Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
PP 1993-495
CITY OF LA QUINT !LING i DEVELOPMENT PIS.: 619/773 -23 ;j 78 -105 CALLE ES:,,>vo A QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 FAX: 619/568 -4567 CITY OF LA QUINTA- Case No.: 3 - 5 Date Received: _ COMMERCIAL FEE PLAN APPLICATION �► q3 _ A,5-7 �$2��� HIGHWAY ONE - ELEVEN at WASHINGTON PO. BOX 461 ss your application in a timely manner. please 78 -611 HWY. 111, LA QUINTA, CA 92253 form. The information which is required to knd submitted with the application is stated rm. Failure to provide the required information ejection of the application. PHILIP M. PEAR, PRESIDENT BE ACCOMPANIED BY A NON- REFUNDABLE FILING FEE OF $ l� 3.5 AND _ COPIES OF THE COMPLETE AND ACCURATE PLOT PLAN, LANDSCAPE PLAN AND ELEVATIONS. - Name of Applicant Simon Plaza, Inc. Phone 619 - 773 -23 Mailing Address P.O.Box 461, 78 -611 Highway 111, La Quinta 92253 Street City Zip Code Legal Owner 3S Partnership & Pomona First Federal AddressP•O.Box 1461, 78 -611 Highway 111, La Quinta, CA 92253 Proposed Use Commercial The net and gross square footage.for each proposed use and building. 450 sq.ft. Location of Property (Address if known) QQ5i8 �.4 ql U - -93 26$.00io Assessor's Parcel Number Parcel ?"Lap 18418 in Book 113, Pages 49 & 50 Parcels 2,3,4 5,7 Legal Description of Property (give exact legal description as recorded in the office of the County Recorder) -- (may be @ pBtA � - - - 93$35_CQ10 Signature of Applicant Date ° Signature of 06;P Date _ �A � E w T4tit 4 u�Gv 78-495 CALLE TAMPICO - LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 - (619) 777 -7000 FAX (619) 777 -7101 Fee.: $380.00 Date Received 11 -8 -93 Received By ��s R .11 NOV 0 0 9QQ� REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF AN APPROVED ESIDENTIAL & COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT PLOT PLAN CITY OF LA OUINTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT g1 -leaze—e,omp4rete=khis appiication form. The fee to process this request is $380.00. On a separate sheet of paper explain the modification reciuested , siting the condition or reg�ul� Lion to be cZzarnged _ Plot Plan Number Location /Address Assessor'.s Parce Section /Township QZ nor, * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Applicant's Name Philip M. Pead Mailing Address P.O. �_ $ox 461 LaQuinta, CA 92253 \ .. Phone: (61 9) 773 -2345 Signature ' * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Owner's Name. Mailing Address Phone: ( ) Signature - - -- MAILING ADDRESS - P.O. BOX 1504 - LA OUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 FORM.018 /CS 0 M CITY OF LA C -INTA CITY COUNCIL RLE COH NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of La Quinta City Council will hold a PUBLIC HEARING on June 1, 1993, at 7:00 p.m. in the La Quinta City Hall Council Chambers, 78 -105 Calle Estado, on the following item: ITEM: PLOT PLAN 93 -495 (REVISION) (PREVIOUSLY PLOT PLAN 91 -466 REVISION) APPLICANT: PHILIP M. PEAD, SIMON PLAZA, INC. LOCATION: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND WASHINGTON STREET AND NORTH. OF SIMON DRIVE REQUEST: TO APPEAL THE ACTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF MAY 11, 1993 TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MIXED USE COMMER- CIAL PROJECT ON APPROXIMATELY 5.6 ACRE ZONED C -P -S COMMERCIAL. THE PROJECT WILL INCLUDE A FOUR STORY MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING, A RESTAURANT OR BANK, AN EYE INSTITUTE, A TWO LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE AND RELATED AT -GRADE PARKING PRQJECT SrTE r R; y W h N I E z � a 3 NoR 4� LEGAL: PORTION OF THE SOUTH HALF OF SECTION 19, T5S, R7E & THE NORTH HALF OF SECTION 30, T5S, R7E APN: 604 - 050 -011; 617 - 020 -020 THRU 025 The project is a resubmittal of Plot Plan 91 -466 (Revision) which was approved by the City in 1992. Therefore, the previous environmental review (EA 91 -211) will be used for this case. 0 Any person may submit written comments on this case to the Planning and Development Department prior to the Hearing and /or may appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the project at the time of the Hearing. If you challenge the decision of this case in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues that you or someone else raised either at the Public Hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning and Development Department at, or prior to, the Public Hearing. The proposed file(s) may be viewed by the public Monday through Friday 8:00 a. m. until 5:00 p.m. at the Planning and Development Department, La Quinta City Hall, 78 -099 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California. In the City's efforts to comply with the requirements of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act Of 1990, the Administration Department requires that any person in need of any type of special equipment, assistance or accommodations) in order to communicate at a City public meeting, must inform the City Clerk a minimum of 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PUBLISH ONCE ON MAY 21, 1993 City Council Minutes 4 May 18, 1993 XCCEPTANCE OF REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ON PLOT PLAN 93 -495 (REVISION) TO ALLOW- CONSTRUCTION OF MIXED -USE COMMERCIAL PROJECT AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND WASHINGTON STREET ON 5.6 ACRES IN A C -P -S COMMERCIAL ZONE. APPLICANT: MR. PHILIP PEAD, PRESIDENT OF SIMON PLAZA. Mr. Herman, Planning Director, advised that Plot Plan 93 -495 is a revision to Plot Plan 91 -466 which expired in 1993. The revised Plot Plan eliminated the bowling alley, the fitness center and created a configuration of a two -story parking garage; a four -story office building; a restaurant and a medical complex by the restaurant. The revised plan eliminated about 44,000 sq. ft. from the original proposal. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on May 11th and recommended approval on a 4 -1 vote. He then pointed out some of the modifications made by the Planning Commission which included elimination of some Design Review Board considerations and a condition relating to some improvements to Washington Street including participation in the signal at Highway 111 /Simon Dr. The original conditions were recommended as being consistent with prior recommendations of staff and prior actions of the City Council whereby adjacent developers pay their proportionate share of street improvements to the centerline. The condition recommended by staff was an attempt to create a condition to have the City do the necessary improvements on Washington and the intersection, with the applicant reimbursing the City. The revision by the Planning Commission will cost the City an additional $150,000. The conditions added by the Planning Commission deals with a theme plaza at the intersection of Hwy. 111 /Washington, and limiting the office complex to three stories as opposed to four stories. Council Member McCartney asked how the $150,000 was arrived at and Mr. Speer, Ass't. City Engineer, advised that it is based upon $3.00 per sq., ft. for the median and based on an approximate amount for the incremental widening. Mr. Herman noted that the Council cannot change any conditions unless they call. it up for public hearing. Phil Pead, 78 -611 Highway 111, applicant, presented the conceptional elevations for the three -story office building. Regarding the comments relative to sharing the cost of street - -improvements, when you look at the density of the project going from 126,000 sq. ft. down to 82,000 sq. ft.; it's economically inviable for them to make those improvements. The fact that they lowered the building to three stories and put the third story on the parking garage increased their cost greatly. City Council Minutes 3 May 18, 1993 their previous decision of not allowing the use of the City's copy machine. Mayor Pena expressed concern about setting a precedent and opening the doors to other organizations. He noted that the Arts Foundation and local businessmen also have copy machines which might be made available for this use. Council Member Sniff felt that there is a demonstrable relationship between the City and the Bystrice Think Tank which would set this request apart from others. He supported setting a limit of $5.00 per month for these copies. Mayor Pena believed that if this request is going to be approved, then a policy needs to be established. Council Member McCartney agreed that this is a unique situation and these requests can be addressed on a case -by -case basis. Council Member Sniff believed that there needs to be some formality as to the amount and suggested that it be limited to $5.00 per month as requested and if there needs to be an adjustment, they can bring it back to the City Council for re- evaluation and any other request should be on a case -by -case basis. Council concurred. d. Letter from the Office of the Grand Jury regarding the Coachella Valley Mosquito Abatement District. Mayor Pena suggested that we talk to the City's representative to get his comments. Council concurred. e. Letter from Paul Quill regarding Assessment District 92 -1- Phase V Improvements. Read under Public Comment. City Council Minutes r 5 May 18, 1993 Council Member McCartney questioned the number of employees anticipated and whether or not a child care center is being included and Mr. Pead advised that there will be about 150 employees; also a child care center was included in the original proposal, but not in the revised- plan. They had a 1,500 -2,000 sq. ft. child care center with outdoor facilities. Council Member McCartney felt that with 150 employees there should be a child care center provided, recognizing that it can be more modest than originally proposed. Mayor Pena expressed concern about the Planning Commission imposing a condition on the City that we share in the $150,000 of the street widening and questioned whether or not that authority is vested in the Planning Commission. His other concern was the reduction in the applicants share of the traffic signal. Mr. Herman, Planning Director, advised that the overall density was reduced by 44,000 sq. ft. and the applicant made a strong pitch to the Planning Commission that they put in the prior improvements when the Parcel Map was created in the County. He assumed that the. Planning Commission felt that they were burdening the applicant again for those improvements. He pointed out to the Planning Commission that the City has always attached like conditions to projects. This condition is not consistent with conditions imposed on others, citing TDC who had to build half the streets. Mayor Pena was concern that we meet all the Specific Plan policies established for Highway 111 and Mr. Herman advised that this project meets the General Plan and zoning requirements for construction of this project along Highway 111. In response to Council Member Sniff, Mr. Herman advised that the applicant is conditioned to pay for the street widening on Washington St. from the curb to the new property line including the sidewalk; to participate in the signal at Highway 111 /Washington in the amount of 5 %; to participate in the signal at Highway 111 /Simon at 12.5 %; and to participate in their proportionate share of Highway 111 improvements and dedication of land. Mr. Phil Pead advised that they have about $740,000 in engineering costs involved in this project. In response to Council Member Bangerter, Mr. Herman advised that the applicant constructed the prior infrastructure. Fred Simon, advised that they were never notified of the General Plan change for the Washington St. corridor and therefore, never had an opportunity to participate in that discussion. When the parcel in question was improved, they dedicated 60' to Washington St. and they're dedicating another 1/2 now and they put in the road and 1:1 City Council Minutes 6 May 18, 1993 curb /gutter /sidewalks /hydrants and drainage. Council Member Sniff felt that this is an unusual situation and would support the Planning Commission recommendation. Council Member McCartney would have liked to have the opportunity to require a child care facility. Council Member Sniff commented that they have indicated that they would give it some consideration and Council Member Bangerter suggested that there are other child care things going on in the Valley they could participate in. In answer to Council Member Perkins, Mr. Herman advised that the three -story structure is 40' and the top of the tower is 50'. MOTION - It was moved by Council Member Sniff /Perkins to accept the report of the Planning Commission action on Plot Plan 93 -495 revision to allow construction of a mixed -use commercial project( ±82,013) sq. ft. on ±5.6 acres at the southeast corner of Highway 111 and Washington St. in C -P -S Zone. Applicant: Simon Plaza, Inc., Mr. Philip Pead. Motion carried unanimously. MINUTE ORDER NO. 93 -119. 2. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CIVIC CENTER CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO. 68 - AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT. Mr. Reynolds, Public Works Director, advised that this is the sixth and final change order relative to the ADA. The amount of the change order is $14,572 and recommended approval. Jim Collins, Legislative Analyst with the Paralyzed Veterans of America, advised that he has been involved in the ADA and represents the Department of Rehabilitation and wished to be sure that people with disabilities are considered in the design of the Civic Center and that it complies with the ADA. He has offered his services to review the building to make sure it complies, but has not been contacted. Mayor Pena advised that staff will be in contact with him. MOTION - It was moved by Council Members Sniff /McCartney to approve Civic Center Contract Change Order No. 68 in the amount of $14,572 and authorize the City Manager to execute same. Motion carried unanimously. MINUTE ORDER NO. 93 -120. 2 I.ctovoa�m .�' w 5 OF COUNCIL MEETING DATE: MAY 18, 1993 ITEM TITLE: REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ON PLOT PLAN 93495 (REVISION) TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A MIXED USE COMMERCIAL PROJECT (±82,013 SQ. FT.) ON ±5.6 ACRES AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND WASHINGTON ST. IN C -P -S ZONE (COMMERCIAL). APPLICANT: SIMON PLAZA INC., MR. PHILIP PEAD SUMMARY: AGENDA CATEGORY: PUBLIC HEARING BUSINESS SESSION: CONSENT CALENDAR: STUDY SESSION: This case is a re-submittal of Plot Plan 91-466 (Revised) which was approved in 1992 and expired in 1993. The new submittal is approximately 44,000 square feet smaller than the previous plan in order to conform with the newly adopted General Plan. The Applicant proposes to develop a four story medical office building, a restaurant or bank, an office, and two level parking garage on a ±5.6 acres site. The site is presently vacant but improved with off -site infrastructure improvements. The Planning Commission approved this case at their meeting of May 11, 1993. The final vote was 4 -1. The modified Conditions of Approval are attached. The Planning Commission did not approve the four story medical building, but they did approve a three story building and allowed the developer to reallocate the fourth floor building square footage to other locations within the project. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: The Planning Commission modified the Applicant's off -site improvement costs by shifting approximately $150,000 from the Applicant to the City by changing Conditions X39 & 41. If the conditions as modified by the Commission become final, the cost for these improvements need to be considered during the 1993/94 budget hearings. APPROVED BY: RECOMMEN'DATION: By Minute Motion 93- , move to accept for file this report of action taken by the Planning Commission on May 11, 1993. Submitted by: gnatur CC#23 Approved for submission to City Council: ROBERT L. HUNT, CITY MANAGER f a 0 0 TO: FROM: DATE: CASE NO: APPLICANT: 4 MEMORANDUM HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MAY 18, 1993 PLOT PLAN 93 -495 (REVISION) MASTER SIGN PROGRAM 93 -210 SIMON PLAZA, INC. (PHILIP PEAD) PREVIOUS CASE: PLOT PLAN 91 -466 (REVISED) (EXPIRED) OWNERS: 3S PARTNERSHIP AND POMONA FIRST FEDERAL BANK LOCATION: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 ANI5 WASHINGTON STREET, BOTH MAJOR ARTERIALS. THE DEVELOPMENT, ON ±5.6 ACRES OF LAND, IS LOCATED TO THE WEST OF THE EXISTING SIMON MOTORS AUTOMOTIVE DEALERSHIP ON HIGHWAY 111. ARCHITECT: - MERLIN J. BARTH EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: MIXED /REGIONAL COMMERCIAL WITH NON - RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY. SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS: NORTH: SOUTH: MEMOGT.046 EAST: WEST: 111 LA QUINTA SHOPPING CENTER WASHINGTON SQUARE SPECIFIC PLAN PROPERTY (VACANT) EXISTING SIMON MOTORS AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP EXISTING PLAZA LA QUINTA SHOPPING CENTER 1 r i ISSUE: Request to develop a 82,013 square foot mixed use commercial project on approximately 5.6 acres zoned C -P -S Commercial. The project will include a four story. office building, a restaurant or bank, an eye institute or office, a two level parking structure, and related at -grade parking. BACKGROUND: This project was reviewed by the City in 1992, as part of the review and approval of Plot Plan 91 -466 (Revised). The project received approval by the Design Review .Board on October 2, 1991, the Planning Commission on February 25, 1992, and the City Council on March 3, 1992. However, the final design approved change from ± 165,000 square feet to ± 125,000 square feet and various buildings were shifted on the property to increase visibility into the project. The initial plan is attached for reference. The original Conditions of Approval required the applicant to begin construction of the project within one year or apply for a one year extension which required review by the Planning Commission. The original case expired on February 25, 1993. On March 11, 1993, the applicant refiled the original plans with Staff and paid the required fees to return the project through the necessary stages to have the project reviewed by the Design Review Board, Planning Commission, and City Council as a new application. Description of Site: The proposed ±5.6 acre site is comprised of six parcels. Thq flat and undeveloped parcels were created by the division of land under Parcel Map 18418 in 1982. The property has frontage on three streets with 650 feet along Washington Street, 700 feet along Highway 111, and 180 feet along Simon Drive. The site elevation along Washington Street is approximately 60 feet above sea level. The site is improved with street improvements. However, additional widening is necessary on Washington Street to conform with the City's adopted Specific Plan Alignment Program and General Plan. A future raised median island is proposed for both Washington Street and Highway 111. The property was subdivided in the early 1980's for the development of Simon Motors Automobile Dealership as well as to establish commercial lots which could be sold or developed with commercial land uses. Previous Environmental Considerations: Environmental Assessment 91 -211 has been prepared in conjunction with this original application. The initial study indicated that no significant environmental impacts will occur that MEMOGT.046 2 t t i cannot be mitigated by imposition of mitigation measures. Therefore, a Negative Declaration was prepared for Plot Plan 91 -466 (Revised). Staff would recommend that the Planning Commission recertify the Environmental Determination for this case. Architecture: The project architect, Mr. Merlin Barth has prepared a plan which proposes buildings around the outer portion of the site with parking in the center of the facility. A parking structure will be located on the east side of the property. The proposed Mediterranean design (Spanish style design motif) is consistent with the City's design guidelines (e.g., the roof, rough stucco exterior, large glass windows, etc.). Circulation /Parking Plan: The developer has proposed one access driveway on each public street. Each driveway will service the proposed at -grade guest parking lot. The driveways lead to the parking garage located at the east side of the site. The parking garage will house approximately 205 cars. A traffic study to address the developmental impacts of the project on abutting City streets and the cumulative impacts the project may have on the future level of service of Washington Street/Highway 111 was prepared for the original application and since the project is smaller in scope, no additional impacts are contemplated by the new plan. View Corridor: The City's General Plan discusses site views as an important element of projects which have frontage on major streets within the City. Policy 6.5.7 states that "....along primary and secondary and agrarian image corridors the City shall establish appropriate building height limits to ensure a low density character and appearance ". The City's policy has been that no building greater than one story in height shall be built within 150 feet of the future street property line. This standard has been in effect for the last few years and has been a condition on all of the development cases along Washington Street and Highway 111. However, the heights have varied on a case -by -case basis. A City -wide height survey was originally conducted during the discussion of Plot Plan 91 -466. In 1992, the Planning Commission and City Council permitted the two story parking structure because it looked like a one story structure and was consistent in height with other approved structures. The City also permitted the 2 -story design features on the 4 -story medical office building because the 2-story, elements enhanced the Highway 111 street elevation. Washington Street Alignment Plan: The Washington Street Specific Plan (86 -007) document.set the street alignment schedule for Washington Street from Fred Waring Drive to 52nd Avenue. The plan included provisions for a 120 foot right -of -way (six lanes) and 140 feet right -of -way (six lanes + four turn lanes). The MEMOGT.046 3 intersection of Washington Street/Highway 111 is scheduled to have a minimum right -of -way of 140 feet. The northbound street side of Washington Street is to include three through lanes, two left turn lanes, and at a minimum one right -turn lane. The development will be conditioned to meet these specific plan requirements. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD REVIEW On April 7, 1993, the Design Review Board, met briefly to discuss the resubmittal of Plot Plan 91 -466 (Revision). The development proposal included a four story office building on Highway 111 which is attached to the three level parking structure abutting the Simon Motors property. On the southwest portion of the site (also attached to the parking structure) was the second story fitness center and one story 44 lane bowling alley. The other two buildings on the site were a restaurant/bank building at the intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Street and a one story office building. The project was broken down in the following fashion: Offices (4 story) Restaurant Office /Eye Institute Fitness Center Bowling Alley 60,880 sq. ft. 8,000 sq. ft. 5,000 sq. ft. 12,000 sq. ft. 40.531 sq. ft. 126,411 sq. ft. (550 parking spaces) The Design Review Board continued action on this case on April 7, 1993, at the request of the applicant. The case was continued to May 5, 1993. On April 26, 1993, the applicant revised the proposal to conform to the newly adopted City General Plan Floor Area Ratios (.35) policy requirements. A copy of the new plan is attached and a copy of the original Design Review Board report from April 7th has also been enclosed. The developer has removed the fitness center and bowling alley from the project and substituted at -grade parking along Washington Street. The number of parking structure levels has also been reduced. Medical Offices (4 -story) = 68,600 sq. ft. Restaurant 8,000 sq. ft. Office = 5,413 sq. ft. TOTAL 82,013 sq. ft. (412 parking spaces) On April 26, 1993, Staff also received a resubmittal of the master sign program for the center based on the new submittal. A similar sign program (SA 91 -159, Amendment #3) was approved by the Planning Commission in 1992. The only difference in the exhibit versus the previous plan is that Sign #1 is double -sided instead of being three- sides. Sign #4a was originally contemplated for the bowling alley, but it is now being used for the 4 -story office building. MEMOGT.046 4 On May 5, 1993, the Design Review Board reconsidered the revised plan of the applicant. The Design Review Board felt the new plan was an improvement over the original plan (PP 91 -466) because it was less dense and sight views through the project were more pronounced. The buildings are now farther back on Washington Street without the bowling alley building which was originally slated to be 20 -feet from the street right -of -way. The Board reviewed the original Conditions of Approval imposed in 1992, to verify whether or not the conditions were still appropriate for this new submission. The Design Review Board had the following statements or issues for the applicant. Architecture The Board was concerned with the overall size of the 4 -story building and its relationship to Highway 111 and Washington Street. Many Board members stated that without the other original buildings the pedestrian scale of the project had been lost even, though the "view" corridors through the project had been increased. The Board debated various topics of the proposal and their final recommendation on the project is as follows: 1. The roof design for the 4 -story medical office building should be either 4:12 or higher to give the building balance and proper scale to its mass. 2. The roof design for the 1 -story office building should be similar to the 1 -story restaurant building at the intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Street. 3. The parking structures tile roof facade should be eliminated because it is not compatible with the design motif of the 4 -story medical office building. The applicant should evaluate another design style which incorporates a cornice design feature (similar to the upper portion of the 4 -story building) and other articulated features which will soften the elevation and not enhance its presence. 4. The parking structure ramp on the south side of the project should not be stuccoed to match the building. The applicant should review a embedded stone for this tilt -up structure or other natural texture features to downplay its importance. 5. The applicant should include the following features into the 4 -story medical office building: a. Pre -cast stone window trim. b. Individual pane windows versus grid molding. C. Additional building column connections. d. Accented building roof heights. e. Revision to the elevator shaft design and its relationship to Highway 111. f. Energy conservation measures should be reviewed. g. The 2 -story elements on the west side of the 4 -story building should be redesigned so that the roof connects into the building (delete the existing windows). MEMOGT.046 5 1 t t 1 Landscape A landscape plan was not presented for review during discussion of the project making it difficult for the Board to interrelate the landscape program with the project. After some debate, the Design Review Board instructed the applicant to present a plan prior to the preparation of final working drawings by the landscape architect. The Board stressed the need to see vertical plant material to reduce the impact of the parking structure and the 4 -story building as they relate to abutting developments. Signs The Design Review Board was comfortable with the revised master sign package by the applicant, and with the proposed two -sided freestanding sign (Sign #1) at the intersection. The Board debated whether or not the sign should be moved from the corner (e.g., 150 -feet south or east) thereby creating an open space area for public interaction (i.e., public art, public furniture, etc.) similar to the One Eleven La Quinta Center. The Design Review Board debated initially whether the sign and a public art feature could be molded together at this corner to meet both the developer's needs and the City's public amenity needs. The consensus was to allow the applicant a sign at this intersection as originally approved for the past case except that he sign would be two -sided instead of three - sided. The Design Review Board also requested that the sign letters for Sign #1, be laser -cut and set into the sign face instead of incised, as proposed. Bike Trails The Design Review Board examined whether or not an ei ht foot wide bike trail or path was necessary for the proposal in light of the fact that Simon Motors presently has a five foot wide sidewalk at this time. The Board stated that an eight wide trail was necessary because it is required in the General Plan and it will provide a secondary mode of transportation for residents or visitors of La Quinta. They noted that it is the City's intent to be linked through a Master Trail System for both pedestrians and bicyclists. Summary In conclusion, the Design Review Board voted to conceptually approve the project provided the applicant's revised plans were returned to them prior to the development of the final working drawings. The Board felt the project architect could refine the design per their suggestions without delaying the applicant's request to be on the Planning Commission meeting of May 11, 1993. The final vote was 6 -0. ANALYSIS /FISCAL IMPACT: Both Highway 111 and Washington Street are image corridors as defined in the General Plan. Further, the subject-property is located within the Highway 111 Specific Plan area. To date, draft policies for this plan have been prepared and reviewed by both the Planning Commission and City Council. The City Council has indicated concurrence with those policies. Those policies, in part, address commercial development along Highway 111 and how it should be developed. MEMOGT.046 6 4 � _ I . The specific plan policies indicate that Highway 111 should avoid becoming a random series of unrelated, shallow -depth commercial uses, resulting in an unproductive . commercial strip type of area. 2. The specific plan policies indicates that commercial uses along Highway 111 shall be only in "major commercial complexes ". No single isolated structures will -be permitted anywhere along Highway 111 without a plan which demonstrates the feasibility of the whole complex of which the single use or small complex is an early increment. Also, the compatibility of the proposed use with the surrounding preferred uses will be required to be demonstrated. 3. The specific plan policies indicate that development should be in complexes of like, similar, or complementary uses, with a common marketing theme and locational identifier. 4. The General Plan policies for the Mixed Commercial Land Use are attached. These policies refer to the Highway 111 Specific Plan and the need to develop the property along Highway 111 with large project developments rather than smaller unrelated uses. The goals of the Highway 111 Specific Plan are being met because the developer is merging lots to form a large development, has related commercial uses, and proposed interrelated aggregate building structures. The proposed buildings do not create a towering feeling for the Highway 111 corridor because the architect has tried to articulate the building mass and place the building 50 to 150 feet from the street. Parking Analysis: In the 1992 plan, a, shared parking program was used to meet the off - street parking requirements. The plan was based on peak period use of the project during normal business hours. The new proposal is broken down in the following way: A. Medical offices (4 -story) 68,600 sq. ft. /200 sq. ft. = 343 spaces B. Office (1 -story) 5,413 sq. ft. /250 = 22 C. *Restaurant 8,000 sq. ft. /50 = 80 OR D. Bank (1 -story) 8,000 sq. ft./250 =32 * Note: 50% of the building counted as dining area. TOTAL 397 to 445 spaces MEMOGT.046 7 The two -level parking structure will accommodate 205 parking spaces and another 207 parking spaces will be inter -mixed around the exterior portion of the development. The at -grade parking along Washington Street will assist both customers in easy access to the site and also permits patrons and staff clear views into, and through the development since there is only one driveway access per street frontage. Access is an important issue in the development of this site because it is a heavily traveled area of the City. In 1991, the City amended the Off - Street Parking code to include a new category for medical office (ZOA 91 -020). The code states the following: "One space per 150 square feet GLA (including lobbies and reception areas) for any building or building complex less than 20,000 square feet. One space per 200 square feet GLA (including lobbies and reception areas) for any building or building complex greater than 20,000 square feet." Medical offices are required to have more on -site parking than a retail or office establishments. Therefore, the applicant might want to re- evaluate the amount of medical office space versus office space which is provided on this plan In the present development plan it is hard to predict the exact number of parking spaces because all the future tenants have not been determined. A parking analysis should be conducted as each tenant is brought into the development. This can either occur during plan check or during the review of a business license. The applicant is required to insure that the tenant mix will be consistent with the on -site parking facilities. Proposed Additional Conditions: The Design Review Board did not include all the proposed conditions which were recommended by Staff at their May 5th meeting. Staff had recommended that the proposed center identification sign (Sign #1) not be positioned at the intersection as proposed by the applicant. Staff recommended the following condition: "A project identification sign shall not be installed at the intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Street since the area should be reserved for landscaping, public furniture, and a public art piece. No private property features such as a project identification sign shall be permitted within 150 to 200 feet of the intersection. The theme plaza shall be identical to the One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center design to the north of the site" The primary reason for the condition is to retain an area at this "image" corridor intersection for public art or other public amenities. Staff believes this area should be a focal point or node for the community. The One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center provided such a feature on their site pursuant to the adoption of Specific Plan 89 -014. The developer of the project felt uncomfortable with this request because they would prefer to have their project sign at this highly visible corner of the City. Staff explained to the Design Review Board that the General MEMOGT.046 8 Plan did not graphically depict the elements which are required but identified them in written text for review and consideration during the review of a project at these key points within the City and primarily along Highway 111. Policy 3 -4.1.2 states, "at key intersection, primary image corridors shall include treatments which may include special roadway paving, hardscape /screen wall arrangements and displays of public art". This intersection is also a "primary gateway" area to the City, therefore, this area should include special paving, street furniture, hardscape, screen wall arrangements, displays of public art, monument signage, landscaping and street lighting (Policy 3- 4.1.8). PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW: On April 13, 1993, the Planning Commission continued discussion of this project to May 11, 1993, to allow the applicant additional time to revise the project pursuant to the newly adopted provisions of the General Plan. As mentioned above, the applicant did modify the proposal by reducing the overall size of the project from ± 126,411 square feet to ±82,013 square feet. The new plan was submitted to Staff on April 26, 1993. On May 11, 1993, the Planning Commission examined the revised application of Simon Plaza to develop their project at the southeast corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street. The Planning Commission reviewed the comments of the Design Review Board and they concurred that further refinements to the project were warranted. The Planning Commission felt the down - scaled proposal was more fitting to this corner parcel, but were opposed .to the proposed four story medical office building because it is too massive for this small site. The majority of Commission members stated they would prefer a three story project because it would be more consistent with the existing uses in the area. The members stated that the City has not approved a project over three stories, and approval of this plan would set a precedent in their mind about future growth in the Highway 111 area. They noted that the tallest projects approved at this time are the three story El Mirador Medical Center (Desert Hospital) at 47th Avenue and Washington Street on ± 19 acres and the three story Eisenhower Medical facility at Washington Street and 47th Avenue on 1.1 acres. The Commission recognized that the applicant could apply for a four story building, but also felt the site could not accommodate such a large structure and retain a pedestrian character (see Condition #73). Mr. Philip Pead, the applicant, present at the meeting spoke concerning his project. He went through some of the Conditions of Approval he wished to see modified and the Planning Commission discussed each item at length. The applicant also brought additional Highway 111 renderings which were modified after the May 5th Design Review Board meeting. Mr. Pead stated that his architect addressed most of the items identified on Page 5 of the report. However, there were a few items he felt were not necessary as they would add additional costs to the project either in future maintenance or construction. Many of the items requested by the Design Review Board were either modified by the Planning Commission or deleted at the applicant's request. The Planning Commission amended a few of the recommendations of the Engineering Department at the meeting. Two of these items were the amount of improvements required by the applicant on Washington Street and the percentage amount the applicant needed to contribute to the existing traffic signal at Simon Drive and Highway 111. The Planning Commission felt MEMOGT.046 9 the developer should not be required to reimburse the City for the future raised median nor perform street improvements westerly of the existing curb and gutter facilities on Washington Street. The Commission however thought the developer should be required to install new street improvements per the provisions of the Washington Street Specific Plan Alignment Schedule (Condition #39). The developer stated he is in agreement with their proposal. The Commission thought the site was too small to justify all the requirements of the Engineering Department. The applicant also requested that the Planning Commission reduce his traffic signal fair -share contribution from 25 % to something less than this because they felt their project did not justify this fee based on the size of their project. Mr. Pead thought the larger projects in the area should pay for this existing signal. The Planning Director stated that the other projects in the area were contributing, but 25% was the remaining amount since the One Eleven La Quinta Center contributed 50 % and Washington Square will contribute 25 %. Staff stated that if Simon Motors was not built, the City would ask this property owner to contribute to the signal during the development process. But since it is currently an existing business, the City cannot request the traffic signal money from their businesses. The Commission felt the project did benefit from the existing traffic signal but they thought 12.5% was a more reasonable fee (Condition #41). The final vote of the Planning Commission was 4 -0 to approve the project provided the project does not exceed three stories in overall height. The Planning Commissions modifications to Conditions #39 and #41 will modify the applicant's off -site costs by shifting approximately $150,000 from the applicant to the City. The City costs for these improvements have not been budgeted in the 1993 -94 year. Therefore, if the conditions as modified by the Commission become final, the cost for these improvements need to be considered during the 1993 -94 budget hearings. Staff will be presenting a review of the entire five year Capital Improvement Plan during the Fiscal Year 1993 -94 budget process. STAFF CONCLUSION: Staff supports the new plan because it meets the provisions of the City's Zoning Code, the newly adopted General Plan, and the provisions of the Washington Street/Highway 111 Specific Plans as conditioned. FINDINGS TO SUPPORT THE PROJECT: 1. The site is irregular in shape (3 street frontages) thus forcing the architect to create aggregate building masses to meet the City's General Plan and Zoning Code Standards. The architectural elements of the project are similar in nature to the other commercial facilities in the immediate area. The floor area ratio (F.A.R.) for the project is ±0.35 which is consistent with the General Plan Land Use category standards (Table LU -4) of the City. 2. The two -story parking structure will not adversely affect the Highway 111 corridor because the building is located 50 feet from the property line and the overall height of the parking garage is similar in height to the Simon Motors Automobile facility. The structure creates an .illusion that the parking garage is one story instead of two stories MEMOGT.046 10 because the height for the front 100 feet of the structure on Highway 111 is only ±15 feet in overall height. 3. The setbacks and building heights for the project meet the Washington Street Specific Plan and General Plan Policy goals. 4. The new proposal is compatible with the Simon Motors Automobile Dealership to the east of this site. 5. The project is conditioned to meet the newly adopted General Plan policy for the City which prescribe public amenities which are important for both primary image corridors and primary gateway treatments as specified in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. RECOMMENDATION: By Minute Motion 93- , move to accept for file this report of action taken by the Planning Commission on May 11, 1993. Attachments: 1. Location map 2. Large exhibits (dated 4/26/93) 3. Master Sign Program (SA 93 -210) (large exhibits) 4. April 7, 1993, Design Review Board report 5. Theme Plaza sketch 6. Letter of opposition 7. Draft Conditions of Approval - PP 93 -495 (Revision) 8. Draft Conditions of Approval - SA 93 -210 MEMOGT.046 11 1 o_ r 0) L i Adams Street P R IStreet C '. �i tt�I�W°4Q'►� I 09 LAW OFFICES OF PAUL E. FISHER 4695 M�ARTHUR COURT, SUITE 1060 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 TELEPHONE (714) 474 -2025 FACSIMILE (714) 474 -2041` April 13, 1993 Q r� jN 1 j APR 15 1993 L:tY . 1520 -159 VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL Planning & Development Department City of La Quinta 78 -105 Calle Estado La Quintal California 92253 Re: Project by Philip M. Pead, Simon Plaza, Inc. Dear Sir /Madam: This office represents Desert Outdoor Advertising, Inc. in regard to property it owns near the intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Boulevard, APN 604 - 050 -011. On behalf of Desert Outdoor, we would like to voice our strong opposition to the project proposed by Mr. Pead. The property owned by Desert Outdoor was acquired specifically for the establishment of an outdoor advertising display, and the property is ideally suited for such a use. The portion of Desert Outdoor's property which the City intends to take for use in connection with Mr. Pead 's development plans may leave insufficient property for any viable commercial use whatsoever. While the approval of Mr. Pead's plan may benefit Mr. Pead and Simon Plaza, Inc., it will cause a substantial loss to Desert Outdoor. It is very clear that this plan.is not being proposed for the benefit of Desert Outdoor, nor is it clear that any benefit will accrue to the general public. Instead, it appears that the City is. proposing to take land from private parties not for the public benefit, but solely for the benefit'of Mr. Pead. On these grounds, we strongly recommend that the Planning and Development Department deny this application. PEF:lh 04139301.1tr Very truly yours, ?0. J _� PAUL E. FISHER IA�W MMrM7 �r�wxr j 7• w�M't 1 ., or lewd md"'ol at 'phm° P.O.B. INTERSECTION OF R.O.W. LINES AT "rl 1Aehi0i ) CORNER OF STATE MGHWAY 111 Al WASHINGTON STREET acy Mdl b✓ ti • \\ x 4* :' NOTE: SEE SHEET C -4 FOR GENERAL NOTES AND DETAILS in zw tqqtmmp2 0 r-A 7RCM480 wry �•. oe +1.4--- -1.IwL1sc�P ) CONCRETE SIDEWALK -4 C8�o0 ACCENT PAVING AT ENTRY 3'x3' STAMPED CONCRETE BOMACF* L.At SCOFELD COLOR HARDENER (CO DETERMINED BY OWNER) SCORELRO TRAFFIC. A %LABL.E THROUGH SII I s STALL PER MANRIFACTMJkS REM 1 CURB RAMP PER COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE STANDARD DRAWING NO. 403. (TYPICAL) — ART DISMAY PEDESTAL BY OTHERS NOTE: SEE SHEET C -4 FOR GENERAL NOTES AND DETAILS in zw tqqtmmp2 0 r-A 7RCM480 wry �•. oe +1.4--- -1.IwL1sc�P ) CONCRETE SIDEWALK -4 C8�o0 ACCENT PAVING AT ENTRY 3'x3' STAMPED CONCRETE BOMACF* L.At SCOFELD COLOR HARDENER (CO DETERMINED BY OWNER) SCORELRO TRAFFIC. A %LABL.E THROUGH SII I s STALL PER MANRIFACTMJkS REM 1 It !1 J J CD H N c$ r O t� 5: O � C V 4 Lj-, e E E a r �-1 Ito iE 0 -.Is cy S50 cv G OL £3�c � c Ir E LL � � � � LL la Ic 91 10, hardscepOcreen wag arrangements, dsplays d public art; ma wment signage, bxfsm nD and street EphtkV. Primary gateways are Mended as r$amsdc design statements indicating ft entrance to ft CAy and the ►Image area Primary gateway treatments shall o= at the fngowing street intersections: • Fred Waring Drive and WaAngton Street Washington Street and Highway 111. • Jefferson Street and Highway 111 • Calle_ Tampico and Washington Street • Eisenhower Drive and Cage Tampico Policy 3 -4.1.9 Saoondary gateway treatments shag be defined as streescape treatments which are simr7ar to primary gateway treatments except that an emphasis Is placed on a less dramatic entry statement. For example, secondary gateway treatments may not include special paving, street furniture or hardscape/screen wall arrangements. The secondary gateway treatment may rely more on the use of landscaping, street lighting and monument signage as the major elements of design. 3- 4.1.10 Along primary, secondary and agrarian image corridors the City shall establish appropriate bolding height Emits to ensure a low density character and appearance. Policy 3- 4.1.11 Landscaped setbacks are necessary to ensure a high quality and attractive appearance on major streets. Setbacks for wags, MdkVs and parking areas may vary, 9 property designed, but shag generally be as fogows: �•• Hrighway 111 - 50 feet • Other Major Arterials - 20 feet • Primary Arterials - 20 feet • Secondary Arterials - 10 fleet • Coftedor Streets - 10 feet Landscaping wiUvn these setback areas shall be consistent with the appropriate image corridor designation, if applicable. Policy 3- 4.1.12 Special right -of -way width and design treatments wig be identified for streets MUO the Visage Area, rec ognizng established set -backs or adjacent developments and the maturity of existing landscaping materiak The Wowing streets wE be pem9ned to remain at a madmum fifty (50) foot right- of-way Aft 8) ca* b) Barcekna 0 Amigo Policy 3- 4.1.13 Wag openings to allow views into projects from image corridors are desirable and shoed be required where appropriate as one means of nmmivng negative visual O pests of continuous walls. This can also be accomplished by varying setbacks. Policy 3- 4.1.14 The City may require adequate parkways, vistas into waged communities, and other features as appropriate. Policy 3- 4.1.15 More desirable, Meuse of existing natural vegetation including atrus trees, date palm groves, eucalyptus windrows, and oleander hedges should be considered for retention in image corridor landscape designs. Policy 3- 4.1.16 Special design treatments for major elements of the Cays street system shall be considered in all approvals for related development Policy 3- 4.1.17 The Citys streetscepe quality shag be improved by undergrocnding of utr7ities wherever possible. Policy 3- 4.1.18 Prevention of visual bright shall be enhanced by the administration of a comprehensive sign ordinance. Public Transit Policies Bsckground - The provision of public transit is an integral part of La Ouinta's multi -modal circulation System. Increased use of public transit in the future will provide tenefits such as reduced congestion and Improved air qu i y. For transit to be successful, it &'*old be property planned so that R is c wwrilent and accessible to users and operates In a timely fashion. The following porkies are Intended to provide guidance In estabfcstzing an expanded transit system to serve the needs of ft City and region. BRW, Ins Chapter 3 - Circulation Element City of La Quints „,A-,,, AO-%WT 3-22 General Plan I Policy 3-4.1.2 Primary image corridors shad be der�ned as streets In the roadway network ►�dh are Cie moor urban design statements of the City. Primary Image corridors shad consist of boulevard streets with raised, landscaped medaru and heavL7f landscaped areas wlihln and contiguous to Me street rights -of -way. Primary Image corridors shat include landscape themes which are reminiscent of La Ouinta's agricultural past and desert arnvkuwvrt Prknary knage corridors may lnclude vertical landscape elements such as palm bees complemented with it shade - producing understory of carncpy trees, such as kidigenous, drought tolerant desert species. More water Intensive understory canopy bees, such as various anus species, should be used sparingy In nodes at key locations as highlights and reminders of past agricultural activities. Ground plane landscape materials should evoke a lush image through the use of drought tolerant, law maintenance plant species. Twf shocdd be used In a mariner consistent with estrus bees - -sparingly and in high visibility locations. Primary image corridors shad include sheet traffic signals, street fighting systems, street furniture, bus shelters, street name signs, and noise berms/b mers which are designed In a coor- "ted and consistent theme unique to La Quints At key Intersections, primary image corridors shag include treatments which may irxkide special roadway paving, hardscapelscreen wag arrangements and dsplays of public art Polley 3 -4.1.3 Primary image corridors shag include the following roadways: �• Washington Street • Jefferson Street pope Ifghway 111 • Fred Waring Drive • Calle Tampico • &sanhower Drive (From Cage Tampico to Washington Streeq Policy 3 -4.1.4 Secondary image corridors shag be defined as streets in the roadway network which are the secondary urban design statements of Me Cey. Secondary Image cord - dors shaft consist of streets with raised, landscaped medans and land&,�4M areas within and contiguous to the street right -of -way. Secondary image corridors shag be consistent with primary image corridors relative to similar landscape materials, street Craffic signals, street fighting systems, street liumiture, bus shelters and street name signs. However, secondary street Image oorrldbrs &W emphasize Me use of bw protfle Indgenars canopy bees, accentuated with the use of dtrus bees In various nodes. The use of fader, verdW bidscape elements shad be de- emphasized and shad occur In nodes, prirnarAy at street htersecxlo m Policy 3 -4.1.5 Secondary Image corridors shad include the following roadways: • Was Avenue • Dune Palms Road (south of the Coachella Valley Storrnwater C7hanneo • Adams Street (south of the Coachella Valley Stormwater C hanneo a Avenue 48 • Avenue 50 • Avenue 52 • Esenhower Drive (south of Gape Tampico to Avenida Bermudas) Policy 3 -4.1.6 Agrarian image corridors shall be defined as streets in Me roadway network which are designed to evoke a nural ambiance and. to provide a strong linkage to the City's agricultural past - These corridors are to be bcated in close.proximity to areas designated 'Rural Resider;W our the Land Use Policy Diagram in doe Land Use Element Agrarian image corridors shad incorporate equestrian trails and shad Include design themes representative of rural areas, such as shaded country lanes which utiE a lower prolfle indigenous canopy trees accentuated with various onus species. The use of taller, verriicalal landsWe elements, such as palm Craft, steal be de- emphasized Mare possible, the use of vertical curls on the outside lane of doe roadway shad be minimized. Street traffic signals, street lighting systems, street l mWure, bus shelters and street name signs shad be smilar to primary and secondary image corridors, but M possible, shag incorporate more of a rural character. Polley .3 -4.1.7 .agrarian Image corridors shag include the tbdowing roadways. • Madson Street • Avenue 54 (from Jefferson Street to Monroe Street Policy 3 -4.1.8 Primary gateway treatments shag be defined as sbeet- scape treatments at key intersections leading into the City and bhto Me ViWage area. Primary gateway treatments may k)dude special paving, street fix tore, BRW, Ina Chapter 3 - Circulation Element Gry of La O nta LM- WRAO -& r 3-21 General Plan u3i STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING DATE: APRIL 7, 1993 CASE NO: PLOT PLAN 93 -495 APPLICANT: SIMON PLAZA, INC. (PHILIP PEAD) PREVIOUS CASE: PLOT PLAN 91 -466 (REVISED) (EXPIRED) OWNERS: 3S PARTNERSHIP AND POMONA FIRST FEDERAL BANK SUBJECT: REQUEST TO DEVELOP A MIXED USE COMMERCIAL PROJECT ON APPROXIMATELY 5.6 ACRES ZONED C -P -S COMMERCIAL. THE PROJECT WILL INCLUDE A FOUR STORY OFFICE BUILDING, A 44 LANE BOWLING ALLEY, A FITNESS CENTER, A RESTAURANT OR BANK, AN EYE INSTITUTE OR OFFICE, A FOUR LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE, AND RELATED AT -GRADE PARKING. LOCATION: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND WASHINGTON STREET, BOTH MAJOR ARTERIALS. THE DEVELOPMENT, ON ±5.6 ACRES OF LAND, IS LOCATED TO THE WEST OF THE EXISTING SIMON MOTORS AUTOMOTIVE DEALERSHIP ON HIGHWAY 111. ARCHITECT: MERLIN J. BARTH EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: MIXED /REGIONAL COMMERCIAL WITH NON - RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY. SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS: NORTH: 111 LA QUINTA SHOPPING CENTER SOUTH: WASHINGTON SQUARE SPECIFIC PLAN PROPERTY (VACANT) EAST: EXISTING SIMON MOTORS AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP WEST: EXISTING PLAZA LA QUINTA SHOPPING CENTER DRBST.083 1 • ' IIi)`►I Q This project was reviewed by the City in 1992, as part of the review and approval of Plot Plan 91 -466 (Revised). The project received approval by the Design Review Board on October 2, 1991, the Planning Commission on February 25, 1992, and the City Council on March 2, 1992. However, the final design approved changed from ± 165,000 square feet to ± 125,000 square feet and various buildings were shifted on the property to increase visibility into the project. \ The initial plan is attached for reference. The original Conditions of Approval required the applicant to begin construction of the project within one year or apply for a one year extension of time which required review by the Planning Commission. The original case expired on February 25, 1993. On March 11, 1993, the applicant refiled the original plans with Staff and paid the necessary fees to return the project through the necessary stages to have the project reviewed by the Design Review Board, Planning Commission, and City Council as a new application. DESCRIPTION OF SITE: The proposed ±5.6 acre site is comprised of seven parcels. The flat and undeveloped parcels were created by the division of land under Parcel Map 18418 in 1982. The property has frontage on three streets with 650 feet along Washington Street, 700 feet along Highway 111, and 180 feet along Simon Drive. The site elevation along Washington Street is approximately 60 feet above sea level. The site is improved with street improvements. However, additional. widening is necessary on Washington Street to conform with the City's adopted Specific Plan Alignment Program and General Plan. A future raised median island is proposed for both Washington Street and Highway 111. The property was subdivided in the early 1980's for the development of Simon Motors Automobile Dealership as well as to establish commercial lots which could be sold or developed with commercial land uses. DEVELOPNIEN7 PROPOSAL: The development proposal will include a four story office building on Highway 111 which is attached to the three level parking structure abutting the Simon Motors property. On the southwest portion of the site (also attached to the parking structure) is the second story fitness center and one story 44 lane bowling alley. The other two buildings on the site are a restaurant/bank building at the intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Street and a one story eye institute. The project is broken down in the following fashion: DRBST.083 2 Offices Restaurant . Office/Eye Institute Fitness Center Bowling Alley ARCHITECTURE: r — 60,880 sq. ft. — 8,000 sq. ft. — 5,000 sq. ft. 12,000 sq. ft. 40.531 sq. ft. 126,411 sq. ft. (550 parking spaces) The project architect, Mr. Merlin J. Barth, of Anaheim, has prepared a plan which proposes buildings around the outer portion of the site with at -grade parking in the center of the facility. A multiple level parking structure will be located on the east side of the property. CIRCULATION /PARKING: The developer has proposed access driveways on each respective public street. The two -way driveway on Highway 111 and Washington Street will service the proposed courtyard guest parking lot (approximately 102 parking spaces). The driveways lead to the four level parking garage (two floors above grade with a roof top parking area and one subterranean level) located at the easterly property boundary of the site. The parking garage will house approximately 448 cars. The parking ratio for this project is (126,411/550) one on -site space for every 229 square feet of leasable floor area. lea • .. � •� On October 6, 1992, the City updated its General Plan to include some new standards which are pertinent to all properties in the City. The new plan designates the frontage streets along the exterior portion of the site as "primary image corridor" thoroughfares, and the signalized intersection of Washington Street and Highway 111 as a "gateway" image intersection. A copy of the adopted material is attached. The primary function of the program is to provide boulevard streets with raised, landscaped medians and heavily landscaped areas within and contiguous to the street rights -of -way. The General Plan states that "primary image corridors shall include landscape themes which are reminiscent of La Quinta's agricultural past and desert environment ". Overall, the applicant's request is generally consistent with the intent of the General Plan except for the intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Street. We would recommend that the applicant enhance the intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Street to include an area for a public art piece surrounded by palm trees. DRBST.083 3 hill"I A01 _A311 The new General Plan for the City established new policy requirements for the City on the amount of building coverage a project could have on a site. Table LU -4 of the Land Use Element states 0.35 is the ratio for Mixed /Regional Commercial (M /RC) properties. This project proposes 126,411 square feet on approximately ±5.3 net acres or an F.A.R. of 0.54. This figure does not examine the parking structure as a building for this equation. The project should be downsized to meet this new building floor area to project site area ratio which is based on net land area (after street dedication) versus gross floor area (e.g., 82,000 sq. ft. - 230,868 = 0.35). STAFF COINfMENTS: The applicant allowed the original case approval to expire in February, 1993. Therefore, the Design Review Board can request changes to the proposed resubmittal if you believe they are necessary. Staff would also like to point out to the Design Review. Board that the applicant would like to maintain the past master sign program (SA 91 -159 #3) which was approved by the Design Review Board and Planning Commission after the original review of Plot Plan 91 -466 (Revised). A copy of the original approval is attached. The City's Zoning Code Standards have not changed since the last review of this case. Should changes occur to the structures, it may be necessary to revise the sign program. Staff would recommend that the Design Review Board reconsider the Planning Commission approval of the triangular freestanding sign at the intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Street. The current approval allowed a twelve foot high sign with three sides each having 50 square feet of copy. It might be more appropriate to relocate a project sign to the east and south of its present location and provide a different type of sign (e.g., double sided sign). SUGGESTED CO?1`DITIONS: 1. The General Plan policy standards for "Primary Gateway Treatment" as outlined in Chapter 3.0 (Circulation Element) should be met since this intersection is located on an image corridor of the City.' 2. A project identification sign should not be installed at the intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Street, since the area should be reserved for landscaping, public furniture, and a public art piece. No private property features such as a project identification sign should be permitted within 150 feet of the intersection. 