2006 07 25 PCG'ity of La Quints
Planning Commission Agendas are now
available on the City's Web Page
@ www.la-guinta.org
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
A Regular Meeting to be Held at the
La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California
JULY 25, 2006
7:00 P.M.
**NOTE**
ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT
REGULAR MEETING
Beginning Resolution 2006-027
Beginning Minute Motion 2006-018
CALL TO ORDER
A. Pledge of Allegiance
B. Roll Call
C. Election of Chair and Vice Chair
11. PUBLIC COMMENT
This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled
for public hearing. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit
your comments to three minutes.
III. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 11, 2006
P:\Reports - PC\2006\7-25-06\PC AGENDA.doc
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
For all Public Hearings on the Agenda, a completed "Request to Speak" form must
be filed with the Executive Secretary prior to the start of the Planning Commission
consideration of that item. The Chairman will invite individuals who have requested
the opportunity to speak, to come forward at the appropriate time.
Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before a
public hearing, may appear and be heard in support of, or in opposition to, the
approval of the project(s) at the time of the hearing. If you challenge any project(s)
in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised
at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior
to the public hearing.
A. Item ................... TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31910, EXTENSION #1
Applicant ............. Desert Elite, Inc.
Location .............. West side of Monroe Street, approximately '/4 mile north
of Avenue 58
Request .............. Consideration of a one-year extension of time for a
subdivision of approximately 38 acres into 130 single-
family lots and other common lots.
Action ................. Resolution 2006-
B. Item .................... SPECIFIC PLAN 99-035, AMENDMENT #1
Applicant ............. East of Madison, LLC
Location .............. South of Avenue 52 and east of Madison Street in the
Madison Club
Request .............. Review of standard perimeter wall and planting plans
Action ................. Minute Motion 2006-
C. Item ................... SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-864.
Applicant ............. Tahiti Partners Estate Development Corporation
Location .............. East side of Mandarina south of Pomelo in Tract 24890-1
(The Citrus)
Request .............. Consideration of architectural and landscaping plans for
two prototypical residential plans
Action ................. Minute Motion 2006- .
D. Item .................... SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-863
Applicant ............. Innovative Communities
Location .............. North side of Avenue 58 approximately 1,000 feet west
of Madison Street in Tract 34243 (Paso Tiempo).
Request ............... Consideration of architectural and landscaping plans for
three prototypical residential plans.
Action ................. Minute Motion 2006-
P:\Reports - PC\2006\7-25-06\PC AGENDA.doc
BUSINESS ITEM:
CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL:
COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
ADJOURNMENT:
This meeting of the Planning Commission will be adjourned to a Regular Meeting to
be held on August 8, 2006, at 7:00 p.m.
DECLARATION OF POSTING
:tty Sawyer, Executive Secretary of the City of La Quinta, do hereby declare that the
going Agenda for the La Quinta Planning Commission meeting of Tuesday, July 25,
6, was posted on the outside entry to the Council Chamber, 78-495 Calle Tampico
the bulletin board at the La Quinta Cove Post Office, on Friday, July 21, 2006.
'ED: July 21, 2006
k;SAV��Y'/E'xecutive Secretary
of La Ouinta, California
Public Notices
The La Quints City Council Chamber is handicapped accessible. If special
equipment is needed for the hearing impaired, please call the City Clerk's office at
777-7123, twenty-four (24) hours in advance of the meeting and accommodations
will be made.
If special electronic equipment is needed to make presentations to the Planning
Commission, arrangements should be made in advance by contacting the City
Clerk's office at 777-7123. A one (1) week notice is required.
If background materials is to be presented to the Planning Commission during a
Planning Commission meeting, please be advised that eight (8) copies of all
documents, exhibits, etc., must be supplied to the Executive Secretary for
distribution. It is requested that this take place prior to the beginning of the 7:00
p.m. meeting.
P:\Reports - PC\2006\7-25-06\PC AGENDA.doc
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
July 11, 2006
CALL TO ORDER
7:00 P.M.
A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00
p.m. by Chairman Quill who introduced Commissioner Engle who he
asked to lead the flag salute.
B. Present: Commissioners Ed Alderson, Katie Barrows, Rick Daniels, Jim
Engle and Chairman Paul Quill.
C. Staff present: Community Development Director Doug Evans, Assistant
City Attorney Michael Houston, Public Works Director Tim Jonasson,
Planning Manager Les Johnson, Associate Planner Andy Mogensen, and
Secretary Carolyn Walker
II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None
III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA:
A. Chairman Quill requested Agenda be reorganized to take Item A under
Commissioner Items before the Public Hearings. Community
Development Director Doug Evans presented the information contained in
the staff report and explained the options available to the Commission.
1. Commissioner Alderson asked if a zone change would be required
to allow the change in the rear setback. Staff explained the issue
was that there had been some misinterpretation by staff regarding
what the actual setback should be on different houses and it
needed to be clarified. Commissioner Alderson asked how many
lots were left that this would apply to. Staff stated there were
only a few but, if the Code is not changed the setback will remain
15 feet and the Commission would have to deal with each lot
individually.
2. Commissioner Daniels asked how difficult it would be for a lot
owner to apply and receive a variance in this type of situation.
Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston explained typically one of
the requirement for a variance is that a unique feature of the
property makes it difficult to develop within the zoning standards
P:\Reports - PC\2006\7-11-06\7-11-06 Minutes.doc
Planning Commission Minutes
July 11, 2006
so that it makes an equitable sense to deviate from the standards
due to the unique configuration of a particular piece of a property.
As a general rule granting a variance should not be something that
can be done across the board for a particular piece of property in a
location because by definition a variance is allowed for a unique
situation. However, as a practical application, the Commission or
City Council may use a variance to achieve a result when a
situation is difficult even though the legal components are missing.
Commissioner Daniels asked how many lots had the potential of
being affected. Staff stated eight to ten.
3. Chairman Quill asked if an aerial could be prepared by staff to give
a visual review of what lots exists and how great an impact this
could have on the community. Also, he would like to see a
comparison as to which lots have the ten foot and which have the
15 foot setback. Staff explained that was the purpose in
requesting the Code change and the results will be same as what
is before the Commission currently.
4. Following discussion, the Commission directed staff to prepare a
City -initiated Zoning Text Amendment addressing the rear yard
setbacks for the Cove Residential area.
IV. CONSENT ITEMS: None
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Continued - Environment Assessment 2006-568, and Specific Plan
2006-080; Consideration of: 1) Recommending to the City Council
Certification of an Addendum to Environmental Assessment 2002-453;
and 2) SilverRock Resort Specific Plan creating development guidelines
and standards for the future development of a destination resort area.
1. Commissioner Daniels stated he had a potential conflict of interest
and asked for Counsel advice. He declared he lives at 55-150
Shoal Creek, but will receive no financial benefit from this project.
He therefore believes he is eligible to discuss and vote on this
issue. City Attorney Michael Houston acknowledged
Commissioner Daniels comments and stated he agreed.
2. Chairman Quill opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Community Development Director presented the
information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file
in the Community Development Department.
P \Reports - PC\2006\7-11-06\7-11-06 Minutes.doc 2
Planning Commission Minutes
July 11, 2006
3. Chairman Quill asked about the height of the signature hotel and
the photo exhibits. Staff replied the photo was taken from the
project entryway and is over 1,700 feet from the street. The
design of the project and the surrounding projects would allow
someone to see the building, but the visual impact of the height
would be negligible. It is in an appropriate location with an
appropriate visual impact.
4. Commissioner Alderson asked if the 65 foot height of the hotel
would be the highest height impact on the golf course. Staff
replied that was correct.
5. Commissioner Daniels asked if there were going to be different
elevations on the hotel and variations in the roof line, not just a
building at 65 feet in height. Staff showed a map and explained
how the hotel would be built with variations in height.
6. Commissioner Daniels asked for an explanation on how the
number of units were determined. Staff explained how the room
count was obtained in regard to phasing of the project.
7. Chairman Quill asked about the ratio of rooms versus key units.
Staff stated the key count varies in regard to casitas.
8. Commissioner Barrows asked about Page 18 of the Addendum in
regard to clarification on the mitigation measures, especially the
analysis relative to drainage issues. She was aware there were
some significant drainage issues and the Addendum does not
acknowledge them. Public Works Director Tim Jonasson replied
most of the drainage issues were created by off -site and mountain
flows. He went on to explain how the first phase issues had been
addressed. The only issue left is what falls on the site and should
be able to be handled by local retention basins and storm drains
consistent with golf course maintenance.
9. Commissioner Barrows said she was concerned about the large
water usage on the site and the lack of drought -tolerant plants
being used. Staff identified the location and replied the majority of
the water is already on -site. The idea of introducing water to the
second phase is artistic license. Commissioner Barrows asked
staff to identify where the second golf course is planned. Staff
replied the majority of the lakes are in and said water -efficiency is
going to be a challenge. On the second course, the amount of
water is substantially reduced and staff could look at that relative
P:\Reports - PC\2006\7-11-06\7-11-06 Minutes.doc 3
Planning Commission Minutes
July 11, 2006
to future designs.
10. Public Works Director Tim Jonasson added the water used for the
lakes is taken from the All -American Canal and would be re-
circulated throughout the course. There was also a back up well
in case there is no water available from the Canal.
11. Commissioner Barrows noted the hotel descriptions and
appreciated the resort environment. She did add the entry feature
is excessive in water usage and felt the City was not making a
statement of water conservation. She said if the Water District
has approved the plans, we must have mitigated the project
properly, but the measures seemed rather meager. Staff said
mitigation measures were already in place, but from an
environmental standpoint, the Commission could convey their
concerns for water consumption to the Council.
12. Commissioner Barrows commented there was some artistic license
on the second golf course. She asked if that was something that
was going to go through Planning Commission and then to the
Council. Staff gave a description of the future planning including
water efficiency and said there is a routing plan to make sure
sufficient land was devoted to the golf course. The next phase
was to look out how we design the second golf course to make
sure it is playable, including water usage. Commissioner Barrows
said she would like to see the mitigation measures, with respect to
water, be more stringent.
13. Commissioner Barrows wanted clarification on energy conservation
mitigation measures. Staff replied they pull out all the energy
conservation measures and put them in a consistent consecutive
set of requirements for project development. They are reviewed
and tested as staff goes through the project design. Currently,
there is some generic wording in the document.
14. Commissioner Barrows had further questions on meeting Title 24
standards. Staff replied every project has to comply with Title 24.
In the architectural review staff starts to look at solar design
issues, and energy issues. The Council is concerned about these
issues as well. Commissioner Barrows asked if there was a
possibly the mitigation measures could exceed Title 24. Staff
replied it was possible they could.
P:\Reports - PC\2006\7-11-06\7-11-06 Minutes.doc 4
Planning Commission Minutes
July 11, 2006
15. Commissioner Barrows asked about the Big Horn Sheep activity on
the golf course and if a fence would be necessary. Staff has kept
Fish & Wildlife up-to-date on any siting of Big Horn Sheep and
staff has been trained on how to handle any future sitings. Public
Works has been advised of the possibility of putting up a
protective fence if it is necessary. The City has brought in some
outside expertise on how to keep the Sheep off the property.
Staff added a fence could be harmful to the Sheep and they are
working with Fish & Wildlife and the Big Horn Institute relative to
how you keep Sheep off the property. The City is currently doing
everything the mitigation measures require.
16. Commissioners Barrows pointed out Item #2, Page 29, where it
refers to a mitigation measure on Big Horn Sheep. Staff replied
there is a terminology problem because this refers to the adjacent
property and there may have been a typographic error when this
report was prepared. Staff will look into this further.
17. Commissioner Daniels asked if the hillsides were privately owned.
Staff replied the City tried to purchase the hillsides, but they are
currently owned by KSL or CNL. The City is still interested in
purchasing the hillsides if it ever becomes possible.
18. Commissioner Barrows had a question with reference to Page 40
and asked if the Edom Hill Landfill was closed since it was noted in
the report. It should be corrected to note it is closed.
19. Commissioner Daniels said it was closed and added information on
other landfills which closed since the original report had been
prepared. Staff replied they would make the necessary corrections
prior to the report going to the Council.
20. Commissioner Barrows said she wanted to add this for purposes of
clarification. She commented on the project having potential
impact regarding aesthetics on Page 45 and she did not
understand exactly what the report was referring to. Staff replied
the mitigation measures on Page 47 the potential impacts would
be less than significant. Staff replied they would do a global
search on landfill information.
21. Commissioner Alderson asked if there was access from Avenue 52
to the front of the boutique hotel. Staff replied the primary access
is through the main road. There would be a secondary access
from the north side off Avenue 52 for emergency access only.
P.\Reports - PC\2006\7-11-06\7-11-06 Minutes.doc 5
Planning Commission Minutes
July 11, 2006
22. Commissioner Alderson had asked if the casitas would be owned
by individuals, or an offshoot of the hotel, and would they have
garages. Staff stated they would likely be individually -owned and
would have covered parking and/or with carports. There were
intended to have different types of covered or shaded parking.
Commissioner Alderson asked if they would garages. Staff replied
no, the intent for the units was that they were not set up for full-
time, year-round living. They would not have full-sized kitchens,
closets, etc. The intent of the units is to remain in the rental pool.
23. Commissioner Alderson asked a question about the well sites.
Public Works Director Tim Jonasson said there is an irrigation back
up well site by the driving range as well as mitigation well sites for
offsetting the water usage.
24. Chairman Quill asked if they were CVWD well sites. Staff stated
yes.
25. Commissioner Alderson referred to the Specific Plan on Page 60,
3rd paragraph where it discusses "... Canal would not only be used
as a source for irrigation water for SilverRock, but also for
stormwater drainage purposes..." Public Works Director Tim
Jonasson replied there was talk at one time to obtain NPDES
permit to take water from the site to the All American Canal. It
would be nice to circulate water back into the Canal, but it
requires a NPDES permit which the City does not have at this time
but wanted to leave the option open.
26. Commissioner Alderson said he was still confused about the dual
usage of the Canal. Public Works Director Tim Jonasson read the
section the Commissioner was referring to. He said if the City
worked with CVWD they would be able to bring water back into
the Canal and function as a storm drain. Staff added commentary
about recapturing water, storm drains and usage of storm water
back into the Canal. Staff thought it was appropriate to leave that
information in, but the Commission could recommend removing it.
27. Chairman Quill said he believed there were spillways in the
mountains above PGA West that go directly into the Canal which
were built by the Bureau of Reclamation. Staff replied they would
like to leave that in if the Commission is so inclined.
28. Commissioner Alderson asked since the Canal has nice, clean
water for irrigation purposes, then you channel storm water into
P:\Reports - PC\2006\7-11-06\7-11-06 Minutes.doc 6
Planning Commission Minutes
July 11, 2006
the Canal how will it benefit the Canal. Public Works Director Tim
Jonasson replied the Canal is actually not clean water as it has to
be filtered several times in order to be usable. The storm water
would probably be cleaner since it will work its way down through
bio-filters.
29. Commissioner Alderson referred to one of the exhibits which
discussed abandoning a forced sewer main currently in existence.
Public Works Director Tim Jonasson replied those are requirements
made by CVWD for the water and sewer agreements for the
project site. He gave a brief overview of what would be done to
compensate for the loss of the abandoned mains.
30. Commissioner Alderson pointed out the reference to multi -use
trails and asked staff if that included equestrian use. Staff replied
it could. The City's General Plan multi -use trails includes
equestrian and pedestrian trails. The trails would be mainly used
for pedestrians and golf carts.
31. Commissioner Alderson asked if an architectural theme, such as
Southwest or Tuscan, had been discussed. Staff said the Specific
Plan should not get into a detailed architectural plan at this point.
Because the Redevelopment Agency owns the property, prior to
going forward with the agreement for selling or leasing the
property, the architectural treatments described for the property
has not yet been decided, but would probably be a type of early
Californian architecture. If the City was comfortable with the
proposal, they would proceed with the architecture presented. If
the current negotiations go forward, the La Quinta design palette
would be utilized.
32. Chairman Quill asked if the Commission would be getting further
development reviews on this project. Staff replied yes.
33. Chairman Quill asked about the trail from Jefferson Street along
the Canal. Staff said that was a secondary local roadway
servicing the driveway as well as the Club House.
34. Chairman Quill wanted to make sure the Commission had the
opportunity to include pedestrian and bike pathways. He said it is
wonderful we're planning multi -use pathways, but we're providing
a lot of amenities for the golfers, but need to provide ambiance
and amenities to other users of the project, such as joggers,
bikers, etc. Desert Willow in Palm Desert is a beautiful project and
P:\Reports - PC\2006\7-11-06\7-11-06 Minutes.doc 7
Planning Commission Minutes
July 11, 2006
they have done a better job of drought -tolerant planting, but have
not done a good job on their pathways being pedestrian and
bicycle -friendly. We should make sure we provide ample
opportunities to include those amenities.
