The URL can be used to link to this page

2005 04 26 PCI Planning Commission Agendas are now available on the City's Web Page @ www.la-guinta.org PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California APRIL 26, 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 2005-015 Beginning Minute Motion 2005-004 I. CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call II. PUBLIC COMMENT This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled for public hearing. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your comments to three minutes. III. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of the Minutes for the Regular Meeting of March 22, 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 ................ TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 33015 Applicant.......... Riviera Villas, LLC Location........... Within PGA West Palmer Private Course area, at the northeast corner of Shoal Creek and Riviera Request............ Consideration of a 9-unit single-family detached residential condominium subdivision, with one custom lot on 2.37 acres Action .............. Resolution 2005- B. Item ................ SIGN APPLICATION 205-871 Applicant.......... Prest/Vuksic Architects for McDermott Enterprises Location........... Southeast corner of Washington Street and Avenue 47 Request............ Consideration of a revised Sign Program for the La Quinta Professional Plaza Action .............. Minute Motion 2005- VI. BUSINESS ITEM: A. Item ................ SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-834 Applicant.......... David Sacculla, Choice Enterprises Location........... Southwest corner of Avenue 60 and Madison Street Request............ Consideration of architectural and landscaping plans for three new prototype residential units with two facades each. Action .............. Minute Motion 2005- B. Item ................ SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004-820 Applicant.......... Ehline Company for Coral Ridge L.L.C. Location........... South side of Avenue 58, %2 mile west of Madison Street Request............ Consideration of a condition review of landscaping plans for Tract 31249 (Village at Coral Mountain. Action .............. Minute Motion 2005- G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PCAgendaW.doc VIL CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Review of League of California Cities Planners Institute B. Review of City Council meeting of April 19, 2005. C. Department Report. IX. ADJOURNMENT: This meeting of the Planning Commission will be adjourned to a Regular Meeting to be held on May 10, 2005, 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, April 26, 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, April 22, 2005. DATED: April 22, 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 March 22, 2005 I. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Kirk who asked Commissioner Ladner to lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Ed Alderson, Rick Daniels, Kay Ladner, and Chairman Tom Kirk. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners to excuse Commissioner Quill. Unanimously approved. C. Staff present: Community Development Director Doug Evans, Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston, Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer, Principal Planner Fred Baker, 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 March 8, 2005. There being no corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Alderson to approve the minutes as submitted. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Site Development Permit 2005-825; a request of Family Heritage Church for consideration of development plans for a classroom building addition to an existing church consisting of two 2,500 square feet facilities, located on the northwest corner of Miles Avenue and Adams Street. 1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Fred Baker presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-22-05.doc Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 2005 2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Alderson asked about the two large pine trees on the west side, would they be removed with the development. Staff stated the applicant would need to answer this question. 3. Chairman Daniels asked about the relocation of the trash containers as to whether or not Waste Management had given any input to the location. Staff explained Waste Management was given a copy of the plans and no comments were received. 4. Commissioner Alderson asked if the new location of the trash containers would be to the north of the building next to the existing wall. Staff stated yes, for aesthetics reasons. 5. Commissioner Ladner asked why they were required to fill a Conditional Use Permit after the fact. Staff stated because at the time of approval for the existing structure, it was not required. With the expansion it is now required. 6. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Chris McFadden, representing Family Heritage Church, gave a presentation on the project. He stated there was a concern regarding the condition to participate in the cost of the new retaining wall with the development of the Redevelopment Agency project adjacent to the west of this project. The wall should be phased with the development of Vista Dunes Mobile Home Park (VDMHP) because of the grading issues. They would like to request leaving the backfill as it is and relocate the trash containers at the same time as the addition is being constructed. He went on to explain the grade differences. They are willing to cut down the retaining wall on either side of the proposed trash enclosure to four feet and slope them up and then construct the property line at that point. Across the back of the property, where it ties back into the Fire Station, they concur with staff's recommendation. They are requesting the conditions be changed to required they construct the 142 linear feet of retaining wall only at this time. The VDMHP project is still evaluating their grading issues. They also have a concern with the materials requested. They would prefer a slump block stone to remain compatible with the existing building. On Conditions 43-45 they would like to work with staff to reach a resolve and create Phases I, 2, and 3 G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-22-05.doc 2 Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 2005 for the construction of the site. Lastly, they would like to request a two year approval to give them time to raise the funds necessary to construct the addition. 7. Commissioner Daniels asked about the relocation of the other storage containers. Mr. McFadden stated they would be moved to the rear as well. 8. Commissioner Alderson asked if the existing block wall was on the Church's property and if they would be cut down and then slope it up to the height of the Park. Mr. McFadden stated they would reduce the height to four feet and slope it up to the VDMHP property line after it is graded. 9. Chairman Kirk asked if there was any other public comment. There being none, the public participation was closed and open for Commission discussion. 10. Commissioner Ladner stated she has no issue with the slump stone transition and agrees with the two year approval. She would like to hear staff's concerns on the sloping. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated that in regard to Condition #44, a church activity will usually have a screen wall. The second sentence of the condition states, the need to work together as neither the applicant, nor the City knows what the final grades will be. Staff is requesting the applicant write a letter to the City requesting the City share in the cost of the wall once this has been determined. Commissioner Ladner asked the timing of the Agency's project. Staff indicated they were just starting the process. 11. Chairman Kirk reopened the public hearing. Mr. McFadden explained that the cost to build the retaining wall is an extreme hardship on the Church. The cost to reconstruct the wall could break this project for the Church. The Church has never requested any reimbursement from anyone when they first constructed the retaining wall. 12. Chairman Kirk asked if there was any other public comment. There being none, the public hearing was closed. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-22-05.doc 3 Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 2005 13. Commissioner Daniels stated he does believe the condition to share in the cost of the wall is fair. 14. Commissioner Alderson stated there seems to be some uncertainty as to the height of the wall and location of the wall. He suggested the wall be under the discretion of staff to determine the height, when the grades are known. 15. Chairman Kirk suggested that if the City pays for half of the construction costs for the wall at some point in the future, this property owner should be required to pay for his portion, but if the City does not act, then this project should be approved with their proposed wall plan. 16. City Attorney Kathy Jenson suggested the time frame be more than a year. Chairman Kirk asked if the City could make a decision on whether or not they will participate in the construction of the wall relatively soon. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated the Church should be required to build the wall adjacent to the addition and staff would evaluate and work with them on the other areas. Chairman Kirk stated yes, if the City agrees to participate in the cost of the wall at some date certain. 17. Commissioner Daniels stated he is not certain 12 months is adequate, he suggested it be tied to the applicant's request for a two year approval. 18. Chairman Kirk stated his concern is the timing. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated the selection process for the Agency project adjacent to this site should be in place within the year. The challenge is that if the Church is told they must come up with 50% of the cost of the wall and then they inform the City they do not have the 50%, it is difficult to enforce payment out of a fund raising project. If it is deferred you run the risk of trying to enforce the requirement. The way the condition is written, the Church is required to write a letter to the Council/Agency about the cost sharing issue so they know what they need to do to put it into the building fund raising program. Otherwise it is difficult to enforce. 19. Commissioner Daniels asked if the compromise could be to leave the condition as written with the invitation to seek cost sharing G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-22-05.doc 4 Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 2005 from the City and if there is a problem this applicant shall be notified they can return to this Commission to be relieved of this condition. He wants it on the record that there was discussion and it was unclear as to the timing of the wall and that this applicant can come back. If the cost sharing does not come back, they can come back and ask for relief of the condition. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated that if discussion with the adjacent property owners is not fruitful, the Church can come back to the Commission as a Business Item and let the Commission decide at that time on the condition. He is confident there will be a reasonable decision between the two property owners. 20. Chairman Kirk stated he believes it is disproportionate to require the Church to have 100% of the cost of the wall. 21. It was moved by Commissioners Ladner/Daniels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005-011 approving Conditional Use Permit 2005-091, as recommended by staff. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Daniels, Ladner, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Quill. 22. It was moved by Commissioners Ladner/Daniels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005-012 approving Site Development Permit 2005-825, as recommended by staff and as follows: a. New condition: This approval shall expire in two years from the date of approval of this Site Development Permit b. Condition 45: The cost to construct the wall shall be a shared cost between the two properties. The cost shall be negotiated between the City/Agency and the applicant. The applicant shall be responsible for the cost of constructing that portion of the retaining wall adjacent to the proposed building addition. C. Slump stone material for the wall is acceptable. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Daniels, Ladner, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Quill. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-22-05.doc 5 Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 2005 Chairman Kirk recessed the meeting at 7:45, due to technical difficulties and reconvened at 7:50 p.m. B. Site Development Permit 2005-821; a request of Joe Riso/Stewart Woodard for consideration of development plans for a two story 29,985 square foot auto dealership facility, located on the northwest corner of Miles Avenue and Adams Street. 1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Fred Baker 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 if the elevation presented showed the changes as requested by the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee. Staff stated not all. 3. Commissioner Daniels asked if there was berming in the landscape buffer. Staff stated the proposed berming would be in addition to what is existing. There would be an opportunity for additional berming. 4. Commissioner Alderson stated there is slight berming now. 5. Commissioner Daniels asked if the design criteria contained in the Specific Plan was the same as what was approved in 1998. He also asked what height was allowed in this district. Staff stated the height is governed by the Specific Plan; 40 feet is allowed. The design of this building is slightly different. 6. Commissioner Ladner asked if this design was different from the original approvals. Staff stated the difference between the original three auto dealerships on Highway 1 1 1 and this one is the lighting and the requirements to screen the lights. The slight change in the architecture is the pitch on the roof on Adams Street. Commissioner Ladner asked about the loudspeakers. Staff stated they are not allowed. 7. Commissioner Daniels asked the height of the parking lot lights as dictated by the Specific Plan. He also asked what was across the street on Adams Street. Staff stated directly across Adams Street G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-22-05.doc 6 Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 2005 is the senior project, Hadley Villas which is accessed off Avenue 47. South of Hadley Villas is Lake La Quinta properties. He then displayed an aerial of the site. 8. Commissioner Alderson asked the use of the site south of the proposed Mazda dealership. Staff stated it is yet to be determined. 9. Commissioner Ladner asked the about the light fixtures. Staff stated they are required to have two, not four boxes. Staff indicated the light locations on the site plan and clarified the fixtures are required to be shaded straight down. 10. