Loading...
2012 04 24 PCCity of La Quinta Planning Commission Agendas are now available on the City's Web Page www.la-guinta.org PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California APRIL 24, 2012 7:00 P.M. **NOTE**. ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING Beginning Resolution 2012-009 Beginning Minute Motion 2012-003 I. CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call II. PUBLIC COMMENT This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled for public hearing. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your comments to three minutes. III. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA IV. CONSENT CALENDAR Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 10, 2012. 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 ................... ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2012-107 Applicant........... City of La Quinta Location............ City-wide Request ............. Consideration of the Following Amendments to the La Quinta Municipal Code: A Provision to Allow Outdoor Sales and Display at Retail Stores Greater than 100,000 GFA 09.100.120), Modify the Permitted Frequency of Sidewalk Sales and Commercial Events (§9.100.130). Action ................. Staff Recommendation for Adoption of Resolution Recommending Approval — ZOA 2012-107 - Resolution 2012- B. Item ................... ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2012-108 Applicant........... City of La Quints Location............ City-wide Request ............. Consideration of the Following Amendment to the La Quinta Municipal Code: A Provision to Require a Specific Plan for any New Development on a Lot that is Y2 Acre or Greater in Size and Located Within the Village Commercial District (§ 9.65). Action ................. Staff Recommendation for Adoption of Resolution Recommending Approval — ZOA 2012-108 - Resolution 2012- Vi. BUSINESS ITEMS: VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: Vill. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Report on City Council meeting of April 17, 2012. B. Commissioner Wilkinson is scheduled to attend the May 1, 2012, City Council meeting. IX. DIRECTOR ITEMS: A. City Council Report — Update on Green and Sustainable La Quinta Program, dated April 17, 2012. X. ADJOURNMENT: This meeting of the Planning' Commission will be adjourned to a Regular Meeting to be held on May 8, 2012, at 7:00 p.m. DECLARATION OF POSTING I, Carolyn Walker, Executive Secretary of the City of La Quinta, do hereby declare that the foregoing Agenda for the La Quinta Planning Commission meeting of Tuesday, April 24, 2012 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 Thursday, April 19, 2012. DATED: April 19, 2012 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 (S) 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 10, 2012 7:04 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER A. A regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission was called to order at 7:04 p.m. by Chairman Alderson` PRESENT: Commissioners Barrows, Weber, Wilkinson, Wright, and Chairman Alderson ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: ,Planning Manager David Sawyer, Principal Engineer Ed Wimmer, Senior Code Compliance Officer Anthony Moreno, and Executive Secretary Carolyn Walker. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: There being no comments, or suggestions, it was moved by Commissioners Wright/Barrows to approve the minutes of February 28, 2012, as submitted. Unanimously approved. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: There are no Public Hearing items scheduled. VI. BUSINESS ITEM: A. Appeal 2012-006: a request by Christine Clarke, President of Kestam Corp., General Partner of Stamko Development Company for consideration of appeal of Public Nuisance Code determination regarding the maintenance of a 22 acre Regional Commercial zoned site located on the southeast corner of Auto Center Drive and Adams Street. Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2012 Planning Manager Sawyer introduced Senior Code Compliance Officer Moreno who presented the staff report; a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. Chairman Alderson asked for clarification of the function of the Planning Commission, at tonight's meeting; more specifically were they to determine if the violation occurred, but not to what degree. Planning Manager Sawyer responded the charge for the Planning Commission was to determine whether or not a violation existed at the time of the notice; not to come to solutions of how to deal with the situation. Chairman Alderson asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Barrows asked about a possible solution for the situation across from Lake La Quinta where the fence dips down. Senior Code Compliance Officer Moreno deferred to Public Works for the response. Principal Engineer Wimmer said there were many options available. He explained the typical process but also mentioned that the fencing could be higher, or alternatively, there could be another fence put a little bit further back on the property that would be a higher height; anything that can help ameliorate the fugitive dust. Commissioner Barrows said the stabilizer doesn't last as long as it needs to and she appreciated the additional information. Principal Engineer Wimmer said stabilizer was one of the approved methods, but it did have to be applied with some periodicity. Discussion followed on disturbed soil and when is it considered to have gone back to its natural vegetative state. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Alderson asked if the applicant would like to speak. Mr. Mark Moran, 53545 Avenida Cortez, property manager for Chris Clarke introduced himself and said he had been a long-time La Quinta resident. He said that the issue was not about the fact that there was -2- Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2012 a violation, but the way it was handled. It was a procedural issue. He was concerned that he, as the property manager, was never notified that there was ever any problem on that property. He gave some background on how long he had been property manager for Ms. Clarke. He explained that one of their problems had been Mr. Velarde's acreage in front of the property which contributed to blowing vegetation from that property to the subject property. He stated some of the blowing dust comes from their parcel, but most of it does not. He reiterated that he was concerned about the process and the procedure and said Mr. Moreno should have notified the property owner and asked for permission to enter the property; which he never did. He stated that almost every item that has been brought up has been corrected. Mr. Moran additionally stated that some of the things that weren't corrected were not on the subject property. He gave the example of the Aventine wall, the graffiti problem and the City's graffiti program. He then went on to comment on people using the interior land as a convenient dump for a number of construction activities all unrelated to this property. He said it is very difficult to stop people in the middle of the night when they decide to dump stuff on your property. He said being notified of the dumping situation without actually disturbing the property would have been very beneficial. He said the property manager, or the property owner, would have been more than willing to go on site with the Code Enforcement staff to discuss the various issues and their correction. He added that there was no dispute. They did violate the law. He was just concerned as to why they had to deal with these issues by an appeal to the Planning Commission instead of through a kinder, gentler approach. He commented on several on -going violations on the subject and surrounding properties, but concluded by saying that he had gotten no calls and had never been asked to do anything on that property. Yes, there were some violations; some were theirs and some were not, but the process could have been a lot fairer and a lot less hectic and certainly a lot less expensive. Chairman Alderson asked if any of the Commissioners had any questions of Mr. Moran. Commissioner Weber asked Mr. Moran if he was basically indicating that there were violations there, but that some of the violations were due to extenuating circumstances. -3- Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2012 Mr. Moran responded that was correct. Commissioner Weber continued by saying what's under the Planning Commission's consideration was whether there were violations that occurred; which Mr. Moran had indicated. He asked if Mr. Moran had ever received a written notice of the violations. Mr. Moran said he had not received any notice, but the property owner, Ms. Clarke had received them. He then added that not all the violations were theirs; i.e., the graffiti on the Aventine wall. Commissioner Weber said at some point the City, if they're going to access that, wouldn't they have to access that wall through the subject property. Mr. Moran said all they had to do was jump over the wall because there was an easement between the wall and Ms. Clarke's property and the City had the right to be'in that easement. Chairman Alderson said according to the application, the site was visited four to six times a week to ensure its security. Mr. Moran said that was correct. He added he was there almost every day. He did say he had recently been on a two -week vacation, but other than that he was there almost every day. Chairman Alderson then asked if Ms. Clarke (the applicant) would like to speak. Ms. Christine Clarke, President of Kestam Corp, General Partner of Stamko Development Co, 2205 North Poinsettia Avenue, Manhattan Beach CA 90266, introduced herself and said she wanted to comment on a couple of points. The first point Ms. Clarke wished to comment on was the Lake La Quinta letter. She stated she had just gotten it when she arrived at the meeting and said the pictures provided showed what the City approved for her PM 10 plan. She then commented on the placement of the fencing, the property line, and the retention basin in that area. She also stated she met with another Code Enforcement staff member, last fall when she received a complaint about dust coming Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2012 off the property, and it turned out that when you go to the site and look at the way the property and the fence dip down, that it isn't on her property. It is really in the setback which the auto dealers run. She continued that when she met with Mr. Moreno's people out there, it turned out that the dust seemed to be coming off of Mr. Velarde's property. She said the dip was there because there was a retention basin there. In reference to Lake La Quinta, this was an underlying development issue that the City had approved and the fence could not be moved because it was at the property