3. The maximum F.A.R. for this project should be 0.35 as noted in Table LU4 of the General Plan. DRBST.083 N 4 Staff is at the Design Review Board's pleasure on the matter and any new recommendations of the Design Review Board will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for their review later this month. Attachments: 1. Location map 2. Large exhibits (dated 3/15/93) 3. Master Sign Approval (SA 91 -159 #3) 4. Excerpts from the original Conditions for Plot Plan 91 -466 (Revised) 5. Initial site plan design (superseded) 6. Excerpt from the General Plan DRBST.083 5 Bi FIL E'�p STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: APRIL 12, 1994 CASE NO.: PLOT PLAN 93 -495 APPLICANT: SIMON PLAZA, INC., MR. PHIL PEAD LOCATION: THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WASHINGTON STREET AND HIGHWAY 111 REQUEST: APPROVAL OF A MODIFICATION TO CONDITION #36 OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL BACKGROUND This request was originally scheduled for Planning Commission consideration on December 14, 1993. The applicant requested and received a continuance to January 11, 1994. Prior to this date, the applicant requested and received an extension to February 22, 1994. On February 22, 1994, the applicant requested a continuance to April 12, 1994. After discussion the Planning Commission approved the continuance. The applicant has now requested that his application be processed with his recently submitted time extension. The project expires on May -11, 1994, without an extension. Therefore, based upon this recent application it is recommended that this matter be tabled. Staff will be processing the time extension and modifications to the conditions for your May 10, 1994 meeting. At that time the entire project is before you for any modifications. RECOMMENDATION: Move to table the request for modification to Condition #36 of the Conditions of Approval for Plot Plan 93 -495. PCST.172 1 AIR BEST, BEST & KRIEGER A P^— WRMMP.'CLVOR.O ►11016s40MwL COR►OH.ATION8 LAWYERS ARTHUR L. LITTLEWORTH' WYNNE S. FURTH JANICE L. WEIS PATRICK O. DOLAN 600 EAST TAHOL"TZ CANYON WAY OLEN E. STEPHENS' GENE TAMARA PATRICK M.W.F. PEARCE DEAN R. DERLETH POST OFFICE BOX 2710 WILLIAM R. D[WOLFE• SABIL T. CHAPMAN KIRK W. SMITH HELENE P. DREYER BARTON C. GAUT- TIMOTHY M. CONNOR JASON D. DABAREINER EMILY P. MCMPHILL PALM SPRINGS. CALIFORNIA 92263 PAUL T. SELZER- VICTOR L. WOLF KYLE A. SNOW SONIA RUBIO SHARMA TELEPHONE (619) 326-7264 DALLAS HOLMES- DANIEL C. OLIVIER MARK A. EASTER JOHN O. PINKNEY CMRI57OPHER L. CARPENTER- HOWARD B. GOLDS DIANE L. FINLEY DEARING D. ENGLISH TELECOPIER (619) 325-0365 RICHARD T. ANDERSON' STEPHEN P. DEITSCH WCHELLE OUELLETTE THEODORE J. GRISWOLD JOHN D. WAHLIN• MARC E. EMPEY DAVID P. PHIPPEN. SR. JULIANN ANDER30N MICHAEL D. HARRIS' JOHN R. ROTTSCHAEFER SUSAN C. NAUSS JEFFREY R. THORPE W. CURT EALY• MARTIN A. MUELLER CHRISTOPHER T. DODSON LORA M. WILSON JOHN E. BROWN• J. MICHAEL SUMMEROUR BERNIE L. WILLIAMSON PATRICIA 5YARSC13NEROS OF COUNSEL MICHAEL T. RIDDELL' VICTORIA N. KING KEVIN K. RANDOLPH JACOUELINE E. BAILEY JAMES 8. CORI3ON MEREDITH A. JURY' SCOTT C. SMITH JAMES S. GILPIN MARK D. DECKER C. MICHAEL COWETT MICHAEL ORANT' JACK 5. CLARKE. JR. MARSHALL S RUDOLPH BRUCE W. BEACH FRANCIS J. BAUM' BRIAN M. LEWIS KIM A. BYRENS ARLENE PRATER ANNE T. THOMAS• BRADLEY E. MEUFELO CYNTHI M. GERMANO JOHN C. TOWN D. MAR TM NETHERY• SHARYL WALKER MARYE . OILSTRAP GEORGE M. REYES PETER M. BARMACK GLENN P. SABINE WILLIAM W. FLOYD. JR. JEANNETTE A. PETERSON PHILIP J. KOEHLER GREGORY L. HARDKE ELISE K. TRAYMUM DIANE C. SLASDEL KENDALL H. MACVEY WILLIAM O. DAHLING. JR. REBECCA MARES GURNEY O► 'ICE 3 M CLARK M. ALSOP MATT H. MORRIS DOROTHY 1. ANDERSON RIVERSIDE (9091 8 6 6-1150 DAVID J. ERWIN' JEFFREY V. DUNN G. HENRY WELLED MICHAEL J. ANDELSON' STEVEN C. DKBAUN JAMES R. HARPER RANCHO MIRAGE (619) 556.260 DOUGLAS S PHILLIPS' ERIC L. GARNER DINA O. HARRIS RAYMOND BEST (1888 -1977) ONTARIO (009) 989.8584 ANTONIA ORAPH03 DENNIS M. COTA BARBARA R. BARON JAMES H. KRIEGER 11913.1979) GREGORY K. WIKLINSON ROBERT W. HARGREAVES RICHARD T. EGGER EUGENE BEST (1893.1961) SAN DIEGO (6191 599.1333 • A ►ROF[KUONAL CORPORATION April 7, 1994 Mr. Jerry Herman 22 City of La Quinta cL P.O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 0 7 1994 Re: Plat Plan 93 -495 CITYuF LA iiU;t;TA P LAN N;IL; D P.4 R -0 ENT Dear Mr. Herman: As you are aware, this office represents Simon Plaza, Inc., the developers of the 5.6 acre site located on the southeast corner of Hwy. 111 and Washington Street, which is the subject of the above mentioned plat plan. I have been authorized and directed by my client to respectfully request that pursuant to Condition No. 2 of the Conditions of Approval that the City consider a one year time extension of the plat plan until May 11,.1995. As you are aware, my client was prepared to proceed with the development of the project as previously approved. However, when the Conditions of Approval and site design and density changed last year, our financing source refused to proceed. Since that time, we have been unable to replace our financing source although we are diligently pursuing that matter and hope that within a reasonable period of time to proceed. In that connection, Condition No. 36 which has been amended on several occasions, requires the dedication of the Washington Street right -of -way. As we have previously explained, we cannot provide that dedication until we are able to complete our purchase of the Pomona First Federal Savings & Loan parcel. Without financing, that has proved impossible to do. It is our understanding that the matter of this Condition is currently scheduled for the Planning Commission meeting of April 12, 1994. PTS46931 14 LAW OFFICES OF r BEST, BEST & KRIEGL Mr. Jerry Herman April 7, 1994 Page 2 In view of our request to extend the entire plat plan and each of its conditions, which we assume will require both Planning Commission and City Council public hearings, we would respectfully request that the Planning Commission defer action on our request until the hearing before it on our proposed one year extension. As required by the City Code, enclosed please find our check in the amount of $500.00. In addition, under separate cover, you will shortly received two sets of gummed labels addressed to property owners within 300 feet of the specific planned site. Finally, you should receive a similar request for this extension from Pomona, directly from it. Thank you for your kind consideration in this matter. If anything further is required in order to perfect our request for the one year extension, please contact me immediately. PTS /sk Enclosures cc: Fred J. Simon, Sr. PTS46931 Yours very truly, BEST, BEST & KRIEGER Paul T. Se zer DATE: CASE NO.: APPLICANT: LOCATION: REQUEST: BACKGROUND PH #1 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 22, 1994 PLOT PLAN 93 -495 SIMON PLAZA, INC., MR. PHIL PEAD THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WASHINGTON STREET AND HIGHWAY 111 APPROVAL OF A MODIFICATION TO CONDITION #36 OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL This request was originally scheduled for Planning Commission consideration on December 14, 199:1. The applicant requested and received a continuance to January 11, 1994. Prior to this date, the applicant requested and received an extension to February 22, 1994. The City Council approved the "Simon Plaza" Development ,on May 18, 1993. The project consists of 22,013± square feet on a 5.6 acre site located southeast of the intersection of Washington Street and Highway 111. The approval users are: medical offices, restaurant, busiiess offices, and a two story parking garage. REQUEST: The applicant is requesting that the last sentence of Condition #36 be changed. Condition #36 reads as follows: "Applicant shall dedicate public street right -of -way and utility easements in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans if any, and these Conditions of Approval noted as follow: A. Washington Street - provide right -of -way as required by the Washington Street specific plan. B. Washington Street/Highway 111 intersection - provide right -of -way cut back as needed to accommodate a 55 -foot curb return (45 -feet right -of- way). ( *)Applicant shall dedicate the required right -of -way within thirty (30) days after receipt of land conveyance documents from the City." PCs". 159 1 The applicant would like the last sentence ( *) of the condition to read: "Applicant shall dedicate the required right -of -way prior to the issuance of a building permit." ANALYSIS: Cite staff sent the land conveyance documents to Mr. Pead (the developer) on June 9, 1993. On July 16th, staff sent a letter reminding the developer of the noncompliance status of Condition #36. On July 26th, staff granted a time extension for the dedication to August 24th and again continued to October 4th. The developer was informed that the matter would be referred to Council or the applicant could apply for an amendment to the condition. On [November 8, 1993, the applicant submitted a request to modify Condition #36. The applicant has indicated that the reason for not dedicating the right -of -way was because of the unforseen delay in obtaining financing. The improvements to the intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Street are greatly needed. Wifnout this right -of -way, the City has no alternative but to make the necessary intersection changes within the existing right -of -way. The Conditions of Approval are attached for your review. The entire project is before the Commission for review and the Commission has the right to modify any of the other conditions as tl..iey wish. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: The request does not change the project, therefore, the prior environmental review is adequate. RECOMMENDATION: Moire to adopt Minute Motion 94- amending Condition #36B to read as follows: "B. Washington Street/Highway 111 intersection - provide right -of -way cut back as needed to accommodate a 55 -foot curb return (45 -feet right -of- way). Applicant shall dedicate the required Washington Street/Highway 111 right -of -way prior to the issuance of a building permit." Attachments: 1. Conditions of Approval PCST .159 2 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - FINAL PLOT PLAN 93-495 (REVISION) W,Y 119 1993 SIMON PLAZA * Modified by the Planning Commission on 5 -11 -93 ** Added by the Planning Commission on 5- 11 -93, * ** Deleted by the Planning Commission on 5 -11 -93 GENERAL 1. The development of the property shall be generally in conformance with the exhibits contained in • the file for PP 93 -495, unless amended otherwise by the following conditions. 2. The approved plot plan shall be used by May 11, 1994; otherwise it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. "Be used" means the beginning of substantial construction which is contemplated by this approval, not including grading which is begun within the one year period and is thereafter diligently pursued until completion. A one year time extension may be requested as permitted by Municipal Code provided an extension request is filed by April 11, 1994. 3. There shall be no outdoor storage or sales displays without specific approval of the Planning Commission. 4. All exterior lighting shall be shielded and directed so as not to shine directly on surrounding adjoining properties or public rights -of -way. Light standard type with recessed light source shall also be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. Exterior lighting shall comply with Outdoor Light lControl Ordinance and Off -Street Parking requirements. 5. Adequate masonry trash enclosures shall be provided for all structures and provided with opaque metal doors. Plans for trash enclosures to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of a building permit. The applicant shall contact the local waste management company to insure that. the number of enclosures and size of the enclosures' are adequate. 6. Decorative enclosures may be required by the City around any retention basins depending on site grading requirements. The color, location, and placement of said fence(s) shall be approved by the Planning and Development Department. 7. Phased improvement plans shall be subject to Planning Commission review. CONRPRVL . 03 7 1 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 93 -495 (Revision) - Simon Plaza May 11, 1993 8. Handicap parking spaces and facilities shall be provided per Municipal Code, State, and Federal requirements. 9. A noise study shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer to be submitted to the Planning and Development Department for review and approval prior to submission of building plans for plan check or issuance of grading permit, whichever comes first. The study shall concentrate on noise impacts on building interior areas from perimeter streets, and impacts on the proposed abutting and provide mitigation of noise as alternative mitigation measures for incorporation into the project design such as building setbacks, engineering design, building orientation, noise barriers (berming, landscaping and walls, etc.), and other techniques. 10. The project shall comply with all existing Off -Street Parking requirements including but not limited to, shading of parking lot areas and bicycle parking spaces. 11. Perimeter landscaping planters shall be provided at maximum widths possible adjacent to property lines and planted with landscaping. 12. The project, shall comply with all applicable Art in Public Places Ordinances. A public art piece shall be installed on the property at a location agreeable to the Art in Public Places Committee (e.g., at the intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Street). A public easement shall be offered to the City for the site that any art piece may occupy which has been established by the Art in Public Places Committee. 13. * The developer shall retain a qualified archaeologist and pay all associated costs, to prepare a mitigation and monitoring plan for artifact location and recovery. Prior to archaeological studies for this site as well as other unrecorded information, shall be analyzed prior to the preparation of the plan. The Planning and Development Director shall approve the firm to be used in the study prior to any on -site activities. The plan shall be submitted to the Coachella Valley Archaeological Society (CVAS) for a two-week review and comment period. At a minimum, 'the plan shall: 1) identify the means for digging test pits; 2) allow sharing the information with the CVAS; and 3) provide for further testing if the preliminary result show significant materials are present. The final plan shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Department for final review and approval. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Developer shall have retained a qualified cultural resources management firm and completed the testing and data recovery as noted in the plan. The management firm shall monitor the grading activity as required by the plan or testing results. CONAPRVL . 03 7 2 Conditions of Approval Plo* Plan 93 -495 (Revision) - Simon Plaza May 11, 1993 A list of the qualified archaeological monitor(s), cultural resources management firm employees, and any assistants) /representative(s), shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Department. The list shall provide the current address and phone number for each monitor. The designated monitors may be changed from time to time, but no such change shall be effective unless served by registered or certified mail on the Planning and Development Department. The designated monitors or their authorized representatives shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of resources. In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains, there shall be no further grading, excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby areas reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until appropriate mitigation measures are completed. Upon completion of the data recovery, the Developer shall cause three copies of the final report containing the data analysis to be prepared and published and submitted to the Planning and Development Department. 14. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any building or use contemplated by this use, the applicant shall obtain permits or clearances from the following agencies: • City Fire Marshal • City of La Quinta Public Works Department • City of La Quinta Planning and Development Department • Coachella Valley Water District • Desert Sands Unified School District • Imperial Irrigation District • Caltrans (District 11) Evidence of said permits or clearances from the above mentioned agencies shall be presented to the Building and Safety Department at the time of application for a building permit for the proposed project. 15. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City adopted infrastructure fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. 16. Final landscaping plans shall include approval stamps and signatures from the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioners office and the Coachella Valley Water District. 17. A bus waiting shelter and bus turnout shall be provided as requested by Sunline Transit on Highway 111 when said street improvements are re- installed or unless other site locations are permitted by the transit authority (e.g., Simon Drive) and the City Engineering Department. CONAPRVL . 0 3 7 3 Conditions of Approval Plat Plan 93 -495 (Revision) - Simon Plaza May 11, 1993 18. Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the applicant shall submit to the Engineering Department an interim landscape program for the entire site which shall be for the purpose of wind and erosion and dust control. The land owner shall institute blow sand and dust control measures during grading and site development. These shall include but not be limited to: a) use of irrigation during construction and grading activities; b) areas not constructed on during first phase shall be planted in temporary ground cover or wildflowers and provided with temporary irrigation system; and c) provisions of wind breaks or wind rolls,-fencing and /or landscaping to reduce the effects upon adjacent properties and property owners. The landowner shall comply with requirements of the Directors of Public Works and Planning and Development Departments. All construction and graded areas shall be watered at least twice daily while being used to prevent emission of dust and blow sand. 19. Construction shall comply with all local and State Building Code requirements in effect at the time of issuance of the building permit as determined by the Building Official. 20. . Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Planning and Development Director demonstrating compliance with those Conditions of Approval which must be satisfied prior to issuance of a building permit. Prior to a final building inspection approval, the applicant shall prepare and submit a written report demonstrating compliance with all remaining Conditions of Approval and mitigation measures. The Planning and Development Director may require inspection of other monitoring to assure such compliance. 21. A parking lot striping plan including directional arrows, stop signs, no parking areas, and parking spaces shall be approved by Planning and Development and Engineering Departments prior to issuance of a building permit. 22. All roof equipment shall be screened from view by parapet walls of building or other architecturally matching materials. 2;�. All compact spaces shall be clearly marked "compact cars only 2A. That all conditions of the Design Review Board shall be complied with as follows: A. The landscape plan shall include an eight foot wide meandering pedestrian/bike trail. The plans should be reviewed by the Design Review Board prior to submission of the final landscape plan by the applicant/developer. 0)NAPRVL.037 4 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 93 -495 (Revision) - Simon Plaza May 11, 1993 B. The landscape program for Washington Street shall include a variation of planting materials, i.e., palm trees, accent shade trees, lawn, shrubs, and groundcover. The use of mature California Pepper, Australian Willow, Mesquite, Crape Myrtle, Bottle trees, and Washington Robusta Palms shall be encouraged. Varieties of flowering shrubs such as Texas Ranger, Cassia, Crepe Myrtle, and Dwarf Oleander shall be utilized. Native (low water use) plants shall be used, and the landscape architect should consult the Coachella Valley Water District's plant material list prior to designing their proposal. Uplighted trees or palms shall be used along Washington Street and Highway 111. Incandescent light fixtures will be required (less than 160 watt). Landscaping plan shall conform to Ordinance 220 regarding water conservation. C. Any proposed parking lot lighting plan shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board prior to building plan check. A photometric study shall be developed which analyzes the lighting pattern on the project and meets the City's Lighting Ordinance provisions as explained in Chapter 9.210 and 9.160 (Off - Street Parking). The height of the light poles shall not exceed 18 feet in height, and the lighting contractor should reduce this height if physically possible during review of the project. D. A maximum building height of 28 feet shall be maintained along Washington Street and Highway 111 within 150 feet of the ultimate property line (after street dedication has been included) excluding minor architectural appendages (e.g., chimneys, towers, building columns, etc.). E. Decorative concrete entryways shall be provided for all two -way driveways into the project site. The concrete shall be stamped and colored to accentuate the proposed development. The color, design, and location of the concrete should be reviewed by the Design Review Board during a final plan check review. F. The revised concept design plan shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board prior to the submission of the plans to the Building and Safety Department for final plan check consideration. The plans should include but are not limited to landscaping and irrigation, building elevations, signs, and any other major exterior design features of the project as noted at the Design Review Board meeting of May 5, 1993. G. Bike racks shall be provided at convenient areas within the site for usage by bicycle riders. One space for every 50 parking spaces shall be provided as noted in the Off -Street Parking Code. ' CONfAPRVL . 03 7 5 Con >iitions of Approval Plot Plan 93 -495 (Revision) - Simon Plaza May 11, 1993 H. The landscape setback on Washington Street shall be a minimum of 20 feet from the new property line. I. All open parking stalls shall be screened by berm walls, landscape hedges, or a combination thereof to a minimum height of 42 inches. J. The maximum floor area ration (F.A.R.) for this project shall be 0.35 per the Policy Standards of the General Plan (LU Table #4). K. The roof design for the 4 -story medical office building shall be either 4:12 or higher to give the building balance and proper scale to its mass. mrr M. The parking structures file roof facade shall be eliminated because it is not compatible with the design motif of the four story medical office building. The applicant should evaluate another design style which incorporates a cornice design feature (similar to the upper portion of the four story building) and other articulated features which will soften the elevation and not enhance its presence. N. * The parking structure ramp on the south side of the project shall be stuccoed to match the building. The structure shall be landscaped along its westerly side to conceal its presence. O. The applicant shall include the following features into the four story medical office building: 1.... . 2. * Individual pane windows or grid molded windows can be used. 3. * Additional building column connections should be used where agreed upon with the Design Review Board. 4. Accented building roof heights. 5. Revision to the elevator shaft design and its relationship to Highway, 111. 6.... Enefgy eensefvatien Fneasures shall be feyiewed. 7.... The two story elements oft the west side of the fattr story building shall be redesigned se that the feef eenneets into the building (delete the existing wifidews)• CO] 4APRVL . 0 3 7 6 Conditions of Approval Plo-: Plan 93 -495 (Revision) - Simon Plaza May 11, 1993 . CITY FIRE MARSHAL 25. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 3500 gpm for a three hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. Fire flow is based upon all buildings being equipped with automatic fire sprinklers. 26. A combination of on -site and off-site Super fire hydrants, on a looped system (6" X 4" X 2'/2" X 21/2 "), will be located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travelways. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. 27. Prior to issuance of any building permit, the applicant/developer shall furnish one blueline copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review /approval. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed /approved by a registered civil engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department." The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and operational prior to start of construction. 28. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13. The post indicator valve and Fire Department connection shall be located to the front within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). System plans must be submitted with a plan check/inspection fee to the Fire Department for review. A statement that the building(s) will be automatically fire sprinklered must be included on the title page of the building plans. 29. Install a supervised waterflow fire alarm system as required by the Uniform Building Code. 30. Install a Hood Duct automatic fire extinguishing system. System plans must be permitted, along with a plan check/inspection fee, to the Fire Department for review. 31. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less than 2AlOBC in rating. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. 32. Occupancy separation will be required as per the Uniform Building Code, #503. C011APRVL . 037 Conditions of Approval Plct Plan 93 -495 (Revision) - Simon Plaza May 11, 1993 33. Install Panic Hardware and "Exit" signs as per Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code. 34. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes. 35. Install a Class I Standpipe System. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT: 36. Applicant shall dedicate public street right -of -way and utility easements in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, if any, and these Conditions of Approval noted as follows: A. Washington Street - Provide right -of -way as required by the Washington Street Specific Plan. B. Washington Street/Highway 111 Intersection - Provide right -of -way cut back as needed to accommodate a 55 -foot curb return (45 -feet right -of -way). *C. Applicant shall dedicate the required right -of -way within thirty (30) days after receipt of land conveyance documents from the City. 37. Applicant shall provide a fully improved landscaped setback area of noted minimum width adjacent to the following street right -of -way: A. Washington Street - 20 -feet wide; B. Highway 111, 50 feet wide; C. Simon Plaza, 10 feet wide 38. Applicant shall vacate vehicle access rights to all streets from the project site except for three locations as proposed by the applicant as shown on the site plan drawing. CO::VAPRVL . 03 7 8 • -. .. I.N. 60.1 NONAK NON - --- -- - :. CO::VAPRVL . 03 7 8 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 93 -495 (Revision) - Simon Plaza May 11, 1993 39." Applicant shall reimburse City for design and construction cost for all street improvements to be installed by the City located east of the existing Washington Street curb and uttg er improvements and contiguous to the project site. The new improvements include street widening. curb and gutter. asphalt concrete overlay. landscaping and hardscape. 8 -foot wide meandering sidewalk, traffic striping and signing, along with all appurtenant incidentals and improvements needed to prrol&rly integrate and join to eg ther the new and existing improvements. 40. Applicant shall reimburse City for 5% of the cost to design and install a new traffic signal at the Washington Street/Highway 111 intersection. 41.* Applicant shall reimburse City for 12.5% of the cost to design and install traffic signal at the Simon Drive /Highway 111 intersection. 42. Applicant shall reimburse City for cost to design and install bus stop "pullout" on Highway 111. 43. Applicant shall reimburse City for half of the cost to design and install raised median improvements and landscaping on Highway 111 in the portion contiguous to the project site. 44. Applicant shall enter into a secured agreement with the City to pay for the City installed improvements required by these Conditions of Approval before the grading permit is issued. 45. A thorough preliminary engineering, geological, and soils engineering investigation shall be conducted with a report submitted for review along with grading plan. The report recommendations shall be incorporated into the grading plan design prior to grading plan approval. The soils engineer and /or the engineering geologist must certify to the adequacy of the grading plan. 46. The grading plan shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. 47. The site shall be designed and graded in a manner so the elevation difference between the building pad elevations on site and the adjacent street curb do not exceed three (3.0) feet. COr'APRVL.037 9 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 93 -495 (Revision) - Simon Plaza May 11, 1993 48. Applicant shall provide storm drain facilities with sufficient capacity to evacuate all water that falls on -site and off -site to the centerline of the streets adjoining the site during the, 1 -hour duration, 25 -year storm event. The storm drain facility shall convey the storm water from the site to the Whitewater Channel. The applicant may purchase capacity on a fair share basis in a storm drain to be designed and constructed in Washington Street by the City, if the City proceeds with said storm drain facility within time constraints which suit the applicant. The tributary drainage area for which the applicant is responsible shall extend to the centerline of Washington Street, Highway 111, and Simon Drive. 49. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect for the landscaped setback areas. The plans and proposed landscaping improvements shall be in conformance with requirements of the Planning Director, City Engineer, and Coachella Valley Water District and the plans shall be signed these officials prior to construction. 50. Applicant shall submit a copy of the proposed grading, landscaping and irrigation plans to the Coachella Valley Water District for review and approval with respect to the District's Water Management Program. 51. Applicant shall landscape and maintain the landscaped setback area and right -of -way between all street curbing and property lines. 52. Applicant shall construct an eight -foot wide meandering bike path in the combined easterly parkway of Washington Street and southerly parkway of Highway 111 in lieu of the standard six -foot wide sidewalk. A six foot wide sidewalk shall be constructed on Simon Drive. 53. All existing and proposed telecommunication, television cable, and electric power lines with 12,500 volts or less, that are adjacent to the proposed site or on -site, shall be installed in underground facilities. 54. Underground utilities that lie directly under street improvements or portions thereof shall be installed, with trenches compacted to city standards, prior to installation of that portion of the street improvement. A soils engineer retained by Applicant shall provide certified reports of soil compaction tests for review by the City Engineer. 55. Applicant shall pay all fees charged by the city as required for processing, plan checking and construction inspection. The fee amount(s) shall be those which are in effect at the time the work is undertaken and accomplished by the city. CONAPRVL.037 10 Conditions of Approval Plo-_ Plan 93 -495 (Revision) - Simon Plaza May 11, 1993 56. Applicant shall retain a California registered civil engineer, or designate one who is on applicant's staff, to exercise sufficient supervision and quality control during construction of the tract grading and improvements to certify compliance with the plans, specifications, applicable codes, and ordinances. The engineer retained or designated by the applicant to implement this responsibility shall provide the following certifications and documents upon completion of construction: A. The engineer shall sign and seal a statement placed on the "as built" plans that says "all (grading and grades) (improvements) on these plans were properly monitored by qualified personnel under my supervision during construction for compliance with the plans and specifications and the work shown hereon was constructed as approved, except where otherwise noted hereon and specifically acknowledged by the City Engineer ". B. Prior to issuance of any building permit, the engineer shall provide a separate document, signed and sealed, to the City Engineer that documents the building pad elevations. The document shall, for each pad, state the pad elevation approved on the grading plan, the as built elevation, and clearly identify the difference, if any. The data shall be organized by phase and shall be cumulative if the data is submitted at different times. C. Provide to the City Engineer a signed set of "as built" reproducible drawings of the site grading and all improvements installed by the applicant. 57. The parking stalls on the north side of the office complex as determined by Staff, shall be restricted to either handicapped parking or reserved parking to help eliminate queuing at the Highway 111 access driveway. 58. The driveways on Washington Street and on Highway 111 shall be restricted to right turn movements only. 59. Turning movements at the intersection of Washington Street and Simon Drive shall be restricted to right turns only in accordance with the Washington Street Specific Plan. SPECIAL 60. All required improvements shall be completed prior to first site occupancy of the proposed development. CONAPRVL.037 11 conditions of Approval Plot Plan 93 -495 (Revision) - Simon Plaza May 11, 1993 61. The parking structure shall not exceed 15 feet in overall height as measured from finished grade pad elevation within 100 feet of Highway 111. Exterior lighting on top level of parking structure shall ' not exceed six feet and not be within ten feet of outside wall. 62. All mitigation measures of Environmental Assessment 91 -211 shall be met. 63. The parcels shall be legally merged prior to building permit issuance. 64. Prior to issuance of any land disturbance permit, the applicant shall pay the required mitigation fees for the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Program, so adopted by the City, in the amount of $600 per acre of disturbed land. 65.* The north side of the parking structure shall include perimeter grade planting as deemed appropriate by the Design Review Board. 66. Prior to issuance of the first building permit, a parking analysis shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Department to verify compliance with the Off - Street Parking requirements. Prior to each subsequent phase beginning construction a new parking study based, on existing usage and potential demand shall be submitted. In each study, building size adjustments shall be made if it is determined that a parking deficiency exists. 67. Appropriate and adequate service delivering areas (loading facilities) and trash facilities shall be provided as required by the Off -Street Parking Code. The facilities shall include areas for recycling bins and be approved by Staff during the final review process. The standards and requirements of AB 939 (recycling) shall be met. This shall include provisions for on -site recycling of recyclable materials by the tenants in conjunction with the City's franchise hauler contract provisions. 68. An on -site elevator(s) shall service the site and provide accessibility from the parking garage to each respective building floor level. The design and installation of the elevator shall meet both Uniform Building Code standards and any other California State requirements. 69. The existing six foot high soundwall along the Washington Street frontage road shall be extended between the frontage road and Washington Street northerly of its present location to the northeasterly corner of Lot 27 of Tract 2043 (Singing Palms Drive and Washington Street) to mitigate traffic noise impacts on the existing R -1 single family neighborhood. C=N LPRVL.037 12 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 93 -495 (Revision) - Simon Plaza May 11, 1993 70. A Transportation Demand Management Plan shall be submitted (Ordinance 217) if the project or the ultimate development of the site employs 100 or more persons. The plan can be prepared by either the property owner ,or the tenant(s) within the development. The plan shall be submitted and approved by the Director of Planning and Development. 71. The provisions of the City's newly adopted Landscape Water Conservation Ordinance ( #220) shall be met. 72.' °* The applicant shall provide a theme plaza at the intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Street as required by the General Plan which shall include landscaping, public furniture and a public art piece. The art piece can contain the developers main identification sign (Sign #1), if it is an integral part of the theme plaza and /or the public art piece. The design shall be approved by the Art in Public Places Committee and the City Council as required by Chapter 2.65 of the Municipal Code. The developer shall retain an artist to help design the theme plaza. The theme plaza size shall not be less than 2,000 square feet and the overall design should be similar to the One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center theme plaza at the northeast corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street. 73.4'* The medical office building shall not exceed three stories with a maximum 40 -foot height. The height of the building shall be measured from the existing grade (top of curb) on Highway 111. The developer can reallocate the fourth floor square footage into the project (e.g., over the parking structure) provided the new site plan does include adding two story elements into the 150 -foot setback requirement on either arterial street. The revised design shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board and Planning Commission prior to preparation of final working drawings. CONAPRVL.037 13 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - APPROVED 14ASTER SIGN PROGRAM 93 -210 MAY 11, 1993 iIMON PLAZA 61 Modified by the Planning Commission on 5 -11 -93 1. Each freestanding sign shall be a minimum of five feet from the future property line it abuts. No signs should be placed in the City's right -of -way. 2. All signs shall be reviewed by the Engineering Department to assure sight visibility is not obstructed by the installation of each respective freestanding sign. 3. Site address numbers shall be on the main monument sign as a supplemental to the building addressing plan. The minimum size should be four inches and contrasting to the background it is affixed to. 4. Any and all proposed illuminated signs shall be installed to avoid undue brightness which would distract passing motorists and /or pedestrians. 5. The sign colors shall be blue ( #607 -IGP Acryhte Blue) except for the top of the monument sign can be royal blue, orange and white as depicted on the attached drawings. 6. The building signs can be internally illuminated. 7.* Sign #1 shall not include incised letters with silver trim cap. The letters shall be flush mounted into the aluminum cabinet face (laser -cut). The sign can be located in its present location provided the sign is an integral part of the future theme plaza and public art piece pursuant to the provisions of Plot Plan 93 -495. 8. No exposed raceways, crossover, conduits, conductors, transformers, etc., shall be permitted. All supplemental electrical hardware shall be behind the building structure inside the sign structure, or located underground. 9. The lettering styles for the building signs shall be either Clarendon or Souvenir. Upper case lettering shall be used for all signs except for the medical complex building. 10. All attached building signs shall have channel letters (individually constructed). 11. All freestanding signs shall be double -sided and perpendicular to the public street they serve unless noted otherwise in the following section. SIGN ADJUSTMENTS: 12. a.) The La Quinta Medical Center sign (Sign #5) located on the third story elevation of the four story building shall be permitted as depicted in the attached drawings. cONAPRVL.082 1 i Conditions of Approval Sign Master Program 93 -210 May 11, 1993 b.) The La Quinta Medical Center freestanding monument sign (Sign #4) located on the north side of the four story building shall be permitted provided the sign is one -sided and is constructed with the same materials as Sign #1. Sign 4a should not be allowed because it is not necessary. c.) The Milauskas Eye Institute sign (Signs #7 & #6) on Highway 111 and in the parking lot shall be permitted. The sign shall be constructed in a similar fashion to Sign #1. No attached building signs will be permitted if the freestanding signs are installed. N11SCELLANEOUS: 13. The final sign graphics shall be subject to review by the Director of Planning and Development prior to permit issuance by the Building and Safety Department. 14. Each tenant and /or his sign contractor shall obtain approval by the property owners (or management company) in writing prior to submission of the sign drawings to the Planning and Development Department for permit consideration. The property owner shall review the signs for lettering style, color, sign location, lighting, and any other "important" issues. 15. All sign contractors shall be licensed to do business in the City of La Quinta and possess a State Contractor's License to perform the work outlined in the sign permit. 16. All signs shall conform to the City's adopted Sign Ordinance in effect at the time the sign permit is issued. 17. Underwriter Laboratories certification labels shall be affixed to all internally illuminated signs, thus assuring that the sign (or sign structure) meets industry specifications. 18. Signs #8 and #8a shall be internally lit. The background for the signs shall be opaque. Sign 8b should be non - illuminated and subject to approval by Staff during a sign permit application. 19. All freestanding signs permitted shall include similar architectural elements to those of Sign #1, and the sign proportions shall be downsized accordingly (e.g., 12 -foot high to 9 -feet, and 6 -feet) so that the smaller signs exemplify the sites main identification sign. 20. No attached building sign shall be greater than 50 square feet on the side of the building it serves. 21. The channel letter returns shall be painted to match the exterior color of the building on which it is affixed. CONAPRVL.082 2 d Conditions of Approval Sign Master Program 93 -210 May 11, 1993 22. The overall height of each freestanding sign shall be measured from the abutting street curb elevation height. 23. Sign 5a shall be mounted on the 1 -story element of the building. The sign shall not be located on the upper levels of the building complex. CONAPRVL.082 3 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: JANUARY 11, 1994 CANE NO.: PLOT PLAN 93 -495 APPLICANT: SIMON PLAZA, INC., MR. PHIL PEAD LOCATION: THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WASHINGTON STREET AND HIGHWAY 111 REQUEST: APPROVAL OF A MODIFICATION TO CONDITION #36 OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL BACKGROUND This; matter was originally scheduled for the December 14, 1993, Commission meeting. The applicant requested a continuance to January 11, 1994. Prior to this meeting a request for a con-Cinuance was received. The applicant has requested an extension to February 22, 1994. RECOMMENDATION: Continue the public hearing to February 22, 1994. l� m MET. 160 1 L,TY OF LA QUINT._. PLANNING COMMISSIO�,i�� NOTICE OF. PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE. IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of La Quinta Planning Commission will hold a PUBLIC HEARING on December 14, 1993 at 7:00 p.m. in the La Quinta City Hall Council Chambers, 78 -495 Calle Tampico, on the following item: ITEM: PLOT PLAN 93 -495 - CONDITION #36 MODIFICATION APPLICANT: SIMON PLAZA, MR PHILIP M. PEAD LOCATION: SOUTHEAST OF THE WASHINGTON STREET AND HIGHWAY 111 INTERSECTION REQUEST: MODIFICATION OF CONDITION #36 REGARDING THE TIMING FOR THE DEDICATION OF WASHINGTON STREET RIGHT -OF -WAY LEGAL: PORTION OF THE SOUTH HALF OF SECTION 19, T55, R7E AND THE NORTH HALF OF SECTION 30, T55, R7E PROJECT "81TE � 'yi• N 1 0 C E t � q a s N49�4 The La Quinta Planning & Development Department has determined that the prior Environmental Review adE!quately addressed this project and no further Environmental Determination is necessary. Any person may submit written comments on this case to the Planning and Development Department prior to the Hearing and /or may appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the project at the time of the Hearing. If you challenge the decision of this case in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues that you or someone else raised either at the Public Hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning and Development Department at, or prior to, the Pubic Hearing. The proposed file (s) may be viewed by the public Monday through. Friday *:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. at the Planning and Development Department, La Quinta City Hall, 78- 495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California. In the City's efforts to comply with the requirements of Title Ii of the Americans With Disabilities Act Of 1990, the Administration/ Planning & Development Department requires that any person in need of any type of special equipment, assistance or accommodation (s) in order to communicate at a City youblic meeting, must inform the City Clerk /Planning & Development Department a minimum of 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PUBLISH ONCE ON DECEMBER 3, 1993 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HNPC.035 r % 6 STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING DATE: JUNE 23, 1993 CASE NO: PLOT PLAN 93 -495 (REVISION) APPLICANT/ DEVELOPER: SIMON PLAZA, INC. (PHILIP PEAD) VIE CUPW SUBJECT: REVIEW OF REVISED ELEVATION PLANS FOR COMMERCIAL PROJECT ON 5.6 ACRES IN THE C -P -S ZONE (THREE STORY OFFICE /MEDICAL BUILDING) LOCATION: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND WASHINGTON STREET. BACKGROUND: Tr..e Planning Commission at the meeting of May 11, 1993, approved plans for an 82,000 ± square foot commercial project. As a part of the approval, the Planning Commission required that the proposed four story structure be reduced in height to three stories and 40 feet in overall height (Condition #73). Additionally, the Commission stipulated that the fourth story square footage could be regained by constructing a floor over the two level parking structure provided th-1 150 -foot setback is complied with. The approval requires that both the Design Review Board ar.d Planning Commission review these revised plans prior to preparation of final working drawings. At the request of the applicant, the Planning Commission reviewed the new three story office /medical building design on June 8, 1993. The group thought the plans were consistent with their May, 1993, directive, but the Planning Commission stated that if the Design R °view Board felt major changes were appropriate, the recommendation of the Design Review Board should be returned to them for final approval. The applicant's June 2, 1993, submittal is attached. The developer's plans included four views of the proposal from each of the four primary sides of the project. However, it would have been helpful to have the roof plan for review also. The applicant is aware that he will have to come before the Design Review Board a,;ain to meet the provisions of Condition #24 (see attached conditions). RECOMMENDATION: Staff would request that the Design Review Board examine the applicant's June 2, 1993, submittal and forward any pertinent comments to the developer so that he can incorporate the changes into his final working drawings. Attachments: (. Revised site plan and elevation plans dated June 2, 1993 2. Conditions of Approval (excerpt) DRBST.097 1 • • �, ,� , � r ;, .� j, . . 1� Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 93 -495 (Revision) May 11, 1993 18. Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the Applicant shall submit to the Engineering Department an interim landscape program for the entire site which shall be for the purpose of wind and erosion and dust control. The land owner shall institute blow sand and dust control measures during grading and site development. These shall include but not be limited to: a.) use of irrigation during construction and grading activities; b.) areas not constructed on during first phase shall be planted in temporary ground cover or wildflowers and provided with temporary irrigation system; and c.) provision of wind breaks or wind rolls, fencing, and or landscaping to reduce the effects upon adjacent properties and property owners. The landowner shall comply with requirements of the Directors of Public Works and Planning and Development. All construction and graded areas shall be watered at least twice daily while being used to prevent emission of dust and blow sand. 19. Construction shall comply with all local and State Building Code requirements in affect at time of issuance of building permit as determined by the Building Official. 20. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Planning and Development Director demonstrating compliance with those conditions of approval which must be satisfied prior to issuance of a building permit. Prior to a final building inspection approval, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a written report demonstrating compliance with all remaining conditions of approval and mitigation measures. The Planning and Development Director may require inspection or other monitoring to assure such compliance. 21. A parking lot striping plan including directional arrows, stop signs, no parking areas, and parking spaces shall be approved by Planning and Development and Engineering Departments prior to issuance of a building permit. 22. All roof equipment shall be screened from view by parapet walls of building or other architecturally matching materials. 23. All compact spaces shall be clearly marked "compact cars only ". 24. That all conditions of the Design Review Board shalt be complied with as follows: A. The landscape plan shall include an eight foot wide meandering pedestrian/bike trail. The plans should be reviewed by the Design Review Board prior to submission of the final landscape plan by the Applicant/Developer. B. The landscape program for Washington Street shall include a variation of planting materials, i.e., Palm trees, accent shade trees, lawn, shrubs, and groundcover. The use of mature California Pepper, Australian Willow, Mesquite, Crape Myrtle, Bottle Trees, and Washington Robusta Palms shall be encouraged. Varieties of flowering shrubs such as Texas Ranger, Cassia, Crepe Myrtle, and CONAPRVL.037 4 0 0 1 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 93 -195 (Revision) May 11, 1993 Dwarf Oleander should be utilized. Native (low water use) plants shall be used, and the landscape architect should consult the Coachella Valley Water District's plant material list prior to designing their proposal. Uplighted trees or palms shall be used along Washington Street and Highway 111. Incandescent light fixtures will be required (less than 160 watt). Landscaping plan shall conform to Ordinance 220 regarding water conservation. C. Any proposed parking lot lighting plan shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board prior to building plan check. A photometric study shall be developed which analyzes the lighting pattern on the project and meets the City's Lighting Ordinance provisions as explained in Chapter 9.210 and 9.160 (Off- Street Parking). The height of the light poles shall not exceed 18 feet in height, and the lighting contractor should reduce this height if physically possible during review of the project. D. A maximum building height of 28 feet shall be maintained along Washington Street and Highway 11 I within 150 feet of the ultimate property line (after street dedication has been included) excluding minor architectural appendages (e.g., chimneys, towers, building columns, etc.). E. Decorative concrete entryways shall be provided for all two-way driveways into the project site. The concrete shall be stamped and colored to accentuate the proposed development. The color, design and location of the concrete should be reviewed by the Design Review Board during a final plan check review. F. The revised concept design plan shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board prior to the submission of the plans to the Building Department for final plan check consideration. The plans should include but are not be limited to landscaping and irrigation, building elevations, signs, and any other major exterior design features of the project as noted at the Design Review Board meeting of May 5, 1993. G. Bike racks shall be provided at convenient areas within the site for usage by bicycle riders. One space for every 50 parking spaces shall be provided as noted in the Off- Street Parking Code. H. The landscape setback on Washington Street shall be a minimum of 20 feet from the new property, line. 1. All open parking stalls shall be screened by berm walls, landscape hedges, or a combination thereof to a minimum height of 42 inches. CONAPRVL.037 5 0 0 .� 4 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 93 -495 (Revision) May 11, 1993 1. The maximum floor area ratio (F.A.R.) for this project shall be 0.35 per the Policy Standards of the General Plan (LU Table #4). K. The roof design for the 4 -story medical office building shall be either 4:12 or higher to give the building balance and proper scale to its mass. M. The parking structures tile roof facade shall be eliminated because it is not compatible with the design motif of the 4 -story medical office building. The applicant should evaluate another design style which incorporates a cornice design feature (similar to the upper portion of the 4 -story building) and other articulated features which will soften the elevation and not enhance its presence. N. • The parking structure ramp on the south side of the project shall be stuccoed to match the building. Structure shall be landscaped along its westerly side to conceal its presence. 0. The applicant shall include the following features into the 4 -story medical office building: 1.. ** 2.• Individual pane windows or grid molded windows can be used. 3.* Additional building column connections should be used where agreed upon with the Design Review Board. 4. Accented building roof heights. 5. Revision to the elevator shaft design and its relationship to Highway 111. 6. * ** Enefgy . con 7. * ** The 2 SIO..1 on the west side of the 4 sief:y building shall be .edesigned building. (delete thee windows CITY FIRE MARSHAL 25. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 3500 gpm for a 3 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. Fire flow is based upon all buildings being equipped with automatic fire sprinklers. CONAPRVL.037 1 6 s • 6 . , 0 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 93 -495 (Revision) May 11, 1993 The standards and requirements of AB 939 (recycling) shall be met. This shall include provisions for on -site recycling of recyclable materials by the tenants in conjunction with the City's franchise hauler contract provisions. 68. An on -site elevator(s) shall service the site and provide accessibility from the parking garage to each respective building floor level. The design and installation of the elevator shall meet both Uniform Building Code standards and any other California State requirements. 69. The existing six foot high soundwall along the Washington Street frontage road shall be extended between the frontage road and Washington Street northerly of its present location to the northeasterly corner of Lot 27 of Tract 2043 (Singing Palms Drive and Washington Street) to mitigate traffic noise impacts on the existing R -1 single family neighborhood. 70. A Transportation Demand Management Plan shall be submitted (Ordinance 217) if the project or the ultimate development of the site employs 100 or more persons. The plan can be prepared by either the property owner or the tenant(s) within the development. The plan shall be submitted and approved by the Director of Planning and Development. 71. The provisions of the City's newly adopted Landscape Water Conservation Ordinance (#220) shall be met. 72. ** The applicant shall provide a theme plaza at the intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Street as required by the General Plan which shall include landscaping, public furniture and a public art piece. The art piece can contain the developers main identification sign (Sign #1), if it is an integral pan of the theme plaza and /or the public art piece. The design shall be approved by the Art in Public Places Committee and the City Council as required by Chapter 2.65 of the Municipal Code. The developer shall retain an artist to help design the theme plaza. The theme plaza size shall not be less than 2,000 square feet and the overall design should be similar to the One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center theme plaza at the northeast corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street. 73.** The medical office building shall not exceed three stories with a maximum 40 -foot height. The height of the building shall be measured from the existing grade (top of curb) on Highway 111. The developer can reallocate the fourth floor square footage into the project (e.g., over the parking structure) provided the new site plan does include adding two story elements into the 150 -foot setback requirement on either arterial street. The revised design shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board and Planning Commission prior to preparation of final working drawings. CONAPRVL.037 12 0 0 I -1. I. STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: JUNE 8, 1993 CASE NO: PLOT PLAN 93 -495 APPLICANT: SIMON PLAZA, INC. (PHILIP PEAD) SUBJECT: REVIEW OF REVISED ELEVATION PLANS FOR COMMERCIAL PROJECT ON 5.6 ACRES IN THE C -P -S ZONE LOCATION: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND WASHINGTON STREET. BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission at the meeting of May 11, 1993, approved plans for an 82,000 ± square foot commercial project. As a part of the approval you required that the proposed four story structure be reduced in height to three story with a maximum of 40 feet. Additionally, the Commission stipulated that the four story square footage could be regained by constructing a floor over the two level parking structure provided the 150 -foot setback is complied with. The approval requires that both the Design Review Board and Planning Commission review these revised plans prior to preparation of final working drawings. The applicant has submitted a site plan and elevations of the four sides of the structure showing how the revision has been done. The maximum height of the building;, is 40 -feet. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission has the option of taking action on the plans at this time or referring them to the next Design Review Board meeting for a recommendation prior to approval. Staff will have the previously reviewed plans available for review at the meeting. Attachments: 1. Revised site plan and elevation plans 2. Conditions of Approval PCST.125 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - APPROVED PLOT PLAN 93 -495 (REVISION) MAY 11, 1993 SIMON PLAZA * Modified by the Planning Commission on 5 -11 -93 ** Added by the Planning Commission on 5 -11 -93 * ** Deleted by the Planning Commission on 5 -11 -93 GENERAL 1. The development of the property shall be generally be in conformance with the exhibits contained in the file for PP 93 -495, unless amended otherwise by the following conditions. 2. The approved plot plan shall be used by May 11, 1994; otherwise it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. "Be used" means the beginning of substantial construction which is contemplated by this approval, not including grading which is begun within the one year period and is thereafter diligently pursued until completion. A one year time extension may be requested as permitted by Municipal Code provided an extension request is filed by April 11, 1994. 