2009 06 09 PCCity of La Quinta
Planning Commission Agendas are now
available on the City's Web Page
@ www.la-guinia.org
Of
PLANNING COMMISSION
A Regular Meeting to be Held at the
La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California
JUNE 9, 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 2009-016
Beginning Minute Motion 2009-007
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.
ill. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 28, 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 .................. SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-868, EXTENSION
NO. 1
Applicant........... REA La Quinta, LLC
Location............ North Side of Highway 1 1 1, 1000' ± West of Jefferson
Street in Jefferson Plaza
Request ............. Review of a Request for a One -Year Extension of an
Approval of Architectural and Landscaping Plans for a
5,723 Square Foot Freestanding Building.
Action ............... Resolution 2009-
B. Item ..................
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2009-098
Applicant...........
City of La Quinta
Location............
Regional Commercial Zoning District Within the City
(Generally Located Along Highway 1 1 1).
Request .............
Consideration of an Ordinance to 1) Permit Used Car
Sales Not Associated with a New Car Sales Facility
within the Regional Commercial Zoning District with
Approval of a Conditional Use Permit, 2) to Establish
Provisions for the Development of Used Car Sales
Facilities, and 3) Delete Erroneous Text Identified with
the Automotive Uses Portion of the Non -Residential Table
of Permitted Uses.
Action ...............
Resolution 2009-
VI. BUSINESS ITEM:
A. Discussion regarding Commission Summer Meeting Schedule.
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL:
Vill. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. Report on City Council meetings of May 5, May 19, and June 2,
2009.
B. Chairman Alderson noted he is scheduled to attend the June 16,
2009, City Council meeting.
C. New Schedule of Commissioner Attendance at Council Meetings
IX. DIRECTOR ITEMS:
A. Update of County Map for Tentative Parcel Map 34784
B. Presentation on the Whitewater River Region Municipal Separate
Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit Overview
X. ADJOURNMENT:
This meeting of the Planning Commission will be adjourned to a Regular Meeting to be
held on June 23, 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, June
9, 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, June 5, 2009.
DATED: June 5, 2009
Awlu " aj
CAROLYN WALKER, Executive Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
Public Notices
The La Quinta City Council Chamber is handicapped accessible. If special equipment is
needed for the hearing impaired, please call the City Clerk's office at 777-7123, twenty-
four (24) hours in advance of the meeting and accommodations will be made.
If special electronic equipment is needed to make presentations to the Planning
Commission, arrangements should be made in advance by contacting the City Clerk's
office at 777-7123. A one (1) week notice is required.
If background material is to be presented to the Planning Commission during a Planning
Commission meeting, please be advised that eight (8) copies of all documents, exhibits,
etc., must be supplied to the Executive Secretary for distribution. It is requested that this
take place prior to the beginning of the 7:00 p.m. meeting.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
April 28, 2009
CALL TO ORDER
7:05 P.M.
A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:05
p.m. by Chairman Ed Alderson who asked Commissioner Quill to lead
the flag salute.
B. Present: Commissioners Katie Barrows, Paul Quill, Mark Weber, Robert
Wilkinson, and Chairman Ed Alderson.
C. Staff present: Planning Director Les Johnson, Planning Manager David
Sawyer, Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston, Principal Engineer
Ed Wimmer Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Assistant Planner Yvonne
Franco, and Executive Secretary Carolyn Walker.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None
III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA:
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR:
Chairman Alderson asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of April
14, 2009. There were no comments from the other Commissioners, but
Chairman Alderson requested the following change be made:
On Page 21, Item Vill A. line 8 be amended to read:
Councilman Sniff was in opposition of accepting the grant because he
thought it was time for someone to make a stand and turn down
government handouts.
There being no additional changes, or corrections, it was moved and
seconded by Commissioners Barrows/Wilkinson to approve the minutes as
submitted. Unanimously approved.
P:\Reports- PC\2009\6-9-09\PC MIN_4-28-09_Draft_2.doc
Planning Commission Minutes
April 28, 2009
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.
3
Chairman Alderson opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report.
Planning Director Les Johnson noted, just prior to the meeting, staff
received a memo requesting withdrawal of the application. A copy of
the memo is on file in the Planning Department.
ment Permit 2008-905 and Conditional I
Permit 2008-112; a request by Leslie Lippich Architect and
Associates, Inc. for Yury Levitan for consideration of a request of
architectural and landscaping plans for a 4,924 square foot express
(self-service) car wash 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.
PrincipalPlanner Stan Sawa 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
Commissioner Weber asked if the applicant would be amenable to a
sound barrier if the flipped version was done. Staff said the applicant
has indicated that either plan was acceptable.
Commissioner Quill asked if there were subsequent development
reviews required for the Mayer project. Planning Director Johnson
said there were subsequent review items needed for that project.
Commissioner Quill asked if they could be conditioned accordingly.
Assistant City Attorney Houston said they could be if there was a
nexus.
PAReports - PC\2009\6-9-09\PC MIN_4-28-09_Draft_2.doc 2
Planning Commission Minutes
April 28, 2009
Commissioner Wilkinson commented on the lighting and said there
were no plans showing the location of the light poles. Staff said they
were shown, on the flipped site plan, and pointed out the locations.
Commissioner Wilkinson said there was no photometric study and
asked if the lighting plan presented was adequate. Staff said yes, it
appeared to be acceptable. The applicant had not submitted a
photometric study, but would and the staff could, require adjustments
to assure zoning compliance.
Commissioner Wilkinson asked how many vehicles could be stacked in
the distance from the pay stations to the south entrance (on the
flipped plan). He asked if that area could stack approximately five
cars. Staff said possibly a few more.
Commissioner Wilkinson referenced the decibel study and asked if that
met City standards. Staff said yes.
Commissioner Wilkinson asked about the additional planting of trees
and which plan that pertained to. Staff said it would apply to the
flipped plan because it showed fewer trees.
Chairman Alderson commented on the sound wall and the letter, from
the northern property owner, included in the packet. He asked for
clarification of which version this referred to. Staff said it was for the
flipped version.
Staff said the letter expressed concern about the noise from the car
wash tunnel rather than the operation of the vacuum cleaners.
Chairman Alderson asked if that wall would only be six feet high.
Staff said yes.
Planning Director Johnson said the letter stated they were opposed to
the site being flipped and preferred the car wash tunnel be on the
south side. They also made'the recommendation for the sound wall.
Their letter was written to request the sound wall no matter how the
site was laid out. Staff added a condition, if the site was flipped, it
would require a wall to minimize the noise impact to the north. The
intent of the letter was for a sound barrier to be established on the
north property line with the building on the south side.
Chairman Alderson said he had concerns about connectivity. He said
the flipped version provided access on the south property line, but
P:\Reports - PC\2009\6-9-09\PC MIN_4-28-09_Draft_2.doc 3
Planning Commission Minutes
April 28, 2009
neither the applicant nor the Mayer people were in favor of that. He
then asked if there were reviews of the Mayer project, would the
Commission have the right to add additional conditions; even though
neither the applicant nor the neighbor wanted it.
Assistant City Attorney Houston responded it is certainly possible to
impose conditions that neither an applicant nor someone else,
interested in a project, may want. He then deferred to staff regarding
what subsequent approvals were left.
Planning Director Johnson said there were some conditions that would
aspects of the project to be brought back as business items. They
were follow-up matters with the MayerVilla Capri project; which
included the requirement for landscape plans and some miscellaneous
items regarding both the commercial, and the medical office building
project. There was the potential that there could be a requirement for
a conditional use permit and that would also come before the Planning
Commission.
Assistant City Attorney Houston said if the Planning Commission is
faced with another discretionary approval for the adjacent property
owner and there is a nexus between what that property owner is
seeking to obtain from the City, and the conditions being imposed,
then generally speaking an access condition could be imposed.
He further commented that a number of things left for the Mayer
project may not be of a character that would allow the Planning
Commission to condition the approvals to provide another access
route. Things like business items and landscape plans typically
wouldn't provide a nexus for that. He added, without knowing
precisely what would be coming forward, there could be some
concern for imposing that condition on the Mayer project. Although
the Commission certainly could impose that condition on this project,
there is no guarantee that it could be imposed on the Mayer project.
Chairman Alderson said the obvious concern would be connectivity
between the two projects. He asked about a sidewalk on Washington
Street.
Planning Director Johnson said there would be a standard eight -foot
sidewalk as part of the Washington Street improvements. It would
run across both projects and connect with the existing sidewalk for
the medical office building to the north.
P:\Reports - PC\2009\6-9-09\PC MIN_4-28-09-Draft_2.doc 4
Planning Commission Minutes
April 28, 2009
Chairman Alderson commented on the notation of "temporary
parking". He discussed a scenario involving temporary parking at the
car wash and people shopping at the Mayer site.
There being no further questions of the staff, Chairman Alderson
asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission.
Mr. Leslie Lippich, Leslie Lippich Architect and Associates, Inc., 4766
Park Granada, Calabasas, CA 91302, described the layout and said
they originally submitted a plan with the building on the north side of
the property. After several meetings with staff, it was flipped to the
south. He outlined the benefits to both neighbors. He then discussed
the noise levels and the sound barriers. He discussed the layout
including the trash location, handicap access, and landscaping; as well
as the entry and exit gates height. He then offered to, answer any
additional questions.
Commissioner Wilkinson asked if the applicant was going to submit an
entire structure rendering with the correct colors. Mr. Lippich said
they had color samples. The color samples were more vivid than the
rendering.
Commissioner Wilkinson asked if the applicant had originally made
application showing the building on the north side and that did not
work out because of the access on the south.
Mr. Lippich said no. It was reviewed by the Public Works Department
and then after three meetings the site plan was modified, moving the
building to the south due to the internal traffic circulation pattern
preferred by Public Works. He then commented on the traffic pattern
for a car wash and the use of left turns into the car wash tunnel.
Commissioner Barrows asked about the color on the vacuum photo
examples which were shown as bright red. Mr. Lippich said the red
would not be used. The color would be one of those shown on the
samples submitted.
Commissioner Barrows then asked if there was a sample showing the
correct color. Mr. Lippich said one of the earth tones would be used.
Staff then brought the samples to Commissioner Barrows and pointed
out the colors being considered.
P:\Reports - PC\2009\6-9-09\PC MIN_4-28-09_Draft_2.doc 5
Planning Commission Minutes
April 28, 2009
Commissioner Barrows said there was previous discussion about the
lexan material being used for the roof of the car wash tunnel. It
appeared the material provided was weather and temperature
resistant, and would hold up in the desert environment. She said that
was a concern mentioned at the last meeting.
Mr. Lippich said it was getting to be one of the most popular materials
for roofing systems over stadiums, shopping centers, and car washes.
The bronze was chosen because it would cut .down on the heat gain
and the sun in the car wash tunnel. He then explained about the
temperature and ventilation in the tunnel.
Commissioner Weber thanked the applicant for such a detailed
booklet, as it was very helpful. He then asked if this was twin -wall
rectangular structure lexan that was being proposed. Mr. Lippich said
it would be double -wall but thicker than the first sample staff had
passed around. He then pointed out which sample actually showed
the thickness of the roof material.
Commissioner Weber asked if the roof material properties were the
same for the two sizes. Mr. Lippich said the heat resistance and the
durability were the same.
Commissioner Weber asked if they had a reference where this material
was currently being used in a desert area. Mr. Lippich said Las Vegas
and Fresno. Commissioner Weber asked how long the Las Vegas site
had been using this material. Mr. Lippich responded a couple of years.
Commissioner Weber asked if, in their business plan, they anticipated
replacing this material after the ten-year warranty. Mr. Lippich said it
would probably last,a lot longer than ten years.
Commissioner Weber commented on the concentration of heat and the
direct sun• not necessarily the heat generated from the cars but the
sun and the possibility of discoloration after several years of exposure.
Mr. Lippich commented on his familiarity with sun damage to the roof
material.
Commissioner Weber asked about the reduced landscaping and said he
was assuming that the reduced landscaping on the flipped versions
was due to the increased asphalt. Mr. Lippich said the plans they
were looking at only included indications since they were under tight
P:\Reports - PC\2009\6-9-09\PC MIN_4-28-09_Draft_2.doc 6
Planning Commission Minutes
April 28, 2009
time constraints on preparation of the architectural site plans. He
agreed that the number of trees and landscaping should be identical on
either of the site plans. He said it would not be a concern if that was
included as a condition of approval.
Commissioner Weber asked Mr. Lippich to discuss the decibel levels.
Mr. Lippich then provided more detail on the decibel levels.
Commissioner Weber commented on the graphics and the details
showing the distances, not only for the dryers but for the vacuums
and the washing system. Mr. Lippich explained the vacuum system
and the noise levels. He also explained the dryer noise levels.
Commissioner Weber asked where the sound barrier walls would be
located. Mr. Lippich explained where the sound walls would have to
be placed for each site plan. Commissioner Weber asked Mr. Lippich if
they would object to having a wall on both the east side and the
terminus of the tunnel (the west side). Mr. Lippich said they would
not.
Commissioner Weber asked if the six foot wall provided a sufficient
sound barrier. Mr. Lippich said it would provide much noise
attenuation, not necessarily full attenuation. It would probably block
out the sound of the cars driving in more than anything. There would
be no noise coming out of the tunnel at the east end.
Commissioner Quill said one of the previous requests was for a
detailed operations manual that addressed what the employees would
be responsible for on a regular basis. He said it was indicated by
Commission to have those things incorporated into the conditions of
approval for the project. He did appreciate that the applicant provided
a lot of additional information and addressed a lot of questions but did
not provide the manual. Mr. Lippich said Mr. Levitan owned another
car wash which was very neat.
Commissioner Quill pointed out that this was a self-service car wash.
He was concerned that this car wash could come under new
ownership, in the future. If the conditions were incorporated into this
document, they would then be enforceable by the City for subsequent
owners. Mr. Lippich deferred to Mr. Levitan. Mr. Levitan said the
operations manual was included in the Commissioners' package.