line which she had to be responsible for under her PM 10 Plan. The second point Ms. Clarke wished to comment on was the fact that she got this notice on March 19, 2012, actually 33 minutes before 5:00 p.m. and she had to contact Senior Code Compliance Officer Moreno to ask why he hadn't called her because she could have taken care of some of these items. Some of the items she didn't even know existed because Mr. Velarde's property sits in front of a big chunk of her property and his vegetation is over her fence. She then went on to explain that the vegetation was so high she could not see the gate. She said she did not. make a practice of walking on the property because it had been stabilized, not even three years ago, per City approval. She said she was out there with Mr. Moreno's co-worker in September/October (2011), as well as with Mr. Moran, and the staff member agreed that the stabilization on the property was okay. Ms. Clarke stated she had fixed the following items: 1) the little piece of fence that was down; which was actually a gate, 2) the green screen, 3). the two signs, and 4) covered the graffiti. Ms. Clarke then gave anecdotal evidence of why the signs had to be constantly monitored and repaired and why the graffiti could not be covered with green spray paint. Ms. Clarke continued by explaining why there was construction debris on the property and how it probably got there. She commented that she did not know from what vantage point Senior Code Compliance Officer Moreno's pictures were taken, but those viewpoints were not from public streets. There was one taken from a two-story apartment, in Aventine, with a view all the way to Auto Center Drive, which showed a discarded tire. She said that was not from her construction, it was from people throwing debris on her property. She said when she was out visiting the property, on a daily basis; she never knew -5- Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2012 there was a gate on the northwest corner because of the height of vegetation on Mr. Velarde's property. Ms..Clarke said she has done all that she could do to fix those things she was responsible for. She fixed all those things on March 24, 2012, but the pictures were taken on March 20, 2012. She then commented on the statement of violations "remove hazardous trees or vegetation". She said there was no blockage of any pedestrian sidewalk, or street due to anything she had done. The reason for the blockage was with the winds. The tumbleweeds and vegetation blow and blow and they blow into the fences, which creates a problem, but then it actually ends up blowing away again when the next wind comes. Mrs. Clark said the soil had been stabilized. She commented on people walking on her property; as well as a vagrant who was found living in her retention basin and how that broke the seal on the stabilization. She further commented on the easements; those that belonged to the City and those that belonged to the Auto Dealership; saying that the people at Lake La Quinta needed to understand that the City authorized the PM 10 Plan, authorized where the fences were, authorized what was going on and how high the fences were supposed to be. , Mrs. Clark commented on covering up the graffiti on the green fence and how she had driven around the City of La Quinta and looked at the back of other commercial shopping centers where they had to spray paint their dust control fences with spray graffiti paint. She relayed comments from others stating how you could spray paint the fences, but the graffiti just didn't go away. Ms. Clarke said she'd looked at the site on Washington Street where the fences were falling down and said at least she was willing to do her job as a property owner to maintain her property. All she was asking was for the City to be a little more cooperative and not issue out a citation like this when she didn't even know what it meant. She added she had done a lot of work and would continue to maintain the property. That was her job as a property owner, but Lake La Quinta and the City of La Quinta needed to understand what is PM 10 for her property as it related to Adams Street and her realization that Lake La Quinta had an issue, but they needed to be aware of this situation. Kom Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2012 Commissioner Weber asked Ms. Clarke about the various addresses that were shown on the documents in the staff report. He asked if she received the notification at the address shown as the mailing address. Ms. Clarke said yes, it was sent to 6080 Center Drive. Unfortunately, that was during the one and a half weeks that the office was closed. When the certified letter came in, it wasn't received until 4:25 p.m. that afternoon, but that's where it went; Manhattan Beach. Commissioner Weber noted that the material included in the Planning Commissioner's packet confirmed that Ms. Clarke did receive the notice, and said the appeal was stamped paid on March 20, 2012. He said this document stated she was appealing the citation, what he heard was that she agreed there were violations, on the property, at the time it was issued. Ms. Clarke said she spoke with Mr. Moreno, on March 19, 2012 and he told her she had to file a written protest. She then explained the process she had to go through to file the protest and her discussion with Mr. Moreno about a possible rescinding of the violation; ending up with her application to the Planning Department for an Appeal to the Planning Commission. She expressed her concern when she spoke with Planning Director Johnson asking about the hazardous trees and vegetation that was creating a health and safety issue and her concern with Senior Code Compliance Officer Moreno going on private property without permission. Ms. Clarke continued that she could now see the tumbleweeds and would get her landscaper, who had been on vacation for three weeks, to get his people to take pitchforks and pull those tumbleweeds out from behind the fence. Commissioner Weber said there were more than tumbleweeds to be removed, from what he witnessed on the property. There was still construction debris that had to be removed. Commissioner Weber then commented on effective Code Enforcement and how it needed to be consistent. He then asked how long it had been since soil stabilization had been applied on that property. -7- Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2012 Ms. Clark said she applied it in the beginning of 2010, and it was done with the City's consent Chairman Alderson asked if there were any other questions of the applicant. Commissioner Wilkinson wanted to go over the list of violations and see what had been corrected. General discussion then followed on the list of violations with discussion of what each violation was and what had been completed. Chairman Alderson asked the applicant if she had ever walked the site with the Code Enforcement people. Ms. Clarke said she had not. Chairman Alderson asked was this notice of violation the first notice she had received.. Ms. Clarke says yes. There being no further questions of staff, or comments from the applicant, Chairman Alderson asked if there was any public comment. Ms. Suzanne Albert, 47510 Via Florence, introduced herself and said she resided in Lake La Quinta. (Her house was the house next to the main gate.) She brought up some photos showing what the parcel looked like, across the street from her home. She commented on the height of the dirt on the JC Penney property and the fact that there was no retardant on it and nothing to block the wind. She said there was zero visibility, during the last big wind, going down Adams from 47`h to 48`h where Lake La Quinta is. Ms. Albert continued saying her concern was the dust and dirt and difficulty breathing. She commented on the garbage on the site and how it promoted rats and disease and other problems. She said, further, it gets windborne and gets into the Lake La Quinta property. She was very concerned that something should be done; regardless of whose property it was. She then commented on her efforts to contact Ms. Clarke stating she and Daniel Valenzuela, City of La Quinta Public Works Department, tried a year ago, as well as for five weeks in April Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2012 and May to contact the applicant's office. Mr. Valenzuela called the Manhattan Beach and Marina del Rey offices. When he finally got through, he was told Ms. Clarke was on vacation for nine months. Ms. Albert said she was very surprised there wasn't anybody in the office, but was concerned that the applicant had said nobody had tried to contact them because that was incorrect. She directed the applicant to contact Mr. Valenzuela, in the Public Works Department, to verify how many times he had tried to call to get a conversation going with them. She commented that the City now had the applicant's attention because of the code violation against them. She also took issue with the applicant's comment about their visits to the site five or six times a week and also the sufficiency of the green retardant. She s commented it had been two years since it was last done and it typically only lasted eight to ten months. She said that should be taken care of as there's nothing on the soil for retardant; as well as no trees. She commented on the fact that there were million dollar homes across from the site, as well as stating Lake La Quinta residents had previously been informed there would be six foot walls, trees and lights across the street from their community and none of that had been done. She asked how many more years would she have to wait for the promised amenities. She was at the meeting to say something should be done to protect Lake La Quinta and the health of its residents. Planning Manager Sawyer pointed out that the photographs referenced, in the comments, were based on a communication staff received on the previous Friday afternoon; making them too late to include in the Commissioners' packets, and were placed on the dais for the meeting. Commissioner Barrows asked for clarification of what occurred when the applicant made their visits four to six times a week. She noted the photographs showed a lot of clean up and maintenance that hadn't been done. Ms. Clarke commented that what the Commissioners were seeing was on the inside of the fence, that were hot visible from the outside. She reiterated they constantly check and repair the signs, but they never saw the missing green screen noted in the citation. As it turns out, it wasn't part of the fence, but a gate she was unable to see since it was covered with vegetation that was seven or eight feet tall, from Mr. Velarde's property. She stated she would never have been able to Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2012 see that unless she was coming south on Adams (shown in Senior Code Officer Moreno's pictures) and would actually have