3. There shall be no outdoor storage or sales displays without specific approval of the Planning Commission. 4. All exterior lighting shall be shielded and directed so as not to shine directly on surrounding adjoining properties or public rights -of -way. Light standard type with recessed light source shall also be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. Exterior lighting shall comply with Outdoor Light Control Ordinance and off - street parking requirements. 5. Adequate masonry trash enclosures shall be provided for all structures and provided with opaque metal doors. Plans for trash enclosures to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of a building permit. The Applicant shall contact the local waste management company to insure that the number of enclosures and size of the enclosures are adequate. 6. Decorative enclosures may be required by the City around any retention basins depending on site grading requirements. The color, location, and placement of said fence(s) shall be approved by the Planning and Development Department. 7. Phased improvement plans shall be subject to Planning Commission. review. CONAPRVL.037 1 1 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 93 -495 (Revision) May 11, 1993 8. Handicap parking spaces and facilities shall be provided per Municipal Code, State and Federal requirements. 9. A noise study shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer to be submitted to the Planning and Development Department for review and approval prior to submission of building plans for plan check or issuance of grading permit, whichever comes first. The study shall concentrate on noise impacts on building interior areas from perimeter streets, and impacts on the proposed abutting and provide mitigation of noise as alternative mitigation measures for incorporation into the project design such as building setbacks, engineering design, building orientation, noise barriers, (berming, landscaping and walls, etc.) and other techniques. 10. The project shall comply with all existing off street parking requirements including but not limited to shading of parking lot areas and bicycle parking spaces. 11. Perimeter landscaping planters shall be provided at maximum widths possible adjacent to property lines and planted with landscaping. 12. The project shall comply with all applicable Art in Public Places Ordinance. A public art piece shall be installed on the property at a location agreeable to the Art in Public Places Committee (e.g., at the intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Street). A public easement shall be offered to the City for the site any art piece may occupy which has been established by the Art in Public Places Committee. 13. * The developer shall retain a qualified archaeologist and pay all associated costs, to prepare a mitigation and monitoring plan for artifact location and recovery. Prior to archaeological studies for this site as well as other unrecorded information, shall be analyzed prior to the preparation of the plan. The Planning and Development Director shall approve the firm to be used in the study prior to any on -site activities. The plan shall be submitted to the Coachella Valley Archaeological Society (CVAS) for a two -week review and comment period. At a minimum, the plan shall: 1) identify the means for digging test pits; 2) allow sharing the information with the CVAS; and 3) provide for further testing if the preliminary result show significant materials are present. The final plan shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Department for final review and approval. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Developer shall have retained a qualified cultural resources management firm and completed the testing and data recovery as noted in the plan. The management firm shalt monitor the grading activity as required by the plan or testing results. CONAPRVL.037 2 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 93 -495 (Revision) May 11, 1993 A list of the qualified archaeological monitor(s), cultural resources management firm employees, and any assistant(s) /representative(s), shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Department. The list shall provide the current address and phone number for each monitor. The designated monitors may be changed from time to time, but no such change shall be effective unless served by registered or certified mail on the Planning and Development Department. The designated monitors or their authorized representatives shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of resources. In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains, there shall be no further grading, excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby areas reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until appropriate mitigation measures are completed. Upon completion of the data recovery, the Developer shall cause three copies of the final report containing the data analysis to be prepared and published and submitted to the Planning and Development Department. 14. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any building or use contemplated by this use, the Applicant shall obtain permits or clearances from the following agencies: o City Fire Marshal o City of La Quinta Public Works Department o City of La Quinta Planning & Development Department o Coachella Valley Water District o Desert Sands Unified School District o Imperial Irrigation District o Caltrans (District 11) Evidence of said permits or clearances from the above mentioned agencies shall be presented to the Building Department at the time of application for a building permit for the proposed project. 15. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City adopted infrastructure fee program in affect at the time of issuance of building permits. 16. Final landscaping plans shall include approval stamps and signatures from the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioners office and the Coachella Valley Water District. 17. A bus waiting shelter and bus turnout shall be provided as requested by Sunline Transit on Highway I II when said street improvements are re- installed or unless other site locations are permitted by the transit authority (e.g., Simon Drive) and the City Engineering Department. CONAPRVL.037 3 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 93 -495 (Revision) May 11, 1993. 18. Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the Applicant shall submit to the Engineering Department an interim landscape program for the entire site which shall be for the purpose of wind and erosion and dust control. The land owner shall institute blow sand and dust control measures during grading and site development. These shall include but not be limited to: a.) use of irrigation during construction and grading activities; b.) areas not constructed on during first phase shall be planted in temporary ground cover or wildflowers and provided with temporary irrigation system; and c.) provision of wind breaks or wind rolls, fencing, and or landscaping to reduce the effects upon adjacent properties and property owners. The landowner shall comply with requirements of the Directors of Public Works and Planning and Development. All construction and graded areas shall be watered at least twice daily while being used to prevent emission of dust and blow sand. 19. Construction shall comply with all local and State Building Code requirements in affect at time of issuance of building permit as determined by the Building Official. 20. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Planning and Development Director demonstrating compliance with those conditions of approval which must be satisfied prior to issuance of a building permit. Prior to a final building inspection approval, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a written report demonstrating compliance with all remaining conditions of approval and mitigation measures. The Planning and Development Director may require inspection or other monitoring to assure such compliance. 21. A parldng lot striping plan including directional arrows, stop signs, no parking areas, and parking spaces shall be approved by Planning and Development and Engineering Departments prior to issuance of a building permit. 22. All roof equipment shall be screened from view by parapet walls of building or other architecturally matching materials. 23. All compact spaces shall be clearly marked "compact cars only ". 24. That all conditions of the Design Review Board shall be complied with as follows: A. The landscape plan shall include an eight foot wide meandering pedestrian/bike trail. The plans should be reviewed by the Design Review Board prior to submission of the final landscape plan by the Applicant/Developer. B. The landscape program for Washington Street shall include a variation of planting materials, i.e., Palm trees, accent shade trees, lawn, shrubs, and groundcover. The use of mature California Pepper, Australian Willow, Mesquite, Crape Myrtle, Bottle Trees, and Washington Robusta Palms shall be encouraged. Varieties of flowering shrubs such as Texas Ranger, Cassia, Crepe Myrtle, and CONAPRVL.037 4 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 93 -495 (Revision) May 11, 1993 Dwarf Oleander should be utilized. Native (low water use) plants shall be used, and the landscape architect should consult the Coachella Valley Water District's plant material list prior to designing their proposal. Uplighted trees or palms shall be used along Washington Street and Highway 111. Incandescent light fixtures will be required (less than 160 watt). Landscaping plan shall conform to Ordinance 220 regarding water conservation. C. Any proposed parking lot lighting plan shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board prior to building plan check. A photometric study shall be developed which analyzes the lighting pattern on the project and meets the City's Lighting Ordinance provisions as explained in Chapter 9.210 and 9.160 (Off- Street Parking). The height of the light poles shall not exceed 18 feet in height, and the lighting contractor should reduce this height if physically possible during review of the project. D. A maximum building height of 28 feet shall be maintained along Washington Street and Highway 111 within 150 feet of the ultimate property line (after street dedication has been included) excluding minor architectural appendages (e.g., chimneys, towers, building columns, etc.). E. Decorative concrete entryways shall be provided for all two-way driveways into the project site. The concrete shall be stamped and colored to accentuate the proposed development. The color, design and location of the concrete should be reviewed by the Design Review Board during a final plan check review. F. The revised concept design plan shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board prior to the submission of the plans to the Building Department for final plan check consideration. The plans should include but are not be limited to landscaping and irrigation, building elevations, signs, and any other major exterior design features of the project as noted at the Design Review Board meeting of May 5, 1993. G. Bike racks shall be provided at convenient areas within the site for usage by bicycle riders. One space for every 50 parking spaces shall be provided as noted in the Off - Street Parking Code. H. The landscape setback on Washington Street shall be a minimum of 20 feet from the new property line. I. All open parking stalls shall be screened by berm walls, landscape hedges, or a combination thereof to a minimum height of 42 inches. CONAPRVL.037 5 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 93 -495 (Revision) May 11, 1993 J. The maximum floor area ratio (F.A.R.) for this project shall be 0.35 per the Policy Standards of the General Plan (LU Table 1/4). K. The roof design for the 4 -story medical office building shall be either 4:12 or higher to give the building balance and proper scale to its mass. �W- O:. EM-- "01,01111 M. The parking structures tile roof facade shall be eliminated because it is not compatible with the design motif of the 4 -story medical office building. The applicant should evaluate another design style which incorporates a cornice design feature (similar to the upper portion of the 4 -story building) and other articulated features which will soften the elevation and not enhance its presence. N. * The parking structure ramp on the south side of the project shall be stuccoed to match the building. Structure shall be landscaped along its westerly side to conceal its presence. O. The applicant shall include the following features into the 4 -story medical office building: 1. * ** 2. * Individual pane windows or grid molded windows can be used. 3. * Additional building column connections should be used where agreed upon with the Design Review Board. 4. Accented building roof heights. 5. Revision to the elevator shaft design and its relationship to Highway 111. 6. * ** 7. * ** b building (delete the existing windawsj. CITY FIRE MARSHAL 25. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 3500 gpm for a 3 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. Fire flow is based upon all buildings being equipped with automatic fire sprinklers. CONAPRVL.037 6 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 93 -495 (Revision) May 11, 1993 26. A combination of on -site and off -site Super fire hydrants, on a looped system (6" X 4" X 2 -1/2" X 2- 1/2 "), will be located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travelways. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. 27. Prior to issuance of building permit Applicant/Developer shall furnish one blueline copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review /approval. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed /approved by a registered civil engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department." The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and operational prior to start of construction. 28. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13. The post indicator valve and fire department connection shall be located to the front, within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). System plans must be submitted with a plan check/inspection fee to the Fire Department for review. A statement that the building(s) will be automatically fire sprinklered must be included on the title page of the building plans. 29. Install a supervised waterflow fire alarm system as required by the Uniform Building Code. 30. Install a Hood Duct automatic fire extinguishing system. System plans must be permitted, along with a plan check/ inspection fee, to the Fire Department for review. 31. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less than 2AIOBC in rating. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. 32. Occupancy separation will be required as per the Uniform Building Code, #503. 33. Install Panic Hardware and Exit signs as per Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code. 34. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes. 35. Install a Class I Standpipe System. CONAPRVL.037 7 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 93 -495 (Revision) May 11, 1993 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT: ' 36. Applicant shall dedicate public street right -of -way and utility easements in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable Specific Plans, if any, and these Conditions of Approval noted as follows: A. Washington Street - Provide right -of -way as required, by the Washington Street Specific Plan. B. Washington Street /Highway 111 Intersection - Provide right -of -way cut back as needed to accommodate a 55 -foot curb return (45 -feet right -of -way) . * Applicant shall dedicate the required right -of -way within thirty (30) days after receipt of land conveyance documents from the City. 37. Applicant shall provide a fully improved landscaped setback area of noted minimum width adjacent to the following street right -of -way: A . Washington Street - 20 feet wide; B . Highway 111, 50 feet wide; C . Simon Plaza, 10 feet wide 38. Applicant shall vacate vehicle access rights to all streets from the project site except for three locations as proposed by the Applicant as shown on the site plan drawing. 39. Applicant -sal•- reimburse- C4 4ty- fer- desig-r-end- earrstrtretien -eesf- for -aH- sheet imprevements 4-YY the c4ty- loeate +e- astof- Was4ringtvtr street -specific P+an-C- ertterHlhe art& eorrtiguetrs- to Aire p ojeet site -- T-the iiew -imp rovemerrts inehrde street - widening; -rrrb -and- gutter; -a9phaR- eermvete- overlay 7 raise&mediatrislattd with -4arrd9capings-nd4terrdseape; -& feet- ri4esidewa}k-; traffic-stripingand- sigriittg and - signing,- a}eng- with -aH- appurtenant irrcid etrta+sr- enel- impte%- ements- needed -to propeTgy-inrteg -Mt* arr& joitr together -the mew- and- exigtirrg impto-.*etnents- 39* Applicant shall reimburse City for design and construction cost for all street improvements to be installed by the City located east of the existing Washington Street curb and gutter improvements and contiguous to the project site. The new improvements include street widening, curb and gutter, asphalt concrete overlay, landscaping and hardscape, 8 -foot wide meandering sidewalk, traffic striping and signing, along with all appurtenant incidentals and improvements needed to properly intezrate and loin together the new and existing improvements. 40. Applicant shall reimburse City for 5% of the cost to design and install a new traffic signal at the Washington Street /Highway 111 intersection. 41.* for -2&%-ef- the- eestt"esigneiid nsfaH- tref#'tesig�tet at -tire simc>ir Drive- - Highway- 11 i - in- ter"clion- 41.* Applicant shall reimburse City for 12.5% of the cost to design and install traffic signal at the Simon Drive / Highway 111 intersection. 42. Applicant shall reimburse City for cost to design and install bus stop "pullout" on Highway 111. Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 93 -495 (Revision) May 11, 1993 43. Applicant shall reimburse City for half of the cost to design and install raised median improvements and landscaping on Highway 111 in the portion contiguous to the project site. 44. Applicant shall enter into a secured agreement with the City to pay for the City installed improvements required by these Conditions of Approval before the grading permit is issued. 45. A thorough preliminary engineering, geological, and soils engineering investigation shall be conducted with a report submitted for review along with grading plan. The report recommendations shall be incorporated into the grading plan design prior to grading plan approval. The soils engineer and /or the engineering geologist must certify to the adequacy of the grading plan. 46. The grading plan shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. 47. The site shall be designed and graded in a manner so the elevation difference between the building pad elevations on site and the adjacent street curb do not exceed three (3.0) feet. 48. Applicant shall provide storm drain facilities with sufficient capacity to evacuate all water that falls on -site and off -site to the centerline of the streets adjoining the site during the, 1 -hour duration, 25 -year storm event. The storm drain facility shall convey the storm water from the site to the Whitewater Channel. The Applicant may purchase capacity on a fair share basis in a storm drain to be designed and constructed in Washington Street by the City, if the City proceeds with said storm drain facility within time constraints which suit the Applicant. The tributary drainage area for which the Applicant is responsible shall extend to the centerline of Washington Street, Highway 111, and Simon Drive. 49. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect for the landscaped setback areas. The plans and proposed landscaping improvements shall be in conformance with requirements of the Planning Director, City Engineer, and Coachella Valley Water District and the plans shall be signed these officials prior to construction. 50. Applicant shall submit a copy of the proposed grading, landscaping and irrigation plans to the Coachella Valley Water District for review and approval. with respect to the District's Water Management Program. CONAPRVL.037 9 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 93 -495 (Revision) May 11, 1993 51. Applicant shall landscape and maintain the landscaped setback area and right of way between all street curbing and property lines. 52. Applicant shall construct an eight -foot wide meandering bike path in the combined easterly parkway of Washington Street and southerly parkway of Highway 111 in lieu of the standard six -foot wide sidewalk. A six foot wide sidewalk shall be constructed on Simon Drive. 53. All existing and proposed telecommunication, television cable, and electric power lines with 12,500 volts or less, that are adjacent to the proposed site or on -site, shall be installed in underground facilities. 54. Underground utilities that lie directly under street improvements or portions thereof shall be installed, with trenches compacted to city standards, prior to installation of that portion of the street improvement. A soils engineer retained by Applicant shall provide certified reports of soil compaction tests for review by the City Engineer. 55. Applicant shall pay all fees charged by the city as required for processing, plan checking and construction inspection. The fee amount(s) shall be those which are in effect at the time the work is undertaken and accomplished by the city. 56. Applicant shall retain a California registered civil engineer, or designate one who is on Applicant's staff, to exercise sufficient supervision and .quality control during construction of the tract grading and improvements to certify compliance with the plans, specifications, applicable codes, and ordinances. The engineer retained or designated by the Applicant to implement this responsibility shall provide the following certifications and documents upon completion of construction: A. The engineer shall sign and seal a statement placed on the 'as built" plans that says "all (grading and grades) (improvements) on these plans were properly monitored by qualified personnel under my supervision during construction. for compliance with the plans and specifications and the work shown hereon was constructed as approved, except where otherwise noted hereon and specifically acknowledged by the City Engineer ". B. Prior to issuance of any building permit, the engineer shall provide a separate document, signed and sealed, to the City Engineer that documents the building pad elevations. The document shall, for each pad, state the pad elevation approved on the grading plan, the as built elevation, and clearly identify the difference, if any. The data shall be organized by phase and shall be cumulative if the data is submitted at different times. CONAPRVL.037 10 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 93 -495 (Revision) May 11, 1993 C. Provide to the City Engineer a signed set of "as built" reproducible drawings of the site grading and all improvements installed by the Applicant. 57. The parking stalls on the north side of the office complex as determined by Staff, shall be restricted to either handicapped parking or reserved parking to help eliminate queuing at the Highway 111 access driveway. 58. The driveways on Washington Street and on Highway 111 shall be restricted to right turn movements only. 59. Turning movements at the intersection of Washington Street and Simon Drive shall be restricted to right turns only in accordance with the Washington Street Specific Plan. SPECIAL 60. All required improvements shall be completed prior to first site occupancy of the proposed development. 61. The parking structure shall not exceed 15 feet in overall height as measured from finished grade pad elevation within 100 feet of Highway 111. Exterior lighting on top level of parking structure shall not exceed six feet and not be within ten feet of outside wall. 62. All mitigation measures of Environmental Assessment 91 -211 shall be met. 63. The parcels shall be legally merged prior to building permit issuance. 64. Prior to issuance of any land disturbance permit, the Applicant shall pay the required mitigation fees for the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Program, so adopted by the City, in the amount of $600 per acre of disturbed land. 65. * The north side of the parking structure shall include perimeter grade planting as deemed appropriate by the Design Review Board. 66. Prior to issuance of the first building permit, a parking analysis shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Department to verify compliance with the Off -Street Parking requirements. Prior to each subsequent phase beginning construction a new parking study based on existing usage and potential demand shall be submitted. In each study, building size adjustments shall be made if it is determined that a parking deficiency exists. 67. Appropriate and adequate service delivering areas (loading facilities) and trash facilities shall be provided as required by the Off -Street Parking Code. The facilities shall include areas for recycling bins and be approved by Staff during the final review process. CONAPRVL.037 11 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 93 -495 (Revision) May 11, 1993 The standards and requirements of AB 939 (recycling) shall be met. This shall include provisions for on -site recycling of recyclable materials by the tenants in conjunction with the City's franchise hauler contract provisions. 68. An on -site elevator(s) shall service the site and provide accessibility from the parking garage to each respective building floor level. The design and installation of the elevator shall meet both Uniform Building Code standards and any other California State requirements. 69. The existing six foot high soundwall along the Washington Street frontage road shall be extended between the frontage road and Washington Street northerly of its present location to the northeasterly corner of Lot 27 of Tract 2043 (Singing Palms Drive and Washington Street) to mitigate traffic noise impacts on the existing R -1 single family neighborhood. 70. A Transportation Demand Management Plan shall be submitted (Ordinance 217) if the project or the ultimate development of the site employs 100 or more persons. The plan can be prepared by either the property owner or the tenant(s) within the development. The plan shall be submitted and approved by the Director of Planning and Development. 71. The provisions of the City's newly adopted Landscape Water Conservation Ordinance ( #220) shall be met. 72.** The applicant shall provide a theme plaza at the intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Street as required by the General Plan which shall include landscaping, public furniture and a public art piece. The art piece can contain the developers main identification sign (Sign #1), if it is an integral part of the theme plaza and /or the public art piece. The design shall be approved by the Art in Public Places Committee and the City Council as required by Chapter 2.65 of the Municipal Code. The developer shall retain an artist to help design the theme plaza. The theme plaza size shall not be less than 2,000 square feet and the overall design should be similar to the One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center theme plaza at the northeast corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street. 73. ** The medical office building shall not exceed three stories with a maximum 40 -foot height. The height of the building shall be measured from the existing grade (top of curb) on Highway 111. The developer can reallocate the fourth floor square footage into the project (e.g., over the parking structure) provided the new site plan does include adding two story elements into the 150 -foot setback requirement on either arterial street. The revised design shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board and Planning Commission prior to preparation of final working drawings. CONAPRVL.037 12 ILE Jpy STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: MAY 11, 1993 (CONTINUED FROM APRIL 13, 1993) CASE NO: PLOT PLAN 93 -495 (REVISION) MASTER SIGN PROGRAM 93 -210 APPLICANT: SIMON PLAZA, INC. (PHILIP PEAD) PREVIOUS CASE: PLOT PLAN 91 -466 (REVISED) (EXPIRED) PH #4 OWNERS: 3S PARTNERSHIP AND POMONA FIRST FEDERAL BANK SUBJECT: REQUEST TO DEVELOP A 82,013 SQUARE FOOT MIXED USE COMMERCIAL PROJECT ON APPROXIMATELY 5.6 ACRES ZONED C -P -S COMMERCIAL. THE PROJECT WILL INCLUDE A FOUR STORY OFFICE BUILDING, A RESTAURANT OR BANK, AN EYE INSTITUTE OR OFFICE, A TWO LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE, AND RELATED AT -GRADE PARKING. LOCATION: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND WASHINGTON STREET, BOTH MAJOR ARTERIALS. THE DEVELOPMENT, ON ±5.6 ACRES OF LAND, IS LOCATED TO THE WEST OF THE EXISTING SIMON MOTORS AUTOMOTIVE DEALERSHIP ON HIGHWAY 111. ARCHITECT: MERLIN J. BARTH EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: MIXED /REGIONAL COMMERCIAL WITH NON - RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY. SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS: NORTH: 11 I LA QUINTA SHOPPING CENTER SOUTH: WASHINGTON SQUARE SPECIFIC PLAN PROPERTY (VACANT) EAST: EXISTING SIMON MOTORS AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP WEST: EXISTING PLAZA LA QUINTA SHOPPING CENTER PCST.119 1 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: Environmental Assessment 91 -211 has been prepared in conjunction with this original application. The initial study indicated that no significant environmental impacts will occur that cannot be mitigated by imposition of mitigation measures. Therefore, a Negative Declaration was prepared for Plot Plan 91 -466 (Revised). Staff would recommend that the Planning Commission recertify the Environmental Determination for this case. BACKGROUND: This project was reviewed by the City in 1992, as part of the review and approval of Plot Plan 91 -466 (Revised). The project received approval by the Design Review Board on October 2, 1991, the Planning Commission on February 25, 1992, and the City Council on March 3, 1992. However, the final design approved change from ± 165,000 square feet to ± 125,000 square feet and various buildings were shifted on the property to increase visibility into the project. The initial plan is attached for reference. The original Conditions of Approval required the applicant to begin construction of the project within one year or apply for a one year extension which required review by the Planning Commission. The original case expired on February 25, 1993. On March 11, 1993, the applicant refiled the original plans with Staff and paid the required fees to return the project through the necessary stages to have the project reviewed by the Design Review Board, Planning Commission, and City Council as a new application. DESCRIPTION OF SITE: The proposed ±5.6 acre site is comprised of'six parcels. The flat and undeveloped parcels were created by the division of land under Parcel Map 18418 in 1982. The property has frontage on three streets with 650 feet along Washington Street, 700 feet along Highway 111, and 180 feet along Simon Drive. The site elevation along Washington Street is approximately 60 feet above sea level. The site is improved with street improvements. However, additional widening is necessary on Washington Street to conform with the City's adopted Specific Plan Alignment Program and General Plan. A future raised median island is proposed for both Washington Street and Highway 111. The property was subdivided in the early 1980's for the development of Simon Motors Automobile Dealership as well as to establish commercial lots which could be sold or developed - with commercial land uses. ARCHITECTURE: The project architect, Mr. Merlin Barth has prepared a plan which proposes buildings ,around the outer portion of the site with parking in the center of the facility. A parking structure will be located on the east side of the property. PCST . 119 2 002 The proposed Mediterranean design (Spanish style design motif) is consistent with the City's design guidelines (e.g., the roof, rough stucco exterior, large glass windows, etc.). , CIRCULATION /PARKING PLAN: r The developer has proposed one access driveway on each public street. Each driveway will service the proposed at -grade guest parking lot. The driveways lead to the parking garage located at the east side of the site. The parking garage will house approximately 205 cars. A traffic study to address the developmental impacts of the project on abutting City streets and the cumulative impacts the project may have on the future level of service of Washington Street/Highway 111 was prepared for the original application and since the project is smaller in scope, no additional impacts are contemplated by the new plan. VIEW CORRIDOR: The City's General Plan discusses site views as an important element of projects which have frontage on major streets within the City. Policy 6.5.7 states that "....along primary and secondary and agrarian image corridors the City shall establish appropriate building height limits to ensure a low density character and appearance ". The City's policy has been that no building greater than one story in height shall be built within 150 feet of the future street property line. This standard has been in effect for the last few years and has been a condition on all of the development cases along Washington Street and Highway 111. However, the heights have varied on a case -by -case basis. A City -wide height,survey was originally conducted during the discussion of Plot Plan 91 -466. In 1992, the Planning Commission and City Council permitted the two story parking structure because it looked like a one story structure and was consistent in height with other approved structures. The City also permitted the 2 -story design features on the 4 -story medical office building because the 2 -story elements enhanced the Highway 111 street elevation. WASHINGTON STREET ALIGNMENT PLAN: The Washington Street Specific Plan (86 -007) document set the street alignment schedule for Washington Street from Fred Waring Drive to 52nd Avenue. The plan included provisions for a 120 foot right -of -way (six lanes) and 140 feet right -of -way (six lanes + four turn lanes). The intersection of Washington Street /Highway 111 is scheduled to have a minimum right -of -way of 140 feet. The northbound street side of Washington Street is to include three through lanes, two left turn lanes, and at a minimum one right -turn lane. The development will be conditioned to meet these specific plan requirements. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD REVIEW: On April 7, 1993, the Design Review Board met briefly to discuss the resubmittal of Plot Plan 91 -466 (Revision). The development proposal included a four story office building on Highway 111 which is attached to the three level - parking structure abutting the Simon Motors property. PCST.119 3 00`' On the southwest portion of the site (also attached to the parking structure) was the second story fitness center and one story 44 lane bowling alley. The other two buildings on the site were a restaurant/bank building at the intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Street and a one story office building. The project was broken down in the following fashion: Offices (4 story) = 60,880 sq. ft. Restaurant = 8,000 sq. ft. Office /Eye Institute = 5,000 sq. ft. Fitness Center = 12,000 sq. ft. Bowling Alley = 40.531 sq. ft. 126,411 sq. ft. (550 parking spaces) The Design Review Board continued action on this case on April 7, 1993, at the request of the applicant. The case was continued to May 5, 1993. On April 26, 1993, the applicant revised the proposal to conform to the newly adopted City General Plan Floor Area Ratios (.35) policy requirements. A copy of the new plan is attached and a copy of the original Design Review Board report from April 7th has also been enclosed. The developer has removed the fitness center and bowling alley from the project and substituted at -grade parking along Washington Street. The number of parking structure levels has also been reduced. Medical Offices (4 -story) = 68,600 sq. ft. Restaurant = 8,000 sq. ft. Office 5,413 sq. ft. TOTAL 82,013 sq. ft. (412 parking spaces) On April 26, 1993, Staff also received a resubmittal of the master sign program for the center based on the new submittal. As the Planning Commission will recall, a similar sign program (SA 91 -159, Amendment #3) was approved by the Planning Commission in 1992. The only difference in the exhibit versus the previous plan is that Sign #1 is double -sided instead of being three- sides. Sign #4a was originally contemplated for the bowling alley, but it is now being used for the 4 -story office building. On May 5, 1993, the Design Review Board reconsidered the revised plan of the applicant. The Design Review Board felt the new plan was an improvement over the original plan (PP 91 -466) because it was less dense and sight views through the project were more pronounced. The buildings are now farther back on Washington Street without the bowling alley building which was originally slated to be 20 -feet from the street right -of -way. The Board reviewed the original Conditions of Approval imposed in 1992, to verify whether or not the conditions were still appropriate for this new submission. The Design Review Board had the following statements or issues for the applicant. PCST.119 4 ME Architecture The Board was concerned with the overall size of the 4 -story building and its relationship to Highway 111 and Washington Street. Many Board members stated that without the other original buildings the pedestrian scale of the project had been lost even though the "view" corridors through the project had been increased. The Board debated various topics of the proposal and their final recommendation on the project is as follows: 1. The roof design for the 4 -story medical office building should be either 4:12 or higher to give the building balance and proper scale to its mass. 2. The roof design for the 1 -story office building should be similar to the 1 -story restaurant building at the intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Street. 3. The parking structures tile roof facade should be eliminated because it is not compatible with the design motif of the 4 -story medical office building. The applicant should evaluate another design style which incorporates a cornice design feature (similar to the upper portion of the 4 -story building) and other articulated features which will soften the elevation and not enhance its presence. 4. The parking structure ramp on the south side of the project should not be stuccoed to match the building. The applicant should review a embedded stone for this tilt -up structure or other natural texture features to downplay its importance. 5. The applicant should include the following features into the 4 -story medical office building: a. Pre -cast stone window trim. b. Individual pane windows versus grid molding. C. Additional building column connections. d. Accented building roof heights. e. Revision to the elevator shaft design and its relationship to Highway 111. f. Energy conservation measures should be reviewed. g. The 2 -story elements on the north side of the 4 -story building should be redesigned so that the roof connects into the building (delete the existing windows). Landscape A landscape plan was not presented for review during discussion of the project making it difficult for the Board to interrelate the landscape program with the project. After some debate, the Design Review Board instructed the applicant to present a plan prior to the preparation of final working drawings by the landscape architect. The Board stressed the need to see vertical plant material to reduce the impact of the parking structure and the 4 -story building as they relate to abutting developments. PCST.119 5 005 Signs The Design Review Board was comfortable with the revised master sign package by the applicant, and with the proposed two - sided, freestanding sign (Sign #1) at the intersection. The Board debated whether or not the sign should be moved from the corner (e.g., 150 -feet south or east) thereby creating an open space area for public interaction (i.e., public art, public furniture, etc.) similar to the One Eleven La Quinta Center. The Design Review Board debated initially whether the sign and a public art feature could be molded together at this corner to meet both the developer's needs and the City's public amenity needs. The consensus was to allow the applicant a sign at this intersection as originally approved for the past case except that he sign would be two -sided instead of three - sided. The Design Review Board also requested that the sign letters for Sign #1, be laser -cut and set into the sign face instead of incised, as proposed. Bike Trails The Design Review Board examined whether or not an eight foot wide bike trail or path was necessary for the proposal in light of the fact that Simon Motors presently has a five foot wide sidewalk at this time. The Board stated that an eight wide trail was necessary because it is required in the General Plan and it will provide a secondary mode of transportation for residents or visitors of La Quinta. They noted that it is the City's intent to be linked through a Master Trail System for both pedestrians and bicyclists. Summary In conclusion, the Design Review Board voted to conceptually approve the project provided the applicant's revised plans were returned to them prior to the development of the final working drawings. The Board felt the project architect could refine the design per their suggestions without delaying the applicant's request to be on the Planning Commission meeting of May 11, 1993. The final vote was 6 -0. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW: On April 13, 1993, the Planning Commission continued discussion of this project to May 11, 1993, to allow the applicant additional time to revise the project pursuant to the newly adopted provisions of the General Plan. As mentioned above, the applicant did modify the proposal by reducing the overall size of the project from ± 126,411 square feet to ±82,013 square feet. The new plan was submitted to Staff on April 26, 1993. ANALYSIS: Both Highway 111 and Washington Street are image corridors as defined in the General Plan. Further, the subject property is located within the Highway 111 Specific Plan area. To date, draft policies for.this plan have been prepared and reviewed by both the Planning Commission and City Council. The City Council has indicated concurrence with those policies. Those policies, in part, address commercial development along Highway 111 and how it should be developed. PCST. 119 6 006 1. The specific plan policies indicate that Highway 111 should avoid becoming a random series of unrelated, shallow -depth commercial uses, resulting in an unproductive commercial strip type of area. 2. The specific plan policies indicates that commercial uses along Highway 111 shall be only in "major commercial complexes ". No single isolated structures will be permitted anywhere along Highway 111 without a plan which demonstrates the feasibility of the whole complex of which the single use or small complex is an early increment. Also, the compatibility of the proposed use with the surrounding preferred uses will be required to be demonstrated. 3. The specific plan policies indicate that development should be in complexes of like, similar, or complementary uses, with a common marketing theme and locational identifier. 4. The General Plan policies for the Mixed Commercial ,Land Use are attached. These policies refer to the Highway 111 Specific Plan and the need to develop the property along Highway 111 with large project developments rather than smaller unrelated uses. The goals of the Highway 111 Specific Plan are being met because the developer is merging lots to forma large development, has related commercial uses, and proposed interrelated aggregate building structures. The proposed buildings do not create a towering feeling for the Highway 111 corridor because the architect has tried to articulate the building mass and place the building 50 to 150 feet from the street. PARKING ANALYSIS: In the 1992 plan, a shared parking program was used to meet the off - street parking requirements. The plan was based on peak period use of the project during normal business hours. The new proposal is broken down in the following way: A. Medical offices (4 -story) 68,600 sq. ft. /200 sq. ft. = 343 spaces B. Office (1 -story) 5,413 sq. ft. /250 = 22 C. *Restaurant 8,000 sq. ft. 150 = 80 OR D. Bank (1 -story) 8,000 sq. ft./250 =32 * Note: 50% of the building counted as dining area. PCST.119 TOTAL 397 to 445 spaces 7 007 The two -level parking structure will accommodate 205 parking spaces and another 207 parking spaces will be inter -mixed around the exterior portion of the development. The at -grade parking along Washington Street will assist both customers in easy access to the site and also permits patrons and staff clear views into and through the development since there is only one driveway access per street frontage. Access is an important issue in the development of this site because it is a heavily traveled area of the City. In 1991, the City amended the Off - Street Parking code to include a new category for medical office (ZOA 91 -020). The code states the following: "One space per 150 square feet GLA (including lobbies and reception areas) for any building or building complex less than 20,000 square feet. One space per 200 square feet GLA (including lobbies and reception areas) for any building or building complex greater than 20,000 square feet." Medical offices are required to have more on -site parking than a retail or office establishments. Therefore, the applicant might want to re- evaluate the amount of medical office space versus office space which is provided on this plan In the present development plan it is hard to predict the exact number of parking spaces because all the future tenants have not been determined. A parking analysis should be conducted as each tenant is brought into the development. This can either occur during plan check or during the review of a business license. The applicant is required to insure that the tenant mix will be consistent with the on -site parking facilities. PROPOSED ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS: The Design Review Board did not include all the proposed conditions which were recommended by Staff at their May 5th meeting. Staff had recommended that the proposed center identification sign (Sign ##1) not be positioned at the intersection as proposed by the applicant. Staff recommended the following condition: "A project identification sign shall not be installed at the intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Street since the area should be reserved for landscaping, public furniture, and a public art piece. No private property features such as a project identification sign shall be permitted within 150 to 200 feet of the.- - intersection. The theme plaza shall be identified to the One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center design to the north of the site" The primary reason for the condition is to retain an area at this "image" corridor intersection for public art or other public amenities. Staff believes this area should be a focal point or node for the community. The One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center provided such a feature on their site pursuant to the adoption of Specific Plan 89 -014. The developer of the project felt PCST.119 8 • uncomfortable with this request because they would prefer to have their project sign at this highly visible corner of the City. Staff explained to the Design Review Board that the General Plan did not graphically depict the elements which are required but identified them in written text for review and consideration during the review of a project at these key points within the City and primarily along Highway 111. Policy 3 -4.1.2 states, "at key intersection, primary image corridors shall include treatments which may include special roadway paving, hard scape/ screen wall arrangements and displays of public art". This intersection is also a "primary gateway" area to the City, therefore, this area should include special paving, street furniture, hardscape, screen wall arrangements, displays of public art, monument signage, landscaping and street lighting (Policy 3- 4.1.8). Based on these parameters, Staff is still advocating that the Planning Commission include this condition into the project to insure that the project is consistent with the City's newly adopted General Plan. STAFF CONCLUSION: The applicant has addressed the Staff's concern on the amount of intensity of building square footage and the applicant has made an attempt to provide a "view window" through the project by eliminating the bowling alley and fitness center buildings which were originally planned. Staff supports the new plan because it meets the provisions of the City's Zoning Code, the newly adopted General Plan, and the provisions of the Washington Street/Highway 111 Specific Plans. FINDINGS TO SUPPORT THE PROJECT: 1. The site is irregular in shape (3 street frontages) thus forcing the architect to create aggregate building masses to meet the City's General Plan and Zoning Code Standards. The architectural elements of the project are similar in nature to the other commercial facilities in the immediate area. The floor area ratio (F.A.R.) for the project is ±0.35 which is consistent with the General Plan Land Use category standards (Table LU -4) of the City. 2. The two -story parking structure will not adversely affect the Highway 111 corridor because the building is located 50 feet from the property line and the overall height of -the parking garage is similar in height to the Simon Motors Automobile facility. The structure creates an illusion that the parking garage is one. story instead of two stories because the height for the front 100 feet of the structure on Highway 111 is only ± 15 feet in overall height. 3. The setbacks and building heights for the project meet the Washington Street Specific Plan and General Plan Policy goals. 4. The new proposal is compatible with the Simon Motors Automobile Dealership to the east of this site. PCST.119 9 1 M1 01 5. The project will be conditioned to meet the newly adopted General Plan policy for the City which prescribe public amenities which are important for both primary image corridors and primary gateway treatments as specified in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission by Minute Motion 93- recertify the previous environmental approval for Plot Plan 91 -466 (Revision) as valid for this case and approving Plot Plan 93 -495 (Revision) and Master Sign Program 93 -210, subject to the attached conditions. Attachments: 1. Location map 2. Large exhibits (dated 4/26/93) 3. Master Sign Program (SA 93 -210) (large exhibits) 4. April 7, 1993, Design Review Board report 5. Draft Conditions of Approval - PP 93 -495 6. Draft Conditions of Approval - SA 93 -210 PCST.119 to 010 4s� r L ly Adams Street [lord F [�1 I—' Cn rt Street Ar 2 M e)1�0 DATE: CASE NO: APPLICANT: STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING APRIL 7, 1993 PLOT PLAN 93 -495 SIMON PLAZA, INC. (PHILIP PEAD) PREVIOUS CASE: PLOT PLAN 91 -466 (REVISED) (EXPIRED) OWNERS: 3S PARTNERSHIP AND POMONA FIRST FEDERAL BANK SUBJECT: REQUEST TO DEVELOP A MIXED USE COMMERCIAL PROJECT ON APPROXIMATELY 5.6 ACRES ZONED C -P -S COMMERCIAL. THE PROJECT WILL INCLUDE A FOUR STORY OFFICE BUILDING, A 44 LANE BOWLING ALLEY, A FITNESS CENTER, A RESTAURANT OR BANK, AN EYE INSTITUTE OR OFFICE, A FOUR LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE, AND RELATED AT -GRADE PARKING. LOCATION: - SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND WASHINGTON STREET, BOTH MAJOR ARTERIALS. THE DEVELOPMENT, ON ±5.6 ACRES OF LAND, IS LOCATED TO THE WEST OF THE EXISTING SIMON MOTORS AUTOMOTIVE DEALERSHIP ON HIGHWAY 111. ARCHITECT: MERLIN J. BARTH EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: MIXED /REGIONAL COMMERCIAL WITH NON - RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY. SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS: NORTH: 111 LA QUINTA SHOPPING CENTER SOUTH: WASHINGTON SQUARE SPECIFIC PLAN PROPERTY (VACANT) EAST: EXISTING SIMON MOTORS AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP WEST: EXISTING PLAZA LA QUINTA SHOPPING CENTER DRBST.083 1 012 I This project was reviewed by the City in,1992, as part of the review and approval of Plot Plan 91 -466 (Revised). The project received approval by the Design Review Board on October 2, 1991, the Planning Commission on February 25, 1992, and the City Council on March 2, 1992. However, the final design approved changed from ± 165,000 square feet to ± 125,000 square feet and various buildings were shifted on the property to increase visibility into the project. The initial plan is attached for reference. The original Conditions of Approval required the applicant to begin construction of the project within one year or apply for a one year extension of time which required review by the Planning Commission. The original case expired on February 25, 1993. On March 11, 1993, the applicant refiled the original plans with Staff and paid the necessary fees to return the project through the necessary stages to have the project reviewed by the Design Review Board, Planning Commission, and City Council as a new application. DESCRIPTION OF SITE: The proposed ±5.6 acre site is comprised of seven parcels. The flat and undeveloped parcels were created by the division of land under Parcel Map 18418 in 1982. The property has frontage on three streets with 650 feet along Washington Street, 700 feet along Highway 111, and 180 feet along Simon Drive. The site elevation along Washington Street is approximately 60 feet above sea level. The site is improved with street improvements. However, additional widening is necessary on Washington Street to conform with the City's adopted Specific Plan Alignment Program and General Plan. A future raised median island is proposed for both Washington Street and Highway 111. The property was subdivided in the early 1980's for the development of Simon Motors Automobile Dealership as well as to establish commercial lots which could be sold or developed with commercial land uses. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL: The development proposal will include a four story office building on Highway 111 which is attached to the three level parking structure abutting the Simon Motors property. On the southwest portion of the site (also attached to the parking structure) is the second story fitness center and one story 44 lane bowling alley. The other two buildings on the site are a restaurant/bank building at the intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Street and a one story eye institute. The project is broken down in the following fashion: DRBST.083 2 i t 013 Offices Restaurant . Office /Eye Institute Fitness Center Bowling Alley ARCHITECTURE: 60,880 sq. ft. 8,000 sq. ft. = 5,000 sq. ft. = 12,000 sq. ft. 40.531 sq. ft. 126,411 sq. ft. (550 parking spaces) The project architect, Mr. Merlin J. Barth, of Anaheim, has prepared a plan which proposes buildings around the outer portion of the site with at -grade parking in the center of the facility. A multiple level parking structure will be located on the east side of the property. CIRCULATION /PARKING: The developer has proposed access driveways on each respective public street. The two -way driveway on Highway 111 and Washington Street will service the proposed courtyard guest parking lot (approximately 102 parking spaces). The driveways lead to the four level parking garage (two floors above grade with a roof top parking area and one subterranean level) located at the easterly property boundary of the site. The parking garage will house approximately 448 cars. The parking ratio for this project is (126,411/550) one on -site space for every 229 square feet of leasable floor area. IMAGE CORRIDOR: On October 6, 1992, the City updated its General Plan to include some new standards which are pertinent to all properties in the City. The new plan designates the frontage streets along the exterior portion of the site as "primary image corridor" thoroughfares, and the signalized intersection of Washington Street and Highway 111 as a "gateway" image intersection. A copy of the adopted material is attached. The primary function of the program is to provide boulevard streets with raised, landscaped medians and heavily landscaped areas within and contiguous to the street rights -of -way. The General Plan states that "primary image corridors shall include landscape themes which are reminiscent of La Quinta's agricultural past and desert environment ". Overall, the applicant's request is generally consistent with the intent of the General Plan except for the intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Street. We would recommend that the applicant enhance the intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Street to include an area for a public art piece surrounded by palm trees. DRBST.083 3 014 BUILDING FLOOR AREA RATIO: The new General Plan for the City established new policy requirements for the City on the amount of building coverage a project could have on a site. Table LU -4 of the Land Use Element states 0.35 is the ratio for Mixed /Regional Commercial (M /RC) properties. This project proposes 126,411 square feet on approximately ±5.3 net acres or an F.A.R. of 0.54. This figure does not examine the parking structure as a building for this equation. The project should be downsized to meet this new building floor area to project site area ratio which is based on net land area (after street dedication) versus gross floor area (e.g., 82,000 sq. ft. - 230,868 = 0.35). STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant allowed the original case approval to expire in February, 1993. Therefore, the Design Review Board can request changes to the proposed resubmittal if you believe they are necessary. Staff would also like to point out to the Design Review Board that the applicant would like to maintain the past master sign program (SA 91 -159 #3) which was approved by the Design Review Board and Planning Commission after the original review of Plot Plan 91 -466 (Revised). A copy of the original approval is attached. The City's Zoning Code Standards have not changed since the last review of this case. Should changes occur to the structures, it may be necessary to revise the sign program. Staff would recommend that the Design Review Board reconsider the Planning Commission approval of the triangular freestanding sign at the intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Street. The current approval allowed a twelve foot high sign with three sides each having 50 square feet of copy. It might be more appropriate to relocate a project'sign to the east and south of its present location and provide a different type of sign (e.g., double sided sign). SUGGESTED CONDITIONS: 1. The General Plan policy standards for "Primary Gateway Treatment" as outlined in Chapter 3.0 (Circulation Element) should be met since this intersection is located on an image corridor of the City. 2. A project identification sign should not be installed at the intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Street, since the area should be reserved for landscaping, public furniture, and a public art piece. No private property features such as a project identification sign should be permitted within 150 feet of the intersection. 3. The maximum F.A.R. for this project should be 0.35 as noted in Table LU-4 of the General Plan. DRBST.083 4 015 RECOMMENDATION: Staff is at the Design Review Board's pleasure on the matter and any new recommendations of the Design Review Board will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for their review later this month. Attachments: 1. Location map 2. Large exhibits, (dated 3/15/93) 3. Master Sign Approval (SA 91 -159 #3) 4. Excerpts from the original Conditions for Plot Plan 91 -466 (Revised) 5. Initial site plan design (superseded) 6. Excerpt from the General Plan DRBST.083 5 016 Ist. Bank or Restaurant 3st. plus basement /Offices IL /_ awA.