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Stewart Woodard, representing the applicant, gave a presentation on the project. His concerns were the restriction on the lower band that will go around the building to break up the building at two feet and a requirement for a bus turnout. 11. Chairman Kirk asked if the bus turnouts could be deleted. Staff stated it is a boiler plate condition and no comments have been received from Sunline Transit requesting the turnout. It could be deleted. 12. Commissioner Alderson asked if the green color was a trademark. Mr. Woodard stated it is part of their corporate color scheme. 13. Chairman Kirk asked for legal counsel's determination as he did not believe color was under corporate control. City Attorney Kathy Jenson stated the color is not part of the trademark. 14. Commissioner Alderson asked why the Sheriff's Department approval was included. Staff stated all applications are approved and reviewed by the Sheriff's Department. They did not request any additional conditions. Commissioner Alderson asked for clarification on the central sales area where there are the high windows. One appears to be an office that will allow the owner to look down into the sales area. The second window appears to be a storage room. Mr. Woodard stated the office that appears to be for parts storage will be future office space. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-22-05.doc 7 Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 2005 15. Chairman Kirk asked if there was any other public comment. Mr. Dutch Dilshaver, 78-839 Dulce Del Mar stated that when this approval was first presented, there was to be a three-foot berm with a six foot wall on the east side. The grading was to be a total of nine feet from the finish grade to the top of the wall to keep the noise down and for privacy as well as all service bays were to open to the east to keep the noise down. All loud speakers were to face east or north. The light standard height was to be such that it would not shine into the neighboring residential areas. They are to face downward. On the additional parcels the buildings were to be set back and facing east. 16. Mr. Ben Rusker, 47-675 Via Montessa, HOA president, stated he would like to state that they are opposed to the project, but do understand this was approved several years ago. They do appreciate the access driveways being placed on the interior of the project. They would like the Chairman and Commission to understand there are 288 homes as well as the Hadley Villas residents that currently hear loudspeakers and struggle with the lighting. Now with this project more lights will be added. There homes should not be subject to this lighting. They are subject to the lighting and noise of the existing auto dealerships and ask for the Commission's protection on this project. The landscaping is another big problem. A wall was to be constructed to help alleviate some of these problems. 17. Susan Albert, 47-910 Via Florence, stated her home is located cattycorner to the project. She is going to look at a block wall and a two story building facing her house with nine foot lights, 14 feet above the wall. She will be looking up into the lights. The Dodge dealership is further away and they have the glare from those lights. The original approval for the automall was to be nine feet below the elevation. There were no homes built at this site when these dealerships were approved. In addition, the block wall should be covered with trees. 18. Sandy Lower, 47-225 Via Vintina, stated the lighting from all the commercial on Avenue 47 and the dealerships is horrible. She suggested the yellow lighting be considered with lower poles. This is invasive to the whole community. The plantings along Adams Street are low as well as the height of the berm. This should have more trees and landscaping. There should be more G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-22-05.doc 8 Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 2005 protection for the property owners from the Circuit City, SteinMart, Target in the rear to soften the hardscape by adding additional landscaping. 19. Mr. Stewart Woodard stated that when they started on this project they followed the Specific Plan to every detail. As to the landscaping, there is landscaping and they have met the requirements. As to the lighting, it too meets the Specific Plan conditions. These dealerships were approved before the homeowners and it should be noted. 20. Commissioner Ladner asked about the loudspeakers. Mr. Woodard stated they will have them. A time frame could be placed on their use. They do need to be able to contact their workers. 21. Commissioner Daniels stated he thought staff indicated they would not have any loud speakers. Staff stated they were not allowed loud speakers, but were allowed to use radios and the lights were to be lowered at a certain time. Mr. Woodard stated they will meet whatever requirements are required by the Specific Plan. 22. Commissioner Ladner asked what time the lights go off. Staff stated they are to be turned down at 10:00 p.m. but need to retain security lighting. 23. Commissioner Daniels stated the auto dealerships were previously approved, but the Commission does need to address the concerns of the residents. The loudspeakers need to be omitted. Is there a way to address the lighting? Is it possible to retain protection of the cars, and reduce the number lights and can the height be reduced. Mr. Woodard stated the lower you go, the more lights are needs to get the amount of light needed. Commissioner Daniels asked if additional trees could be added near every light standard to soften the direct light. Mr. Woodard stated this is a possibility they could add more trees. Commissioner Daniels asked if the design of the box shield could be extended down further on the sides of the box to shield the light on the west side. Mr. Woodard stated they will still be seen. Commissioner Daniels stated he understands but he was trying to find a way to soften the glare and if there is a product that could extend down to cut back the radiation of the light. Mr. Woodard stated he does not believe this will help, but they are willing to explore the possibility. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-22-05.doc 9 Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 2005 Community Development Director Doug Evans stated the applicant could look at the south property line where it is all employee parking and see if the standards could be reduced to 18 feet and reduced in wattage to 250 watt single fixtures with the right type of lenses which would be the same as most shopping centers. You would still see them but it would be less intense, lower and the trees would help to shade the trees. There are several different types of boxes with shields and prisms to help on the southwest corner up to the edge of the south side of the building. Essentially the south and west side of the building reducing the lighting. Change the trees that are not deciduous. The two story portion is up front and more than 250 feet fro the corner. A condition should be added that no loudspeaker should be allowed. Heavy landscaping with trees at the southwest corner to shield the lights should be added. Discussion followed as to what activities took place in the different bays. Mr. Woodard asked if the lights are reduced on the south side, they have no objection. There will be another dealership to the south of them at some time in the future. If this is required of them, they want it required on the future parcel at the same time. Staff reminded the Commission that if the condition for a six foot block is to be required, the wall needs to be added. 24. Chairman Kirk reopened the public Hearing. Ms. Albert stated she thought the elevation was to be nine feet below grade. Staff stated they were unaware of any such condition. Chairman Kirk stated there was a grade differential due to the height at Highway 1 1 1 and this location. 25. Commissioner Daniels stated it was to be a three foot berm and then a six foot wall. 26. Mr. Dllsaver asked what the finish grade was now. Staff explained the grade differentials. Chairman Kirk stated there appears to be some research that needs to be done on the original approval. 27. There being none, the public participation was closed and open for Commission discussion. 28. Commissioner. Alderson asked if the photometric study would have disclosed the number needed. Staff stated yes because of G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-22-05.doc 10 Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 2005 the Dark Sky Ordinance. There is zero light on the property line. Commissioner Daniels asked about the 24 light pole to match the existing and they are suggesting going to a lower light. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated normally regulations are written as maximums not minimums to allow the Commission some discretion to fit into the neighborhood. He does believe the side of the boxes being extended does affect the sight line drastically. 29. Commissioner Daniels stated the challenge is to fix this with some of the concerns raised. 30. Chairman Kirk asked that staff look into the Code violation on the other dealerships in regard to the loud speakers. 31. It was moved by Commissioners Daniels/Ladner to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005-013 approving Site Development Permit 2004-821, as recommended by staff. a. No loud speakers shall be allowed; b. The lighting shall be reduced down to a security level; C. The lights shall be redirected so the light is directed internal to the property d. Wattage on the south side and the Adams Street side shall be reduced in wattage. He does like that the light fixtures have side panels to further direct the light from the properties e. Non deciduous trees shall be planted between the outside of every light standard along Adams Street f. A six foot high block wall be required. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Daniels, Ladner, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Quill. C. Site Development Permit 2005-824, Conditional Use Permit 2005-090, and Sign Application 2005-876; a request of Nasland Engineering, La Quinta Redevelopment Agency, and Stamko Development Co. for consideration of development plans for a 136,000 square foot retail store and gas station on a 13.72 acre site, located at the southwest corner of Highway 1 1 1 and Dune Palms Road. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-22-05.doc 11 Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 2005 1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Community Development Director Doug Evans and Principal Planner Fred Baker 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 Daniels asked what is located on the south side of the site. Staff stated it is the Agency's affordable housing project. Commissioner Daniels asked if the light standards needed to be 42 feet. Staff stated they have been conditioned to lower them. 3. Commissioner Alderson asked about the traffic study in regard to the turning movements by having a left in on the south driveway. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated it conflicts with the left turn that must be provided for the buses. Commissioner Alderson asked about the primary entrance on Highway 1 1 1 as it does not lend itself to a signal. Staff stated the road would be extended to the east and the buses would have to come out on the new street. He showed the turning movement and alignment on the site plan. 4. Chairman Kirk asked about Parcel 2 as to how it would be accessed. Staff stated they will have an access on Dune Palms Road and in front of the existing entry. The gas station has an access through as well as a corridor with the existing commercial. Chairman Kirk asked about the access between PetSmart and the gas station. He asked about the island that appears to be standing alone. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated that as both property owners work on design there needs to be some work with the existing property owner as it relates to Parcel 1. Dialog has and is taking place to screen the area. Chairman Kirk asked about the sign area calculations. Principal Planner Fred Barker stated there has been a revision since the staff report was written. He went on to compare the sign calculations between the "Sam's Club" and "Super Wal-Mart". Community Development Director Doug Evans further explained how they reached the total sign figures. Chairman Kirk asked if this complies with the Sign Program. Staff explained this is the proposed Sign Program. Discussion followed on the calculations. 5. Commissioner Alderson asked about the storm drain retention tank. Staff stated this is an alternate system. They are hoping to G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-22-05.doc 12 Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 2005 go to a surface retention with the other part of the center. Until that is accomplished, they are required to have the tank. 6. Commissioner Daniels asked staff to explain flipping the gas station. Staff explained how the stacking would be changed to keep the cars out of the drive aisle if the gas station pumps were relocated. 7. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Donavon Collier, representing the applicant, gave an overview of the project and introduced the project team. 8. Chairman Kirk asked if there was any other public comment. There being none, it was open for Commission discussion. 9. Commissioner Alderson asked about the bond being in place until the signal is installed; if in the future, this project does not require a signal, how long will the money be kept. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated five years. Staff expects the turning movements on Dune Palms Road will service this site. The signal is only in the event there is a problem. The signal would require a realignment with the Desert Sands Unified School District bus entrance, so it will probably will not happen due to this site. 10. Chairman Kirk commended the applicant on the architecture design. He does not support the sign program as this property owner paid less for the land and should not be allowed a benefit because it is not seen from Highway 1 1 1. He is also concerned about the sea of asphalt. He would prefer to see a reduction in parking spaces, additional landscaping and pedestrian aisles. 11. Commissioner Ladner stated she has no objection to the sign and she is not inclined to reduce the parking as it will have a high customer number. 12. Commissioner Alderson stated both parking lots are combined and with this site having 90 additional parking spaces, he would agree with additional trees and pedestrian walkways. 13. Chairman Kirk stated that if the parking was reduced by 20 parking spaces, it could be enhanced with trees. Mr. Mike Birkland, landscape architect, stated they believe the number is G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-22-05.doc 13 Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 2005 needed. The parking lot will be screened from Highway 1 1 1, but they would entertain using bigger landscape islands. He does not believe the pedestrian walkway would work well on this site. Community Development Director Doug Evans asked that Condition 47.13.1 be sunset at five years. 