Loading...
2006 10 10 PCT4ht 4 4v QuiRm Planning Commission Agendas are now available on the City's Web Page @ www.la-auinta.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 OCTOBER 10, 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 2006-036 Beginning Minute Motion 2006-025 CALL TO ORDER II. PUBLIC COMMENT This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled for public hearing. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your comments to three minutes. 111. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 26, 2006. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\1 AgendaW.doc V. PUBLIC HEARING: 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 ................ CONTINUED - SIGN APPLICATION 2006-1015 Applicant ......... Prest/Vuksic Architects Location .......... West side of Caleo Bay, north of Avenue 48 Request ........... Consideration of a Sign Program to serve Caleo Bay Park. Action ............. Request to continue to October 24, 2006 B. Item ................ SPECIFIC PLAN 99-035, AMENDMENT #1 Applicant ......... East of Madison, LLC Location .......... East side of Madison Street between Avenue 52 and Avenue 54 Request ........... Consideration of landscaping and wall plans for the Madison Street perimeter of The Madison Club Action ............. Minute Motion 2006- C. Item ................ RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION 2006-015 Applicant ......... Nispero Properties, Inc. Location .......... Portion of Calle Barcelona, east of Desert Club Drive Request ........... Report of finding under California Government Code Section 65402 that the proposed right-of-way vacation of a ±6,682 square foot portion of Calle Barcelona is consistent with the General Plan Action ............. Resolution 2006- VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: Vil. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None Vill. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Discussion regarding agenda items for the Joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission — October 24, 2006, 5:00 p.m. B. Discussion regarding County Planning Commission meeting October 1 2th C. Review of City Council meeting of October 3, 2006 S:\Websne Updates\Community Development\PC Agenda 10-10.doc IX. ADJOURNMENT: This meeting of the Planning Commission will be adjourned to a Regular Meeting to be held on October 24, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. DECLARATION OF POSTING I, Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary of the City of La Quinta, do hereby declare that the foregoing Agenda for the La Quinta Planning Commission meeting of Tuesday, October 10, 2006, was posted on the outside entry to the Council Chamber, 78-495 Calle Tampico and the bulletin board at the La Quinta Cove Post Office, on Friday, October 6, 2006. DATED: October 6, 2006 BE 1, AWYER, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California Public Notices The La Quinta City Council Chamber is handicapped accessible. If special equipment is needed for the hearing impaired, please call the City Clerk's office at 777-7123, twenty-four (24) hours in advance of the meeting and accommodations will be made. If special electronic equipment is needed to make presentations to the Planning Commission, arrangements should be made in advance by contacting the City Clerk's office at 777-7123. A one (1) week notice is required. If background material is to be presented to the Planning Commission during a Planning Commission meeting, please be advised that eight (8) copies of all documents, exhibits, etc., must be supplied to the Executive Secretary for distribution. It is requested that this take place prior to the beginning of the 7:00 p.m. meeting. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\1 AgendaW.doc PH #A STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 10, 2006 CASE NO: SIGN APPLICATION 2006-1015 APPLICANT: PREST/VUKSIC ARCHITECTS PROPERTY OWNER: DR. STEVE PHAN REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR A SIGN PROGRAM TO SERVE CALEO BAY PARK LOCATION: WESTSIDE OF CALEO BAY DRIVE, APPROXMIATLEY 300 FEET NORTH OF AVENUE 48 (ATTACHMENT 1) ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: ON -PREMISE SIGNS ARE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT UNDER CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15311(a) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: CC (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL) ZONING: CC (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL) BACKGROUND: Site History This Sign Program was continued from the previous Planning Commission Meeting dated September 12, 2006. The program was continued at the request of the Rancho La Quinta Home Owners Association so that they may have adequate time for further review. The Sign Program was again requested to be continued from the