had to look over the fence. She then asked about one group of photos which appeared to have been taken over by the Aventine wall, inside the site. Senior Code Compliance Officer Moreno said the photos that were taken were from the cul de sac immediately adjacent to the auto dealership. There were areas where the fabric was shredded and missing and standing flat footed in that cul de sac you could see pipe, tires, pallets, and different discarded and abandoned debris. There were areas where the fencing was missing; i.e., the fabric on the large stretch where there were piles of lumber and protruding nails. Even the areas where the fabric was fully intact, were so sheer you could see through it to view the discarded debris; which would be in public view. Ms. Clarke said she understood Ms. Albert's concerns but said that property showing up over the fence was sealed. She added it was done in accordance with the City's PM 10 Plan. It was not her choice, but directed by the City and the hill was stabilized and approved by the City two years ago. Commissioner Wilkinson asked about the procedures involving a PM 10 Plan. It was his understanding that a PM 10 Plan was submitted by the individual, or the developer, and their engineer comes up with the Plan. It is then submitted to the City for approval. If the Plan does not work, it is the owner's responsibility, not the City's. He asked if that was correct since he kept hearing that it was the City's PM 10 Plan, but it was not. It was the developer's plan. Principal Engineer Wimmer responded that was correct. General discussion followed on the PM 10 Plan, the signs posted regarding the plan, what happens when you call that number and the responsibilities of the developer, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), the Air Quality Management District (AQMD) and the City of La Quinta. Commissioner Wright asked for clarification that the Commission's job on this appeal was to decide whether or not there had been a violation made and the applicant had already agreed there was. He said this -10- Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2012 appeared to come down to a communication issue that needed to be resolved. He was very aware of the PM 10 situation in the Valley and commented that once AQMD got involved it would be out of the City's hands. Principal Engineer Wimmer stated the City had Ordinances that dealt. with fugitive dust control, so in this case it would be both the City and the Air Quality Management District who would prosecute, as they were both responsible for PM 10 in the City of La Quinta. Commissioner Wright then recommended that all parties sit down and resolve the matter because all the Commission was charged with was to comment on whether or not there was a violation. Chairman Alderson said Ms. Albert had some very valid points on dust control. He followed up with general comments on: • Dust control was needed on the site. • Possibly dust control was needed on nearby sites to protect Lake La Quinta residents. • The dipped fence and what would happen if another fence was put behind it. • More chemical treatment of the soil. • The developer's responsibility to maintain the site, for their own benefit as well as the City's. • The site needed to be cleaned up. • The developer needed to walk the site with the Code Compliance officer. Senior Code Compliance Officer Moreno commented on the fact that a notice had been sent out on the nearby property and the owner had called asking what they could do to ameliorate the problem. They were currently working with the City to resolve any current violations. Chairman Alderson asked if the applicant had any comments on these suggestions. Ms. Clark said she agreed with some of the violations and had fixed those. Unfortunately, she didn't' even know what the others were and commented that you would think that you could work together, but that was not what was happening here. -11- Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2012 Chairman Alderson said that was being offered tonight. Ms. Clarke said she would be more than willing to work on the PM 10 problem. She said she would start cleaning up the dead tumbleweeds and debris, but she would like the City to help her understand what she needed to do. The Chair then recognized Ms. Albert. Ms. Albert said, the Lake La Quinta residents had tried many times to contact the applicant. She was so frustrated, at the lack of response that she went to the Mayor who came out and acknowledged they were exposed when the wind was blowing. She was very concerned that Ms. Clarke continued to say that they had not tried to contact her. Ms. Clarke's property manager, Mr. Moran, gave Ms. Albert his card and asked her to contact him with any current or future problems. Ms. Albert continued by commenting on the green fence and dust deterrents needed. General discussion followed as to what the Planning Commission's task was with regard to the case before them; concluding with once it was determined whether or not there were violations the opportunity for the property owner and staff would be opened up for further communication to solve the issues. General discussion followed on consequences of either decision, the time frame for future discussion, how they would be handled, and who would be involved in those discussions. There being no further public comments, Chairman Alderson closed the public hearing and asked for Commissioner comments. There being no further questions or discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Weber/Barrows to adopt Minute Motion 2012-002 upholding the determination that a public nuisance exists at the aforementioned parcel/address with reference to Case No. 12- 1340. Unanimously approved. -12- Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2012 VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: A. None. VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Report of the City Council Meetings March 6, March 20, and April 3, 2012. B. Commissioner Weber is scheduled to report back on the April 17, 2012, City Council meeting. IX: DIRECTOR ITEMS: None X. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved by Commissioners Barrows/Wilkinson to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next regular meeting to be held on April 24, 2012. This regular meeting was adjourned at 8:39 p.m. on April 10, 2012. Respectfully submitted, Carolyn Walker, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California -13- PH # A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: APRIL 24, 2012 CASE NO.: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2012-107 APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS TO THE LA QUINTA MUNICIPAL CODE: A PROVISION TO ALLOW OUTDOOR SALES AND DISPLAY AT RETAIL STORES GREATER THAN 100,000 GFA (§9.100.120), MODIFY THE PERMITTED FREQUENCY OF SIDEWALK SALES AND COMMERCIAL EVENTS 09.100.130). LOCATION: ALL NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS GENERAL PLAN/ ZONING DESIGNATIONS: NOT APPLICABLE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEWED THE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) AND HAS DETERMINED THAT THE AMENDMENTS ARE EXEMPT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15061(B)(3) OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES. BACKGROUND: Over the past year, a number of retail businesses have approached the Planning Department seeking ways to improve sales and visibility. The discussions have focused on outlining clear and defined methods in the municipal code for permitting the outdoor display and sales of merchandise. There are currently two codified methods which allow retail businesses to display merchandise outdoors. Any business may hold a four -day sidewalk sale or commercial event once every four months with an approved Temporary Use Permit (§9.100.130). The other method permits retail businesses to permanently display their merchandise outdoors within an enclosed garden center with an approved Conditional Use Permit 09.100.120). Outdoor sales provisions for commercial ZOA 12-107 Planning Commission Staff Report 4/24/10 . P:\Reports - PC\2012\PC 4-24-12\PC ZOA 12-107\Stf Rpt ZOA 12-107.doc businesses such as auto dealerships, lumber yards, and nurseries are also codified within the same section. PROPOSAL: Staff has prepared two draft measures that would accommodate and expand the opportunity for outdoor retail sales and display. The first measure was drafted in response to large retailers such as Lowe's, Home Depot, and Costco, who have expressed an interest in obtaining a permit that would allow them to permanently display merchandise along their storefront. The second measure was drafted in response to those retailers who have sought an increase in the frequency of permitted sidewalk sales. Outdoor Display and Sales for Retail Businesses Greater than 100,000 Square Feet Under this new code provision (Exhibit A), any business greater than 100,000 square feet may apply for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the outdoor display and sales of merchandise. The application will require supporting documentation such as a site plan and a description of the merchandise to be displayed. All proposals will be reviewed by City departments for compliance with the current building, fire, health and safety codes. Following staff review, each application would then be brought forward to the Planning Commission for final consideration. The Planning Commission will have the opportunity to place conditions and/or restrictions on each proposal on a case -by -case basis. The proposed code section will limit the total outdoor display area to up to 10 percent of the store's gross floor area. The section will also include provisions identifying permitted display locations and performance standards. All displays and display locations will be required to comply with the current building, fire, health, and safety codes, as well as any additional conditions determined by the Planning Commission. In the event of non-compliance, the City retains the authority to review, modify, or revoke any Conditional Use Permit. Expanded Sidewalk Sales and Commercial Events The current code permits one sidewalk sale or commercial event to be held for up to four consecutive days, once every four months, with an approved Temporary Use Permit. Staff is proposing to modify and expand this provision to allow sidewalk sales or commercial events to be held for up to four consecutive days, once per month, up to six times per year with an approved Temporary Use Permit (Exhibit B). Sidewalk sales and commercial events for non-profit organizations will remain unchanged. ZOA 12-107 Planning Commission Staff Report 4/27/12 Page 2 of 3 PAReports - PC\201 2\PC_4-24-1 2\PC ZOA 12-107\Stf Rpt ZOA 12-107.doc ANALYSIS: The proposed code amendments will accommodate the majority of retail businesses who seek greater outdoor sales exposure while retaining the ability to address potential issues on a case -by -case basis. Permitting the outdoor sales and display of merchandise for large retailers with a Conditional Use Permit will enable a practice which often occurs without authorization. The modification of the sidewalk sales provisions will allow retail businesses to hold more of their sidewalk sale events during the busier winter season, when weather conditions are more amenable to such events. CEQA: The approval of the two proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments have been determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Because the proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance involve permit applications which will be individually reviewed under CEQA on a case -by -case basis, the ordinance amendments will have no impact on the environment. PUBLIC NOTICE: This request was published in the Desert Sun newspaper on April 13, 2012. To date, no letters have been received. A copy of this request has been sent to all applicable public agencies and City Departments. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: Findings to recommend approval of the Zoning Ordinance amendments can be made and are contained in the attached Resolution. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt a Planning Commission Resolution recommending approval of Zoning Code Amendment 2010-107 to the City Council. Prepared by: JwAndJ. Mogensen, AICP al Planner ZOA 12-107 Planning Commission Staff Report 4/27/12 page 3 of 3- P:\Reports - PC\2012\PC_4-24-12\PC ZOA 12-107\Stf Rpt ZOA 12-107.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2012- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2012-107, 1.) A PROVISION TO ALLOW OUTDOOR SALES AND DISPLAY AT RETAIL STORES HAVING GREATER THAN 100,000 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA 09.100.120), AND 2.) MODIFY THE PERMITTED FREQUENCY OF SIDEWALK SALES AND COMMERCIAL EVENTS 09.100.130). CASE NO.: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2012-107 APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 24`h of April, 2012, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing for review of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to allow outdoor sales and display at retail stores greater than 100,000 GFA (§9.100.120), and to modify the permitted frequency of sidewalk sales and commercial events (§9.100.130), 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(13)(3), Review for Exemptions of the CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Planning Department published the public hearing notice in the Desert Sun newspaper on April 13, 2012, 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 goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan, insofar that it does not create any new or changed conditions to the environment, is intended to encourage and enhance economic growth, and 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 E! Planning Commission Resolution 2012- Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2012-107 April 24, 2012 no impacts on the public health, safety and welfare. Each action taken as a result of this code amendment will have their conditions individually reviewed for conformance with public health, safety, and welfare standards. 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. Furthermore, each application submitted as a result of this Amendment will be assessed under the California Environmental Quality Act on a case -by -case 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 2012-107 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 24`" day of April, 2012, 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 5 "Exhibit A" 9.100.120 Outdoor storage and display. A. Purpose. This section provides regulations for the permanent outdoor storage and display of merchandise, materials and equipment. B. Where Permitted. The storage and/or display of any merchandise, materials or equipment outside of an enclosed building is prohibited except where permitted in accordance with this section, Section 9.80.040 pertaining to permitted uses, Section 9.100.130 pertaining to sidewalk sales and special events, or where permitted by a conditional use permit. C. Equipment, Lumber and Storage Yards. Any uncovered equipment and/or materials storage area, including vehicle storage, shall comply with the following regulations: 1. - Use Permit. The establishment of any outdoor equipment or materials storage use shall require approval of a conditional use permit pursuant to Section 9.210.020. 2. Location. An equipment, material or storage yard use shall only be located where a main building is permitted by the applicable district regulations. 3. Screening. Outdoor storage yards shall be screened whenever they abut the boundary of the building site or are located between a building and an abutting street. The screening materials shall be not less than five feet high and shall be in compliance with Section 9.100.030 (Fences and walls). Screening may consist of one or a combination of the following types: a. Walls. A wall shall consist of concrete, stone, brick, tile or similar type of solid masonry material a minimum of six inches thick. b. Solid Fences. Solid fences may be used for screening if approved by the decision -making authority. Such fences shall be constructed of wood or other materials with a minimum nominal thickness of two inches and shall form an opaque screen. All wood fencing shall be constructed of not less than a grade of construction heart or merchantable and better redwood or No. 2 and better (no holes) western red cedar, stained or painted to match or complement the adjacent wall or structure. 2 Alternatively, if left in natural color, all wood shall be treated with a water -repellant material. C. Plant Screens. Plant materials, when used as a screen, shall consist of compact evergreen plants. Such planting shall be of a kind or used in such a manner so as to provide screening with a minimum thickness of two feet within eighteen months after initial installation. Permanent automatic irrigation shall be provided. If, eighteen months after installation, plant materials have not formed an opaque screen or if an opaque screen is not maintained, the planning director may require that a wall, solid fence or berms be installed. D. Outdoor Display and Sales. Outdoor sales and . display areas in conjunction with retail uses such as nursery and garden supply stores or departments within retail stores shall comply with the following standards: 1. Fencing. The outdoor sales and display area shall be enclosed by a wall or fence at least four feet high which obscures views from streets or public parking areas into the area. The color and materials used to fence the area shall be complementary to the color and materials used in buildings on -site. Chain link fencing is not permitted. 2. Building Design. When the outdoor sales area is an extension of retail uses within an adjacent building, it shall be enclosed by a wall which is, by exterior appearance, an extension of the adjacent building. The design of the building and outdoor area shall appear as a single structure. E. Outdoor Display and Sales for Commercial Retail Uses Greater than 100,000 Square Feet. Outdoor display and sales areas in conjunction with retail commercial businesses having over 100,000 square feet of gross floor area (GFA) may be permitted subject to the approval of a conditional use permit in accordance with Section 9.210.020. The conditional use permit shall establish standards for each facility in addition to the requirements of this sprtinn- 1. Area. Outdoor display and sales areas shall not exceed 10% of the gross floor area of the retail commercial building. 2. Locations. Outdoor display and sales areas shall be restricted to those locations identified on an approved plan -designated area and shall comply with the following standards: 7 a. Permitted locations for outdoor display and sales areas shall be in conformance with all current fire, health, building and safety codes. b. Outdoor display and sales areas may be permitted within designated portions of sidewalk, patios, and similar areas within proximity to the storefront. C. No outdoor display and sales area shall obstruct an entrance or exit to any building, impede the flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic, or obstruct access to any parking space or drive aisle. d. Permanent modifications to the building, landscaping, or site plan for purposes of outdoor display shall require approval through the City's development review process. 3. Performance Standards. Items and materials to be displayed outdoors within designated areas shall comply with the following standards: a. All items and materials to be displayed outdoors shall be in conformance with current fire, health, building and safety codes. b. No item shall be displayed in a manner . that causes a safety hazard or public nuisance. C. Fixtures, and tables used to display merchandise shall be maintained in good repair. d. Signs, flags, banners, placards, balloons, streamers, spot lighting, amplified music, or similar features shall be prohibited unless otherwise permitted and approved through a separate sign permit. e. Outdoor display and sales areas shall be kept clean and maintained on a continual basis. 4. Authority to Suspend Operations. Failure to comply with these provisions is subject to suspension or revocation of a permit. F. Vehicle Sales. The outdoor display and sales of vehicles shall be subject to the approval of a conditional use permit in accordance with Section 9.210.020. The use permit shall establish standards for each such facility. Such standards shall include at a minimum: 1. Landscaping. Perimeter landscaping conforming to that required for the applicable zoning district per Chapter 9.90. 2. Lighting. Outdoor lighting conforming to the standards of Section 9.100.150. 3. Vehicle Display. Precise delineation of the location and limits of outdoor vehicle display and storage areas, plus prohibition of focal display areas elevated more than one foot above the average finish grade of the overall outdoor display area. (Ord. 325 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 1998; Ord. 284 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 1996) 110: "Exhibit B" 9.100.130 Sidewalk sales and commercial events. A. Purpose. This section provides regulations for: (1) the temporary outdoor sale of merchandise by retail businesses, and (2) special outdoor commercial events within shopping centers. B. Definitions. For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply: 1. A "sidewalk or parking lot sale" means the temporary outdoor display and sale by a retail business, of merchandise which is normally displayed indoors at the same location as the outdoor sale. 2. A special commercial event means the temporary outdoor display and sale of merchandise, not necessarily sold indoors at the same location, arts and crafts shows, entertainment, or similar events within a commercial center. C. Temporary Use Permit Required. Sidewalk sales and special events in commercial centers are permitted subject to issuance of a temporary use permit and compliance with the following provisions: 1. The application for a temporary use permit for a sidewalk sale or a special commercial event shall include a site plan indicating the location of the temporary uses and demonstrating maintenance of adequate parking, site circulation and emergency access. 