14. There being no further public comment or discussion, the public hearing was closed. 15. It was moved by Commissioners Ladner/Daniels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005-015 approving Conditional Use Permit 2005-090, as recommended by staff. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Daniels, Ladner, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Quill. 16. It was moved by Commissioners Kirk/Daniels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005-014 approving Site Development Permit 2005-824, as recommended by staff and as follows: a. There shall be a reduction in parking stalls by 30. b. Additional landscaping shall be installed on the landscape islands to soften hardscape. C. The landscape islands shall not be zeroscape, but contain lush landscaping. d. The location of the gas station shall be flipped ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Daniels, Ladner, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Quill. 17. It was moved by Commissioners Ladner/Daniels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005-016 approving Sign Application 2005-876, as recommended by staff. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Daniels, Ladner, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Quill. VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: None. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-22-05.doc 14 Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 2005 VIL CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. Vill. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: IX. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Ladner to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held on April 12, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. on March 22, 2005. Respectfully submitted, Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-22-05.doc 15 PH #A STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: APRIL 26, 2005 CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT 33015 REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF A 9-UNIT SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION, WITH ONE CUSTOM LOT ON 2.37 ACRES LOCATION: WITHIN PGA WEST PALMER PRIVATE COURSE AREA, AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SHOAL CREEK AND RIVIERA (ATTACHMENT 1) APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: RIVIERA VILLAS, LLC ENGINEER: COACHELLA VALLEY ENGINEERS ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 33015 IS WITHIN SPECIFIC PLAN 83- 002 (PGA WEST). THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PER PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 65457(a). AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE # 83062922) WAS CERTIFIED BY THE CITY COUNCIL FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 83-002 ON MAY 15, 1984 (RESOLUTION 84- 28). SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS TO THE SPECIFIC PLAN HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. NO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS EXIST WHICH WOULD TRIGGER THE PREPARATION OF A SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21166. GENERAL PLAN/ ZONING/SPECIFIC PLAN DESIGNATIONS: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR), 2-4 UNITS PER ACRE / LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL) / SPECIFIC PLAN RESIDENTIAL (SPR) AS DESIGNATED IN SP 83-002 (AMENDMENT #4) P:\Reports - PC\2005\4-26-05\TT 33015\perptTT33015.rtf SURROUNDING LAND USES: NORTH - SILVERROCK RESORT AND GOLF COURSE SOUTH - EXISTING PGA WEST GOLF COURSE/RESIDENTIAL EAST - PGA WEST MAINTENANCE WEST - EXISTING PGA WEST RESIDENTIAL BACKGROUND Proposed Tentative Tract Map 33015 is within PGA West - Specific Plan 83-002. The Specific Plan was originally approved for 5,000 units; subsequent Amendments to the Plan now allows for a total residential unit count of 3,936. There are approximately 2,450 existing residential units within the Specific Plan area. The site area was previously subdivided as part of several tracts, the last being Tract 29125, approved in 1999 and subsequently recorded, but never constructed. Tract 29125 consists of nine single-family residential lots and one custom home lot. Street and utility improvements have not been completed under Tract 29125. Project Request Tentative Tract Map 33015, as depicted in Attachment 2, proposes to re -subdivide the approved Tract 29125 into a one -lot condominium map, retaining the approved unit count and unit types for the site. The applicant has indicated that the HOA now will not allow the units to be built as detached individual lots; they must be developed as single-family dwelling condominium units. Therefore, the applicant has filed the tentative tract map to establish one common lot for the original nine units, in lieu of the existing nine individual lots. Lot 2 will be retained as a separate custom single-family residence. The total acreage involved in this request is 2.37 acres. Lot 1 will be developed with the same unit types previously approved for Tract 29125 as the Laurels unit design (2,294 s.f. to 2,353 s.f.), under Site Development Permit 99-643. The only significant difference between this map and the existing approval is the change to condominium ownership. Public Notice This proposal was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on April 15, 2005. All property owners within 500 feet of this site were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice, as required under the Subdivision Ordinance ,of the La Quinta Municipal Code. As of the date this report was finalized, no written or other comments had been received. All correspondence received prior to the meeting will be presented to the Planning Commission. P:\Reports - PC\2005\4-26-05\TT 33015\PcrptTT33015.rtf Public Agency Review Staff mailed a copy of the applicants request to responsible public agencies on April 4, 2005. All written comments received are on file with the Community Development Department. All agency comments received have been made part of the Conditions of Approval for this case, to the extent they are applicable. ISSUES Based on the provisions of the General Plan, Zoning Code, and the Subdivision Ordinance, the following overview of project issues is provided: Tract Design/Improvements The design of private interior streets and the proposed residential and lettered lots are the same as provided for in the previous tract approval for Tract 29125. Street and other infrastructure improvements will be installed to service the proposed subdivision. Impacts associated with development of the project shall be mitigated through adherence to the recommended conditions. The applicant will be required to participate in the completion of the perimeter improvements along Avenue 54, associated with the PGA West Specific Plan (SP 83-002), to the extent that they apply to this map. These improvements include parkway and perimeter wall improvements not yet completed for this segment of the specific plan perimeter. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS Findings necessary to recommend approval of this proposal to the City Council can be found in the attached Resolution for this case. RECOMMENDATION Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005 - , recommending to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract 33015, subject to conditions as recommended by staff. Prepared by: A Wallace Nesbit, Associate Planner Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Proposed TT 33015 P:\Reports - PC\2005\4-26-05\TT 33015\PcrptTT33015.rtf PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE 2.37 ACRES INTO ONE RESIDENTIAL COMMON LOT FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES, ONE RESIDENTIAL CUSTOM LOT AND ONE STREET LOT CASE NO: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 33015 RIVIERA VILLAS, LLC WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California did, on the 26th day of April, 2005, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a request by Riviera Villas, LLC to create one common residential lot for condominium purposes, one custom residential lot and one street lot on 2.37 acres at the northeast corner of Shoal Creek and Riviera, within PGA West; and, WHEREAS, said Tentative Tract Map is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Public Resources Government Code Section 65457(a) and CEQA Guidelines, Section 15182, as an Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 83062922), prepared for Specific Plan 83-002, was certified by the City Council on May 15, 1984, and no changed circumstances or conditions exist which would trigger the preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21 166; and, WHEREAS, at the Public Hearing upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings to justify a recommendation for approval of said Tentative Tract Map: 1. The proposed Tentative Tract Map 33015 is consistent with the La Quinta General Plan and the PGA West Specific Plan, in that the subdivision will result in the development of single-family residences, within a gated community, and will not affect overall density provisions as established. Overall, the proposed subdivision will only add 11 lots to the existing 2,450 units, well below the approved total of 3,936 units. Tentative Tract Map 33015 is consistent with current standards of the Municipal Zoning Code, RL (Residential Low Density) Zoning District, and PGA West Specific Plan. 2. The design and improvements for Tentative Tract Map 33015 are consistent with the La Quinta General Plan and the PGA West Specific Plan, in that the design of the private interior streets and the proposed residential and lettered lots are consistent with those already approved and existing within the Specific Plan area. PAReports - PC\2005\4-26-05\TT 33015\pereso33015.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2005-_ Tentative Tract Map 33015 Adopted: April 26, 2005 3. The design of Tentative Tract Map 33015, and the proposed improvements, are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage, or substantially, and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife, or their habitat, in that an Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 83062922) was certified on May 15, 1984 by the City Council for the PGA West Specific Plan (Specific Plan 83- 002), in which Tentative Tract Map 33015 is located, and there are no changed circumstances or conditions proposed with Tentative Tract Map 33015 which would trigger the preparation of any subsequent environmental analysis. Tentative Tract Map 33015 has also been determined to be exempt from CEQA under Public Resources Government Code Section 65457(a). 4. The design of Tentative Tract Map 33015 and related improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems, in that the Fire Department and the City's Building & Safety Department have reviewed the project for these issues with no significant concerns identified. Necessary infrastructure improvements for this project have been partially installed within PGA West, in and around the Tentative Tract Map 33015 project area. The health, safety and welfare of current and future residents can be assured based on the recommended conditions. 5. The design of, and type of improvements for Tentative Tract Map 33015 will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of, property within the subdivision, as the proposed subdivision has been reviewed for these issues with no concerns identified. The map design includes provisions for access, utility and other public easements as determined necessary during review of the proposal. 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 said Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby recommend approval of the above -described Tentative Tract Map 33015, for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval, labeled Exhibit "A". PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 26th day of April, 2005, by the following vote, to wit: PAReports - PC\2005\4-26-05\TT 33015\pereso33015.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2005-_ Tentative Tract Map 33015 Adopted: April 26, 2005 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\2005\4-26-05\TT 33015\pereso33015.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005- EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 33015 RIVIERA VILLAS, LLC APRIL 26, 2005 GENERAL 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 Tentative Tract Map, or any Final Map recorded thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. This Tentative Tract Map, and any Final Map recorded thereunder, shall comply with the requirements and standards of Government Code § § 66410 through 66499.58 (the "Subdivision Map Act"), and Chapter 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code ("LQMC"). The City of La Quinta's Municipal Code can be accessed on the City's Web Site at www.la-quinta.org. 3. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the City, the applicant shall obtain any 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 • Desert Sands Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) • SunLine Transit Agency • SCAQMD Coachella Valley The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances from the above listed agencies. When the requirements include approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when submitting those improvements plans for City approval. PAReports - PC1200514-26-051TT 330151COA33015.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Tentative Tract 33015 — Recommended Riviera Villas, LLC April 26, 2005 A project -specific NPDES construction permit must be obtained by the applicant; and who then shall submit a copy of the Regional Water Quality Control Board's ("RWQCB") acknowledgment of the applicant's Notice of Intent ("NOI" ), prior to the issuance of a grading or site construction permit by the City. 4. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit, Sections 8.70.010 et seq. (Stormwater Management and Discharge Controls), and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water), LQMC; Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; and the State Water Resources Control Board's Order No. 99-08-DWQ. A. For construction activities including clearing, grading or excavation of land that disturbs one (1) acre or more of land, or that disturbs less than one (1) acre of land, but which is a part of a construction project that encompasses more than one (1) acre of land, the Permitee shall be required to submit a Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan ("SWPPP"). The applicant or design professional can obtain the California Stormwater Quality Association SWPPP template at www.cabmphandbooks.com for use in their SWPPP preparation. B. The applicant's SWPPP shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any on or off -site grading being done in relation to this project. C. The applicant shall ensure that the required SWPPP is available for inspection at the project site at all times through and including acceptance of all improvements by the City. D. The applicant's SWPPP shall include provisions for all of the following Best Management Practices ("BMPs") (8.70.020 (Definitions), LQMC): 1) Temporary Soil Stabilization (erosion control). 