The URL can be used to link to this page

2005 01 25 PCPlanning 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 JANUARY 25, 2005 7:00 P.M. **NOTE** ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING Beginning Resolution 2005-006 Beginning Minute Motion 2005-001 CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call II. PUBLIC COMMENT This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled for public hearing. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your comments to three minutes. III. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of the Minutes for the Regular Meeting of January 11, 2005. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PCAgendaW.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 La Quinta 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 ................ SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004-820 Applicant.......... Ehline Company Location........... Within Tract 31249, on the south side of Avenue 58, ± 1 /2 mile west of Madison Street Request............ Consideration of four single family prototypes, each with three different elevation treatments, and certain landscape design plans within a residential tract development. Action .............. Resolution 2005- B. Item ................ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2004-089 Applicant.......... Target Location........... 78-935 Highway 111 Request............ Consideration of the placement of temporary metal storage bins at the rear of the building. Action .............. Continue to February 8, 2005 VI. BUSINESS ITEM: None VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None Vill. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Review of City Council meeting of January 18, 2005. B. Department Report IX. ADJOURNMENT: This meeting of the Planning Commission will be adjourned to a Regular Meeting to be held on February 8, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PCAgendaW.doc 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, January 25, 2005, was posted on the outside entry to the Council Chamber, 78-495 Calle Tampico, the bulletin board at the La Quinta Cove Post Office, Chamber of Commerce, and Stater Bros. 78-630 Highway 1 1 1, on Friday, January 21, 2005. DATED: January 21, 2005 BETTY J. SAWYER, 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 777-7025, 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 777-7025. 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\PCAgendaW.doc MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA January 11, 2005 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Kirk who asked Commissioner Daniels to lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Ed Alderson, Rick Daniels, Kay Ladner, Paul Quill and Chairman Tom Kirk. C. Staff present: Community Development Director Doug Evans, Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston, Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer, Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit, Consultant Planner Nicole Criste, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed. IV. CONSENT ITEMS: A. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of the regular meeting of December 28, 2004. There being no corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Ladner to approve the minutes as submitted. B. Department Report: V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Environmental Assessment 2003-475 Addendum and Tentative Tract Map 31249, Amendment #1; a request of Madison/58th Partners, L.L.C. for consideration of a recommendation to certify an Addendum to the Environmental Assessment and an Amendment to the Tentative Tract Map to allow the reduction of certain interior private street widths for the property located on the south side of Avenue 58, ± 1 /2 mile west of Madison Street. 1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\1 - 1 1-05.doc Planning Commission Minutes January 11, 2005 report. Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Alderson asked about the structures at the northwest corner of the project. Staff stated it is a preexisting structure, not proposed. 3. Commissioner Daniels asked about the changes to the conditions. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated the changes are based on the changes the applicant has requested and staff is in agreement. 4. Commissioner Quill asked why the language on the retention basin was removed for Condition #38. Staff stated the wording should be "the proposed retention basin". Commissioner Quill asked why Condition #35 was being deleted. Staff stated the applicant has requested and staff has no objection. Commissioner Quill asked why the reference to split rail fence was deleted. Staff stated because it was not needed if the sidewalk was removed. 5. Chairman Kirk asked the purpose of the Addendum to the Environmental Assessment; did anything change. Staff stated the only impacts that were identified were minor as the only change is the street width. Chairman Kirk asked for an example. Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston stated that when a subsequent discretionary approval is processed, the City will look to determine whether or not the change constitutes a substantial revision to the environmental document. When the answer is no, it is appropriate for the City to adopt an Addendum. Chairman Kirk asked why the prior Environmental Assessment. Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston for purpose of the statue of limitation and litigation challenges it is appropriate to do an Addendum. Chairman Kirk asked why reducing the width by eight feet you cannot have any parking. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer explained that with 36 feet road widths you can have parking on both sides of the street. With 32 feet you can park on one side. Chairman Kirk asked if there was a provision that does not allow us to park on the wedge portion of the curb. Staff stated they could physically park on the wedge. Staff's purpose is to maintain two-way traffic. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\1 -1 1-05.doc 2 Planning Commission Minutes January 11, 2005 6. Commissioner Alderson stated he cannot find any provisions for guest parking and therefore determined the guest parking is on each single family lot. Staff stated the Zoning Code required each dwelling to provide 2.5 parking spaces. Two are provided inside the garage and the %2 space is for guest parking. Each unit has an additional space and a half of parking. There are no other uses on the property, such as recreational uses that warrant any additional parking. Staff is concerned that if there is a resident that has a party or need for a large amount of parking, there is no place for guest parking. Staff has added a condition relating to this issue, but there is nothing in the Code requiring it. 7. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. David Turner, CV Engineers, representing the applicant, clarified the applicant is now Ehline Company. In regard to the condition changes, Condition #35 they have requested it be removed as they had resolved all issues with the surrounding property owner. In regard to Condition #38, this is what was resolved between staff and the applicant, but the retention basin wording needs to be added back in. Substantially, the only change is the 20 foot easement with the adjoining property owner for the relocation of the irrigation line. This caused an encroachment into their open space and decided to reduce the size of the streets. They would also like to request Condition 7.A. be changed to not require them to widen the street, but stay at 32 feet curb face. The General Plan shows a bike lane and they believe it can be included in the multi -purpose trail. Condition #26 in regard to the issuance of building permits, they would like to request it be changed to the 25th building permit instead of 17th. Staff has stated the 20% requirement has been the norm and they would like to stay with this. 8. Commissioner Quill asked if they would bond for the improvements. Mr. Turner stated yes. 9. Mr. Turner asked that Condition #53.A. be changed to require the 88 foot right of way or 32 feet south of the centerline. Condition #86, they would like the off-street parking to be addressed in the CC&R's as they believe they more than meet the 2.5 parking requirement. The location identified by staff for potential guest parking has been planned for a water feature with heavy landscaping. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\1 -1 1-05.doc 3 Planning Commission Minutes January 11, 2005 10. Commissioner Ladner asked how it could be addressed in the CC&R's. Mr. Turner stated they would have to provide the HOA with a plan for the parking. The retention basins could be used for temporary parking controlled by the CC&R's. Commissioner Ladner stated her concern was for the homeowners. 11. Commissioner Alderson stated that when he first evaluated the project he was concerned with the guest parking, but the applicant has identified some areas of relief. 12. Chairman Kirk asked staff for their opinion on the applicant's request on the conditions. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated they were not included in the memo because staff is concerned. In regard to the right of way width on Avenue 58, the General Plan calls for Class II bike lanes which are to be striped lanes on the pavement. You cannot get two lanes of traffic, center turning lane and the bike lane unless you put the curb back or you have very narrow streets. With respect to Condition #26, staff prefers a percentage as it is more consistent with all the other tracts. Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit stated that in regard to Condition #86, staff thought the common area at the entrance could be used for additional parking. 13. Commissioner Quill stated the bike lane should be retained as it is highly used and necessary. In regard to Condition #26, he has no issue with the request to change it to the 25th building permit. With respect to the parking he believes it is overkill and agrees with the applicant that with the 28 foot street width with parking on one side is sufficient. 14. Commissioner Daniels stated he agrees especially when there are three car garages and there is no golf course. 15. Commissioner Ladner stated she does not agree with the parking being governed by the CC&R's. The cost to maintain the turf and the management to the community would be too great. It requires a lot of detail for the HOA to maintain. 16. Chairman Kirk stated they were suggesting one side of the street allow parking, not creating a designated guest parking area. 17. Commissioner Ladner stated she would agree then. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\1 -1 1-05.doc 4 Planning Commission Minutes January 11, 2005 18. Chairman Kirk stated he understands staff's reasoning, but the wider streets, with no parking, encourage faster traffic. He would suggest they move forward to changing Condition #38 to allow parking on one side. Staff's recommendation on Conditions #7.a. and #53.a., to maintain the bike lane and allow on -site parking on one side. 19. There being no further public participation, the public hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 20. Commissioner Quill stated this is a case where a substantial conformance should have been done instead of an Addendum to the Environmental Assessment. 21. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated that in regard to allowing the parking on one side of the street, the General Plan does allow it but Council has made a point to not approve it. The HOA has the right to control the parking or no parking. Permission could be obtained from the HOA and they would determine what side of the street and the hours. Chairman Kirk asked that staff and the Commission review the street standards. 22. It was moved by Commissioners Quill/Daniels to adopt Planning Commissioner Resolution 2005-001 recommending to the City Council certification of an Addendum to Environmental Assessment 2003-475, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Daniels, Ladner, Quill, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 23. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Daniels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005-002 recommending to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map 31249, Amendment #1, as amended: a. Condition #19: Amend by revising 1 " = 40' to 1 " = 60'. b. Condition #26: Changed to the 25th building permit. d. Condition #35: Deleted e. Condition #38: Add "retention basin" back into the condition. f. Condition #53.A.1.c.: As requested by the applicant. g. Condition #86: Deleted G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\1 -1 1-05.doc 5 Planning Commission Minutes January 11, 2005 ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Daniels, Ladner, Quill, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. C. Environmental Assessment 2004-520, Specific Plan 99-035, Amendment #1, Tentative Tract Map 33076: a request of ND La Quinta Partners L.L.C., for consideration of: 1) Certification of an Addendum to an Environmental Impact Report; 2) Specific Plan Amendment adding 120 acres to the Specific Plan area, changing the land use distribution for lands easterly of Madison Street and adding provisions for guest houses throughout the Specific Plan area; and 3) The subdivision of lands within the Specific Plan area east of Madison Street into 225 residential lots, and miscellaneous lots for golf, streets and community facilities, for the property located between Avenue 52 and Avenue 54, and between Jefferson Street and Monroe Street. 1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Consulting Planner Nicole Criste presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer explained the proposed changes to the Conditions of Approval. 2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Ladner asked the height of the existing berms. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated they have been reduced from 22 feet to 18 feet. Commissioner Ladner asked if the parking requirement was an existing condition. Staff stated this could be addressed by the applicant. 3. Commissioner Quill asked if there is an accommodation to have the tentative map reduced to a 200 scale. Staff stated that when the scale is reduced it is easier to miss things in the review process. 4. Commissioner Alderson asked who pays the other portion of the traffic signal costs not paid by the applicant. Staff stated that at this location the Developer Impact Fees (DIF), but in the newly annexed areas they are not included in the DIF so staff reverts back to splitting the cost between the four corners. At this location one corner is in the City of Indio. Commissioner Alderson asked the zoning on the "not a part" noted on the map. Staff G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\1-11-05.doc 6 Planning Commission Minutes January 11, 2005 stated it is Low Density Residential. 5. Commissioner Daniels asked about the signal on Monroe Street and Avenue 53. Staff stated one corner is paid by the Stonefield Development, the other is Rancho Santana, and the east side is in the County. 6. Commissioner Alderson noted the developer of the project is in no way connected with a company he has previously worked with. 7. Staff noted some changes to the Specific Plan that needed to be cleaned up. 8. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. John Gamlin, representing the applicant, gave a presentation on the project. In terms of the conditions, Condition #9.A. is restated in Condition #56 dealing with street improvements. They are fine with the right turn, but have a problem with the dual left turn lane condition. They did prepare a Traffic Study for the project and there was a difference between the numbers to warrant the second left turn lane onto Avenue 52. They would like to look at the analysis completed for the Mery Griffin project and discuss this with staff. If the study warrants the second left turn lane, then they will accept the condition. The General Plan levels are less than what would warrant the second left turn. Condition #32.E. they would like to tie the off -sites to a building permit threshold starting at the 50' building permit and completed by the 100'. Condition #56.A.7 in regard to the traffic signal should be #56.A.6. Staff agreed. Condition #56.A.7 they are being required to pay for a signal where they have no access. Condition #81 relates to the phasing of off -site improvements which is the same as Condition #32.E. Condition #84 again is the Tentative Tract phasing. They anticipate five final map phases: golf course, dedication of perimeter streets and first 70 lots in Phase 1. 