� %%% \T 1st. Bowling (40 Lanes) 4st. Parking Garage w/ sub -level LN 4st. Office Bldg. �i CL 10 I WIN a� ave CO = i Policy 3 -4.12 Printery image corridors shad be defined as streets In N roadway networMch are the nu r urban design statements of the City. Primary huge corridors shall consist of boulevard streets with raised, landscaped medans and heavt7y landscaped areas with'n and contiguous to the street rightsof way. Primary image corridors shat! include landscape themes wfucJh are reminiscent of La Ouinta's agwiltural past and desert environment Primary image corridors may include vertical landscape elements such as palm trees complemented with a shade - producing understory of canopy trees, such as indigenous, drought tolerant desert species. More water Intensive understory canopy trees, such as various afros species, should be used sparingty in nodes at key kxations as highlights and reminders of past agricultural activities. Ground plane landscape materials shoudd evoke a lush image through the use of drought tolerant, low maintenance plant species. Turf should be used in a manner consistent with citrus trees — sparingly and in high visibility locations. Primary image corridors shall include street traffic signals, street fighting systems, street furniture, bus shelters, street name -signs, and noise berms/barriers which are designed in a coor- dinated and consistent theme unique to La Quints At key intersections, primary image corridors shag include treatments which may include special roadway paving, hardscape/screen wall arrangements and displays of public art Policy 3 -4.1.3 Primary image corridors shaft indude the thilowing roadways: ®• Washington Street • Jefferson Street • ffiighway 111 • Fred Waring Drive • Cade Tampico • Euenhower Drive (from Cade Tampico to Washington Street) Policy 3 -4.1.4 Secondary image corridors shad,be defined as streets in tike roadway network wfnicn are the secondary urban design statements of the City. Secondary Image cord- dots shad consist of streets with raised, landscaped medans and landscaped areas/within and contiguous to tine street right -of -way. Secondary image corridors shaA be consistent with primary image corridors relative to similar landscape materials, street traffic signals, street lighting systems, street fiumlure, bus shelters and street name signs. However, secondary BRW, Inc. uu- ,oxAO_&A" street linage corridors chap emphasize the use of lower proff7e lndpenous canopy trees, accentuated with the use of dtrus trees in various nodes. The use of taller, vertical landscape' elements shall be de- emphasized and shall occur in nodes, primarily at street lntersec Liars. , Policy 3 -4.1.5 Secondary image corridors shall include the following roadways: • Miles Avenue • Dune Palms Road (south of the Coachella Valley Stormwater ChanneO • Adams Street (south of the Coachella Valley Stormwater ChannaO • Avenue 48 • Avenue 50 • Avenue 52 • Eisenhower Drive (south of Calle Tampico to Avenida Bermudas) Policy 3 -4.1.6 Agrarian image corridors Shad be defaced as streets in the roadway network which are designed to evoke a rural amb►ance and to provide a strong linkage to the City's agricultural past These corridors are to be located in dose proximity to areas designated 'Rural Residential' on the Land Use Policy Diagram in the Land Use Element Agrarian image corridors shall incorporate equestrian trails and shall include design themes representative of rural areas, such as shaded country lanes which uWize lower profile indigenous canopy trees accentuated with various citrus species. The use of taller, vertical landscape elements, such as palm trees, shad be de- emphasized. More possible, the use oaf vertical autos on the outside lane of the roadway shall be minimized Street traffic signals, street lighting systems, street furniture, bus shelters and street name signs shad be similar to primary and secondary image corridors, but Y possible, shad incorporate more of a rural character. Policy 3 -4.1.7 Agrarian image corridors shad include the following roadways: • Madison Street • Avenue 54 ftafn Jefferson Street to Monroe Street) Policy 3 -4.1.8 Primary gateway treatments shad be defined as street - scape treatments at key intersections leading into the City and into the Village area. Primary gateway treatments may lndude special paving, street iurniture, Chapter 3 - Circulation Element 3 -21 City of La Ouinta General Plan MMOO hardsceps/screen wall arrangements, olisplays of public art, monument signage, landscaping and street ii WV, Primary gateways are intended as dramatic design statements indicating the entrance to the City and the Village area Primary gateway treatments shall occur at the following street intersections: • Fred Waring Drive and Washington Street Washington Street and Highway 111 • Jefferson Street and Highway 111 • Cane Tampico and Washington Street • Eisenhower Drive and Cane Tampico Policy 3 -4.1.9 Secondary gateway treatments shall be defined as strees.-ape treatments which are similar to primary gateway treatments except that an emphasis is placed on a less dramatic entry statement. For example, secondary gateway treatments may not include special paving, street fiurMure or hardscapeJscreen wall arrangements. The secondary gateway treatment may rely more on the use of landscaping, street lighting and monument signage as the major elements of design. 3- 4.1.10 Along primary, secondary and agrarian image corridors the Crty shall establish appropriate building height limits to ensure a low density character and appearance. Policy 3- 4.1.11 Landscaped setbacks are necessary to ensure a high quality and attractive appearance on major streets. Setbacks for walls, buildings and parking areas may vary, if property designed, but shall generally be as follows: )y+ Highway 111 - 50 feet • Other Major Arterials - 20 feet • Primary Arterials - 20 feet • Secondary Arterials - 10 feet • Collector Streets - 10 feet Landscaping within these setback areas shall be consistent with the appropriate image corridor designation, if applicable. Policy 3- 4.1.12 Special right -of -way width and design treatments will be identified for streets within the Village Area, recognizing established set -backs or adjacent developments and the maturity of existing landscaping materials. The k4owing streets wN be permitted to remain at a maudmum fitly (50) foot right -of -way wkM: a) Cs& b) Barcelona C) Amigo Policy 3- 4.1.13 Wall openings to allow views into projects from image corridors are desirable and should be required where appropriate as one means of minimizing negative visual impacts of continuous walls. This can also be accomplished by varying setbacks. Policy 3- 4.1.14 The City may require adequate parkways, vistas into Wed communities, and other features as appropriate. Policy 3- 4.1.15 Where desirable, the use of existing natural vegetation including citrus trees, date palm groves, eucalyptus windrows, and oleander hedges should be considered for retention in image corridor landscape designs. Policy 3- 4.1.16 Special design treatments for major elements of the City's street system shall be considered in all approvals for related development Policy 374.1.17 The City's streetscape quality shaft be improved by undergrounding of utilities wherever possible. Policy 3- 4.1.18 Prevention of visual blight shall be enhanced by the administration of a comprehensive sign ordinance. Public Transit Policies Background - The provision of public transit is an Integral part of La Quinta's multi -modal circulation system. Increased use of public transit in the future will provide -benefits such as reduced congestion and Improved air quality. For transit to be successful, it should be property planned so that it is convenient and accessible to users and operates in a timely fashion. The following polices are intended to provide guidance in establishing an expanded transit system to serve the needs of the City and region. BRW, Inc. Chapter 3 - Circulation Bement City of La Quinta LO-TUKA04MT 3 -22 Gg r§Plan TABLE LU-4 City of La Guinta, Commercial Land Use Category Standards Commercial Category Development Standards' General Development Characteristics Mixed/Regional Commercial Maximum FAR. of 0.35 Primarily retail businesses serving a regional trade area, such as ter--ft. (M/RC) Maximum building height of associated with a regional mail, off- price retail outlet, and/or. 'powet four stories center'. Other businesses of a secondary priority Include ovemight commercial lodging, automobile retail and maim office uses, such as Located only In the corporate headquarters, research and development fadfltkm medical- Highway 111 Confdor Highway facilities and mayor community facilities. Higher density residentia uses are allowed In designated areas. Community Commerdal Maximum FAR. of 0.30 Primarily retail business serving the daily needs of a multiple neighborhoc (CC) Maximum building height of area. Typical tenants may include general merchandise, hardware/buildir three stories materials, grocery supermarkets, drug stores and targer specialty stores. Other business of a secondary priority may include automobile service Located on, and with direct stations and professional service and office uses. access to, and primarily at the intersection of arterial streets Neighborhood Commercial Maximum FAR. of 0.25 Primarily retail businesses serving the needs of an Immediate neight—who (NC) Maximum building height of two trade area. Typical tenants include grocery supermarkets, drug sta stories eating and drinking establishments, automobile service stations and Located on, and with direct personal services, such as laundry and barber salons. Other business of access to, arterial streets secondary priority include small scale administrativelprofessional offices, such as medical services, finance, Insurance and real estate offices. Maximum of 20 acres/site Commercial Park Maximum FAR. of 0.25 Primarily businesses offering heavy commercial and light industrial uses (CF) Maximum building height of two serving the needs of a local and regional trade area Typical businesses stories include office/showroom. office1warehouse, high -tech light manufacturing. ~ automobile repair and body work, warehousing and storage and other Direct access to arterial or similar uses. 0 non- residential collector streets Developed in 'campus -like' settings CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED PLOT PLAN 93 -495 MAY 11, 1993 SIMON PLAZA GENERAL 1. The development of the property shall be generally be in conformance with the exhibits contained in the file for PP 93 -495, unless amended otherwise by the following conditions. 2. The approved plot plan shall be used by May 11, 1994; otherwise it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. "Be used" means the beginning of substantial construction which is contemplated by this approval, not including grading which is begun within the one year period and is thereafter diligently pursued until completion. A one year time extension may be requested as permitted by Municipal Code provided an extension request is filed by April 11, 1994. 3. There shall be no outdoor storage or sales displays without specific approval of the Planning Commission. 4. All exterior lighting shall be shielded and directed so as not to shine directly on surrounding adjoining properties or public rights -of -way. Light standard type with recessed light source shall also be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. Exterior lighting shall comply with Outdoor Light Control Ordinance and off - street parking requirements. 5. Adequate masonry trash enclosures shall be provided for all structures and provided with opaque metal doors. Plans for trash enclosures to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of a building permit. The Applicant shall contact the local waste management company to insure that the number of enclosures and size of the enclosures are adequate. 6. Decorative enclosures may be required by the City around any retention basins depending on site grading requirements. The color, location, and placement of said fence(s) shall be approved by the Planning and Development Department. 7. Phased improvement plans shall be subject to Planning Commission review. 8. Handicap parking spaces and facilities shall be provided per Municipal Code, State and Federal requirements. CONAPRVL.037 1 021 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 93 -495 (Revision) May 11, 1993 9. A noise study shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer to be submitted to the Planning and Development Department for review and approval prior to submission of building plans for plan check or issuance of grading permit, whichever comes first. The study shall concentrate on noise impacts on building interior areas from perimeter streets, and impacts on the proposed abutting and provide mitigation of noise as alternative mitigation measures for incorporation into the project design such as building setbacks, engineering design, building orientation, noise barriers, (terming, landscaping and walls, etc.) and other techniques. 10. The project shall comply with all existing off street parking requirements including but not limited to shading of parking lot areas and bicycle parking spaces. 11. Perimeter landscaping planters shall be provided at maximum widths possible adjacent to property lines and planted with landscaping. 12. The project shall comply with all applicable Art in Public Places Ordinance. A public art piece shall be installed on the property at a location agreeable to the Art in Public Places Committee (e.g., at the intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Street). A public easement shall be offered to the City for the site any art piece may occupy which has been established by the Art in Public Places Committee. 13. The City shall retain a qualified archaeologist, with the Developer to pay costs, to prepare a mitigation and monitoring plan for artifact location and recovery. Prior to archaeological studies for this site as well as other unrecorded information, shall be analyzed prior to the preparation of the plan. The plan shall be submitted. to the Coachella Valley Archaeological Society (CVAS) for a two -week review and comment period. At a minimum, the plan shall: 1) identify the means for digging test pits; 2) allow sharing the information with the CVAS; and 3) provide for further testing if the preliminary result show significant materials are present. The final plan shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Department for. final review and approval. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Developer shall have retained a qualified cultural resources management firm and completed the testing and data recovery as noted in the plan. The management firm shall monitor the grading activity as required by the plan or testing results. A list of the qualified archaeological monitor(s), cultural resources management firm employees, and any assistants) /representative(s), shall be submitted to the Planning and CONAPRVL.037 2 022 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 93 -495 (Revision) May 11, 1993 Development Department. The list shall provide the current address and phone number for each monitor. The designated monitors may be changed from time to time, but no such change shall be effective unless served by registered or certified mail on the Planning and Development Department. The designated monitors or their authorized representatives shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of resources. In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains, there shall be no further grading, excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby areas reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until appropriate mitigation measures are completed. Upon completion of the data recovery, the Developer shall cause three copies of the final report containing the data analysis to be prepared and published and submitted to the Planning and Development Department. 14. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any building or use contemplated by this use, the Applicant shall obtain permits or clearances from the following agencies: o City Fire Marshal o City of La Quinta Public Works Department o City of La Quinta Planning & Development Department o Coachella Valley Water District o Desert Sands Unified School District o Imperial Irrigation District o Caltrans (District 11) Evidence of said permits or clearances from the above mentioned agencies shall be presented to the Building Department at the time of application for a building permit for the proposed project. 15. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City adopted infrastructure fee program in affect at the time of issuance of building permits. 16. Final landscaping plans shall include approval stamps and signatures from the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioners office and the Coachella Valley Water District. 17. A bus waiting shelter and bus turnout shall be provided as requested by Sunline Transit on Highway 111 when said street improvements are re- installed or unless other site locations are permitted by the transit authority (e.g., Simon Drive) and the City Engineering Department. CONAPRVL.037 3 023 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 93 -495 (Revision) May 11, 1993 18. Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the Applicant shall submit to the Engineering Department an interim landscape program for the entire site which shall be for the purpose of wind and erosion and dust control. The land owner shall institute blow sand and dust control measures during grading and site development. These shall include but not be limited to: a.) use of irrigation during construction and grading activities; b.) areas not constructed on during first phase shall be planted in temporary ground cover or wildflowers and provided with temporary irrigation system; and c.) provision of wind breaks or wind rolls, fencing, and or landscaping to reduce the effects upon adjacent properties and property owners. The landowner shall comply with requirements of the Directors of Public Works and Planning and Development. All construction and graded areas shall be watered at least twice daily while being used to prevent emission of dust and blow sand. 19. Construction shall comply with all local and State Building Code requirements in affect at time of issuance of building permit as determined by the Building Official. 20. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Planning and Development Director demonstrating compliance with those conditions of approval which must be satisfied prior to issuance of a building permit. Prior to a final building inspection approval, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a written report demonstrating compliance with all remaining conditions of approval and mitigation measures. The Planning and Development Director may require inspection or other monitoring to assure such compliance. 21. A parking lot striping plan including directional arrows, stop signs, no parking areas, and parking spaces shall be approved by Planning and Development and Engineering Departments prior to issuance of a building permit. 22. All roof equipment shall be screened from view by parapet walls of building or other architecturally matching materials. 23. All compact spaces shall be clearly marked "compact cars only" 24. That all conditions of the Design Review Board shall be complied with as follows: A. The landscape plan shall include an eight foot wide meandering pedestrian/bike trail. The plans should be reviewed by the Design Review Board prior to submission of the final landscape plan by the Applicant/Developer. B. The landscape program for Washington Street shall include a variation of planting materials, i.e., Palm trees, accent shade trees, lawn, shrubs, and groundcover. CONAPRVL.037 4 024 conditions of Approval Plot Plan 93 -495 (Revision) May 11, 1993 The use of mature California Pepper, Australian Willow, Mesquite, Crape Myrtle, Bottle Trees, and Washington Robusta Palms shall be encouraged. Varieties of flowering shrubs such as Texas Ranger, Cassia, Crepe Myrtle, and Dwarf Oleander should be utilized. Native (low water use) plants shall be used, and the landscape architect should consult the Coachella Valley Water District's plant material list prior to designing their proposal. Uplighted trees or palms shall be used along Washington Street and Highway 111. Incandescent. light fixtures will be required (less than 160 watt). Landscaping plan shall conform to Ordinance 220 regarding water conservation. C. Any proposed parking lot lighting plan shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board prior to building plan check. A photometric study shall be developed which analyzes the lighting pattern on the project and meets the City's Lighting Ordinance provisions as explained in Chapter 9.210 and 9.160 (Off - Street Parking). The height of the light poles shall not exceed 18 feet in height, and the lighting contractor should reduce this height if physically possible during review of the project. D. A maximum building height of 28 feet shall be maintained along Washington Street and Highway 111 within 150 feet of the ultimate property line (after street dedication has been included) excluding minor architectural appendages (e.g., chimneys, towers, building columns, etc.). E. Decorative concrete entryways shall be provided for all two -way driveways into the project site. The concrete shall be stamped and colored to accentuate the proposed development. 'The color, design and location of the concrete should be reviewed by the Design Review Board during a final plan check review. F. The revised concept design plan shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board prior to the submission of the plans to the Building Department for final plan check consideration. The plans should include but are not be limited to landscaping and irrigation, building elevations, signs, and any other major exterior design features of the project as noted at the Design Review Board meeting of May 5, 1993. G. Bike racks shall be provided at convenient areas within the site for usage. by bicycle riders. One space for every 50 parking spaces shall be provided as noted in the Off - Street Parking Code. H. The landscape setback on Washington Street shall be a minimum of 20 feet from the new property line. CONAPRVL.037 5 025 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 93 -495 (Revision) May 11, 1993 I. All open parking stalls shall be screened by berm walls, landscape hedges, or a combination thereof to a minimum height of 42 inches. J. The maximum floor area ratio (F.A.R.) for this project shall be 0.35 per the Policy Standards of the General Plan (LU Table #4). K. The roof design for the 4 -story medical office building shall be either 4:12 or higher to give the building balance and proper scale to its mass. L. The roof design for the 1 -story office building shall be similar to the 1 -story restaurant building at the intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Street. M. The parking structures tile roof facade shall be eliminated because it is not compatible with the design motif of the 4 -story medical office building. The applicant should evaluate another design style which incorporates a cornice design feature (similar to the upper portion of the 4 -story building) and other articulated features which will soften the elevation and not enhance its presence. N. The parking structure ramp on the south side of the project shall not be stuccoed to match the building. The applicant shall review an embedded stone for this tilt - up structure or other natural texture features to downplay its importance. O.. The applicant shall include the following features into the 4 -story medical office building: 1. Pre -cast stone window trim. 2. Individual pane windows versus grid molding. 3. Additional building column connections. 4. Accented building roof heights. 5. Revision to the elevator shaft design and as view from Highway 111. 6. Energy conservation measures shall be reviewed. 7. The 2 -story elements on the north side of the 4 -story building shall be redesigned so that the roof connects into the building (delete the existing windows). CITY FIRE MARSHAL 25. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 3500 gpm for a 3 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. Fire flow is based upon all buildings being equipped with automatic fire sprinklers. CONAPRVL.037 6 026 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 93 -495 (Revision) May 11, 1993 26. A combination of on -site and off -site Super fire hydrants, on a looped system (6" X 4" X 2-1/2" X 2-1/2'), will be located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travelways. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. 27. Prior to issuance of building permit Applicant/Developer shall furnish one blueline copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review /approval. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed /approved by a registered civil engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department." The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and operational prior to start of construction. 28. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13. The post indicator valve and fire department connection shall be located to the front, within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). System plans must be submitted with a plan check/inspection fee to the Fire Department for review. A statement that the building(s) will be automatically fire sprinklered must be included on the title page of the building plans. 29. Install a supervised waterflow fire alarm system as required by the Uniform Building Code. 30. Install a Hood Duct automatic fire extinguishing system. System plans must be permitted, along with a plan check/inspection fee, to the Fire Department for review. 31. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less than 2AlOBC in rating. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. 32. Occupancy separation will be required as per the Uniform Building Code, #503. 33. Install Panic Hardware and Exit signs as per Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code. 34. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes. 35. Install a Class I Standpipe System. CONAPRVL.037 7 027 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 93 -495 (Revision) May 11, 1993 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT: 36. Applicant shall dedicate public street right of way and utility easements in conformance with the city's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable Specific Plans, if any, and these Conditions of Approval noted as follows: A. Washington Street - Provide right of way as required by the Washington Street Specific Plan. B. Washington Street/Highway I1 I Intersection - Provide right of way cut back as needed to accommodate a 55 -foot curb return (45 -foot right -of -way). C. Applicant shall dedicate the required right of way within ten (10) days after receipt of land conveyance documents from the City. 37. Applicant shall provide a fully improved landscaped setback area of noted minimum width adjacent to the following street right of way: A. Washington Street - 20 -feet wide; B. Highway 111, 50 feet wide; C. Simon Plaza, 10 feet wide 38. Applicant shall vacate vehicle access rights to all streets from the project site except for three locations as proposed by the Applicant as shown on the site plan drawing. 39. Applicant shall reimburse City for design and construction cost for all street improvements to be installed by the City located east of the Washington Street Specific Plan Centerline and contiguous to the project site. The new improvements include street widening, curb and gutter, asphalt concrete overlay, raised median island with landscaping and hardscape, 8 -foot wide sidewalk, traffic striping and signing, along with all, appurtenant incidentals and improvements needed to properly integrate and join together the new and existing improvements. 40. Applicant shall reimburse City for 5% of the cost to design and install a new traffic signal at the Washington Street/Highway 111 intersection. 41. Applicant shall reimburse City for 25 % of the cost to design and install traffic signal at the Simon Drive /Highway 111 intersection. 42. Applicant shall reimburse City for cost to design and install bus stop "pullout" on Highway 111. CONAPRVL.037 8 028 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 93 -495 (Revision) May 11, 1993 43. Applicant shall reimburse City for half of the cost to design and install raised median improvements and landscaping on Highway 111 in the portion contiguous to the project site. 44. Applicant shall enter into a secured agreement with the City to pay for the City installed improvements required by these Conditions of Approval before the grading permit is issued. 45. A thorough preliminary engineering, geological, and soils engineering investigation shall be conducted with a report submitted for review along with- grading plan. The report recommendations shall be incorporated into the grading plan design prior to grading plan approval. The soils engineer and /or the engineering geologist must certify to the adequacy of the grading plan. 46. The grading plan shall be prepared _ by a registered civil engineer and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. 47. The site shall be designed and graded in a manner so the elevation difference between the building pad elevations on site and the adjacent street curb do not exceed three (3.0) feet. 48. Applicant shall provide storm drain facilities with sufficient capacity to evacuate all water that falls on -site and off -site to the centerline of the streets adjoining the site during the, 1 -hour duration, 25 -year storm event. The storm drain facility shall convey the storm water from the site to the Whitewater Channel. The Applicant may purchase capacity on a fair share basis in a storm drain to be designed and constructed in Washington Street by the City, if the City proceeds with said storm drain facility within time constraints which suit the Applicant. The tributary drainage area for which the Applicant is responsible shall extend to the centerline of Washington Street, Highway 111, and Simon Drive. 49. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect for the landscaped setback areas. The plans and proposed landscaping improvements shall be in conformance with requirements of the Planning Director, City Engineer, and Coachella Valley Water District and the plans shall be signed these officials prior to construction. 50. Applicant shall submit a copy of the proposed grading, landscaping and irrigation plans to the Coachella Valley Water District for review and approval with respect to the District's Water Management Program. CONAPRVL.037 9 029 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 93 -495 (Revision) May 11, 1993 51. Applicant shall landscape and maintain the landscaped setback area and right of way between all street curbing and property lines. 52. Applicant shall `construct an eight -foot wide meandering bike path in the combined easterly parkway of Washington Street and southerly parkway of Highway 111 in lieu of the standard six -foot wide sidewalk. A six foot wide sidewalk shall be constructed on Simon Drive. 53. All existing and proposed 1eleco mmunication, television cable, and electric power lines with 12,500 volts or less, that are adjacent to the proposed site or on -site, shall be installed in underground facilities. 54. Underground utilities that lie directly under street improvements or portions thereof shall be installed, with trenches compacted to city standards, prior to installation of that portion of the street improvement. A soils engineer retained by Applicant shall provide certified reports of soil compaction tests for review by the City Engineer. 55. Applicant shall pay all fees charged by the city as required for processing, plan checking and construction inspection. The fee amount(s) shall be those which are in effect at the time the work is undertaken and accomplished by the city. 56. Applicant shall retain a California registered civil engineer, or designate one who is on Applicant's staff, to exercise sufficient supervision and quality control during construction of the tract grading and improvements to certify compliance with the plans, specifications, applicable codes, and ordinances. The engineer retained or designated by the Applicant to implement this responsibility shall provide the following certifications and documents upon completion of construction: A. The engineer shall sign and seal a statement placed on the "as built" plans that says "all (grading and grades) (improvements) on these plans were properly monitored by qualified personnel under my supervision during construction for compliance with the plans and specifications and the work shown hereon was constructed as approved, except where otherwise noted hereon and specifically acknowledged by the City Engineer ". B. prior to issuance of any building permit, the engineer shall provide a separate document, signed and sealed, to the City Engineer that documents the building pad elevations. The document shall, for each pad, state the pad elevation approved on the grading plan, the as built elevation, and clearly identify the difference, if an The data shall be organized by phase and shall be cumulative if the data is submitted at different times. CONAPRVL.037 10 030 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 93 -495 (Revision) May 11, 1993 C. provide to the City Engineer a signed set of "as built" reproducible drawings of the site grading and all improvements installed by the Applicant. 57. The parking stalls on the north side of the office complex as determined by Staff, shall be restricted to either handicapped parking or reserved parking to help eliminate queuing at the Highway 111 access driveway. 58. The driveways on Washington Street and on Highway 111 shall be restricted to right turn movements only. 59. Turning movements at the intersection of Washington Street and Simon Drive shall be restricted to right turns only in accordance with the Washington Street Specific Plan. SPECIAL 60. All required improvements shall be completed prior to first site occupancy of the proposed development. 61. The parking structure shall not exceed 15 feet in overall height as measured from finished grade pad elevation within 100 feet of Highway 111. Exterior lighting on top level of parking structure shall not exceed six feet and not be within ten feet of outside wall. 62. All mitigation measures of Environmental Assessment 91 -211 shall be met. 63. The parcels shall be legally merged prior to building permit issuance. 64. Prior to issuance of any land disturbance permit, the Applicant shall pay the required mitigation fees for the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Program, so adopted by the City, in the amount of $600 per acre of disturbed land. 65. Landscaping. shall be incorporated into parking structures design features. This shall include perimeter grade planting as deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission. 66. Prior to issuance of the first building permit, a parking analysis shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Department to verify compliance with the Off - Street Parking requirements. Prior to each subsequent phase beginning construction a new parking study based on existing usage and potential demand shall be submitted. In each study, building size adjustments shall be made if it is determined that a parking deficiency exists. 67. Appropriate and adequate service delivering areas (loading facilities) and trash facilities shall be provided as required by the Off - Street Parking Code. The facilities shall include areas for recycling bins and be approved by Staff during the final review process. CONAPRVL.037 11 0 1 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 93 -495 (Revision) May 11, 1993 The standards and requirements of AB 939 (recycling) shall be met. This shall include provisions for on -site recycling of recyclable materials by the tenants in conjunction with the City's franchise hauler contract provisions. 68. An on -site elevator(s) shall service the site and provide accessibility from the parking garage to each respective building floor level. The design and installation of the elevator shall meet both Uniform Building Code standards and any other California State requirements. 69. The existing six foot high soundwall along the Washington Street frontage road shall be extended between the frontage road and Washington Street northerly of its present location to the northeasterly corner of Lot 27 of Tract 2043 (single Palms Drive and Washington Street) to mitigate traffic noise impacts on the existing R -1 single family neighborhood. 70. A Transportation Demand Management Plan shall be submitted (Ordinance 217) if the project or the ultimate development of the site employs 100 or more persons. The plan can be prepared by either the property owner or the tenant(s) within the development. The plan shall be submitted and approved by the Director of Planning and Development. 71. The provisions of the City's newly adopted Landscape Water Conservation Ordinance ( #220) shall be met. CONAPRVL.037 12 032 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED MASTER SIGN PROGRAM 93 -210 MAY 11, 1993 SIMON PLAZA 1. Each freestanding sign shall be a minimum of five feet from the future property line it abuts. No signs should be placed in the City's right -of -way. 2. All signs shall be reviewed by the Engineering Department to assure sight visibility is not obstructed by the installation of each respective freestanding sign. 3. Site address numbers shall be on the main monument sign as a supplemental to the building addressing plan. The minimum size should be four inches and contrasting to the background it is affixed to. 4. Any and all proposed illuminated signs shall be installed to avoid undue brightness which would distract passing motorists and /or pedestrians. 5. The sign colors shall be blue ( #607 -1GP Acrylite Blue) except for the top of the monument sign can be royal blue, orange and white as depicted on the attached drawings. 6. The building signs can be internally illuminated. 7. Sign #1 shall not include incised letters with silver trim cap. The letters shall be flush mounted into the aluminum face by the manufacturing technique known as laser -cut. 8. No exposed raceways, crossover, conduits, conductors, transformers, etc., shall be permitted. All supplemental electrical hardware shall be behind the building structure inside the sign structure, or located underground. 9. The lettering styles for the building signs shall be either Clarendon or Souvenir. Upper case lettering shall be used for all signs except for the medical complex building. 10. All attached building signs shall have channel letters (individually constructed). 11. All freestanding signs shall be double -sided and perpendicular to the public street they serve unless noted otherwise in the following section. SIGN ADJUSTMENTS: 12. a.) The La Quinta Medical Center sign (Sign #5) located on the third story elevation of the four story building shall be permitted as depicted in the attached drawings. CONAPRVL.082 1 033 Conditions of Approval Sign Master Program 93 -210 May 11, 1993 b.) The La Quinta Medical Center freestanding monument sign (Sign #4) located on the north side of the four story building shall be permitted provided the sign is one -sided and is constructed with the same materials as Sign #l. Sign 4a should not be allowed because it is not necessary. c.) The Milauskas Eye Institute sign (Signs #7 & #6) on Highway 111 and in the parking lot shall be permitted. The sign shall be constructed in a similar fashion to Sign #1. No attached building signs will be permitted if the freestanding signs are installed. MISCELLANEOUS: 13. The final sign ' graphics shall be subject to review by the Director of Planning and Development prior to permit issuance by the Building and Safety Department. 14. Each tenant and /or his sign contractor shall obtain approval by the property owners (or management company) in writing prior to submission of the sign drawings to the Planning and Development Department for permit consideration. The property owner shall review the signs for lettering style, color, sign location, lighting, and any other "important" issues. 15. All sign contractors shall be licensed to do business in the City of La Quinta and possess a State Contractor's License to perform the work outlined in the sign permit. 16. All signs shall conform to the City's adopted Sign Ordinance in effect at the time the sign permit is issued. 17. Underwriter Laboratories certification labels shall be affixed to all internally illuminated signs, thus assuring that the sign (or sign structure) meets industry specifications. 18. Signs #8 and #8a shall be internally lit. The background for the signs shall be opaque. Sign 8b should be non - illuminated and subject to approval by Staff during a sign permit application. 19. All freestanding signs permitted shall include similar architectural elements to those of Sign #l, and the sign proportions shall be downsized accordingly (e.g., 12 -foot high to 9 -feet, and 6 -feet) so that the smaller signs exemplify the sites main identification sign. 20. No attached building sign shall be greater than 50 square feet on the side of the building it serves. CONAPRVL.082 2 034 Conditions of Approval Sign Master Program 93 -210 May 11, 1993 21. The channel letter returns shall be painted to match the exterior color of the building on which it is affixed. 22. If deemed necessary by City, Applicant shall provide location for City entry sign in front and below main identification sign, as required by the Planning and Development Director. 23. The overall height of each freestanding sign shall be measured from the abutting street curb elevation height. 24. Sign 5a shall be mounted on the 1 -story element of the building. The sign shall not be located on the upper levels of the building complex. CONAPRVL.082 3 0 3:� STAFF- REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: APRIL 13, 1993 CASE NO: PLOT PLAN 93 -495 APPLICANT: SIMON PLAZA, INC. (PHILIP PEAD) PREVIOUS CASE: PLOT PLAN 91-466 (REVISED) (EXPIRED) PH u2 L.:. F OWNERS: 3S PARTNERSHIP AND POMONA FIRST FEDERAL BANK SUBJECT: REQUEST TO DEVELOP A MIXED USE COMMERCIAL PROJECT ON APPROXIMATELY 5.6 ACRES ZONED C -P -S COMMERCIAL. THE PROJECT WILL INCLUDE A FOUR STORY OFFICE BUILDING, A 44 LANE BOWLING ALLEY, A FITNESS CENTER, A RESTAURANT OR BANK, AN EYE INSTITUTE OR OFFICE, A FOUR LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE, AND RELATED AT -GRADE PARKING. LOCATION: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND WASHINGTON STREET, BOTH MAJOR ARTERIALS. THE DEVELOPMENT, ON ±5.6 ACRES OF LAND, IS LOCATED TO THE WEST OF THE EXISTING SIMON MOTORS AUTOMOTIVE DEALERSHIP ON HIGHWAY 111. ARCHITECT: MERLIN J. BARTH EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: MIXED /REGIONAL COMMERCIAL WITH NON - RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY. SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS: NORTH: 111 LA QUINTA SHOPPING CENTER SOUTH: WASHINGTON SQUARE SPECIFIC PLAN PROPERTY (VACANT) EAST: EXISTING SIMON MOTORS AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP WEST: EXISTING PLAZA LA QUINTA SHOPPING CENTER PCST.119 1 BACKGROUND: This project was reviewed by the City in 1992, as part of the review and approval of Plot Plan 91 -466 (Revised). The project received approval by the Design Review Board on October 2, 1991, the Planning Commission on February 25, 1992, and the City Council on March 3, 1992. However, the final design approved changed from ± 165,000 square feet to ± 125,000 square feet and various buildings were shifted on the property to increase visibility into the project. The initial plan is attached for reference. The original Conditions of Approval required the applicant to begin construction of the project within one year or apply for a one year extension of time which required review by the Planning Commission. The original case expired on .February 25, 1993. On March 11, 1993, the applicant refiled the original plans with Staff and paid the necessary fees to return the project through the necessary stages to have the project reviewed by the Design Review Board, Planning Commission, and City Council as a new application. DESCRIPTION OF SITE: The proposed ±5.6 acre site is comprised of six parcels. The flat and undeveloped parcels were created by the division of land under Parcel Map 18418 in 1982. The property has frontage on three streets with 650 feet along Washington Street, 700 feet along Highway 111, and 180 feet along Simon Drive. The site elevation along Washington Street is approximately 60 feet above sea level. The site is improved with street improvements. However, additional widening is necessary on Washington Street to conform with the City's adopted Specific Plan Alignment Program and General Plan. A future raised median island is proposed for both Washington Street and Highway 111. The property was subdivided in the early 1980's for the development of Simon Motors Automobile Dealership as well as to establish commercial lots which could be sold or developed with commercial land uses. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL: The development proposal will include a four story office building on Highway 111 which is attached to the three level parking structure abutting the Simon Motors property. On the southwest portion of the site (also attached to the parking structure) is the second story fitness center and one story 44 lane bowling alley. The other two buildings on the site are a restaurant/bank building at the intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Street and a one story eye institute. The project is broken down in the following fashion: PCST.119 2 Offices (4 story) Restaurant Office /Eye Institute Fitness Center Bowling Alley DESIGN REVIEW BOARD REVIEW: = 60,880 sq. ft. 8,000 sq. ft. 5,000 sq. ft. 12,000 sq. ft. 40.531 sq. ft. 126,411 sq. ft. (550 parking spaces) r The Design Review Board continued action on this case on April 7, 1993, at the request of the applicant. The case was continued to their next meeting which is May 5, 1993. CONCLUSION: Since no action was taken by the Design Review Board on this case, the Planning Commission should continue this case to May. 11, 1993, in order to allow the applicant sufficient time to review the case with the Design Review Board prior to any formal action on this development request. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission by Minute Motion 93- May 11, 1993. Attachments: 1. 2. 3. Location map Reduced site plan Letter from Simon Plaza PCST.119 3 continue the development request to ll 9%",l III NOT TO 6CAL lmciqi PROJECT LOCATION MAP AND FIGURE 1 STUDY INTERSECTIONS 5 S d d Y Z Hiol way 111 r� _ t w d \ S',JKA '/ V�{ Ch 00 Parking Structure Nor`Ch 4 APR 7 1993 7th, April 1993 pLAN,rtd!1 C,:FARTr FNT Mr Greg Troiisdell Associate Planner City of La Quinta P.O.Box 1504 78 -103 Ca]1e Estado La Qufnta Ca s2ZS3 Dear Greg, Due to continuing unresolved issues on which we are currently in dis=SSi n with the City Attorney, I feel that it would be appropriate to continue the Design Review Board meeting to a later date. Thank u for your attention in this matter. Yours c Philip M. Pead President TO: FROM: DATE: TRANSMITTAL MEMO ll CITY MANAGER _ PARKS DEPARTMEMT — BUILDING & SAFETY CODE ENFORCEMENT FIRE MARSHAL _ CITY ENGINEER — PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR JERRY HERMAN _ STAN SAWA PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - Greg Trousdel1 �3 S V B ECr. PROJECT REVIEW CASE: f-1 3 - -/ �ls SMoN P`a� -za %y c m PLEASE REVIEW AND PROVIDE ANY COMMENTS YOU MAY HAVE ON THE ATTACHED ITEM BY nL COMMENTS: Z CLd,"s d Coyv '�!'1 °� ��"f6yt /�o i b.�t ��y'`1 (,oy•✓ 4� G.�ier -d c� -eK -;2o - 93 /11 . p p u tL L-C, I-moo �,,. AAz ice = As e,%r, 4 �4 I � v ACENDA AUTHORIZATION REQUEST TO: CITY MANAGER FROM: p P4N N, a Department L COUNC I L MEET I NG DATE: I AGENDA IpTEM TITpLE: (nset;en:" �� /� /A rti,4 �.e,•, r, �fe,�„ ,,>O 1 f (d-Y— 9 3 "S 'i-a R 1 io.,,s Car r4- r c, i— ► M none, i A-c- 9rp,��S/1 ,��, ,�'�- > a�, �' � . to �-c,,r� s � •tom. �4+ �. � �- AGENDA PLACEMENT: Public Hearing Business Session Consent Item Dept. Report Study Session Closed Session REQUIRED ACTION: Ordinance Resolution Minute Order No Action Required City Manager Approval NOTE: Please list the agenda item. exactly as you wish for it to appear on the published agenda. 04 -07 -1993 02 :19PM FROM TO 5645617 P.01 7th, April 1993 Mr Greg Trousdell Associate Planner City of La Quinta P.O.Box 1504 78 -105 Cane Estado La Quinta Ca 92253 LAP R 7��3 CITY 6F LA CUINiTA WINNING DEPARTMENT Dear Greg, Due to continuing unresolved issues on which we are currently in discussion with the City Attorney, I feel that it would be appropriate to continue the Design Review Board meeting to a later date. Thank u for your attention in this matter. Yours ce Philip X. Pead President PO. BOX 461, 78-611 HOMY 111, LA QUINTA, CA 92253 • PH.: 619/773 -2345 • FAX: 61915+68 -4567 e STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING DATE: APRIL 7, 1993 CASE NO: PLOT PLAN 93 -495 APPLICANT: SINION PLAZA, INC. (PHILIP PEAD) PREVIOUS CASE: PLOT PLAN 91 -466 (REVISED) (EXPIRED) r . OWNERS: 3S PARTNERSHIP AND POMONA FIRST FEDERAL BANK SUBJECT: REQUEST TO DEVELOP A MIXED USE COMMERCIAL PROJECT ON APPROXIMATELY 5.6 ACRES ZONED C -P -S COMMERCIAL. THE PROJECT WILL INCLUDE A FOUR STORY OFFICE BUILDING, A 44 LANE BOWLING ALLEY, A FITNESS CENTER, A RESTAURANT OR .BANK. AN EYE INSTITUTE OR OFFICE, A FOUR LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE, AND RELATED AT -GRADE PARKING. LOCATION: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND WASHINGTON STREET, BOTH MAJOR ARTERIALS. THE DEVELOPMENT, ON ±5.6 ACRES OF LAND, IS LOCATED TO THE WEST OF THE EXISTING SIMON MOTORS AUTOMOTIVE DEALERSHIP ON HIGHWAY 111. ARCHITECT: MERLIN J. BARTH EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: MIXED /REGIONAL COMMERCIAL WITH NON - RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY. SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS: NORTH: 111 LA QUID -FA SHOPPING CENTER SOUTH: WASHINGTON SQUARE SPECIFIC PLAN PROPERTY (VACANT) EAST: EXISTING SIMON MOTORS AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP WEST: EXISTING PLAZA LA QUINTA SHOPPING CENTER D..RBST.083 . 1 o 1 BACKGROUND: This project was reviewed by the City in 1992, as part of the review and approval of Plot Plan 91 -466 (Revised). The project received approval by the Design Review Board on October 2, 1991, the Planning Commission on February 25, 1992, and the City Council on March 2, 1992. However, the final design approved changed from ± 165,000 square feet to ± 125,000 square feet and various buildings were shifted on the property to increase visibility into the project. The initial plan is attached for reference. The original Conditions of Approval required the applicant to begin construction of the project within one year or apply for a one year extension of time which required review by the Planning Commission. The original case expired on February 25, 1993. On March 11, 1993, the applicant refiled the original plans with Staff and paid the necessary fees to return the project through the necessary stages to have the project reviewed by the Design Review Board, Planning Commission, and City Council as a new application. DESCRIPTION OF SITE: The proposed ±5.6 acre site is comprised of seven parcels. The flat and undeveloped parcels were created by the division of land under Parcel Map 18418 in 1982. The property has frontage on three streets with 650 feet along Washington Street, 700 feet along Highway 111, and 180 feet along Simon Drive. The site elevation along Washington Street is approximately 60 feet above sea level. The site is improved with street improvements. However, additional widening is necessary on Washington Street to conform with the City's adopted Specific Plan Alignment Program and General Plan. A future raised median island is proposed for both Washington Street and Highway 111. The property was subdivided in the early 1980's for the development of Simon Motors Automobile Dealership as well as to establish commercial lots which could be sold or developed with commercial land uses. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL: The development proposal rill include a four story office building on Highway 111 which is attached to the three level parking structure abutting the Simon Motors property. On the southwest portion of the site (also attached to the parking structure) is the second story fitness center and one story 44 lane bowling alley. The other two buildings on the site are a restaurant/bank building at the intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Street and a one story eye institute. The project is broken down in the following fashion: DRBST.083 2 < < 02 Offices Restaurant . Office/Eye Institute Fitness Center Bowling Alley ARCHITECTURE: 60;880 sq. ft. = 8,000 sq. ft. = 5,000 sq. ft. = 12,000 sq. ft. 40.531 sq. ft. 126,411 sq. ft. (550 parking spaces) The project architect, Mr. Merlin J. Barth, of Anaheim, has prepared a plan which proposes buildings around the outer portion of the site with at -grade parking in the center of the facility. A multiple level parking structure will be located on the east side of the property. CIRCULATION /PARKING: The developer has proposed access driveways on each respective public street. The two-way driveway on Highway 111 and Washington Street will service the proposed courtyard guest parking lot (approximately 102 parking spaces). The driveways lead to the four level parking garage (two floors above grade with a roof top parking area and one subterranean level) located at the easterly property boundary of the site. The parking garage will house approximately 448 cars. The parking ratio for this project is (126,411 /550) one on -site space for every 229 square feet of leasable floor area. IMAGE CORRIDOR: On October 6, 1992, the City updated its General Plan to include some new standards which are pertinent to all properties in the City. The new plan designates the frontage streets along the exterior portion of the site as "primary image corridor" thoroughfares, and the signalized intersection of Washington Street and Highway 111 as a 'gateway" image intersection. A copy of the adopted material is attached. The primary function of the program is to provide boulevard streets with raised, landscaped medians and heavily landscaped areas within and contiguous to the street rights -of -way. The General Plan states that "primary image corridors shall include landscape themes which are reminiscent of La Quinta's agricultural past and desert environment ". Overall, the applicant's request is generally consistent with the intent of the General Plan except for the intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Street. We would recommend that the applicant enhance the intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Street to include an area for a public art piece surrounded by palm trees. DRBST.083 3 03 BUILDING FLOOR AREA RATIO: The new General Plan for tx-. City established new policy requirements for the City on the amount of building coverage a project could have on a site. Table LU-4 of the Land Use Element states 0.35 is the ratio for Mixed /Regional Commercial (M /RC) properties. This project proposes 126,411 square feet on approximately ±5.3 net acres or an F.A.R. of 0.54. This figure does not examine the parking structure as a building for this equation. The project should be downsized to meet t_'iis new building floor area to project site area ratio which is based on net land area (after street dedication) versus gross floor area (e.g., 82,000 sq. ft. - 230,868 = 0.35). STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant allowed the on_inal case approval to expire in Februarys 1993. Therefore, the Design Review Board can request changes to the proposed resubmittal if you believe they are necessary. Staff would also like to point out to the Design Review Board that the applicant would like to maintain the pasz master sign program (SA 91 -159 #3) which was approved by the Design Review Board and Planning Commission after the original review of Plot Plan 91 -466 (Revised). A copy of the original approval is attached. The City's Zoning Code Standards have not changed since the last ret.'-w of this case. Should changes occur to the structures, it may be necessary to revise the sign program. Staff would recommend that the Design Review Board reconsider the Planning Commission approval of the triangular freestanding sign at the intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Street. The current approval allowed a twelve foot high sign with three sides each having 50 square feet of copy. It might be more appropriate to relocate a project sign to the east and south of its present location and proNide a different type of sign (e.g., double sided sign). SUGGESTED CONDITI0IS: 1. The General Plan policy standards for "Primary Gateway Treatment" as outlined in Chapter 3.0 (Circulation Element) should be met since this intersection is located on an image corridor of the City. 2. A project identification sign should not be installed at the intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Street, since the area should be reserved for landscaping, public furniture, and a public art piece. No private property features such as a project identification sign should be permitted within 150 feet of the intersection. 3. The maximum F.A.R. for this project should be 0.35 as noted in Table LU-4 of the General Plan. DRBST.083 4 04 RECOMMENDATION: Staff is at the Design Review Board's pleasure on the matter and any new recommendations of the Design Review Board will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for their review later this month. Attachments: 1. Location map 2. Large exhibits (dated 3/15/93) 3. Master Sign Approval (SA 91 -159 #3) 4. Excerpts from the original Conditions for Plot Plan 91 -466 (Revised) 5. Initial site plan design (superseded) 6. Excerpt from the General Plan DRBST.083 5 05 01190, r+ -aMAQf I i �n hin ton st Street r � s Adams Street irr fA_ A, -,Sol e) e-, 4 '9 C M 0 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - APPROVED EXHIBIT A SIGN APPLICATION 91 -159, AMENDMENT f3 SIMON PLAZA - SIGN PROGRAM NOVEMBER 24, 1992 * Revised by the Planning Commission on November 24, 1992 GENERAL PROVISIONS: 1. Each freestanding sign shall be a minimum of five feet from the future property line it abuts. No signs should be placed in the City's right -of -way. 2. All signs should be reviewed by the Engineering Department to assure sight visibility is not obstructed by the installation of each respective freestanding sign. 3. Site address numbers should be on the main monument sign as a supplemental to the building addressing plan. The minimum size should be four inches and contrasting to the background it is affixed to. 4. Any and all proposed illuminated signs shall be installed to avoid undue brightness which would distract passing motorists and /or pedestrians. 5. The sign colors shall be blue ( #607 -1GP Acrylite Blue) except for the other supplement signs such as the bowling pins and top of the monument sign can be royal blue, orange and white as depicted on the attached drawings. *6. The building signs can be internally illuminated. 7. No exposed raceways, crossover, conduits, conductors, transformers, etc., shall be permitted. All supplemental electrical hardware shall be behind the building structure inside the sign structure, or located underground. *8. The lettering styles for the building signs shad] be either Clarendon or Souvenir. Upper case lettering shall be used for all signs except for the medical complex building. 9. All attached building signs shall have channel letters (individually constructed). 10. All freestanding signs shall be double -sided and perpendicular to the public street they serve unless noted otherwise in the following section. SIGN AD.NS nfENTS: 11. a.) The Fitness Center signs (Sign #7 & #8) located on the second story elevation of the building shall not be permitted as depicted in the attached drawings. At this time, the Applicant shall wait until the building is under construction to ascertain CONAPRVL.065 1, 07 whether or not a sign(s) should be installed at the proposed locatian(s). The matter shall be reviewed in the future by the Board at the request of the Applicant. 'b.) Signs #3, and #14B, shall not be allowed because they are not necessary for the center nor its patrons, and they degrade the architectural character of the project. •c.) The La Quinta Medical Center sign (Sign #6) located on the third story elevation of the four story building shall be permitted as depicted in the attaches drawings. d.) The La Quinta Medical Center freestanding monument sign (Sign #5) located on the north side of the four story building shall be permitted provided the sign is one -sided and is constructed with the same materials as Sign #2. 'e.) The Milauskas Eye Institute sign (Sign #12) on Highway 111 shall be permitted. The sign shall be constructed in a similar fashion to Sign #2, with height lowered and logo on top reduced in size to be proportional with main center sign (maximum height 7 feet). f.) The "Fine Dining Restaurant" sign (Sign #18) shall be permitted provided the sign faces the parting lot and is constructed in a similar fashion to Sign #2. One side of cop} is permitted. One attached building sign shall be installed at the entrance of the restaurant for patron identification. The size of the sign shall be approved by Staff. sg.) Sign #2 (Main identification sign) shall be three - sided, and include three sides of sign copy. MISCELLANEOUS: 12. The final sign graphics shall be subject to review by the Director of Planning and Development prior to permit issuance by the Building and Safety Department- 13. Each tenant and /or his sign contractor shall obtain approval by the property owners (or management company) in, writing prior to submission of the sign drawings to the Planning and Development Department for permit consideration. The property owner shall review the signs for lettering style, color, sign location, lighting, and any other "important" issues. 