35. Chairman Quill said more attention needs to be paid to the
drainage on the golf course. Ensure the drainage off the hillside is
used for irrigation purposes. Also, ensure the next golf course has
lakes that are interconnected. Public Works Director Tim Jonasson
replied they will all be interconnected.
36. Commissioner Alderson asked if any reclamation water has been
used. Staff replied not at this time.
37. Chairman Quill asked about the purple pipe if the opportunity
becomes available. Public Works Director Tim Jonasson gave him
information on the current status of reclamation water availability
in this area.
38. Chairman Quill asked about the timing of the mitigation monitoring
report. Staff stated Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) is a part
of the original Environmental Assessment. It could be made a
separate document and made available to the City Council. The
City Attorney was involved in the drafting of the MMP and it has
been, and will continue to be used during the entire process of the
development of the project.
39. Chairman Quill asked if fractional ownership is possible. Staff said
it could be.
40. Chairman Quill asked if the water uses would be dual uses. For
instances all exterior water uses would be potable. Public Works
Director Tim Jonasson stated this was part of the Agreement with
CVWD.
41. Chairman Quill said he likes the way the turf is maintained, but
there have been issues with the landscaped areas and the drip
emitters. Probably 50% of the on -site golf waste plant material
has died out and removed and the irrigation has been capped. The
long-term conditions of the golf course have not been planned out
very well. He referred to the usage of decomposed granite in the
areas where the landscape has eroded. He was concerned about
the aesthetics of the golf course and use of drought -tolerant
plants. He hoped the Planning Commission would get to look at
P:\Reports - P02006\7-11-06\7-11-06 Minutes.doc 8
Planning Commission Minutes
July 11, 2006
the landscaping plans for the next golf course plan.
42. Public Works Director Tim Jonasson stated the original design by
the Arnold Palmer golf course architects was for native plants and
it was worked into the Master Plan. He explained the design
process and the drainage/erosion solutions for the landscaping.
The original vision of the landscaping did not work out as planned.
He added the City has constructed dry wells and moved some of
the landscaping to accommodate and solve some of the problems.
43. Chairman Quill referred to the native landscaping on the Nicklaus
Golf Course at PGA West. It proved the landscaping could be
done and done well. He wanted to make sure the final
landscaping at SilverRock was done as well. Staff added all of the
planning areas that will have buildings will go through the standard
Site Development Permit process. If the Commission feels strongly
about looking at the golf course plan they might want to add that
recommendation to the Council.
44. Commissioner Daniels made a comment regarding a bill working its
way through the legislature, sponsored by CVWD requiring golf
courses to use non -potable water, if available. On visual resources
he hoped they were going to redesign the entrance statement at
the entrance because, it blocks the view of the mountains. That is
inconsistent with trying to protect the use of the mountainside.
Also, the wall on Avenue 52 blocks the mountain views and any
future walls on Jefferson Street should allow view of the
mountains from Jefferson Street. Staff said one of the concerns
on this project was to ensure the views remained and they were
going to do a demonstration project along Avenue 54.
45. Commissioner Daniels asked if the Jefferson Street entrance would
resemble the entrance off Avenue 52. Staff went over the
concept drawings.
46. Chairman Quill said the Commission would like to have the
opportunity to see the golf course and future plans for the future
phases.
47. Commissioner Alderson asked if this would impede the progress of
the project. Staff said it would add another layer and steps, but
the Commission could make a motion to include the request.
PAReports - PC\20W7-11-06\7-11-06 Minutes.doc 9
Planning Commission Minutes
July 11, 2006
48. Commissioner Barrows said one of the most important features of
this site is the ancient shoreline and she did not see it mentioned
in the Environmental Assessment. She asked if there was an
opportunity to highlight some of the features of the trail. Staff
gave information about the trails and stated the City would not be
able to look at any trail system until the Ahmanson House is no
longer a clubhouse.
49. Commissioner Barrows mentioned traveling to various trails
throughout the world and what a great opportunity it would be to
add this feature to the plan. Staff said the Commission could add
this condition to their approval. Staff added the number one
amenity the public has mentioned is trails. Commissioner Barrows
was looking for an opportunity on the site, to highlight this
feature.
50. Commissioner Daniels cautioned about having access to the
Ancient Cahuilla Shoreline to allow an opportunity for defacing.
He explained what had occurred in PGA West and the defacing
that has occurred.
51. Commissioner Barrows said she only wanted an opportunity to
draw attention to the feature.
52. Commissioner Alderson asked if the process goes forward, where
would the public park fit into the sequence of events. Staff replied
it was a primary consideration and it would be one of the first
efforts. The City is currently going through a Parks and Recreation
Master Plan and it is important this addition be aesthetically
pleasing.
53. Commissioner Alderson said he was not an advocate of slowing
down the procedure to look at the golf course design.
54. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Quill asked if
there was any other public comment. There being no public
comment, the public participation portion of the hearing was
closed and open for Commission discussion.
55. Chairman Quill asked that some opportunities for cultural resource
usage built into the Specific Plan including interpretive trail
elements and other things as stated. He suggested these items be
included as recommendations. He also said it would be a good idea
for the Commission to review the golf course landscape plans,
P:\Reports - PC\2006\7-11-06\7-11-06 Minutes.doc 10
Planning Commission Minutes
July 11, 2006
parkways, the main boulevard through the project, multi -use trail
design, and landscape aesthetics. Chairman Quill recommended
the multi -use trails be done with a lot of artistic endeavor.
56. Commissioner Barrows wanted to encourage the water -
conservation element to the furthest extent possible.
57. Commissioner Daniels requested they be allowed to review the
entryway landscaping. Staff suggested the issues be made as two
recommendations.
58. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Alderson to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2006-025, recommending
approval of Environmental Assessment 2006-568 as
recommended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Barrows, Daniels, Engle,
and Chairman Quill. NOES: None. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
18. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Alderson to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2006-026, recommending
approval of Specific Plan 2006-080 with recommendations as
recommended and amended:
1. Multi -use trails are planned for the perimeter edge and
within the Specific Plan Area that will accommodate both
non -motorized and golf cart use. The perimeter trail will run
along the south side of Avenue 52, west side of Jefferson
and a short distance of the north side of Avenue 54. The
multi -use trail will also run adjacent to SilverRock Way and
may include the Jefferson Street entry access road as well.
2. The multi -use, pedestrian, bicycle, and golf cart trails will be
a key design feature of the resort encouraging public access
to the clubhouse, signature hotel and resort commercial
areas. In addition, the trails design will also include
interpretation features that provide cultural, geological, and
biological historical information of the area. A detailed
analysis of the final interior trail design shall be conducted
and incorporated into the project development plans..
3. Water and energy conservation measures shall be
implemented in the future development of the resort to the
fullest extent possible. At a minimum, said measures shall
P:1Reports - P02006V-11-0617-11-06 Minutes.doc 11
Planning Commission Minutes
July 11, 2006
include the mitigation measures identified in the Addendum
to Environmental Assessment 2002-453.
4. Provide opportunity for Planning Commission to review the
new clubhouse, landscaping plans for the second golf
course, parkways (including walls and/or fences), trails and
walkways.
5. City Council should evaluate the Avenue 52 entry feature,
mound with palm trees, turf and waterfalls, and consider an
entryway re -design in order to open up the views to the
mountains and project.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Daniels, Engle, and
Chairman Quill. NOES: Commissioner Barrows.
ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None
VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: None
Vill. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None.
IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
B. Notification of the Draft Village Parking Study.
1. Chairman Quill state the Study was very well done. Staff replied
the consultant was exceptional and had done a very good job.
2. Commissioner Alderson asked if this was an informational
presentation. Staff replied it was.
C. Vista Santa Rosa Design Guidelines
1. Staff gave a brief presentation on this item including timelines and
objectives on the area's development. Staff informed the
Commission they were working to create Vista Santa Rosa Design
Guidelines that were specific to the area.
2. Commissioner Barrows asked what would be the staff's timeline
of finishing the design guidelines. Staff replied the first Phase of
the plan should be completed within the first six months of the
fiscal year.
R: Reports - PC\2006\7-11-06\7-11-06 Minutes.doc 12
Planrnng Commission Minutes
July 11, 2006
D. Year 2006/2007 Work program.
1. Chairman Quill said the Work Program was very well done. Staff
added there are a number of items they are still working on from
the past fiscal year, such as the Golf Cart Plan and Lighting Plan,
but they hope to have them finished soon. The first six months of
the work program will be aggressive with regards to Vista Santa
Rosa. Staff will then start working on an Urban Design Plan for the
Village, with the Parking Study being the first phase of the Plan.
2. Commissioner Daniels asked when the General Plan is due for
update. Staff replied money has been put away to update the
General Plan. They will begin looking at the Southeast part of the
City and hope to send out a Request for Proposals this year.
3. Chairman Quill added he was pleased to see parking addressed in
the SilverRock project and discussed the Kohl's parking lot. Staff
gave suggestions on what could be addressed in that parking area.
E. Chairman Quill asked that staff place the election of the Chair and Vice -
Chair on the next agenda.
X. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Daniels/Barrows/ to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a
regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held on July 25, 2006. This meeting
of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 8:57 p.m. on July 11, 2006.
Respectfully submitted,
Carolyn Walker, Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
P:\Reports - PC\2006\7-11-06\7.11-06 Minutes.doc 13
PH #A
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: JULY 25, 2006
CASE NUMBER: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31910 EXTENSION 1
APPLICANT: DESERT ELITE, INC.
ENGINEER: MSA CONSULTING, INC.
REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR
A SUBDIVISION OF APPROXIMATELY 38 ACRES INTO 130
SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS AND OTHER COMMON LOTS
LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF MONROE STREET, APPROXIMATELY '/< MILE
NORTH OF AVENUE 58
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: THE CITY OF LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THE REQUEST HAS
BEEN ASSESSED IN CONJUNCTION WITH ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT 2003-496 FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31910
WHICH WAS CERTIFIED ON APRIL 6, 2004. NO CHANGED
CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS ARE PROPOSED, NOR
ANY NEW INFORMATION SUBMITTED, WHICH WOULD
TRIGGER THE PREPARATION OF A SUBSEQUENT
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO PUBLIC
RESOURCES CODE 2116.
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: LDR - LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
ZONING
DESIGNATION: RL - LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
SURROUNDING
LAND USES:
NORTH: COUPLES COURT; THE PALMS GOLF CLUB (TR 28983)
SOUTH: PIAZZA SERENA (TR 30092)
EAST: MONROE STREET; RIVERSIDE COUNTY
WEST: GOLF COURSE; THE PALMS GOLF CLUB (TR 28983)
BACKGROUND:
The project site is bounded on the east by Monroe Street, on the south by the Piazza
Serena residential development, on the west by the Palms Golf Course, and on the
north by the Palms residential development. The project consists of 130 single-family
detached homes situated on approximately 38 acres. The lots range in size from 8,000
to 14,000 square feet, with an average of approximately 8,770 square feet. The tract is
laid out in an offset grid pattern with a combination of cul-de-sacs and looped streets.
Access to the tract is off of Monroe Street, located at the southeast corner of the site.
Tentative Tract Map 31910 was originally considered by the Planning Commission on
March 23, 2004. At that meeting, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 2004-
024, recommending to City Council approval of the Tentative Tract Map. On April 6,
2004, the City Council voted to adopt Resolution 2004-046, approving the Tentative
Tract Map. Substantial Conformance was granted on July 28, 2005 by the Public
Works Department that modified the tract boundaries, reduced the number of buildable
lots from 132 to 130, addressed minor street realignments, adjusted pad elevations and
lot sizes, and redesigned retention basins. A Site Development Permit for the project
landscaping and homes, SDP 2005-851, had been approved on February 28, 2006.
PROPOSAL:
The applicant is requesting a one-year time extension to finalize the tract map and to
proceed with build -out of the project. Under the Subdivision Map Act, an applicant has
two years from the date of approval to submit a Final Map for recordation. If the
applicant cannot finalize the map within the two years, a one-year extension can be
granted. A total of three one-year extensions can be granted for any Tentative Tract
Map.
A number of improvements on the project site have been completed or are in progress.
On -site curb and gutter, sewer, water, and storm drain improvements are 100%
complete. Rough grading is approximately 90% complete and pad certifications have
been obtained for 104 of the lots. On -site and off -site street improvements, as well as
off -site storm drain improvements are ready to begin. Plans with Imperial Irrigation
District, Verizon, The Gas Company, and Time Warner Cable have been approved and
all agreements have been executed.
Within the next year, the applicant intends to obtain Final Map approval, begin
construction on the model units, and ultimately start construction on the homes.
ANALYSIS:
Applicable comments received from the Public Works Department have been included
as revisions to Conditions 4, 20, 21, and 55 in the recommended Conditions of
Approval.
Condition 4 affects construction activities that disturb one acre or more of land.
Condition 20 affects the preparation and submittal of improvement plans. Condition 21
helps the applicant navigate to the Online Engineering Plan Archive. Condition 55
changes an Engineering Bulletin number.
The amended conditions bring the project into compliance with new procedures and
programs that have been implemented since the original tract map approval, and do not
affect the project's design. The applicant has been notified and is in agreement with the
changes.
Public Notice
The time extension for this project was advertised in the DesertSun newspaper on July
14,- 2006, and mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the site pursuant to
Section 13.12.100 of the Subdivision Ordinance. To date, no comments have been
received from adjacent property owners. Any written comments received will be
provided at the meeting.
Public Agency Review
A copy of this request has been sent to all applicable public agencies and City
Departments on June 14, 2006. All written comments received are on file with the
Community Development Department.
FINDINGS:
Findings to approve this request can be made and are contained in the attached
Resolution.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2006-_, recommending to the City
Council approval of a one-year time extension for Tentative Tract Map 31910,
subject to Findings and the attached Conditions.
Attachments:
1. Tentative Tract Map 31910
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A ONE-YEAR TIME
EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31910 TO
SUBDIVIDE APPROXIMATELY 38 ACRES INTO 130
SINGLE-FAMILY AND OTHER COMMON LOTS
CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31910, EXTENSION #1
APPLICANT: DESERT ELITE, INC.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California
did, on the 25t" day of July, 2006, hold duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a request by
Desert Elite, Inc. to grant a one-year time extension for a Tentative Tract Map (TTM 31910)
that creates 130 single-family and other common lots on ±38.68 developed acres located
west of Monroe Street, '/.-mile north of Avenue 58, in a Low Density Residential Zoning
District, more particularly described as:
APN: 764-010-008, -009, -010
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department published the public
hearing notice in the Desert Sun newspaper on July 14, 2006, as prescribed by Section
13.12.100 (Public Notice Procedure) of the Subdivision Ordinance and public hearing
notices were mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the tract map site; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department has determined that
the request has been assessed in conjunction with Environmental Assessment 2003-496
for Tentative Tract Map 31910 which was certified on April 6, 2004 prior to approval of
Tentative Tract Map 31910. No changed circumstances or conditions are proposed, or new
information submitted which would trigger the preparation of a subsequent Environmental
review pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166; and
WHEREAS, at the Public Hearing upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission
did make the following Mandatory Findings to justify a recommendation to the City Council
for approval of a Time Extension of said Map:
Finding A - Consistency with the General Plan, Zoning Code and any applicable Specific
Plans.
The property is designated Low Density Residential (LDR) which allows up to four
residential units per acre. The Land Use Element of the General Plan encourages differing
residential developments throughout the City. This project is consistent with the goals,
policies and intent of the La Quinta General Plan insofar as the creation of 0.2+ square foot
residential lots (3.1 dwelling units per acre) will provide another type of housing market for
Planning Commission Resolution 2006-
Tentative Tract Map 31910, Extension 1
Desert Elite, Inc.
July 25, 2006
La Quinta residents. Conditions are recommended requiring on- and off -site improvements
based on the City's General Plan Circulation Element provisions.
The property is designated Low Density Residential (RL) and is consistent with the City's
Zoning Ordinance in that lots exceed the City's minimum of 7,200 square feet. However,
each proposed lot is large enough to support building detached housing units that are a
minimum size of 1,400 square feet, excluding garage parking areas.
All plans for future single-family homes will be consistent with the provisions of the Zoning
Code in effect at the time building permits are acquired. The development of the project,
as conditioned, will be compatible with the surrounding area.
Finding B - Site Design and Improvements
Infrastructure improvements to serve this project are located in the immediate area and will
be extended based on the recommended Conditions of Approval. The private interior
streets will provide access to each single-family lot in compliance with City requirements,
as prepared.