9. Mr. Don Vita, Vita Planning and Architecture, gave a presentation on the land planning and design. He requested the amended Condition #1 1.A.1 regarding the decible levels and would like to delete this condition. Staff noted this condition has already been deleted. Mr. Vita stated Condition #43 needs to be consistent with Condition #41 of staff's memo. Condition #60 requires a full intersection across from the unimproved access to property on the G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\1 -1 1-05.doc 7 Planning Commission Minutes January 11, 2005 north side of the street which is in the City of Indio. They are unable to align their centerline with the north side access. They are therefore proposing to have their intersection off -set and the northern property align with them. They will need to negotiate with the City of Indio to align these two and are requesting time to allow these negotiations to occur. Amended Condition #42 they would like to have the first sentence of the second paragraph deleted. Staff noted this has already been changed. Mr. Gamlin stated they are looking to retain flexibility to adjust the interior lot elevations up to ten feet. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated they would like the difference between the pad elevations at four feet. 10. Chairman Kirk recessed the Commission at 8:45 p.m. and reconvened at 8:52 p.m. 11. Chairman Kirk asked if staff and the applicant had come to agreement. Mr. Gamlin explained the difference in the grading issues. Relative to the neighboring properties (Condition #86), they are looking for clarification that it concerns landforms and not the interior lots. Staff agreed. Mr. Gamlin stated they would like to submit a letter from the neighboring tract that they are in agreement to satisfy the condition. On Condition #32.E. they want consideration to tie it to a permit issuance threshold. A second issue is the nexus between the Stonefield project and the condition regarding their contribution toward a signal where they take no access. The main issue however, is the entry alignment with the property to the north across the street, and the problem of obtaining an agreement with the City of Indio. 12. Commissioner Daniels asked if the Rancho Santana project provided any leeway. Mr. Gamin stated they have already finaled the map and are under construction which provides no room. Mr. Gamlin also stated that in regard to Condition #11.A. they will make it a drivable surface. 13. Chairman Kirk asked if the internal streets had any parking issues. Mr. Gamlin stated they have no issue and their CC&R's will govern. 14. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated the issue with the City of Indio is that both cities are sensitive to turning movements. Rancho Santana did not get full turn movement at their entrance, G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\1 -1 1-05.doc 8 Planning Commission Minutes January 11, 2005 it went to the polo fields. In order for a developer on our side of the street to get what they wanted, they was giving and taking between the cities. The General Plan requires 1060 feet between signals. He would suggest not changing the condition and require them to work it out with the City of Indio. Chairman Kirk asked what the options were. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated to move it toward Rancho Santa and have Indio allow them to move it 40 feet. The north side has not developed and it would be easy for them to move it 40 feet. Consultant Nicole Criste stated the worst case would be a right turn in/out and left turn in. Chairman Kirk asked if this was too close for the turning movements. Staff stated they are protected movements. 15. Commissioner Daniels asked if the only issue is that the intersection move 40 feet to the east. Staff stated the proposed intersection would need to be relocated 300 feet east and the City of Indio move it 40 feet west. Currently the existing driveway on the north side matches up with the Madison Club's east property line. If they can't work it out the applicant will have a right turn in/out, and left turn in. 16. Chairman Kirk asked when the applicant found out about the issue with the City of Indio. Mr. Gamlin stated in the last few days. They assumed an unimproved project on the north and they were establishing a signalized intersection that would drive the location of the signal. 17. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any other issues. The duel left turn analysis completed by the Griffin Ranch on Madison/Avenue 52. What does that analysis show. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated the Griffin Ranch analysis does not show Madison Street going through. When the street goes through, it is not a fair assumption that people will turn on Avenue 54, but rather travel to Avenue 52. He went on to explain the circulation movements. Today 200 cars is the threshold when you go to dual left turn lanes. Chairman Kirk asked about the request regarding the off - site improvements. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated it would be appropriate to start the improvements at 50th permit and finished at 100th or May 1, 2006, whichever is earliest. Chairman Kirk asked why the applicant is contributing to the cost of the signal on Avenue 53. Staff stated because the tract will have an impact on the street. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\1 -1 1-05.doc 9 Planning Commission Minutes January 11, 2005 18. Chairman Kirk asked if anyone else would like to address the Commission on this matter. There being none the Commission discussed the issues. 19. Commissioner Daniels stated the phasing seems to be agreeable with it tied to the building permits. 20. Commissioner Quill stated May 31, 2006 is not far away and the chances of having 50 permits pulled is unlikely. Mr. Gamlin stated the improvements are to be initiated by that date not completed. Staff stated the 501h building or May 31 st whichever occurred last for the initiation of the improvements. 21. Commissioner Daniels stated the applicant should do everything they can to coordinate the entry points with the City of Indio. If they are unable to do this, they should not be punished by not having the full turn movement. He would like to see the developer required to make a good faith negotiation and after a reasonable period of time, 90 or 120 days, to find a common access point and if not accomplished they be given full access. 22. Chairman Kirk stated he would want City staff to be a part of the negotiations. If they go forward it may be a motivating tool to get the City of Indio to become reasonable. 23. Commissioner Daniels stated that in regard to the signal at Avenue 53`d, if this is City policy, then so be it. In regard to the grading, the applicant has asked for the latitude to make mass grading adjustments and not tie them to reconcile with the tentative tract map; he has no issue with the request. His only concern is when it relates to the perimeter property. Staff stated the inconsistency is with the tract map and staff recommends it stay at six feet. Commissioner Daniels stated he agrees with the Madison Street dual left turn lanes. 