Planning Commission Meeting dated September 26, 2006. The program was requested for continuance by Prest-Vuksic Architects (applicant) so that they may work with staff on lighting issues associated with the program. The applicant has again requested a continuance from the Planning Commission Meeting dated October 10, 2006. The applicant has requested the continuance so that they may consult with the property owner and surrounding properties regarding lighting issues associated with the program. Prepared by: Eric Ceja, As �t nt Planner P:\Reports - PC\2006\10-10-06\Caleo Bay Park\SA 06-1015 Caleo Bay Park (CONTINUANCE).rtf PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: OCTOBER 10, 2006 CASE NO: SPECIFIC PLAN 99-035, AMENDMENT #1 APPLICANT: EAST OF MADISON, LLC REQUEST: REVIEW OF LANDSCAPING AND WALL PLANS FOR THE MADISON STREET PERIMETER OF THE MADISON CLUB LOCATION: EAST SIDE OF MADISON STREET BETWEEN AVENUE 52 AND AVENUE 54 BACKGROUND: The Madison Club site is located on the east side of Madison Street, between Avenue 52 and Avenue 54 (Attachment 1). The Madison Club design was approved by the City Council in 2004 as an amendment to Specific Plan 99-035 and Tentative Tract Map 33076, with construction of the golf course and infrastructure improvements started. The original Specific Plan approved the design for the Hideaway that is on the west side of Madison Street, south o Avenue 52. On July 25, 2006 the Avenue 52 wall and planting plans for the Madison Club were reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission, subject to a number of conditions (Attachment 2). The conditions required future review of the perimeter plans. One condition requires the perimeter planting plans be reviewed by the ALRC and approved by Staff. The conditions further required that the wall and planting plans for the east side of Madison Street along the Madison Club be reviewed by the ALRC and then the Planning Commission for approval. The plans for most of the perimeter streets were recently submitted for approval. The only areas not submitted are the Avenue 52 entry area (Meriwether Way) that has been previously approved and the short portion of Avenue 53 west of Monroe Street. The ALRC at their meeting of September 20, 2006 reviewed and recommended approval of the plans (Attachment 3). PROJECT PROPOSAL: The final plans include planting and irrigation plans (Attachment 4). Plans include separate tree and shrub/groundcover plans. p \stan\hideaway madisonclub\sp 99-035 pc rpt.doc In general, shrubs of the same type are massed with larger species to the rear and groundcovers and smaller shrubs 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 72" box size. Clusters of California Fan Palms will vary in height from 12' to 17'. The proposed plant palette (sheet L-1) is extensive and appears to consist of primarily lower water use plants. The plans show the perimeter wall along Madison Street. The previous approval in July, 2006 included several design requirements that apply to all street perimeters, including Madison Street. One is that open areas or "view corridors" (areas without trees) be provided along the perimeter streets that would allow views of the distant terrain or sky, and minimize a "walled" in feel along the street. The current plan provides four 100' + wide "view corridors" relatively evenly spaced along Madison Street. This meets the intent of the requirement. ISSUES: The planting will provide an attractive and well designed streetscape while providing the privacy wanted by the developer. However, one requirement will need to be reviewed further as noted below. The previous approval requires the top of the perimeter wall not exceed the maximum 16' height limit above adjacent curb that is required for the berms. The applicant has said the plans comply with this requirement and based on a preliminary staff review it does comply. This will need to be fully verified prior to issuance of a building permit installation of the walls. Condition #1 addresses this requirement. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Minute Motion 2006- , approving Madison Street planting and wall improvements, subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to final approval of the wall plans, location of perimeter walls shall be verified to ensure compliance with the condition limiting the top of perimeter wall not exceed the 16' maximum berm height to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 2. Revisions to plans necessary to comply with the above conditions shall be approved by the Community Development Director. p \stan\hideaway madisonclub\sp 99-035 pc rpt.doc Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Minutes of July 25, 2006 Planning Commission meeting 3. Minutes of September 20, 2006 ALRC meeting 4. Landscaping plans Prepared by: Stan Sawa, Principal Planner p \stan\hideaway madisonclub\sp 99-035 pc rpt.doc ATTACHMENT 1 CASE No. 53 CASE MAP RTH MADISON CLUB SCALE: NTS ATTACHMENI Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 2006 B. Specific Plan 99-035 Amendment #1; a request of East of Madison, LLC for consideration of standard perimeter wall and planting plans for the property located south of Avenue 52 and east of Madison Street in the Madison Club. 1. Chairman Quill opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff noted the change to the conditions that staff made regarding the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee recommendation. 