
TO INSTALL TWO DIRECTIONAL SIGNS WITHIN KOMAR
DESERT CENTER ON THE MAIN DRIVE.
LOCATION: SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 111 AT DEPOT DRIVE
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: ON -PREMISE SIGNS ARE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT
UNDER CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15311(a)
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: CR (REGIONAL COMMERCIAL)
ZONING: CR (REGIONAL COMMERCIAL)
SURROUNDING
ZONINGILAND USE: NORTH: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (CR) / REGIONAL
COMMERCIAL (RC)
SOUTH: MAJOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES (MC) /
MAJOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES (MC)
EAST. CITY OF INDIO
WEST: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (CR) / REGIONAL
COMMERCIAL (RC) VACANT
BACKGROUND:
The Sign Program for the Komar Desert Center (Attachment 1) was approved at the
December 2007 meeting and addressed signage for all of the buildings within Komar
Desert Center including Mimi's Cafe and Souplantation and two monument signs along
Highway 111. Signage for Costco Wholesale was approved under a separate Sign
Application.
SA 2006-1034 Amd No 1 PC STAFF REPORT
1
SIGN PROGRAM PROPOSAL:
The applicant is proposing two flat aluminum non -illuminated directional signs
(Attachment 2) on the west side of the main drive for Komar Desert Center. The sign
face area of each sign is at 20 square feet. The sign will be mounted on the ground with
two aluminum square tubes. The signs will have space for up to twelve individual tenant
panels on each face (Attachment 3).
ANALYSIS:
Although referenced as directional signs, directional signs are pedestrian in nature, not
vehicular oriented. The signs, as proposed, are not considered pedestrian in nature due
to their size, location and orientation along the main vehicular access into the center as
well as the lack of walkways for pedestrians. Consequently, staff has analyzed the
proposed signs as additional freestanding center/business identification signs as
provided for in the Sign Code.
The table below provides a summary of the Sign Code requirements for freestanding
signs within a multi -building shopping center as compared with the applicant's proposal:
Sign Type
and
Placement
Number
of Signs
Area of
Signs
Height of
Signs
Type of
Illumination
Additional
Information
Freestanding
Maximum
0.25 s.f. of
8 feet
Direct or
Aggregate
center or
of one
lineal ft. of
indirect for
sign area
complex
sign per
street
all signs
may not be
identification
street
frontage
combined
sign for a
frontage
up to a
among street
multi -building
maximum
frontages.
Sign Code
shopping
of 50 s.f.
Letter height
center
per sign
shall be a
and 100
minimum 10"
s.f.
high
aggregate
for all
signs
Freestanding
Two
20 square
Height of
No
sign for
signs on
feet
sign
illumination
commercial
the west
proposed
center along
side of
at 69"
Applicant's
the main
the main
Proposal
drive to direct
drive into
vehicular
the
traffic within
shopping
the shopping
center
center
SA 2006-1034 Amd. No. 1 PC STAFF REPORT
2
Type of illumination
The applicant is proposing non -illuminated signs even though per the code directory
signs may be directly or indirectly illuminated. Non -illuminated signs have less impact
than illuminated signs whether it is direct or indirect illumination.
FINDINGS:
The following findings can be made in support of Sign Application 2006-1034
Amendment No. 1
A. Sign Application 2006-1034 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 2006-1034 Amendment No. 1, 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 2006-1034 Amendment No. 1, 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 2006-1034 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.
E. Sign Application 2006-1034 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 freestanding sign is necessary to overcome a
disadvantage as a result of the orientation of building within Komar Desert
Center.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
This project was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on April 16, 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 2006-1034
Amendment No. 1, based on the findings and analysis included in the April 28, 2009
Planning Commission Staff Report for Sign Application 2006-1034 Amendment No. 1,
and subject to the following conditions:
SA 2006-1034 Amd. No. 1 PC STAFF REPORT
4
1. Prior to issuance of the first sign permit, a final version of the sign program
(text and graphics) shall be submitted to the Planning Department
incorporating any amendments or Conditions of Approval by the Planning
Commission.
2. Only one additional freestanding sign is approved in the design, size and
height as identified in Attachment #2 and shall be located at the location of
proposed Sign #2 as shown on Attachment #4.
3. Per Section 9.160.050, exact freestanding 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.
Prepared by:
nner
1. Vicinity Map
2. Sign Location Exhibit
3. Sign Exhibit
4. Recommended approved location
SA 2006-1034 Amd. No. 1 PC STAFF REPORT
5
ATTACHMENT 2
I ; I
� xoo
J
® I
O �
.
•I
�I
• v I
5 ���F 1'Ea F ��� 6 � - ,•� m
G
a � � p•
K
—
m�
r
m
m o r
0 r
p
0
Tm Tm
log °n n
a m C]
Ji. J
III
i
w
,an v
mi
DIRECTORY SIGN LOCATION PLAN
Fw
\
�
z
«
ATTACHMENT 4
6
ic- I 6I=I1
e=
g
F
I
e J
lu' lU"ul IUI IUI o
-
I�_ �U
X
J
m
6
z
m
F
I
O
mo
O
vi i�
r
o
i
n
m
1
z
-X
r�
m
J
^
B
b
�
b
J
0
o
°
oc
oo
Izi
�°�
p
a
m r
o o
rnti
=
N4m
_
m n
�f l
�
p�N
i oom000Wo
pp pp
n II•s•1 i
I� gyp•
IB
b
B
IIzII c[s.