P:\Reports - PC\2009\6-9-09\PC MIN_4-28-09_Draft_2.doc 7
Planning Commission Minutes
April 28, 2009
Comments were made about what was included in the manual the
applicant submitted.
Commissioner Quill asked if the cars were physically counted by some
kind of mechanism. Mr. Lippich said yes.
Commissioner Quill asked if the City would be collecting sales tax for
this business. Staff said it would. Mr. Levitan confirmed it would be
calculated on the gross sales proceeds.
Chairman Alderson said he was concerned about the sound walls. He
asked staff to point out where the sound walls would be located,
which they did. He commented on the architectural screening effect
on one of the sound walls and what areas the sound walls would be
protecting. Staff responded in reference to the layouts.
Chairman Alderson said, on the north property line, there was
conventional landscaping. He asked if that could be expanded to help
protect the medical building from sound pollution. Staff said yes.
Chairman Alderson asked about the definition of pervious concrete
used in portions of the parking lot. Mr. Lippich said it was almost like
a grass-crete situation and gave a definition of the materials and their
use.
Chairman Alderson said they didn't have any information on what the
canopies were going to look like. Mr. Lippich said there were pictures
included in the packet. Chairman Alderson asked if it would have the
same roofing material as used on the car wash tunnel. Mr. Lippich
said no, that it was a part of the vacuuming system and the roof
would be metal.
Chairman Alderson commented on the roofing system in the picture
and asked if that came with the vacuum. Mr. Lippich said it did and
also came in different colors; not necessarily the red shown in the
photo. Chairman Alderson thanked the applicant for the quick
response in getting the packets to the Commission.
Chairman Alderson asked if the applicant was intending to build
immediately. Mr. Levitan responded they do intend to build
immediately.
PAReports - PC\2009\6-9-09\PC MIN_4-28-09_Draft_2.doc 8
Planning Commission Minutes
April 28, 2009
Chairman Alderson asked if there was any public comment.
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 his main concern was that they have a good
final product, safe, and durable; that it was being built for years to
come. He was also concerned about the ingress/egress deceleration
and wished there was some way the site could be entered from the
Mayer property since that would be much safer.
Commissioner Weber commented on the revised flipped plan; saying
he did appreciate the applicant and staff having revisited this several
times. He agreed that the building on the north side from a sound
situation, might be the best but was worried about the egress and the
entrance from Washington Street.
Commissioner Barrows asked for clarification on one of the
landscaping items where it referenced the citrus trees and the
California fan palms had been removed from the palette. There was a
recommendation from the ALRC that the Mediterranean fan palms be
replaced with Mexican fan palms. She was curious as to why the
Mexican fan palms were being used instead of the California fan
palms. Staff was unsure why they made that particular
recommendation. Commissioner Barrows was curious as to whether
there was a landscaping reason and said she always preferred native
plants be used whenever possible; and the California fan palm was a
native variety. Staff commented the planter was narrow and that may
have been the reason for the choice of palms.
Commissioner Barrows said, for clarification, she wanted to know if
both plans had the exit and entry in the same place. She added she
would prefer it be connected to the Mayer property. She didn't like
the two projects being separated and the fact that their customers
would, have to go out of one parking lot and into another to take
advantage of businesses at both sites.
Commissioner Quill said he could not think of another car wash that
was not accessible by a parking lot, side street, into an office area, or
shopping area, in the entire Coachella Valley. This would be the only
one in Coachella Valley with in -and -out access from a six -lane street.
It would be sandwiched between two large parking lots for medical
PAReports - PC\2009\6-9-09\PC MIN_4-28-09_Draft_2.doc 9
Planning Commission Minutes
April 28, 2009
and commercial uses. He said there should have been more advance
planning when considering those other two projects. He gave his
opinion on how this should have been planned out.
Commissioner Quill said he liked this revised flipped site plan better
because it facilitated the potential for an access into the Mayer
facility. He believed the access should have been a joint access and
commented on the initial planning.
Commissioner Wilkinson asked staff to point out where the sound wall
was on the flipped site. Staff pointed out where the sound wall would
be located.
Commissioner Wilkinson asked if there was any other sound buffering
on the flipped site. Staff pointed out an additional small wall for a
sign which was probably about four feet tall on the west end of the
tunnel. Commissioner Wilkinson commented that probably would not
buffer any sound.
Mr. Lippich said the wall was in line with the required building
setback, so it could be eight feet with a trellis placed over it to
become part of the building.
Chairman. Alderson cautioned the members of the audience that the
public portion of the meeting was closed.
Commissioner Wilkinson said he preferred the flipped site since the
plan allowed future cross access to the south which would reduce the
traffic entering Washington Street.
Commissioner Wilkinson said he did check on the polycarbonate
material and said it was used for solar material. He was satisfied
about the material.
Commissioner Barrows mentioned her concern about the future use of
solar panels on top of the roof. She said she was very interested in
hearing Commissioner Wilkinson's comment.
Chairman Alderson had a few more questions about the some of the
functions involved in this site and re -opened the public hearing portion
of the meeting.
P:\Reports - PC\2009\6-9-09\PC MIN_4-28-09_Draft_2.doc to
Planning Commission Minutes
April 28, 2009
Chairman Alderson then asked the applicant if there would be 100%
reclamation of the water. Mr. Lippich said the car wash would reclaim
72-75% of the water. He then explained the filtration process it
would go through to recycle it.
Chairman Alderson said some of the car washes he has gone through
offered a spotless rinse, for an extra charge. Mr. Lippich said this car
wash would have a spotless rinse. The last stage of the car wash did
not have hard water; it was spotless water and dried easier.
Chairman Alderson re -closed the public hearing.
Chairman Alderson said the points that Commissioner Quill made were
very good, but there were two decisions to be made: 1). To approve
or not, and 2). If approving, to decide which side of the lot to put the
building on. The owners of the medical building exhibited a need to
have the car wash further away as they had some aesthetic concerns.
He would support the project on the premise that additional
landscaping be added on the north property line, the sound walls be
on the end and six feet high, and the project be flipped the other way.
Having the driveway further away from the closest driveway would be
an added safety feature as opposed to the shared driveway with
Mayer. He said, he would be willing to support the project in that
regard.
Commissioner Barrows wanted to clarify that the Chairman was
supporting the flipped site plan. Chairman Alderson responded
negatively, saying he supported the original proposed site.
Commissioner Quill commented on the benefits of the flipped site. He
added the operation of the facility actually functioned better with the
building flipped to the north side. He was also concerned about the
three car stacking potential in the entrance. The other opportunity
was potentially worse because it created a lot more stacking into the
pay stations. Currently, the exit was simple with the flipped plan. He
commented on the option to connect this site to the adjacent
property, at least on one side.
Commissioner Barrows asked staff to put up the site plan showing the
adjacent Mayer property which staff did.
PAReports - PC\2009\6-9-09\PC MIN_4-28-09_Dratt_2.doc 1 i
Planning Commission Minutes
April 28, 2009
Chairman Alderson asked if the driveway penciled in, on the northerly
building option, was an extension of the Mayer driveway. Staff said
yes. Chairman Alderson then said Commissioner Quill's comments
made a lot of sense.
Commissioner Barrows asked Commissioner Quill, if there were a
future opportunity would he prefer to have an access point into the
Mayer project. Commissioner Quill said yes. He said the Commission
had a letter from the Mayer attorney voicing their concerns. He added
if the building was on the south side, the opportunity was lost forever.
Commissioner Barrows said she would recommend the flipped site
plan. She added she would recommend the use of the native
California fan palm, and that the sound wall be six feet.
Commissioner Quill added he wanted assurance that the applicant
would use earth tone colors on the trellis fabric for the vacuum
cleaners, on the trellis stands, the trash cans and all items reflected in
the drawings. Commissioner Quill suggested the color "Desert Sand".
Commissioner Barrows said any of the top samples shown would be
appropriate.
Commissioner Quill said regarding the maintenance and operation, he
would like to see them expand the operations manual. He wanted to
have a clearer picture of exactly how it would be managed on a day-
to-day basis to assure its cleanliness.
Commissioner Barrows said she would incorporate Commissioner
Quill's recommendations in her motion.
Chairman Alderson said proposed Condition #60 sends the landscape
plan back to staff without it coming back to the Commission. He
proposed that Condition #60 be amended to allow the Commission to
review the final landscape plan and the operational manual could be
brought back at the same time.
Planning Director Johnson clarified the condition of maintenance and
operations was an item that should be attached to the conditional use
permit. He said staff had tailored some conditions to reference hours
of operation, number of employees and maintenance and operation.
He added staff would welcome any additional items, from the
Commission, and they would work with the applicant to make sure the
maintenance and operations manual included the additional
P:\Reports - PC\2009\6-9-09\PC MIN_4-28-09_Draft_2.doc 12
Planning Commission Minutes
April 28, 2009
information in it. He also commented that everything else the
Commission discussed such as landscaping, flipping the site, earth
tone colors, etc., were all matters that would be applicable under the
site development permit.
Commissioner Quill asked Assistant City Attorney Houston if manuals
could be incorporated as part of the conditions of approval so they
would run with the conditional use permit.
Assistant City Attorney Houston said yes that was what he would
recommend to staff. He said since it's effectively going to be the
applicant's condition, and if it meets staff's approval, that could be
added as a condition of approval.
Chairman Alderson asked when the manual would be required. Staff
responded prior to the Certificate of Occupancy.
Chairman Alderson asked if it could be made to require administrative
review. Then if there was an impasse between the City and the
applicant, the applicant could appeal staff's decision back to the
Commission for consideration; or it .could be directed back to the
Planning Commission as a business item.
Commissioner Quill confirmed that the manual will run with the
conditional use permit, irrespective of who owns the property or who
sells the property; as long as the conditional use permit is intact it
would be in effect.
Assistant City Attorney Houston said it was correct, that as long as
there was a car wash operating on this site, that would be a condition.
That would also provide the benefit, should a future owner have
problems with those parameters, that the City could review the
conditional use permit. Once the conditional use permit is granted it is
somewhat difficult to remove that property right, but if they are not
complying with a condition then it would be easier to enforce.
Commissioner Quill said that's why he would like to see it as a part of
the approval because then it would be enforceable by Code
Enforcement.
Assistant City Attorney Houston responded yes, in addition to the
right to review the actual conditions on the permit.
P:\Reports - PC\2009\6-9-09\PC MIN_4-28-09_Draft_2. doe i3
Planning Commission Minutes
April 28, 2009
Commissioner Barrows said she was would incorporate the
recommendation into her motion.
Commissioner Weber asked about the potential easement having
egress to the Mayer property and if it would be in reference to the site
development permit. Planning Director Johnson said it was a site
development permit matter.
Commissioner Weber said the applicant had indicated the prior
landscaping plan was acceptable to him; it had more landscaping and
trees. Planning Director Johnson said that was a site development
permit condition.
Chairman Alderson asked Commissioner Barrows if she was discussing
the conditional use permit. Commissioner Barrows replied she was
following the staff report format so she could incorporate the
condition regarding the operations manual in the conditional use
permit.
Commissioner Wilkinson said it was mentioned to approve the
operations manual before the Certificate of Occupancy. He asked if it
would create problems and how long it would be before the applicant
actually got a building permit; and should this be conditioned to be
approved before a building permit was issued.
Planning Director Johnson said the Commission could decide on the
language of the condition. He said it really didn't become a significant
issue until just prior to the start up of the operation. If the
Commission wished to see it at the time of the building permit
issuance that would be fine. It was not relevant from any type of
enforcement standpoint until the Certificate of Occupancy had been
granted and they were operating. Staff did identify under the
conditional use permit Condition #7, which he suggested be the
condition the Commission amend to reflect the issue of the manual.
There were seven conditions attached to the conditional use permit
resolution, on page 16 of the packet, and that was where he
suggested it be revised to reflect what had been discussed tonight.
There being no further discussion it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Barrows / Wilkinson to approve Resolution 2009-014
recommending approval of Conditional Use Permit 2008-112 with the
following amendment:
P:\Reports - PC\2009\8-9-09\PC MIN_4-28-09_Draft_2.doc 14
Planning Commission Minutes
April 28, 2009
Condition No. 7 be amended to read:
7. There shall be continuous on -site maintenance of the car
wash facility per the Daily Maintenance Schedule
submitted and on file in the Planning Department. The
Daily Maintenance Schedule shall be revised to include all
operations and maintenance of the facility including
landscape maintenance, and be approved by the Planning
Director prior to final construction inspection by the
Planning Department.
AYES: Commissioners Barrows, Weber, Wilkinson, and Chairman
Alderson. NOES: Commissioner Quill. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT:
None.
Commissioner Barrows said she would like to move for approval of
Site Development Permit 2008-905.subject to conditions of approval
with the addition of a condition to require additional landscaping and
the use of the California fan palm as the preferred palm tree, the site
be the flipped site plan per the staff's exhibit, a sound wall be
provided to ameliorate the potential impacts to the adjacent properties,
earth tones be used on the trellis and on all of the affiliated
accoutrements including the trash cans, etc.
Commissioner Quill commented on the potential access to the south
and discussion of allowing that access, who has to build it, and
cooperation issues.
Planning Director Johnson said the key issue is identifying if the
access is available and that the applicant is responsible and obligated
to amend the site plan accordingly to allow the access to occur in the
future.
Commissioner Quill asked if the site plan needed to be amended since
he was concerned with the actual functioning of the access and
where it would be placed and landscaped. He asked about future
ingress and egress and the cooperation of the two property owners.
He wanted clarification on how the City would ensure that this
property owner would cooperate with the adjacent property owner to
make that happen.
P:\Reports - PC\2009\6-9-09\PC MIN _4-28-09_Draft-2.doc 115
Planning Commission Minutes
April 28, 2009
Planning Director Johnson said the condition could identify that this
property owner was responsible, should that reciprocal access be
provided for, to make their share of the improvements within their
property.
Commissioner Quill said he would like to ensure the condition was
modified or added to allow for that to happen.
Chairman Alderson asked if the applicant had a problem with that.