14. All sign contractors shall be licensed to do business in the City of La Quinta and possess a State Contractor's License to perform the work outlined in the sign permit- 15. All signs shall conform to the City's adopted Sign Ordinance in effect at the time the sign permit is issued. 16. Underwriter Laboratories certification labels shall be affixed to all internally illuminated CONAPRVL.065 2 • signs, thus assuring that the sign (or sign structure) meets industry specifications. •17. Signs #14A and "C" shall be internally fit. The background for the signs shall be - opaque. *18. The freestanding parking signs (916, and 917) shall not be permitted because they are not necessary to the success of the commercial center. Sign #15 is allowed provided the directional sign states "Entrance ". 19. All freestanding signs permitted shall include similar architectural elements to those of Sign #2, and the sign proportions shall be downsized accordingly (e.g., 12 -foot high to 9 -feet, 7 feet, and 6 -feet) so that the smaller signs exemplify the sites main identification sign. 20. No attached building sign shall be greater than 50 square feet on the side of the building it serves. 21. The channel letter returns shall be painted to match the exterior color of the building on which it is affixed. 22. if deemed necessary by City, Applicant shall provide location for City entry sign in front and below main identification sign, as required by the Planning and Development Director. 23. The overall height of each freestanding sign shall be measured from the abutting street curb elevation height. CONAPRVi.065 3 IIN Excerpt fr the Original Case File (PP 91 -466 25. That all conditions of the Design Review Board shall be complied with as follows: A. The landscape plan shall include an eight foot wide meandering pedestrian /bike trail. The plans should be reviewed by the Design Review Board prior to submission of the final landscape plan by the Applicant /Developer. _ B. The landscape program for Washington Street shall include a variation of planting materials, i.e. , Palm trees, accent shade trees, lawn, shrubs, and groundcover. The use of mature California Pepper, Australian Willow, Mesquite, Crape Myrtle, Bottle Trees, and Washington Robusta Palms should be encouraged. Varieties of flowering shrubs such as Texas Ranger, Cassia, Crepe Myrtle, and Dwarf Oleander should be utilized. Native (low water use) plants should be used, and the landscape architect should consult the Coachella Valley hater District's plant material list prior to designing their proposal. Uplighted trees or palms shall be used along Washington Street and Highway 111. Incandescent light fixtures will be required (less than 160 watt) . C. Any proposed parking lot lighting plan shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board prior to building plan check. A photometric study should be developed which analyzes the lighting pattern on the project and meets the City's Lighting Ordinance provisions as explained in Chapter 9.210 and 9.160 (Off- Street Parking) . The height of the tight poles shall not exceed 18 feet in height, and the lighting contractor should reduce this height if physically possible during review of the project. *D. A one story building height of 28 feet shall be maintained along Washington Street and Highway 111 within 150 feet of the ultimate property line (after street dedication has been included) excluding minor architectural appendages (e.g., chimneys, towers, building columns, etc.) . E. Decorative concrete entryways shall be provided for all two -way driveways into the project site. The concrete shall be stamped and colored to accentuate the proposed development. The color, design and location of the concrete should be reviewed by the Design Review Board during a final plan check review. F. The final plans shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board prior to the submission of the plans to the Building Department for final check consideration. The final plans should include but not be limited to landscaping and irrigation, building, signs, mechanical, etc. G . Bike racks shall be provided at convenient areas within the site for usage by bicycle riders. One space for every 50 parking spaces shall be provided as noted in the Off - Street Parking Code: H. The landscape setback on Washington Street shall be a minimum of 20 feet from the new property line. I. All open parking stalls shall be screened by walls, landscape hedges, or a combination thereof to a minimum height of 42 inches. J. A master sign program shall be approved by the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of a building permit for any of the proposed building structures. 10 1st. Bank or Restaurant 3st. plus basement /Offices SUPERCEDED /`&, IIv 1f oil 5170: I11LAW 1st. Bowling (40 Lanes) M 4st. Parking Garage w/ sub -level 4st. Office Bldg. DO ®m ;s. � a� Policy 3-412 EM image corridors shad be defined as streets in Me roadway ne M- ch are the major urban design statements of the City. Primary image corridors shad consist of boulevard streets with raised, knds+caped medians and hea* f xW-aped areas witYn and contiguous to the street rights -of -way. PMuvy image corridors shad include landscape themes which are reminiscent of La Ouinta's agricultural past and desert environment Primary image corridors may i x*4e vertical landscape elements such as palm tress complemented w�h a shade - producing ur>dersta+y of canopy trees, such as indigenous, drought tolerant desert species. More water intensive cmdelstory canopy tees, such as various citrus species, shadd be used sparingly in nodes at key locations as highlights and reminders of past agricultural acdvfts. Ground plane landscape materials should evolve a lush image through the use of drought tale=4 low maintenance plant species. Turf should be used in a manner consistent with citrus trees — sparingly and in high visibility loca'ons. Primary image corridors shad include street trsffic signals, street fighting systems, street furniture, bus shelters, street name signs, and noise berms/barners which are designed in a coor- dinated and consstent theme unique to La OUnta. At key intersections, primary image corridors shad include treatments which may include special roadway paving, hardscepe/screen wad arrangements and displays of public art Policy 3 -4.1.3 Pnmary image, corridors shad include the following roadways: ®• Washington Sreet • Jefferson Street . ®• Highway 111 • Fred Waring Drive • We Tampico • Eisenhower Dnve (from Calle Tampico to Washington Street) Policy 3 -4.1.4 Secondary image corridors shad be defined as streets in the roadway network which are the secondary urban design statements of the City . Secondary image corri- dors shad consist of streets with raised, landscaped medians and landscaped areas within and contiguous to the street right -of -way. Secondary image corridors shag be content with primary image corridors relative to similar landscape materials, street traffic signals, street irghting systems, street furniture, bus shelters and street name signs. However, secondary BRW, Inc. uM- toeuo-a,rr street linage corridors shad emphasize Me use of lower profe Indlgenocus canopy trees, accentuated with the use of dtus tees in various nodes Tike use of taller, vertical landscape element; shad be de- emphasized and shad occur in nodes, p mardy at street lntersectlans. Policy 3, -4.1.5 Secondary image corridors shad include I* Wowing roadways: • Miles Avenue • Dune Palms Road (south of the Coachella Valley Stormwater C hanneo • Adams Street (south of the Coachella Valley Stormwater c ha • Avenue 48 • Avenue 50 • Avenue 52 • Eisenhower Dnve (south of Calle Taunt w to Avenida Bermudas) Policy 3 -4.1.6 Agrarian image corridors shall be defined as streets in the roadway network which are designed to evoke a rural ambiance and to provide a strong lrkage to the City's agricultural past These corridors are to be located in dose proximity to areas desig tided 'Rural Residential' on the Land Use Policy Diagram in the Land Use Element Agrarian image corridors shad incorporate equestrian trails and shad inrAde design themes representative of rural areas, such as shaded country lanes which utilize lover profile ixigenous canopy trees accentuated with various cisus species. The use of taller, vertical landscape elements, such as palm bees, shad be de- emphasized. Whar,e passible, the use of vertical curbs on the outside Pane of the roadway shall be minimized. Street Md 5c signals, street fighting systems, street furniture, bw shelters and street name signs shall be sumr7ar to primary and secondary image corridors, but if possible, shad incorporate more of a rural character. Policy 3 -4.1.7 Agrarian image . corridors shad include the kbdowing roadways. • Madison Street • Avenue 54 (from Jefferson Street to Monroe Street) Policy 3 -4.1.8 Primary gateway treatments shad be defir>rd as street - scepe treatments at key intersections leafing into the City and into the Village area Prifivvy gateway treatments may include special paving, street furniture, Chapter 3 - Circulation Element 3 -21 City of La Ouinta General Plan 12 hardscape/scxeen wad arrangements, dsptays of public art, mnmonent signage, landscaping and street kghtirg. Primary gateways are Intended as dramatic design statements kdceting the entrance to the City and the 1/rflage area Primary gateway treatments shaft occur at the following street intersections: • Fred Waring Drive and Washington Street Washington Street and Highway 111 • Jefferson Street and Highway 111 • Calla Tampico and Washington Street • Eisenhower Drii a and Calla Tampico Policy 3 -4.1.9 Secondary. gateway treatments shad be defied as streetscape traafff +its which are similar to primary gateway treatments except that an emphasis is placed on a less dramatic entry statement For example, secondary gateway treatments may not include special paving, street fumrhure or hardscape/scxeen wall arrangements. The secondary gateway treatment may rely more on the use of landscaping, street lighting and monument signage as the major elements of design. 3- 4.1.10 Along primary, secondary and agrarian image corridors the City shall establish appropriate building height limits to ensure a low density character and appearance. Policy 3- 4.1.11 Landscaped setbacks are necessary to ensure a high quality and attractiwe appearance on major streets. Setbacks for wads, bufidrngs and parking areas may vary, if property designed, but shall generally be as hallows: �+ Highway 111 - 50 feet • Other Major Arterials - 20 feet • Primary Arterials - 20 feet • Secondary Arter�& - 10 feet • Collector Streets - 10 feet Landscaping within these setback areas shad be consistent with the appropriate image corridor designation, JY applicable. Policy 3- 4.1.12 Special right- of-way width and design treatments will be - identified for streets within the Ind /age Area, recognizing estaMshed set -backs of adfaoent developments and the maturity of existing landscaping BRIM, Inc. u -TOPL* a materials. The blowing streets wry be permitted to remain at a nuu& rrn fifty (50) foot right -of -way width: 8) Cadiz b) Barcelona c) Amigo, Policy 3- 4.1.13 Wad openings to allow views into projects from image corridors are desirable and should be required where appropriate as one means of minimizing negative visual impacts of continuous walls. This can also be accomplished by varying setbacks. Policy 3- 4.1.14 The City may require adequate parkways, vistas into walled communities, and other features as appropriate. Policy 3- 4.1.15 Where desirable, the use of existing natural vegetation including atlas trees, date palm groves, eucalyptus windrows, and oleander hedges should be considered trr retention in image corridor landscape designs. Policy 3- 4.1.16 Special design treatments for major elements of the City's street system shall be considered in all approvals for related development Policy 3- 4.1.17 The City's streetscape quality shad be improved by undergrounding of utftes wherever possible. Policy 3- 4.1.18 Prevention of visual blight shall be enhanced by the administration of a comprehensive sign ordinance. Public Transit Policies Background - The provision of public transit is an Integral part of La Quinta's multi -modal circulation system. Increased use of public transit in the future will provide benefris such as reduced congestion and Improved air quality. For transit to be successful, it should be property planned so that it is convenient and accessible to users and operates in a timely fashion. The following policies are intended b provide guidance in establistwFg an expanded transit system to serve the needs of the City and region. Chapter 3 - Circulation Element 3 -22 City of La Ouinta General Plan 1.3 Commercial Category Mixed/Regional Commercial (M/RC) Community Commercial (M Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Commercial Park (GP) TABLE LU-4 City of La Ouinta, Commercial Land Use Category Standards Development Standards' General Development Characteristics Maximum FAR. of 0.35 Primarily retail businesses serving a regional trade area, such as tenants Maximum building height of associated with a regional mail, oft -prioe retail outlet, and/or 'power tour stories center•. Other businesses of a secondary priority Include overnight Located only in the commercial lodging, automobile retail and major office uses, such as Highway 111 Corridor corporate headquarters, research and development facilities, medical - related facilities and major community facilities. Higher density residential uses are allowed In designated areas. Maximum FAR. of 0.30 Maximum building height of three stories Located on, and with direct access to, and primarily at the Intersection of arterial streets Primarily retail business serving the daily needs of a multiple nelghborhoo4 area. Typical tenants may Include general merchandise, hardware/bulldlN materials, grocery supermarkets, drug stores and larger specialty stores. Other business of a secondary priority may include automobile service stations and professional service and office uses. Maximum FAR. of 0.25 Primarily retail businesses serving the needs d an Immediate neighbortom Maximum building height of two trade area. Typical tenants Include grocery supermarkets, drug store stories eating and drinldng establishments, automobile service stations and. Located on, and with direct personal services, such as laundry and barber salons. Other business of access to, arterial streets secondary priority Include small scale administradve ✓ professional offices, such as medical services, finance, Insurance and real estate offices. Maximum of 20 acres/site Maximum FAR. of 0.25 Primarily businesses offering heavy commercial and light industrial uses Maximum building height of two serving the needs of a local and regional trade area. Typical businesses stories include office /showroom, oWA/warehouse, high -tech light manufacturing, Direct acoeee to arterial or automobile repair and body work, warehousing and storage and other non - residential collector streets similar uses. Developed in 'campus -like' settings AGENDA AUTHORIZATION REQUEST TO: CITY MANAGER FROM: V /'�N Nt 0 Department L COUNC I L MEET I NG DATE: `Y' -- 20 — cl 3 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: eomo �S -+a �11�► Cak -s +r �. c.}-� Pn N1�`J -e� IJSL G�M►'1�11i1� -sJ�" c± ocj p- ) - S-K -t' C5. 6 hcv-e-�c rc--) +� X�2 �,� &-� �-- AGENDA PLACEMENT: Public Hearing Business Session Consent Item Dept. Report Study Session Closed Session REQUIRED ACTION: Ordinance Resolution Minute Order No Action Required City Manager Approval NOTE: Please list the agenda item exactly as you wish fort to appear on the published agenda. yr I-h UVIN 1 A AANNING C NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of La Quinta Planning Commission will hold a PUBLIC HEARING on April 13, 1993, at 7:00 p.m. in the La Quinta City Hall Council Chambers, 78 -105 Calle Estado, on the following item: ITEM: PLOT PLAN 93 -495 (PREVIOUSLY PLOT PLAN 91 -466 REVISION) APPLICANT: PHILIP M. PEAD SIMON PLAZA, INC. LOCATION: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND WASHINGTON STREET AND NORTH OF SIMON DRIVE REQUEST: TO DEVELOP A MIXED USE COMMERCIAL PROJECT ON APPROXIMATELY 5.6 ACRE ZONED C -P -S COMMERCIAL. THE PROJECT WILL INCLUDE A FOUR STORY OFFICE BUILDING, A BOWLING ALLEY, A FITNESS CENTER, A RESTAURANT OR BANK, AN EYE INSTITUTE, A FOUR LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE AND RELATED AT -GRADE PARKING PROJECT SITE r N I Y/1j p �JQ' jl v c E N � � a 3 LEGAL: PORTION OF THE SOUTH HALF OF SECTION 19, T5S, R7E & THE NORTH HALF OF SECTION 30, T5S, R7E APN: 604- 050 -011; 617 - 020 -020 THRU 025 The project is a resubmittal of Plot Plan 91 -466 (Revision) which was apliroved by the City in 1992. Therefore, the previous environmental review (EA 91 -211) will be used for this case. Any person may submit written comments on this case to tlie' Planning and Development Department prior to the Hearing and /or may appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the project at the time of the Hearing. If you challenge the decision of this case in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues that you or someone else raised either at the Public Hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning and Development Department at, or prior to, the Public Hearing. The proposed file(s) may be viewed by the public Monday through Friday 8: 00 a. m. until 5: 00 p. m. at the Planning and Development Department, La Quinta City Hall, 78 -099 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California. In the City's efforts to comply with the requirements of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act Of 1990, the Planning & Development Department requires that any person in need of any type of special equipment, assistance or accommodations) in order to communicate at a City public meeting, must inform the Planning & Development Department a minimum of 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PUBLISH ONCE ON MARCH 22, 1993 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- i MINUTES DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CITY OF LA QUINTA A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78 -105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California May 5, 1993 I. CALL TO ORDER 5:30 P.M. A. Chairman Harbison brought the meeting to order at 5:33 P.M. and Boardmember Curtis led the flag salute. II. ROLL CALL A. Present: Boardmembers Fred Rice, John Curtis, James Campbell, Planning Commission Representative Barrows, and Chairman Harbison. Boardmember Anderson arrived at 5:45 P.M. B. Boardmember Curtis moved to excuse Boardmember Wright. Boardmember Rice seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. C. Staff present: Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate Planner Greg Trousdell, and Department Secretary Betty Anthony. Boardmembers Campbell /Curtis moved to reorganize the agenda moving Item #1 to the end of the agenda. Unanimously approved. III. BUSINESS SESSION DRB5 -5 A. Conditional Use Permit 93:007; a request of McDonalds for approval to construct and operate a fast food, drive -thru restaurant located within the 111 La Quinta Center on Highway 111. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. Boardmember Curtis asked if Council had made any changes to the Taco Bell submittal that should apply to this application. Staff stated there were none. i Design Review Board Minutes May 5, 1993 3. Chairman Harbison inquired about the menu board. Staff stated this would be reviewed by the Planning Commission as an adjustment. 4. Boardmember Curtis questioned the size of the revised logo sign. Discussion followed regarding, the size of the sign. Chairman Harbison stated it was 12 square feet and Boardmember Rice stated the red background made the logo stand out. 5. Mr. Rob Jenkins, construction project manager for McDonalds, spoke regarding the logo sign on the building. Chairman Harbison asked if Mr. Jenkins had any objections to the staff conditions. Mr. Jenkins stated he had no objections, but inquired how many trees would be required to screen the play structure (Condition ##1). Staff stated they would prefer a minimum of three trees. Boardmember discussed the location of the trees with Mr. Jenkins. 6. Chairwoman Barrows asked Mr. Jenkins to replace the Purple Fountain Grass that the plans called for to eliminate the change of White Fountain Grass mistakenly being planted. Mr. Jenkins stated he would. 7. Boardmember Campbell asked if the flagpole was the same height as Carl's Jr. Staff stated it was. He then asked if the "McDonalds" sign could be reduced in size. Mr. Jenkins stated that all their signs were premade and this sign was already in production. He indicated a smaller sign was available. 8. Boardmember Anderson stated he felt the sign overpowered the building. 9. Chairwoman Barrows stated she felt the "M" was what the public identified not the sign "McDonalds ". Discussion followed regarding the size and color of the signs. 10. Boardmember Anderson asked how the tile would be tied in behind the tower arches. Mr. Jenkins stated it was tied into the back structure of the wall. Discussion followed regarding the tower treatment on the north elevation. 11. Boardmember Campbell inquired why another stucco parapet couldn't be tied into the back of the tower arches. Mr. Jenkins stated the mechanical equipment filled the roof area. Discussion followed regarding different possibilities. Chairman Harbison felt the Planning Commission would want the same continuity as Carl's Jr. was required to have. Mr. Jenkins stated he would eliminate three rows of the tile and dress up the back of the parapet. The Board concurred with doing this. DRB5 -5 2 0 Design Review Board Minutes May 5, 1993 12. Boardmember Campbell asked Mr. Jenkins to clarify what the material on the screen wall and trash enclosure was to be. Mr. Jenkins stated it was painted concrete. Discussion followed regarding the problems with graffiti and repairing the wall. Boardmember Campbell stated he felt that a fence would be better than a block wall. In addition, the height detector pole sign should not have the yellow letters on bronze. It was suggested they be red. 13. , Following the discussion, it was moved by Boardmembers Anderson /Campbell to recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit 93- 007 subject to the following conditions: a. Three trees would be required to screen the play structure from view of Highway 111. b. The "McDonalds" sign would be the next standard size down. C. The screen wall to be block with .slurry finish and painted. d. The letters on the height detector pole sign would be red with a yellow background. e. The north facade tower shall have a full plaster return with the three rows of tile removed. Unanimously approved. B. Plot Plan 93 -496; a request of Bill Howard (Mumbil) for approval of exterior modification to a commercial building located at 78 -029 Calle Estado. 1. Principal Planner .Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. Boardmember Anderson stated the different plate heights caused an illusion of the addition being off center. He stated his concern that by tieing the two unreinforced structures together would not allow the building to move during an earthquake. He had no objections to the arch architecturally. 3. Mr. Bill Howard, owner, stated the building is connected and always has been and had been reinforced and approved by the Building and Safety Department. He further stated he would like to keep the arch but . was willing to eliminate the tower facade. Boardmembers discussed the building surface materials with Mr. Howard. DRB5 -5 3 Design Review Board Minutes May 5, 1993 4. Boardmember Anderson expressed his concern about the thickness of the arch. Boardmember Curtis expressed his concern that the facade could create a problem in an earthquake. Members expressed their desire to see the building remain in its original state. 5. Following the discussion, it was moved and seconded by Boardmembers Anderson /Campbell to deny the plot plan as submitted, but would be willing to consider a new proposal. Unanimously approved. C. Plot Plan 93 -495 (Revision); a request of Simon Plaza to develop a mixed use commercial project on approximately 5.6 acres zoned C -P -S commercial located at the southeast corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street. 1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. Boardmember Curtis asked if the parking was at grade. Staff stated that some were two story. He then asked why the curb line was tapered back so far. Staff stated it was based on what the Engineering Department required for street widening. 3. Boardmember Campbell asked Staff what the height limit was. Staff stated four stories or 50 -feet was allowed in the C -P -S Zone. 4. Mr. Phil Pead, President, discussed the height changes with the Board. 5. Boardmember Rice asked if this was to be a medical building. Mr. Pead stated it would be with outpatient surgery, urgent care, etc. 6. Mr. Pead expressed his concern that the meandering sidewalk would end at a block wall at the existing Simon Motors site. He further requested that the landscaping at the parking structure required in Condition #74 needed to be eliminated. Boardmember Anderson stated he felt the parking structure `needed to be integrated more with the building. The building design features needed to be carried into the parking structure. 7. Mr. Pead stated the parking structure did have an appearance of being s stuck there, but time constraints didn't allow other design alternatives. He stated they would berm' and heavily landscape the Highway 111 elevation. DRB5 -5 4 Design Review Board Minutes, May 5, 1993 DRB5 -5 8. Boardmember Curtis stated this was an opportunity for public and private cooperation and he felt this would be an asset to the corner. 9. Boardmember Anderson stated he needed to see the design in whole, not piece meal. 10. Chairman Harbison stated he felt that large palm trees needed to be used to soften the building height. 11. Boardmember Campbell stated that the elevations on Sheet #3 did not show the elevators for the parking structure. Mr. Pead stated they had not determined their location as of yet. Boardmember Campbell asked what the material would be around the opening. Mr. Pead stated stucco ornamentation with different stucco colors. 12. Boardmember Campbell asked about the window treatment. Mr. Pead stated he would prefer to use the inside grid window treatment. Discussion followed regarding the two different styles. 13. Boardmember Campbell stated the building needed color where the two buildings met. Discussion followed regarding alternatives to the parking structure and the building in regards to the roof on the south elevation. 14. Planning Commissioner Barrows stated she felt there were .too many window on the south and west elevations with no allowance for shade. Members discussed the window treatment and Title 24 (State Energy Code). 15. Boardmember Campbell stated he felt the elevator tower needed to be eliminated; the ramp parking structure side wall should be comprised of stone versus stucco for aesthetics reasons; and there needed to be a tower effect on the circular building popouts. 16. Boardmember Curtis questioned the roof pitch of the main structure. He also wanted to see the eight foot wide bikepath remain based on the City's General Plan Goals and Policies. 17. Mr. Skip Berg, sign representative, stated he would answer any questions the Board might have regarding the sign program. Boardmember Curtis asked if he had any objections to the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Berg stated he had no objections except for Condition #28 as they would like to have their monument sign at the intersection. Discussion followed 9 Design Review Board Minutes May 5, 1993 regarding the sign. Staff explained the history of the sign. Mr. Berg stated the.sign needed to be at the corner for identification. Boardmember Curtis stated that Staff needed to work with the developer to come to some compromise. Staff suggested modifying Condition V. Boardmember Rice stated he felt the Board should approve the project and let the City Council and Planning Commission deal with the sign problem. 1.8. Boardmember Campbell stated he felt the location was agreeable and asked why the logo was so similar to Simon Motors. Mr. Berg stated that Mr. Simon was an investor in the project. Boardmember Campbell asked if signs #2 and #2a were eliminated. Mr. Berg stated that #2a was originally omitted and only added because of the six foot wall that was blocking the sign. 19. Boardmember Anderson stated he felt the curb cut would direct the customers. Mr. Berg stated that the six foot wall would block all of it. 20. Boardmember Campbell asked what signs #3 and #3a would be made out of. Mr. Berg stated they would be reverse pan channel and set against the wall. Discussion followed regarding the sign materials. 21. Boardmember Anderson stated.his concern for approving a project without all the suggestions being incorporated into the conditions and visually seeing the revised plans. Discussion followed. 22. Following the discussion, it was moved and seconded by Boardmembers Harbison /Curtis to recommend approval in concept of Plot Plan 93 -495 (Revision) requiring the applicant to return to the Design Review Board with the improved drawings in one month to show the revision of the items discussed. Boardmember Anderson asked for a clarification of the motion. Members discussed in length with Staff what approving in concept meant. Following the discussion, Chairman Harbison asked for a roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Boardmembers Curtis, Rice, Anderson, Campbell, Planning Commissioners Barrows, and Chairman Harbison. NOES: None. ABSENT: Boardmember Wright. ABSTAINING: None. DRB5 -5 6 I] Design Review Board Minutes May 5, 1993 Chairman Harbison declared a break to give the Boardmembers an opportunity to view the sign approval for Anchovie's restaurant. Break 8:49 to 9:01 P.M. D. Sign Application 93 -203; a continued request of Anchovie's Pizzeria (Mr. Richard McCormick) to install an illuminated awning sign. 1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. Boardmember Curtis stated the Board needed to see more internal lighting with fluorescent being incandescent. 3. Following a discussion, it was moved and seconded by Boardmembers Anderson /Curtis to ask the applicant to have both alternatives available for viewing at the next meeting of the Design Review Board. Unanimously approved. 4. Following the vote, Staff informed the Board that the applicant had withdrawn their request. Therefore, action taken by the Board became null and void. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR Boardmembers Curtis /Rice moved and seconded a motion to approve the Minutes of April 7, 1993, as submitted. Unanimously approved. V. OTHER - None VI. ADJOURNMENT It was moved and seconded by Boardmembers Anderson /Curtis to adjourn to a regular meeting of the Design Review Board on June 2, 1993, at 5:30 P.M. This meeting of the La Quinta Design Review Board was adjourned at 9:08 P.M., May 5, 1993. DRB5 -5 ! "q T H E C I T Y G .y June 9, 1993 ■o� o■ Mr. Philip M. Pead, President Simon Plaza, Inc. PO Box 461 La! � pinta La Quints, CA 92253 198822 - 1 92 Ten Carai Decade SUBJECT: PLOT PLAN 93 -495 (REVISION) Dear Mr. Pead : On June 8, 1993, the Planning Commission conceptually approved your revised three story building plans for your recently approved development at Highway 111 and Washington Street. The Planning Commission stated that you can pursue final approval of the revised plan with the City's Design Review Board based on the original Conditions of Approval provided the Design Review Board does not make major modifications to the plan they reviewed at the meeting. If major changes are proposed by the Board in the future, the Planning Commission has requested that the plans be forwarded to them for reconsideration. In order to complete the above - mentioned matter, please review your May 11, 1993 Conditions of Approval for your project prior to submission of your proposal to the Design Review Board. The next Design Review Board meeting is June 23, 1993, therefore, your deadline for this agenda is June 16, 1993. Please submit 9 (nine) copies of the final proposal which must include landscaping, lighting, etc., to this department by this date in order to allow our department adequate time to review your final proposal. Failure to meet the June 16, 1993 deadline will result in your case to being rescheduled to July 7, 1993. Should this happen we would then need your proposal submitted to this department by June 21, 1993. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, JJR H PN N EVELOPMENT DIRECTOR PRE %T USDELL A-SWICIATE PLANNER GT: Attachment cc: Mr. Merlin J. Barth; Architect Mr. Paul T. Selzer; Attorney Mr. Fred Simon; Simon Motors Mr. Gilbert F. Smith; Pomona 1st Federal ,,. -4 LTRGT.090 City of La Quinta Post Office Box 1504 ♦ 78 -105 Calle Estado La Quinta, California 92253 Phone (619) 564 -2246, Fax (619) 564 -5617 Design & Production: Mark Palmer Design. 619- 346 -0772 C-9 0 a STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING DATE: MAY 5, 1993 CASE NO: PLOT PLAN 93 -495 (REVISED) MASTER SIGN PROGRAM 93 -210 APPLICANT: SIMON PLAZA, INC. (PHILIP PEAD) PREVIOUS CASE: PLOT PLAN 91 -466 (REVISED) (EXPIRED) BI 01 D" FRE con OWNERS: 3S PARTNERSHIP AND POMONA FIRST FEDERAL BANK SUBJECT: REQUEST TO DEVELOP A MIXED USE COMMERCIAL PROJECT ON APPROXIMATELY 5.6 ACRES ZONED C -P -S COMMERCIAL. THE PROJECT WILL INCLUDE A FOUR STORY OFFICE BUILDING, A RESTAURANT OR BANK, AN EYE INSTITUTE OR OFFICE, A TWO LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE, AND RELATED AT -GRADE PARKING. LOCATION: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY III AND WASHINGTON STREET, BOTH MAJOR ARTERIALS. THE DEVELOPMENT, ON ±5.6 ACRES OF LAND, IS LOCATED TO THE WEST OF THE EXISTING SIMON MOTORS AUTOMOTIVE DEALERSHIP ON HIGHWAY 111. ARCHITECT: MERLIN J. BARTH EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: MIXED /REGIONAL COMMERCIAL WITH NON - RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY. SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS: NORTH: SOUTH: DRBST.089 r EAST: WEST: I I 1 LA QUINTA SHOPPING CENTER WASHINGTON SQUARE SPECIFIC PLAN PROPERTY (VACANT) EXISTING SIMON MOTORS AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP EXISTING PLAZA LA QUINTA SHOPPING CENTER 1 BACKGROUND: This project was reviewed by the City in 1992, as part of the review and approval of Plot Plan 91 -466 (Revised). The project received approval by the Design Review Board on October 2, 1991, the Planning Commission on February 25, 1992, and the City Council on March 3, 1992. However, the final design approved changed from +165,000 square feet to ±125,000 square feet and various buildings were shifted on the property to increase visibility into the project. The initial plan is attached for reference. The original Conditions of Approval required the applicant to begin construction of the project within one year or apply for a one year extension of time which required review by the Planning Commission. The original case expired on February 25, 1993. On March 11, 1993, the applicant refiled the original plans with Staff and paid the necessary fees to return the project through the necessary stages to have the project reviewed by the Design Review Board, Planning Commission, and City Council as a new application. DESCRIPTION OF SITE: The proposed ±5.6 acre site is comprised of six parcels. The flat and undeveloped parcels were created by the division of land under Parcel Map 18418 in 1982. The property has frontage on three streets with 650 feet along Washington Street, 700 feet along Highway 111, and 180 feet along Simon Drive. The site elevation along Washington Street is approximately 60 feet above sea level. The site is improved with street improvements. However, additional widening is necessary on Washington Street to conform with the City's adopted Specific Plan Alignment Program and General Plan. A future raised median island is proposed for both Washington Street and Highway 111. The property was subdivided in the early 1980's for the development of Simon Motors Automobile Dealership as well as to establish commercial lots which could be sold or developed with commercial land uses. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL: On April 7, 1993, the Design Review Board met briefly to discuss the resubmittal of Plot Plan 91 -466 (Revision). The development proposal included a four story office building on Highway 111 which is attached to the three level parking structure abutting the Simon Motors property. On the southwest portion of the site (also attached to the parking structure) was the second story fitness center and one story 44 lane bowling alley. The other two buildings on the site were a restaurant/bank building at the intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Street and a one story eye institute. The project was broken down in the following fashion: DRBST.089 2. Offices (4 story) = 60,880 sq. ft. Restaurant = 8,000 sq. ft. Office /Eye Institute = 5,000 sq. ft. Fitness Center = 12,000 sq. ft. Bowling Alley = 40.531 sq. ft. 126,411 sq. ft. (550 parking spaces) The Design Review Board continued action on this case on April 7, 1993, at the request of the applicant. On April 26, 1993, the applicant revised the proposal to conform to the newly adopted City General Plan policy requirements. A copy of the new plan is attached and a copy of the original Design Review Board report from April 7th has also been enclosed. The developer has removed the fitness center and bowling alley from the project and substituted at -grade parking along Washington. Street. The number of parking structure levels has also been reduced On April 26, 1993, Staff'also received a resubmittal of the master sign program for the center based on the new submittal. As the Design Review Board will recall, a similar sign program (SA 91 -159, Amendment #3) was approved by the Planning Commission in 1992. The only difference in this exhibit versus the previous plan is that Sign #1 is double -sided instead of being three- sides. Sign #4a was originally contemplated for the bowling alley, but it is now being used for the 4 -story office building. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS: Development Request 1. The General Plan policy standards for "Primary Gateway Treatment" as outlined in Chapter 3.0 (Circulation Element) should be met since this intersection is located on an image corridor of the City. 2. The maximum F.A.R. for this project shall be 0.35 as noted in Table LU -4 of the General Plan. Sign Program 3. A covered pedestrian arcade should be built along the southwest side of the 4 -story office medical facility along the one story portion of the development. A formal entry should be designed for this Washington Street elevation. 4. The roof slope for the 4 -story office building should not be greater than 3.5:12. 5. The previous Conditions of Approval for Plot Plan 91 -466 (Revision) should be used for this new submittal (see the attached material). DRBST.089 3 6. The future landscape plan submittal should meet the provisions of the City's newly adopted Water Conservation Ordinance (Ordinance 220). 7. A project identification sign should not be installed at the intersection of,Highway 111 and Washington Street since the area should be reserved for landscaping, public furniture, and a public art piece. No private property features such as a project identification sign should be permitted within 150 to 200 feet of the intersection. 8. Each freestanding sign shall be a minimum of five feet from the future property line it abuts. No signs should be placed in the City's right -of -way. 9. All signs should be reviewed by the Engineering Department to assure sight visibility is not obstructed by the installation of each respective freestanding sign. 10. Site address numbers should be on the main monument sign as a supplemental to the building addressing plan. The minimum size should be four inches and contrasting to the background it is affixed to. 11. Any and all proposed illuminated signs shall be installed to avoid undue brightness which would distract passing motorists and /or pedestrians. 12. The sign colors shall be blue ( #607 -lGP Acrylite Blue) except for the top of the monument sign can be royal blue, orange and white as depicted. on the attached drawings. 13. The building signs can be internally illuminated. 14. No exposed raceways, crossover, conduits, conductors, transformers, etc., shall be permitted. All supplemental electrical hardware shall be behind the building structure inside the sign structure, or located underground. 15. The lettering styles for the building signs shall be either Clarendon or Souvenir. Upper case lettering shall be used for all signs except for the medical complex building. 16. All attached building signs shall have channel letters (individually constructed). 17. All freestanding signs shall be double -sided and perpendicular to the public street they serve unless noted otherwise in the following section. SIGN ADJUSTMENTS: 18. a.) The La Quinta Medical Center sign (Sign #5) located on the third story elevation of the four story building shall be permitted as depicted in the attached drawings. DRBST.089 4 b.) The La Quinta Medical Center freestanding monument sign (Sign #4) located on the north side of the four story building shall be permitted provided the sign is one -sided and is constructed with the same materials as Sign #1. Sign 4a should not be allowed because it is not necessary. c.) The Milauskas Eye Institute sign (Sign #7 & #6) on Highway 111 and in the parking lot shall be permitted. The sign shall be constructed in a similar fashion to Sign #1. MISCELLANEOUS: 19. The final sign graphics shall be subject to review by the Director of Planning and Development prior to permit issuance by the Building and Safety Department. 20. Each tenant and /or his sign contractor shall obtain approval by the property owners (or management company), in writing prior to submission of the sign drawings to the Planning and Development Department for permit consideration. The property owner shall review the signs for lettering style, color, sign location, lighting, and any other "important" issues. 21. All sign contractors shall be licensed to do business in the City of La Quinta and possess a State Contractor's License to perform the work outlined in the sign permit. 22. All signs shall conform to the City's adopted Sign Ordinance in effect at the time the sign permit is issued. 23. Underwriter Laboratories certification labels shall be affixed to all internally illuminated signs, thus assuring that the sign (or sign structure) meets industry specifications. 24. Signs #8 and "8a'.' shall be internally lit. The background for the signs shall be opaque. 25. All freestanding signs permitted shall include similar architectural elements to those of Sign #l, and the sign proportions shall be downsized accordingly (e.g., 12 -foot high to 9 -feet, and 6 -feet) so that the smaller signs exemplify the sites main identification sign. 26. No attached building sign shall be greater than 50 square feet on the side of the building it serves. 27. The channel letter returns shall be painted to match the exterior color of the building on which it is affixed. 28. If deemed necessary by City, Applicant shall provide location for City entry sign in front and below main identification sign, as required by the Planning and Development Director. DRBST.089 5 29. The overall height of each freestanding sign shall be measured from the abutting street curb elevation height. RECOMMENDATION Staff is at the Design Review Board's pleasure on the matter and any new recommendations of the Design Review Board will be forwarded on to the Planning Commission for their review later this month. Attachments: 1: Location map 2. Large exhibits (dated 4/26/93) 3. Master Sign Program (SA 93 -210) 4. Previous Design Review Board report DRBST.089 6 STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING DATE: APRIL 7, 1993 CASE NO: PLOT PLAN 93 -495 APPLICANT: . SIMON PLAZA, INC. (PHILIP PEAD) PREVIOUS CASE: PLOT PLAN 91-466 (REVISED) (EXPIRED) OWNERS: I 3S PARTNERSHIP AND POMONA FIRST FEDERAL BANK SUBJECT: REQUEST TO DEVELOP A MIXED USE COMMERCIAL PROJECT ON APPROXIMATELY 5.6 ACRES ZONED C -P -S COMMERCIAL. THE PROJECT WILL INCLUDE A FOUR STORY OFFICE BUILDING, A 44 LANE BOWLING ALLEY, A FITNESS CENTER, A RESTAURANT OR BANK, AN EYE INSTITUTE OR OFFICE, A FOUR LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE, AND RELATED AT -GRADE PARKING. LOCATION: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND WASHINGTON STREET, BOTH MAJOR ARTERIALS. THE DEVELOPMENT, ON ±5.6 ACRES OF LAND, IS LOCATED TO THE WEST OF THE EXISTING SIMON MOTORS AUTOMOTIVE DEALERSHIP ON HIGHWAY 111. ARCHITECT: MERLIN J. BARTH EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: MIXED /REGIONAL COMMERCIAL WITH NON - RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY. SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS: NORTH: 11 I LA QUINTA SHOPPING CENTER SOUTH: WASHINGTON SQUARE SPECIFIC PLAN PROPERTY (VACANT) EAST: EXISTING SIMON MOTORS AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP WEST: EXISTING PLAZA LA QUINTA SHOPPING CENTER DRBST.083 1 This project was reviewed by the City in 1992, as part of the review and approval of Plot Plan 91 -466 (Revised). The project received approval by the Design Review Board on October 2, 1991, the Planning Commission on February 25, 1992, and the City Council on March 2, 1992. However, the final design approved changed from ± 165,000 square feet to ± 125,000 square feet and various buildings were shifted on the property to increase visibility into the project. The initial plan is attached for reference. The original Conditions of Approval required the applicant to begin construction of the project within one year or apply for a one year extension of time which required review by the Planning Commission. The original case expired on February 25, 1993. On March 11, 1993, the applicant refiled the original plans with Staff and paid the necessary fees to return the project through the necessary stages to have the project reviewed. by the Design Review Board, Planning Commission, and City Council as a new application. DESCRIPTION OF SITE: The proposed ±5.6 acre site is comprised of seven parcels. The flat and undeveloped parcels were created by the division of land under Parcel Map 18418 in 1982. The property has frontage on three streets with 650 feet along Washington Street, 700 feet along Highway 111, and 180 feet along Simon Drive. The site elevation along Washington Street is approximately 60 feet above sea level. The site is improved with street improvements. However, additional widening is necessary on 'Washington Street to conform with the City's adopted Specific Plan Alignment Program and General Plan. A future raised median island is proposed for both Washington Street and Highway 111. The property was subdivided in the early 1980's for the development of Simon Motors Automobile Dealership as well as to establish commercial lots which could be sold or developed with commercial land uses. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL: The development proposal will include a four story office building on Highway 111 which is attached to the three level parking structure abutting the Simon Motors property. On the southwest portion of the site (also attached to the parking structure) is the second story fitness center and one story 44 lane bowling alley. The other two buildings on the site are a restaurant/bank building at the intersection. of Highway 111 and Washington Street and a one story eye institute. The project is broken down in the following fashion: DRBST.083 2 s, %. — Offices Restaurant . Office/Eye Institute Fitness Center Bowling Alley ARCHITECTURE: 60,880 sq. ft. = 8,000 sq. ft. 5,000 sq. ft. = 12,000 sq. ft. = 40.531 sq. ft. 126,411 sq. ft. (550 parking spaces) The project architect, Mr. Merlin J. Barth, of Anaheim, has prepared a plan which proposes buildings around the outer portion of the site with at -grade parking in the center of the facility. A multiple level parking structure will be located on the east side of the property. CIRCULATION /PARKING: The developer has proposed access driveways on each respective public street. The two-way driveway on Highway 111 and Washington Street will service the proposed courtyard guest parking lot (approximately 102 parking spaces). The driveways lead to the four level parking garage (two floors above grade with a roof top parking area and one subterranean level) located at the easterly property boundary of the site. The parking garage will house approximately 448 cars. The parking ratio for this project is (126,411/550) one on -site space for every 229 square feet of leasable floor area. IMAGE CORRIDOR: On October 6, 1992, the City updated its General Plan to include some new standards which are pertinent to all properties in the City. The new plan designates the frontage streets along the exterior portion of the site as "primary image corridor" thoroughfares, and the signalized intersection of Washington Street and Highway 111 as a "gateway" image intersection. A copy of the adopted material is attached. The primary function of the program is to provide boulevard streets with raised, landscaped medians and heavily landscaped areas within and contiguous to the street rights -of -way. The General Plan states that "primary image corridors shall include landscape themes which are reminiscent of La Quinta's agricultural past and desert environment ". Overall, the applicant's request is generally consistent with the intent of the General Plan except for the intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Street. We would recommend that the applicant enhance the intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Street to include an area for a public art piece surrounded by palm trees. DRBST.083 3 1 1.11111 MO "1 11IM3. 13 DEIS M y 1 The new General Plan for the City established new policy requirements for the City on the amount of building coverage a project could have on a site. Table LU -4 of the Land Use Element states 0.35 is the ratio for Mixed /Regional Commercial (M /RC) properties. This project proposes 126,411 square feet on approximately ±5.3 net acres or an F.A.R. of 0.54. This figure does not examine the parking structure as a building for this equation. The project should be downsized to meet this new building floor area to project site area ratio which is based on net land area (after street dedication) versus gross floor area (e.g., 82,000 sq. ft. - 230,868 = 0.35). STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant allowed the original case approval to expire in February, 1993. Therefore, the Design Review Board can request changes to the proposed resubmittal if you believe they are necessary. Staff would also like to point out to the Design Review Board that the applicant would like to maintain the past master sign program (SA 91 -159 #3) which was approved by the Design Review Board and Planning Commission after the original review of Plot Plan 91 -466 (Revised). A copy of the original approval is attached. The City's Zoning Code Standards have not changed since the last review of this case. Should changes occur to the structures, it may be necessary to revise the sign program. Staff would recommend that the Design Review Board reconsider the Planning Commission approval of the triangular freestanding sign at the intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Street. The current approval allowed a twelve foot high sign with three sides each having 50 square feet of copy. It might be more appropriate to relocate a project sign to the east and south of its present location and provide a different type of sign (e.g., double sided sign). SUGGESTED CONDITIONS: 1. The General Plan policy standards for "Primary. Gateway Treatment" as outlined in Chapter 3.0 (Circulation Element) should be met since this intersection is located on an image corridor of the City. 2. A project identification sign should not be installed at the intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Street, since the area should be reserved for landscaping, public furniture, and a public art piece. No private property features such as a project identification sign should be permitted within 150 feet of the intersection. 3. The maximum F.A.R. for this project should be 0.35 as noted in Table LU-4 of the General Plan. DRBST.083 4 Staff is at the Design Review Board's pleasure on the matter and any new recommendations of the Design Review Board will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for their review later this month. Attachments: 1.' Location map 2. Large. exhibits (dated 3/15/93) 3. Master Sign Approval (SA 91 -159 #3) 4. Excerpts from the original Conditions for Plot Plan 91-466 (Revised) 5. Initial site plan design (superseded) 6. Excerpt from the General Plan DRBST.083 A r L i r Adams Street R I Street %M is e f u AU6d ffVf CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - APPROVED EXHIBIT A SIGN APPLICATION 91 -159, AMENDMENT #3 SIMON PLAZA - SIGN PROGRAM NOVEMBER 24, 1992 * Revised by the Planning Commission on November 24, 1992 QENERAL PROVISIONS: 1. Each freestanding sign shall be a minimum of five feet from the future property line it abuts. No signs should be placed in the City's right -of -way. 2. All signs should be reviewed by the Engineering Department to assure sight visibility is not obstructed by the installation of each respective freestanding sign. 3. Site address numbers should be on the main monument sign as a supplemental to the building addressing plan. The minimum size should be four inches and contrasting to the background it is affixed to. 4. Any and all proposed illuminated signs shall be installed to avoid undue brightness which would distract passing motorists and /or pedestrians. 5. The sign colors shall be blue ( #607 -IGP Acrylite Blue) except for the other supplement signs such as the bowling pins and top of the monument sign can be royal blue, orange and white as depicted on the attached drawings. *6. The building signs can be internally illuminated. 7. No exposed raceways, crossover, conduits, conductors, transformers, etc., shall be permitted. All supplemental electrical hardware shall be behind the building structure inside the sign structure, or located underground. *8. The lettering styles for the building signs shall be either Clarendon or Souvenir. Upper case lettering shall be used for all signs except for the medical complex building. 9. All attached building signs shall have channel letters (individually constructed). . 10. All freestanding signs shall be double -sided and perpendicular to the public street they serve unless noted otherwise in the following section. SIGN AMSTNIFNTS: 11. a.) The Fitness Center signs (Sign #7 & #8) located on the second story elevation of the building shall not be permitted as depicted in the attached drawings. At this time, the Applicant shall wait until the building is under construction to ascertain CONAPRVL.065 1 whether or not a sign(s) should be installed at the proposed location(s). The matter shall be reviewed in the future, by the Board at the request of the Applicant. *b.) Signs #3, and 114B, shall not be allowed because they are not necessary for the center nor its patrons, and they degrade the architectural character of the project. *c.) The La Quinta Medical Center sign (Sign #6) located on the third story elevation of the four story building shall be permitted as depicted in the attached drawings. d.) The La Quinta Medical Center freestanding monument sign (Sign #5) located on the north side of the four story building shall be permitted provided the sign is one -sided and is constructed with the same materials as Sign X2. *e.) The Milauskas Eye Institute sign (Sign #12) on Highway 111 shall be permitted. The sign shall be constructed in a similar fashion to Sign #2, with height lowered and logo on top reduced in size to be proportional with main center sign (maximum height 7 feet). f.) The "Fine Dining Restaurant" sign (Sign #18) shall be permitted provided the sign faces the parking lot and is constructed in a similar fashion to Sign 12. One side of copy is permitted. One attached building sign shall be installed at the entrance of the restaurant for patron identification. The size of the sign shall be approved by Staff. *g.) Sign 92 (Main identification sign) shall be three - sided, and include three sides of sign copy. MISCELLANEOUS: 12. The final sign graphics shall be subject to review by the Director of Planning and Development prior to permit issuance by the Building and Safety Department. 13. Each tenant and /or his sign contractor shall obtain approval by the property owners (or management company) in writing prior to submission of the sign drawings to the Planning and Development Department for permit consideration. The property owner shall review the signs for lettering style, color, sign location, lighting, and any other 'important" issues. 14. All sign contractors- shall be licensed to do business in the City of La Quinta-and possess a State Contractor's License to perform the work outlined in the sign permit. 15. All signs shall conform to the City's adopted Sign Ordinance in effect at the time the sign permit is issued. 16. Underwriter Laboratories certification labels shall be affixed to all internally illuminated CONAPRVL.065 2 signs, thus assuring that the sign (or sign structure) meets industry specifications. •17. Signs #14A and "C" shall be internally lit. The background for the signs shall be opaque. '18. The freestanding parking signs (x'16, and 117) shall not be permitted because they are not necessary to the success of the commercial center. Sign #15 is allowed provided the directional sign states "Entrance'. 19. All freestanding signs permitted shall include similar architectural elements to those of Sign #2, and the sign proportions shall be downsized accordingly (e.g., 12 -foot high to 9 -feet, 7 feet, and 6 -feet) so that the smaller. signs exemplify the sites main identificadon sign. 20. No attached building sign shall be greater than 50 square feet on the side of the building it serves. 21. The channel letter returns shall be painted to match the exterior color of the building on which it is affixed. 22. If deemed necessary by City, Applicant shall provide location for City entry sign in front and below main identification sign, as required by the Planning and Development Director. 23. The overall height of each freestanding sign shall be measured from the abutting street curb elevation height. CONAPRVL.065 3 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - APPROVED PLOT PLAN 91 -466 - REVISION FEBRUARY 25, 1992 SIMON PLAZA * Amended by Planning Commission on 2 -25 -92 ** Added by Planning Commission on 2 -25 -92 GENERAL 1. The development of the property shall be generally be in conformance with the exhibits contained in the file for PP 91 -466 Revision, unless amended otherwise by the following conditions. 2. The approved plot plan shall be used within one year of the final approval date; otherwise it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. "Be used" means the beginning of substantial construction which is contemplated by this approval, not including grading which is begun within the one year period and is thereafter diligently pursued until completion. A one year time extension may be requested as permitted by Municipal Code. 3. There shall be no outdoor storage or sales displays without specific approval of the Planning Commission. 4. All exterior lighting shall be shielded and directed so as not to shine directly on surrounding adjoining properties or public rights -of -way. Light standard type with recessed light source shall also be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. Exterior lighting shall comply with Outdoor Light Control Ordinance and off - street parking requirements. 5. Adequate masonry trash enclosures shall be provided for all structures and provided with opaque metal doors. Plans for trash enclosures to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of a building permit. The Applicant shall contact the local waste management company to insure that the number of enclosures and size of the enclosures are adequate. 6. Decorative enclosures may be required by the City around any retention basins depending on site grading requirements. The color, location, and placement of said fences) shall be approved by the Planning and Development Department. 7.' Phased improvement plans shall be subject. to Planning Commission review. 8. Handicap parking spaces and facilities shall be provided per Municipal Code and State requirements. 9. A noise study shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer to be submitted to the Planning and Development Department for review and approval prior to submission of building plans for plan check or issuance of grading permit., whichever comes first. The study shall concentrate on noise impacts on building interior areas from perimeter streets, and impacts on the CONAPRVL.037 /^ (__5 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 91 -466, Revision February 25, 1992 proposed abutting and provide mitigation of noise as alternative mitigation measures for incorporation into the project design such as building setbacks, engineering design, building orientation, noise barriers, (berming, landscaping and walls, etc.) and other techniques. 