2. A sidewalk sale or a special commercial event may be conducted over a maximum of four consecutive days and no more than once per month WkWR feWF ealendaF months at any location, not to exceed six times per year. Each such event shall require the approval of a temporary use permit. Special commercial events which benefit nonprofit organizations can be held more than enGe evBFY f8 - MARthn six times per year if conducted on sidewalk areas and approved by the planning director FegaF less of whe Mal 3. Adequate pedestrian access shall be maintained around merchandise or displays placed on a sidewalk or walkway. 4. Adequate vehicle access shall be maintained around. merchandise, displays or temporary structures placed in parking areas. 5. A cash bond or other guarantee shall be posted for removal of the temporary use and cleanup and restoration of the activity site within seven days of the conclusion of the event. 6. The application shall be reviewed by the fire marshal and the event shall comply with fire prevention standards and emergency access requirements as approved and, enforced by the fire marshal. 7. Temporary signs may be permitted subject to the provisions of Section 9.160.060 (Permitted temporary signs). (Ord. 325 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 1998; Ord. 284 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 1996) 11 PH#B PLANNING COMMISSION . STAFF REPORT DATE: APRIL 24, 2012 CASE NO.: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2012-108 APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS TO THE LA QUINTA MUNICIPAL CODE: A PROVISION TO REQUIRE A SPECIFIC PLAN FOR ANY NEW DEVELOPMENT ON _A LOT THAT IS %: ACRE OR GREATER IN SIZE AND LOCATED WITHIN THE VILLAGE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT 09.65) LOCATION: VILLAGE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT GENERAL PLAN/ ZONING DESIGNATIONS: NOT APPLICABLE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEWED THE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) AND HAS DETERMINED THAT THE AMENDMENTS ARE EXEMPT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15061(B)(3) OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES. BACKGROUND: At the Council meeting of February 21, 2012, Council directed staff to prepare a potential Zoning Amendment to the Village Commercial District with the intent of adding flexibility in order to encourage the development of a vibrant and successful village community while at the same time insuring adequate review of future development proposals for consistency with the City's policies for the long term development of the area. In response, staff has prepared the following Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Planning Commission consideration and recommendation to the City Council. PROPOSAL: Currently, any new development within the Village Commercial District requires Planning Commission approval of a Village Use Permit. The proposed code ZOA 12-107 Planning Commission Staff Report 4/24/10 PAReports - PC\2012\PC_4-24-12\PC ZOA 12-108\Stf Rpt ZOA 12-108.doc amendment will also require City Council approval of a Specific Plan for any new development on a parcel of land %2 acre or greater in size that is located in the Village Commercial District. The purpose of this requirement is two -fold; first the preparation and approval of a specific plan provides the applicant flexibility in the design and to a certain extent, the type of land use proposed in a proposed development. Secondly, the requirement of a specific plan affords the City Council an opportunity to review the project in order to insure the development is consistent with the City's General Plan policies for the Village. ANALYSIS: Currently there are 45 vacant properties, comprising approximately 21 acres, within the Village Commercial District (please see Attachment A). Of the vacant properties, nine (9) are %2 acre or greater in size and thus would be subject to the requirement of a specific plan. Of the nine properties subject to the specific plan requirement, three (3) are currently under an existing specific plan and the remaining six (6) properties, which total approximately seven (7) acres, are owned by the City's Housing Authority. If a property is currently under an existing specific plan, neither a new specific plan nor an amendment of the existing specific plan will be required as long as any proposed development is consistent with the existing specific plan and the policies of the City's General Plan. For those properties subject to the new requirement and that are not under an existing specific plan, it is anticipated the approval of a specific plan will add approximately 30 days to the project review timeline as the City Council hearing must follow the Planning Commission hearing by enough time to allow a 10 day public notice of the Commission's recommendation and the date and time of the City Council hearing. Additionally, approval of a specific plan also requires compliance with SB18 which calls for notification of any potentially affected Native American Tribe and the provision for Tribal consultation regarding the proposed project and any potential impact on Tribal resources. While this adds an additional layer to the review process, it is typically conducted simultaneously with the City's normal project review process and does not usually add additional time beyond the time needed for City Council review and approval of the specific plan. CEQA: The approval of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment has been determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Because the proposed changes involve procedural changes that insure development subject to the new procedures will be individually reviewed under CEQA on a case -by -case basis, thus the ordinance amendment will have no impact on the environment. ZOA 12-108 Planning Commission Staff Report 4/27/12 Page 2 of 3 PAReports - PC\2012\PC_4-24-12\PC ZOA 12-108\Stf Rpt ZOA 12-108.doc PUBLIC NOTICE: This request was published in the Desert Sun newspaper on April 13, 2012. To date, no letters have been received. A copy of this request has been sent to all applicable public agencies and City Departments. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: Findings to recommend approval of the Zoning Ordinance amendment can be made and are contained in the attached Resolution. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a Planning Commission Resolution recommending approval of Zoning Code Amendment 2010-108 to the City Council. ZOA 12-108 Planning Commission Staff Report 4/27/12 Page 3 of 3 PAReports - PC\2012\PC_4-24-12\PC ZOA 12-108\Stf Rpt ZOA 12-108.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2012- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2012-108, A PROVISION TO REQUIRE A SPECIFIC PLAN FOR ANY NEW DEVELOPMENT ON A LOT THAT IS % ACRE OR GREATER IN SIZE AND LOCATED WITHIN THE VILLAGE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (§9.65) CASE NO.: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2012-108 APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 24P of April, 2012, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing for review of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to require a specific plan for any new development located on a parcel %2 acre or greater in size within the Village Commercial District 09.65), 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 April 131", 2012, 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 goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan, insofar that it does not create any new or changed conditions to the environment, is intended to encourage and enhance orderly growth, and 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 4 Planning Commission Resolution 2012- Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2012-108 April 24, 2012 no impacts on the public health, safety and welfare. Each action taken as a result of this code amendment will have conditions individually reviewed for conformance with public health, safety, and welfare standards. 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. Furthermore, each application submitted as a result of this Amendment will be assessed under the California Environmental Quality Act on a case -by -case 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 2012-108 as set forth in attached Exhibit A to the City Council for the reasons set forth in this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on the 24`' day of April, 2012, 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 5 EXHIBIT A 9.65.010 Introduction. A. Role of The Village at La Quinta Design Guidelines. The provisions of this chapter, regulating uses and structures within The Village at La Quinta area, implement the concepts and guidance set forth in The Village at La Quinta Design Guidelines ("guidelines"). Land uses and development proposed in The Village area shall be designed and evaluated in conjunction with those guidelines. B. Purpose of Design and Development. The following purpose statements reflect the design concepts envisioned by the guidelines: 1. Develop The Village area as a year-round commercial, residential and recreational location, serving residents and guests of the greater La Quinta community; 2. Promote development standards to accommodate projects and activities which will provide goods, services and housing in a design environment supportive of the concepts set out in the guidelines: promoting pedestrian accessibility and scale, maintaining connections to La Quinta's artistic and architectural heritage, and guiding design to acknowledge and embrace the desert environment. (Ord. 323 § 3 (Exh. B) (part), 1998) 9.65.015 Specific Plan Requirement. A. Except as otherwise approved by the City Council, all new development proposals located in the Village Commercial District and on a parcel '/: acre or greater in size shall require approval of a specific plan. A "new development proposal" is defined as a new building construction proposed for vacant property or associated with demolition and reconstruction of an existing building. Specific plans shall be subject to review per La Quinta Municipal Code Section 9.240.010. 