2) Temporary Sediment Control. 3) Wind Erosion Control. 4) Tracking Control. 5) Non -Storm Water Management. 6) Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control. PAReports - PC\2005\4-26-05\TT 33015\COA33015.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Tentative Tract 33015 — Recommended Riviera Villas, LLC April 26, 2005 E. All erosion and sediment control BMPs proposed by the applicant shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any onsite or offsite grading, pursuant to this project. F. The approved SWPPP and BMPs shall remain in effect for the entire duration of project construction until all improvements are completed and accepted by the City. PROPERTY RIGHTS 5. Prior to issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire or confer easements and other property rights necessary for the construction or proper functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for emergency services and for maintenance, construction and reconstruction of essential improvements. 6. The applicant shall retain for private use on the Final Map all private street right- of-ways in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and/or as required by the City Engineer. Pursuant to acceptance of Riviera Way as a private street, the applicant shall arrange to have Riviera Way to be maintained by the PGA West Homeowners' Association or shall make other provisions acceptable to the City Engineer for perpetual maintenance of the street. 7. The private street right-of-ways to be retained for private use required for this development include: A. PRIVATE STREETS 1) Riviera Way shall be a Private Residential Street measured 32 feet at gutter flow line to gutter flow line with parking restricted to one side and the applicant establishes provisions for ongoing enforcement of the parking restriction in the CC&R's. The CC&R's shall be reviewed by the Engineering prior to recordation of the Final Map. B. CUL DE SACS 1) The cul de sac shall conform to the shape shown on the tentative map with a 38-foot curb radius at the bulb or larger as shown on PAReports - PC\2005\4-26-05\TT 33015\COA33015.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Tentative Tract 33015 — Recommended Riviera Villas, LLC April 26, 2005 the tentative map. 8. When the City Engineer determines that access rights to the proposed street right-of-ways shown on the approved Tentative Tract Map are necessary prior to approval of the Final Map dedicating such right-of-ways, the applicant shall grant the necessary right-of-ways within 60 days of a written request by the City. 9. The applicant shall offer for dedication on the Final Map a ten -foot wide public utility easement contiguous with, and along the south side of Riviera Way. Such easement may be reduced to five feet in width with the expressed written approval of IID. 10. The applicant shall offer for dedication those easements necessary for the placement of, and access to, utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, and common areas on the Final Map. 11. The applicant shall dedicate Lot B to the PGA West HOA as a landscape lot and arrange for the perpetual landscaping maintenance by the HOA or other arrangement as approved by the City Engineer. 12. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements, or written permission, as appropriate, from those owners of all abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments will occur. 13. The applicant shall cause no easement to be granted, or recorded, over any portion of the subject property between the date of approval of the Tentative Tract Map and the date of recording of any Final Map, unless such easement is approved by the City Engineer. FINAL MAPS 14. Prior to the City's approval of a Final Map, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCAD files of the Final Map that was approved by the City's map checker on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. Such files shall be in a standard AutoCAD format so as to be fully retrievable into a basic AutoCAD program. Where a Final Map was not produced in an AutoCAD format, or produced in a file that can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the City Engineer will accept P:\Reports - PC\2005\4-26-05\TT 33015\COA33015.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Tentative Tract 33015 — Recommended Riviera Villas, LLC April 26, 2005 a raster -image file of such Final Map. The Final Map shall be of a 1 " = 40' scale. IMPROVEMENT PLANS As used throughout these Conditions of Approval, professional titles such as "engineer," "surveyor," and "architect," refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their respective professions in the State of California. 15. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified engineers and/or architects, as appropriate, and shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.040 (Improvement Plans), LQMC. 16. The following improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Department. A separate set of plans for each line item specified below shall be prepared. The plans shall utilize the minimum scale specified, unless otherwise authorized by the City Engineer in writing. Plans may be prepared at a larger scale if additional detail or plan clarity is desired. Note, the applicant may be required to prepare other improvement plans not listed here pursuant to improvements required by other agencies and utility purveyors. A. On -Site Rough Grading Plan 1 " = 40' Horizontal B. PM 10 Plan 1 " = 40' Horizontal C. SWPPP 1 " = 40' Horizontal NOTE: A through C to be submitted concurrently. D. On -Site Street Improvements/Signing & Striping 1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " = 4' Vertical E. Off -Site Meandering Sidewalk Plan 1 " = 20' F. Perimeter Landscaping and Wall Plan 1 " = 20' The following plans shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Department for review and approval. The plans shall utilize the minimum scale specified, unless otherwise authorized by the Building and Safety Director in writing. Plans may be prepared at a larger scale if additional detail or plan clarity is desired. Note, the applicant may be required to prepare other improvement PAReports - PC\2005\4-26-05\TT 33015\COA33015.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Tentative Tract 33015 — Recommended Riviera Villas, LLC April 26, 2005 plans not listed here pursuant to improvements required by other agencies and utility purveyors. G. On -Site Residential Precise Grading Plan 1 " = 30' Horizontal Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not listed above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to commencing plan preparation. All On -Site Signing & Striping Plans shall show, at a minimum; Stop Signs, Limit Lines and Legends, No Parking Signs, Raised Pavement Markers (including Blue RPMs at fire hydrants) and Street Name Signs per Public Works Standard Plans and/or as approved by the Engineering Department. The applicant shall prepare an accessibility assessment on a marked up print of the building floor plan identifying every building egress and notes the 2001 California Building Code accessibility requirements associated with each door. The assessment must comply with submittal requirements of the Building & Safety Department. A copy of the reviewed assessment shall be submitted to the Engineering Department in conjunction with the Precise Grading Plan when it is submitted for plan checking. Precise Grading plans shall normally include all on -site surface improvements including but not necessarily limited to finish grades for curbs & gutters, building floor elevations, parking lot improvements and ADA requirements. 17. The City maintains standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction notes for elements of construction which can be accessed via the Online Engineering Library at the City website (www.la-quinta.org). Navigate to the Public Works Department home page and look for the Online Engineering Library hyperlink. 18. The applicant shall furnish a complete set of the AutoCAD files of all approved improvement plans on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall be saved in a standard AutoCAD format so they may be fully retrievable through a basic AutoCAD program. At the completion of construction, and prior to the final acceptance of the improvements by the City, the applicant shall update the AutoCAD files in order to reflect the as -built conditions. P:\Reports - PC\2005\4-26-05\TT 33015\COA33015.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Tentative Tract 33015 — Recommended Riviera Villas, LLC April 26, 2005 Where the improvement plans were not produced in a standard AutoCAD format or a file format that can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the City Engineer will accept raster -image files of the plans. IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AGREEMENTS 19. The applicant is obligated to construct all on and off -site improvements and satisfy its obligations for same, and furnish a fully secured and executed Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("SIA") guaranteeing the construction of such improvements and the satisfaction of its obligations for same, or shall agree to any combination thereof, as may be required by the City. 20. Improvements to be made, or agreed to be made, shall include the removal of any existing structures or other obstructions which are not a part of the proposed improvements; and shall provide for the setting of the final survey monumentation. 21. Should the applicant fail to construct the improvements for Tract Map No. 33015 or fail to satisfy its obligations for this development in a timely manner, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of building permits, and/or final building inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of the project, or call upon the surety to complete the improvements. 22. The applicant shall pay cash or provide security (or provide proof of having satisfied the aforementioned) for applicant's required share of improvements which have been or may be constructed by others (participatory improvements). A. Completion of off -site improvements associated with Specific Plan 83- 002 — the applicant shall pay a fair share of the cost of the remaining off - site improvements based on this map's percentage of the remaining undeveloped residential and resort guest property within the specific plan. C;RADIN[-i 23. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading Improvements), LQMC. 24. Prior to occupancy of the project site for any construction, or other purposes, the applicant shall obtain a grading permit approved by the City Engineer. 25. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval of all of the following: PAReports - PC\2005\4-26-05\TT 33015\COA33015.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Tentative Tract 33015 — Recommended Riviera Villas, LLC April 26, 2005 A. A grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer, B. A preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report prepared by a qualified engineer, C. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16, (Fugitive Dust Control), LQMC, and D. A Best Management Practices report prepared in accordance with Sections 8.70.010 and 13.24.170 (NPDES stormwater discharge permit and Storm Management and Discharge Controls), LQMC. All grading shall conform to the recommendations contained in the Preliminary Soils Report, and shall be certified as being adequate by a soils engineer, or by an engineering geologist. A statement shall appear on the Final Map that a soils report has been prepared in accordance with the California Health & Safety Code § 17953. The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, and in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the approved Fugitive Dust Control Plan provisions as submitted with its application for a grading permit. 26. The applicant shall maintain all open graded, undeveloped land in order to prevent wind and/or water erosion of such land. All open graded, undeveloped land shall either be planted with interim landscaping, or stabilized with such other erosion control measures, as were approved in the Fugitive Dust Control Plan. 27. Prior to any site grading or regrading that will raise or lower any portion of the site by more than plus or minus three tenths of a foot from the elevations shown on the approved Tentative Tract Map, the applicant shall submit the proposed grading changes to the City Staff for a substantial conformance finding review. 28. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any building lot, the applicant shall provide a lot pad certification stamped and signed by a qualified engineer or surveyor. Each pad certification shall list the pad elevation as shown on the approved grading plan, the actual pad elevation and the difference between the two, if any. Such pad certification shall also list the relative compaction of the pad PAReports - PC\2005\4-26-05\TT 33015\COA33015.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Tentative Tract 33015 — Recommended Riviera Villas, LLC April 26, 2005 soil. The data shall be organized by lot number, and listed cumulatively if submitted at different times. DRAINA[;F 29. Stormwater handling shall conform with the approved hydrology and drainage report for Specific Plan 83-002. UTILITIES 30. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.1 10 (Utilities), LQMC. 31. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all utility lines within any right-of-way, and all above -ground utility structures including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electric vaults, water valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes. 32. Underground utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of utilities in existing improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench restoration requirements maintained, or required by the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide certified reports of all utility trench compaction for approval by the City Engineer. STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 33. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Sections 13.24.060 (Street Improvements), 13.24.070 (Street Design - Generally) & 13.24.100 (Access For Individual Properties And Development), LQMC for public streets; and Section 13.24.080 (Street Design - Private Streets), where private streets are proposed. 34. The applicant shall construct the following street improvements to conform with the General Plan (street type noted in parentheses.) A. PUBLIC STREETS 1) Avenue 54 (Local Street; 60-foot R/W) PAReports - PC\2005\4-26-05\TT 33015\COA33015.