2. Chairman Quill asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Daniels asked how the height of this berm compares with the berm height along Avenue 52. Staff stated it is slightly higher. Community Development Director Doug Evans explained it was approved with a higher berm that the one on Avenue 52, but not as high as the berm for the Hideaway on Avenue 54. Commissioner Daniels stated he has a problem with the berm being this high. Staff clarified the height differences. 3. Commissioner Barrows asked if the berm height has been approved. Staff stated yes and the height is 16 feet at the westerly end along Avenue 52 at Madison Street. Easterly it will go down in height. Commissioner Barrows clarified the approval before them is only the landscaping and perimeter wall for that section along Avenue 52. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated the height of the berm has been approved and only the perimeter wall is back before the Commission. Staff has had extensive conversations with the applicant and adjacent property owners, but staff is working within the approved Specific Plan to reach a solution for everyone. Commissioner Barrows asked if the wall would be similar to what has been built on the Hideaway project. Discussion followed regarding the berm height and the location of the wall in relation to the berm. 4. Commissioner Alderson asked where the trees would be planted. Staff clarified the ALRC agreed with the trees being on top of the berm; however, staff is asking that they not be at the top but that large trees be planted near the toe of the berm. Commissioner Alderson asked staff to define what the "view corridors" were. Staff stated the area where the trees were not so thick that you could see the mountains through some of the open spaces. 3 Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 2006 5. Commissioner Barrows stated she took a tour of the City where the berm treatment has been used and does not believe it is effective in regard to drainage and erosion. Staff stated the berm is a maximum 3:1 slope, and at that grade it is a challenge. They will use drip irrigation for the plants. Commissioner Barrows asked if it will meet the City's Landscape Ordinance. Staff stated they will have to meet the requirements. 6. Commissioner Daniels asked when Madison Street would be completed. Staff asked that the applicant answer this question. 7. Chairman Quill noted there is significant turf at the entrance. Staff stated it is extensive, but for the overall project it is minimal. 8. Chairman Quill asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Jeff Provost, Madison LLC, stated the height of the berm has been engineered and they are working with staff to accomplish the undulation. In regard to the Conditions, they have a concern with Condition Nos. 7 and 8. They are trying to make a distinction between this project and the Hideaway. The view corridor issue to them seems unimportant due to the speed at which you would be traveling along the street. As the trees grow there will be openings between the trees to give the view corridor wanted by staff. In regard to the height limitation for the trees, how are you able to measure the trees and who will cut the top off of the trees when they exceed the height. They do anticipate starting construction along Madison Street within the next four to six months. The wall and berm will undulate and there are very few instances where the wall will be right at the top of the berm. 9. Commissioner Alderson asked if a different variety would be used to reach the desired height. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated that in the design aspect of the planting, if the proposed tree will reach a height of over 30 feet, staff will ask that a different species be used. Discussion followed regarding the location and height of the trees in relation to the berm. 10. Commissioner Daniels asked if the Commission added a condition that the average height of the wall would not exceed the height of the berm, would this be an issue. Mr. Provost stated they would have to look at the plans, but he believes they could do this. 11. Chairman Quill stated this may bring the wall into the setback area. He asked if the wall landscaping and wall would be done in advance of the sidewalk. Mr. Provost stated he is not aware of 4 Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 2006 the construction schedule, but he does not believe they would want to do this before that street improvements are completed on Avenue 52. Chairman Quill asked if there was a multi -purpose trail on Madison Street between Avenue 52 and Avenue 54. Staff stated they believe there is a trail on one side of the street. Chairman Quill asked if the landscaping for Madison Street will be submitted in conjunction with the Hideaway side of Madison Street. Staff stated the Commission could request to have the Madison Street landscaping plans for the east side or both set could be brought back. Chairman Quill stated he is not necessarily interested in seeing the entire length of the street, but he would like to see the multi -purpose trail and how it fits in and how it relates to both sides. He is very concerned about the Hideaway side because he has never seen those plans. He does not want to create a tunnel. Mr. Provost stated their berm on Madison Street is not even half the height of the Hideaway project. Staff stated there is a multi -purpose trail on the east side of Madison Street. Staff reviewed the setbacks as they relate to where the wall can be constructed. Chairman Quill asked about the plans for Monroe Street that were included in their packet. Staff stated they are concepts and are not before the Commission for approval. 12. Commissioner Barrows asked for clarification that the plan before them will be repeated on Avenue 52 and Monroe Street. Mr. Provost stated it will have undulation but, it is not completed. Community Development Director Doug Evans drew a diagram on the plans to explain the setback, building envelope, berm, and wall design. 13. Commissioner Daniels stated his concern was to not have a tunnel effect as you drive down Madison Street between Avenue 52 and Avenue 54. Staff suggested those plans be brought back to the Commission. 14. Chairman Quill asked if there was any other public comment. Dr. Tim Vail, property owner across the street, stated this is going to appear to be the wall of "King Kong". He was not notified of this public hearing and would ask that this hearing be continued until the berm issue has been resolved. It appears the wall is at the top of the berm for the entire length of the street. Why can the wall not be closer to the street for security. The current height limits the views for the neighbors to the north. They are working to have assurance the berm does not exceed the height that was approved. 5 Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 2006 15. Staff requested a five minute recess. Chairman Quill recessed the meeting at 8:18 p.m. and reconvened at 8:28 p.m. 16. There being no further public comment, the public participation portion of the hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 17. Community Development Director Doug Evans clarified that the item on the agenda is listed as an amendment to the Specific Plan and that is not the case. The request is for review of the perimeter wall and landscaping. It should have been listed as a business item and not a public hearing which does not require notification of the surrounding property owners. Staff believes the berms comply with the Specific Plan with some minor increases that are minor design changes. From the standpoint of whether notices should have been mailed, they would not have been mailed. The project was heard as a public hearing with public testimony the same as it would have been if it were listed as a Business Item. A complete set of the plans, agenda, and staff report were sent to the attorney that represents Dr. Vail. The proceeding would have occurred exactly as they have occurred. 18. Commissioner Daniels asked where the berm is measured from along Avenue 52. Staff stated the intent, and it was checked, was from the top of the curb. Commissioner Daniels noted the berm at 16 feet has been approved, but he does not want to take any action that would increase the height. He would want to limit the wall to not exceed the height of the berm. He agrees with the taller vegetation and trees being lowered off the top of the berm. For clarification, this Commission is not only concerned with the driving public but, also the neighbor to the project. 19. Commissioner Barrows stated her concurrence with Commissioner Daniels suggestions. 20. Chairman Quill stated the limiting of the height of the berm is negligent when you consider when the landscaping reaches maturity as it will exceed the height of the berm and wall. 21. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Barrows to adopt Minute Motion 2006- 018, approving Specific Plan 99-035 Amendment No. 1, as recommended and amended including 7 and 8: E, Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 2006 a. Condition added: At no place shall the top of the wall exceed the 16 foot height limit of the berm even if it extends into the setback area. The details of the perimeter plans for Madison Street be brought back to the Commission. b. Condition added: Multi -use trail design and materials along Madison Street shall be brought back to the Commission. Motion carried with Commissioner Barrows voting no. C. Site Development Permit 2006-864; a request of Tahiti Partners Real Esate Development Corporation for consideration of architectural and ndscaping plans for two prototypical residential plans for use in Tract 2 90-1 located on the east side of Mandarina south of Pomelo in the citru Droiect. 1. Ch irman Quill opened the public hearing and asked for the staff repo Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the staff report, a copy f which is on file in the Community Development 2. There being o questions of staff, Chairman Quill asked if the applicant wou like to address the Commission. Mr. Phil Larson, representing the pplicant, stated he was available to answer any questions. 3. Commissioner Alders n asked if the roof material would be mudded and boosted fo the roof. Mr. Larson stated yes and the walls would be a slick ooth trowel finish. He did ask that Condition No. 9 for not f be removed as they have been requested by the Homeowner be to maintain continuity with the front yard landscaping or the remainder of the Citrus. 4. Mr. Robert Crowell, 79-890 Citrus reet, president of HOA stated they support the project and the remo al of Condition No. 9. They have been working with the appnlicabut, have not seen the landscaping plans. Also, they did not r eive any notification of the public hearing. Staff noted it is a nor al process of staff to ask the applicant to obtain approval of t HOA before staff renders their approval. 5. There being no further public comment, the public participation portion of the hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 7 ATTACHMENI MINUTES ARCHITECTURE & LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING A Special meeting held at the La Quinta City 7/10:00 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA September 20, 2006 a.m. CALL TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Architectural and L dscaping Review Committee was called to order at 10:07 a.m. by Pfincipal Planner Stan Sawa. B. Committee Members present: BA Bobbitt and Tracy Smith. It was moved and seconded by Com ' tee Members Bobbitt/Smith to excuse Committee Member Frank C istopher. Unanimously approved C. Staff present: Principal tanner Stan Sawa and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: III. CONFIRMATION OF yHE AGENDA: Confirmed. IV. CONSENT A. It was oved and seconded by Committee Members Bobbitt/Smith to apprgKie the Minutes of September 6, 2006 as submitted. Unofiimously approved. V. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Specific Plan 99-035, Amendment No. 1; a request of East of Madison, LLC for consideration of landscaping plans for the perimeter of the Madison Club for the property located south of Avenue 52, east of Madison Street, north of Avenue 54, and west of Monroe 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. Staff introduced John Gamlin, representing East of Madison, LLC, and Don Veda, Landscape Designer, who gave a presentation on the project. 2. Committee Member Smith asked staff to explain "view corridors". Staff explained it was a break in the perimeter landscaping that would create an opening you can see through. r.-nnwnnrc�ni arw_vn_na nnr Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee September 20, 2006 3. Committee Member Bobbitt stated his concern was that this site did not become like the Hideaway in regard to the berm. He asked if there was a set standard for the number of trees to be removed to create this corridor. Staff stated it was a condition of approval, but there were no standards, just that there were some openings. 4. Committee Member Smith asked if staff had any recommendations as to where trees should be removed. Mr. Gamlin stated the berm has been reshaped and it is more open. 5. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he likes the plans as they are submitted. Discussion followed as to alternatives to create the "view corridor". 6. Committee Member Smith suggested just moving the trees or grouping them together to create the openings. 7. Committee Member Bobbitt suggested their landscaping plans for the slopes be sensitive to where the irrigation lines are placed to not allow the slopes to be eroded as well as keeping the weeds cleaned out. 8. There being no further questions, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Bobbitt/Smith to adopt Minute Motion 2006-030 recommending approval of Specific Plan 99-035, Amendment No. 1, as recommended. Unanimously approved. VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: VII. COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS Vill. ADJOURNMENT: There being no Nrther business, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Smith/Bo bitt to adjourn this Special Meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee to a Regular Meeting to be held on October 4, 2006. This meeting w s adjourned at 10:23 a.m. on September 20, 2006. Respectfully submitted, BETTY J. SAWYER Executive Secretary r.