Improvements on Monroe Street will be guaranteed as required by the City's General Plan
Circulation Element at the time the final map is considered pursuant to Section 13.20.100
of the Subdivision Ordinance. Provisions shall be made to the map's design to allow the
project to be gated, ensuring adequate vehicle stacking and turnaround areas.
The subdivision layout is consistent with the Land Use Vision Statement in the City's
General Plan, which focuses on the facilitation and integration of development, through
desirable character and sensitive design residential neighborhoods to enhance the existing
high quality of life.
Findings C through E - Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act
A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been previously certified on March 23, 2004. After
evaluation, the Community Development Department has determined that the proposed
Map has no changed circumstances or changed conditions which would trigger the
preparation of a subsequent environmental review pursuant to Public Resources Code
Section 21166.
Finding F - Public Health Concerns
The design of the proposed subdivision map and related improvements are not likely to
cause serious public health problems, in that responsible agencies have reviewed the
project for these issues with no significant concerns identified. The health, safety and
welfare of current and future residents can be assured based on the recommended
Planning Commission Resolution 2006-
Tentative Tract Map 31910, Extension 1
Desert Elite, Inc.
July 25, 2006
conditions, which serve to implement mitigation measures for the project. The Fire
Department has evaluated the street design layout and approved the project as planned.
Site improvements comply with City requirements provided on -site water retention is
handled in common basin(s). Dust control measures shall be required during any further
on -site construction work as required by Chapter 6.16 of the Municipal Code. The site is
physically suitable for the proposed land division, as the area is relatively flat and without
physical constraints, and the Map design is consistent with other surrounding parcels.
That under the City's policy for parks and recreation development, found in the City's
General Plan (Chapter 5), the City's goal is to provide three (3) acres of park land per
1,000 residents pursuant to Policy 2; this project will provide payment to the City for
recreation facilities outside the Tract's boundary which is allowed pursuant to Chapter
13.48 of the Subdivision Ordinance.
Findin G - Site Design (Public Easements)
Public easements will be retained and required in order to construct any houses on the
proposed lots, ensuring adequate facilities for future homeowners in compliance with
Section 13.24.100 of the Subdivision Ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California as follows:
That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of said
Planning Commission in this case; and
That it does hereby recommend approval of the above -described Time Extension
for Tentative Tract Map 31910 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and
subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission, held on this 251h day of July, 2006, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
PAUL QUILL, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
Planning Commission Resolution 2006-
Tentative Tract Map 31910, Extension 1
Desert Elite, Inc.
July 25, 2006
ATTEST:
DOUGLAS R. EVANS
Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31910 EXTENSION 1
DESERT ELITE, INC.
JULY 25, 2006
GENERAL
The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of La
Quinta ("City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or
proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Tentative Tract
Map, or any Final Map recorded thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion
in selecting its defense counsel.
The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and
shall cooperate fully in the defense.
2. This Tentative Tract Map, and any Final Map recorded thereunder, shall comply
with the requirements and standards of Government Code §§ 66410 through
66499.58 (the "Subdivision Map Act"), and Chapter 13 of the La Quinta Municipal
Code ("LQMC").
The City of La Quinta's Municipal Code can be accessed on the City's Web Site
at www.la-quinta.org.
3. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the City,
the applicant shall obtain the necessary clearances and/or permits from the
following agencies:
Fire Marshal
Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit)
Community Development Department
Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department
Coachella Valley Unified School District
Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD)
Imperial Irrigation District (IID)
California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB)
SunLine Transit Agency
The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances
from the above listed agencies. When the requirements include approval of
improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when
submitting those improvements plans for City approval.
4. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES
stormwater discharge permit, Sections 8.70.010 et seq. (Stormwater
Management and Discharge Controls), and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water),
Planning Commission Resolution 2006-
Conditions Of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 31910 Extension 1
Desert Elite, Inc.
July 25, 2006
LQMC; Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; and the State Water Resources
Control Board's Order No. 99-08-DWQ .
A. For construction activities including clearing, grading or excavation of land
that disturbs one (1) acre or more of land, or that disturbs less than one
(1) acre of land, but which is a part of a construction project that
encompasses more than one (1) acre of land, the Permitee shall be
required to submit a Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan ("SWPPP").
B. The applicant's SWPPP shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to
any on or off -site grading being done in relation to this project.
C. The applicant shall ensure that the required SWPPP is available for
inspection at the project site at all times through and including acceptance
of all improvements by the City.
D. The applicant's SWPPP shall include provisions for all of the following
Best Management Practices ("BMPs") (8.70.020 (Definitions), LQMC):
1) Temporary Soil Stabilization (erosion control).
2) Temporary Sediment Control.
3) Wind Erosion Control.
4) Tracking Control.
5) Non -Storm Water Management.
6) Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control.
E. All erosion and sediment control BMPs proposed by the applicant shall be
approved by the City Engineer prior to any onsite or offsite grading,
pursuant to this project.
F. The approved SWPPP and BMPs shall remain in effect for the entire
duration of project construction until all improvements are completed and
accepted by the City.
PROPERTY RIGHTS
5. Prior to issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire or confer
easements and other property rights necessary for the construction or proper
functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include
irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for
emergency services and for maintenance, construction and reconstruction of
essential improvements.
6. The applicant shall offer for dedication on the Final Map all public street right-of-
ways in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable
specific plans, and/or as required by the City Engineer.
PAReports - PC\2006\7-25-06\TfM 31910 EXT 1\TrM 31910 PC Conditions.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2006-
Conditions Of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 31910 Extension 1
Desert Elite, Inc.
July 25, 2006
7. The public street right-of-way offers for dedication required for this development
include:
A. PUBLIC STREETS
1) Monroe Street (Primary Arterial, Option A, 110' ROW) — The
standard 55 feet from the centerline of Monroe Street for a total
110-foot ultimate developed right of way except for an additional
right of way dedication at the primary entry of 67 feet from the
centerline and a minimum 100 feet long plus a variable dedication
of an additional 50 feet to accommodate improvements conditioned
under STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS.
8. The applicant shall retain for private use on the Final Map all private street right-
of-ways in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable
specific plans, and/or as required by the City Engineer.
9. The private street right-of-ways to be retained for private use required for this
development include:
A. PRIVATE STREETS
Private Residential Streets measured at gutter flow line shall have a
36-foot travel width. The travel width may be reduced to 32 feet
with parking restricted to one side, and 28 feet if on -street parking
is prohibited, and provided there is adequate off-street parking for
residents and visitors, and the applicant establishes provisions for
ongoing enforcement of the parking restriction in the CC&R's. The
CC&R's shall be reviewed by the Engineering Department prior to
recordation.
B. CUL DE SACS
1) The cul de sac shall conform to the shape shown on the tentative
map with a 38-foot curb radius at the bulb or larger as shown on the
tentative map.
C. KNUCKLE
1) The knuckle shall conform to the shape shown on the tentative tract
map except for minor revision as may be required by the City
Engineer.
Curve radii for curbs at all street intersections shall not be less than 25 feet
P1Reports - PC\2006\7-25-06\TTM 31910 EXT 1\TTM 31910 PC Conditions.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2006-
Conditions Of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 31910 Extension 1
Desert Elite, Inc.
July 25, 2006
except at the entry similar to the lay out shown on the rough grading plan.
10. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and
left turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved
construction plans.
Pursuant to this requirement, the applicant shall include in the submittal packet
containing the draft final map submitted for map checking, an offsite street
geometric layout, drawn at 1" equals 40 feet, detailing the following design
aspects: median curb line, outside curb line, lane line alignment including lane
widths, left turn lanes, deceleration lane(s) and bus stop turnout(s). The
geometric layout shall be accompanied with sufficient professional engineering
studies to confirm the appropriate length of all proposed turn pockets and
auxiliary lanes that may impact the right of way dedication required of the project
and the associated landscape setback requirement.
11. When the City Engineer determines that access rights to the proposed street
right-of-ways shown on the approved Tentative Tract Map are necessary prior to
approval of the Final Map dedicating such right-of-ways, the applicant shall grant
the necessary right-of-ways within 60 days of a written request by the City.
12. The applicant shall offer for dedication on the Final Map a ten -foot wide public
utility easement contiguous with, and along both sides of all private streets. Such
easement may be reduced to five feet width with express written approval of IID.
13. The applicant shall create perimeter landscaping setbacks along all public right-
of-ways as follows:
A. Monroe Street (Primary Arterial) - 20-foot from the RNV-P/L.
The listed setback depth shall be the average depth where a meandering wall
design is approved.
The setback requirements shall apply to all frontages including, but not limited to,
remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes.
Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks,
the applicant shall offer for dedication blanket easements for those purposes on
the Final Map.
14. The applicant shall offer for dedication those easements necessary for the
placement of, and access to, utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox
PAReports - PC\2006\7-25-06\TTM 31910 EXT 1\TTM 31910 PC Conditions.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2006-
Conditions Of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 31910 Extension 1
Desert Elite, Inc.
July 25, 2006
clusters, park lands, and common areas on the Final Map.
15. Direct vehicular access to Monroe Street is restricted, except for those access
points identified on the tentative tract map, or as otherwise conditioned in these
conditions of approval. The vehicular access restriction shall be shown on the
recorded final tract map.
16. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements, or written permission, as
appropriate, from those owners of all abutting properties on which grading,
retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments will occur.
17. The applicant shall cause no easement to be granted, or recorded, over any
portion of the subject property between the date of approval of the Tentative
Tract Map and the date of recording of any Final Map, unless such easement is
approved by the City Engineer.
FINAL MAPS
18. Prior to the City's approval of a Final Map, the applicant shall furnish accurate
AutoCAD files of the Final Map that was approved by the City's map checker on
a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. Such files shall be in a
standard AutoCAD format so as to be fully retrievable into a basic AutoCAD
program.
Where a Final Map was not produced in an AutoCAD format, or produced in a file
that can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the City Engineer will accept a
raster -image file of such Final Map.
IMPROVEMENT PLANS
As used throughout these Conditions of Approval, professional titles such as "engineer,"
"surveyor," and "architect," refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice
their respective professions in the State of California.
19. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of
qualified engineers and/or architects, as appropriate, and shall comply with the
provisions of Section 13.24.040 (Improvement Plans), LQMC.
20. The following improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for review and
approval by the Public Works Department. A separate set of plans for each line
item specified below shall be prepared. The plans shall utilize the minimum scale
specified, unless otherwise authorized by the City Engineer in writing. Plans may
be prepared at a larger scale if additional detail or plan clarity is desired. Note,
P1Reports - PC\2006\7-25-06\TTM 31910 EXT 1\TTM 31910 PC Conditions.doc 5
Planning Commission Resolution 2006-
Conditions Of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 31910 Extension 1
Desert Elite, Inc.
July 25, 2006
the applicant may be required to prepare other improvement plans not listed here
pursuant to improvements required by other agencies and utility purveyors.
A.
On -Site Rough Grading Plan
1" = 40'
Horizontal
B.
PM10 Plan
1" = 40'
Horizontal
C.
SWPPP
1" = 40'
Horizontal
NOTE: A through C to be submitted concurrently.
D. Off -Site Street improvement/Storm Drain Plan
1" = 40' Horizontal, 1" = 4' Vertical
E. Off -Site Signing & Striping Plan 1" = 40' Horizontal
The Off -Site street improvement plans shall have separate plan sheet(s)
(drawn at 20 scale) that show the meandering sidewalk, mounding, and
berming design in the combined parkway and landscape setback area.
F. On -Site Street Improvements/Signing & Striping/Storm Drain Plan
1" = 40' Horizontal, 1" = 4' Vertical
NOTE: D through F to be submitted concurrently.
The following plans shall be submitted to the Building & Safety Department for
review and approval. The plans shall utilize the minimum scale specified, unless
otherwise authorized by the Building & Safety Director in writing. Plans may be
prepared at a larger scale if additional detail or plan clarity is desired. Note, the
applicant may be required to prepare other improvement plans not listed here
pursuant to improvements required by other agencies and utility purveyors.
G. On -Site Residential Precise Grading Plan 1" = 30' Horizontal
Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not
listed above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to
commencing plan preparation.
All Off -Site Plan & Profile Street Plans and Signing & Striping Plans shall show
all existing improvements for a distance of at least 200-feet beyond the project
limits, or a distance sufficient to show any required design transitions.
PAReports - PC\2006\7-25-06\TTM 31910 EXT 1\TTM 31910 PC Conditions.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2006-
Conditions Of Approval - Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 31910 Extension 1
Deser! Elite, Inc.
July 25, 2006
All On -Site Signing & Striping Plans shall show, at a minimum; Stop Signs, Limit
Lines and Legends, No Parking Signs, Raised Pavement Markers (including Blue
RPMs at fire hydrants) and Street Name Signs per Public Works Standard Plans
and/or as approved by the Engineering Department.
"Rough Grading plans shall normally include perimeter walls with Top Of Wall &
Top Of Footing elevations shown. All footings shall have a minimum of 1-foot of
cover, or sufficient cover to clear any adjacent obstructions.
21. The City maintains standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction notes for
elements of construction which can be accessed via the Online Engineering
Library at the City website (www.la-guinta.orp). Navigate to the Public Works
Department home page and look for the Online engineering Library hyperlink.
22. The applicant shall furnish a complete set of the AutoCAD files of all approved
improvement plans on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files
shall be saved in a standard AutoCAD format so they may be fully retrievable
through a basic AutoCAD program.
At the completion of construction, and prior to the final acceptance of the
improvements by the City, the applicant shall update the AutoCAD files in order
to reflect the as -built conditions.
Where the improvement plans were not produced in a standard AutoCAD format,
or a file format that can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the City Engineer
will accept raster -image files of the plans.
IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AGREEMENTS
23. Prior to approval of any Final Map, the applicant shall construct all on and off -site
improvements and satisfy its obligations for same, or shall furnish a fully secured
and executed Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("SIX) guaranteeing the
construction of such improvements and the satisfaction of its obligations for
same, or shall agree to any combination thereof, as may be required by the City.
24. Any Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("SIA") entered into by and between
the applicant and the City of La Quinta, for the purpose of guaranteeing the
completion of any improvements related to this Tentative Tract Map, shall comply
with the provisions of Chapter 13.28 (Improvement Security), LQMC.
25. improvements to be made, or agreed to be made, shall include the removal of
P \Reports - PC\2006\7-25-06\TTM 31910 EXT 1\TTM 31910 PC Conditions.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2006-
Conditions Of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 31910 Extension 1
Desert Elite, Inc.
July 25, 2006
any existing structures or other obstructions which are not a part of the proposed
improvements; and shall provide for the setting of the final survey
monumentation.
When improvements are phased through a 'Phasing Plan," or an administrative
approval (e.g., Site Development Permits), all off -site improvements and
common on -site improvements (e.g., backbone utilities, retention basins,
perimeter walls, landscaping and gates) shall be constructed, or secured through
a SIA, prior to the issuance of any permits in the first phase of the development,
or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
Improvements and obligations required of each subsequent phase shall either be
completed, or secured through a SIA, prior to the completion of homes or the
occupancy of permanent buildings within such latter phase, or as otherwise
approved by the City Engineer.
In the event the applicant fails to construct the improvements for the
development, or fails to satisfy its obligations for the development in a timely
manner, pursuant to the approved phasing plan, the City shall have the right to
halt issuance of all permits, and/or final inspections, withhold other approvals
related to the development of the project, or call upon the surety to complete the
improvements.
26. Depending on the timing of the development of this Tentative Tract Map, and the
status of the off -site improvements at the time, the applicant may be required to:
A. Construct certain off -site improvements.
B. Construct additional off -site improvements, subject to the reimbursement
of its costs by others.
C. Reimburse others for those improvements previously constructed that are
considered to be an obligation of this tentative tract map.
D. Secure the costs for future improvements that are to be made by others.
E. To agree to any combination of these means, as the City may require.
In the event that any of the improvements required for this development are
constructed by the City, the applicant shall, prior to the approval of the Final Map,
or the issuance of any permit related thereto, reimburse the City for the costs of
such improvements.
27. If the applicant elects to utilize the secured agreement alternative, the applicant
shall submit detailed construction cost estimates for all proposed on -site and off -
site improvements, including an estimate for the final survey monumentation, for
P:1Reports - PC12006V-25-06\TTM 31910 EXT 1\TTM 31910 PC Conditions.doc 8
Planning Commission Resolution 2006-
Conditions Of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 31910 Extension 1
Desert Elite, Inc.
July 25, 2006
checking and approval by the City Engineer. Such estimates shall conform to the
unit cost schedule adopted by City resolution, or ordinance.
For items not listed in the City's unit cost schedule, the proposed unit costs shall
be approved by the City Engineer.
At the time the applicant submits its detailed construction cost estimates for
conditional approval of the Final Map by the City Council, the applicant shall also
submit one copy each of an 8-1 /2" x 11" reduction of each page of the Final Map,
along with a copy of an 8-1/2" x 11" Vicinity Map.
