Loading...
2009 04 28 PC MinutesMINUTES 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 VIII 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 BarrowslWilkinson to approve the minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved. P:\Reports- PC\2009\8-9-09\PC MIN_4-28-09_Approved.doc Planning Commission Minutes April 28, 2009 V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Continued Si_ n 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. 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. B. Continued Site Development Permit 2008-905 and Conditional Use 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 fora 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. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. Chairman Alderson asked if there were any 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. P:`~,Reports - FC`~.2003'~,6-9-09\PC tYtIN_4-28-09_Approaed.dec - ~ 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`~.2Q69`~.6-9-G9`~.PC, MiN 4-28-09_Apnroved.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 needed to come back to the Planning Commission for consideration as Business Items. They were follow-up matters with the Mayer Villa 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_4-29-09_ADProveci.cioc 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:`~.Rrporis - PC\2Q09`~,6-9-09iPC MIN 4-28-09 Approved.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 F:`~,Reports - PC`~.200916-9-095PC &91N_4-28-09_Approved.doc 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 aself-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:`~.Rrports - PC`~.2009`~,6-9-09tPC M!N 4-28-03 Approv<~d.doc ~ 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. Pt~:Repons - PC,.7-009`,6-9-09`~.PC MIN_4-28-C9_tlpproved.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 asix-lane street. It would be sandwiched between two large parking lots for medical P:`~,Repnrts - PC`,2009\6-9-09`~.PC M4N 4-2&-09 Approved.dac 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~.2.00910-9-091PC MIN_4~28-09_Approved.doc 10 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. P:`~,Repflrts - PC`,2009`~,6-9-09`~,PC MIN 4-2&09,_ApRroved.doc ] 1 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_4-2H-09_Approved.d°O IZ 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 recommerid 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. PaReparis ~~ PC,2009'~,6-9-09`~.PC MIN 4-28-09-_Approvt;d.doc j3 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: PaRepotts - PC~2Q09';6-9-C9\PC MIN_4-28-09_Approved.dor. 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. Pf.Fc;poris - PC`~2009`~,6-9-09'~PC MIN_4-28-09_ ApProved.doc ),5 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. Pr~:Reports - PC~.2009`~:fi-9-C9`.PC MIN_4-?.8-08_Approved.doc - , 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 apro-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:`:Rc=ports - PC~.2009`~.6-9-09`~PC MIN 4-28-09 Approva;d.doc 1 ~] 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:itiePOrts - PC~2009`.6-9-09\PC MIN_4-28-09_Approved.doc _ ).8 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 1 11. 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:`~.Rt;ports - PC,2009`~.6-9-OB'~.PC MIN 4-28-09_Ap!}roved.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 vvere 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 Pr~,RePOrts - PC`~.?.009`~:G_9-09`~.PC MIN_4-28-09_ApGroved.doc Z~ 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 other than what was being recommended by staff. 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:`~,R^,ports - PO.2069`~.6-9-09`.PC MIN,4-28-09, Approved.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; 11. 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 111, 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:'~:Repcrts - PC`~.2009\6-9-09\PC MIN 4-?.$-09_Approved.da: ~ ~ ~ ~ 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 layout. 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. 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,_Apprwfd.doc 2.3 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: 11. 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~.200ff`~6-9-09\PC MIN_428-09_Approved.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. Statf 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:\Repcris - PC`~2009`~.6-9-09iPC MIN 4-28-09 Approved.tloc 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 new (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 Iker, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California F:`,Reports - PC`.2009`~,6-9-09\PC MIN_4-28-09_Approved.doc 26 .,