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Tentative Tract 33015 — Recommended Riviera Villas, LLC April 26, 2005 No additional street widening on the south side of Avenue 54 is required per Street Improvements plans for Avenue 54 (PSN 04071). Other required improvements in the Avenue 54 right or way and/or adjacent landscape setback area include: a) 8-foot wide meandering sidewalk. The meandering sidewalk shall have an arrhythmic horizontal layout that utilizes concave and convex curves with respect to the curb line that touches the back of curb at intervals not to exceed 250 feet. The sidewalk curvature radii should vary between 50 and 300 feet, and at each point of reverse curvature, the radius should change to assist in creating the arrhythmic layout. The sidewalk shall meander into the landscape setback lot and approach within 5 feet of the perimeter wall at intervals not to exceed 250 feet. b) The applicant shall remove all existing temporary fencing along TT 33015 Avenue 54 frontage and construct perimeter landscaping in the perimeter setback created by the underlying TR 24317-3, and perimeter wall to match construction of existing perimeter walls. These improvements shall be subject to approval by the Community Development Director and the City Engineer, as set forth in these conditions. The applicant shall extend improvements beyond the subdivision boundaries to ensure they safely integrate with existing improvements (e.g., grading; traffic control devices and transitions in alignment, elevation or dimensions of streets and sidewalks). 1) Construct 32-foot wide travel width as shown on the tentative map measured from gutter flow line to gutter flow line, provided parking is restricted to one side and there is adequate off-street parking for residents and visitors, and the applicant makes provisions for perpetual enforcement of the restrictions. 2) The location of driveways of corner lots shall not be located within the curb return and away from the intersection when possible. PAReports - PC\2005\4-26-05\TT 33015\COA33015.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Tentative Tract 33015 — Recommended Riviera Villas, LLC April 26, 2005 C. PRIVATE CUL DE SACS 1) Shall be constructed according to the lay -out shown on the tentative map with 38-foot curb radius or greater at the bulb similar to the layout shown on the rough grading plan. 35. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using CalTrans' design procedure for 20-year life pavement, and the site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall be as follows: Residential 3.0" a.c./4.5" c.a.b. or the approved equivalents of alternate materials. 36. The applicant shall submit current mix designs (less than two years old at the time of construction) for base, asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete. The submittal shall include test results for all specimens used in the mix design procedure. For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall include recent (less than six months old at the time of construction) aggregate gradation test results confirming that design gradations can be achieved in current production. The applicant shall not schedule construction operations until mix designs are approved. 37. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control signs, markings and other devices, raised medians if required, street name signs and sidewalks. Mid -block street lighting is not required. 38. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, or as approved by the City Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking areas shall be stamped and signed by qualified engineers. FIRE MARSHAL 39. All structures shall be accessible from an approved roadway to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior of the first floor. 40. The minimum dimension for access roads and gates is 20 feet clear and unobstructed width and a minimum vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches in height. P:\Reports - PC\2005\4-26-05\TT 33015\COA33015.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Tentative Tract 33015 — Recommended Riviera Villas, LLC April 26, 2005 41. The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being placed on an individual lot. Two sets of water plans are to be submitted to the Fire Department for approval. 42. The applicant or developer shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for approval, a site plan designating required fire lanes with appropriate lane painting and/or signs for Riviera Drive. CONSTRUCTION 43. The City will conduct final inspections of habitable buildings only when the buildings have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly - maintained streets. The improvements shall include required traffic control devices, pavement markings and street name signs. If on -site streets in residential developments are initially constructed with partial pavement thickness, the applicant shall complete the pavement prior to final inspections of the last ten percent of homes within the development or when directed by the City, whichever comes first. :ZI Avenue 54 improvements conditioned in STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS shall be constructed prior to certificate of occupancy is issued for the first condominium unit. LANDSCAPING 45. The applicant shall comply with Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) & 13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans), LQMC. 46. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, common lots, common areas and retention basins. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. 47. The applicant shall submit the landscape plans for approval by the Community Development Department (CDD), prior to plan checking by the Public Works Department. When plan checking has been completed by CDD, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner, prior to submittal for signature by the City Engineer. NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer. P:\Reports - PC\2005\4-26-05\TT 33015\COA33015.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Tentative Tract 33015 — Recommended Riviera Villas, LLC April 26, 2005 48. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn areas shall be minimized with no lawn, or spray irrigation, being placed within 18 inches of curbs along public streets. QUALITY ASSURANCE 49. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet with the approval of the City Engineer. 50. The applicant shall employ, or retain, qualified engineers, surveyors, and such other appropriate professionals as are required to provide the expertise with which to prepare and sign accurate record drawings, and to provide adequate construction supervision. 51. The applicant shall arrange for, and bear the cost of, all measurements, sampling and testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program, but which may be required by the City, as evidence that the construction materials and methods employed comply with the plans, specifications and other applicable regulations. 52. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City with reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were approved by the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawing," "As -Built" or "As -Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy and completeness of the drawings. The applicant shall have all AutoCAD or raster -image files previously submitted to the City, revised to reflect the as -built conditions. MAINTENANCE 53. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance), LQMC. 54. The applicant shall make provisions for the continuous and perpetual maintenance of all private on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 55. TT 33015 shall be developed with the unit types originally approved under the PAReports - PC\2005\4-26-05\TT 33015\COA33015.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2005- Tentative Tract 33015 — Recommended Riviera Villas, LLC April 26, 2005 Laurels plan type, under SDP 99-643. Any minor architectural changes will be reviewed in accordance with Section 9.60.300.L.1, LQMC. FEES AND DEPOSITS 56. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.180 (Fees and Deposits), LQMC. These fees include all deposits and fees required by the City for plan checking and construction inspection. Deposits and fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan check and permits. 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). PAReports - PC\2005\4-26-05\TT 33015\COA33015.doc 0 52ND. AVE 5JRD. I AVE 0 54TH. AVE 0 SITE PGA�Z o DIETRICH RD. TT 33015 AIRPORT BLVD RIVIERA VILLAS, LLC VICINITY MAP NTS ATTACHMENT 1 RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL SE 1 I I I i 1 I Mo wm - d 0 r ATTACHMENT 2 PH #B STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: APRIL 26, 2005 CASE NO: SIGN APPLICATION 2005-871 APPLICANT: PREST/VUKSIC ARCHITECTS PROPERTY OWNER: McDERMOTT ENTERPRISES REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF A REVISED SIGN PROGRAM FOR LA QUINTA PROFESSIONAL PLAZA LOCATION: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WASHINGTON STREET AND AVENUE 47 (ATTACHMENT 1) ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: ON -PREMISE SIGNS ARE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT UNDER CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 1531 1(a) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: CC (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL) ZONING: CC (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL) I� U, 10yKeLI OMI ► III Site History The 4.9-acre La Quinta Professional Plaza was approved as a 53,500 square -foot commercial office complex in April 2001. All but two pad sites have been sold and approved for development through the site development permit process; one of these remaining two (Pad 12) is currently in the review process. A Sign Program was previously approved for the Plaza on January 27, 2004 under SA 2003-746, by the Planning Commission as Minute Motion 2004-002. At the time this Program was approved, only the Palm Desert National Bank (Building 1) and Buildings 4 and 5 were completed. SIGN PROGRAM PROPOSAL: The applicant requests a revised Sign Program approval for the remaining building sign areas (Attachment 2). Under this new Sign Program, there are more definitive locations identified, and some of the general standards have been modified as the plaza has gone through ongoing construction and lease -up activities. However, all tenants are far from decided, so the program is designed to be flexible and still P:\Reports - PC\2005\4-26-05\McDermott sign\sa2005871.rtf provides for some optional approaches for signing. The program individually addresses building, monument and window signs, as in the original program. For continuity and consistency, all sign lettering remains as originally approved, for individual reverse channel with "halo" illumination, specifying standard fonts, colors and logo allowances (NOTE: Sign Program copies given to the Planning Commission show the revisions from the existing program in a red font). Building -mounted Signs The revised program now identifies building -mounted sign locations for all approved buildings (Buildings 3 — 10); the existing program used only the base elevation of Buildings 3, 4 and 5. Building 1 is Palm Desert National Bank, which has not been included as its signs are completed. However, the design of these existing signs is considered in review of the remaining areas to be covered under this program. Building 2 has no approved development plans in place, while Building 11 was recently completed (Louise's Pantry and Bobbi J's restaurants). Building 12 was submitted for review last month as an office use, in accordance with the approved Specific Plan. Beyond incorporating the additional buildings being constructed in the Plaza, the Sign Program was submitted primarily to address the signs for Louise's Pantry and Bobbi J's restaurants (Attachments 3 & 4, respectively). Louise's proposes one sign on the west elevation (Washington Street side) at 49.6 square feet, while Bobbi J's proposes one sign on the north elevation, at 50 square feet. Monument Signs The monument sign provisions are basically unchanged, with the exception of changing their illumination from internal, to indirect external illumination as part of the landscape lighting, and calling out dark bronze only as the lettering color for tenant boards. The three approved monuments, at the project entries on Avenue 47, Caleo Bay and Washington Street, have been installed in accordance with the previous Sign Program and subsequent sign permit approval. They remain as part of the revised program due to the potential for tenant name changes. Window Signs Under the revised program, the provisions for window signs remain unchanged. Generally, this type of incidental accessory signing is exempt under the sign code, but is addressed here for continuity. Each tenant with entry window facings is allowed one 18 x 18 inch (2.25 square feet) sign panel area in vinyl letters, which will identify the tenant by name and logo, and the tenant's business hours. Signs for Palm Desert National Bank As these signs have been approved and completed, they have not been included in the revised Sign Program. Currently, the bank has logo signs installed near the P:\Reports - PC\2005\4-26-05\McDermott sign\sa2005871.rtf ATM on the east (drive -through side) elevation and on the north (Avenue 47) elevation, and the bank name installed on the west (Washington Street) and south (parking area) elevations. ANALYSIS- 1. The standard for building -mounted signs is the sign area maximum of 50 square feet aggregate, and a maximum of two signs. The Louise's Pantry/Bobbi J's restaurant building does have frontage along two parking areas and each restaurant sign is just at 50 square feet. Both tenant frontages exceed 50 lineal feet, so these signs could be approved under the City's Sign Code. However, it would be best to incorporate these two signs into the Sign Program, as these uses require different sign characteristics from the remaining office use buildings. Under a Sign Program, there is more opportunity for flexibility due to the opportunity to review sign size, location and design as part of the total building design, and incorporate that design into the overall program. 