Assistant City Attorney Houston clarified there was a non-verbal
response and said he'd like to note for the record that the applicant
agreed with the condition.
Commissioner Weber wanted to clarify that what the Commission was
proposing to approve was the plan without the egress now.
Chairman Alderson said that was correct. It would be provided in the
future that egress became available.
Commissioner Quill said unless the owners of the Mayer property gave
them permission, they couldn't build the egress when they built this
site; they could only build up to their property line.
Commissioner Weber said he was as disturbed as Commissioner Quill
about the access. He said it was disturbing that Mayer was not
willing to work to make this happen. He said he hoped there was a
way to convince Mayer that it is to their benefit to be good neighbors.
Commissioner Wilkinson asked if the applicant could build his half of
the driveway and then barricade it with something substantial, so that
they make a connection that is apparent.
Planning Director Johnson said it could be designed as a radius and
brought up to the property line. He suggested there be a curb along
the property line in the interim. It could be a radius, as shown, or
conditioned to be done that way. It could be designed that way and if
anything changes in the future, the obligations for improvements
would rest on the south property owner.
P:\Reports - PC\2009\6-9-09\PC MIN_4-28-09_Draft_2.doe 16
Planning Commission Minutes
April 28, 2009
Chairman Alderson asked if there would be barricades across it.
Planning Director Johnson said that it would not be necessarily, as
long as there was an established curb. There was a landscape strip
with landscaping established and proposed along the Mayer property
at that point.
Commissioner Wilkinson said he just wanted to achieve an obvious
connection that could not be denied.
Chairman Alderson asked if he was making that a condition.
Commissioner Wilkinson said yes.
Commissioner Barrows asked if the Assistant City Attorney could
summarize the circumstances that could be asked, of the Mayer
property owners, to comply with this shared driveway approach.
Assistant City Attorney, Michael Houston, said it would require Mayer
to bring forward a discretionary approval for the Commission's
consideration where the request being made had a nexus with that
sort of a connection being put -in. The most obvious example would
be some sort of further subdivision of the site. Landscape plan
review, for example, would not meet that sort of nexus requirement.
Commissioner Barrows commented on the Mayer letter which
referenced "the introduction of vehicles from the car wash would
require that Mayer modify or negotiate current cautionary agreements
with the tenant."
Assistant City Attorney Houston said he could only speculate that
they are operating on some sort of a triple net lease, meaning that the
tenants have a pro-rata requirement to pay for certain maintenance,
and added perhaps additional vehicles from off -site would cause
tenants to become troubled that they are overpaying.
Commissioner Weber commented on the possibility of including a large
concrete planter structure that was freestanding to prevent egress. It
could then be removed and egress could be obtained easily.
Commissioner Barrows confirmed the applicant indicated that was
okay.
P:\Reports - PC\2009\6-9-09\PC MIN_4-28-09_Draft_2.doc 17
Planning Commission Minutes
April 28, 2009
There was no further discussion and it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Barrows/Wilkinson to approve Resolution 2009-015
recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2008-905 with
revisions as follows:
Conditions numbered 57, 60, 64, and 105 be amended to read
as follows:
57. The applicant shall comply with LQMC Sections 13.24.130
(Landscaping Setbacks) & 13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans).
Tree quantities for the approved landscape plan (with
tunnel on north side of site) shall be the same as the
landscape plan dated March 11, 2009, with the tunnel on
the south side of the site.
60. The applicant shall submit the irrigation and planting plans
to the Planning Department for approval. When plan
checking has been completed by the Planning Department,
the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the
Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner. The plans
shall then be re -submitted to the Planning Department for
review and approval by the Planning Commission, and
signature by the Planning Director. However landscape
plans for landscaped medians on public streets shall be
approved by both the Planning Director and the City
Engineer. Where City Engineer approval is not required,
the applicant shall submit for a green sheet approval by the
Public Works Department.
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' brown trunk height
(bth) Washingtonia Filifera (California fan palm). .
105. A six foot high masonry sound wall shall be installed in the
landscaping area along the exit drive from the car wash
structure and along the north property line. The exact
design, location and length of the wall shall be worked out
with staff and shown on the final landscaping plans.
P:\Reports - PC\2009\6-9-09\PC MIN_4-28-09_Draft_2.doc 18
Planning Commission Minutes
April 28, 2009
Conditions numbered 106, 107, and 108 be added to read as
follows:
106. The project shall be developed per the site plan dated April
17, 2009, and associated plans showing the car wash
tunnel on the north half of the subject site.
107. The vehicular access, as shown on the approved plans,
providing ingress and egress with the adjacent property to
the south, shall be installed as part of this project. The
access shall be designed in a manner that provides a
temporary barrier to such access until improvements,
facilitating such access, on the property to the south are
completed and a reciprocal access agreement between
both property owners is fully executed and recorded. At
such time, the owner of the subject site shall cause the
barrier to be removed and full access, as designed, shall be
provided. The design of the temporary barrier shall include
landscaping and shall be approved by the Planning Director
and the City Engineer prior to installation.
108. 'Miscellaneous equipment used in conjunction with this
facility (i.e., pay machines, menu boards, vacuums and
associated trellis, trash cans, light fixtures, etc.) shall be
primarily earth tone in color. The exact colors shall be
approved by the Planning Director prior to installation.
AYES: Commissioners Barrows, Weber, Wilkinson and Chairman
Alderson: NOES: Commissioner Quill. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
C. Sign Program 2006-1034, Amendment No. 1; a request by Komar
Investments, LLC for consideration of a request for a sign program
amendment to install two directional signs within Komar Desert Center
at Depot Drive, south of Highway 111.
Chairman Alderson opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report.
Assistant Planner Yvonne Franco presented the staff report, a copy of
which is on file in the Planning Department.
P:\Reports - PC\2009\6-9-09\PC MIN_4-28-09_Draft_2.doc 19
Planning Commission Minutes
April 28, 2009
Chairman Alderson asked if there were any comments from the
Commissioners.
Commissioner Weber commented on finding C, where it stated, on
page 4, "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." He questioned the use of the word "accentuate".
He asked for staff's comments.
Assistant Planner Franco replied it was standardized language that
was used.
There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Alderson asked if
the applicant would like to address the Commission.
Mr. Clint Knox, Komar Investments, 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 247,
Newport Beach, CA, 92660, introduced himself and explained why
they were trying to get the sign adjustment. He said the Center has
been open for almost a year and only had a 50% occupancy rate; not
including Costco. He said they were proud of their Center and were
committed to the success of their current and future tenants. He
explained the visibility of the Center and success of their tenants. He
said the broker for the center, Maggie Montez, was present and could
answer any questions as well as provide a better perspective of the
tenants, and their concerns.
He went on to explain about the layout of the Center, the need for the
signs and why they had chosen that particular sign placement.
Chairman Alderson asked if any of the Commissioners had questions
for the applicant.
Commissioner Weber asked if there were twelve tenant spots on the
sign request. Mr. Knox said there were twenty-four spaces all
together within the whole development. Commissioner Weber
commented on who was included on those spaces. The applicant
confirmed who they were and why they were included.
Commissioner Weber asked if there was a raised median, that went
down to the pedestrian crossing, which was also landscaped and
asphalted. Mr. Knox said yes. Commissioner Weber asked for
confirmation on the directory signs, the tenants included, and the
P:\Reports - PC\2009\6-9-09\PC MIN_4-28-09_Draft_2.doc 20
Planning Commission Minutes
April 28, 2009
directional arrows. Mr. Knox explained where the signs would be and
which tenants would be included.
Commissioner Weber asked why the lighting of the sign was
suggested, but not included. Mr. Knox said they were trying to keep
the sign as simple as possible. He then explained where the signs
were proposed to be and how they would be lit.
Chairman Alderson commented on the fact that the installation of two
signs was not code compliant.
Planning Director Johnson replied the issue boiled down to the sign
program provisions and the City's sign code. He said staff believed,
after reviewing the provisions in the language there, one sign with the
focus of the tenants within buildings "A" thru "D" would be
definitively in line with the criteria set forth in the sign code. That is
why the recommendation was made, but if the Commission found that
there was other justification for that, it would certainly be something
to bring up. He cautioned the Commissioners to make sure that it was
substantiated and defined if they did something different than what
was being allowed. He said they would have to establish findings in
their recommendations to substantiate that position.
Chairman Alderson asked if a second sign would be considered a
variance.
Planning Director Johnson said it was not a matter of a variance. This
was a sign program and there was latitude. He said the issue was to
make sure to cite or define specific reasons justifying the granting of
something in excess. From staff's standpoint, a recommendation was
made, based on review of the code, but it was a sign program, so
there was latitude with the program.
Mr. Knox made a statement about certain businesses being negatively
impacted by the lack of visibility from the primary access drive. He
went on to explain about visibility problems as certain trees continued
to grow which created a lack of visibility and a need for the additional
signs.
Chairman Alderson asked about a picture on one of the exhibits
implying that there was an existing sign. Mr. Knox replied that was
P:\Reports - PC\2009\6-9-09\PC MIN_4-28-09_Draft_2.doc 21
Planning Commission Minutes
April 28, 2009
just showing what it potentially could look like. Chairman Alderson
asked if there were any signs on site. Mr. Knox said no, there were
no interior signs, just two monument signs on Highway 1 1 1.
Chairman Alderson asked are the applicant was asking for approval of
one signs versus two, and approval of aesthetics. Mr. Knox confirmed
his comments.
Chairman Alderson asked if Mr. Knox had previously used the
suggested color and style and found it effective. Mr. Knox said they
had not. He suggested Mr. Jim Engle, of Imperial Sign, could help
describe it a little better. He added that he trusted Mr. Engle's
opinion, and that it looked good and was a simple design.
Chairman Alderson asked Mr. Engle to come up and address the
Commission.
Mr. Jim Engle with Imperial Sign, 46120 Calhoun Street, Indio, CA,
introduced himself and offered to answer any of the Commission's
questions.
Chairman Alderson said he had two comments; 1). the sign was very
generic, and 2). the colors jumped out with the black letters on white
background. He asked if these color schemes were definite as he
didn't care for them. Mr. Engle said they were just trying to match
the architecture. They could lighten up the background or figure out
another scheme that worked. They were more concerned about
obtaining the necessary signage.
Chairman Alderson commented it was Mr. Engle's decision, but he did
not see this was as effective as it could be.
Chairman Alderson went over the site plan and commented on the
sign recommendations. He then asked if Ms. Montez was going to
speak. '
Ms. Maggie Montez, CB Richard Ellis, 73-400 Highway 1 1 1, Indian
Wells, CA, introduced herself and commented on the challenges of
leasing new space and what the tenants had to face.
Chairman Alderson asked if there were any questions of Ms. Montez.
P:\Reports - PC\2009\6-9-09\PC MIN_4-28-09_Draft_2.doc 22
Planning Commission Minutes
April 28, 2009
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 commented he wanted to be as amenable as
possible to help businesses succeed. He did state he was starting to
worry about the number of applicants coming forward with sign
changes, and anticipated that would continue in the future. He
worried that the design of the center did not allow tenants in the back
to be visible since that was a function of the design and what had
been submitted. He commented that while the markets may change
the Commission should not waiver from standard procedures. He
thought staff was correct in analyzing this to be directional signs,
even though, they had been discussed as marketing signs. He then
discussed where the potential signs would be located and how they
would direct traffic. He commented on the fact there would be more
confusion, with these signs, especially if there was a pedestrian
crossing in the second area. He discussed the potential problems with
drivers versus pedestrians with this lay out. He said he wanted the
signage issue addressed, because moving the signs closer to parking
lot lights which were not designed to light the signs was not going to
serve any useful purpose.
Commissioner Quill said he did not agree with those comments since it
was a simple sign that provided direction. The applicant had done an
admirable job of designing a big box commercial center. This side of
the center had been operational since approximately July of last year,
and they were at 50% occupancy. He commented on the current
economic climate and said 1). the signs were not lit, so they did not
use any electricity, and 2). they did not need to be lit because the
center didn't operate in the after dark hours; except for the restaurant
buildings which faced the street. The signage was reasonably
unobtrusive and compact. He said he believed the Commission
needed to do everything they could to help the developer out because
of the good job they did in designing the center and should not be
penalized, from a signage standpoint. He suggested the Commission
allow both locations and the sign design as proposed.
Commissioner Wilkinson commented on the placement of the tenants
on the left having left arrows and the tenants on the right having right
arrows to avoid confusion. He also commented on the possible
P:\Reports - PC\2009\6-9-09\PC MIN_4-28-09_Draft_2.doc 23
Planning Commission Minutes
April 28, 2009
relocation of the name Komar Desert Center since people would
probably be directed to Costco, BevMo, or Souplantation. He
suggested the tenants names be moved to the top of the chart and
Komar be placed on the bottom
Chairman Alderson said he agreed with everything Commissioner Quill
said. He added the City should do anything they can to benefit
commercial tenants and commercial efforts. He also concurred with
the two signs, and suggested some more thought be given to the
colors.
Commissioner Quill suggested the applicant seriously consider
Commissioner Wilkinson's comments to relocate the Komar Desert
Center name to the bottom of the sign.
Commissioner Barrows agreed the tenants should have the maximum
amount of identification. Komar should be at the bottom, in smaller
letters. That would provide more visibility for the tenants
There was no further discussion and it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Quill/Barrows to approve Minute Motion 2009-007
recommending approval of Sign Program 2006-1034, Amendment No.
1 as follows:
1).'Condition No. 2 be amended to read:
Two additional freestanding signs are approved in the
design, size and height as identified in Attachment 3 and
shall be located at the locations shown on Attachment 2.
2). The applicant may consider relocating the "Komar Desert
Center" identification to the bottom of the signs and be
shown in smaller sized lettering than the tenant
identification.
AYES: Commissioner Barrows, Quill, Wilkinson, and Chairman Alderson.
NOES: Commissioner Weber. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None.