Estimates for improvements under the jurisdiction of other agencies shall be
approved by those agencies and submitted to the City along with the applicant's
detailed cost estimates.
Security will not be required for telephone, natural gas, or Cable T.V.
improvements.
28. Should the applicant fail to construct the improvements for the development, or
fail to satisfy its obligations for the development in a timely manner, the City shall
have the right to halt issuance of building permits, and/or final building
inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of the project,
or call upon the surety to complete the improvements.
GRADING
29. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading
Improvements), LQMC.
30. Prior to occupancy of the project site for any construction, or other purposes, the
applicant shall obtain a grading permit approved by the City Engineer.
31. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain
approval of all of the following:
A. A grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer,
B. A preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report prepared by a qualified
engineer,
C. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16,
(Fugitive Dust Control), LQMC, and
D. A Best Management Practices report prepared in accordance with
Sections 8.70.010 and 13.24.170 (NPDES stormwater discharge permit
and Storm Management and Discharge Controls), LQMC.
PAReports - PC\2006\7-25-06\TTM 31910 EXT 1\TTM 31910 PC Condilions.doe
Planning Commission Resolution 2006-
Conditions Of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 31910 Extension 1
Desert Elite, Inc.
July 25, 2006
All grading shall conform to the recommendations contained in the Preliminary
Soils Report, and shall be certified as being adequate by a soils engineer, or by
an engineering geologist.
A statement shall appear on the Final Map that a soils report has been prepared
in accordance with the California Health & Safety Code § 17953.
The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, and in an
amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the approved Fugitive Dust
Control Plan provisions as submitted with its application for a grading permit.
32. The applicant shall maintain all open graded, undeveloped land in order to
prevent wind and/or water erosion of such land. All open graded, undeveloped
land shall either be planted with interim landscaping, or stabilized with such other
erosion control measures, as were approved in the Fugitive Dust Control Plan.
33. Grading within the perimeter setback and parkway areas shall have undulating
terrain and shall conform with the requirements of LQMC Section 9.60.240(F)
except as otherwise modified by this condition requirement. The maximum slope
shall not exceed 3:1 anywhere in the landscape setback area, except for the
backslope (i.e. the slope at the back of the landscape lot) which shall not exceed
2:1 if fully planted with ground cover. The maximum slope in the first six (6) feet
adjacent to the curb shall not exceed 4:1 when the nearest edge of sidewalk is
within six (6) of the curb, otherwise the maximum slope within the right of way
shall not exceed 3:1. All unpaved parkway areas adjacent to the curb shall be
depressed one and one-half inches (1.5") in the first eighteen inches (18") behind
the curb.
34. Building pad elevations on the rough grading plan submitted for City Engineer's
approval shall conform with pad elevations shown on the tentative map, unless
the pad elevations have other requirements imposed elsewhere in these
Conditions of Approval.
35. Building pad elevations of perimeter lots shall not differ by more that one foot
from the building pads in adjacent developments.
Applicant shall revise the building pad elevations of lots 42 thru 51, and lot 54 as
necessary to comply with this requirement. The retention basin concept shall also
be revised to accommodate the revised drainage pattern.
36. The applicant shall minimize the differences in elevation between the adjoining
properties and the lots within this development.
PAReports - PC\2006\7-25.06\TTM 31910 EXT 1\TTM 31910 PC Conditions.doc 10
Planning Commission Resolution 2006-
Conditions Of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 31910 Extension 1
Desert Elite, Inc.
July 25, 2006
Where compliance within the above stated limits is impractical, the City may
consider alternatives that are shown to minimize safety concerns, maintenance
difficulties and neighboring -owner dissatisfaction with the grade differential.
37. Prior to any site grading or grading that will raise or lower any portion of the site
by more than plus or minus three tenths of a foot from the elevations shown on
the approved Tentative Tract Map, the applicant shall submit the proposed
grading changes to the City Staff for a substantial conformance finding review.
38. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any building lot, the applicant shall
provide a lot pad certification stamped and signed by a qualified engineer or
surveyor.
Each pad certification shall list the pad elevation as shown on the approved
grading plan, the actual pad elevation and the difference between the two, if any.
Such pad certification shall also list the relative compaction of the pad soil. The
data shall be organized by lot number, and listed cumulatively if submitted at
different times.
DRAINAGE
39. The applicant shall revise the proposed retention basins to comply with the
provisions of Section 13.24.120 (Drainage), LQMC, Engineering Bulletin No. 97-
03 and to accommodate the revised building pad elevations of lots 42 thru 51,
and lot 54. More specifically, stormwater falling on site during the 100 year storm
shall be retained within the development, unless otherwise approved by the City
Engineer. The tributary drainage area shall extend to the centerline of adjacent
public streets. The design storm shall be either the 3 hour, 6 hour or 24 hour
event producing the greatest total run off.
40. In design of retention facilities, the maximum percolation rate shall be two inches
per hour. The percolation rate will be considered to be zero unless the applicant
provides site specific data indicating otherwise.
41. Nuisance water shall be retained on site. In residential developments, nuisance
water shall be disposed of in a trickling sand filter and leach field or equivalent
system approved by the City Engineer. The sand filter and leach field shall be
designed to contain surges of up to 3 gph/1,000 sq. ft. of landscape area, and
infiltrate 5 gpd/1,000 sq. ft.
42. The project shall be designed to accommodate purging and blowoff water
(through underground piping and/or retention facilities) from any on -site or
adjacent well sites granted or dedicated to the local water utility authority as a
PAReports - PC\2006\7-25-06\TTM 31910 EXT 1\TTM 31910 PC Conditions.doc t 1
Planning Commission Resolution 2006-
Conditions Of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 31910 Extension 1
Desert Elite, Inc.
July 25, 2006
requirement for development of this property.
43. No fence or wall shall be constructed around any retention basin unless
approved by the Community Development Director and the City Engineer.
44. For on -site common retention basins, retention depth shall be according to
Engineering Bulletin 97-03, and side slopes shall not exceed 3:1 and shall be
planted with maintenance free ground cover. For retention basins on individual
lots, retention depth shall not exceed two feet.
45. Stormwater may not be retained in landscaped parkways or landscaped setback
lots. Only incidental storm water (precipitation which directly falls onto the
setback) will be permitted to be retained in the landscape setback areas. The
perimeter setback and parkway areas in the street right-of-way shall be shaped
with berms and mounds, pursuant to Section 9.100.040(B)(7), LQMC.
46. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries,
levels or frequencies in any area outside the development.
47. The development shall be graded to permit storm flow in excess of retention
capacity to flow out of the development through a designated overflow and into
the historic drainage relief route.
48. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received
and retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief
route.
UTILITIES
49. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.110 (Utilities),
LQMC.
50. The applicant shall consult with, and obtain clearances from, CVWD, in regard to
the following identified Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) facilities, prior to issuance
of any grading or building permits:
• Lateral #123.4-2.3
• Meter # 1913
• Tile Drainage System #427
51. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all
utility lines within any right-of-way, and all above -ground utility structures
including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electric vaults, water valves,
PAReports - PC\2006\7-25-06\TTM 31910 EXT 1\TrM 31910 PC Conditions.doc 12
Planning Commission Resolution 2006-
Conditions Of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 31910 Extension 1
Desert Elite, Inc.
July 25, 2006
and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic
purposes.
52. Existing overhead utility lines within, or adjacent to the proposed development,
and all proposed utilities shall be installed underground.
All existing utility lines attached to joint use 92 KV transmission power poles are
exempt from the requirement to be placed underground.
53. Underground utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For
installation of utilities in existing improved streets, the applicant shall comply with
trench restoration requirements maintained, or required by the City Engineer.
The applicant shall provide certified reports of all utility trench compaction for
approval by the City Engineer.
STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS
54. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Sections 13.24.060 (Street
Improvements), 13.24.070 (Street Design - Generally) & 13.24.100 (Access For
Individual Properties And Development), LQMC for public streets; and Section
13.24.080 (Street Design - Private Streets), where private streets are proposed.
55. The applicant shall construct the following street improvements to conform with
the General Plan.
A. OFF -SITE STREETS
1) Monroe Street, Primary Arterial Option A - 1 10'RNV ):
Widen the west side of the street along all frontage adjacent to the
Tentative Map boundary to its ultimate width on the west side as specified
in the General Plan and the requirements of these conditions. Rehabilitate
and/or reconstruct existing roadway pavement as necessary to augment
and convert it from a rural county -road design standard to La Quinta's
urban arterial design standard. The west curb face shall be located forty
three feet (43') west of the centerline, except at locations where additional
street width is needed to accommodate:
a) A deceleration/right turn only lane at Primary Entry if
required by a traffic study prepared for the applicant per
Engineering Bulletin #03-08. The north curb face shall be
located fifty five feet (55') west of the centerline.
PARepods - PC\2006\7-25-06\TTM 31910 EXT 1\TrM 31910 PC Conditions.doc 13
Planning Commission Resolution 2006-
Conditions Of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 31910 Extension 1
Desert Elite, Inc.
July 25, 2006
Other required improvements in the Monroe Street right or way and/or
adjacent landscape setback area include:
a) All appurtenant components such as, but not limited to: curb,
gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and signs.
b) 8-foot wide meandering sidewalk. The meandering sidewalk
shall have an arrhythmic horizontal layout that utilizes
concave and convex curves with respect to the curb line that
either touches the back of curb or approaches within five feet
of the curb at intervals not to exceed 250 feet. The sidewalk
curvature radii should vary between 50 and 300 feet, and at
each point of reverse curvature, the radius should change to
assist in creating the arrhythmic layout. The sidewalk shall
meander into the landscape setback lot and approach within
5 feet of the perimeter wall at intervals not to exceed 250
feet.
c) Half width of an 18 foot wide raised landscaped median
along the entire boundary of the Tentative Tract Map plus
variable width as needed to accommodate full turn
movements at the entry.
d) A County of Riverside benchmark in the Monroe Street right
of way established by a licensed surveyor.
The applicant shall extend improvements beyond the subdivision boundaries to
ensure they safely integrate with existing improvements (e.g., grading; traffic
control devices and transitions in alignment, elevation or dimensions of streets
and sidewalks). The applicant shall attempt to acquire necessary ROW for
Monroe Street along the frontage of the property located at 57161 Monroe Street
(APN 764-010-010 to connect the above required improvements. Applicant shall
bear the costs and responsibility for acquisition, design and construction of
required Monroe Street improvements within the ROW along this additional
frontage. The applicant shall coordinate this effort through the Public Works
Department.
The applicant is responsible for construction of all improvements mentioned
above.
B. PRIVATE STREETS
1) Construct full 36-foot wide travel width improvements measured
gutter flow line to gutter flow line except for the Lot A entry drive.
C. PRIVATE CUL DE SACS
P \Reports - PC\2006\7-25-06\TTM 31910 EXT 1\TTM 31910 PC Conditions.doc 14
Planning Commission Resolution 2006-
Conditions Of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 31910 Extension 1
Desert Elite, Inc.
July 25, 2006
1) Shall be constructed according to the lay -out shown on the
tentative map with 38-foot curb radius or greater at the bulb using a
smooth curve instead of angular lines similar to the layout shown
on the rough grading plan.
D. KNUCKLE
1) Construct the knuckle to conform to the lay -out shown in the
tentative tract map, except for minor revisions as may be required
by the City Engineer.
56. All gated entries shall provide for a three -car minimum stacking capacity for
inbound traffic (minimum 60 feet from the curb face to the voice box); and shall
provide for a full turn -around outlet for non -accepted vehicles.
Where a gated entry is proposed, the applicant shall submit a detailed exhibit at
a scale of 1" = 10', demonstrating that those passenger vehicles that do not gain
entry into the development can safely make a full turn -around out onto the main
street from the gated entry.
Two lanes of traffic shall be provided on the entry side of each gated entry, one
lane shall be dedicated for residents, and one lane for visitors.
Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, standard knuckles, corner cutbacks,
bus turnouts, dedicated turn lanes and other features shown on the approved
construction plans, may require additional street widths as may be determined by
the City Engineer.
57. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using CalTrans' design
procedure for 20-year life pavement, and the site -specific data for soil strength
and anticipated traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural
sections shall be as follows:
Residential 3.0" a.c./4.5" c.a.b.
Primary Arterial 4.5" a.c./6.0" c.a.b.
58. The applicant shall submit current mix designs (less than two years old at the
time of construction) for base, asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete.
The submittal shall include test results for all specimens used in the mix design
procedure. For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall include
recent (less than six months old at the time of construction) aggregate gradation
test results confirming that design gradations can be achieved in current
production. The applicant shall not schedule construction operations until mix
PAReporls - PC\2006\7-25-06\TTM 31910 EXT 1\TTM 31910 PC Conditions.doc 15
Planning Commission Resolution 2006-
Conditions Of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 31910 Extension 1
Desert Elite, Inc.
July 25, 2006
designs are approved.
59, General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the
following:
Primary Entry (South portion of Tentative Tract Map on Monroe Street): Full turn
movements are allowed.
60. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control signs, markings
and other devices, raised medians if required, street name signs and sidewalks.
Mid -block street lighting is not required.
61. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City
adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, or as approved by
the City Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking
areas shall be stamped and signed by qualified engineers.
CONSTRUCTION
62. The City will conduct final inspections of habitable buildings only when the
buildings have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly -
maintained streets. The improvements shall include required traffic control
devices, pavement markings and street name signs. If on -site streets in
residential developments are initially constructed with partial pavement thickness,
the applicant shall complete the pavement prior to final inspections of the last ten
percent of homes within the development or when directed by the City, whichever
comes first.
63. In conjunction with the preparation of on -site soil analysis, as required by the
Building Department and City Engineer prior to issuance of building permits, the
applicant's geologist shall also submit a liquefaction study which demonstrates
the site's depth to groundwater, and includes mitigation measures if needed.
LANDSCAPING
64. The applicant shall comply with Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) &
13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans), LQMC.
65. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention
basins, common lots and park areas.
66. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians,
retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape
PAReports - PC\2006\7-25-06\TTM 31910 EXT 1\TTM 31910 Pc condidions.doc 16
Planning Commission Resolution 2006-
Conditions Of Approval — Recommended
Tentatve Tract Map 31910 Extension 1
Desert Elite, Inc.
July 25, 2006
architect.
67. The applicant shall submit the landscape plans for approval by the Community
Development Department (CDD), prior to plan checking by the Public Works
Department. When plan checking has been completed by CDD, the applicant
shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural
Commissioner, prior to submittal for signature by the City Engineer.
NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer.
68. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the
requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn areas shall be minimized with no
lawn, or spray irrigation, being placed within 18 inches of curbs along public
streets.
QUALITY ASSURANCE
69. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet
with the approval of the City Engineer.
70. The applicant shall employ, or retain, qualified engineers, surveyors, and such
other appropriate professionals as are required to provide the expertise with
which to prepare and sign accurate record drawings, and to provide adequate
construction supervision.
71. The applicant shall arrange for, and bear the cost of, all measurements, sampling
and testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program, but which
may be required by the City, as evidence that the construction materials and
methods employed comply with the plans, specifications and other applicable
regulations.
72. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City with
reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were approved by
the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawing," "As -Built" or "As -
Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor
certifying to the accuracy and completeness of the drawings. The applicant shall
have all AutoCAD or raster -image files previously submitted to the City, revised
to reflect the as -built conditions.
MAINTENANCE
73. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160
(Maintenance), LQMC.
PAReports - PC\2006\7-25-06\TTM 31910 EXT 1\TTM 31910 PC Conditions.doc 17
Planning Commission Resolution 2006-
Conditions Of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 31910 Extension 1
Desert Elite, Inc.
July 25, 2006
74. The applicant shall make provisions for the continuous and perpetual
maintenance of all private on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access
drives, and sidewalks.
FEES AND DEPOSITS
75. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.180 (Fees and
Deposits), LQMC. These fees include all deposits and fees required by the City
for plan checking and construction inspection. Deposits and fee amounts shall
be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan check and
permits.
76. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the
Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the
time of issuance of building permit(s).
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
77. Revisions to the tentative map during plan check including, but not limited to, lot
line alignments, easements, improvement plan revisions, and similar minor
changes which do not alter the design (layout, street patter, etc.) may be
administratively approved through the plan check process, with the mutual
consent and approval of the Community Development and Public Works
Directors. This shall include increase or decrease in number of lots meeting the
general criteria above, but involving a change of no more than 5% of the total lot
count of the Tentative Map as approved. Any revisions that would exceed the
General Plan density standards, based on net area calculations, must be
processed as an amended map, as set forth in Title 13, LQMC.
