2005 05 10 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
MAY 10, 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 2005-016
Beginning Minute Motion 2005-007
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 April 26, 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.
None.
VI. BUSINESS ITEM:
A. Item ................ CONTINUED - 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-
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None
Vlll. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. Review of City Council meeting of May 3, 2005.
C. Department Report.
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
This meeting of the Planning Commission will be adjourned to a Regular
Meeting to be held on May 24, 2005, at 7:00 p.m.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PCAgendaW,doc
DECLARATION OF POSTING
I, Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary of the City of La Quinta, do hereby declare
that the foregoing agenda for the La Quinta Planning Commission meeting of
Tuesday, May 10, 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, May 6,
2005.
DATED: May 6, 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
M 1 �
DATE:
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
PROPERTY OWNER:
REQUEST:
BACKGROUND:
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
MAY 10, 2005 (CONTINUED FROM APRIL 26, 2005)
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004-820
EHLINE COMPANY
CORAL RIDGE L.L.C.
CONDITION REVIEW OF LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR TRACT
31249 (VILLAGE AT CORAL MOUNTAIN)
This item was brought to the Planning Commission on April 26, 2005, as a follow-
up review based on approval of Condition #9 of Site Development Permit 2004-820,
approved on January 25, 2005. The Planning Commission reviewed the information
as contained in the staff report (Attachment 1), and ultimately continued this item as
no applicant representative was present to address the concerns raised at the
meeting.
DISCUSSION:
The primary concern expressed by Planning Commission dealt with appropriate
treatment of the area immediately behind the street curbs. Staff recommendation is
to reduce the turf area by moving it back from the curb's edge. The question arose
as to what should be done in this new area between the curb and the turf. The intent
of this is to reduce nuisance water and overspray into the street; however, it has also
been noted that where wedge curb designs are used, the general slope from the lot
down to the curb also creates a runoff situation, such that the area behind the curb
would be subject to some erosion. Staff has asked the applicant to coordinate with
their landscape architect as to the best approach to address these concerns. In
addition, the ALRC recently placed this particular issue on their next discussion
agenda, and have made some preliminary findings. It's opinion is that any spray
heads should be placed at least 18" from curb, as is the standard for public streets,
whether or not the turf area is extended to curb. It is their preference that turf be
used out to the curb, if permitted by CVWD. However, they felt that any non -turfed
areas between curb and turf should not be a uniform strip, but a meandering
treatment, with groundcover in the wider areas. There will be some further
discussion at the June ALRC meeting.
perptsdp820coa9cont.doc
Based on this direction, staff has modified the original recommendation pertaining to
this requirement, in order to provide some general guidance.
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,
and replace with alternate tree types.
• Typical front yard turf areas shall be further reduced and moved inward from
the street curb. Landscape design of the area created between the street curb
and turf line shall be subject to review by the Community Development and
Public Works Departments. No spray emitters may be placed within 18 inches
of the back of curb line.
• Decrease the quantity of California Peppers, and replace with one or more
species of a more durable tree of similar canopy, less susceptible to wind
damage.
Attachments:
1. Staff report of 4/26/05
Prepared by:
Wallace Nesbit, Associate Planner
perptsdp820coa9cont.doc
DATE:
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
PROPERTY OWNER:
REQUEST:
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
APRIL 26, 2005
ATTACHMENT
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004-820
EHLINE COMPANY
CORAL RIDGE L.L.C.
CONDITION REVIEW OF LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR TRACT
31249 (VILLAGE AT CORAL MOUNTAIN)
LOCATION: WITHIN TRACT 31249, ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF AVENUE
58, f 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
1, 3
PAReports - PC\2005\4-26-05\fhline\perptsdp820coa9.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.
Ll
cl
VICINITY MAP o ,
It
NTS
ATTACHMENT
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
n9. 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.
3
PAReports - PC\01-25-05\Ehline\pccoasdp820.doc ATTACHMENT
ATTACHMENT
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
April 6, 2005
Taff will see that the conditions are met. Committee Member
B bbitt noted the one foot in height for the wall may not be an
iss e, but the second foot may be a structural problem. It was
not d by the applicant that the wall was owned by the HOA
and some instances the wall is on the property owner's land.
Staff oted this would have to be worked out between the
applica t and HOA.
18. Committe Member Christopher asked if the HOA had been
informed o the wall height and whether or not their decision
could be ap\iover
the Planning Commission. Staff stated the
appeal perioand the homeowners were at the meeting
to see that cerns are met. He reiterated that it was a
concurrencee Committee that the design is good and
that they wut the issues with the HOA.
19. Mr. Ted Llewellyn ask d where the height of his wall would be
measured from. Staff s ted it was not clarified at the time of
approval. The Planning C mission talked about it being seven
feet and the motion stated a to two feet.
20. Committee Member Bobbitt asNed if the wall does not reach
two feet can the plant material recXh a height to help.
21. Mr. Helm stated it has been his exp fence that plant material
does not attenuate sound.
22. There being no further questions of the app 'cant, it was moved
and seconded by Committee Member Bobbi Thoms to adopt
Minute Motion 2005-008 recommending a roval of Site
Development Permit 2004-810, as recommende 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 all 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.
c,
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 D velo ment Permit 2004-822; a request of KKE Architects/The
Dunes usiness Park, LLC for consideration of architectural and
landscap g plans for a retail center located on the north side of
Highway 1, between Jefferson Street and Dune Palms Road.
1. Princi al Planner Stan Sawa presented the information
contai d in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Commu ity Development Department. Staff introduced the
applicant, ark Giles, who gave a presentation on the project.
2. Committee Iember Christopher stated the parking lot shows
the parking sp ices
to be double -striped and he wants to ensure
they will be.\eI
icant stated they will be. Committee
Member Chrisated he has a concern on the north
elevation withand the view of the property owners
looking at the ion with distracting lighting. If they are
to be shieldedn lit, the wall should be a minimum of
eight feet.
3. Committee Member Bobbi asked if there was any provision for
landscaping adjacent to the Wash. Mr. Giles stated they were
proposing a fence with lands ping on the interior. They would
prefer to do the eight foot wro0ght iron fence with landscaping.
4. Committee Member Thoms asked hat was proposed by Smart
and Final for their fence. Staff st ted the same wrought iron
fencing with planting.
5. Committee Member Christopher stated i would not be as big an
issue as WalMart where they neede to address all the
deliveries and aesthetics instead of just the'poise.
6. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he woul prefer the plant
material than the block wall. He asked if the ree wells were
four feet. Mr. Giles stated they are all six f of diamonds.
Committee Member Bobbitt stated he thought the were to be
eight foot minimum. Staff stated the Code had of been
amended to require the larger tree wells. Mr. Giles sta d that
going to that size it would be better to go to the finger islat\d. IA_
G:\WPDOCS\ALRC\4-6-05 ALRC.doc 6