VI. BUSINESS ITEMS:
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL:
P:\Reports - PC\2009\6-9-09\PC MIN_4-28-09_Draft_2.doc 24
Planning Commission Minutes
April 28, 2009
VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. Commissioner Barrows was unable to attend the City Council meeting
of April 21, 2009, and Commissioner Weber attended on her behalf.
He highlighted the following items, from that meeting:
• The Council approved the Green marketing services plan.
• Council approved the SilverRock Resort annual plan and
reviewed some cost savings items.
• Conversations of the federal stimulus (bail out money).
• Conversations regarding the League. of California Cities
and, their support of propositions.
• Conversation regarding various contract extensions.
• Discussion of comments made by the Dolphin La Quinta
applicant, not brought forward previously, questioning
the payment of the Multi Species Fee which brought
questions and discussion from Council.
• Discussion of the 2009 — 2013 CIP projects, especially
noting the Jefferson Street Road Widening.
• Commissioner Weber asked about trails in the CIP Plan.
Staff said they were trying to get a feasibility study
completed.
Commissioner Barrows thanked Commissioner Weber for filling in and
for his fine presentation on the meeting.
B. Chairman Alderson noted Commissioner Quill was scheduled to report
back on the May 5, 2009, Council meeting.
IX: DIRECTOR ITEMS:
A. Discussion of the General Plan Update Request for Proposals.
Planning .Director Johnson noted the Request For Proposal items had
not been included in the Commission packets and provided the
Commissioners with copies.
He gave a brief overview of what the Request entailed and the
procedures which would be followed in the consultant selection
process.
P:\Reports - PC\2009\6-9-09\PC MIN_4-28-09_Draft_2.doc 25
Planning Commission Minutes
April 28, 2009
He offered to have a copy of the proposal, in Word format, e-mailed to
the Commissioners so they might comment directly on the document;
especially with regards to format and scope.
General discussion followed which included some of the following
items:
• The purpose of the Request for Proposal.
• Why the City was doing the General Plan Update at this time
and the fact that the General Plan is updated approximately
every ten years.
• Staff's interest in participation from the Planning Commission.
• The incorporation of AB 32 and SB 375 requirements in the
new General Plan.
• The procedure for selection of the Consultant and what their
responsibilities would be.
• The incorporation of sustainable design issues.
• Transportation, circulation, golf carts and nevs (neighborhood
electric vehicles).
• Multiple use facilities.
• Neighborhood outreach
• Timeline of submitting comments and various deadlines in the
selection process.
• ,Information posted on the City's website.
• - Who would be eligible to submit a proposal.
B. Chairman Alderson advised the Commission he would not be attending
the next regularly scheduled meeting (5/12/09) and Vice Chairwoman
Barrows would be presiding over that meeting.
X. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Barrows/Wilkinson to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to
the next regular meeting to be held on May 12, 2009. This regular meeting was
adjourned at 9:51 p.m. on April 28, 2009.
Respectfully submitted;
Carolyn Walker, Executive Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
PAReports - PC\2009\6-9-09\PC MIN_4-28-09_Draft_2.doc 26
PH#A
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: JUNE 9, 2009
CASE NO: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-868, EXTENSION #1
REQUEST: REVIEW OF A REQUEST FOR A ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF AN
APPROVAL OF ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING PLANS
FOR A 5,723 SQUARE FOOT FREESTANDING BUILDING
LOCATION: NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 111, 1000'± WEST OF
JEFFERSON STREET IN JEFFERSON PLAZA
APPLICANT: REA LA QUINTA, LLC
PROPERTY
OWNER: REA LA QUINTA, LLC
ARCHITECT: KKE ARCHITECTS
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT: CUMMINGS CURLEY AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW: THE LA QUINTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED
THAT THIS TIME EXTENSION REQUEST HAS BEEN
PREVIOUSLY - ASSESSED IN CONJUNCTION WITH
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 96-325 PREPARED FOR
SPECIFIC PLAN 96-027 WHICH HAS BEEN CERTIFIED BY THE
CITY COUNCIL. NO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES OR
CONDITIONS ARE PROPOSED, OR NEW INFORMATION HAS
BEEN SUBMITTED WHICH WOULD TRIGGER THE PREPARATION
OF A SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO
PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21166.
ZONING: CR (REGIONAL COMMERCIAL)
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: M/RC (MIXED REGIONAL COMMERCIAL)
P:\Reports - PC\2009\6-9-09\SDP 2006-868 REA LQ\pc rpt.doc
SURROUNDING
ZONING AND
LAND USES: NORTH:
FP / FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL
SOUTH:
CR / RETAIL CENTER
EAST:
CR / RETAIL CENTER
WEST:
CR / RETAIL CENTER
BACKGROUND
Prior Planning Commission Approval
This application was originally granted approval by the Planning Commission on
June 12, 2007 for two years. Construction of this building has not begun,
necessitating a time extension. Following is a brief description of the previously
approved project. No changes to the project are proposed by the applicant.
PROPOSAL
Site Design — Based on Previous Approval
Building Location and Orientation
The project site is within Jefferson Plaza on the north side of Highway 111
(Attachment 1). This center has been constructed in phases by different
developers and consists of IHOP and Home Depot to the east and Jack -in the -Box
to the west. Immediately to the north is a 58,300 square foot building containing
990 Cents Only, Smart and Final, and other smaller shops constructed by the
applicant.
The proposed 5,723 square foot freestanding building is adjacent to Highway 111
between Jack -in -the -Box and IHOP on its own parcel (Attachment 2). The majority
of the parking lot improvements surrounding the subject building site have been
installed. Additionally, the Highway 111 parkway improvements have been
installed with Phase 1. Jack -in -the -Box and IHOP are on individual parcels and
were constructed a number of years ago by other developers not associated with
this applicant.
Vehicular Circulation and Parking
The center has been developed in phases with each providing adequate parking
spaces to comply with the Code requirements. The most recent and largest phase
was the 58,263 square foot inline building to the north containing Smart and Final
and 990 Only and other retail uses. The phase required 233 spaces and 285
spaces are provided. This building requires 23 spaces and 29 are provided within
the parcel boundaries. Vehicular access to the building is through existing parking
lot improvements on the north side of the building.
PAReports - PC\2009\6-9-09\SDP 2006-868 REA LQ\pc rpt.doc
Architecture
The front of the proposed building faces south towards Highway 111 . The building
is designed similar to the existing Smart and Final/990 Only shop structure to the
north in the same center., Colors and materials will match the first phase
construction. The building uses complementary colors on different building planes
of the walls. Dark green awnings will be provided over most windows and
recessed openings on all sides of the building.
The flat roof structure is a maximum 22' high with one flat roof tower on the
southwest corner of the building at 26' high. The trash enclosure to the west side
of the building is plastered and painted to match one of the building plaster colors
and provided with a solid metal door.
A sign program has been approved for the center and will apply to this building.
Landscaping
The landscape plan has been prepared by the Landscape Architect who prepared
the Smart & Final/990 Only area landscaping plans. It uses the same plants and
design concept used in the adjacent first phase to the north. The Highway 111
parkway has been previously planted and completed with Phase 1 .
ANALYSIS:
As noted, this project was originally approved by the Planning Commission on June
12, 2007 (Attachment 3). At that time it was determined that the project with the
adopted conditions was acceptable. The grounds for the original project approval
are still valid and, therefore, a one year extension of the Site Development Permit is
warranted.
Public Works Department has recommended several changes to the Conditions of
Approval. Most changes are to comply with current standards and laws or to
conform with the site's current condition. The changes are incorporated in the
draft conditions recommended for approval.
Since the original approval in 2007, the southwest corner of the site next to Depot
Drive and Highway 111 has been redone to widen the driveway and modify the
signal to accommodate the new construction on the south side of Highway 111.
Proposed Condition # 16131 has been revised to address this and note some
additional signal configuration and other minor items are still needed to be
completed. Other Public Works Department related revisions are related to various
drainage, grading and improvement requirements. The revised Conditions of
Approval have been reviewed and agreed to by the applicant.
c
P:\Reports - PC\2009\6-9-09\SDP 2006-868 REA LQ\pc rptdoc
ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE:
The Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee (ALRC) reviewed this request
at their meeting of May 2, 2007 and recommended approval of the architectural
and landscaping plans, subject to conditions. Those conditions were included in
the 2007 approval and are contained in the current conditions.
PUBLIC NOTICE:
These applications were advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on May 29, 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. As of this writing, no
comments have been received.
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FINDINGS:
The findings needed to approve this Site Development Permit extension, as
stipulated in the Zoning Code, can be made as noted in the attached Resolution,
subject to the Conditions of Approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2009- , approving a one year
extension for Site Development Permit 2006-868, subject to the attached
Conditions of Approval.
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Development Plans
3. Minutes for the Planning Commission meeting of June 12, 2007
Prepared by:
Stan Sawa, Principal Planner
H
P:\Reports - PC\2009\6-9-09\SDP 2006-868 REA LQ\pc rpt.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009-
RESOLUTION OF THE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR A
5,723 SQUARE FOOT FREESTANDING BUILDING ON THE
NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 111, 1000'f WEST OF
JEFFERSON STREET
CASE: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-868,
EXTENSION #1
APPLICANT: REA LA QUINTA, LLC
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta,
California did, on the 9TR day of June, 2009, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to
consider a request by REA La Quinta, LLC for approval of a one year extension of
time for architectural and landscaping plans for a 5,723 square foot commercial
building in the CR (Regional Commercial) zone district located on the north side of
Highway 111, 1000't west of Jefferson Street, more particularly described as:
APN: 600-010-023
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta,
California did, on the 12TR day of June, 2007, adopt Resolution 2007-025,
approving this Site Development Permit, subject to Conditions; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Department published a public hearing notice
in the Desert Sun newspaper on May 29, 2009 as prescribed by the Municipal
Code. Public hearing notices were also mailed to all property owners within 500
feet of the site; and
WHEREAS, The Planning Department has determined that the request
has been previously assessed in conjunction with Environmental Assessment 96-325
prepared for Specific Plan 96-027 which was certified by the City Council. No
changed circumstances or conditions are proposed, or new information has been
submitted which would trigger the preparation of a subsequent Environmental review
pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166; and
WHEREAS, at the Public Hearing upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said
Planning Commission did make the following Mandatory Findings to justify approval
a one year extension of said Site Development Permit:
1. An extension of time is warranted because the findings as noted below can
still be made and apply to this request.
P:\Reports - PC\2009\6-9-09\SDP 2006-868 REA LQ\pc res extension.doc 5
Planning Commission Resolution 2009-
Site Development Permit 2006-868, Extension #1
REA La Quinta, LLC
Adopted:
Page 2
2. The General Plan designates the project area as Regional Commercial. The
proposed commercial building is consistent with this land use designation.
3. The proposed commercial building is designed to comply with the Zoning
Code requirements, including, but not limited to, height limits, parking, and
lot coverage, etc.
4. The Planning Department has determined this project has previously been
assessed with a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact certified, and
no further environmental review is required.
5. The architectural design of the project, including, but not limited to the
architectural style, scale, building mass, materials, colors, architectural
details, roof style, and other architectural elements are compatible with the
surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the City.
6. The site design of the project, including, but not limited to project entries,
interior circulation, pedestrian and bicycle access, pedestrian amenities,
screening of equipment and trash enclosures, exterior lighting, and other site
design elements are compatible with surrounding development and with the
quality of design prevalent in the City.
7. Project conceptual landscaping, including, but not limited to the location,
type, size, color, texture, and coverage of plant materials has been designed
and conditioned to provide relief, compliment buildings, visually emphasize
prominent design elements and vistas, screen undesirable views, provide a
harmonious transition between adjacent land uses and between development
and open space, provide an overall unifying influence, enhance the visual
continuity of the project, and compliment the surrounding project area,
ensuring lower maintenance and water use.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of
the City of La Quinta, California as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
said Planning Commission in this case; and
P:\Reports-- PC\2009\6-9-09\SDP 2006-868 REA LQ\pc res extension.doc 6
Planning Commission Resolution 2009-
Site Development Permit 2006-868, Extension #1
REA La Quinta, LLC
Adopted:
Page 3
2. That it does hereby approve a one year extension of time for Site
Development Permit 2006-868, for the reasons set forth in this Resolution
and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 9t" day of June, 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
P:\Reports - PC\2009\6-9-09\SDP 2006-868 REA LQ\pc res extension.doc 7
Planning Commission Resolution 2009- w1
Conditions of Approval - Recommended OITION
Site Development Permit 2006-868, Extension #1 TO CON
REA Adoted uinta, I_Lc - ICATES CH
pANGE
HIGHLIGHT IND
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 shall comply with the requirements of all Conditions of
Approval for Specific Plan 96-027 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 28573 applicable to
this Site Development Permit.
This site development permit shall expire on June 12, 2010.
3. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building. permit by the City, the
applicant shall obtain any necessary clearances and/or permits from the following
agencies (if required):
• Fire 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
•. Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD)
Imperial Irrigation District (IID)
• California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB)
• SunLine Transit Agency
• SCAQMD Coachella Valley
• Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)
E
Planning Commission Resolution 2009-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Site Development Permit 2006-868, Extension #1
REA La Quints, LLC
Adopted:
The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances from
the above listed agencies, if applicable. When the requirements include approval of
improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when
submitting those improvements plans for City approval.
If previous permits are not applicable or in effect, a project -specific NPDES
construction permit must be obtained by the applicant; and who then shall submit a
copy of the Regional Water Quality Control Board's ("RWQCB") acknowledgment of
the applicant's Notice of Intent ("1\1O1"), 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 storm
water discharge permit, LQMC Sections 8.70.010 et seq. (Storm Water 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 01 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 Storm Water
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.
E
P:\reports-pc\2009\6-9-09\sdp 2006-868 rea Iq\pc coa ext2 of 18
Planning Commission Resolution 2009-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Site Development Permit 2006-868, Extension #1
REA La Quinta, LLC
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 storm water discharge permit, LQMC
Sections 8.70.010 et seq. (Storm Water 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 Redevelopment
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. 137-2008-001. The
applicant shall document and establish required association maintenance
responsibilities within the recorded CC&R's.