9.65.020 Permitted uses. A. Permitted uses in the VC zoning district will combine essential day-to-day neighborhood goods and services, tourism and visitor -based retail and entertainment opportunities, and facilities necessary for the operational demands of such uses. B. Except as otherwise approved as part of a specific plan for the property, the following uses are permitted in the VC zoning district with approval of a Village use permit (VUP), pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section 9.65.040. Where a determination on a particular use is necessary, it shall be made pursuant to Section 9.65.040(C): 2 1. Multifamily Residential Dwellings. Such uses include condominiums, apartments and similar housing types. Residential density shall be determined on a site specific basis, based on the development capacity for the proposed project uses on the site. The ultimate decision on density shall rest with the planning commission; 2. Commercial guest lodging (including bed and breakfast) and associated uses, such as retail shops, restaurants and conference rooms; 3. Indoor or outdoor professional art studios, displays and/or galleries, for all artistic endeavors and production, to include dance, painting, sculpting, ceramics, jewelry, glass blowing, photography, hand -made furniture, stone cutting, and similar activities. There may be sales, presentations and displays or demonstrations to the public; 4. Professional service offices providing limited sales, such as medical, dental, veterinary clinic, dietician, optician, catering, attorney, real estate, banking, mortgage broker, social and community service offices, property management, financial services, beautician, barber, reproduction service, tailor, cleaners and laundry, postal services, services such as shoe, watch, jewelry and bicycle repair, and similar uses. Offices with larger scale service aspects, such as limousine and auto rental services, are permitted (vehicles may be stored in the district). Uses such as construction management offices are permitted provided construction materials and job equipment are not kept on premises; 5. Prepared food service for on -site consumption, drive-in and drive - through, and/or carry -out, including fast-food restaurants, delicatessen, tea, coffee and ice cream shops, pizzerias, and similar uses; 6. Prepared food sold specifically for on -site consumption, with indoor/outdoor seating. Such uses include fine dining and other low to medium turnover restaurants; cocktail lounges, dinner clubs, sports bar/lounge, bar/grill, night clubs and similar uses, with alcohol sales for on - site consumption only, along with live, recorded or other entertainment in or outdoors such as music and/or dancing, karaoke, arcade games, pool, billiard or shuffleboard tables, etc.; 7. Public indoor assembly/entertainment facilities, such as auditoriums, theaters, dinner theaters, conference center, gymnasium facilities, concert halls and related uses; 8. Indoor facilities for education, training, self-help and improvement, hobbies, or vocational purposes, both public and private. These may be located in any facility which can accommodate the use, such as ability to meet occupancy requirements, etc.; 9. Indoor/outdoor cultural, historic and similar displays and galleries for all types of artifacts and/or artistic media, such as museums, auction houses and consignment rooms. Such uses may include sale of display art pieces; 10. Retail merchandise sales of limited goods (goods that can be carried out and hauled by the customer),, such as antiques, appliances, bicycles, wholesale and/or retail foods, newspaper and magazines, tobacco products, kitchen and bath shops, video and audio equipment, clothing, pets and pet supplies, office equipment and supplies, party and/or costume rentals, sporting goods, home furnishings, hardware and home improvement, and other related uses. C. The permitted uses in The Village area do not preclude other similar uses which are compatible with the specifically identified uses, and otherwise meet the criteria for Village use permits. (Ord. 480 § 1, 2010; Ord. 323 § 3 (Exh. B) (part), 1998) 9.65.030 General development standards. A. Purpose. Except as otherwise approved as part of a specific plan for the property, this section outlines the development standards to be adhered to in the VC zoning district. These relate primarily to the performance standards commonly associated with typical zoning enforcement, such as parking, setbacks, and height limits. This district is to be considered as stand-alone, in . that application of the overall zoning code to Village area projects shall be accomplished through design review during the Village use permit process, prioritizing the guideline concepts and the VC zoning district above the applicable zoning code standards. 1. Setbacks. Setback criteria shall be determined based on the existing site conditions and surroundings, in conjunction with the guidelines and the proposed project characteristics. a. Setbacks along front, side, and rear property lines are not required; however, any setback provided must be made wide or deep enough to be usable space, such as for pedestrian access to side -loading commercial space, stairwells, or through -access between front and rear of the building(s). b. Projects with any retail commercial components shall maintain a minimum ten -foot landscaped setback from any RVL, RL or RMH zoned properties. c. No utility equipment shall be allowed above ground in the right-of- way. Such equipment shall be integrated into the footprint of the proposed building. 2. Heights. Building height shall be limited to thirty-five feet, or two stories, for main building mass. Architectural and roof projections not providing habitable or otherwise usable space, such as chimneys, spires, finials, and similar features shall be permitted to extend up to three feet e above the maximum structure height. Structure height shall be measured pursuant to zoning code Section 9.50.050. 3. Parking. Parking .area requirements for permitted uses shall be determined by staff as set forth in Chapter 9.150 of the Zoning Code, with the following consideration: a. All current parking regulations shall be applicable, such as required number of stalls, space and aisle dimensions, location of parking areas, etc. However, in the VC zoning district, variations to any parking standards can be approved. 4. Landscaping. Project landscaping shall be provided to implement the guidelines and existing city policies. 5. Screening. Project parking service area and trash enclosure screening shall be provided to implement the guidelines and existing city policies. 6. Lighting. Project landscape, parking, building and pedestrian lighting shall be provided to implement the guidelines and existing city policies. 7. Special Sign Allowances. For Village area development, it is determined that in order to preserve the greater aesthetic benefits and historic character of The Village area, designated landmarks or historic resources, as defined in Chapter 7.02 of this code, are considered exempt from the regulations set forth in Chapter 9.160, with the exception that any signs proposed shall be subject to obtaining an approved sign program through the certificate of appropriateness process for historic buildings and structures. (Ord. 361 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 2001; Ord. 323 § 3 (Exh. B) (part), 1998) 9.65.040 Village use permit review process. A. Purpose and Intent. This section is intended to provide for specific design review procedures for uses and projects proposed in The Village area. B. Preliminary Development Plans. Any potential project applicant in The Village area has the option to file a preliminary development plan (PDP) to ascertain anticipated conditions, requirements and costs associated with a proposal. This allows the applicant to be informed of any potentially significant issues which may affect any decision to pursue the project. There shall be no fees charged to any applicant who wishes to utilize this process, which offers the following advantages: 1. Provides a comprehensive overview of city applications, fees, and other requirements necessary to obtain project approval, in writing; 2. Provides previous project background which can speed up the formal approval process when the project is submitted; E 3. The written information can be used as the basis for an estimate of project costs, in order to determine a project's viability. Submittal for this process consists of five sets of a site plan, floor plan and four -point elevations, in conceptual format, and a brief, written project overview which should list the site location, assessor's number, acreage, etc. Within thirty calendar days of receipt of a preliminary development plan application, a review letter shall be issued to the applicant, incorporating all comments received during the review period. C. Interpretations on Permitted Uses. Where it is unclear as to whether a use is permitted, a request for an interpretation of the use in question may be made, in writing, to the planning director. Within ten calendar days of receipt of such a request, the director shall either render a decision on the request or inform the inquiring party of deferral of his decision to the planning commission. A written decision to defer to the planning commission shall specify the earliest available planning commission meeting for the decision to be considered to be no later than thirty calendar days from the date of the director's notice of deferral. A decision by the director or planning commission may be appealed pursuant to Section 9.20.040. D. Village Use Permit Requirements. Except as otherwise approved as part of a specific plan for the property, all new development proposals in the Village Commercial District shall be required to file an application for a village use permit. A "new development proposal" is defined as a new building construction proposed for vacant property or associated with demolition and reconstruction of an existing building. Village use permits shall be subject to review by the planning commission as a public hearing. E. Any proposal in the VC zoning district without prior Village use permit approval determined as not meeting the criteria in subsection D of this section shall be subject to review by the planning director. 1. Administrative approval may be given by the planning director for any building additions and/or exterior building, architectural design and site modifications that are determined by the planning department to implement the concepts set forth in "The Village at La Quinta Design Guidelines." The planning director may refer the project to the planning commission. 