2. The office building signs as proposed generally meet the standards contained in the City's Sign Code provisions. The individual tenant signs are limited to 15 s.f. for single -line and 25 s.f. for double -line copy signs. Logo signs are considered additional sign area and are limited to 9 s.f., which is below the 50 s.f. aggregate standard of the Zoning Code. 3. Future signs for each tenant will be submitted under the general sign permit process as they are identified, and reviewed against the parameters of this Sign Program as approved. FINDIKIMR. The following findings can be made in support of Sign Application 2005-871: A. Sign Application 2005-871, as recommended, is consistent with the purpose and intent of Chapter 9.160, in that it does not conflict with the standards as set forth in said Chapter. B. Sign Application 2005-871, as recommended, is harmonious with and visually related to all signs as proposed under the Sign Program, due to the common use of letter type and size, color and location of signs. C. Sign Application 2005-871, as recommended, is harmonious with and visually related to the subject buildings as the scale of the signs and letter sizes used accentuate the building design. D. Sign Application 2005-871, as recommended, is harmonious with and visually related to surrounding development, as it will not adversely affect surrounding land uses or obscure other adjacent conforming signs. PAReports - PC\2005\4-26-05\McDermott sign\sa2005871.rtf RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Minute Motion No. 2005 - , approving Sign Application 2005-871 as submitted, with the following modifications: 1. Incorporate the sign exhibits for Louise's Pantry and Bobbi J's restaurants into the sign program, and amend the sign program text accordingly to address those signs. The final sign program shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for acceptance and maintenance in the active Sign Program file. 2. The approval for SA 2003-746 is hereby rescinded and replaced with approved SA 2005-871. All modifications to existing signs and new sign placements shall be reviewed against SA 2005-871. Prepared by: Wallace Nesbit, Associate Planner Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Sign Program 2005-871 — revisions in red font 3. Louise's Pantry sign exhibit 4. Bobbi J's sign exhibit PAReports - PC\2005\4-26-05\McDermott sign\sa2005871.rtf Source: Dudek & DWANG TIRE: PREST Vicinity Map VUKSIS ARCHITECTS A R�IE510N11 CO W OMlltt! NOT TO SCALE `NT Pn/— e w T k. C-N= Pi- 0 T K D W.URE NO 2 B 1 #A STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: APRIL 26, 2005 CASE NO: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-834 APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: DAVID SACCULLA, CHOICE ENTERPRISES REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR THREE NEW PROTOTYPE RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITH TWO FACADES EACH LOCATION: SOUTHWEST CORNER OF AVENUE 60 AND MADISON STREET ARCHITECT: GABRIEL LUJAN & ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WAS PREPARED AND CERTIFIED BY THE CITY COUNCIL UNDER RESOLUTION NO. 2004-079 FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 3220-1. 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. GENERAL PLAN/ ZONING DESIGNATIONS: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR) / LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR) BACKGROUND: Tentative Tract Map 32201 was approved by the City Council on July 20, 2004 by Resolution 2004-037 for a subdivision of 24 residential lots on 7.41 acres located at the southwest corner of Avenue 60 and Madison Street. Site Development Permit 2005-834 proposes architectural and landscape plans for three prototypical units with two facades each. P:\Reports - PC\2005\4-26-05\SDP 2005-834 Sacculla\PC rpt SDP 05- 834.doc PROJECT PROPOSAL: Proposed architectural design themes achieve Early California and Tuscan which include pitched roofs covered with concrete tile, stucco exterior surfaces. The proposed floor plans are 2,488 square feet and 3,125 square feet of livable space on lots measuring from 8,010 to 12,375 square feet. The units consist of three bedrooms with three car garages with cobble stone driveways. Pitched roofs in varied heights up to 18 feet high, include enhanced tower features over front door entrances. Each plan type has two facade design treatments that include variation in window sizes and shapes, and other distinct, but unifying features such as decorative window, garage door, and vents treatment. In addition to these units, the developer will construct eight custom single-family homes within the subdivision. Building color schemes are consist primarily of a variety of brown tones with accent colors utilizing plaster, stone veneer, and stained rafter tails. Exterior materials samples and color sample board will be available at the meeting. Front yard production unit and perimeter landscaping plans have been submitted consisting of more than two street trees per lot accented with a variety of shrubs. Ground cover consists of decomposed granite in planter area and Bermuda and Rye grass. Plant materials are appropriate for this climate. Perimeter landscaping plans consist of trees, shrubs, and groundcover. Trees used include African Sumacs, California Pepper, Date Palm, and Mediterranean Fan Palms. ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPE REVIEW COMMITTEE (ALRC): The ALRC reviewed this project at its' April 6, 2005 meeting and determined the prototype units were acceptable. The Committee unanimously adopted Minute Motion 2005-013 recommending approval of the prototype units to the Planning Commission as conditioned. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: The Findings as required by Section 9.210.010 (Site Development Permits) of the Zoning Code can be made as noted below: 1. Compliance with Zoning Code- The project is consistent with the Design Guidelines of Section 9.60.330 (Residential Tract Development Review) of the Zoning Code, which requires a minimum of two different front elevations, varied roof heights and planes. The proposed units comply with these requirements in that two facades for each of the plans are proposed and varied planes and roof lines are provided. 2. Architectural Design- The architectural design of the project, including, but not limited to the architectural style, scale, building mass, materials, colors, architectural details, roof style, and other architectural elements, are compatible with surrounding development in the City. P:\Reports - PC\2005\4-26-05\SDP 2005-834 Sacculla\PC rpt SDP 05- 834.doc 3. Compliance with CEQA- This request has been previously assessed in conjunction with Environmental Assessment 2004- 504 which was certified by the City Council on July 20, 2004, and therefore, no further environmental review is needed. 4. Site Design- The site design of the project, including, but not limited to project entries, interior circulation, pedestrian, equestrian and bicycle ways, pedestrian amenities, and other site design elements are compatible with surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the City and laid out and provided in compliance with the Zoning Code requirements. 5. Landscape Design- New home and project landscaping including, but not limited to the location, type, size, color, texture, and coverage of plant materials will be designed so as to provide relief, complement buildings, visually emphasize prominent design elements and vistas, screen undesirable views, provide a harmonious transition between adjacent land uses and between development and open space. It will provide an overall unifying influence, enhance the visual continuity of the project, complement the surrounding project area and comply with City and CVWD water efficiency requirements, ensuring efficient water use. 6. Compliance with General Plan - The project is in compliance with the General Plan in that the property to be developed is designated for residences as proposed. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Minute Motion 2005-_, approving Site Development Permit 2005- 834, subject to the attached Conditions. Attachments: 1. Site Location Map 2. Proposed Models Plan Set 3. Draft minutes of the April 6, 2005 Architecture and Landscape Review Committee meeting Prepared by: Fred Baker, A CP Principal Planner PAReports - PC\2005\4-26-05\SDP 2005-834 Sacculla\PC rpt SDP 05- 834.doc PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE MOTION 2005- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-834 CHOICE ENTERPRISES ADOPTED: APRIL 26, 2005 GENERAL 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. Date palm trees shall not be used in the perimeter of the project and are discouraged on individual single-family lots. PAReports - PC\2005\4-26-05\SDP 2005-834 Sacculla\COA SDP 2005-834.doc ATTACHMENT #' PROJECT LOCATION MAP ATTACHMENT #3 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee April 6, 2005 adopt Minute Motion 2005-010 recommending denial of Site Development Permit 2004-822, with a note to the Planning Commission that they review the architecture plans to be more in line with classic architecture if they are trying to achieve the Tuscany or Spanish revival look. More color and deviation in the colors is also needed. Unanimously approved. E. Site Development Permit 2004-828; a request of Colbourn -Currier -Noll Architecture for consideration of architectural and landscaping plans for a 136,000 square foot retail store and a gas station located on the southwest corner of Highway 1 1 1 and Dune Palms Road. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff noted the architecture is similar and the Committee may want to apply the same comments to this tract. 2. Committee Member Thorns noted the site plan is better. 3. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if the price range would be the same. The applicant stated approximately the same. 4. There being no further questions of the applicant, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Christopher/Thoms to adopt Minute Motion 2005-011 recommending denial of Site Development Permit 2004-828. Unanimously approved. F. Site Development Permit 2004-834; a request of Choice Enterprises for consideration of architectural and landscaping plans for a 136,000 square foot retail store and a gas station located on the southwest corner of Highway 1 1 1 and Dune Palms Road. 1. Principal Planner Fred Baker presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff introduced the applicants David Sacculla, who gave a presentation on the project. 2. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if the applicant was intending to include the landscaping with the house. Will there be a variety of landscaping product. Mr. Sacculla stated they would be offering a conceptual design and will allow the applicant an option on the plants. Committee Member Bobbitt stated his G:\WPDOCS\ALRC\4-6-05 ALRC.doc 10 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee April 6, 2005 concern was whether or not there would be a theme. Mr. Sacculla stated they would control the theme, but accommodate suggestive sales. 3. Committee Member Christopher stated there should be continuity of streetscape as a condition. 14. There being no further questions of the applicant, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Bobbitt/Thoms to adopt Minute Motion 2005-010 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2004-834, as recommended by staff and amended: a. Continuity of streetscape Unanimously approved. VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. Vil. COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS: None Vill. ADJOIbRNMENT: 1 There being n6 further business, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Bobbitt/Thoms to adjourn this regular meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee to a regular meeting to be held on May 4, 2005. This meeting was adjourned at 12:10 a.m. on April 6, 2005. Respectfully submitted, BETTY J. SAWYER Executive Secretary GAWPD0CS\ALRC\4-6-05 ALRC.doc 11 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: APRIL 26, 2005 CASE NUMBER: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004-820 APPLICANT: EHLINE COMPANY PROPERTY OWNER: CORAL RIDGE L.L.C. REQUEST: CONDITION REVIEW OF LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR TRACT 31249 (VILLAGE AT CORAL MOUNTAIN) LOCATION: WITHIN TRACT 31249, ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF AVENUE 58, ± 1 /2 MILE WEST OF MADISON STREET (ATTACHMENT 1) BACKGROUND: Site Background Site Development Permit 2004-820 was approved by the Planning Commission on January 25, 2005. Four models were approved, ranging in size from 3,050 to 4,065 square feet. Condition #9 of the approval (Attachment 2) requires the common area and individual front yard landscape plans to be reviewed by Architecture and Landscape Review Committee (ALRC) and Planning Commission. The applicant has submitted these prototypical landscape plans for each of the four unit designs, along with plans for the four model units, and a landscape plan for the common areas interior to the tract. The model area, individual unit plans, and the overall common area concept plan generally employ minimal use of turf area. The package includes exhibits to illustrate the proposed typical plant palette and landscape improvement layout for both the model homes and individual unit plans. Please note that the model home plans were approved and are provided as information only; no action is required. The model home sites are intended to be located as marked on the common area plan. Also included are conceptual planting plans for the common areas of the entire tract, similar in design concept to the Stone Creek project, which is located directly across Avenue 58 from this tract. There are no apparent changes to the model units beyond provision of the water allowance calcs for the model complex. The applicant has also presented conceptual elevations and sections for the entry gates, guard house, Avenue 58 street section and water feature. These are not intended to be complete technical representations, but do give a concept on which to base improvement plans for these features. Staff has no issue with these proposals P:\Reports - PC\2005\4-26-05\Ehline\perptsdp820coa9.doc as concepts, and none were raised during the ALRC review. Overall, the individual unit concept plans generally employ a minimal use of turf areas. The typical unit landscape plans show turf area adjacent to the curb line, which could create nuisance water collecting in the curb flow lines. All proposed landscaping for the front yards and models shows that improvements meet the Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA) requirements of Chapter 8.13. No calculations have been provided for the common area plan; staff and CVWD will be reviewing all final landscape plans for compliance with this requirement. Existing tract conditions that apply to this request are: 1. 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 April 6, 2005, the ALRC reviewed these landscape improvement plans and details. The ALRC unanimously recommended acceptance of these plan elements of the Site Development Permit by Minute Motion 2005-009 (Attachment 3), subject to the following: • Remove the Chilean Mesquite and Bottle trees from the landscape palettes, and replace with alternate tree types. • Typical front yard turf areas shall be further reduced and moved inward from the street curb. • Decrease the quantity of California Peppers in the common area plan, and replace the reduced quantity with one or more species of a more durable tree of similar canopy, less susceptible to wind damage. The ALRC discussed the pros and cons of Chilean Mesquite and Bottle trees in terms of maintenance issues, and the concern about the use of California Peppers due to wind damage and other related maintenance issues, as well as proximity of turf areas to curb lines. While no consensus was reached on the first two bullet points, they were adopted as recommended by staff. PAReports - PC\2005\4-26-05\Ehline\perptsdp820coa9.doc RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of Minute Motion 2005- , accepting the revised landscape plan concepts and preliminary water use calculations for the front yard typical landscape designs, the model complex preliminary water use calculations, and common area improvement plans, for Tract 31249 and Site Development Permit 2004-820, subject to inclusion of the following: • Remove the Chilean Mesquite and Bottle trees from the landscape palettes. • Typical front yard turf areas shall be further reduced and moved inward from the street curb. • Decrease the quantity of California Peppers, and replace the reduced quantity with one or more species of a more durable tree of similar canopy, less susceptible to wind damage. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Condition #9 of SDP 2004-820 3. ALRC Minutes of April 6, 2005 Prepared by: Wallace Nesbit, Associate Planner PAReports - PC\2005\4-26-05\Ehline\perpisdp820coa9.doc LEGAL DESCRIPTION THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 7 EAST OF THE SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, EXCEPT THE SOUTH 180' THEREOF. 0 VICINITY MAP NT$ ATTACHMENT 1 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. PAReports - PC\01-25-05\Ehline\pccoasdp820.doc ATTACHMENT ATTACHMENT Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee April 6, 2005 Staff will see that the conditions are met. Committee Member Bobbitt noted the one foot in height for the wall may not be an issue, but the second foot may be a structural problem. It was noted by the applicant that the wall was owned by the HOA and in some instances the wall is on the property owner's land. Staff noted this would have to be worked out between the applicant and HOA. 18. Committee Member Christopher asked if the HOA had been informed of the wall height and whether or not their decision could be appealed to the Planning Commission. Staff stated the appeal periods over and the homeowners were at the meeting to see that their concerns are met. He reiterated that it was a concurrence with the Committee that the design is good and that they will workout the issues with the HOA. 19. Mr. Ted Llewellyn asked where the height of his wall would be measured from. Staff stated it was not clarified at the time of approval. The Planning Commission talked about it being seven feet and the motion stated dne to two feet. 20. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if the wall does not reach two feet can the plant material reach a height to help. 21. Mr. Helm stated it has been his experience that plant material does not attenuate sound. 22. There being no further questions of the applicant, it was moved and seconded by Committee Member Bobbitt/Thoms to adopt Minute Motion 2005-008 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2004-810, as recommended,by staff and as amended: a. When the cap is removed and a determination is made that the wall will support the two feet, the wall shall be increased to two feet. B. Site Development Permit 2004-820; a request of Ehline Company/Hermann & Associates for consideration of follow-up review of landscaping plans for four prototypical residential plans, model units, and common area for Tract 31249 — Village at Coral Mountain, for the property located on the south side of Avenue 58, 1 /2 mile west of Madison Street. G:\WPDOCS\ALRC\4-6-05 ALRC.doc 4 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee April 6, 2005 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 representing Ehline Company, who gave a presentation on the project.. 2. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if the Chilean Mesquite and Bottlebrush are recommended to be deleted from the plant list, or is it a condition. He noted they are a high maintenance tree and do not work well. The issue of the grass at the curb line is a problem. CVWD currently has a requirement to keep the sprinkler heads 18 inches from the curbline. Typically you install a border and DG and even then you have problems. He would prefer the grass run to the curbline, but keep the sprinklers in the 18 inches which will give overspray and runoff that will keep the turf looking good. 3. Committee Member Thorns stated it could be planted as a planter bed. Staff noted if it is a rolled curb, people tend to drive up on it. He would like to see the number of Chilean Mesquite and Pepper trees reduced. Ms. Natasha King stated she agrees with their deletion and asked for a recommendation on what could be used. 4. Committee Member Bobbitt stated the City does not have a recommended list and the problem with a recommended list is that there are so many alternative plants available that it would be better for the applicant to make the selection. The Committee does not want to limit anyone on what they can use. It is just better to not have a boiler plate plant list that is used over and over again. He would recommend a variety be used and not just one or two. An Acacia species was given as an example. 5. There being no further questions of the applicant, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Thoms/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion 2005-009 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2004-820, as recommended by staff and as amended: G:\WPDOCS\ALRC\4-6-05 ALRC.doc 5 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee April 6, 2005 a. The quantity of California Pepper be reduced on the entrance and common area and replace with one or more different varieties. C. Site Development Permit 2004-822; a request of KKE Architects/The Dunes '`Business Park, LLC for consideration of architectural and landscaping plans for a retail center located on the north side of Highway 11, between Jefferson Street and Dune Palms Road. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff introduced the applicant; ,.Mark Giles, who gave a presentation on the project. 2. Committee Member Christopher stated the parking lot shows the parking spaces to be double -striped and he wants to ensure they will be. The applicant stated they will be. Committee Member Christopher stated he has a concern on the north elevation with scones and the view of the property owners looking at the rear elevation with distracting lighting. If they are to be shielded and down lit, the wall should be a minimum of eight feet. 3. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if there was any provision for landscaping adjacent to the Wash. Mr. Giles stated they were proposing a fence with landscaping on the interior. They would prefer to do the eight foot wrought iron fence with landscaping. 4. Committee Member Thorns asked what was proposed by Smart and Final for their fence. Staff stated the same wrought iron fencing with planting. 5. Committee Member Christopher stated it would not be as big an issue as WalMart where they needed to address all the deliveries and aesthetics instead of just the noise. 6. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he would prefer the plant material than the block wall. He asked if the tree wells were four feet. Mr. Giles stated they are all six foot diamonds. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he thought they were to be eight foot minimum. Staff stated the Code had not been amended to require the larger tree wells. Mr. Giles stated that going to that size it would be better to go to the finger island. G:\WPDOCS\ALRC\4-6-05 ALRC.doc 6 BING.HAM McCUTCHEN Land Use City Council's Inattention Deprived Applicant of Right to be Heard Raising questions about the behavior of a hearing body, the Court of Appeal ruled that the inattentiveness of the Los Angeles City Council members during a hearing on a land use application amounted to a deprivation of due process. Lacy Street Hospitality Service, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, No. B170716 (December 30, 2004). Lacy Street Hospitality Services leased commercial property in Los Angeles to operate an Many of the Council adult cabaret. The property was subject to a set of land use restrictions imposed by the City on to modify the conditions to extend the hours of operation nembers were not in the previous owner. LSHS sought and to provide its own security guards. The Zoning Administrator granted the modifications, but his decision was appealed to the Los Angeles City Council. After a public hearing, the Council their seats, and the reversed the Zoning Administrator. LSHS challenged the Council's decision in court. Stating that "[a] picture is worth a thousand words ..." the court based its decision on its review majority of those that of a videotape of the Council hearing. The scene caught on tape revealed that many of the Council members were often not in their seats, and the majority of those that were seated were were seated were engaged in other activities, including talking amongst themselves, talking with aides, eating, engaged in other paperwork and cell phone conversations. LSHS even complained during the meeting that the in Council was not paying attention, but the complaint did not elicit any response or change activities, including behavior. The court overturned the Councils decision. It noted the Council was acting in a quasi-judicial talking amongst role, adjudicating an administrative appeal. Citing the right to be heard as a fundamental principle of due process applicable to that context, the court found that the inattentiveness of iemselves, talking with the Council members violated this principle and that the Council members must pay attention when sitting as "judges." The court concluded that the Council could not be said to have made des, eating, paperwork a reasoned decision based on all of the evidence. Rejecting the City's argument that the hearing was fair because the Council treated LSHS and its opponents equally, the court and cell phone responded "LSHS and its opponents had the right to be equally heard, not equally ignored.' conversations. The court remanded the matter to the Council for its actual — not superficial — consideration. The case raises new issues regarding the propriety of Council actions, and how far courts are entitled to reach in judging the actions of another branch of government when it is acting in a non -legislative capacity. It counsels careful review and monitoring of all aspects of the land use approval process. Boston Hartford For assistance, please contact: London Daniel J. Curtin, Jr. danlei.curtln@bingham.com 926.976,6351 Los Angeles Atigon L. Krumbein alison.krumbeint�bingham.com 925.975.6301 New York Orange County Our Land Use Group has more than 20 attorneys available to discuss this and other land use issues. Pleasevia it Land Use for more Information about our attorneys and our work. San Francisco www.bingham.com - Practices - Silicon Valley To communicate with us regarding protection of your personal irtormadon or M you would like to subscribe or unsubscdbe to some or aB Of Bingham McCutchon LLP's electronic and mail eo m nunications, please nowy our Privacy AdmUBstrator at privacytisehingham.com or we can also be readred by mad in the U.S. et 150 Federal Tokyo pnvaoyUK@blngham.com. Our privacy policy is available at wwar.bingham.wm. Street Boston. MA 02110.1728, ATT: Privacy Administrator, or in the U.K at 99 Gresham Street, London. England EC2V 7MG. ATT: Privacy Walnut Creek' Washington Administrator. This canm acation is being circulated to Bingham McCutchen LLP's clients and Mends and may be considered advaNaing• It Is not Intended to provide legal advice addressed to a particular situation.02005 Bingham Mccutdren L LP. www.bingham.com PRIDE OF Fred Kent has spent three decades developing a common-sense approach to streets, buildings and human sociability. in a city accustomed to money, glitz and bold state- ments, the newTime Warner Center strives to impress. Fronting on Columbus Cir- cle in midtown Manhattan, the immense development houses not only the head- quarters and broadcast facil- ities of the conglomerate for which it is named, but dozens of stores, almost aoo condominiums, seven restaurants catering to peo- ple who spend hundreds of dollars on a meal, and a high -end supermarket. It has 73 elevators and six sep- arate postal addresses. Not surprisingly, le tout New York swooned when it opened last year. "It's areal asset to the city," declared the well-known architect and building maven Robert A.M. Stern. "Aesthetic reservations pale into insignificance," gushed the New York Sun's architecture critic, "before the immense urban success of the structure as a whole." Oh please, grumbles Fred Kent. "This is a dead building. This is a bunch of advertising panels behind glass... There's no life here, no pub- lic gathering spaces, no cafes, no street activity." The "street life" en- gendered by the Time Warner building, Kent points out, is actually inside and down an escalator —at the Whole Foods Market, where there's a crowd of people shopping By Rob Gurwitt and gabbing. "The build- ing's designers hate it when you say this, but all this is, is a shopping mall." Kent is not an architect, but he does pay close atten- tion to buildings —and above all, to the way they affect the street. As the president of the Project for Public Spaces, which is based in Manhattan's West Village, he has for the past 30 years been a buoyant and un- remitting advocate for creat- ing outdoor spaces in which people like to linger. "It's just basic human common sense," he says. "We need places that people feel com- fortable in and connect to, that they can be affectionate in, smile, laugh, engage, tell stories. It's about bliss, really." The Time Warner Center may be about a lot of things, but bliss is not among them. It is unlikely that Fred Kent's poor estimation of their work is causing any of those responsible for the 3 Time Warner building to toss and turn at night. Elsewhere, on the other GOVERNING APRIL 20( mom hand, Kent's opinions carry great sway these days with a surprising number of people who shape the places where we spend our time. The transit agency in San Mateo County, California—SamTrans—has en- gaged Kent to help it figure out how to re- make El Camino Real, the soulless paved spine running through the communities of the BayArea's Peninsula. In New Jersey, the state department of transportation has so embraced Kent's beliefs about public space that it offers the unheard-of spectacle of a cadre of traffic engineers bent on trans- forming the way the state thinks about its roads. In Seattle, Corpus Christi and Philadelphia, a plethora of organizations ranging from the federal General Services Administration to municipal agencies to neighborhood groups to civic institutions are working with Kent to create or retrofit the spaces for which they are responsible so that people will want to spend time there. They have come to Kent in part because he and his compatriots at PPS —especially his partner, Kathy Madden, and his longtime col- league, Steve Davies —have a track record of making some of the most appealing urban spots in the nation. They did the redesign of Manhattan's hugely popular Bryant Park, which sits next to the New York Public Li- brary and which, before they got hold of it, had become a no-man's-land of drug dealers 34 APRIL 2005 GOVERNING and muggers. They helped make the area around Rockefeller Center's skating rink the people -watching Mecca it