24. Commissioner Quill stated the tentative map shows grades, but the mass grading plan will reflect golf course grades and pad grades. He has no problem with allowing the flexibility as long as the final engineering reflects what is actually constructed and adheres to good sound engineering practices. The rough grading plans must show the changes. Staff asked for clarification on Condition #42, the disagreement is the four foot differential G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\1-11-05.doc 10 Planning Commission Minutes January 11, 2005 between the lots. Commissioner Quill stated he has no issue with the six foot differential. Staff noted this applies only to the tract map. 25. Commissioner Ladner stated she does not agree with the applicant participation on the Avenue 53 signal. 26. Commissioner Alderson agreed and asked if they allowed the applicant to put a full turn movement in where they are asking for it, would this be breaking an agreement with the City of Indio. Staff stated it would. 27. Chairman Kirk commended the applicant on the development of Hideaway and the lifestyle is a marketable product. He likes the streetscape. He is concerned about the amount of turf and greenscape and asked if they met the Water Efficient calculations. Mr. Vito stated they have. Chairman Kirk stated he would like to see the calculations and would like to see a reduction in the turf in non -golf course locations. The only issue that seems to be in contention is the signal at Avenue 53. He agrees with staff's recommendation on the dual left turn lane. 28. Commissioner Quill stated that although there is no nexus for the cost of the signal, he cannot support the Avenue 53 cost of the signal. Mr. Gamlin questioned Condition #43 relative to making the Specific Plan and Tentative Tract map consistent in regard to site grading. 29. Chairman Kirk closed the public hearing. 30. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Daniels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005-003, recommending to the City Council certification of an Addendum to Environmental Assessment 2004-520, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Daniels, Ladner, Quill, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 31. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Ladner to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005-004 recommending to the City Council approval of Specific Plan 99-035, Amendment #1, as recommended by staff and amended: G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\1-11-05.doc 11 Planning Commission Minutes January 11, 2005 a. Condition #1 1.A. Amended as submitted in the memo with the exception of deleting last sentence regarding decibels. b. Condition #42. The second paragraph, last line change to read, not differ more than six feet applicable to the single family homes only. C. Condition #32.E the paragraph after the letter E deleted and improvements would be started at the 50`h building permit and completed at the 1001h building permit and would start no later than 5/31 /06 whichever is first. d. Condition #43: Prior to any site grading or regarding that would raise or lower any portion of the site, the grading shall be consistent with the Specific Plan Amendment #1, and the applicant shall submit the proposed grading changes to the City Staff for a substantial conformance funding review. e. Condition #60 modified to include the applicant shall confer with the City of Indio with the participation of the Public Works staff and if the determination is not reached within 120 days the applicant shall be allowed full turn movement at their intersection and as show on the plans for Avenue 52. f. Condition #81 deleted. g. Delete Condition 56.A.7) relating to traffic signal at Monroe and Avenue 53. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Daniels, Ladner, Quill, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 32. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Quill to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005-005 recommending to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map 33076, as recommended by staff and amended: a. Condition #87: The table submitted to the Commission will supercede the requirements of this condition. b. Condition #1 1.A. Amended as submitted in the memo with the exception of deleting last sentence regarding decibels. C. Condition #42. The second paragraph, last line change to read, not differ more than six feet applicable to the single family homes only. d. Condition #32.E the paragraph after the letter E deleted and G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\1 - 1 1-05.doc 12 Planning Commission Minutes January 11, 2005 improvements would be started at the 501h building permit and completed at the 100' building permit and would start no later than 5/31 /06 whichever is first. e. Condition #43: Prior to any site grading or regarding that would raise or lower any portion of the site, the grading shall be consistent with the Specific Plan Amendment #1, and the applicant shall submit the proposed grading changes to the City Staff for a substantial conformance funding review. f. Condition #60 modified to include the applicant shall confer with the City of Indio with the participation of the Public Works staff and if the determination is not reached within 120 days the applicant shall be allowed full turn movement at their intersection and as show on the plans for Avenue 52. g. Condition #81 deleted. In. Delete Condition 56.A.7) relating to traffic signal at Monroe and Avenue 53. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Daniels, Ladner, Quill, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: None VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. Vill. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: None IX. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Ladner/Alderson to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held on January 25, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 10:03 p.m., on January 11, 2005. Respectfully submitted, Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\1 - 1 1-05.doc 13 PH #A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: JANUARY 25, 2005 CASE NUMBER: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004-820 APPLICANT: EHLINE COMPANY PROPERTY OWNER: CORAL RIDGE L.L.C. REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF FOUR SINGLE FAMILY PROTOTYPES, EACH WITH THREE DIFFERENT ELEVATION TREATMENTS, AND CERTAIN LANDSCAPE DESIGN PLANS WITHIN A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: WITHIN TRACT 31249, ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF AVENUE 58, ± 1 /2 MILE WEST OF MADISON STREET (ATTACHMENT 1) ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: BACKGROUND: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-475, FOR TT 31249, WAS ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 (RESOLUTION 2003-93). NO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS EXIST WHICH WOULD REQUIRE THE PREPARATION OF ANY SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Site Background Tentative Tract 31249 comprises an area of 33.3 net acres (Attachment 2). The subdivision map was approved by the La Quinta City Council on September 16, 2003. Subsequently, the applicant submitted an amended map for approval, which reduced certain interior private street widths in the tract. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this Amendment on January 11, 2005. The City Council will review this Amendment on February 1, 2005. To date, no grading or other activity has been commenced on the site relative to development of this project. The Stone Creek Ranch project (TR 30834), approved for 76 lots and currently under construction, exists immediately north of the site across Avenue 58. No homes have previously been approved within this tract; therefore, the units under review are not subject to the compatibility provisions of the Zoning Code, but are being reviewed under the provisions of Section 9.60.330 (Residential Tract Development Review). PAReports - PC\01-25-05\Ehline\perptsdp820.doc Project Background The applicant has submitted prototypical plans for four unit designs, illustrated in the 11 x 17-inch attachments in your packet. Each plan is designed with three front elevation treatments. The plans utilize a Spanish or Mediterranean style of architecture and vary in size from 3,050 to 4,065 square feet in area. Plans 1 and 2 are single -story, while Plans 3 and 4 will be two-story units. Each unit has the following characteristics: Plan 1: 3,050 s.f. - one-story (22-foot maximum), 2 BR + attached casita/ 3rd BR with internal and external access, 3-car garage (1 car side -entry). Plan 2: 3,148 s.f. - one-story (22-foot maximum), 3 BR with guest suite, 3-car garage (1 car side -entry) or 2-car with optional casita unit (2"d guest suite) accessed by garage. Plan 3: 3,735 s.f. - two-story (28-foot maximum), 3 BR with optional den/office and upstairs casita/guest unit and sky deck, 2 + car garage. Plan 4: 4,065 s.f. - two-story (28-foot maximum), 2 BR/2.5 BA, casita off open courtyard, 3-car garage (1 car side -entry). Second floor has 3" BR, bonus room and sky deck, with option for a 4th and 51h BR in lieu of the bonus room. Staff and the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee (ALRC) have no issues with the overall architectural style and design of these units. Architecturally, they are very similar to those designed by this architect for the La Cantera project (TR 31123), located on Avenue 52 adjacent to the Polo Estates. A material and color board, along with a full-size color illustration, will be provided at the meeting. A color exhibit of the material board is included in the design review documents submitted by the applicant. The package includes exhibits to illustrate the proposed typical plant palettes and landscape improvement layout for the model homes illustrated in the proposed model location, and the typical front yard layouts for each plan type. It also includes a conceptual planting design plan for the common areas of the entire tract. The model area, individual unit plans and the overall concept plan generally employ minimal use of turf area. The common area concept is similar to that employed in design of the Stone Creek project, which is located directly across Avenue 58 from this tract. The applicant's landscape architect has supplied preliminary water use information, prepared based on Chapter 8.13, for the model complex area and each typical front yard landscape plan. The applicant will be resubmitting revised information that will P:\Reports PC\012505\EhC�ne\perp1sdp820.doc ,1 ..O be made available at the meeting. The preliminary information indicates that the overall water use for these areas is well under the allowable water use in the ETO Zone for this project. Existing tract conditions that apply to this request are: 1. Condition #81 - Building heights shall be limited to one-story/22 feet, for a distance into the site of 150 feet from the Avenue 58 ultimate right-of-way line. 2. Condition #74 - The landscape and irrigation plans shall be approved by the Coachella Valley Water District and Riverside County Agriculture Commissioner prior to submittal of the final plans to the Community Development Department, pursuant to Chapter 8.13 of the Municipal Code. There are also specific landscape requirements for typical front yard areas. ALRC Action - On January 5, 2005, the ALRC reviewed these prototype architectural and landscaping plans. The ALRC unanimously recommended approval of the Site Development Permit by Minute Motion 2005-001 (Attachment 3), subject to the following requirements being conditioned: • The ALRC approved only the conceptual design for the model complex area and the unit architecture. The front yard typical landscaping, common area landscaping, lighting and perimeter wall and landscape plans are to be resubmitted to the ALRC for review. • Remove the Chilean Mesquite and Bottle trees from the landscape palettes. Based on the ALRC review action, staff has conditioned the remaining review items to come back to the Planning Commission as well. This would allow the applicant to continue with the building permit process for the units themselves, and submit the required Minor Use Permit for the model complex. The applicant has provided a conceptual common area improvement plan, showing general landscaping provisions, but this plan was more along the lines of an informational exhibit. A more detailed design plan for this area will need to be prepared and submitted for review under the condition. The applicant did submit typical front yard landscaping for each plan, but the ALRC had some concerns about the model landscaping upgrades and how they relate to the typical landscapes for the units. However, staff did not identify any concerns with the provisions of the typical front yard landscape plans, beyond the recommended conditions. Building Layout - There are some issues that can be addressed as part of this request. • The floor plans indicate setback lines, which appear to show that the front setback is not met for any of the four plans. The required front setback is 20 PAReports - PC\01-25-05\Ehline\perptsdp820.doc feet for non -garage areas of a unit, and 20-25 feet for garages depending on door design (roll -up or pivoting). A side -entry garage is permitted to be 15 feet from the front property line. A common issue comes up when a given plan provides an optional side entry 3rd car garage/guest house space. If that space is set at 15 feet as a garage, it is acceptable unless a buyer selects the option of using it as habitable space, in which case the 20-foot requirement applies. Staff has required that precise grading plans provide the required setback, dependent upon identifying the selected option on the those plans. • In Plan 1, the independent third -car garage space does not meet the minimum 10-foot x 20-foot interior clear wall separation as required by the zoning code (9.150.080.B.1 1). Compliance with the interior dimension requirements for garages has been required of all four plans in the approval conditions. • Plan 2 shows a one -car garage/optional casita, which accesses into the adjoining two -car garage. This is not permitted by the Building Code if it is used as a sleeping area, and if it is redesigned to be used as such, it will constitute two guest units, which is not permitted under the Guest House provisions of the zoning code (9.60.100). Staff has conditioned plan 2 to eliminate this option, or make it part of the adjacent guest unit, along with meeting the minimum front yard setback of 20 feet as identified above. • Plan 3 provides a "tandem" third -car space ahead of one of the two -car garage stalls, which does not meet the zoning code requirements as a garage space (9.150.080.13.3 and 11). While the code does not require three -car garages, the plan should not imply a third car space and staff has conditioned that reference on the plans to be deleted. Residential Tract Development Review Requirements - Each prototype plan and elevation meets the standards as specified by Section 9.60.330.D of the Zoning Code. The landscaping as conditioned is required to be consistent with the requirements specified in Section 9.60.330.E. MANDATORY FINDINGS As required by Section 9.210.010 (Site Development Permits) of the Zoning Ordinance, findings to approve Site Development Permit 2005-820 are incorporated into the attached Resolution. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005- , approving Site Development Permit 2004-820, subject to findings and conditions. PAReports - PC\01-25-05\Ehline\perptsdp820.doc r� Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Tract 31249 layout 3. ALRC Minutes of January 5, 2005 Prepared by: Wallace Nesbit, Associate Planner PAReports - PC\01-25-05\Ehline\perptsdp820.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR FOUR NEW SINGLE-FAMILY PROTOTYPE RESIDENTIAL UNITS, EACH WITH THREE DIFFERENT ELEVATIONS FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 31249 CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004-820 APPLICANT: EHLINE COMPANY/CORAL RIDGE L.L.C. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 25th day of January, 2005, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider a request by Ehline Company/Coral Ridge L.L.C., for approval of architectural and landscaping plans for four new single-family prototype residential units, each with three different elevations, for Tentative Tract 31249, located on the south side of Avenue 58, ± 1 /2 mile west of Madison Street, more particularly described as follows: PORTION OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NW A OF SECTION 28, T6S, R7E — S.B.B.M. WHEREAS, the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 51h day of January, 2005, hold a public meeting to review and recommend approval of architecture and landscape plans for said prototype residential units for Tentative Tract 31249; and, WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA 2003-475) was adopted by the City Council for Tentative Tract Map 31249 under Resolution No. 2003-093. There are no changed circumstances, conditions, or new information, which would trigger the preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166. WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings pursuant to Section 9.210.010 of the Zoning Code to justify approval of said Site Development Permit: 1. Consistency with the General Plan: The proposed Site Development Permit is consistent with the La Quinta General Plan, as it proposes single family homes in an approved residential tract, which is General Plan -designated for LDR (Low Density Residential) development. P:\Reports - PC\01-25-05\Ehline\peresosdp820.doc �' Planning Commission Resolution 2005 — Ehline Company/Coral Ridge L.L.C. Site Development Permit 2004-820 January 25, 2005 2. Consistency with the Zoning Code: The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the development standards of the City's Zoning Code, in terms of architectural style, building heights, building mass, parking, and landscaping. The Site Development Permit is consistent with the La Quinta Zoning Map, as it proposes single family homes in an approved residential tract zoned for RL (Low Density Residential) development. The Site Development Permit has been conditioned to ensure compliance with the zoning standards of the RL district, and other supplemental residential standards as established in Title 9 of the LQMC. 3. Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): The proposed Site Development Permit is not subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as Environmental Assessment 2003-475 was adopted by the City Council on September 16, 2003 (Resolution 2003-093). No changed circumstances or conditions exist which would require the preparation of any subsequent environmental evaluation. 4. Architectural Design: The architectural design aspects of the proposed Site Development Permit provide interest through use of varied roof element heights, enhanced building entries, stone veneer wainscot and facade treatments, horizontal banding, colored roof tiles and other design details which will be compatible with, and not detrimental to, surrounding development, and with the overall design quality prevalent in the City. 5. Site Design: The site design aspects of the proposed Site Development Permit will be compatible with, and not detrimental to, surrounding development, and with the overall design quality prevalent in the City, in terms of interior circulation, pedestrian access, and other architectural site design elements such as scale, mass, and appearance. 6. Landscape Design: The proposed project is consistent with the landscaping standards and plant palette and implements the standards for landscaping and aesthetics established in the General Plan and Zoning Code. The project landscaping for the proposed Site Development Permit, as conditioned, shall unify and enhance visual continuity of the proposed homes with surrounding development. Landscape improvements are designed and sized to provide visual appeal. The permanent overall site landscaping utilizes various tree and shrub species to accentuate views and blend with the building architecture. P:\Reports - PC\01-25-05\Ehline\peresosdp820.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2005 — Ehline Company/Coral Ridge L.L.C. Site Development Permit 2004-820 January 25, 2005 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission for this Site Development Permit. 2. That it does hereby approve Site Development Permit 2004-820, subject to conditions, for the reasons set forth in this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 25th day of January, 2005, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: TOM KIRK, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: DOUGLAS R. EVANS Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California P:\Reports - PC\01-25-05\Ehline\peresosdp820.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004-820 EHLINE COMPANY/CORAL RIDGE L.L.C. JANUARY 25, 2005 GFNFRAL 1. 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 Site Development Permit. 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 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. 3. SDP 2004-820 shall comply with all applicable conditions and/or mitigation measures, which are incorporated by reference herein, for the following related approvals: • Environmental Assessment 2003-475 • Tentative Tract Map 31249 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. 4. 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 P:\Reports - PC\01-25-05\Ehline\pccoasdp820.doc Planning Commission Resolution No. 2005- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2004-820 Ehline Company January 25, 2005 Page 2 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. FEES AND DEPOSITS 5. Applicant shall comply with the terms and requirements of the City's adopted Art in Public Places program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. 6. 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) 7. Prior to building permit issuance, parkland dedication fees shall be paid unless these fees have been or will be paid during the process of recordation of the subdivision map. 8. The model home sales complex shall comply with the requirements of Section 9.60.250 of the Zoning Ordinance, which requires a Minor Use Permit approval prior to establishing any of the model units or temporary sales facilities. LANDSCAPING 9. Final front yard landscaping plans shall be prepared by a licensed landscape professional and submitted to the Community Development Department ALRC and Planning Commission for review and approval prior to issuance of any occupancy permit for the model units authorized by this approval. Said plans shall be in compliance with Chapter 8.13 (Water Efficient Landscaping) of the Municipal Code. The landscape and irrigation plans shall be approved by the Coachella Valley Water District and Riverside County Agriculture Commissioner prior to submittal of the final plans to the Community Development Department. P:\Reports - PC\01-25-05\Ehline\pccoasdp820.doc Planning Commission Resolution No. 2005- Site Development Permit 2004-820 Ehline Company Conditions of Approval - Recommended January 25, 2005 Page 3 Front yard landscaping for each dwelling shall consist of two trees (i.e., a minimum 1.5 inch caliper measured three feet up from grade level after planting), ten 5-gallon shrubs, and groundcover. Palm trees may count as a shade tree if the trunk is six feet tall. Double lodge poles (two-inch diameter) shall be used to stake trees. All shrubs and trees shall be irrigated by bubbler or emitters. To encourage water conservation, no more than 50% of the front yard landscaping shall be devoted to turf. Future home buyers shall be offered a no -turf, desert landscape option in front yards. 10. The developer shall submit complete landscaping plans for all retention basins, other interior common areas and perimeter landscaped lot and parkway along Avenue 58, to the Community Development Department for review, prior to issuance of any precise grading permits. 11. Wildflower seed mixes susceptible to weed control problems shall not be used in any hydro -seed operations. An alternative seed mix which will achieve erosion and dust control, with minimal weed growth, shall be approved by the Community Development Department. BUILDING DESIGN 12. The applicant shall submit perimeter block wall plans and details, to include exterior color and finish. The block wall plan shall be approved by the ALRC and Planning Commission prior to issuance of any building permits for wall construction. 