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. 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).
6. 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
7. 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
10
P:\reports-pc\2009\6-9-09\sdp 2006-868 rea Iq\pc coa ext3 of 18
Planning Commission Resolution 2009-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Site Development Permit 2006-868, Extension #1
REA La Quints, LLC
Adopted:
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,
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.
8. The applicant shall offer for dedication or other development application all public
street rights -of -way 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. The applicant shall offer for
dedication those easements necessary for the operation and maintenance of Depot
Drive and placement of, and access to, utilities, landscaping, structures, drainage
basins and other improvements including modifications for WQMP requirements.
9. The public street right-of-way offers for dedication required for this development
include:
A. PUBLIC STREETS
1) Highway 1 1 1 (Dedication per Parcel Map No. 28573 of 86' from
Highway 111 centerline) — No additional right-of-way is required along
the Site Development Permit boundary on Highway 111 as per the
recorded Parcel Map No. 28573.
10. The applicant shall retain for private use on the Final Map all private access
easements in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable
specific plans, and/or as required by the City Engineer.
11. The access easement to be retained for private use required for this development
include:
A. PRIVATE ENTRY DRIVE (DEPOT DRIVE)
1) Depot Drive
11
P:\reports-pc\2009\6-9-09\sdp 2006-868 rea Iq\pc coa ext4 of 18
Planning Commission Resolution 2009-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Site Development Permit 2006-868, Extension #1
REA La Quinta, LLC
Adopted:
a) No additional easement dedication is required of this Site
Development Permit.
12. The required perimeter landscaping setbacks along all public rights -of -way as follows:
A. Highway 111 (per Parcel Map No. 28573) 17-foot from the R/W-P/L to
match existing perimeter landscape for parcels to the east.
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 for those purposes on the Final
Map.
13. Direct vehicular access to Highway 111 is restricted, except for those access points
identified on Parcel Map No. 28573, 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.
15. The applicant shall provide reciprocal access easements necessary for the adjoining
parcel(s) for access to proposed parking and access drive associated with this Site
Development Permit. Additionally, the applicant shall enter into a maintenance
agreement with other parcel owners/occupants for the perpetual maintenance of the
parking areas and drive aisles within Parcel Map No. 28573.
STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS
16. The applicant shall construct the following street improvements to conform with the
General Plan (street type noted in parentheses.)
A. OFF -SITE STREETS
1) Highway 111 (Major Arterial — State Highway; 140'R/W):
The City of La Quinta will widen Highway 111 along the development's
southern boundary as well as design and construct a deceleration/right turn
lane on Highway 111 at Depot Drive with the proposed Highway 111 Corridor
Capital Improvements Project from Adams Street to Jefferson Street to its
ultimate width on the north side as specified in the General Plan. No additional
widening on the north side of the street along all frontage adjacent to this Site
Development Permit is required.
12
P:\reports-pc\2009\6-9-09\sdp 2006-868 rea Iq\pc coa ext5 of 18
Planning Commission Resolution 2009-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Site Development Permit 2006-868, Extension #1
REA La Quinta, LLC
Adopted:
Improvements to be performed by the City of La Quinta in the Highway 111
right-of-way and/or adjacent landscape setback area includes:
a) All appurtenant components such as, but not limited to: curb,
gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and signs.
Improvements required of the applicant in the Highway 111 right-of-way
and/or adjacent landscape setback area include:
b) Construction of an 8-foot meandering, bollard lighted sidewalk
along its Highway 111 boundary. The meandering sidewalk shall
have an arrhythmic horizontal layout that utilizes concave and
convex curves with respect to the curb line that either touches
the back of curb or approaches within five feet of the curb at
intervals not to exceed 250 feet. The sidewalk curvature radii
should vary between 50 and 300 feet and at each point of
reverse curvature, the radius should change to assist in creating
the arrhythmic layout. The sidewalk shall meander into the
landscape setback lot and approach within 5 feet of the
perimeter wall at intervals not to exceed 250 feet. The design
shall minimize back of curb contact points.
The applicant shall construct a sidewalk to connect the Highway
111 meandering sidewalk to the proposed building as approved
by the City Engineer. Additionally, the applicant shall construct
an ADA path of travel from the store front along the northerly
property line to connect with ADA path of travel to the existing
buildings at the north end of Parcel Maps 28573 and 34123.
c) Relocate the existing monument sign at the northeasterly corner
of Highway 111 and Depot Drive.
B. PRIVATE ENTRY DRIVE (DEPOT DRIVE)
1) Eliminate the existing split phase Depot Drive signal configuration and
reconfigure the Depot Drive. signal for optimized eight phase Highway
111 coordination and install related appurtenances, including but not
limited to curb extensions and restriping, as required and as approved
by the City Engineer.
The applicant shall construct all offsite improvements prior to Building Occupancy.
Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control signs, markings and
other devices, raised medians if required, street name signs and sidewalks.
13
P:\reports-pc\2009\6-9-09\sdp 2006-868 rea Iq\pc coa ext6 of 18
Planning Commission Resolution 2009-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Site Development Permit 2006-868, Extension 1!1
REA La Quints, LLC
Adopted:
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 engineers registered in California.
PARKING LOTS and ACCESS POINTS
17. The design of parking facilities shall conform to LQMC Chapter 9.150 (Parking) 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
approved construction plans, may require additional street widths and other
improvements as may be determined by the City Engineer.
18. General access points and turning movements of traffic to off site public streets are
limited to the access locations approved for Parcel Map No. 28573 and these
conditions of approval.
19. 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:
14
P:\reports-pc\2009\6-9-09\sdp 2006-868 rea Iq\pc coa ext7 of 18
Planning Commission Resolution 2009-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Site Development Permit 2006-868, Extension #1
REA La Quints, LLC
Adopted:
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.
20. 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.
21. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control signs, markings and
other devices, raised medians if required, street name signs and sidewalks. Mid -block
street lighting is not required.
22. 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," refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their
respective professions in the State of California.
23. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified
engineers and/or architects, as appropriate, and shall comply with the provisions of
Section 13.24.040 (Improvement Plans), LQMC.
24. 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.
15
P:\reports-pc\2009\6-9-09\sdp 2006-868 rea Iq\pc coa ext8 of 18
Planning Commission Resolution 2009-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Site Development Permit 2006-868, Extension #1
REA La Quinta, LLC
Adopted:
A. On -Site Precise Grading Plan
1 "
= 30'
Horizontal
B. PM1O Plan
1"
= 40'
Horizontal
C. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
1 "
= 40'
Horizontal
D. WQMP (Plan submitted in Report Form)
The Precise Grading Plan shall include: Storm Drain/Underground Retention.
NOTE: A and D to 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.
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 that 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.
25. The City maintains standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction notes for
16
P:\reports-pc\2009\6-9-09\sdp 2006-868 rea Iq\pc coa ext9 of 18
Planning Commission Resolution 2009-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Site Development Permit 2006-868, Extension #1
REA La Quinta, LLC
Adopted:
elements of construction which can be accessed via the Online Engineering Library at
the City website (www.la-quinta.org). Please navigate to the Public Works
Department home page and look for the Standard Drawings hyperlink.
26. The applicant shall furnish a complete set of mylars of all approved improvement
plans to the City Engineer.
27. Upon completion of construction, and prior to the 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 .
PRECISE GRADING
28. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading
Improvements), LQMC.
29. 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.
30. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval
of all of the following:
A. A precise grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer,
B. A preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report prepared by a qualified engineer,
C. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16,
(Fugitive Dust Control), LQMC, and
D. A Best Management Practices report prepared in accordance with Sections
8.70.010 and 13.24.170 (NPDES Stormwater Discharge Permit and Storm
Management and Discharge Controls), LQMC.
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 their application for a grading permit.
31. 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.
17
P:\reports-pc\2009\6-9-09\sdp 2006-868 rea Iq\pc coa ext10 of 18
Planning Commission Resolution 2009-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Site Development Permit 2006-868, Extension #1
REA Le Quints, LLC
Adopted:
32. Prior to any site grading or regrading that will raise or lower -any portion of the site by
more than plus or minus five tenths of a foot from the elevations shown on the
approved Site Development Permit site plan, the applicant shall submit the proposed
grading changes to the City Staff for a substantial conformance finding review.
33. 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.
Each 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.
34. If not completed, 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 (6') 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 0 8") behind the
curb.
DRAINAGE
35. Stormwater handling shall conform with the approved hydrology and drainage report
for Tentative Parcel Map No. 28753 and the Jefferson Plaza 99 Cent Store Precise
Grading and Storm Drain Plans, and as modified for this Site Development Permit.
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.
36. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries,
levels or frequencies in any area outside the development.
37. If permitted by CVWD, when an applicant proposes discharge of storm water
directly, or indirectly, into the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel, the applicant
shall indemnify the City from the costs of any sampling and testing of the
development's drainage discharge which may be required under the City's NPDES
Permit or other City or area -wide pollution prevention program, and for any other
18
P:\reports-pc\2009\6-9-09\sdp 2006-868 rea Iq\pc coa ext11 of 18
Planning Commission Resolution 2009-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Site Development Permit 2006-868, Extension #1
REA La Quinta, LLC
Adopted:
obligations and/or expenses which may arise from such discharge. The applicant is
required to retrofit the existing storm drain facility on site and construct required
discharge treatment BMP's per the NPDES Permit per Supplement A but at a
minimum shall install a CDS Technologies, Inc. Unit or equal system as approved by
the City Engineer. The indemnification shall be executed and furnished to the City
prior to the issuance of any grading, construction or building permit, and shall be
binding on all heirs, executors, administrators, assigns, and successors in interest in
the land within this Site Development Permit excepting therefrom those portions
required to be dedicated or deeded for public use. The form of the indemnification
shall be acceptable to the City Attorney. If such discharge is approved for this
development, the applicant shall make provisions for meeting these obligations. The
100-year storm water Hydraulic Grade Line (HGQ shall be as determined by CVWD.
38. 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.
39. Storm water 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 9.10O.040(B)(7).
40. 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.
41. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and
retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route.
UTILITIES
42. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.110 (Utilities),
LQMC.
43. 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.
44. Underground utilities shall be installed prior to overlaying hardscape. For installation
of utilities in existing improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench
restoration requirements maintained, or required by the City Engineer.
19
P:\reports-pc\2009\6-9-09\sdp 2006-868 rea Iq\pc coa ext12 of 18
Planning Commission Resolution 2009-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Site Development Permit 2006-868, Extension #1
REA La Quinta, LLC
Adopted:
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 so as to not conflict with access aisles/entrances.
CONSTRUCTION
45. The City will conduct final inspections of habitable buildings only when the buildings
have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly -maintained streets.
The improvements shall include required traffic control devices, pavement markings
and street name signs.
LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION
46. The applicant shall comply with Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) &
13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans), LQMC.
47. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins,
common lots and park areas.
48. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention
basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect.
Additionally, Lighting bollards shall be installed by the applicant per City of La Quinta
specifications.
49. 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 Architectural and
Landscaping Review Committee and approved by the Planning Director. Said review
and approval shall occur prior to issuance of first building permit unless the Planning
Director determines extenuating circumstances exist which justify an alternative
processing schedule. Final plans shall include all landscaping associated with this
project. Irrigation design and water use shall comply with the efficiency requirements
of Chapter 8.13 of the Municipal Code.
20
P:\reports-pc\2009\6-9-09\sdp 2006-868 rea Iq\pc coa ext13 of 18
Planning Commission Resolution 2009-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Site Development Permit 2006-868, Extension #1
REA La Quinta, LLC
Adopted:
NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by both the Planning
Director and/or the City Engineer.
50. 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 18 inches of curbs along public streets.
51. 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, 5th 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.
52. A vine shall be provided on the west side of the trash enclosure.
53. Provide substitute plant for Ocotillo (Fouquieria splendens) on east side of building
because plant requires full sun.
54. Shrubs on north side of building shall have open branching characteristics and
maximum 3' height to ensure traffic visibility.
55. The Chilean Mesquites shall be replaced with an alternate deep rooting canopy tree
appropriate for parking lots.
56. Sod rather than stolons shall be used in turf areas. The turf at the east end of the
perimeter area shall be shaped to blend in with any turf to the east.
MAINTENANCE
57. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance),
LQMC.
58. The applicant shall make provisions for the continuous and perpetual maintenance of
all private on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and
sidewalks.
FEES AND DEPOSITS
59. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.180 (Fees and
Deposits), LQMC. These fees include all deposits and fees required by the City for
plan checking and construction inspection. Deposits and fee amounts shall be those
in effect when the applicant makes application for plan check and permits.
21
P:\reports-pc\2009\6-9-09\sdp 2006-868 rea Iq\pc coa ext14 of 18
Planning Commission Resolution 2009-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Site Development Permit 2006-868, Extension #1
REA La Quinta, LLC
Adopted:
60. 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).
FIRE DEPARTMENT
61. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering a fire flow 2500
gallons per minute for a two hours duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure,
which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the project site.
62. Approved accessible on site fire hydrants shall be located not to exceed 330 feet
apart in any direction as measured by an approved route around the complex, exterior
of the facility or building, and no portion of a building further than 165 feet from a
fire hydrant. Fire hydrants shall provide the required fire flow.
63. 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.
64. 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.
65. Applicant/Developer shall mount blue dot retro-reflectors pavement markers on
private streets, public streets and driveways to indicated location of the fire hydrants.
It should be 8 inches from centerline to the side that the fire hydrant is on, to identify
fire hydrant locations.
66. Access lanes will not have an up, or downgrade of more than 12%. Access will not
be less than 20 feet in width and have an unobstructed vertical clearance not less
than 13 feet and 6 inches. Access lanes will be designed to withstand the weight of
80 thousand pounds over 2 axles. Access will have a tuning radius capable of
accommodating fire apparatus. Access lane shall be constructed with a surface so
as to provide all weather driving capabilities.