-�Wpnrrc�ni prio.vn_na nnr 2 PH #C STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 10, 2006 CASE NO.: RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION 2006-015 REQUEST: REPORT OF FINDING UNDER CGC SECTION 65402 THAT THE PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION OF A + 6,682 SQ. FT. PORTION OF CALLE BARCELONA IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN LOCATION: PORTION OF CALLE BARCELONA EAST OF DESERT CLUB DRIVE APPLICANT: NISPERO PROPERTIES, INC. BACKGROUND: Pursuant to State law', the "Planning Agency" shall make a finding that the proposed vacation is consistent with the City's General Plan and Circulation Element for any street right-of-way or public easements being vacated by the City Council. The Planning Agency in this case is the Planning Commission. The portion of Calle Barcelona east of Desert Club was dedicated for public use on Subdivision Map for Desert Club Tract, Unit 1 and accepted by Riverside County as a public street (Attachment 1). However, under Assessment District No. 2000-1, Project No. 98-19, street improvements did not include this portion of Calle Barcelona. This portion of right-of-way is not needed by other property owners for access, or improved accessibility. Nispero Properties, Inc., owner of lots on the north and south side of the proposed vacation, requested vacation of the said portion of Calle Barcelona pursuant to California Street and Highways Code Part 3 for Public Streets, Highways, and Service Easements Vacation Law, Section 8320-8325. The portion to be vacated will be incorporated in future development by Nispero Properties, Inc. The portion of Calle Barcelona to be vacated terminates at the westerly property line of Lot 90 of Tract No. 29470-1 known as the Arnold Palmer Restaurant and more specifically the existing parking lot area (Attachment 2). However, the Arnold Palmer Restaurant has two existing access driveways along Avenue 52 and one on Desert Club Drive. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: The proposed vacation is categorically exempt under Section 15305, and not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Government Code Section 65402 PUBLIC AGENCY COMMENTS: On April 19, 2006 and September 18, 2006, staff mailed notices (first and second, respectively) to potentially affected public utility agencies and public agencies, respectively, informing them of the proposed vacation. If the utility companies respond with requests for easements to continue operation and maintenance of existing public utilities, a utility easement will be reserved. To date, no objection to the right-of-way vacation has been received. FINDINGS- 1. The proposed right-of-way vacation will have no environmental effects that adversely impact the human population, either directly or indirectly because the street segment is currently unused by the public and inaccessible to vehicles; and secondly, the act of vacating the right-of-way will have no physical environmental effect. 2. 7 he right-of-way vacation will not impact public utility agencies, provided easements are retained for the continued maintenance and operation of existing public utilities. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2006-_ finding that Right -of -Way Vacation 2006- 015 is consistent with the La Quinta General Plan. Prepared by: BRIAN CHING, Associate Engineer Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Plat Map ATTACHMENT 1 n •». ... � �.. - R 1�saTa 3,.,. y P z 4 4 a h CALL£ ,.,. ESTABO ..° ✓.zi. •- •+['A�'�: q.a a" a: ,� 6 ,? 3f 4 5' "(�. $i 9 1 - 3 _ e4 x-gal : •p n t 10 - CALVE' . CAD¢ :',•'a •'� CALLE :(ie-x 4tl CADSZ m , n'• ' �''' I e`BARGELQNP'.' him, ;. NW O Pe.. . Pobe ' i ATTACHMENT ROW 25' EX. ROW LOT 7 RK 5 MB 19/75 770-156-007 LOTS RR5 MB 19/75 770-156-008 MS°LRO PROPLRBES NC 4_R=825' L . ,', `i 30 8.55r// �% LOT N" i IM6 19%/5, W (A=8'36ck:' R=775' L =1 i W I C5 LOT 1 &X 2 AW 19/75 o 770-181-M o MSP£RO PROPERTIES bVC 5' mim© LOT 6&K5 MB 19/75 770-166-" CURVE TABLE CURVE DELTA RADIUS LENGTH Cl (86'57' 20.00' 30.35') C2 41'24'35" MOO' 14.45' C3 45'32'25" 20.00' 15.90' C4 (9325' 20.00' 32.61') C5 41'24'35" 20.00' 14.45' C6 52'00'25" 20.00' 18.15' o� m (INDICATES RECORD DATA PER DESERT CLOD TRACT UNIT N0. 