78. Prior to any non-agricultural ground disturbing activity on the site, and within 48
hours of the initiation of such activity, the project proponent shall cause the site to
be surveyed by a qualified biologist for burrowing owls. Should the species be
identified on site, passive relocation, in conformance with the biologist's
recommendations and protocol in place at the time, will be completed prior to the
initiation of any activity. The biologist shall submit a written report to the
Community Development Department prior to issuance of any ground disturbing
permit on the project site.
79. The site shall be monitored during on and off -site trenching and rough grading by
qualified archaeological monitors. Proof of retention of monitors shall be given to
the Community Development Department prior to issuance of first earth -moving
or clearing permit, whichever occurs first.
PARepoits- PC\2006\7-25.06\TTM 31910 EXT 1\TTM 31910 PC Conditions.doc 18
Planning Commission Resolution 2006-
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 31910 Extension 1
Desert Elite, Inc.
July 25, 2006
The monitor shall be empowered to stop or redirect activities, should resources
be uncovered. A report of any findings, as well as appropriate curation of
materials, shall be completed and submitted to the Community Development
Department prior to issuance of building permits on the site.
The final report on the monitoring shall be submitted to the Community
Development Department prior to the final inspection of the project.
80. Collected archaeological resources shall be properly packaged for long term
curation, in polyethylene self -seal bags, vials, or film cans as appropriate, all
within acid -free, standard size, comprehensively labeled archive boxes and
delivered to the City prior to issuance of first building permit for the property.
Materials shall be accompanied by descriptive catalogue, field notes and records,
primary research data, and the original graphics.
81. On- and off -site monitoring in areas identified as likely to contain paleontological
resources shall be conducted by a qualified paleontological monitor. The monitor
shall be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed to avoid construction
delays and to remove samples of sediments that are likely to contain the remains
of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates. The monitor shall be empowered to
temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow removal of abundant or large
specimens. Proof that a monitor has been retained shall be given to the City prior
to issuance of the first earth -moving permit, of before any clearing of the site as
begun.
82. Recovered specimens shall be prepared to the point of identification and
permanent preservation, including washing of sediments to recover small
invertebrates and vertebrates.
83. A report of findings with an appended itemized inventory of specimens shall be
submitted to the City prior to the first occupancy of a residence being granted by
the City. The report shall include pertinent discussions of the significance of all
recovered resources where appropriate. The report and inventory, when
submitted will signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts to pale
ontological resources.
84. Collected resources and related reports, etc. shall be given to the City.
Packaging of resources, reports, etc. shall comply with standards commonly
used in the pale ontological industry.
85. Landscaping plans for the units shall comply with the City's Water Efficient
Landscaping Ordinance for this project and as approved by the Planning
Commission. Said landscaping plans shall include a complete irrigation system
showing location and size of water lines, valves, clock timers, type of sprinklers,
PARepons - PC\2006\7-25-06\TTM 31910 EXT 1\TTM 31910 PC Conditions.doc 19
Plannirg Commission Resolution 2006-
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Tract Map 31910 Extension 1
Desert Elite, Inc.
July 25, 2006
etc. Prior to the issuance of any building permits the landscape plans shall also
be approved by the Coachella Valley Water District before final approval by the
Community Development Department.
86. The proposed recreation lot, shown as Lot "S" on the tentative map, shall be
appropriately landscaped and improved with recreational amenities. The
proposed landscaping and amenity plans shall be prepared based on the
direction of the Community Development and Community Services Departments,
subject to review by the ALRC and approval by the Planning Commission.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
87. Fire Department plan check is to run concurrent with the City plan check.
Specific fire protection measures will be determined at the time of plan check.
SHERIFF DEPARTMENT
88. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed. Prior to
issuance of a building permit, applicant shall review building plans with the
Sheriffs Department regarding Vehicle Code requirements, defensible space,
and other law enforcement and public safety concerns. All questions regarding
the Sheriffs Department should be directed to the Deputy at (760) 863-8950.
P:\Reports - PC\2006\7-25-06\TrM 31910 EXT 1\TTM 31910 PC Conditions.doc 20
| |1|
| | 19' n,
, , � .• �;�, , ! .
\
AFTACHME|
i�
qƒ
PH #B
DATE:
CASE NO:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
BACKGROUND:
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
JULY 25, 2006
SPECIFIC PLAN 99-035, AMENDMENT #1
EAST OF MADISON, LLC
REVIEW OF STANDARD PERIMETER WALL AND PLANTING
PLANS
SOUTH OF AVENUE 52 AND EAST OF MADISON STREET IN THE
MADISON CLUB
The Madison Club site is located on the east side of Madison Street, between Avenue
52 and Avenue 54. The Madison Club design was approved by the City Council in
2004 as an amendment to Specific Plan 99-035 (includes The Hideaway) and
Tentative Tract Map 33076, with construction of the golf course and infrastructure
improvements started.
The Specific Plan approval requires that the perimeter walls be reviewed and approved
by the ALRC and Planning Commission.
The wail plans for the entry area on Avenue 52 at Meriwether Way were previously
approved by Planning Commission on May 23, 2006. This included the area
immediately surrounding the guardhouse and reception center. The walls in this area
are an "enhanced" version of the standard wall presently proposed to be used around
most of the balance of the perimeter of the project. The enhanced wall treatment
includes a pre -cast wall cap and narrow vertical decorative cast stone ornate frieze
panels 30' on center on a heavy sand stucco finish white wall.
PROJECT PROPOSAL:
The applicant has submitted perimeter wall plans for Avenue 52, excluding the
recently approved entry area described above (Attachment 1). Plans include a site plan
showing the proposed wall and landscaping, along with elevation views of the wall
along portions of the streets (Attachment 2). The wall proposed is a standard 6' high
white heavy sand, rough stucco finish masonry wall.
The wall plans submitted are a typical representation of the walls and planting
proposed for the balance of the perimeter of the project. The berms as they presently
exist along Avenue 52 and Monroe Street south of Avenue 53 have not been shaped
into their final form. Staff has worked with the developer to ensure that vertical and
P:\REPORTS - PC\2006\7-25-06\SP 99-035 EAST OF MADISON WALL PC RPT\SP 99-035 MADISON STANDARD PERI
WALLS PC RPT.DOC
horizontal undulation is provided to these segments of the perimeter berms. Thus, the
wall will also meander and undulate on the berms adjacent to the perimeter streets.
Although not specified in the material provided, the applicants' representative has
identified that at street intersections the corner wall section will use the "enhanced"
wall design.
Preliminary level landscaping plans for most of the Avenue 52 frontage, excluding the
entry area at the east end, have been submitted (Attachment 3). Plans for the other
perimeter frontages have not been submitted but will be consistent in design to the
Avenue 52 frontage. In general, shrubs of the same type are massed with larger
species to the rear and groundcovers in the front closer to the street. Trees are also
massed by variety in a manner that will result in fairly dense cover. Tree sizes vary
from 36" to 108" box size. Overall, the proposed landscape is extensive and dense,
limiting views beyond.
ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE (ALRC):
The ALRC reviewed this request at its meeting of July 12, 2006, and on a 2-0 vote
recommended Planning Commission approval of the request with multiple conditions
(Attachment 4).
Staff had recommended that some view corridors along the perimeter streets be
provided. What was intended is that there be areas where trees not be planted in
order to allow some views of distant terrain and minimize a walled in appearance of
the project. Additionally, Staff recommended taller trees that ultimately grow in
excess of 30 feet in maximum height be limited to planting in areas within five feet of
the toe of the berm as opposed to being planted on top of the berm or high up on the
slope. The ALRC commented that it was hard to dictate exactly where to maintain
view corridors, that such corridors were not necessary for drivers passing the project,
and not necessarily a subject the City should regulate. Additionally, ALRC commented
that the Staff recommendation to plant trees of taller stature near the bottom of the
slope was not necessary and would ultimately not provide an aesthetic nor
maintenance benefit to the project. Ultimately, these two conditions recommended by
Staff were not included in the ALRC recommendation.
ISSUES/ANALYSIS:
The "standard" wall proposed is a plastered with a heavy sand, rough finish. If this
wall is completely hidden by landscaping, it is of staff's opinion that the design is
acceptable as proposed. As previously noted, the proposed landscaping is very dense.
View corridors in key locations that allow for breaks in the dense landscaping would be
beneficial to the overall aesthetic treatment for the project perimeter. Staff is
recommending that perimeter view corridors be provided.
As previously noted, tree sizes vary from 36" to 108" box size. Many of the trees
identified on the landscape plans are greater than 48" box. In addition, several of the
P:\REPORTS - PC\2006\7.25-06\SP 99-035 EAST OF MADISON WALL PC RPT\SP 99-035 MADISON STANDARD PERI
WALLS PC RPT.DOC
trees identified have a mature height in excess of 40 feet. With the height of
perimeter berm heights being as high as 16 feet in certain areas, staff is
recommending that trees with a mature height greater than 30 feet be limited to
planting in areas within 15 feet of the toe of berm slope with the planting height no
greater than five feet above the toe of berm elevation.
The Specific Plan for the Madison Club states the perimeter berming will undulate
while the perimeter wall will meander on the berm. Planting is noted to include
groupings of evergreen trees and palms, and clusters of flowering trees. Shrubs and
groundcovers will fill in the perimeter areas. The plans as submitted with the
recommended Conditions of Approval conform to these concepts.
The ALRC did state Planning Commission should be made aware of the Staff
recommendations to provide view corridors and planting taller growing trees near the
toe of the berm slope. Staff still believes these revisions should be considered and
therefore, has included them as Conditions 7 and 8. Should the Planning Commission
approve this request but not wish to impose these requirements, they should be
deleted from the Conditions of Approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Minute Motion 2006- , approving the wall and planting plans for
Specific Plan 99-035, Amendment #1, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
Attachments:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Wall Plans
3. Landscaping plans
4. ALRC minutes for the meeting of July 12, 2006
Prepared by:
Stan Sawa, Principal Planner
P:\REPORTS - PC\2006\7-25-06\SP 99-035 EAST OF MADISON WALL PC RPT\SP 99-035 MADISON STANDARD PERI
WALLS PC RPT.DOC
SP 99-035 AMEND. #1
VICINITY MAP
ATTACHMENT 4
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
July 12, 2006
B. Specific Plan 99-035 Amendment #1; a request of East of Madison,
for consideration of standard perimeter wall plans around the Madison
Club for the property located on the south side of Avenue 52 and east
of Madison Street.
1. Planning Manager Les Johnson gave a preface to the
Commissioners regarding the issues involved in the project and
why the standards were being discussed.
2. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department
3. Staff pointed out the exhibits shown were compatible with the
aesthetics Madison Club wished to achieve around the balance
of their project.
4. Commissioner Bobbitt said he did not want to see a repeat of
the Hideaway berming on Avenue 54 since it looks like a
fortress. The berming around the Madison Club, at present,
doesn't appear to be a problem. However, the slope on the
Avenue 54 side is atrocious and is not maintained. If the
applicant provides heavy landscaping the Commission wants to
make sure the slopes are maintained. Typically golf course
landscapers are responsible for maintaining the perimeter
landscaping and he wanted to make sure the berm sloping and
landscaping would be maintained properly.
5. The Applicant, John Gamlin, gave background information on
the Hideaway and said they were unable to re -grade the
Hideaway berming when they purchased the project. What
further exacerbated the situation was a 5-foot sidewalk
occurred along the frontage on the north side of Avenue 54. In
addition, they were conditioned to add a horse trail which
caused a sloping problem and created a situation where it has
been very difficult to get establishment of material on the slope.
They have tried to maintain appropriate landscaping and have
hired Lundeen Pacfiic (as of August 1, 2006) to maintain the
landscaping. One of their first areas of focus will be Avenue 54
to see what they can do to get it into a more acceptable
condition.
S
P-IrCPrII vN\SI Pr\GI Pr iuIINI ITM At Pr 7_1 i-nA nnr
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
July 12, 2006
Committee Member Bobbitt said Hideaway had previously
approved plans to have a 6 foot berm with a wall on it.
Somehow, that became a 20 foot berm with a wall, which
never came back to the ALRC. He wanted some assurance that
would not happen at The Madison Club. He was concerned
about the slope on Jefferson since it is too steep to mow. It
will be very heavy maintenance. He added he was concerned
about the use of all of the Pines on the golf course. His
experience is some of the species are going to cause problems.
He would not deny the applicant the use of those species but
commented that the Pinus Halapensis will have red spot. The
Applicant said he would pass the information on to the
landscape architect.
7. Committee Member Bobbitt offered suggestions on some shrubs
and tree he would not use. He wanted to offer some
suggestions on trees to save problems later on. Applicant said
he appreciated the comments as his architect is from out of the
area.
8. Committee Member Bobbitt made a recommendation on a few
problematic species; such as Canary Island Date Palms, which
are extremely expensive, dramatic trees but have a very high
probability of fungal problems.
9. Committee Member Smith asked if the applicant had seen any
of this variety in the desert. Applicant said he had and the
specimen they are using is from the local desert and are using a
professional advisor.
10. Committee Member Bobbitt went over the plant palette and
made his suggestions on trees he would not use: California
Sycamore, California Pepper, and Aleppo Pine. He added most
of the other tree species looked pretty good.
11. Committee Member Smith commented on the shrubs being used
in the plant palette. A lot of the designated shrubs need shade
and he cautioned the applicant from relying on immediate shade
from the nearby trees as some may die. There will also be a
problem with gardeners trimming the trees too much. He had a
question about Kaffir Lily.
12. Committee Member Bobbitt replied Kaffir Lily looked like a wide -
leafed Agapanthus, but needs 100% shade. The Agapanthus
6
P-kr ARni vN\AI Pf \w Pr wmi rrrck AI Pr 7-1,)-nR nnr
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
July 12, 2006
will burn in the sun and doesn't bloom in the shade. He
cautioned the applicant from planting in the hot months.
13. Committee Member Smith cautioned use of Giant Lilyturf as it is
another shade -loving shrub.
14. Committee Member Bobbitt said he is constantly looking for
different shrubs to put in PGA West and hasn't had good
experience with some of these shrubs. The Applicant said he
appreciated the input.
15. Committee Member Bobbitt said what typically happens is when
the contractor installs the landscaping, it looks great but after
the weather changes you begin to lose plant materials. When
you start to have large areas to replace you will need to decide
whether to re -design or replace because of the mass planting.
The Applicant asked for list of shrubs the Committee is
concerned about.
16. Committee Member Bobbitt listed Agapanthus (Lily -Of -The -Nile),
Kaffir Lily, and the Fortnight Lily which can look good in the
Spring, but they don't hold up well in the Summer. The Mock
Orange (pittosporum) will scorch if it is in full sun.
17. Committee Member Smith suggested if you don't see them
around there is a good reason why not. It is a good barometer
that they don't do well. He added the Sago Palm will have to
be in shade. He added Giant Lilyturf to the list of plants not to
use.
18. Committee Member Smith had a question on the ground cover
legend. Some of the plants listed are not considered ground
cover, such as, Texas Mountain Laurel, Jack Evans Indian
Hawthorne are small trees. He asked if the applicant was
massing this type of plant material instead of ground cover.
The Applicant said yes.
19. Committee Member Bobbitt understood what the applicant was
planning, but his concern is maintenance. Traditionally ground
cover is considered as low growing.
20. Committee Member Smith said he was confused because it was
listed as a ground cover, but thought this would work out well.
7
P-1r Apni vN\AI n \AI Pr hAINI ITFC\AI R!' 7_1 g-nR nnr
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
July 12, 2006
21. Committee Member Bobbitt said the project appears to be one
of the premier projects in the desert, but his concern was with
particular plant varieties, the slope, and the maintenance.
22. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if the slope on the golf
course about where it was going to end up. The Applicant said
what is out there will remain.
23. Staff gave the history and background on the berming on
Avenue 54. Staff and applicant have worked on the Avenue 52,
Monroe Street, and Avenue 53 berming. Discussion between
Staff and the Applicant have produced plans which will be more
aesthetically pleasing than what is currently graded on Avenue
52.
24. Committee Member Bobbitt said they never saw the big berm
changes on Avenue 54. He was annoyed that the changes
never came back to the Committee. Staff pointed out the
Avenue 52 berm has areas up to 16 feet and gradually
decreases in elevation as you head east. Staff has discussed
height relief with the Applicant.
25. Committee Member Bobbitt stated his other concern is the
slope. He felt some of the slopes were 2:1. Staff said 3:1 is
the maximum. Committee Member Bobbitt added steepness of
the slope will cause runoff in the street. The Hideaway was the
first one to do the big berm, and now it is everywhere. You
can't see into a project even with a smaller berm. Staff said
this is a work item for next year and will involve ALRC
comments regarding berming and perimeter landscaping
standards.