67. 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 prepare and submit to the Fire Department for approval; a site plan
designating required fire lanes with appropriate lane printing and/or signs.
68. 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
22
PAreports-pc\2009\6-9-09Mp 2006-868 rea Iq\pc coa ext15 of 18
Planning Commission Resolution 2009-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Site Development Permit 2006-868, Extension #1
REA La Quinta, LLC
Adopted:
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 obtain at the Fire Department.
69. Display street numbers 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.
70. A rapid entry Knox Box shall be installed on the outside of the building. If the
building/facility is protected with a fire alarm or burglar alarm system, the lock box
will require "tamper" monitoring. Special forms are available from this office for
ordering the Knox Box.
71. Install a complete commercial fire sprinkler system (per NFPA 13 1999 Edition). Fire
sprinkler systems(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, within 25 to 50 feet
of hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). Sprinkler riser room must
have indicating exterior and/or interior door signs. AC- 16 licensed contactor must
submit plans, along with current $307.00 deposit based fee, to the Tire Department
for review and approval prior to installation. Guideline handouts are available for the
Fire Department.
72. Install an alarm monitoring system for fire sprinkler system(s) with 100 or more
heads (20 or more in Group I, Division 1.1 and 1 .2 occupancies). Valve monitoring,
water -flow alarm and trouble signals shall be automatically transmitted to an
approved central station, remote station or proprietary monitoring station in
accordance with 2001 CBC, Sec. 904.3.1. An approved audible sprinkler flow alarm
shall be provided on the exterior in an approved location and also in the interior in a
normally occupied location. A C-10 licensed contractor must submit plans designed
in accordance with NFPA 72, 1999 Edition, along with the current $192.00 deposit
based fee, to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to installation.
Guideline handouts are available from the Fire Department.
73. 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.
23
P:\reports-pc\2009\6-9-09\sdp 2006-868 rea Iq\pc coa ext16 of 18
Planning Commission Resolution 2009-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Site Development Permit 2006-868, Extension #1
REA La Quinta, LLC
Adopted:
74. A UL 300 hood/duct fire extinguishing system must be installed over the cooking
equipment. The extinguishing system must automatically shut down gas and/or
electricity to all cooking appliances upon activation. A C-16 licensed contractor must
submit plans, along with the current permit fee, to the Fire Department for review
and approval prior to installation. Alarm system supervision is only required if the
building has an existing fire alarm system.
75. No hazardous materials shall be stored and/or used within the building, which
exceeds quantities listed in UBC Table 3-D and 3-E. No class I, II or IIIA of
combustible/flammable liquid shall be used in any amount in the building.
76. Exit designs, exit signs, door hardware, exit markers, exit doors, and exit path
marking shall be installed per the 2001 California Building Code.
77. Electrical room doors if applicable shall be posted "ELECTRICAL ROOM" on outside
of door.
78. Access shall be provided to all mechanical equipment located on the roof as required
be the Mechanical Code.
79. 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. Ref
CMC 609.0
80. Nothing in our review shall be construed as encompassing structural integrity.
Review of this plan does not authorize or approve any omission or deviation from all
applicable regulations. Final approval is subject to field inspection. All questions
regarding the meaning to the code requirements should be referred to Fire
Department at 760-863-8886.
IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AGREEMENTS
81. Prior to constructing any off -site improvements on Highway 1 1 1, 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 Highway 111.
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.
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:
24
P:\reports-pc\2009\6-9-09\sdp 2006-866 rea Iq\pc coa extl7 of 18
Planning Commission Resolution 2009-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Site Development Permit 2006-868, Extension #1
REA La Quints, LLC
Adopted:
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.
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 use unit costs
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.
MISCELLANEOUS
82. Bollard lighting shall be provided along the Highway 111 meandering sidewalk per
City specifications and requirements. Plan for fixtures and lighting shall be approved
by the Planning Director prior to issuance of building permit.
83. If the existing monument sign is damaged to the extent that the repair costs is 50%
or more of its value, said sign shall be re -designed with the new design approved by
the Planning Director.
25
P:\reports-pc\2009\6-9-09\sdp 2006-868 rea Iq\pc coa ext18 of 18
ATTACHMENT 2
SEE LARGE PLANS
27
ATTACHMENT 3
Planning Commission Minutes
June 12, 2007
1%r COpr
4. Chairman Quill asked if there were any uestions of the public.
Ms. Stacey Morrison, 47-785 Soft Mo light, stated this project
was approved before any of them h purchased their homes.
What they are requesting is addition information in regard to the
day care, the adjoining fence, and ould like the Commission to
know they have had no input fro regarding this project. They
have concerns about noise, traf and the number of children.
They were never notified this w s going to be a very low-income
project.
5. Mr. Ulf Nystrom, 47-808 ndless Sky, stated the third floor
tenants will be able to look' to their project and see what they are
doing. This is a very hig density project and the parking will be
very crowded. They are of against low-income families, but they
do not want to live ne door to so many children. Assistant City
Manager Doug Evan tated staff will sit down with the adjacent
residents to further iscuss the project. When this went through
the approval proce s, staff met with the adjoining property owners
to ensure the pro' ct would fit into the neighborhood. The City is
concerned abou the perception of its affordable housing projects.
With all the of rdable projects the City has built, no complaints
have been re ived. Mr. Nystrom stated their concern is that they
were not t re when this was approved. At least a wall or
something ould be constructed.
6. There b ng no further questions and no other public comment, the
public Baring was closed and open for Commission discussion.
Co issioner Barrows commended the applicant on the project.
7. 1 as moved and seconded by Commissioners Barrows/Alderson
o adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2007-024
recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2006-857 as
recommended.
ovF��mmissioners Alderson, Barrows, Engle, and
Chairman Quill. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT:
Commissioner Daniels.
C. Site Development Permit 2006-868; a request of REA La Quinta, LLC, for
consideration of architectural and landscaping plans for a 5,723 square
foot freestanding building located at the north side of Highway 111, west
m
Planning Commission Minutes
June 12, 2007
of Jefferson Street within Jefferson Plaza.
1. Chairman Quill opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department. Staff noted the
recommended changes to Conditions 16.A.1.b. and 16.13.1.a.
Assistant Engineer Ed Wimmer explained the purpose of the
condition changes.
2. Chairman Quill asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Engle noted he did have a conflict with the building
to the east of this site which is not a part of this project.
3. Commissioner Alderson asked about the screening as there did not
appear to be any landscaping except the screening. Staff stated it
is typical for staff to request this type of screening.
4. Chairman Quill asked if the sidewalks to the west of this project
were eight feet wide. Staff stated an eight foot sidewalk was
required for the developed portions. The sidewalk issue is due to
the deceleration lane being incorporated into the frontage.
5. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Quill asked if
the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Tom
Harberkorn, representing REA La Quinta LLC, stated they agree
with the staff report and have only one question regarding the
landscaping. He was required to do all the landscaping along
Highway 111 along with the six foot sidewalk and berming. This
was without even having a building on his pad site. He asked for
clarification that Costco is required to do the improvements as
noted in Condition 16.6.1.a. Staff confirmed this was true.
6. There being no further questions of the applicant and no other
public comment, the public hearing was closed and open for
Commission discussion.
7. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Alderson/Barrows
to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2007-025 approving
Site Development Permit 2006-868, as recommended and
amended:
a. Condition 16.A.1.b.: delete in its entirety and replace with
29
PAReports - PC\2007\6-26-07\6-12-07 Minutes.doc 6
Planning Commission Minutes
June 12, 2007
the following:
b) Construction of an 6-foot meandering sidewalk along
its Highway 111 boundary. The meandering sidewalk shall
have an arrhythmic horizontal layout that utilizes concave
and convex curves with respect to the curb line that either
touches the back of curb or approaches within five feet of
the curb at intervals not to exceed 250 feet. The sidewalk
curvature radii should vary between 50 and 300 feet and at
each point of reverse curvature, the radius should change to
assist in creating the arrhythmic layout. The sidewalk shall
meander into the landscape setback lot and approach within
5 feet of the perimeter wall at intervals not to exceed 250
feet. The design shall minimize back of curb contact points.
The applicant shall construct a sidewalk to connect the
Highway 111 meandering sidewalk to the proposed
building as approved by the City Engineer. Additionally,
the applicant shall construct an ADA path of travel from
the store front along the northerly property line to
connect with ADA path of travel to the existing buildings
at the north end of Parcel Maps 28573 and 34123.
b. Condition 16.13.1.a.: delete in its entirety and replace with
the following:
a) Widen the east side of Depot Drive from Highway
111 to the east -west drive aisle at the north westerly corner
of this Site Development Permit. The east curb face shall be
located approximately thirty feet (30') east of the westerly
property line of Parcel 2 of Parcel Map No. 28573 to align
- — with the proposed through/right turn lane proposed at the
Komar entry on the south side of Highway 111. The City
established this requirement to prohibit a split phase traffic
signal at the Highway 111 intersection that would create
additional congestion on Highway 111. The obligated
improvements by The Costco Development including
pavement, curb relocation, signing and striping and signal
modifications are not covered by the City's Highway 111
widening project.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Barrows, Engle, and
Chairman Quill. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT:
Commissioner Daniels.
30
PAReports - PC\2007\6-26-07\6-12-07 Minutes.doc
PH#B
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: JUNE 9, 2009
CASE NO.: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2009-098
APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA
REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE TO 1) PERMIT USED
CAR SALES NOT ASSOCIATED WITH A NEW CAR SALES
FACILITY WITHIN THE REGIONAL COMMERCIAL ZONING
DISTRICT WITH APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
2) TO ESTABLISH PROVISIONS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF
USED CAR SALES FACILITIES AND 3) DELETE ERRONEOUS
TEXT IDENTIFIED WITH THE AUTOMOTIVE USES PORTION OF
THE NON-RESIDENTIAL TABLE OF PERMITTED USES
LOCATION: CITY WIDE
GENERAL PLAN/
ZONING
DESIGNATIONS: NOT APPLICABLE
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION: THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEWED THE ZONING TEXT
AMENDMENTS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) AND HAS
DETERMINED THAT THE AMENDMENTS ARE EXEMPT
PURSUANT TO SECTION 15O61(B)(3) OF THE CEQA
GUIDELINES.
BACKGROUND:
On June 2, 2009, the City Council approved a temporary urgency ordinance
establishing a procedure to conditionally permit used car sales in the Regional
Commercial (CR) Zoning District, which is primarily located along Highway 111
between, Washington Street and Jefferson Street.
This urgency ordinance was in response to the recent decision of the Chrysler
Corporation to terminate the franchise agreement, effective June 8, 2009, with the
Dodge City Chrysler Jeep dealership located at 79-025 Highway 111.
ZOA 09-098 Planning Commission Staff Report 06/09/09 — Used Car Facilities Page 1 of 5
P:\Reports - PC\2009\6-9-09\ZOA 09-098\ZOA 09-098 Staff Report.doc
1
As a result of this action, the Dodge City Chrysler Jeep dealership is no longer an
authorized new car sales facility and consequently is no longer in compliance with
the CR District's requirement that permits the sale of used vehicles only when
associated with a new vehicle sales facility. The owner of Dodge City intends to
remain open as a used car sales facility and continue to operate their repair facility
while exploring the possibility of obtaining a new sales franchise with a different
car company.
In the review of the urgency ordinance, the City Council determined that any
subsequent closure of new car dealerships would have a negative financial impact
on the City, including increasing unemployment, creating vacancies along the City's
busiest commercial corridor, and eliminating the sales taxes that these dealerships
currently collect which help fund State and City operations. Permitting the
operation of former new car dealerships as used car sales facilities could reduce
some of these problems.
PROPOSAL:
In light of recent events that have affected local auto sales and sales tax revenue,
staff proposes a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to address this issue with a
permanent amendment to the City's code requirements. The proposed changes will
affect Section 9.80.040, Table 9-5, the Table of Permitted Uses, by identifying
used car sales not associated with a new car sales facility as being permitted in the
Regional Commercial zoning district with a Conditional Use Permit. In addition, staff
is proposing to delete some erroneous text identified within the table that
references mixed uses. With these proposed changes, permitted automotive uses
within Table 9-5 (Recommended Resolution Exhibit A) will appear as follows:
Land Use
CR
CP
CC
CN
CT
CO
MC
Automotive Uses
(Subject to Section
9.100.120, Outdoor storage
and display)
Automobile service stations,
C
C
C
C
X
X
X
with or without minimart
Car washes
C
C
C
X
X
X
X
Auto body repair and
X
C
X
X
X
X
X
painting; transmission repair
ZOA 09-098 Planning Commission Staff Report 06/09/09 - Used Car Facilities Page 2 of 5
PAReports - PC\2009\6-9-09\ZOA 09-09820A 09-098 Staff Report.doc
2
Use-
30
Auto repair specialty shops,
C
C
C
X
X
X
X
providing minor auto
maintenance: tire
sales/service, muffler, brake,
lube and tune-up services —
not including major engine
or drivetrain repair
Auto and motorcycle sales
C
C
X
X
X
X
X
and rentals
Used vehicle sales, not
G
C
X
X
X
X
X
associated with a new
vehicle sales facility, as per:
Section 9.100.300
Truck, recreation vehicle
C
C
X
X
X
X
X
and boat sales
Auto parts stores, with no
P
P
P
C
X
X
X
repair or parts installation on
the premises
Auto or truck storage yards,
X
C
X
X
X
X
X
not including dismantling
Private parking lots/garages
C
C
C
X
C
C
X
as a principal use subject to
Chapter 9.150, Parking
In addition to these changes, staff is proposing the establishment of code
provisions to specifically regulate the design, operation, and activities associated
with used vehicle sales facilities (Recommended Resolution Exhibit B). These
provisions include regulating where and how vehicles are displayed within the
property, the screening of service bays and storage areas, limiting used vehicle
sales facilities to properties in an approved specific plan having a minimum of 4
acres in size, and banning associated nuisances such as loudspeakers.