10. The project shall comply with all existing off street parking requirements including but not limited to shading of parking lot areas and bicycle parking spaces. 11. Decorative screen walls (i.e., berms with landscaping, masonry walls, etc.) provided adjacent to street shall be high enough to screen parking lot surfaces and a majority of parked cars from view of the street. Determination of height of walls shall be made after review of landscaping and grading plans by City. 12. Perimeter landscaping planters shall be provided at maximum widths possible adjacent to property lines and planted with landscaping. *13. The project shall comply with all applicable Art in Public Places Ordinance. A public art piece shall be installed on the property at a location agreeable to the Art in Public Places Committee. A public easement shall be offered to the City for the site any art piece may occupy which has been established by the Art in Public Places Committee. 14. The City shall retain a qualified archaeologist, with the Developer to pay costs, to prepare a mitigation and monitoring plan for artifact location and recovery. Prior to archaeological studies for this site as well as other unrecorded information, shall be analyzed prior to the preparation of the plan. The plan shall be submitted to the Coachella Valley Archaeological Society ( CVAS) for a two -week review and comment period. At a minimum, the plan shall: 1) identify the means for digging test pits; 2) allow sharing the information with the CVAS; and 3) provide for further testing if the preliminary result show significant materials are present. The final plan shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Department for final review and approval. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Developer shall have retained a qualified cultural resources management firm and completed the testing and data recovery as noted in the plan. The management firm shall monitor the grading activity as required by the plan or testing results. A list of the qualified archaeological monitor(s), cultural resources management firm employees, and any assistant(s) /representative (s), shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Department . The list shall provide the current address and phone number for each monitor. The designated CONAPRVL.037 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 91 -466, Revision February 25, 1992 monitors may be changed from time to time, but no such change shall be effective unless served by registered or certified mail on the Planning and Development Department. The designated monitors or their authorized representatives shall have the authority _ to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of resources. In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains, there shall be no further grading, excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby areas reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until appropriate mitigation measures are completed. Upon completion of the data recovery, the Developer shall cause three copies of the final report containing the data analysis to be prepared and published and submitted to the Planning and Development Department. 15. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any building or use contemplated by this use, the Applicant shall obtain permits or clearances from the following agencies: o City Fire Marshal o City of La Quinta Public Works Department o City of La Quinta Planning & Development Department o Coachella Valley Water District o Desert Sands Unified School District o Imperial Irrigation District o Caltrans ( District 11) Evidence of said permits or clearances from the above mentioned agencies shall be presented to the Building Department at the time of application for a building permit for the proposed project. 16. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City adopted infrastructure fee program in affect at the time of issuance of building permits. 17. Final landscaping plans shall include approval stamps and signatures from the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioners office and the Coachella Valley Water District. 18. A bus waiting . shelter and bus turnout shall be provided as requested by Sunline Transit on Highway 111 when said street improvements are re- installed or unless other site locations are permitted by the transit authority (e.g., Simon Drive) and the City Engineering Department. 19. Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the Applicant shall submit to the Engineering Department an interim landscape program for the entire site which shall be for the purpose of wind and erosion and dust control. The land owner shall institute blow sand and dust control measures during grading and CONAPRVL.037 3 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 91 -466, Revision February 25, 1992 site development. These shall include but not be limited to: a.) use of irrigation during construction and grading activities; b.) areas not constructed on during first phase shall be planted in temporary ground cover or wildflowers and provided with temporary irrigation system; and c.) provision of wind breaks or wind rolls, fencing, and or landscaping to reduce the effects upon adjacent properties and property owners. The landowner shall comply with requirements of the Directors of Public Works and Planning and Development. All construction and graded areas shall be watered at least twice daily while being used to prevent emission of dust and blow sand. 20. Construction shall comply with all local and State Building Code requirements in affect at time of issuance of building permit as determined by the Building Official. 21. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Planning and Development Director demonstrating compliance with those conditions of approval which must be satisfied prior to issuance of a building permit. Prior to a final building inspection approval, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a written report demonstrating compliance with all remaining conditions of approval and mitigation measures. The Planning and Development Director may require inspection or other monitoring to assure such compliance. 22. A parking lot striping plan including directional arrows, stop signs, no parking areas, and parking spaces shall be approved by Planning and Development and Engineering Departments prior to issuance of a building permit. 23. All roof equipment shall be screened from view by parapet walls of building or other architecturally matching materials. 24. All compact spaces shall be clearly marked "compact cars only". 25. That all conditions of the Design Review Board shall be complied with as follows: A . The landscape plan shall include an eight foot wide meandering pedestrian /bike trail. The plans should be reviewed by the Design Review Board prior to submission of the final landscape plan by the Applicant/ Developer. B . The landscape program for Washington Street shall include a variation of planting materials, i.e., Palm trees, accent shade trees, lawn, shrubs, and groundcover. The use of mature California Pepper, Australian Willow, Mesquite, Crape Myrtle, Bottle Trees, and Washington Robusta Palms should be encouraged. Varieties of flowering shrubs such as Texas Ranger, Cassia, Crepe Myrtle, and CONAPRVL.037 4 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 91 -466, Revision February 25, 1992 Dwarf Oleander should be utilized. Native (low water use) plants should be used, and the landscape architect should consult the Coachella Valley Water District's plant material list prior to designing their proposal. Uplighted trees or palms shall be used along Washington Street and Highway 111. Incandescent 'light fixtures will be required (less than 160 watt) . C. . Any proposed parking lot lighting plan shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board prior to building plan check. A photometric study should be developed which analyzes the lighting pattern on the project and meets the City's Lighting Ordinance provisions as explained in Chapter 9.210 and 9.160 (Off- Street Parking) . The height of the light poles shall not exceed 18 feet in height, and the lighting contractor should reduce this height if physically possible during review of the project. *D. A one story building height of 28 feet shall be maintained along Washington Street and Highway 111 within 150 feet of the ultimate property line (after street dedication has been included) excluding minor architectural appendages (e.g., chimneys, towers, building columns, etc.) . E. Decorative concrete entryways shall be provided for all two -way driveways into the project site. The concrete shall be stamped and colored to accentuate the proposed development. The color, design and location of the concrete should be reviewed by the Design Review Board during a final plan check review. F. The final plans shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board prior to the submission of the plans to the Building Department for final check consideration. The final plans should include but not be limited to landscaping and irrigation, building, signs, mechanical, etc. G . Bike racks shall be provided at convenient areas within the site for usage by bicycle riders. One space for every 50 parking spaces shall be provided as noted in the Off - Street Parking Code. H . The landscape setback on Washington Street shall be a minimum of 20 feet from the new property line. I. All open parking stalls shall be screened by walls, landscape hedges, or a combination thereof to a minimum height of 42 inches. J. A master sign program shall be approved by the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of a building permit for any of the proposed building structures. CONAPRVL.037 F,,-- C'G- D1- ror-S. Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 91 -466, Revision February 25, 1992 58. The parking stalls on the north side of the office complex as determined by Staff, shall be restricted to either handicapped parking or reserved parking to help eliminate queuing at the Highway 111 access driveway. 59. The driveways on Washington. Street and on Highway 111 shall be restricted to right turn movements only. 60. Turning movements at the intersection of Washington Street and Simon Drive shall be restricted to right turns only in accordance with the Washington Street Specific Plan. SPECIAL 61. The Environmental Fees of the State Fish and Game Department and the County of Riverside shall be paid to the Planning and Development Department within 24 hours after approval /review of the proposed by the Planning Commission and /or City Council. 62. The final working drawings shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board and Planning Commission prior to building permit issuance. Said plans shall include landscaping, irrigations, signing, addressing, street, mechanical, lighting, utility plans and materials. 63. All required improvements shall be completed prior to first site occupancy of the proposed development. 64. The parking structure shall not exceed 20 feet in overall height as measured from finished grade pad elevation within 100 feet of Highway 111. Exterior lighting on top level of parking structure shall not exceed six feet and not be within ten feet of outside wall. 65. All mitigation measures of Environmental Assessment 91 -211 shall be met. 66. The parcels shall be legally merged prior to building permit issuance. 67. Prior to issuance of any land disturbance permit, the Applicant shall pay the required mitigation fees for the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Program, so adopted by the City, in the amount of $600 per acre of disturbed land. *68. Landscaping shall be incorporated into parking structures design features. This shall include perimeter grade planting as deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission. 69. Prior to issuance of the first building permit, a parking analysis shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Department to verify compliance of parking spaces provided based on Urban Land Institute Guidelines. Prior to each subsequent phase beginning construction a new parking study based .on existing usage and potential demand shall be submitted. In each study, building size adjustments shall be made if it is determined that a parking deficiency exists. CONAPRVL.037 10 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 91 -466, Revision February 25, 1992 70. Appropriate and - adequate service delivering areas (loading facilities) and trash facilities shall be provided as required by the Off - Street Parking Code. The facilities shall include areas for recycling bins and be approved by Staff during the final review process. 71. The existing one story office building portions of the four story building complex shall be increased to a two story height. *72. All buildings shall include window shading features. The program may include the use of roof overhangs, window tinting, recessed windows, plant -ons, or other elements as approved by the Design Review Board. 73. The Washington Street side of the. bowling alley building shall include a minimum 24 inch arcade treatment along the entire frontage of the building. *74.. A tile roof element shall be designed into the design of the parking structure for those areas of the building which are highly visible from Highway 111. (Front, west side to office building and east side to 47 feet southerly to the point where the parking level ramp transition to the second level starts.) 75. An on -site elevator(s) shall service the site and provide accessibility from the parking garage to each respective building floor level. The design and installation of the elevator shall meet both Uniform Building Code standards and any other California State requirements. 76. Preliminary landscaping, grading and parking lot screening plans shall be approved by the Design Review Board prior to submission of the final working drawings. * *77. Plot Plan 91 -466 shall become null and void by the approval of Plot Plan 91 -466 (Revision). CONAPRVL.037 11 1st. Bank or Restaurant 3st. plus basement /Offices S UPERCEDED `4 Nv 111 - - -- SOTOE IIILA ! 1st. Bowling (40 Lanes) iF�oiff 4st. Parking Garage w/ sub -level 4st. Office Bldg. c-�o ®m W. �Cj I :w. w s �Cj I :w. w Policy 3-4.12 - Piimary Image corridors shat/ be deruaed as streets In Doe roadway nei; aw- wTiich are the major urban design statements of the City. Primary Image corridors shad consist of boulevard streets with raised, landscaped medians and heavily landscaped areas within and contiguous to Vie street rights -of -way. Primary linage corridors shaft include landscape Cremes w¢,ich are reminiscent of La Ousnte's agricultural past and desert environment Primary image corridors may include verti6d landscape elements such as pelm trees complemented with a.shade- producing uxderstory of canopy trees, such as indigenous, drought tolerant desert species. More water Intensive tMerstory canopy trees, such as various citrus species, should be used sparingly In nodes at key bcations as highlights and reminders of past agricultural activities. Ground plane landscape materials shocdd evoke a lush Image through the use of drought tolerant; low maintenance plant species. Turf should be used in s manner consistent with citrus trees -- sparingly and in high visibr7ity bcations. Primary image corridors shad include street traffic signals, street lighting systems, street furniture, bus shelters, street name signs, and noise bermsibarriers which are designed in a coor- dinated and consistent theme unique to La Ouinta. At key intersections, primary image corridors shad include treatments which may include special roadway paving, hardscape/screen wad arrangements and cisplays of public art Policy 3 -4.1.3 Primary image corridors shall include Cie following roadways: ®• Washington Street • Jefferson Street ®• Highway 111 • Fred Waring Drive • Celle Tampico • Eisenhower Drive (from Cade Tampico to Washington Street) Policy 3 -4.1.4 Secondary image corridors shad be defined as streets in Cie roadway network which are the secondary urban design statements 'of the city. Secondary bnage corri- dors shah consist of streets with raiseQ landscaped medians and landscaped areas within and contiguous to the street right -of -way.. Secondary image corridors shall be consistent with primary image corridors relative to simr7ar landscape materials, street traffic signals, street lighting systems, street furniture, bus shelters and street name signs. However, secondary street linage A70= shat emphasize Vie use of kwer profile indigenous canopy bees, accentuated with the use of citrus trees in various nodes. The use of taller, vertical landscape elements shag be de- emphasized and shat! ocaa In nodes, prirnargy at street Intersections. Policy 3 -4.1.5 Secondary image corridors shall include the following roadways: • Mlles Avenue • Dune Palms Road (south of the Coachefle Valley Srormwater ChanneO • Adams Street (south of the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel) • Avenue 48 • Avenue 50 • Avenue 52 • Esenhower Drive (south of Cane Tampico to Avenida Bermudas) Policy 3 -4.1.6 Agrarian image corridors shall be defined as streets in Me roadway network which are designed to evoke a rural ambiance and to provide a strong linkage to the Citys agricultural past These corridors are to be located in close proximity to areas designated 'Rural ResidenW on the Land Use Policy Diagram in the Land Use Element Agrarian image corridors shag incorporate equestrian trails and shall include design 'themes representative of rural areas, such as shaded country Panes which Wize lower profile indigenous canopy trees accentuated with various citrus species. The use of taker,, vertical landscape elements, such as palm trees, shaft be de- emphasized. More possible, the use of vertical amts on Vie outside lane of the roadway shall be minimized. Street traffic signals, street lighWV systems, street huniture, bus shehers and street name signs shad be similar to primary and secondary image corridors, but_ 1f possible, shad incorporate more of a rural character. Policy 3 -4.1.7 Agrarian Image corridors shad include the following roadways: • Madson Street • Avenue 54 (from Jefferson Street to Monroe Street) Policy 3 -4.1.6 Primary gateway_ treatments shall be defined as street - scape treatments at .key intersections leading into Cie City and into the Village area. Primary gateway treatments may Include special paving, street furniture, BRW, Inc, aWter 3 - Circulation Dement City of La Ouinta LXW- ?W,&WWr 3-21 General Plan hardscap"creen wad arrangements, aispleys of pubfc art, monument manage, iandscaj ft and street Ming • Primary gateways are intended as dramatic design statements the entrance av the City and the Village area Primary gateway treatments shad occur at the following street intersection: • Fred Waring Drive and Washington Street ®• Washington Street and FGghway 111 • ,Jefferson Street and Highway 111 • Calle Tampico and Washington Street • Esenhower Drive and Cade Tampico Policy 3 -4.1.9 Secondary gateway treatments shaft be defined as streetscape treatments which are similar to primary gateway treatments except that an emphasis is placed on a less dramatic entry statement For example, secondary gateway treatments may not include special paving, street furniture or hardscaWscreen wall arrangements. The secondary gateway treatment may rely more on the use of landscaping, street lighting and monument signage as the major elements of design. 3- 4.1.10 Along primary, secondary and agrarian image corridors the City shall establish appropriate building height limits to ensure a low density character and appearance. Policy 3- 4.1.11 Landscaped setbacks are necessary to ensure a high Quality and attractive appearance on major streets. Setbacks for walls, buildings and parking areas may vary, Y property designed, but shad generally be as Wows: �+ Kghway 111 - 50 feet • Other Major ArterWs - 20 feet • Primary Arterials - 20 feet • Secondary Arterials - 10 feet • Collector Streets - 10 feet Landscaping within these setback areas shad be consistent with the appropriate image corridor designation, if applicable. Policy 3- 4.1.12 Special right -of -way width and design treatments wid be identified for streets within the VrUage Area, recognizing established set -backs of adjacent developments and the maturriy of existing landscaping BRW, Ina LN-TaWLAO-IMT materials. Tim Wowing streets wry be permitted ro remain at a maudmum fifty (50) Not right- of-way wkft 8) Cedlz b) Barcebw c) Amigo Policy 3- 4.1.13 Wad openings to allow views into projects from image corridors are desirable and should be required where appropriate as one means of minimizing negative visual impacts of continuous walls. This can also be accomplished by varying setbacks. Policy 3- 4.1.14 The Carty may require adequate parkways, vistas into walled communities, and other features as appropriate. Policy 3- 4.1.15 Where desirable, the use of existing natural vegetation incX,&V citrus trees, date palm groves, eucayptus windrows, and oleander hedges should be considered for retention in image corridor landscape designs. Policy 3- 4.1.16 Special design treatments for major elements of the City's street system shat/ be considered in ad approvals for related development Policy 3- 4.1.17 The City's streetscape quality shall be improved by undergrounding of utilities wherever possible. Policy 3- 4.1.18 Prevention of visus/ Wight shall be enhanced by the administration of a comprehensive sign ordinance. Public Transit Policies Background - The provision of public transit is an Integral part of La Quinta's multi -modal circulation system. Increased use of public transit in the future will provide benefits such as reduced congestion and improved air quality. For transit to be successful, it should be property planned so that it is cormnient and accessible to users and operates h a timely fastnion. The following policies are intended to provide guidance In establishing an expanded transit system to serve the needs of itne City and region. Chapter 3 - Circulation Element 3-22 City of La Quinta General Plan TABLE LU-4 City of La Oulnta, Commercial Land Use Category Standards Commercial General ' Category Development Standards' Development Characteristics Mixed/Regional Commercial (M/RC) Community Commercial (CC) Neighborhood Commercial (NCB Commercial Park (CP) Maximum FAR. of 0.35 Primarily retail businesses serving a regional trade area. such as tenants Maximum building height of associated with a regional mall, off -price retail outlet, and/or )powe- four stories center'. Other businesses of a secondary priority Include ovemigh. Located only in the commercial lodging, automobile retail and major office uses, such as Highway 911 Corridor corporate headquarters, research and deveknpment fadlitles, medical - related facilities and major community facilities. Higher density residentli uses are allowed in designated areas. Maximum FAR. of 0.30 Maximum building height of three stories Located on, and with direct access to, and primarily at the Intersection of arterial streets Primarily retail business serving the daily needs of a mult1p0e neighbor!�a area. Typical tenants may Include general merchandise, hardwareAxdl iii materials, grocery supermarkets, drug stores and larger specialty stores. Other business of a secondary priority may Include automobile service stations and professional service and office uses. Maximum FAR. of 0.25 Primarily retail businesses serving the needs of an immediate neighbortx Maximum building height of two trade area Typical tenants Include grocery supermarkets, drug str- os, stories eating and drinking establishments, automobile service stations st, Located on, and with direct personal services, such as laundry and barber salons. Other business o secondary priority Include small scale administrative/prvfessional of'floes, access to, arterial streets such as medical services, Mance, insurance and real estate offices. Maximum of 20 acres/site Maximum FAR. of 0.25 Maximum building height of two stories Direct , access to.arterial or non - residential collector streets Developed In 'campus -like' settings Primarily businesses offerkV heavy commercial and light industrial uses serving the needs of . a local and regional trade area Typical businesses Include office/showroom, o?Rc:etwarehouse, high -tech light manufacturirK automobile repair and body work, warehousing and storage and other similar uses. ALE STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETIAG DATE: APRIL 7, 1993 CASE NO: PLOT PLAN 93 -495 APPLICANT: SIMON PLAZA, INC. (PHILIP PEAD) PREVIOUS CASE: PLOT PLAN 91 -466 (REVISED) (EXPIRED) OWNERS: 3S PARTNERSHIP AND POMONA FIRST FEDERAL BANK SUBJECT: REQUEST TO DEVELOP A MIXED USE COMMERCIAL PROJECT ON APPROXIMATELY 5.6 ACRES ZONED C -P -S COMMERCIAL. THE PROJECT WILL INCLUDE A FOUR STORY OFFICE BUILDING, A 44 LANE BOWLING ALLEY, A FITNESS CENTER, A RESTAURANT OR BANK, AN EYE L\STITUTE OR OFFICE, A FOUR LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE, AND RELATED AT -GRADE PARKING. LOCATION: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY III AND WASHINGTON STREET, BOTH MAJOR ARTERIALS. THE DEVELOPMENT, ON ±5.6 ACRES OF LAND, IS LOCATED TO THE WEST OF THE EXISTING SIMON MOTORS AUTOMOTIVE DEALERSHIP ON HIGHWAY 111. ARCHITECT: EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS: MERLIN J. BARTH MIXED /REGIONAL COMMERCIAL WITH NON - RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY. NORTH: 111 LA QUINTA SHOPPING CENTER SOUTH: WASHINGTON SQUARE SPECIFIC PLAN PROPERTY (VACANT) EAST: EXISTING SIMON MOTORS AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP WEST: EXISTING PLAZA LA QUINTA SHOPPING CENTER DRBST.083 1 ..� .-. >y BACKGROUND: This project was reviewed by the City in 1992, as part of the review and approval of Plot Plan 91 -466 (Revised). The project received approval by the Design Review Board on October 2, 1991, the Planning Commission on February 25, 1992, and the City Council on March 2, 1992. However, the final design approved changed from ± 165,000 square feet to ± 125,000 square feet and various buildings were shifted on the property to increase visibility into the project. The initial plan is attached for reference. The original Conditions of Approval required the applicant to begin construction of the project within one year or apply for a one year extension of time which required review by the Planning Commission. The original case expired on February 25, 1993. On March 11, 1993, the applicant refiled the original plans with Staff and paid the necessary fees to return the project through the necessary stages to have the project reviewed by the Design Review Board, Planning Commission, and City Council as a new application. DESCRIPTION OF SITE: The proposed ±5.6 acre site is comprised of seven parcels. The flat and undeveloped parcels were created by the division of land under Parcel Map 18418 in 1982. The property has frontage on three streets With 650 feet along Washington Street, 700 feet along Highway 111, and 180 feet along Simon Drive. The site elevation along Washington Street is approximately 60 feet above sea level. The site is improved with street improvements. However, additional widening is necessary on Washington Street to conform with the City's adopted Specific Plan Alignment Program and General Plan. A future raised median island is proposed for both Washington Street and Highway 111. The property was subdivided in the early 1980's for the development of Simon Motors Automobile Dealership as well as to establish commercial lots which could be sold or developed with commercial land uses. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL: The development proposal will include a four story office building on Highway 111 which is attached to the three level parking structure abutting the Simon Motors property. On the southwest portion of the site (also attached to the parking structure) is the second story fitness center and one story 44 lane bowling alley. The other two buildings on the site are a restaurant/bank building at the intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Street and a one story eye institute. The project is broken down in the following fashion: DRBST.083 2 ,0 Offices = 60,880 sq. ft. Restaurant , = 8,000 sq. ft. Office/Eye Institute = 5,000 sq. ft. Fitness Center = 12,000 sq. ft. Bowling Alley = 40.531 sq. ft. 126,411 sq. ft. (550 parking spaces) ARCHITECTURE: The project architect, Mr. Merlin J. Barth, of Anaheim, has prepared a plan which. proposes buildings around the outer portion of the site with at -grade parking in the center of the facility. A multiple level parking structure will be located on the east side of the property. CIRCULATIONIPARKING: The developer has proposed access driveways on each respective public street. The two-way driveway on Highway 111 and Washington Street will service the proposed courtyard guest parking lot (approximately 102 parking spaces). The driveways lead to the four level parking garage (two floors above grade with a roof top parking area and one subterranean level) located at the easterly property boundary of the site. The parking garage will house approximately 448 cars. The parking ratio for this project is (126,411/550) one on -site space for every 229 square feet of leasable floor area. IMAGE CORRIDOR: On October 6, 1992, the City updated its General Plan to include some new standards which are pertinent to all properties in the City. The new plan designates the frontage streets along the exterior portion of the site as "primary image corridor" thoroughfares, and the signalized intersection of Washington Street and Highway 111 as a "gateway" image intersection. A copy of the adopted material is attached. The primary function of the program is to provide boulevard streets with raised, landscaped medians and heavily landscaped areas within and contiguous to the street rights -of -way. The General Plan states that "primary image corridors shall include landscape themes which are reminiscent of La Quinta's agricultural past and desert environment ". Overall, the applicant's request is generally consistent with the intent of the General Plan except for the intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Street. We would recommend that the applicant enhance the intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Street to include an area for a public art piece surrounded by palm trees. DRBST.083 BUILDING FLOOR AREA RATIO: The new General Plan for the City established new policy requirements for the City on the amount of building coverage a. project could have on a site. Table LU -4 of the Land Use Element states 0.35 is the ratio for MixedlRegional Commercial (M /RC) properties. This project proposes 126,411 square feet on approximately ±5.3 net acres or an F.A.R. of 0.5-4. This figure does not examine the parking structure as a building for this equation. The project should be downsized to meet this new building floor area to project site area ratio which is based on net land area (after street dedication) versus gross floor area (e.g., 82,000 sq. ft. - 230,868 = 0.35). STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant allowed the original case approval to expire in February, 1993. Therefore, the Design Review Board can request changes to the proposed resubmittal if you believe they are necessary. Staff would also like to point out to the Design Review Board that the applicant would like to maintain the past master sign program (SA 91 -159 #i3) which was approved by the Design Review Board and Planning Commission after the original review of Plot Plan 91-466 (Revised). A copy of the original approval is attached. The City's Zoning Code Standards have not changed since the last review of this case. Should changes occur to the structures, it r;av be necessary to revise the sign program. Staff would recommend that the Design Review Board reconsider the Planning Commission approval of the triangular freestanding sign at the intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Street. The current approval allowed a twelve foot high sign with three sides each having 50 square feet of copy. It might be more appropriate to relocate a project sign to the east and south of its present location and provide a different type of sign (e.g., double sided sign). SUGGESTED CONDITIONS: 1. The General Plan policy standards for "Primary Gateway Treatment" as outlined in Chapter 3.0 (Circulation Element) should be met since this intersection is located on an image corridor of the City. 2. A project identification sign should not be installed at the intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Street, since the area should be reserved for landscaping, public furniture, and a public art piece. No private property features such as a project identification sign should be permitted within 150 feet of the intersection. 3. The maximum F.A.R. for this project should be 0.35 as noted in Table LU-4 of the General Plan. DRBST.083 4 I' 1 ►i lu W 1 • 1 Staff is at the Design Review Board's pleasure on the matter and any new recommendations of the Design Review Board will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for their review later this month. Attachments: 1. Location map 2. Large exhibits (dated 3/15/93) 3. Master Sign Approval (SA 91 -159 #3) 4. Excerpts from the original Conditions for. Plot Plan 91-466 (Revised) 5. Initial site plan design (superseded) 6. Excerpt from the General Plan DRBST.083 5 vD `1J J 1� i sA Adams Street R Street v , CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - APPROVED EXHIBIT A SIGN APPLICATION 91 -159, AMENDMENT M3 SIMON PLAZA -SIGN PROGRAM NOVEMBER 24, 1992 * Revised by the Planning Commission on November 24, 1992 GENERAL PROVISIONS: 1. Each freestanding sign shall be a minimum of five feet from the future property line it abuts. No signs should be placed in the City's right -of - -way. 2. All signs should be reviewed by the Engineering Department to assure sight visibility is not obstructed by the installation of each respective freestanding sign. 3. Site address numbers should be on the main monument sign as a supplemental to the building addressing plan. The minimum size should be four inches and contrasting to the background it is affixed to. 4. Any and all proposed illuminated signs shall be installed to avoid undue brightness which would distract passing motorists and /or pedestrians. 5. The sign colors shall be blue ( #607 -1GP Acrylite Blue) except for the other supplement signs such as the bowling pins and top of the monument sign can be royal blue, orange and white as depicted on the attached drawings. *6. The building signs can be internally illuminated. 7. No exposed raceways, crossover, conduits, conductors, transformers, etc., shall be permitted. All supplemental electrical hardware shall be behind the building structure inside the sign structure, or located underground. *8. The lettering styles for the building signs shall be either Clarendon or Souvenir. Upper case lettering shall be used for all signs except for the medical complex building. 9.. All attached building signs shall have channel letters (individually constructed). 10. All freestanding signs shall be double -sided and perpendicular to the public street they serve unless noted otherwise in the following section. SIGN ADNST WENTS: 11. a.) The Fitness Center signs (Sign #7 & N8) located on the second story elevation of the building shall not be permitted as depicted in the attached drawings. At this time, the Applicant shall wait until the building is under construction to ascertain CONAPRVL.065 1 whether or not a sign(s) should be installed at the proposed location(s). Tice matter shall be reviewed in the future by the Board at the request of the Applicant. *b.) Signs #3, and 914B, shall not be allowed because they are not necessary for the center nor its patrons, and they degrade the architectural character of the project. *c.) The La Quinta Medical Center sign (Sign #6) located on the third story elevation of the four story building shall be permitted as depicted in the attached drawings. d.) The La Quinta Medical Center freestanding monument sign (Sign #5) located on the north side of the four story building shall be permitted provided the sign is one -sided and is constructed with the same materials as Sign #2. *e.) The Milauskas Eye Institute sign (Sign x+12) on Highway 111 shall be permitted. The sign shall be constructed in a similar fashion to Sign #2, with height lowered and logo on top reduced in size to be proportional with main center sign (maximum height 7 feet). f.) The "Fine Dining Restaurant" sign (Sign #18) shall be permitted provided the sign faces the parking lot and is constructed in a similar fashion to Sign #2. One side of copy is permitted. One attached building sign shall be installed at the entrance of the restaurant for patron identification. The size of the sign shall be approved by Staff. *g.) Sign #2 (Main identification sign) shall be three - sided, and include three sides of sign copy. &IISCELLANEOUS: 12. The final sign graphics shall be subject to review by the Director of Planning and Development prior to permit issuance by the Building and Safety Department. 13. Each tenant and/or his sign contractor shall obtain approval by the property owners (or management company) in writing prior to submission of the sign drawings to the Planning and Development Department for permit consideration. The property owner shall review the signs for lettering style, color, sign location, lighting, and any other "important" issues. 14. All sign contractors shall be licensed to do business in the City of La Quinta and possess a State Contractor's License to perform the work outlined in the sign permit. 15. All signs shall conform to the City's adopted Sign Ordinance in effect at the time the sign permit is issued. 16. Underwriter Laboratories certification labels shall be affixed to all internally illuminated CONAPRVL.065 2 signs, thus assuring that the sign (or sign structure) meets industry specifications. '17. Signs #14A and 'C" shall be internally lit. The background for the signs shall be opaque. 18. The freestanding parking signs ( #16, and 017) shall not be permitted because they are not necessary to the success of the commercial center. Sign #15 is allowed provided the directional sign states "Entrance ". 19. All freestanding signs permitted shall include similar architectural elements to those of Sign #2,. and the sign proportions shall be downsized accordingly (e.g., 12 -foot high to 9 -feet, 7 feet, and 6 -feet) so that the smaller signs exemplify the sites main identification sign. 20. No attached building sign shall be greater than 50 square feet on the side of the building it serves. 21. The channel letter returns shall be painted to match the exterior color of the building on which it is affixed. J 22. If deemed necessary by City, Applicant shall provide location for City entry sign in front and below main identification sign, as required by the Planning and Development Director. 23. The overall height of each freestanding sign shall be measured from the abutting street curb elevation height. CONAPRVL.065 3 Excerpt frorr '`re Original Case File (PP 91 -466) 25. That all conditions of the Design Review Board shall be complied with as follows: A. The landscape plan shall include an eight foot wide meandering pedestrian /bike trail. The plans should be reviewed by the Design Review Board prior to submission of the final landscape plan by the Applicant / Developer. B. The landscape program for Washington Street shall include a variation of planting materials, i.e. , Palm trees, accent shade trees, lawn, shrubs, and groundcover. The use of mature California Pepper, Australian Willow, Mesquite, Crape Myrtle, Bottle Trees, and Washington Robusta . Palms should be encouraged. Varieties of flowering shrubs such as Texas. Ranger, Cassia, Crepe Myrtle, and Dwarf Oleander should be utilized. Native (low water use) plants should be used, and the landscape architect should consult the Coachella Valley Water District's plant material list prior to designing their proposal. Uplighted trees or palms shall be used along Washington Street and Highway 111. Incandescent light fixtures will be required (less than 160 watt) . C. Any proposed parking lot lighting plan shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board prior to building plan check. A photometric study should be developed which analyzes the lighting pattern on the project and meets the City's Lighting Ordinance provisions as explained in Chapter 9.210 and 9.160 (Off - Street Parking) . The. height of the light poles shall not exceed 18 feet in height, and the lighting contractor should reduce this height if physically possible during review of the project. *D. A one story building height of 28 feet shall be maintained along Washington Street and Highway 111 within 150 feet of the ultimate property line (after street dedication has been included) excluding minor architectural appendages (e.g., chimneys, towers, building columns, etc.). E. Decorative concrete entryways shall be provided for all two -way driveways into the project site. The concrete shall be stamped and colored to accentuate the proposed development. The color, design and location of the concrete should be reviewed by the Design Review Board during a final plan check review. F. The final plans shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board prior to the submission of the plans to the Building Department for final check consideration. The final plans should include but not be limited to landscaping and irrigation, building, signs, mechanical, etc. G. Bike racks shall be provided at convenient areas within the site for usage by bicycle riders. One space for every 50 parking spaces shall be provided as noted in the Off- Street Parking Code. H . The landscape setback on Washington Street shall be a minimum of 20 feet from the. new property line. I. All open parking stalls shall be screened by walls, landscape hedges, or a combination thereof to a minimum height of 42 inches. J. A master sign program shall be approved by the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of a building permit for any of the proposed building structures. 1st. Bank or Restaurant \ J r T 3st. plus basement /Offices SUPERCEDED 1st. Bowling (40 Lanes) Zst.I Offices MEEK � LL_ , 1 ' X11 �.'t ► C: � [` — �.....,�d 4st. Parking Garage w/ sub -level 4st. Office Bldg. � x ®m a gill a 0 Policy 3-412 corridors shad be defined as streets in Me rc Awy ne w—fudh are the m$jor urban design statements of the City. Pru»ary Image corridors shad consist cf boulevard streets with raised, landscaped medians and heavily landscaped areas *ftn and contigma to the street nghts -of -way. Primary knage corridors shad include landscape themes which are remkhiscent of La Ouinte's agricultural past and desert enviorvnent Primary image corridors may include vertical landscape elements such as palm trees comprernented with a shade - producing urnderstory of canopy trees, such as indigenous, drought tolerant desert species. More water intensive urnderstory canopy tress, such as various citrus species, should be used sparingly in nodes at key locations as high6giss and reminders of past agricultural activities. Ground plane landscape materials should evoke a lush image . Mrough the use of drought tolerant, low malniensnce plant species. Tun' should be used In s manner consistent with citrus trees—Aparingty and kn high vssWity locations. Primary image corridors shad include street traffic signals, street lighting systems, street furniture, bus shelters, street name signs, and noise bermslbarriers which are designed in a coor- dinated and consistent theme unique to La Ouinta. At key intersections, primary image corridors shall include treatments which may include special roadway paving, hardscaae/screen wall arrangements and &splays of public art Policy 3 -4.1.3 Primary image corridors shad include the following roadways. ®+ Washington Street • Jefferson Street �• y 111 • Fred Waring Drive • Cade Tampico • Ese ntmer Drive (from Cage Tampico to Washington Street' Policy 3 -4.1.4 Secandary image corridors shad be defined as streets in the roadway network which are the secondary urban design statements of the City. Secondary Image corri- dors shad► consist of streets with raised, landscaped medsns and landscaped areas within and contiguous to the street right -of -way. Secondary image corridors shad be consistent with primary image corridors relative to simflar landscape materials, street traffic signals, street lighting systems, street furniture, bus shelters and street name signs. However, secondary street kmage cbrrk s shad emphasize the use of b*w profile Indigenous canopy trees, accentuated with Me use of duos trees In various nodes. The use of ceder, vertical landscape elements shad be de- emphasized and shad occur in nodes, pro wfty at street Intersections. Policy 3 -4.1.5 Secondary image corridors shad include the following roadways: • Miles Avenue • Dune Palms Road (south of the Coachella Valley Stomhwater Qharvheq • Adams Street (south of the Coachella Valley Stormwater Chary* • Avenue 48 • Avenue 50 • Avenue 52 • Eisenhower Drive (south of Calle Tampico to Avenida Bermudas) Policy 3-41.6 Agrarian image corridors shad be defined as streets in the roadway network which are designed to evoke a rural ambiance and to provide a strong linkage to the 0" agricultural past These corridors are to be boated in dose proumity to areas designated 'Rural ResidenbaP on the Land Use Policy Diagram in the Land Use Dement Agrarian image corridors shad incorporate equestrian tra& and shad include design themes representative of noel areas, such as shaded country lanes which utilize bwer profile indigenous canopy trees accentuated with various dins species. The use of taper, vertical larpe elements, such as patrm trees, shad be de- emphasized. Where possible, Coe use of vertical ants on the outside lane of the roadway shat/ be minimized. Sheet traffic signals, street lighting systems street lUmiture, bus shelters and street name signs shad be similar to primary and secondary image corridors, but if possible, shore incorporate more of a rural diaracter. Policy 3 -4.1.7 Agrarian image corridors shad include the following roadways: • Madson Street • Avenue 54 (frorn Jefferson Street to Monroe Street) Policy 3 -4 1.8 Primary gateway trrts shad be defined asstreet- sc$pe treatments at key intersections leading khto the Qty and into Me Village area Primary gateway treatments may Include special paving, street furniture, BRW, Inc Chapter 3 - Circulation Element City of La Oulnta 3-21 General Plan hardsca;Wscxeen wag arrangements, displays of public art; monument sowge, wing and street lighting. Prunary gateways are ktmW as dramatic design statements indicating Me evance to Me City and Me Mage area Primary gateway treatments shall occur at the following street intersections: • Fred Waring Drive and WashnVton Street ®• Washington Street and Highway 111 • Jefferson Street and highway 111 • Cane Tampico and Washington Street • Eisenhower Drive and Cage Tampico Policy 3 -4.1.9 Secondary gateway treatments shall be defined as streetscape treatments which are similar to primary gateway treatments except that an amptasis is placed on a less dramatic entry statement.. For example, secondary gateway treatments may not include special paving, street furniture or hardscape/screen wag arrangements. The secondary gateway treatment may rely more on the use of landscaping, street lighting and monument signage as the major elements of design. 3- 4.1.10 Along primary , secondary and agrarian image corridors the City shall establish appropriate building height limits to ensure a low densiy d wracter and appearance. Policy 3- 4.1.11 Landscaped setbacks are necessary to ensure a high quality and attractive appearance on major streets. Setbacks for walls, buildings and parking areas may vary, U property designed, but shag generally be as follows. �• Kghway 111 - 50 fear • Other Major Arterials - 20 feet • Primary Arterials - 20 fleet • Secondary Arterials - 10 feet • Collector Streets - 10 feet Landscaping within these setback areas shag be consistent with the appropriate image corridor designation, # applicable. Policy 3- 4.1.12 Special right -of -way width and design treatments wry be identified for streets within the Village Area, recognizing established set -backs of adjacent developments and the maturity of existing landscaping materials. The following streets wil? be permitted to remain at a maLdnwm fifty (50) foot right- of-way width: 8) Cadiz b) Barcelona C) Amigo Policy 3- 4.1.13 Wag openings to allow views into projects from image corridors are desirable and should be required where appropriate as one means of minimizing negative visual impacts of continuous wags. This can also be accomplished by varying setbacks. Policy 3- 4.1.14 The City may require adequate parkways, vistas into walled communities, and other features as appropriate. Policy 3- 4.1.15 More desirable, the use of existing natural vegetation including atrus trees, date palm groves, eucalyptus windrows, and oleander hedges should be considered for retention in Image corridor Landscape designs. Policy 3- 4.1.16 Special design treatments for major elements of the City's street system shag be considered in all approvals for related development: Policy 3- 4.1.17 The Cdys streetscape quay shag be improved by undergrocmding of utr7ities wherever possible. Policy 3- 4.1.18 Prevention of visual blight shag be enhanced by the administration of a comprehensive sign ordinance. Public Transit Policies Background - The provision of public transit is an Integral part of La Quinta's multi -modal circulation system. Increased use of public transit in the future will provide -tene5ts such as reduced congestion and Improved air quality. For i wrA to be successful, it should be properly planned so that R is convenient and accessible to users and operates In a limey fashion. The following policies are intended to provide guidance In establishing an expanded transit system to serve the needs of the City and region BRW, Inc. Chapter 3 - Circulation Element City of La Ouinta Li. -,0KA0-„PT 3-22 General Plan TABLE LU-4 City of La Quints, Commercial Land Use Category Standards Commercial General Category Development Standards' Development Characteristics Mixed/Regional Commercial (M/RC) . . Community Commercial (CC) Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Commercial Park (CP) Maximum FAR. of 0.35 Primarily retail businesses serving a regional trade area, such as tenants Maximum building height of associated with a regional mall, off -price retail outlet, and/or 'power, four stories center'. Other businesses of a secondary priority Include overnight only in the commercial lodging, automobile retail and major ofltoe uses, such as Located o Highway nl Corridor corporate headquarters, research and development fadlitkm medlcW- related facilities and major community facilities. Higher density residential uses are allowed in designated areas. Maximum FAR. of 0.30 Maximum building height of three stories Located on. and with direct access to, and primarily at the Intersection of arterial streets Primarily retail business serving the daily needs of a multiple neighborhoa area. Typical tenants may include general merchandise, hardware/bulldirr materials, grocery supermarkets, drug stores and larger specialty stores. Other business of a secondary priority may Include automobile service stations and professional service and office uses. Maximum FAR. of 0.25 Primarily retail businesses serving the needs of an Immediate nelghborha Maximum building height of two trade area. Typical tenants include grocery supermarkets, drug st stories eating and drinking establishments, automobile service, stations art Located on, and with direct personal services, such as laundry and barber salons. Other business of access to, arterial streets secondary priority Include small scale administrativedprofessional offices, such as medical services, Wriance, Insurance and real estate offices. Maximum of 20 acres/site Maximum FAR. of 0.25 Maximum building height of two stories Direct access to arterial or ran - residential collector streets Developed in 'campus -like' settings Primarily businesses offering heavy commercial and fight industrial uses serving the needs of a local and regional trade area Typical businesses Include office/ showroom, office/warehouse, high -tech light manufacturing, automobile repair and body work, warehousing and storage and other similar uses. r t SIMON PLAZA SALES AND PROPERTY DATE: 4/06/93 TAX INCOME (4: INFLATION ASSUMED) 44,798 46,590 � 4�� ��v- 50,392 52,408 . 54,504 56,684 58,951 PROPERTY VALUE Q RETAIL USE 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 01 2002 2003 RESTAURANT 3,048,851 3,170,805 3,297,637 3,429,543 3,566,724 3,709,393 3,857,769 4,012,080 •4,172,563 4,339,466 CURLY'S BOWL 1,070,000 1,112,800 1,157,312 1,203,604 1,251,749 1,301,819 1,353,891 1,408,047 1,464,369 1,522,944 FITNESS ADVANTAGE 15,000 15,600 16,224 16,873 17,548 18,250 18,980 19,739 20,529 21,350 MULLINS PHARMACY 8,000 8,320 8,653 8,999 9,359 9,733 10,123 10,527 10,949 11,386 --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --------- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- TOTAL TAXABLE REV. 4,141,851 4,307,525 4,479,826 4,659,019 4,845,380 5,039,195 5,240,763 5,450,393 5,668,409 5,895,145 TOT SALES TAX INCOME 41,419 43,075 44,798 46,590 48,454 50,392 52,408 . 54,504 56,684 58,951 PROPERTY VALUE LAND 4,675,000 4,862,000 5,056,480 5,258,739 5,469,089 5,687,852 5,915,366 6,1511981 6,398,060 6,653,983 IMP. 15,943,000 16,580,720 17,243,949 17,933,707 18,651,055 19,397,097 20,172,981 20,979,900 21,819,096 22,691,860 TOTAL 20,618,000 ---------- 21,442,720 ---- - - - - -- 22,300,429 ---- - - - - -- 23,192,446 ---- - - - - -- 24,120,144 ---- - - - - -- 25,084,950 ---- - - - - -- 26,088,348 ---- - - - - -- 27,131,881 ---- - - - - -- 28,217,157 ---- - - - - -- 29,345,843 ---- - - - - -- LESS PRE AGENCY VAL. 1,022,980 1,043,440 1,064,308 1,085,595 1,107,306 1,129,453 1,152,042 1,175,082 1,198,584 1,222,556 AGENCY TAX VALUE 70,848 73,756 76,782 79,930 83,206 86,614 90,160 93,850 97,689 101,683 SALES TAX 6 RDA 112,267 116,832 121,580 126,520 131,660 137,006 142,568 148,354 154,373 160,635 TOTAL OVER 10 YEARS: 1,351,795 OF- 4, DATE: 12/10/92 ASSUMPTIONS: SITE AREA /SF SITE AREA LESS DEDICATIONS /SF BUILDING FOOTPRINTS /SF LAND ACQUISITION COST RENTAL RATES ANNUAL /SF CURLY'S BOWL EYE CENTER RESTAURANT MEDICAL LEASING COMMISSIONS OPERATING EXPENSES RENT ESCALATION CPI EQUITY DEVELOPMENT COSTS ----- - - - - -- - - - -- I CONSTRUCTION AREA CURLY'S BOWL 40,531 EYE CENTER 5,000 CORTESE'S 8,000 MEDICAL 73,000 $1,621,240 126,531 PARKING GARAGE- 131,440 TENANT IMPROVEMENTS ___$35. $63 OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS $50 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $3,650,000 SIMON PLAZA 247,059 227,059 $4,675,000 13.20 26.40 32.00 24.00 $2.00 /SF 5.00% 4.00% $18,868,504 UNIT T. I. - "" TOTAL_ .-COST -COST _ COST $40 $30 $1,621,240 - $45 -$225,000 $50 ___$35. $63 $400,000 $50 $35 $3,650,000 $5,896,240 $16 $2,103,040 $4,445,930 227,059 $3.38 $768,504 $13,213,714 ill It MISCELLANEOUS ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS PLAN CHECK /PERMITS LEGAL TAXES DURING CONSTRUCTION INSURANCE PROJECT OVERHEAD DEVELOPER FEE LEASING COMMISSIONS TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS. III CONTINGENCY IV LAND ACQUISITION COST TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COST 4 %Constr 3.,50$Constr 1 %Constr $1 /SF 5 %Constr 3% $528,549 $462,480 $50,000 $54,878 $132,137 $126,531 $660,686 $250,000 $2,265,260 $464,369 $4,675,000 $20,618,343 Offsite Cost Washington'Street 8" Curb & Gutter 6 to 8" Curb & Gutter 6" Barrier Curb Sidewalk Catch Basin #1 Catch Basin #2 4 over 8 Pavement Pavement Removal Curb Removal Power Pole Relocations G.T.E vaults etc Relo. Design Landscaping Underground Relo. Underground existing OH Storm Drain Traffic Signal 2 Fire Hydrants Subtotal 10% Contingency Total Highway 111 Traffic Signal Permits & Fees Sidewalk Bus Pullout Median Fire Hydrant Landscaping Subtotal 10% Contingency Total Total Offsite Costs 9,920 896 8,092 32,200 4,000 31500 108,500 0 1,425 8,000 6,000 35,000 32,000 52,500 150,000 24,500 7,500 5,000 489,033 48,903 537,936 37,500 30,000 9,920 15,380 34,790 2 'Soo 79,520 209,610 20,961 230,571 768,507 I Murray Warden City of La Quinta August 12, 1992 EMPLOYMENT The development of Simon Plaza will create a large employment base of skilled and unskilled labor. A 60,000 square foot medical building will provide local extensive health care coverage for the citizens of La Quinta and bring over 25 physicians and their medical staff into the area. The 44 lane bowling center will employ 60 people and provide much needed family entertainment to the. community. The City of La Quinta was, at one time, planning to build a fitness center and sub -lease it to a management company because the City felt that La Quinta should have a fitness center. Simon Plaza is planning to have a large fitness center at the project thereby obviating the need for the City to provide a facility. It is Simon Plaza's goal to offer discounts for the residents of the City of La Quinta. A planned restaurant at Simon Plaza will again increase employment as well as the sales tax base. An ophthalmologist will be locating a surgery center/office building at Simon Plaza again enhancing the quality of health care in the City and increasing employment. Finally, the Simon Plaza development will employ hundreds of subcontractors to construct the project keeping the local employment base healthy and continue growing. REVENUE The City will receive a substantial property tax value from the project and additional sales tax will be generated by the restaurant and the deli and sports bar located in the bowling center. In addition, since Fred Simon is the major partner in Simon Plaza, this project is considered Phase II of a development he began with the construction of Simon Motors, Simon Plaza is including the sales tax generated by Simon Motors. CONCLUSION The development of Simon Plaza not only creates much needed family entertainment in the City of La Quinta, but also increases the health care coverage for the residents. The project creates a significant value for the tax base and increases employment which, in turn, increases the disposable income and sales tax, in the City. -2- Mr. Murray Warden City of La Quinta 'August 12, 1992 I The cost of the improvements and the dedication of the land required by the City places a disproportionate burden on Simon Plaza and without the Redevelopment Agency's assistance, the project would not be economically viable. Please call me at your. earliest convenience to pursue this matter further. PMP /ww Very truly yours, SIMONtPLAZA, INC. Philip M. Pead President -3- 4th April, 1993 . 01N ems'/ Overview of Simon Plaza's efforts in obtainin% i"ty approvals: Request #1: Design Review Board objected to the quajatity and coloring of signs. There was also strong objection to the sign illumination. It was also felt that there was insufficient detail regarding type of plants used for landscaping and irrigation layout. Outcome: -Design Review Board continued the application. Response: Simon Plaza complied with the reduction of signage and changed the location and provided a more detailed landscaping plan. The Design Review Board agreed that the method of illum- ination.suggested by Simon Plaza was more appropriate. Outcome: Design Review Board approved the project. Request #2: Planning Commission objected to the design, the density, the set - backs, the height, the parking garage, the parking, the signage, the trash locations,.the architecture, the win- dows and the three sided sign identifying Simon Plaza. In addition over 20,000 sq ft of dedicated land was requested for a right turn lane and a wider radius at the corner of Washington St. and Highway 111. The Planning Commission also complained that the mountains could not be seen through the project. Outcome: The application was continued. Response: Simon Plaza altered the design allowing a view of the mountains. The density was reduced 30% impacting the economic viability of the project. The land sellers reduced the cost of the land to keep the project viable. The set -backs were increased to conform with CPS zoning. Additional surface parking and sub grade parking was created to offer more spaces. All the land required for dedication was agreed to by Simon Plaza. New trash locations were designed. P.O. BOX 461, 78 -611 HWY. 111, LA QUINTA, CA 92253 • PH.: 619/773 -2345 • FAX: 619/568 -4567 Outcome: The application was denied by the Planning Commission. Response: Simon Plaza completely redesigned the project further reducing the density and complying with every staff recommendation. The building heights were reduced to comply with the setbacks and setbacks were I increased to comply with the building heights. Increased parking was created, window designs were changed,.new trash locations were identified. With all the changes made by Simon Plaza no variances were required. A child care center was also included to aid the residents of La Quinta. Response: Planning Commission approved the project. After much deliberation the Council approved the project. Request #3: Planning staff state that unless land is dedicated by December 31st, 1992 the City will begin revocation proceedings. Response: Simon Plaza state that as they do not have title to the land they are unable to dedicate the land, however financing is imminent and as soon as the funds have been secured the dedication process can begin. Request #4: The Planning staff withold the revocation but state that when an application for renewal is made, a denial will be recommended therefore preventing Simon Plaza from continuing with the development. Response: Simon Plaza focuses on obtaining the funds necessary to purchase the land and begin the dedication process and construction. Request #5: After receiving a letter from Simon Plaza indicating that financing is imminent and there is now a need to extend the approvals together with starting the dedication of the land. The Planning staff state that because the approvals have expired a new application must be submitted. Response: Simon Plaza meets with the Planning Director and reviews the options with the City Attorney. Concurrently, a new application is filed with the Planning Department. At the meeting the Planning Director is helpful in trying to ensure a quick passage through the City. Simon Plaza is anxious to proceed and will cooperate with the City in any way. Request #6: The Planning staff state that under the new General Plan agreed to in October 1992,. Simon Plaza must reduce the leasable square footage 35% or 44,000 square feet to comply. Response: This request is a death blow to the project. It is not possible to develop Simon Plaza with this limitation. A meeting was requested with the Planning Director to resolve this issue. An amicable solution is imperative if the project is to .go forward. The building of Simon Plaza would obviate the need for the City of La Quinta to purchase the land needed for the widening of Washington St. thereby saving the City over $.1.5 million. Moving quickly on the solution will also prevent the City from having to pursue an.interim road widening option at an unnecessary cost. c Gfncoc �L August 12, 1992 Mr. Murray Warden City of La Quinta P. 0. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 Dear Murray, O� T19 Q� It was a pleasure meeting you to discuss the requirement of redevelopment funds to assist in the development of Simon Plaza. I would like to take this opportunity of justifying the Redevelopment Agency's assistance in defraying the costs of off -site construction. I have enclosed a copy of a letter to Fred Simon from Sanborn /Webb, Inc. regarding the estimate for the costs of the "Public Works" improvements. The total estimated costs are $663,300. In addition, there are approximately $200,000 of on -site costs that require the Agency's assistance. LAND DEDICATION Simon Plaza has agreed to dedicate approximately 20,000 square feet of land for the widening of Washington Street and the additional right -hand turn lane at the intersection of Washington and Highway 111. Fred Simon, the landowner, has already paid for the improvement of the Simon Plaza site during the construction of Simon Motors. This included the construction of the street called Simon Drive, the sewer line, the water line, curbs & gutters, and sidewalks. In approving the Simon Plaza project of which Fred Simon is a partner, the City has conditioned its approval upon Simon Plaza reimbursing the City for the off -sites mentioned in the Sanborn /Webb letter, thereby asking Fred Simon to pay for improvements twice. To my knowledge, this is unprecedented in the City of La Quinta. The dedication of land is again a condition of approval, however, the need for the City to require this dedication is not caused by the Simon Plaza development, but by the development in the cove and along Washington Street leading to Highway 111. The Simon Plaza site is 5.66 acres and the City is asking for a dedication of- approximately 9% of the land which causes the development considerable hardship. This point was discussed at numerous Planning and Council meetings. P.O. BOX 461, 78 -611 HWY. 111, LA QUINTA, CA 92253 • PH.: 619/773 -2345 • FAX: 619/568 -4567 1 ti Mr. Murray Warden City of La Quinta P. 0. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 Dear Murray, August 12, 1992 a� It was a pleasure meeting you to discuss the requirement of redevelopment funds to assist in the development of Simon Plaza. I would like to take this opportunity of justifying the Redevelopment Agency's assistance in defraying the costs of off -site construction. I have .enclosed a copy of a letter to Fred Simon from Sanborn /Webb, Inc. regarding the estimate for the costs of the "Public Works" improvements. The total estimated costs are $663,300. In addition, there are approximately $200,000 of on -site costs that require the Agency's assistance. LAND DEDICATION Simon Plaza has agreed to dedicate approximately 20,000 square feet of land for the widening of Washington Street and the additional right -hand turn lane at the intersection of Washington and Highway 111. Fred Simon, the landowner, has already paid for the improvement of the Simon Plaza site during the construction of Simon Motors. This included the construction of the street called Simon Drive, the sewer line, the water line, curbs & gutters, and sidewalks. In approving the Simon Plaza project of-which Fred Simon is a partner, the City has conditioned its approval upon Simon Plaza reimbursing the City for the off -sites mentioned in the Sanborn /Webb letter, thereby asking Fred Simon to pay for improvements twice. To my knowledge, this is unprecedented in the City of —La ,.Quinta. The dedication of land is again a condition of approval, however ";,," the need for the City to require this dedication is not caused by the Simon Plaza development, but by the development in the cove and along Washington Street leading to Highway 111. The Simon Plaza site is 5.66 acres and the City is asking for a dedication of approximately 9% of the land which causes the development considerable hardship. This point was discussed at numerous Planning and Council meetings. P.O. BOX 461, 78 -611 HWY. 111, LA QUINTA, CA 92253 - PH.: 6191773 -2345 - FAX: 619/568 -4567 `Mr. Murray Warden City of La Quinta August 12, 1992 EMPLOYMENT The development of Simon Plaza will create a large employment base of skilled and _unskilled labor. A 60,000 square foot medical building will provide local extensive health care coverage for the citizens of La Quinta and bring over 25 physicians and their medical staff into the area. The 44 lane bowling center will employ 60 people and provide much needed family entertainment to the community. The City of La Quinta was, at one time, planning to build a fitness center and sub -lease it to a management company because the City felt that La Quinta should have a fitness center. Simon Plaza is planning to have a large fitness center at the project thereby obviating the need for the City to provide a facility. It is Simon Plaza's goal to offer discounts for the residents of the City of La Quinta. A planned restaurant at Simon Plaza will again increase employment as well as the sales tax base. An ophthalmologist will be locating a surgery center /office building at Simon Plaza again enhancing the quality of health care in the City and increasing employment. Finally, the Simon Plaza development will employ hundreds of subcontractors to construct the project keeping the local employment base healthy and continue growing. REVENUE The City will receive a substantial property tax value from the project and additional sales tax will be generated by the restaurant and the deli and sports bar located in the bowling center. In addition, since Fred Simon is the major partner in Simon Plaza, this project is considered Phase II of a development he began with the construction of Simon Motors, Simon Plaza is including the sales tax generated by Simon Motors. CONCLUSION. The development of Simon Plaza not only creates much needed family entertainment in the City of La Quinta, but also increases the health care coverage for the residents. The project creates a significant value for the tax base and increases employment which, in turn, increases the disposable income and sales tax in the City. -2- Mr. Murray Warden City of La Quinta August 12, 1992 The cost of the improvements and the dedication of the land required by the City places a disproportionate burden on Simon Plaza and without the Redevelopment Agency's assistance, the project would not be economically viable. Please call me at your earliest convenience to pursue this matter further. PMP /ww Very truly yours, SIMON, PLAZA, INC. Philip M. Pead President -3- SIMON PLAZA SALES AND PROPERTY TAX INCOME (4X INFLATION ASSUMED) DATE: 4/06/93 RETAIL USE ---- - - - - -- 1994 - - -- 1995 - - -- 1996 - - -- 1997 - - -- 1998 - - -- 1999 - - -- 2000 - - -- 2001 - - -- 2002 - - -- 2003 - - -- RESTAURANT 3,048,851 3,170,805 3,297,637 3,429,543 3,566,724 3,709,393 3,857,769 4,012,080 •4,172,563 4,339,466 ,URLY'S BOWL 1,070,000 1,112,800 1,157,312 1,203,604 1,251,749 1,301,819 1,353,891 1,408,047 1,464,369 1,522,944 FITNESS ADVANTAGE 15,000 15,600 16,224 16,873 17,548 18,250 18,980 19,739 20,529 21,350 IIULLINS PHARMACY 8,000 8,320 8,653 8,999 9,359 9,733 10,123 10,527 10,949 11,386 TOTAL TAXABLE REV. --- - - - - -- --------- 4,141,851 --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- 4,307,525 --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- 4,479,826 --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- 4,659,019 --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- 4,845,380 --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- 5,039,195 --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- 5,240,763 --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- 5,450,393 --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- 5,668,409 --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- 5,895,145 - TOT SALES TAX INCOME - - - - - -- 41,419 - - - - - -- 43,075 - - - - - -- 44,798 - - - - - -- 46,590 = - - - - -- 48,454 - - - - - -- 50,392 - - - - - -- 52,408 - - - - - -- 54,504 - - - - - -- 56,684 - - - - - -- 58,951 PROPERTY VALUE LAND 4,675,000 4,862,000 5,056,480 5,258,739 5,469,089 5,687,852 5,915,366 6,151,981 6,398,060 6,653,983 IMP. 15,943,000 16,580,720 17,243,949 17,933,707 18,651,055 19,397,097 20,172,981. 20,979,900 21,819,096 22,691,860 TOTAL 20,618,000 ---- - - - - -- ---------- 21,442,720 ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- 22,300,429 ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- 23,192,446 ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- 24,120,144 ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- 25,084,950 ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- 26,088,348 ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- 27,131,881. ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- 28,217,157 ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- 29,345,843 ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- LESS PRE AGENCY VAL. 1,022,980 1,043,440 1,064,308 1,085,595 1,107,306 1,129,453 1,152,041 1,175,082 1,198,584 1,222,556 AGENCY TAX VALUE 70,848 73,756 76,782 79,930 83,206 86,614 90,160 93,850 97,689 101,683 SALES TAX 5 RDA 112,267 116,832 121,580 126,520 131,660 137,006 142,568 148,354 154,373 160,635 TOTAL OVER 10 YEARS: 1,351,795 DATE: 12/10/92 ASSUMPTIONS: SITE AREA /SF SITE AREA LESS DEDICATIONS /SF BUILDING FOOTPRINTS /SF LAND ACQUISITION COST RENTAL RATES - ANNUAL /SF CURLY'S BOWL EYE CENTER RESTAURANT MEDICAL LEASING COMMISSIONS OPERATING EXPENSES RENT ESCALATION CPI EQUITY DEVELOPMENT COSTS I CONSTRUCTION AREA CURLY'S BOWL 40,531 EYE CENTER 5,000 CORTESE'S 8,000 MEDICAL 73,000 $1,621,240 126,531 PARKING GARAGE 131,440 TENANT IMPROVEMENTS . OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS $50 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $3,650,000 SIMON PLAZA 247,059 227,059 $4,675,000 13.20 26.40 32.00 24.00 $2.00 /SF 5.00% 4.00% $18,868,504 - UNIT T.I. - -. TOTAL COST COST COST $40 $30 $1,621,240 $45 $35 $225,000 $50 $63 $400,000 $50 $35 $3,650,000 $5,896,240 $16 $2,103,040 $4,445,930 227,059 $3.38 $768,504 $13,213,714 '�. .�.. t• II MISCELLANEOUS ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS PLAN CHECK /PERMITS LEGAL TAXES DURING CONSTRUCTION INSURANCE PROJECT OVERHEAD DEVELOPER FEE LEASING COMMISSIONS TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS III CONTINGENCY IV LAND ACQUISITION COST TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COST 01; 4 %Constr $528,549 3050 %Constr $462,480 $50,000 $54,878 1 %Constr $132,137 $1 /SF $126,531 5 %Constr $660,686 $250,000 $2,265,260 3% $464,369 $4,675,000 $20,618,343 ".4. Offsite Cost Washington Street 8" Curb & Gutter 9,920 6 to 8" Curb & Cutter 896 6" Barrier Curb 8,092 Sidewalk 32,200 Catch Basin #1 4,000 Catch Basin #2 3,500 4 over 8 Pavement 108,500 Pavement Removal 0 Curb Removal 1,425 Power Pole Relocations 8,000 G.T.E vaults etc Relo. 6,000 Design 35,000 Landscaping 32,000 Underground Relo. 52,500 Underground existing OH 150,000 Storm Drain 24,500 .Traffic Signal 7,500 2 Fire Hydrants 5,000 Subtotal 489,033 1Oo Contingency 48,903 Total 537,936 Highway 111 Traffic Signal 37,500 Permits & Fees 30,000 Sidewalk 9,920 Bus Pullout 15,380 Median 34,790 Fire Hydrant 2,500 Landscaping 79,520 Subtotal 209,610 1Oo Contingency 20,961 Total 230,571 Total Offsite Costs 768,507 W-1 <117 -2 ca, .- x - DD F ad 3 cc , �s 16 wtr`i ow 4. 'n /> rMAY -75 1993 CITY OF LA AQUINTA PLANNING UPARTMFNT 1IRLIN J. BARTH P1 A-7A encelrccr IMYST. w ..CA9304 nuwiani Mjj�tn "-A m !!!!!!III i .. .� 7 DIIIIIIII 11!1rlflf7lflflfl �M oa in 5o B �z U J a. =�V � .ML.1YJ'IH )N�MY '11 AYU.p. mT 1731i897i asses -r Nmum( 4 9 g QJ 0 0 :FL'J J i MAY 5 1ss� CITY OF LA QUINTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT r:m - I DDLAH ® DEUND.7 CDLA J .--1 ©0. •i t E.. d J � 3 o 0 w w E e o mav - 5 1993, D G�jTV `pF to GUINTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT ©= ILI ��e mI, � 3 �J r a LAST GJSvA-rmxt - HWY III rJ� d �� .1G �Vi•�V� -- Ilft 1111 ftff Nff 'IIII Iltllltl 1pCLF■� E � 1111 ..� 1111 1111 ........� •.III 1111 1111 1111 :::: 411 :111 pOpO NBC 111111111 , } 9 '`p/I 1111110 Uffl 11111111 fUf 1111 VIII 1111 _��HId7[ �_ •iii :iii ! : : : :i iiii iiii, iiii :iiii luii iui IJORTN ELC.VA ?IOC! LMAV 5 CITY OF L QUINTA PLANNIN DEPARTMEW La E-. r� 'my "if Y � � J F R w 3 ® A' - i L' I y PLAY _ 5 1993 Q C6TY OF iA GUINTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1 I i 1 � I 066 �- b Oaa��SGCONn1Qa _O�I��II� IRWEEL ° 0 ©0 ,t a , W it v r7 ; ti i w J^ V w __...- -- i�o -� - - -- -�-'---- I � � -- -- --- -- 1'C - - - -�i� _� DD �� �� �� �� �� _� tC E aC 3 �u � .� u izi0 >� w �� �i 1%2 * 44 " 0 1°19+ -!!7 ACL) 1 \ lb ~ � Al 4. set - �rN VJ� ` • \. .. t '.7; ON IIIH -40 :z;-\ _! nr3;.^ yTT i i c( I .1_2F 7 T 0 N C.; C 14 C L 11 1 u L PIN �l 71 imp 0- 1 O2 i C160 ; i I j t -i r. VI■LTIM Ban 't Nllv3w -77 j N( Bills I 11113W 77 7; T T! iii � ,� ,cc i. 21M Ma'i -19 -1993 L4:0 FROI1 SPHROPH WEF:F TO 564 -71119 P. 0—'/'03 )(mY 19, 1993' . � 91 -224 WASHINGTON STEEET (CENTERLINE SMION DRIVE TO RAF W HIGHWAY 111) NEW CURBIPROPERTY UNE TO EXISTING CURB IMPROVEMENT'S ONLY SUBTOTAL $304.695.00 1096 CQNI'LNOENCY 5 30,469.50 TOTAL S335,164.50 �TENi QTY. UNn' COS' ' TOTAL 1 8" CURB do GUTIER 783 r1k S 7.50 - S 5,872,50 2 6' TO 8' CURB & GUTTER 43 $ 7.50 = S 322.50 3 HANDICAP RAMP 2 A @ S 1,000.00 = S 2,000.00 4 1 CURB REMOVAL a 880 SF S 1.50 ° S 1320.00 5 SIDEWALK -8 x $26 6,W $ 2.00 = S 1312M.00 6 AC PAVEIv EW 4"!8" -2-5,000 SF $ 1.50 - $ 37 500.00 7 CATCH BASIN 2 "EA0 S 4,000.00 = 5 8,000.00 8 POWER POLE RELOCATION 4 S 2,000.00 = S 8,000.00 9 GM VAULTS 13'1�C. RELOC.AITON 3 $ 2,D00,00 = 5 6 ,000.40 10 DESIGN (DESIGN COMPLBTEU BY OTHERS 11 UNDERGROUND RELOCATION LS A 52,D00,00 = S 52 004.00 121 ST. DRAIN 1400 LF @ $175.00 LF = $245,000,2% OF tW,000 = S 4,900.00 13 TRAFFIC SIGNAL 150 000, 5% OF $150,000 S ?,500.00 14 CONSTRUMON STAK NG m S 3,000.00 15 FrM HYDRANTS 2 k S 2,500.00.=! S 5200.00 16UNDERGROUNDEXIST.OVHRHEAD LS $150,000.00 - I S150000.00 SUBTOTAL $304.695.00 1096 CQNI'LNOENCY 5 30,469.50 TOTAL S335,164.50 SUBTOTAL 10`Yo CONTINGENCY TOTAL MAY 2 7 CITY OF LA OUINTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT $ 78,300.00 $ 7,830.00 $ 86,130.00 TOTAL. P.03 lt1]fGRWAY 711.1 1 7?-AMC SIGNAL •SRvir,7N DRIVE us%OF 5150 000 — S 18 754.00 2 BUS PULLOUT 1 A @ S 15,380.00 S 15 W.00 3 1 SIDEWALK 8'x 620 4,960 SF S 2.00 ° S 9920,00 4 MEDIAN -6" BARRIER CURB 1,100 $ 7.50 = S S,2LO,00 5 LANDSCAPING 9000 SF S 2.00 S 18,000.00 6 CATCH BASIN 2 Yuk $ 4,000.00 = S 8,000.00 SUBTOTAL 10`Yo CONTINGENCY TOTAL MAY 2 7 CITY OF LA OUINTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT $ 78,300.00 $ 7,830.00 $ 86,130.00 TOTAL. P.03 .4 h l� ' Grid A February 18th, 1994 Mr Jerry Herman Planning &. Dcvelopalent Director City of La Quinta 78 -495 Calle Tampico La Quinta Ca 92253 SUBJECT: CONDITION MODIFICA'T'ION FOR PLOT PLAN 93 -495 FEB 1 8 1994 CITY OF LA QUINTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT Dear Jerry, Yesterday I received a letter from the structural engineers assisting iri the design of Simon Plaza, requesting more time to analyze the effects of the Northridge earthquake on parking structures. As their findings may have an impact on the project, 1 am requesting a continuance of our Planning Commission meeting currently set for February 22nd, 1994. Please convey my apologies to the members of the commission,. However, I am sure everyone recognizes the importance of this analysis and as soon as I am notified of the results, I shall call you to re- schedule. The engineers estimate that they will have completed their investigations within} the next 30 days. Yours ;:'sincere , Philip M. Pend President P.O. BOX 461, 78-611 HWY. ill, LA QUINTA, CA 92263 + PH.: 6:91773 -2345 • FAX: 619/568 -4567 k]f Cy 1 1 [19 UC`dr_ 1 Up flit fIL 1 LL 114U i 14' Ur' 11 04 14: 4a .641 OVA) JP4 Jv44 4 reo 1251y41 y .-UJ NO.UU1 t'.UL IMA 4 A +'t,J, •.•v yam... TOM PAPPAS NO: 64830 CALSE REAL. GOLFrA. CA 93t 17 .4141 STATE STREET, SUITE F4 SAPITA RARIARA, CA11FORNIA 93170 18451 $64-0702. - OM PAPDA S. � INC f STRUMIRAL ENGINEERS February 17, 1994 Simon Plaza Inc - 2691 Richter Ave. #114 Irvine, Ca 92714 Attu: Phil Pead Re: Simon Plata Project � C�uinia,•Ca . Dear Mr, 'Pead: Because of ttte recent earthquake and the resulting smcWre11 damage it has mused. we respectfully request and extension of time on this project to run another stsucruf2d analysis. The area of pa;'tittr'.ar concern is the panting structure with offices above. "niank you for your considoraton of this request. W8 Will keep you informed of our progress. Very Truly Yours • om Pappas Inc. Anastasios Pappas Structural Engineer . i t 6;�Oft' 0"* /00 Mr Jerry Herman Director of Planning City of La Quinta La Quinta SENT BY FACSIMILE Sth January, 1994 x/411 .,/. Jr 1 •-L 1-V •VVi ' •VI �t'1;Qgh Dear Jerry, on the llth January, Simon Plaza is on the Planning Commission agenda and unfortunately due to some unforseen circumstances, I will be out of town for a significant part of January. I am therefore requesting that we move the Simon Plaza planning commission meeting to mid February. I apologize for any inconvenience and thank you for your assistance in this tier. You s sincerely, t. Philip M. Pead President 'i a a 4 4 Cup 78-495 CALLE TAMPICO - LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 - (619) 777 -7000 FAX (619) 777 -7101 r January 7, 1994 Mr. Philip M. Pead Simon Plaza, Inc. P. O. Box 461 La Quinta, CA 92253 SUBJECT: CONDITION MODIFICATION FOR PLOT PLAN 93 -495 Dear Phil: I am in receipt of your fax requesting a continuance of your application to mid February. Your request will be presented to the Planning Commission on January 11, 1994. Should the Planning Commission grant the continuance, the recommended date will be February 22, 1994. I would like to remind you that approval of this plot plan expires on May 11, 1994, without a time extension. Please refer to Condition #2 as contained on the Conditions of Approval dated May 11, 1993. Should you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call. Very truly JERRY HERMAN Planning & Development Director JH:bjs cc: City Council City Manager City Engineer LTRJH.303 MAILING ADDRESS - P.O. BOX 1504 - LA OUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 01-05-1994 09:41AM FROM ON MOTORS, INC, TO 7777011 P.01 A 65 P.00. E= 60% 7C -C, -o MUVV. -rTl, L8 �'I �,0:. > , � HA7'. (35� e -X" �G�rt0*1 Mr. Jerry Herman City of La Quinta 78 -495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 RE: Plot Plan 93 -495 Dear Jerry, December 9, 1993 DEC 0 9 X93 GITY V :A GU VA KMsikG WiRTMG,YT :-j.W.r -+.a This letter will confirm my telephone conversation with Betty this date regarding continuing consideration of the above referenced Plot Plan from December 14, 1993 meeting to the January 11, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely yours, SIAlt9[V P ZA, INC. 'lip M. Pead President P.O. BOX 461, 78 -611 HWY. 111, LA QUINTA, CA 92253 • PH.: 619/773 -2345 • FAX: 619/568 -4567 TO: SMITTAL MEMO CITY MANAGER _ PARKS DEPARTMEMT BUILDING & SAFETY CODE ENFOR ENT FIRE SHAL CITY EN� GINEER Pl UBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR — JERRY HERMAN _ STAN SAWA FROM ' PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: Ir /n /y3 SUB jEC. PROJECT REVIEW CASE. PLEASE REVIEW AND PROVIDE ANY COMMENTS YOU MAY HAVE ON THE ATTACHED ITEM BY � Z93 COMMENTS: 3;,q �"l a ctJP .gQ=6G e- C t .S e .,ld` ef4 L,z r/eq�v"e -4 %fi Ac- 1-1&n m / .Of ZA JAM A.it_A/A Pomona First Federal Savings and Loan Association Since 1892 November 16, 1993 City of La Quinta Mr. Jerry Herman 78 -495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Dear Mr. Herman: Subject: Simon Plaza /Plat Plan 93 -495 No V 10 1993 CITY OF LA QUINTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT We are aware and agree to the application submitted by Mr. Philip Pead on behalf of Simon Plaza requesting an extension of time on Condition 36 of Plat Plan Approval 93 -495. It is requested that the Condition read that "dedication of the land required by the City of La Quinta will be made by Simon Plaza prior to the issuance of a building permit for the site. Thank you for your continued cooperation. Very truly yours, POMONA FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION Gilbert F. Smith Senior Vice President General Counsel GFS : dmn Administrative Offices: 350 South Garay, P. O. Box 1520 • Pomona, California 91769 • (714) 623 -2323 • (800) 332 -4733 HLE COPy 78495 CALLS TAMPICO — U OUINTA. CALiFORMA MU • (819 M-7000 FAX (619) M -7101 November 15, 1993 Mr. Phil Pead, President Simon Plaza, Inc, P. O. Box 461 La Quinta, CA 92253 SUBJECT: CONDITION MODIFICATION REQUEST FOR PLOT PLAN 93 -495 " Dear Mr. Pead : We are in receipt of your request to modify Condition f36 regarding the dedication timing for Washington Street right -of -way. Please be advised that the following information is required: 1. Two sets of property owner mailing labels for the area 300 feet surrounding your property; and Z. Letters of authorization from the current property owners allowing you to process this request. Please provide this information by November 19, 1993. 7 truly ours, ERA HERMAN PLANNING &DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR JH : kas cc: LT". 008 City Council City Manager Public Works MAIUNG ADDRESS • P.O. BOX 1504 - to QUINTA . CALIFORMA 92253 4 Can 78-495 CALLE TAMPICO — LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 - (619) 777 -7000 FAX (619) 777 -7101 November 15, 1993 Mr. Phil Pead, President Simon Plaza, Inc, P. O. Box 461 La Quinta, CA 92253 SUBJECT: CONDITION MODIFICATION REQUEST FOR PLOT PLAN 93 -495 Dear Mr. Pead : We are in receipt of your request to modify Condition #36 regarding the dedication timing for Washington Street right -of -way. Please be advised that the following information is required: 1. Two sets of property owner mailing - labels for the area 300 feet surrounding your property; and 2. Letters of authorization from the current property owners allowing you to process this request. Please provide this information by November 19, 1993. ery truly ours, ERR HERMAN PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR JH:kas cc: City Council City Manager Public Works MAILING ADDRESS - P.O. BOX 1504 - LA OUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 I ,9Q0 t ��xr BEST, BEST & KRIEGER A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS LAWYERS ARTHUR L. LITTLEWORTH' DOUGLAS S. PHILLIPS' ELISE K. TRAYNUM CYNTHIA M. GERMANO GLEN E. STEPHENS' ANTONIA GRAPHOS WILLIAM D. DAHLING, JR. MARY E. GILSTRAP WILLIAM R. DeWOLFE' GREGORY K. WILKINSON MATT H. MORRIS GLENN P. SABINE BARTON C. GAUT' WYNNE S. FURTH JEFFREY V. DUNN CHRISTINE L. RICHARDSON PAUL T. SELZER* DAVID L. BARON STEVEN C. DeBAUN JOANE GARCIA - COLSON DALLAS HOLMES' GENE TANAKA ERIC L. GARNER PHILIP J. KOEHLER CHRISTOPHER L. CARPENTER' BASIL T. CHAPMAN DENNIS M. COTA DIANE C. WIESE RICHARD T. ANDERSON' TIMOTHY M. CONNOR RACHELLE J. NICOLLE REBECCA MARES DURNEY JOHN D. WAHLIN' VICTOR L. WOLF ROBERT W. HARGREAVES DOROTHY L ANDERSON MICHAEL D. HARRIS' DANIEL E. OLIVIER JANICE L. WEIS G. HENRY WELLES W. CURT EALY' DANIEL J. McHUGH PATRICK H. W. F. PEARCE JAMES R. HARPER THOMAS S. SLOVAK' HOWARD B. GOLDS KIRK W. SMITH DINA O. HARRIS JOHN E. BROWN' STEPHEN P. DEITSCH JASON D. DABAREINER BARBARA R. BARON MICHAEL T. RIDDELL* MARC E. EMPEY KYLE A. SNOW RICHARD T. EGGER MEREDITH A. JURY' JOHN R. ROTTSCHAEFER MARK A. EASTER PATRICK D. DOLAN MICHAEL GRANT' MARTIN A. MUELLER DIANE L. FINLEY DEAN R. DERLETH FRANCIS J. BAUM' J. MICHAEL SUMMEROUR MICHELLE OUELLETTE HELENE P. DREYER ANNE T. THOMAS' VICTORIA N. KING DAVID P. PHIPPEN, SR. EMILY P. HEMPHILL D. MARTIN NETHERY' JEFFERY J. CRANDALL SUSAN C. NAUSS SONIA RUBIO SHARMA GEORGE M. REYES SCOTT C. SMITH CHRISTOPHER DODSON JOHN 0. PINKNEY WILLIAM W. FLOYD, JR. JACK B. CLARKE, JR. BERNIE L. WILLIAMSON GREGORY L. HARDKE BRIAN M. LEWIS ELAINE E. HILL KENDALL H. Mac BRADLEY E. NEUFELD KEVIN K. RANDOLPH CLARK H. ALSOP' SHARYL WALKER JAMES B. GILPIN RAYMOND BEST (1868 -1957) DAVID J. ERWIN' PETER M. BARMACK MARSHALL S. RUDOLPH JAMES H. KRIEGER (1913 -1975) MICHAEL J. ANDELSON' JEANNETTE A. PETERSON KIM A. BYRENS EUGENE BEST (1893 -1981) ' A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION November 10, 1993 City of La Quinta Mr. Jerry Herman 78 -495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Re: Simon Plaza / Plat Plan 93 - 495 Dear Mr. Herman: 600 EAST TAHOUITZ CANYON WAY POST OFFICE BOX 2710 PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA 92263 TELEPHONE (619) 325 -7264 TELECOPIER (619) 325 -0365 OF COUNSEL JAMES B. CORISON OFFICES IN RIVERSIDE (909) 686 -1450 RANCHO MIRAGE (619) 568 -2611 ONTARIO (909) 989 -8584 LNOV9 5 9993 f'ITY OF LA QE1igTA K.�,NI N$ VEPARTMENT We are aware and agree to the application submitted by Mr. Philip Pead on behalf of Simon Plaza requesting an extension of time on Condition 36 of Plat Plan Approval 93 -495. It is requested that the Condition read that "dedication of the land required by the City of La Quinta will be made by Simon Plaza prior to the issuance of a building permit for the site ". PTS /sk PTS43049 Thank you for your continued cooperation. Yours very truly, THE 3 S PARTNERSHIP, a California nArfncrch in i November 8, 1993 Due to the unforseen delay in obtaining financing, Simon Plaza requests an extension of time on condition #36. Since Philip M. Pead P.O. BOX 461, 78 -611 HWY. 111, LA OUINTA, CA 92253 • PH.: 619/773 -2345 • FAX: 619/568 -4567 (*44Q.amo 78 496 CALLE TAMPICO — LA OUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92263 - (610) M-7000 FAX (610) M-7101 October 13, 1993 Mr. Phil Pead, President Simon Plaza, Inc. P. 0. Box 461 La Quinta, CA 92253 SUBJECT: SIMON PLAZA PLOT PLAN 93 -495 - RIGHT -OF -WAY DEDICATION Dear Mr. Pead: I have reviewed your request for more time or City participation in right -of -way acquisition for Washington Street relating to your development. As a reminder, staff sent the land conveyance documents to you on June 9, 1993. Per Condition 136, you had 30 days in which to dedicate the subject right -of -way. On July 16, Steve Speer, Assistant City Engineer, sent you a letter reminding you of your noncompliance with Condition N36. On July 26, 1993, Jerry Herman, Planning and Development Director granted you until August 24th to comply with Condition #36. On September 9th a letter was sent granting you until October 4th to dedicate the right-of- way for Washington Street. This last time extension was granted based upon a letter from C.G.I. Financial Corporation's commitment to release the necessary funds within 40 days. The options available arc: 1. You can seek a formal amendment to the approved plot plan. This will require submittal of an application with the appropriate fees. Your request would be to amend Condition X36 to permit a different dedication schedule; however, the Planning Commission and City Council can modify the project or any of the conditions during the public hearing process on the amendment. 2. A second option is for staff to recommend the Council terminate your plot plan approval for failure to comply*with conditions. In order to resolve this issue, your response, in writing or submission of the completed application with fees and drawings, is required by November 8, 1993. Should you apply for the amendment, the earliest that it could be scheduled for Planning Commission consideration would LTRJN.288 4 MAIUNG ADDRESS - P.O. BOX W - LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 1 be December 14th wi council consideration on continued or evalled. December 2. _,# Provided the meetings arc not Should you need additional Information, lease con Development Department, p tact ferry Herman in the PIanning vW Sincerely, &bx fi ROBERT L. HUNT City Manager RLH:7H:bjs cc: City Council Public Works Administrative Services LTIUM. 288 Y Tit 4 4aQ" .r.4 78-495 CALLE TAMPICO — LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 - (619) 777.7000 FAX (619) 777.7101 October 13, 1993 Mr. Phil Pead, President Simon Plaza, Inc. P. 0. Box 461 La Quinta, CA 92253 SUBJECT: SIMON PLAZA PLOT PLAN 93 -495 - RIGHT -OF -WAY DEDICATION Dear Mr. Pead: I have reviewed your request for more time or City participation in right -of -way acquisition for Washington Street relating to your development. As a reminder, staff sent the land conveyance documents to you on June 9, 1993: Per Condition #36, you had 30 days in which to dedicate the subject right -of -way. On July 16, Steve Speer, Assistant City Engineer, sent you a letter reminding you of your noncompliance with Condition x+36. 06 July 26, 1993, Jerry Herman, Planning and Development Director granted you until August 24th to comply with Condition #36. On September 9th a letter was sent granting you until October 4th to dedicate the right -of- way for Washington Street. This last time extension was granted based upon a letter from C.G.I. Financial Corporation's commitment to release the necessary funds within 40 days. The options available are: 1. You can seek a formal amendment to the approved plot plan. This will require submittal of an application with the appropriate fees. Your request would be to amend Condition #36 to permit a different dedication schedule; however, the Planning Commission and City Council can modify the project or any of the conditions during the public hearing ` process on the amendment. 2. A second option is for staff to recommend the Council terminate your plot plan approval for failure to comply with conditions. In order to resolve this issue, your response, in writing or submission of the completed application with fees and drawings, is required by November 8, 1993. Should you apply for the amendment, the earliest that it could be scheduled for Planning Commission consideration would LTRJH.288 i MAILING ADDRESS - P.O. BOX 1504 - LA OUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 F t be December 14th with Council consideration on December 21st, provided the meetings are not continued or cancelled. Should you need Development Del Sincerely, ROBERT L. HUIs City Manager itional information, please contact Jerry Herman in the Planning and lent. RLH:JH:bjs cc: City Council Public Works Administrative Services LTRJH.288 Y 78 October 13, 1993 Mr. Phil Pead, Pi Simon Plaza, Inc l P. 0. Box 461 1 La Quinta, CA 9 t -4 l,ttt 495 CALLE TAMPICO - LA DUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 - (619) 777.7000 1 FAX (619) 777 -7101 t SUBJECT: SIMON PLAZA Dear Mr. Pead: im ]HT-OF-WAY DEDICATION I have reviewed your request for mire for City participation in right -of -way acquisition for Washington Street relating to your development. As a reminder, staff sent the land conveyance documents to you on June 9, 1993. Per Condition #36, you had 30 days in which to dedicate the subject right of -way. On July 16, Steve Speer, Assistant City Engineer, sent you a letter reminding you of your noncompliance with Condition #36. On July 26, 1993, Jerry Herman, Planning and Development Director granted you until August 24th to comply with Condition #36. On September 9th a letter was sent granting you until October 4th to dedicate the right -of- way for Washington Street. This last time extension was granted based upon a letter from C.G.I. Financial I Corporation's commitment to release the necessary funds within 40 days. The options available are: 1. You can seek a formal amendment to the approved plot plan. This will require submittal of an application with the appropriate fees. Your request would be to amend Condition #36 to permit a different dedication schedule; however, the Planning Commission and City Council can modify the project or any of the conditions during the public hearing process on the amendment. 2. A second option is for staff to recommend the Council terminate your plot plan approval for failure to comply with conditions. In order to resolve this issue, your response, in writing or submission of the completed application with fees and drawings, is required by November 8, 1993. Should you apply for the amendment, the earliest that it could be scheduled for Planning Commission consideration would LTRJH.288 MAILING ADDRESS - P.O. BOX 1504 - LA DUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 �:. 4, be December 14th with Council consideration on December 21 st, provided the meetings are not continued or cancelled. Should you need additional information, please contact Jerry Herman in the Planning and Development Department. Sincerely, 8�t tau U) ROBERT L. HUNT City Manager RLH:JH:bjs cc: City Council Public Works Administrative Services LTRJH.288 c �De4no*, A September 28, 1993 Mr. Robert Hunt, City Manager S EP 2 8 1993 City of La Quinta Post Office Box 1504 CITY of LA OUIIYTA La Quinta, CA 92253 -1504 P�NI DEDESARTfi Re: Simon Plaza Plot Plan # 93 -495 Right -of -Way Dedication Dear Mr. Hunt: I am in receipt of a letter from Jerry Herman dated September 9, 1993, requesting that the Right -of -Way dedication on our project be completed by October 4, 1993. After a brief meeting with Mr. Herman on September 28, he suggested that I write to you regarding this issue. I am requesting an additional extension of 90 -180 days on Plot Plan # 93 -495 to comply with the Right of Way dedication, condition of approval. This extension is due to a revised schedule in our project funding. As you are aware, this project is complicated due to the land ownership. Pomona First Federal Savings and Loan is the owner of record on the strip of land needed by the City to proceed with the improvement to the Washington St. and Highway 111 intersection. We can dedicate the land when we become funded and purchase the property from Pomona First Federal. If it is vital for the City to proceed on the intersection in the immediate future, then the City might consider condemnation under eminent domain. Our interest is to cooperate with the City and we would be willing to meet to discuss solutions to this issue. Again, I wish to thank the City for it's cooperation in granting previous extensions. As we continue to pursue our Investors, I am assured that funding is forth - coming. But, due to the nature of foreign investment, the process is slower than we anticipated. I look forward to meeting with you or your staff regarding our mutual interests related to the Simon Plaza project. Sincerely, pv Pead, President Simon Plaza, Inc. cc: Mayor John Pena //Jerry Herman, Planning & Development Director P.O. BOX 461, 78 -611 HWY. 111, LA QUINTA, CA 92253 • PH.: 619/773 -2345 • FAX: 619/5684567 'Y ,. = rmuffM" CORPOWIM (Iracarporated in the State of nallfurni.a) O x. 4tive f£tza 21 John Stedet %Woa, Vi ?$L aisgltas►e: .021- 44-71- 142-9218 Vacsimita: Uti- 44 -7L- 405 -41045 12 MOM 1993 IIr.. FDW J. Sues Sr. Chasm= ac the va"d SINIM P1LSS xut. as 0 eneval Faatr of -Smm FLAU Atd. R.C. uax 461V 73 -'6xi Hv/ ill La %4fttA0 CA 91253, U.6J. iesoslmllu Cr,Ol 535 568 4567 89: US$ 14pI00,000.00 CONSMC21" M ?MOMENT TUXDIMG BI EqA' Ty WV9STMT Daxr xv. Sim. Follawiug our convezet4timw *vest the past W dare in. Which we vatiiaed thm raaligummt of our fmding eaaxaes, we are pleased to aasf#--m Vmt C01 FUANr -,M COiiRORATION hu re- celytd from its prier y clleutltztius; a xe- apprCrml and aoatirmatiou of the 4*pt &za3 fmdiug which can r_iearlr be effev eed at?s? closed vitbdn tez da "' of a11*4atfon. we bave I�eea &s=od that. the aLtoiattmN seheduls' rill be seat, ao eltbe€ Cllr Londng we Dortest �fi'fcr- ue xt v4ak- ti.IvWt&vst is reprox—tea and menapd bg a m¢iLf• national corparatlo t vboze pruutee/oft3ic-ers have assured = of that= agrafteatt to the pvtom diabn=ai xcha>luta-- 1e lulttzL Diabutae%; Fm tfILUO1i fti$� ?[3Ei0x1?#tfl,l�4) �. Subanug=t Btisburfials., To ehm full v ==L abars- asgfiipeted (US*14a2004VO3.00) aitb-Im Dixty (60) days of thn- Waal alo ursal. Thj$ Setoduls, thgu$h allghtly lcrngar4 thaz+ set fart}( in craw 24 anguat +c tiqu'v is stLIJ well vitun the ariglual: gahedule d"tribed in yaur letter of 14 NA 1'393 over the s4vAturb at Philip t!_ PtA& Wh.iie va Arc uat pierased We 4ao qualk4 V'appy- with both the neW prop"ad nahadUle acrd the strength of the txuat rawich 3145 come erred With the Mavaga r-'a isv'en th*vgh . ve ara a vvt-k or sa sway* from the #114 zt- om achedttle, we requas>: th%t You couatersiga tbl.s letter and ret=u sums by faea:mlla trap - :aeiss3aa. to our. %50) et yvmr cauvenlev". ate look foromrd to ycvr wRsvonse. Situsa>• &1i r 'C�1r 8 11� �+ dw fz�azs/CEd3 des- �,aiyaad Sri# r�. AOL= 4md A4tZPTM) smam zxc. ta:e t41l Oral pazt fix esf S� F j SUM Sr. 3)&Ve -13l s 'crass tj '8 u 9 .a 0 W'S >jNtiW 0000 bb:0T 26, £T pop 10/12/93 14:27 0619 771 2630 S11MON MOTORS INC zool it" tram . ..... rim xTransmiftai Memo 7672 T ay.. ....... . ... . im M— Oil : 'Corovy ......... . .... ....... ......... . . ow chgme ¢itan orgy Qdpinz alum ............ t7 e Wn 6 .......... coil f. pimp ........ .... .. . ..... ..... 12,elS 192 221t? X 6292 7494$0 1)314 ANDEJOSOM Als ei "Ed PSPU94X3 Oct. 13 193 10:44� 0000 MPPI< S. Moran & Assoc.s TEL 619-5F-A-5321 P. 1 Date: 4/ /,1 /`Z3 Fax Transmittal Mark S. Moran & Associates Serving the Business Community since 1983 Marketing — Business Development — Government Relations — Fax Number (619) 564-5321 voice- (619) 564-3761 I ININNII-1111, Sent to the attention of: Subject of Transmittal: Reply Requested: Yes: No: Page -,—/ of For your information. Action Required: El Message: L H E C I T Y v•• a �,, ■ F. HLE July 6, 1993 La Ouinta 1981 - 1992 Ten Carat Decade Mr., Philip M. Pead, President Simon Plaza, Inc. PO Box 461 La Quinta, CA 92253 �F SUBJECT: PLOT PLAN 93 -495 (REVISION) Dear Mr. Pead : Our staff has re- examined the Design Review Board Minutes of June 23, 1993, at your request, and the Board did not modify the freestanding restaurant building design as we originally stated in our letter of June 24, 1993. We apologize for any inconvenience this might have caused you or your project architect. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned. VAIATE rs, N EVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ��; ELL LANNER GT : ccs cc: Mr. Merlin J. Barth; Architect ' LTRGT.103 City of La Quinta 46 Post Office Box 1504 * 78 -105 Calle Estado La Quinta, California 92253 Phone (619) 564 -2246, Fax (619) 564 -5617 Design 8 Production: Mark Palmer Design. 619 -346 -0772 a . I At ab H E C I T Y oft k _ „Va June 24, 1993 D La Opita 1981 - 1991 t Decade Mr. Philip M. Pead, President Simon Plaza, Inc. PO Box 461 La Quinta, CA 92253 SUBJECT: PLOT PLAN 93 -495 (REVISION) Dear Mr. Pead : <3 On June 23, 1993, the Design Review Board conceptually approved your revised three story building plans for your recently approved development at Highway 111 and Washington Street. The Board felt the plans were appropriate based on the Planning Commission action of May 11, 1993. The only recommended changes were their request to eliminate the top cupola from the proposed freestanding restaurant building and modify the roof design for the freestanding clinic buildings along Highway 111. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, P RY HH RMAN P N N & DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TROUSDELL AS OCIATE PLANNER GT : ccs Attachment cc: Mr. Merlin J. Barth; Architect Mr. Paul T. Selzer; Attorney Mr. Fred Simon; Simon Motors Mr. Gilbert F. Smith; Pomona 1st Federal LTRGT .100 City of La Quinta Post Office Box 1504 ♦ 78 -105 Calle Estado La Quinta, California 92253 Phone (619) 564 -2246, Fax (619) 564 -5617 Design & Production: Mark Palmer Design. 619 346 -0772 0 40 g♦gt i L o H E C I T Y 0 __ IA&Z May 19 1993' Y , La,,Quinta gap 1982 - 1Ten Carat Decade Mr. Philip M. Pead, President Simon Plaza, Inc. PO Box 461 La Quinta, CA 92253 SUBJECT: PLOT PLAN 93 -495 (REVISION) Dear Mr. Pead: On May 18, 1993, the City Council accepted the report of action by the Planning Commission approving your request to develop your project at the southeast corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, ;GRE ER Y H N L NIN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TROUSDELL < ASSOCIATE PLANNER 4 GT : ces cc: Mr. Merlin J. Barth; Architect Mr. Paul T. Selzer; Attorney Mr. Fred Simon; Simon Motors Mr. Gilbert F. Smith; Pomona 1st Federal LTRGT . 083 City of La Quinta Post Office Box 1504 ♦ 78 -105 Calle Estado La Quinta, California 92253 Phone (619) 564 -2246, Fax (619) 564 -5617 Design & Production: Marls Patmer Design, 619 346 -0772 �x, t H E C I T Y 0 May 12, 1993 , a � as �D Con. Mr. Philip M. Pead , President Simon Plaza, Inc. AL PO Box 461 La CG' `rota La Quinta, CA 92253 1121119, m„ Carat nrcade SUB JECT:— P- L- O= T= RLAN_9- 93 -495 (REVISION) & MASTER SIGN PROGRAM (SA 93 -210) Dear Mr. Pead : On May 11, 1993, the Planning Commission approved your request to develop your project at the southeast corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street. However, the recommended Conditions prepared by staff were modified by the Planning Commission at the meeting. As you are aware, based on your attendance at the public hearing, the primary change was not to allow a four story building at your site. The Planning Commission voted to approve a three story building provided it did not exceed 40- feet. The fourth floor square footage can be reallocated inside the project provided all city code requirements are adhered to. The Planning Commission stated they would like to see the revised design prior to the preparation of final working drawings. The Planning Commission also added a condition imposing a theme plaza (e.g. public art, public furniture, etc.) at the intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Street which would be similar to the 111 La Quinta Shopping Center theme plaza to the north of your site based on the provisions of the City's General Plan. A final set of Conditions is attached. Your case will be reviewed by the City Council on May 18, 1993, at their 3:00 P.M,. session. Please be in attendance to answer any questions they might have on your project, If you desire to appeal the action of the Planning Commission, please file a written appeal with our office pursuant to Chapter 9.180.60 of the Municipal Code within fifteen days from the date of this letter. The appeal fee is $25.00. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, JURY HIMAN PNNIN & DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ktWG'T,ROUSDELL AS IATE PLANNER GT : ccs Attachment cc: Mr. Merlin J. Barth; Architect Mr. Paul T. Selzer; Attorney Mr. Fred Simon; Simon Motors Mr. Gilbert F. Smith; Pomona 1st Federal LTRGT.075 City of La Quinta Post Office Box 1504 ♦ 78 -105 Calle Estado . La Quinta, California 92253 Phone (619) 564 -2246, Fax (619) 564 -5617 Design 8 Production. Mark Palmer Design. 679346 -0772 r �{� � `� CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - APPROVED PLOT PLAN 93-495 (REVISION) MAY 11, 1993 SIMON PLAZA * Modified by the Planning Commission on 5 -11 -93 ** Added by the Planning Commission on 5 -11 -93 * ** Deleted by the Planning Commission on 5 -11 -93 GENERAL 1. The development of the property shall be generally be in conformance with the exhibits contained in the file for PP 93 -495, = unless amended otherwise by the following conditions. . 2. The approved plot plan shall be used by May 11, 1994; otherwise it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. "Be used" means the beginning of substantial construction which is contemplated by this approval, not including grading which is begun within the one year period and is thereafter diligently pursued until completion. A one year time extension may be requested as permitted by Municipal Code provided an extension request is filed by April 11, 1994. 3. There shall be no outdoor storage or sales displays without specific approval of the Planning Commission. 4. All exterior lighting shall be shielded and directed so as not to shine directly on surrounding adjoining properties or public rights -of -way. Light standard type with recessed light source shall also be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. Exterior lighting shall comply with Outdoor Light Control Ordinance and off - street parking requirements. 5. Adequate masonry trash enclosures shall be provided for all structures and provided with opaque metal doors. Plans for trash enclosures to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of a building permit. The Applicant shall contact the local waste management company to insure that the number of enclosures and size of the enclosures are adequate. 6. Decorative enclosures may be required by the City around any retention basins depending on site grading requirements. The color, location, and placement of said fence(s) shall be approved by the Planning and Development Department. 7. Phased improvement plans shall be subject to Planning Commission review. CONAPRVL.037 1 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 93 -495 (Revision) May 11, 1993 8. Handicap parking spaces and facilities shall be provided per Municipal Code, State and Federal requirements. 9. A noise study shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer to be submitted to the Planning and Development Department for review and approval prior to submission of building plans for plan check or issuance of grading permit, whichever comes first. The study shall concentrate on noise impacts on building interior areas from perimeter streets, and impacts on the proposed abutting and provide mitigation of noise as alternative mitigation measures for incorporation into the project design such as building setbacks, engineering design, building orientation, noise barriers, (berming, landscaping and walls, etc.) and other techniques. 10. The project shall comply with all existing off street parking requirements including but not limited to shading of parking lot areas and bicycle parking spaces. 11. Perimeter landscaping planters shall be provided at maximum widths possible adjacent to property lines and planted with landscaping. 12. The project shall comply with all applicable Art in Public Places Ordinance. A public art piece shall be installed on the property at a location agreeable to the Art in Public Places Committee (e.g., at the intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Street). A public easement shall be offered to the City for the site any art piece may occupy which has been established by the Art in Public Places Committee. 13. * The developer shall retain a qualified archaeologist and pay all associated costs, to prepare a mitigation and monitoring plan for artifact location and recovery. Prior to archaeological studies for this site as well as other unrecorded information, shall be analyzed prior to the preparation of the plan. The Planning and Development Director shall approve the firm to be used in the study prior to any on -site activities. The plan shall be submitted to the Coachella Valley Archaeological Society (CVAS) for a two -week review and comment period. At a minimum, the plan shall: 1) identify the means for digging test pits; 2) allow sharing the information with the CVAS; and 3) provide for further testing if the preliminary result show significant materials are present. The final plan shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Department for final review and approval. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Developer shall have retained a qualified cultural resources management firm and completed the testing and data recovery as noted in the plan. The management firm shall monitor the grading activity as required by the plan or testing results. CONAPRVL.037 2 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 93 -495 (Revision) May 11, 1993 A list of the qualified archaeological monitor(s), cultural resources management firm employees, and any assistants) /representative(s), shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Department. The list shall provide the current address and phone number for each monitor. The designated monitors may be changed from time to time, but no such change shall be effective unless served by registered or certified mail on the Planning and Development Department L. The designated monitors or their authorized representatives shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of resources. In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains, there shall be no further grading, excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby areas reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until appropriate mitigation measures are completed. Upon completion of the data recovery, the Developer shall cause three copies of the final report containing the data analysis to be prepared and published and submitted to the Planning and Development Department. 14. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any building or use contemplated by this use, the Applicant.shall obtain permits or clearances from the following agencies: o City Fire Marshal o City of La Quinta Public Works Department o City of La Quinta Planning & Development Department o Coachella Valley Water District o Desert Sands Unified School District o Imperial Irrigation District o Caltrans (District 11) Evidence of said permits or clearances from the above mentioned agencies shall be presented to the Building. Department at the time of application for a building permit for the proposed project. 15. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City adopted infrastructure fee program in affect at the time of issuance of building permits. 16. Final Iandscaping plans shall include approval stamps and signatures from the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioners office and 'the Coachella Valley Water District. 17.* A bus waiting shelter and bus turnout shall be provided as requested by Sunline Transit on Highway 111 when said street improvements are re- installed or unless other site locations are permitted by the transit authority (e.g., Simon Drive) and the City Engineering Department. CONAPRVL.037 3 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 93 -495 (Revision) May 11, 1993 18. Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the Applicant shall submit to the Engineering Department an interim landscape program for the entire site which shall be for the purpose of wind and erosion and dust control. The land owner shall institute blow sand and dust control measures during grading and site development. These shall include but not be limited to: a.) use of irrigation during construction and grading activities; b.) areas not constructed on during first phase shall be planted in temporary ground cover or wildflowers and provided with temporary irrigation system; and c.) provision of wind breaks or wind rolls, fencing, and or landscaping to reduce the effects upon adjacent properties and property owners. The landowner shall comply with requirements of the Directors of Public Works and Planning and Development.. All construction and graded areas shall be watered at least twice daily while being used to prevent emission of dust and blow sand. 19: Construction shall comply with all local and State Building Code requirements in affect at time of issuance of building permit as determined by the Building Official. . 20. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Planning and Development Director demonstrating compliance with those conditions of approval which must be satisfied prior to issuance of a building permit. Prior to a final building inspection approval, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a written report demonstrating compliance with all remaining conditions of approval and mitigation measures. The Planning and Development Director may require inspection or other monitoring to assure such compliance. 21. A parking lot striping plan including directional arrows, stop signs, no parking areas, and parking spaces shall be approved by Planning and Development and Engineering Departments prior to issuance of a building permit. 22. All roof equipment shall be screened from view by parapet walls of building or other architecturally matching materials. 23. All compact spaces shall be clearly marked "compact cars only ". 24. That all conditions of the Design Review Board shall be complied with as follows: A. The landscape plan shall include an eight foot wide meandering pedestrian/bike trail. The. plans should be reviewed by the Design Review Board prior to submission of the final landscape plan by the Applicant/Developer. B. The landscape program for Washington Street shall include a variation of planting materials, i.e., Palm trees, accent shade trees, lawn, shrubs, and groundcover. The use of mature California Pepper, Australian Willow, Mesquite, Crape Myrtle, Bottle Trees, and Washington Robusta Palms shall be encouraged. Varieties of flowering shrubs such as Texas Ranger, Cassia, Crepe Myrtle, and CONAPRVL.037 4 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 93 -495 (Revision) May 11, 1993 1 , Dwarf Oleander should be utilized. Native (low water use) plants shall be used, and the landscape architect should consult the Coachella Valley Water District's plant material list prior to designing their proposal. Uplighted trees or palms shall be used along Washington Street and Highway 111. Incandescent light fixtures will be required (less than 160 watt). Landscaping plan shall conform to Ordinance 220 regarding water conservation. C. Any proposed parking lot lighting plan shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board prior to building plan check. A photometric study shall be developed which analyzes the lighting pattern on the project and meets the City's Lighting Ordinance provisions as explained in Chapter 9.210 and 9.160 (Off- Street Parking). The height of the light poles shall not exceed 18 feet in height; and the lighting contractor should reduce this height if physically possible during review of the project. D. A maximum building height of 28 feet shall be maintained along Washington Street and Highway 111 within 150 feet of-the ultimate property line (after street dedication has been included) excluding minor architectural appendages (e.g., chimneys, towers, building columns, etc.). r E. Decorative concrete entryways shall be provided for all two -way driveways into the project site. The concrete shall be stamped and colored to accentuate the proposed development. The color, design and location of the concrete should be reviewed by the Design Review Board during a final plan check review. F. The revised concept design plan shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board prior to the submission of the plans to the Building Department for final plan check consideration. The plans should include but are not be limited to landscaping and irrigation, building elevations, signs, and any other major exterior design features of the project as noted at the Design Review Board meeting of May 5, 1993. G. Bike racks shall be provided at convenient areas wittrin the site for usage by bicycle riders. One space for every 50 parking spaces shall be provided as noted in the Off - Street Parking Code. H. The.landscape setback on Washington Street shall be a minimum of 20 feet from the new property line. I. All open parking stalls shall be screened by berm walls, landscape hedges, or a combination thereof to a minimum height of 42 inches. CONAPRVL.037 5 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 93 -495 (Revision) May 11, 1993 J. The maximum floor area ratio (F.A.R.) for this project shall be 0.35 per the Policy Standards of the General Plan (LU Table #4). K. The roof design for the 4 -story medical office building shall be either 4:12 or higher to give the building balance and proper scale to its mass. M P. 0 M.9 M :. M. The parking structures tile roof facade shall be eliminated because it is not compatible with the design motif of the 4 -story medical office building. The applicant should evaluate another design style which incorporates a cornice design feature (similar to'the upper portion of the 4 -story building) and other articulated features which will soften the elevation and not enhance its presence. N. * The parking structure ramp on the south side of the project shall be stuccoed to match the building. Structure shall be landscaped along its westerly side to conceal its presence. O. The applicant shall include the following features into the 4 -story medical office building: 1. * ** 2. * Individual pane windows or grid molded windows can be used. 3.* Additional building column connections should be used where agreed upon with the Design Review Board. 4. Accented building roof heights. 5. Revision to the elevator shaft design and its relationship to Highway 111. 6. * ** 7. * ** The 2 stef:y elefflents an ihe west side of the 4 stef=y building shall be building redesigned se.that the reef eenneets inte the (delete the existiffg wi' 9). CITY FIRE MARSHAL 25. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 3500 gpm for a 3 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. Fire flow is based upon all buildings being equipped with automatic fire sprinklers. CONAPRVL.037 6 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 93 -495 (Revision) May 11, 1993 26. A combination of on -site and off -site Super fire hydrants, on a looped system (6" X 4" X 2-1/2" X 2-1/2"), will be located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travelways. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. 27. Prior to issuance of building permit Applicant/Developer shall furnish one blueline copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review /approval. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed /approved by a registered civil engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department." The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and operational prior to start of construction. 28. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13. The post indicator valve and fire department connection shall be located to the front, within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). System plans must be submitted with a plan check/inspection fee to the Fire Department for review. A statement that the building(s) will be automatically fire sprinklered must be included on the title page of the building plans. 29. Install a supervised waterflow fire alarm system as required by the Uniform Building . Code. 30. Install a Hood Duct automatic fire extinguishing system. System plans must be permitted, along with a plan check/inspection fee, to the Fire Department for review. 31. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less than 2AIOBC in rating. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. 32. Occupancy separation will be required as per the Uniform Building Code, #503. 33. Install Panic Hardware and Exit signs as per Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code. 34. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes. 35. Install a Class I Standpipe System. CONAPRVL.037 7 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 93 -495 (Revision) May 11, 1993 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT: 36. Applicant shall dedicate public street right of way and utility easements in conformance with the city's General Plan,. Municipal Code, applicable Specific Plans, if any, and these -Conditions of Approval noted as follows: A. Washington Street - Provide right of way as required by the Washington Street Specific Plan. B. Washington Street/Highway 111 Intersection - Provide right of way cut back as needed to accommodate a 55 -foot curb return (45 -foot right -of -way). *C. Applicant shall dedicate the required right of way within thirty (30) days after receipt of land conveyance documents from the City. 37. Applicant shall provide a fully improved landscaped setback area of noted minimum width adjacent to the following street right of way: A. Washington Street - 20 -feet wide; B. Highway 111, 50 feet wide; C. Simon Plaza, 10 feet wide 38. Applicant shall vacate vehicle access rights to all streets from the project site except for three locations as proposed by the Applicant as shown on the site plan drawing. 