has become. More recently, they helped create the template for Campus Martius, the as- toundingly successful new park that opened last November in the heart of down- town Detroit. "A lot of suburbanites will take pride in telling you exactly how long it's been since they crossed into Detroit," says Neal Rubin, a columnist for the Detroit News. "Campus Martius, even in the dead of winter, has become a magnet. It's a gather- ing place and a rallying point in a city that's been low on both." Over the years, Kent and Madden have amassed a large, diverse collection of the lit- tle details that add up to public spaces peo- ple are drawn to or repelled by. They have spent years in minute study of how people use space —time-lapse films of parking spaces and traffic patterns; sketches of how people gather and move around a park; measurements of benches and stairs and why people choose to use some and pass others by; close observation of waste recep- tacles and public rest rooms and storefronts. When civic groups and public officials hire PPS, they are in part hiring this store- house of experience. But they are also drawn to it because of Kent himself, and in partic- ular his ardor in insisting that the seemingly abstruse arts of architecture, engin design and planning pay close atter the untutored citizen and the ways actually use the spaces around th think Fred is the Mozart of place David Burwell, the founder of the R Trails Conservancy and the Surface portation Policy Project, and now a staff member at PPS. "When he goe. space, he hears it —it speaks to him n it does for very few other people." Converging Ideas This is an interesting moment for soi with that sensibility. Over the past feA a set of tendencies in American urb; icy have been converging around th( that Kent, Madden and their colle have been pushing since the 1970s. I bellion against sprawl and over-reliai the automobile; the New Urbanist cr of suburbs and the suburbanizati cities; the debate sparked by Camegi Ion economist Richard Florida ovi qualities that make cities attractiv growing tendency within the enviror tal movement to see urban density w to preserving undeveloped spaces; the calculation by public officials that ii can't make their downtowns and r borhoods appealing, they can't comp( residents or businesses —all of these j .� M , � w..yy�yy�... �A Don't create blank walls, don't confront on the deceptively simple challenge of cre- ating places, especially within cities, that people intuitively like. So this is a time flush with promise for Kent and PPS. Yet it is also filled with re- minders, such as the Time Warner Center, that decades of design habits are so ingrained in American communities that making a place "human," as Kent puts it, is often not even on the agenda. "Everyone recognizes it when something really good happens, like Bryant Park or Campus Martius, ' says Kathy Madden, "so why aren't we getting more places like that? Why can't we build places we like to go?" The answer, says Kent, is that American communities —and in particular the professionals they turn to for design — have not only forgotten how to do it, they've forgotten they even care about it. His job, as he sees it, is to remind them that they do. Kent, Ga, is tall and disarmingly bear- like. Walking through the streets of Man- hattan, he manages somehow to shamble and stride briskly at the same time. One mo- ment he is unhurriedly drawing attention to street minutiae —how a mix of shops and restaurants energizes one block, how a hotel's black -gray facade deadens another — and then all of a sudden he's moving along so fast it's hard to keep up. He's a bit like that in a public meeting, too, lingering over a slide of people relaxing in Paris's Luxembourg Gardens, then shift- ing so forcefully to unfamiliar ground that his listeners have to scurry to stay in his wake. "He understands how traditional thinking has created more problems than it has solved," says Mark Simon, special assistant to the CEO of SamTrans in northern Cali- fornia. "So his first task is to attack the tradi- tional thinking. He'll tell you that this ball- park you've got is designed all wrong; then he'll tell you shouldn't have built it in the first place, you should have built a playground. Or he'll tell you that the places where a road is six lanes, it's got to be four lanes. And your first thought is, 'I don't want to be the one to tell the driving public we're reducing it by a lane in each direction.' But if you hang around _. after your first 'No, no, no!' you get to that place. He's very good at getting you to think anew about fundamental things." This is in no small part because Kent himself is steeped in those things. After knocking around in graduate school at Co- lumbia in the 196os, starting a street acad- emy for high-school dropouts and organiz- pedestrians with the heating and air conditioning infrastructure, don't lard a block with curb cuts. ing New York City's first Earth Day in 1970, he went to work for William H. Whyte, the urban sociologist who pioneered the close study of city spaces. Whyte put his findings about why some spaces draw people while others remain lifeless into a classic book, The Social Life of SmaU Urban Spaces, which was part manifesto, part social science treatise and part self-help manual for cities. Kentjumpedfeet-firstinto Whyte'sworld. "He didn't teach so much as set things up for you to discover," Kent recalls. "So he gave me a camera and said,'Go look at Lexington Av- enue between 57th and 59th streets.'" Kent spent days there, hanging around with a de- tective to watch how pickpockets worked; counting pedestrians; passing an entire day watching a wastebasket, figuring out how its shape made it easy for passers-by to miss as they tried to toss litter in, and noting how peo- ple used it as street furniture. Some 35,000 people a day would pass one particular store- front located next to a bank, so Kent went in to talk to the shopkeeper. "I said, 'You must like your location,'" he remembers. "And he said,'No. Peoplewalk fasterby a bank, and it takes them two or three storefronts to get back to a window-shopping pace."' Positive Clutter If there was a single lesson Kent took away from the experience, other than that he loved being on a busy street, it was that peo- ple intuitively understand the spaces they use, and that how they feel informs what they do. At a level that just nudges percep- tion, they don't like the blank institutional face of a bank, so they speed up as they walk by. And in doing so, they may fail to notice the displays in the shop next door. Kent, Madden and their colleagues have spent the years since they formed the Proj- ect for Public Spaces in 1975 elaborating on this basic notion. They have plenty of sug- gestions for creating the sort of clutter on a street that people like, for the way buildings ought to behave —don't create blank wal don't confront pedestrians with the heatij and air conditioning infrastructure, do] lard a block with curb cuts —and for layery attractions that gather people in. "If yi have a children's reading room inside a a playground outside," says Kent, "th you put a coffee shop, a Laundromat an( bus stop right there, you will create t busiest spot in your community." Kent rarely ventures outside withou camera hanging around his neck, and he I ures he now has about 750,000 photogral of people using public spaces. Some of th( adorn the walls of the PPS office, lai framed color photographs of a child holdi hands with a bronze statue; a couple kissi on a street; a knot of older men jovially ha ing out in front of a barbershop; people park benches watching passersby. What they have in common is that people in them seem relaxed and happ "You don't see affection in bad places," K says; "it's an amazing indicator of the q1 ity of a place." All this is in marked contr say, to the picture he likes to show of a 9N of frustrated elderly women standing on yellow line in the middle of an intimidate huge street in Sydney, Australia, peerin oncoming traffic as they wait to get acr "That's an Boo -foot block," Kent rema .and of course the traffic engineers wer thinking that people might like to cross it middle of it." If you know how to pay at tion, in other words, people will tell yoi theirbehaviorwhat they like, what they d like and what they want. "Jumble and chaos on the street great," he insists, "and we're not allow( have it. We've narrowed the experiei people can have. It's an atrocity, and th, sign professions don't even know the it." Even worse, he argues, the people hire the design professionals often s powerless to stop them. "I think there lot of mayors who are real humani Kent says, "but they come up agains disciplines that control a city." Not surprisingly, sentiments like this gotten a cool reception among architect' landscape architects, but there is one prising group of people that is startil change, thanks in part to PPS's work years, Kent reserved his greatest scorn fo fic engineers. "Whatever a traffic erg tells you to do," he liked to say, "do the 1 site and you'll improve your communi GOVERNING APRIL 200 That was until he and PPS began to work with the New Jersey Department of Transportation, and in particular with its di- rector of project development, Gary Toth. As was true in a number of states, NJDOT began in the 198os and 'gos to encounter furious community opposition to its road - building plans. Toth, along with a few of his colleagues, began to realize, as he himself puts it, "that maybe what we were trained to do —that is, jam cars down people's throats —wasn't going to fly." He began casting about for new ways of thinking about road -building, and in the late 199os his search led him to PPS and Kent. Place Games By the time Toth hooked up with them, PPS had developed what it calls "the place game," in which it sends a group of people interested in a particular spot —from shop- keepers to residents to city officials —out to study it. That's what Kent and his colleagues did with Toth's highway engineers. They trooped them out to a major street in New Brunswick, a street that had been widened over the years to the point where it moved traffic well, but was a nightmare for anyone who wasn't in a car. Then they asked the en- gineers to put themselves in other people's shoes: Imagine being the parent of a child who has to cross the road to get to school; or a shopkeeper trying to make a living from passersby; or a resident for whom the street was essentially a front yard. "I had some trepidation about how the engineers would read," Toth says, drily. What happened stunned him. The en- gineers bubbled over with changes they wanted to see: The road needed narrowing, some new crosswalks, slower traffic. "They started looking at it as a place," he says, "and understanding that a street has more than one use: It's not just to get cars through, but people live there." I t was the beginning of a cultural change. "What struck me," Toth says, "was how there were a lot of people in this organization who were behaving a cer- tain way not because it was how they should behave, but because they believed that was expected. When we showed the engineers a different way of looking at it —'Hey, we should be thinking about pedestrians and the life of these neighborhoods' —most of them instantly got it. Yet they'd never tried to push for that in 30 years, because the or- ganization didn't expect it." 38 APRIL 2005 GOVERNING "We need places that people feel comfortable in and connect to, that they can be affectionate in, smile, laugh, engage, tell stories. It's about bliss, really." PPS is about to start working with re- gional planning agencies and highway engi- neers in New Hampshire, where the state's commissioner of transportation, Carol Mur- ray, has come to the same conclusions as Toth about how roads can enhance livability and community development. It is heavily involved with San Mateo County because Mike Scanlon, SamTrans' general manager, got tired of what the El Camino Real highway strip has become. "We're sitting in the cen- ter of what I believe is one of the most beau- tiful places on earth," explains Scanlon, "and we've got this butt -ugly road that goes right through it, with hodgepodge development and sleazy types of things —it's a major dis- connect, an elephant in the room." Even when the design profession can be made to see a need for places that build com- munity life, citizens can be slow to catch on. In Bergen County, New Jersey, for instance, the state DOThas enlisted PPS's help in con- vincing communities that sit along a grid - locked stretch of road called Route 17 that im- proving land use in the corridor lining the road is a better approach than widening it. So far, the towns are not buying the idea. "The state is making me laugh," says Bergen County Planning Director Farouk Ahmad. "Because you know and I know and they knowthatyou are notgoing to put aBand-Aid on it by dealing onlywith land use. Widening Route 17 has to be their number one alterna- tive." To which Kent responds, "We've be- come a nation of traffic engineers." Yet one of the strengths of PPS's ap- proach is that once it can enlist a broad range of people in picturing what they'd like to see, there is a chance to build a con- stituency that —sometimes with great ef- fort —can withstand pressure to go the more traditional route. In Detroit, for in- stance, Kent and his colleagues took a core group of citizens through months of con- versations about what the two -acre parcel of land that would become Campus Martius park ought to look like. "We looked at thousands of slides," says Bob Gregory, who runs the organization that was charged with developing the park, "and talked about here's what's pretty, here's what functions well, we do want this, we don't like that. And ultimatelywec eatedavision."They decidedtheparkneeded to be beautiful, green, actively used, hold water that people could touch, provide something for people to do everyday throughout theyear, contain spaces flexible enough to allow entertainment or just quiet sitting —a long list of qualities. So when everyone from the mayor at the time, Dennis Archer, to major corporate funders of the project started weighing in, Gregory and his group held firm. They re- sisted the elegant, upscale restaurant that Archer wanted—" fine for Central Park," says Gregory, "but it would have taken up too much square footage" —and the huge pillars, laser lights, and other spectacular ideas that Detroif s corporate community thought would put an iconic stamp on thepark. Instead, they woundupwith acasualcafe, a skat %nnkthat has proven an irresistible draw even on the coldest winter days, a fountain that Gregory is certain will be equally popular in the spring, summer and fall, a large lawn, and stages that can become walkways when not in use. After three decades of trying to improve the built environment bit by bit, Fred Kent is ready to barge off in a more political direc- tion. "At 62, I figure I have five years to change the world," he says. "After that, I'llgo into a different mode, maybe comment on buildings or aggressively attack some de- signer. But I won't give up an inch." Rob Gurwitt can be reached at robg@valley net