ANALYSIS:
The proposed ordinance would make permanent the ability for the Dodge City
dealership to continue operations as a used car sales facility and open the door for
used car sales facilities within the Regional Commercial zoning district. The
ZOA 09-098 Planning Commission Staff Report 06/09/09 - Used Car Facilities Page 3 of 5
P:\Reports - PC\2009\6-9-09\ZOA 09-098\ZOA 09-098 Staff Report.doc
3
proposed ordinance is consistent with the City's General Plan in that the General
Plan authorizes automobile sales in the Regional Commercial zoning district and
does not prohibit used automobile sales. With this code modification, individual
conditions and environmental impacts would be reviewed on a case -by -case basis
through the Conditional Use Permit process and be required to be located within an
approved Specific Plan. The most likely location for used car sales facilities in the
future will be within existing automotive dealerships such as the La Quinta Auto
Centre.
Although used vehicle sales facilities are already permitted in the Commercial Park
zoning district, there are currently no provisions in the code that are specific to the
regulation and design of used vehicle sales facilities. A number of common
nuisance and site design issues are be best addressed through specific code
provisions, such as regulating how vehicles are displayed, screening, regulating
.storage areas, and specifically identifying permissible accessory uses that tend to
be associated with used vehicle sales facilities.. Any design issue or potential
nuisance that is not covered in these code provisions will be addressed through a
mandatory conditional use permit process. With these code provisions, staff
believes that used car sales facilities could be a positive addition to the permitted
automotive uses within the Regional Commercial corridor.
CEQA:
The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment is exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Title 14 California Code of
Regulations Section 15061(b)(3), because the environmental impact of permitting
stand-alone used car sales facilities will be evaluated on a project -by -project basis
through the Conditional Use Permit approval process. As a result, there is no
possibility that its adoption would have a significant effect on the environment.
Public Notice:
This request was published in the Desert Sun newspaper on May 29, 2009. To
date, no letters have been received. A copy of this request has been sent to all
applicable public agencies and City Departments. Any comments from public
agencies have been included in the recommended conditions of approval.
STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS:
Findings to recommend approval of the Zoning Ordinance amendments can be
made and are contained in the attached Resolution.
ZOA 09-098 Planning Commission Staff Report 06/09/09 — Used Car Facilities Page 4 of 5
P:\Reports - PC\2009\6-9-09\ZOA 09-098\ZOA 09-098 Staff Report.doc
M
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution recommending approval of Zoning
Code Amendment 2009-098 to the City Council.
Prepared by:
IneowJMogensen AICP,
ipal Planner
ZOA 09-098 Planning Commission Staff Report 06/09/09 — Used Car Facilities Page 5 of 5
PAReports - M2009\6-9-0920A 09-09820A 09-098 Staff Report.doc ,
5
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2009-098 TO 1)
PERMIT USED CAR SALES NOT ASSOCIATED WITH A NEW CAR
SALES FACILITY WITHIN THE REGIONAL COMMERCIAL ZONING
DISTRICT WITH APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
(9.80.040), 2) TO ESTABLISH PROVISIONS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT
OF USED VEHICLE SALES FACILITIES (9.100.300), AND 3)
DELETION OF ERRONEOUS TEXT WITHIN THE AUTOMOTIVE USES
PORTION OF THE TABLE OF PERMITTED USES (9.80.040)
CASE NO.: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2009-098
APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta,
California, did on the 9" of June, 2009, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing for
review of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to 1) permit used car sales facilities not
associated with a new car sales facility within the Regional Commercial zoning
district with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit, 2) to establish provisions for
the development of used vehicle sales facilities, and 3) to delete erroneous text
within the Automotive Uses section of Table 9-5; and
WHEREAS, said Zoning Ordinance Amendment has complied with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act
of 1970" (CEQA) as amended (Resolution 83-63) in that the La Quinta Planning
Department has reviewed the Amendment under the provisions of CEQA, and has
determined that the Amendment is exempt pursuant to Section 15061(B)(3),
Review for Exemptions of the CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Department published the public hearing
notice in the Desert Sun newspaper on May 29, 2009, as prescribed by the
Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard,
said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings
recommending approval of said Zoning Ordinance Amendment:
1. The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the General
Plan in that the General Plan authorizes automobile sales in the Regional
Commercial land use area. Used vehicle sales facilities are an appropriate and
compatible land use in Regional Commercial because Regional Commercial
Planning Commission Resolution 2009-
Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2009-098
June 9, 2009
land use accommodates the widest variety of commercial land uses and
allows for similar land uses such as new vehicle sales facilities and
automotive service facilities. As a result, the Zoning Ordinance Amendment
is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan. The
proposed provisions to regulate used vehicle sales facilities are intended to
allow for the continued high quality of development in the City.
2. Approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment will not create conditions
materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, and will have
no impacts on the public health, safety and welfare. Impacts on public
health, safety, and welfare that may arise from used car sales facilities will
be evaluated and addressed on a project -by -project basis through a
conditional use permit approval process.
3. The Zoning Ordinance Amendment has been determined to be exempt from
the California Environmental Quality Act in that the proposed changes to the
Municipal Code will have no effect on the environment. Future proposed
used car sales facilities will be analyzed under CEQA on a project -by -project
basis.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of
the City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the
Planning Commission in this case.
2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Zoning
Ordinance Amendment 2009-098 as set forth in attached Exhibits A and B
to the City Council for the reasons set forth in this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission, held on the 9" day of June, 2009, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
7
Planning Commission Resolution 2009-
Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2009-098
June 9, 2009
ED ALDERSON, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
LES JOHNSON, Planning Director
City of La Quinta
EXHIBIT A
9.80.040 Table of permitted uses, Automotive Uses
Table 9-5 Permitted Uses In Nonresidential Districts
P = Principal use
District
Regional
Commercial
Community
Neighbor-
Tourist
Office
Major
A = Accessory use
hood
Commercial
Park
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Community
C = Conditional use
Commercial
permit
Facilities
M = Minor use permit
T = Temporary use
permit
X = Prohibited use
Land Use
CR
j CP
CC
CN
CT
CO
MC
Automotive Uses
(Subject to Section
9.100.120, Outdoor
storage and display)
-,e rr_,... �r..
---Eoa use
Used vehicle sales, not
x C
C
X
X
X
X
X
associated with a new
vehicle sales facility, as
per Section 9.100.306
0
EXHIBIT B
9.100.300 Used Vehicle Sales Not Associated with a New Vehicle Sales Facility
A. Use Permit Required. Used vehicle sales not associated with a new vehicle sales
facility may be permitted in the CR district subject to approval of a conditional use
permit when consistent with a Specific Plan. Used vehicle sales facilities are subject to
the use and design standards herein.
B. Signs. Used vehicle sales facility signage shall be approved through a sign
program in accord with Section 9.160.090. Balloons, streamers, spinning or animated
signs and devices, strobe lights, spotlights, lasers, and inflatable devices shall be
prohibited.
C. Hazardous Materials. All used vehicle sales facilities shall comply with the
requirements of Section 9.100.230 pertaining to hazardous materials, underground
storage tanks, product lines, dispensing equipment, etc.
D. Standards for Used Vehicle Sales Facilities.
1. Types of Used Vehicles Defined. Permitted principal use shall consist of the sale
of used motorized vehicles to include motorcycles, cars, trucks, and commercial vehicles.
2. Accessory Uses. Permitted accessory uses shall include: vehicle service and repair,
sales and installation of automotive parts, electronics, and accessories, car washing, and
auto detailing. All accessory uses must be specifically included in the conditional use
permit approval.
3. Screening. A block wall of at least six feet in height and a 20 foot wide
landscaping buffer shall be installed along all site boundaries which abut residentially
zoned properties. All screening shall comply with the height standards in Section
9.100.030 (Walls and Fences).
4. Storage and Display. All retail, service, repair, and storage uses shall occur
wholly within an enclosed building and in a specific location designated in the approved
conditional use permit. Focal display areas elevated more than one foot above the average
finish grade of the overall outdoor parking lot or display area shall be prohibited. Hoods,
trunks, and doors of all vehicles displayed outdoors shall remain closed at all times.
Vehicles must be parked on a paved surface and are prohibited from being displayed
from sidewalks or within landscaped areas.
5. Orientation of Service Bays. Service bays and garage doors shall not be visible
from perimeter arterial streets.
6. Property Standards. Used vehicle sales facilities shall not be permitted on parcels
less than four acres in size.
10
7. Outdoor Speakers. The use of outdoor loudspeakers and intercoms shall be
prohibited.
11
CI # C
2009
July
7
21
August
4
18
September
1
15
October
6
20
November
3
17
December
1
15
2010
January
5
19
February
2
16
March
2
16
April
6
20
May
4
18
June
1
15
PLANNING COMMISSIONER ATTENDANCE
AT CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
JULY 7, 2009 — JULY 6, 2010
Katie Barrows
Paul Quill
Mark Weber
Council Dark
Council Dark
Robert Wilkinson
Ed Alderson
Katie Barrows
Paul Quill
Mark Weber
Robert Wilkinson
Ed Alderson
Katie Barrows
Paul Quill
Mark Weber
Robert Wilkinson
Ed Alderson
Katie Barrows
Paul Quill
Mark Weber
Robert Wilkinson
Ed Alderson
Katie Barrows
Paul Quill
DI #A
MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Les Johnson, Planning Director
DATE: June 9, 2009
RE: Discussion Item - Comments eunty Project TPM 34784
This is an informational item provided to the Commission, relating to a comment
letter sent to Riverside County in regard to a proposed Tentative Parcel Map (TPM)
in the City Sphere of Influence (SOI).
BACKGROUND
This particular map was the first project reviewed under a draft MOU between
Riverside County and its cities, specifying standards of review for projects within a
city's SOL Upon approval of the eastern SOI on April 28, 2006, staff began a
review -and -comment process for County projects located in La Quinta's SOI areas.
In September of 2006, a staff report on TPM 34784 was presented to the Planning
Commission (Attachment 1). The map is located in the City's north SOI area, along
the north side of Darby Road. The intent of the report was to analyze the map
under the City's development standards at the time, and obtain the Commission's
feedback and direction to send a comment letter to the County Planning
Department. However, the applicant requested a continuance of the map review to
September 26, 2006, in order to assess the City's staff report against the County's
requirements. At the September 26 Planning Commission meeting, this item was
tabled based on a pending redesign and no action was taken by the Commission.
As a result, no comment letter was prepared at that time, pending the map's re -
submittal for review.
Subsequent to the review of this map, staff suspended Planning Commission
review of future County applications in the City's SOI areas, as the review caused
confusion for the applicant and compounded the review process. In addition, SOI
matters have been under the purview of the City Council. Since then, staff has
been responding to comment requests in writing, with follow-up testimony at
County Planning Commission hearings.
t :\fleNurts - I1C'.:?009'6-9-09%1111YVI 3«784 DI 6-9 FCA(x ]
In March 2009, staff received a comment request from Riverside County Planning
for TPM 34784, Amendment #1. Staff reviewed the redesigned map and provided
a comment letter to the County (Attachment 2). Staff also presented testimony and
answered questions before the County Planning Commission on April 29, 2009.
The Commission did recommend approval of the map to the County Board of
Supervisors; that action is pending. Some of the recommendations in the City's
comment letter were addressed under the County approval conditions, but the map
was acted on based on the County staff recommendation with no changes.
Based on this map having been originally sent to the Planning Commission for
review, and that the Planning Commission tabled the matter at their September 26,
2006 meeting, staff is presenting this information as a follow-up matter. No action
is required.
RECOMMENDATION
It is the staff recommendation that the Planning Commission receive this report,
and file it with the Planning Department.
Attachments:
1. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated 9/12/06 (5 pages)
2. Planning Staff Comment letter, dated 4/28/09 (4 pages)
P:�,Reports - M2009'16-9-09jPM 34784 DI 6-£I PC.dor_ 2
0
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: SEPTEMBER 12, 2006
ATTACHMENT 1
ITEM: SPHERE OF INFLUENCE - RIVERSIDE COUNTY 2006-01
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 34784; RIVERSIDE COUNTY
APPLICATION
APPLICANT: WASHINGTON 111, LTD.
LOCATION: NORTH SIDE OF DARBY ROAD, t 670 FEET WEST OF ADAMS
STREET (ATTACHMENT 1)
REQUEST: PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW AND COMMENT ON PROJECT
PROPOSED IN THE CITY SPHERE OF INFLUENCE (SOI)
BACKGROUND:
As part of the City's cooperative planning program with Riverside County, all County
projects proposed within City SOI areas will now be forwarded to the City for review and
comment. Therefore, staff has received a request for comments transmittal from the
County on this project. Staff is presenting the map to the Planning Commission for
review of the project, along with the staff -identified concerns. The objective is to convey
the City's concerns to the County through an informal review by the Planning
Commission.
PROPOSED PROJECT:
Tentative Parcel Map 34784 (Attachment 2) is a land division of a 1.45 acre parcel into
three residential lots, a well site lot as Parcel 4, and one common street/retention basin
lot (Lot A). The project has access provided from Darby Road, into the site via a 24-foot
wide private road along the first three lots, ending in a cul-de-sac and retention basin.
The fourth parcel is at the far north of the site, at the cul-de-sac terminus, and although
not designated as such, is intended to be a well site lot.
The following comparison of County and City designations/standards is provided:
Jurisdiction
I Land Use
Zoning
Min Lot Size
I Darby Road
Private Street
Riverside
MDR
R-1 (proposed)
7,200
60' ROW
LINK
County
(2-5 UPA
R-1-12000 (ex.)