DIRECTORY SIGN LOCATION PLAN
LAW OFFICES OF
EALY, HEMPHILL & BLASDEL, LLP
A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP
W. Curt Ealy 71780 San JacInto Drive, Suite I-3
EmAy Perri Hemphill Rancho Mirage, California 92270-5518
Diane C. Blasdel Telephone (760) 340-0666
Facsimile (760) 340-4666
April 28, 2009
Via Electronic Mail to: LiohnsonCa la-auinta,org received
Via First Class Mail APR 2 8 2009
COY of La QuIMa
Les Johnson RonningDepadmeM
Planning Director
city of La Qulnta
78-495 Caile Tampico
La Quinta, California 92253
Re: Desert Express Car Wash
Dear Mr. Johnson:
As you know, this office represents The Mayer Company, owner and developer
of the Villa Capri project. I have recently been advised by my client that the City is again
discussing the possibility of requiring a shared driveway between the Villa Capri project and
the Desert Express Car Wash being proposed for property immediately north of Villa Capri
and fronting on Washington Street. As you know, the Issue of this shared access was raised
while the Villa Capri project was going through the process of approval with the City. When
the shared driveway issue was first raised, my client met with the developer of the car wash
in order to discuss the possible need for this shared driveway and the challenges that it
presented. At that time, we received a site plan showing a proposed location for the shared
driveway, which I understand is the site plan that you are currently considering.
When my client met with the car wash developer, both parties agreed that the
shared driveway did not make a positive contribution to the operations of either project. At
that time, the car wash developer indicated that they did not request the shared driveway,
but were acceding to it in order to expedite approval of the project.
The shared driveway presented several problems for my client, and therefore
Larry Brose and I met with La Quinta Staff, including yourself, on February 6., 2009 in order
to discuss this Issue. At that time we explained that the shared driveway was, in our view,
extremely problematic. The issues raised by the shared driveway Include (1) potential
blocking of traffic lanes due to stacking within the car wash itself, (2) problems with
interaction with traffic on the drive adjacent to the car wash as this driveway on our
property is intended primarily for delivery trucks and therefore delivery trucks would be
forced Into interactions with vehicles coming in and out of the car wash, (3) the Impact upon
tenant recruitment that this change in circulation causes is extremely problematic in the
current market, and (4) the Introduction of vehicles from the car wash would require that
Mayer modify or renegotiate current cost share and maintenance agreements with the
tenants. As you know, we have been working with tenants for the Villa Capri project, and
LAW OFFLCES OF
EALY, HEMPHILL & BLASDEL, LLP
April 28, 2009
Page 2
the requirements of those tenants Included approval of the Circulation Plan. The
Introduction of the shared driveway and the conflicts that it represents would require re -
approval by the proposed tenants. Given the current market, it is highly likely that such re -
approval would not be forthcoming and therefore the Villa Capri project would be
handicapped with respect to its relationship to its tenants. As we explained at the time, the
introduction of this complication when we were several years into this project with the City
presented extreme difficulties and risk of loss of tenants.
Given these problems, counterbalanced by the lack of positive contribution
that such a shared driveway would make, Staff agreed with Mayer that the shared driveway
would not be necessary and therefore the Villa Capri project was not conditioned to provide
such a shared driveway. For the same reasons that we have cited above, and as we
discussed in our February 6`" meeting, The Mayer Company remains opposed to the shared
driveway between the Villa Capri and the Desert Express Car Wash, and we therefore
request that such a condition on the car wash not be Imposed.
Hemphill
hill & Blasdel, LLP
EPH/les
cc; R.J. Mayer
ce'af 4 4 Qaba
MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Les Johnson, Planning Director q
DATE. April 28, 2009
SUBJECT: Sign Application 2006-1034 Amendment No. 1
The following Condition was inadvertently omitted from the recommended Conditions of
Approval. Please include the following recommendation as part of the Conditions of
Approval for the subject Staff Report:
4. The panels on the freestanding monument sign on Depot Drive shall be
limited only to the tenants in Buildings A, B, C, and D.
cgu�t 4 4 QuArdi
MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Les Johnson, Planning Directo
DATE: April 28, 2009
SUBJECT: Sign Application 2006-1078 Amendment No. 1
The applicant, Mr. William Schmitt, has withdrawn the subject Sign Application. Mr.
Schmitt indicated that an application may be resubmitted in the future, pending an
agreement of the property owners within the Dunes Business Park.
Attachment: E-Mail
Yvonne Franco
From: Schmitt, William [WSch mitt@ mpcca. com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 8:51 AM
To:. Yvonne Franco
Cc: Moutsanas, John; Pollock, John; Porteous, Blair; Malouf, Philip; Jimmy Engle
Subject: Sign Application 2006-1078 Amendment No. 1
Dear Yvonne,
spoke with Mr. Les Johnson, La Quinta Planning Director, earlier this morning regarding our sign application for the
Dunes retail center on Highway 111 at Dune Palms Road. He explained the strong opposition to the sign he received from
an adjacent property owner. After reviewing the various options, Highland Development and the Meridian Development
Company would like to withdraw our application for a new monument sign.
Please keep the application documents and submittals. We will be working with the adjacent property owner to address
his concerns and hopefully will be resubmitting the application in the near future.
Mr. Johnson stated that there might be a refund of fees. Please send all paperwork and funds to my address listed below.
Thank you for your assistance on this project. We will not be re -submitting this application until we have resolved all the
neighbor's concerns.
Bill Schmitt Vice President
MERIDIAN PROPERTY COMPANY
5000 Executive Parkway, Suite 160
San Ramon, CA 94583
Tel. 925.302.1422 • Fax. 925.302.1410
Cell 925-270-8556
wschmitt@mpcca.com
wwwmpcca.corn
4/28/2009