39. * Applicant shall reimburse City for design and construction cost for all street improvements to be installed by the City located east of the existing Washington Street curb and gutter improvements and contiguous to the project site. The new improvements include street widening, curb and gutter, asphalt concrete overlay, landscaping and hardscape, 8 -foot wide meandering sidewalk, traffic striping and signing, along with all appurtenant incidentals and improvements needed to properly integrate and join together the new and existing improvements. 40. Applicant shall reimburse City for 5% of the cost to design and install a new traffic signal at the Washington Street/Highway 111 intersection. 41.* Applicant shall reimburse City for 12.5 % of the cost to design and install traffic signal at the Simon Drive/Highway 111 intersection. 42. Applicant shall reimburse City for cost to design and install bus stop "pullout" on Highway 111. CONAPRVL.037 8 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 93 -495 (Revision) May 11, 1993 43. Applicant shall reimburse City for half of the cost to design and install raised median . improvements and landscaping on Highway 111 in the portion contiguous to the project site. 44. Applicant shall enter into a secured agreement with the City to pay for the City installed improvements required by these Conditions of Approval before the grading permit is issued. 45. A thorough preliminary engineering, geological, and soils engineering investigation shall be conducted with a report submitted for review along with grading plan. The report recommendations shall be incorporated into the grading plan design prior to grading plan approval. The soils engineer and /or the engineering geologist must certify to the adequacy of the grading plan. 46. The grading plan shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. 47. The site shall be designed and graded in a manner so the elevation difference between the building pad elevations on site and the adjacent street curb do not exceed three (3.0) feet. 48. Applicant shall provide storm drain facilities with sufficient capacity to evacuate all water that falls on -site and off -site to the centerline of the streets adjoining the site during the, 1 -hour duration, 25 -year storm event. The storm drain facility shall convey the storm water from the site to the Whitewater Channel. The Applicant may purchase capacity on a fair share basis in a storm drain to be designed and constructed in Washington Street by the City, if the City proceeds with said storm drain facility within time constraints which suit the Applicant. . The tributary drainage area for which the Applicant is responsible shall extend to the centerline of Washington Street, Highway 111, and Simon Drive. 49. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect for the landscaped setback areas. The plans and proposed landscaping improvements shall be in conformance with requirements of the Planning Director, City Engineer, and Coachella Valley Water District and the plans shall be signed these officials prior to construction. 50. Applicant shall submit a copy of the proposed grading, landscaping and irrigation plans .to the Coachella Valley Water District for review and approval with respect to the District's Water Management Program. CONAPRVL.037 9 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 93 -495 (Revision) May 11, 1993 51. Applicant shall landscape and maintain the landscaped setback area and right of way between all street curbing and property lines. 52. Applicant shall construct an eight -foot wide meandering bike path in the combined easterly parkway of Washington Street and southerly parkway of Highway 111 in lieu of the standard six -foot wide sidewalk. A six foot wide sidewalk shall be constructed on Simon Drive. 53. All existing and proposed telecommunication, television cable, and electric power lines with 12,500 volts or less, that are adjacent to the proposed site or on -site, shall be installed in underground facilities. 54. Underground utilities that lie directly under street improvements or portions thereof shall be installed, with trenches compacted to city standards, prior to installation of that portion of the street improvement. A soils engineer retained by Applicant shall provide certified reports of soil compaction tests for review by the City Engineer. 55. Applicant shall pay all fees charged by the city as required for processing, plan checking and construction inspection. The fee amount(s) shall be those which are in effect at the time the work is undertaken and accomplished by the city. 56. Applicant shall retain a California registered civil engineer, or designate one who is on Applicant's staff, to exercise sufficient supervision and quality control during construction of the tract grading and improvements to certify compliance with the plans, specifications, applicable codes, and ordinances. The engineer retained or designated by the Applicant to implement this responsibility shall provide the following certifications and documents upon completion of construction: A. The engineer shall sign and seal a statement placed on the "as built" plans that says "all (grading and grades) (improvements) on these plans were properly monitored by qualified personnel under my supervision during construction for compliance with the plans and specifications and 'the work shown hereon was constructed as approved, except. where otherwise noted hereon and specifically acknowledged by the City Engineer ". B. Prior to issuance of any building permit, the engineer shall provide a separate document, signed and sealed, to the City .Engineer that documents the building pad elevations. The document shall; for each pad, state the pad elevation approved on the grading plan, the as built elevation, and clearly identify the difference, if any. The data shall be organized by phase and shall be cumulative if the data is submitted at different times. CONAPRVL.037 10 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 93 -495 (Revision) May 11, 1993 C. Provide to the City Engineer a signed set of "as built" reproducible drawings of- the site grading and all improvements installed by the Applicant. 57. The parking stalls on the north side of the office complex as determined by Staff, shall be restricted to either handicapped parking or reserved parking to help eliminate queuing at the Highway I I1 access driveway. 58. The driveways on Washington Street and on Highway 111 shall be restricted to right turn movements only. 59. Turning, movements at the intersection of Washington Street and Simon Drive shall be restricted to right turns only in accordance with the Washington Street Specific Plan. SPECIAL 60. All required improvements shall be completed prior to first site occupancy of the proposed development. 6.1. The parking structure shall not exceed 15 feet in overall height as measured from finished grade pad elevation within 100 feet of Highway 111. Exterior lighting on top level of parking structure shall not exceed six feet and not be within ten feet of outside wall. 62. All mitigation measures of Environmental- Assessment 91 -211 shall be met. 63. The parcels shall be legally merged prior to building permit issuance. 64. Prior to issuance of any land disturbance permit, the Applicant shall pay the required mitigation fees for the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Program, so adopted by the City, in the amount of $600 per acre of disturbed land. 65. * The north side of the parking structure shall include perimeter grade planting as deemed appropriate by the Design Review Board. 66. Prior to issuance of the first building permit, a parking analysis shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Department to verify compliance with the Off - Street Parking requirements.. Prior to each subsequent phase beginning construction a new parking study based on existing usage and potential demand shall be submitted. In each study, building size adjustments shall be made if it is determined that a parking deficiency exists. 67. Appropriate and adequate service delivering areas (loading facilities) and trash facilities shall be provided as required by the Off - Street Parking Code. The facilities shall include areas for recycling bins and be approved by Staff during the final review process. CONAPRVL.037 11 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 93 -495 (Revision) May 11, 1993 The standards and requirements of AB 939 (recycling) shall be met. This shall include provisions for on -site recycling of recyclable materials by the tenants in conjunction with the City's franchise hauler contract provisions. 68. An on -site elevator(s) shall service the site and provide accessibility from the parking garage to each respective building floor level. The design and installation of the elevator shall meet both Uniform Building Code standards and any other California State requirements. 69. The existing six foot high soundwall along the Washington Street frontage road shall be extended between the frontage road and Washington Street northerly of its present location to the northeasterly corner of Lot 27 of Tract 2043 (Singing Palms Drive and Washington Street) to mitigate traffic noise impacts on the existing R -1 single family neighborhood. 70. A Transportation Demand Management Plan shall be submitted (Ordinance 217) if the project or the ultimate development of the site employs 100 or more persons. The plan can be prepared by either the property owner or the tenant(s) within the development. The plan shall be submitted and approved by the Director of Planning and Development. 71. The provisions of the City's newly adopted Landscape Water Conservation Ordinance ( #220) shall be met. 72.** The applicant shall provide a theme plaza at the intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Street as required by the General Plan which shall include landscaping, public furniture and a public art piece. The art piece can contain the developers main identification sign (Sign #1), if it is an integral part of the theme plaza and /or the public art piece. The design shall be approved by the Art in Public Places Committee and the .City Council as required by Chapter 2.65 of the Municipal Code. The developer shall retain an artist to help design the theme plaza. The theme plaza size shall not be less than 2,000 square feet and the overall design should be similar to the One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center theme plaza at the northeast corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street. 73. ** The medical office building shall not exceed three stories with a maximum 40400t height. The height of the building shall be measured from the existing grade (top of curb) on Highway 111. The developer can reallocate the fourth floor square footage into the project (e.g., over the parking structure) provided the new site plan does include adding two story elements into the 150 -foot setback requirement on either arterial street. The revised design shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board and Planning Commission prior to preparation of final working drawings. CONAPRVL.037 12 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - APPROVED MASTER SIGN PROGRAM 93 -210 MAY 11, 1993 SIMON PLAZA * Modified by the Planning Commission on 5 -11 -93 1. Each freestanding sign shall be a minimum of five feet from the future property line it abuts. No signs should be placed in the City's right -of -way. 2. All signs shall be reviewed by the Engineering Department to assure sight visibility is not obstructed by the installation of each respective freestanding sign. 3. Site address numbers shall be on the main monument sign as a supplemental to the building addressing plan. The minimum size should be four inches and contrasting to the background it is affixed to. 4. Any and all proposed illuminated signs shall be installed to avoid undue brightness which would distract passing motorists and /or pedestrians. 5. The sign colors shall be blue ( #607 -1GP Acrylite Blue) except for the top of the monument sign can be royal blue, orange and white as depicted on the attached drawings. 6. The building signs can be internally illuminated. 7.* Sign #1 shall not include incised letters with silver trim cap. The letters shall be flush mounted into the aluminum cabinet face (laser -cut). The sign can be located in its present location provided the sign is an integral part of the future theme plaza and public art piece pursuant to the provisions of Plot Plan 93 -495. 8. No exposed raceways, crossover, conduits, conductors, transformers, etc., shall be permitted. All supplemental electrical hardware shall be behind the building structure inside the sign structure, or located underground. 9. The lettering styles for the building signs shall be either Clarendon or Souvenir. Upper case lettering shall be used for all signs except for the medical complex building. 10. All attached building signs shall have channel letters (individually constructed). 11. All freestanding signs shall be double -sided and perpendicular to the public street they serve unless noted otherwise in the following section. SIGN ADJUSTMENTS: 12. a.) The La Quinta Medical Center sign (Sign #5) located on the third story elevation of the four story building shall be permitted as depicted in the attached drawings. CONAPRVL.082 1 Conditions of Approval Sign Master Program 93 -210 May 11, 1993 b.) The La Quinta Medical Center freestanding monument sign (Sign #4) located on the north side of the four story building shall be permitted provided the sign is one -sided and is constructed with the same materials as Sign #1. Sign 4a should not be allowed because it is not necessary. c.) The Milauskas Eye Institute sign (Signs #7 & #6) on Highway 111 and in the parking lot shall be permitted. The sign shall be constructed in a similar fashion to Sign #1. No attached building signs will be permitted if the freestanding signs are installed. NTISCELLANEOUS: 13. The final sign graphics shall be subject to review by the Director of Planning and Development prior to permit issuance by the Building and Safety Department. 14. Each tenant and /or his sign contractor shall obtain approval by the property owners (or management company) in writing prior to submission of the sign drawings to the Planning and Development Department for permit consideration. The property owner shall review the signs for lettering style, color, sign location, lighting, and any other "important" issues. 15. All sign contractors shall be licensed to do business in the City of La Quinta and possess a State Contractor's License to perform the work outlined in the sign permit. 16. All signs shall conform to the City's adopted Sign Ordinance in effect at the time the sign permit is issued. 17. Underwriter Laboratories certification labels shall be affixed to all internally illuminated signs, thus assuring that the sign (or sign structure) meets industry specifications. 18. Signs #8 and #8a shall be internally lit. The background for the signs shall be opaque. Sign 8b should be non - illuminated and subject to approval by Staff during a sign permit application. 19. All freestanding signs permitted shall include similar architectural elements to those of Sign #l, and the sign proportions shall be downsized accordingly (e.g., 12 -foot high to 9 -feet, and 6 -feet) so that the smaller signs exemplify the sites main identification sign. 20. No attached building sign shall be greater than 50 square feet on the side of the building it serves. 21. The channel letter returns shall be painted to match the exterior color of the building on which it is affixed. CONAPRVL.082 2 Conditions of Approval Sign Master Program 93 -210 May 11, 1993 . 22. The overall height of each freestanding sign shall be measured from the abutting street curb elevation height. 23. Sign 5a shall be mounted on the 1 -story element of the building. The sign shall not be located on the upper levels of the building complex. CONAPRVL.082 3 If you are planning to redesign your project so that it meets an F. A.R. of 0.35, please send to my attention, fifteen (15) copies of the new proposal by April 26, 1993. We would also appreciate receiving new 8 1/2 -inch by 11 -inch reductions of the plan plus four -sided colored elevation drawings which reflect the new transmittal in addition to the above mentioned 15 copies of the new proposal so that we can properly present your case at the next Design Review Board. The next Design Review Board meeting is on May 5, 1993, at 5:30 p.m. Failure to meet the April 26, 1993 deadline will require us to reschedule your case for June, 1993. Should you choose not to redesign your project, we will forward the previous Design Review Board report to the Board for their review. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned. Very trUly,yours, Y HE & DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OUSDELL TE PLANNER GT : ccs cc: Paul Selzer; Best, Best & Krieger Merlin J. Barth; Architect Gilbert F. Smith; Pomona 1st Federal John Sanborn; Sanborn & Webb, Inc. LTRGT . 065 City of La Quinta Post Office Box 1504 • 78 -105 Calle Estado La Quinta, California 92253 Phone (619) 564 -2246, Fax (619) 564 -5617 Design & Production: Mark Palmer Design. 619 346 -0772 0' H E C I T Y 0 Oar 0IE 000April 14, 1993 �% AL U Mr. Philip Pead, President La,,Q lil nt Simon Plaza, Inc . 1982 - 1Ten Carat Decade PO Box 461 78 -611 Highway 111 La. Quinta, CA 92253 SUBJECT: PLOT PLAN 93 -495 Dear Mr. Pead: On April 13, 1993, the Planning Commission continued your case to their first meeting in May in order to allow your firm additional time to further discuss your yy proposal with the Design Review Board. As you will recall, the Design Review Board " did not review your project on April 7, 1993, per your written request. Therefore, no action could be taken by the Planning Commission at last nights meeting. If you are planning to redesign your project so that it meets an F. A.R. of 0.35, please send to my attention, fifteen (15) copies of the new proposal by April 26, 1993. We would also appreciate receiving new 8 1/2 -inch by 11 -inch reductions of the plan plus four -sided colored elevation drawings which reflect the new transmittal in addition to the above mentioned 15 copies of the new proposal so that we can properly present your case at the next Design Review Board. The next Design Review Board meeting is on May 5, 1993, at 5:30 p.m. Failure to meet the April 26, 1993 deadline will require us to reschedule your case for June, 1993. Should you choose not to redesign your project, we will forward the previous Design Review Board report to the Board for their review. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned. Very trUly,yours, Y HE & DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OUSDELL TE PLANNER GT : ccs cc: Paul Selzer; Best, Best & Krieger Merlin J. Barth; Architect Gilbert F. Smith; Pomona 1st Federal John Sanborn; Sanborn & Webb, Inc. LTRGT . 065 City of La Quinta Post Office Box 1504 • 78 -105 Calle Estado La Quinta, California 92253 Phone (619) 564 -2246, Fax (619) 564 -5617 Design & Production: Mark Palmer Design. 619 346 -0772 0' �- `� jt � , ,r.� LAW OFFICES OF PAUL E. FISHED 4695 MACARTHUR COURT, SUITE 1060 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 TELEPHONE (714) 474 -2025 FACSIMILE (714) 474 -2041 April 13, 1993 DD APR 1 5 1993 CITY 0r- LA Uki A , ,R.NJIINPiANNi O T 1520 -159 VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL Planning & Development Department City of La Quinta 78 -105 Calle Estado La Quinta, California 92253 Re: Project by Philip M. Pead, Simon Plaza, Inc. Dear Sir /Madam: This office represents Desert Outdoor Advertising, Inc. in regard to property it owns near the intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Boulevard, APN 604 - 050 -011. On. behalf of Desert Outdoor, we would like to voice our "strong 'oppos it ion to the project proposed by Mr. Pead. The property owned by Desert Outdoor was acquired specifically for the establishment of an outdoor advertising display, and the property is ideally suited for such a use. The portion of Desert Outdoor's property which the City intends to take for use in connection with Mr. Pead 's development plans may leave insufficient property for any viable commercial use whatsoever. While the approval of Mr. Pead 's plan may benefit Mr. Pead and Simon Plaza, Inc., it will cause a substantial loss to Desert Outdoor. It is very clear that this plan is not being proposed for the benefit of Desert Outdoor, nor is it clear that any benefit will accrue to the general public. Instead, it appears that the City is proposing to take land from private parties not for the public benefit, but solely for the benefit of Mr. Pead. On these grounds, we strongly recommend that the Planning and Development Department deny this application. Very truly yours',.' PAUL E. FISHER PEF:lh 04139301.1tr April 9, 1993 C'b �1��... ... -.�• FtiJ• i�q E Mr. Greg Trousdell Associate Planner City of La Quinta P. O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 Dear Mr. Trousdell: In view of the fact that it is an absolute necessity to redesign Simon Plaza, we request that you remove us from the April 13, 1993 City of La Quinta Planning Commission Agenda and place us on the next Agenda thereafter. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, S O PLAZA, INC. Philip M. Pead President VIA FAX 564 -5617 P.O. BOX 461, 78 -611 HWY. 111, LA OUINTA, CA 92253 • PH.: 619/773 -2345 • FAX: 619/568 -4567 7th, April 1993 Mr_ Greg Trousdell. Associate Planner City of La Quinta. P.O.Box 1504 78 -105 Calle Estado La Quinta Ca 92253 Dear Greg, D yjr ;a...r APR 12 1993 C rf o� LA wwm PLANNING DUMITMENT Due to continuing unresolved issues on which we are. currently in, discussion with the City Attorney, I feel that it would be appropriate to continue the Design Review Board meeting to a later date. Thank y u for your attention in this matter. Yours cer , J1 Philip M. Pead President P.O. BOX 461, 78 -611 HWY. 111, LA QUINTA, CA 92253 • PH.: 619/773 -2345 • FAX: 619/568 -4567 STATE OF CAUFORNIA - BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY PETE WILSON, Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 11, P.O. BOX 85406, SAN DIEGO 92186 -5406 (619) 688 -6958 Apri APP 1 2 1993 CITi(OF LA CIA TA PLANNING DrPRKMEWT City of La Quinta Planning & Development Division 78 -105 Calle Estado La Quinta, CA 92253 Attention: Mr. Greg Trousdell 1- RIV- 111/34.0 ashington Street PP 93 -495 i We have reviewed the Plot Plan No. 93 -495 (PP 91 -466 Revision) for the Simon Plaza Development located at Washington Street and State Route 111 (SR 111). We reiterate our earlier comments by referring you to the enclosed correspondence that Caltrans sent to the City of La Quinta regarding this proposed project. Additionally, we would like to be informed as to what the City has done regarding the plan for SR 111 /Washington St. widening project. If you have any questions or require further information, please contact Anicia Gottwig at the above number. JESUS M. GARCIA District Director BILL DILLON, Chief Planning Studies Branch cc: CWest KPloettner PKlos FYazdan/JFeuerstein JBuksa/AGottwig CNEllis n a �„ `�. � .s, T4'�t 4 4Q" 78 -105 CALLE ESTADO — LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 - (619) 564 -2246 FAX (619) 564 -5617 FROM: PLANNING 6 DEVELOPMENT DIVISION amity Manager V--Waste Management principal public Works Dir. ✓General Telephone Planner(s) ,,.-City Engineer ✓Oolony Cable ssociate vf'ire Marshal �unline Transit Planner v8uilding.& Safety v altrans (District II) Associate t.-Chamber of Commerce Agricultural Commission P1 ner riC�7WD � Postal Service tinning k,-Mperial Irrigation City of Indian Wells Director fornia Gas City of Indio S School Dist. hool Dist. R-- verside County: - _CV Moun onservancy Asheriff- s_D.epartment_1 MAR -1V I"Oh eol ical Society Planning Department Environmental Health CITY OF LA QUINTA - -- P ( S) : /�o i �c..c vac 93 - Y 9 5 S, h e � /�Az,4 ��l c PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 1?CQ0es7_ -Ab Cl"t i} Ml( UsE CoyrtWc „Q.t �A'Diec ory 'S 60— :N A CPS �rJNe�t.E►� 2a.►e. PROJECT LOCATION: Gcw? J ctc j�-JiG/4wltV III Aa0 WASF}A 0►J The City of La Quinta Development Review Committee is conducting an initial environmental study pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the above referenced project(s). Attached is the information submitted by the project proponent. Your comments are requested with respect to: 1. Physical impacts the project presents on public resources, facilities, and /or services; 2. Recommended conditions: a) that you or your agency believe would miti- gate any potential adverse effects; b) or should apply to the project design; c) or improvements to satisfy other regulations and concerns which your agency is responsible; and 3. If you find that the identified impacts will have significant adverse effects on the environment which cannot be avoided through conditions, please recommend the scope and focus of additional study(ies) which may be helpful. Please send your response by 3- 3o - T5 and return the maps /plans if not needed for your files. You are invited to attend the DEVELOPMENT ,REEVIEW COMMITTEE meeting at La Quinta City Hall scheduled for: Date: ii/ /fir Time : A/ .e�k Contact Person: Title: A-yac ��, TheAe tine no chan.gez 6nom the otiginatty dubmitted nepont. Comments made by: ;e,�, �.�� Title: Captain. Date: 3 -26 -93 Phone: 863 -&990 Agency /Division She iJ6 - Indio Station 78-105 CALLE ESTADO — LA FROM: PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT amity Manager t.-�ublic.Works Dir. P-City Engineer &-tire Marshal v6uilding & Safety L.-Chamber of Commerce yCGWD yMperial Irrigation t,-S'outhern California Gas "esert Sands School Dist. CV Unified School Dist. CV Mountain Conservancy CV Archaeological Society LA QUINTA CASE NO(S): 1 MAR 2 9 1993 I� DIVISION ste Management ✓General Telephone ✓colony Cable,.., -,,,, _Sunline''Transt ,rt vCraf trans (District II) - A,qricultural Commission �s Postal Service City of Indian Wells City of Indio ( 19) 564 -2246 19) 564 -5617 Principal P14�annner (s ) �sociate Planner Associate ner P1 nning Director Riverside County: k.- Sheriff's Department Planning Department Environmental Health PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 1?CQ0esT fa c.I "c zke use C,,,f o K '5'k c . ,., k CPS PROJECT LOCATION: Sr 4gwe�, 2 '' csF fylG ? wl� l./ 111 A,ar> W A$q} ,4 - .3 �R The City of La Quinta Development Review Committee is conducting an initial environmental study pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the above referenced project(s). Attached is the information submitted.by the project proponent. -- - 0 Your comments'.'are requested with respect to: 1. Physical impacts the project presents on public,resources, facilities, and /or services; 2. Recommended conditions: a) that you or your agency believe would miti- gate any potential adverse effects; b) or should apply to the project design; c) or improvements to satisfy other regulations and concerns which your agency is responsible; and 3. If you find that the identified impacts will have significant adverse effects on the environment which cannot be avoided through conditions, please recommend the scope and focus of additional study(ies) which may be helpful. �.. Please send your response by 3- 3o - Q'j and return the maps /plans if not .needed for your-files. You are invited to attend the DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE meeting at La Quinta City Hall scheduled for: Date: Time: N C Contact Person: '(;e, / US,>CL� Title: /70°C • �AJNc1 Coriments made by: T�). P�F=� .A Title: Date: Phone: 2,Y3- 31-K4-&A9ency /Division -- .'�,..•1waS � %f:�:zv„�"i,SVS.';.�t'- r =.7;. .`.M. -r.; t.s�+••. - .. +. - V; R 1� 1993 K, .2- ----, OVD3, 4 78 -105 CALLS ESTADO — LA QUINTA,: CALIFORNIA 92253 (6 19) 364- FROM: PLANNING 6 DEVELOPMENT amity Manager t.-�ublic Works Dir. k-City Engineer vf`ire Marshal t- Suilding 6 Safety t.-Chamber of Commerce ,- D ,L,-- perial Irrigation k,S- outhern California Gas Desert Sands School Dist. CV Unified School Dist - CV Mountain Conservancy _ eological Society LIAR 2 1 'rA 4SE NO (S) : Agricultur Commission P1 ner Postal ervice anning City of I dian Wells Direc City of Indio Rte�{ -e-side *•• liSheriff's Department Planning Department Environmental Health 93 - i 9 S ' /)az,4 , N c 46 17 CITY OF LA mt4 DE RI PTION: AcC2y es T 74b el e✓t /e,o A A11 >4e,( urE PLANNIN DEPARTMENT � e Is k Yye•. lAf A CPS PROJECT LOCATION: 111 A.-j0 WAs 4m 4 -�0,�1 rt The City of La Quinta Development Review Committee is conducting an initial environmental study pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the above referenced project(s). Attached is the information submitted by the project proponent. Your comments are requested with respect to: 1. Physical impacts the project presents on public resources, facilities, and /or services; 2. Recommended conditions: a) that you or your agency believe would miti- gate any potential adverse effects; b) or should apply to the project design; c) or improvements to satisfy other regulations and concerns which your agency is responsible; and 3. If you find that the identified impacts will have significant adverse effects on the environment which cannot be avoided through conditions, please recommend the scope and focus of additional study(ies) which may be helpful. Please send your response by 3- 30 - 93 and return the maps /plans if not needed for your files. You are invited to attend the DEVELOPMENT ,REEVIEW COMMITTEE meeting at La Quinta City Hall scheduled for: Date: AIIA- Time: A/ Contact Person: G �Usi�CL` Title: ��.ToC l�Z9 C;a� ikj Comments made by: lF_ , e!5-�_ Title: G1 -46t Date.: — - PhoKe: � _� / Agency /Division FAX (619) 564= DIVISION ✓Waste Management'.:: P nctpa ✓General Tel_cpborl�e P1 Wert ✓ colony Cable -: _ +s §o -i Transit _Plan er __unline &.,7<altrans ( trict--- I= I- .)�..A,s' iat Agricultur Commission P1 ner Postal ervice anning City of I dian Wells Direc City of Indio Rte�{ -e-side *•• liSheriff's Department Planning Department Environmental Health 93 - i 9 S ' /)az,4 , N c 46 17 CITY OF LA mt4 DE RI PTION: AcC2y es T 74b el e✓t /e,o A A11 >4e,( urE PLANNIN DEPARTMENT � e Is k Yye•. lAf A CPS PROJECT LOCATION: 111 A.-j0 WAs 4m 4 -�0,�1 rt The City of La Quinta Development Review Committee is conducting an initial environmental study pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the above referenced project(s). Attached is the information submitted by the project proponent. Your comments are requested with respect to: 1. Physical impacts the project presents on public resources, facilities, and /or services; 2. Recommended conditions: a) that you or your agency believe would miti- gate any potential adverse effects; b) or should apply to the project design; c) or improvements to satisfy other regulations and concerns which your agency is responsible; and 3. If you find that the identified impacts will have significant adverse effects on the environment which cannot be avoided through conditions, please recommend the scope and focus of additional study(ies) which may be helpful. Please send your response by 3- 30 - 93 and return the maps /plans if not needed for your files. You are invited to attend the DEVELOPMENT ,REEVIEW COMMITTEE meeting at La Quinta City Hall scheduled for: Date: AIIA- Time: A/ Contact Person: G �Usi�CL` Title: ��.ToC l�Z9 C;a� ikj Comments made by: lF_ , e!5-�_ Title: G1 -46t Date.: — - PhoKe: � _� / Agency /Division w 78 -105 CALLS ESTADO — LA QUINTA. FROM: PLANNING 6 DEVELOPMENT DIVISION amity Manager /public Works Dir. amity Engineer vf`ire Marshal vBuilding 6 Safety i.-Chamber of Commerce yC VWD ymperial Irrigation i. oouthern California Gas Desert Sands School Dist. CV Unified School Dist. CV Mountain Conservancy CV Archaeological Society MAR (J f17 ✓waste Management U1y CFi>1hcipal - ✓General Teleph&ae- P��er(s colony Cable ss&C'i°a bl _�unline Transit Planner �Craltrans (District II) Associate Agricultural Commission P1 er Postal Service tinning City of Indian Wells Director City of Indio R verside County: Sheriff's Department Planning Department Environmental Health LA QUINTA CASE NO(S) :% �A+�F `I3. `f9S' S,�e1/ /%a'LR 44G PROJECT DESCRIPTION: %1FCOoes7- fb (::/"t 4e i} Mr7Ce�! ur£ Co«/r1e{c,p� I-� PROJECT LOCATION: S � 4 D R � I I I Aen W f 54*4�,J t The City of La Quinta Development Review Committee is conducting an initial environmental study pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the above referenced project(s). Attached is the information submitted by the project proponent. Your comments are requested with respect to: 1. Physical impacts the project presents on public resources, facilities, and /or services; 2. Recommended conditions: a) that you or your agency believe would miti- gate any potential adverse effects; b) or should apply to the project design; c) or improvements to satisfy other regulations and concerns which your agency is responsible; and 3. If you find that the identified impacts will have significant adverse effects on the environment which cannot be avoided through conditions, please recommend the scope and focus of additional study(ies) which may be helpful. Please send your response by 5- 3o - T5 and return the maps /plans if not needed for your files. You are invited to attend the DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE meeting at.La Quinta City Hall scheduled for: Date: //'/A Time: Y, A:: ... Contact Person: ��G-� �s�JCL,� Title: P1,d,9),WC Comments made by: Title: (Qpj. Date:.;_( Phone: 3a'r/ / i (// Agency /Division_ l� /6 q , ✓Ow/ 2 �/ � 7G Tti a �! c _ S c-, ✓ ,d cs�-v -rNt /n/ /Z9 . T H E March 25, 1993 Mr. Philip M. Pead, President Simon Plaza, Inc. PO Box 461 78 -611 Highway 111 La Quinta, CA 92253 C f T 1' La pinta 982 _ boo, Ten Carat Pecade SUBJECT PLOT PLAN -93 -495 Dear Mr. Pead : VIE COPT We have been examining your new development application for Highway 111 at Washington Street and we have found a major item in our newly adopted General Plan which will impact your development application. The General Plan for the City established a new policy requirement for the City on the amount of building coverage a project could have on a site. Table LU -4 of the Land Use Element states 0.35 is the ratio for Mixed /Regional Commercial (M /RC) properties. Your project proposes 126,411 square feet on approximately 5.3 net acres or an F. A. R. of 0.54. This figure does not examine the parking structure as a building for this equation. The project should be downsized to meet this new building floor area to project site area ratio which is based on net land area (after street dedication) versus gross land area. We believe your development would lose approximately 44,000 square feet in order to meet the new development standards which were imposed in October, 1992, by the City Council. With this in mind, we will have to recommend that the Design Review Board condition your project to meet this provision on April 7, 1993, and we believe that they will vote to either continue your case so that you can redesign the project, deny your request or recommend approval of your request with a 0.35 F. A., R. ratio because it does not meet the provisions of the General Plan. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, JER Y AN P NI G DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR G OUSDELL ASSOCIATE PLANNER GT: cs LTRGT . 061 Post Office Box 1504 s. 78 -105 Calle Estado La Quinta, California 92253 Phone (619) 564 -2246, Fax (619) 564 -5617 Des,gn & Production: Marx Palmer Devgn. 619 346 -0%72 1 � f 1 Cd*__ RIVERSIDE COUNTY COUNTY OF '= R FIRE DEPARTMENT ERSIDE M.,��.,d�, J. M. HARRIS 210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE • PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92570 • (909) 657 -3183 FIRE CHIEF March 24, 1993 rHAR fm To: City of La Quinta Plannin Division Attn: Greg Trousdell LA OUiNIA Re : P l o t P 1 an 43 -495 LEPA 4S NT With respect to the condition of approval regarding the above referenced Plot Plan, the Fire Department requires the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with La Quinta Municipal Code and /or Riverside County Fire Department standards: 1. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 3500 gpm for a 3 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 2. A combination of on -site and off -site Super fire hydrants, (6" x 4" x 2 1/2 ") on a looped system, will be located not less than 25' or more than 165' from any portion of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travelways. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. 3. Blue retro- reflective pavement markers shall be mounted on private streets, public streets and driveways to indicate location of fire hydrants. Prior to installation, placement of markers must be approved by the Riverside County Fire Department. , 4. Prior to issuance of building permit applicant /developer shall furnish one blueline copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review /approval. Plans shall conform to fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and, the system shall meet fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed /approved by a registered civil engineer and local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department." -1- FIRE PREVENTION DIVISION ❑ RIVERSIDE OFFICE PLANNING SECTION ❑ INDIO OFFICE 3760 12th Street, Riverside, CA 92501 79 -733 Country Club Drive, Suite F, Indio, CA 92201 (909) 275 -4777 • FAX (909) 369 -7451 (619) 863 -8886 • FAX (619) 863 -7072 prinred on recycled paper rl To: City of La Quinta March 24, 1993 Re: PP 93 -495 Page 2 5. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and operational prior to the start of construction. b. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13. The post indicator valve and fire department connection shall be located to the front within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the buildings. 7. System plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for review, along with a plan /inspection fee. The approved plans, with Fire Department Job Card must be at the job site for all inspections. 8. Install a supervised waterflow fire alarm system as required by the Uniform Building Code /Riverside County Fire Department and National Fire Protection Association Standard 71. 9. All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must be submitted separately for approval prior to construction. Subcontractors should contact the Planning Engineering office for submittal requirements. 10. Install a manual pull, smoke detection and voice evacuation fire alarm system as required by the Uniform Building Code /Riverside County Fire Department and National Fire Protection Association Standards 72. il. Install panic hardware exit signs as per Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code. 12. Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for approval, a site plan designating required fire lanes with appropriate lane painting and /or signs. 13. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less than 2A10BC in rating. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. 14. Install a Hood Duct automatic fire extinguishing system. System plans must be submitted, along with a plan check /inspection fee, to the Fire Department for review. 15. Install Knox Lock Boxes, Models 4400, 3200 or 1300, mounted per recommended standard of the Knox company. Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for approval of mounting location /position and operating standards. Special forms are available from this office for the ordering of the Key Lock Boxes. This form must be authorized and signed by this office for the correctly coded system to be purchased. 16. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws, or when building permits are not obtained within twelve months. To: City of La Quinta Re: PP 93 -495 March 24, 1993 Page 2 Specific requirements for each occupancy group will be determined when building plans are reviewed. All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions should be referred to the Fire Department Planning Engineering Staff at (619) 863 -8886. Sincerely, RAY REGIS Chief Fire Department Planner By vM- Tom Hutchison Fire Safety Specialist JP /th y Pomona First Federal. Savings and Loan Association Since 1892 City of La Quinta Planning Department Post Office Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 Attention: Mr. Greg Trousdell Dear Mr. Trousdell: March 24, 1993 VIA TELECOPIER IJ n id MAR 2 4 1993 CITY OF 0 QW. `41*A PLANNING DEPAF MENT Subject: Property located on the corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street in the City of La Quinta Escrow No. 15649 -3 This letter will acknowledge that Pomona First Federal is aware of the development proposal by Simon Plaza, Inc., On the corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street In La Quinta. We are in escrow with Simon Plaza, Inc., on Parcel 6 described in Parcel Map #18418 and hereby acknowledge that we are aware of the proposed development. Very truly yours, Gilbert F. Smith Senior Vice President General Counsel GFS:ag Administrative Offices: 350 South Garey, P. O. Box 1520 • Pomona, California 01769 • (714) 623 -2323 • (800) 332.4733 Y .. .. ��; • ,. > � � � � >t of March 23, 1993 Mr. Greg Trousdell City of La Quinta Planning Department P.O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 Re: 3S Partnership Simon Plaza, Inc. Proposal Hwy. 111 « Washington Dear Mr. Trousdell: This letter will acknowledge that Fred Simon, Paul Selzer and John Sanborn are the partners of the 3S Partnership. 3S Partnership is aware of the development proposal by Simon Plaza, Inc., on the corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street in the City of La Quinta. We are in escrow with Simon Plaza, Inc., on Parcels 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 described in Parcel Map 18418 and hereby acknowledge that we are aware of the proposed development. Yours very tr 1 Paul T. IS�e -�z.e PTS /sk -U, MAR 2 4 1993 D PTS35467 CITY OF LA UUI1" 1'% pLANNING DEPARTMENT �Y 'd r i �Y 'd r JOHN L. SANBORN Professional Land Surveyor 255 N. EL CIELO ROAD SUITE 315 PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA 92262 619/325 -2245 • FAX 619/ 325 -5130 March 23, 1993 Mr. Greg Trousdell City of La Quinta Planning Department P.O. Box 1504 La Quinta, Ca. 92253 Re: Simon Plaza, Inc. Dear Mr. Trousdell: This letter will acknowledge that 3S Partnership is aware of the development proposal by Simon Plaza, Inc., on the corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street in La Quinta. We are in escrow with Simon Plaza, Inc. on Parcels 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 described in Parcel Map No. 18418 and hereby acknowledge that we are aware of the proposed development. Sincerely, JLS:lm c.c. Fred Simon Paul Selzer MAR 2 4 1993 D CITY OF LA GUINTA PLAN -ING I)E ARTMENT • ,c�ru��z� alters eld - v -• March 22, 1993 City of La Quinta Planning Department P. 0. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 ATTN: Mr. Greg Trousdell Dear Mr. Trousdell: This letter will acknowledge that 3S Partnership is aware of the development proposal by Simon Plaza, Inc., on the corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street in La Quinta. We are in escrow with Simon Plaza, Inc. on Parcels 2, 3, 4, 5, and & 7 described in Parcel Map #18418 and hereby acknowledge that we are aware of the proposed development. Very truly yours, SIMON MOTORS, C. .red J. Sire , Sr. `President O C MAR 2 4 3993 CITY OF LA QUINTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT "The Home of Personal Service" P. O. Box 1461, 78 -611 Highway 111, La Quinta, California 92253 (619) 346 -2345 H E V. March 18, 1993 Mr. Philip M. Pead, President Simon Plaza, Inc. PO Box 461 78 -611 Hwy 111 La Quinta, CA 92253 SUBJECT: PLOT PLAN 93 -495 Dear Mr. Pead : C I T Y 0 A La pinta 1982 - 1992 ien Carat Decade FIE Con We are in receipt of your application to resubmit your previously approved mixed use development plan for the southeast corner of Washington Street and Highway 111. We have mailed your case out for public agency comments, and we should have the responses by March 30, 1993, or before. We will keep you posted on the status of your case while it is being reviewed. Your case is tentatively scheduled for the following meeting dates: Design Review Board April 7, 1993 at 5:30 p.m. Planning Commission April 13, 1993, at 7:00 p.m. City Council April 20, 1993 at 7:00 p.m. This schedule will be re- examined periodically throughout the process and could change; however, this is our best estimate at this time. We have started to examine your submittal and our general comments at this point are: 1. Please have each property owner or partnership within the 5.5 acre site send to my attention a letter stating that they are aware of the development wr. request, and they each acknowledge the proposal filed by your company (i.e. Pomona 1st Federal, 3S Partnership, Desert Outdoor Advertising) . We would;, like to receive the letters no.later than March 26, 1993. 2. We need a notification package containing a scaled map or Assessor's map pages showing all property within a 300 -foot radius of the subject property (or of continuously owned property); a typed list of the property owners within this 300 -foot radius, which has been certified by a title company, architect, engineer or surveyor; three (3) sets of typed, self- adhesive, addressed labels for the above property owners. , This list must be from the most current Assessor's Rolls. We need this information no later than 5:00' p.m., Monday, March 22, 1993 or we will reschedule your case on a later Planning Commission agenda., (Mr. Fred Simon indicated to Jerry:Herman, Director of Planning & Development on Monday, March 15, 1993, that he is currently working on obtaining mailing labels so the short time frame should not be a problem for you. LTRGT . 058 1 City of La Quinta Post Office Box 1504 ♦ 78 -105 Calle Estado La Quints; California 92253 Phone (619) 564 -2246, Fax (619) 564 -5617 Design d Production: Mark Palmer Design, 619.346.0772 a , .,� 1 �. r a , .,� / 1 3. It would be helpful to our department if you would send a list of names and mailing addresses of individuals who would like to be notified throughout the review of your project as we are not sure our old list is up to date. 0 In discussion with the Planning Director, he has stated that we will use your original environmental documentation from Plot Plan 91 -466 (Revision) for your new submittal. This policy will also apply toward your Master Sign Permit case which was approved by the Planning Commission on November 24, 1992. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned. Very truly , x JEI�Y RrM3AN P NI G ELOPM ENT DIRECTOR Asls is Planner GT : ecs zvp-�, v l Lot H E C I T Y 0 March 18, 1993 Mr. Philip M. Plead, President Simon Plaza, Inc. PO Box 461 78 -611 Hwy 111 La Quinta, CA 92253 SUBJECT: PLOT PLAN 93 -495 Dear Mr. Pead : A inta La p 99Z Ten Carat Decac- We are in receipt of your application to resubmit your preciously approved mixed use development plan for the southeast corner of Washington Street and Highway 111. We have mailed your case out for public agency comments, and we should have the responses by March 30, 1993, or before. We will keep you posted on the status of your case while it is being reviewed. Your case is tentatively scheduled for the following meeting dates: Design Review Board April 7, 1993 at 5:30 p.m. Planning Commission April 13, 1993, at 7: 00 p.m. City Council April 20, 1993 at 7: 00 p.m. This schedule will be re- examined periodically throughout the process and could change; however, this is our best estimate at this time. We have started to examine your submittal and our general comments at this point are: 1. Please have each property owner or partnership within the 5.5 acre site send to my attention a letter stating that they are aware of the development request, and they each acknowledge the proposal filed by your company (i.e. Pomona 1st Federal, 3S Partnership, Desert Outdoor Advertising) . We would like to receive the letters no later than March 26, 1993. 2. We need a notification package containing a scaled map or Assessor's map pages showing all property within a 300 -foot radius of the subject, property (or of continuously owned property); a typed list of the property owners within this 300 -foot radius, which has been certified by a title company, architect, engineer or surveyor; three (3) sets of typed,. self - adhesive, addressed labels for the above property owners. This list must be from the most current Assessor's Rolls. We need this information no later-than 5:00 p.m. Monday, March 22, 1993 or we will reschedule your case on a later Planning Commission agenda. (Mr. Fred Simon indicated to Jerry Herman, Director of Planning & Development on Monday, March 15, 1993, that he is currently working on obtaining mailing labels so the short time frame should not be a problem for you. LTRGT.058 1 City of La Quinta Post Office Box 1504 ♦ 78 -105 Calle Estado La Quints, California 92253 Phone (619) 564 -2246, Fax (619) 564-5617 Design 8 Production Mark Palmer Design, 61c16-07-72 4 3. It would be helpful to our department if. you would send a list of names and mailing addresses of individuals who would like to be notified throughout the review of your project as we are not sure our old list is up to date. In discussion with the Planning Director, he has stated that we will use your original environmental documentation from Plot Plan 91 -466 (Revision) for your new submittal. This policy will also apply- toward your Master Sign Permit case which was approved by the Planning Commission on November 24, 1992. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned. Very trul7&rDEt'VELOPMENT , JE Y PLNI G DIRECTOR TTo sdell As Planner GT : ccs P� LTRGT.058 2 4b . q. ="-,). �. .. ,.F a.�. {ft � ..41 hf.:•v >..,i;� -. y i, :, .,, ,�.} r {. STATE OF CAUFOHNIA dUSINESS,'iRANSPOHTATICN AND HOUSING AGENCY' PETE WILSON, Gov" DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 11, P.O. BOX 85406. SAN DIEGO, 92186 -5406 -� September 11, 1991 l l -R V -111 Washington Street PP 91 -466 City of La Quinta Planning and Development Department P. O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 Attn: Mr. Greg Trousdell We have reviewed Plot Plan 91 -466 for Simon Plaza located at the corner of Washington Street and State Route 111 (SR -111). We have the following comments: A traffic study should be prepared for this development which identifies impacts and appropriate mitigation. On March 14, 1991, a Project Study Report /Project Report (PSR /PR), for improvements to SR -11 1 (PM 33.1 - 34.2) was approved by Caltrans District 11. The proposed improvements were designed to accommodate traffic generated by proposed commercial development north of SR -111 between Adams and Washington Street, as well as the anticipated growth to the year 2010. A conceptual plan for upgrading the e-:dsting highway to a six. lane conventional highway through this area was also included in this report. Any improvements necessary to SR -111 due to the proposed development must meet Caltrans standards and also be in conformance with the PSR /PR referenced above. Access to this development from SR -111 should be restricted to one driveway located midway between Washington Street and Simon, with right turn in and right turn out only. A bus turnout should be considered, to conform with the bus turnouts being proposed on the north side of SR -111. Additional right of way may be required. We have specified a 30 foot setback to the right of way line from the ultimate edge of the travelled way for the commercial development on the north side of SR -11 1. Any proposed access or work within Caltrans right of way will require an encroachment permit. Information regarding encroachmer t permits may be obtained by contacting our Permit Office at (619) 688 -6843: Early coordination with our agency is strongly recommended for all encroachment permit applications. For future coordination regarding Caltrarns standards or right of way requirements, please contact Project Engineer haul Hardin at (619) 688 -6712. ,City of La guinta September 11. 1991 Page 2 If you have any questions concerning our comments please contact Jim Buksa of our staff at (619) 688 -6968. cc: CRWest JBuksa T/P File JESUS M. GARCIA District Director By BILL DILLON, Chief System Planning Branch n , '� DEPAIR 1 IN rN'T -1 t \t Pr-• DISTRICT . 3 'X s' a :r;. : il_ :C. 16 (619) 683 -6963 November 14, 1991 City of La Quinta Planning and Development Department P. 0. Box 1504 La Guinta, CA 92253 Attn: Mr. Greg Trcusdeli 11 -RIV -111 PM 33.1/34.2 Simon Plaza We have reviewed the traffic impact study report for the proposed Simon Plaza development located in the southeast corner of the State Route 111 (SR -111) a d Washington Street intersection in the City of La Guinta and have the following comments: On March 14, 1991, a Project Study Report /Project Report (PSR /PR) for improvements on SR -11 1 between Washington Street and Adams Stre: was a 'pproved by the District. The proposed improvements were designed to acccmmotate Year 2010 traffic generated by proposed commercial deve!cpments north of SR -111, but did not include traffic generated from the proposed Simon Plaza development. A conceptual plan for upgrading the existing four lane highway to a six lar �) conventional highway through this area was inc.uded in that report. The traffic impact study report contains several significant differences in the Year 2010 peak hour turning volumes at the SR-1 1 1,"Washington Street intersection when compared to those shown in the PSR /PR. Of particular concern is the eastbound Sn -111 to southbound Washington Street right turn volume; the eastbound SR -111 through volume, and the northbound Washington Street to westbound SR -111 left turn volume. These volumes, as shovin in the traffic impact study need to be resolved since they are approximately hvice as high as those in the PSR /PR. The traffic growth rate factors uses by the consultant may need to be adjusted at this location. The traffic study includes an intersection schematic for S? -1 ' 1 at �Nash!ngtcn Street (Figure 7) showing eight lanes on SR -111. This is nct ccnsate!: with the Route Concept Report (RCR) for SR -111 and is probably unnecessan/ because the traffic voiumes assumed in the study may be unable to reach the intersection due to upstream controls. The City may, however, elect to reserie additional right of wav to allow for additional channelization on SR- 1 11 in the vicinity of Washington Street. The davelccer shouid be required to mitigate traffic impacts on SR- i 1 1 associated .vith the prcpcsfd development. Drive,,vav access location from SF -111 to the proposed deve!opment should be prohibited, if possible, or limited to a single opening for right turning traffic only and should be located midway between adiacent intersections. I A*, f >'r City of La Quinta November 14, 1991 Page 2 For future coordination regarding Caltrans standards or right of way requirements, please contact Bob Lowrie at (619) 688 -3211. If you have any questions concerning our comments, pl-2Gse contact Jim Buksa of our stuff at (619) 688 -6968. JESUS M. GARCIA District Director BILL DIL.LON, Chief Planning Studies Branch cc. CRWest AKosup JEuksa T/P File �� �, :-�, . _ i ` r" 7711, 17T 5. W FIX Vll Yi Li Ilk C it is it Ai if-I ZZI ttIttito1z, t7 .1 irr I77 ititty RUM F1A WIT IT i V I- at f 4 4 N� 'I f p 0 I ifi V 777 Pfflv�q%" MT—n v- TR 1W TT m""'T IMM7, ry r"N", T"'i 4,t,, V "tit" �c t-:7 I, vi, �,-` TIM x Ail— t i, it I, v, w Vt,�f'� w., J f Z41I Vitt Ki;',� _X, F4 'T - __ - J. - I I "' i%'_,�_, — Al tj ;i' y-, . �;,i � I. � , "i , VF 2 IF t It, It C, q, ll slftii- gx X 'i, j"k F% it IF _-�Af itU j� IF I :F, "e, 4�61 j I O'i 1_�. "itl Kii! 'I tj T" v, V U4 Ai� it -,, I -�, I li,�,� , I., Ji�k " , _'V, tj �,z i. X I t ;ii'. l_ It 1 .1. . � `Fir.!�l � , � J ti. �O, 7 '1 1, :Ai� t t%, F.." I _i'� if 'R� 6_� k� K, It 't , , - -, , ": .� , . i, ", t!' i, , 1. 11 T % - It t I V�il ii Alt- i:tt 1% J, t,A "I" V. Wt All- 'ji, F cl, I 'If tl �il,, , W, mt At- ti t,. A t ta .1 I j'F, ?, " , _ I " - , , . , , - '� I . �i I i " I", .� " Al� it It i t ii7 �T V: ii, 4 Y� r.,v. ;I, It 1, "A" 1 q Il, j A. ti, i': . . .... ij x , V it I`t V V; dL 0"; t_F'i 'i, "A"; , . it-, �' � " ", V� 0- le, 4t if v t t-,i w I I ..... I It, 1 01. F, A ly I P. 1 01 V et tg, i"t 0, q tt, i'� -1 1. 111 � I � I 1., 111, 11 1, � � 'i . 11 ; " VIA "iWif I W il"It �r I" it� t IF i"t';, It 'iilf LI l? 7, �7 'i K y, tt !t ".4 f v,I 7� Fit - T5, FT 4� 5t,, �.tt 7777, T 77 77 ?:,- 77 .1 1 t it� f7 -y - ;q t V 771- V :T 4, 6,� It If it, 7 it, i; 777 % r * It �A 71 7 7 ; t," i, �, , !�� 77 F 77 17 77, 7, - , 4 ��! 7 , t, , -,j e ik z 0'1 tt, lit-Pi" r _Q tr "J"77, ix j If 'tt" 7--__ W; TF 7" T 77, 77 17, 77 7 7- '-'7— t,,�t =7 777 7777 T'T�r.�Ftolit7n" -tmtt "T'iC 7777�ri 71 77 7; 7 2 io y % �4 -F, I "T r 7777-77 j 49 If III p 7 "0 4P J "i, 0.1 i 4 3T 4' 0, 1,;1 t It t t "W, I �7- 7, gm- A AN P j vw'g 1; Mi, .A lit y- i er�w A t l-1V'1&J06 IVI�14_1` MA'AM mi� � ti , -.- I�, g 4�6k� A, t, �i, J, X I i- . .. .... :ti I, W, I Ix I Vl_ ir 1!�' T, , - � � , .11 _ ni.;, � I , "! , I t- " -. � t! ltiif� t- 't" lit I tt it If, I t, I, It oo j -4, it 7 Vi; pi� t, 4 1�3 A) "fit" Y V- P" Pit, "V A if Q- ta iti 1, ie, "t 't _t I'v T z i�, . NW. 14", 11 K: - i,�, , I:- � , . ii"', I '' Y-itix, 1:`;ir.;,i,F�-1 p�f 0 t't it .1 , 11 1 , I . iI � , t - I I` I �: " - . . I .. , I I . I . , - , - , , !, �� .7 i it . t . V. J., % Z-t' PJ, ti Am ArTT ft it 'I 4., . t1f:,:;: it! p b J J!, j, ti, tit; lit , It ? t t iF A-: It is cl It" it tt It A� it. v tl I.' ji; w IF I i4 d j 4, ttiiI t,o "t". .41 j v It t 4 it 4 It -I IF t 4. 1� it l7 14_1 t jj f IF 'it i'_ V A: _I0 t t,7 it, j Io- IT- It it 71; Wile V, % ;7. 14 1' % "j 7 t t ip, if F": If 'I it 'A JI 7 _j1 :iq`, �I� t , , _ 1; 1 .. , l I ., , - t" � � J, 0" t q F t -Ye it, o .1, ilt W ;1 t et if 4 4 & 0 t '2! 4 t � i�', 6" 1 * tk �K, J� t I. If it" I t'it, I I ;;V 1.�',� zi it, j it j if It ' L i' : , . ' ' , , , , t 1 , i , - , lI , F tit "Z' "'t, til e t 'Fl , ti� % A tj �ijj' Y, ii.v Iti �i t *.4 1 ' - ` - - _. , %i , 4 -�, " i , , Ii , � t"61i , 1�� t �1, . . I i , I I I 1 .1 , -;t" �i -iK Y ij, :et, to "If6l' T' % 3. It 4et It it, . : t I (I I 'it i i 0I. Pit ii`�,,,, k it -iv I I ta t! '4t t I, A I I. I 'i I "tt _ _ � 6"_5,, , ", `: , :- , l�, rF-, I, 1? 4 J� tr IF It, 7; -.1 t t If "'tt ti, % j�>; t _w, �z :Z 7 l " . ;11 11 , I i,i� , F, _N, t7t t � i il :i-ttTr - ;L "' Y, tie if. t _I, P q -AF " - I : - I I . , . , , . . ; " , . , I , � 1 �, , �,, � ,`�,,, - I- , _' . _ ' 6 � t I - , , it� I : S � . , ' 6 - , , - , , I it A 'tI it ti ri! d t "!t t4 t'i'l" t I , J " " , , I I 1 6 . . , 1�', i '_ , , . , , . I , i :, " " ' ii 'I ' '6 " ii� _ , I I t , ;t fit A" _r i' i "f tIl I— _:j A. I�t �' t �_ _�' . t;- f� -'� �'i , ti�� y, '! �, -'. I ; , " ;i ii .5, ii:j , i " , : : �'- � ' 161! . _. , "i , , � 6, " - " i 'I 4,_ 1 _ , , , , i�. , 6, 1 l' " - '1" ".6 t, �� , �T';, , tie', vy il,;i. ..,i j it jr I, f It, l1 It it, 't tit T �i, 'l t' j'i 1 -1, 1, 1 ' 41 7 - I` I. Ig V' Z - ' " wt it il 1, l"M I j '!i$�i t ';I' �l 1, IWI �V % i , ' � ;f�': I '1 ;4 F I)AZA, , 41 t, ;;; ' " , I , �6 � i*. � . ' ' ' ; �.`, , ._ " ' '_ i ,., ,,, I _ 6 ' '� : :�� ti, tt j,", j, te V Fl, 7 'IP,U 4 - ' - I 1 .1 1 . ? ", " ". , 4 5: & �J Kf'j- , ;f: I - 6, ' I -_,- -, , -) ' I, ;� -, ,.A ' I t R ut 'N IV 'r" 'I't. Fl tct� It -4t i x it I 'A tit I ir"it, 7 rt 7� it , . , _� i I , i;A144 Ii. 'po t'i s it P el fl 4� it ft ,T " I It . I fir V it 14 -il it 7 k ij i,,, t V� N ifiA, .9, eir P _Z, xi 1v tt ill x: A, Fl it t, "t It" tl "t, lit: f ii tj "'it Z1. tili I _,MIl, FF`ii,,$", kit', F' ivl f tq, It, "7' 11 Aez Alit W 'Z rPrRINT K v 10" y W� 7777, -yyq a, a , 1p��?,-,�' 7 r4 Syn Wo vv� vyy,- WW A goo on 16 00 3", -WQ OW qyj >7 W-a YANA',", "I IN yvvN"Tvv KEY" Wo I MA It, or OVAL AS" WAIUMV- J-0 vo -0- fill. coo on Wo �Ijei 1, MY, �7' lyx,� In AQ y, f� ""Tools, IWO W-A � MIj, -'e a JW Ify 0 Iota Q11 go YO j"Ovs,Q . 0-00 Oro MMIA-_ Ayq �O "r �-p 1�4 Mi,�� .111. -, , "", -- " , 1 1, 1" p a s*.,� =Ng a-, A: A A, qo Owl W MA J, V;; A�-, &SAW!", "A Alto non :M0 COO Q WON "Aj T -"Am MA-M-0 M SAM— _WW_ A-A A, 0 � " , -, _ , - _;, - im, - 1` ": ", �,, `�`, ;i--i 0-111 h - ?"-% MY V.; oppey MOW A 1 TUA,- 1TAW COMMON= M Oak -0 WNW 0 "P, W", IMS!, TOM 1 WOR J. An "I, OVA PAY W "S -tops nnv,,, 4 40, " �,.,�,. " SAWKSM 0""W" ARNOW W —A —Ja a M. 4, 'sn W. jn� W" &I AM, "M y W 1 To", jv�o- �Q�. 0�p MMV T 1_w ........... now% ""T 400 "S �;I VA� MWK �-W QX -IPA 0 01 coo"", Fop, TV, "MAT WIT x �L: A I_ 00 5, A A I Wy 5�--7 4 own; Vol ij F, y "n" , A -MAW: !0qTgvj4"* qQ KJ q -W ny W Y, 4, tt�,z pc 'iX 00" 1p=�j yiluy� ;0.0 fda foj�,y "MOM 7q4- A,� .A 3"As" ; 0� WIN A, M, 0 A P---. A OAK" A 4 W how, �yy tkjaylov woo W A-WV- v W VOW 1 - -, -_ �W A" I IBM. t:7, WIS hu AUNWIM-W Q "'A ;AA, q 'k I . �, � " �i n" un n, yJ logo Woo, -cc I A 1 QVI it �M-y- OVA 1 ov i "�J now �1- 7 QW: As Iwo, van "Son 1q.X 14- 1"Z 17�1� PAY;, - , V� W v � ad— SA 50 :A JOS A,YT%y 7-1,44, '2 A �;�i A': �'A 7 �V, 'n� �t: io?"A MAI xv EW 7 A ovn - V. WAS, Q-W Q �Q: Ol eLn 19 0, _�o_ a— ml--, 44i, J� "AAM., V A-Z M-Q 04 zoo hy QA 40, W"o Ww- "KA V,_ Qso— ...... =Ally TIMM is-," nk 41, avvS 7- coo ,4 1 1 . . .... -I-Z 0�, W Ad ;X Sigy,.) "yX., �yvv A 1 GO "A a RAW, wy; IWO a own& ; /60