1, M8 19/75) 5' ROW DEDICATED TO C1TY OF LA OUINTA SCALE 1 =40' ~) BY DOC. REC'O 5111101 1206352 0 20 40 80 120 PRE'ARED BY: Q LAND SL sKlLIK,�:][2n G✓j&PLO)d[i v��oP�E KECIF� -J5 PANORAMA DR., SJITF F No. 6687 PALM DESRR I , CA 9?260 Ev. 06I3070e 760-?I9-9886 DALE E-,E4 R, CATE ry _S 6 8/ EXP. 6-30-06 gTPOF CA>•.r`.a NOTICE OF PUBLIC WORKSHOP BEFORE THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TO DISCUSS THE SOUTH VALLEY IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM A PUBLIC WORKSHOP (and FIELD TRIP) has been scheduled before the RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION to discuss the South Valley Implementation Program. The workshop is open to public for participation. SCHEDULE OF WORKSHOP: DATE OF HEARING: TIME OF HEARING: LOCATION OF WORKSHOP: SCHEDULE OF WORKSHOP: PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: October 12, 2006 9.30 AM La Quinta City Council Chamber 9.30 AM-12.30 PM: Presentation/Comments/Discussion; 12.30-1.30 PM Lunch 1.30-3.30 PM Field Trip The Eastern Coachella Valley Area Plan encompasses one of the most important agricultural lands in the county. However, agricultural lands in the Eastern Coachella Valley are giving way to more urban types of development. In the absence of sensitive planning and project coordination, leapfrog development may occur, resulting in a patchwork of underserved and uncoordinated tract map and specific plan approvals without provision of adequate roads or other community facilities. There are several large development proposals under consideration along Avenue 62, which is now known as the South Valley Implementation Program Boundary. These developments have a potential to significantly alter the population, land use, and transportation projections of the General Plan. Upon support and direction of the Board of Supervisors, the county staff has been working to develop a comprehensive implementation program which will ensure that the area developers work together to identify, fund, and construct the land use, transportation, infrastructure, and community needs of the area. As outcome of this effort, several actions are anticipated: 1. Update of the County's land use, circulation, recreation, and open space components of the Eastern Coachella Valley Area Plan; 2. Development of a community facilities phasing and funding program to ensure that necessary community facilities are provided to keep pace with future development; and 3. Preparation of design guidelines for new developments that identify and protect the equestrian/agricultural lifestyles of the existing communities. FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: For further information regarding this program, please contact Ms. Mitra Mehta at (951) 955 8514 or mmehtana rctlma.org or Mr. Josh Lee at (951) 955 6864 or ileena,rctlma.org Robert C.Johnson, Planning Director A PUBLIC WORKSHOP (and FIELD TRIP) has been scheduled before the RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION to discuss the South Valley (Ave. 62) Implementation Program. The workshop is open to public for participation. DATE OF HEARING: October 12, 2006 TIME OF HEARING: 9.30 AM LOCATION OF WORKSHOP: La Quinta City Council Chamber SCHEDULE OF WORKSHOP: 9.30 AM-12.30 PM: Presentation/Comment/Discussion; 12.30-1.30 PM Lunch 1.30-3.30 PM Field Trip The intent of this Planning Commission workshop is to: 1) Discuss the progress of the South Valley Implementation Program; and 2) Visit the area to understand regional context for land use decisions in the Eastern Coachella Valley. I would like to reinstate that this workshop is primarily designed to discuss the progress of the South Valley Implementation Program and to receive some guidance from our decision makers about this program. However, the commission will not be taking any action/decision on this day. As a part of the staff presentation, we are planning to discuss the Vista Santa Rosa Land Use Proposal (Jerry Jolliffe) and the Jacqueline Cochran Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (John Guerin) as the informational items of regional context for the South Valley Implementation Program. Please be reminded that the focus of this workshop is not on an), of these issues, and there will be subsequent public hearings/meetings/workshops to discuss them. - --. . I .. _-. . ,........ . --- iovi f&Ws 10 p.2 PREST • VUKSIC A R C 1 I T E C T S October 10, 2006 Via Facsimile 760-777-1233 The City of La Quinta Planning Commission 7BA95 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California 92253 RE: Sign Program SA 06-1015 — 47-875 Caleo Bay Park Dear Sirs, At this time, there are some items in the sign program that require additional attention. We are respectfully requesting that the Planning Commission grant a continuance. We have been in contact with the Rancho La Quinta Home Owners' Association and will be working with them to refine the signage program. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me directly at 779- 5393. Respectfully yours, John Vuksic 44530 SAN PABLO AVE SUITE 200 PALM DESERT CA 92260 T - 760 779 5393 F.760 779 5395