13. Final location of all structures submitted for plan check shall comply with all setback standards of the RL zoning district. Developer shall submit a preliminary unit siting plan to the Community Development Department prior to issuance of any dwelling unit permits. Minor amendments to the development plans (e.g., architectural details, house plotting, etc.) shall be subject to approval by the Community Development Director. 14. Plans 3 and 4 may not be sited on any lot within 150 feet of the Avenue 58 ultimate right-of-way line. 15. Front yard setbacks along streets where five or more homes have frontage, shall be staggered at a range between 20 — 25 feet. The applicant shall PAReports - PC\01-25-05\Ehline\pccoasdp820.doc Planning Commission Resolution No. 2005- Site Development Permit 2004-820 Ehline Company Conditions of Approval - Recommended January 25, 2005 Page 4 provide a siting plan with the plan check building plans for verification of all setback issues. 16. All structural spaces indicating a guest house/casita as an option combined with a side -entry garage shall meet the zoning setback standard for the respective option chosen, which shall be clearly identified on all precise grading plans. 17. All interior garage spaces shall maintain the minimum interior dimensions as specified in Chapter 9.150 (Parking), LQMC. Single -car garage spaces shall maintain a minimum 10-foot x 20-foot interior clear dimension, otherwise they will not be counted as an enclosed garage car space. The indication of a third car space in Plan 3 shall be deleted from any future plan submittals. 18. Guest houses, as defined in LQMC Section 9.60.100, are limited to one per lot/primary dwelling. Any guest house/casita will require approval of a Minor Use Permit, subject to the provisions of said Section as determined by the Community Development Department. The Plan 2 one -car garage/optional casita as shown shall eliminate the casita option, or make it part of the adjacent guest unit. 19. Any roof -mounted mechanical equipment must be screened within or otherwise integral to the roof structure, using compatible architectural materials and treatments, so as to not be visible from surrounding properties and streets. Working drawings showing all such equipment and locations shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Department along with construction plan submittal for building permits. P:\Reports - PC\01-25-05\Ehline\pccoasdp820.doc ATTACHMENT 1 to 0 54TH I AVENUE AIRPORT BL VD. 0 LAKE TE CAHUILLA 58TH I AVENUE VICINITY MAP NTS IN THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A.P.N. 766-070-001 & 002 'ENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 31 249 SHEET No. OF SHTS. )R. OF THE NE 1 /4 OF THE NW 1 /4 OF SEC. 28, T.61S., R.7E. OF THE S.B.M. FILE No. MADISON 58 PARTNERS 1111 No. 02226.1 ,p pp tr k! i i ik $35i pill X Z U b 4i I 9 N ib��ypy �y5ii�y5i55y»»i�iiyyCyy��?ri9�Y�55�55i�il5yy�yi555�iil��iiy�Yi�iii�i55i AA 49�9ll.l��9l43all9!!l930!l��il9§3�iiis!�ii� stir? dddiif # PN s t'}p� .......... R.t?Slat:s..pai...t.a.a..a....Y . Otttit9iii..ft.tpsitPem3=0"Ma.i..i. oia 2'f f34444 44444944aa53§39454344a44a§a44a44434444 444444465949949399599a444434994449945 a99 ATTACHMENT #3 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee January 5, 2005 Committee Member Thorns asked that the benches have backs on them. 3. Committee Member Christopher asked if the landscaping will grow to a significant height to soften the .building. 4. Committee Member Bobbitt stated the palm trees will. Staff noted the robusta is the only one t6 have height. Most of the others are low growing. The buifding has enough architecture detail that you don't want to hide the building. 5. Committee Member Bobbitt asked where the Shamrock was located on the site. They'are noted on the legend but do not appear on the site plan. Staff noted he did not see where they are on the site plan. Committee Member Bobbitt noted if they use them they will each at least six feet. He has a concern evergreen pear is known to get bacteria and it is unable to kill and will wipe the tree out. He would recommend they not use them, but replace them with a different variety. Courtyard area needs shade trees. 6. There being no further questions of the applicant, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Christopher/Thoms to adopt Minute Motion 2004-037 recommending approval of proposed landscaping plans for Village Use Permit 2004-026, as recommended by staff and amended: a. Material be a paver not concrete. b. Benches have backs to them. C. Evergreen pear be replaced with a Ligustrum Lucidum. 1AUnanimously approved. B. Site Development Permit 2004-820; a request of for consideration of Ehline Company for consideration of architectural and landscaping plans for four prototypical residential plans for Tentative Tract Map 31249 located on the south side of Avenue 58, ± 1 /2 mile west of Madison Street. 1. Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff introduced Natasha King, project manager, who gave a presentation on the project. G:\WPDOCS\ALRC\1-5-05 ALRC.doc 2 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee January 5, 2005 2. Committee Christopher asked the location of the model units on the tract. Staff noted the lots. 3. Committee Member Thorns asked if the interior streets had sidewalks. Staff noted they are going through revisions to reduce the street widths and neither plan shows sidewalks. It will be a wedge design for each lot. Committee Member Thorns noted one of the exhibits shows a connecting walk from the driveway to the entrance. Staff noted that is a continuation of the model walkways. He noted the entry perimeter wall, landscaping, and gate, do not show enough detail for review. Staff noted they will be brought back for review and approval. 4. Committee Member Christopher asked what developments adjoin this tract. Staff noted the surrounding developments. 5. Committee Member Thorns asked about the street lighting. Ms. King stated it will be included with the landscaping plan when it is submitted. 6. Committee Member Christopher asked if the Committee was approving the models as well as the typical lot landscaping. Ms. King stated they were requesting only the model complex landscaping. The sidewalks noted is only for the model home path. 7. Committee Member Thorns noted there is a note indicating pavers on one plan and the other states concrete. 8. Committee Member Bobbitt stated they own it and have to market them, so he has no issue. Looking t the elevations, they are very attractive. Ms. King stated that in regard to the "model trail", each model has a different type of surface to make the offer to the client as to which option they would prefer. 9. Committee Member Thorns noted the garage door openings and asked the material. Ms. King stated cedar and a new type of wood material. Same as used at the Norman Estates. 10. Committee Member Bobbitt noted the wall in the parking area and asked the material. Ms. King stated that was a garden wall. Committee Member Bobbitt stated it should be a slump G:\WPDOCS\ALRC\1-5-05 ALRC.doc 3 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee January 5, 2005 stone, or similar, split face, plaster to keep in keeping with the architecture. 11. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if the front yards were to be HOA maintained. Ms. King stated HOA maintained. Committee Member Bobbitt stated there may be a problem with individual clocks at each unit instead of a central clock. Ms. King stated they normally have a common area clock. Committee Member Bobbitt suggested that whatever area being maintained by the HOA have at a central location. 12. There being no further questions of the applicant, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Christopher/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion 2004-038 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2004-820, as recommended by staff and amended: a. Perimeter landscaping and wall, and gate plans and interior common area will be brought back for review. b. Garden walls shall be plaster or in keeping with the architecture. Unanimously approved. VI. CQRRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. VII. COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS: None VIII. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Bobbitt/Thorns to adjourn this regular meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee to a regular meeting to be held on February 2 2005. This meeting was adjourned at 1 1: 01 a.m. on January 5, 2005. Respectfully submitted, BETTY J. SAWYER Executive Secretary GAWPD0CS\ALRC\1-5-05 ALRC.doc 4 PH #B STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JANUARY 25, 2005 CASE NO: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2004-089 APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: TARGET CORPORATION REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST TO ALLOW METAL CONTAINERS FOR THE TEMPORARY STORAGE OF SEASONAL MERCHANDISE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE EXISTING TARGET STORE LOCATION: 78-935 HIGHWAY 111 ENGINEER: NOT APPLICABLE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15304 (CLASS 4) IN THAT THE STORAGE CONTAINERS ARE TEMPORARY AND WILL HAVE NO POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT. GENERAL PLAN/ ZONING DESIGNATIONS: MIXED/REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (M/RC)/REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (CR) RECOMMENDATION: Staff is requesting a continuance to the February 8, 2005 meeting on this matter to allow additional time to address concerns that have been raised in the past regarding metal storage containers. Staff has been coordinating efforts with the Building and Safety Department and the Fire Department and it is apparent that the Building Code has specific requirements regarding the location of structures (temporary or permanent) within a 60-foot setback around buildings of certain sizes for safety reasons. Staff will have a memorandum prepared and handed out at the Planning Commission meeting for discussion. P:\Reports - PC\01-25-05\Target\PC stfrpt CUP 04-089.doc The applicant has placed metal storage containers (Attachment 1) within the 60-foot yard area without the proper permits and Code Enforcement has cited the applicant. Staff is working with the Building and Safety Department, Fire Department and the applicant to resolve this issue for future use of containers. It appears the applicant will not be able to place these metal storage containers where they are currently located and any future requests will require the applicant to meet the 60-foot yard clearance to the satisfaction of the Building Code. Public Notice: This project was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on January 14, 2005, and mailed to all property owners within 500-feet of the site. To date, no letters have been received. Any written comments received will be handed out at the meeting. Attachments: 1 . Storage Bin Location Map Prepared by: Martin Magana(r Associate Planner P:\Reports - PC\01-25-05\Target\PC stfrpt CUP 04-089.doc ATTACHMENT EXt51•(tICj ((f LA cQw iAlA r > v < O O O O O C� O OI O O ® �❑ e o 0 0 ® o - - - � f o L e 4 o 0 rT 'EX jSrj)1t1 LA QU 1aptTA c�_ w-l� WORTH III COURSE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION January 12, 2005 Mr. Tom Kirk City of La Quinta P O Box 1504 La Quinta CA 92253-1504 RE: Correspondence mailed in November 2004 Mr. Kirk: Attached are copies of correspondence that was mailed in November regarding the tcntati\ e tract map 32068 for Marvin Homes and tentative map 32751 for Wcsti'ac Management. 1 ccc nt conversations have indicated that you had not received these letters. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at the numher hclo\\. Sincerely, Barbara Vanscoder, CCAM Association Manager Enclosure: P.O. Box 12920 Palm Desert, CA 92255 • 75061 Mediterranean, Suite B, Palm Desert, California 760.346.9000 • FAX 760.346.9997 • www.citruscoursehoa.com 'r CRUS COURSE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION November 8, 2004 Mr. Tom Kirk, Commissioner La Quinta Planning Commission P.O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 91152-1504 Re: Tentative Tract Map 32751 Dear Mr. Kirk: I am writing in regard to the subject project proposed to be located off Jefferson Street and inside the Citrus Course Homeowners Association ("CCHOA"). I am President of the Board of Directors for CCHOA, which represents the community known as the Citrus. The subject project is wholly contained within our community, and accordingly, we are very interested in how it will be developed. We have been in contact with WestPac Management, the purported developer of the tract, and understand that they wish CCHOA to annex the development into our HOA structure. CCHOA is amenable to this approach and we have entered into negotiations to cause it to happen. However, the annexation agreement process takes time and, since the proposed development will significantly impact our community, it is critical to our interest that we are intimately involved in the project approval proceedings which the City of La Quinta will be overseeing. Accordingly, we would appreciate it if you would keep us informed of the public hearings scheduled for the project. We further request that we be notified when detailed plans and specifications have been submitted to the City, so that we may have the opportunity to review them. You can either communicate directly with me, at the noted address, or with the Board's Public Liaison Officer, Mr. Bob Kroll at 564-9819. Thank you for your support in this matter Yours truly, Thomas Morton, Presiden� Board of Directors Citrus Course Homeowners Association Cc: Mr. Oscar Orci, La Quinta Community Development Director Mr. Jim Olson, President, WestPac Management P.O. Box 12920 Palm Desert, CA 92255 - 75061 Mediterranean, Suite B, Palm Desert, California 760.346.9000 - FAX 760.346.9997 - www.citruscoursehoa.com �r CRUS COURSE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION November 8, 2004 Mr. Timothy R. Jonasson, P.E. Public Works Director/City Engineer P.O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253-1504 Re: Tentative Tract Map 32068 Dear Mr. Jonasson: I am writing in regards to the subject project proposed to be located off Jefferson Street and inside the Citrus Course Homeowners Association ("CCHOA"). I am President of the Board of Directors for CCHOA, which represents the community known as the Citrus. The subject project is wholly contained within our community, and accordingly, we are very interested in how it will be developed. We have been contacted by Marvin Homes, the purported developer of the tract, and understand that they wish CCHOA to annex the development into our HOA structure. CCHOA is amenable to this approach, but, since the proposed development will significantly impact our community, it is critical to our interest that we are intimately involved in the project approval proceedings which the City of La Quinta will be overseeing. We understand that Marvin Homes has submitted and has obtained approval for some subdivision changes (increase in the number of lots and reconfiguration of same). We were not noticed on the public hearings preceding this approval and feel that we should have been, as these lots directly abut our homeowners, common areas and streets. Accordingly, we respectfully request that you keepus informed of any future public hearings scheduled for this project. We further request that we be notified when detailed plans and specifications have been submitted to the City, so that we may have the opportunity to review them. You can either communicate directly with me, at the noted address, or with the Board's Public Liaison Officer, Mr. Bob Kroll at 564-9819. Thank you for your support in this matter Yours truly, iltiv�€�� Thomas Morton, President Board of Directors Citrus Course Homeowners Association Cc: Mr. Oscar Orci, La Quinta Community Development Director Mr. Tom Kirk, Commissioner, LaQuinta Planning Commission Mr. Wells Marvin, President, Marvin Homes P.O. Box 12920 Palm Desert, CA 92255 - 75061 Mediterranean, Suite B, Palm Desert, California 760.346.9000 - FAX 760.346.9997 - www.citruscoursehoa.com