26. Committee Member Bobbitt mentioned a meeting he had with
an architect of Country Club of the Desert discussing their use
of hyromulch with wildflowers on a slope. He cautioned the
architect from using those materials and explained what can
happen when the wrong plant material is used.
27. Staff had suggested 6 conditions of approval and suggested the
Committee discuss those items.
28. Committee Member Bobbitt said he had concerns about
breaking up the long expanse of wall. The Applicant said they
8
P-ir apni vN\AI Rf \AI Pr RAINI ITPQX AI Ar 7_11_f1R nnr
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
July 12, 2006
had addressed the situation by re -grading the berm, making the
wall meander, and using the landscape palette.
29. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if the landscape palette
would effectively cover the whole wall. Applicant said it would.
30. Staff said it may be prudent to address each item specifically.
31. Regarding Condition #1, Committee Members asked what was
meant by "include view corridors." Staff replied because it is
such an intense landscape palette, it was proposed that some
areas be less intense to break up the view and allow a view of
the mountains. Applicant stated he disagreed with the whole
philosophy of view corridors in the landscaping.
32. Committee Member Smith asked if this condition was referring
to wrought iron fencing. Staff replied no.
33. Committee Member Bobbitt said he thought Condition #1
referred to thinning of the trees and bringing it down so you can
see into the Club, but that is obviously the opposite of what the
applicant is trying to accomplish due to privacy issues. He said
a view corridor of the mountains is a tough issue. He liked it the
way it was designed. Applicant said the view would be 90
degrees to the direction of travel. He explained the mountain
vistas from the roadway. He said the condition related to
legislating views and said the City would opening a dangerous
area. He also mentioned conditioning tree height (Condition of
Approval #4) exceeding 30 feet. He asked if the City going to
request the applicant top trees, or legislate how high a tree can
grow. What would happen if a tree grows higher than 30 feet.
How will the City legislate and enforce the condition? Mr.
Gamlin opposed being conditioned to doing that.
34. Staff interjected Condition #4 was not written to legislate
height of trees. Condition #4 may have been misread. It says
"Perimeter trees with a mature height in excess of 30 feet shall
be limited to planting in areas that are no greater than five feet
above the toe of berm elevation." The idea there is to prevent
larger trees from being too high on the slope, keep them down
towards the bottom of the slope.
9
P-krapm vN\a, n \AI Rf RAW ITM AI Rr 7.1,)-nA nr)r
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
July 12, 2006
35. Committee Member Bobbitt agreed with the Applicant. He said
the City should not start worrying about how tall trees can get
because they will grow and can block people's views.
36. Staff replied the issue is not necessarily about blocking views. It
is about keeping the larger trees further down the slope.
37. Committee Member Bobbitt said he understood staff's concern,
some of these trees can easily go 50 to 60 feet. Staff said the
reason to bring that up is not height but the problem with
putting large trees on top of a berm. This will create a
maintenance issue.
38. Committee Member Smith said it is not about height of the tree
but where it is on the berm.
39. Staff said it is an issue about planting larger trees further down
on the slope.
40. Committee Member Smith said Staff is suggesting planting the
ones that grow taller lower on the berm.
41. Committee Member Bobbitt said he understood the definition,
but he tended to agree with the Applicant.
42. Committee Member Bobbitt said that was an interesting point
and it could be a recommendation, but he thought they had to
be careful about this because in the middle of the golf course
there is a lot of differentiation in grade, do you continue the
condition through the golf course. Where do you draw the line?
It should be an issue about how the developer feels about it.
43. Staff wanted to make clear the intent and purpose of Condition
#4 is not to restrict height of trees, it is about longevity to
insure larger caliper trees are lower on the berm.
44. Committee Member Bobbitt asked for clarification of whether
staff was referring to larger caliper trees at planting or at
maturity. Staff said at maturity. Applicant said if you look at
layering ground material and graduating in height, what staff is
suggesting will get cause more height sooner which will narrow
the field of view.
10
P-kr APni vmai Rr \AI Pr KAINI ITFC\CI Pr 7_1 i-ott ne)r
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
July 12, 2006
Committee Member Bobbitt said it was a legitimate point of
view. He said the landscaping maintenance will cause the
development to have taller trees in the front and shorter trees at
the back. It will create a giant hedge look.
!�7
46. Committee Member Smith said the reality that it is mixed,
nothing is in a straight line. Applicant said the landscape plan
was very organic and nothing emphasized a straight line. There
is a lot of movement in the plan.
47. Committee Member Bobbitt understood staff's viewpoint, but
was more concerned with the plant palette, but if you try to put
taller trees low you would end up massing a particular type of
tree in an area. His recommendation would be to go with the
plan as is and have the developer be cognizant of the fact the
taller variety of trees should not be massed higher up on the
slope. He just wanted to add a caveat on the Condition.
48. Committee Member Smith asked if Committee Member Bobbitt
wanted to delete it. Committee Member Bobbitt said no.
49. Committee Member Smith said if it is more mixed up, what the
Applicant is trying to do will look good. He commented there
were a lot of trees listed on the plant palette that would reach
30 feet. It would be very hard to define which trees should be
placed lower on the berm.
50. Committee Member Bobbitt got back to Condition of Approval
#1 regarding view corridors. He said since the developers have
been allowed to do the mass planting and berming it would be
too difficult to have put in a view corridor. You will not be able
to see anything in the Club. Staff said they were not interested
in having drivers see into the Club, but they were interested in
having some areas a little more open as opposed to a view of
solid trees when you're driving down the street. Staff said they
are not saying no trees at all, but maybe have a few open areas
and not a solid mass.
51. Committee Member Smith suggested having some gaps in the
spacing to cut down on the density.
52. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if Staff was afraid the trees
would become a giant barrier and you won't be able to see
P 11
erARnl VN\AI Fr\ai ar nnUll lTrQ\AI ar Z19-na nnr
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
July 12, 2006
through. Staff said that's more of what they were concerned
about.
53. Committee Member Smith asked if Staff thought it was just too
densely planted? Staff said maybe a couple of spots on Avenue
52 could be less dense. It is not a matter of seeing into the
Club.
54. Committee Member Bobbitt said he did agree where they
originally planted Carolina Cherries on Jefferson, it didn't work.
Then they planted ficus and are trying to get a massive hedge in
there. He really didn't see the need for that since it's up on a
high enough berm. It didn't really bother him.
55. Committee Member Smith said it is so nebulous you would
almost have to say exactly where you want to take something
out. There is a problem with thinning out the plant materials and
how far do you do it. He added there is such a variety of tree
sizes there will be a lot of variation when they are planted. He
said it shouldn't look hedgy or overly thick.
56. Committee Member Bobbitt said he liked the plans as
demonstrated by the Applicant and not hedgy-looking.
57. Committee Member Bobbitt read Condition #2
58. The Applicant pointed out the enhancements made to the wall.
Committee Member Bobbitt said he would like to leave
Condition of Approval #2 as is.
59. The Applicant asked how to define readily visible? Committee
Member Bobbitt replied it would probably be an area where
there is no coverage by folage. He was not sure how to define
the size of the area. The Applicant said there was probably no
area where you would not see the wall obscured or the massing
of it. Staff said if there is no area that will not be covered, this
Condition is a moot point.
60. Committee Member Bobbitt said if the Committee had required
the Applicant expose some of the wall and they would have to
put in some architectural detail. He said he would recommend
acceptance as presented.
12
Ddr A Gnl vnn Al Ar%Ai Ar RAIM ITM AI 6r 7-19-na nnr
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
July 12, 2006
Committee Member Bobbitt read Condition #3. It had been
discussed and he wanted to put it in as a recommendation to
the Applicant. He strongly recommended against the California
Pepper tree since they have a propensity for wind throw. Staff
said they will change the phrase to read "Consider deleting."
61
62. Committee Member Bobbit read Condition #5. He asked what
Staff what the Condition meant. Staff replied it means this is
the concept they will consider for all their perimeter streets
since they did not submit plans for all streets.
63. Committee Member Bobbitt read Condition #6. He asked about
the 2" decomposed granite. The Applicant said they did not
plan to use decomposed granite, they had proposed to use a
minimum of 1 " organic mulch. He described the materials used
in the planters. He asked staff if that was acceptable. Staff
said mulch or decomposed granite could be used.
Commissioners asked about the mulch. Applicant was not sure
what it consisted of. Staff asked if it was organic. Applicant
replied it was.
64. Committee Member Bobbitt said most organic mulches tend to
grey and float out, but this mulch is not being placed near
homes so it should work.
65. Committee Member Bobbitt told the Applicant to check on the
area where the architect is from to make sure they know if the
plant material is viable.
66. There being no further questions of the applicant, it was moved
and seconded by Committee Members Bobbitt/Smith to adopt
Minute Motion 2006-023 recommending approval of Site
Development Permit 2006-864, as submitted with the following
amendments/additions:
a. Remove Conditions #1 and 4, but request the Planning
Commission review these items and be aware they were
brought up.
b. Condition #3 should be corrected to read "Consider
deleting" instead of "Delete".
e. Condition #6 should be revised to say "A minimum of 2"
of decomposed granite, or 1 " of organic mulch, shall be
provided in planter areas."
13
V•\rARni vm&1 Rr \01 Pr RAW ITMAt Pr 7_1,)-nR nnr
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
July 12, 2006
f. Add Condition #7 - Recommending the developer review
their plant palette as some particular varieties of trees
and shrubs may not be appropriate.
Unanimously approved.
C. Site Development Permit 2006-862; a request of Highland La Quinta,
Ll C for consideration of architectural and landscaping plans for three
cokmmercial buildings in Phase 2 of the Dunes Business Park located
on the north side of Highway 111, between Jefferson Street and Dune
Palms Road.
1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department.
2. Committee Member Smith asked if there was a wood trellis.
Applicant, Mark Giles, said yes. Committee Member Smith said
there is a problem with the maintenance of wood products. The
Applicant said they would be happy to use a composite
material. He added he is also the architect for Washington Park
and is familiar with alternative products.
3. Applicant asked if
the Committee could
go through
the
conditions. He referred to the items numbered 1 and
8.
Regarding Condition
#8, the Highway 111 Plans were a part of
Phase I and were
previously approved.
They were
not
responsible for the
Highway 111 landscape
plans. Staff
said
Condition #8 could
be deleted as it does
not apply to
this
project.
4. Staff said the key issue is the two drive-thrus proposed in one
area. The Planning Commission is outspoken about drive-thrua.
One concerns is about the landscape plan on Highway 111 and
coordination with the plan to provide a nice aesthetic and
adequate screening of the drive-thrus.
5. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if staff was referring to
Condition #1 or Condition #2. Staff said they were specifically
referring to Condition #1 and then pointed out the concerns
regarding the narrow strip.
6. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if the landscape strip was
planted there yet. Staff said it was not. Committee Member
14
P-kr APnivm\AI nmw nr M WITM At Rf T_1)_(1R nor
PH #C
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: JULY 25, 2006
CASE NO: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-864
APPLICANT: TAHITI PARTNERS REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
ARCHITECT: LGS ARCHITECTS, INC.
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT: RANDY PURNEL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, ASLA
REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING
PLANS FOR TWO PROTOTYPICAL RESIDENTIAL PLANS FOR USE
IN TRACT 24890-1 (MANDRINA AT THE CITRUS)
LOCATION
ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW:
SURROUNDING
LAND USES:
GENERAL PLAN
AND ZONING
DESIGNATION:
BACKGROUND:
EAST SIDE OF MANDARINA SOUTH OF POMELO IN THE CITRUS
PROJECT
THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS
DETERMINED THAT THIS REQUEST IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT
PER SECTION 15332 (IN -FILL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS) OF THE
GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND THERE ARE NO CHANGED
CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS PROPOSED WHICH WOULD
TRIGGER THE NEED FOR PREPARATION OF ANY SUBSEQUENT
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS.
NORTH:
COMMON LANDSCAPED AREA
SOUTH:
COMMON LANDSCAPED AREA
EAST:
VACANT RESIDENTIAL LAND
WEST:
EXISTING RESIDENCES ACROSS MANDARINA
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
The project site is in the Citrus project on the west side of Jefferson Street, north of
Avenue 52 (Attachment 1). The applicant has purchased 20 vacant improved lots
approved as a part of the original Tract 24890-1 recorded in 1989 for construction of
the proposed detached single family residences.
PAReports - PC\2006\7-25-06\SDP 2006-854 Tahiti\sdp 2006-864 tahiti pc rpt.doc
PROJECT PROPOSAL:
This request is subject to the standards in Section 9.60.300 (Compatibility review for
partially developed subdivisions) of the Zoning Code. These standards are generally to
ensure that inf ill development in existing subdivisions is compatible and not detrimental
to surrounding development in the same subdivision. In summary, the applicable
standards are:
1. The proposed residences are compatible with the surrounding residences.
2. The proposed residences fall within the size range of the existing residences.
3. A minimum 24" box size tree is provided in the front yard with total number of
trees the same as previously constructed residences.
Architecture:
The applicant has submitted prototypical plans for two residential model plans for 20
lots (Attachment 2). Each plan is designed with three front elevation treatments. The
plans utilize Spanish/Mediterranean style of architecture and are proposed to be 3,115 or
3,198 square feet in size. Both plans provide a small second story roofed veranda or
deck. This space is partially enclosed, but will not have windows or a door and is
accessed from an outdoor stairway in the courtyard of the residence. The plans identify
the building heights as 21'-6" and 21'-1 1 ".
Exterior plaster is proposed to be light to medium earth tones with contrasting earth
tone trim and red/brown blends of concrete "S" roof tile (note: clay tile is recommended
by ALRQ. The stucco finish is not specified (note: smooth finish plaster is
recommended by ALRC). Some plan elevations will use decorative stone accents,
composite material shutters, exterior lights, wrought iron railings and metal accents.
Composite material garage doors are proposed to have the appearance of wood carriage -
type doors. Material and color samples and color schemes have been submitted and will
be available at the meeting.
Landscaping:
Preliminary typical front yard landscaping plans have been submitted for the plans.
Typical front yard landscaping plans include a minimum of three trees, one, 5 and 15
gallon shrubs and a limited amount of turf. Plant materials identified appear to primarily
be low and medium water users.
ISSUES/ANALYSIS:
The architectural plans as presented are well designed and comply with applicable
zoning and development requirements. Existing residences in the Citrus project vary
from approximately 2400 to 5000+ square feet in size. The proposed units fall within
this range and are architecturally similar with the Spanish/Mediterranean theme prevalent
in the project. The applicant has submitted the plans to the Citrus Homeowners
Association and they have granted a preliminary approval of them.
PAReports - PC\2006\7-25-06\SDP 2006-854 Tahiti\sdp 2006-864 tahiti pc rpt.doc
The design of the planting plans with minor revisions has been determined to be
acceptable by the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee.
ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE (ALRC):
The ALRC reviewed this request at its meeting of July 5, 2006, and on a 2-0 vote
recommended approval of the request with conditions as recommended by Staff as well
as adding that the deck railings be decorative, 20% of the clay roofing be mudded,
deleting the use of California Peppers and allowing the garage doors to be a composite
wood material (Attachment 3).
PUBLIC NOTICE:
This application was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on July 15, 2006. All
property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing
notice as required by the La Quinta Municipal Code. As of this writing, no comments
have been received.
FINDINGS:
The Findings as required by Section 9.210.010 (Site Development Permits) of the
Zoning Code can be made as noted below.
1. Architectural Design- The architectural design of the project, including, but not
limited to the architectural style, scale, building mass, materials, colors,
architectural details, roof style, and other architectural elements, are compatible
with other plans approved for construction in the tract and other surrounding
development in the City.
2. Compliance with CEQA- The La Quinta Community Development Department has
determined that the request is categorically exempt per Section 15332 (In -Fill
Development Projects) of the Guidelines for Implementation of the California
Environmental Quality Act and there are no changed circumstances or conditions
proposed which would trigger the preparation of any subsequent environmental
analysis.
3. Site Design- The site design of the project, including, but not limited to project
entries, interior circulation, pedestrian, equestrian and bicycle ways, pedestrian
amenities, and other site design elements have been established through
approval of Tract 24890 and is compatible with surrounding development and
with the quality of design prevalent in the City.
4. Landscape Design- New home and project landscaping includes, but not limited
to the location, type, size, color, texture, and coverage of plant materials will be
designed so as to provide relief, complement buildings, visually emphasize
prominent design elements and vistas, screen undesirable views, provide a
harmonious transition between adjacent land uses and between development and
open space. It will provide an overall unifying influence, enhance the visual
PAReports - PC\2006\7-25-06\SDP 2006-854 Tahiti\sdp 2006-864 tahiti pc rpt.doc
continuity of the project, complement the surrounding project area and comply
with City and CVWD water efficiency, ensuring efficient water use.