2. Additions and exterior building and site modifications that do not fall under Subsection 1 above, shall be approved by the planning commission as a public hearing under the Village use permit process. F. Findings for Approval. The following findings shall be made by the decision - making authority prior to the approval of any village use permit: 1. Consistency with General Plan. The development of the proposed use is consistent with the La Quinta general plan; 10 2. Consistency with Zoning Code and Specific Plan. The development of the proposed use is consistent with the La Quinta zoning code and any applicable specific plan; 3. Compliance with CEQA. The proposed Village use permit application has been processed in compliance with the requirements of CEQA; 4. Surrounding Uses. Approval of the proposed Village use permit will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare, or injurious to or incompatible with other properties or land uses in the vicinity; 5. Architectural Design. 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 surrounding development and the quality of design illustrated in the Village at La Quinta Design Guidelines; 6. Site Design. 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 the quality of design illustrated in The Village at La Quinta Design Guidelines; 7. Landscape Design. Project landscaping, including but not limited to the location, type, size, color, texture and coverage of plant materials, has been designed so as to provide visual relief, complement 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, and provide an overall unifying influence design, and elements of the Village use permit are compatible with surrounding development and the concepts of The Village at La Quinta Design Guidelines; B. Sign Programs. Per Section 9.160.090 (Sign permit review), in, order to approve a planned sign program the decision -making authority must find that: a. The sign program is consistent with the purpose and intent of Chapter 9.160 (Signs), b. The sign program is in harmony and visually related to: i. All signs within the planned sign program, via the incorporation of several common design elements such as materials, letter style, colors, illumination, sign type or sign shape, ii. The buildings they identify. This may be accomplished by utilizing materials, colors or design motif included in the building being identified, 11 iii. Surrounding development. Implementation of the planned sign program will not adversely affect surrounding land uses or obscure adjacent conforming signs. G. Appeals, Amendments and Time Extensions. Appeals, amendments and time extensions relating to Village Use Permits shall be reviewed pursuant to Chapter 9.200 of this title. (Ord. 361 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 2001; Ord. 323 § 3 (Exh. B) (part), 1998) 12 DI #A Department Report: FTNF9 TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Les Johnson — Planning Direct o DATE: April 17, 2012 SUBJECT: Update on Green and Sustainable La Quinta Program This report provides a quarterly update to La-Oruinta s environmentalinitiatives and, activities for the period from January 2012 through March 2012. City-wide Projects, Outreach, and Activities The City of La Quinta continues to serve as a citrus collection site for Hidden Harvest's expanded citrus recovery program. Hidden Harvest collects citrus fruits to donate to agencies that feed the hungry. For the second consecutive year, the City has set up a collection site for Hidden Harvest's citrus, recovery program, and it is located in the La Quinta Library parking area. The Hidden Harvest citrus recovery program runs through April 30, 2012. Collection numbers show that since the "Got Citrus" Program began collections on January 2, 2012, the La Quinta site has received 7,975 pounds of citrus through February 2012, a 42% reduction over the same period in 2011. Valley -wide, the overall program numbers are down significantly from January and February 2011. For February 2012, collections were down 55% from February 2011. Hidden Harvest does not have an explanation for this drop off. Updates of Utility Programs Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) The City and CVWD continue to provide residents with the Water Waste Helpline (1-888-398-5008), to allow individuals to report violations contributing to water 1 waste. Calls are received at CVWD, who in turn dispatches City staff to the reported location for follow-up. For after -hot rs and weekends, the calls are responded to the following day or Monday. From January through the end of March 2012, there were a total of two calls related to broken spray heads, one related to an irrigation line break, and one for a running valve. Section 8.13.040 of the Municipal Code has a provision which prohibits irrigation water from flowing onto adjacent properties and the street. Funding for the City/CVWD Weather Based Irrigation Clock Rebate Program ("Smart Controllers") continues to be available for Fiscal Year 2011 /2012. From January through March 2012, 17 Weather Based Irrigation Controllers (WBIC) were installed in La Quinta homes. CVWD reports that members of their staff were invited to staff a table in Lowe's garden section to discuss desert landscaping and landscape rebate programs on March 17, 2012. The information was well received and it was a great opportunity for public outreach. Imperial Irrigation District (IID) IID's home energy audits and a number of rebate programs continue to be available to La Quinta residents, providing no -cost and low-cost energy efficiency improvements to homeowners. From January through March 2012, there were a total of 14 audits conducted. These audits resulted in potential annual energy savings of 4736.2 kWh. IID continues to offer rebates towards the purchase of select home appliances, variable speed pool pumps, dual, pane windows, attic insulation, solar and electric attic fans, and energy efficient HVAC units. Over the past quarter, 83 rebates totaling $75,657 were issued to La Quinta residents, resulting in potential annual energy savings of 85,203 kWh. Three successful rebate programs have depleted their funding and are no longer available to IID customers. The air conditioning trade -up program, which provided an incentive to replace older model AC units, the "Swimming Into Savings" program, which incentivized the replacement of older and less -efficient pool pumps, and the Pump Efficiency Program for older -model commercial irrigation pumps, were completed. Southern California Gas Company (Gas Company) SoCalGas continues to market and promote rebate programs, financial incentives, energy audits, and needs -based financial assistance programs for La Quinta businesses and residents. A complete and up-to-date list of all available programs 2 is posted on their website, as well as a brief summary of available programs on the City's website. The City of La Quinta, their residents and businesses received rebates. and incentives from Southern California Gas Company of $13,983 and saved over 6,320 therms by replacing and installing natural gas appliances. Program participation in 2011 SoCalGas rebates and incentive programs increased by 55% compared to the 2010 program participation. As of the first quarter of 2012, eight. La Quinta residents and businesses have received rebates and incentives of $2,795 and energy savings of 2,644 therms for the installation of a solar thermal pool heater project, ENERGY STAR dishwashers, clothes washers, and storage water heaters. Southern California Gas Company recently issued a news release stating there were $30 million dollars in rebates and incentives .available this year to -business customers for qualifying energy -efficiency projects. The announcement was made at their annual Business Expo in Pomona, California where over 300 business representatives learned how they could save energy and money through the utility's programs and latest green technologies. For more incentive and rebate information, local business owners and representatives can review the attached news release (Attachment 1) or visit SoCalGas' website at www.socalgas.com/energyefficiency. Updates on Waste and Recycling Services Staff continues to meet and work with Burrtec Waste and Recycling (Burrtec) and Hilton, Farnkopf & Hobson (HF&H) Consulting with regard to waste and recycling management services. Staff met with representatives from both entities on March 12, 2012, and discussed various programs and legislation, including food waste diversion and collection, and mandatory commercial recycling requirements now in effect under AB 341. Under current mandates of AB 939, jurisdictions are required to divert at least 50% of their waste stream; AB 341 provides for a statewide goal of 75% diversion by 2020, however this is not a mandate for local jurisdictions. Burrtec has been visiting businesses and multi -family residential complexes to inform them of the AB 341 recycling requirement and how it affects their business. Staff also attended a workshop on AB 341 on February 22, 2012. This workshop provided valuable information on the level and type of compliance required of municipalities, given that much of AB 341 is not quantifiable in terms of implementation and enforcement. ` The Sharp's Program allows La Quinta residents to properly dispose of used needles and syringes thereby protecting themselves, their families and the community. The program is completely confidential and is FREE to La Quinta 3 residents. From January 2012 through March 15, 2012, 51 "sharps" containers were received from La Quinta residents for proper disposal. Approximately 25 businesses (a 50% increase over the previous quarter) were visited by Burrtec during the first quarter of 2012, where recycling items, particularly the requirements of AB 341 were discussed. There were six school presentations at the La Quinta Middle School in January. There were three homeowners' associations contacted where recycling items were discussed along with other waste -related items. Burrtec worked with 8 construction sites on construction -&-demolition (C&D) plans and assisted the builders in coordinating their on -site recycling efforts. Burrtec also coordinated recycling efforts with the organizers of the. La Quinta Arts Festival in March. A Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) Collection Day was conducted during the first quarter of 2012. The event was promoted on the City's website and calendar, and in the La Quinta Gem. The event was held on March 17, 2012, from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. in the south City Hall parking area. The event generated significant interest and appears to have been very successful. Total figures on attendance, waste collected, etc., will be reported as soon as they are made available by Riverside County. This was the second of two scheduled HHW Events for Fiscal Year 2011/2012. The first event was held on December 17, 2011, and 246 vehicles dropped off some form of HHW, resulting in a total of 7,171 pounds collected. In addition, eight other vehicles dropped off 1,960 pounds