12,000
40' CTC
La Quinta
LDR
RL
7,200
60' ROW
28' CTC or to
(0-4 UPA)
40' CTC
flow lines'
TPM 34784
2.76 UPA
R-1
7,201
60' ROW
24' ROW
40'CTC
22' CTC
3
'Minimum required street width. At 28' — no parking both sides; 32' — parking one side
only; 36' — parking both sides
The proposal includes a County zone change from R-1-12,000 to R-1, to allow the
minimum lot size at 7,200 s.f. Lot sizes for Parcels 1 — 3 range from 7,201 to 7,889
s.f., while Parcel 4 is 16,378 s.f. Darby Road is a local street (60-foot ROW, 40-foot
curb to curb roadbed width) as designated by Riverside County.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMENTS - Certain La Quinta General Plan
issues!policies would be applicable and are referred to, as follows:
Circulation Element
• Program 2.8 sets the minimum intersection spacing for local streets as 250 feet.
The project entry road is less than 200 feet from the adjacent existing subdivision
to the east (TR 23742).
• Program 2.10 requires that private streets be designed to a minimum 28 foot
width with restricted parking; the entry road on this tract is shown as a 22-foot
width.
• TT 31087, approved by City Council as an adjacent territories subdivision map,
was conditioned to provide a Collector status design (74-foot ROW, with 10-foot
landscaped setback) for its frontage along Darby Road. Specifically, as part of the
TT 31087 map approval, a GPA was required to be processed for designation of
Darby Road to Collector status, as part of annexation of this SOI area. Staff
recommends that the County require an increased parkway of 18 feet behind the
curb line, which would allow for the Collector width and maintenance based on
current City standards.
• While Parcel 4 is intended to be a well site, it is a flag lot situation. The County
will need to coordinate with the Fire Marshal on this parcel as the Fire Department
does not support flag lots to be created in subdivisions.
• A 25-foot setback on Parcel 1 is recommended from Darby Road ROW line, to help
mitigate view and noise concerns.
Other Comments/Concerns:
• Site drains to the north and pad elevations indicate significant variations in grade
with existing houses to the east (TR 23742), up to as much as 11 feet. Public
Works shares this concern and is noted in their comments on drainage — refer to
Public Works comment summary. City code requires limits height for walls at
a]
grade transitions to 6 feet on high grade side and 8 feet on lower grade side of
wall (Section 9.60.030, B & C; LQMC). Export of excess material is
recommended.
• Entry street angles in from Darby Road to accommodate adequate turn radius on
east side of entry. East side of parcel map between roadway and pavement edge
should be widened correspondingly, or be at least 5 feet in width, to allow
landscaping area along roadway and adequate wall separation.
• Entry gating of the project would not be permitted based on the proposed design
and access constraints.
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS — The Public Works Department has reviewed this map and
provided comments (Attachment 3). In summation, their concerns are as follows:
• Darby Road to be a Collector Road;
• Private entry road to be minimum 28 feet between flow lines, with no on -street
parking permitted. Provide minimum 4-foot landscaped buffer at east property line;
• Retain 100-year storm flow within private street ROW. Revise retention basin
design to accommodate historical storm flow from the west, either by pumping
overflow or design beyond 100-year storm event.
• Proposed pad elevations 1 - 3 indicate significant variations in grade with existing
houses to the east (TR 23742). Balance pad elevations with respect to east and
west side development scenarios.
Move to authorize staff to transmit comments on TPM 34784 to Riverside County.
Prepared by:
Wallace Nesbit, Principal Planner
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. TPM 34784
3. Public Works comments
E
ATTACHMENT
Pal
III
/ww WAKING M.
VlCIMTY MAP
(NO SOALAV
THOMAS GUIDE MAP, 2006 EDITION
PAGE 819, GRID G-6
ATTACHMENI
i
t nI !■ o r 1` (• • ie 1 I
1
lot
ft
Ilk
I0611 1'•iglii� I {!1 I
�i
0{ ilON i�C ill, i
0 0 ® e7
Tttt1z 4
k�
P.O. Boa 1504 ATTACHMENT 2
LA QuINrA, CALIFORNIA 92247-1504
78-495 CALLE TAUPICo (760)777-7000
LA QurxrA, CALIFORNIA 92253 FAX (760) 777-7101
April 28, 2009
Mr, Maurice Borrows, Project Planner
Riverside County Planning Department
Indio Office
38686 El Cerrito Road
Palm Desert, CA 92211
RE: Proposed CZ 7384 and Tentative Parcel Map 34784
Dear Mr. Borrows:
We have received your request for comment on the referenced application, and would like to
thank you for the opportunity to review this revised project. According to your transmittal, the
project is a 4-lot subdivision of t 1.5 acres, and a zone change from R-1-12000 to R-1., 7,200
s.f. minimum lot size. The site is on the north side of Darby Road, t 670 feet west f of Adams
Street.
As part of our review process for all County applications within unincorporated areas
designated as within the Sphere of Influence (SOU of the City of La Quinta, the City presents
the following recommendations and comments in relation to City review standards, policies and
procedures as they would be applied to this project.
The current pre -annexation land use and zoning adopted by the City for this site is Low Density
Residential, allowing up to 4 units/acre, with a minimum lot size of 7,200 s.f. The proposed
project is consistent with the City land use (LDR) and zoning (RL) designations.
1. Parcel 1 should be restricted to single story, at a height not to exceed 22 feet
2. The City would require a revised Darby Road street section (Please refer to Public
Works comments as outlined below). City staff requests a condition acknowledging
that the map is in the City's Sphere of Influence and that if the map is annexed into the
City prior to recording, the City's improvement standards would prevail.
3. A minimum 25-foot building setback is recommended for Parcel 1 along the existing
Darby Road ROW line, to help mitigate view and noise concerns, and accommodate the
City standard for Darby Road street improvements if the map is annexed after
recordation.
4. The City requests that preliminary landscape plans be required by the County with this
application, and that these plans be provided to the City for review.
I
5. Certain special studies would be required with this application. A Phase 1 cultural
resources survey would be required.
LA QUINTA PUBLIC WORKS
Public Works has reviewed the subject TTM 34784 prepared by Nolte Engineering dated
February 12, 2009. The tentative tract map information is insufficient to fully review the
project. Specifically, Public Works has significant regional storm water and pad elevation
concerns for this project. The applicant has not identified a viable strategy to handle storm
flows tributary to Darby Road. The pad elevation of Parcel 3 of 89.5 ft is of particular concern
relative to the adjacent catch basin inlet flow line and the estimated retention basin spill
elevation.
Additionally, Public Works offers the following comments, based on City of La Quinta
requirements as would be applicable to this map if the site were in the City limits at present:
1 . The following conditions shall be applicable for the Public Street right of way for this
Tentative Parcel Map:
A. Darby Road, Collector Street (74' ROW) - The standard 37 feet from the
centerline of Darby Road for a total 74-foot ultimate developed right of way.
Pursuant to this condition, the intersection spacing shall be 300 feet between
Parcel "A" and Moore Lane (Private Street) to the east.
B. Parcel A, Cul-de-sac (50' ROW) - The standard 25 feet from the centerline of
Parcel "A" for a total 50-foot ultimate developed right of way. Pursuant to this
condition, the applicant shall gain necessary right of way from the property to
the,west for full right of way requirements prior to recordation of the Final Map.
2. The applicant would be required to provide a preliminary grading plan for review, along
with a hydrology study. On -site retention of all tributary storm water would be required.
Additionally, overflow storm water would need to be addressed by the hydrology study.
As a preliminary hydrology report was not provided, the applicant shall comply with the
following:
A. 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. The design storm
shall be either the 1 hour, 3 hour, 6 hour or 24 hour event producing the
greatest total run off. The applicant or successors shall make provisions within
the project to resolve and accommodate related Darby Road tributary areas and
storm water volumes, as acceptable to the City Engineer.
B. 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.
to
C. 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.
D. 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 granted or dedicated to the local water utility authority as a
requirement for development of this property.
E. No fence or wall shall be constructed around any retention basin unless
approved by the Planning Director and the City Engineer.
F. For on -site above ground common retention basins, retention depth shall be
according to Engineering Bulletin No. 06-16 - Hydrology Report with
Preliminary Hydraulic Report Criteria for Storm Drain Systems. Side slopes shall
not exceed 3:1 and shall be planted with maintenance free ground cover.
Additionally, retention basin widths shall be not less than 20 feet at the bottom
of the basin.
G. Storm water 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).
H. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries
and levels in any area outside the development.
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. The subject project has not vet defined an
J. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received
and retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief
route. The subject project has not vet defined an overflow route and as such
may be unable to comply with a standard City of La Quinta Public Works
Condition of Approval.
The proposed pad elevations cause substantial differences between the
proposed Parcels 1 through 3 and existing development to the east. The
applicant shall provide revised pad elevations for balancina pad differentials to
the east and west of the development while maintaining sufficient storm water
freeboard. The pad elevation of Parcel 3 of 89.5 ft is of particular concern
Please be advised that the Public Works Department comments are a cursory review on
10
development abutting the City of La Quinta city limits and not for said entitlement of the
development.
We hope that these comments are helpful to you in processing this application. Should you
have questions regarding this letter, please contact the undersigned at 760-777-7069 (Fax
76D-777-1233), orvia e-mail at wnesbit@la=guinta.org.
Very truly yours,
we Ae
Wallace Nesbit
Principal Planner
WN/wn
C: Public Works
11
Tit!r 4 4 Q9146
MEMORANDUM
TO: Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Les Johnson, Planning Directo V9
DATE: June 9, 2009
SUBJECT: Correction to Minutes of April 28, 2009
For your consideration, here are three suggested revisions to the minutes of April 28,
2009.
Page 4, paragraph 3, sentence 1, shall be corrected to read:
Planning Director Johnson said there were some conditions that needed to come back to
the Planning Commission for consideration as Business Items.
Page 21, paragraph 4, sentence 4, shall be corrected to read:
He cautioned the Commissioners to make sure that it was substantiated, and defined, if
they did something other than what was being recommended by staff.
Page 23, paragraph 2, sentence 9, shall be corrected to read:
He said he wanted the lighting issue addressed because moving the signs closer to the
parking lot lights was probably not going to serve the applicant's intended purpose. The
parking lot lights were not designed with the intention of lighting these signs.
P:iCANGLYNVPanning CQmAPC Minul:es\f?evision of 4-26-09 Minutes Memo.doc
TO:
FROM
DATE:
RE:
MEMORANDUM
Honorable Chairman and Planning Commission Members
Timothy R. Jonasson, Public Works Director/City Engineer
June 9. 2009
Requested change to Condition No. 7 of SDP No. 2006-868 Extension
No. 1
Please delete the following text from Condition No. 7: "and shall make a good faith effort
to acquire easements or other property rights for the adjacent project's deceleration
lane transition curb reconstruction."
othy R. Jo asso , P.E.
Public Works Direct ity Engineer
VAitewater River Region
N54 Permit
.erview
r , T,,nP 9' 7nn9...
ft.--Jonasson; P. E:
)irector/CKV Engineer
3C, Prindp l"Engineen
Why are we here?
❑ Third -Term NPDES MS4 Permit adopted May 21, 2008
❑ Permit requires enhanced compliance programs by June 15, 2009
❑ Updated SWMP (regional procedures document)
❑ Implementation of SWMP
Plan of Action
❑ Regional Board Submittal/Implementation — June 15, 2009
❑ State Water Board Revisions — August 2009
❑ Program audits likely in 2010
introduction to NPDES MS4 Permits 4&
❑ Required by Federal Clean Water Act (as amended in 1987)
❑ Issued by RWQCB on behalf of USEPA (1996, 2001, 2008)
❑ Five-year term
❑ Designed to regulate discharges of Urban Runoff from MS4s to
Waters of U.S.
1. Manage non-stormwater discharges from urban areas
2. Mitigate impacts of Urban Stormwater Runoff on Waters of the U.S.
❑ Violations can be assessed at $32,500 per day
NPDES MS4 Pennit Co-Pernvttees AML
® Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District
~; County of Riverside
Banning
Cathedral City
Coachella
Desert Hot Springs
Indian Wells
Coachella Valley Water District
Indio
La Quinta
Palm Desert
Palm Springs
Rancho Mirage
Projects Subject to WQVIP
Public and Private Projects subject to the WQMP for New
Development:
o S.F. Hillside Residences with >= 10,000 sq. ft. imp. area
o Industrial/Commercial Developments >= 100,000 sq. ft.
o Automotive repair shops
a Retail Gasoline Outlets with >= 5,000 sq. ft. imp. area
Restaurants with >=5,000 sq. ft. imp. Area
o 10 lot or greater residential subdivisions
o Parking lots >=5,000 sq. ft.
Tentative Design Criteria for BWs
BMP Type
Development w/o Infiltration
Developments with
Ordinance
Infiltration Ordinance
exceeding Treatment
Control Requirements (100
year retention)
Site Design
Goal of 0.4" infiltrated or
Exempt
reused, unless site
conditions are infeasible
Treatment Control
85% Runoff must be treated
Exempt
(0.4") for all areas not using
site design
Hydromodification
Post Project 2 yr. <= Pre
Exempt
Project 2 yr.
Note: Projects subject to Infiltration Ordinances must still complete other
WQMP requirements such as source control and documenting
maintenance and financing mechanisms.
Ar,
Vegetated Swales
FXX
4�1
Treatment Control
- Weadras.r.
Hydromochfication
• Concerned with Increased
Volume and Peak of
�.a Stormwater Runoff
Mitigated with increased runoff
D�K basins, dry wells, and/or other
ei infiltration techniques
Tme
Ucl
c
o
cn
O
L
O
N
.Q
Q
0
N
C
L
L2
_
>
O
o
N
cu
QO
cu
cncu.
a)
c
c
cu
Qc
O
a
Y
C
L
U
L75
U
Q
cn
>
mCU
Q
�
N
R5
,�>+
C
O
co
U
a)
C
a
C
Q
N
E
O
a)�1
LL
Q
L
N
C)
�
+
o
a
�
E
Q
O
c
o
Y
cy
o
E
o
0-
a
O
a
0
C
O—
+�
a
N
0
m
c0
O
U
c�
a)>
N
O
cm
co
U
E
2
a)(�
Q
Q
fn
N
O�
N
C
'�
O
cU
a
a
o
ii
m
U
a
O
7
7
C3
7
7