5. Compliance with General Plan- The project is in compliance with the General Plan
in that the property to be developed is designated for residences as proposed.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Minute Motion 2006- , approving Site Development Permit 2006-864
subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
Attachments:
1 . Location Map
2. Plan exhibits
3. ALRC minutes for the meeting of July 5, 2006
Transmitted by:
Stan Sawa, Principal Planner
PAReports - PC\2006\7-25-06\SDP 2006-854 Tahiti\sdp 2006-864 tahiti pc rpt.doc
MINUTE MOTION 2006-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-864
TAHITI PARTNERS REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
DATE:
GENERAL
1. This approval is for the following model plans:
Plan 1 - 3,115± sq. ft.
Plan 2 - 3,198 ± sq. ft.
2. Prior to issuance of building permits for any of the units authorized by this
approval, final working drawings shall be approved by the Community
Development Director.
3. Guest houses/casitas', as defined in LQMC Section 9.60.100, are limited to
one per lot/primary dwelling. A master Minor Use Permit for all guest
house/casitas can be processed, subject to the provisions of said Section as
determined by the Community Development Director.
4. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La
Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action
or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this
development application or any application thereunder. The City shall have
sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel.
The City shall promptly notify the developer of any claim, action or
proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense.
5. This Site Development Permit is valid for one year, unless an extension is
applied for and granted by the Planning Commission pursuant to Section
9.200.080 of the Zoning Code.
6. SDP 2006-864 shall comply with all applicable conditions and/or mitigation
measures, which are incorporated by reference herein, for Tract 24890.
In the event of any conflict(s) between approval conditions and/or provisions
of these approvals, the Community Development Director shall determine
precedence. No development permits will be issued until compliance with
these conditions has been achieved.
7. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the
City, the applicant shall obtain the necessary clearances and/or permits from
the following agencies, if required:
• Fire Marshal
• Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permits)
P:\Reports - PC\2006\7-25-06\SDP 2006-854 Tahiti\sdp 2006-864 pc coa.doc
MINUTE MOTION 2006-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-864
TAHITI PARTNERS REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
DATE:
• Community Development Department
• Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department
• Desert Sands Unified School District
• Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD)
• Imperial Irrigation District (IID)
• California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB)
• South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or
clearances from the above listed agencies. When the requirements include
approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of such
approvals when submitting those improvement plans for City approval.
8. All two car garages shall maintain the 20-foot x 20-foot minimum clear
interior dimensions as specified in Chapter 9.150 (Parking), LQMC.
9. A no turf front yard option shall be provided for all types of lots.
10. Air conditioning compressors by Zoning Code requirements cannot be placed
in sideyards unless a minimum 5 foot clearance between compressor and side
property line is provided.
11. Replace California Peppers, Bottle Trees and Date Palm Trees with alternate
residential sized trees.
12. All roofing material shall be clay tile and 20% randomly mudded.
13. Stucco finish on residences shall be smooth.
14. Second level metal railings shall be decorative.
15. Garage doors may use a composite wood material.
16. At least one of the front yard trees shall be a minimum 24" box size 0.5"-2"
caliper) per Zoning Code requirements.
P:\Reports - PC\2006\7-25-06\SDP 2006-854 Tahiti\sdp 2006-864 pc o08.d0c
ATTACHMENT
CASE No.
CASE MAP
ORT
SDP 2006-864 1 SCALE:
NTS
ATTACHMENT
MINUTES
ARCHITECTURE & LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING
A Regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
July 5, 2006 10:00 a.m.
CALL TO ORDER
A. This meeting of the Archit ctural and Landscaping Review Committee
was called to order at 1044 a.m. by Planning Manager Les Johnson.
B. Committee Members resent: Bill Bobbitt, and Frank Christopher.
Committee Members bsent: Tracy Smith.
C. Staff present: Co unity Development Director Doug Evans, Planning
Manager Les J nson, Principal Planner Stan Sawa and Secretary
Carolyn Walker
II. PUBLIC COMMEN : None.
III. CONFIRMATI OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed.
IV. CONSENT
A. T ere being no changes to the minutes, it was moved and seconded
y Committee Members Bobbitt/Christopher to approve the minutes of
June 7, 2006, as submitted. Unanimously approved.
V. BUSINESS ITEMS:
A. Site Development Permit 2006-864; a request of Tahiti Partners Real
Estate Development Corporation for consideration of architectural and
landscaping plans for two prototypical residential plans for use in Tract
24890-1 for the property located on the east side of Mandarina south
of Pomelo in the Citrus project.
1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department.
2. Committee Member Bobbitt stated there used to be a three -car
garage requirement, but he only saw two -car garages on the
applicant's plans. He asked about a golf cart garage.
P-\r Apni vww Pm a i nr RAM ITFC\AI R!"/_F_nR nnr
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
July 5, 2006
3. Applicant's representative Jennifer Toohey Conrad (Tahiti
Partners) replied there was a cart garage and pointed it out on
the exhibits.
4. Committee Member Bobbitt was concerned about the
brachykitens on the property because they are so messy. He
was against having this type of plant material due to their high
maintenance. The applicant asked if he had a recommendation.
He said the Committee does not make recommendations on
plant materials. He also pointed out on Plan 2, Lot 16, the
chantis molay (California Pepper Tree) would not be
recommended.
5. The applicant asked about citrus trees. Committee Member
Bobbitt said citrus was fine, but those that were not
recommended were California Pepper, phoenix dactrolifera
which is a date palm, because of the potential of injury and
death due to the crowns falling off. It would be acceptable only
if the tree is not in a high traffic area. He said the architect
should pick them out from a nursery, not a grove. He said they
would not recommend the mesquites because they uproot easily
in wind storms.
6. Committee Member Bobbitt said he had no other issues but
agreed with the staff's recommendation on clay tile.
7. Committee Member Christopher agreed on the tile and with
staff's recommendations, but had a problem with the wrought
iron on the sky deck railing. He suggested the decorative iron
on the sky decks should have the same detail as any other
wrought iron; such as the front gates.
8. Committee Member Bobbitt asked who was going to maintain
the landscape. Ms. Toohey Conrad said the Homeowners'
Association would maintain the landscape.
9. Committee Member Bobbitt suggested the Association at least
maintain the front yards.
10. Committee Member Christopher asked about the existing lots on
the plot map. Ms. Toohey Conrad explained those are not part
G•\r A Rnl vmAi Rr\AI ar KniwiTcc�ei ar zR_na nnr 2
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
July 5, 2006
of the project. It is a separate tract and is not developed at the
moment.
11. Committee Member Christopher said the plot map shows JM
Peters, and asked if he was involved with this project.
Applicant said no, it had changed hands.
12. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if the garage doors would be
wood, or a simulated wood. Applicant said they have not
decided yet, since they were concerned about maintenance of
the wood. Committee Member Christopher suggested they use
fiberglass.
13. Applicant asked about the low -turf option and explained the
Homeowners' Association wants a lush landscape and does not
allow xeriscape. Committee Member Bobbitt said the water -
efficient option comes from the Water District.
14. Committee Member Christopher suggested the applicant work it
out with the Homeowners' Association.
15. Committee Member Bobbitt said let the recommendation stand
as it is not a mandate. If the Homeowners' Association does
not want desert landscape, then the applicant can work it out
with them. Ms. Toohey Conrad said the Homeowners'
Association does not want desert landscape.
16. There being no further questions of the applicant, it was moved
and seconded by Committee Members Bobbitt/Christopher to
adopt Minute Motion 2006-021 recommending approval of Site
Development Permit 2006-864, as amended:
a. Replace the California Pepper and Mesquite Trees with
trees less prone to wind damage.
b. Use composite wood garage doors
C. Use decorative wrought iron railings on the second story.
Unanimously approved.
VI. CORRE PONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL:
A. Disc sion of final review of landscaping plans and role of the
Archit ture and Landscape Review Committee.
3
,• rAGrll VN\AI Wr \AI Pr KAINI ITFC\AI Rf 7_F_nA nnr
PH #D
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: JULY 25, 2006
CASE NO: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-863
APPLICANT: INNOVATIVE COMMUNITIES
ARCHITECT: COLBOURN-CURRIER-NOLL
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT: LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT
REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING
PLANS FOR THREE PROTOTYPICAL RESIDENTIAL PLANS FOR
USE IN TRACT 34243 (PASO TIEMPO)
LOCATION: NORTH SIDE OF AVENUE 58 APPROXIMATELY 1,000 FEET WEST
OF MADISON STREET
ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW:
SURROUNDING
LAND USES:
GENERAL PLAN
AND ZONING
DESIGNATION:
BACKGROUND:
THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS
DETERMINED THAT THE REQUEST HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY
ASSESSED IN CONJUNCTION WITH ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT 2005-557 PREPARED FOR TENTATIVE TRACT
34243 WHICH WAS CERTIFIED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON MAY
16, 2006. NO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS
ARE PROPOSED, OR NEW INFORMATION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED
WHICH WOULD TRIGGER THE PREPARATION OF A SUBSEQUENT
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES
CODE SECTION 21166.
NORTH: RESIDENTIAL (PGA WEST AND PUERTA AZUL)
SOUTH: VACANT
EAST: RESIDENTIAL (LION'S GATE)
WEST: RESIDENTIAL (SANTA ROSA TRAILS)
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
The project site is located on the north side of Avenue 58 immediately east of Santa
Rosa Trails (Attachment 1). The 20 acre site is a rectangular site 1,526' + deep and
P:\Reports - PC\2006\7-25-06\SDP 2006-863 Innovative\sdp 2006-863 innovative pc rpt.doc
661.3' wide. A subdivision into a 70 single-family residential lot project with private
streets was approved by the City Council on May 16, 2006 as Tentative Tract 34243
(Attachment 2). Several miscellaneous lots have been created for storm water
retention, common area landscaping and private streets.
PROJECT PROPOSAL:
Architecture:
The applicant has submitted prototypical plans for three residential model plans
(Attachment 3). Each plan is designed with three front elevation treatments. The plans
utilize Spanish or Mediterranean styles of architecture and vary in size from 2,824 to
3,113 square feet. The plans identify all buildings as single story varying in height from
20'-1 " to 20'-1011
.
Exterior plaster proposed is light to medium earth tones with dark brown trim and
red/brown blends of concrete "S" roof tile. The exterior plaster will have a smooth
troweled "Santa Barbara" finish. Some plan elevations will use decorative accent tile
and clay pieces, exterior lights and metal accents. Garage doors will be dark wood
carriage -type roll -up doors. Material and color samples and color schemes have been
submitted and will be available at the meeting.
Landscaping:
Preliminary typical front yard landscaping plans have been submitted for each of the
three model plans, along with plans for the common areas, street entry and perimeter
landscaping.
Typical front yard landscaping plans include a minimum of two to three trees, one and 5
gallon shrubs, decomposed granite in the shrub beds and a limited amount of turf. Plant
materials identified appear to primarily be low water users with plants typically used in
the desert.
The common area plans include the Avenue 58 perimeter and entry and retention
basin/walking area in the center of the project. The plant material includes those used in
the production home front yards along with a few additional plants.
The vehicular entry gate is a combined dark wood/picket design with an arched top.
Plastered pilasters are proposed to flank the gates. The entry area also includes a small
water feature flanking each side of the entry drive between Avenue 58 and the gate. A
plastered serpentine perimeter wall with matching pilasters will be provided adjacent to
Avenue 58.
The retention basin proposes primarily low-water use plants in decomposed granite beds.
A limited amount of turf is shown in three linear beds spread out along the basin. A
walking path runs the length on the basin with a perpendicular pedestrian connector in
the middle of the tract. The plan shows a combined block and steel picket 6' high wall
at the rear of the adjacent residential lots to allow views into the basin. This wall will be
PAReports - PC\2006\7-25-06\SDP 2006-863 Innovative\sdp 2006-863 innovative pc rpt.doc
constructed on a maximum 2' high retaining wall, which is needed to provide adequate
storm water retention for the project.
ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE (ALRC):
The ALRC reviewed this request at its meeting of July 12, 2006, and on a 2-0 vote
recommended Planning Commission approval of the request with conditions
(Attachment 4).
The ALRC determined the proposed residences were attractive and well designed. The
ALRC action also included requiring use of composite wood entry gates at the Avenue
58 vehicle entry.
The majority of ALRC discussion focused upon the proposed landscaping. Several trees
such as the Bottle tree, Date Palm tree and Chinese Elm tree were recommended by
Staff to be replaced due to either size, cleanliness, growth habits or in the case of the
Date Palm tree, safety. Additionally, it was recommended that the fruitless Olive tree
be used in place of the Common Olive tree due to the extreme debris it creates. The
ALRC recommended all shrubs be 5 gallons in size except for groundcover.
The ALRC determined the frontage and retention basin planting design was generally
acceptable with the conditions identified, especially with the requirement for clustering
same shrubs and groundcovers. ALRC members noted that irrigation erosion could
occur within the basin and be a maintenance issue if the slopes were greater than 3:1.
ISSUES/ANALYSIS:
The architectural plans of the residences as presented are designed well and comply
with applicable zoning and development requirements.
During review of the Tentative Tract Map for this project both City Council and Planning
Commission members expressed concern about the appearance of the retention basin.
Design depth and narrowness of the basin have resulted in relatively steep slopes for a
passive use open space area. A detailed precise grading review of the basin is
necessary in order to ensure that the design is acceptable for the proposed passive use.
This review will be conducted following a precise grading plan being submitted to the
Public Works Department. Suggestions were made by members encouraging
convenient access between the north -south and east -west sidewalks, providing some
turf for playing, and that the basin is an attractive facility.
Issues and concerns Staff raised and ALRC discussed during their meeting have been
essentially addressed via the recommended Conditions of Approval. However,
additional items or features could be incorporated into the basin design such as
scattered boulders (2'-4' diameter) in conjunction with plant clusters on basin slopes,
benches, a gazebo, etc. to add to the basins overall aesthetic and usability.
PAReports - PC\2006\7-25-06\SDP 2006-863 Innovative\sdp 2006-863 innovative pc rpt.doc
PUBLIC NOTICE:
This application was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on July 15, 2006. All
property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing
notice as required by the La Quinta Municipal Code. As of this writing, no comments
have been received.
FINDINGS:
The Findings as required by Section 9.210.010 (Site Development Permits) of the
Zoning Code can be made as noted below.
1. Architectural Design- The architectural design of the project, including, but not
limited to the architectural style, scale, building mass, materials, colors,
architectural details, roof style, and other architectural elements, are compatible
with other plans approved for construction in the City.
2. Compliance with CEQA- The La Quinta Community Development Department has
determined that the request has been previously assessed in conjunction with
Environmental Assessment 2005-557 prepared for Tentative Tract 34243 which
was certified by the City Council on may 16, 2006. No changed circumstances
or conditions are proposed, or new information has been submitted which would
trigger the preparation of any subsequent environmental review pursuant to
Public Resources Code Section 21166.
3. Site Design- The site design of the project, including, but not limited to project
entries, interior circulation, pedestrian, equestrian and bicycle ways, pedestrian
amenities, and other site design elements have been established through
approval of Tract 34243 and is compatible with surrounding development and
with the quality of design prevalent in the City.
4. Landscape Design- New home and project landscaping includes, but not limited
to the location, type, size, color, texture, and coverage of plant materials will be
designed, pursuant to the recommended Conditions of Approval, to provide
relief, complement buildings, visually emphasize prominent design elements and
vistas, screen undesirable views, provide a harmonious transition between
adjacent land uses and between development and open space. It will provide an
overall unifying influence, enhance the visual continuity of the project,
complement the surrounding project area and comply with City and CVWD water
efficiency, ensuring efficient water use.
5. Compliance with General Plan- The project is in compliance with the General Plan
in that the property to be developed is designated for residential use as
proposed.
PAReports - PC\2006\7-25-06\SDP 2006-863 Innovative\sdp 2006-863 innovative pc rpt.doc
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Minute Motion 2006- , approving Site Development Permit 2006-863
subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Tract layout
3. Plan exhibits
4. Minutes of the ALRC meeting of July 12, 2006
Transmitted by:
Stan Sawa, Principal Planner
PAReports - PC\2006\7-25-06\SDP 2006-863 Innovative\sdp 2006-863 innovative pc rpt.doc
MINUTE MOTION 2006-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-863
INNOVATIVE COMMUNITIES
DATE:
GENERAL
1. This approval is for the following model plans:
Plan 1 - 2,998± sq. ft. with optional casita
Plan 2 - 2,824± sq. ft.
Plan 3 - 3,115± sq. ft. with optional casita
2. Prior to issuance of building permits for any of the units authorized by this
approval, final working drawings shall be approved by the Community
Development Director.