of electronic waste, for a total event collection of 9,131 pounds.. City residents may also dispose of household. hazardous wastes year-round at Riverside County's Regional Household Hazardous Waste Collection Facility at 1100 Vella Road, Palm Springs (Non -Holiday Saturdays only; from 9:00 a.m. to 2:06 p.m. October -May, and 7:00 a.m..to noon June - September). The Coachella Valley Transfer Station located at 87011A Landfill Road (near Coachella) accepts. Anti -freeze, Batteries, Oil (and filters), and latex Paint (ABOP) Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and Saturdays from 8:00 a.m. to noon. The Burrtec Waste and •Recycling facility, at 41800 Corporate Way in Palm Desert, is open to La Quints residents for free disposal of batteries, fluorescent bulbs and tubes, all electronics, oil and oil filters, Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. and Saturdays from 8:00 a.m. to noon (excluding Holidays). La Quints residents may also dispose of green waste (up to 500 pounds per trip) on Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. (Saturdays 8:00 a.m. to noon — excluding Holidays). The City is also currently working on three upcoming events for the second quarter: 4 • A Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG)-sponsored Used Oil and Filter Recycling Event will be held on June 2, 2012 at the AutoZone in the 111 La Quinta. Center. Participants bring in their used oil filters for recycling and, in exchange,, receive a free replacement filter, shop rag, funnel, drainer container, and tire gauge. • Staff is also working with CVAG on a Waste Tire Collection Event at the Home Depot for May 12, 2012. This free waste tire collection event accepts passenger, light truck, Neighborhood Electric Vehicle (NEV) and golf cart tires - only (nine per trip). • Burrtec will be conducting a Document Shredding Event on May 5, 2012, in the north City Hall parking area. The last event, conducted on October 17, 2011, had to close one hour early as the truck capacity for the shredded material was reached prematurely. Staff has arranged with Burrtec to provide a second shred truck to insure this does not occur again These upcoming events are posted on the City's electronic calendar and have been, or are, scheduled for announcement in the La Quinta Gem, as well as through other media outlets for the CVAG sponsored events. Conclusion The City of La Quinta continues its efforts in providing information and assistance to City residents and businesses in order to help them save money and to encourage them to reduce water and energy consumption. City staff continually maintains the City's "green" programs information webpage, including Waste and Recycling information, found at http://www.la-guinta.org/index.aspx?page=574, so that residents and businesses may continue to obtain the most up-to-date information on rebate programs, recycling and waste disposal services, and utility programs. Staff is also available to assist with public information requests on any of the upcoming recycling events and efforts; such as the anti -freeze, batteries, oil, and paint (ABOP) collection site and a -waste programs. Several areas in City Hall have been set aside for the display and provision of waste and recycling brochures and educational information in an effort to educate City Hall visitors on the available programs. Staff will continue their efforts to meet the City Council's expectations of exceptional customer service, environmental protection and stewardship, and to work for a sustainable La Quinta. Attachment: Southern California Gas Company News Release 5 ATTACHMENT 1 A Sempra Energy uuiW NEWS RELEASE Contact. Raul Gordillo Southern California Gas Co. (877)643-2331 socalgas.com/news-room $30 MILLION IN INCENTIVES AVAILABLE FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROJECTS, SAYS SOCALGAS Local Businesses Recognized for Achieving Energy Efficiency Success LOS ANGELES, March 29, 2012 - Southern California Gas Co. LSo Gash announced today that more than $30 million in rebates and incentives are available this. year to business customers for qualifying energy -efficiency projects. The announcement was made at SoCalGas' annual Business Expo in. Pomona, Calif., where over 300 business representatives learned how they could save energy and money through the utility's programs and latest green technologies. Six local businesses also were recognized by SoCalGas for their outstanding efforts in energy efficiency and conservation. Because of their efforts, these businesses have reduced emissions and saved more than 2,5531,588 therms of natural gas, the equivalent of taking 3,5W cars off the road. "These businesses have proven that using natural gas efficiently means getting more for less," said Hal D. Snyder, vice president of customer solutions for SoCalGas. "We make every effort to help our customers plan for a sustainable future by providing services and incentives that can positively affect their bottom line." -more- $30 Million in Incentives Available for Energy Efficiency Projects, Says SocalGas... /Page 2 Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. in Carson was one of the six to receive an Energy -Efficiency Excellence Award at the Expo. The award recognized Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. for installing a waste heat recovery system at their facility, saving the company an estimated 1,117,955 therms per year in energy. Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. qualified for SoCalGas' Energy Efficiency Calculated Incentive Program and received an incentive for $543,432 for their energy efficiency efforts. "The incentives we obtained from SoCalGas went a long way to help us improve our productivity," said Chris McWilliams, area manager for Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. "We encourage other businesses to do the same and take advantage of the many programs and rebates that are available." Another Energy -Efficiency Excellence Award went to Huntington Memorial Hospital in Pasadena, Calif., for their pursuit of advancing energy efficiency solutions in their daily operations. For some time now, Huntington Memorial Hospital has been achieving a reduction in energy costs by operating steam powered absorption chillers as part of their cooling equipment. To achieve further reduction in their energy costs, the hospital upgraded to direct digital controls, installed pipe insulation, and added new heat exchanger controls to improve their facility's operating efficiency. "These new energy efficiency improvements are saving us over 578,000 therms per year in energy," said Thomas Romeyn, director of plant services at Huntington Memorial Hospital. "SoCalGas was critical in helping as achieve our clean energy goals. Because of our energy -efficiency upgrades, we qualified to receive an incentive check for $315,266 from the utility. Other award recipients included the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Califia Farms LP in Bakersfield, Cate School in Carpenteria, and Archer Daniels Midland in Colton. SoCalGas incentives cover many types of natural gas equipment, as well as energy saving projects. The incentive payouts are based on the amount of natural gas saved, and they often reach several thousands of dollars per project. -more- 0 $30 Million in Incentives Available for Energy Efficiency Projects, Says SoCalGas ... /Page 3 In addition to the announcement of Energy -Efficiency Excellence Award recipients, the Expo featured workshops for local business owners who want to save money by using green technologies and strategies. Participants learned how to identify, evaluate and select the technologies that best fit their financial goals while reducing waste and improving energy efficiency. Case studies and details were provided on: photovoltaic systems, energy efficiency, water conservation and waste reduction/recycling. There were also exhibitors and vendors showcasing the latest energy -saving tools for those in attendance. Business.owners and representatives had an opportunity to learn about SoCalGas On -Bill Financing program, which provides qualified energy -efficiency projects with interest -free loans for up to $100,000. They also learned how the utility can identify process improvements that can help save energy, lower operating costs, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In addition to the variety of assessment tools to help business customers identify convenient energy efficiency improvements, rebates are available for more than 100 pieces of qualifying energy -efficient equipment, such as steam traps, insulation, boilers, water heaters, and a variety of foodservice equipment. For more information, business owners and representatives can visit SoCalGas website at socalgm.com/energyefficiency About Southern California Gas Co. Southern California Gas Co. has been delivering clean, safe and reliable natural gas to its customers for 145 years. It is the nations largest natural gas distribution utility, providing service to 20.9 million consumers connected through nearly 5.8 million meters in more than 500 communities. The company's service territory encompasses approximately 20,000,square miles throughout central and Southern California, from Visalia to the Mexican border. SoCalGas is a regulated subsidiary of Sempra Energy (NYSE: SRE). La Quinta Outdoor Display Proposed Code Amendment Lowe's position on the proposed La Quinta Outdoor Display Code Amendment is that lost displays equal lost sales which equal lost sales tax revenues. Customer expectations and shopping habits have driven display trends, with outdoor displays or sales being a critical driver increasing customer visits. Not only should they not be covered by walls, these tend to display some of the most attractive merchandise available, to encourage customer visits. To require that Outdoor Displays and Sales be enclosed by a wall or fence would have financial impact on all stores with outdoor displays. Lowe's outdoor displays are well planned/coordinated in advance and well maintained to increase curb appeal of the store, and should not be hidden. Should this amendment be passed, the high construction costs and ongoing maintenance costs of building new structures on site concern Lowe's. Lowe's has several potential options to fencing that we are happy to discuss. These include but are not limited to: • To designate the outdoor merchandise display area with special markings so they will not encroach into the walkways for Life Safety and ADA. • To allow the use of sale landscaping to be incorporated into the outdoor displays. • That the outdoor displays do not exceed a certain height so that no type of screening is required. • That a line of site is required on abutting streets and if merchandise is not seen from the site view no screening is required. • Calculate a distance from street where beyond no screening is required.