3. Guest houses/casitas', as defined in LQMC Section 9.60.100, are limited to
one per lot/primary dwelling. A master Minor Use Permit for all guest
house/casitas can be processed, subject to the provisions of said Section as
determined by the Community Development Director.
4. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La
Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action
or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this
development application or any application thereunder. The City shall have
sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel.
The City shall promptly notify the developer of any claim, action or
proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense.
5. This Site Development Permit is valid for one year, unless an extension is
applied for and granted by the Planning Commission pursuant to Section
9.200.080 of the Zoning Code.
6. SDP 2006-863 shall comply with all applicable conditions and/or mitigation
measures, which are incorporated by reference herein, for Tract 34243.
In the event of any conflict(s) between approval conditions and/or provisions
of these approvals, the Community Development Director shall determine
precedence. No development permits will be issued until compliance with
these conditions has been achieved.
7. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the
City, the applicant shall obtain the necessary clearances and/or permits from
the following agencies, if required:
P:\Reports - PC\2006\7-25-06\SDP 2006-863 innovative\sdp 2006-863 pc coa.doc
MINUTE MOTION 2006-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-863
INNOVATIVE COMMUNITIES
DATE:
• Fire Marshal
• Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permits)
• Community Development Department
• Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department
• Coachella Valley Unified School District
• Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD)
• Imperial Irrigation District (IID)
• California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB)
• South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or
clearances from the above listed agencies. When the requirements include
approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of such
approvals when submitting those improvement plans for City approval.
8. All two car garages shall maintain the 20-foot x 20-foot minimum clear
interior dimensions as specified in Chapter 9.150 (Parking), LQMC.
9. Air conditioning compressors pursuant to Zoning Code requirements cannot
be placed in sideyards unless a minimum 5 foot clearance between
compressor and side property line is provided.
10. The picket/block walls at the backs of residential lots shall be designed to
provide a flat surface on the outside surface facing the basin in order to
discourage climbing.
1 1 . Vehicular entry gates shall be a composite "wood" material.
12. Final landscaping, irrigation and precise grading plans relevant to landscape
areas shall be reviewed by the ALRC and approved by the Community
Development Director. The final review is necessary in order to; 1) ensure
proper vehicular vision clearance is provided at the main entrance is achieved,
2) to review shrub and groundcover massing for the frontage and retention
basin areas, and 3) to validate the retention basin is a functional and useable
passive use area.
13. The following landscaping revisions shall be implemented:
A. A no turf front yard option shall be provided for all types of lots and
offered to buyers.
B. Replace Bottle Trees and Date Palm Trees on residential lots with
alternate residential sized trees.
P:\Reports - PC\2006\7-25-06\SDP 2006-863 Innovative\sdp 2006-863 pc coa.doc
MINUTE MOTION 2006-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMM
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-863
INNOVATIVE COMMUNITIES
DATE:
C. Chinese Elm trees, due to their deciduous nature, shall be replaced with
evergreen trees along Avenue 58.
D. A minimum of 25% of the perimeter and retention basin canopy trees
shall be a minimum 36" box size with other trees minimum 24" box
size. Palm Trees shall be minimum 15' brown trunk height.
E. Two to three foot high berming shall be provided within the street
perimeter landscaping areas per Municipal Code Section 9.60.240F.
F. "Fruitless" Olive trees shall replace Common Olives.
G. All shrubs shall be a minimum 5 gallons in size except ground cover.
PAReports PC\2006\7-25-06\SDP 2006-863 Innovative\sdp 2006-863 pc coa.doc
ATTACHMENT 4
MINUTES
ARCHITECTURE & LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING
A Regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
July 12, 2006 j 10:00 a.m.
CALL TO ORDER
A. This meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee
was called to order at 10:07 a.m, by Principal Planner Stan Sawa.
B. Committee Members present: Bill Bobbitt, Tracy Smith, Smith/Bobbitt
made motion to dismiss Frank Christopher.
C. Staff plesent: Planning Manager Les Johnson, Principal Planner Stan
Sawa and Secretary Carolyn Walker.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed.
IV. CONS5NT CALENDAR: None
V. BUSINESS ITEMS:
A. Site Development Permit 2006-863; a request of Innovative
Communities for consideration of architectural and landscaping plans
for three prototypical residential plans for use in Tract 34243 (Paso
Tiempo) for the property located on the north side of Avenue 58
approximately 1,000 feet west of Madison Street.
1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department.
2. Committee Member Bobbit thought the overall design was fine.
He had questions about gallon and tree sizes (caliper), but no
problems with plant palette except for mertus. Asked staff
about the use of Bottle tree, as it was not on the list. Staff said
it was listed on the typical front yard landscape plans. Staff
located it on the plans. Committee Member Bobbitt said Bottle
tree should not be in the plant palette.
V.%r A Rnl vwAi ar%Ai nr RAW iTMAI Ar zi v-nF nnr
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
July 12, 2006
Committee Member Bobbitt asked if the gate was to be wood
picket. Staff stated it was a wood gate with metal pickets.
Committee Member Bobbitt said wood deterioration is a
problem in the desert heat and suggested they try to construct
the wood gate out of a composite material.
K,
4. Committee Member Bobbitt said the plant palette is acceptable,
but agrees with staff about Chinese Elm, because they are
deciduous and they make a mess.
5. Committee Member Smith said Bottle trees cannot be topped
and are easily ruined by improper trimming techniques. They
will end up, after a few years, will have to be taken out.
6. Committee Member Bobbitt said the Common Olive is a nice
tree but he would use the Swan Hill or Wilsonieii which are
fruitless. The common olive trees create a mess.
7. Committee Member .Bobbitt commented on the note the staff
made about the Date Palms are a beautiful tree but you have to
be careful where you place them. You have to use them in an
area where there is a low pedestrian area to avoid injury or
death from crown drop. If you do use the Date Palms, you
should have a certified arborist or landscape architect pick them
from a nursery and not from a date grove. He suggested the use
of California or Mexican Fan Palms instead of the Date Palms as
they could be a safety issue.
8. Committee Member Bobbitt suggested the applicant offer the no
turf front yard option. The Committee is asking all developers to
offer it. It is to help comply with water usage.
9. Committee Member Smith added the developers need to offer
the choice to homeowners who may not want to deal with the
maintenance of turf.
10. Committee Member Bobbitt commented on the mixture of tree
sizes. He said they would like to see the developers put in
something larger than 24-inch box in key areas..
11. Committee Member Smith said the building boom creates an
overwhelming need for larger size trees. What typically
happens is there is an inadequate supply of trees and smaller
2
p•kr A Rnl VN\AI Ar�Ai ar RAMITM AI Rr 7_19-na nnr
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
July 12, 2006
trees are put in a larger box and you do not get the actual box
size.
12. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if Staff wanted to discuss
Item #7. Staff said no, this was just a recommendation for
safety sake. Committee Member Bobbitt commented on the
picket block walls Ito discourage climbing) and asked for
clarification on the berming comments. Staff replied they
requested the applicant include berming along the parkway on
Avenue 58 consistent with City Code. The plan doesn't say
anything about berming and Staff was reminding the applicant
of that requirement.
13. Committee Member Smith said he didn't see anything about the
water features proposed at the entrance. He asked if there were
elevations for these features. Applicant said they were provided
in one of the earlier exhibits shown. Staff said they are a small
pool water feature in the 7-foot range. Applicant provided a
rough draft copy of it to Committee Member Smith.
14. Committee Member Bobbitt said the landscape plan at least had
numbers to help in the ease of reading them.
15. Committee Member Bobbitt said since the retention basin is
such a long, narrow corridor it is going to be fairly steep. He
asked if the City had a minimum slope of 2:1 for retention
basins. Staff replied they thought it was no greater than 3:1.
Committee Member Bobbitt wanted to bring the point up there
will be issues of erosion if the slope is more than 2:1. Applicant
said they thought it was 3:1. Committee Member Bobbitt said
what happens is if there is traffic on the decomposed granite it
will all end up at the bottom of the retention basin.
16. Committee Member Bobbitt asked about the type of garage
doors. Applicant Brad Fomon, replied they are proposing wood.
Committee Member Bobbitt replied Frank Christopher (ALRC
Committee Member) has informed previous applicants there is a
composite wood you can obtain with lower maintenance.
17. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if the side windows had type
of relief. Mr. Fomon replied they are trimmed out with plaster
pop outs.
18. Committee Member Smith said he liked the houses.
3
Pdr A Rnl VKI\AI Rr\CI Rr KAIM ITM AI Pr T_19_nR nnr
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
July 12, 2006
19. Committee Member Bobbitt said the tract was attractive for as
small as it is.
20. Committee Member Smith asked who designed the houses. Mr.
Fomon said the designer was J. Bullock. Committee Member
Bobbitt said those were some of the best computer generated
renderings he had seen.
21. The Mr. Fomon asked about Condition #11 asked about the
approval procedures. He said there was one area where it
stated Doug Evans has to sign off on the plans before they go
to construction. Committee Member Bobbitt said this
Committee is a one -stop shop and the client does not have to
come back. He added the client will have to clarify landscape
issues (massing of shrubs). Staff replied this condition will
require Director's approval.
22. Committee Member Smith pointed out where the shrubs are
spotty along the frontage. Committee Member Bobbitt said it is
not the type of shrubs, but how they are laid out. Mr. Fomon
said that was no problem to review.
23. Planning Manager Johnson said it is just as much of an issue in
the retention basin. Problems can occur due to erosion, but if
you have plant massing it is less susceptible.
24. Committee Member Bobbitt said it will make the maintenance
easier because the gardeners will have a tendency to turn
individual shrubs into little balls or squares.
25. There being no further questions, it was moved and seconded
by Committee Members Bobbitt/Smith to adopt Minute Motion
2006-022 recommending approval of Site Development Permit
2006-864, as recommended by staff with additional conditions
as follows:
1. Applicant use composite materials instead of wood on
gates and garage doors
2. Use fruitless Olive trees
3. All shrubs shall be at least 5-gallons, except for ground
cover.
Unanimously approved.
4
P.%r Apm vwA, Rr \ai Rf RAINI ITFC\AI Fr 7_i �_nA nnr
CftfiAl
Jan & Ron Olson
?WA -Al
77-905 Laredo Court
rt
CAA
La Quinta Jan and Ron Olson
CA 92253-8917
O;D
760-771-6993
chlsoon@msn.com
July 11, 2006
e
Mayor, City Council, Planning Commission Members
City of La Quinta
P.O. Box 1504
La Quinta, CA 92247-1504
Dear Representatives,
We are writing this letter in regards to the proposed "Signature Pool" at the La Quinta Resort.
Attending a presentation by the La Quinta Resort management, Hilton and CNL representatives
on June 280', we were shocked by the massive size of this project. The 600+ seating capacity
quickly caught our eye. Considering the number of existing 40+ pools already on this property it
appears that the hotel intends on either a major expansion of existing rooms or they plan on
opening the "signature pool" to the general public.
Where are all of the users of this facility going to park? The current parking is already
significantly lacking! As frequent users of the resort's facilities we have found that parking is
extremely none existent during the season and weekends. In fact, we now use bicycles and golf
cart to gain entrance to the athletic facilities. But, this is dangerous because of the traffic on
Avenida Obregon, this is already a very narrow and inadequate road, further complicated by
vehicles that are illegally parked in red curbed areas. It is a challenge to ingress and egress this
area. If there was crisis how could emergency vehicles enter and exit the area? The proposal does
not address this major problem.
The traffic to this proposed facility will also build traffic on Avendia Fernando that is already
frequently blocked by maintenance, residents and guests that are trying to pass a guarded gate
into the Santa Rosa Cove, Enclave and Mountain Estates residences. Again, considering the size
of this project, traffic will be impacted on Eisenhower and 50fl'Ave. Is there going to be an
impact study regarding both traffic and parking issues?
Also, considering the size and height of this project, what will be the noise and view impacts be?
Lastly, this will not have a positive impact on the value of houses in the impacted area..
We ask that you carefully review this project and its impact on the environment and the
surrounding property.
Your help in addressing these issues will be greatly be appreciated.
Jan & Ron Olson
Dr. Malvin and Dr. Sicgrun Braverman C - PA
50135 Valencia Court,
La Quinta, CA 92253
11 July 2006
City of La Quinta
La Quinta City Council
Planning Commission
78495 Calle Tampico Re: Proposed Water Park at La Quints Resort and Club
Esteemed City Council,
We urge you not to grant a building permit to La Quints Hotel & ResorUFtBton Group
for the construction of a waterpark with various pools.
We, as many other homeowners in the immediate neighborhood of the Hotel, chose to buy a home this
area because the reputation and established class of the hotel, the reputation of the tennis fac ilities as
one of the best tennis resorts in the country, and the serenity, beauty and peace of the surroundings.
Now, with this new plan, this would be all destroyed.
We are avid tennis players who enjoyed participating in a great program at the Club, mixing with local club
members and seasonal hotel guests who would one every year. In the new plan, 14 courts would
be eliminated... to be changed into pools?
Who are the intended users of these pools?
What about the parking situation? The traffic on the road for tennis and the spa is bad
enough now.
Where would people for the water park put their cars? Did the hotel ever consider a possibly dangerous
situation in case the fire department or an ambulance has to get through?
Did anybody think about the noise a water park would create for neighboring homeowners? Who would
ever want to buy property there? Quiet and relaxing resort living would be filled with noise from the water
park kids' crowd.
No sane person would want to buy there, thus resulting in a drop In property values when
everywhere in the valley values go up, even in areas that could not compare with the beautiful landscape
closeness to hotel restaurants and La Quints Old Town, the golf - --ail providing a desired Irfe style where
a waterpark for the mass public use does not fit.
We do hope you give this matter serious consideration and deny a building permit.
Sincerely,
Dr. Malvin Braverman Dr. S' n Braverman
Ruth Utti
Post Office Box 231203
Encinitas, CA 92023-1203
TEL: 760-942-9042
FAX: (760) 753-2527
July 11, 2006
City Manager and City Council
City of La Quinta
78495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
Re: La Quinta Hotel plans for Signature Pool/water park expansion
Dear City Manager and City Council:
I attended the La Quinta Hotel plan presentation of the signature pool/water park expansion on
June 28, 2006. 1 am a home owner in the La Quinta Tennis Villas.
Please make me of record that I vehemently object to this expansion as presently planned.
It seems to me that too much has been planned for the land available. The virtual mountains of
26 feet and 18 feet planned for the water slides will definitely block the magnificent views of the
Santa Rosa Mountains for the residents and guests of the Tennis Villas condominiums.
The noise generated by the children using the meandering water canals just yards from the
Tennis Villas homes will be horrendous. The pristine views and serenity of the desert will be
compromised in the name of business avarice.
Please notify me of any fixture community workshops or meetings regarding this expansion plan.
Please mail any notifications to: Ruth Utti POB 231203, Encinitas, CA 92023.
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,�Jl�� nr /y-/gip}/�
v�/l.
RUTH UTTI
July 6, 2006
City of La Quinta
P.O. Box 1504
La Quinta, CA 92247-1504
Dear Members of the City Council,
4
We are writing to you to protest the La Quinta Resort and Club's plans for a new "signature"
pool and water park. We have been homeowners in La Quinta since October 1996 and joined the
La Quinta Resort and Club at that time. When we moved here everyone was in awe of the
historical landmark that was the beautiful La Quinta Resort and Club. Now that is slowly being
taken away and becoming an environmental hazard with noise and air pollution, diminishing
wildlife and an unsafe main street (Avenida Obregon) which is a designated fire lane. All of this
has come about because of the "Resort"- starting with the addition in 1997 of the 400 room hotel
expansion which extends to the property around the present pool and tennis grounds, and now
continuing with this new venture of adding a water park, of all things. We don't know how the
"Resort" got around the zoning laws in 1997 but this City Council needs to put a stop to it right
now.
Many of us members and homeowners have tried bringing the safety problems to the attention
of the City. On weekends and holiday weeks during the year, Avenida Obregon is so packed
with vehicles parked on the sides of the streets that there is room for only one lane of traffic, if
that. There are no sidewalks, so adults, kids and their dogs are all in the street - walking, riding
bikes, skateboarding etc. The La Quinta Police actually told us "it's not our problem, it's private
property and the problem of the Resort". Avenida Obregon is a fire lane for Christ's sake. Who
is responsible for patrolling it?
La Quinta Resort and Club continues to give memberships to the surrounding communities,
but choose not to do an impact study for their new project. It is very obvious to the members and
homeowners that this property will not be able to handle all of the people and their vehicles.
If this hideous venture is allowed to proceed, then our historical landmark is about to become
a real joke. And unfortunately, the joke will be on the City of La Quinta.
Truly Yours,
Rue and Dode Haberman
fp
r' �
I